An old expression, "What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander," conveys the idea that what’s good for one person is good for
another. If the behavior of one person
or group is acceptable it must be acceptable for the rest.
This concept is often misapplied in politics. If Politician A does something shady or
immoral, pointing out that (otherwise) respected Politician B acted the same
way years ago and it did not affect his (or her) job performance, does not
excuse the behavior. Telling lies or
having extra-marital affairs is not made moral by the comparison to some great
predecessor’s moral shortcomings. Poor
judgments are not excusable on the basis that my opponent or predecessor made
equally poor judgments. These excuses
are as bad as saying that it’s right for any president to own slaves, because
George Washington did. No, using the
idea for political excuses is clearly a misapplication. Wrong behavior is not excusable by invoking some supposedly noble precedent.
I think a different application of “sauce for the goose” is
more accurate, although I don’t expect many to agree. That comparison is between the Black Friday
shoppers and the top management of Wal-Mart.
Thanksgiving protesters held rallies at over 1500 stores
to demand higher wages and better working conditions. They argue that the company is rich enough
and can afford to pay workers more.
Although most of the attention is on Wal-Mart, low-wage workers at fast
food and other businesses join in the cry for a higher minimum wage and more
benefits for their work. The implication
is that the company management is greedy and taking advantage of their
employees. They are paying as little as
they must to purchase the labor to run their business.
Meanwhile, shoppers fight to get
bargains inside the same stores, and the protesters expect these shoppers to agree with and back their
cause. People who have gone out of their
way to pay as little as they can get away with for Christmas gifts and personal
gadgets are expected to find at fault executives who want to pay as little as they can
get away with, and to label them as greedy. Good luck!
What gives anyone the idea that all prices should be low,
while everyone’s wage is high? Is there
some kind of magic money tree that makes up the difference? Aren’t the shoppers being greedy in the same
way when they search for bargains as the executives when they want to keep
their labor costs down? Everyone wants
the best deal, even, I suspect, those same protesters when they make
purchases. The irony raises an eyebrow among
those of us who are lucky enough to be able to step back and look at it with
cold objectivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment