> Well intended answers like this address an important iissue: the well being
> of employees. But what of the consumers and the nieighborhood?
What of them? I have yet to hear anyone mount an intelligent argument that the average corner bodega, or even an exceptional corner bodega, has a selection as wide, options as healthy, or prices as low as my unionized Pathmark. If you want to be the first, by all means, go ahead, and I promise to read it thoughtfully.
> Where would you rather
> fill your prescriptions: Rite-Aid, with long waits and terrible service; or
> the neighborhood pharmacy that knows you, your meds, your needs, and will
> even advance you some if your rx runs out.
Rite-Aid has long waits for two reasons: wide selections and low prices. As for the service, I imagine it varies by store, but the unionized workers at the one around the block from me have always been friendly, and know me about as well as they could without being creepy. (No, I have not asked them to violate federal drug laws.)
> In general, there's no solution to many major problems if various groups --
> e.g. employees and consumers -- are seen as at odds, and solutions involve
> taking away from one to give to another.
But no one except you has claimed that chains offer inferior service to consumers, and I have named three specific ways in which their offerings are superior: wider selections, healthier options (in the case of food), and lower prices. I don't have empirical data to back this up, but I don't think anyone who's tried piecing together a decent meal from the meager offerings in a bodega, then attempted the same thing in a supermarket, will disagree with me.