For years Wal-Mart has come under fire by economists, government officials and labor rights groups for not paying their employees enough or providing enough health benefits.

But guess what company officials want to do now? According to a New York Times report today, Wal-Mart is looking to double its ranks of its part timers, and workers there tell the Times they are being forced to “make themselves available around the clock, and assert that the company is making changes with an eye to forcing out long time higher-wage workers to make way for lower-wage part-time employees.”

For business owners, having a lot of part time employees can be both good and bad. In the good column is you have a much more flexible workforce and you typically don’t have to offer them any benefits, including health insurance. In the bad column is the unpredictability that comes from a part time work force that will probably drop you like a hot potato if they find a gig that pays more.

Wal-Mart officials say they have no specific targets when it comes to the make up of their part time staff but with the announcement yesterday that the retail giant had weaker than expected sales in September Wal-Mart, just like any other company, wants to help boost their business, and what better way than cutting employee costs, which represent a huge chuck of any company’s expenses.

The question is, what will it mean for the long-term health of the nation’s economy? Since Wal-Mart has one of if not the biggest workforce in the land, what they do impacts the whole country’s wallet. But Wall Street is breathing down their necks, and come on, let’s face it, if you have Wal-Mart stock in your portfolio you’ll be pretty blazing mad if your shares decline.

Companies like Costco, for example, have come under fire from Wall Street for having high labor costs but the firm doesn’t appear too rattled even though their stock could be even higher if they started tightening their labor belt.

So what’s the answer? Is it okay if a company’s stock offers a steady, solid performance and not the everybody-get-rich-quick returns so many expect today? Or do we stand by all the labor-reducing decisions company’s make in the name of profits, profits, profits?

As consumers, stockholders, workers, we all have a say. What’s your vote?