The wonderful thing about this forum is that there are so many diverse opinions, so I wouldn’t doubt that some here advocate boycotting Wal-mart while others love the store.
Any time you have to use this statemsnt it usually means that t is not a “reputable website” and by he way who makes that determination of reputability?
No, they said Wal-Mart in particular, not **any **non-union company.
I only used the statement because the other poster used the word “propraganda”.
Ahhh yes I am familiar with those people… Around here they are called they. As in “you know what they say” or “They told me” "“They are out to get me” “They are watching” and only the occasional “they were right”
So its a human rights violation for Wal-mart to oppose unionization but not for other companies? If you dont like wal-mart thats fine. But to carry that to the extreme of saying they are guilty of Human Rights violations is specious at best
Much better for it to be “they” then for it to be “Them”! :bigyikes:
Great Movie!
Now here’s a good example. I have had HORRIBLE experiences with three out of the four local Meijers near me. And yet, Jen, you have every right to go there if they are good to you- or even if not, but you just choose to go there.I don’t shop at Walmart, but not because I think it’s immoral. For reasons cited by other posters, I think it’s fine if you want to shop there. I’ve not personally had one good shopping experience at a Walmart store, so I choose to spend my money elsewhere. We have a locally-based chain (Meijer) that is similar to Walmart in that it has good prices and a ridiculous amount of stuff under one roof. I prefer to shop there when I need to purchase groceries, gardening supplies, shoes, and spark plugs in one trip. I get good deals, the groceries are generally of excellent quality, and hey, anything to keep Michigan’s economy from tanking further, right?
To answer you first question, no, it’s a human rights violation for any company, not just Wal-Mart. But since this thread wasn’t about “any” company, that’s why I provided the link.
Okay, I’ll pay a bit more for “the single mom working minimum wage and consistently shorted just enough weekly hours NOT to get health benefits.”
I wondered why the people who put up that website aren’t lockin’ and loadin’ and going out to right wrongs in places like Dafur?
I linked to what I thought was propganda on their site.I find it interesting that you find a moral equivalence between Dafur and Wal-Mart. It is becuase of hysteria like that that most people dont take the complaints about Wal-mart seriously.
If they get that hyserical over Wal-Mart, they ought, as I said, be lockin’ and loadin’ and heading for Dafur.
Aside from fewer jobs due to higher employment costs, the union would probably freeze her out – so some union member’s son or daughter can have the job.
Wal-Mart has saved rural America. Many little towns in the backwoods are suddenly viable again because people living there can find a wide assortment of goods at low prices – and not a few of them get jobs at Wal-Mart, too.
Please tell me where I stated there was a moral equivalence between Darfur and Wal-Mart. You are attempting to put words in my mouth. You are being disingenuious.
The website you cited seemed to do just that.
How is giving her a job “taking advantage of her?”
The website never stated there was an eqivalency between the subjects. That’s a conclusion you made.
Since she took the job and continues to hold it, she obviously disagrees with you.
Wal-Mart does not have a policy on who they give to and who they don’t. Instead, they follow a “power-down” policy, where each store manager has a charity budget and makes his own decisions who to give to.
Maybe she just needs to put food on the table for her children?Since she took the job and continues to hold it, she obviously disagrees with you.