Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Wal-Mart Way-Play The Video and Try To Spot The Blood-Sucking Parisites (Hint-They're The Ones Exploiting Child Labor)
"Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites . . . ." John Tate as Lee Scott and other Martians laugh and applaud. Hillary Clinton wasn't on the board then, but while she was there, she "never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions." Hillary is a self-serving chameleon. I still may vote for her. I'm not sure anyone can be elected to this office without being one. John McCain changes colors just as often, but the press has given him a pass so far because he's a war hero, never been married to Bill, and is old. As Kim whom I sometimes still think of as a child because that's what she was when I met her but who is grown up and wise told me: "I am not sure we ever get to elect a human being who has been 100% honest, who has never made a mistake and recovered from it, and who has never said something they later regretted. I think we are all human enough to realize these things happen. Either way, Hill is WAY better than what we currently have!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
For shame, for shame.
What would NW Ark. be without Wal-Mart?
Democratic?
Maybe I'm cutting Hillary too much slack as to 20 years ago when she was on that Board when I think back 15 years ago when I was all about Wal-Mart as it being better than sliced bread, but over the past 5 years my opinion has changed, but that change of opinion came with the hard work of Walmart-Watch and lawsuits that were the impetus of informing us of a reality we didn't know.
I will say that although I'm finding out that the Sam Walton Wal-Mart of yesterday wasn't as great as I would want, it certainly was better than the Wal-Mart of today. Of course, I think the UA of 15 years ago was stronger in many ways than it is today, and I also think that if there were people on the Board of Trustees who didn’t want anything to do with that Board were on it then it would be a stronger board.
Can positive change come with groupthink that comes about with all Board members thinking the same exact way, or is positive change more likely if there is at least one person on that Board who thinks differently and tries to get some changes done within that climate? Members who want positive change who are on horrible Boards often have to suck it up on what they hate when the monopoly acts poorly in order to effectuate positive results on the things he or she can change within that climate Civil Rights leaders knew the extreme political and social climate of racism and worked step by painful step to change it—sometimes you speak out, sometimes you sit quietly. I think Hillary knew that Board/stockholders culture wasn't changing its mind about unions no matter who talked and instead focused on what she could change--assuring they at least advocated American-made products and recycling. Advocating for products made in American can do much to help American labor.
Is it great that Hillary strongly supported "Made in America"--a resounding yes--and at the time she was on the Board the company professed that it did too. I'm glad that she stood up and encouraged the buy American campaign and can believe her when she says that she wasn't aware of the child labor--Board members work in board rooms and should work outside them and find out the ramifications of their acts and what occurs in reality, but that has not been their task at most companies. A recent example of this was at the UA, in which Alan Sugg showed himself to have no clue that while 4,000 students have been added at the State's flagship university and the Fulbright College holds the largest number of majors and fulfills all of the core classes that White had actually allowed the faculty of Fulbright College to decrase by about 35 faculty members.
I can understand Hillary being silent when someone who looks like a raving maniac rails on unions—labor advocates are used to being in hostile climates when advocating better conditions for working families and they have to suck it up and sit quiet often and work within that climate to make the most changes possible. Hillary is smart enough to know what “speaking to a wall” advocacy can do—-nothing.
Would it have been good for Hillary to be at that Wal-Mart Convention--yes, she could have had the opportunity to hear that anti-labor attorney's comment—but, the question is: if she was there and spoke against his comment would it have done any good in that crowd of profit-hungry stockholders?--nah, not in that business culture--she would have gone the way of Natalie Maines with the weapon of ostracism against her and there would have been the move to push her off the Board so she would have no opportunity to encourage change.
Would it have been best for Hillary to not be no the Board of Wal-Mart at all?--I think that Board has shown then and especially now that it needs more people on it that consider more than just money, but who think, like Hillary, about the quality of life for working people, recycling, and American work product that comes about through advocating for American-made goods. It is almost impossible to change a corporate policy from the outside.
Love it that Hillary was the one to push for Wal-Mart to recycle and do environmentally-friendly things. Arkansas state government or our federal gov. still don’t do it (they leave it to the local governments, which still have internal problems recycling). Since all of the "terrorist threats" and "focus on safety" and "take your clothes off at the door" that has occurred, I think recycle bins in government buildings have become a thing of the past--and some trash cans as well. Arkansas still can't even pass a bottle-redemption bill in the legislature due to the hostile culture against it, primarily by the bottling companies.
So, what do you do? You analyze the situation you are in and you try to get what good you can get in the time and environment given. I think that if a person were to go into that Wal-Mart Board culture and wanted to get something done they would have to be able to push where they could to the point of not being ostracized or kicked off and try to pass the good things that they could. Schlinder was of the Nazi party, but he did what he could to save as many lives he could within the culture, and he saved lives within that system. An extreme case I know, but it is something to ponder as to the issue of whether it is best to be in a culture you oppose if it allows the only opportunity to make real change for the better. And when that person makes positive changes within such a culture those acts should be praised.
Post a Comment