Saturday, August 2, 2008

Wal-Mart, protector of employee rights

Wal-Mart leaders are proving they need the regulation that they fear so much.

This, from Eric Martin of Obsidian Wings:

The weakening, and dismantling, of unions that began during the Reagan administration (and continued more or less uninterrupted since then) has not served America well. Yes, some unions go too far on some issues (corporations never do though!), but the alternative - a severely weakened and voiceless labor market - is considerably worse for most Americans. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
Just one example: unions used to provide an effective check on out of control executive pay. Unions would rightly demand a cut of the pie when executives tried to give themselves out of proportion pay raises. It was exceedingly difficult for executives to argue that they deserved multi-million dollar raises, but that there was no money to offer a modest raise for the average company worker. The lack of union controls on this process is one of the factors that has led to vast disparities of wealth in the United States - disparities not seen since the Gilded Age. To simplify matters: economies are stronger, and societies healthier, when the middle class is thriving. Unions can help to create a larger, more robust middle class.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Wal-Mart employees who attended these mandatory meetings in seven states said executives told them employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and warned that unionization could force Wal-Mart to cut jobs as labor costs rise.

Yes. It's better for employees to trust management with their welfare. I'm sure Wal-Mart has a great record of that, no? No?

Also, check this out.

No comments: