On Monday, Ruth Rosen gave us the second installment of her anti-Wal Mart temper fit, inspired partly by a sex discrimination lawsuit filed against the company. The courts have yet to decide the merits of the case, but Ruth Rosen is already convinced that Wal-Mart is evil, because
On average, a "sales associate" earns $6.10 an hourand
In keeping with its conservative policies, the health insurance Wal- Mart offers its employees doesn't cover contraceptionFirst of all, $6.10 is higher than the federal minimum wage of $5.15. You'll also notice that Wal-Mart offers its employees health insurance (not to mention many other benefits), which surpasses most other low-wage jobs. And yes, it makes sense for health insurance to cover only catastrophic expenses, but not routine ones like contraception or toothpaste -- just like automobile insurance covers accidents, but not oil changes or gasoline.
Not surprisingly, many Wal- Mart workers live below the poverty level, use county pulic [sic] health services and -- at least half of them -- qualify for the federal food-stamp program. In other words, taxpayers subsidize Wal-Mart's profits by paying for the federal, state and county assistance that Wal Mart's workers require to survive.The other side of the equation is that without Wal-Mart, many of these low-skill workers would be unemployed altogether and an even more expensive burden on society
Fortunately, the women of Wal-Mart have an ally in their battle. On June 22, the National Organization of Women, which has dubbed Wal-Mart a "merchant of shame," kicked off an "adopt a store" campaign to educate shoppers about Wal- Mart's exploitation of its women employees. Thousands of NOW members are visiting stores, wearing buttons that read "Wal-Mart Always Discriminates"Oy, some free business advice to Ruth Rosen and the ladies of NOW: I can only think of two pressure groups that might command less public esteem than NOW and that are in a better position to boost Wal-Mart's sales by protesting against Wal-Mart: Al Qaeda, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association. (Oh, I see that NOW has an inkling of this, even if Ruth Rosen doesn't)
Also involved is the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union, whose members work at competing retail stores and earn $2 to $3 an hour more than Wal-Mart workers with equivalent jobs.Ah, so this is the real agenda. The UFCW wants to convert all of Wal-Mart's one million associates into responsible dues-paying union members. Wal-Mart's inevitable response to unionization would be to cut jobs, which wouldn't bother the union, because the union would still gain members, even at the expense of throwing some other people out of work.
But let's say that the unrelenting pressure from Ruth Rosen and her feminist friends caused Wal-Mart's other employees to capitulate and join a union. What would Ruth Rosen have to say to all those hourly workers who lost the jobs they were once happy with? She might commiserate and complain some more, but the only way she could find them other jobs would be to start a retail chain of her own. I can just see it now: Ruth-Rosen-Mart. Based on what we know about Ruth Rosen's business acumen, Ruth-Rosen-Mart would:
(a) only hire the barely employable, pay them 50% more than anybody else is willing to pay them and also offer unlimited free healthcare and generous pension benefits
(c) refuse to sell any product that could possibly cause any kind of injury
(b) refuse to engage in unethical corporate practices, such as "advertising", "competition" or "making a profit".
I have no doubt that Ruth Rosen would be willing to invest her own life savings in this venture. And in the unlikely event that Ruth-Rosen-Mart goes belly-up, taking Ruth Rosen's retirement security with it? Not to worry, Wal-Mart will still be there and Ruth Rosen would be able to support herself in her golden years by working as a Wal-Mart sales associate. As long as she's willing to learn how to smile at the customers.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 01, 2003 01:01 PMJust a little off-topic, you ever wonder how society would be different if retail outlers -- Wal-Mart, McDonald's, The Gap --- were limited by law to 100 stores nationwide? As a positive, it could possibly make for more regional diversity. As a negative, it is likely small markets would be deprived of the benefits and efficiencies of large-scale operations. My guess is consumers would pay higher prices, but not a lot higher, as efficiencies would be pushed back into the distribution chain.
Just a thought. Nothing I would ever seek to impose.
Posted by: Spunky on July 2, 2003 05:56 AMi get a kick out of these people that defend Wal Mart because of.....(drumroll please) their LOW prices!!
In an open message to them i shall now ask that they GET A CLUE! they remind me of the kid in my college history class who tried to argue with my professor that one can benefit just as much from watching TV as from reading books. Like the defenders of WalMart, he was ingorant and myopic.
The insult to America that is WalMart does NOTHING for your community. You live in a community right? Do you remember what a community is? Its the people that live in an area and the biggest benefit they recieve living there is that they know each other and trust each other. They stick up for each other and they stand behind their community. One who complains that they MIGHT pay a little more from a local store is too self obsessed to see the benefits of living in a community.
WalMart does not care about your community. Its readily apparent in the way they build their stores- the clearcutting and massive parking lots(they can't plant a damn tree?), the prefab construction, the flourescant lighting. There is no aesthetic to bring to your town. There is no environment for you to experience(this is after all, where you shop and see people from your community - wait, whats that?).
When was the last time you were at a Little League game and WalMart funded the team? I remember the local hardware store doing that kind of thing. When was the last time the CEO of WalMart helped out with a charity in your community? i remember the owner of our local diner being very involved. When was the last time someone who worked at WalMart provided benches and tables for free for a block party in your neighborhood? I remember the owner of the liquor store doing that in mine.
Thats what the little extra you pay for and some "hi"s and "goodbye"s will get you in a community of local shops and merchants. I find it hard to believe so many of you can be so short sighted. It is about your communtiy and to not supporting your community is downright anti american. Communities raise your children. America was built on communities. Wal Mart cuts every corner they can to reap as much profit as possible and rob your community of character, aesthetic, and dignity.
"WalMart does not care about your community. Its readily apparent in the way they build their stores- the clearcutting and massive parking lots(they can't plant a damn tree?), the prefab construction, the flourescant lighting."
All of which describe the small, locally-owned grocery store in my hometown.
Dude, you really need to unbend.
Posted by: Robert Crawford on July 2, 2003 12:20 PMThat being said- that your grocery store has the same philosophy towards the layout of their space, it IS reasonable for your community to put forth some complaints with the locally owned gorcery store. It is also reasonable that with such complaints/concerns the owner will take action. He is a member of the community after all and can face scrutiny for his actions. The issue can be put into the local paper, a discussion about said concerns can be pursued and he would not want to lose business over such a small amount of effort on his part. In the process, the community and he would get to know each other better.
Where is that accountability with WalMart? Should i even put forth the laughable scenario where you took action the same way with them? Don't their corporate tactics tell you what their response would be? They wouldn't lift a finger for your community because they don't answer to your community. they don't live there and they don't care.
"Dude, you really need to unbend"
yeah, i know man, i'm tightly wound lately.
"WalMart does not care about your community"
Well, yes, I have a community, but unlike that of ol' Horns (he must be gunning for a post on the Politburo), my community celebrates the idea of freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means, when someone proposes to start a new business here, we don't mobilize against her freedom to do that - we patronize said business, or don't, according to how it meets our needs. Not our needs as defined by the reactionary Sir Horns, but as we ourselves determine. And once the newbie is established on the block, they're part of the community too. Or if the biz fizzles, they're off to new ventures or a day job. That's accountability.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 3, 2003 06:26 PMI need more information as to why Wal-Mart is bad. thanks
Well lets see how about its rules that forbid
employees from meeting each other in thier free time?
They tried to introduce the same rules in German stores but a German court told them its illegal to try and tell people that they should do in their own time and ordered Wal-mart either to change the rules or stop trading.
:)