Just a few weeks ago, Weinswig gave the Wal-Mart a favorable 9.5 rating out of 10. But now, in a cynical bid to stoke public fears that stronger unions will have an adverse affect on stock values, Citigroup downgraded Wal-Mart’s rating from “Buy” to “Hold.”

Gaming the system is bad. By “gaming” I mean that the downgrade may not actually be based on a belief that the union will make Wal-Mart’s stock drop, but may be an attempt to make a point unrelated to the putative analysis. If so, they would be releasing a known-false analysis.

I don’t know if this IS gaming the system, though.

It’s not at all clear that unionizing would help the general public.

Certainly, it would really help the (very small) proportion of the public who happens to be in the union. Equally certain is that it would really hurt the (very small) proportion of the public who, for whatever reason, would be able to get a non-union job but not a union job.

But of course, a lot of the public–especially the poor–also shops at WalMart. They receive a benefit from the low prices. So it is unclear whether unionization would raise prices at WalMart, and whether such a raise in prices (if any) would have more or less of a detrimental effect on the public than would the union question.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that price changes would either not occur or would have no effect, and I don’t think that makes any sense. DO you have any support for that assumption?

You also seem to be operating on the assumption that unions operate for the common good of the country. That is simply untrue.

Unions are like any other group, from a all-white country club to the kids in a treehouse: protectionist. They operate for the benefit of their own members, not the country and not the company their members work for. The only way that they take public considerations into account is when the public interest happens to align with the union interest; the only way that they take company considerations into account is what the company interest aligns with the union members’ interests.

That is as it should be, and is not a condemnation of the union model. But if you think that “union” always means “public benefit” and/or “good” then I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Why? Again, that is her job.

No, it’s not her job to stoke public fears about pending legislation that could help American workers. And if, as is alleged, that is why the rating was lowered, it needs to be prevented.

I don’t think you have much of an understanding of the purpose of TARP. They weren’t given the money to unionize, to say the least.

I don’t think you have much of an understanding of anything that has been said here if you think that anyone is making such an argument.

As has been pointed out before, a Citi retail analyst gave her opinion about the effects of passage of a particular piece of legislation might have on retail profits. That is her job. You might agree or disagree with her opinion, but why should she be prevented from doing her job simply because her employer received TARP money? Or she not allowed to make predictions about the potential economic affect of legislation ever again?

Oh, and they definitely need to be prevented from doing this:

Just a few weeks ago, Weinswig gave the Wal-Mart a favorable 9.5 rating out of 10. But now, in a cynical bid to stoke public fears that stronger unions will have an adverse affect on stock values, Citigroup downgraded Wal-Mart’s rating from “Buy” to “Hold.”

Why? Again, that is her job. She’s employed to giver her opinion on such matters. In her opinion, because of the likely passage of Card Check, widespread unionization would reduce Wal Mart’s profitability and therefore, it’s dividends paid to shareholders. So she downgraded it. That’s neither difficult to understand nor controversial.

all organizations receiving taxpayer money should be forbidden from commenting/advocating against the cause for which they were given the money.

I don’t think you have much of an understanding of the purpose of TARP. They weren’t given the money to unionize, to say the least.

And now, they’re working against the economic interests the general American public — the direct opposite of what they were given the money for.

1. See above.

2. Though I believe that TARP and Obama’s never-ending bailouts are against the interests of the general public, I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to. Unionization is most certainly NOT in the interest of the general public. Unions exist solely to protect the interests of their members. Usually to the detriment of anyone NOT in the union.

But by all means, let’s turn Wal Mart into GM.

There is a branch of logic , inductive reasoning, which uses examples as a shortcut.

Um, what do you mean? Shortcuts to what?

Inductive logic is simply reasoning from particular (empirical) cases to general principles. In your example, you’re basically saying “One company is unionized, and was once the largest company in the world, but is no longer; another company, which is NOT unionized, is now the world’s largest.” You don’t actually state the conclusion you’re drawing from that–you just go all QED on us–so I’m left to infer your point; I assume it’s that “Unions caused GM to to lose its status as the world’s largest company; therefore, unions are bad.” (Forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth here, but otherwise, what WAS your point?)

First: the UAW was recognized by GM in 1937. If unions are responsible for GM’s not being the biggest company in the world, how is it that it became the largest company in the world while it was unionized? Perhaps the explanation of GM’s history is a little more complicated than you’re making out?

Second: I would much rather have a company that was not the world’s largest, but which paid its workers a living wage, over a company like WalMart, which pays its workers so poorly that many of them are forced to go on public assistance to survive. Yes: paying workers reasonable wages would probably force WalMart to raise its prices. But I’d rather see us pay our workers more generously so they could afford Walmart’s goods at higher prices, instead of saying that we have to keep wages down because folks otherwise won’t be able to afford to buy stuff because they don’t make enough money. WalMart is part of a larger problem here, of course, but its practices are some of the most egregious, and I would argue some of the most costly to our society as a whole.

Finally, viz-a-viz your first statement about card check: you say that you oppose the EFCA because you’re worried about workers getting intimidated. Do you honestly think they’re not getting intimicated already? By folks who are systematically opposed to their interests? Because, you know, they are. That is the point of the legislation. If you’re not convinced, take a look at how WalMart and lots of other companies handle union organizers.

Frankly, I’m a little skeptical that James Hoffa is going to show up and beat the shit out of me (really? I mean, “getting the shit beaten out of you?”) if I vote against a union. I’m a lot less afraid of that than I would be of getting fired me if I were trying to organize a union in a currently non-union shop.

So every retailer that isn’t the biggest is an unprofitable money hole with a bad business model, then? Come on.

A lot of huge retailers use union labor. And, again, But We Might Possibly Not Be The Biggest Retailer In The U.S. If We Unionized isn’t really much of an argument. Boo fricking hoo. Could you show me where it says in the Constitution (or any other Founding document) that the entire country should be run according to policies that are convenient for Walmart?
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

ould you show me where it says in the Constitution (or any other Founding document) that the entire country should be run according to policies that are convenient for Walmart?

Nice straw man you’ve got, there.

A lot of huge retailers use union labor. And, again, But We Might Possibly Not Be The Biggest Retailer In The U.S. If We Unionized isn’t really much of an argument. Boo fricking hoo.

And “boo frickin’ hoo” is an argument? Millions of people shop at Walmart for a reason, dude — low prices. But apparently, you know better how to run a multibillion dollar retail business? Cool.