I was specifically trying to understand this point in your comments: 30 years ago, most of Walmart's current business practices would have been illegal.  Because my impression is that the legal changes have generally benefited, and not inappropriately, workers.

In general, full time workers received healthcare, pension, and other benefits, as well as certain protections regarding hiring and firing, and things like sick leave, maternity leave, and vacation time (remember that?).

If I might challenge your first two points on healthcare and pensions, there have not been changes in our laws that have disadvantaged workers on these two points.  There was no requirement 30 years ago, legally, for companies to provide healthcare or pensions.  Many did of course, because they were competing for employees in the marketplace, trying to offer competitive pay/benefit packages.  But I personally worked a number of jobs in the '60's and '70's that did not provide healthcare or pensions.

Regarding sick time and maternity leave, I think these issues have been more state by state, but the laws have improved these benefits for employees.  And on vacation time, there have been no laws taking away vacation time from the '70's, compared to now--and believe me, I do remember that.

You also mention a report that links to a "congressional report", which I reviewed.  the congressional report is actually not a congressional report, it is a report by a particular democratic congressman that is replete with inaccuracies, and obviously pro-union to the point of distorting the facts.  This article should be compared to the Walmart website to at least get both sides of the story.