Comments on: Reconsidering Wal-Mart http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/ Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:05:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Alec http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6731 Alec Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:40:18 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6731 Wal-Mart needs to provide wages and benefits that allow its workers to live comfortably and with dignity--if that simple demand isn't "nuanced" enough for corporate contributors, then they should take a hike. This country is ready to talk about the state of our middle class again and democrats shouldn't shy away for fear of losing campaign dollars. Wal-Mart's efficiency is enough to provide savings to consumers; business does not need to exploit people to turn a profit. If protecting the middle class in this country means making law friendly to organized labor again, then laws ought to be changed. If it means creating a national health care system that would benefit both business and the middle class, that creating that system is morally imperative. There are countless reforms our country can pursue to improve the lot of the hardest working Americans. But let's not forget that we wouldn't have much of a middle class without the help of organized labor, and it is no coincidence that inequality has grown in this country at the same time that union membership has declined. It worries me to see so many democrats turning on labor as if it's just another "special interest" group, like the pharmaceutical industry lobby. We ought to be a little less worried about doing the "bidding" of labor --despite all the corruption, mismanagement, and overreach that has characterized its worst moments-- because unions helped make this country and can help remake it. Instead, we ought to pass laws to make unions more transparent and accountable to their members, and then empower them to fight back against immoral concentrations of wealth and power. And if unions won’t work for people once the playing field is level again, people simply won’t join. If empowering labor cuts out our competitive advantage, we ought to rethink the global arrangements that are failing too many of the world’s poor and our own middle class. Folks who call this reevaluation anti-trade or socialistic are creating a convenient straw-man; they want to pretend that the sharpest corners of the market cannot be smoothed without destroying the whole system and so provide cozy intellectually justifications for ignoring pain. Maybe it's just your use of the word "bidding" that is setting me off Geraldine, but if I incorrectly sensed a hostility to organized labor that doesn't apply to you, it is because too many democrats today only talk about labor unions as an obstacle—as when people blame teacher’s unions for the failures of our school system— rather than as the promise for change that they used to be and could one day reclaim, if only given a little help. Let’s keep the focus on the real bad guys and the grossest exploitations, rather than workers who come together to fight for a fair deal. Wal-Mart needs to provide wages and benefits that allow its workers to live comfortably and with dignity–if that simple demand isn’t “nuanced” enough for corporate contributors, then they should take a hike. This country is ready to talk about the state of our middle class again and democrats shouldn’t shy away for fear of losing campaign dollars. Wal-Mart’s efficiency is enough to provide savings to consumers; business does not need to exploit people to turn a profit. If protecting the middle class in this country means making law friendly to organized labor again, then laws ought to be changed. If it means creating a national health care system that would benefit both business and the middle class, that creating that system is morally imperative. There are countless reforms our country can pursue to improve the lot of the hardest working Americans. But let’s not forget that we wouldn’t have much of a middle class without the help of organized labor, and it is no coincidence that inequality has grown in this country at the same time that union membership has declined. It worries me to see so many democrats turning on labor as if it’s just another “special interest” group, like the pharmaceutical industry lobby. We ought to be a little less worried about doing the “bidding” of labor –despite all the corruption, mismanagement, and overreach that has characterized its worst moments– because unions helped make this country and can help remake it. Instead, we ought to pass laws to make unions more transparent and accountable to their members, and then empower them to fight back against immoral concentrations of wealth and power. And if unions won’t work for people once the playing field is level again, people simply won’t join. If empowering labor cuts out our competitive advantage, we ought to rethink the global arrangements that are failing too many of the world’s poor and our own middle class. Folks who call this reevaluation anti-trade or socialistic are creating a convenient straw-man; they want to pretend that the sharpest corners of the market cannot be smoothed without destroying the whole system and so provide cozy intellectually justifications for ignoring pain.

Maybe it’s just your use of the word “bidding” that is setting me off Geraldine, but if I incorrectly sensed a hostility to organized labor that doesn’t apply to you, it is because too many democrats today only talk about labor unions as an obstacle—as when people blame teacher’s unions for the failures of our school system— rather than as the promise for change that they used to be and could one day reclaim, if only given a little help. Let’s keep the focus on the real bad guys and the grossest exploitations, rather than workers who come together to fight for a fair deal.

]]> By: Alec http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6733 Alec Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:58:37 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6733 A little more to the point—a change to environmentally friendly light bulbs is the least the company should be doing. The fact that such a small gesture by Wal-Mart is treated as a big deal and a signal that the company is becoming more responsible speaks to the destitution of our standards rather than a significant change in Wal-Mart’s big ol’ heart. A little more to the point—a change to environmentally friendly light bulbs is the least the company should be doing. The fact that such a small gesture by Wal-Mart is treated as a big deal and a signal that the company is becoming more responsible speaks to the destitution of our standards rather than a significant change in Wal-Mart’s big ol’ heart.

]]> By: Chris http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6736 Chris Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:50:46 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6736 I can't help it. I don't trust big business. They simply don't have my best interests at heart... I'm happy they're doing the right thing with the light bulbs, but I agree with Alec that this is the least they can do. I can’t help it. I don’t trust big business. They simply don’t have my best interests at heart… I’m happy they’re doing the right thing with the light bulbs, but I agree with Alec that this is the least they can do.

]]> By: Iowa Progress » The New Republic Plagarizes Iowa Progress! http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6763 Iowa Progress » The New Republic Plagarizes Iowa Progress! Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:23:55 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6763 [...] Well, not really but in this article (subscription only), Conor Clarke touches a lot of the themes from my post earlier this week. However, he thinks all the three major candidates, Clinton, Edwards and Obama have ties to Wal-Mart that could tarnish them (although, with the exception of Clinton, the ties are pretty weak). [...] […] Well, not really but in this article (subscription only), Conor Clarke touches a lot of the themes from my post earlier this week. However, he thinks all the three major candidates, Clinton, Edwards and Obama have ties to Wal-Mart that could tarnish them (although, with the exception of Clinton, the ties are pretty weak). […]

]]> By: Alec http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6775 Alec Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:31:10 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2007/01/02/reconsidering-wal-mart/#comment-6775 It is embarrassing to use the word "intellectually" in a sentence with a grammatical error. It is embarrassing to use the word “intellectually” in a sentence with a grammatical error.

]]>