Here's why you can't buy the News Journal at Wal-Mart

View Comments

• Lou, I wouldn't say that my respect for everyone who works at Wal-Mart has been affected by the decisions of a group of managers who made a knee jerk decision (that they later reversed). While a good columnist should focus on multiple sides of an issue, a columnist is permitted to present an opinion. And, in a society with a free press, we should embrace with joy the fact that our citizens have the right to disagree with each other and with the politicians in power. O'Brien wasn't writing an investigative report; instead, he refers to a book by Thomas Friedman, and supplies a local angle to those claims.

  And even if you disagree with the columnist, you should rejoice that the editor of the News Journal put the principle of the freedom of the press over the money his paper stood to lose.

  Someday, Lou, if you write a column that tells the truth but makes a powerful person angry, you'll hope that you have an editor who's willing to stick up for you against bullies.

• Walmart DOES have decent benefits. I mean if my dad has to pay into it, thats pretty damn good. And actually, no, it would have been caught, even the onocologist said that he could have been dead before it was actually caught.

  and pro-union actually does justify it, because Wal-Mart has a right to deny ANY newspaper being sold in its stores--pro or anti-union.

  either way, the point is the journalist should have gotten the facts from walmart itsself, not just from every other source BUT walmart, which in my opinion he did. He just went to other sources, but claims to go to Wal-Mart.

  My respect for journalism, like i said, among other things, has seriously gone down. Newswriting and Media Lab should be fun. (ok, that last part was saracasm.)

• Even if it was "pro-union", would that justify Walmart's pulling of the newspaper? Personally, I don't want to patronize an establishment that doesn't allow dissenting voices. Why are unions so bad? They gave us a lot of what we have today. 40 hour week, benefits, and safety regulations.

  The fact is, Walmart is getting a fantastic deal and they're screwing everybody. Not only do they get state subsidies for "bringing jobs" to the area, they avoid paying for health insurance for the majority of their employees, and pay a substandard wage. They're making money hand over fist by stepping on the backs of the people they supposedly served. It's great that Lou's dad is okay, but if Walmart had decent benefits, wouldn't Lou's dad's cancer have been caught much earlier?

• Lou, the article by Randy Hammer clearly states why the local Wal-Mart asked the News Journal to take away the copies of the paper. It was because some of the management didn't like a column by Mark O'Brien. That column doesn't mention unions at all.

  http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050618/NEWS01/506180331/1037/COLUMNISTS01

• Talked to my dad today--he pays into his health insurance, so its NOT a corporate thing. That paper down in Florida was more than likely a pro-union paper, which is why it got pulled.

• I don't think individual Wal-Marts would be able to make the decision of what benefits to pay their employees. That would probably be a corporate decision. And, of course, an employee who's married to someone who gets coverage elsewhere could opt out of Wal-Mart's healthcare plans.

  Here's an article from the Boston Globe that says Senator Kennedy and Corzine (both Democrats) are among those saying that Wal-Mart should do more.

  More than 600,000 of Wal-Mart's 1.26 million US workers get benefits from government programs or through a spouse's employer, the lawmakers said.

  ''This is the ultimate in turning your back on responsibility to society," Corzine said. ''The numbers are staggering."

  The article concludes with a quotation from a Wal-Mart spokesperson, so this brief article isn't an unfair hatchet job.

  http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/06/23/wal_marts_healthcare_policy_rapped/

• That was the point behind my story.

  Just because one Walmart (Georgia/Florida) doesn't pay fully into the health care doesn't mean another doesn't. My dad doesn't complain about his health insurance, heck Walmart pays for all of his eyes, dental, etc.--ive never heard him say anything like "well, the taxpayers are paying for this." Usually he'll show me his pay stub and say "this is how much they take out for my health insurance."

  If anything, my mom's and other "disabled" people should be the ones people gripe about. My mom has no knee caps, and a bad back, and she doesn't work. Gripe about that!

  I am not saying censorship is right, I disagree with Wal-Marts choice to get arid of that newspaper--but I highly doubt that the corporate offices made at that decision.

  I don't know, to me, its either we pay less for our stuff and they use our tax money, or we pay more for our stuff but the employees get health insurance. Persoanlly, I'd rather pay less for my stuff.

• I dont think its a matter of why isn't his employer footing the bill so much as it is, why is it that only negative news comes out, and people only look at that negative side.

  I mean yes, that was in florida and georgia that the taxpayers were paying out the bill, but is that the case in PA. I personally don't know, because my stepfather never told me. All I know is that man was sick, he got the treatment. His fellow employees even raised money for the family--numerous times. Yeah, Wal-Mart may be a huge corporation, but at least it's one that people can do things like that.

  I mean I persoanlly don't care--even when I did have a job and was paying taxes--that some of my money went to medcare and stuff like that for people that work at Wal-Mart, or don't have a job--because at least their getting health care. I think my respect for journalism, among other things to be truthful, just got lowered a little.

• Statistics and analyses of single case studies are both kinds of truth. You need the statistics in order to help determine whether a particular case study is representative or unusual. If you make a law, it's got to apply to everyone, not just the few people whose case studies you've been able to examine in depth.

  I really blogged this because of the newspaper connection. I do think the public deserves to know if Wal-Mart refuses to sell publications that publish unflattering stories about Wal-Mart. The real problem comes when some small paper, which stands to lose advertising and circulation money of Wal-Mart refuses to support it, caves in and spikes a bad story about Wal-Mart, or generates a good story about Wal-Mart, simply for the sake of preserving the financial relationship.

  Regarding health care... it is only human and decent for societies to care for their own members. I don't mind that my tax dollars pays for the healthcare of somebody who can't find work, or who is too sick to work. But Wal-Mart is a huge corporation -- Sam Walton was the richest man in America until he divided up his fortune among his children. Other companies pay for the healthcare provided to their employees... why shouldn't Wal-Mart? Why should someone who works at one of the stores Wal-Mart is competing with have to pay for his or her own benefits, and then also (through taxes) support somebody who works at Wal-Mart?

  This isn't a matter of letting your stepfather go untreated, it's a question of why isn't his employer footing the bill? (Of course, if Wal-Mart does start paying better benefits, the'll have to raise their prices.)