Maryland Attacks Wal-Mart

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]JasonE wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think Walmart employees probably should unionize if it is as bad as they say.

I think the state of MD has no right to force the issue.

I expect Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware will be getting more shoppers.

Perhaps you should research what WalMart has done when unionization has been attempted. They are perhaps the most anti-union employer in the country.

The state of Maryland has every right to determine the laws governing the businesses operating within its borders. It seems that the new law simply enforces an established minimum standard already exceeded by other employers. The fact that WalMart is the only business whose expenditures will be affected is a sad commentary on how little regard they have for the wellbeing of their employees.

I do not spend money at WalMart, and I discourage others from doing so. I do not support businesses that place profit ahead of ethics or their responsibilities as members of the communities in which they operate.

[/quote]

Let’s look at your point that the “state of Maryland has every right to (do this).”

So what other restrictions or mandates on business do you think the government has an absolute “right” to impose on private business? Perhaps a state has the right to tell business that they must pay a certain portion of their empolyees’ car insurance or mandate specific vactaion time – after all these things are important too.

Perhaps employers must provide a portion of an employees’ rent or mortgage payment – after all don’t people have the ‘right’ to a really decent place to live?

Where would this end? What kind of society to your liberals want? They tried this already – it is called Socialism. That is NOT what we are supposed to have in the U.S. despite your efforts over the last 60 years to turn our country into one.

We are a democracy where the free market is supposed to rule. The Constitution spells out what the Fedeal government can or cannot do and the various State Constitutions spell out what the states can or cannot do.

You will not be able to find anything showing that the government has the right to mandate benefits from employers to employees in PRIVATE companies. Remember, when someone opens a business it is THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Oh, of course, you libs hate that idea of private property or private enterprise.

Your heros Marx and Lennin would be very proud of you!

102

I wish people would stop worshipping at the alter of profits.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with profits, they aren’t the holy grail of life on this planet.

The measure of a man is not how much money he can amass. There is this little matter called ethics…

I am annoyed how many bad decisions people make in order to make short term gains at the expense of others, the environment, even long term success.

It’s a segue, but I’m taking a class these days. Last tutorial consisted of a labor relations scenario:

  • A company gave it’s employees a 15% pay cut, because times were tough.

  • Employees are being replaced with machines.

  • Benefits had been cancelled, and only some employees had benefits.

  • The employees were in a struggling community and had no other places to go for work.

  • Employees were charged with asking management to improve their situation.

  • Management was paid based on the profitability of the company.

  • Times had changed, and the company was now making money hand over fist.

As someone lumped into the management group, I was shocked to hear how ruthless all my young compatriots were. Fire them all! Give them nothing! Outsource everything!

Wow.

Not a seconds thought to anything except profit. No concern for the well being of the community. No concern for the well being of the employees. No thought to return the rollbacks that the employees had agreed to during tough times.

They must be compassionate conservatives… :wink:

103

[quote]vroom wrote:
I wish people would stop worshipping at the alter of profits.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with profits, they aren’t the holy grail of life on this planet.

The measure of a man is not how much money he can amass. There is this little matter called ethics…

I am annoyed how many bad decisions people make in order to make short term gains at the expense of others, the environment, even long term success.

It’s a segue, but I’m taking a class these days. Last tutorial consisted of a labor relations scenario:

  • A company gave it’s employees a 15% pay cut, because times were tough.

  • Employees are being replaced with machines.

  • Benefits had been cancelled, and only some employees had benefits.

  • The employees were in a struggling community and had no other places to go for work.

  • Employees were charged with asking management to improve their situation.

  • Management was paid based on the profitability of the company.

  • Times had changed, and the company was now making money hand over fist.

As someone lumped into the management group, I was shocked to hear how ruthless all my young compatriots were. Fire them all! Give them nothing! Outsource everything!

Wow.

Not a seconds thought to anything except profit. No concern for the well being of the community. No concern for the well being of the employees. No thought to return the rollbacks that the employees had agreed to during tough times.

They must be compassionate conservatives… ;)[/quote]

Once you start selling stock and promising stock holders that you are going to maximize profits, to not do so is unethical.

If you start a company and sell your stock while honestly explaining that you are a bleeding heart liberal who won’t be trying to maximize profits, THEN it is perfectly fine to pursue other goals.

104

[quote]Once you start selling stock and promising stock holders that you are going to maximize profits, to not do so is unethical.

If you start a company and sell your stock while honestly explaining that you are a bleeding heart liberal who won’t be trying to maximize profits, THEN it is perfectly fine to pursue other goals.[/quote]

This may be true in make-believe land, but in the real world, you don’t tell people you will maximize profits. You theoretically tell them you will run their business professionaly and with due attention to risks.

If they think you appear to have a good shot at earning them a decent profit, through whatever means you describe, then they will let you use their money.

Sometimes a lack of ethics incurs a large risk, which would have been better avoided.

What you are talking about is exploding stock market prices so that the management and executives can get huge compensation bonuses. Unfortunately, this is another one of those “short term” issues that can cause longer term problems as well.

105

[quote]doogie wrote:
I think in the end, Wal-Mart may fire a lot of their part-time employees and keep more full-time(even if that means paying some overtime) until they are under the 17,000 employee limit. It would be funny to watch the Maryland legislature run back to amend the law.[/quote]

Gotta agree with you here, Doogie. I wouldn’t put it past Wal Mart to do something like that. Or close a few of their stores to stay under the limit.

106

[quote]vroom wrote:
I wish people would stop worshipping at the alter of profits.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with profits, they aren’t the holy grail of life on this planet.

The measure of a man is not how much money he can amass. There is this little matter called ethics…

I am annoyed how many bad decisions people make in order to make short term gains at the expense of others, the environment, even long term success.

It’s a segue, but I’m taking a class these days. Last tutorial consisted of a labor relations scenario:

  • A company gave it’s employees a 15% pay cut, because times were tough.

  • Employees are being replaced with machines.

  • Benefits had been cancelled, and only some employees had benefits.

  • The employees were in a struggling community and had no other places to go for work.

  • Employees were charged with asking management to improve their situation.

  • Management was paid based on the profitability of the company.

  • Times had changed, and the company was now making money hand over fist.

As someone lumped into the management group, I was shocked to hear how ruthless all my young compatriots were. Fire them all! Give them nothing! Outsource everything!

Wow.

Not a seconds thought to anything except profit. No concern for the well being of the community. No concern for the well being of the employees. No thought to return the rollbacks that the employees had agreed to during tough times.

They must be compassionate conservatives… ;)[/quote]

Hey Vroom,

Your posts are always thoughtful, although I often disagree with you.

The main point here is not about profits, but private property. In The United States we have private ownership of the means of production. This is guranteed by the U.S. Constituiion – life, liberty, and property.

As a conservative who likes to think of himself as compassionate, I would (if I owned a business) take good care of my employees because I would think that this is right. However, I should not be FORCED to give specific benefits to them because since I own the business (i.e. it is my property in this scenario) I should be able to do what I wish with it. When I hire employees and explain what the wages and benefits are, the person has the right to take the job or not take the job. That person, however, has no right to take the job and then seek to force me to give something that was not part of the hiring agreement.

It would be the same thing if someone would rent a room in your house, and then the government forced you to give them your car to use to go to work. Afterall, going to work is essential and they should have the ‘right’ to do this. This would be most compassionate, don’t you think? Of course this example is ridiculous as is a state forcing an employer to give specific benefits.

Private property is private property or it is not. I don’t wish to live in a quasi-Soviet style economic system. That has been tried and it has proved a complete and utter failure.

We are supposed to be a Free Market economy, fuled by the innovation and initiative that only privately held firms driven (yes I am about to use the “P” word) by the profit motive. As the great classical economist Adam Smith said, (paraphrase) that as people seek to do for their own good they will, as if by an invisible hand, provide for the common good.

107

A federal judge just knocked this law down as Unconstitutional. Don’t know much more about it at this point:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAL_MART?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-19-14-23-03

EXCERPT:

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”

The reporter obviously isn’t very versed in the legal issues, so hopefully more on this will turn up soon.

108

This was from back in January, but law professor Paul Secunda from the University of Mississippi predicted this result, on these grounds, back when the law was passed:

Maryland Wal-Mart Bill Looks Like A Go, But What About ERISA Preemption?

Update: Maryland Attorney General disagrees with my preemption analysis ( News – Maryland Health Care for All )(thanks to Matt Bodie at PrawfsBlawg for the tip: PrawfsBlawg ).

This just in: House Overrides Governor’s Veto on Maryland Wal-Mart Bill ( Maryland House Overrides Veto of Health Care Bill - The New York Times ).

The Wall Street Journal is reporting in this article ( http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113709431724945110-qlGZV_KE4LbHERjISLNV63gVpow_20060119.html ):

[i] Maryland’s Senate voted today to become the first state to enact a law forcing large employers – namely Wal-Mart Stores Inc. – to spend a certain amount of their payrolls in the state on health insurance for their workers.

The Senate voted 30-17 this afternoon to override Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich's veto of the bill last year. The Maryland House, needing 85 votes for an override, is expected to vote this evening.

The bill proposed requiring employers with more than 10,000 workers in Maryland to pay a penalty to the state's health-insurance program if they fall short of paying the equivalent of 8% of their payroll in the state for health insurance for those employees.

Only four companies are large enough in Maryland to be covered by the bill; Of those, only Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart might fall short of the 8% threshold and therefore pay a penalty. Wal-Mart representatives told Maryland lawmakers last year that the company's contributions toward health insurance for Maryland workers equaled between 7% and 8% of its payroll in the state. Wal-Mart employs 16,988 workers at 53 stores and two warehouses in Maryland.

Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst declined to comment on Wal-Mart's plans should the override effort succeed.[/i]

All of this, of couse, is very interesting to this employee benefits guy, but I wonder whether such a law would survive ERISA preemption?

Recall that Massachusetts and Illinois are considering legislation which would require employers to foot the bill for employee health care through a “pay-or-play system.” My previous post discussing those laws is here.

My first impression conclusion here is probably the same conclusion I came to there: it all depends on whether Wal-Mart self-insures its health plans. If it does, the deemer clause should lead to ERISA preemption of the state law; if not (that is, it insures its health plans through another company), it should be saved from ERISA preemption as a law that regulates insurance under ERISA’s Savings Clause.

109

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
You have a point nephorm that its unfair to single out a particular company. Well walamart has been overdue for a while now on a lot of things based on its growing unpopularity. im just seeing both sides of the arguement and if wally world doesnt want these kinds of actions in the future , it should do more corporate responsibility stuff.[/quote]

They’re overdue based on their unpopularity? Since when is unpopularity a crime? And how are they so unpopular and they’re still selling so much crap?? Because it’s cheap! For the small loud number of people whining about employee benefits (which I don’t think is what’s really behind it), there’s a whole lot more people shopping at Walmart.

Walmart was basically a retail revolution and our economy has certainly been boosted by it.

Has anyone stopped to think maybe the problem isn’t mean, evil Walmart who wants their employees to be sick, but rather our completely disasterous healthcare system? When will we start talking about the mean, evil, greedy pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and the worst of the lot - trial lawyers?!?! They’re the ones making my life miserable on a daily basis, certainly not Walmart!

110

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A federal judge just knocked this law down as Unconstitutional. Don’t know much more about it at this point:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAL_MART?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-19-14-23-03

EXCERPT:

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”

The reporter obviously isn’t very versed in the legal issues, so hopefully more on this will turn up soon.[/quote]

Thanks for the link BB, helpful as usual.

Those on this thread who are bemoaning the “vicious” treatment of employees of Wal-Mart need to wake up.

Let’s get a few facts straight for the “business challenged” on this thread:

Last time that I checked there is no such thing as indentured servitude in America. If an empolyee is not satisfied with his wages, benefits, or general working conditions he or she may quit the job for a better opportunity elsewhere. Is that a shock to some of you bleeding hearts? I’ve quit plenty of jobs in my time and gone on to better opportunities.

When you applaud a bone headed move such as what MD tried to pull you are in essence stating that the government knows better than the business, or the individual(s) who actually own the said business property. You can also look at it this way: If you owned a house on a certain piece of property would you want the government telling you exactly HOW to operate your house? When and how to pay your bills? When to mow your lawn? How many trees you should plant?

No…that sort of government interference is unfair. It’s only “fair” when it’s happening to someone else. In this case a lage company …after all they are a company it’s not like the government is actually hurting people right?

What about that old lady who invested her life savings in Wal-Mart stock? Is she evil too? Does she deserve the government coming down on her? Should she lose her investment? To hear some of you on this thread you would think that Wal-Mart stock holders have no rights. When in fact Wal-Mart stockholders are folks just like you and I who might own a few shares of a business in hopes that the shares will go up and we can make a profit.

Some of you act as if Wal-Mart is inherently evil because of their size. They are large therefore you draw the erroneous conclusion that they must, for some reason, be stopped. In order to become a large company they did plenty of things right.

Have you noticed that they have:

Better prices which means PEOPLE BENEFIT!

They have: large locations with great selection of products and PEOPLE BENEFIT!

They have: Large numbers of people employed, where would they be working otherwise? And PEOPLE BENEFIT!

In reality, they (like you and I) are only going to do what helps them succeed.

vroom, if you or Irish opened up a Gym would you not pay your employees just enough to keep them happy but not so much that it dug too deeply into your profits?

Of course you would!

Because Wal-Mart does this on a very large scale makes them evil?

LOL

A smart company like Wal-Mart understands that employee relations are indeed important. However, management also understands that their “Supreme” obligation is to their stockholders, the real owners of the company. And it matters not whether they have one store or 10,000 stores a business must turn a reasonable profit and continue to add to both top and bottom line growth.

Those who are advocating socialist actions need to take a step back. When you are taking that step back consider for a moment what prices were like BEFORE Wal-Mart arrived on the scene. The small town retailer took great advantage of the local folks by price gouging on a regular basis. I’m old enough to remember those types of merchants who thrived before Wal-Mart. No one ever cried foul when they were building their family fortunes by tripling their cost of goods sold. And they usually didn’t give their employees any benefits to speak of.

And they are the very reason that giants like Wal-Mart were able to spring up.

I see a profit motive.

More opportunity for people to work.

Lower prices for consumers.

And…

More accessibiltiy to varied goods.

What I don’t see…

is inherent evil and abuse by anyone other than the few state (and local) governments who are trying to play big brother!

111

Stop your bullshit Zeb. The stuff is cheaper because they sell a crappier product. They tell the distibutors what they’re going to sell the thing for, and that’s it. Therefore, metal pieces are instead made of plastic, glass bottles become plastic, etc.

Even their gatorade tastes different.

They treat their employees like crap, and offer a shitty product. They also censor musicians at will depending on whether or not they will sell their records.

I guess it is the “American Way”- underpay your employees, sell shitty foreign goods, and lie to you consumers that you’re really a workingman’s company. Sounds like Republicans…

Fuck them.

112

[quote]ZEB wrote:

When you applaud a bone headed move such as what MD tried to pull you are in essence stating that the government knows better than the business, or the individual(s) who actually own the said business property. You can also look at it this way: If you owned a house on a certain piece of property would you want the government telling you exactly HOW to operate your house? When and how to pay your bills? When to mow your lawn? How many trees you should plant?

No…that sort of government interference is unfair. It’s only “fair” when it’s happening to someone else. In this case a lage company …after all they are a company it’s not like the government is actually hurting people right?

[/quote]

What a hypocrite.

Republicans are fine with inerfering with our lives on every other level, be it listening to phone calls, banning abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. However, when it comes to keeping profit margins high, then it’s Big Brother??

Not too mention, if you don’t want Wal-Mart providing better healthcare, and being as a national healthcare system is obviously some sinister socialist plot, what the fuck are these people supposed to do?

…I know, I know, get a new job.

And they say Democrats are out of touch with the working people…

113

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Stop your bullshit Zeb. The stuff is cheaper because they sell a crappier product. They tell the distibutors what they’re going to sell the thing for, and that’s it.[/quote]

Crappier product?

Um…I just purchased something at Wal-Mart last weekend. I walked through the store and marveled at all of the brand names and the great prices that I could buy them at.

And…

It happens to be the retailers responsibility to get the very best price that the can from the distributor. You see Irish, that assures that you can I can purchase those products at the best possible price.

It’s good for the company and it’s good for the consumer…In short it’s good business!

Define “crap” please.

Do they tell them at the interview how much they are going to make?

Yes.

Do they give them an employee handbook which explains the company benefits?

Yes.

Do they adhere to federal and state laws regarding company treatment of employees?

Yes.

Do they FORCE them to stay with the company if they are not happy?

No.

You see…you are confused.

They have the right to carry whichever record lable and artis that they like. It’s their company not the “artists.”

You must realize this…no?

No one has to work there.

Yet sales are over 200 billion if I’m not mistaken.

Shitty products?

Why are people buying them then?

[quote] and lie to you consumers that you’re really a workingman’s company. Sounds like Republicans…

Fuck them. [/quote]

You are a very confused young man Irish. Seriously…

114

I am traditionally conservative on most views, but the Wal-Mart issue really burns me. They, in reality weaken our economy by putting manufacturing companies out of bussiness because they can’t make it cheap enough and then the manufacturing comapnies must move to countries like china so they can make the stuff cheap enough. Because of this practice quality of product suffers and so do people. As for me I will only buy from Wal-Mart if I have to. I buy all if not almost all my products made in the USA or one of its allies, ex. Japan, any European country, except for the French.

This little cartoon, while meant to be comical explains my whole view:

http://jibjab.com/JokeBox/JokeBox_JJOrig.aspx?movieid=122

115

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

When you applaud a bone headed move such as what MD tried to pull you are in essence stating that the government knows better than the business, or the individual(s) who actually own the said business property. You can also look at it this way: If you owned a house on a certain piece of property would you want the government telling you exactly HOW to operate your house? When and how to pay your bills? When to mow your lawn? How many trees you should plant?

No…that sort of government interference is unfair. It’s only “fair” when it’s happening to someone else. In this case a lage company …after all they are a company it’s not like the government is actually hurting people right?

What a hypocrite.

Republicans are fine with inerfering with our lives on every other level, be it listening to phone calls, banning abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. However, when it comes to keeping profit margins high, then it’s Big Brother??[/quote]

I actually agree with you on a few of these issues. But that has NOTHING to do with Wal-mart or any other business which has the right to operate in the US.

What you don’t get Irish is that not everyone is going to be highly paid. Not everyone has the skills, education, drive etc, to make a high wage. And many of those people work at Wal-Mart. And quite honestly they are most likely happy that they have a job. If not why do they work there?

It’s called the free market system.

116

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

When you applaud a bone headed move such as what MD tried to pull you are in essence stating that the government knows better than the business, or the individual(s) who actually own the said business property. You can also look at it this way: If you owned a house on a certain piece of property would you want the government telling you exactly HOW to operate your house? When and how to pay your bills? When to mow your lawn? How many trees you should plant?

No…that sort of government interference is unfair. It’s only “fair” when it’s happening to someone else. In this case a lage company …after all they are a company it’s not like the government is actually hurting people right?

What a hypocrite.

Republicans are fine with inerfering with our lives on every other level, be it listening to phone calls, banning abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. However, when it comes to keeping profit margins high, then it’s Big Brother??

I actually agree with you on a few of these issues. But that has NOTHING to do with Wal-mart or any other business which has the right to operate in the US.

What you don’t get Irish is that not everyone is going to be highly paid. Not everyone has the skills, education, drive etc, to make a high wage. And many of those people work at Wal-Mart. And quite honestly they are most likely happy that they have a job. If not why do they work there?

It’s called the free market system.

[/quote]

I understand that.

Healthcare, however, falls into one of the basic needs for everyone, right next to food, water and shelter. If the company gives shitty benefits, or benefits that are too expensive, everyone pays for it.

This is why I still believe that national healthcare should be a priority.

117

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What a hypocrite.
[/quote]

Irish, that’s not really fair to say about ZEB… he has consistently argued against a lot of the programs that infringe on privacy.

ZEB, I will disagree with you, from a business perspective, about how to come up with salaries. I have a friend who owns a business, and her motto is that she pays her employees as much as she possibly can. She knows that if she skimps a dollar or two an hour, they might be happy with it for now, but in a month or a year, they will find another job that pays that much more. And many employees aren’t going to give you a chance to make up the salary difference… they’ll take themselves, and their experience, elsewhere.

Certainly you need to balance employee salaries with profits. But the “pay as little as possible” business strategy is one reason I left my last job, and now charge those guys a premium in consulting fees.

118

FightinIrish26:

Yes…national healthcare…it’s FREE WEEEEEEEEE…everyone can have it. All you have to do is sign up right here folks.

LOL

All you are saying in essence is that you want someone else (those companies and people making more money than you) to pay for your health care costs.

Yea…it’s always nice when someone else picks up the tab. I try to get my brother to do that everytime we go out to lunch. But, I’m never successful, even when I explain to him that he makes more than me and that I need, deserve and could really use that free lunch.

Odd how that works huh?

Someone has to pay!

But I wonder why you, or anyone else, would think that it is automatically the employers duty, or even the governments, to supply a full health care package?

Food is basic…should the government supply that for you too? Of course, that does happen. It’s called Welfare.

So YOU want “healthfare.”

Back to economics:

Are you prepared to pay more for that widget you buy at Wal-Mart because they were FORCED to include a costly health care plan?

I don’t think the majority of Americans would say that they are willing to pay more.

Are some of the people who enjoy their jobs at Wal-Mart ready to be laid off because of the potential for falling sales once prices go up?

You see Irish, there is quite a bit more than meets the eye once you reach beyond the superficial points which are brought out in threads like this.

119

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26:

Yes…national healthcare…it’s FREE WEEEEEEEEE…everyone can have it. All you have to do is sign up right here folks.

LOL

All you are saying in essence is that you want someone else (those companies and people making more money than you) to pay for your health care costs.

Yea…it’s always nice when someone else picks up the tab. I try to get my brother to do that everytime we go out to lunch. But, I’m never successful, even when I explain to him that he makes more than me and that I need, deserve and could really use that free lunch.

Odd how that works huh?

Someone has to pay!..

You see Irish, there is quite a bit more than meets the eye once you reach beyond the superficial points which are brought out in threads like this.
[/quote]

No shit Zeb. Of course, Congress blows money left and right on shit we don’t need, so I don’t want to hear it.

I’ll mention the war as a massive drain on the budget- $287 billion that could’ve been spent differently.

Others-

The Bridge to Nowhere- Connecting an island of fifty people to a metropolis of 8,000

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/09/bridges/index.html

COST - $223 million

Railroad to Nowhere- tacked on to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006

“Washington, D.C. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran (R) and Trent Lott (R) Porkers of the Month for adding $700 million for the ?railroad to nowhere? to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 4929”

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9886&news_iv_ctrl=1022

COST- $700 million

Pools in California - Since 2001, Rep. Lewis? home state has been appropriated $7,948,000 in federal taxpayer money for pools, with the city of Salinas alone receiving $1,025,000 for their city pool between 2001 and 2004. Despite his promise to reduce frivolous earmarks like these upon his confirmation as Chairman in January of 2005, Rep. Lewis has proven he is not above the temptations of office. Making sure not to discriminate against constituents who might be freshwater swimmers, Rep. Lewis has even used funds from the Environmental Protection Agency for the creation of a $1 million man-made lake in San Bernardino City, which is in his district.

FOR FUCKING POOLS!!!

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9950&news_iv_ctrl=1022

COST- $8 million

Assorted others from 2005-

“One wonders what more Young could have wanted. The bill funnels upward of $941 million to 119 earmarked projects in Alaska, including $223 million for a mile-long bridge linking an island with 50 residents to the town of Ketchikan on the mainland. Another $231 million is earmarked for a new bridge in Anchorage, to be named – this is specified in the legislation – Don Young’s Way. There is $3 million for a film ''about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier.” The bill even doffs its cap to Young’s wife, Lu: The House formally called it ''The Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users," or TEA-LU.

Christmas didn’t come early just for Alaska. Meander through the bill’s endless line items and you find a remarkable variety of ''highway" projects, many of which have nothing to do with highways: Horse riding facilities in Virginia ($600,000). A snowmobile trail in Vermont ($5.9 million). Parking for New York’s Harlem Hospital ($8 million). A bicycle and pedestrian trail in Tennessee ($532,000). A daycare center and park-and-ride facility in Illinois ($1.25 million). Dust control mitigation for rural Arkansas ($3 million). The National Packard Museum in Ohio ($2.75 million). A historical trolley project in Washington ($200,000). And on and on and on.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/

Good thing their all “conservatives”

COST- (INcluding Alaska’s 941 million, $223 million of which I already mentioned): Over 1 billion

Just in case that wasn’t enough, here’s a summary of 2005. It’s estimated that there was aroun $29 billion spent on bullshit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190745,00.html

But healthcare? NO!!! There’s bridges to be built, pools that need deepening, and Civil War flags that need saving (at a $43,000 charge, of course).

Bullshit, Zeb. There’s plenty of money. I’m not the one with the superficial talking points…I’m the one without medical insurance and no money to buy it. Sorry bud. Try again later.

120

[quote]nephorm wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What a hypocrite.

Irish, that’s not really fair to say about ZEB… he has consistently argued against a lot of the programs that infringe on privacy.

ZEB, I will disagree with you, from a business perspective, about how to come up with salaries. I have a friend who owns a business, and her motto is that she pays her employees as much as she possibly can. She knows that if she skimps a dollar or two an hour, they might be happy with it for now, but in a month or a year, they will find another job that pays that much more. And many employees aren’t going to give you a chance to make up the salary difference… they’ll take themselves, and their experience, elsewhere.

Certainly you need to balance employee salaries with profits. But the “pay as little as possible” business strategy is one reason I left my last job, and now charge those guys a premium in consulting fees. [/quote]

I think the approach on salary depends on the skill set of your employees and on how hard they are to replace.

Microsoft pay their employees generously and have amazing benefits. Why? Because the really smart people who work there will simply go to work for Yahoo! or Google or Amazon if they can find a better offer.

The skillset they require can’t be found just by grabbing someone off the street.

So in their case, trying to pay their employees “as little as possible” simply ensures that they’ll eventually be left with only the idiots who nobody else wants. Not good.

In Wal-Mart’s case, the bulk of their employees need no particular skills. As long as they bathe occasionally and don’t drool too much, they’ll do. Whatever training is required can generally be given in a matter of hours by other employees. In their case, paying employees more than necessary cuts into the profits. It then becomes a question of morals and ethics whether you wish to offer better conditions (like Costco does) or not (like WalMart does).

It don’t think that decision should be legislated though. Personally, I buy a lot of stuff at Costo and as little as possible at Wal-Mart; so I’m supporting the approach I personnally value.