Redstate

The debate is far from over. LaTasha Barker, a single mother who worked for two years as a cashier at a Sam's Club in Cicero, Ill., said she earned so little that she could not afford the $1,860 a year for family health insurance.

What I want to know is where LaTasha found family health insurance for $155/month. Possibly subsidized by the evil Sam's Club?

That no one can live on their own and support themselves on minimum wage, much less dependents, no matter where you live.  I don't feel that unionizing Wal-Mart is the answer, that's for sure.  At my local Wal-Mart, a majority of the people working are high school kids looking for extra money and retiree's who need extra income to live on.  There are people who are moving up the chain and probably do decent, but I wouldn't say they're making out or anything.  

Sam's Club/Wal-Mart I'm sure provides insurance through a traditional carrier (Aetna, Horizon) or is fully or partially self-funded, which means they hire a company to administer their health plan and payout claims, but they are actually paying the claims themselves in the form of premium, they absorb the risk instead of an insurance company.  It's kind of hard to describe.  With companies as large as Wal-Mart the rates for coverage are substantially lower than the rates for individuals or small business.  Also, I'm sure the coverage they provide could barely be called "coverage."

is available to all Wal-Mart employees.  Most CHOSE not to take it because they are 1) covered by a spouse's health care plan or 2) covered under their parent's health care plan.

Wal-Mart hires a lot of part-time people.  Who else would want to work the hours that a Wal-Mart cashier works with the busiest times being 5pm-9pm during the week plus weekends?  

While these people can get health care insurance, they have to pay a larger portion of hte premium.  They will still get a better price buying through Wal-Mart than they would buying the same insurance independently.  The fact is pretty much all companies that hire part-time employees expect them to pay the majority of the health care premiums, and I don't doubt that GM and Ford are no exceptions to this.

We covered this awhile back and had nice conversation on the subject.  These facts and figures add great weight to the discussion.

The notion that "Wal-Mart just ought to pay their people more" reeks of Socialism.  Obviously these unions want more dues and pension money to shore up their waning role in American economic political scene.  

Everyone needs to have a place to start.  Wal-Mart offers a way for people to build a work history at a low risk to the employer and employee.  Many of these people are also working for extra money or as a post-retirement job.  Bottom line is that the government doesn't know enough about people's motivations to mandate that they need/don't need a "living wage."  How would these great social advocates feel if the wages were increased and then all the greeters get laid off as a result?  (If I were Wal-Mart, I'd sack the greeters first because they are not directly involved in the value chain.)  Companies like Wal-Mart are not endless fountains of money, unlike Congress.

Funny too, that Wal-Mart is being compared to GM.   Based on recent history, I would NOT choose GM as  an example of how to run a company.

I'm looking at $350 a month for family health insurance.  $155 is cheap for a family.

Here in NJ, you are a part-time worker if you work under 25 hours a week and your employer is not required to offer you health benefits.  If that is true of Wal-Mart's health benefits carrier, then they can get away with not offering benefits to employees.  

Another problem with unionizing Wal-Mart, the employees will not being doing any better overall, because unions are known for keeping someone "part-time" even though they work the required hours so that they don't have to offer benefits.  All of our supermarkets (we don't have Super Wal-Mart yet) are unionized, and even if a worker is working 40+ hours a week, they will be classified as a part time employee so that benefits of any kind do not have to be offered.

Ha...you'd be lucky if you could get family insurance for under $1,000 a month in NJ, through a group or individual.

Wal-Mart is an excellnt career choice for moving up hte ladder.  My step-mother ran the UPC office for several Wal-Mart stores and was making in the upper $40K range at least.  She could easly have made store manager or even area supervisor if she had wanted to, but she was disinclined to move to where the openings were.

In addition to good salaries, you get good health insurance and 401(k) with matching as well as Wal-Mart stock.  After 25-30 years at Wal-Mart she has well over $100,000 of Wal-Mart stock, which pays good dvidends as well as holding its value well, and she started investing late.

Illinois isn't that good either.  But if you look online, you cna find prices in the $350-$600/month range, depending on the type of insurance you want.

Wal-Mart is not required to offer the health isurance to their part time employees, but that doesn't mean they don't do it.  You just have to pay a larger portion of the premiums.

Unions are not worried about their employees getting health care benefits as much as they are collecting their union fees.

Saying that "coverage" is a plan with a $10,000 calender year deductible, and after that the plan only pays 50%.  And still having to pay $600+ a month.

For $375/month I can get health insurance for a family of 5 that includes a $2500 deductable and then 80% coverage after that with a maximum out-of-pocket of $3000 per family (I'm assuming after deductable).  It also includes a $20 co-pay with no deductable for standard office visits, well-baby care, and preventative health exams (e.g physical, mammogram, etc).

Check out www.ehealthinsurance.com

Imagine if the Wal-Mart enemies had their way and replaced Wal-Mart with smaller stores.  Guess they would have a heck of a hard time getting cheap insurance.  Wal-Mart carries massive leverage in any negotiation with a supplier because they can deliver volume.  A mom-and-pop outfit would simply be outclassed.  Another variable to consider.  

Unless, of course, we resolve that healthcare costs are insane and are the result of a massively broken healthcare system, and we decide to fix THAT.  I'd trade Wal-Mart for that!

NJ isn't medically underwritten, hence the high cost.  Also you are not charged by how many kids you have under family coverage, you could have one or seven and you pay the same rate. Individual rates are set by the carriers, and they are mandated to offer the same types of plans by the state.  Cheapest plan on ehealthinsurance.com is $673.11, and you get a $700 calender year benefit and after that you're on your own for 70% of your remaining bills, and no Rx coverage, not to mention other deductibles and coinsurance percentages depending on the service....it's tough to swallow.

Re: Ha...you'd be lucky if you could get family insurance for under $1,000 a month in NJ, through a group or individual.

For an individual policy it would depend very crucially on the age and health history of the individuial. I don't know about New Jeresy but as recently as three years ago it was possible for an individual in his 30s with no major health issues to obtain decent insurance* for under $100 a month. Up the age, add a significant health problem, or add dependents and that is going to go up rather steeply though.

* Some details: $10 OV copay; $5/10/25 Rx copay; $25 ER copay; 100% Major Medical beginning 2K out of pocket. Carrier was Anthem BCBS

Upstate New York was expensive enough.

NJ is not medically underwritten.  For individual plans age and gender are not taken into account either.  The state mandates which plans are to be offered for individuals, and the carriers formulate rates for them.  So the rates are set for a plan regardless of age, gender, or medical condition.  

For group coverage (employer sponsered) the rates are based on age, gender, and location, again no medical underwriting.  If you are a large corporation, over 50 employees, you get what's called experience rated, so your rate would depend on the previous years' claim payout amount compared to premium in, ughhhh, etc....

The only medical underwriting we have here is a pre-existing conditions exclusion, which really isn't an exclusion.  It just states that the company may choose to limit benefits for a condition that was treated in the 6 months prior to application if the person didn't have prior coverage.  They can't deny, but they can limit.

I'm sure you can all now guess what I do for a living...LOL.

It's not surprising to find anti-union sentiment in a forum such as this.

What always amazes me, though, is that those working stiffs that are now the beneficiaries of 100 years of labor action now repeat the catch phrases of the management class.

I was involved in a union organizing effort once and the company hired a specialized law firm to come in and train supervisors on how to combat the union efforts. One of the things that they used the most was "unions only want your dues" and variations.

Without a counter balance to management workers find their working conditions and standard of living eroded. The fact that there have been unions that have misused funds in the past is not a sufficient reason to condemn the whole movement.

If we adopt that sort of attitude then we should abolish corporations because of the misdeads at Enron and Worldcom.

There is a tendency for elitists of any political pursuasion to think that they can do better than the system. But why should on have to depend solely on one's own resources. What happens when misfortune occurs. Having a support structure of ones peers is a good thing at such times.

If all the power is concentrated on one side abuses are inevitable. Let Walmart allow their workers to try to organize fairly and then see if the workers feel that they are being treated well by their employer.

They could quit.

I worked a lousy manual labor job for just over minimum wage out of high school. 120 degrees. No air circulation. Lots of injuries all around. Weird hours.

Although management tried to overcome the Thirteenth Amendment, I managed to escape along the Underground Railroad to Dallas, then on to Canada.

No, wait, that's silly. I got fed up and quit.

These folks are rational humans. If they don't like their jobs, they quit. If they do, or can stand it, they stay. Alpha, omega.

Similarly, if Wal-Mart decides that it's a good thing for its shareholders to cuddle with unions, it will. Given GM's current predicament, not only do I not see that happening soon, I wouldn't do it in their shoes.

Let's not turn this into some condescending late 19th century muckraking silliness, hm?

Apparently Walmart employees agree with you since the turnover rate ranges from 30-50% per year.

A wonderful place to work?

In many small towns there aren't that many job opportunities, that's one of the factors Walmart uses when choosing a site.

found in cities and suburbs too.  I live in St. Pete Florida. We have two super-Walmarts here and a smaller "normal" Walmart. Across the Bay in Tampa you can also find Walmart.

And trust me, this is no kind of small town!

Walmart has been seeing a flattening of their growth curve over the past decade. As a company gets larger it becomes mathematically impossible to keep growing at the same rate.

However, Wall St. likes to see a high growth rate. This leads to a problem. Walmart has had very poor stock performance over the past five years as a result of this problem.

To counteract the problem they have been forced to expand into new markets. First they moved into smaller cities and suburbs. Lately they have been trying to move into urban locales. Thus the battles in LA and NYC.

This is a marginal effort, the costs of running a store in this environment are higher, wages, rents, transport and taxes are all more, so it is a case of diminishing returns.

It wouldn't be surprising to see the investment community turn sour on Walmart in the next few years.

Them yokels has jobs even in small town, ayuh. And lotsa times there's big cities that ain't too far from them thar hills, that those Duke Boys can 'git out to, with the General Lee or even with Uncle Jesse's pickup.

I've been short Wal-Mart for 15 months now. I've taken some profits but am holding the short position because the stock has fallen off a cliff since November of last year.  Wal-Mart's troubles have been very, very good to me the past year, and there is no sign of the stock imroving anytime in the near term.

Walmart knows the demographics of the workers it tries to attract. As has been mentioned above lots of them are working moms, students and other part-timers.

The commuting cost/benefits for these groups in terms of travel time and expense means that they will try to find nearby jobs.

So, for them, being in a rural area is a real limitation on their job options.

A similar situation occurs around here (NY metro) where many inner city workers don't seek jobs in the suburbs because of commuting and similar issues. Thus, it is possible to have unemployment and open jobs in fairly close proximity.

Having lived in significantly more rural than metro NY, I can positively testify that:

(1) Even po' folks have cars; and

(2) Lots of them commute like mad anyway.

Walmart only has to find enough people who fit their profile to keep their stores staffed.

For those who fit, the other factors obviously outweigh the negatives of Walmart.

The fact that lots of people have cars or commute is not relevant to those who face constraints.

Walmart wouldn't have gotten as big as it is, if it hadn't figured out all the angles.

There is obviously a lot of dissatisfaction with their labor practices. If there wasn't they wouldn't be facing such concerted action (include that from the largest class action labor suit in US history).

On behalf of all owners of all GM cars, you'd be amazed at the size of that class action. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Wal-Mart is a competitor for labor in that market. It is not a slave owner. It hires where it thinks it will be competitive. If the market changes, it will too, or it will lose.

Actually, that lots of folks have cars is relevant, unless you think the second sentence of the second paragraph of this comment is not true. If that's the case, you have an odd view of the world.

Ultimately, your problem seems to be with a fairly congenial free market. I commend you to Canada.

Critics argue that Wal-mart causes employees to go on "Medicaid" and other public health care programs.  Most of the studies that I have seen on this have referenced various states' CHIP (Childrens' Health Insurance Programs) plans.  These plans are typically set up with the intent of covering the dependents of employees working in lower income industries that may not have access to/or have health insurance available to them or their children.  If the Wal-Mart employees are legitimately entitled to these benefits, and meet all of the criteria when they apply, then shouldn't the issue be with the plan/policy rather than the recipient of the benefit?  Although I haven't formally analyzed this, I'll take a wild guess and bet that some of Wal-mart's loudest critics are usually proponents of these types of publicly subsidized plans.  

And who are these shareholders? I don't have specific statistics but it seems to me that many of them are little old ladies that rely on good profits to maintain their standard of living and those who invest to save for their retirement. Anyway it isn't just the rich. (What is rich anyway?) You got it right Mike, if the shareholders think it a good idea to unionize and pay for health insurance it will happen. But it won't because sharholders are interested in profit. The CEO's of these large corporations are watched very carefully by them, and if a corporate leader wants to see his company become worth less, one sure way is to anger the shareholders.

What really makes me sick about this is that people think a cashier should make as much as an apprentice electrician. Are highschool sales jobs worth that much?

People get paid according to performance, not need, in this country!

Walmart utilizes trade agreements, capital ventures, tax reduction agreements and low skilled labor to level their expenses and maximize their profits.

Great business practice, unless your an American company that has any national moral ethics whatsoever. The way Walmart does business and sells products to the American people is nothing short of a brilliant economic stategy, if you care nothing about the people who took you there, namely the American consumer.

Look at it this way. For every dollar you spend at Walmart you are giving 4 dollars away from you future and your children's future as wage earners for each hour of work in the immediate community you live in, in the United States.

Walmart has been responsible for literally devastating local community businesses one by one by the hundred's of thousands throughout the entire country. Yes you save 30 cents on the Christmas cards produces in India, yet over time ( a single decade) you have reduced the salary of your local community workers by several percentage points, and this is the entire community.

You have also ensured the collaspe of the local, private shop owners, who's contribution to local employment is the single most important factor for "LONG TERM" growth in economic development of cities and states.

So what does Walmart's presence in your community actually mean? It means in 20 - 25 years your children will earn far less than they could have, if you paid that extra 30 cents for those Christmas cards years ago.

Oh well it's only your grandchildren's future, since that practice will turn us into a third world country eventually, and we can then envy the Chinese and gaggle and worship those glamorous movie stars from Beijing and wish we could be like that.

Yeah people, keep buying from Walmart, what a smart America we are.

Walmart utilizes trade agreements, capital ventures, tax reduction agreements and low skilled labor to level their expenses and maximize their profits.

Great business practice, unless your an American company that has any national moral ethics whatsoever. The way Walmart does business and sells products to the American people is nothing short of a brilliant economic stategy, if you care nothing about the people who took you there, namely the American consumer.

Look at it this way. For every dollar you spend at Walmart you are giving 4 dollars away from you future and your children's future as wage earners for each hour of work in the immediate community you live in, in the United States.

Walmart has been responsible for literally devastating local community businesses one by one by the hundred's of thousands throughout the entire country. Yes you save 30 cents on the Christmas cards produces in India, yet over time ( a single decade) you have reduced the salary of your local community workers by several percentage points, and this is the entire community.

You have also ensured the collaspe of the local, private shop owners, who's contribution to local employment is the single most important factor for "LONG TERM" growth in economic development of cities and states.

So what does Walmart's presence in your community actually mean? It means in 20 - 25 years your children will earn far less than they could have, if you paid that extra 30 cents for those Christmas cards years ago.

Oh well it's only your grandchildren's future, since that practice will turn us into a third world country eventually, and we can then envy the Chinese and gaggle and worship those glamorous movie stars from Beijing and wish we could be like that.

Yeah people, keep buying from Walmart, what a smart America we are.

Your complaint isn't with Wal-Mart, kiddo.

Here's a free tip: there are many liberals on this site who are of a likeminded viewpoint, but have nonetheless mastered the arts of making a cogent argument, and backing up their assertions (more or less) with facts. I would suggest that you read some of the postings of Amos, Aleks311 and their ilk (and learn from them) before continuing. You'll get a lot more respect and consideration for your ideas.

Great business practice, unless your an American company that has any national moral ethics whatsoever.

That's funny, I thought that the point of a business was to make money. What a silly capitalist concept.

Look at it this way. For every dollar you spend at Walmart you are giving 4 dollars away from you future and your children's future as wage earners for each hour of work in the immediate community you live in, in the United States.

I'd prefer not to look at it that way, since I prefer a worldview that is solidly encased in facts and reality, rather than wild statistical figures pulled out of thin air.

MachoNachos

P. S. I've refrained from commenting upon your mangling of the English language for fear that it will be assumed that I disagree with your point simply because you can't write/proofread. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Re: For every dollar you spend at Walmart you are giving 4 dollars away from you future and your children's future as wage earners for each hour of work in the immediate community you live in, in the United States.

Is this not true everywhere? There's an awful lot of Made in China stuff on the shelves at Target too.

I would not accept that label. I'm pretty centrist all in all. On some issues (abortion, immigration) I am fairly conservative. On a few others (gay rights, the need for universal health care) I break to the left of most people here. But the GOP can definitely get my vote. I have not floated off into left field beyond recall. :)

(PS: I also shop at Walmart)

I meant to say, "more liberal than me."

That's a label that fairly applies to just about everyone, though. :-)

Take the statement in its entirety at the very least as a backhanded compliment.

MachoNachos

I suggest you look at a sampling of annual proxy statements from typical US corporations.

In almost all cases the only things stockholders can vote on are: the board of directors (yes or abstain), the choice of auditors and new stock option plans for the top officers.

Many companies even have provisions that limit what stockholders can propose for a vote.

In a recent case a majority of stockholders voted for a position that management didn't approve and the vote was considered "advisory" and ignored.

In the case of Walmart the only people doing well from the company's wealth are the Walton family.

Each of the four children is worth over $40 billion. The average stockholder gets a very small dividend and the stock price performance has been dismal.

Changes to corporate policy only come from external forces. This may be regulatory, competition, or on rare occasions, from outside investors with enough ownership to command some power.

Watch what happens next at GM when Kekkorian gets 8% of the stock and we'll see how much influence stockholders have.

We got the message on this on the first posting...no need to repeat.

Having been in business for more than 38 years, founding 2 companies with more than 1,000 employees each, and dozens of lesser corporations that still enjoy high earnings today leaves me with no fear that I might not understanding at least the fundementals of capitalism much less the extremely advance concepts.

Any review of any respectable and national accredited university (which there are only about 30-35 at any given time in the U.S.) you will find a manditory curriculum in most of them that require what is called "business ethics".

In this course you will find not just 1 or 2 or perhaps 3 or so references to "fair trade pratice for the American consumer" you will find literally dozens of references that specifically speak of such trade and selling practice as unstable and immoral. But you'd have to go to an accredited school's business college to know so from being actually educated in the subject.

Cal Berkeley has one of the finest busniesses colleges in the entire world. The best and the brightest from all over the world seek to attend that college as well as just a few more that can match them. You'll need to maintain a 4.0 for 2 years under Berkeley's curriculum to be considered, if you can achieve that level of competents.

If so, you'll find more than 2 dozen courses specifically under the subject of "business ethics" where you will find hundreds of references to trade pratices that Wal-Mart utilizes. In fact, several text books use Wal-Mart as their specific example to teach the students what is not ethical.

Now, FDR certainly noticed what pure capitalism could create and so did the remainder of the world, but for those who have not been educated to that information yet, here are some examples.

Pure capitalism cares not about anyone or anything except profits. If you get sick as an employee, you are to be fired and dismissed. If you are overweight and consume too much and do too little, you are a burden to the system and should be dismissed. The abolishment of minimum wage must occure since that principle is more than anti-captialistic.

Bidding on what you will make today is the way to do pure capitalism. Those who can negotiate better get the best deals or those that know how to lock out competitors get them, for monopolies are the pinnacle of captialism.

There are no laws restricting child labor, health standards or safety whatsoever in pure capitalism. And, when the poor and starving need help, you let them starve, as they are not productive enough to be part of a pure capaitalistic system.

Murdering your competitors is also a common practice in pure capitalism and the quest to control more and more and more and give nothing back is the KEY GOAL!!!

No son, your understanding needs more education. There is no such system called capitalism in the United States and never was pure capitalism here, ever, good thing too.

Pure capitalism creates unspeakable atrocities and human suffering and thank God most countries have refrained from such a practice as long as we can remember. Even Rome paid their slaves as well as Egypt.

No son, what we have in America today and have always had, is a social systems that utilizes capitalistic economic principles. Of course a freshman class in any accredited busniess college would teach this.

Collecting taxes is also a very anti-capitalistic behavior as well, I think we do that too.

Insurance, public health, hospitals, roads, police departments, libraries, public television, street lights and on and on and on, were actually first started by one of the founders of this country Ben Franklin, all of which are socialistic, not capitalistic.

Perhaps to your dismay, we untilize far more socialistic outlines than we do capitalistic economic principles for our people and busniesses.

But then again why am I arguing this. If you had attended any of the colleges or courses references above, you would already know this.

Finally, I do suffer from a mild form of dyslexia which I will not apologies for. If I write another book that becomes published I pay people to edit for me.

Not something I would pay for on a blog.

(or perhaps my penchant for research, however small that may be), I assumed that there were actually over 120 accredited universities in the state of Texas alone.

We can argue all day long about laissez-faire capitalism vs. the moderately socialist form of capitalism that we practice here in the United States. And you can further extend your braggadoccio of your understanding (and apparently age, and progeny, since you keep referring to me as "son") and you won't convince me that the principal function of a business is anything other than to make money.

The "ethical" decisions that companies make (such as keeping an employee who is sick for a week) really have more to do with the retention of quality employees, which ultimately also contributes to the company bottom line. However, when "ethics" becomes a set of ideas forced upon a company about things that it must do, that are contrary to the long-term self-interest of the company, you can be sure that "ethics" is being used as a code word for "union talking points."

If all the experience that you claim to have in the business world hasn't taught you the lesson that when a company fails to make money, it fails to exist, then I don't know what more I can say that will help your understanding, "dad".

MachoNachos

In many small towns there aren't that many job opportunities, that's one of the factors Walmart uses when choosing a site.

You make "creating jobs" sound so sinister!  Excellent work.

FWIW my home town (~10k population then, ~20k now) recieved one of the very first Wal-Mart supercenters, back in the late eighties/early nineties (can't rmemeber exactly). Myself and about 30 of my school friends, organized by one of the children's enlightened parents, stood out front with banners saying "mom and pop" and "no globalization in missouri" etc.  Sam Walton drove his pickup truck up from Arkansas to cut the big yellow ribbon and we booed him.

We were sure that wal-mart would turn our town into, well, we weren't sure what, but it wouldn't be somewhere we'd want to live!

Since then the town has almost doubled in size; the economic recession that the whole area was in has receded, and there are more, larger, grocery stores than there were before the Wal Mart Supercenter opened.  Yes, the one that was there when the store opened had to close- it was not managed well, and I feel bad for old Mr Heck (who ran Heck's IGA).  But the town and all the people who live there are better off with the store than without it.

Now, of course I am not saying that the store saved my town, but the jobs that it and the other corporations that moved in shortly after provided definitely helped bring the standard of living up closer to the rest of the country.  I don't think anyone who lives there now (who also lived there before they moved in) wishes they would go away.  The only people who seem to have a problem with the store, besides those who try to shop there at 5 pm on payday, are those who moved in long after the store opened, and who seem to "remember" some idyllic time that never was.

Now, I do wish that a competitor that sells "american made" products would rise up out of the shadows and kick wal-mart's butt.  But that is a different article.

if someone who owns walmart sees that they are about to unionize, wouldn't that make profits go down even more and therefore cause the the peson to sell because the company isn't worth as much causing the overall worth of the company to drop even more.

Overall you've go to admit that Walmart and other giant companies have done more good for the average joe than bad. Without them there wouldn't  jobs for the teenagers and elderly trying to suplement their retirement income.

If people want to make more money let them start their own businesses. It really isn't that hard to become wealthy in this country if you want it or you could lay around and be a mooch.

And so what if the kids are worth $40 Billion each. Do you think that money just sits there doing nothing. Its a resource to be used like any other. If the Walton kids aren't using it the banks they keep it in certainly are. I doubt seriously the Waltons sit around thinking of how to screw over the little guy, they just want to avoid becoming one of them, and that the surest way to help the little guy out.

I am business school faculty--not only accredited, but one of the top rated business schools in the nation. And our leftist friend here has no idea what he is talking about. Yes, there are liberals on the faculty (though not raging Marxists), but I don't know one who would be caught dead spouting the sort of socialist nonsense we see here.

I suspect we have a phony.

Wal-Mart is free to allow or disallow unions in their corporation--since it is their corporation, and the jobs are theirs, not the employees'. It is not the government's role to intrude on Wal-Mart or any other business and force them to do either.

I'm not necessarily anti-union. Unions are fine, as long as they don't cross the line to extortion, which they nearly always do.

If there are few job opportunities in a community other than Wal-Mart, people are free to move to a larger community where there are. That's what living in a free country is all about.

From other articles that i've read, Wal-Mart pays more than other retail stores in this country.

Also, If we did some digging I bet we would find that these "poor" people that have to also live on food stamps and welfare were probably already on these programs Before they were employed by Wal-Mart.

They also probably have 3 or 4 children and are unwed mothers so that they qualify for these Welfare programs.

I have personally met many of these Wal-Mart employees and spoken to many of them and I know what I'm talking about. Their favorite phrase is "My baby's Daddy". Blame the lying Labor Unions

Walmart tends go for as much corprate welfare as possible.  Getting cities to pay for road improvements ect.  The also have (at least in Washington State) quite a few of FULL TIME workers on public health insurance.  

But, the solution to the whole Walmart thing is very simple. If you don't like Walmart, don't shop/work there. When Walmart tried to put a store in my town a bunch of us got together and guess what?  There is no Walmart in our town (Gig Harbor WA).  We fought them off and it wasn't even very hard.

You kept them out? Too bad for you. Wal-Mart provides badly needed jobs, especially for older citizens, products at affordable prices, and contrary to liberal whining, forces healthy and badly needed competition for local chains and businesses that often become complacent and take your business for granted.

Wal-Mart rocks. Where else can you get 550 .22LR rounds for just under ten bucks?

here tend to be conservative and anti-commie, er, anti-union. Course, this is a RED state, so there may be tons of diaper-wearing Wal-Mart employees in, oh, the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia, or Illinois.

We shop Target for "stuff" and Wegmans for groceries and are quite happy with the quality. Target is pretty good about giving back to the community and Wegmans treats their employees very well. By all means look around and do some research and I'm pretty sure you'll find an alternative to Walmart that has comparable prices, superior quality, and better business practices.  

Yep, we kept them out.  You can still hike and mountian bike where the Walmart would have been and we have plenty of jobs for people and retail options for shopping.  Had we let them in we'd just have Walmart.  

The thing that gets me is that Walmart gets treated like some unstoppable beast, when in fact it wasn't that hard to stop them.