In response to JP Eichmiller's column "Wal-Mart: Capitalism Run Amuck," I was shocked at Mr. Eichmiller's either misunderstanding, or intentional misrepresentation of the facts in a couple areas of the article.
When addressing the issue of Wal-Mart closing a store in Canada when workers were threatening to unionize, Eichmiller left out key points of interest, such as demanding large pay increases, while simultaneously demanding that 30 new workers be hired. In essence, the workers at the store were asking to be paid more for doing less. I don't believe many companies would have accepted such ridiculous requests.
On another issue, Eichmiller implied that Wal-Mart workers should be paid more because it would reduce the amount of government assistance that is necessary. I see some problems with this argument. If a company is forced to increase the payment of wages to workers, that leads to increased operation costs, which leads to less income, which leads to less investment by that company, which means fewer stores being opened, which leads to more people being unemployed, which leads to more people collecting the very same benefits that Eichmiller implied would be reduced by increasing the current workers wages. I for one would rather have some people needing small amounts of government assistance than many people being completely reliant on government assistance.
We need to eliminate bad government policies and unreasonable unions, not quality organizations like Wal-Mart.