"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in message ...
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.

The same way unions work.