PDA

View Full Version : Wal-Mart encore une fois


rlohmann
January 28th, 2006, 07:48 PM
The Maryland legislature has now overridden the Governor's veto of a bill regulating employee health benefits, a veto that has the effect of compelling Wal-Mart, and only Wal-Mart, to spend considerably more on employee health-insurance payments than it has been spending.

As expected, the Company has undertaken a serious reappraisal of its plans, suspended when the veto initiative was announced, to build a distribution center in Somerset County, the poorest county in the State. That project would have brought over 500 jobs directly to the Lower Eastern Shore, and nearly that many more indirectly.

Also, of course, if the law survives the legal challenges already mounted, Wal-Mart's prices will go up.

I'm most anxious to hear from the Usual Suspects their solutions to the problem. You've slain the evil dragon. Now, how does the County get the the 800+ jobs and keep the retail prices down?

Lindsey
January 28th, 2006, 11:24 PM
I'm most anxious to hear from the Usual Suspects their solutions to the problem. You've slain the evil dragon. Now, how does the County get the the 800+ jobs and keep the retail prices down?
Not so long ago, you said that employees who didn't like the way Wal-Mart treated them could simply take jobs elsewhere. So if it's so easy for them, it shouldn't be so hard for those workers on the Eastern Shore, should it?

a veto[sic] that has the effect of compelling Wal-Mart, and only Wal-Mart, to spend considerably more on employee health-insurance payments than it has been spending.
"Considerably more?" But Wal-Mart's argument was that they were already paying almost as much as the bill required. Were they wrong, or are you?

If there's anything at fault here, it's a health care system that relies largely on employers to provide health insurance. The solution is universal health care. That's why car manufacturers are moving out of the US to places like Canada, that provide that -- it reduces the manufacturing cost something like $1000 per car. So you would think Wal-Mart would support universal health care initiatives. They don't. Why?

If it's "Wal-Mart, and only Wal-Mart" who is affected by this bill, maybe it's because it's Wal-Mart, and only Wal-Mart, who is out of step. Why should they be allowed to push the burden of their workers' health care onto the taxpayers of the communities in which they are located? If their competitors can provide health care at a level that passes muster with the Maryland law, why can't Wal-Mart?

--Lindsey

rlohmann
January 30th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Not so long ago, you said that employees who didn't like the way Wal-Mart treated them could simply take jobs elsewhere. So if it's so easy for them, it shouldn't be so hard for those workers on the Eastern Shore, should it?The people in Somerset County have no jobs to begin with. Since those in sympathy with you appear to have encouraged a potential employer in that county to take its business elsewhere, I asked you what the County is supposed to do now.

I await your response with interest.

Judy G. Russell
January 30th, 2006, 09:19 PM
How about trying to lure in other business? And if the place is so bad that it can't lure in other business, how about telling people to move?

Lindsey
January 30th, 2006, 10:52 PM
The people in Somerset County have no jobs to begin with. Since those in sympathy with you appear to have encouraged a potential employer in that county to take its business elsewhere, I asked you what the County is supposed to do now.

I await your response with interest.
There are 30 other states considering similar measures. Where is Wal-Mart going to go?

Besides, one of Wal-Mart's arguments is that it is already close to the 8 percent threshold the law requires. If that's true, why would it be so very difficult for them to close that gap, especially when the other three Maryland employers with over 10,000 employees -- Johns Hopkins, Northrup Grumman, and one of Wal-Mart's competitors, Giant Foods, have managed to do it?

And then there's this from a recent NYT article (January 13, "Maryland Sets a Health Cost For Wal-Mart"):

Mr. Pollack [Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit health advocacy organization] suggested that he did not expect any groundswell of opposition from corporate America. Most companies, he said, provide insurance and know that the costs of medical treatment for uninsured people are reflected in their insurance premiums. Mr. Pollack said that, by his organization's calculations, the cost of such treatment drove up employer premiums by $922 a family last year. In 2006, he said, the added cost could reach $1,000 a family.

''Those employers should welcome the fact that the companies that do not offer coverage now will be forced to step up to the plate,'' he said.




In other words, the employers in Maryland who DO provide health insurance to their employees are shouldering part of the cost of Wal-Mart's not supplying it. How is that fair?

--Lindsey

rlohmann
February 1st, 2006, 05:03 PM
If that's the best answer you can come up with to my question about how you propose to get those 800 jobs back, your economic theories are pretty empty of substantive content.

It's all very well to dislike Wal-Mart, but if you want to take action on that dislike, you have to have answers to questions like mine.

And you evidently don't.

Judy G. Russell
February 1st, 2006, 10:14 PM
Oh please. I do not have to have answers about how one goes about getting those specific 800 jobs back. I can propose vigorous action to develop other jobs and job bases as an alternative, and I have done so. It is no more the right of that county to have all other Marylanders subsidize the healthcare of that county's WalMart workforce than it is the right of WalMart to have all other employers (and taxpayers) subsidize its employees' healthcare.

rlohmann
February 3rd, 2006, 06:45 PM
You're assuming facts not in evidence.

In fact, no one knows--because Wal-Mart doesn't make its employee personnel information public--how many of its employees are retirees with their own health benefits. There are indications that many are.

Even that's largely beside the point. Much of the big-money support for the veto came from the AFL-CIO and from the Giant Food Corp., which has been in bed with the AFL-CIO for decades and which offers prices sometimes as much as 30% higher than Wal-Mart. (There's a Wal-Mart with a grocery section--not all Wal-Marts have them--in Salisbury just a hundred meters or so from a Giant. The Giant is always relatively empty; the Wal-Mart is always packed.)

Why do you think that is?

The arguments against Wal-Mart seem so virtuous, but are in reality nothing more than a major oversimplification of the microenomic issues. You inveigh against a purported "right" of Somerset County "to have all other Marylanders subsidize the healthcare of that county's WalMart workforce." What about those county residents who, with limited incomes, shop at Wal-Mart because it has lower prices? The residents that avoid Giant because they can't afford its prices? How do you address their concerns?

The AFL-CIO, with the mendacity of which you are familiar, doesn't seem to care about them because they don't pay union dues.

I'm happy that you've advocated "vigorous action." I'll tell the folks in Princess Anne that the next time I'm over there. I'm sure they'll be cheered. However, I might have a little difficulty explaining how "vigorous action" is preferable to having those 800 jobs that are apparently not going to eventuate.

Wal-Mart was willing to bring 800 jobs. You cheered when they were told to go pound sand, and you now promise "vigorous action" in lieu of.

Well....

rlohmann
February 3rd, 2006, 06:49 PM
You--and many others--seem to think that there's something inherently evil about a free-market economy. Wal-Mart has a business model that many of its competitors don't like. Certainly the AFL-CIO doesn't like it.

None of the big opponents in Maryland--see my note to Judy--seem to want to address the interests of the customers who shop at Wal-Mart because its prices are lower.

Would you care to?

Judy G. Russell
February 3rd, 2006, 07:43 PM
Since WalMart says it is already spending very nearly 8% on health insurance, just what would the effects be of complying with the law?

Lindsey
February 4th, 2006, 12:34 AM
You--and many others--seem to think that there's something inherently evil about a free-market economy.
I don't believe in completely laissez-faire capitalism, if that's what you mean by the term "free market." I think capitalist systems have to be regulated to some extent in order to avoid the inequalities and abuses that would otherwise eventually bring the whole system down.

Wal-Mart has a business model that many of its competitors don't like. Certainly the AFL-CIO doesn't like it.
Wal-Mart has a business model that depends on offloading some of its costs onto others. And I think in the long run, that is bad for everyone except the Walton family.

None of the big opponents in Maryland--see my note to Judy--seem to want to address the interests of the customers who shop at Wal-Mart because its prices are lower.
Wal-Mart's prices are not universally lower. Wal-Mart has a low-balled item in each category (called the "opening price point") that is used to attract your attention, and create the illusion of unbeatable prices, but the idea behind the opening price point is that you will then turn your attention to the more upscale items of that category, which are not necessarily the lowest prices in town.

But to the extent that any of its prices are lower, Wal-Mart has, as I said, achieved that by externalizing some of their costs. Those externalized costs include food stamps and other assistance for low-wage workers, unemployment benefits for workers whose employers have been forced to move overseas to meet Wal-Mart's unit price demands, and higher health insurance premiums for other employers to cover the health care expenses of uninsured workers who cannot pay the doctors and the hospitals, and Wal-Mart has even offloaded its costs onto its own workers in the form of unpaid overtime and other violations of the US labor law.

You are mourning the potential loss of 800 jobs in Somerset County; but what about the 1000 actual jobs that were lost in Circleville, Ohio, when the Thompson Consumer Electronics plant there closed down because the jobs they had done moved to China, thanks, at least in part, to Wal-Mart's insatiable demand for lower and lower prices from its suppliers? And those jobs not only paid better than Wal-Mart jobs, they had better health care and pension benefits, too.

"If people were only consumers, buying things at lower prices would be just good. But people also are workers who need to earn a decent standard of living," says economist Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute. "The dynamics that create lower prices at Wal-Mart and other places are also undercutting the ability of many, many workers to earn decent wages and benefits and have a stable life."

--Lindsey

earler
February 4th, 2006, 12:08 PM
As usual, you are mixing chalk and cheese here. First of all, I doubt that ralph is proning "pure laissez faire free markets". We all learned last century that this wasn't feasible and that some oversight is required. The problem is with the degree of oversight. If it is cumbersome, the economy suffers, as I can attest here in france, and one can see similar examples in some industries in the states over the years. One example of recent note was the deregulation of electricity in california. Alas, it was done in such a way that the deregulation was worse than regulation. Enron discovered this and used what they figured out to earn an awful lot of money and californians had recurring blackouts for almost a full year. (The recent documentary about enron highlighted this, but overlooked or misunderstood the real cause of enron's ability "to stick it to" the state.

All this has nothing to do with the fact that all developed countries have changed from societies whose economies relies on manufacturing to economies relying on services. While some 80% of workers after ww2 were in manufacturing jobs, only 20% or so are today. The same is true here in europe, by the way. So, why compare chalk and cheese?

-er

Lindsey
February 4th, 2006, 09:56 PM
First of all, I doubt that ralph is proning "pure laissez faire free markets".
If you don't mind, I'd prefer to let Ralph speak for himself and explain what he was talking about.

One example of recent note was the deregulation of electricity in california. Alas, it was done in such a way that the deregulation was worse than regulation.
And you think this makes a case that business in the US is overregulated? I think I must disagree.

All this has nothing to do with the fact that all developed countries have changed from societies whose economies relies on manufacturing to economies relying on services.
I don't think anyone is disputing that that transition. I do question, though, whether it is a good thing for the workers affected by it. Recent history has shown that services are just as easy to move overseas as manufacturing, and they don't pay as well in the first place.

--Lindsey

earler
February 5th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Some businesses in the states. For example, the milk industry, telephones (by state puc's), both of which are regulated for the interest of the suppliers of the products and services involved, and not for the benefit of the consumers. Then there is network television, certainly overregulated as to content.

As for service jobs, far from all are low paying, as the overall prosperity of americans proves. And, while some service jobs can be moved, not always overseas, by the way, but often to another state, most can't. Otherwise, unemployment wouldn't be at
4.7%, as it is today in the states.

-er

Lindsey
February 5th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Some businesses in the states. For example, the milk industry, telephones (by state puc's), both of which are regulated for the interest of the suppliers of the products and services involved, and not for the benefit of the consumers. Then there is network television, certainly overregulated as to content.
What have any of those to do with electricity in California?

--Lindsey

earler
February 6th, 2006, 10:37 AM
It has to do with deregulation, which you seem to condemn as leading to high prices. In this case, milk is expensive because of regulation.

-er

Lindsey
February 6th, 2006, 07:02 PM
It has to do with deregulation, which you seem to condemn as leading to high prices. In this case, milk is expensive because of regulation.

There you go again, with a warped interpretation of what I actually said. I never made any such statement.

--Lindsey

earler
February 7th, 2006, 04:06 AM
Since you did say the following, "And you think this makes a case that business in the US is overregulated? I think I must disagree.", it is clear that you like regulation and that business should be regulated more than it is. My opinion is that regulation is, alas, required, but that it is usually applied to preserve special privileges for some and/or to harass some. Curiously enough, much regulation does both.

Mind you, I shouldn't say that excessive regulation is sui generis in the states.

-er

Lindsey
February 7th, 2006, 07:02 PM
You misunderstood my meaning. I was disagreeing that the problems associated with DEregulation in California made any sense as an argument AGAINST regulation.

--Lindsey

rlohmann
February 8th, 2006, 06:37 PM
You misunderstood my meaning. I was disagreeing that the problems associated with DEregulation in California made any sense as an argument AGAINST regulation.As soon as I translate that into English, I'll respond to it.

:rolleyes:

rlohmann
February 8th, 2006, 06:41 PM
Since I'm not privy to Wal-Mart's numbers, I have no idea, but perhaps you might want to explain why, if that number is accurate, the law was necessary in the first place. If the number isn't accurate, you might want to explain who determined that it wasn't.

rlohmann
February 8th, 2006, 06:49 PM
You are mourning the potential loss of 800 jobs in Somerset County; but what about the 1000 actual jobs that were lost in Circleville, Ohio, when the Thompson Consumer Electronics plant there closed down because the jobs they had done moved to China, thanks, at least in part, to Wal-Mart's insatiable demand for lower and lower prices from its suppliers?We here at the Legal Section of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy have always held that

(1) If the facts are against you, pound the law;

(2) If the law is against you, pound the facts; and

(3) If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

If you want, I can get you the names and addresses of some good furniture repairpersons in Circleville, Ohio.

<sneering graciously>

lensue
February 8th, 2006, 07:43 PM
>If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.<

Ralph, is that what Khrushchev was doing at a 1960 UN conference slamming his shoe on the table! See http://tinyurl.com/96t9z Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey
February 8th, 2006, 09:04 PM
As soon as I translate that into English, I'll respond to it.
Seems plain enough to me. <shrug>

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 8th, 2006, 09:29 PM
WalMart is the source of WalMart's numbers. I suspect the State of Maryland wasn't convinced that WalMart was telling the truth.

Wayne Scott
February 12th, 2006, 12:02 PM
There YOU go again. You make wild statements but don't tolerate anyone else's making a statement without presenting a list of references.
Your general attitude is, "I'm right. Now, prove I'm not. List concrete illustrations of everything you've ever said."

Wayne Scott
February 12th, 2006, 12:04 PM
Naturally what you say is plain to you.

<shrug, sneer, shrug>

Jeff
February 12th, 2006, 01:32 PM
There YOU go again. You make wild statements but don't tolerate anyone else's making a statement without presenting a list of references.
Your general attitude is, "I'm right. Now, prove I'm not. List concrete illustrations of everything you've ever said."

What is the matter with YOU?

Lindsey
February 12th, 2006, 11:15 PM
There YOU go again. You make wild statements but don't tolerate anyone else's making a statement without presenting a list of references.
Your general attitude is, "I'm right. Now, prove I'm not. List concrete illustrations of everything you've ever said."
Now you're the one who is making a warped interpretation of what I've said. Earle claimed I had said that deregulation leads to higher prices. I never said any such thing; if someone accuses me of saying something I didn't say, don't I have a right to deny ever saying it? Why should it be my task to prove a negative, rather than the other person's task to prove that I said it?

That said: Where did I ask Earle for "references," (I assume you mean citations), or ask him for a list of everything he had ever said? What did I say that even came CLOSE to that?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 12th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Naturally what you say is plain to you.

<shrug, sneer, shrug>
Instead of sneering and shruging, you might tell me what it is you don't understand and at least give me a chance to clarify.

--Lindsey

earler
February 13th, 2006, 06:40 AM
A young woman entered a cloistered monastery where the nuns could speak two words only every ten years. At the end of the first ten years, the woman said to the Mother Superior "Bad food." At the end of the second ten years, the woman said to the Mother Superior "Hard work." At the end of the third ten years, the woman said to the Mother Superior "Cold bed." At the end of the fourth ten years, the woman, not so young, said to the Mother Superior "I quit." To which the Mother replied, "Well, it's about time, you've done nothing but bitch since you started."


-er

Wayne Scott
February 13th, 2006, 12:36 PM
Now you're the one who is making a warped interpretation of what I've said. Earle claimed I had said that deregulation leads to higher prices. I never said any such thing; if someone accuses me of saying something I didn't say, don't I have a right to deny ever saying it? Why should it be my task to prove a negative, rather than the other person's task to prove that I said it?

That said: Where did I ask Earle for "references," (I assume you mean citations), or ask him for a list of everything he had ever said? What did I say that even came CLOSE to that?

--Lindsey
Of course you never said anything like that. Of course you never asked for references or citations. Of course you only said cogent things and those who don't agree are wrong.

Lindsey
February 14th, 2006, 11:17 PM
I'm glad you agree that you mischaracterized what I said.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 15th, 2006, 03:11 AM
Of course you never said anything like that. Of course you never asked for references or citations. Of course you only said cogent things and those who don't agree are wrong.

Okay, Wayne, let's all sing along . . . from the top . . . .

'O, Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way . . . .

Hmmm? Not everybody seems to be singing????? Ah well . . . some people just aren't any fun!