Wal Mart, The Anti Christ?

There's been a lot of talk about retail behemoth Wal Mart lately. Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about the whole thing. I would like to ask philosophical question about it...

In the United States if an employer is over a certain size it must offer its full time employees certain benefits. Wal Mart is notorious for using two part time workers in situations where one full timer could get the job done nicely (this is but a small window into Wal Mart's controversies, and it is the only one I'll focus on for now). The difference, of course, is that it is cheaper to pay two workers $6.50 an hour @ 20 hours a week each ($6.50 * 20 * 2 = $260)than it is to pay one full time worker and have to give him/her benefits ($6.50 * 40 = $260 + cost of benefits). Wal Mart gets A LOT of "bang for their buck" because the "part timers" usually don't work only 20 hours, they work 39 or 24 or whatever the maximum the state allows to still be called part time is.

Now this is not illegal and I'm not necessarily saying it should be, but it does pose an interesting quandary. As we all know, $6.50 an hour isn't enough to live in general, and because the employee only works 39 hours they are without health insurance. Wal Mart actually suggests to its employees that they get on welfare. So these costs that Wal Mart has skirted by one hour per employee are now handed directly to the taxpayer. This is one definition of "corporate welfare". The public picks up the slack for a private enterprise.

What is the alternative? Do we use government's power to force Wal Mart to down size? If there are 30,000 part time employees willing to do full time work, then perhaps the company can sustain 15,000 full time employees with benefits?

I know when I see a giant corporation take advantage of the system like that it angers me, but what can be done? Seriously. I welcome all suggestions.