Chapel Hill Herald, Saturday July 30, 2005
The prospect of a Wal-Mart in northern Chatham County provides an opportunity to reflect on questions of economics, workers rights and the future of our society. Most importantly, it allows us to contemplate our own ethical responsibilities.
Consider the following: Sexist discrimination is business as usual at Fortune's "most admired corporation." In her book "Selling Women Short," Liza Featherstone documents rampant sexism at Wal-Mart, denial of promotion opportunities to women, underpayment of female employees and the prevalence of exclusive, men-only meetings.
Rather than pay a living wage, Wal-Mart encourages its employees to make ends meet via public assistance programs. Along with their paltry paychecks, Wal-Mart employees receive instruction on how to apply for food stamps, state health insurance for the poor and other welfare programs.
A congressional report found that a 200-employee Wal-Mart costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, an average of $2,103 per employee.
It adds up to an annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million U.S. workers. And Wal-Mart places an additional burden on state and local governments. That's money we all pay to subsidize Wal-Mart's low prices.
But Wal-Mart prices are not as "unbeatable" as they claim. Hedrick Smith's Frontline documentary "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" explains how Wal-Mart uses a handful of deeply discounted "opening price point" items to lure customers into departments where they purchase goods that are often more expensive than at other stores.
In its relentless push to move production overseas, Wal-Mart is driving American workers into poverty. Smith's documentary tells of Circleville, Ohio, where a manufacturer was forced to close up shop because of Wal-Mart's partnership with the Chinese. Now, on the grassy lot next to the empty plant, a Wal-Mart Supercenter is going up, offering poverty wages to workers who previously earned middle-class incomes.
Wal-Mart sides with foreign governments against U.S. producers. Five Rivers Electronics, a Tennessee TV manufacturer, sued the Chinese for unfair trade practices. Wal-Mart sided with the Chinese. "Why would Wal-Mart testify to support jobs in China instead of American jobs?" asks Five Rivers President Thomas Hopson.
The answer given to Frontline by Duke professor Gary Gereffi is straightforward: "Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture." China uses Wal-Mart to break open the U.S. market; Wal-Mart turns to Chinese factories for goods to sell at "unbeatable" low prices.
Wal-Mart flouts state and federal laws that protect labor organizing. There are many reports of Wal-Mart routinely firing workers for union activity. A number of lawsuits have charged Wal-Mart with illegal anti-union activity.
Wal-Mart contributes to our growing health insurance crisis. According to Ralph Nader, the average workweek is only 32 hours, which Wal-Mart considers part time. Part-time workers have to wait two years to qualify for insurance. But with 50 percent turnover per year, few even reach eligibility. Among those, not many are willing to pay a premium that costs one-fifth of the average paycheck.
The happy workers in the Wal-Mart TV ads are actually a bit stressed. According to a recent article in the N.Y. Review of Books, "it is hard for Wal-Mart employees to take pride in their work or to have confidence in themselves. ... With its deliberate understaffing, its obsession about time theft, its management spies and its arbitrary punishments, Wal-Mart is a workplace where management's suspicion can affect the morale of even the best employees, creating a discrepancy between their objective record of high productivity and how they come to regard their performance on the job as a result of their day-to-day dealings with management. This discrepancy helps keep wages and benefits low at Wal-Mart."
Wal-Mart turns a blind eye to suppliers that deny human rights to workers.
According to the National Labor Committee, Wal-Mart suppliers in China, Bangladesh and Central America routinely withhold wages, enforce unpaid overtime, ignore restrictions on working hours and deny employees health care and maternity benefits.
Wal-Mart is worse than other big retailers. In 2004 the NLC found that 90 percent of Bangladesh's 3,780 garment manufacturers violated their female employees' right to three months' maternity leave. Costco, the Gap and Sears (among others) pledged that any woman in Bangladesh sewing their garments must be guaranteed her legal right to maternity leave. Wal-Mart offered no such pledge.
Too much information? Yet the facts above are just the tip of the iceberg. We humans seem designed to exclude information that might conflict with our comforts. Cognitive dissonance is kept at bay with unconscious mechanisms of denial and explained away through a variety of rationalizations.
Thus, Americans continue to blithely shop at Wal-Mart as if the right to buy low-quality products built on the suffering of others was written into the Declaration of Independence. It isn't.
People of conscience don't shop at Wal-Mart. They know the cost is too great.
Issues:
Comments
In last week's New York
In last week's New York Magazine, there is a (familiar?) story about the resistence in Rego Park, Queens to Walmart coming in.
http://magazine-directory.com/New-York.htm
(select "Table of Contents" on left then select the Aug 15 issue and scroll down and select the "Unstoppable" article by John Heilemann)
Classic quote:
"Virtually overnight, a noisy and adamant coalition sprang to life, intent on blocking Wal-Mart's debut. Corner stores, green activists, neighborhood groups, and labor unions (especially the unions) threatened to lobby against Vornado's land-use application. Soon enough, Democrats around the city, including mayoral candidates Gifford Miller and Anthony Weiner, clambered aboard the bandwagon. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose initial comments about Wal-Mart's impending arrival were vaguely positive (“The public votes with their feetâ€Â), suddenly began to backtrack. As Pat Purcell, organizing director of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500, put it later, “What politician is going to be the one to let Wal-Mart in in an election year?â€Â
And
"Wal-Mart's determination to invade a city that's already kicked it squarely in the teeth may strike casual observers as bloody-minded, masochistic, sinister, or all three. Mostly, in fact, it's a logical response to a dilemma faced by any company that attains such vast proportions. With more than 3,500 stores in the United States alone, Wal-Mart is fast approaching saturation in the rural and exurban markets on which its business has been built. In order to grow at a rate that will keep its shareholders satisfied, the company has little choice but to launch a series of incursions into urban centers."
and
"Lee Scott [CEO] knows that Wal-Mart must become more politically adept, more sensitive to local fears. But his belief in Wal-Mart's manifest destiny is sturdyâ€â€and not a little unnerving."
To give you some
To give you some perspective, the Chapel Hill Lowe's
building has 130,000 sq ft. It plus Border's reside
on 21 acres and the common parking lot contains 700 spaces.
Therefore, don't be too ready to accept anything that
can be built on 20 acres -- it can be a lot of building,
asphalt, and traffic.
But Joe--they are already
But Joe--they are already ZONED for 20 acres. I, for one, don't believe I have the RIGHT to tell folks what they may or may not build on property that is already ZONED COMMERCIAL.
melanie
So, what happened, y'all?
So, what happened, y'all? (Mark and I had a Board meeting)
Cheers,
Alex
The reason we have a right
The reason we have a right to an opinion on a Wal-Mart in Chatham county is that pollution and traffic congestion does not recognize county lines.
Alex, The press release will
Alex,
The press release will come out today, but the salient question Terri made, whether Chatham First (CF) is committed to fighting only Walmart or fighting any big box store, was addressed. CF's mission is now officially that it will attempt to block any big box store, but that the emphasis will remain on Walmart. I was happy with this clarification, and I hope Terri is, too. It's a compromise of sorts, but an acceptable one.
Not everyone was happy. It really depends on why you don't want Walmart to come. If it's because of the evil it perpetrates on the people it hires, and all the social and economic woes that thus emanate, then for many Target, or even better, Costco, are acceptable alternatives.
Otherwise, IMHO, for all the same reasons you woudn't want Walmart (watershed contamination, untenable traffic congestion, predatory business practices, poor land use practices, etc.) you shouldn't want any other big box store.
This early framing of the CF's mission statement is good because it solidifies its base, and will keep it from falling apart if Walmart, in its Borg-like wisdom, turns away.
You do have the right to an
You do have the right to an opinion, but you don't have a right to a vote. I would suggest that the lion's share of the effort be to educate and influence Chatham residents on why Walmart is not in their best interests. The elected officials should respond to Chatham constituents, hopefully.
The single person I would suggest that everyone here contact is Joe Hackney. Besides having an Orange/Chatham district, he is also a partner in Starpoint Realty.
Joeh@ncleg.net
Thanks for the info David. I
Thanks for the info David. I was unable to attend last night. I'm glad to hear they plan to fight any large development. Was there a big turnout?
Nothing like the first one,
Nothing like the first one, Terri. I didn't do a count but I would guess 35-45 people.
In case anyone MIGHT have
In case anyone MIGHT have even considered that the leopard was changing its spots:
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) - An internal memorandum that lays out steps to slow down benefit spending at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. appears to contradict the spirit of change and benevolence that the behemoth's executives have touted this week.
The memo, published in the New York Times Wednesday, encourages the world's largest private employer to redesign benefits to "attract a healthier, more productive workforce." It notes that workers with seven years seniority are more expensive for the company, but no more productive. Susan Chambers, executive vice president for benefits, wrote the 26-page memo for the company's board.
The memo, which acknowledges that 46% of the children of Wal-Mart's employees in the United States were uninsured or on Medicaid, is likely to provide new ammunition to critics of the company, who have assailed it for its wage, benefit and personnel policies.
George-- I about heard this
George--
I about heard this on NPR this evening. Shameful.
That said, how does it differ from companies that drug-test their employees for nicotine?
melanie/playing Devil's advocate
Melanie, What Wal-Mart is
Melanie,
What Wal-Mart is describing is pure age discrimination. Their report stated that workers with seven years seniority are more expensive for the company, but no more productive. Thus, by turning over the workforce more frequently and ridding themselves of the more senior staffers, they rid themselves of employeees that are statistically more likely to have more health problems (i.e., as we age, our health begins to decline). I'm not saying other companies don't do this but they usually are smart enough to not put it into a report prepared by a senior executive and delivered to their Board of Directors. Of course, a younger workforce means more children so you have to restrict family benefits to also keep the costs down.
George--- The blurb I heard
George---
The blurb I heard didn't get into specifics. Thanks for elucidating.
Yup, it's SHAMEFUL...and I would think--illegal?
melanie
Age discrimination is
Age discrimination is certainly illegal, but incredibly difficult to prove. Of course, were I an attorney, I would snag and keep that Wal Mart report handy in a file for future reference.
What I am more concerned about is the continued employment discrimination experienced by women of child bearing age and/or with small children, and the increasing trend of employers to screen out candidates based on perceived health risks related to lifestyle.
Reason number one: Whenever
Reason number one:
Whenever I shop at Walmart I get a huge headache. I'm not neccessarily against Walmart, that's just what happens when I shop there.
Burn baby burn.
John A
Wal-Mart has a ray machine
Wal-Mart has a ray machine set up near the pain reliever aisle that causes headaches.
I think it's the stress of
I think it's the stress of walking into the place and facing the droves of bargain hunters. For the life of me I don't understand why we can't bring a department store of some sort to the Carrboro area. I would love to be able to shop for basic necessities in my own town. I'm an art lover so have no shortage of options when gift shopping in Carrboro, but when it comes to shopping for everyday stuff like clothing or household items, there aren't a lot of options.
Jackie--once upon a time
Jackie--once upon a time there WAS a small department store in Carrboro---there was a very nice Roses at Carrboro Plaza. It used to be where Food Lion is now. Back when that little strip mall used to be called "Plantaion Plaza." I shopped there frequently.
melanie
I know. I've been around
I know. I've been around here since 1979. I miss Roses and don't understand why it went our of business. It's exactly what we could use in Carrboro, or at least something like it.
The thing I don't understand
The thing I don't understand is why the article is titled "Reasons not to shop at Wal-Mart" after reading it I think it should be retitled "Reasons not to work at Wal-Mart ." I think most of the valid reasons why people shouldn't work at Wal-Mart can also be said about jobs at Mac Donalds. The only difference is that there isn't any union interest in those jobs. The only way I think Wal-Mart is going to change is if no one wants to work at Wal-Mart. How come no one goes after the employees who willingly work there? By their silent consent of working at Wal-Mart they really are the "guilty ones." If no one wanted to work at Wal-Mart they would have to change there policies. The shoppers are really only looking out for their own best interests. I just bought a mirco-wave for $33 at you know where. Good for you if you want to spend more. Thank you for this article. I will never ever ever work at Wal-Mart.
For those who are not aware,
For those who are not aware, the new Wal-Mart SuperCenter is now open in Mebane just off I40/I85.
I went there last night and it appears to be laid out exactly like the store in Hillsborough (groceries on the left, everything else on the right).
The main differences I could see were:
- It has a different color scheme (brownish instead of blue)
- It has a bank branch inside (some bank I'd never heard of)
- It has a Subway instead of a McDonalds
- I has a gas station in the parking lot ($2.11 a gallon for regular unleaded)
Maybe someone that lives out
Maybe someone that lives out Mebane way can keep an informal tally of Mebane businesses that compete in Wal-mart's space opening and closing over the next year.
Here is the first new Mebane
Here is the first new Mebane business to open as a result of Wal-Mart's new location:
"Locally, the SUBWAY® restaurant owned by franchisee John Fladeland, located in the new Wal-Mart on Mebane Oaks Rd., was one of the 17 restaurants opened to bring the chain to the 25,000-restaurant mark.
A SUBWAY® franchisee for 12 years, Fladeland is proud to open his third store in the Mebane area. “My family and I love Mebane…this is where my boys grew up,†Fladeland said. “I want my stores to make a positive contribution to the community as well as help it grow.†Fladeland's SUBWAY® locations also include a restaurant at Brookhollow Shopping Center on 1244 S. 5th St. and one on 622 N. First St. in Mebane.
'Mebane is growing more and more every day,' Fladeland said. 'The opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the area is just part of this growth. I am excited that my SUBWAY® restaurant is associated with it.'"
Hmmm....the number one
Hmmm....the number one reason I can think of for not shopping at Walmart myself is if they are closed.
But wait a minute! Aren't most of them open 24 hours?
I don't think the
I don't think the Hillsborough store is open 24/7, but the new one in Mebane is.
The Hillsborough store is
The Hillsborough store is 24/7; some of the services like Rx are not.
Sweet! Next time I am
Sweet!
Next time I am looking for something to do at 2:00 am I will go over to the Hillsborough store.
Watch the traffic - inside
Watch the traffic - inside and out! :-)
I went back to the Mebane
I went back to the Mebane Wal-Mart again today.
Gas is now down to $2.04 for regular unleaded.
Dang! Pipe some of that over
Dang! Pipe some of that over here! I just filled the big black car, and it was 2.30 something...
shopping at the HIllsborough
shopping at the HIllsborough Wal-Mart will at least keep your sales tax in Orange County---I believe the Mebane Wal-Mart is technically in Alamance County.
Yeah, but they don't have
Yeah, but they don't have cheap gas at the Hillsborough store.
Plus, the Hillsborough store didn't have the bed I wanted for my son's room. I saw they had it in Mebane when I was there last week.
I thought consistent
I thought consistent inventory was one of the reasons people made up for shopping at Wal-Mart? I guess that one was debunked too.
I just figured they sold out
I just figured they sold out and were waiting for more at the Hillsborough store. My wife didn't want to wait, so we bought it in Mebane.
If I have to drive 8 miles for something my wife really wants rather than wait for them to get a new shipment in, I have no problem with that.
Generally lower prices on what I buy and most everything I need in one place are the reasons I shop at Wal-Mart.
"Dang! Pipe some of that
"Dang! Pipe some of that over here! I just filled the big black car, and it was 2.30 something… "
Yeah, Chapel Hill has some of the highest gas prices in the state. On the other hand, Mebane has some of the lowest.
http://www.northcarolinagasprices.com/
Exit 152 - I85 - usually
Exit 152 - I85 - usually battling gas depots...
I guess the battle is
I guess the battle is getting more intense over there.
Mebane: $2.02 (Murphy USA is the Wal-Mart gas station)
Chapel Hill: $2.39
http://www.northcarolinagasprices.com/index.aspx
hmm.........37 cents per
hmm.........37 cents per gallon savings times 17 gallons==6.29. It's about 15 miles for me each way, my car gets 23 miles to the gallon........wow, I'm ahead about 4 dollars if I go to Mebane!
You can split the difference
You can split the difference and go to Hillsborough.
The Citgo on Old 86 has regular unleaded for $2.17.
Not to mention, as discussed
Not to mention, as discussed previously, going to Citgo will help decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Last I checked this was one of those few rare issues that just about all of us agree on.
http://orangepolitics.org/2005/05/need-gas/
* Middle Eastern, not
* Middle Eastern, not foreign.
Nevermind the Citgo, the
Nevermind the Citgo, the Marathon station on Hwy 86 at I85 (across from the new Home Depot in Hillsborough) has regular unleaded for $2.15 a gallon.
"Last I checked this was one
"Last I checked this was one of those few rare issues that just about all of us agree on."
Aside from that whole thing about supporting Hugo Chavez. There is some disagreement about that.
I hope that the Walmart
I hope that the Walmart apologists taking the time to defend this mega-corporation will also take the time to read this New York Times article and then explain to the rest of us how this company represents a positive force in any community.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/business/17walmart.html?hp&ex=11401524...
Well, I have made a
Well, I have made a commitment to shop local, I am not a fan of Wal-Mart , my husband and I have boycotted Exxon since the Valdez disaster........Citgo sounds pretty good to me!
While I don't consider
While I don't consider myself to be a "Walmart apologist" (nor do I consider them to be evil incarnate), I read the NYT article.
I think the article was generally positive toward Wal-Mart. I'd like to know what it was in the article that, I presume, reinforced your belief that Wal-Mart would be a negative force.
I particularly liked some of the CEO's comments:
"Responding to a manager's question about attacks on Wal-Mart's image, Mr. Scott wrote in an April 2004 posting: "Your value to Wal-Mart is outweighed by the damage you could do to our company when you do the wrong thing."
"If you choose to do the wrong thing: if you choose to dispose of oil the wrong way, if you choose to take a shortcut on payroll, if you choose to take a shortcut on a raise for someone  you hurt this company," he added. "And it's not unlikely in today's environment that your shortcut is going to end up on the front page of the newspaper. It's not fair to the rest of us when you do that."
Allan, It is clear that Mr.
Allan,
It is clear that Mr. Scott is interested in infusing personal integrity into the workforce culture. Yet, it's also transparent that his only objective is not to tarnish the company's image and thus Walmart's bottom line. And I agree that this is not necessarily a bad thing; I don't expect CEOs to be priests, requiring workers to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.
What angers me about Mr. Scott (the CEO, and certainly not you, Allan) is his rancor in talking about providing health care to workers. A managers asks a legitimate question concerning deficient health care benefits in the most powerful corporaton in the world, and gets shot down with the suggestion he doesn't belong at Walmart if he's not on board with this policy.
Who is supposed to pay for Walmart's employees' health care? In the end, we all will. How cheap are Walmart's prices, how good an employer, and how much of a windfall to towns is this behemoth when it comes around after you factor in all the externalities?
Why are people who tout laissez-faire economics (let the invisible hand of free enterprise cure all evils) not taking these factors into account?
David, you wrote: "What
David, you wrote: "What angers me about Mr. Scott (the CEO, and certainly not you, Allan) is his rancor in talking about providing health care to workers."
You are reading "rancor" into comments were I don't see any. I read the entire response given to the question about retiree benefits (not just the newpaper accounts of the response) and I think the longer version was much more thoughtful.
Remember that the comments were posting to a board for Wal-Mart's store managers, and I find it perfectly acceptable for a company to expect its management to tow the company line when dealing with employees.
You also need to note that this discussion is specifically about offering new retiree health benefits. The fact that Wal-Mart does not offer retiree benefits should come as a surprise to no one (particularly those who retired from Wal-Mart).
The fact is that only about one-third of large companies offer any kind of retiree health benefits.
Your question, "Who is supposed to pay for Walmart's employees' health care?" highlights the differences in perspective we have on this issue. You appear to believe it is an employer's responsibility to pay for employee health care. I do not. Health insurance is a fringe benefit, that an employer can choose to offer (or not) as it suits the business' needs.
SAS Institute offers extremely rich employee benefits because it allows the company to attract and retain the highly trained employees it needs to do business - not because Jim Goodnight is a "priest." The company is very clear that they offer those benefits to save millions of dollars per year in recruiting/hiring costs and lost productivity.
If Wal-Mart can attract and retain the level of talent it needs to do business without offering rich benefits, why should it? The new Mebane Wal-Mart received more than 2,000 applications for its 350 job openings. Regardless, of how "deficient" its health care benefits, there appears to be plenty of people interested in working for the company.
Pages