Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Are we free or not?

As some of you that follow this blog know, I went camping a couple of weeks ago. The trip was timed to coincide as closely as possible to our sister in law's fiftieth birthday. We (my wife and I, and her sister and brother in law, and her parents) pooled our funds and purchased a new sewing machine for her. Apparently, my wife and I (we made the actual purchase) committed a cardinal sin in choosing the retailer where we exchanged our community funds for the machine — we bought it at Wal-Mart. While talking about it around the campfire one night, Stan mentioned that he doesn't shop at Wal-Mart because they're “unfair to their employees”. I practically bit my tongue off to keep from entering into a long argument, for many reasons. But, his comment got me to thinking.

I wonder how it is that Wal-Mart is actually “unfair to their employees”. If I recall correctly, Wal-Mart isn't unionized. They don't have a collective bargaining agreement with their employees, and many employees are stock-holders — they own a piece of the company. Is it perhaps because they aren't unionized that they're “unfair to their employees”?

Somehow, I just can't accept this concept (and it may not be the basis of Stan's argument). Collective bargaining agreements have a tendency to be unfair to the employer and the employee alike. It becomes next to impossible to fire an employee for incompetence or even malfeasance. Wages and job security in collective bargaining agreements are often set based upon tenure rather than merit, so working harder isn't likely to result in higher pay, and a better employee may be laid off simply because a poor employee has been with the company longer.

Is Wal-Mart's “unfairness” related to their benefits package (or lack thereof)? Again, I don't think so. When a person chooses to seek employment at any business, they are selling their labor for money. They are unlikely to be loyal to the company, and unlikely to work their entire career there. If the company chooses to offer lavish benefits, that's actually something that ought to be considered as a part of the total compensation package. If the company doesn't, the prospective employee ought to consider that before deciding to sell their labor. Choosing to sell your labor for less than it's worth isn't wise, but the company is under no legal obligation to provide benefits beyond the salary they offer to the prospective employee.

Finally, Wal-Mart employees choose to work there. They enter into an “at will” employment arrangement. Yes, Wal-Mart can fire them if they don't perform, and doesn't have to give an explanation. Is that unfair? I don't think so. After all, the employees can quit at any time too, without having to give notice. Nobody forces the employees to work at Wal-Mart. They exercise their liberty and choose to work there. If the company is unfair to their employees, the employees can vote with their feet, and choose to work somewhere else.

That's the essence of freedom.