A few years ago, my mom gave me a book entitled "Nickled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America." The author is Barbara Ehrenreich, a journalist, who decided to work four low-paying jobs and report on it. The book description on Amazon captures it correctly, saying, "Millions of Americans work for poverty-level wages and one day Barbara Ehrenreich decided to join them. She was inspired in part by the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform, which promised any job equals a better life. But how can anyone survive, let alone prosper, on $6 or $7 an hour?"
Ms. Ehrenreich moved to four areas of the country and worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, house cleaner, nursing-home aide and Walmart associate. At the time I first read this book, I was working at Hobby Lobby, a "Christian" retail chain. I have a lot to say about them, but I will hold my comments for another blog entry. In any case, at the time I was working at Hobby Lobby I was living with my now husband. I was making $10 an hour (at the time I left). I felt like I could relate very uniquely to what Ms. Ehrenreich had to say. That is, if I were not living with my husband, I wouldn't have been able to pay for shelter and feed myself based on what Hobby Lobby was paying me. And the only reason I had health benefits was because I was on Brian's; I couldn't have afforded to pay for Hobby Lobby's benefits based on what they were paying me.
I should also mention that I do not shop at Wal-Mart. Ever. For anything. I have been given Wal-Martgift cards and will use only the money on the gift cards to shop there; if there is a balance left on the cards that it too small to pay for anything, I will give the gift card away so that I won't have to spend any of my money there. I am very passionate about my boycott of Wal-Mart. I do everything in my power, even when out of town, not to have to set foot in their stores.
Let me explain why. It's a many-pronged issue, one which Ms. Ehrenreich illustrates and one that is illuminated well in the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." I recommend reading and seeing each. There is a lot of Ms. Ehrenreich's book, especially, that is just appalling. I will try to highlight three or four of the main reasons I do not patronize their business.
My first issue with Wal-Mart is how they treat their labor force. They do not pay as well as other big box stores (such as Target or Meijer). In addition, they do offer health benefits, but in many instances the cost of carrying Wal-Mart's benefits is out of reach for it's employees. There have been multiple lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart for making their employees work off the clock. As well, there was a class-action lawsuit filed against them because they discriminated against women. The latter lawsuit had the wind taken out of it's sails when the Supreme Court ruled that it couldn't, by definition, be considered a class-action suit.
I'll illuminate. If a single individual feels that the company they are working for is discriminating against them, they can consult with a lawyer (at their own expense and on their own time). The lawyer charges their client for consulting with them and charges them for any court motions that need to be filed, any time they need to appear in court, etc. I am not criticizing; I believe that lawyers are in business to make money and I get that. I'm just making some declarative statements.
So a woman, who makes on average less than her male counterparts, seeks out a lawyer. Mind you, she is just barely scraping by as it is collecting a paycheck from Wal-Mart. She sits down with the lawyer and explains, calmly, that she feels she has been passed over for promotions based simply on the fact that she is a woman. The lawyer listens and takes notes, then lays out a plan of action. The plan involves the woman having to, eventually, testify in court about this fact.
The problem is, one woman, on Wal-Mart wages, can't afford to continue on this course of action. For one, she has to work a lot of hours just to scrape by. Second, when she realizes it's just her going up against one of the richest corporations in the world, she gets scared.
But she goes back to work and talks with some other women she knows. As they talk during lunch breaks, the other women realize that they, too, have been the victims of discrimination. They, on their own, decide to visit their own lawyers. At this point, the women are all separately suing a multi-billion dollar company on their own. So a lawyer gets the idea to create a class-action lawsuit. That means, (s)he gathers up all of the defendants together, joins all of their cases and decides to attack Wal-Mart as an organized front.
As I've said before, though, in this country money is politics. Wal-Mart gets wind of this and leans very hard on their lobbyists and political cronies. They convince everyone they need to that it's in everyone's best interest to rule that this is not a class-action lawsuit. In fact, the women are not a homogenous group; they have different mitigating factors surrounding their so-called discrimination. As such, they cannot be considered a class-action suit. So this organized front is now just individual women. There may be a lot of them, but as individuals they have far less power and are much more limited. That doesn't mean, Wal-Mart says slyly, that these same women can't individually sue Wal-Mart. It's their right as Americans to sue (subject for another day--there are no frivolous lawsuits). But they know that the entire building of lawyers they employ will make sure that these women spend years and money they don't have fighting this battle.
And there's the rub. These women have tried to do that, but know that it's an uphill battle if they're on their own. They return to their jobs, shoulders slumped, all the while knowing their male counterparts are snickering at them behind their backs. I am a woman, I am a mother and I am pissed as hell that a corporation that lures other women in it's front doors with low prices would do everything they could to slam the door in the face of women trying to advance in the corporate structure.
My second issue with Wal-Mart is one that has a lot of labor organizations rankled. That is, that they do not use unions to employ their workers. Ms. Ehrenreich states in her book that she witnessed, at the Wal-Mart where she worked, there was some talk of the mechanics unionizing. Her observation was that while management never directly forbade people from having those conversations, they did everything they could to discourage it.
I can say from first-hand knowledge that Hobby Lobby's managerial bible has an entire section about how to discourage unions from forming. It talks about observing people in the lunchrooms and during other activities and making sure that the cry for unions doesn't make it past a whisper. I figure, if Hobby Lobby is Wal-Mart's poor cousin, then Wal-Mart must have one entire 3-inch binder on how to discourage unions from forming.
I worked at Jewel in high school, in the deli department. I had to pay dues every month, whether I wanted to or not. I didn't understand why until my mother (a member of the teacher's union) explained it to me. She told me that the reason I made time and a half on Sundays was because of the union. The reason there were safety standards in place was because of the union. The reason I made more money was because of the union. After that experience, I can understand why Wal-Mart would think unions are so dangerous; it's a very similar argument to that of the class-action lawsuit. If it's just one person asking their manager for a raise, more than likely the manager will laugh them out of the office. If there is a coalesced group of people who demand higher wages, more accessible health care, more safety standards, then Wal-Mart has to listen.
The corollary to that? It will cost them a lot of money. Now, here's where I will digress for a bit. I think capitalism is a fine model, if there are checks and balances. Wal-Marts profits for this years first quarter were 3 billion (with a b) dollars. Yes, billion. I am not saying they shouldn't be in business not to make a profit. What I am saying is, they could still make profits (perhaps only a paltry 3 million) if they unionized, raised the wages their workers make, and lowered the cost of their company-sponsored healthcare.
Yes, these three actions would mean a few less zeros behind their profits, but last time I checked, Forbes reported that six Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-172819426.html). Six human people have more wealth than 94, 250, 714 other humans combined. (I based my calculations on what the US Government census data shows is currently the population of the United States.) It's staggering, isn't it? I mean, I think it is.
I know there's a lot of discussion about job creators. I would hazard a guess that not all of the Waltons mentioned in this article are involved in day-to-day operations of Wal-Mart. My best guess is that they had the good fortune to be born with the last name Walton. I'm not saying all, I'm saying some. In which case, if they're not in reality creating jobs, why not give up some of that money? Not all, just some. And not through foundations (so they can claim the tax breaks), but really--pay your employees a little more and make healthcare more accessible.
The other issue I have with Wal-Mart is the burden they cause to the municipalities they occupy. The documentary I mention illustrates this the best way, so I'll just share what I learned from that movie. First, Wal-Mart tries to woo the city government with the promise of jobs. This is especially effective in areas where there is a large unemployment rate. It would seem a no-brainer to welcome a company that will put out-of-work people back to work.
They are also successful in areas known as "food deserts." These are areas where there are no other grocery or food-type stores. This typically means it's a poorer, rural or rural-esque demographic. Again, the local government is thrilled! Wow, their citizens will be able to go grocery shopping nearby! They won't have to shop in the next town (or county) over.
Again, it's all wolves in sheep's clothing. Here's why. First of all, as I mentioned before, Wal-Mart does offer healthcare. This is a fact. They are able to offer it to all full-time employees. Here's the trick. They work hard to make sure that employees are not classified as full-time. They will only schedule them for 37 hours instead of 40. They will offer full-time as an incentive--"if you work hard during the holiday season, we'll look at making you full-time," which of course never happens. So they shirk the responsibility by simply not employing full-time workers. Hobby Lobby was also guilty of this and I saw it first-hand. When my manager would create the schedule, he was very mindful about whom should receive what hours. He was expected (because he was salaried and working 80+ hour weeks) to make up the shortfall in staffing versus paying hourly employees.
Ms. Ehrenreich mentions another way Wal-Mart skirts the benefits issue. She noted that there were signs up in the breakroom for county health benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart dangles benefits just out of the reach of it's workers and then says, oh, but the county offers health benefits at discounted prices. So not only is Wal-Mart not footing the bill, they are pushing their employees to become a burden on the taxpayers of the county their store occupies.
Then there is the issue of taxes. After Wal-Mart has wooed the county government, they ask for tax breaks to get the store off the ground. At this point, the county is so turned around they offer the breaks. After all, they think, this is a great opportunity for the county's residents. So Wal-Mart builds a ginormous building to house it's facility with the county footing the bill. A few years later, just as the county is going to finally see a pay-off in it's investment, Wal-Mart decides it's going to move to the next county and build a Super Wal-Mart instead.
And the county is left holding the bill. I have witnessed this first-hand here in Crystal Lake. Wal-Mart was originally located on Route 14, in a strip mall with other small shops and some mid-range shops (Big Lots, Cub Foods). Then it was announced that a Super Wal-Mart was going up at Route 14 and 31. The original location is now a ghost town. Cub Foods had already closed before they moved, but Garden Fresh, another grocery store, had moved in next door and closed before Wal-Mart moved out. The surrounding strip mall is barely occupied. To my knowledge, there is not another business large enough to occupy the space Wal-Mart left behind. There is no money to raze the building and so, even though it's zone for business, it's sitting empty, unable to generate revenue. Wal-Mart's final way to rob the county; leave behind huge, empty eyesores that will probably stay that way for the foreseeable (and not foreseeable future). Counties left holding the bag after having had their downtown areas ravaged by Wal-Mart coming in.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart boasts about low prices! We will match any competitor's price! Come on in, step right up! But it's like going to see a magic show and, while the show is going on, the magician sends lackeys to rob all of the spectators. The show is magnificent and people enjoy it, but the spectators don't realize they've been robbed until after they get home.
I realize that my family struggles financially. It would seem to make no sense that I choose not to shop somewhere that has such low prices. There are other things about Wal-Mart that turn my stomach, but these are the chief complaints I have about them. I am not hoping to convince other people not to shop their, but I'm hoping that maybe it gives you pause. I cannot, in good conscience, shop somewhere that treats my fellow human beings so poorly. I also am not going to contribute to a corporation that has the opportunity really make a positive impact and chooses not to. I don't give money to charities right now because I can't; I simply have no extra funds at my disposal. I do, however, give generously of my resources. I have made it a habit of making regular donations of clothing and household items to Goodwill and the like.
If I, who has so little, can pretty easily look around my house and find something to give to someone in need, why can't the Waltons? I'm not asking them to live on the streets or in run-down apartments, like their workers do. I'm just asking them to treat people respectfully. Hire them to do a job that will actually pay the bills and help them get ahead. I guarantee you, if all companies started paying their employees fairly, they would see those investments pay off in dividends. But then, they already have a lot of those, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment