What I mean by that is, if you've got an axe to grind, a stand to take, or a problem to solve, then automatically blame the US WalMart and dream up some way to make them pay your way.

The great state of Montana, where men are men and sheep are nervous, is the latest in a long list of whiney little bitches when it comes to WalMart.

As an incentive for these "big box stores'' to pay a living wage to their workers, Sen. Ken Toole's Senate Bill 272 would impose a gross proceeds tax on these companies. They would be exempt from the tax if they paid their employees an entry level wage of at least $22,000 a year, counting both pay and benefits and if less than half of their workers were part-time.

Follow that link and read the whole sordid scam.

My standard question to WalMart haters is this: at what point does a company become so successful that they've become evil?

WalMart has been kicking the retail world's ass for a while now, like K-Mart before them, and Sears before them, and Macy's before them, and on and on. Some day, some chain will come up with a better way for the times and WalMart will become another former top-dog.

And for every gripe there is about them, the answer is the same: they're doing exactly what they need to do to compete. You don't become dominant (or even successful) by not being "right". The number of people who shop there, the amount of sales they generate and the mind-boggling number of people they employ all mean one thing. THEY ARE DOING IT RIGHT. Don't like 'em? No problem, go shop somewhere else. That's the beauty of the free market. Of course, you'll pay more, but sometimes taking a stand involves more than announcing your principles. And while you're in that Mom & Pop store, ask 'em how many folks they employ, how much they pay, and what kind of benefits they offer their hired help.

WalMart (and MicroSoft for that matter), aren't evil, just very successful.

I hope that Montana passes their stupid tax, and I hope WalMart says screw it and shuts down every last store in the state. Then, just like in Canada, you'll hear the whiney little bitches bleating about how unfair it is. And they'll be missing the point that I saw someone make recently (sorry, can't remember where), if WalMart is bad, then if they leave it's a good thing. Right?

Thanks to DynamoBuzz for the pointer, although I oughta smack him for making my blood pressure rise like that.

Posted by: Ted at 08:41 PM | category: Links
Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

1 and if less than half of their workers were part-time.

...and put half of their employees out of work.

Ted! Haven't seen you riled up like this in a while. That's some damn good posting!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 17, 2005 02:26 AM (rwn/7)

2 I've always hated Wally World, but not for their corporate policy - for their clientele. If I see another mullet in my life, it'll be too soon.

Posted by: shank at February 17, 2005 08:48 AM (+H1yK)

3 The minimum wage in Montana is $5.15/hr. If you worked 40 hours a week that amounts to only $10,712 annually. WalMart is actually paying $3,000 over the minimum wage for a 32 hr week!

If $5.15/hr isn't enough to live on in Montana, WalMart isn't the problem!

Posted by: RC at February 17, 2005 12:16 PM (5mz24)

4 I don't care what anyone says I love Wal-Mart both as an ex-contractor who used to work for them and as a customer.They have always been super towards me.Most people I know have enjoyed working for them.If you don't wanna work there then just don't.It's not like you don't have plenty of other choices.If you don't have other choices then it's probably not the fault of anyone but your local government or perhaps yourself.
I would also like to commend Wal-Mart for helping to put the union menace in it's place.

Posted by: Russ at February 17, 2005 10:31 PM (Y9aSc)

5 Don't know if you ever saw it on the news or not but we in FR have had our own drawn out Wal-Mart fight.It wasn't that nobody(well almost) wanted them but they just didn't want them in that spot.That I have to agree with.I sure wouldn't build there.
The last county/town elections saw the ousting of everyone who supported Wal-Mart.They where all replaced with morons who displayed no other credentials than being able to say "No Wal-Mart!"I hope like hell it comes back to kick them all right in the nads.

Posted by: Russ at February 17, 2005 10:40 PM (Y9aSc)

6 Some of us Montanans vehemently oppose this legislation. Idiots. Like others, I rarely shop at Wal-Mart, but I completely support W-M policies, hiring, management, and existence.

And the sheep are doing fine, by the way.

Posted by: david at February 19, 2005 03:21 PM (ZVhuO)

7 Hey David, glad to hear about the sheep. Hell, as a native Californian (from the Bay Area, no less!) you can imagine the ribbing I put up with.

We had a minor WalMart uproar in this area. Plans were announced that a store would be built and "citizen action groups" instantly sprang into action to prevent it. Their main objection was that having a WalMart that close to their gated communities would lower their property values. Only one problem - WalMart owned the land long before the developers started their construction. The judge threw it all out because the hoity-toity residents should've been ticked at the developer for not telling them the whole story, not WalMart.

You can imagine how much I enjoyed that.

Posted by: Ted at February 19, 2005 04:52 PM (ZjSa7)

8 I don't understand any good reason to defend Walmart on philosophical grounds. Maybe if you own the hacienda you have the free time to think of bogus arguments to defend your villainy. Then one day the workers find other uses for the tools.

Posted by: zombielogic at August 30, 2005 03:44 AM (+KTZf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment