A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart's managers, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why "the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?"

Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.

The Web site, which Mr. Scott uses to communicate his tough standards to thousands of far-flung managers, gives a rare glimpse into the concerns that are roiling Wal-Mart's retailing empire, from the company's sagging stock price to how it treats its workers. Judging by the managers' questions, Mr. Scott has an internal public relations challenge that in some ways mirrors the challenge he faces from outside critics.

And while Mr. Scott's postings are usually written in a careful, even guarded manner, they can often be revealing -- for example, showing a defensiveness and testiness with critics -- that Mr. Scott normally keeps under wraps.

Hmmm. One would think that these kinds of online exchanges would be valued and lauded for leading to "unscripted moments" of clarity and relative honesty. Evidently not, however, because the Wal-Mart chief seemingly lost his temper and suggested that a subordinate might be happier elsewhere if said subordinate disagreed with Wal-Mart's policies. Of course, if said subordinate really feels so strongly about the issue of health benefits, then said subordinate should not wait for the invitation and should instead resign in protest.

But never mind that. Let us focus on the larger issues. Now to be fair, much of the article is nice to Mr. Scott, portraying him as someone interested and concerned with maintaining an ethic of hardwork and integrity at Wal-Mart. And to be fair, the issue of health benefits is certainly an interesting topic of social policy--not to mention a vital issue for many people whose livelihood depends on Wal-Mart.

But again, it bears repeating that if people are displeased with the benefits that Wal-Mart is offering, they can refuse to work there. No one holds a gun to their heads, and perhaps Mr. Scott would worry more about companies like Target and Walgreen's and for that matter, Costco, if they were able to sell their wares and low prices while keeping their employees happy and avoiding much of the negative publicity that Wal-Mart has attracted for its supposedly draconian policies.

Of course, if Target and Walgreen's and Costco are unable to pull off the neat trick of providing generous benefits while at the same time selling at low, low prices, then that would validate Mr. Scott's business model, would it not? Additionally, if Target and Walgreen's and Costco are forced to lay off people because their benefits eat into their profits, then that would defeat the whole purpose, now wouldn't it?

Whenever I write a Wal-Mart post, I feel constrained to point out that I do not receive a dime from the company and that I really don't care what happens to Wal-Mart per se. I do however, care about the perversion of a free market that does a better job at regulating the activities of companies than do the nannyscolding pieces of writing and legislation we so often happen upon regarding these issues. And mark my words: If now-virtuous Target, Walgreen's and Costco become as big as Wal-Mart, you will see them vilified as evil and monstrous as surely as day follows night.

Yousefzadeh's Law predicts it.

(Cross posted on RedState.)