What's with Walmart?

[chillyboi]

i've since boycotted wallyworld

 

[ambiguity]

This is the fatal weakness of democracy. People will vote themselves goodies, in spite of wiser voices telling them to back down. This is why AARP doesn't care what happens to the economy down the line, they want goodies now.
And democracy is in the final analysis no different than the Middle Ages, when might made right, except now the "might" is that 50%+1 of people who even vote. the other 50%-1 are in essence subjects, whose beliefs and desires aren't honored.
The U.S. Constitution was supposed to stop that by making a government which could only those things which the Constitution explicitly authorized. The great perversion began when Congress, in violation of the Constitution, began assigning legislative power to hired and appointed bodies rather than the single elected one, namely itself. The second great perversion came when states' rights were plowed under, turning the states effectively into little more than provinces. The third great perversion came with the reversal of the "commerce clause" to mean the federal government could poke its busy nose into almost anywhere, instead of its original meaning of keeping the federal government's authority in a very limited sphere.
So what we end up with is a bureaucratic oligarchy, where the true power lies with the nameless, faceless millions of "civil servants", and the few who care to vote elect "representatives" who are powerless to do little besides add to the lumbering behemoth.
Parkinson's Law takes over, and even presidents' "no hire" orders fail to halt the growth of bureaucracy. Bureaucrats beget paperwork, which begets more bureaucrats, which in turn beget more paperwork... and these days some of the paperwork is always new regulations, the function of which is at root the justification of the jobs of those same bureaucrats, who, having invented new regulations, find they need even more bureaucrats to deal with the ensuing new paperwork.
And the power of the government becomes absolute, as even now regulations so abound that it is difficult not to break one, raising the threat of punishment above every person at every time.
All this is magnified by the vile principle in the U.S. that "the ignorance of the law is no defense"... a principle which arose from a jurist's faulty translation of Latin.



Now.... shall we lift these posts and start a new thread?

There would be no point, because I don't have a historical knowledge about the American System. My system was based off the British model, and has been virtually the same since inception (with the exception of more power being granted to Canada through time). For instance in Canada, the Supreme court can force the parliament to adopt certain motions to protect the freedoms and rights of the citizens as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is interpreted (likewise with the Provincial courts and provincial legislatures... that's how Gay marriage was approved in the provinces before Canada finally adopted it for a whole). The governments can challenge a court ruling, but it is a VERY long drawn out process.

In any case, the only thing we would get out of such a thread is each others biased views. You don't like your system and you will describe it in such a light, and I like my system and will describe it in a positive manor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, what I don't like is what's become of our system. The Constitution was the most brilliant attempt to establish liberty that has ever been devised.... it'd just that those who like to have power over others have managed to twist it into the opposite of what it was.
I like that extended power of your Supreme Court. I've always thought there should be a court with the authority to examine things without anyone bringing a suit or challenging a law -- just decide that a law might be violating individual rights, take a look at it, and toss it if it they decided it could tread on liberty.
After all, if the legislature can just decide to make laws, there ought to be a body that can just toss them out.

 

[Alpha1851]

Awww...good ole Walmart. The corporation was always a hot topic in several of my legal courses back in the day. I must admit that I'm one of the sheep that loves Walmart. It's open 24 hours a day which is very convenient, they tend to carry the same items in every store so I can always find what I'm looking for, they don't require me to use one of those annoying store cards (like Food City or CVS) in order to receive their discounts, they carry every type of supply that I need in one easy location (cleaning supplies, food, work stuff,) and they have cheaper prices. What can I say? I'll stay in the field and happily graze w/ the other sheep. Baaaaa!!

Their health care system (or lack thereof) and their refusal to allow a union to come in have been discussed over time. I can understand your argument that we aren't really getting lower prices since we are having to pay for the employees health insurance in one way or another. However, I believe that these employees would not be able to obtain health care coverage on their on so it's better to have them working for the superstore rather than being unemployed. Kroger's, Target, and the like tend to hire employee's on a part time basis in order to skate around the insurance requirement. This isn't something new. Is it wrong? Maybe. Is it greedy? No doubt. But let's be honest, these employees are generally uneducated and unskilled workers which is why they are working in these establishments in the first place. There aren't very many jobs that would offer them a premium benefits package. As such, we'd end up paying for their health care anyway.

Also, according to one of check out workers at my local Walmart, the store pays their employees more money when they work on Sundays which is something that most business don't do.

 

[Kulindahr]

...greedy? No doubt. But let's be honest, these employees are generally uneducated and unskilled workers which is why they are working in these establishments in the first place. There aren't very many jobs that would offer them a premium benefits package. As such, we'd end up paying for their health care anyway.

Also, according to one of check out workers at my local Walmart, the store pays their employees more money when they work on Sundays which is something that most business don't do.

Paying for it anyway?

What taxpayers paid in a year was under $50 million.
That same year, Walmart paid out roughly $300 million per quarter in dividends.
Fifty million is a drop in the bucket.

So... we're paying for this health care... why?

 

[Alpha1851]

No matter where the workers were employed, they would probably never have a benefits package that incl insurance. Many people who do have jobs that provide medical insurance still suffer b/c the co-pay is so expensive and the insurance will not cover several types of visits. As such, these employees need help from the Health Depts, Medicare, and other state funded programs. Taxes pay for these...we'd pay for it either way. If they didn't work at Walmart they still wouldn't have the insurance. At least these people are making some money which keeps them from needing food stamps or living in govt housing.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I were a Walmart shareholder, I'd be ashamed that the company wasn't spending a nickel per share on health care; 55 cents a quarter would be perfectly acceptable in place of the 60 cents.
And if taxpayers (state and local; we're not even looking at federal) dish out some $48 million per year for uneven coverage for Walmart employees, three times that should cover them all -- less, probably, because as I understood the info I found, those were actual medical expenses, not premiums; the premiums ought to be cheaper.