Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
We're talking about a company that nets over 12 billion a year, 400,000 is a pittance to them. According to the article, if Wal-Mart were to have cut employee's benefits to make up for the money, it would have cost each employee less than 40 cents.
|
You don't get to deprive someone of their property just because you feel they have plenty of it. And this is just ONE instance where they could have let irrational emotion rule over logic and law...what if Wal-Mart made a habit of always doing what "felt good"? It'd never have become a mega-chain...it would be a po-dunk herbal store run by some damned dirty hippies!
In this ONE instance, I agree...it wouldn't have hurt Wal-Mart too badly, it would have made great
PR, and might even have created enough goodwill to generate sales that completely covered their loss. Or not.
But nobody should get to decide what Wal-Mart does with Wal-Mart's money besides Wal-Mart, as long as they're within the law. Which they were.