Twitter Updates

What People Say:
"I never thought I'd read the phrase Crazy Politico's Rantings in the NYT. I'll bet they never thought they'd print anything like that phrase either." TLB

Blogroll Me!

My Blog Rolls

American Flag Bloggers

American Flags

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Wal-Mart Back In The News

Guess who's back in the news again this week. That's right folks, Wal-Mart. Evidently they have ticked off all of the backers of a certain political party lately.

Today in Massachusetts three women, joined by a bevy of reps from abortion rights groups, sued because Wal-Mart refuses to stock the "morning after" birth control pill in it's 44 pharmacy outlets in the state.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." Walmart disagrees that the pill falls under the "commonly prescribed" umbrella, and refuses to stock it.

The only state they do carry it in is Illinois, which has a law that explicitly requires pharmacies to carry the drug.

I'm pretty sure this will get tossed, and possibly the law with it. "Commonly prescribed" is a pretty broad brush to paint a law with. I'm not sure if the Ma. law has a defninition of "commonly" in it, but if it doesn't it leaves a huge loophole for interpretation. My guess is they will show dozen's of drugs that have more prescriptions written for them that they don't carry, and the state hasn't said "Boo" about.

I'm against states requiring business' to carry certain products, regardless of what the product is. I'd much rather let the market decide what they carry. If CVS, who does carry the pill at all it's stores in the state, takes away Wal-Mart business, so be it. Hey, wouldn't that be a good thing according to many?

In other Wal-Mart news, it seems that some of the unions protesting against the store in Washington, Baltimore and Atlanta are hiring the homeless to man their picket lines against the retail giant, and other companies.

Guess what they aren't doing. They aren't providing any health care benefits to them, and they are paying them $8 per hour, which just barely covers Washington's minimum wage, according to the Detroit News. This is also less than the average wage of a Wal-Mart employee.
In Las Vegas in September they were paid $6/hr, and no benefits.

I would think if the UFCW union and AFL-CIO were going to hire day labor to protest against the non-scale wages of Wal-Mart, they would at least pay them the scale they say is deserved.

Technorati Tags: and


Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy said...

And unions wonder why they get a bad rap.
(And I'm pro-union!)

9:13 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

the morning after pill, huh? I guess for some that's a substitute for morals.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

Great post with some excellent points. I agree that no store should be forced to sell something no matter what it is. But especially something with moral complications. In America no one is ever denied anything. Someone will always provide whatever loathsome product you want somewhere.

11:04 PM  
Blogger shoprat said...

Unions are so full of corruption and hypocrisy that nothing they do suprises me. I have a union card but am not exactly proud of it; they quit genuinely supporting the working people years ago.

2:19 AM  
Blogger Crazy Politico said...

CUG and Shop Rat, Even my Dad, who is vehimently pro-union (to the point of some pretty good fights) couldn't defend this one. Of course, he's pro-union from that period where they were trying to defend the worker, not fund their own pet projects.

Mike - That's one way of looking at that pill.

LMC You are right, if there is a market for something, someone will sell it to you.

3:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home