Posted by
Playful Walrus on Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:48:11 PM
Our buddy Ray Sherman of Duarte, California strikes again with another letter to the Pasadena Star-News about Wal-Mart.
One of the reasons letters on Wal-Mart are getting printed in the Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley papers is that there was a recently failed attempt to recall some members of a city council who approved a Wal-Mart, which recently opened. But on to Mr. Sherman's latest letter. Here's the only quote I need:
You should be telling Wal-Mart shoppers that the low prices they're gaining are at the expense of their fellow workers.
As I've said before, Wal-Mart's employees are there voluntarily, Mr. Sherman, getting compensated at a rate to which they've previously agreed. If they don't like the conditions there - if they think the pay is too low, or they aren't getting the benefits they want, or the conditions aren't safe and pleasant enough, they can quit!
In employment compensation, people deserve only what they have agreed to - nothing more. What if a heart surgeon you knew to be the best told you she'd fix a problem with your heart for a grand total $300? Are you going to insist that she take more?
Everyone has something to offer their follow man from one or more of the following - time, physical strength, a smile, beauty, charm, leadership, conversation, company, knowledge, skill, talent, money, land... you get the idea. Sure, some people have more to offer than others, or something that's in higher demand, including ambition. But that's the way life is, and no union or government is going to be able to completely change that, no matter how much they interfere. It is up to each individual to trade what he or she has for what he or she lacks and needs or wants. In this case, a Wal-Mart employee has time and the ability to perform certain tasks, and Wal-Mart has money. They make a voluntary exchange. It is up to each person to ask for what he or she needs. It isn't up to Wal-Mart to decide what a person needs. It is up to Wal-Mart to decide if the company should part with a certain amount of money for that person's labor.
The beauty of this is that people can get what they need or want by serving their fellow man.
I've worked a low-paying hourly job. Why? Because I liked the perks, it gave me experiences that I needed, and the hours fit my lifestyle. The pay was low despite the fact that I had to pay a union a good chunk of "change" every month, and that was on top of high initiation
fees.
Eventually, I was more experienced and more educated, working a higher paying professional job, and lower paying job was no longer a fit for me. I quit. That employer no longer owed me anything, and I no longer owed that employer my time and energy.
This thinking that someone who lands a job - any job - should have all of their needs automatically taken care of by their employer for the rest of their lives, regardless of ambition or effectiveness, is not natural. You have something to offer, and so does your employer. You agree to swap those goods/services upon certain conditions. That's it. That's all there should be. No government agency should interfere and mandate that your employer offer you more if you were unable to negotiate more.