Killing the Mom and Pop Shops…

Just read this article... ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060112/bs_usatoday/fastfoodstepsupvaluemenus ).. Must be nice to have all this corporate financial backing... How does one expect a mom and pop shop to survive? This irks me big time..

quote:

Originally posted by UncleVic

How does one expect a mom and pop shop to survive?

Most roadfooders know the answer to that one: By serving better, tastier food. I admit I patronize the fast food chains when they offer something as good as or better than I can get elsewhere, but if I had a "mom and pop" alternative with a better product, even if it cost a bit more, I wouldn't. One reason I visit Burger King fairly often is that the outlet in my town has the soda machine out where you can get refills whenever you want. Here in Arizona where the humidity can be in single digits, I find I have a big thirst and I appreciate unlimited soda refills. I've never seen a mom and pop offer that. They need to find out what the customers want and give it to them at whatever price they have to charge to make a fair profit. Then they will compete successfully.

On the same vein my hats off to the Maryland state legislature for overturning the Goveners veto requireing Wal-mart to contribue more to the employes health benifits. There has to be some kind of fair balance between consumer,corporate and community needs. Maybe it will start with the double wopper or free refills. Don't forget the little guy, America was built on their backs. Chow Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Jimeats

On the same vein my hats off to the Maryland state legislature for overturning the Goveners veto requireing Wal-mart to contribue more to the employes health benifits. There has to be some kind of fair balance between consumer,corporate and community needs. Maybe it will start with the double wopper or free refills. Don't forget the little guy, America was built on their backs. Chow Jim

What a can of worms that is. I'm fairly certain that none of Maryland's Wal-Mart employees have been pressed into service unwillingly. I would imagine that most of them actually showed up and asked for a job there. Their health benefits were probably explained to them at some point in the hiring process. Aren't there Wal-Mart's in other states? Is their health care any different? Well, maybe we'll get lucky and send the company packing out of the state.
Sorry as a life long Maryland (Peoples Republic of) resident I saw this post and was reminded of our unofficial state motto: Maryland, if you can dream it, we can tax it.

Vayo con Queso

Wal-Mart employee's form the largest employee group in Wisconsin's safety net health insurance pool.
I subsidise those Wal-Mart workers, but I don't have to for Target workers. Is that fair? I note where Wal-Mart is threatening to leave Maryland if "forced" to be responsible corporate citizens.
Sam must be turning over in his grave.

Yeah but just think of how much you're saving on Chinese made widgets, Yip, and fanny-batter.
BTW isn't Wal-Mart the biggest Mom and Pop killer out there?

quote:

Originally posted by MilwFoodlovers

Wal-Mart employee's form the largest employee group in Wisconsin's safety net health insurance pool.
I subsidise those Wal-Mart workers, but I don't have to for Target workers. Is that fair? I note where Wal-Mart is threatening to leave Maryland if "forced" to be responsible corporate citizens.
Sam must be turning over in his grave.

While this may be the same in many states, there are far more workers in that safety net that DON'T work for Wal-Mart than DO work for Wal-Mart. I don't necessarily take issue with making a company accountable for its actions, but why only a big company? If the state's concern is that employed people should have benefits that are good enough to keep them from becoming a public burden, then this rule should apply to every employer.

I don't like Wal-Mart all that much, and don't shop there for many reasons, but I don't take delight in the government passing legislation that will only hold select groups to a standard while letting others run free.

Someone wrote about Mom and Pop killers...see what happens if they put all businesses under this same scrutiny...goodbye mom and pop!

quote:

Originally posted by UncleVic

Just read this article... ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060112/bs_usatoday/fastfoodstepsupvaluemenus ).. Must be nice to have all this corporate financial backing... How does one expect a mom and pop shop to survive? This irks me big time..

These value menus have been around for a few years and fast food joints have seen their market shares and profits drop during that time. Slashing prices to stay afloat is often a sign of desperation.

The only one of the numerous "value menu" items that I would consider is the McDonald's DCB, and that is not available at any McDee's within an hour's drive from my area.

I belive the bill in question is for employers with 10,000 or more employe's in that state. Looking at it from the little I've heard on the news reports, at face value it seems they are trying to make coporations a little more responsible to the needs of its work force and the community in general. Maybe laststandchili is right Wal-mart will get their feathers ruffeled and show the state of Maryland a thing or two and take their ball and go home. I hope the legislators in other states are loooking very closely at the out come of this situation. Chow Jim

BT---everyone in Oklahoma---chains-mom and pops--big small--offer unlimited drinks!---after living in California all that time--this was a major surprise to my wife and I!!!--------------

as for those "values" listed in the article------i still say "crap" is still "crap" no matter how little you pay for it!!!---but the fact is MOST people dont even taste their food--which is the biggest reason fast food c\hains do so well---they KNOW--it doesnt have to be good---just have the APPEARANCE of being good---my policy---never eat any where where the pictures of the food are more appealing then the actual meals!

quote:

Originally posted by Jimeats

I belive the bill in question is for employers with 10,000 or more employe's in that state. Looking at it from the little I've heard on the news reports, at face value it seems they are trying to make coporations a little more responsible to the needs of its work force and the community in general. Maybe laststandchili is right Wal-mart will get their feathers ruffeled and show the state of Maryland a thing or two and take their ball and go home. I hope the legislators in other states are loooking very closely at the out come of this situation. Chow Jim

You are right, it is for companies with over 10,000 employees, but since Wal-Mart is the only one in that category that does not meet the standard they set for health care benefits, it is essentially a bill to get Wal-Mart to do something. The thing that bothers me is that while Wal-Mart may be the biggest offender, they are far from being the only one, so if the objective is to keep employed people from using or needing publicly assisted health care, why single out one company? Another point to consider is that many people who could get benefits from Wal-Mart opt out because they decide the cost is too great. If people have dicovered that their level of income allows them to qualify for publically funded care, do you really think it is going to matter if their health plan costs $50 instead of $75 a month? Sorry to stray off topic so far.

I'm sorry also for turning this topic in a different direction, but it was the title of the thread that sparked it. Sorry Vic Chow Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Jimeats

On the same vein my hats off to the Maryland state legislature for overturning the Goveners veto requireing Wal-mart to contribue more to the employes health benifits. There has to be some kind of fair balance between consumer,corporate and community needs. Maybe it will start with the double wopper or free refills. Don't forget the little guy, America was built on their backs. Chow Jim

Are we going to get political in this thread? If so, I regret it and hope that, if the moderators chose to belatedly step in they will zap all relevent comments, not only selected ones. That said, I have to disagree strongly with what was said above. The government should take care of community interest directly--by creating a single payer health care system if necessary--rather than mandating what business does. I hope Wal-Mart responds the direct way too: by cutting salaries and increasing health benefits to meet the 8% requirement of the law. However they do it, you can be quite sure this law will have vast unintended consequences. Meanwhile, mom/pop restaurants are certainly no exemplars of meeting the health care needs of employees. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I would be shocked if anyone can document that employees of independent restaurants have, on average, better health benefits than employees of the corporate behemoths.

quote:

Originally posted by MilwFoodlovers

Wal-Mart employee's form the largest employee group in Wisconsin's safety net health insurance pool.
I subsidise those Wal-Mart workers, but I don't have to for Target workers. Is that fair? I note where Wal-Mart is threatening to leave Maryland if "forced" to be responsible corporate citizens.
Sam must be turning over in his grave.

You bet it's fair. We need to get over the idea that business is responsible for our health care and move on to where the rest of the world has been for some time: government (yes that means YOU if you pay taxes) as the guarantor of health care for all.

PS: Wal-Mart won't leave Maryland but I sure wish they would.