Weird Al and the Mayor

Obnoxious liberal loudmouth Weird Al Norman has made a lucrative career out of reassuring wealthy suburban snobs that their elitist disdain of Wal-Mart and those that shop there is actually "protecting worker's rights" and stopping "urban sprawl." You can hear Norman rant about his hatred of Wal-Mart in person for only $5,000, plus expenses.

Norman is also a paid union shill, running "Battle-Mart" for the Service Employees International Union astroroots front organization "Wal-Mart Watch" and speaking on behalf of big labor all over the country.

Now, Weird Al has turned his sights on our mayor, Glenn Johnson. On his web site, Sprawl Busters, Norman urges "readers" to write to Mayor Johnson and the Pullman City Council urging them to pass a raft of socialistic, business-killing ordinances, much like Moscow did a few years ago.

Norman, who lives 3,000 miles away in Massachusetts (it figures), obviously has no clue that Mayor Johnson, the "Voice of the Cougars," is one of the most beloved and respected figures in the history of our town (he has been elected mayor twice with no opposition.) Norman chides Johnson:

If Wal-Mart is a ‘very good thing,’ why were so many residents upset about this project? These people that you say cost the city lost revenues-—these are your taxpayers, your constituents. You are the Mayor of all Pullman residents, not just the Mayor of Corporate Interests. Zoning decisions do not have to be a win/lose situation. When people believe they are on the losing end of a deal—they are usually right. Pullman was not prepared for a project of this scale. It’s time to bring your zoning code into the 21st century, before more big boxes saturate your city with highway sprawl.”

What a patently absurd allegation. Glenn Johnson is a professor at the same university as are the professors of PARD. He is beholden to no "Corporate Interests."

It is also laughable that Norman calls on Mayor Johnson to respect the feelings of the few dozen of his constituents that make up PARD, while simultaneously calling on people all over the country who are neither taxpayers nor constituents to write the mayor and city council and meddle in Pullman's affairs. This is just like a few years ago when PARD was soliciting donations from all over the country on Norman's website.

Send Weird Al an e-mail here and tell him and his "readers" to keep their snooty noses out of our business. Let's fill up his inbox! You might just get lucky and get a nasty reply from Weird Al himself.

Also, while you're at it, send an e-mail to Mayor Johnson and the Pullman City Council here and express your thanks for staying strong during this process, upholding the will of the majority of the electorate and not caving in to the special interests of a few.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Excuse Me, Say What?

[TV] Reed didn’t have the figure for PARD’s appeal costs immediately available but denied rumors circulating among Wal-Mart proponents that PARD is being supported by labor unions with an anti-Wal-Mart agenda.

- "Wal-Mart appeal costs Pullman more than $20k," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, June 27, 2006

[TV] Reed said PARD has not received any outside money from labor unions or interest groups. He said the community rose up in opposition to Wal-Mart and it is the outside force that is trying to disrupt the community’s economy.

- "PARD to fight judge’s decision on Wal-Mart," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, November 28, 2006

Larry Hall, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Union 1439, said the union has contributed about $1,000 to PARD's battle against Wal-Mart, and will continue to do so if there is a further appeal.

Hall said the union represents about 6,000 workers in Washington, Idaho and Oregon, including employees of Safeway and Rosauers in Pullman and Moscow.

"We think Wal-Mart is terrible for America and American jobs," he said. "We will certainly continue to contribute if they ask."

-"PARD mulls appeal to higher court," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, June 6, 2008

Well, I think that settles that. Yet more lies and doubletalk from a group that excels in them. Congrats to Hillary Hamm on the investigative reporting.

As far as Reed's failure to disclose how much money PARD has spent on legal representation, you be the judge as to where the money is coming from, especially in light of this latest admission from the UFCW.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

The War on Wal-Mart Is Over

Spekaing of it being time for PARD to move on, a story in today's New York Times by my old buddy Michael Barbaro indicates that Wal-Mart is winning its battle against the union thugs of the UFCW and the SEIU.

According to Barbaro, union-sponsored attack dog groups Wake-up Walmart and Wal-Mart Watch have dramatically cut back staff and scaled back in-your-face attacks on the retailer.

But Mr. Nassar [of Wal-Mart Watch] and Ms. Scott [of Wake-Up Wal-Mart] acknowledge that the appetite for criticism of Wal-Mart, which seemed insatiable at first, has waned, especially in the news media. “There has been a certain amount of fatigue about writing the Wal-Mart-is-bad story,” said Mr. Nassar. Ms. Scott described “a cooling down of the Wal-Mart story.”

Both said their groups are pursuing different, perhaps less high-profile, strategies than they did in 2005 and 2006. Wal-Mart Watch, for example, wants to be viewed as the best source of outside research on Wal-Mart; WakeUpWalMart.com is reaching out more to regional news outlets, rather than big national newspapers.

Both said they would remain critical when it made sense. “As the company makes changes, it becomes harder to be critical,” Mr. Nassar said, “because our critique has to become more nuanced.”

Of course Americans have tired of Wal-Mart bashing, just as they have in Pullman. It's illogical and elitist, even to the leftist media. The bottom line is that consumers like to buy stuff at low prices, regardless of politics. Wal-Mart reported today a same-store sales increase of 3.9% for May, much higher than analysts had predicted.

Michael and I have both been very critical of efforts by Wal-Mart to pander to the left-wing on issues like minimum wage and global warming. But perhaps Wal-Mart has been very clever in co-opting its critics. As Barbaro states:

The mellowing of the anti-Wal-Mart movement is an unexpected development for the retailer, whose public image and share price were bruised by the well-financed union campaigns. On Friday, when the chain holds its shareholder meeting in Arkansas, investors are likely to applaud Wal-Mart for fending off these detractors.

“It definitely has helped the company,” a retail analyst at Deutsche Bank, Bill Dreher, said. “Those attacks hurt Wal-Mart.”

And in business, it's all about the bottom line, not ideology.

Time has come indeed for PARD to quit....

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Student Union Thuggery

UPDATE: Informational website available here.

Like others in the Pullman community, I have been disturbed by the strong-arm tactics of the United Auto Workers union and their surrogates at WSU. The UAW is attempting to unionize academic student employees. If you are a student involved in this, please drop me a line at palousitics@adelphia.net

It's not surprising that the union shills are members of the Comparative Ethnic Studies and American Studies departments.

First, from the April 1 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Not all WSU academic student employees are in favor of unionizing.

Xyanthe Neider, a doctoral candidate for higher education administration and a teaching assistant in educational psychology, said academic student employees are being bullied into supporting the union.

She said the union is being proposed in a pushy, irresponsible way by local organizers, while UAW bigwigs pull the strings to increase union membership.

"I believe they've been trying to railroad this into law and railroad academic student employees into unionizing," she said, adding that the UAW could stand to make $700,000 in annual union dues from WSU academic students employees alone. "I think some of these students are plants by the UAW."

[WSU graduate student, teacher of comparative ethnic studies and union organizer Sky] Wilson scoffed at Neider's accusations. He said local organizers approached UAW representatives, not the other way around. He added that some organizers are paid, in addition to volunteering.

"With any organizing drive, there's going to be a small amount of people who are ideologically opposed," he said. "But the proof is in the strong majority of ASEs who want unionization."

"Small amount of people who are ideologically opposed?" Hmmmmm. Where have we heard that before?

Lest you think it's only a bunch of wingnuts opposing the union, today's Daily Evergreen offers up even more chilling details:

As rain turned to snow Monday afternoon, graduate students and spectators gathered on Glenn Terrell Mall for the last Under the Big Tent debate of the semester. The topic of conversation was the current push to unionize academic student employees, most of whom are graduate students.

Although participants and spectators were pushed close together under the tents by the inclement weather, there was a noticeable divide in opinions among those in attendance. Four panel members introduced the debate by sharing their reasons for or against unionization under the United Auto Workers. The UAW has more than 1 million members, more than 25,000 of whom are ASEs, said panel member Mary Jo Klinker, a student and teaching assistant in American studies at WSU.

“I’m not against unions in principle,” said panel member Xyan Neider, a doctoral student in the College of Education. “I just question the intentions and motivation of the United Auto Workers. I question paying dues for things I already have.” Klinker said unionizing would create a balance of power between ASEs and the university. “A union would provide a representative democratic process of collective bargaining,” Klinker said. “Contracts would be enforceable and ASEs would have a formal grievance procedure.” David Parsons, president of UAW’s local union at the University of Washington, emphasized the advantages collective bargaining presents. He said unionization at UW has allowed students to influence decisions within the university as well as on the state and national levels. Parsons said UW’s union with UAW has resulted in back pay being payed to union members, and has contractually guaranteed wage increases and health benefits for ASEs.

The final panel member, Steven Davis, a masters student at WSU, voiced concern over unionization and the choice of the UAW to represent students in a academic setting. Like Neider, Davis voiced concern about paying for benefits already provided by the university. “The best option is to try and address our problems with the system we already have before looking to other options,” Davis said. “If the GPSA is ineffectual, it is our fault for not filling the open positions. If we fill those positions and that still doesn’t work we should find someone better to represent us.” Klinker and other advocates of unionization say the GPSA has little authority and has failed to address the concerns of ASEs due to its structure and bureaucracy. The debate escalated when opened to questions from the audience. The majority of questions and comments focused on alleged questionable practices by union supporters. Many in the crowd were visibly upset and said they felt coerced into signing union cards, the purpose of which they thought was to receive more information. The cards that were signed by more than half of ASEs were endorsements to unionize under the UAW, said Heather Knewtson, a WSU doctoral student in finance.

Knewtson said she was visited at work four times and asked to sign the cards even after telling union supporters she was against unionization.

As tempers reached a high point Knewtson said, “The strong voice of students is saying that they’ve been hoodwinked.” Klinker acknowledged the complaints. She said many were false and that the text on the cards clearly stated their purpose. “There has been a lot of misinformation,” she said. “We are investigating these complaints on a case-by-case basis.”

Ah, questionable practices in gathering signatures. Sounds very familiar also. I wonder what they have in common?

"What Wal-Mart Gets and the Candidates Don't"

Terrific op-ed from the Washington Post from Sunday a week ago. Warren Brown, self-admitted union man, explains it to the elitists like Obama, Clinton, and the PARDners. It's not about globalism, offshoring, or union-busting. The average person doesn't think about politics when they shop. I made this point last week. It's about being able to buy quality goods at the lowest price. Period.

I wish to say at the outset that I hold no grudges against Wal-Mart. In fact, my family and I are rather fond of that giant retail chain, where we often find the best prices, especially on pharmaceuticals.

It is an odd thing to admit. Many in our clan, including yours truly, hold union memberships. Politically, with me being the sore-thumb exception, we run from left to leftist. Yet, regardless of politics or union affiliation, when it comes to searching for the best quality at the most reasonable prices, Wal-Mart is one of the places we look first.

As I said, this is odd, almost embarrassing. Wal-Mart is no friend of unions. Wal-Mart is one of those American retailers keeping foreign factories humming and foreign workers employed. Viewed from that perspective and in context with the current political debate on international trade, Wal-Mart is something of a bad actor, one of those companies supposedly putting people out of jobs in places such as Ohio.

Poor Ohio. It has become one of the rustiest parts of the Rust Belt. It has lost tens of thousands of jobs, largely in the automotive and related industries, and it has shed nearly 200,000 residents over the past couple of decades.

In last week's titanic Democratic presidential primary battle, Ohio, one of the most unionized states in the nation, was made the prime example of what happens in America when international trade supposedly runs amok.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the victor in that contest, rose to electoral glory on promises that she would fix what is wrong with international trade, that she would somehow find a way to reverse job losses allegedly caused by contracts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was made to look a bit wishy-washy on the free trade issue, largely lost Ohio as a result.

But here's suggesting that none of us should take seriously anything that politicians, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, have to say against NAFTA in particular or international trade in general. The reason is simple: They neither understand Wal-Mart nor do they routinely shop there.

Consider Ohio: Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers and biggest taxpayers in the state. As of March 2007, there were 99 Wal-Mart Supercenter stores in the Ohio, 38 Wal-Mart discount stores, 30 Wal-Mart Sam's Clubs and five Wal-Mart regional distribution centers.

In Ohio state sales taxes alone, the company paid $410.2 million in 2007. In other state and local taxes, it paid $82.4 million.

All of those Wal-Mart facilities and the money they generated were supported by one phenomenon: consumers, union and nonunion, employed by and laid off by domestic car companies and other manufacturing entities, seeking the highest quality products at the very best prices.

If Wal-Mart could not meet that essential consumer demand, it would not exist in Ohio or anywhere else. It certainly would not be the formidable retailer it is today.

What does that mean for the current political debate on international trade? Simply this: As long as politicians continue to ignore the Wal-Mart phenomenon, the consumer-driven reality of international trade, they are being dishonest. They are blowing smoke.

The truth is as simple as it is harsh. Automotive and other industrial jobs lost in Ohio are not coming back, certainly not the way they were, because the same consumers who shop at Wal-Mart stores in Ohio and everywhere else there is a Wal-Mart store are not willing to pay for those jobs and the products they represent.

Look at it this way: If I buy enough Honda cars made at the lower cost, nonunion Honda plant in Marysville, Ohio, I'm putting pressure on my union buddies at the higher-cost General Motors, Ford and Chrysler plants to offer me equal or better products at prices equal to or better than those offered by Honda.

I might drink with my union buddies. I might tailgate with them. I might even join them in shouting "hooray" for Clinton or Obama. But if they can't give me the car I want at the price I demand, I'm buying that nonunion Honda. If that means GM, Ford and Chrysler plants close, I'm sorry about that and all that means for my friends who will lose their jobs.

But they should have found a way to give me what I was willing to pay for. They should have understood why so many of us shop at Wal-Mart.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Yet Another Smoking Gun

Still unconvinced that PARD's appeals are being bankrolled by the United Food and Commerical Workers union? Look no further than Tumwater over in Thurston County.

From yesterday's Olympian:

Groups appeal proposal for store

TUMWATER — Opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter have appealed the matter to Thurston County Superior Court.

The appeals challenge a Feb. 5 ruling by the City Council and were filed at the end of the workday Tuesday. They were filed by Tumwater Liveable Community, a citizens group, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367, said Roger Gellenbeck, the city's development services director.

The groups argue that the environmental review for the 187,000-square-foot Wal-Mart, proposed for a 21-acre tract at 5900 Littlerock Road S.W., was inadequate to protect the quality of life for residents.

The groups' appeal to the council was denied Feb. 5, upholding a Dec. 19 ruling by the city hearing examiner.

"We'll take a look at what they said, but this was expected," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Spall said late Tuesday.

Spokespeople for the appellants could not be reached.

Spall said the appeal of the Tumwater store was one of two in Washington to reach the superior court level. Arguments on a proposed store in Pullman were heard in superior court in December, and a decision on that case has not been issued, she said.

That's not completely accurate. The appeals were heard in the superior court in October 2006. It was the appellate court that heard the appeal in December.

So what do PARD and Tumwater Liveable Community have in common besides a long losing streak when it comes to Wal-Mart appeals? They both are being represented by Bricklin Newman Dold LLC. The similarities are scary. Partner Claudia Newman, on behalf of TLC and the UFCW, had Dr. Phillip King, former chair of the Economics Department at San Francisco State University attempt to debunk an economic impact study by Johnson Gardner, the same firm that conducted the Pullman Wal-Mart EIS. Dr. King was the guy PARD tried to have appear at the appeal hearing back in January 2006, but it fell through. Obviously, the UFCW has Bricklin Newman Dold and Dr. King on retainer to appeal every new Wal-Mart in the state of Washington using the same script every time.

The only difference is that TLC proudly embraces its union brothers in the fight against the evil Wal-Mart, while PARD cowardly issues denial after denial long after the connection became obvious.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart