Wal-Mart
Ever since TPMCafe opened one of the regular targets has been Wal-Mart. Reading about some of their actions they certainly have done things that are reprehensible and need correction. However, I always get the feeling that the real problem with Wal-Mart is that they sell things cheaper to lots of ordinary Americans, the very people that Progressives claim to speak for. A letter to the NY Times attacking CAFTA re-enforces this feeling. It denounces the idea that Americans should want to spend 50c for a T-shirt. Fairly generous with other people's money.
More telling still is the Op-Ed piece in the Times "The Price Is Right" By PANKAJ GHEMAWAT and KEN A. MARK. It makes a very strong argument that Wal-Mart is balance good for its workers and good for consumers.
Other than people who want consumers and shareholders to subsidize workers, and event that I am not aware ever happing, it is not clear to me what Wal-Mart has done that makes it such a general target. Or rather in areas where they have acted miserably there are already various actions against them. It still seems to me that on the whole they make things better for more people than do those who attack them.
There is a good article by Simin Head in the NYRB (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17647 and exchanges http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17965). Key points are:
I'm pleased to report that Wal-Mart's British operation (called Asda, the name of the chain Wal-Mart bought) trails local giant Tesco. Tesco's annual staff turnover is 29%, Asda's 25%, more or less in line with American competitor Costco - against Wal-Mart's own counter-productive 50%.
Apparently Sam Walton got the cloying and hypocritical term "associate" for "employee" after a visit to the British store chain John Lewis, where workers are "partners". (http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4462_128/ai_58177 748) But John Lewis is that rare bird, a true worker cooperative; there "partner" is a term with real meaning. But Walton just took it as opium for the people.
Sorry no live links, I can't get the tags to work.
August 3, 2005 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
James makes great points. The health insurance issue affects everyone, as Walmart's reluctance to supply health insurance to their workers means that these people are depending on emergency rooms (and tax dollars) for their health insurance. In other words, Walmart is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize their workers. To borrow from Ronald Reagan, Walmart is a "welfare queen". Compare Walmart to other lowcost retailers (Target comes to mind) and you'll see that their benefits are incredibly poor, even for an industry that is notoriously skimpy in the benefits department. Arguing that their employees are better off working for Walmart than not working at all (and, to carry such arguments further, that employees in third wolrd sweat shops used by U.S. companies are better off with their $1 a day...) might make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that studies show that Walmart is a net destroyer of jobs rather than creator of jobs when they move into a new community. While the low prices may be advantageous, they hardly make up for the reduced buying power of the community as a whole when local businesses (and the jobs they provide) are lost and replaced with substandard jobs.
August 5, 2005 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink