Bring It On!

By Joe Snitty on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply

That’s GREAT, Craig! Now a single mom with two kids can get an antibiotic for herself and her kids, for maybe just under two hours of labor! Cause unless she’s got another full-time job on top of her job at Walmart, she probably can’t afford their healthcare plan…

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply

So I guess that’s a big “NO!”, huh?

By Joe Snitty on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

Sorry, man, my wife worked there about 10 years back, when we were first starting out, and I’ve seen and heard it all firsthand.  They don’t give a flying one about anything but their own bottom line, and if they’ve “obtained the lower generic drug prices by squeezing costs out of [their] already efficient supply chain, rather than pressuring drug manufacturers to lower costs” then that means one of two things: it’s either a temporary situation that will later turn into what they normally do — demand that their suppliers reduce per unit costs every year, or a euphemism for squeezing costs out of what they usually squeeze costs out of — their employees.

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

So your wife worked there. Presumably because that was the best job she could get, no? If there were an employer that paid more for the same or equivalently valued work or provided better perks within traveling distances that didn’t eat up the pay difference, she’d have gone to work there. So Wal-Mart gave your wife the best pay she could get in her area for work that she was qualified to do.

I haven’t investigated the evils of Wal-Mart carefully so I’m not bating here, but looking for an education. When did it become an employers job to do more than to provide something besides a job and provide goods and services in the community that people want and can afford unless the employment market necessitates it? In short, when did it become corporate responsibility to provide affordable health-care and other benefits and top dollar jobs, all of which mean charging the customer considerably more for their goods and services (read ‘inflation’) instead of a good product at an affordable price and employing a very large number of employees?

By Jersey McJones on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

Craig, healthcare become an employer concern thanks to the sleazy sleazy sleazy cons who refuse to initiate a universal healthcare like they have in every other First World country.  But Americans are so fuckin stupid, they instead rely on on their employers to provide them with healthcare as if it were a perk.  Healthcare - a perk.  Americans are stupid, employers have a responsibility just like anyone else who benefits from said community, and cons suck ass.

JMJ

By michaelav on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

Funny you should ask that, Craig.

The answer in literal terms is “never”.

However, rather than looking at it purely with an eye towards the balance sheet, let’s look at the human element involved.

Which do you think is better for your community?  Not for the shareholders, not for the Walton family, but for YOUR community:

1) A company that pays crummy wages, has terrible benefits and marginal working conditions.

2) A company that pays union wages (literally or on a par with) offers good benefits and sets the standard for great working conditions and employee perks?

The answer, of course is 1, and I know all the arguments about the free flow of labor, etc..  But that just does not fly.
When you have a company that is the largest employer in the world, the pressure that they put on wages, benefits and working conditions in the DOWNWARD trend all over the country has made it bad from any working person, particularly in the retail world.

A thriving middle class, good jobs with good benefits and great places to work can make our communities a great place.  Wal Mart makes it worse.

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

michael,

I think you mean 2 is better. Unless you’re arguing that Walmart’s policy is correct, which doesn’t seem to be your position.

By michaelav on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

whoops.  yea, the answer is 2.

sorry, I get a little ticked off about that company.

I spent 16 years of my adult life prior to going into high tech as a proud union member, so I know the benefits that having those things really are to the community and to working families.

You could not get me to step one toe in one of their stores.

They are the most disgusting company operating in this country today and they have done more damage to the labor landscape of our great nation in the last 20 years than any other company.

Wal Mart took the cowards way out, the greedy path to growing the wallets of about 10 people rather then thinking about the country that they do business in.
As they were growing larger (particularly after old man Walton died) they could have taken a path that would have been good for our country. They could have said, we are huge and we are successful, and as we grow we are going to be the standard by which all other companies are measured in terms of our wages, working conditions and benefits.
They could have worked to KEEP manufacturing in the US as much as possible rather than shipping and pressuring it all to China.
And with their reach and their power, they could have said that when and if they do business out of the country, they would be the standard by which all other companies are measured when it comes to using foreign labor.
No sweatshops and fair wages that would help to bring up the working conditions and wages within the nation they do business.
They of course did none of those things. Because they are greedy cowards. The Walton family is the 21st century example of the Gilded Age robber baron family

Their “low prices” are nothing but a pox.
All commnities are worse for having this company around driving down working conditions and wages and benefits.
We ALL wind up paying for their contempt for America in the cost of state and county run hospitals that have to treat their employees that can’t get insurance.

They hate America and all that we stand for. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

Jersey,

Craig, healthcare become an employer concern thanks to the sleazy sleazy sleazy cons who refuse to initiate a universal healthcare like they have in every other First World country.  But Americans are so fuckin stupid, they instead rely on on their employers to provide them with healthcare as if it were a perk.  Healthcare - a perk.  Americans are stupid, employers have a responsibility just like anyone else who benefits from said community, and cons suck ass.

Let’s try to focus. The political failure to provide for health care does not make it Wal-Mart’s or any other corporation’s responsibility to provide health-care and my point was, well, it’s not Wal-Mart’s job to provide anything other than what they are providing: Jobs to millions of Americans at a wage that the market will bear and goods and services that Americans want at a price they can afford. People complain that they won’t unionize. There are lots of places that aren’t unionized. There’s no law requiring them to unionize. People complain that they undercut competitors. That’s what corporations in competition do in order to provide the good’s and services people want at prices they can afford. And they provide jobs at a wage scale that the market will bear.

Wal-Mart simply does that better than their competitors.

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

Well, Michael, sorry to disappoint but I disagree. I believe in markets, and I don’t mean just the stock-markets. Wal-Mart provides jobs, goods and services efficiently. If the market demands higher wages, people will leave Wal-Mart for employers who pay higher wages and provide benefits that Wal-Mart does not and Wal-Mart will have to either pay higher wages and benefits, jacking up their prices in the process or go out of business. Demanding that they do what the market does not demand of them distorts the market and adds to inflation and, by the way removes the goods and services from the reach of the lower classes who will no longer be able to afford their products. Never mind that it will make jobs harder to get. Which is easier to get: a union job paying $18.00 an hour or an entry level job at under $6.00? Of which type of job are there more? Why do you suppose that is?

It’s what the market requires. 

By michaelav on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

there is no “market” when one company controls everything.

your classical economics always leaves out the most important thing:  true cost and the human factor.

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

No market? Just heard on NPR this afternoon that Target is matching Wal-Mart’s reduction in prices on drugs. That’s how the market works. Competition. As for the human factor, humans who could not afford medications at $10-$30 for a months prescription will now be able to afford them at $4 per month. How’s that for the human factor?

Markets work if you let them.

By michaelav on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

I’m talking about the big picture her.

Lowering the bar for all working Americans because of the practices overall of the world’s largest employer.

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply

And I’m disagreeing with you, that’s all. Look. As the world’s largest employer, they can jack up wages, hand out large, expensive benefits packages, quit insisting on suppliers being as efficient and cost effective as possible and thus add considerably to the cost of their goods and services and jack up inflation considerably or they can be as efficient as possible and keep prices low. You seem to think that such inefficiencies are good. I do not. Markets work even when Wal-Mart does its thing. I’m simply denying the efficacy of what you want Wal-Mart to do and stop doing. Maybe I’m wrong but you haven’t shown that I am, at least not to where I am convinced.

By Dusty on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

So you don’t have a problem with WalMart hiring people with little or no education, paying them so little they qualify for state-paid healthcare Craig? Your taxes and my taxes pay for the health needs of people that work at Walmart..but enjoy those low prices Craig, I really hope that more than makes up for all your tax money both federal and state that support the health needs of WalMarts workers. Lets not forget they also qualify for food stamps too. Another Bonus! And they do so much for American goods too….oh wait..most of the products they sell are made anywhere BUT the U.S…

Tell me again..whats so great about WalMart, other than lower drug prices they are going to eventually sell? This is just a test market maybe next year everyone will get the cheaper drugs..and its only generic drugs..of the thousands of drugs on the market, they will undercut pharmacies on 300 of the most prescribed generics. According to my husband who spent the better part of an evening comparing his medications with WalMart and Costco..Costco still won out more times than not. The catch is the “30 day supply”..Costco rips WalMart a new one since they don’t limit their lower prices to a 30 day supply.  

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

Hi Dusty,

So you don’t have a problem with WalMart hiring people with little or no education, paying them so little they qualify for state-paid healthcare Craig?

Hey, people with little or no education need to work too. People with little or no education are lucky to be working, let alone being paid lot’s of money and being given health care benefits.

Your taxes and my taxes pay for the health needs of people that work at Walmart..but enjoy those low prices Craig, I really hope that more than makes up for all your tax money both federal and state that support the health needs of WalMarts workers.

What? A Liberal against taxes? Against taxes that we pay going to help those in need? I thought Liberals liked those things? Look. All I’m saying is, it isn’t Wal-Mart’s job to pay people with little or no education $13 an hour or to provide them with health care no matter how much they pay them. That’s not their job. If the market demands that they do, then they will have to do so or go out of business. And yes, I and tens of millions of shoppers every day enjoy the low prices at Wal-Mart.

If you want to solve the health-care problems, solve them. Don’t mandate that Wal-Mart solve it for you.

And they do so much for American goods too….oh wait..most of the products they sell are made anywhere BUT the U.S…

So now it’s Wal-Mart’s job to buy and sell US made products at prices that few can afford to buy in addition to paying their employees more than the market will bear and jacking up their already-too-high-priced US made products to pay for paying too much for wages and benefits. No thank you.

 Tell me again..whats so great about WalMart, other than lower drug prices they are going to eventually sell? This is just a test market maybe next year everyone will get the cheaper drugs..and its only generic drugs..of the thousands of drugs on the market, they will undercut pharmacies on 300 of the most prescribed generics.

 So now it’s not only Wal-Mart’s job to buy overpriced US products and solve the American health-care crisis but to solve the high price of the R&D of new pharmaceuticals. That’s quite a mandate to place on one company, all in the pursuit of putting them out of business.

According to my husband who spent the better part of an evening comparing his medications with WalMart and Costco..Costco still won out more times than not. The catch is the “30 day supply”..Costco rips WalMart a new one since they don’t limit their lower prices to a 30 day supply.

In which case, it is up to the shopper to compare prices, isn’t it? It isn’t Wal-Mart’s job to have the lowest price on everything they sell, anyway.

We have entirely different ideas of economics.

By Dusty on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

 “Hey, people with little or no education need to work too. People with little or no education are lucky to be working, let alone being paid lot’s of money and being given health care benefits.”–Would YOU work for Walmart Craig? Your cavalier response that their “lucky” to work there is disgusting on every level. WalMart couldn’t get educated workers,other than management positions if their life depended on it. I guess based on your standards people without an education don’t deserve a living wage, or healthcare. Pretty narrow-minded and elitist.

I don’t shop at Walmart Craig..its not always about the cheapest for me. Their products are cheap and poorly made in many cases since they are made in China and other countries of that ilk. Since you never mention the subject of your taxes paying for WalMart’s workers healthcare and foodstamps, I guess you don’t mind that do you?

 Wal-Mart workers top Medicaid rolls in at least 16 states, Craig.

If Wal-Mart were an independent nation, it would be China’s eighth-largest trading partner.

The average pay for a Wal-Mart sales associate is $1,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Business as usual? Not necessarily. Retail rival Costco pays its workers 65% more on average than Wal-Mart, yet earns more profits per employee.

  WalMart makes money off the backs of these individuals..and off you and I ..since we foot the bills for healthcare and many times to feed their families via foodstamps. The majority of their employees do not make a living wage. I don’t care if they pay them 13 bucks an hour..if they only get 15-20 hours aweek..it isn’t enough to support even the smallest family.

Thanks for twisting my words about WalMarts feeble attempt to break into the Pharmacutical market. I said NOTHING about R&D prices. I said..they still won’t get Costco’s customers..or doesn’t that work for your assumptions you lay out? It’s a gimmick to get you in the door for those one or two prescriptions you might be able to fill cheaper than Rite-Aid or Savon’s prices. Your arguement that it isn’t WalMarts job to have the lowest prices on everything they sell is laughable and weak.

Its obvious you don’t give a rats ass about the workers making a living wage or having health care, just you saving a buck or two. Good for you..your a good little neocon. Screw the people but protect those corporate rights to make all the money they can. God bless the corporatocracy!

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

Would YOU work for Walmart Craig? Your cavalier response that their “lucky” to work there is disgusting on every level.

I wouldn’t work at McDonald’s either but I don’t demand that they pay $13.00 and full benefits to burger-flippers either. If it were the best job I could find, yes, of course I would work there. My first real job payed $1.73 per hour. I’ve worked a number of minimum wage jobs.

On the other hand, I spent eight years in one college or another so I wouldn’t have to work at Wal-Mart. I’m all for education and it should buy people better jobs, better pay, and, if the market bears it, good benefits. Sorry to disgust you. Hope you made it to the loo in time, that can be a mess.

WalMart couldn’t get educated workers,other than management positions if their life depended on it. I guess based on your standards people without an education don’t deserve a living wage, or healthcare. Pretty narrow-minded and elitist.

Neither can lettuce farmers. What’s your point? One gets the best job for which one is qualified. As I wrote somewhere up above, if there’s better paying jobs available, people will work there. If there aren’t, they work at Wal-Mart.

I didn’t say they don’t deserve health-care. I said it wasn’t Wal-Marts job to give it to them. And if one can’t earn a living wage at Wal-Mart, one shouldn’t work there. They should work where they can earn a living wage.

That’s me. I’m an elitist. Although I’m not sure to which elite group I belong. Retired Pastors are hardly the elite in this country in this day and age. I just don’t think that it is government’s job to demand that one company pay their employees more than they are worth to the corporation and give them benefits that will boost their prices to the point that they will no longer be competetive in the market and go out of business. It is there job to provide goods and services that people want and can afford while paying their employees what the market for such employees demands. Wal-Mart does all those things. 

Sorry if I didn’t follow your reasoning on the whole pharmaceutical thing. It wasn’t deliberate, I assure you and I apologize. 

I said..they still won’t get Costco’s customers.

Well, if they don’t undercut Costco’s prices, they don’t deserve to get Costco’s customers and they won’t. Whatever. I really don’t care one way or another. I don’t own any stock in Wal-Mart or Costco so it is entirely a matter of indifference to me.

Your arguement that it isn’t WalMarts job to have the lowest prices on everything they sell is laughable and weak.

It wasn’t an argument so much as a statement of fact.

Its obvious you don’t give a rats ass about the workers making a living wage or having health care, just you saving a buck or two.

All that is obvious to me is that I believe in market economies and Capitalism. 

By Dusty on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

Capitalism won’t feed those less fortunate..whats your point there? I find your arguements,or as you call them, statements of fact to be  weak and self serving Craig, I am sorry. The fact that more of our tax money comes from corporate profits than individual wages now than at any time in our history as a country shows we are losing our tax base and to me thats not good any way you look at it. WalMart making lots of money..how exactly does that serve the public good? Market economics don’t feed children..and thats the difference between your beliefs and mine I guess. As for large companies and their profit margins..compare WalMart to Costco and other large companies on healthcare.

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]

Its not a right to expect your employer to offer you healthcare Craig..I never said that. You however do not see a problem with WalMart tactics of paying horrible wages and refusing to offer decent healthcare plans to their  poorly-educated employees. who then have to rely on their government for these services and to feed their families. 

To blow it all off as, well if they don’t offer healthcare, dont work there..I can only say..if life was so simple we wouldn’t be having this discussion now would we? Your lack of compassion for the uneducated masses working for WalMart or any other low wage employer that doesn’t offer healthcare tells me alot about you. Your high on corporate profits and down on the working poor. You also ignored the numbers I gave you about 16 states who’s Medicaid rolls are populated by WalMart workers and the fact that Walmart is one of the biggest trade allies of China. You only respond to the points that you can use your captialism and market economy lines on.. 

By steve on Sep 24, 2006 | Reply

You are digging hard Dusty…

What if the company wasn’t named Walmart.  What if it was your local car wash, restaurant dish washing job or your local motel maid job?  Sure, it’s tough down on the bottom but people are taking those jobs.  They clammer for them.  Just like at Walmart!

You basically are saying to Craig here that people are too stupid to know better down at the bottom of the pay scale.  Hey, I personally think they are better off working than on welfare, which is the liberal security blanket that goes against capitalism. 

And so are unions.  So you sign up  for a union and demand all kinds of shit, and you basically hold a sign for 6 hours a day (minus breaks, hour lunch and PTO) on the highway for 32 bucks an hour.  How many brains does that take to stand there and twist a sign back and forth when told to let traffic through by the foreman with the “walkie talkie” who’s told by someone else in a tractor?  Apparently a lot because that sign person actually gave a shit to read the paper and see that the job was available.  All that money we tax payers pay for the state union to work on our highways sure really does a lot.  You live in California…  you know what the roads look like!

Oh and lastly, we need to trade with China.  If we don’t someone else will and guess what, there are over a billion potential customers in China that want to purchase our goods and services.  Last I checked that was one in seven people living on this planet.

Welcome to the global economy!!

By Dusty on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply

My point is people working at WalMart are still on public assistance. Why does this fact go over your head steve? WalMart is the single largest employer in the United States. What does a highway worker have to do with a WalMart worker Steve? What does a local carwash, restaurant or local motel maid have to do with the largest employer in the US? 

I called no one stupid. How you arrived at that I have no idea. You two are all for the corporation when the corporation is all about making money for itself.  

Starbucks offers all its employees healthcare and the vast majority are working part time. McDonalds and other fast food companies are also offering healthcare to their workers usually after 90 or 120 days of service. A WalMart worker has to be there for 2 years to even have the option of signing up for their lousy healthcare.

God bless the corporatocracy..right gents? I am done with both of you on this subject. You fail to address any of the key facts I laid out such as Medicaid and Foodstamps for WalMart workers sucking up taxes or the wage issue when other large retailers pay better and have a larger profit margin per employee than WalMart.

Enjoy yourselves at WalMart.

By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 25, 2006 | Reply

Capitalism won’t feed those less fortunate

Of course it will and it does. How many people are so unfortunate in this country that they are not eating? The problem in this country is that too many are eating too much of the wrong things, not that we are starving to death. Capitalism creates wealth. Taxes tax wealth. Contrary to your “we’re loosing our tax base” comment, tax receipts are very high. Higher than they were expected to be. Government redistributes wealth through Social Security, welfare, disability, medicare, medicaid, food-stamps, offerings to Churches and philanthropy to charities also do this but first there must be wealth and no system creates wealth as efficiently as Capitalism. 

WalMart making lots of money..how exactly does that serve the public good?

Wal-Mart makes money for people: wage earners and investors, it makes money for a whole host of other corporations who supply them. Those suppliers employ workers who earn wages and investors in those suppliers make money. Those suppliers buy supplies from a whole host of other suppliers who employ wage earners and help investors in those companies and on and on it goes. That serves the public good. Not to mention they supply goods and services that the people demand and desire at a price they can afford, thus serving the public good. Not just Wal-Mart, of course, but every corporation in America does the same thing. They do it in different ways but they all serve the public good. 

Market economics don’t feed children

It is the only thing that does feed children. People cannot feed children but in two ways. They grow the food that they need, or they buy the things that they need. Without market economics neither of these things are possible. Where would we be without manufacturers,  buyers and sellers, without jobs and so forth? There’d be no goods, no services, no money with which to buy either.

As for large companies and their profit margins..compare WalMart to Costco and other large companies on healthcare.

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]

I’m afraid you’ll have to help me here since I’m not sure where you are going with this. I’m not being snarky with this but what’s your point. I don’t get it.

Its not a right to expect your employer to offer you healthcare Craig..I never said that. You however do not see a problem with WalMart tactics of paying horrible wages and refusing to offer decent healthcare plans to their  poorly-educated employees.

What horrible wages? They pay minimum wage at least, right? That’s all they’re required to pay by law and it’s what the labor market will bear and it’s the best their employees can find. No. I don’t have a problem with Wal-Mart’s tactics.

As for the 16 states and the number of Wal-Mart workers on Medicade, well, that’s what Medicade is for, for those who cannot get health-care elsewhere. Dusty, I have no problem paying taxes or for those taxes going to help those in need. I said that before. That’s my response to your Medicade rolls complaint. If they can’t find work at an employer who supplies health-care, we supply it for them. What’s uncompassionate about that?

You tell me there is no right to employer provided health-care but you rail at Wal-Mart for not providing it. There’s a disconnect there, it seems to me. I really do think that you, deep down inside, think that there SHOULD be such a right and I think that, if Wal-Mart doesn’t shape up and provide it, you are about two steps away from demanding that the Government MAKE Wal-Mart provide it, effectively making employer-provided health-care a right.