Are we free or not?
Published Wed, Aug 27 2008 6:31 PM
As some of you that follow this blog know, I went camping a couple of weeks ago. The trip was timed to coincide as closely as possible to our sister in law's fiftieth birthday. We (my wife and I, and her sister and brother in law, and her parents) pooled our funds and purchased a new sewing machine for her. Apparently, my wife and I (we made the actual purchase) committed a cardinal sin in choosing the retailer where we exchanged our community funds for the machine — we bought it at Wal-Mart. While talking about it around the campfire one night, Stan mentioned that he doesn't shop at Wal-Mart because they're “unfair to their employees”. I practically bit my tongue off to keep from entering into a long argument, for many reasons. But, his comment got me to thinking.
I wonder how it is that Wal-Mart is actually “unfair to their employees”. If I recall correctly, Wal-Mart isn't unionized. They don't have a collective bargaining agreement with their employees, and many employees are stock-holders — they own a piece of the company. Is it perhaps because they aren't unionized that they're “unfair to their employees”?
Somehow, I just can't accept this concept (and it may not be the basis of Stan's argument). Collective bargaining agreements have a tendency to be unfair to the employer and the employee alike. It becomes next to impossible to fire an employee for incompetence or even malfeasance. Wages and job security in collective bargaining agreements are often set based upon tenure rather than merit, so working harder isn't likely to result in higher pay, and a better employee may be laid off simply because a poor employee has been with the company longer.
Is Wal-Mart's “unfairness” related to their benefits package (or lack thereof)? Again, I don't think so. When a person chooses to seek employment at any business, they are selling their labor for money. They are unlikely to be loyal to the company, and unlikely to work their entire career there. If the company chooses to offer lavish benefits, that's actually something that ought to be considered as a part of the total compensation package. If the company doesn't, the prospective employee ought to consider that before deciding to sell their labor. Choosing to sell your labor for less than it's worth isn't wise, but the company is under no legal obligation to provide benefits beyond the salary they offer to the prospective employee.
Finally, Wal-Mart employees choose to work there. They enter into an “at will” employment arrangement. Yes, Wal-Mart can fire them if they don't perform, and doesn't have to give an explanation. Is that unfair? I don't think so. After all, the employees can quit at any time too, without having to give notice. Nobody forces the employees to work at Wal-Mart. They exercise their liberty and choose to work there. If the company is unfair to their employees, the employees can vote with their feet, and choose to work somewhere else.
That's the essence of freedom.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1233
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/8/27/1233.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Angel responded with:
 | hey Perri..the left loves to bash Walmart..that and oil companies!:) |
Wingless responded with:
 | Angel said:
"the left loves to bash Walmart..that and oil companie"
Response:
They seem to bash every highly successful entity on the planet. When you start out they call you "aspiring entepreneur", they laud you for "initiative" and for "creating jobs" yet if you end up really succeeding you become the "evil exploiter of the people"...
When I was more left-inclined, I'd ask the question: SO WHEN IS IT THEY BECOME EVIL? THE FIRST MILLION? THE SECOND?
Walmart's buying-power also means working class people have access to higher quality items at far lower costs... Here in Canada they really are an oasis. When they first landed here, people were skeptical & suspicious, there was alot of outcry over the fact that they put Canadian companies out of business; but a few years on I think most Canadians realize that the consumer is the big winner (& the biggest power in the equation). Sure, a few Canadian companies had to go under BUT they did so because they could not match WalMarts quality at their low price-points. At the end-of-the-day, it wasn't Walmart, but rather, the average 'working class' Proletariat that made the decision to go with the better/cheaper American store.
FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, FREE MARKET MORALITY, FREE MARKET CHOICE... |
Comments to this entry are closed.