|
"Huh?"
May 5, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 5, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
**This is exactly why organizations like Human Rights Watch have absolutely no credibility with me: "US: Wal-Mart Denies Workers Basic Rights Weak Labor Laws Perpetuate Abuses"(Washington, DC, May 1, 2007) – Wal-Mart’s relentless exploitation of weak US labor laws thwarts union formation and violates the rights of its US workers, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they’re up against unfair US labor laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out. That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions. In the 210-page report, “Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart’s Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association,” Human Rights Watch found that while many American companies use weak US laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus. Many of its anti-union tactics are lawful in the United States, though they combine to undermine workers’ rights. Others run afoul of soft US laws. “Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they’re up against unfair US labor laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out,” said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch. “That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions.” As the world’s largest company, Wal-Mart’s conduct is especially troubling. Wal-Mart had $351.14 billion in revenue and $11.3 billion in profits in the fiscal year ending January 2007. It is the largest private US employer, with more than 1.3 million US workers and close to 4,000 stores nationwide. None of those workers is represented by a union. Human Rights Watch found that this is no accident. Human Rights Watch’s investigation revealed that, in most cases, Wal-Mart begins to indoctrinate workers and managers to oppose unions from the moment they are hired. Managers receive explicit instructions on keeping out unions, many of which are found in the company’s “Manager’s Toolbox,” a self-described guide to managers on “how to remain union free in the event union organizers choose your facility as their next target.” If workers try to organize, store managers must report it to Wal-Mart’s Union Hotline at headquarters. The company responds by sending out its Labor Relations Team almost immediately to squash the organizing effort. Most of the Labor Relations Team’s tactics comport with weak US law. Team members hold small- and large-group “captive audience” meetings, which workers are strongly urged to attend. Workers hear of the terrible consequences of union formation and see videos dramatizing the message. Wal-Mart envelops workers with its anti-union mantra and allows little space for union supporters and organizers to respond – under US law, it does not have to. “Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.” Wal-Mart’s relentless anti-union drumbeat creates a climate of fear at its US stores. Many workers are convinced that they will suffer dire consequences if they form a union, in part because they do not hear pro-union views. Many are also afraid that if they defy their powerful employer by organizing, they could face retaliation, even firing. Human Rights Watch found that Wal-Mart heightens this fear with its arsenal of unlawful anti-union tactics. Wal-Mart has sent managers to eavesdrop on employees. According to former workers and managers at one store, it has even ordered the repositioning of surveillance cameras to monitor union supporters. It has told workers they will lose benefits if they organize. The company has discriminatorily banned talk about unions and prohibited union flyer distribution, while allowing discussion of other issues and circulation of non-union materials. It has disciplined union supporters for policy violations that it has let slide for union opponents. And it has illegally fired workers for their union activity. Penalties under US labor law are so minimal that they have little deterrent effect, and Wal-Mart only receives a slap on the wrist when found guilty of illegal conduct. In most cases, offending employers must simply post in-store notices promising to abide by the law in the future and must restore the status quo before the illegal acts, for example by rehiring wrongfully fired workers and paying them lost earnings. They face no fines or punitive sanctions. Denied the right to form unions, Wal-Mart workers have been unable to join forces to raise their concerns that the company may be forcing out long-term employees, address their struggles to make ends meet on Wal-Mart wages, or call for an end to high healthcare costs. A key way to improve protections for worker organizing would be for the US Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and the Bush administration to sign it into law. The EFCA, which passed the US House of Representatives in March and is now under consideration in the Senate, would increase penalties for labor law violations. And it would help restore a democratic union selection process by requiring employers to recognize a union if a majority of workers signs cards showing their support. Currently, employers can force union elections and then intimidate workers with their aggressive anti-union message during the campaign period. Human Rights Watch also urged the National Labor Relations Board, charged with enforcing US labor law, to seek more court injunctions when allegations of serious employer misconduct arise, particularly against repeat offenders such as Wal-Mart. Human Rights Watch called upon Wal-Mart to cease all tactics, both legal and illegal, that undercut workers’ right to organize and to go a step further as an industry leader and pledge neutrality on union formation. For its report, Human Rights Watch interviewed 41 current and former Wal-Mart workers and managers from US stores where organizing had occurred since 2000. Some supported the union; some were opposed; others were ambivalent. Human Rights Watch also contacted Wal-Mart three times in writing to request meetings and obtain the company’s views. Wal-Mart refused to meet and provided only very limited responses. “Wal-Mart should change its anti-union behavior,” said Pier. “When companies like Wal-Mart can regularly violate US workers’ right to organize, they threaten a fundamental right and one that the government is duty-bound to uphold.” Source: Human Rights Watch hrw.org
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 5, 2007 19:53:10 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 5, 2007 19:53:10 GMT -5
I have heard plenty of stuff similar to this about Walmart. This is nothing new to me and I avoid shopping at Walmart for those reasons. They are known not to give people the breaks they are required by law to give. There are many laws with loopholes in them and big companies find ways around them.
I would be curious why this article makes Human Rights Watch have no credibility with you?
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 5, 2007 22:47:52 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 5, 2007 22:47:52 GMT -5
The reason that articles such as this one give organizations like Human Rights Watch no credibility with me is that Walmart is not violating anyone's human rights. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for Walmart, and yet whenenever they open a store in any community there are thousands of people who apply for only a few hundred jobs. These are not college required positions or even skilled positions for that matter. They are simply entry level, mostly part time jobs. Even the managerial postions are basically little more than an introduction into management.
Furthermore, Walmart has driven the cost of everything they sell in this country down, making food and products more affordable to more people, especially low income people.
It is true that Walmart does not provide health benefits to many of its employess. That is because Walmart mostly employs part time workers. And, truth be told, Walmart does pay well over the minimum wage in this country. McDonalds and other largely part time employers also do not provide health care to many of their workers. It isn't a loophole to not do this. These companies, by law, only provide employees benefits who work an average of so many hours per week over a certain period of time. It's perfectly legal.
The one complaint that I would have against Walmart is that they too often avoid paying any taxes by getting a ten year or so tax break to come into a community. Then, after their ten years are up, they find a way to rebuild and expand in another part of the community and avoid the taxes again for another ten years or so, simply because they relocated rather than renovate. But that is just as much the fault of the community, because they do not have to offer the tax break if they don't want to. They do so, however, because even without the taxes, Walmart brings in other businesses, and that means money for everyone. Other businesses know full well that people are going to shop at Walmart, and love to build their stores near them in hopes that Walmart's customers will make their way to their store.
The reason that people villify Walmart is that (1) the Walton family makes billions and billions of dollars, and rich people are generally perceived as evil and (2) Walmart is not unionized. The main attack against Walmart is that their employees should be organized. Should that happen, it would be nothing less than a political lobby force.
Nobody's human rights are being violated at Walmart. Not like they are in Darfur, or in countries that are known to torture their people. It is disgusting to parade this garbage as such. If people do not want to work for or shop at Walmart, they are not being forced to do so. That's not true of the situation in Darfur, Sudan or in countries such as Syria, is it?
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 6, 2007 8:02:55 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 6, 2007 8:02:55 GMT -5
I agree that the human rights are not being abused as they are in Darfur and countries that are known to torture. The reason why I don't mind an article like this is that it helps me make a educated decision of where to shop. Education is power, and if you don't want to support companies that don't take care of their employees, I want to find out who they are so I can avoid shopping there. I had a interview at Walmart once, and while I was waiting between parts of the interview one of the managers called down to one of the desks and didn't like the way the employee answered the phone, so the next few minutes were spent harshly criticising the employee. I decided there that I didn't want to work there. Since then I have only shopped at Walmart a couple of times. People deserve to be respected and I will go out of my way to avoid businesses that don't respect their employees.
Walmart has broken laws by denying their employees breaks, and there are different levels of human rights. I totally agree that they are not on the level of Darfur, but they are breaking the law in ways that should not be acceptable in North America. There are other stores that have products very cheap. Walmart was not the store that brought that to Canada, but these other stores still respect their employees and give them their rights. I don't think we should ignore human rights being violated just because they are minor human rights. People are not physically being forced to work for Walmart but in a lot situations they are being forced to work there because they can't get a job anywhere else.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 6, 2007 8:58:50 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 6, 2007 8:58:50 GMT -5
What laws are Walmart breaking Leona?
I know that Walmart hires a lot of people who cannot find work anywhere else. Why is it that these people cannot find work anywhere except Walmart? If they desire something better, then what is stopping them?
Walmart offers a lot of management positions to people who are in those positions for the very first time, and otherwise have no experience or skills for the position. What they are getting at Walmart is a valuable on the job training. Bad managers can be found everywhere and anywhere, and a lot of workers have to endure a lack of respect from their bosses. If that is the issue, then Human Rights Watch has a lot of homework to do in reporting this issue. Let's not just single out Walmart, but expose ALL human rights violations regardless of how minor they are.
Nothing is promised in North America except opportunity. You have to pursue that yourself.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 6, 2007 19:49:05 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 6, 2007 19:49:05 GMT -5
If you have a shift of more than 6 hours your employer is required by law to grant you a 30 minute break (this is law in Canada and I believe it is also a law in the US). Walmart has a reputation of denying their workers the break allowed to them by law. This is on an individual basis per Walmart store.
Why is it that these people cannot find work anywhere except Walmart? If they desire something better, then what is stopping them?
When Walmart moved to the town I lived in in Ontario, 800 people applied for 90 job openings. It was next to impossible to find a job and that town was considered to be booming. Location could be stopping them, not everyone is willing to move to Alberta in order to find work. Some people just accept what they get because they don't feel they are worth much.
Here in Alberta you can notice what businesses don't treat their employees well because their workers are worse. When I go into Walmart here, the workers either hardly speak english, are special needs, are elderly or are students, while Zellers (a Walmart equivalent) has very helpful staff (with a few exceptions). I don't have anything against these people but it doesn't make it a nice shopping experience.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 6, 2007 21:12:13 GMT -5
Post by lapayin on May 6, 2007 21:12:13 GMT -5
"Introduction Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent separate classes of hourly wage earners at Wal-Mart in the States of Washington and New York who allegedly have been forced to work "off-the-clock" (without pay). The plaintiffs are current and former Wal-Mart employees who allege that Wal-Mart has violated state wage and hour laws. Wal-Mart's Alleged Misconduct The lawsuits in New York and Washington charge that Wal-Mart, the self-proclaimed fastest growing and largest private employer in the United States, has systematically avoided paying employees their full, earned wages. Wal-Mart provides perverse incentives for managers to lower overhead costs, the largest component of which is employee payroll, by offering financial compensation and bonuses. Managers subsequently under-staff projects and Wal-Mart stores in general. These efforts force employees to work off-the-clock and through lunch and rest breaks. Managers pressure employees to complete assignments, while refusing to permit employees to stay on-the-clock for the full amount of time it takes to accomplish their duties.
The class action lawsuits include specific allegations that Wal-Mart: understaffs its stores and pressures employees to complete assignments while refusing to permit employees to stay on-the-clock for the time it takes to accomplish them; denies pay for time worked off-the-clock, through meal or rest breaks, and overtime; and keeps employees locked in Wal-Mart stores after closing and requires that they remain there after clocking out until store managers have visited every department. Experiences of Name Plaintiff Maria Gamble One of the class representatives in the New York lawsuit, Maria Gamble of Suffolk County, New York, claims that while she worked at Wal-Mart as a customer service manager, Wal-Mart supervisors locked her in the store with her co-employees after the store closed when all employees were "off-the-clock."
Ms. Gamble described her experiences at Wal-Mart: "When I worked at Wal-Mart, we were routinely expected to work at times when we were not paid. The worst part of this was we were locked-in to the store at night. Every week, I worked at least one shift that went from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. When the store closed at the end of my shift, the manager or the person closing the store would lock the exterior doors but the hourly employees like me would have to remain in the store and restock merchandise and count out the cash registers, even though we had already clocked off and were not getting paid. The tasks we had to do after the store closed always took at least an hour-and-a-half, and often two hours. The doors weren't unlocked until the work was completed. There were other ways in which I wasn't paid for time I was working, as well, such as mandatory attendance at unpaid meetings, and times I had to work through lunch and breaks." "
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 6, 2007 21:38:38 GMT -5
Post by lapayin on May 6, 2007 21:38:38 GMT -5
Mark said:
"Nobody's human rights are being violated at Walmart. Not like they are in Darfur, or in countries that are known to torture their people."
Why are you comparing Walmart to Darfur? IMO there are many companies that illegally take advange of their employees. If they are truely guilty, they should pay the consequences. One does not have to be tortured to be wronged.
"Nothing is promised in North America except opportunity." Again IMO not true. There are labor laws for a reason.
Leona said:
"If you have a shift of more than 6 hours your employer is required by law to grant you a 30 minute break (this is law in Canada and I believe it is also a law in the US). "
I believe (not 100% sure) in the US the law is every two hours an employee should get at least a fifteen minute break (more for lunch or dinner).
It's dangerous to stereotype. I think there are many reasons why people work at Walmart. A few that come to mind are mothers hours, accomodating high school and college hours, convience to home, second jobs and also career opportunity. A lot of these jobs, not all, are entry level, but that is not a reason to take advange of the employees. These tactics are used in many other companies besides Walmart and all should be held accountable.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 7, 2007 16:32:48 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 7, 2007 16:32:48 GMT -5
Paula and Leona, you both make very good points. I happen to agree with both of you for the points that you make (can you believe it?!) I will try to explain where I am coming from in all of this, with no real desire to change either of your hearts or minds on the issue. I like it that the two of you have a real regard for those who may have their rights violated, and I wouldn't want to change that one bit. The only reason that I make a comparison to Darfur and countries that torture, is that in those places the people have no (or very little) choice in the matter. Not so at Walmart. If things are so bad there, then get out. Find another job somewhere else. I don't buy the argument that there aren't other jobs available to them. I do, however, believe that if they fail to seek another place to work, it is only because they themselves know that they are not capable of it. It's true what you say, Leona, in that many of the employees do not feel that they are worth much. But often times that lack of worthiness shows up in their work ethic as well. This many times reveals itself in attendance problems, punctuality isues, and lack of motivation on the job. They take a job at Walmart, who is willing to hire them when other employers won't. Still, that is no excuse for not obeying the laws that exist. But to call these human rights violations is laughable to me. Paula, the article that you posted gives me great concern. But one thing must be noted. They are all allegations at this point. Nothing has been settled yet (according to the article). Look, I know that I am coming across as a cold hearted person in all of this. And believe me, I don't mean to do so. But sometimes I think people go a little crazy about this stuff, when in fact there is much more story yet to be told. I've been promoted to management level at every job I have ever had. It's a real learning experience! There is no substitute for on-the-job training. You can't learn this stuff in a classroom. You have to weather it out, just like in any relationship. It's a tough balancing act. You want to be good to your employees, and treat them well. Often times, they test your ability to do that by not treating you the same. So you resort to getting a little tough with them. But if you go too far in that direction, you risk poor morale. You have to learn how to get the most out of your employees by being equally well respectful to them and tough at the same time. Most employees come to do their jobs and are no problem at all. A few tend to ruin things for you real quick. Many managers at Walmart have never been managers before in their lives, and are experiencing what it's like for the very first time. Like most managers, they will fail miserably at first, and even hurt some people along the way. Some of them will learn, and some of them won't. But many of those managers at Walmart are getting an opportunity that other companies would never give them in the first place. Same goes with many of the regular, non management employees there as well. Maybe I am wrong for taking the side of Walmart here. I appreciate your reasons for your opinions. It's not that I disagree with either of you. It's just that I see differently into it (perhaps wrongly). Sometimes the struggle that these people go through turns out to be the greatest blessing they ever had! It can teach them to want more for themselves, and to do what it takes to get it. It can give them the start that they need temporarily, until they can get the heck out of Dodge! Most of all, it can teach them exactly how not to be when they find themselves in a position to one day hire and manage people of their own. And all the while, they are getting a paycheck for it, when other companies wouldn't hire them. Thanks a lot, Paula and Leona, for making me look like a terrible person in this discussion! Or, did I do that myself!
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 7, 2007 18:21:10 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 7, 2007 18:21:10 GMT -5
Published on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by the Associated Press As Union Nears Win, Wal-Mart Closes Store by Adam Geller NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. says it will close one of its Canadian stores, just as some 200 workers at the location are near winning the first-ever union contract from the world's largest retailer.
Wal-Mart said it was shuttering the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in response to unreasonable demands from union negotiators that would make it impossible for the store to sustain itself.
"We were hoping it wouldn't come to this," Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said Wednesday. "Despite nine days of meetings over three months, we've been unable to reach an agreement with the union that in our view will allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably." Pelletier said the store will close in May. The retailer had first discussed closing the Jonquiere store last October, saying the store was losing money.
The United Food & Commercial Workers Canada asked Quebec labor officials to appoint a mediator last week, saying negotiations with Wal-Mart had reached an impasse.
Union leaders dismissed Wal-Mart's reasons for closing the store and promised to fight the move.
"Wal-Mart has fired these workers not because the store was losing money but because the workers exercised their right to join a union," Michael J. Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada, said in a written statement. "Once again, Wal-Mart has decided it is above the law and that the only rules that count are their rules."
Wal-Mart's decision to close the store reflects the retailer's deeply rooted aversion to unions, and its worries that organized labor had nearly established a beachhead, said Burt Flickinger III of Strategic Resource Group, a consulting firm specializing in retailing and consumer goods.
But he said the move could backfire for Wal-Mart, which has worked hard to counter a wave of bad publicity and portray itself as a generous employer.
"The store closing may potentially catalyze the combination of the government (officials in Canada), organized labor and consumers working together against Wal-Mart," Flickinger said.
Claudia Tremblay, a cashier at the store, said many employees burst into tears when managers told them the news Wednesday morning.
"Many people cried, including myself," Tremblay said. "I'm a mother of two children and I'm separated from my husband. It's very difficult."
Tremblay said she abstained from the unionization vote. She said she was upset her noncommittal stance won't save her job.
The store in Jonquiere, about 240 miles northeast of Montreal, became the first unionized Wal-Mart store in North America last September, after the bargaining unit was certified by provincial labor officials. Since then, workers at a second Quebec store have also been granted union status. Neither has reached a contract.
The union efforts at both stores are part of a larger chess game labor organizers are waging with Wal-Mart at stores across Canada. The campaign, financed by UFCW money from both Canada and the United States, is also geared toward capturing workers' attention in Wal-Mart's home country.
The closest a U.S. union has ever come to winning a battle with Bentonville, Ark.-based company occurred in 2000 at a store in Jacksonville, Texas, where 11 workers in the store's meatpacking department voted to join and be represented by the UFCW.
That effort failed when Wal-Mart eliminated the job of meatcutter companywide, and shifted from in-store meatcutting to stocking only pre-wrapped meat.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 7, 2007 18:36:25 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 7, 2007 18:36:25 GMT -5
"Many people cried, including myself," Tremblay said. "I'm a mother of two children and I'm separated from my husband. It's very difficult."
That does not sound to me like she was enduring a minor human rights violation. Sounds more to me as if she actually wanted to work there. Now that Walmart has left, she won't be subjected to working through her lunch break anymore. Maybe it is for the best that a terrible company such as Walmart is no longer in their area!
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 7, 2007 21:59:08 GMT -5
Post by lapayin on May 7, 2007 21:59:08 GMT -5
"It's true what you say, Leona, in that many of the employees do not feel that they are worth much. But often times that lack of worthiness shows up in their work ethic as well. This many times reveals itself in attendance problems, punctuality isues, and lack of motivation on the job. They take a job at Walmart, who is willing to hire them when other employers won't."
I would just like to make a comment about these statements. I totally disagree with both of you. Walmart is not alone in the way they treat their employees. It's a cultural behavior not an exclusively Walmart behavior. It has become the American way for a lot of companies and businesses but thank heavens not all. My company is being sued for the exact same issues and I work for a high tech company.
I do not believe that Walmart hires people that other companies will not. Please tell me if I am reading these statements wrong. I have been in many Walmart stores where employees are very motivated and helpful. Retail is a difficult field to work in but I do not for one moment believe it is a last resort for those who can not get other jobs. If employees feel worthless it is probably because they are being made to feel that way by their company's culture/management. Walmart managers are not alone in this practice. I agree that when employees have low morale their work suffers. But again this happens across the board in US industries and most probably in other countries. A manager's job is to motivate, mentor and help develop their employees. When treated with respect and dignity most people will react accordingly and strive to do their best if not more. Too often this is lost in trying to reach the "bottom line".
I believe when things get too far out of hand and become unbearable rather than just look for another job and give up why not try to fix what is wrong. It's not always easy to give up a job you may have a deep investment in or fits your lifestyle at a particular time in your life.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 7, 2007 23:12:14 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 7, 2007 23:12:14 GMT -5
"I would just like to make a comment about these statements. I totally disagree with both of you. Walmart is not alone in the way they treat their employees. It's a cultural behavior not an exclusively Walmart behavior. It has become the American way for a lot of companies and businesses but thank heavens not all."
I agree with that, I know that Walmart is not alone in this behaviour. They are the ones that get their finger pointed at because of their size. I have worked for a couple companies like that, but where I work right now respects their employees. The problem (or in some cases a good thing) in Alberta is that there are so many jobs (more jobs than people) that the companies that don't respect their employees either have bad employees or they are severely short staffed.
Not all Walmart stores commit these minor human rights violations and there are some people who need whatever job they can get. This part of Quebec has a high unemployment rate, so she could be looking at a very hard struggle ahead of her. Even in bad jobs you build relationships with your co-workers and it's hard to leave them. I had a dreadful job when I first started in Calgary, I decided to quit after I found myself crying going to work, but I still cried when I left because I knew that I wasn't likely to see most of my co-workers again.
Is it right for Walmart to close because their employees formed a union (what is allowed by Quebec law)? It's plain old manipulation; if you form a union we will close/you'll get fired.
Paula I agree with you about what managers do and how it affects the whole store. There can be a huge difference between Walmart stores. The Walmart stores in Ontario aren't nearly as bad as the ones in Calgary (this has a lot to do with the different states of the economy). I feel the biggest thing is the respect for the employees, and there's alot in the Walmart way that doesn't foster that.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 8, 2007 10:53:04 GMT -5
Post by achebeautiful on May 8, 2007 10:53:04 GMT -5
Paula says:
"Please tell me if I am reading these statements wrong."
Nope. You aren't reading anything from me wrong.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I agree with both of you about the things you say. You both make very good points, of which I cannot argue against.
I admire your regard for the working man (or woman).
It is true that there is a culture in business that reaches for that "bottom line", many times at the expense of respecting their employees. Some companies treat their employees well, others do not. But it is just as true that their is also a culture today with regard to work ethic that is very troublesome. People often come in for interviews with baggie pants, a tee shirt, a ballcap on backwards.....no smile, no motivation in their voices. Too many want something for nothing.
I can't imagine many of today's generation working on a farm, or on a railroad, or in a steel mill (talk about human rights violations!)
That is where I am coming from in all of this.
I agree with you both, but I am just trying to add some perspective to it. Walmart has its problems....but it also has its good qualities as well. Walmart means jobs for many people. If Human Rights Watch is going to expose them for their minor violations, they should do so specificly (as Leona states) and not generally. And they should do so to all companies who "violate human rights" no matter how minor. Otherwise, they are only targeting success. And I am against that very sort of thing.
I hope I am not upsetting either of you for my opinions. If I am, I am very sorry.
|
|
|
"Huh?"
May 8, 2007 16:06:06 GMT -5
Post by ocelot on May 8, 2007 16:06:06 GMT -5
You're not upsetting me for your opinions.
I agree that Human Rights Watch should go after all companies who violate human rights, so often people are taken advantage from because they have low self-efficacy and that is wrong. So is refusing people what is their's by the law. I hope that Human Rights Watch continues to expose companies that violate human rights (even if they are minor). I know that alot of companies do violate minor human rights, and I want them exposed one by one. I don't want them targeting success but the violators no matter how successful they are.
|
|