Challenge Assumptions - Part 4
-Hey Folks,
In an earlier post I wrote:
“As long as corporations are squeezing workers and taxpayers, all is right with the world. As soon as the worm turns and profits are squeezed, the world is sliding down a dangerous slippery-slope to doom. And it doesn’t require elimination of profits to elicit hemorrhages of outrage – any reduction in profits will suffice!
The assumption, the myth we are all supposed to swallow (in order to maintain the prerogatives of the few) is that the wealthy come first, that WE depend upon THEM. They have to be afforded the lives of royalty so that we can obtain enough to subsist. And if we have to get by on even less in order that they have more, that’s just the way it is and always has been, the way god wants it. Besides, if we resist, it will cost us jobs and put us on a slippery slope.”
The local “Country Club Republican” newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, weighed in with an editorial laden with the usual assumptions. It starts with the headline:
“Unhealthy lawmaking
Maryland legislature has no business telling Wal-Mart how to manage benefit plans”
As I noted above, this myth makes the people dependent; their elected representatives – it insists - have “no business” telling Wal-Mart or any other business how to do anything.
The editorial admits that “Too many Americans have too little health insurance” and that “Wal-Mart’s health plans aren’t as generous as those offered by some other companies, but Wal-Mart is well-known for following a business model of restraining expenses in order to hold down the prices of goods.”
Yep. People need insurance and WAL-MART’s insurance is not good, but that's tough since “Wal-Mart is well-known for following a business model of restraining expenses in order to hold down the prices of goods.” If the corporation prefers low prices to workers’ health, the government should give its blessing.
This assumption, this myth, is in clear conflict with “government of, by, and for the people [not corporations].”
The Dispatch also makes the argument I’ve addressed in earlier posts: i.e. taking proper care of workers causes loss of jobs – we won’t have any WAL-MARTS or Burger Kings or Convenience Stores unless workers are abused. Right!
It also warns that the wealthy corporation “can be expected to use every legal means to challenge this mandate. Wal-Mart doesn’t want this government requirement spreading to other states.” Sure! WAL-MART is loaded, and will spend the money they could have used to benefit its workers – as much money as it takes – to get the politicians and courts it owns to return things to “normal.” And I won’t be surprised if it happens.
Just the same, the assumption that this is OK, “in the American tradition,” what god wants, the only way that can or will work, or the way it’s “sposed” to be is bullshit.
Challenge assumptions!
More on this in later posts.
- Uke Man
In an earlier post I wrote:
“As long as corporations are squeezing workers and taxpayers, all is right with the world. As soon as the worm turns and profits are squeezed, the world is sliding down a dangerous slippery-slope to doom. And it doesn’t require elimination of profits to elicit hemorrhages of outrage – any reduction in profits will suffice!
The assumption, the myth we are all supposed to swallow (in order to maintain the prerogatives of the few) is that the wealthy come first, that WE depend upon THEM. They have to be afforded the lives of royalty so that we can obtain enough to subsist. And if we have to get by on even less in order that they have more, that’s just the way it is and always has been, the way god wants it. Besides, if we resist, it will cost us jobs and put us on a slippery slope.”
The local “Country Club Republican” newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, weighed in with an editorial laden with the usual assumptions. It starts with the headline:
“Unhealthy lawmaking
Maryland legislature has no business telling Wal-Mart how to manage benefit plans”
As I noted above, this myth makes the people dependent; their elected representatives – it insists - have “no business” telling Wal-Mart or any other business how to do anything.
The editorial admits that “Too many Americans have too little health insurance” and that “Wal-Mart’s health plans aren’t as generous as those offered by some other companies, but Wal-Mart is well-known for following a business model of restraining expenses in order to hold down the prices of goods.”
Yep. People need insurance and WAL-MART’s insurance is not good, but that's tough since “Wal-Mart is well-known for following a business model of restraining expenses in order to hold down the prices of goods.” If the corporation prefers low prices to workers’ health, the government should give its blessing.
This assumption, this myth, is in clear conflict with “government of, by, and for the people [not corporations].”
The Dispatch also makes the argument I’ve addressed in earlier posts: i.e. taking proper care of workers causes loss of jobs – we won’t have any WAL-MARTS or Burger Kings or Convenience Stores unless workers are abused. Right!
It also warns that the wealthy corporation “can be expected to use every legal means to challenge this mandate. Wal-Mart doesn’t want this government requirement spreading to other states.” Sure! WAL-MART is loaded, and will spend the money they could have used to benefit its workers – as much money as it takes – to get the politicians and courts it owns to return things to “normal.” And I won’t be surprised if it happens.
Just the same, the assumption that this is OK, “in the American tradition,” what god wants, the only way that can or will work, or the way it’s “sposed” to be is bullshit.
Challenge assumptions!
More on this in later posts.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home