Peter Z. Grossman: It's not Wal-Mart, stupid; how about important issues?
From the Indy Star with HT CUUMBYA. Peter Grossman on the politics of Wal-Mart bashing and how the Democrats are failing us.
We might hope that candidates for Congress this year would present us with ideas to solve the major problems we face in this country. On the economic side, we could really use some creative thinking on, among other subjects, taxes, Medicare, and Social Security.HT CUUMBYA
So what is emerging as one of the big issues for the Democrats?
Wal-Mart.
The giant of retailing is the focus of a protest movement that has been endorsed by many leading Democrats, including our own Sen. Evan Bayh. The New York Times has suggested that the anti-Wal-Mart campaign "could prove powerful" in this year's elections.
Well, I doubt it, but more so, I hope not. I doubt it because it seems like bad politics. About 150 million Americans shop at Wal-Mart, and most say they think Wal-Mart is a good place to shop.
I hope not for two reasons: First, the campaign against Wal-Mart is based almost entirely on misconceptions; and second, the discussion about the company is largely populist blather that's drowning out a debate over the real economic issues we face.
[***]
Indeed, a larger question raised by the Democrats' anti-Wal-Mart campaign is this: What can (or should) politicians do to a company they don't like? Clearly, in the case of Wal-Mart, the answer is nothing. Should Congress make Wal-Mart pay higher wages (even though its pay is already well above the minimum)? Should legislators require Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart alone, to offer more benefits?
With so much to be done in this country, so many real problems to address, the Democratic Wal-Mart bashers are doing a real disservice not to the company but to America's voters who deserve a debate on more pressing issues.
6 comments:
Here is the Comintern's view on Andy Stern's leadership of SEIU:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/9748/1/337
Yeah, they are labor leaders; And, I am a physical fitness guru & teen hottie.
I was really hoping for more substance from Stern. This bash Wal-Mart tactic's been a disappointment.
Here is PWW (if only it could be The Daily Worker agian... a lot more zing with that name) on Sweeny's pact with the day laborers. This was the kind of innovation I was expecting from Stern.
Or maybe making tipping a mandatory part of the bill in Chicago restaurants?
I just can't remember a time when Labor fought jobs... even bad ones...
...and now Stern's going to target African-American and Hispanic politicans over it.
JBT should jump with this... it's exactly the kind of issue where people can say they disagree with everything Republicans stand for, yet look at the alternative.
No one's connecting the dots, Bill.
Labor's job is to protect the worker in the jobs that they work at and the rights to maintain collective bargaining with management and the right to organize.
Thanks to the co-opted media like the Chicago Tribune, 'Global issues' and jobs - NOT YET FILLED!- take greater precedance than protecting the eight hour day, over-time, the right to organize, and health and welfare of union rank and file.
It is beyond me that any Union people have anything to do with SEIU ( I was an old Local 25 member).
I don't know if this should be such a hot topic, but I am personally all for government trying to arm twist business into doing the right thing. Though I don't know if Wal-Mart is where I would start with the twisting.
I personally feel that a lot of times the government has to convince business to do what's right over what's more profitable. I don't think this is as big as the 40-hour work week, preventing child labor, or other issues that unions fought against, but the people living at Wal-Mart are certainly in need of some help.
I think that companies that are making huge profits for their owners and shareholders have the moral responsibility to pay their workers a decent wage. I feel that the current minimum wage is entirely too low and the fact that walmart is slightly above it doesn't make them patron saints.
I don't see walmart as a prime offender of this, but they are not living up to my standards as a company. I think a lot of these oil companies that post record profits while charging inflated prices for gas need to be looked into first.
Bill - no one can disagree with the fact that since the time of our founding fathers, corporate power has grown exponentially.
In the early days, corporate charters were limited in scope and could be revoked by the state at any time without showing cause.
Now, corporations are eternal entities endowed with constitutional rights, rights that oftentimes over shadow our own. The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court that eminent domain can be used to deprive people of their property and turn it over to a private corporation is the most recent egregious example.
We all know how government works in Congress and state capitols across the country. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people has become government of, by, and for corporations.
Wal-Mart is not the only offender, but its easy to make a case that they are the worst, and it certainly is a powerful symbol.
Now, corporations are eternal entities endowed with constitutional rights, rights that oftentimes over shadow our own.
And this is where we differ YDD. Corps aren't eternal anymore. They'll come and they'll go. Galbraith's corporate state is no more.
Corporations are flexible, can transform, and manage risk... they don't expect to be around forever and as soon as the market tells them they're of more value broken apart, they break...with a vengence.
Unions haven't offered that same flibility to workers...
Look at Tom Balanoff... he's from a family of labor aristocrats... how many corporations are lead by entrenched leaders like that?
Not that he's a bad guy really, but no corporation is going to stand for the same exec in the same job for that long. You get stodgy and stale...
...and in Balanoff's case, lead the Democrats into some real bad politics.
Post a Comment