You shouldn't get your news from corporate media. Corporate media don't like unions because they fight for living wages which cut profits from the few who benefit from them.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
A minimum wage just means you can't decide one day that sales are down and now everyone makes 2 cents an hour to cover costs [1]. It means there should be an implicit minimum cost to maintaining a human workforce, because people need to eat.
[1]obviously not an economist
In Australia in the past there was a national industrial court that did this. In Germany regular courts did something similar. Courts are expensive, so why not use a computer program from MIT:
> most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees
People would still buy things. Something like this happens:
> With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage#Impact
> forced to pay an artificially high wage
And who says the wage is artificially high? Maybe it would be the market rate if market power was more equal.
There is quite clearly an asymmetry in information and market power between Wal-Mart and individual employees.
This will inevitably lead to artificially low wages.
So raising them with a law will return them to a free market level, where free market implies complete information, interchangeable goods and services, and lack of market power