So what does Mr Sullivan hope to accomplish with his NO vote. Is he expecting the other 4 to change their votes?
I think all he is doing is dragging the whole thing out.
Walmart will get their Neighborhood Market.
And Mr Sullivan has, yet again, shown what he is really about.

Walmart should be able to open the store if it complies with the requirements set by the city. In my understanding it has done so. It is better to have a business there than a vacant building.

Having said that, there is a moral side to the Walmart way to which I have a problem with, and not only Walmart, I know that a lot of businesses nowadays practice this.

They hire people but do not give them 40 hours a week, exempting these businesses of giving employees benefits like health care, paid vactions, etc.

Businesses have the right to do what they want, and as far as I know they are not doing anything illegal. They are however, in my view, doing something nasty, petty, imoral and cheap.

I will never set foot in a Walmart. I have other options in town.

Jim says about Walmart: "They hire people but do not give them 40 hours a week, exempting these businesses of giving employees benefits like health care, paid vactions, etc. Businesses have the right to do what they want, and as far as I know they are not doing anything illegal. They are however, in my view, doing something nasty, petty, imoral and cheap."

Yeah Jim, you're right. Walmart can do what it wants. And I trust them. The only people who are hurt is workers. But who cares about workers? I only care about saving some money at the end of the checkout line. Besides, other companies do the same thing, so that makes what Walmart does perfectly okay. Get off your high horse!

Walmart is not the only one that hires workers for less than 40 hours to avoid benefits. My niece works for Kaiser, at the pharmacy call center in Livermore. Most of the people working there are 'part time' so they get no benefits.
It is NOT only Walmart!
The company my husband went to work for delays benefits till you have worked there ONE YEAR. You get NOTHING till then. So for the first year you are on your own as far as health ins etc.
People should start ranting about other companies too. It's not just Walmart.

Ellen,

What better way to play politics than to force this issue to Council? Who cares if City resources are wasted when it's an election year!

Right Stacey...and plenty of City resources have been wasted on this whole Walmart issue.
In the end tho, the result is the same. Walmart will open it's Market.
And again Mr Sullivan will look like a fool.

Moral Mary,

You may want to re-read my post.

When other companies treat their workers bad, then why can't Walmart? Even if Walmart is the worst company in the world, there's still probably one that's worse. Why are people complaining about Walmart instead of Ben and Jerry's? Why are people complaining about Walmart instead of Safeway? I'll tell you why. Because they envy the freedom that comes from saving money at the checkout line.

I don't mean to brag, but I also love to shop at Walmart because I feel so superior to their workers. I may not have much, but I've got more than those poor saps! Besides, another Walmart in town really classes up the place....

Ok, maybe I am the one who misread you. I think we are in the same pace.

I may not like Wal-Mart and if the store goes in I may not shop there. But I fully support their right to do business in Pleasanton or anyplace else. That's where I differ from Mr. Sullivan. I have enough faith and belief in the free market to allow it to decide which businesses will succeed and which will fail. Mr. Sullivan wants to make that decision on our behalf.

Problem is, Paul, the free market isn't a free market. Big corps like Walmart and others spend mucho bucks to make sure the public does not know the truth behind their labor and pricing practices, and to make sure politicians don't publicize those practices as well. Inasmuch as the public is not an informed public, the term "free market" has no traction.

Of course, I realize there are posters here who represent the point of view that it wouldn't matter if Walmart were staging dog fights behind its premisses, or if Walmart were treating its employees like dogs. As long as they get "cheaper goods" (or the illusion of "cheaper goods") they'd drag themselves across the parking lot on their hands and knees to save a penny or two. Well, fact is, Walmart's labor and pricing practices are, morally speaking, even more reprehensible than staging dog fights or treating its employees like dogs. The question, aside from the moral retards who would lick any boot on this planet if it might add a dollar to their pocketbooks, is: "IF there WERE a genuinely free market, would Walmart survive?" I would like to think not.

Of course, the question is moot. Walmart uses its billions to hide a lot of their inhuman practices from public view, and so there is no "free market" to assess the company and its success.

I think Matt Sullivan is digging a hole for himself. He must be running for a paid union position instead of re-election on the city council.

Freeman, Jim and troll, you don't occupy the moral high ground. This issue is all about union control, so you can stop with your imitation of mother Theresa.
And, if your concern is genuine, go join the peace corp and go somewhere we people really need help. Posers.....

I was in the Peace Corp. It's the best corp ever, especially if you're a do gooder.

But this is different. Nobody on earth cares if Walmart is a bad company. Hires child labor? Who doesn't? Has its workers threaten to commit mass suicide? What else is new? Has probably the worst labor practices record of any company in the Western world? Big deal! Who cares about children or workers anyway? And especially when they don't even vote in this country. STop posing as people who care about things other than yourself. The only people who do that are in the peace corp. and other do gooder corpses. Your all just union posers. Go somewhere else. Nobody needs you help around here. That's why Walmart workers qualify for food stamps.

Freeman, good point, and I agree with you in principle, but that's a problem with politics, not a problem with Wal-Mart. There has been enough gaming the system from both the union and non-union camps to warrant a complete makeover in the way our government operates. But that's another thread...

Like Paul says, how can we have a free market when unions are free to engage in collective bargaining so as to ensure a living wage for the workers they represent? That's just gaming the system, and that's much worse than Walmart hiring a bunch of malnourished Chinese kids to assemble cheap bar-b-q grills.

We have to focus on the politicians and make them give more tax breaks to Walmart and other big corporations that really aren't a problem. And make them bust up unions. And like Ryan's-Mittens's plan, make poor people pay more income taxes and give the heroic rich people some well deserved tax relief. Just because the richest 10% possess well over 80% of the wealth in the country is no reason to make them pay almost 50% of the taxes. We need to shift the burden even more to poor people who really don't care about wealth and who've learned how to be poor so higher taxes won't really hurt them.

Moral Mary, there's nothing wrong with collective bargaining. And there's nothing wrong with being on the other side of such. The point Freeman was making, I believe, was that the existing political system is too easily manipulated by special-interest groups. As examples, I would classify both union and non-union camps (among countless others) to be examples of special-interest groups.

The interesting thing about Wal-Mart is that it brings the union and non-union issues to a head. On one hand the pro-union establishment would have all believe that the only way to protect workers and consumers alike is to adopt the union way of managing things. On the other hand, there is a business named Wal-Mart that is successful without union help. People are free to shop there and work there, without coercion. You are free to shop there, or not; or work there, or not. If enough people do not shop, or work, at Wal-Mart, then as a business it will fail.

Now you're confusing me, Paul. Is it a free market or isn't it? First you say yes, then you say no, now you say yes again. I know in my HEART that it is a free market. When people have to work for sub-subsistence wages or else starve, they're being free. I'm starving. Walmart offers me a job below a living wage. Walmart COULD offer me a job that pays a living wage. I'm free to either take the job below a living wage or starve. This is the epitome of freedom. So that must mean free market. All workers forced to work at below subsistence wages have to lose is their entitlement chains. Half a meal is better than none, and that's freedom. Thanks for helping me clear this up, Paul. I'm so tired I can barely see straight. But I'm free not to sleep if I don't want to. I can choose to never sleep again because I'm a free woman. It's very liberating knowing this. Yahoo, I'm free!

Same with the enslaved kids making the bar-b-ques for Walmart. Walmart isn't the problem. Its the kids. They don't realize how free they are. And the politicians who don't give more tax breaks to Walmart.

Cecil,

It IS about morals. Unlike you, I believe in decent working conditions.
Your narrow minded right wing brain only sees your hatred of Unions.

That is really pitiful...

The place needs an occupant. Maybe Mr. Sullivan could start his own business there and show us all how to succeed in his social centered model. To bad he has shown his true continuing socialistic colors yet again and he seems to give no consideration to the cost his actions impose on the taxpayers of Pleasanton. Please run for Mayor, Matt!

Jim, This has been about a union losing the Nob Hill union shop (and apparently about to lose more stores) to the non-union WalMart while negotiating for higher benefits and wages. Despite attempts to unionize WalMart workers (1.4 million new union members is tempting after all), they have not been successful. So you could believe WalMart has a gun to the employees' heads so they won't organize or it is entirely possible that the WalMart employees don't want to be in a union (where they likely will pay any gains in wages to the unions in dues).

What the union doesn't want you to focus on is organizing causes the loss of jobs; demanding higher wages and benefits causes the loss of jobs; and the fat cat union leaders (just as bad as any fat cat corporate leaders they rail about) are safe and are not all that traumatized by the loss of their members. I wonder how many of those who lost their jobs at Nob Hill ended up in non-union jobs somewhere else, like WalMart.

It truly cracks me up to see folks on here blasting Walmart for not caring about its workers. Does any big company TRULY care about its workers? They don't even know 99% of the names of their employees for crying out loud. And as for the unions... do you think they genuinely care for their members outside of them paying their dues? The answer is NO. Companies and corporations, including unions, will do everything in their power to line their own pockets. They do everything in their own best interest, NOT the employees. The unions are the biggest scam of them all. Millions of dollars in union dues and most of it goes to special interest lobbying to bring in more Democrat politicians. Give me a break!

No one forces Walmart employees to go there for work. No one forces them to stay. If you don't like their practices then don't shop there, plain and simple.

And anyone who thinks their union or their company only has their best interests in mind rather than the company's bottom line is sadly mistaken.

Kathleen,

I am not in any Union, so that you know it from the start. I believe that both Unions and non-Union businesses have their merits and flaws.

I stick to my point regarding Walmart, as many other businesses, that give employees 35 hours/week instead of 40, so they do not have to give them benefits. I can see small businesses practicing this as they don't have the volume or capital, but rich businesses that make enormous profits and take advantage of the present lack of jobs to squeeze out of people as much as they can and in return offer next to nothing, are, in my view, immoral.

Sure people can choose not to work at Walmart, but when there are no jobs and no alternative, what's one to do? And that is when Walmart (and other businesses of the same ilk) takes advantage of the situation. That is my issue with them, as well as similar businesses, I am not trying to single out Walmart, but this thread IS about them.

I am not here to tell anyone where to shop or not to shop, to say whether Walmart should or should not take the Nob Hill site (see my first post on this thread). I am simply stating my point of view, which is that I will never set a foot at a Walmart because I don't like the way they conduct business, not to say that close to 100% of what they sell is Chinese made cheap crap. Perhaps their Grocery stores are different, but until I know of it otherwise, I have plenty of options in town.

If you're going to chastise Walmart for part-time workers who cannot qualify for benefits, you might as well check many of the Stoneridge Mall tenants off your shopping list. The anchor stores (JCP, Macy's/Federated, etc.) all do the same thing.

And, when reading these posts I come to realize that we must have a couple of bi-polar or split-personality trolls hanging out. They use a multitude of names and take both sides of any discussion, alternating their posts ad nauseum. Too bad.

Have you noticed how Raley's has degraded since they were unionized? Now Raley's is hurting financially and the grocery union is threatening to strike them becuase they want more, more, more. It's so sad to see unions degrading the health of companies or putting them out of business completely. People need to vote with their feet and patronize non-unionized businesses.

Most importantly, Pleasantonians need to show up at this Council hearing and raise holly hell to make sure The Three Stooges don't side with Matt Sullivan. If Pleasanton turns down Walmart's application, the city will be sued by Walmart and Walmart will win because thier is no legal basis to deny thier application. Once again we will be paying out a lot of tax money that could have be used for vital needs.

I can't stand it! I have to confess! Like Kathleen Ruggsinugger I also was traumatized by union thugs after they pooped in my Daddy's pick-up. Now, I'm so traumatized as I can only bask in lies and self delusion. You see, it's impossible for anyone without union attachment to be against Walmarts, because I say so. It's impossible for someone to take a moral stand against Walmart because I'm incapable of moral reasoning and so everyone else must be too. When you see union "workers" making 40% higher wages than similarly employed nonunion workers, I am telling you in all honesty that all that 40% is chewed up by the head union poopers. Please do not call me irrational or duplicitous. Walmarts are good. Really really good.

Ahhh Gollum, Knew it was you.

Jim, It wouldn't matter if you were a union member; I'm not against people who find themselves in unions. Most people who end up in unions do so because a union shop required them to participate. There is no opt out clause if you want the job and not the "representation."

I do not shop at WalMart. I respect your reasons for not shopping there.

There is a fair amount of union evasion here though. Like you don't see much outrage about union pension plans holding WalMart stock. The unions have tried and failed to organize WalMart at a time when overall enrollment has been in decline for years. You can read about WalMart's saturation plan, but no union members complained when a second Safeway was built within a few short miles of an original (Pleasanton and Dublin). And you can't find a Safeway list of suppliers to check on their practices or use of overseas vendors.

No doubt we can be better consumers; as Arroyo points out, WalMart isn't the only company we should pay attention to.

Ahhhh Kathleen. Your lies methinks gives you away. Gollum or not, he or she is right that you seem unable to tell the truth about unions, or Walmart. Such appears to be your irrational hatred. First, I doubt very much you could find documentation to support your claim that union dues eat up what union workers get in pay and benefits advantages compared with what nonunion workers in equivalent jobs are making. Your claim, in other words, appears to be nothing short of a lie. Second, your claim that most people who "end up in unions" do so because a union shop required them to participate is also unfounded. Ask any unionized grocery worker to quit their job in order to work at Walmart in similar capacity. What? No takers? Of course not. You're not being truthful with people on this post or yourself. You're only truthful about your name which doesn't make you truthful but perhaps only a fool; for only a fool or a self-aggrandizing narcissist would use their real name while playing in this sandbox of zanies and lunatics.

Freeman: you forgot the modifier "likely" about having to pay dues. The second point is let's say you want to teach, for example; you MUST belong to the union. Those who have tried to opt out have had only marginal success (part of their dues were reduced). Want to work in the trades but not join the local trade union; well then you are called a scab.

As for my name, it's my name. It was purposeful years ago when I started to post on a topic up for a vote so people would know where the information was coming from, long before the WalMart issue. I'm supposed to be anonymous now because other people throw sand?

In addition to being deceitful, you also seem to know nothing about Walmart's history of antiunion tactics. You state "Despite attempts to unionize WalMart workers (1.4 million new union members is tempting after all), they have not been successful. So you could believe WalMart has a gun to the employees' heads so they won't organize or it is entirely possible that the WalMart employees don't want to be in a union (where they likely will pay any gains in wages to the unions in dues)."

First off, Walmart workers, by bucking against staggering odds (corporate power), indeed have chosen to unionize Walmart. When this has happened, Walmart has shut down those stores. Entirely. Your claim that Walmart workers "don't want to be in a union" is completely wishful on your part. I invite you to step outside of your protective bubble and read a little bit about this company you think is fighting the grand fight against unionization.

I don't care whether you're anonymous or not. I'm only claiming that my own self-protective instincts and desire to avoid embarrassment (by having my name associated with the likes of the posters here) amounts to common sense. Those who lack such sense I believe are fools.

So Freeman, now that you've willingly diverted the discussion towards irrelevant minutiae, what do you think would be the legal basis by which the Council could turn down the Walmart application?

If Walmart shuts down stores when their employees unionize, then the unions have the solution to shutting down the competition from Walmart right in front of their noses. No need to set up astroturfing websites and harass other posters on anonymous local blogs. Talk about lack of common sense... Geesh!

Leave it to the morally challenged Stacey to refer to matters of morality as "irrelevant minutiae." (Anyone surprised by this?)

Sometimes, Stacey, although I realize this is beyond you, moral concerns override legality. The history of unionization in this country is a case in point. Workers, realizing that free markets were a big fat lie, organized themselves in order to earn a living wage. Sometimes this involved defying laws (of assembly or against striking). For some reason the history of the labor movement in this country bothers you. The only "moral" concern you appear capable of grasping is that which affects your own pocketbook. Unions appear to offend your sense of "individualization" which, on your warped view, is supposed to involve naked, solitary individuals negotiating with individuals-as-corporations. The inequality of power between the two seems not to bother you. Too bad. I think your parents failed you at some critical phase of your life, and hence your truncated view of the world. Sorry to have to point this out to you (as well as your twin sister Kathleen).

I read plenty about WalMart and so I don't shop there. Also don't care for or shop at Safeway if I can help it. I'm also not a fan of union tactics; like showing up at the homes of those they are trying to "recruit." Union dues, from what I can find, are increasing for many reasons, not the least of which is declining membership, political activities, and some pretty hefty pay for the leaders: Web Link I found a study on Right to Work states and the impact

I'm not sure who is the loser in the battle that has closed unionized stores and eliminated a meat cutter position company-wide. Employees, WalMart, customers, unions, everyone?

Your last comment doesn't make sense. If you don't want to be associated with anyone here, why post at all? And how does posting associate you with anonymous posters anyway? If I know you, I don't know I know you. It's just a dialogue.

Sorry, meant to delete the Right to Work info as being off point to your comments.

The point that seems to be missed in all these discussions is that NOBODY is working in that building right now. Not union, not non-union, not 30 hours/week or 40 hours/week. When Walmart opens nobody will be beaten with a club and be forced to work there. If they choose to work there they will and if they don't choose to work there they won't. I suspect they will have ten times as many applicants as positions available.

If you don't like Walmart don't shop there. You're free to spend your money where you wish. Walmart's customers are free to spend their money where they wish.

TAK is right. Think of it like Texas under Rick Perry: by tripling poverty-level jobs, he really took care of the unemployment problem. Fortunately, Pleasantonians are eager for poverty-level work, and boy, will those wages enrich our community!

Freeman, what do you think would be the legal basis by which the Council could turn down the Walmart application?

No answer? Ah well. Silence is consent. There is no legal basis for Council to turn down the application. For someone who won't put his own skin out there to break laws; wants Pleasanton to do it for him and pay the consequences, Freeman sure talks disingenuously about morals.

Perhaps Freeman could explain how Pleasanton's zoning law is an unjust law that needs breaking. Who would have ever thought that replacing a grocery store with another grocery store, or a restaurant with a restaurant, or a salon with a salon could be considered immoral? What will Freeman think of next? Dog leash laws: immoral! No parking signs: immoral! Adverse possession: immoral!

Poor Kathleen, doesn't shop at Walmart because of what she's read. But doesn't have the moral fiber to condemn the company and its practices. Indeed, over the past several weeks has reduced the question of Walmart to one of union v. nonunion. A bit duplicitous, in my opinion.

Poor Stacey, unable to differentiate between morality and the law. Forget about moral fiber ... doesn't know what morality is. Reduces it to, well, dog leash laws. Fails to acknowledge how restaurants were sites of much morally based antidiscrimation protest in US history. Knows not how laws, either immoral or antiquated or inadequate to new contexts, have been defied by those acting on moral conscience.

Freeman, I have to totally agree with your reasoning to remain anonymous. You are totally embarrassing yourself, in case you didn't already know it. What if someone found out your name was gollum?

Oh no! Poor Freeman *totally* missed that I agreed with him that moral concerns override legality. Workers should break laws that are unjust and immoral, like laws that compel workers to be a member of a union as a condition of employment. For such laws are in complete violation of the universal human right of free association and therefore immoral. Now if only Freeman could explain how Pleasanton's zoning law is immoral, we'd all be ready to roll.

Ready to roll for a good cause, I might add!

Stacey, rather pathetically, draws a false analogy. On the one hand, we have my reasoning which points to how workers have at times felt compelled to violate laws (of assembly and against strikes) as a moral action against those who would deny them the right to a living wage. There is a considerable history of the American labor movement to support my claim.

On the other hand, Stacey declares there are workers who she claims "should break laws that are unjust and immoral, like laws that compel wokrers to be a member of a union as a condition of employment." But hers is not a moral issue at all, except in her own pin-headed little imaginary world. For she cannot point to a single moral episode in US history that has involved any such action.

Such laws, she mistakenly claims further, that compel workers to be a member of a union "are in complete violation of the universal human right of free association and therefore immoral." Again, she can point to no concrete episode where workers have acted on her imaginary moral cause.... Because it isn't a moral cause, as Stacey demostrates repeatedly that she knows nothing of morality and couldn't care less about universal human rights. Like I say, she has no moral sense whatsoever. Such laws are no more immoral than workplace laws that forbid fraternizing with one's friends while one is in the workplace. She has a very largely bored hollow hole where one might expect otherwise to find a moral core. She's not an idiot like Steve. No, she's defective in that she lacks a moral compass.

She goes on to use the "ready to roll" mantra -- one based on a real world event -- and attempts to assign it a role in her fantasy. It's all too sick. Like I say, Stacey's parents somewhere along the line missed the boat with the poor girl.

I can be appalled by both WalMart policies as well as union tactics and convenient lapses in information.

Yep, caught at being disingenuous yet again, Freeman can only vomit up another long post of irrelevant minutiae. Freeman's education was highly deficient in writing and it shows in his continued failure to argue as to why the Council should turn down the Walmart application.

When a topic on restaurants as sites of anti-discrimination protests comes up, I'll be sure to let Freeman know.

Wooooo-Eeeeeee! Irrelevant minutiae? Either Stacey is dumber than I thought or she thinks we're as dumb as she is. Even I can figure this one out, and I usually agree with her.

Scale of appalling. Use and abuse of foreign child labor. Unions using selective information. Unions are waaaaaay more appalling if ya ask me!!! The one makes my grocery prices go down, the other makes it go up! I'm for the one that makes my prices go down. Thanks to Kathleen for introducing us to this thorny thicket of thought.

Gollums, in this case the behavior of one does not excuse or justify the behavior of the other. Its just two groups behaving poorly. I don't shop where groceries are cheapest. I shop where I get the best products and service.

I'm surprised people don't flag Kathleen's posts for uncivil name-calling. What's with everyone who disagrees with her getting called Gollum? Sounds like the sort of condescending garbage spewed by Rushbo and Bill O'Reilly at people who disagree with them. I'm sure to Kathleen it's totally justified somehow in a tortuous way of rationalizing, but I'm surprised anyone engages with her like an adult when she acts so childishly.

Dude, Everyone? No, there is one person out here, or some group of two ish, who posts under multiple names, often on the same topic. (You can look for places on previous threads where posts have been removed because it is one person trying to look like many.) Rather than constantly list all the names the person uses, Mittens is one, I just use Gollum. The name calling, by the way, was one of Gollum's tactics from the beginning (plenty of it above as well).

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.

Yep, I knew you'd find a way to excuse it. I suppose the terms 'pinhead' and 'libtard' were already taken? You're not related to Ann Coulter by any chance, are you?

"I have no problem with people disagreeing with me," states Kath Ruggsinegger. It's just that when those people have better arguments, then she feels she must resort to name calling and the tired, transparent mantra about people using different names on different threads. Most of us know, however, that her bureaucrat's right-wing bluster only gets her so far and is a poor substitute for her inadequate powers of reason.

Predictable. Twelve hours passed and still no argument as to how the Council could turn down the Walmart application. Mary doesn't know a "better argument" from a doorknob.

Predictable. Kathleen Coulter's alter-ego, Dr. Stacey Schlessinger, shows up to divert attention away from her own sock-puppetry. Interesting, considering how she/they just accused others of doing the same thing. And when I say 'interesting,' I mean 'suspicious.'

Predictable. Some Dude chimes in with his two cents "better argument" as to how the Council could turn down the Walmart application. Hey, keep the change next time, Some Dude. You need it more than us. Go buy yourself a writing class.

Oh and Freeman, your education must have been really lacking in research skills too. There's plenty of examples of workers who have stood up for their right to free association against forced unionization and continue to do so.

Okay...I'll go, uh, buy myself a writing class. Um, good comeback...

And if there's any change left, I'll be sure to keep it, because that has everything to do with what I've been saying.

My, you ARE a dangerous one when cornered.

Dude, clearly you weren't really interested in an answer then. I wouldn't use the terms you note, nor any of the ones Gollum does. Lots of political spectrum for people to fit into. Gonna call "Moral Mary" on the right-wing bluster nonsense?

MM, It's funny you are trying to label me with your tactics. Not a bureaucrat nor a right-winger; sorry to disappoint.

Call Mary on what? She's right! And I'm sure some of your best friends are liberals, right?

SD, Of course . . . family even. And MM isn't right, and I would know.

Well, Some Dude, when no one here can provide a legal basis by which the Council can turn down the Walmart application and instead create a big laugh riot for Council to break just laws draped in a flag of questionable morality (no skin off his teeth), it starts to look like posters falling all over themselves to hide their own deficiencies at producing well-reasoned better arguments.

Can someone, anyone argue in favor of why and how the Council could turn down the Walmart application?!

Please, Freeman, go organize Pleasanton's Walmart workers so Walmart shuts that store down. We all know how anti-job you are anyway.

Stacey and Kathleen, you may be the legislative body within your own home...not mine! Finding our citizens a bit disinterested, concerning Meadow Plaza, is sad.

I didn't have an interest in shopping at the Walmart Grocery Store -- but, with all the brouhaha, now I've got to check it out and see what the comment overkill is all about.

I do know that if Sullivan thinks it's bad for Pleasanton, then it's most likely just the opposite.

Pete, I am one vote in my home (or any election frankly), perhaps like you. I leave it to the neighborhood of Meadow Plaza to determine if they want the WalMart. Seems to me, with a few exceptions, they do. What has bothered me is the consistent badgering by union members who likely don't live in our community. Union members who managed to negotiate themselves into the closing of Nob Hill in the first place and who are negotiating again with the potential for closing more stores. They could care less about Pleasanton.

Food for thought:

Millions of people are starving around the world. I bet they would be happy to have a grocery store in their neighborhoods, union or non-union.

Just putting things in perspective.

Got Milk?

Kathleen said, "What has bothered me is the consistent badgering by union members who likely don't live in our community."

Aside from Fox commentator anecdotes, what has been your experience with 'consistent badgering' by the union? Do they come to your door? Your workplace? Are they picketing Safeway, 99 Ranch, & Trader Joe's?

No?

Damn those union thugs!

Hey all you Gollums, Kathleen Rugsinbugger has already told us of the heenious things the union did to her daddy's pick-up truck back in Chicago, like poop in the back of it. So appalled was she by the tactic, and being a self-proclaimed libertarian, she walked barefoot all the way in her escape from union thuggerized Chicago, and didn't walk a single state-financed public road either. Being a libertarian isn't the same as being a right winger, don't ya know? Swears she's never been in a public library because, on principle, private libraries and wikipedia are better. And being an early retiring, pension grabbing administrative assistant for a school district is not bureaucratic. At all. Not easily appalled, but clearly unions organized into a struggle to protect and advance workers' rights is at least as appalling as Walmart using and abusing child labor. Such is the world of KR.

Now, Stacey ... well, she's been showing her real side a whole lot lately. Lost whatever sliver of credibility she may have had, now nothing but a good laugh.

Mary may find the waste of City resources funny. I don't.

It's all legal, Stacey, and we live in a democracy under the rule of law. Which part of the processes in place for free, civic-minded citizens would you do away with?

People without jobs and posters who write against job creation. I don't find that funny either, Mary.

WalMart will open despite the union gathering and Matt on May 7.
The real issue that nobody has raised is that there should be NO OVERNIGHT RV PARKING.

And they should only hire from Pleasanton. Otherwise, how are they gonna "roll back" unemployment in our town?

Some Dude,

We live in a democratic republic under the rule of law. Our representatives cannot just take it upon themselves to break our laws, which they have sworn to uphold, without serious consequences. They need a well-reasoned legal basis by which to turn down the Walmart application so that their decisions have a chance at being defensible in court.

Why would you think the petitioning process itself is a waste?

Don't you agree that it would be much more practical for Freeman and Moral Mary to get rid of Walmart here in Pleasanton if they organized Walmart workers and Walmart shut the store than trying to use the petitioning process without any legal basis for turning the application down?

Are you trying to confuse people or is your thinking really that contorted?

Some Dude, there's lots of things that are legal, like pension spiking and standing your ground and money as free speech and only having employees work right below full-time status to avoid paying benefits. I don't think you would say those things should be done just because they are legal, would you? So why would you think that parts of the petitioning process need doing away with just because some people abuse it to play politics?

Dude, Don’t watch Fox; PBS News Hour fan. Depends on if you mean all my experiences or just the WalMart issue. The badgering mostly has been online, but there are the marches on Main Street and at Castlewood if we only speak of recent events.

“Mary,” Let’s tackle this just one more time because your memory seems to fail you: False (Teamsters); False (I pay taxes and plenty in tolls, so I use roads. I even have enough left to buy shoes.); actually worked in a public library (and I have a house full of books; hardbacks, ebooks, paperbacks); even Encyclopedia Britannica will be strictly on line (used to own a set of those too); sixteen years of service is not enough pension to retire on—other events made it possible; not a bureaucrat (you can look up the definition); I’ll also let you do the research on libertarianism. Union struggles are old, very old, news.

As for union tactics versus child labor, once the line is crossed into being wrong, then it's just wrong. You say you are protecting and advancing the collective rights of workers; and China can say they are protecting and advancing the welfare of their citizenry. Be it a union or China, if there is abuse of power along the way, both are in the wrong.

Kathleen, I've always found your life to be so very fascinating. Thanks for keeping us posted. What a life you've lived! A libertarian who spends her life working at a public library. And then having to always defend the idea that libertarianism isn't a right-wing position! You go girl! And then retiring early and drawing pension from the state while railing on and on about ungodly state pensions and pension spiking. What a hero you are to me!

And your moral reasoning is second only to Ayn Rand's. As a parent, I've often taught my kids to live by your moral principles. Stealing an apple from a neighbor's abundantly fruited apple tree is wrong, no less than shooting someone in cold blood. Walmart using subcontractors to use enslaved child labor is wrong, but so is a union marching down the streets of Pleasanton. Wrong is wrong.

If only your friend Stacey was able to reason so adeptly. But alas, having not been raised as a moral being, she can only fall back on the literal interpretation of the law. As "Some Dude" so aptly put it, her thinking is contorted (but not so much in her own little universe).

Three more vacuous paragraphs about other posters and nary an argument against Walmart's application in sight. I knew Mary's education was lacking in argumentative writing but I never thought it was this bad.

I can picture it now, Mary shows up to the Council meeting and stands at the podium, proceeding to argue against the Walmart application. Then she speaks, "I'm not a fan of broccoli and dang, Kathleen rubs me the wrong way and Stacey has no moral compass so please, turn down the Walmart application!"

I can picture it now, Stacey shows up to...wait a minute, no. I can't picture Stacey leaving this blog and interacting with real people. Never mind.

Uh huh. Still no argument against the Walmart application. Whatever floats your boat, Dude.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff for containing unverified or personal information.)

Emended. Is that like email where the e is an abbreviation of the word "electronic"? Did you learn that in your deficient writing class too?

It's fine for Mary to break laws due to moral objection when she's representing herself. Break all the laws you want, Mary.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff for containing unverified or personal information.)

Mary,
The standard English collocation with the word "law" is "amend", not "emend". English was not a good class for you either, was it?

The thing is Mary, all you do is exaggerate and lie.

WalMart has an issue to resolve regarding the practices of countries/companies where it buys products. But this is a diversion. The union lost jobs as a direct result of "protecting and advancing the rights of" their members by negotiating wages and benefits that caused the closure of stores under Raley's ownership. The union doesn't want a non-union shop to fill the void it is leaving as they advance.

We could have an entirely different conversation about how to bring countries like China into the twenty-first century with regard to human rights.

Hey Mary, I have a much better idea than to play politics with the appeals process to take moral action against Walmart. Don't shop there.

Kathleen,

Mary doesn't care about jobs or people without jobs.

Walmart Neighborhood Market coming soon to... Milpitas, right after Nob Hill closes another store.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff for containing unverified or personal information.)

I officially declare this contest over, now that Stacey's defense has been entirely derailed and whittled down to desperate (and incorrect, I might add) clutching at verbal straws and frantic, rapid-fire, catty posts under both her monikers. As she advised me recently, she herself may want to 'buy a writing class.'

Heh--"the standard English collocation"--priceless! :-)

Wow! How frantic the morally deficient babe/babes behave in their efforts to have those who expose their deficiency censored. Must have worn out the tips of "their" fingers hitting the 'Report Objectionable Content' button.

The measure of one's need for a writing course is found in Stacey's ignorance of the term 'emendation' -- a term often used among professional writers and academics. Laws are amended, to be sure. When laws are written or re-written they frequently undergo emendation.

Rugsinooger, confronted with Walmart's exploitation of child labor both domestically and abroad, wants to blame China. The self-deception is patent. Ah, but here I am writing a third paragraph again, and so in the interest of not taxing too much Stacey's intellect, I'll sign off.

You know what they say: if ya can't beat 'em, silence 'em!

Mary, You and Dude can check with PW editors about why a post is removed, and they can also confirm that Stacey and I are indeed two different people.

Maybe this helps: "To amend something is to alter it, usually for the better: 'The referee amended certain rules to make it easier for the new players.' To emend something is to correct it, especially a printed text: 'The editor emended the text, which was full of errors.'"

As to WalMart, child labor, who is to blame--here's a place for you to start. Plenty of others. Web Link And maybe you can donate to an organization of your choice so you can put a checkmark next to "actively doing something about it." Unless you personally already have, in which case, kudos to you.

Mary,

Paranoid much? I didn't report your posts. Maybe it was a moral action expressing the will of the community.

And God forbid if Some Dude were to mistake you for yet another alias of a certain poster because you can't spell! Why don't you stick to writing about education if you know so much about it? Clearly Walmart applications, English collocations, and Pleasanton zoning laws are beyond you.

Dude,

If you attacked the idea that the Walmart application does not actually conform to the PUD conditions of approval and therefore could be denied, I could try to provide a defense for you to whittle. You learn about how to attack such ideas in writing class.

Why do discussions have to be an "attack" (to use your term)? Can't we just talk like civilized people? I'll probably be silenced for saying this, but maybe if you turned off the computer and got some fresh air once in a while you might not be so angry all the time. Or hyperfocused on Pleasantonian and grammatical minutiae.

Duuuuude. If you want to talk like civilized people, why don't you?

$24 million in bribes. I wonder who got the kickbacks in Pleasanton? The following from the NYTimes:

MEXICO CITY — In September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country.

The former executive gave names, dates and bribe amounts. He knew so much, he explained, because for years he had been the lawyer in charge of obtaining construction permits for Wal-Mart de Mexico.

Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. In a confidential report to his superiors, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former F.B.I. special agent, summed up their initial findings this way: “There is reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated.”

The lead investigator recommended that Wal-Mart expand the investigation.

Instead, an examination by The New York Times found, Wal-Mart’s leaders shut it down.

There is absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about a corporation like WalMart giving out $24 million in bribes and then covering it up. There are laws against it, true enough. But the laws themselves are immoral.

Face it, corporations should be able to do whatever they have to do to fend off all the union slime that is tossed their way. WalMart has done this better than most and should not be punished for it. Punish instead union leadership which siphons off the majority of union workers' wages and spends it on bringing this country down.

The real problem is the Stalin State and its imperial president. Too much regulation. Let WalMart do its thing while the free market flourishes. Let a 100 free market flowers bloom.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?