Ten Things Wal-Mart Doesn't Want You To Know, or do they?

The following is from Jared Cram at Temple University and represent the typical mindless rant against Wal-Mart. I don't agree with everything Wal-Mart does, but it's idiotic blathering like this that make pointing out legitimate concerns so much harder...

1. Wal-Mart regularly violates federal law and flouts international human rights standards.

The right of workers to organize labor unions is protected by the National Labor Relations Act and is also cited as a basic human right by the International Labor Organization. In 2002, 43 distinct charges were filed against Wal-Mart for violations of the National Labor Relations Act and since 1995, 60 complaints have been filed against Wal-Mart with the National Labor Relations Board. These complaints and charges range from illegal firings to threats and intimidations against workers who attempt to exercise their right to organize. In fact, Wal-Mart provided store managers with a “toolbox for remaining union-free” that includes lists of warning sings that employees may be organizing and a hotline number to summon a corporate anti-union SWAT team.

By and large unions are an anachronism. While they used to serve a legitimate purpose, for the most part, these days, they are merely another way to extort money from the middle and lower class to funnel to Liberal, political causes. All companies that aren't unionized discourage unionization, because there's nothing that can stifle a company's productivity more efficiently than unions. Had unions maintained their focus on simply doing what was best for the employees, there would be no problem, but few do that any more. It's not a crime for Wal-Mart or any other company to discourage unions. In fact, I'm glad they do it. Were Wal-Mart to become unionized, prices would go up, which means the money the unions inevitably send to ultra-Liberal members of Congress would be coming directly from my pockets. So in spite of the misleading heading, this one isn't about violating the law, but about refusing to allow the company to become the slave of big unions.

2. Wal-Mart regularly falls below industry standards for employee pay.

In 2001, the average pay of a Wal-Mart worker was $8.23 per hour, more than two dollars less per hour than the average supermarket employee wage of $10.35 per hour. Furthermore, Wal-Mart associates only average 32 hours a week, causing many employees to be classified as “part-time,” thus restricting their access to health care and other benefits exclusively earmarked for full-timers. In fact, Wal-Mart wages are so low that the average Wal-Mart worker’s annual salary in 2001 was almost $1,000 below the federal poverty line of $14,630 for a family of three.

It's Wal-Mart for crying out loud. Most of their employees aren't even full time. Accusing a company whose employees are teenagers, retired people and housewives trying to get a little extra spending money, of being below average on employee pay simply shows that this guy's parents are getting ripped off on their college tuition. If you want good pay, get and education and a good paying job. If you want some extra money in a job that requires little skill, apply at Wal-Mart as one of their Associates. What idiot thinks anyone could reasonably support a family of three by working as a Wal-Mart Associate? If you're supporting a family, and don't have the education or experience to apply for a management job, then look to another industry.

Do you realize what would happen if Wal-Mart, and all the other companies that hire temporary, unskilled labor, began paying them enough to support a family? They'd have to charge more, which means the rest of us would need to pay more, which means our employers would need to charge more which means everything would cost more making the standard of living rise to the point that the very employees that were supposed to be helped in the first place will once gain be at exactly the same level of purchasing power they were before. Who wins? Slick-talking politicians—the kind that are constantly trying to get the minimum wage raised, and hope most people won't figure out how futile it is.

3. Wal-Mart has made the glass ceiling wider and thicker than ever before.

In 2001, six female employees in California filed suit against Wal-Mart, triggering the largest class action lawsuit in American history involving more than one million current and former female employees. Women in the Wal-Mart “family” make up more than two-thirds of its hourly employees, but hold only one-third of managerial positions, according to a report in the Financial Times. The report also notes that only 15 percent of Wal-Mart store managers are women. Check out Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart to learn more.

The road from Associate to management in Wal-Mart would not be an easy one, simply because so much of their work force is not that interested in moving up, since they're only there to get a little extra spending money. Sure there are some that are starting out trying to work their way up. I've known several, and believe it or not, they made it. It's not that hard if they use the exact same method used in every other industry work hard, make yourself indispensable and never miss an opportunity to improve yourself with education. My cousin started out sweeping the floors and was able to retire at a very early age after managing several Wal-Marts. The fact that the author refuses to acknowledge is that a large percent of women in the work force are not that concerned about advancement, therefore the statistic will always show a disparity between men and women in management. I remember one woman, who was a teacher, who claimed she never tried to apply for an administrative position in education because she saw so few women there. She herself was an example of why there were so few. She removed herself from the equation, thereby influencing the equation.

The stats he gives are for store managers. Wal-Marts have numerous managers, so it's not clear what he actually means—The Manager, the management teams, all management, including assistant managers, what? A study at Purdue shows that only 3 to 5 percent of top management are women. Management as a whole for the industries in the study showed 40 percent as women. So you can see how someone wanting to tip the stats can easily juggle numbers and definitions to make the stats say whatever they want. That he isn't more clear speaks more for his dishonesty than Wal-Marts.

4. Wal-Mart sometimes doesn’t even pay its low wages at all.

Poverty level wages are bad enough. But Wal-Mart apparently feels that not paying wages at all is even better for its bottom line. As of December 2002, 39 class action lawsuits in 30 states were filed against Wal-Mart claiming tens of millions of dollars in back pay owed to hundreds of thousands employees. These lawsuits included instances of Wal-Mart forcing employees to work through breaks, forcing employees to work off the clock, and even deleting hours from employees’ time sheets without their knowledge. According a former Wal-Mart manager in Alabama and Mississippi, Wal-Mart’s central office threatened to write up managers who didn’t reduce labor costs and this led to managers leaning on assistant managers to falsify time sheets and force employees to work without pay.

My mom worked for Wal-Mart, as has my sister, my brother and currently my brother-in-law. I've heard my share of horror stories about bad managers. But then I've experienced some of the same idiocy in other industries, actually far worse. That Wal-Mart has had the misfortune to have hired some bad managers in the past puts them on the same level as virtually any other industry. Sure it'd be nice if they had a way of weeding out the bad eggs, the problem is that bad employees can file complaints against good managers making the process complicated, slow and impossible to completely solve. Does the author make as big a stink about the numerous lawsuits against his college? If lawsuits designate evil, then why is he attending such an "evil" college?

5. Wal-Mart routinely makes health care unavailable or unaffordable for its employees.

Wal-Mart’s company health insurance is too expensive or practically impossible to get for many of its employees. ... [blathering nonsense]

The bulk of their employees are people who don't even need insurance!! Get a clue..

6. Wal-Mart regularly drains public coffers at all levels of government.

The government subsidization of health care for Wal-Mart employees is just the tip of the iceberg. Wal-Mart routinely uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending corporate growth. A report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee. These costs include:

-$36,000 a year for free and reduced cost school lunches,
-$42,000 for Section 8 housing assistance,
-$125,000 for low-income family tax credits and deductions,
-$100,000 for additional Title I expenses,
-$108,000 for state children’s health insurance expenses, and
-$9,750 for low income energy assistance

How convenient that there's no link. I found the report. Perhaps he omitted the link because he knows if people look at the actual report they'd find that it's not the Committee itself, but the Democratic staff of the Committee that filed the report. They'd also find that the entire article this guy wrote is merely a summation of that very report.  The report actually introduces the above stats with the following...

The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers: [emphasis added]

Translation: Since "families" with that income generally require this kind of government age, it must be assumed all Wal-Mart employees are the heads of households and the sole breadwinners in that household.

Go to your nearest Wal-Mart and ask as many employees that you find if A. they're the head of their household and B. if they are the only breadwinner in their household. I can guarantee what you'll find: the vast majority are neither.

State and local governments also lose when Wal-Mart comes to town. A study commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council in 2003 found that Wal-Mart is a net loss for the communities it moves into. An influx of “big box retailers” such as Wal-Mart was estimated to cost an additional $9 million in state health care costs and a loss in pensions and retirement benefits so large that the increase in public assistance necessary to make up the shortfall could not even be covered by increased sales and property taxes.

What's not explained by that study is how Wal-Mart is supposedly able to lure employees away from other retail stores, by offering them less money and less benefits. How exactly is that supposed to work? Maybe it's because Wal-Mart will hire people who are desperately needing a job, and thereby taking them off the government dole. But, since other retailers charge higher prices (to offset union labor demands) competition becomes tight, and some retailers are forced to shut down, or restructure. It's called Capitalism, and when competition thrives, it's always better. I remember a grocery store in a town near by where we live. It's employees were unionized, high paid, and weren't about to budge. As more and more grocery stores opened up, the store wasn't able to compete because the union employees refused to take a pay cut. The store eventually closed down.

In other words, the California study, prepared with the help of Labor Unions, is complaining that Wal-Mart may force unskilled labor to be paid a fair wage, rather than the artificially pumped up wage the union are able to demand. The result will be some improving their qualifications by getting more education, some accepting lower, more realistic wages, and the people at large saving money on merchandise that doesn't have overly inflated prices. Did the study figure the added spending that would occur with lower prices, thus an increase in general revenue, which ultimately leads to higher tax revenues? Of course not. Remember the study was prepare with the help of Labor Unions, so it was designed to be a propaganda piece against Wal-Mart.

7. Wal-Mart makes a habit of flouting immigration laws and regulations.

As Wal-Mart continues its race to the bottom in worker compensation, Wal-Mart routinely seeks out the most vulnerable and powerless workers in the American economy: undocumented immigrant workers. On October 23, 2003, federal agents raided 61 stores in 21 states leading to the arrest of 250 janitors who were undocumented workers. Similar raids in 1998 and 2001 led to the arrest of an additional 102 undocumented Wal-Mart employees. In addition, the 2003 raid led to a grand jury being convened to consider federal labor racketeering charges against Wal-Mart executives. These charges were bolstered by wiretapped conversations between Wal-Mart executives and labor contractors that proved Wal-Mart knew its employees were undocumented immigrants.

First of all, note the hypocrisy and irony of the very same people who ignore our problems with illegal immigration, whining about it only when companies they dislike are caught using them. Any other time these same doofus Liberals would be praising the virtues of the much beligned illegal immigrants.

Also of interest is that the "settlement" Wal-Mart agreed to (although they didn't call it a settlement) resulted in Wal-Mart agreeing not to hire illegal immigrants (something already illegal in itself, so an agreement to not do it is more or less meaningless) and to help federal officials in investigating the contractors that had actually hired the illegals.

Oh and the "wiretapped conversations". The government "claimed" to have it, but then the law allows the government to "claim" anything it wants to, true or false, in an effort to coerce an alleged criminal to confess. Leaking it to the press is just part of that process. The "claim" seems to have vanished (other than from union websites that hate Wal-Mart anyway) and the government quietly accepted a settlement that left Unions, Liberals and other Wal-Mart haters furious.

8. Wal-Mart has played a major role in the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

Although Wal-Mart has always tried to pass itself off as a company deeply concerned with the well-being of everyday American workers, actions speak louder than words. No longer content to follow its old motto of “Buy American,” Wal-Mart now imports over 50 percent of its merchandise from overseas. In 2003 alone, Wal-Mart purchased one-eighth of all Chinese imports to the United States. And by insisting on the low prices that only sweatshop labor can provide, Wal-Mart has used its tremendous power in the marketplace to bully American firms into moving their production facilities overseas. And once overseas, these firms are required to keep prices low at all costs to please Wal-Mart; even if it requires forcing employees to work in sweatshop conditions for little pay producing products that the factories lose money on.

Get real. Have you tried to buy anything inexpensive, that says "Made in the USA"? Believe me, I try, I make a determined effort, and in most cases it's impossible. That Wal-Mart has been able to keep it's imports down to 50% is amazing. I'm impressed. I would have assumed it was much greater than that.

Rather than griping at Wal-Mart about imported goods, gripe at consumers that demand it. Gripe at Congress that maintains low-tariff imports from known human rights abusers like China. It's hypocritical to demand Wal-Mart go out of business, doing what probably 98% of the country refuses to spend a few extra bucks doing—boycotting imports from Communist China.

9. Wal-Mart has consistently discriminated against disabled workers.

Wal-Mart has also been an equal opportunity discriminator by choosing to ignore federal laws banning discrimination against the disabled. Wal-Mart has been the defendant in a number of suits alleging this kind of discrimination and in 2001 alone it was required to pay $6 million to settle 13 such lawsuits. These lawsuits were brought not by individuals, but by the federal government through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These settlements also required that Wal-Mart change its hiring practices and provide more training for employees in anti-discrimination laws. Nonetheless, on January 20, 2004, Wal-Mart was again in court after refusing to hire a man in Kansas City because he required a wheelchair.

From one of the Court rulings...

[John] Otero was injured in an automobile accident in June 1988. As a result of the accident, Otero's right arm below the elbow joint was amputated. Although Otero has been fitted with a cosmetic prosthetic device, the device has "no mechanical functions to it." ...

In August 1992 and again, in October 1992, Otero applied for the position of night receiving clerk at the WalMart Store in Las Cruces, New Mexico. On October 28, 1992, Otero was interviewed by Gloria Reyes, WalMart's personnel manager. Using a prepared "interview comment" sheet, Reyes asked Otero:

"What current or past medical problems might limit your ability to do a job?"

In response to the question, Otero told Reyes about his arm and, according to Reyes, asked her if she knew about the ADA. Until that time, Reyes had been unaware of his prosthesis. Reyes and her immediate supervisor, assistant manager Diane Bingham, ultimately recommended that Otero not be hired. The stated reason for non-employment was Otero's rudeness, which allegedly occurred after his statements about his physical impairment and the ADA.

 Oh, wow, big bad bully there. They refused to hire an obnoxious guy who happens to have an arm missing, and demanded to be hired regardless of whether he could actually do the work or not. And these were individuals who filed the lawsuits, they did it through the EEOC. Individuals received the settlement money.  Claiming it wasn't individuals is pretty much lying. Another lawsuit forced Wal-Mart to hire deaf people. Admittedly, I sometimes wonder if Wal-Mart hires too many people who pretend to be deaf when I need to find the price of something, so I can imagine how much more trouble it would be if they actually were deaf. Most people are familiar with the silliness the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) has produced, from forcing companies to hire people who are unable to do the job they are applying for, to placing fellow workers in danger by forcing them to rely on unqualified EEOC hires. That Wal-Mart has got caught in the web of PC idiocy is no surprise. It would be a surprise if they hadn't.

10. Wal-Mart routinely puts its employees at risk of serious injury or death.

Wal-Mart has also chosen to flout federal worker safety regulations on a regular basis. This is most apparent in its policy to “lock-in” employees overnight. Wal-Mart claims this is to prevent employee theft and unauthorized breaks. In order to enforce these rules, Wal-Mart threatens to fire any workers who use the fire exits and only provides a key to unlock the doors to a manager. On many occasions, workers have been locked in overnight without a manager, forcing employees to wait until morning to receive treatment for injuries such as broken bones and lacerations. And although it has yet to happen at Wal-Mart, American history teaches us what happens when employees are locked in with no way to get out. In 1911, 146 employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, mostly young women, were burned alive behind doors locked by the owners. More recently, in 1991, 25 workers were killed when a fire broke out in a chicken processing plant in North Carolina where the employees were locked in. The reason for the locked doors? Management concerns of employee theft and unauthorized breaks.

What the author left out—in every single case there was an unlocked door which would have allowed the Wal-Mart employees out, the employees themselves chose to not use it. No charges have been filed, showing that it's much ado about nothing. In all honesty, whining about safety standards is a bit silly if you've ever had a job in the real world (something it's doubtful the author has ever had) safety requirements are ignored at will in virtually every industry. A few years back during a photo op, former president Bill Clinton and former vice-president Al Gore violate at least four health and safety regulation, unknowingly, during the photo shoot, displayed permanently in the photos released to the press. I've never worked for aplace that didn't ignore at least some of the health and safety regulations on the books. Some of the are just plain stupid.

I still simply don't get why Liberals hate Wal-Mart so much. It's like some maniacal passion with them. Maybe it's just the idea that someone else can achieve success with minimal government help that irks them so much.

Posted by Danny Carlton at March 13, 2006 7:48 AM