walmart is here!

[Illbay]

they opened a store in another city, its for retailers and middleman not for consumers. but its obvious they'd be spreading their wings all over soon. so what should i be expecting? the good the bad and the fugly?

What you should expect is a lot of invective against just another company, which is vilified for one reason and one only: labor unions.

Wal-Mart associates have rejected unionization time after time, and it infuriates the unions. They won't accept the decision of the workers, so they punish the company.

Whatever.

 

[Illbay]

But both of the companies you listed as alternatives to Wal-Mart (Safeway and Costco) allow their employees to form unions, and as a result the employees receive reasonable pay, benefits, and protections that are not available to Wal-Mart employees.

I feel much better about protecting middle class jobs by shopping at either of the alternatives you list.

This is misinformation. I wonder if you know it.

It is against U.S. law to "not allow employees to form unions." There's a difference between "being allowed to form a union" and "employee rejection of unionization." The Union powers-that-be have chosen to blur the distinction.

Wal-Mart employees have been given the opportunity to vote for unionization several times. They've rejected it every time. The union bosses won't take "no" for an answer - even if it's a very legitimate "no."

Your statement is false on the face of it.

If you'll bother to check you'll find that the benefits at Wal-Mart meet or exceed those of the other companies mentioned. Unionization does not confer "decent wages and benefits," which come from the economic viability of the company to begin with.

Ask the U.S. automakers how that "great union benefits" thing is working out for them.

BTW, I fully support your decision only to patronize stores that allow unionization. I'm certain you reciprocate by allowing me the free choice otherwise, without further comment.

Right?

 

[Unrepresented]

This is misinformation. I wonder if you know it.

It is against U.S. law to "not allow employees to form unions." There's a difference between "being allowed to form a union" and "employee rejection of unionization." The Union powers-that-be have chosen to blur the distinction.

Wal-Mart employees have been given the opportunity to vote for unionization several times. They've rejected it every time. The union bosses won't take "no" for an answer - even if it's a very legitimate "no."

Your statement is false on the face of it.

There are laws that protect employees' rights to form unions but they can be easily overpowered by an employer who will intimidate and mislead its employees into going against it.

If you'll bother to check you'll find that the benefits at Wal-Mart meet or exceed those of the other companies mentioned. Unionization does not confer "decent wages and benefits," which come from the economic viability of the company to begin with.

No. Your statement is entirely incorrect:

"Nationally, 67 percent of workers in large firms (200 employees or more) receive their health benefits from their employer. More than 80 percent of Costco workers are covered by their company plan. [Employer Health Benefits 2005 Annual Survey, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; New York Times, 10/24/05]"

Oh, Wal-Mart's below 50% and falling.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Ask the U.S. automakers how that "great union benefits" thing is working out for them.

They were excellent for decades. They provided hundreds of thousands of families with healthcare, good pay, and stability. It's unfortunate that corporate failures have caused the U.S. auto market to sink, taking good jobs away in the process.

BTW, I fully support your decision only to patronize stores that allow unionization. I'm certain you reciprocate by allowing me the free choice otherwise, without further comment.

Right?

I'm sorry you hate the middle class.

 

[Korladis]

I think I'm gonna vomit....

 

[Gopherbassist]

Wait, is a Walmart open 24/7 ???

We must have that over here.

Not in big cities, too much stuff gets stolen. In small towns yes, suburbs on occasion. At least, in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico this seems to be the case.

 

[rustynuts]

All Walmarts around here are 24 hours, and have been for about ten years now. Big cities, little towns, no matter.