Wal-Mart in the crosshairs

[BigSqwert]

So now it's Walmart's job to give everyone health insurance. 

 

Not everyone. Just their FT employees.

 

And yes...looks like they are finally responding after...how many years?

[Balta1701]

So now it's Walmart's job to give everyone health insurance.  And furthermore, it's the socioeconomic class that tends to work in a retail environment... so that's walmart's fault too.  Yet, they took some sort of corrective action it sounds like...

Well, since employer-provided health coverage has bee the mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system for decades, you'd certainly hope that it should be Walmart's job to give their employees health insurance. Otherwise, they would just be either getting healht coverage from the government and the taxpayers or sitting at home suffering and sometimes nearly dying because they can't afford to see a doctor (much like a member of my own family).

[Texsox]

Well, since employer-provided health coverage has bee the mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system for decades, you'd certainly hope that it should be Walmart's job to give their employees health insurance.  Otherwise, they would just be either getting healht coverage from the government and the taxpayers or sitting at home suffering and sometimes nearly dying because they can't afford to see a doctor (much like a member of my own family).

 

Walmart does offer health insurance. I'm not certain how many people here work for employers that *give* insurance. I will bet the percentage is low.

 

Walmart, like most employers, charge a portion of the health insurance fee to the employee. A large number reject the coverage, some out of economic necessity, some because of spousal coverage, and some because of government health care programs that they qualify for. People earning $7.00 per hour ($14,000 annualy) will usually also qualify for some form of gov assisted health care.

 

From the employer side. Insurance coverage for a family of 4 will cost about $800 ~ $1000 per month depending on coverage. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's even lower, like $500 per month. For a full time employee, that is about $3.00 per hour in benefit. If you are paying someone $9.00 per hour, well above minimum wage but not much over the poverty line, free health insurance is an almost 25% increase in employee cost to the company. So many companies have the employee pay for part of their coverage. In turn, many employees voluntarily reject the coverage.

 

If you want to stop Walmart, you also have to stop every other employer who hires people for less than about $8~$9 per hour.

[Texsox]

How can you blame the employer for their employees using government programs?? If you don't like programs for working poor, have them eliminated and push for a minimum wage over the poverty line.

 

Do you think these programs are in place just for WalMart employees? They are for working poor and cover not only medical but child care costs as well.

[southsider2k5]

Reason #673 to hate on Wal-Mart.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/walmart....h.ap/index.html

 

Quote from the article:

The company added lower-cost health insurance this year after an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured.

 

Guess who pays for that Medicaid?  We do as taxpayers.

 

How many of those were full time employees?

[southsider2k5]

I am really disappointed in the flame throwers... this broke yesterday and still no one has posted it.

 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Thursday it will appeal a $172 million verdict awarded by a California jury to 116,000 current and former employees whose lunch-break rights were found to have been violated.

 

The world's largest retailer was ordered to pay $115 million in punitive damages, and $57 million in general damages, according to media reports.

 

Wal-Mart (WMT: News, Quote) said in a statement it disagrees with the Alameda County Superior Court jury's finding that it violated a California law by denying lunch breaks to employees, though it acknowledged having compliance issues when the statute became effective in 2001. 

 

"During the trial, a California court of appeals made a ruling in another case ... that directly supports Wal-Mart's position that the meal-period premiums in question are penalties, rather than wages," Wal-Mart said. "This means that punitive damages cannot be recovered in this case. In short, California law prohibits penalties on top of penalties."

 

Andrew Grossman, executive director of the national watchdog campaign Wal-Mart Watch, said in a statement: "Today's verdict affirms that 'time theft' labor abuses are a chronic and systemic problem for Wal-Mart and its dangerous business model."

 

Grossman added the retailer "pressures managers to lower store labor costs, resulting in understaffed stores and 'off the clock' labor for hourly employees - which is why they're facing more than 40 other similar suits for labor violations nationwide."

 

The jury, which deliberated for almost three days after four months of testimony, found that Wal-Mart violated a 2001 California law requiring that employees who work a minimum of six hours a day be granted half-hour, unpaid lunch breaks.

 

Shares in Wal-Mart were off 25 cents at $48.35 before the open. The stock closed Thursday's regular session at $48.60, down 5 cents.

[Texsox]

I missed that. I love it when it is unpaid, and the employer is expected to force people to take unpaid time off. I know I would rather work 6 hours straight and eat afterwards then be at work 6.5 hours and have to eat at work, or at some place really close on a :30 break.

 

BTW, in Mexico, large plants are required to provide free meals for their employees. And a medical care, usually a Doctor on staff, in the plant. Oh, and transportation, usually on company buses. They are so far ahead of us

[southsider2k5]

I missed that. I love it when it is unpaid, and the employer is expected to force people to take unpaid time off. I know I would rather work 6 hours straight and eat afterwards then be at work 6.5 hours and have to eat at work, or at some place really close on a :30 break.

 

BTW, in Mexico, large plants are required to provide free meals for their employees. And a medical care, usually a Doctor on staff, in the plant. Oh, and transportation, usually on company buses. They are so far ahead of us

 

As a former manager of a retail store, we had to fight with the teenagers especially to make them take breaks because of those reasons. There are a lot of people who think like you do, and to be honest I can't disagree with them. Personally I like breaking up the day a little, but totally understand the people who just want to get it done too.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not a fan of Wal-Mart. I don't shop there. But I do so for my own specific reasons. I lived in a small town where Wal-Mart moved in. Two years later, Meijer moved in too. Within two years, the three local supermarkets in the area closed. If I wanted to shop locally and help insure that the money I spent in the area, stayed in the area - something I try to do as often as possible, I had to drive 15 miles north to the nearest local supermarket. More often I went to Meijer. Why?

 

Meijer does allow some union representation. Wal-Mart has a history of actively working against a worker's right to organize. That bothers me because if they were represented by a union, Wal-Mart could find itself protected against the kind of lawsuits that SS2k5 mentioned they were found guilty of this week. Because there would have been some sort of mediation process to fix the dilemma before it ended up in court.

 

Wal-Mart employees in smaller towns might be able to work for more than 7 dollars an hour - and actually get what they feel they need through negotiation. In short, Wal-Mart employees would be empowered.

 

But the moment, I made the decision to never shop at Wal-Mart again was when I found out that they would let their Chinese employees unionize. It's good enough for them but not for us? I just find that unacceptable myself.

 

I know that Wal-Mart isn't the only company who acts relatively poorly to its employees, that actively union busts, but its the largest private employer in North America. So what it allows or doesn't allow has the potential to change the way business is done throughout the country.

[kapkomet]

But the moment, I made the decision to never shop at Wal-Mart again was when I found out that they would let their Chinese employees unionize. It's good enough for them but not for us? I just find that unacceptable myself.

 

Why is that? Because China's "union" is the government, and it was a prerequisite for Walmart to locate in China.

[southsider2k5]

Why is that?  Because China's "union" is the government, and it was a prerequisite for Walmart to locate in China.

 

Same reason we didn't let CNOC buy one of our oil companies... It was just a front for the Chinese government involvement.

[Balta1701]

Same reason we didn't let CNOC buy one of our oil companies... It was just a front for the Chinese government involvement.

You know, I'm not sure that's totally true...yes there were political reasons involved, but it's not that we wouldn't let them, it's that enough of our politicians raised a stink over the offer for Unocal that CNOOC decided to drop their bid. We don't know if it would have passed legal or political tests had it really gone forward.

[southsider2k5]

You know, I'm not sure that's totally true...yes there were political reasons involved, but it's not that we wouldn't let them, it's that enough of our politicians raised a stink over the offer for Unocal that CNOOC decided to drop their bid.  We don't know if it would have passed legal or political tests had it really gone forward.

 

It was later revealed that a good hunk of the loan CNOOC was getting was basically from the Chinese government directly. The pols would have never let it fly, and that is why their bid wasn't seriously explored. They would not have let it happen.

[Texsox]

Why is that?  Because China's "union" is the government, and it was a prerequisite for Walmart to locate in China.

 

Let's also understand that the American concept of Union is not universal. For example, the workers in Mexico's Maquilla Plants are all Unionized. But the employer picks the Union. If the Union becomes a problem, new companies will not select that Union, and they will see their membership fall.

 

What the union facilitates for the employers is keeping wages down. Each plant negotiates with the union and the plants watch as each one negotiates and they help one another.

[kapkomet]

Let's also understand that the American concept of Union is not universal. For example, the workers in Mexico's Maquilla Plants are all Unionized. But the employer picks the Union. If the Union becomes a problem, new companies will not select that Union, and they will see their membership fall.

 

What the union facilitates for the employers is keeping wages down. Each plant negotiates with the union and the plants watch as each one negotiates and they help one another.

Good points, which is why I think (if I understand Rex) the point is not a good one. There's a lot more reasons to not shop at Walmart if you choose not to besides the union one.

[BigSqwert]

Link

 

Maryland OKs Wal-Mart health care bill

Lawmakers outmuscle governor's veto on bill requiring the retailer to spend more on health benefits.

January 13, 2006: 7:18 AM EST

 

 

 

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Reuters) - A bill that would force Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care in Maryland won approval from state lawmakers Thursday, overriding Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto.

 

The House of Delegates voted 88-50, with one abstention, in favor of the bill after the Senate voted its approval 30-17. Both margins were large enough to override Ehrlich's veto issued in May of 2005.

 

The bill takes effect in 30 days, the Baltimore Sun reported in its Friday editions.

 

"I hope personally all 49 (other) states will do this. The states are backed up to the wall on this one," said Democratic Sen. Gloria Lawlah, chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

 

The measure would require companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits, or pay the balance into a state low-income health insurance fund.

 

Both votes came down largely along party lines, with a handful of Democrats crossing over to vote against the bill in each chamber.

 

Business groups who opposed the Maryland bill, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have said the state law could violate federal laws that govern health insurance benefits.

 

Wal-Mart (Research) spokeswoman Sarah Clark said the company was evaluating its options. She said lawmakers had "placed the special interests of Washington, D.C. union leaders ahead of the well-being of the people they serve."

 

A spokesman for Gov. Ehrlich expressed disappointment with the votes. He said lawmakers had put politics in front of policy.

 

"It's unfortunate, but we've come to expect it," said spokesman Henry Fawell.

 

Labor group support

U.S. labor groups are promoting the Maryland bill and it is being viewed as a model for similar laws other state legislatures are considering.

 

Labor leaders have said nationwide more than a quarter of workers in large companies do not get employer-based health insurance coverage. They say a growing number of uninsured workers have been forced to turn to government programs such as Medicaid for coverage.

 

The votes drew applause from Wal-Mart Watch, one of several groups that have been pushing the company to improve wages and benefits.

 

"The eyes of the nation were on Annapolis today, and the override votes will generate important momentum in many other state legislatures that are considering similar health care bills," the group said in a statement.

 

Lawmakers supporting the measure in the Senate argued that they had to act because Wal-Mart was forcing the state to subsidize its employees' health care.

 

But opponents countered that the bill was bad for business. "This isn't the perfect storm. It's the Bermuda Triangle. Jobs go in, but they don't come out," said Republican Sen. E.J. Pipkin.

 

Some opponents of the bill said it could even cause Wal-Mart to drop plans to build a large distribution center on Maryland's Eastern Shore, which would bring an additional 800 to 1,000 jobs to the state.

 

Wal-Mart's Clark said in her statement that the bill would do nothing to make affordable health insurance available to more Marylanders. She said the vote was about "partisan politics" rather than health care.

 

Clark said more than three-fourths of its 1.3 million U.S. employees had health insurance coverage, either through the company, a spouse or a government program.

 

Wal-Mart closed lower 83 cents, or 1.78 percent, to $45.74 a share Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange.

Edited January 13, 2006 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

Socialism, yeah.

[NorthSideSox72]

In previous parts of this and related threads, I have defended those who try to keep Walmart out of their neighborhoods, due to some of the negative effects the store can have on a community. There are of course positive effects too.

 

But in any case, this Maryland law is one of the most ill-advised corporate laws I have seen in some time. Completely ridiculous on many levels. It goes completely against the grain of a capitalist society. And now the state of Maryland has stepped in a deep pile of doo-doo, because they have essentially announced to the state that the government is now in the union business.

 

They'll end up regretting it.

[mreye]

In previous parts of this and related threads, I have defended those who try to keep Walmart out of their neighborhoods, due to some of the negative effects the store can have on a community.  There are of course positive effects too.

 

But in any case, this Maryland law is one of the most ill-advised corporate laws I have seen in some time.  Completely ridiculous on many levels.  It goes completely against the grain of a capitalist society.  And now the state of Maryland has stepped in a deep pile of doo-doo, because they have essentially announced to the state that the government is now in the union business.

 

They'll end up regretting it.

That's basically where I stand as well.

[Controlled Chaos]

Chicagoans flock to Wal-Mart jobs

January 26, 2006

 

BY LESLIE BALDACCI Staff Reporter Advertisement

 

Eighteen months after the Chicago City Council torpedoed a South Side Wal-Mart, 24,500 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in south suburban Evergreen Park, one block outside the city limits.

 

The new Wal-Mart at 2500 W. 95th is one block west of Western Avenue, the city boundary.

 

Of 25,000 job applicants, all but 500 listed Chicago addresses, said John Bisio, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart.

 

"In our typical hiring process, you're pretty successful if you have 3,000 applicants," he said. "They were really crowing about 11,000 in Oakland, Calif., last year. So to get 25,000-plus applications and counting, I think is astonishing."

 

Assistant manager Rachael Fierro, who was still interviewing prospects Wednesday, said "we saw a little bit of everything -- people who hadn't worked for a long time, people who saw an opportunity to do something with themselves. That's the information I got from applicants."

 

The 141,000-square-foot store has 36 departments, a "tire and lube express," vision center, Subway restaurant, pharmacy, garden center and drugstore. It will sell some groceries but no fresh produce or meats and no liquor. It is expected to generate $1 million in sales and property tax in the first year -- a windfall in a village that collects about $3 million a year in sales taxes, said Evergreen Park Mayor James J. Sexton. Evergreen Plaza, with 100 stores, generates about $2 million.

 

Anticipating the usual protests over wages, benefits and anti-union practices, the Evergreen Park store was union-built. A protest over minority set-asides was defused in one day. Wal-Mart also came bearing gifts -- Tuesday night, the corporation donated $35,000 to the village library, local hospital, churches and other village institutions, Sexton said.

 

'We can't beat them'

 

The Chicago alderman who tried to bring a Wal-Mart to the Chatham neighborhood was left gnashing his teeth.

 

"I always tell people I'm not for Wal-Mart, but I am for that project coming into the city and to my ward. We can't beat them," said Ald. Howard Brookins Jr. (21st). "The same things they talk about Wal-Mart doing to Small Town U.S.A when they build on the outskirts of town is the same thing they have done to the City of Chicago without fanfare. Nobody distinguishes that if I cross Western Avenue at 95th Street, I am no longer in Chicago. For all practical purposes, Wal-Mart is in the city of Chicago without us receiving any benefit. You're going to see the parking lot filled with cars with Chicago city stickers."

 

Eighteen months ago, Brookins negotiated with Wal-Mart for a store at 83rd and Stewart, former site of the Ryerson steel plant. His plan fell apart when other South Side aldermen failed to support his request for a zoning change. The week before, aldermen gave the go-ahead for a Wal-Mart in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side. The vote came after a contentious 2-1/2-hour debate.

 

Brookins said he planned to visit the new Wal-Mart himself this weekend "to see for myself" if the parking lot is filled with cars registered to Chicago residents.

 

The Beverly neighborhood, long a hotbed for disputes over cul-de-sacs and one-way streets, now faces the prospect of increased traffic from Wal-Mart shoppers.

 

No road improvements

 

"Because of the single-family character of our community, we want to avoid cut-through traffic, whether it's our own residents or people coming from trains or highways," said Ald. Virginia A. Rugai (19th), whose ward borders Evergreen Park. "It is our No. 1 quality-of-life issue, traffic. I don't think anyone can predict what traffic will be like. We're not going to know until the opening."

 

There have been no road improvements in anticipation of increased traffic on that stretch of 95th Street, which will have Wal-Mart directly across from Evergreen Plaza.

 

"We will monitor the situation and see if additional lanes or turning lanes are appropriate," Sexton said.

 

Rugai said a few small hardware stores expressed concern about competition from Wal-Mart, but other businesses in the area anticipate a bump from new customers driving to and from Wal-Mart, especially along 95th Street, which has gone upscale in recent years with a Borders bookstore and a Chipotle Grill. A complex planned for the southeast corner of 95th Street and Western Avenue includes Potbelly, Starbucks, Jamba Juice and a FedEx/Kinko's store.

 

"I think most development projects [in Beverly] are not going to include goods or services that you're going to find at Wal-Mart," Rugai said.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So my same post below from earlier in this thread still applies.....Seems a lot of people were interested in those jobs that good old Jesse and the unions took away from them.

 

I didn't know much about this whole walmart thing when they were first pushing for stores in those areas...so when I started reading articles that people didn't want them I was like...huh??  It will create a ton of jobs in a community that needs work.  People can buy their essentials at discount prices.  It will create tax revenue for the city.  I just didn't get the whole wal mart is bad thing.  All entry level jobs are minimum wage.  Then I saw these comments and I didn't have to wonder anymore where the people were getting their ideas from.  With leaders and role models like this, it's no wonder the area is still the way it is....

 

"I think we have to get away from the mentality that we're just glad to get a job," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger. "We've got to stop accepting crumbs as if it's the only thing we're meant to eat. A slave job is a slave job."

 

"I'm for jobs in this community, but I have an insult level," said state Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago). "People need a livable wage. As an African-American woman, I once worked for $1 an hour. I'm not talking about what I don't know."

 

Glad to get a job, isn't a bad mentality it's a good one...a positive one.  You are developing a skill...you can eventually move forward with that skill.  If you want to talk about being insulted...take it as an insult to be sitting on your ass at home collecting welfare.  That's insulting!!  It isn't insulting to be working.  If you're making minimum wage and also getting help from the government, that's what its there for, but if you want to really feel insulted then just stay home and collect welfare.   

 

Do you think the areas in Chicago are better off now?  Hundereds of jobs that would have been created are gone!!  Is it better to sit home and collect welfare than to work for your own money on a job, where you can possibly move up and maybe get off of government assistance for good?

[Controlled Chaos]

On a side note...I can't believe I am reading, writing, or even discussing fricken wal-mart. If you would have asked me last year what I thought about them...I'd be like..."ughh...it's a discount store???" I had no idea they were considered evil and to be honest I wouldn't even care, but when something makes perfect sense to me and not to other people...it intrigues me to learn more about it.

 

Hard Line State

Big Labor's war on Wal-Mart claims casualties among poor Marylanders.

 

BY STEVE H. HANKE AND STEPHEN J.K. WALTERS

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

 

BALTIMORE--In Big Labor's war against Wal-Mart, "collateral damage"--in the form of lost jobs and income for the poor--is starting to add up. Of course, since the unions and their legislative allies claim that their motive is to liberate people from exploitation by Wal-Mart, these unintended effects are often ignored.

 

Here in Maryland, however, that's getting hard to do. The consequences of our Legislature's override of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of their "Fair Share Health Care Act" on Jan. 12 will be tragic for some of the state's neediest residents. The law will force companies that employ over 10,000 to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or kick any shortfall into a special state fund. Wal-Mart would be the only employer in the state to be affected.

 

Almost surely, therefore, the company will pull the plug on plans to build a distribution center that would have employed 800 in Somerset County, on Maryland's picturesque Eastern Shore. As a Wal-Mart spokesman has put it, "you have to take a step back and call into question how business-friendly is a state like Maryland when they pass a bill that . . . takes a swipe at one company that provides 15,000 jobs."

 

Unfortunately, in Somerset, the new law looks more like a body blow than a "swipe." The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities.

There are just 0.8 jobs per household in Somerset, barely half the 1.5 figure that applies to the rest of the state. Somerset's top 10 list of employers features sectors like food services (average annual compensation per employee: $9,637), poultry and egg production ($14,320) and seafood preparation and packaging ($19,190).

 

It is hard to exaggerate how much the planned distribution center might have meant to Somerset's economy. Using an input-output model, we forecast the "ripple effects" of the new income and spending that could have emanated from Wal-Mart's facility as follows:

 

• The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.

 

• Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.

 

• Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.

 

• State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.

 

Those losses, though dramatic, probably understate the full extent of the damage in this case. They do not include forgone employment and income from construction of the facility and related infrastructure improvements. What is more, Wal-Mart's tentative plans for a second distribution center in Garrett County, in mountainous western Maryland, also appear dead. Garrett, with a poverty rate that is 70% above the state's, is only slightly better off than Somerset.

 

How could our legislators turn a blind eye to such areas? Partly, of course, they are simply eager for Big Labor's votes and money and therefore subservient to its interests. The Service Employees International Union actually helped draft what became known as the "Wal-Mart bill." Unable--so far--to organize workers at the company, the union's immediate national strategy is to limit Wal-Mart's competitive reach by raising its costs. Maryland was a shrewdly chosen place to kick off this campaign.

Some estimate that as much as a third of the state's economic activity stems from federal employment and purchases. Over 150,000 Marylanders--six times the population of tiny Somerset--are on the federal (nonmilitary) payroll; they are concentrated in central Maryland, near the nation's capital. Nearly 268,000 more Marylanders draw checks from state and local government.

 

With so many workers in a sector where revenues appear to arrive automatically and inefficiency never leads to bankruptcy, our state's resulting political culture is quite predictable. Many Marylanders are simply unmindful of the necessities of survival in the private sector: pleasing customers, controlling costs and satisfying shareholders. Thanks to the federal tax dollars collected from the rest of the country and spent in Maryland, the prevailing view of economic reality is inverted: The public sector is seen as the engine of prosperity, with the private one along for the ride.

 

Reflecting this culture, our legislators often behave as if business is a problem to be solved. On Jan. 17, they also overrode a gubernatorial veto of a $1-an-hour increase in the state's minimum wage. Like the health-care mandate, the hike is a job killer--though not in affluent areas of the state, where strong labor demand long ago pushed the going wage above the minimum. In those areas, the law is largely symbolic and enables well-meaning voters and legislators to conclude that they are "doing something for working families." Safely out of their view, however, at Maryland's impoverished margins, already weak labor demand will be further diminished.

 

What remains to be seen is whether Maryland will be a leading political indicator or an anomaly, for Wal-Mart bills have been drafted in 33 other states. Emboldened by success here, lawmakers in some states have set the threshold for companies to be hit with mandated health benefits as low as 1,000 workers.

In these upcoming battles, legislators should be mindful that companies like Wal-Mart are not the enemy but rather frontline soldiers in a real war on poverty. The profit motive leads them to seek out areas where there is much idle labor and put it to work. Where they are prevented or discouraged from doing so, the alternative job prospect is rarely a cushy spot in the bureaucracy. Rather, it is continued idleness and hardship.

 

Mr. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, served as a member of the Governor's Council of Economic Advisers in Maryland (1976-77). Mr. Walters is a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

[Middle Buffalo]

My wife and I decided not to go to Walmart anymore. We'll be getting a membership at Costco sometime this year. Can't wait to lug home a box of cereal that holds 300 servings.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The problem with Wal-Mart is that they appear to be the central force behind the application of scientific method towards the business of buying & distributing goods worldwide.

 

They are not the first nor will they be the last. When taking such an approach jobs that were supported by inefficiencies of the past fall to the way side. Wages are determined not by what the market will bear such skills but rather what is the minimal cost for said skills.

 

The problem of course with applying scientific methods to areas of business is that they tend towards collusion & monopolies. We do have anti-trust laws to protect against abusive situations but they are antiquated in terms of the modern world.

 

For example:

Let's say the US retail market is a 200 billion a yr industry. Wall Mart would have to control more than 80 billion of that to be considered in violation of the anti-trust laws. As the laws are written they are just %'s & numbers. There is no meaning associated with that 80 billion or it's impact on the rest of the economy.

 

If government is to play a vital role in fostering a competitive marketplace then anti-trust should not be defined by how much any one company controls but rather the viability of a new company being able to compete in that marketplace. If Wall-Mart's control prevents new investment & growth & in the retail market then that control should be broken up.

 

A similar argument can be made against Microsoft Windows. Has the use of MW become so widespread that it should be viewed as a utility? Should the company then be regulated as if it were a utility? Is the OS market one in which the market would grow with greater competition? Does MSFT's control over the market stiffle new investment & growth in the market?

[Balta1701]

Is the OS market one in which the market would grow with greater competition?  Does MSFT's control over the market stiffle new investment & growth in the market?

Yes and Yes.

 

I'm debating how big I should make those to emphasize that point.

[EvilMonkey]

In the SunTimes earlier this week, there was a little blurb in the Business section about WalMart and Target. It seems that both had plans for a distribution wharehouse in the area, both were going to get tax breaks, and as part of that, they had to submit a formal plan for the payrolls of their respective facilities. It turns out that the average pay for the people in the Walmart place was going to be just under $30,000, while the average pay for the Target place was UNDER $20,000. I wonder which place would be worse for workers, and the state?