"Homeland Security means Unionizing Wal-Mart"

[Bill McBlueState]

I heard an excellent rant on Unfiltered on my way in to work this morning. (It's being broadcast in my locale now!)

Rachel said that, if people answer "no" to the rather condescending question "Do you feel safer?" it's because they lack economic security, not because of external terrorist threats. This was in the context of the sex-discrimination suit against Wal-Mart.

Speaking from my own experience -- and ask this question of yourself -- what are you more likely to wake up in the middle of the night worrying about? Whether your place of work is going to be attacked by terrorists? (Sure, if you work in an important building in a major city, or if you're in the military.) But for most of us, the more pressing matters are things like where we'll get the money for rent, or for day care, or for a doctor's visit.

If all those Wal-Mart workers were unionized -- it's the largest private employer in the US -- their wages would go up almost overnight, they'd get a fair health plan and other benefits, and most fundamentally, individual workers would have an advocate in their day-to-day dealings with the company.

That type of security, job security, is just a much a part of homeland security as airline security.

Talking economic security and meaning it, as opposed to cute sound bites, is the only way the Democrats are going to get real power back.

[mstrsplinter326]

1. Unionizing is socialist

We wouldn't want to be labeled as commies...

(Sorry if I am jaded, but I live in a wealthy repukkk strong hold)

[JHB]

2. They call us commies anyway n/t

[mstrsplinter326]

4. true story...

Oh well, I suppose they get tired of being called facists...

[dorktv]

37. so do I and I favor Unionization...I tell the republicans: You have

trade organizations like HIAA (Health Insurence Association of America) that protect owners of businesses so why can not workers have the same thing?

[Joanne98]

50. Privatizing is fascism

Fascism is totalitarianism. Hitler was a fascist. Unions are "the American Way".

[fdr_hst_fan]

3. Not only Wal-Mart;

BANKS should have unions, also! I know-I worked for over 30 years for the largest privately-owned bank in Delaware, and they weren't worth a bucket of warm PISS! They look out for their clients, but they don't give a DAMN about their employees!

:puke:

[MichiganVote]

6. If you flip the coin

on its head, the case can and should be made about the wealthy or super wealthy having "unions" also. But they don't want workers to know that.

[JHB]

22. They already have them

They're called "trade associations", "Chambers of commerce", "fundraising events", etc.

[yodermon]

41. From Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations (that is, unions or colluding organizations) of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate.

To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands."

-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html
Chapter 8, pg. 2

[MichiganVote]

54. My point exactly

[Baltimoreboy]

5. Just curious

Who would pay those salaries? The poor people who shop at Walmart.

[DBoon]

8. Works for Costco

Big discount chain on the West Coast, with low prices to match Walmart. All union, good wages, good benefits.

I would like to believe that the capitalist class is ingenious and flexible enough to deal with a unionized work force, make a profit, and still serve their target market.

[Baltimoreboy]

11. But those increases will come from somewhere

And they will be added to the prices of products and paid by customers.

[lapislzi]

16. It doesn't have to be that way

Take it off the TOP for a change. People behave as if the profit is inviolate. If everyone at the top took A LITTLE LESS, everyone further down would have more.

To paraphrase Lao Tzu: "The greatest calamity is not knowing what is enough."

Sure, a business should make a profit. That's why people are in business. Obscene profits are another matter.

[Baltimoreboy]

17. It WILL be that way

You are living in a fantasy world if you think execs are going to cut their own salaries. They will merely pass any increase onto the consumer.

What is obscene profit? A CEO who makes $10 million or Barry Bonds making a similar amount?

[lapislzi]

20. That's a false equation

I also don't believe for one second executives can be trusted to regulate themselves. Their untrustworthiness has been proven time and again. The only way to regulate excesses at the top is the way it's been done for the last century: through unionization and legislation.

Any profit is obscene if it is made off the backs of workers who are not paid a living wage.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. Until something changes it isn't false

You are proposing a wholescale societal change. In the meantime, the shoppers will pay for any salary increase.

[lapislzi]

44. Fine then. I would pay more for the peace of mind of knowing

that the workers who make the stuff I buy are paid a living wage and are treated with dignity and respect.

And what, exactly, is wrong with wholesale societal change? It comes about in tiny increments, like living wages and affordable health care. How exactly is that revolutionary? When practically every other country in the developed world has managed this without drastic social upheavals? A LITTLE less for those at the top. What's so radical about that, hm?

As I said before, it will come about the way it's always come about--down the barrel of a legislator's pen.

[Baltimoreboy]

57. That is you, clearly you can afford it

Wholesale societal change takes decades or a major sea change in attitude. We have neither. In the meantime, it will be as I said. Walmart will turn the costs back to the consumers. And in case you hadn't notice, America is not other countries. It has its own unique history and culture.

[lapislzi]

59. You left one out. Revolutions can turn on a dime

No pun intended. If people get angry enough at their treatment by Wal-Mart and its ilk, you will see a sea change faster than you thought possible.

As I said before, I don't understand how Wal-Mart can miss the shortsightedness of its own policies. If Wal-Mart is the cheapest place in town and its own workers can't afford to shop there because they're paid substandard wages, how can this possibly benefit Wal-Mart?

Eventually it will hit them two ways: the workers will (I hope) dig in their heels and unionize, and business will fall off.

[yankeedem]

105. The question is, can you afford Walmart?

That little extra money that you pay on stuff you probably don't need, at a store with living wages, will come back into your community, instead of going to some billionaire or some Saudi prince. Then maybe your wages will lift, and you'll be at least where you were.

[Baltimoreboy]

106. I can't stand Walmart

And I think I've shopped there once in my life. But then again, I'm not poor enough to have little choice.

[StandUpGuy]

71. Obscene is what US ceo's make compared to their workers

RATES OF UNIONIZATION IN ADVANCED CAPITALIST COUNTRIES IN 1990s
United States ---------------------------------15%
Japan and France ---------------------------28%
Canada -----------------------------------------36%
Germany ---------------------------------------43%
United Kingdom ------------------------------50%
Denmark and Sweden ---------------------96%

TOTAL PAID DAYS OFF FOR ALL EMPLOYEES

Germany - 30 days vacation plus 12 holidays plus 20 sick days
France - 25 days vacation plus 10 holidays plus 19 sick days
U.S. - 12 days vacation plus 11 holidays plus 7 sick days

According to Business Week’s annual survey of executive pay, compensation for CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged $12.4 million in 1999, having increased sixfold since 1990. Last year alone, executive compensation rose an average of 17 percent. The average worker, in contrast, received a 3.5 percent pay increase.

CEO pay is much higher in the United States than in other countries. That’s true both in absolute dollar terms, and relative to pay for the average worker. According to Business Week, an American CEO earns 475 times as much as an average blue-collar worker. German CEOs make, on average, just 13 times as much as a typical manufacturing worker. The ratio in Japan is 11 to 1.



So you asked how much is too much ?

I'm sick of the apologists.

[Toots]

119. Then government steps in and makes some adjustments

In the form of taxation. They tax the CEOs more and give tax breaks to the middle and lower class. If in the name of fair play the businesses don't deal fairly with consumer and employee then government is there to protect the least among us. If Walmart won't pay a fair wage or insists upon socking it to the consumer to protect their adminstrative excesses then government should remedy the situation. In a fair and impartial world this would be the case but we live in Bush* America and that means the wealthy get the government protection and the lessor beings get the shaft.

[SemperEadem]

60. apples and oranges

Barry Bonds and other 'star' athletes have a finite amount of time to play their sport--injury can sideline them forever and no one can predict the future and tell them when that injury is going to happen so they can prepare for that time. So when you look at how much a CEO can earn in his career's lifetime versus how much an athlete earns in the few years he's able to play at the top of his game, you're looking at two totally different things.

Mixing them up to make a point is a bad use of example.

And what is wrong wtih Barry Bonds making a similar amount? Are you saying just because he's a ball player that he's not entitled to be adequately compensated for what he brings to the team? There are more stupid CEO's driving companies into the toilet but getting golden parachutes than there are undeserving athletes at the top of their game being compensated accordingly.

[Baltimoreboy]

61. What a BS rationalization

Barry Bonds has made tons for years. He employs no one. He hits a damn baseball. He is an entertainer.

It takes decades to rise to the level of CEO -- business school, often law school as well. Throw in years of abandoning other aspects of your life so you can learn the trade.

Just like Bonds, bad things can happen to CEOs. They can make one wrong decision and be scrapped. Hell, their competitors could outdo them with some new product and they still fail, even if they were doing a fine job.

I used Bonds as an example because SF plays with him or without. A CEO makes decisions that impact the careers of sometimes tens of thousands of workers.

[SemperEadem]

63. it's still apples and oranges

no matter how hysterical you get about it.

[Baltimoreboy]

64. Not hysterical

Simply CEOs do far more to deserve their salaries than Barry ever does. And if you want to compare salaries, how much more than a hot dog salesman does Barry earn?

[lapislzi]

67. You can't escape the fact that Wal-Mart functions solely

as a wealth extractor. The hot dog guy is placed better to recycle wealth into his community than your CEO or corporation.

Are you suggesting that CEOs work harder than you or I do, and are hence deserving of millions upon millions of dollars? I think that, too, is a false equation.

Is a CEO's work somehow more "valuable?" How does one assign value to work?

I am curious as to the ethical values you are applying to this argument, and as to why you feel the need to defend Wal-Mart's policies so strenuously.

[Baltimoreboy]

68. CEOs have unique skills

That are indeed more valuable than your skills or mine. Why? For the very reason that so few people have the knowledge, experience and contacts to run a major company.

And we assign value to work on a purely what the market will bear equation. If I do my job at $50k and someone else offers me twice that, I will switch employers in most cases. But if 10,000 people can do my job just as well and will do it for $30k, then no one will pay me even my $50k.

I am not defending Walmart one iota. Actually, I think it sucks that they will pass costs directly onto the consumer. But that's still the way it is.

[lapislzi]

70. I think that argument is rubbish, pure and simple

Sure, Cheney gets paid big bucks for his Rolodex, but that's about the sum what he brings to Halliburton. He is no more "qualified" to review information and make decisions than you or I or any other intelligent person. And there are as many lousy CEOs as there are incompetents in any profession.

By your reasoning doctors should be much more highly paid than other professions because of their skill set. But you don't see doctors taking home million-dollar paychecks, do you? Does a doctor collect a bonus when she saves a patient's life?

To get back to Wal-Mart, the labor force has the power to assign value to its own labor, if only it would exercise that power. And yes, I am not disagreeing with you that should such a miracle occur, the costs of such action will be passed on to the consumer. But I ask you: is that such a terrible thing? Just because "that's the way it is" does that mean it always has to be that way? Does that mean we have to accept it as workers and consumers?

I find your thinking surprisingly uncritical of the corporate ethos, and this disturbs me.

[Baltimoreboy]

76. Doctors would be higher paid

Except lots of people aspire to becoming doctors. Again, supply and demand. Too much supply limits demand.

It's not just a Rolodex, it's ability to sell and coerce, it's ability to present to a board of directors, it's an ability to manage all the facets of a company. I know some good salespeople. Most of them couldn't manage one other salesperson, much less a team. Include that skill into the same realities of production, marketing, delivery, PR, etc.

The ability to manage anything large is rare. Just look at how poorly things in DC run when you don't have a talented CEO.

Getting back to Walmart, the employees and consumers don't have to accept even the current status quo. But they do. If things change and the prices are passed along, how many do you think will vote with their feet?

[lapislzi]

82. There's two questions there

Consumers? Depends on a) whether they can afford to shop elsewhere b)whether there's anywhere else to shop if Wal-Mart's driven out all the local businesses. I was forced to shop in a Wal-Mart recently because I was in a small town and I NEEDED something (something I couldn't do without)...and there was literally NOWHERE else to shop. I would have gladly paid an extra buck for my box of tampax, but the local drugstore was boarded up.

Workers? Depends on whether there's viable alternative employment elsewhere. I think when they finally get angry enough they'll organize. At least I hope they will. Unfortunately, "right to work" laws in places like NM stack the deck on the side of Wal-Mart and co.

[StandUpGuy]

73. You mean skills like

Sticking it to the working class.

Skills like monopolizing the flow and investment of capital.

Skills like colluding with family and friend to rig the playing field.

You are probably right but it is truly obscene that these skills are so highly valued.

[Baltimoreboy]

78. Getting away with sticking it to the working class

Is indeed a skill. Fail at it and you get boycotts and strikes.

[wuushew]

80. How do you explain executive salaries in Europe?

If anything they are more skilled and qualified than American CEO's.
40 times lowest paid worker vs 500 times lowest paid worker. Who's civilization is better?



I am waiting for one, just one progressive post on any given subject because it sure ain't classwarfare,foreign policy or criminal justice.

[Baltimoreboy]

83. Why do you say they are more skilled?

CEOs are paid by their employers just like you and I. Clearly, their employers think they are valuable.

And, in case you weren't watching, I said Walmart passing along the cost would be wrong, but it will still happen and I lack the power to stop it.

[wuushew]

85. Outrageous CEO Pay Still a Sore Point

Academic literature is unanimous in finding that there is no correlation between pay and company performance. And while directors go to elaborate lengths to show how pay varies with performance, their only explanation of why the overall levels are so high is that everyone else does it -- an excuse you wouldn't accept from your 8-year-old. (By the way, directors from all three defense firms declined to comment.)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2003/0416sore.htm

[Baltimoreboy]

86. The issue is hard to quantify

How do you compare two companies?

You can't just compare results because they aren't identical. They compete in different industries, have different products and different employees. If success is the only measure we use, then no one will take on failing companies.

It's possible for a highly talented Lee Iaccoca type to take over a firm as CEO and spend years just turning it around and making it profitable. Had he gone to a better firm, he might have been ensured immediate success.

[wuushew]

89. Please find me a paper that shows correlation between performance

and salary. It can't be found. Paradoxically atheletic salaries can be justified from a ecomonics standpoint. I will find you the article if you wish.

Regarding Iaccoco pretty much any 1980's Chrysler is a piece of junk although I do give him credit for getting the U.S. goverment to bail out the weakest of the Big Three.

[Baltimoreboy]

92. Didn't I just say it's hard to quantify

Too many variables to include. A company with good products and low morale might choose a CEO known for good people management. A company with bad products but a talented staff might choose a CEO known for bringing out new products.

As for Iaccoca, getting money from the government took an extraordinary individual.

[yankeedem]

110. CEO's get what the market will bear

but Barry Bonds doesn't?

Even if Walmart can pass the extra cost to the customer (and they can't always do that), even you can afford an extra 10c for that Chinese crap you probably don't even need anyway so that your neighbors can make a decent living.

Walmart is the exploiter, Walmart shoppers are the enablers.

[Baltimoreboy]

111. Everyone earns what the market will bear

I don't grasp why people here complain about CEO salaries being too high and give athletes and entertainers a pass.

[yankeedem]

112. I don't grasp why you complain

about athletes and entertainment salaries being too high and give CEO's a pass.

[Baltimoreboy]

113. I'm not giving anyone a pass

But CEOs do more for the people who work for them. So a CEO who manages a large staff is more valuable than a baseball player.

That means Bruce R. Chizen who runs Adobe is worth more than twice what Jon Lieber earns "pitching" for the Yankees. But that is not how they are paid.

[lapislzi]

118. Do WHAT?

Tell me again what Ken Lay did for his employees? That didn't involve screwing them or divesting them of their life's savings?

What ever did a CEO do for any employee that was not wrestled out of him or her by legislation?

If they could get away with it, CEOs wouldn't give a tin shit for their employees.

[Baltimoreboy]

120. Thankfully most CEOs are not Ken Lay

Most realize that they are out of a job if their employees don't do a good job themselves.

I don't know what CEOs you have met, but I don't know any who care nothing for their employees. Sure, there are idiots like Ken Lay. And for them, there are courts, jails and roommates in prison.

[StandUpGuy]

72. Bullshit

I think you'll find that while some CEOs climb the corporate ladder, most took the family elevator straight to the Top.

[Baltimoreboy]

74. Family connections help

They helped Barry Bonds as well, or did you forget his dad Bobby or his godfather Willie Mays?

[lapislzi]

77. oh, and bush had no help from family

can we stick to corporations, please, and leave baseball out of it? Using sports figures to support your argument is irrelevant.

[Baltimoreboy]

79. No it's not irrelevant

We are discussing pay inequity and Bonds earns more than I will see in a couple lifetimes. And he earns it in ONE season. So how is that abuse any different than a CEO?

[fob]

100. Athletes are union employees and enjoy those benefits.

Athletics is one of the few arenas (pardon the pun) where the employees can acheive pay parity with the owners.

Your Barry Bonds argument is the opposite of your WM versus workers argument. The pay inequity isn't between YOU and Barry Bonds, it's between Barry Bonds and the Owner of the SF Giants. Only in this case, Bonds has access to a strong players union which has negotiated a great "minimum wage" and through negotiation unique to the industry Barry is able to get a heck of a lot more. The Giants owner gets a piece of taxpayer money (state of the art stadium), ticket sales (driven in part by having Barry play for him rather than someone else), concessions, souvenirs, and don't forget about the TV contracts, in stadium advertising, etc.

Do you see how that's different? No? Now try the same thing with Joe Cashier and Mall-Wart CEO. No union rep, a true minimum wage, and no chance to negotiate for more (Here I will grant that I am assuming you can't negotiate a better wage for MOST WM positions).

[Baltimoreboy]

101. I don't work for the stadium

If I did, the pay argument would be between Barry and me, the lowly ticket taker. Barry gets guaranteed cash. Several of the owners lose money on their teams, which are large part ego enterprises. The deal should be to compare top earners in the enterprise with bottom earners. Barry is among the top earners, ticket takers and such take the bottom run. Some owners like Steinbrenner probably make a ton. Others have small markets and do not reap the windfall.

And Barry's strong players union is the reason why the sport is no longer the most popular in the U.S.

[lapislzi]

115. Because he is not making it off the backs of the working poor

He is not exploiting people to earn his living.

[StandUpGuy]

88. I love it when Apologists site

professional athletes as shining examples of American worker rights and models of the capitalist system.

More propaganda

Pro athletes ONLY want their share of the pie created by screwing the working class.

Advertising to the working class has tainted and 'regulated' this industry to the point that it can no longer be sited as evidence of capitalist success.

If I don't watch sports but need to heat my house I'm paying Barry Bonds salary and the cost my electric company pays his team to advertise to sports fans.

Why ? Caused I'm getting screwed thats why.

[Baltimoreboy]

93. Everyone wants a piece of the pie

But athletes are merely entertainers and they earn a ton of money -- much more than nearly everyone. They are prime examples of pay inequality. It's not just CEOs.

[StandUpGuy]

98. With answers like that I need not continue

its obvious you can't defend you positions.

Instead resort to the old 'human nature' argument that is the last stand of the defeated apologist.

Sorry for picking on you today I just hate capitalist propaganda that doesn't hold water.

[Baltimoreboy]

99. So you support ridiculous pay inequality?

It's not OK for CEOs to earn a lot, even though they employ thousands, but it's OK for singers, rappers and athletes to earn millions?

No way.

[StandUpGuy]

102. CEOs employ millions to make themselves rich.

Very few employ any for the betterment of their communities.

Entertainers, as you so like to reference are more like sub contracted Entrepreneurs. Not workers or employees.

They sign contracts based on performance and usually a share of the profits or sales.

The pool created by regulation, or subsidies this industry receives through advertising and government tax incentives, is obscene.

So yes the compensation paid to sub contracted Entrepreneurs in the entertainment industry is obscene.

Don't worry I've already started my reply to your...

'But they have Unions !!' post which is sure to follow.

[yankeedem]

107. How many baseball players are as good as Barry Bonds?

He's probably in the top 10 best in history. He can have his money. When a CEO is the top 10 best CEO, I'll let him have $20 million too.

Barry doesn't get a golden parachute also.

Your other point is equally specious. Companies go on with or without megabuck CEO's.

[Baltimoreboy]

109. Many ballplayers make millions

Not just Barry. Crappy ballplayers are millionaires.

Barry's golden parachute is his contract. Big stars in sports, like big stars in business, get guarantees. Albert Belle, curse his name, continued to earn $10 million a year every year after his career ending injury.

And some companies do go on without megabucks CEOs. Some do not. When Barry leaves SF, few people will lose their jobs. If a CEO does a poor job, thousands could be out of work.

[yankeedem]

114. Are you in the top 750 in your profession?

When you are, and if that profession is a BILLION dollar industry, you can justify a million dollar salary. Last I checked, no baseball player ever laid off anyone and sent their job to China.

I'm not going to play anymore. You're writing style, circular logic, and attitudes remind me of another DU'er who I ignored. Are you related?

[Baltimoreboy]

122. The top 750

Well, there aren't that many more than that in all of baseball. It's a rare industry indeed that has only a few thousand employees.

Yes, baseball players don't lay anyone off. They can't. They also don't provide jobs to anyone.

They still earn too much cash.

Is A-Rod worth $30 million a year? How many doctors would that buy? How many nurses? How many people could eat from that?

My point that you and others seem to be missing is that CEOs AND entertainers are overpaid. But at least good CEOs (there are many) provide jobs so the rest of us can work.

I don't recall ever debating with you before. Though this debate seems like it has taken years.

[Philostopher]

18. Maybe they could zero in on executive compensation.

When the CEO of a company that's only holding its own is making hundreds of times what the line employees make, and has little to do with the profit/loss of the bottom line, something is seriously askew. Even economists occasionally get the goo over this one -- I used to work for one, doing document preparation. Oh, he was a neocon, he didn't care -- but many economists he quoted in the documents I worked on were up in arms about it.

[lapislzi]

49. DING! We have a winner

Profits before people. That's the neocon motto. Always has been.

[JHB]

23. At US minimum wage, the labor cost of a T-Shirt is about 25 cents...

...if you measure from US-based sweatshops it's about 16 cents, go to china and its around 1 cent.

On a shirt that sells for $10 (or more).

DSon't tell me there's no margin for improving worker pay and conditions without boosting prices.

Corporations used to describe screwing their work forces as "trimming the fat". Well, now all the fat's in the head, and that's where it needs to be cut.

[Baltimoreboy]

31. Maybe it is, but that won't be how they handle this

They will pass on any increase onto consumers and blame the unions.

[JHB]

48. Which brings up an important point about progressive taxation...

...since it makes it less attractive to simply pocket more money once you're already at a pretty-damn-comfortable level of income.

[SemperEadem]

62. so, we're to avoid change because we're afraid of this?

that's done all the time. Once a year--usually before Memorial Day --a fire breaks out at the oil refineries in El Segundo, CA... Then, gas prices go through the roof because they have to pass the cost onto someone---and consumers have to pay outrageous prices for gas. But that doesn't stop people from filling their tanks and driving their cars.

They increase the price at the pump to pay for the 'damage' done by the incompetants working at the refinery who are ignoring S.O.P's and safety maintenance (which is the only explaination for why a machine is able to deteriorate to the point that it causes that much damage) and the CEO's pocket the profits just the same because they know that you all are not about to garage your car and take public transportation or walk... there is not enough of a sense of outrage amongst the people of the US to make them fear a popular revolt.

[Lefty48197]

90. That's not necessarily true

I work in the construction/development industry. I've seen subcontractors, both Union, and non-Union, bid on the exact same projects. It's absolutely amazing how the non-union bids are often exactly the same, or even MORE than the union bids, even though the non-union wages can run anywhere from about 60-80% of the union wage costs. With labor costs usually making up roughly 25% of the bid price, the non-union bids should consistently come in about 5-7% below the union bids. They don't. The extra money goes into the pocket of the non-union contractor.
Likewise, Union retailers can provide their products at the same price as the non-union retailers, they'll just have to settle for a smaller profit margin than their competition.

[wicket]

28. Costco is here on the East Coast too

:)

[Bill McBlueState]

9. why are the shoppers better than the workers?

As it is now, the poor people who work at Wal-Mart suffer in order to provide low prices to the poor people who shop at Wal-Mart. Those two groups of people overlap substantially, by the way, so you get a situation like the old coal-mining towns where employees can only afford to shop at the company store.

If Wal-Mart were forced to provide a living wage and benefits to its employees, other smaller companies would have to treat their workers better to stay competitive. Maybe then people would have options besides Wal-Mart.

Low prices aren't all that's important.

[Baltimoreboy]

12. Not better, not worse either

In a competitive environment, many companies choose to pay well and treat top employees well so they can make an excellent product. That product is invariably pricey. Walmart has chosen the opposite approach and made cost more important than anything. They have carved out a mighty niche as a result.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. some niche

And now they're the defendants in the largest class-action lawsuit ever. Some niche.

Discount stores have been around for a long time. It's only Wal-Mart that's developed such a poor reputation for its treatment of workers.

If Wal-Mart is unionized and forced to change its act, it's not like nobody will ever be able to buy a $3 bottle of detergent again.

[Baltimoreboy]

15. Class action

They are the largest company, that they receive the largest class action suit is no surprise.

Walmart has evolved the discount store concept a lot. That's why their prices are supposed to be so low. (I don't shop there, so I can't comment on price.)

If Walmart is unionized, the poor people who shop there will end up paying the new wages.

[Bill McBlueState]

19. how low are Wal-Mart's prices?

That's why their prices are supposed to be so low. (I don't shop there, so I can't comment on price.)

Well, there you go. One of the points of my last post was that Wal-Mart's prices really aren't drastically lower than, say, Target's. But Target doesn't have a massive discrimination suit against them.

[apsuman]

25. low.

Walmart has about a 3.5% profit margin, meaning (i believe) that if they had 103,500,000,000 (103.5 Billion) in sales, they had to spend 100,000,000,000 (100 Billion) in goods, services, salaries, utilites, etc.

Walmart used to be just a low price store, and it worked hard to grow. Now it is so large that it has enough weight to go to it's suppliers and ask them to open their books so that they can see how much item X costs supplier Y to make. Then Walmart can tell supplier Y they will buy these items at price Z. Given that they can sell in the world's largest retailer at a price lower than they want, or not sell there, most choose the walmart plan. In other words, Walmart is capable of putting downward pressure at all points in the process that determines price. Other companies do this as well.

Also, about 10 years ago walmart spent about a billion dollars on a state of the art logistics system to get needed items to their stores just in time.

The result is that K-mart (or any competitor) can not match the walmart price without having an even lower profit margin than walmart.

So, the answer to your question is that the prices at walmart are low.

Also, you mentioned Target. IMHO, target is not a direct competitor to walmart. Target carries better stuff. But, that's just me.

[mrboba1]

43. Wal-Marts prices are not lower

than most other chains. It's just like competing grocery stores. Some items are lower at one store, some are higher. I used to work at a Walmart competitor and 3/4 of our stuff was less expensive than Wally's stuff.

THAT is all marketing...

[Bill McBlueState]

51. "always the lowest price"

They used to say "always the lowest price"

but they had to change that to "always the low price"

Sure, to use the earlier example, you may pay $3 for detergent at Wal-Mart, but how many people have the leisure to discover that the same detergent is selling for $2.75 a mile down the road?

That's the sort of thing you can only determine if you have the time and transportation to check multiple stores for the best price.

[apsuman]

134. fyi

If a competitor has an item listed for a published price in a circular, or in the paper Walmart will match the price if lower at the checkout. In our walmart they even post on bulletin boards the local competition's ads so you can see what you can save at the checkout. The cashiers even have the competitor's circulars with them. As a matter of fact, the good cashiers already know the most popular items lower price and you don't have to ask. There is a store in town that always has Coke products on sale for $2.37 a 12 pack, and therfore that's the price at walmart although you might have to ask for it.

[fob]

29. Let's see, unabashed, facts be damned wal-mart supporter...

outinforce? Is that you? Your arguments mimic some other wild-eyed defenses of WM over the people that I've seen here before. Things like, it's not WM's fault they pay shitty wages and hand out welfare forms with applications, it's the person who's APPLYING for that job. And for this one you'll have to search the archives and read it for yourself to belive me but here goes; If Ben & Jerry's would just hire everyone in the US, no one would have to worry about WM paying shitty wages (paraphrased summation of argument).

You've got a way to go to get to that level of disconnect in support of Mall-Wart, BB, but you're starting down the right path.

[Baltimoreboy]

32. I'm no Walmart supporter at all

I am just making the truthful point that they will pass on any salary and benefit increases onto their consumers. If you disagree with this statement, tell me why. But don't claim I am doing something I am not or am someone I am not.

[fob]

40. You are not making a "truthful point". You are making an assertion

based on limited facts. Salaries/wages are costs that may affect pricing, but that doesn't mean that paying decent wages is exclusive to a discount retailer scenario. Someone else pointed out the Costco model uses unionized employees, pays good wages and competes pricewise with Mall-Wart.

SIDEBAR
If the avg WM has 250 employees and all of them get a $2/hr raise that's an additional $20,000 in costs so with these additional costs WM can do several things, the stores can have it come out of their budget, out of their profit, raise prices, FIRE 1 worker making $10/hr, stay open one more hour, or some other marketing to increase hourly sales, or whatever else they want to do.

As for my "claiming you are someone you are not", that was a joke. Well, not a joke really, more a rhetorical device.

[Baltimoreboy]

58. Truthful points

Walmart has a history and various attitudes. To make a point based on that history and attitudes is more than just an assertion, it is a logical conclusion based on facts.

You have every right to disagree, but I see little evidence of other type of behavior in the U.S. economy.

Your sidbar math is a little bogus. You left out the total. It's only $20,000 PER WEEK. Over a year, that's $1 million per store based on your assumptions.

[fob]

65. Here is the full paragraph, I used brackets and some info disappeared

SIDEBAR
If the avg WM has 250 employees and all of them get a $2/hr raise that's an additional $20,000 in costs(FY2003 shows WM had 244.5 BILLION in sales which using 3000 stores open 80 hours a week translates into sales of just shy of $20,000 an HOUR!) so with these additional costs WM can do several things, the stores can have it come out of their budget, out of their profit, raise prices(which would mean probably a penny or two on a few popular items), FIRE 1 worker making $10/hr, stay open one more hour(really would have to stay open probably an hour and a half to cover the overhead of staying open an extra hour), or some other marketing to increase hourly sales(like beat up suppliers to reduce their costs, which in turn puts pricing pressure on the local stores that do pay good wages and in the end go under giving WM even more clout to use and abuse the community), or whatever else they want to do(like hire illegal aliens to clean the store afterhours at less than market wages and no access to typical American safe workplace standards.


<start new>
My sidebar math isn't bogus at all, you appear to agree at the $20,000 number, how is that bogus? Perhaps the missing data led you to believe that I was insinuating that $20K was their TOTAL cost impact, as you can see withthe full info, that was not my intent. I regret the error. You are right though in that $20,000 costs is only per week, but as you see in the full monty above, WM makes $20,000 AN HOUR!! Or, since you seem to prefer yearly totals, $81,500,000 per store. That $1 million isn't such a big number after all, now is it.


Since we're into the yearly numbers let's look at what the cost to the "poor people customers" would pay per item. There's probably no way to determine the total number of items over $80 million in sales represents but we can use some averages. Let's say each store sells 10 million items at an average price of $8.15 each. Probably not too far off. So AFTER Mall-Wart gives EVERYONE in the store a $2/HR raise and let's say they pass it ENTIRELY onto the "poor people customer's", that means they now have to have gross sales of $82.5 million over 10 million items means that each item now costs an $8.25. A whopping DIME! Now let's say the 10 million items are bought buy 50,000 people (ppc's remember), that means each ppc bought 200 items and at a dime extra per item shelled out an additional $20 over the YEAR!!

Now imagine if the total raise money available was spread out from bottom to top, the entry level workers get a bigger raise and the top managers etc would probably get a minimal to no raise and see how THAT would affect the community.

[Baltimoreboy]

69. Continuing with the math

First off, we are mixing fantasy and reality. How many employees DOES a Walmart store have? You are using some real numbers and some fictional or guesswork numbers. Businesses can't operate that way.

Now, as to the rest, you are talking about adding (according to the fantasy numbers) $1 million in costs per store. If Walmart, as another poster claims, only makes about 3% profit, there goes a huge chunk of it.

Again, at the end, you are guessing with numbers again. You have no real idea how many "items" each store sells. What we do know is that, under this scenario, costs would go up 1.2% just based on salary. Tack on another .4% due to increase in benefits. (It is a standard HR calculation to include benefit costs as one third of cost of salary.) That famous Walmart profit is either whittling down to nothing or they pass those costs onto the consumers and suck another $1 million out of each community they operate in.

[wuushew]

75. If wages exactly matched inflation then it would not be an issue

If a union demanded higher wages and then Wal-mart raised prices the union would then in turn demand higher wages. If everybody was unionized(which they should be) we would not be a society that suffers wage stagnation. All I want is to force corporations and fat cats to give up a piece of the pie.

As to what economist think it is thought that the effects of unionization are not inflationary, but is rather to have a very slight effect on the level of unemployement. This seems like a bargin to me in a nation of exhausted working poor. Not to mention the postive effect that unions have on workplace ethics, safety and increased productivity. Pro-Labor is pro-American!

[Baltimoreboy]

81. Everybody unionized?

Politicians? CEOs? Models?

Or was that hyperbole?

[wuushew]

84. Yes

Since workers always outnumber owners it would be a victory of populism at the very least. As opposed to what we have now which is a combination of aristocracy and fascism.

I am willing to try more extreme measures like true socialism, but I guess that probably scares the shit out of you.

[Baltimoreboy]

87. Absolute anything scares me

Absolute capitalism (no regulation), absolute socialism (no incentive), absolute unionism (Sorry Mr. President, the military is on strike.)

[StandUpGuy]

91. Absolute socialism = no incentive ???????

you should stop drinking the cool aid or reading Ayn Rand.

Please site a single example of Absolute socialism that has equaled no incentive.

Even if it does scare you.

[StandUpGuy]

103. Absolute socialism = no incentive ???????

Still waiting for one single example.

[Baltimoreboy]

104. Much like absolute capitalism

Absolute socialism hasn't been tried anywhere of note.

Both still scare me.

[StandUpGuy]

117. Nice try tricky dick

You listed Absolute capitalism then in brackets (no regulation).

I'm assuming that your definition of pure capitalism is no regulation.

Then you listed Absolute socialism and in brackets (no incentive)

What exactly are you trying to say....

When we see a society with 'no incentive' we will see true socialism?

Please prove or explain.

Thanks for sparing with me,

[Baltimoreboy]

121. True capitalism

Has no regulations. It is rampant and abusive capitalism without government restraing. No environmental laws. No health and safety laws. No labor laws. Etc. It's an absolute. Absolutely unattainable. Absolutely horrible.

I view ABSOLUTE socialism the same way. If everyone shares, no one cares. Absolutely unattainable. Absolutely horrible.

[StandUpGuy]

123. OK you lose I'm not playing anymore

"everyone shares no one cares"

Thats right off the back of the kool aid package.

I'm not going to try and bust that logic nor do I think I need to to fight the good fight. Not many people will follow those RW talking points if thats all you can do to defend them.

[Baltimoreboy]

124. Wow, I don't like unbridled capitalism

Or unbridled socialism.

You caught me.

[StandUpGuy]

125. No what I caught you doing is...

Characterizing Absolute Socialism with tired Capitalist dogma that has been manufactured to create the dis-information you find yourself using.

apparently subconsciously because every time I call you on it you slip and slide trying to shift your justification for using mindless drivel like

"everyone shares no one cares"

You may fear unbridled socialism without justification, but it is just silly to regurgitate the kool aid ingredients here.

Just think about how much you are limiting your own experience.

[Baltimoreboy]

126. Feel free to describe absolute socialism

With tired socialist dogma instead of tired capitalist dogma. I couldn't care less. Absolutes of either one of those kinds scare me.

[StandUpGuy]

127. I don't need to or want to ....but

If I was going to play like you I'd have said.....

Absolute Capitalism (No Logic)
Absolute Socialism (No Oppression)


or

Absolute Capitalism (No Joy)
Absolute Socialism (No Fear)

but thats just me playing along with your rules.

[Baltimoreboy]

128. Well we've already proven your second definition incorrect

Since I have made it clear I fear it. I doubt I would be alone.

I won't agree with the no joy definition for absolute capitalism either. I imagine the couple rich fucks who ran everything would be pretty happy.

I think no logic applies to both versions.

[StandUpGuy]

129. No what we proved...

Is that you have irrational fears based on RW talking points.

And I have noted that these fears limit your ability to experience.

I'd love to continue this later but I must retire for a while.

Thank you again.

This is what makes our site the best on the net.

I think we can agree on that.
:headbang:

[Baltimoreboy]

130. Lacking any true examples of either absolute

Both of our fears are based on conjecture only, not rw or lw talking points.

[StandUpGuy]

131. OK this time I'm really outta here for a while

But I never mentioned any fears I have.

Can I ask where you came up with

"everyone shares no one cares"

That seems pretty polished

Congrats if its original !

[Baltimoreboy]

132. Sorry, spur of the moment

Aiming for quick and quipy. If you didn't like it, I will strive for more literary next time.

I like rhyming, which explains why I am not a poet. Perhaps I should work for Hallmark. ;)

[StandUpGuy]

133. Or a sound bite factory.

:toast:

[Baltimoreboy]

135. That sounds like it would pay well

But I fear (there's that word again) that they are more common on the right and I couldn't stand it.

[wuushew]

95. Firefighters and Policemen belong to unions

Since they save more lives every year than the military takes I don't think this is valid argument, certainly workers in the Department of Homeland Security deserve full benefits.

[Baltimoreboy]

96. Perioidically they also strike

It's bad enough when police strike, they threaten the security of a city. If the military went on strike, it would threaten the entire life of the nation. That's lunacy.

Now, despite the benefits, we need to pay them a bunch more.

[fob]

94. "we are mixing fantasy and reality". WE? Speak for yourself.

I quantify my numbers and translate to the same units for comparison. Of course we could get more precise numbers if we had access to WM accounting data, but the point is degrees of magnitude.

You are the one who is trying to manipulate the numbers. Massage the $20,000/week to $1 million/year to make it seem bigger, then refer to their profit as 3% to make it seem smaller. Why not calcualte the profit (or gross margin)out? You also round down the other poster's claims. You use 3% when they said 3.5%, it's easy enough to look up, why fudge it? The total sales is a real number (use dogpile.com and search wal-mart total sales - 244.5 billion is for FY 2003) and they just opened their 3000th store recently, so if anything the per store number I used is UNDERreported. Using an average is a valid tool fo rour prupose ($244,500,000,000 / 3000 = $81,500,000 per store). Will some make more and some less than that? Yes. That's why we use an average.

What is the GM/profit on $81,500,000? $2,852,500! So that $1 million is 35% of GM/Profits. That leaves plenty yet! Even if you add the benies, it may approach 50/50. And if you don't think a community full of people that have decent wages won't INCREASE the annual sales of the dame damn Mall-Wart, you are in fantasyland.

Having said that, and if you don't like my numbers, go read this article.

www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040707/news_lz1e7ghorpade.html

This story explains that WM is spending a LOT of money by chasing the low-wage route to their business plan. Basically their shitty wages result in HUGE turnover, turnover means advertising, hiring, training and that costs REAL money. This story cites WM sources and calculates these costs approach $1,000,000,000 (BILLION!) dollars. Tell me who's cheneying who.

<snip>
One estimate given by Wal-Mart sources places its cost just to test, interview and train at $2,500 per new hire. If that is the case, and setting its annual turnover at 50 percent, Wal-Mart is spending about $1 billon on simply servicing some aspects of its turnover. When that is added to Wal-Mart's wage rates, its total labor cost becomes less appealing. And this estimate does include loss of productivity that can be attributed to a constantly changing work force.
<end snip>

[Baltimoreboy]

97. $20,000 a week IS $1 million a year

I didn't need to massage it.

So, in your new, but still estimated (based on a theoretical number of employees), you sliced the company's profits in half. I bet stockholders would just love that.

And even though turnover has costs, it also saves some. Fewer benefits paid for instance. Less chance of a union, which again saves money and eliminates the chance of a strike. A work stoppage for a 3,000 store chain would cost billions of dollars.

[fob]

108. What about the other numbers?

Did you even read the story at the link?

While you are trying to hire someone to take the place of another that quit that doesn't mean their workload disappears. You maynot have that wage and benefits to pay out, but you now have to pay OT to the remaining employees to take up the slack, or let the work go idle which means lost sales for items not stocked, or irate customers that can't wait and go elsewhere, PLUS the costs identified in the story. IF WM would just pay decent wages (like Costco) they could cut their turnover by half and save $500,000,000 dollars!!

$20,000 a week IS $1 million a year, I didn't need to massage it
You didn't massage the simple multiplication problem, you massaged the argument by reformatting the number over a greater time period to make it seem bigger by comparison. I normalized the numbers to show what $20,000 represented for each side.

So, in your new, but still estimated (based on a theoretical number of employees), you sliced the company's profits in half. I bet stockholders would just love that.

The number of employees used is irrelevant, the point is that even with 3.5% profit there is PLENTY of room for decent wages,especially if you include the potentioa savings from lowering turnover! As for the stockholders, they would be ecstatic if a corporation made moves to secure it's future with a more stable, predictable labor cost.

Less chance of a union? Maybe, maybe not. Eventually the union busting ways will catch up and the employees will organize.

Eliminate the chance of a strike? HAHAHAHAHA, that's funny! By pushing their low-wage ways they have driven their workforce turnover through the roof. With 50% turnover this is tantamount to a self-inflicted strike for 6 months out of the year at a cost of a billion dollars!

Given your stand on the issue, would you be willing to work there?

[yankeedem]

116. Not to mention the tax burden

on the community to support underpaid Walmart employees is less, and most employees are going to leave that $2/hr raise right in Walmart when they are paid.

Walmart will have better quality employees, lower turnover (hiring and training a new employee costs several thousand dollars), probably more profits too.

But they take the low road, on our dime.

[lapislzi]

52. You may be correct, but that sure doesn't make it OK

and I sure will never shop there unless and until the workforce is represented by a union. Then if I have to pay an extra $0.12 for a jar of spaghetti sauce, I'll suck it up.

[wuushew]

10. The economy is demand driven not supply driven

see recent DU thread on effects of raising the minimum wage.

[Baltimoreboy]

13. And customers demand low prices

So if the stores get unionized and salaries can't be cut, staff will be.

[lapislzi]

21. Price is not all things to all people

While it is true that many customers prefer low prices, it is not the only criteria used in making a buying decision.

I will never, ever shop in Wal-mart or any of its satellites again. I don't care how cheap their shit is.

[Baltimoreboy]

33. For some people it is the top reason

The less money you have, the more price is a consideration.

[lapislzi]

42. You're constructing a spiral argument

The lower wages at places like Wal-Mart sink, the less money consumers will have to spend, fueling a downward spiral.

Pay your workers a living wage and they will feel better about paying more for YOUR product.

[RetroLounge]

27. "salaries can't be cut, staff will be"

Good, cut the fucking staff. Who needs a bunch of 75 yr old greeters telling you where you can buy $3 detergent?

I don't and never will shop at Walmart, and post as stupid as your makes me realize I am correct.

RL

[Baltimoreboy]

34. What is stupid about stating how the company will handle it?

I am not advocating that choice in any way. I am merely stating reality. A reality many here seem to not want to hear.

[lapislzi]

46. Saying it isn't stupid, but doing it would be

That is an unbelievably shortsighted strategy.

Who is going to buy your cheap plastic crap if people don't have jobs, can't afford to eat or go to the doctor. Doesn't matter how cheap you make the Martha Stewart napkin rings (or whatever); nobody's going to buy them.

[Krupskaya]

24. take some time

...and check out WalMart's profits. They can afford to pay "their" people union wages.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. very well put

I like it when someone is able to state the case against Wal-Mart in a nutshell. Typically the people I talk to aren't willing to listen to a point that take more than ten seconds to make. :eyes:

It's really that simple -- with the enormous profits Wal-Mart makes, they can treat their employees better and still keep prices low. It's not like they're just barely above water.

[dorktv]

38. Most of the time the increases in pay amount to pennies.

For instance it would cost McDonald's 10 cents a burger to increase their workers wages to $10 per hour.

[sbj405]

66. Interesting analogy I heard on AAR

I think when Franken did his show about WalMart. When Henry Ford started making cars, he made sure to pay his employees enough so they could buy a car. Walmart is basically creating it's own market with it's employees. They get paid crap, they can't afford to shop anywhere else.

Re: Costco. The reason they are competitive in pricing is that the CEO pays himself a relatively low salary and the amount of profit on each item is limited (can't remember the %, but it is low compared with other retailers).

[Mad As Hell]

7. Agree.

Certainly if the Republicans can say that preserving the sanctity of marriage is a homeland security issue (Santorum last week), we can say that unionizing Wal-Mart is a matter of homeland security -- economic security -- make the whole country strong. Instead of a weak, fragile banana republic with the Waltons and their ilk having all of the power.

[dorktv]

35. In one of my surveys I have to fill out as a candidate I was

as about the greatest threat facing America today. I immediately said massive dispareties in income in America. I still think that is a BIGGER threat then anything an outside enemy could send against us. You have homegrown people with nothing to lose, where do you think their rage is going to go?

[Solon]

36. Half the Shit Wal Mart does is illegal anyways...

First off, their profit margin is probably closer to 30%, if you think that is high let me tell you how much they pay, wholesale for a lawn chair (Cheap aluminum ones). They pay a grand total of $1.95, guess what it retails for? Retail price is around $19.95 give or take a few cents. They twist the arms of suppliers to force them to outsource thier work, then they DEMAND a certian price, and if it still cannot be met, they change suppliers. This is for suppliers that Wal Mart does not own a majority share in to begin with, many of the brands and shit Wal Mart uses they OWN. They manufacture much of the shit that is in the store themselves through satelite companies.

Not to mention the price fixing and other unethical and illegal business practices that occur in each and every store EVERYDAY. I remember doing this shit for them while working there, at the time I had no clue it was illegal, and I had shitty pay to boot. One of the preferred methods that Wal Mart does is, if there is a hot item that more than one store has, Wal Mart will slash its price till they can sell it at a loss, then they would raise prices on other items that are steady sellers (Food is a favorite). All those low prices are an illusion, for example, their censored CD's and DVD's are not any cheaper than at any Best Buy or Curcuit City, that is true of ALL the electronics. Same for Jewelry, most of the Food, and much of the L+G and Sporting Goods, not to mention Automotive and Hardware. You can find as cheap or cheaper prices, with better quality products, at Auto Zone, Lowes, or even at the local Sporting Goods store.

The only exception is probably Clothes, they are cheaper than many other places, but they also fall apart, due to poor quality, much quicker as well. Therefore you have to return to replace the same shitty clothes with more shitty clothes, just because something is cheaper, doesn't mean it is of the same quality as other places.

[Aries]

39. The government tilts the playing field against unions.

If we could only get those damn government regulators out of labor-management relations!

Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act.

Eliminate the National Labor Relations Board.

Apply the First Amendment to the work site--free speech and free association. (I know, that goes against the "property rights" religion so prevalent in the U.S.)

And while we're at it, remove corporations from the legal definition of "personhood", and take away their constitutional rights as "persons".

[Bill McBlueState]

47. if a corporation is a person

My brother saw some a documentary about the idea that a corporation is a person. I forget the title, but he seemed to think it was pretty well known.

Anyway, the premise as he relates it to me is that, if a real person had the attributes of a corporation, that person would become alienated from any social structure he belonged to. If your bottom line was strictly profit, or more generally, your own well-being, your family would hate you, your spouse would divorce you, and your neighbors wouldn't talk to you. You'd be reduced to surfing the net for porn and watching infomercials 24/7.

If a corporation were a person, it wouldn't have any friends.

[Aries]

53. "The Corporation"

http://www.thecorporation.tv/about/

One hundred and fifty years ago, the corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic and pervasive presence in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, the corporation is today’s dominant institution. But history humbles dominant institutions. All have been crushed, belittled or absorbed into some new order. The corporation is unlikely to be the first to defy history. In this complex and highly entertaining documentary, Mark Achbar, co-director of the influential and inventive MANUFACTURING CONSENT: NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE MEDIA, teams up with co-director Jennifer Abbott and writer Joel Bakan to examine the far-reaching repercussions of the corporation’s increasing preeminence.

[Bill McBlueState]

55. yeah, that's it!

now to figure out where to see it. I found a list of showtimes & places at http://www.thecorporation.tv/usa but I'll have to drive a couple hours to the nearest theater.

[Joanne98]

45. If Walmart was unionized

Then they couldn't hire illegal aliens. It is a national security issue. Al Quaida could walk across the southern border and get jobs working for Walmart posing as mexican illegals. The country is not safe until Walmart is unionized.

[senseandsensibility]

56. I agree

All workers should at least have the right to unionize, and their should be a living wage amendment.