Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared.



Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the
United States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its
employees is a fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It
is the major seller of crap ChiComm products in the USA.




It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost
outlet for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch
pennys when buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out
the part whereby by unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices
and lay off employees.

Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work?

Eisboch




Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if
the "public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is
developed. In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an
older Wal-Mart store (that I've never been in), but we stopped
Wal-Mart dead in its tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart"
in our area. Wal-Mart spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes
to force it way. All it took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of
petitions signed by enough voters to let the county pols know they'd
be out on their asses if they approved building the new store.


What Harry is really saying:

Free choice in shopping is fine as long as I can tell people what their
choices are.

WAFA is talking out of his ass...again.