Posted on 03/30/2004 10:55:58 AM PST by Mike Bates
Chicago aldermen are taking a break from whatever it is they usually do to save the city’s populace from a fate that’s apparently at least as bad as death.
They’re fighting to keep Wal-Mart from defiling the toddlin’ town.
Aiding them in this valiant struggle are labor unions. The president of the Chicago Federation of Labor outlined a terrifying scenario for the Chicago Sun-Times: "Once this first Wal-Mart comes, you’ll see two more pop up quick and, within a year, you'll probably see 10 of ‘em. This is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of labor."
What he should have said is that Wal-Mart is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of union labor. Almost 90% of American workers don’t belong to a union. Their Public Enemy No. 1 possibly, just possibly, might not be a giant retailer offering a large selection of merchandise at good prices.
Who knows? There may even be a union member or two who wouldn’t mind saving a few bucks.
Opening a Wal-Mart means jobs and plenty of them. Many of them would be at entry-level positions, which are so badly needed in the inner city.
But they’re not union jobs. It must be an alderman’s sacred duty to protect Chicago’s unemployed from the humiliation of earning less than what union bosses dictate.
Those who would have been hired by Wal-Mart may be impoverished. They may be dependent on public assistance of one kind or another. They may have to ask for help from relatives and friends.
But, thanks to Chicago’s city council, they’re able to hold their heads high and proudly proclaim, "No, I don’t have a job, but if I did, it’d pay union scale."
One of the aldermen blocking the proposal to build a Wal-Mart told the Chicago Tribune, "I’m here for union labor." How very comforting. Can you spell "lapdog", boys and girls?
Not to be overlooked are the millions of dollars in tax revenue that a Wal-Mart or two would bring to the city’s coffers. Certainly Chicago has a reputation for fiscal prudence. It’s renowned for having absolutely no fraud, waste, mismanagement or kickbacks. Still, I’m sure that city officials would have found a way to spend all that additional revenue.
Wal-Mart seems to aggravate the heck out of some liberals, and it’s not just the company’s non-union policy. There are other problems.
John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said a few weeks ago that Wal-Marts "drive me crazy" because "they destroy communities."
The same week in a Los Angeles debate, her husband also disclosed his revulsion for the retailer: "And you've got companies like Wal-Mart . . . that hire part-time people, that have actually advertised to come and work, so they won't do their health care."
Not all of us are as wealthy as the Kerrys, who own five multimillion-dollar homes. We weren’t raised in an affluence that permitted shopping at the most exclusive and expensive stores.
There is, I suspect, an element of elitism in some of the opposition to Wal-Mart. I recently heard from a reader critical of a column I wrote about Costco executives giving large contributions to defeat President Bush.
Wal-Mart wasn’t even mentioned in the column, yet the reader wrote how the store "pays miniscule wages, offers lousy health benefits, and stabs consumers with voodoo pricing," whatever that is.
What particularly interested me was the way he finished his communication: "I'll stick with Costco, you go ahead and fill your double-wide with Wal-Mart crap." For those of you not familiar with the James Carville School of Deprecating Remarks, the double-wide reference is a suggestion I live in a trailer.
Again, there seems to be some snobbery at work in all the Wal-Mart loathing. Is it because the stores provide decent goods at affordable prices to the great unwashed, thereby improving their living standards even to the point of having some of the same conveniences as their betters?
Perhaps a reason is the chain has a policy of not selling CDs with sexually explicit lyrics. Maybe the irritation is the senior citizens hired to be greeters. Wal-Mart sells religious literature, even Bibles. Possibly that’s an annoyance.
Or is it because Wal-Mart is a prime example of how free enterprise can benefit millions of Americans, including the more than one million who work there? Capitalism can just be so unbridled sometimes.
This is the black and white fallacy. You seem to be implying that the only possible capitalistic system is the anarchist model, since I take it that you will agree that there is at least some difference between the libertarian and anarchist positions, and even in the libertarian model it is not absolutely true that "no one forces you to do anything". But the notion that only anarchists can be capitalists is a reductio ad absurdum.
You mention slaves, but the value of those slaves were exactly the dollar amount for which they were being sold--just as the objective value of the labor of a person is the market price for his wages.
I should simply say "I rest my case". If you think that the objective value of a human being is merely what others are willing to pay for that human being's services, then I feel sorry for your family, and for you. Such a utilitarian position is similar to that of Peter Singer, the Princeton 'ethicist' who argues that infanticide is permissible against handicapped babies who will not be able to contribute to society. Your utilitarian position entails that when people like Terry Schiavo can no longer contribute to society, its time to send them to Dr. Kevorkian, since, having no more objective value, they are (on your view) worthless.
On the contrary, a human is not worth only what others are willing to pay for him or her. A human does not attain worth and value only when loved or desired by someone else. Our objective worth, like our rights, is intrinsic and inalienable, not contingent upon the choices or interests of others. We are intrinsically valuable as human persons simply in virtue of being by *nature* rational, even when we are unable to express that rationality to any degree. The notion that persons acquire rights and worth only when desired by someone else is what drives the absurd position that although it is a crime to harm a wanted child in utero, unwanted children can justifiably be aborted.
Of course there is such a thing as 'market value'. But the 'market value' is not identical to the objective value. If we reduce objective value to market value, we take a terrible step toward fascism, and the denial of the intrinsic value of the individual human being. It is no accident that in such systems the weak, the handicapped, the retarded, and the aged are sent to the crematorium. That is where worthless garbage belongs. This too is a reductio (especially in this post WWII era) against the position that the objective value of a person is reducible to his market value.
Wal-Marts selections are adequate as you say, but I prefer a more than ''adequate'' selection. Wal-Mart is a destroyer of choice, but hey!, more power to them, you know?
As I said, it depends on where you live. ''Choice'' has already been destroyed in my city & it wasn't by Wal-Mart. We don't have a Wal-Mart SuperCenter. Choice was destroyed by a strong regional chain (that itself has been consolidated into an even larger regional chain) that has snuffed out a number of smaller competitors. That chain effectively owns the grocery business in my not-small town. I drive approx. 20 miles to shop at a SuperCenter, specifically, to buy items that the local chain does not offer. ''Adequate'' is a relative term; I consider the local stores ''inadequate.'' The recent addition of a SuperCenter in a neighboring town has expanded my choice & offers the items that I consider ''adequate'' (that is, everything I want to purchase). ''Boutique'' grocery shopping is not an option in my locale & never was. If it's boutique groceries I want, I would need to travel 90 miles.
If that were truly the case, I doubt Wal-Mart could run them out. It may be true they don't carry the brands you like in certain things, but apparently, they carry the brands a great many people want.
The only thing I remember is that the INS swept through and nabbed a bunch of them. I don't recall hearing anything else.
By the way, Wal-Mart contracts for cleaning services. So I'm not sure what 'treatment' you might be refering to.
A union local in Houston had a new building constructed - with non-union labor - because otherwise they couldn't afford it.
I stand corrected - I thought Wal-Mart was still contracting it's janitorial work. Nevertheless, of course a store is going to lock it's doors when it is closed. So this lawsuit is silly.
I dont think the question is Why the war againts Wal-Mart? I say why the rabid defense?
I find Wal-Mart's selection wide and varying. If you don't like them fine, that's your perogative, but you do seem to have an animus bordering on hysterical towards them, IMO.
Oh I see now, you are a victim because someone thinks that your animus towards Wal-Mart borders on the hysterical and hyperbolic and states it as such.
Send your resume to the Kerry campaign, you seem to have the same mindset, IMO.
Like I said before, I find Wal-Mart's selection in food wide and varied. I will let lurkers make up their own mind about your opinions and mine.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
PeoplesLiberationArmyMART is going to have to give me a better reason to like them than the fact that Teresa Heinz Kerry does not.
But if Teresa really wanted to put her money where her mouth was, she could pull her products from WalMART's shelves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.