Doesn't the Catholic Church know that Walmart has the sacred American right to exploit workers with poverty level wages while the company founders are the richest people in America? It almost seems from the following statement that the Catholic Church actually is completely opposed to our Administration on a basic issue... Perhaps good Catholics shouldn't have voted for Bush and shouldn't vote for Republicans in general due to their anti-union practices? They may or may not have reasons to vote for Democrats, but there are definite reasons that people of deep spiritual values should not vote for Republicans either.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Victor Plenty
Nonsense, Dave. Your economic theory is pure nonsense. If what employeers are worth were exactly equal to what they are paid, no company would ever make a profit.
Profit is the difference between the value the employees add to the company by doing their work, and the value they receive in the form of wages or salaries. This is the basic fundamental truth of profit, although ideologies attempt to hide this truth by masking it in layer upon layer of morally bankrupt economic theory.
Every company needs to profit, so employees are never paid exactly what their labor is worth. This in itself is not morally bankrupt.
My objection to Wal-Mart is that it pays its employees so much less than the value of the work they do. The company could not exist at all without the work done by its employees, so they deserve a larger share of its profits than what they are currently receiving.
And no, it would not be necessary to raise retail prices to achieve this. That's just another falsehood used to distract people while they get robbed.
27 - Brandon Weber
>Until you do that, you're worth the >$10.30 an hour the average WalMart >employee earns.
Another lie perpetuated by the Wal-Mart PR machine and swallowed whole by the news media and by the general public.
They used the MEAN to calculate that wage, rather than the MEDIAN. In other words, if they picked the true "middle of the pack" in terms of wages it would be much lower, and the numbers are skewed because of adding the upper management salaries into the equation.
In reality, most wages at Wally world are closer to $8.00 to $9.00/hr.
See the Business Week article at http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/990922/posts
28 - Dave Nalle
Victor, it's not really my economic theory, it's David Ricardo's.
But that aside, your entire argument is invalid because it comes from the false premise that people have an intrinsic concrete 'value' which is absolute nonsense. Our only intrinsic value is a couple of dollars worth of chemicals. Whatver other value we have is established by what we do and how well we do it.
If WalMart were paying workers less than the value which they placed on their time and efforts, then WalMart would not be able to hire workers. Since thye have plenty of workers and can always get more, the conclusion is that those workers are worth EXACTLY what WalMart pays them. If they turn out to be worth more, that is demonstrated by their moving on to better jobs, or moving up in the WalMart hierarchy - which is quite easy to do.
You say they 'deserve a larger share of its profits.'. No one deserves any more of a company's profits than they earn or are willing to claim for themselves by proving their value to the company. Workers do not have a right to larger share in a company's profits than the company finds it necessary to give them to keep them willing to work. Again, there's no intrinsic right to X amount of money for a particular job, it's what the market will bear.
In addition, since the amount WalMart pays its workers is almost exactly comparable to what workers in similar jobs in other companies earn, it seems to be about the right amount of money.
The truth you don't want to accept is that there is a segment of the population which is not qualified, capable of or deserving of earning a salary much about $12 an hour. That's just the way it is, and frankly, that's okay. Everyone does the best they can, earns what they can get for themselves, and that's how it ought to work in a free society.
If WalMart were paying less than workers needed to live on that would indicate a serious problem not with WalMart, but with our economy. Since their average salary is enough to live on - abolut $22,000 a year - and they offer fairly decent benefits and services to go with it, they are doing exactly as they should in a free market. You pay workers what you need to so that they stay with you and live well enough to be healthy and contented. We shouldn't expect any more than that from any corporation.
Dave
29 - Victor Plenty
The corporation can't exist without its workers.
The corporation can't make any profit without its workers.
Telling those workers they don't deserve to earn any more than "what the market will bear" is morally indefensible, always has been, and always will be.
The Iron Law of Wages (David Ricardo's term, if I recall correctly, for the theory you have bought into) is as ruthless and as morally bankrupt as anything dreamed up by the economic collectives of the Soviet system. It places sterile ideology at a higher value than human life and prosperity.
30 - Dave Nalle
I'm not a total Ricardian, but his basic analysis of how worker wages should be determined is fundamentally correct from an objective perspective. It derives directly from the natural trends in the labor marketplace.
>>The corporation can't exist without its workers.<<
The corporation cannot exist without workers, but that doesn't mean that it has to have any specific workers. The corporation pays what it needs to in order the get workers of the quality needed to do the jobs it has. If it needed better workers it would pay more for them. If the workers aren't quitting and the jobs are getting done, then the corporation is paying them exactly what they are worth, not a penny more or a penny less.
>>The corporation can't make any profit without its workers.<<
This is redundant, since making profits is why the corporation exists.
Dave
31 - Victor Plenty
Treating people as nothing more than raw materials for corporate profit is wrong.
No matter how objectively one can describe the most efficient ways to do this thing, it still remains the wrong thing to do.
Corporations currently exist to make a profit, because that is how our current economic system defines them. But the system was created by humans, and its ultimate purpose is to benefit human beings, not to benefit corporations. If we find our current definitions no longer benefit people, we can and must change the system.
When the current system elevates corporations to a status higher than human beings, placing the fictional entity's interests above the interests of the real people who do the work that allows it to exist in the first place, that shows a deep moral flaw in our system.
32 - Big Time Patriot
"Workers do not have a right to larger share in a company's profits than the company finds it necessary to give them to keep them willing to work."
True, at least in the way our government is presently set up. But on the other hand companys do not have any particular RIGHT to make a profit off of workers either. It's all part of a social agreement. We can choose to give companies and profit the highest priority of all in America, or we can just add it to an array of values to be balanced against others. If you choose profit as the highest law of our land, that is your choice, but that doesn't make it a law or even an economic "law". It's all by agreement, the agreement can be changed at any time.
The English had a right to suck as much tax and profit off of their American colonies as they wanted. It worked up to a certain point. I think in the present day and age we can all use our common sense and not put ourselves in servitude to some idea of "Sovereign Capitalism" where only companies interests our considered.
33 - Dave Nalle
I must be dreaming. BTP is making sense. You're exactly right that the status of workers in the employment world is determined by agreement. And right now the workers at WalMart seem to agree that they're getting paid just about the right amount. If they weren't they'd either go somewhere else or work to change the conditions where they work. But that's not happening, so we have to conclude that the marketplace has set about the right wage for them.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
>>Treating people as nothing more than raw materials for corporate profit is wrong.
No matter how objectively one can describe the most efficient ways to do this thing, it still remains the wrong thing to do.<<
Why? I don't see any moral value in such a policy at all. Does WalMart maintain their buildings and equipment so they'll keep working well and not break down? In the same way they take care of their workers needs to keep them functioning well. It's not a moral choice, it's a business decision, but does the worker care if the things he needs - good salary, basic benefits - are provided because the company loves him or because the company wants to keep him functioning as a worker?
>>Corporations currently exist to make a profit, because that is how our current economic system defines them. But the system was created by humans, and its ultimate purpose is to benefit human beings, not to benefit corporations. If we find our current definitions no longer benefit people, we can and must change the system.<<
But of course, corporations are run by and for people who benefit from how they are run. WalMart may have hundreds of thousands of employees, but they also have hundreds of thousands of shareholders, and their needs are important too - and with their stock purchase option a lot of those shareholders are also their employees.
>>When the current system elevates corporations to a status higher than human beings, placing the fictional entity's interests above the interests of the real people who do the work that allows it to exist in the first place, that shows a deep moral flaw in our system.<<
But that is inherently impossible, so long as the corporation IS a corporation, because the definition of a corporation is that it's run by and for its stockholders.
Dave
35 - Brandon Weber
>If WalMart were paying less than >workers needed to live on that would >indicate a serious problem not with >WalMart, but with our economy. Since >their average salary is enough to >live on - abolut $22,000
Again, a flat out bullshit statement pulled from Wal-Mart's PR releases.
Most WM workers make a lot LESS than that, and they make less than the poverty level.
36 - Dave Nalle
Brandon, what you're claiming as average salary at WalMart is in fact the STARTING salary level there, as confirmed by help wanted listings. How can their low-end salary and their average salary be the same?
>>Most WM workers make a lot LESS than that, and they make less than the poverty level.<<
Again, transparently untrue. Even the typical WalMart starting salary of $8/hour gives a yearly total higher than the national poverty level.
Here's an article you might want to check out from the Victorville Daily Press where they found that WalMart had the effect of raising starting salaries in the region because other businesses lost their low wage workers if they couldn't match what WalMart was paying.
Dave
37 - Brandon Weber
>Again, transparently untrue. Even the >typical WalMart starting salary of >$8/hour gives a yearly total higher >than the national poverty level.
Perhaps for a single person. Consider that a large number of Wal-Mart workers have children.
But also, your calculations are severely flawed. Consider 8 bucks an hour times 30 hours a week (which is generous -- it's often less hours than that for many workers) times 52 weeks a year...$12,480.
Poverty levels:
1 $ 9,570
2 12,830
3 16,090
4 19,350
So, for 2 people (say, a single mother with a child), it is indeed below poverty level.
38 - Dave Nalle
Brandon. Give it up.
74% of WalMart workers work full time. And you can't expect a part time worker to earn a full time salary. That's ludicrous.
And yes, you need a higher income to support two people. So perhaps the child's father should be working and contributing to the family or at least paying child support? Bingo, no problem with the poverty level any more.
Face it, the facts don't support your attempt to condemn WalMart, which clearly goes beyond the rational to some sort of vendetta.
Dave
39 - Brandon Weber
Dave,
I am by now certain that you in fact get paid by Wal-Mart to post such drivel as this. You are lifting every "statistic" that you post here from Wal-Mart press releases. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
But, just to humor you, boost the hours to 34 per week, which is "full time" according to WM.
That raises a family of 2 to JUST OVER poverty level. Wow. Thanks, Wal-Mart, you rock.
The real facts do indeed support a condemnation of the company. The "facts" that you spout are nice and fluffy, but everybody recognizes them as company PR.
40 - Dave Nalle
>>I am by now certain that you in fact get paid by Wal-Mart to post such drivel as this. <<
Paid by WalMart? I wish. Who's paying you to attack them so incompetently?
>>You are lifting every "statistic" that you post here from Wal-Mart press releases. EVERY ONE OF THEM. <<
I have no reason to believe that these figures issued by WalMart are not correct, and as noted in an earlier post I corroborated starting salaries with local job postings and with the article I linked to from the Victorville paper.
>>But, just to humor you, boost the hours to 34 per week, which is "full time" according to WM.
That raises a family of 2 to JUST OVER poverty level. Wow. Thanks, Wal-Mart, you rock.<<
Who ever said you were supposed to be supporting a family of 2 on a starting salary for one person from WalMart? Why does WalMart or any company have an obligation to increase salaries based on the personal circumstances of the employee. Oh, I have a really expensive car and a high car payment, I'll need to be paid double the usual starting salary.
What you are saying just doesn't make any sense.
>>The real facts do indeed support a condemnation of the company. The "facts" that you spout are nice and fluffy, but everybody recognizes them as company PR. <<
See above. Facts are facts. If the facts are correct, the act of quoting them in company PR doesn't somehow magically make them wrong. Ooh, another example to add to my upcoming article on 'magical thinking'. Thanks.
Dave
41 - Brandon Weber
Dave,
Clue: remove head from ass.
$14,000 a year...break it down...
Per month breakdown --
Rent (because owning a home on such wages is nearly impossible): $450
Car payment: $200
Gas (for car): $100
Food: $200
Wal-Mart supplied insurance: $160
Lights/heat/other basics: $150
Total: $1260
Total wages, $1167
Whoops, blew the budget by $100 this month. And that's presuming nothing bad happened (engine blew, large co-pays on medical, etc. etc.)
And the idea that what Wal-Mart pay is supposed to support a family of two (or even one) came about because you were yammering on about:
>In the same way they take care of >their workers needs to keep them >functioning well.
Very clearly, THEY DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THEIR WORKERS. Most of their workers DO NOT FUNCTION WELL. Many depend on state welfare and Medicaid.
Yeah, baby, that's a company _I_ want to defend...
42 - Dave Nalle
Brandon. You can't come into a discussion like this just spewing the same old fallacious arguments which we've gone over on similar threads dozens of times before and expect to be taken seriously.
Low wage workers have to be prepared to make some sacrifices until they can get a higher paying job. That means no car and no gas, and probably sharing living space with a roomate or two. Make those two very common changes to your lifestyle and a WalMart wage becomes a living wage with money to spare. People all over the world have learned to make these accomodations, why do Americans expect to have a home all to themselves and their own car when they aren't earning enough to justify it?
And BTW, I'm not just defending WalMart, I'm defending the entire retail marketplace, which you seem to have some sort of irrational anitpathy towards.
Dave
43 - Dave Nalle
Oh and...
>>Very clearly, THEY DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THEIR WORKERS. Most of their workers DO NOT FUNCTION WELL.<<
Then why don't those workers go elsewhere for employment, and why when polled do they give WalMart generally high ratings as an employer?
<< Many depend on state welfare and Medicaid. <<
If you say so - let's see some facts and statistics to back this up. I'm eager to see a count of more than 50% of WalMart workers on welfare or medicaid.
I won't hold my breath, because I know where you pulled that 'fact' from.
Dave
44 - Brandon Weber
I get my facts from the news. NOT from a Wal-Mart press release.
The arguments I present are factual, based on news reports. Yours? Hah.
Oh, and your "defending all of retail" (mighty nice of you to take up such a cause) - - Wal-Mart is the one dragging wages and benefits down for the rest of them. They are the absolute worst of the bunch. Hence the discussion that began here at the very top, regarding unions/Wal-Mart/the Catholic church.
Wal-Mart E's top welfare roles in home state
WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE USING STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS
Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid in Iowa
45 - Victor Plenty
Corporations managed only for stockholders and not for their workers are like governments managed only to benefit their kings and not their people.
Both are antithetical to the moral foundations of modern democratic society. All people have inherent moral worth. A company cannot exist or function without both its workers and its investors.
Until we devise principles of corporate management that recognize this truth, corporations will continue to abuse their legal privileges, and workers will continue trying to organize unions to protect their interests when nobody else is looking out for them.
46 - Dave Nalle
>>Oh, and your "defending all of retail" (mighty nice of you to take up such a cause) - - Wal-Mart is the one dragging wages and benefits down for the rest of them. They are the absolute worst of the bunch. Hence the discussion that began here at the very top, regarding unions/Wal-Mart/the Catholic church.<<
This is absolutely not true. Their wages are set on a nationwide basis, which means that for half the nation they are higher than the average wage in the area and therefore automatically pull wages up. Did you not bother to follow my link to the article about the impact WalMart had on retail jobs in Victorville? Go back, find it and read it.
Dave
47 - Dave Nalle
OMG you are a decitful little fiend, aren't you, Brandon. I loved your links.
WalMart leads employees on welfare in Arkansas. First, WalMart is the largest employer in Arkansas, so they have more employees, which gives them an edge. And any part time employee would automatically qualify for Welfare of some sort if they didn't have another job. AND if you actually read the article you'll see that what's going on is that WalMart workers who qualify for the state's low income childrens health insurance program are choosing to use it rather than pay more for WalMart's family insurance, because it's a better deal. The second link is to an article covering the same basic phenomenon.
The third link is different. As one of the people interviewed in the article implies, it's probably part time workers who use Medicaid instead of insurance. That article also mentions the cost of WalMart's insurance plan for their workers:
"Employees can purchase individual health insurance for $38 per month or $153 a month for a family. "
I challenge you to find a health insurance program at any other major employer that's cheaper than that. We pay 4 times as much for our family a month.
I suppose WalMart could give away free health insurance, but what they have now is an amazing bargain and yet you're attempting to vilify them for it. Do you have no shame?
Dave
48 - Steve S
As one of the people interviewed in the article implies, it's probably part time workers who use Medicaid instead of insurance.
Here in California, Wal-Mart considers anything other than 36 hours a week to be part-time and probably around 80% or more of their lower paid employees (cashiers, stockers, etc.) fall under part-time.
49 - Steve S
'anything other' should be 'anything under'.
50 - Temple Stark
The Wal-Mart health insurance plan is a known piece of garbage for the majority of its employees - extremely high deductibles for everything from doctor's visits to prescription drugs.
Its only saving grace is its emergency room coverage.
You can bet - because it happens everywhere else - that they work hard to keep people's hours at part-time to avoid those extra expenses.
51 - Brandon Weber
Dave sez,
>Employees can purchase individual >health insurance for $38 per month or >$153 a month for a family. "
>I challenge you to find a health >insurance program at any other major >employer that's cheaper than that.
Are you that naive? Just as Temple Stark replied above, the WM insurance program is made to be as cheap as everything else at the company.
Stats on Wal-Mart health insurance
Limited Benefit Plans like the one Wal-Mart uses
Great article about the workforce composition (75% women) and the impact of WM insurance on them
52 - Dave Nalle
>>Here in California, Wal-Mart considers anything other than 36 hours a week to be part-time and probably around 80% or more of their lower paid employees (cashiers, stockers, etc.) fall under part-time.<<
They claim that only 26 percent of their employees nation wide fall in that part time category.
But again I reiterate the basic point people seem to be missing. Part time employees CAN NOT expect their part time salary to be equivalent to the wages of a full time person or enough to live on by themselves. That just makes no sense.
Dave
53 - Temple Stark
Well the union site has a pretty hefty spin on it, as well. I wouldn't take their figures as gospel. Just like anything on any Web site there for marketing.
54 - Dave Nalle
>>Are you that naive? Just as Temple Stark replied above, the WM insurance program is made to be as cheap as everything else at the company.
Stats on Wal-Mart health insurance<<
I see you're sticking with non-biased sources. Got anything that's not from the union trying to bust into WalMart for me to look at?
>>Limited Benefit Plans like the one Wal-Mart uses<<
Amusingly except for the title of the article none of it is about WalMart.
I acknowledge that WalMart's insurance isn't complete, but it's a good deal for the price and provides the kind of maintenance care which is what most of their employees need. If combined with a catastrophic health plan - which is relatively cheap - it would pretty much do the job.
Dave
55 - Brandon Weber
>I see you're sticking with non-biased >sources. Got anything that's not from >the union trying to bust into WalMart >for me to look at?
Dave, you have used Wal-Mart propaganda and press releases for every single one of your arguments. Union PR has just as much legitimacy as your sources. Actually, I believe more so.
56 - Maurice
Unions are antithetical to free enterprise. Also, they kill businesses and send jobs overseas.
It is not surprising that unions and the mafia are tightly bound.
57 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Brandon. I only referenced WalMart sources for data about WalMart policies, and you have yet to disagree with any of those specific bits of fact. For objective things like wages I used other sources.
Dave
58 - Brandon Weber
>I only referenced WalMart sources for >data about WalMart policies, and you >have yet to disagree with any of >those specific bits of fact.
Ummm...yeah, sure...I haven't, have I, Dave? Not at all.
I'm beginning to think you simply enjoy verbal masturbation via weblog.
59 - Dave Nalle
>>Ummm...yeah, sure...I haven't, have I, Dave? Not at all.<<
The only way in which you disputed any of the facts I cited was to say that they were from WalMart PR. Even if true, that doesn't automatically make them wrong. See my earlier comment and link on magical thinking.
Dave
60 - Temple Stark
Brandon ... ding ding ding. You win the prize. It's clear. He .... must ... be .. right ... and everyone .... must ... agreee .. or incur .. the gumming ... of oldtimer Dave.
61 - Dave Nalle
Ah, the gumming,...the gumming. Makes me feel almost young again, by jingo!
Dave
62 - gonzo marx
Dave sez...
*by jingo!*
channeling WR Hearst again there Dave?
i always find your blatant partisanship refreshing..i admire the Honesty
heavens forfend ya stand back, use that Intellect in an Objective fashion...and participate in honest Conversation...
what am i thinking?!?!?!?
that wouldn't be half as entertaining
but it might help ta get things figured out..
Excelsior!
63 - Dave Nalle
>>channeling WR Hearst again there Dave?<<
Actually, it's a quote from The Devil and Daniel Webster, and as you can imagine I'm no Hearst fan.
>>i always find your blatant partisanship refreshing..i admire the Honesty<<
If only you could figure out just who or what I'm partisanly loyal to...
Dave
64 - gonzo marx
Dave sez..
*If only you could figure out just who or what I'm partisanly loyal to...*
bah..thas easy..yer Portfolio...
{8^)
and i'm willing to bet two cookies that you vote strictly along the Republican party line..them being almost as blatantly pro-Biz as your Posted opinions indicate..
again, not a bad thing in and of itself
i'll send ya some vitamins ta help tone up those atrophied Ethical muscles, and we can keep up the lively debate
i'll gladly take your Intellectual Integrity, and honest disclosures of possible conflict of Interest issues over the hypocritical "values" rants of the morally bankrupt whores that occupy Capitol Hill any time...
but your milage may vary, and objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear...
Excelsior!
65 - gonzo marx
oh yeah..caveat coming...
i am well Aware of where the Quote comes from..
my propensity for puns (my name after all could be construed as a pun on "absurd writings" if ya knew portuguese and spotted "marx" for marks) forced me into "jingo" to jingoism to Hearst...
just messing with ya there...
heh
Excelsior!
66 - Dave Nalle
>>and i'm willing to bet two cookies that you vote strictly along the Republican party line..them being almost as blatantly pro-Biz as your Posted opinions indicate..<<
Blam. Missed it 100%. That's what you get for reading my portfolio instead of my bio, I guess. I didn't vote for a Republican in a national election until this past year, and rarely vote for them in local elections. I do regularly vote in the Republican primaries, however - many votes for Bob Dole in my portfolio. But I also haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 1980. Once was enough.
From my positions you ought to realize that I'm a Liberal - not a leftist or a democrat, but a REAL Liberal - now choosing to be known as Libertarian. I'm in with the Republicans now because I see more violations of liberty coming from the left than from the right - though the Neocons want to change that. Hell, I ran for office as a Libertarian a couple of years ago. That's largely what drove me into the Republican party. I realized that if I combined my votes as a Libertarian with the people who had punched the straight Republican spot I would have beaten the most corrupt legislator in Texas.
>>i'll send ya some vitamins ta help tone up those atrophied Ethical muscles, and we can keep up the lively debate<<
But vitamins steal your precious bodily fluids...
>>i'll gladly take your Intellectual Integrity, and honest disclosures of possible conflict of Interest issues over the hypocritical "values" rants of the morally bankrupt whores that occupy Capitol Hill any time...<<
I guess I appreciate that. I also appreciate the fact that you're open to actual discussion and don't just fling out the same old 'hitler, fascist, nazi, neocon' garbage I hear so much of. There's no reason why a rational leftist and a rational libertarian can't find some common ground. The key is that both parties have to be rational.
Dave
67 - gonzo marx
i know, from our previous discussions, that you are a self professed Conservative Libertarian..and i have no problems with either capitalized descriptive
luv the "precious bodily fluids" bit there...Dr. Strangelove rocks!
Dave sez..
*The key is that both parties have to be rational.*
nuff said
Excelsior!
68 - gonzo marx
oh yeah..one final Note on the subject..for the sake of Clarity
let me boil the nut down to an easy Metaphor here and pose some to you, gentle Readers..
if "It's a Wonderful Life" and you are a resident of Bedford Falls...do you put your money in the Bank...or the Building and Loan?
me..i'll take George Baily's form of Capitalism over Mr. Potter's any day of the week
and those that have read my Screed's can rest assured that whenever i see any greedheaded swine spew "are there no workhouses" in any way shape or form..i'm gonna light off
if that tags me as a "leftist" to some folks...then i will wear the Mantle proudly
Excelsior!
69 - DrPat
I find it interesting that you use the Jared Diamond Collapse to prove an Amazon link to your post. BTP, do you see some connection to your contention and Diamond's essays on cultural choice?
Because I've read it, and I don't.
70 - Big Time Patriot
"Unions are antithetical to free enterprise. Also, they kill businesses and send jobs overseas."
Hmmm..well it seems like Ken Lay gamed a deregulated industry in direct contradiction of free enterprise and also killed his own business pretty much entirely. And plenty of CEO's are sending job's overseas..
So I am making an assumption that you think those things are bad, can I also make an assumption that you hate CEO's AND unions equally?
71 - Dave Nalle
I put my money with Potter and I borrow from Baily and that way I really can't go wrong.
Dave
72 - Big Time Patriot
There is no particular connection between the book Collapse and this point, I just finished reading the book and thought it was great (I'm working on my comparison of the Inuits and the Greenland Vikings and religious fundamentalists in America).
73 - gonzo marx
Dave sez...
*I put my money with Potter and I borrow from Baily and that way I really can't go wrong.*
arrRRRRrrrRRRRrrrRRggGGGggGGhhh!!
while i can't argue with the Pragmatism displayed by the Statement , Dave...i will Mourn the loss of that shriveled, black, flabby thing that once passed for a Soul..
"we tried to revive it, Dr. Gonzo, but the repo man had already taken it away after the insurance claim was paid"
and to Maurice who said "unions are antithetical to free enterprise. Also, they kill businesses and send jobs overseas."...here's a dollar..now ask Pat Sajak if ya can buy a Clue
the collective bargaining of a Union is just as much a part of Free Enterprise as any other facet...workers have the same right to get the best deal they can that a business does of getting the best price on buying supplies and selling their goods and services...
in each case it falls to Negotiations between each concerned Party, and Ethical practices and standards to set the terms of any Contract...the basis of a Free Market...
we know return you to your regularily scheduled program...
Excelsior!
74 - Dave Nalle
>>*I put my money with Potter and I borrow from Baily and that way I really can't go wrong.*
arrRRRRrrrRRRRrrrRRggGGGggGGhhh!!
while i can't argue with the Pragmatism displayed by the Statement , Dave...i will Mourn the loss of that shriveled, black, flabby thing that once passed for a Soul..<<
You believe in those? How quaint. But pragmatic is my middle name. I would invite poor old George over for dinner, though. Actually, I'd probably step in and try to help him save his thrift with some advice on sound business practices. I'd also be the first to come to his estate sale and spend excessively after he pitched himself in the river - to help out the family
Oh, and on the unions - so if unions are just as much a capitalist enterprise as any other, I assume you agree that they're just as corrupt and just as at fault as corporations for the ills that assail workers today?
Dave
75 - gonzo marx
Dave sez..
*Oh, and on the unions - so if unions are just as much a capitalist enterprise as any other, I assume you agree that they're just as corrupt and just as at fault as corporations for the ills that assail workers today?*
in a word...yep
remember my Mantra...Ethics..
i'm all for folks working together to make a Profit...i feel both the janitor and the CEO are crucial to the Enterprise...
as i've stated before..i vote with my dollars too..and i wouldn't buy shit from wal-mart if they paid ME to take it away
Excelsior!