Dan Hindman has worked at a Wal-Mart near Los Angeles for four years. The former employee of the month, who makes $9.80 an hour, says he is scheduled to work on Black Friday but does not plan to show up.

“Wal-Mart needs to learn that it’s not fair how they treat us,” Hindman says.

The protesters want minimum hourly pay raised to $13, more full-time work and less-costly health care. Next year, their insurance premiums will jump by as much as 36 percent, as Wal-Mart scales back its contribution.

He says his schedule was cut to 15 hours per week when he joined a group of Wal-Mart employees who favor unionizing. He lost custody of his four-year-old son when he could no longer support him.

“So I lost my son and I’m kind of regretting working for Wal-Mart, but I have to provide, you know?” says an emotional Hindman. “It’s the biggest retailer in the world, and you can’t help me provide for my son? It kills me, dude. It really tears me apart, big time.”

Dude. Seriously? You are blaming Wal-Mart for your woes?

The first time I heard about the Wal-Mart protest I admit to feeling a bit sorry for the guys. After all, they might only get half of Thanksgiving Day off. But, then I remembered, this is nothing new. Wal-Mart and other stores have been turning back their opening time for the Black Friday sales for years. And there is a good reason they do it. People come. Simple enough. But they are also trying to adapt to the internet shoppers, finding a way to bring customers in to their stores while fighting against the ease of online shopping.

When you took the job you knew the store would be open. How is it any different from bank employees knowing they can’t be closed more than three days in a row so they have to be open on the Friday after Thanksgiving? No different from firefighters, policemen, and hospital workers who signed on knowing that their employer was open 24/7. They might have to work an undesirable shift. No different from the guy who works at a 7/11 or Circle K…heck, what about a 24 hour drug store? When you agree to work at these places you do so with the knowledge that there are days you will be scheduled when you’d rather be home. It’s life.

To the second part of your complaint: You think you should be paid more to do an unskilled job? Why? If you want to make more money you can either take a more challenging job that others don’t want or you can go back to school and/or get some training. Nobody says you have to get a college degree, there are many training programs available and even some OJT programs that pay as you learn. Wal-Mart and other department stores should pay what the market will bear. Remember, there are 30 MILLION other people out looking for work. Why should Wal-Mart pay your sorry butt more money just because you don’t think it’s fair?

Every job I’ve had has had a salary range. When I got to the top of the salary I had to make a decision did I want to stay in that position with little chance for increase or did I want to make a change, take supervisory classes or learn a new skill?

Is it Wal-Mart’s fault that you aren’t working enough hours to care for your child? It used to be that single parents often had to work two jobs to take care of themselves and their kids. Sure it’s tough. But good grief, it’s not the store’s fault that you need to make more. Get out there and find a second job. This is real life. Don’t sit there waiting for somebody to come bail you out.

Dude.

Should Congress and the President manage to negotiate and resolve details of the fiscal cliff conundrum, those who receive dividend payments next year will not be affected. But if tax rate issues are not resolved by the end of December, the Bush era tax cuts will expire and tax rates on investments may increase dramatically. Yahoo Finance reported:

“In light of this uncertainty, the board determined that moving our dividend payment up by a few days to 2012 was in the best interests of our shareholders.”

Oftentimes, the general public think dividends are investment returns only available to the wealthy. Many do not realize their retirement accounts may be invested in the stock market.

Watch as the folks at the Wall Street Journal discuss this.

Alex Bratty

The 2012 election is currently in a dead heat. Americans are evenly split with 46% favoring President Obama and 45% favoring Mitt Romney.  This current election cycle just crossed the 1 billion dollar mark and 9% of the electorate is still undecided.   One of those groups that can tip the balance and could pose a threat to Obama’s re-election bid is the Walmart Moms.  Walmart Moms are defined as a group of women who have hit economic hard times, have shopped at a Walmart store in the past month, and are typically young.  In fact, 47% of all Walmart Moms have been hit with an “economic speed bump.”

Alex Bratty of Public Opinion Strategies detailed this demographic at Smart Girl Summit this past Friday.  They are identified as a swing group with moderate leanings.  They voted Democratic in 2008, but decided to takes away the president’s credit card in 2010 and sided with Republicans.  They make up 27% of all registered women voters and constitute 14% of the electorate.  Needless to say, both camps should be catering to these young moms.

Concerning party identification, they’re almost evenly split 35%-33% Democratic to Republican.  Overall, 49% of them want Republicans to control Congress compared to 39% who don’t.  This is very different considering that when compared to all women voters, 38% want the GOP to control congress while 45% do not.

In her study, Bratty and her firm found out that:

There was a split between those who thought that President Obama had his chance to turn things around and those who hesitated about changing presidents when things were so bad. They were uncertain about having to start all over with change in a different direction. With few notable exceptions, these women did not identify so much with “women’s issues” as they did with “moms’ issues.”

For these women, Mitt Romney’s business background seems to be a double-edged sword: There’s an assumption that as a successful businessman, he brings some expertise to the table when it comes to the economy. But the perception of him being cool and aloof, and the impact of negative ads about his private-equity firm throwing people out of work, raised doubts about his motivations. There were questions about whether he would side with the average American.

Cook concludes, stating:

Many of these women are still window-shopping this election. Clearly, they knew more about Obama. Most had some degree of comfort with him, though they were concerned that he hadn’t been more effective. Romney, though, was a blank slate. These voters know little about him beyond the fact that he has been a wildly successful businessman. But what little they know came mostly from Democratic attack ads. In other words, they’re still listening.

Doing business in the US and Mexico has a number of similarities, although the medium of exchange is sometimes different.

Here’s an outrage: sleazy government officials approach a major business interest and want to enter into “negotiations.” The officials casually mention, “You’ve got a nice little business here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

Both sides know the business needs permits to operate, current regulations could be changed or delayed and the bureaucracy’s normally glacial pace could begin to approach that of plate tectonics. All it takes is a little ill will on the government side and costs and delays start to escalate for the business side. And there’s no one to complain to for obvious reasons.

The government officials say this doesn’t have to happen. We can all cooperate for “the greater good.” Spend a little money now and it will pay off tenfold in the future. Everybody’s happy. It’s just a cost of doing business in this locale.

Yeah, yeah, you’re thinking: Wal–Mart in Mexico. Old news. The bad guys have already been treed in Bentonville.

But it’s not old news and it’s not in Mexico. It’s how Obamacare was passed in Washington, DC.

The Washington Times reports that internal Obama administration documents just released by House Republicans reveal “those negotiations violated the promises of transparency Mr. Obama made during his 2008 campaign.” Well whoop–tee–do. My question is: why didn’t those “negotiations” violate the law?

Let’s compare the two stories. In “progressive” circles all cultures are relative until a non–union US corporation decides to ‘go native,’ so to speak, and conform to the cultural norms where it’s attempting to do business.

Wal–Mart is now in a heap of trouble for potentially violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Specifically, Wal–Mart is accused of paying “mordida” translated as the “little bite” to local officials. These bribes meant the officials didn’t “lose” paperwork, invent environmental problems or arbitrarily change the rules for building permits in the middle of the process. “Mordida” is a way of life when dealing with officialdom in Mexico, as many US drivers who’ve received a traffic ticket South of the border know from personal experience.

As a result, Wal–Mart’s Mexican division rapidly built stores all across the country and became the fastest growing part of the corporation with one in five stores now located in Mexico lindo.

Now compare that with the Obama administration “negotiations.” The Washington Times reports White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and health care honcho Nancy–Ann DeParle met with major drug company representatives and told them that if the drug companies didn’t publicly support passage of Obamacare, the administration would demand a 15 percent rebate on Medicare drugs and urge Congress remove the tax deduction for consumer advertising. Times reporters estimate this would have cost drug companies $100 billion over the next decade.

This little problem went away, just like Mexican permit difficulties, when drug companies agreed to changes in Medicaid and new fees that would raise $80 billion to offset Obamacare costs. And drug companies also agreed to spend millions of their own money on an ad campaign supporting “healthcare reform.” As a bonus, druggies also got a new captive market and Obama dropped support for importing cheaper Canadian drugs.

Right here you’ve got your quids and your pro quos. In Texas, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a doyen of “progressive” circles, indicted Attorney General Jim Mattox for fund–raising calls that weren’t nearly as blatant as these “negotiations.” Yet it’s business as usual in the capital as Attorney General Eric Holder spends his time attempting a posthumous indictment of Pitchfork Ben Tillman.

Here’s another similarity between the two cases. In Mexico not one government official went public when Wal–Mart money crossed his palm, which is saying something because even in the District of Columbia’s government you can occasionally stumble across an honest man. And of course Wal–Mart paid because that’s how one gets things done in a corrupt environment.

Similarly, not one White House minion felt the least bit unclean about participating in the Obama protection racket and the drug companies paid because that’s how you get things done in a Chicago administration.

Once you get past the general atmosphere of third–world sleaziness, the really insulting fact is the Mexicans got the better deal!

Wal–Mart is the largest employer in Mexico and it is planning to add an additional 23,000 new jobs. Mexican shoppers have new, modern stores with “everyday low prices” and senior citizens asking if you “want a sticker on that” when you enter the store.

On the other hand, US taxpayers are going to get a health care system that will soon resemble Mexico’s along with ballooning Obamacare deficits and fees the drug companies will pass along to them.

Progressive moralizers passed the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act to protect the third–world from its own culture. When are they going to get around to passing a Corrupt Domestic Practices Act to protect us from “negotiations” like this?

The War on ALEC

Walmart, the largest retailer in the country, has fled ALEC in the progressive left’s latest victory in its war on the organization.  Jessica Wohl of Daily Finance stated “In April, ALEC said it was abandoning the committee that worked on “public safety and elections” to focus on the economy. Despite the change, Walmart decided it was no longer focused on the same issues as the council.” As I’ve mentioned before in a previous post which was reiterated by Ben Shapiro of Breitbart.com today:

Liberal groups like Media Matters for America and its close associate, the Van Jones-run Color of Change, working in coordination with friends of the Obama Administration, launched secondary boycotts against members in ALEC this year; several major ALEC sponsors have already dropped out, prompting ALEC to announce in April that it was no longer going to focus on “public safety and elections,” and would instead direct its energies toward the economy.

These groups have ALEC targeted due to its past support of model bills related to Stand Your Ground laws and Voter ID legislation. Wohl continued in her piece stating that such legislation is opposed by groups like “ColorOfChange, a liberal advocacy group for black Americans,[that] has said the voting laws put the poor and minorities at a disadvantage.”  This group was co-founded by Van Jones.  The ex-Special Advisor for Green Jobs advisor to the Obama White House  who infamously called Republicans “assholes” that led to his premature departure from the administration.

However, this whole notion that it disadvantages the poor and minorities is absurd in the extreme.  It always amazes me how liberals seem to think people, who are missing identification for voting, are incapable of going to their local DMV and acquiring a photo ID. It’s only $13.50.  Let’s take a look at the process in my home state of Pennsylvania.

$13.50! Holy Cow

Regardless, Maggie Sans, Walmart Vice President of Public Affairs and Government Relations, wrote this statement addressed to ALEC’s national chairman and executive director.

Previously, we expressed our concerns about ALEC’s decision to weigh in on issues that stray from its core mission ‘to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets…We feel that the divide between these activities and our purpose as a business has become too wide. To that end, we are suspending our membership in ALEC. Sans, who is also giving up her role as secretary of ALEC’s private enterprise board, did not specify the issues that caused the split. Walmart has benefited from ALEC campaigns involving taxes, commerce and technology. While we are disappointed in Walmart’s decision, we understand the unique pressures they are under, said spokeswoman Kaitlyn Buss.

I guess we can add Walmart to the list of victims of far left badgering.

RIP

Coca-Cola

Kaplan

Procter & Gamble

Blue Cross/Blue Shield

Pepsi

Kraft

Wendy’s

Walmart

An act as simple as going grocery shopping has become stressful and unpleasant for many over the last few years.  Our fellow motorists on the road have long been a topic of discussion in our country, but now I see hostilities and conflict extending beyond the pavement and the stoplights.  Now the grocery store and even the parking lot itself seem to be unsafe havens in our world today.

Last Saturday, I began my (weekly) show, Married to the Game, with observations on what it’s like to go shopping in Southern California.  Below, I’ve combined some of that commentary with pictures and video that I took from a Walmart parking lot, both out of frustration and in an attempt to share with other people what I’ve been witnessing.  Ultimately, I’d love to get a conversation started in this country about how we can go back to better conducting ourselves and being “better citizens” in public.  But until then, you can find entertainment in my pain in this video below.

So what are your thoughts?  Am I just crying over misplaced shopping carts?  Are there bigger problems in the world?  Or is this video indicative of our “EBT” and “OWS” culture?

Also… In the video, I discuss how this has encouraged me to do more shopping online, thus costing local stores my business.  As more and more people seem to shop online, what effect do you think this has on our communities?

Let us know in the comments below. (or on Facebook)  This is a topic I believe we should all think more about.