.jpg)
Why did Representatives Tim O’Brien, D-24th District and Peter Tercyak, D-26th District, joined by Alderman Catanzaro, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 371 Brian Petronella, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal with more than 20 blue-shirted protestors from the Working Families Party protest in front of the New Britain Wal-Mart store?
John Green, the director of the Working Families Party was quoted as saying that the rally was called because of "corporate greed" exhibited by Wal-Mart and an alleged threat to deprive workers of severance pay.
Apparently these community agitators are of the belief that if a company intends to make a profit from its investment, then that is being greedy. My understanding from the remarks at this rally is that they are of the belief that a company like Wal-Mart should continue to run a store that is losing money "for the good of the community."
For those agitators that have never held a private sector job, that is called welfare and has no place in the private sector. Management has a duty to its investors to either make the store profitable, or cut the cancer. Contrary to widely held liberal beliefs, corporations do not exist for the purpose of creating jobs. They exist to market a product or service with the intent to make a profit, and create jobs in the pursuit of producing this product or service "for profit." Despite the liberal philosophy that was just demonstrated by some of our misguided elected representatives, profit is not a dirty word, but in fact is at the route of our entire economic system.
THE MOTIVE FOR THIS UNWARRANTED DISPLAY WAS APPARENTLY INTENDED TO SHORE UP O’BRIEN’S CANDIDACY FOR THE UP-COMING ELECTIONS IN THE EYES OF SOME LIBERAL EXTREMISTS.
Wal-Mart has always been a responsible identity throughout the USA. Why would they endanger their image with the buying public? This display has done little more than damage any hopes of encouraging Wal-Mart to expand in Connecticut--especially any future locations in New Britain.
15 comments:
Just knowing that these extremists are opposed to Wal-Mart makes me want to do business with them all the more. There was not one person on that list I would support for dog catcher.
This is why I do my grocery shopping at Wal-Mart, because most of the other stores are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and as a personal choice I avoid doing business with any company that is unionized, so to me Wal-Mart is the best!
From New Britain it takes me about 15 to 20 minutes to drive to the fancy new Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wallingford and the prices are so much lower than any of the union grocery stores around here, that the cost savings more than covers my travel costs.
Instead of organizing protests that will do nothing but scare the company away from this city forever, our elected representatives should be trying to negotiate with Wal-Mart to bring a Supercenter to town through tax breaks or whatever it takes. In addition to the jobs creation, the benefits to the public through lower grocery prices speak for themselves. The Pinnacle Heights property would be a perfect location for such a new Supercenter, but I am afraid Frank is correct that these protests, especially when organized by city and state officials, will prevent this company from ever having any interest in New Britain in the future.
Mayor Stewart has taken the correct approach of meeting with Wal-Mart representatives in private, but it is blatantly obvious that some elected officials put their own political interests ahead of the needs of these workers or the best interests of the city. He could have called press conferences and organized protests, but a good chief executive knows that these matters are best dealt with in private discussions which deliver the best results in corporate America.
Do any of you really think that Wal-Mart executives would ever sit across the table from a Mayor who joined a bunch of radicals in denouncing their company during public protests?
These politicians are very good business men. They know just how
to attract and keep businesses.
Think Walmart will ever try New Britain again? Not.
"There was not one person on that list I would support for dog catcher."
In the end it is not up to you, it's up to the voters, and they want change.
I don't care what you think...and my guess is most of the voters don't either.
See you on E-DAY :)
After reading this I like Walmart all the more!
Can't wait for your defense of the Wall Street bandits in your next editorial :)
Big Y in Plainville is also non-union if you are looking for non-union stores to do your business at.
At the rate that people are moving out, will there be anyone left to vote on election day?
anonymous said...
"There was not one person on that list I would support for dog catcher."
In the end it is not up to you, it's up to the voters, and they want change.
I don't care what you think...and my guess is most of the voters don't either.
See you on E-DAY :)
Must be a left wing loon with his head buried in the sand or so far up little mac the lesser one's rear end that he has no clue of reality because everyone I talk to in town is mad as hell and most say they are not going to take it anymore and are determined to vote through change on the council.
Can't wait for your defense of the Wall Street bandits in your next editorial :)----do you mean the destruction of wall street caused by criminals like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank???????????????????
There is also Stew Leonard's in Newington for non-union shops!
The union boycott list boycotts Mt. Olive brand pickles and relish. Wal-Mart sells this brand by the truckload. I know because that is where I buy their products all the time!
I just read an article that described Starbucks as not being union friendly which I thought was hysterical because there is no place limousine liberals like to frequent more than Starbucks!
From the article I found on the Huffington Post, May 19, 2009:
Put down that grande non-fat caramel macchiato or whatever Starbucks concoction you're drinking. Turns out the coffee giant has a nasty history of being anti-barista, anti-union, and thus anti-Employee Free Choice Act as well.
Perhaps Mr. O'Brien and his followers would like to tell us their interpretation of Capitalism. My understanding is that a business is in business to serve the public and to make a profit. Part of those profits pays employees salaries, benefits, etc, and to invest some back into the business for expansion, and to serve the public, amongst other things. Last time I looked, Connecticut is part of the United States...not part of some socialistic or communist country. If they are unhappy with the situation, let them move to Russia, Cuba, or some other such place.
It is clear that Mr.O'Brien and his radical extremist buddies think that a business is NOT supposed to make a profit. In my opinion they believe that the business should operate at a loss just for the sake of providing jobs to the community--much like a welfare state.
Post a Comment