Weird Al and the Mayor

Obnoxious liberal loudmouth Weird Al Norman has made a lucrative career out of reassuring wealthy suburban snobs that their elitist disdain of Wal-Mart and those that shop there is actually "protecting worker's rights" and stopping "urban sprawl." You can hear Norman rant about his hatred of Wal-Mart in person for only $5,000, plus expenses.

Norman is also a paid union shill, running "Battle-Mart" for the Service Employees International Union astroroots front organization "Wal-Mart Watch" and speaking on behalf of big labor all over the country.

Now, Weird Al has turned his sights on our mayor, Glenn Johnson. On his web site, Sprawl Busters, Norman urges "readers" to write to Mayor Johnson and the Pullman City Council urging them to pass a raft of socialistic, business-killing ordinances, much like Moscow did a few years ago.

Norman, who lives 3,000 miles away in Massachusetts (it figures), obviously has no clue that Mayor Johnson, the "Voice of the Cougars," is one of the most beloved and respected figures in the history of our town (he has been elected mayor twice with no opposition.) Norman chides Johnson:

If Wal-Mart is a ‘very good thing,’ why were so many residents upset about this project? These people that you say cost the city lost revenues-—these are your taxpayers, your constituents. You are the Mayor of all Pullman residents, not just the Mayor of Corporate Interests. Zoning decisions do not have to be a win/lose situation. When people believe they are on the losing end of a deal—they are usually right. Pullman was not prepared for a project of this scale. It’s time to bring your zoning code into the 21st century, before more big boxes saturate your city with highway sprawl.”

What a patently absurd allegation. Glenn Johnson is a professor at the same university as are the professors of PARD. He is beholden to no "Corporate Interests."

It is also laughable that Norman calls on Mayor Johnson to respect the feelings of the few dozen of his constituents that make up PARD, while simultaneously calling on people all over the country who are neither taxpayers nor constituents to write the mayor and city council and meddle in Pullman's affairs. This is just like a few years ago when PARD was soliciting donations from all over the country on Norman's website.

Send Weird Al an e-mail here and tell him and his "readers" to keep their snooty noses out of our business. Let's fill up his inbox! You might just get lucky and get a nasty reply from Weird Al himself.

Also, while you're at it, send an e-mail to Mayor Johnson and the Pullman City Council here and express your thanks for staying strong during this process, upholding the will of the majority of the electorate and not caving in to the special interests of a few.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Excuse Me, Say What?

[TV] Reed didn’t have the figure for PARD’s appeal costs immediately available but denied rumors circulating among Wal-Mart proponents that PARD is being supported by labor unions with an anti-Wal-Mart agenda.

- "Wal-Mart appeal costs Pullman more than $20k," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, June 27, 2006

[TV] Reed said PARD has not received any outside money from labor unions or interest groups. He said the community rose up in opposition to Wal-Mart and it is the outside force that is trying to disrupt the community’s economy.

- "PARD to fight judge’s decision on Wal-Mart," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, November 28, 2006

Larry Hall, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Union 1439, said the union has contributed about $1,000 to PARD's battle against Wal-Mart, and will continue to do so if there is a further appeal.

Hall said the union represents about 6,000 workers in Washington, Idaho and Oregon, including employees of Safeway and Rosauers in Pullman and Moscow.

"We think Wal-Mart is terrible for America and American jobs," he said. "We will certainly continue to contribute if they ask."

-"PARD mulls appeal to higher court," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, June 6, 2008

Well, I think that settles that. Yet more lies and doubletalk from a group that excels in them. Congrats to Hillary Hamm on the investigative reporting.

As far as Reed's failure to disclose how much money PARD has spent on legal representation, you be the judge as to where the money is coming from, especially in light of this latest admission from the UFCW.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

The War on Wal-Mart Is Over

Spekaing of it being time for PARD to move on, a story in today's New York Times by my old buddy Michael Barbaro indicates that Wal-Mart is winning its battle against the union thugs of the UFCW and the SEIU.

According to Barbaro, union-sponsored attack dog groups Wake-up Walmart and Wal-Mart Watch have dramatically cut back staff and scaled back in-your-face attacks on the retailer.

But Mr. Nassar [of Wal-Mart Watch] and Ms. Scott [of Wake-Up Wal-Mart] acknowledge that the appetite for criticism of Wal-Mart, which seemed insatiable at first, has waned, especially in the news media. “There has been a certain amount of fatigue about writing the Wal-Mart-is-bad story,” said Mr. Nassar. Ms. Scott described “a cooling down of the Wal-Mart story.”

Both said their groups are pursuing different, perhaps less high-profile, strategies than they did in 2005 and 2006. Wal-Mart Watch, for example, wants to be viewed as the best source of outside research on Wal-Mart; WakeUpWalMart.com is reaching out more to regional news outlets, rather than big national newspapers.

Both said they would remain critical when it made sense. “As the company makes changes, it becomes harder to be critical,” Mr. Nassar said, “because our critique has to become more nuanced.”

Of course Americans have tired of Wal-Mart bashing, just as they have in Pullman. It's illogical and elitist, even to the leftist media. The bottom line is that consumers like to buy stuff at low prices, regardless of politics. Wal-Mart reported today a same-store sales increase of 3.9% for May, much higher than analysts had predicted.

Michael and I have both been very critical of efforts by Wal-Mart to pander to the left-wing on issues like minimum wage and global warming. But perhaps Wal-Mart has been very clever in co-opting its critics. As Barbaro states:

The mellowing of the anti-Wal-Mart movement is an unexpected development for the retailer, whose public image and share price were bruised by the well-financed union campaigns. On Friday, when the chain holds its shareholder meeting in Arkansas, investors are likely to applaud Wal-Mart for fending off these detractors.

“It definitely has helped the company,” a retail analyst at Deutsche Bank, Bill Dreher, said. “Those attacks hurt Wal-Mart.”

And in business, it's all about the bottom line, not ideology.

Time has come indeed for PARD to quit....

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Student Union Thuggery

UPDATE: Informational website available here.

Like others in the Pullman community, I have been disturbed by the strong-arm tactics of the United Auto Workers union and their surrogates at WSU. The UAW is attempting to unionize academic student employees. If you are a student involved in this, please drop me a line at palousitics@adelphia.net

It's not surprising that the union shills are members of the Comparative Ethnic Studies and American Studies departments.

First, from the April 1 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Not all WSU academic student employees are in favor of unionizing.

Xyanthe Neider, a doctoral candidate for higher education administration and a teaching assistant in educational psychology, said academic student employees are being bullied into supporting the union.

She said the union is being proposed in a pushy, irresponsible way by local organizers, while UAW bigwigs pull the strings to increase union membership.

"I believe they've been trying to railroad this into law and railroad academic student employees into unionizing," she said, adding that the UAW could stand to make $700,000 in annual union dues from WSU academic students employees alone. "I think some of these students are plants by the UAW."

[WSU graduate student, teacher of comparative ethnic studies and union organizer Sky] Wilson scoffed at Neider's accusations. He said local organizers approached UAW representatives, not the other way around. He added that some organizers are paid, in addition to volunteering.

"With any organizing drive, there's going to be a small amount of people who are ideologically opposed," he said. "But the proof is in the strong majority of ASEs who want unionization."

"Small amount of people who are ideologically opposed?" Hmmmmm. Where have we heard that before?

Lest you think it's only a bunch of wingnuts opposing the union, today's Daily Evergreen offers up even more chilling details:

As rain turned to snow Monday afternoon, graduate students and spectators gathered on Glenn Terrell Mall for the last Under the Big Tent debate of the semester. The topic of conversation was the current push to unionize academic student employees, most of whom are graduate students.

Although participants and spectators were pushed close together under the tents by the inclement weather, there was a noticeable divide in opinions among those in attendance. Four panel members introduced the debate by sharing their reasons for or against unionization under the United Auto Workers. The UAW has more than 1 million members, more than 25,000 of whom are ASEs, said panel member Mary Jo Klinker, a student and teaching assistant in American studies at WSU.

“I’m not against unions in principle,” said panel member Xyan Neider, a doctoral student in the College of Education. “I just question the intentions and motivation of the United Auto Workers. I question paying dues for things I already have.” Klinker said unionizing would create a balance of power between ASEs and the university. “A union would provide a representative democratic process of collective bargaining,” Klinker said. “Contracts would be enforceable and ASEs would have a formal grievance procedure.” David Parsons, president of UAW’s local union at the University of Washington, emphasized the advantages collective bargaining presents. He said unionization at UW has allowed students to influence decisions within the university as well as on the state and national levels. Parsons said UW’s union with UAW has resulted in back pay being payed to union members, and has contractually guaranteed wage increases and health benefits for ASEs.

The final panel member, Steven Davis, a masters student at WSU, voiced concern over unionization and the choice of the UAW to represent students in a academic setting. Like Neider, Davis voiced concern about paying for benefits already provided by the university. “The best option is to try and address our problems with the system we already have before looking to other options,” Davis said. “If the GPSA is ineffectual, it is our fault for not filling the open positions. If we fill those positions and that still doesn’t work we should find someone better to represent us.” Klinker and other advocates of unionization say the GPSA has little authority and has failed to address the concerns of ASEs due to its structure and bureaucracy. The debate escalated when opened to questions from the audience. The majority of questions and comments focused on alleged questionable practices by union supporters. Many in the crowd were visibly upset and said they felt coerced into signing union cards, the purpose of which they thought was to receive more information. The cards that were signed by more than half of ASEs were endorsements to unionize under the UAW, said Heather Knewtson, a WSU doctoral student in finance.

Knewtson said she was visited at work four times and asked to sign the cards even after telling union supporters she was against unionization.

As tempers reached a high point Knewtson said, “The strong voice of students is saying that they’ve been hoodwinked.” Klinker acknowledged the complaints. She said many were false and that the text on the cards clearly stated their purpose. “There has been a lot of misinformation,” she said. “We are investigating these complaints on a case-by-case basis.”

Ah, questionable practices in gathering signatures. Sounds very familiar also. I wonder what they have in common?

"What Wal-Mart Gets and the Candidates Don't"

Terrific op-ed from the Washington Post from Sunday a week ago. Warren Brown, self-admitted union man, explains it to the elitists like Obama, Clinton, and the PARDners. It's not about globalism, offshoring, or union-busting. The average person doesn't think about politics when they shop. I made this point last week. It's about being able to buy quality goods at the lowest price. Period.

I wish to say at the outset that I hold no grudges against Wal-Mart. In fact, my family and I are rather fond of that giant retail chain, where we often find the best prices, especially on pharmaceuticals.

It is an odd thing to admit. Many in our clan, including yours truly, hold union memberships. Politically, with me being the sore-thumb exception, we run from left to leftist. Yet, regardless of politics or union affiliation, when it comes to searching for the best quality at the most reasonable prices, Wal-Mart is one of the places we look first.

As I said, this is odd, almost embarrassing. Wal-Mart is no friend of unions. Wal-Mart is one of those American retailers keeping foreign factories humming and foreign workers employed. Viewed from that perspective and in context with the current political debate on international trade, Wal-Mart is something of a bad actor, one of those companies supposedly putting people out of jobs in places such as Ohio.

Poor Ohio. It has become one of the rustiest parts of the Rust Belt. It has lost tens of thousands of jobs, largely in the automotive and related industries, and it has shed nearly 200,000 residents over the past couple of decades.

In last week's titanic Democratic presidential primary battle, Ohio, one of the most unionized states in the nation, was made the prime example of what happens in America when international trade supposedly runs amok.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the victor in that contest, rose to electoral glory on promises that she would fix what is wrong with international trade, that she would somehow find a way to reverse job losses allegedly caused by contracts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was made to look a bit wishy-washy on the free trade issue, largely lost Ohio as a result.

But here's suggesting that none of us should take seriously anything that politicians, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, have to say against NAFTA in particular or international trade in general. The reason is simple: They neither understand Wal-Mart nor do they routinely shop there.

Consider Ohio: Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers and biggest taxpayers in the state. As of March 2007, there were 99 Wal-Mart Supercenter stores in the Ohio, 38 Wal-Mart discount stores, 30 Wal-Mart Sam's Clubs and five Wal-Mart regional distribution centers.

In Ohio state sales taxes alone, the company paid $410.2 million in 2007. In other state and local taxes, it paid $82.4 million.

All of those Wal-Mart facilities and the money they generated were supported by one phenomenon: consumers, union and nonunion, employed by and laid off by domestic car companies and other manufacturing entities, seeking the highest quality products at the very best prices.

If Wal-Mart could not meet that essential consumer demand, it would not exist in Ohio or anywhere else. It certainly would not be the formidable retailer it is today.

What does that mean for the current political debate on international trade? Simply this: As long as politicians continue to ignore the Wal-Mart phenomenon, the consumer-driven reality of international trade, they are being dishonest. They are blowing smoke.

The truth is as simple as it is harsh. Automotive and other industrial jobs lost in Ohio are not coming back, certainly not the way they were, because the same consumers who shop at Wal-Mart stores in Ohio and everywhere else there is a Wal-Mart store are not willing to pay for those jobs and the products they represent.

Look at it this way: If I buy enough Honda cars made at the lower cost, nonunion Honda plant in Marysville, Ohio, I'm putting pressure on my union buddies at the higher-cost General Motors, Ford and Chrysler plants to offer me equal or better products at prices equal to or better than those offered by Honda.

I might drink with my union buddies. I might tailgate with them. I might even join them in shouting "hooray" for Clinton or Obama. But if they can't give me the car I want at the price I demand, I'm buying that nonunion Honda. If that means GM, Ford and Chrysler plants close, I'm sorry about that and all that means for my friends who will lose their jobs.

But they should have found a way to give me what I was willing to pay for. They should have understood why so many of us shop at Wal-Mart.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Yet Another Smoking Gun

Still unconvinced that PARD's appeals are being bankrolled by the United Food and Commerical Workers union? Look no further than Tumwater over in Thurston County.

From yesterday's Olympian:

Groups appeal proposal for store

TUMWATER — Opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter have appealed the matter to Thurston County Superior Court.

The appeals challenge a Feb. 5 ruling by the City Council and were filed at the end of the workday Tuesday. They were filed by Tumwater Liveable Community, a citizens group, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367, said Roger Gellenbeck, the city's development services director.

The groups argue that the environmental review for the 187,000-square-foot Wal-Mart, proposed for a 21-acre tract at 5900 Littlerock Road S.W., was inadequate to protect the quality of life for residents.

The groups' appeal to the council was denied Feb. 5, upholding a Dec. 19 ruling by the city hearing examiner.

"We'll take a look at what they said, but this was expected," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Spall said late Tuesday.

Spokespeople for the appellants could not be reached.

Spall said the appeal of the Tumwater store was one of two in Washington to reach the superior court level. Arguments on a proposed store in Pullman were heard in superior court in December, and a decision on that case has not been issued, she said.

That's not completely accurate. The appeals were heard in the superior court in October 2006. It was the appellate court that heard the appeal in December.

So what do PARD and Tumwater Liveable Community have in common besides a long losing streak when it comes to Wal-Mart appeals? They both are being represented by Bricklin Newman Dold LLC. The similarities are scary. Partner Claudia Newman, on behalf of TLC and the UFCW, had Dr. Phillip King, former chair of the Economics Department at San Francisco State University attempt to debunk an economic impact study by Johnson Gardner, the same firm that conducted the Pullman Wal-Mart EIS. Dr. King was the guy PARD tried to have appear at the appeal hearing back in January 2006, but it fell through. Obviously, the UFCW has Bricklin Newman Dold and Dr. King on retainer to appeal every new Wal-Mart in the state of Washington using the same script every time.

The only difference is that TLC proudly embraces its union brothers in the fight against the evil Wal-Mart, while PARD cowardly issues denial after denial long after the connection became obvious.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Pullman Wal-Mart decision months away; Court of appeals hears final arguments from giant retailer, PARD"

Today's "news story" in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News about the Wal-Mart appeal hearing reads more like a PARD press release.

The reporter let stand, without any rebuttal whatsoever, propagandistic statments from PARD's union hired gun overexaggerating the amount of time that it will take to reach a decision, telepathically reading the judges' minds, conjuring frightening images of dead school children in the streets, and the outrageously false assertions that Wal-Mart will somehow steal business from non-existent Mom-and-Pop retail stores and that sales tax revenue will not increase. But my favorite quote is when Bricklin, who lives in Seattle, arrogantly states, "I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that." What we deserve, Mr. Bricklin, is the truth behind who is paying your fees and forcing the REAL taxpayers in Pullman to waste our hard-earned money on this fight.

And at last TV Reed finally 'fesses up about the whole Bishop Blvd. location red herring when he said: "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Sure, Chuck Maduell (of the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm - what happened to McCullough Hill?) had nothing to say. But what about contacting the city or the grassroots group in Pullman backing Wal-Mart, Businesses & Residents for Economic Opportuniy (BREO). Certainly there was time to do that. Speaking of the city, why didn't Laura McAloon present oral arguments? That's something that could have been covered in the article besides giving PARD even more space to spout their lies.

Oh well. Luckily, biased reporters don't decide if we get Wal-Mart, the Court of Appeals does. And I am confident they will make the right decision. Let us remember the words of Epicetus:

Nothing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig. I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.

From today's Daily News:

SPOKANE - Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development attorney Dave Bricklin said it could take three to six months before a decision is rendered by the Division III Court of Appeals regarding Wal-Mart's plans to build a super store in Pullman.

Bricklin and Wal-Mart attorney Chuck Maduell voiced their final arguments regarding the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Bishop Boulevard in front of a panel of three judges in Spokane on Wednesday. Each side was allowed 15 minutes and no new information was permitted, as only facts outlined in previously submitted briefs could be argued.

Bricklin said he hopes the judges' silence during the 30-minute proceedings were a good sign.

"They didn't say much, but maybe that's because they favor our side," he said.

Wal-Mart announced plans to build on Bishop Boulevard in October 2004 and a site plan for the store was later approved by Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman. PARD appealed the city's approval of the retail corporation's environmental checklist and site plan on the grounds that the store would impact stormwater run-off, traffic and negatively affect Pullman's local economy.

Washington state law allows only one public hearing on a proposed development. Spokane attorney John Montgomery - who acts as Pullman's hearing examiner - was called to oversee PARD's initial appeal. Montgomery compiled a findings of fact document from Wal-Mart, PARD and Pullman and concluded the retail giant's site plan and environmental checklist was sufficient. Montgomery's decision was upheld by Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier and PARD's appeal was dismissed.

PARD then took the case to appellate court.

Bricklin pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact document Wednesday to show the store would have significant effects on traffic, the environment and the local economy. Bricklin argued that Montgomery's document was not comprehensive, as a Wal-Mart-sponsored traffic study was taken at face value and was not questioned.

As examples, Bricklin said the traffic study focused on weekdays only and provides no results on potential customers accessing the store on weekends, "Wal-Mart's busiest shopping days." He noted that the study also did not identify how the increased traffic would effect police, roads or pedestrians, particularly students from nearby Franklin Elementary School and Lincoln Middle School.

"There was no mitigation of the effects on schools and no analysis of it," Bricklin said. "We don't think the impact on 800 school kids is inconsequential."

Maduell also pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact and said despite the absence of some facts - such as how much traffic the stores generate on weekends - Frazier found the document to be adequate.

"It may not have been perfect, but the code does not require that," he said.

Maduell said it is up to PARD to prove Wal-Mart's plan would not meet Pullman codes.

"The burden is on them," he said.

Maduell declined comment after presenting his oral arguments.

Bricklin said the fact that Maduell admits Montgomery's findings are "not perfect" should be a red flag that the corporation didn't do all its homework.

"I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that," he said.

Bricklin also argued that Pullman Financial Director Troy Woo's "assumption" that the city would benefit from a Wal-Mart store is insufficient.

Wal-Mart may generate sales tax for the city, but would do so by taking away revenue from current Pullman businesses, he said.

"While Wal-Mart may benefit, the city's tax revenue will not increase," Bricklin said.

PARD Spokesman T.V. Reed said he's glad the case is back in motion.

"I'm glad things are moving along," he said. "Now all we can do is wait. We'd like to win and get this over with."

Reed said he hopes judges will side with PARD, which would force Wal-Mart to conduct more extensive studies of the store's impact on traffic and the environment. He would not say whether PARD would accept the retail giant locating at a different site in Pullman.

"It does not make sense on Bishop Boulevard," he said. "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Wal-Mart Watch Watching Palousitics

More fun with the Palousitics hit counter:

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link: http://technorati.com/blogs/palousitics.blogspot.com
Host Name: mail.walmartwatch.com
IP Address: 38.99.210.226
Country: United States
Region: District Of Columbia
City: Washington
ISP: Performance Systems International Inc
Navigation Path
Date: 14th December 2007
Time: 08:59:12
WebPage: technorati.com/blogs/palousitics.blogspot.com

Wal-Mart Watch is the anti-Wal-Mart astroroots group brought to you by the dues-paying members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Food for Thought

Check out some of the points raised in this Seattle Times article from last Saturday.

She said the group raised money from local business owners and the United Food and Commercial Workers union to wage a regulatory battle against Wal-Mart on the grounds that it posed significant environmental risks.

Okay, first of all, why would a labor union care about environmental regulations? We all know the answer to that question. And let's not forget that it was Claudia Newman, one of PARD's attorneys, that represented the anti-Wal-Mart group in Mill Creek:

Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to people at your church (about Wal-Mart)," urged Heather Golden, an organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1001.

In addition to a petition drive, attendees made preliminary plans to stand on local street corners waving signs opposing Wal-Mart.

Tuesday's decisions are the result of a national movement battling the company and its business practices. Spearheaded by national labor unions like the UFCW and the Teamsters, the movement, called Wake-Up Wal-Mart, seeks to change those practices.

"A number of local unions in this area have contributed money to our efforts," said Golden. "So far we've used that money to hire a land-use lawyer. (Claudia Newman)."

In fact, A December 23, 2005 Everett Herald story reported:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Seattle has been paying the bulk of the cost for an attorney to fight approval of the store.

Instead of the PARDners calling me a "liar," I think everyone knows who the real liars are by denying their union support. Now that we are at the bitter end, can they just tell the truth for a change?

Then there was this:

But a county hearing examiner ordered Wal-Mart to study the store's potential environmental effects — ensuring a delay of up to three years, Spall said.

Now do you see why PARD was so hot to get an environmental impact study ordered by the Hearing Examiner?

And lastly, more reason to be confident:

She added that if Wal-Mart had owned the land, "it would have been a different story," meaning it would have kept up the fight.

Wal-Mart purchased the land on Bishop Blvd. back in April 2006. Yet another PARD miscalculation.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Speaking of Hypocrisy

My friend John Ruberry over at Marathon Pundit has a great post here on the hypocrisy of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, the good folks behind PARD's useless legal appeals against Wal-Mart.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

SLOP (Scumbag Leftists of Pullman)

In a rambling, incoherent letter in yesterday's Daily News, PARDner Don "Professor WASL-Mart" Orlich managed to touch on Warren Zevon, the WWII Axis powers, and parking in downtown Pullman and on College Hill.

But the boastful professor may have given away too much.

Orlich concluded his letter by writing, "Wal-Mart just abandoned its University Place, Wash., site because it would not pay for infrastructure needs."

It's actually not University Place, it's Fircrest. But University Place owns the street in front of the proposed site and wanted Wal-Mart to pay for millions in road improvements. Wal-Mart's decision was just announced last Tuesday. So how did Orlich know about it so quickly and get a letter in yesterday's paper?

Simple, the "grassroots" group Fircrest Against Wal-Mart has the same union-backed attorney as PARD, David Bricklin, of Bricklin Newman Dold, LLP.

I blogged about this connection a while back. Bricklin wrote a letter in 2005 to the Fircrest City Council that began, "I am writing on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367."

The Tacoma News-Tribune reported in a story published on May 26, 2006:

Seattle attorney David Bricklin, who represents a local food service workers’ union that is against Wal-Mart, warned Fircrest in a memo that the policy limiting discussion “violates the First Amendment rights of both members of the City Council and the public.”

[...]

Bricklin represented anti-Wal-Mart groups in Lakewood and Yelm, and part of his Lakewood case took issue with the public process, which also restricted the council from hearing resident testimony. In Yelm, city officials tried to ban residents from using the “W” word at City Hall because they didn’t want to appear biased if an appeal ever came before the council.

If you remember, in Yelm, the Yelm Commerce Group, another "grassroots" anti-Wal-Mart group posted on their message board:

The Yelm Commerce Group was infomed by our lawyer David Bricklin that the UFCW (grocery store workers union) has decided that our case against Wal-Mart had merit and asked Mr. Bricklin to move ahead with the appeal.

So what happnens to the Tacoma suburb of Fircrest, population 6,300, now that the union thugs have had their way? The News-Tribune reports

Fircrest estimated that it would receive about $400,000 annually in tax revenue from the 127,647-square-foot store. Wal-Mart estimated the store would create up to 200 jobs.

“I think revenue-wise, the city will take a big hit,” said Fircrest Councilwoman Kathy McVay. “We’ll miss it.”

That is about 100,000 sq. ft. less than the one planned for Pullman. Do your own estimates on how much sales tax revenue we will receive.

Meanwhile, TV Reed of PARD has stated repeatedly that PARD has received no assistance from any labor union. You also be the judge on the accuracy of that statement.

But don't worry. As the News-Tribune points out:

It is rare for the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer to pull out of a planned store.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Breck Boy's Good For Something After All..

...Possibly the demise of the ultra-annoying, union shill Wake-Up Wal-Mart!

Chris Kofinis and Paul Blank, the biggest Wal-Mart haters in the country, are leaaving Wake-Up Wal-Mart! to join John Edwards’ presidential campaign. This is bound to further damage Wake-Up Wal-Mart's already waning influence.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart stock is up a dollar this morning after the retailer posted larger than expected sales gains for June, despite record-high gas prices.

HT: Marshall Manson

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Wal-Mart, labor unions and the republic"

Ed Iverson, the bête noire of local liberals, has recently stirred up firestorms over global warming and religion. So, it only seems logical that he would now invoke the "WM-word" in his column that appeared in last Saturday's Daily News:

The City Council of San Diego recently voted to uphold its earlier ban of Wal-Mart Supercenters.

The ordinance was tailored so carefully as to leave no doubt that it was expressly aimed at the nation's No. 1 retailer. One of the council members who voted with the majority complained that it would be irresponsible to let the free market decide issues such as this.

Refusing to allow her constituency the opportunity to shop for cheaper groceries, the councilwoman voted with the majority (5-3). She justified her vote by observing that she was "no economist." In effect, she admitted that her vote had no economic justification. Well, she did more that admit it. One might say that she was pretty defiant about it. She went on to establish her bona-fides as "formerly poor." Now, everyone knows that one sure way to rise in today's political world is to be raised poor. Ask John Edwards about his plan for withdrawing from Iraq. You are likely to get a heart-rending description of his poverty-stricken youth.

So the council member made it clear that she was raised poor. She was quick to admit that her poor family would have undoubtedly shopped Wal-Mart for its very attractive grocery prices. But she went on to remark that sometimes we all need to take a hit for the greater good of the community. In effect, she argued what she was doing was the right thing. The wallets of her low-income constituents were of little consequence. Refusing Wal-Mart entrance to her community was a higher priority.

For the present, I want to ignore the likelihood that her vote was bought by labor union interests. This is a little hard to do because it is widely understood that the national anti-Wal-Mart campaign is principally financed by organized labor. Organized opposition to Wal-Mart in my own community appears to be financially dependent upon the shills for organized labor.

In the case of San Diego, it is almost certain that Big Labor sponsors the Wal-Mart bashers. Several years ago the unions launched one of the most punishing labor strikes in history against large supermarkets such as Safeway. The San Diego legislation against big-box stores specifically targets stores that "derive more than 10 percent of their sales from groceries." Add together those two pieces of information and the conclusion is inescapable. San Diego is not against large retailers. The San Diego City Council is against large retailers that refuse to bend over for big labor. The fight is not over some kind of quaint community life. It is not about driving mom-and-pop stores out of business. The "Wal-Mart War" is a last stand of Big Labor in the attack on free markets.

But suppose that such is not the case for the council member who styles herself as formerly poor? Consider for a moment the possibility that she is genuinely convinced that she is doing the honorable thing even though her vote had adverse consequences for her constituents. In that case, may her tribe increase. All politicos should be so principled. Instead, we get government by public opinion poll.

The United States is not a democracy. We were established as a constitutional republic. Congress was intended to comprise men of principle. As citizens, we were to elect men of sound character, who would consider all sides of an issue and do what was right, even if it was not popular at the moment.

Instead of principled representatives, we get a bunch of fops, holding their fingers in the wind, sniffing the odor of popular opinion, and saving their tail-feathers in the next election.

Why don't we all just vote on everything by interactive screen? That would save ourselves all the money we spend to support the leeches in D.C.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Union betrays its own members"

Dynamite column by Froma Harrop today:

The American working class has few friends, and that sad situation is never more apparent than when the issue is immigration. The fat cats want unlimited supplies of cheap labor. It makes sense. That a giant union purportedly serving low-skilled workers would further that end does not.

The Service Employees International Union is backing a proposal to greatly expand the supply of low-cost labor pouring into the United States. The reason why is close to crazy.

Under the Senate immigration compromise, at least 400,000 two-year visas would be issued a year to unskilled foreigners. The visas could be renewed two times, but to ensure that the guest labor is truly temporary, workers would have to leave the country for a year between each stint. The SEIU apparently has a problem with the part about the workers being temporary.

First off, any self-respecting union would blow its top at the very suggestion of a massive new guest-worker program. The AFL-CIO adamantly opposes the idea. Its president, John Sweeney, complains that the program gives employers "a ready pool of labor they can exploit to drive down wages, benefits, health and safety protections, and other workplace standards."

There are temporary jobs – for example, harvesting crops. But these new visas are designed to provide cut-rate labor to fill permanent positions in such businesses as meat processing, restaurants and motels.

The SEIU covers many of the very people who take these jobs. It seems curious that the union does not mind adding another half million workers a year to compete with its own members. Its Web site contends that America has a shortage of 10 million workers and that "nearly half of all jobs created from now until 2012 will be held by workers with a high school diploma or less."

Duh – but don't worker shortages cause wages to rise? The wages of "workers with a high school diploma or less" have been crashing through the floor. Or hasn't the SEIU noticed that its contract "victories" are not that fabulous?

It's hard to believe that the SEIU's leaders are dumb. Rather, they ignore the law of supply and demand to cover another agenda. Thus, one can't be sure whether the SEIU aspires to be a union representing workers or an arm of the National Council of La Raza, a group that claims to further the interests of Hispanics – and does a lousy job of it.

Democrats who think they can get away with throwing blue-collar America to the wolves in return for new immigrants' votes should think again. Many Latinos who are native-born or legal immigrants – however sympathetic to fellow Hispanics who want to come here – do understand how the labor market has been rigged against them. The open border is why median wages are higher in Alabama than they are in Texas.

And there are other low-income groups who fancy their interests matter. T. William Fair, head of the Miami Urban League, appears in ads calling amnesty for illegal workers "a slap in the face to black Americans" and "an economic disaster." Some predict a new coalition of working-class blacks, whites and not a few Latinos questioning certain Democrats' loyalty to their cause. (Cheap-labor Republicans are already on notice.)

Controlled immigration is a good thing, and a little wage competition is an acceptable price for bringing new blood and energy into the country. But the numbers really do matter. If some unions and Democrats choose to deny the economic realities, they should at least be open about their motives. It would be highly risky to assume that everyone else is stupid.

The SEIU, as you may or may not know, is the force behind Wal-Mart Watch. Wal-Mart watch has had the temerity to attack Wal-Mart over undocumented workers and outsourcing American jobs.

This hypocrisy proves that union thugs are only interested in more dues, not the workers, to maintain their lavish lifestyles and buy power and inlfuence in D.C.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Dr. Sam"

This is dedicated to Pullman Chamber Guy and his comments earlier about Wal-Mart and free market health care.

From Investor's Business Daily, April 25, 2007 :

Health Care: Medical costs got you down? Prescriptions too expensive? So fed up with our "system" that universal care is starting to look good by comparison? Before going that far, check what Wal-Mart's (NYSE:WMT) up to.

The retail colossus announced this week that it will open as many as 400 in-store medical clinics in the next two to three years. By 2014, it said, clinics could be in as many as half its 4,000 stores.

The announcement followed deep price cuts on prescription drugs introduced by the company last fall at 65 Tampa, Fla.-area outlets. That program, which was not beaten back like Wal-Mart's attempt to enter banking, has since spread across the country.

Wal-Mart's advance into health care is a testament to private-sector industriousness. While others whine about America's health care "crisis," and back monstrous government programs to solve it, Wal-Mart is actually making care more affordable.

Yes, the same Wal-Mart that politicians and activists demonize because its pay and benefits supposedly are insufficient.

The clinics will be operated by local hospitals or other independent professionals, and will particularly help the poor. Company executives say prices for medical care in the clinics will mirror the low prices in Wal-Mart stores.

Already, Wal-Mart has brought low-cost health care by selling 30-day supplies of more than 300 generic prescription drugs at some stores for $4. Almost a third of those $4 prescriptions are bought by the uninsured. Customers have saved $290 million through the program just since September

Cynics will say clinics and low-price drugs are a ploy to lure more shoppers into Wal-Mart. So? Is that wrong? The essential truth missing from their tirades about Wal-Mart's rapacity is that it's a company, not a charity. It must make a profit to stay in business, provide jobs and keep prices low.

If Wal-Mart thinks this latest plan will win the plaudits of its foes, it's mistaken. Just Tuesday, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which runs a nonstop anti-Wal Mart campaign via the Web, derided the company's "disturbing" record on health care -- a laughable assertion, given Wal-Mart's record.

Opening clinics also will likely create new enemies: physicians and their staffs who fear that their practices will be harmed by the presence of price-cutting Wal-Mart clinics in their communities.

But the issue shouldn't be about saving local medical practices any more than saving local retailers who always complain when Wal-Mart moves in. It should be about quality health care -- and prescriptions, groceries, clothing and essential household items -- at prices all Americans can afford. Wal-Mart does that.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart