May

20

 Nelson Lichtenstein wrote interesting books about $WMT, noting that Sears was excluded from the initial 1955 Fortune 500 list "simply because it was a retailer".

His "retail revolution" is the transfer of power from manufacturers down the line and closer to the consumer. WMT now significantly controls the supply chain "up" the line.

(Nike and Starbucks have been noted in this regard, but not so far in this book.)

There is a second reason why Burger King management has put the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statement at the very top of the application. Americans consider workplace discrimination on the basis of race and religion and creed un-American. For nearly a third of a century we have had a national debate over the definition of such discrimination and the remedies that are useful and legal to eliminate it. But there is practically no debate about the need to stop it and compensate individuals for it, when discovered.

The overwhelming majority of workers, employers, and politicians believe that the government has a right to insist that active discrimination not take place against anyone covered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or those many statutes that followed in its train. This seems so commonplace and common sensible, that we forget the radical character of this law. If you own a restaurant or a factory or a motel or run a college, you can't make use of your property as you wish. The state mandates you to hire, fire, promote, and otherwise deal with your employees or clients according to a set of rules laid down in Washington and refined by the EEOC and the courts. If litigated, the courts will force an employer to pay real money in compensation and rehire or promote a worker if management is found to have transgressed this new kind of labor law.

Peter Ringel writes: 

Yes, the "point of sale" has the dominant power position.

Like the US has it towards China: US is the point of sale.

Mr. Isomorphisms writes: 

I think this was a point made by Michael Pettis (shows up on twitter.com/jaredwoodard feed) as well.

Stefan Jovanovich writes: 

Some of us are happiest as counter uppunchers. But for I's and PR's wonderful (as always) comments, I would not have spent the first part of the morning rummaging through my books and pestering the wife about her encyclopedic knowledge of employment law. So, I pray these remarks will be taken as merry grumbling, not smart-ass smugness.

1. The EEOC placard is like putting In God We Trust on the Money. It does no harm but it is not proof of anything real. Companies put it up for the same reason water fountains in my birthplace and the nation's capitol once had labels that said colored only; the law made them do it.

2. Labor Union's flourished in the 1930s for the same reason the water fountains had the signs; the Federal law made companies do it. What it did not do, of course, was make the labor unions allow memberships to be open to people regardless of gender and race. On the contrary, those awful capitalist employers had shown a shocking willingness to allow women and Negroes and Mexicans to come to the same workplace. They had, of course, shown the same terrible openness to letting rich black and Creole people in Louisiana ride in the same passenger carriages as white people. In both cases the law put a stop to the dreadful egalitarian idea that anyone could be a source of profit.

3. One should be careful about drawing any inferences from the Fortune List. When Henry Luce ran Time-Life editorial selection had a simple rule: our advertisers are the news. Sears was not a major advertiser in expensive magazines in the 1940s and 1950s. They did not need to be any more than Google (forgive me: Alphabet) needed to buy ads on television in the 1990s and 2000s.
 


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search