Andy Stern on the WSJ: The Wal-Mart Posse
He makes a huge fuss over how many anti-Wal-Mart groups are funded by ‘organized labor’. As though that’s a bad thing? Who else keeps tabs on these people? Nobody! They don’t hide their funding. It’s obvious that these ‘anti’ groups are going to be funded by somebody. And it’s not going to be Chinese factory owners. Who does care: the people who get paid dirt cheap nothingness wages. The unions are tryign to change wal-mart even when they’re not largely paid by wal-mart workers because of anti-union policies throughout Wal-Mart’s history. I think that’s pretty impressive that the Unions still try. And he claims that Wal-Mart is good for poor people. Only if you’re rich enough to drive there and shop and have other options too. it’s not great if it’s the only store in town, if it’s built a mega-store on your backyard. It’s not great if it’s made you redundant by putting your former employer out of business. And he claims that 7-12 dollars an hour is not a poverty wage. Not poverty?! Good lord. I assume he’s not paid 7 dollars an hour. I’m always amazed by American opposition to ‘organized labor’. It always shows a really rather mean capitalist streak. Don’t let those poor people get themselves together. Their leaders MUST be into something else. They MUST have an alterior motive.
“Today the company employs 1.3 million American workers, and its recent push into groceries has made life miserable for Safeway and other grocery chains organized by the service workers or the UFCW.” – Are the unions really that scared of Wal-Mart doing groceries? Who cares as long as they do it right! But this isn’t Costco with an average wage of 16 dollars an hour. Wal-Mart workers are lucky to be able to shop in their own store. And the reason there are always thousands of applicants for Wal-Mart jobs isn’t because they’re good jobs. It’s because Wal-Mart drops their stores on the poorest, cheapest areas in the region. There are lots of people out of work! That doesn’t make the jobs good ones, it just shows how desperate the people are. The WSJ disgusts me sometimes.
Andy Stern on the WSJ: The Wal-Mart Posse
Popularity: 1% [?]
I should start by saying that I am employed on behalf of Wal Mart.
“It’s not great if it’s made you redundant by putting your former employer out of business” – Wal Mart doesn’t put anybody out of business, people choose where they spend their money. If Wal Mart is offering a product or service that is better than is being offered locally (or perceived to be better) then so be it, it shows they are the better business.
“And the reason there are always thousands of applicants for Wal-Mart jobs isn’t because they’re good jobs. It’s because Wal-Mart drops their stores on the poorest, cheapest areas in the region.” – I don’t see the argument in this quote. Whether the store is in the richest or poorest part of the neighbourhood, it is better that people are contributing to society and the economy by working rather than taking from it.
It should, however, be said that I think the minimum wage in America is unbelievably low. But whilst “thousands of people” are applying for jobs are Wal Mart the simple rule of supply and demand says that there is not and impetus to raise the pay.
I think the idea of a ‘better service’ is a relative one. Obviously there are different conceptions of this. I think there is a difference between the lowest price and a socially responsible operations, and while Wal-Mart may demonstrate a good service to the shopper at the front door and through their low-cost goods, the back end doesn’t always hold up the same standards. Their idea of a sustainable food-chain with low low price food doesn’t necessarily do the nation (the US), the human population or the ecology any good. As Michael Pollan has detailed in the NYTimes story Mass Natural, offering organic products like milk within 10% of their conventionally produced counterparts doesn’t necessarily make sense. Sometimes quality really does have to come at a price and as Pollan discusses, the idea of an ‘organic feedlot’ is disturbing.
Further, the fact that people have jobs is obviously a good thing, but Stern’s WSJ article implies that the jobs that Wal-Mart provides are good ones. Just because there is great demand doesn’t necessarily lead one to conclude that they’re actually good. Desperate people will go for anything. But this isn’t an argument that can ever really be concluded. It really relies on your personal approach to social welfare, treatment of workers, and whether you see a great company because of its profits and size or because of its many additional actions.
Parts of the (now subscriber only) article can be viewed at forwalmart.com