April
13, 2005
The War on Wal-Mart
By
William Murchison
Wal-Mart's
chief executive went on the attack the other day against
the critics of the world's largest retailer. Just what is
it, he wanted to know, that some noisy, nosy folk have against
free choice?
H.
Lee Scott Jr. didn't put the matter nearly so bluntly, but
he certainly might have, if the spirit had so moved him.
Offering
middle-class America the widest selection of goods at the
lowest prices that market position and hard negotiating
can achieve has become a form of oppression: That would
seem to be the core of the hardening case against Wal-Mart.
Who
pleads that case? The United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, backed by no-growthers and take-your-progress-and-shove-it
types who want the chain's expansion halted.
Weary
of watching his company denounced as a grinder-down of the
working class and a despoiler of the environment, Scott,
in a meeting with the news media, called Wal-Mart "great
for America." He extolled the chain's approach to business.
He defended wage rates and benefits programs as fair. He
wanted, not unreasonably, to know why "people would line
up for jobs that are worse than they could get elsewhere,
with fewer benefits and less opportunity."
Good
question. We'll see what kind of answer it gets. What is
heartening is to sniff the prospect of good, open combat
between those who presume to judge where Americans should
shop and those who say to these same Americans: It's up
to you!
Possibly
my first task here is to declare relative impartiality regarding
Wal-Mart. Haven't shopped there or at a Sam's Club in 10
years or more. Couldn't tell you offhand where to find the
nearest Wal-Mart. Can't think of anything I'd want to do
there if I knew where to go. Don't really enjoy shopping,
come to think of it!
Well,
that's my own business. Others make it their business to
trade at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club as often as humanly possible.
Is it my business to discourage them, then, through trying
to block the building of new stores or agitating for the
overthrow of the present employer-employee relationship?
I'd say on the whole, no. Though others clearly wouldn't.
The
whole merit of free markets is supposed to be customer choice.
If you don't feel like trading with Neiman Marcus, why,
go on over to Wal-Mart. Or trade both places, depending
on price, convenience and specific needs. The call is up
to the customer -- theoretically.
We
know "the customer" isn't some paragon of wisdom and good
judgment. He's not even one thing -- he's everybody. You
let "him" choose what suits him best.
Ah!
But only (according to the union) if he shops where the
union has a foothold. It might well mean higher prices,
but, if so, tough. The United Food and Commercial Workers
Union's take on our national needs is more acute than our
own -- if you don't mind letting a union decide what's best
for you.
So
with the union's inference that, even though 1.5 million
people (worldwide) freely accept Wal-Mart's terms of employment,
a little coercion by the union on wages and benefits would
make their lives happier. Maybe. On the other hand, if the
union's terms preclude profit levels that afford employment
to 1.5 million people, employment is sure to shrink or slow
down.
The
Wal-Mart-busters, when you get down to it, aren't unduly
respectful of free choice, whether exercised by shoppers
or workers. They've got their own ideas, which, in their
own minds, take precedence over the ideas and notions of
others.
Did
anyone really foresee American liberalism -- the creed,
broadly speaking, of the Wal-Mart-busters -- becoming snobbish
to this degree? Well, yeah, actually. From the 1930s, union
organizers set out to hogtie large companies, thus restricting
such latitude as those companies enjoyed to adapt, experiment
and reach out.
Then,
on Wal-Mart, the unions ganged up with the no-growthers
-- an odd combo, indeed, given labor's constant need for
new jobs. You could call it Howard Dean's America. If you
wanted to call it America.
Copyright
2005 Creators Syndicate
Send
This Article to a Friend
