Unions use fake religion to attack Wal-Mart

From MSNBC...

A new television ad by the union-backed group WakeUpWalMart.com features a pastor asking, “Would Jesus shop at Wal-Mart? Should you?”

Accompanying the ad, is a letter to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. CEO Lee Scott that was signed by more than 130 clergy members. The letter asks Wal-Mart to provide a “higher standard for its employees and their families,” which the letter says would reflect “the best of Christian values.”...

Pastor Joe Phelps of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., asks in the ad, “Can we continue to shop at Wal-Mart without insulting God?” He lists allegations that Wal-Mart has violated child labor laws and engaged in gender-based discrimination, and says half the company's 1.3 million U.S. employees aren't covered under the company health plan.

First of all let's address how painfully ignorant these fake pastors are about Jesus. Did He shun sinners? No, he actually reserved His most gentle words for them, and intentionally sought them out, at times, to tell them about Himself (remember the Samaritan woman at the well). So claiming Jesus would never go somewhere where supposedly "bad people" were is showing that they really don't get what Jesus came here for.

Second, is the blatant lies about Wal-Mart. 

"Wal-Mart has violated child labor laws"

From MSNBC (Feb 12, 2005)...

The 24 violations, which occurred at stores in Arkansas, Connecticut and New Hampshire, had to do with teenage workers who used hazardous equipment such as a chain saw, paper bailers and fork lifts.

Here's a dirty little secret for those of you have haven't really had that much experience with reality. People break laws. But, they rationalize it because they think, "I've only broken 10% of the law, so that's, like an 'A', right?" Well then the government responds by making laws more strict than they need to be in order to force the 80-90% that people violate to 100% of what they really want. Why do you think speed limits are set so insanely low in most places? 

So these "child labor laws" that they are whining about are laws like, "No person under the age of 18 may operate this type of machine/vehicle/etc". When I was in college I had a summer job at a local restaurant that was part of a major Pizza restaurant chain. On my first day I was being trained by a kid who was 17. He showed me how to use the big mixer that mixes the pizza dough. In large letters, on the front of the machine, it said "No person under the age of 18 is allowed to operate this device." I asked him, "Aren't you 17?" (Remember, he was training me on how to use it, implying that he'd had enough experience using it to know how to train someone). He said, "Yeah, so?" And I pointed to the warning. He smiled, rolled his eyes, and said, "Oh, yeah, like anyone ever takes those things seriously."

It is impossible for any company to keep teenage employees from doing things that violate child labor laws, because the child labor laws are so annoyingly idiotic. What would happen if a 17-year-old turned on a paper bailer than wouldn't happen if an 18-year-old did? Nothing, other than the 17-year-old would be in violation of the law. Try to convince a 17-year-old to respect the laws under those conditions. Go ahead, try.

When you find out the specific of what these "violations of child labor laws" really are, you see how pathetically ludicrous they are.

"...engaged in gender-based discrimination"

Who isn't? I go into the men's room based on gender discrimination. I shop in the men's section for clothing based on gender discrimination. The term "gender discrimination" is treated as if it, in itself, is describing a bad thing. It isn't. Everyone, Everyone, discriminates based on gender.

But, there are cases of inappropriate gender discrimination. (note that the complaint made by the fake pastors didn't call it "inappropriate gender discrimination", but simply "gender discrimination"). But statistic rarely, ever give you an accurate view of when inappropriate gender discrimination has occurred, and almost all of the "evidence" against Wal-Mart in the class action suit being chummed by low-life attorneys is based on statistics. 

Women simply aren't as assertive as men. It's a fact of life, and pretending they are helps no one. But, there are some women who see that difference and try to compensate. Unfortunately most do so by simply becoming unbearably pushy and bullying. (Yes, I know there's a word for that, but I don't like using it) So when it comes to a qualified pool of management applicants, men will be better represented, and you will always (unless another form of inappropriate gender discrimination is applied) find more men in management.

Another dirty little secret of life is that entry level positions in quite a number of industries go most of the time to women. Armed with an Associate in Business Administration and an Associated in Management I hit the pavement in my earlier years looking for entry level positions in accounting firms or other related businesses. What I discovered is that I was being passed over for girls, who had no degree and no experience. But, while entry level positions were handed out freely to highly unqualified women, advancements weren't. Easy in, but not easy up. It was those rare men who somehow managed to get in the door that advancements were given to. Unfair? Really? Why is it unfair that men get advanced more easily, but not unfair that women get in the door more easily. When the National Organization for Women starts complaining about the low expectations businesses have for entry level women, then I'll start taking them serious about complaints of few women in management. 

Notice that no one is complaining that Wal-Mart actually hires more women than men, only that they advance more men than women. Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile scavenging lawyers are harassing Wal-Mart because of the very phenomenon that women enjoy when it benefits them, but whine about when it doesn't. 

That being said, Wal-Mart has always had a problem (as do most bigger business) with accountability among its management. Jerks may be hard to get along with, but sometimes they improve profits by streamlining personnel expenses. Ultimately it's a short-term, and self-defeating tactic, because it lowers payroll at the expense of employee loyalty, and employee loyalty translates into efficiency. But a brusk, insensitive, no-nonsense manager can strip off the dead wood from a low performing store, which endears him to management, who then will sometimes look the other way when complaints arise about his (or her) tactics. But, that's a fairly common business practice, and a by-product of that is an increase in the very kind of complaints Wal-Mart is being accused of. But that increase is typically not in legitimate complaints, but retaliatory complaints over other perceived wrongs that just don't sound as good as "sexual discrimination".

Here's another interesting thing to note. There are four law firms and three non-profit organizations in the class action suit against Wal-Mart. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll is one of them. Of the 61 attorneys they list, only 38 have distinctly male names, 18 have distinctly female names and 5 have names that, well, it's anybody's guess. So if we look at only those obviously male or female, that's 56 attorneys, 32% of which are women. Remember, the complaint is that Wal-Mart is unfairly discriminating because only 33% of their management is female.

Then there's Davis, Cowell and Bowe. Twenty four attorneys listed, 17 men, 7 women. So only 29% of their attorneys are women.

The other two are small firms. Tinkler & Firth (there's Stephen Tinkler and Charlie Firth, so they have 0% women.) and Merit Bennet. He's a guy, and listed only by name among those working on the class action suit, but his firm is Bennet and Kosh (Talia Kosh), and there's no info on who Talia Kosh is.

So half of the firms suing Wal-Mart have an even poorer "record" (if you call raw statistics a record, which they're certainly doing) of what they are implying is inappropriate gender discrimination.

"...half the company's 1.3 million U.S. employees aren't covered under the company health plan"

Well, duh! They're teenagers. They're housewives getting a little extra Christmas money. They're senior citiznes hoping to keep from being bored to death during retirement. Teenagers would be on their parents' health insurance. Housewives would have it through their husband's jobs. Retired people have it already, as well as Medicare. So what percent of Wal-Mart employees that don't have insurance through Wal-Mart actually need or even want insurance through Wal-Mart. Y'know what, I've taken the time to ask, and I can't find one yet that says they actually need Wal-Mart to provide them insurance.

It's a non-issue that the unions want to pretend is, because they want Wal-Mart unionized.

Back to Jesus

Here's something we do know about Jesus. When confronted with people using the temple to make a profit, he took a rope and beat the snot out of 'em and ran them off. Seems He was pretty serious about people not using God's house or name for worldly means. So what is it exactly that these fake pastors are doing? They're taking union money to use Jesus' name in an attempt to force Wal-Mart to unionize so the unions can then force Wal-Mart employees to pay the union dues.

Y'know I don't know whether Jesus would shop at Wal-Mart or not, but what I have a good idea what He'd do to these fake religious leaders using Christianity for their own, personal gain. My guess is He'd be smacking them up-side the head with a stout rope.

Posted by Danny Carlton at December 14, 2006 7:30 AM