As Wal-Mart goes, so goes the nation.Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in our country, the biggest single importer from China, and for many vendors, their biggest buyer. For many towns, Wal-Mart is the only name in town - when it comes to getting a job, or purchasing goods.
This is an important thread discussing some of the most vital issues in this country today: corporate welfare, unemployment, living wages, unions, benefits for employees - and how Wal-Mart is twisting the rules of our system to the breaking point.
We are now a country where the richest 1% of the people control more wealth than the other 95% - a gap that has been growing for the past several decades, aided and abetted by twisted priorities and laws designed to reward the bean-counters and the share-holders and the corporate execs while punishing the people who do the actual work of making, supplying and selling products we all need and want.
This thread is about where we want to go as a country - do we want to be like Henry Ford, who paid his workers enough so that they could buy the same products they manufactured?
Or do we want to be a nation of borderline slave-laborers trapped by unemployment in low-paying jobs that pay a pittance while wreaking havoc on our ability to nurture ourselves and our families?
Are we going to continue to fall for the right-wing's carefully planted whispers about "welfare queens" and fail to see the corporate welfare handed out to rich CEOs and shareholders?
Are we going to continue to "blame the victims" and say there's "nothing we can do" because technically no laws are being violated - or are we going to change our laws and our customs to bring them in line with our morals and beliefs?
Up until now, people have only been focusing on how Wal-Mart trains its managers in union-busting, arm-twists its suppliers down to razor-thin profit margins, and exploits its workers, paying them below-subsistence wages, making them work overtime for free, sometimes even locking them in the store - as if they were slaves. All in the name of the great ideals of "shareholder value" and fat CEO paychecks - thousands of times fatter than the miserable pittance its hard-working employees take home.
Now a new accusation has been leveled at Wal-Mart - someone has gone and calculated just how much "corporate welfare" is being handed out to this giant - nearly half a million dollars per year per store in the form of public subsidies to cover the shortfall due to Wal-Mart's low wages - and that's not even counting all the tax breaks this chain also receives from municipalities desperate to coax an employer, any employer into their town.
It is unfortunate that with these weighty issues at stake, some choose to distract and confuse the argument - desperately trying to misapply classic right-wing smear tactics of "blaming the victim" instead of honestly trying to figure out what is wrong with our system and how we can fix it.
This could have been a very important, informative thread, and it still can be - if we choose to focus on the real issues at hand, and start looking for solutions, whether they be legislated or voluntary.
For the first time since Herbert Hoover, we have a president who is presiding over a net loss of jobs. We have a president who lies about the budget, omitting all funding for the wars he started - beefing up only domestic surveillance, law enforcement, and defense - and cutting all other spending programs.
We have a president (our first Harvard MBA president, by the way) who makes phony election-year job growth projections and then withdraws them, embarrassed, the next day, passing the buck as usual and blaming the "number-crunchers," saying "I'm not a statistician". (Note to George - perhaps you could HIRE a statistician. I bet they'd be willing to work for cheap, in this "jobless recovery" you created.)
We have government economic advisors who are now telling us that outsourcing jobs overseas is somehow "good" for our economy.
For the first time in history, we have a budget projecting trillions of dollars in shortfalls - but containing pictures of the president striking presidential poses, instead of the usual sober economic graphs and charts.
And, on this important thread, we have a long-time DU poster named 'outinforce' - who has a pretty interesting take on how poor individuals one paycheck away from poverty should stand up to the largest employer in the world during these times of rampant unemployment:
A Hit Parade of Outrageous Quotes from 'outinforce''outinforce':
How is it, exactly, that Walmart forces anyone to accept its offers of employment?>> Um, gee, I don't know - maybe there's no other jobs around during this "jobless recovery"? Ever heard of "supply and demand"?
'outinforce':
Why is it, exactly, that in any given labor market, Walmart is able to entice people to work for it, when those same people could just as easily go to work, at higher wages, at other grocery stores or at filling stations or at the local Ben and Jerry's outlet?>> Um, gee, I don't know - maybe those other stores aren't hiring?
{Aside: I might remind outinforce that just because the sentence "those same people could just as easily go to work at higher wages ... at Ben & Jerry's" is grammatically correct doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the real world. (Posts on political bulletin boards, outinforce, are generally expected to be both syntactically well-formed AND semantically sound - meaning they should not only take into account the rules of English but also the currently prevailing economic conditions.)}
'outinforce':
Accepting employment knowing that it will not provide the means to live independently is just ripping off the taxpayers.
Especially if, by withholding your labor from a company that offers employment at a wage and benefit level that does not permit people to live independently, you could compel that company to offer higher wages or to go out of business.>> Hear that everybody? If you're tired of flipping burgers or working the night shift at Wal-Mart for so little money you can't feed yourself - here's a simple way to fight back:
withhold your labor!
'outinforce':
I might suggest that we ought to criminalize accepting employment from an employer, if accepting the wage and benefits package offered causes a person to need to apply for government benefits.>> Now the libertarian or free-market-theorist shows his stripes - let's punish the victim! Lock 'em up! (Those dumb Wal-Mart employees - not the miserly CEO.)
It's that poor unemployed slob's fault that the bean-counters at Wal-Mart are overpaying their execs and overpaying their shareholders and underpaying their suppliers and underpaying (and imprisoning, and union-busting) their employees. So arrest the employees, says 'outinforce'!
Also note that 'outinforce' is quite willing to engage in some legislative activism here - toying with the idea of changing the laws - when it might involve locking up Wal-Mart employees. However, 'outinforce' is adamantly against having a discussion about changing our laws to do things like providing a living wage or universal healthcare. A bit inconsistent here - all rah-rah about locking up those pitiful employees, but heaven forbid we could tinker with corporate profits or corporate freedom via our laws.
Seems like 'outinforce' - like many right-wingers - LOVES corporations but hates individual people.
'outinforce':
Depending upon the circumstances, locking employees inside a store may or may not be illegal.>> Slight change here, 'outinforce' - think you should really say ALWAYS illegal - unless you want to un-amend the Constitution to allow slavery again.
'outinforce':
The fact that Walmart has been sued for violating the ADA and for harassing Black patrons is related to how it sets base wages and benefits for its employees how? Because Walmart does something illegal, we are supposed to draw an inference about its wages?>> Sure, why not. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
'outinforce':
Where did I get the odd idea that business are responsible for those they didn't hire?
Simple.
From the same place someone got the notion that a business is responsible for pay and benefits they did not give {to people they DID hire}.>> {No comment. Priceless. This is part of outinforce's nonsensical aside about how people who don't work at Ben & Jerry's are in some mysterious way similar to people who DO work at Wal-Mart.}
'outinforce':
It seems to me that if an employer were to offer me a employment package that included an application for foodstamps, I would shove it right back at the employer, and say something like, "Thank You very much, but I am going to go find an employer that will pay me a decent wage and offer me a decent benefit package in exchange for my labor".>> Unless of course you're in a town with a 30% unemployment rate. (As revcarol posts elsewhere: "Try that in Grant County New Mexico where the unemployment rate is 30%, that's THIRTY PER CENT!! We had 200 people show up for one part-time job at the Dollar Store.") That old "supply and demand" thing you might want to read up on, 'outinforce' - when you have some time off from reading "
in both English and French -- what JJR {Jean-Jacques Rousseau} had to say about social contracts." Touché!
'outinforce':
B&J's made a business decision not to hire more people than it thinks it needs in order to maximize its profit. Walmart made a business decision to offer employment at a wage and benefit level that it thinks will maximize its profit.
Why is it that B&J's business decision is more "virtuous" than that of Walmart?>> Um, gee... I don't know... maybe because the phantom people B&J didn't hire DON'T HAVE TO SHOW UP FOR WORK? No skin off their back! Whereas the people Wal-Mart hired and underpaid are borderline slaves, giving their labor and not getting paid enough to eat.
'outinforce':
It would seem to me that the real culprits here are the people who willingly line up to work for WalMart.>> Those annoying burger-flippers and underpaid service-sector workers! If they just wouldn't stop driving down wages by lining up around the block whenever a new job is offered! Stay at home when they publish those help-wanted ads - that'll show those cheap bosses!
On a serious note - they could always form a union and try to leverage their strength in numbers against their cheap employers. But scratch that - Wal-Mart is also the nation's biggest union-buster (see below for info and links - which 'outinforce' conveniently omits from his/her factless, fantasy-filled posts filled with hypothetical questions about the phantom employees Ben and Jerry didn't hire).
'outinforce':
The workers who line up to take a job at WalMart could, it seems to me, just as easily withhold their labor, and thereby either force WalMart out of business or to raise the wage and benefit levels at which they employ people.>> Brilliant! What a concept! "Withhold your labor"! Think it will catch on? (You may have heard of another arcane economic tool called a "strike", 'outinforce'. However, in order to call a strike, you need to have a "union" - which Wal-Mart busted - so maybe this isn't such a good idea. Not to mention that 'outinforce' isn't even proposing that employees "withhold their labor" - no, 'outinforce' is saying that PROSPECTIVE employees should "withhold their labor"!)
'outinforce':
No one forces them to take a job with Walmart, do they?>> Nope. Unless you count that "Invisible Hand"... and that 30% unemployment rate in some towns... and the fact that Wal-Mart closed all the other stores down with its cut-throat sourcing and dumping...
'outinforce':
You say that Walmart will not "let" its employees organize? Will not "let"? What exactly do you mean? >> It's called "union-busting". It's been in the news a lot lately. Here's a link in case you missed the news.
http://www.union-network.org/UNIsite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Wal-Mart_HQ_leads_union_busting.htmFrom this website:
"It is a pattern of contempt for this nation's labor laws that shows how low Wal-Mart will stoop to keep its workers from exercising their right to have a Union," {says one organizer}
The barebones of the anti-union strategy can be found in Wal-Mart's three basic anti-union manuals for "supervisors," which are available on-line at www.walmartyrs.org and www.walmartworkerslv.com
"Wal-Mart must respond to this type of union activity {signing cards to authorize an NLRB election} immediately in an effort to stop the card signing before the required 30% signatures have been obtained," says Wal-Mart's "Manager's Toolbox To Remaining Union Free," which is given to supervisors. There you have it. The meaning of "will not let". Complete with Wal-Mart websites containing manuals giving their supervisors step-by-step instructions how to engage in union busting.
'outinforce':
Unions come into the workplace when enough employees vote them in. If that hasn't happened at Walmart, it is either because the employees like the conditions that Walmart provides or because Walmart is engaging in prohibited personnel practices.>> See above. You stand corrected, 'outinforce', n'est-ce pas?
'outinforce':
What I don't like are employees who are being abused -- and who simply put up with it. They enable the bad behavior of the employer, and allow the employer to afflict that abuse on others.>> Oh those pesky willing victims. Bringing everything on themselves, enabling their attackers.
'outinforce':
There is no Union at Walmart. Why not?>> Again. See above. Took me about 10 seconds to find this on google: "Wal-Mart union busting".
'outinforce':
By remaining Walmart employees -- in the face of severe abuse, Walmart employees enable the behavior of Walmart.>> Just like those slaves back in the day. Why, all they had to do was quit picking that cotton and demand their rights. Just like those abused women who don't throw themselves in the street.
Another political concept you might want to study up on 'outinforce' is the notion of "power". As in, "Wal-Mart has a lot of power" because they are a big corporation with a lot of money and a lot of buying power and a lot of city-hall connections most likely and lots of lawyers and operatives and with this power they are able to strong-arm a lot of weaker parties, such as union-busted employees and hungry suppliers.
To review: "power", "union busting" and "supply and demand" - three core concepts which your posts would lead one to believe you know very little about, 'outinforce'. I guarantee, once you learn a bit about these three fundamental concepts, you will be able to comment much more cogently on politics and economics in the future.
'outinforce':
An employee may not be able to leave right away, but if s/he remains at Walmart for a long period of time, I would suggest that s/he has made her/himself a willing victim of Walmart's practices.>> Interesting that this is the FIRST time 'outinforce' takes care to use the gender-neutral pronoun, he/she - instead of just saying "he". Take a look at our next quote - a real thriller if you're an armchair psychiatrist:
'outinforce':
I guess Walmart and its employees are in a very co-dependent relationship. Walmart is the abuser and the employees are the enablers.>> Hmm... just out of curiosity 'outinforce' - could I ask what you think of those battered women who just can't bring themselves to leave house and home (and children) and just keep on taking a beating? "Willing victims"?
'outinforce':
If Walmart is doing something illegal, then it is up to those employees to exercise the rights that the law gives them to file an unfair labor practice charge against Walmart -- and make it stick.>> Or maybe it's up to some DUers to make those accusations against Wal-Mart. Which is what we're trying to do here. Most of us, that is.
'outinforce':
If Walmart is so strong, so powerful, so, so omnipotent that it can force adult human beings to consent to work under the most deplorable conditions, and cow those employees into total and abject submission, then I'm really afraid there is little someone like I can do -- for I am only one person, and I would hate to have Walmart on my case....who knows what they might do to me? What could I do -- one lone person -- if all of the employees of Walmart have been unable to stop Walmart?>> Now you know how a lot of those "willing victim" Wal-Mart employees must feel. And it's even tougher for them - their jobs and livelihoods are actually on the line. If you're afraid to speak out from the comfort of your own keyboard - imagine how terrified they must be. Another reason why it's important for people at DU to have a cogent discussion about this problem and look for some solutions.
'outinforce':
Walmart is just too powerful for me to do anything. I guess I just have to live with the situation, much as it pains me to do so.>> Sorry you feel so... impotent, 'outinforce'. Others on this bulletin board don't feel like you though - the basic premise of this bulletin board is that we can call attention to this issue, rally some support, and maybe things will start to change.
If you aren't part of the solution - then you don't have to compound the problem by piling on, blaming the victims as you do.
When you see a crime in progress, or a legal but outrageous act being committed, it is possible that you may feel helpless to personally step in a put a stop to it yourself.
That still leaves you another option though: speak up - calling the authorities or someone else who IS strong enough to step in.
Oh, I forgot, if you're 'outinforce' there's another option you have also when you feel too weak to step in a stop an outrage from taking place: you can cheer on the perpetrator, or blame the victim - or try to argue and interfere with the brave, committed people who ARE trying to step and or notify the authorities.
If you feel helpless against Wal-Mart, that's perhaps understandable. Perhaps you should simply stand aside then and let others with a better understanding of concepts like "union-busting" and "supply and demand" and "power" do something.
If you don't feel strong enough to fight the good fight or even speak up, 'outinforce' - stand aside and stop interfering with people who ARE trying to do something positive.
'outinforce':
So if I point out that Walmart's actions are legal, what conclusion do you think I might want you to draw?
That I think Walmart's actions are OK? Point out where I have ever "defended" Walmart, other then to suggest that Walmart's actions are perfectly legal.
Do you not consider the possibility that by pointing out that the actions that Walmart is taking are legal, I might want a reader to conclude that legislative action might be necessary?>> Well - it's nice to see that as of post 240 you're finally coming around somewhat, 'outinforce'.
But come on, we're not mind-readers - we had NO IDEA you wanted the reader to conclude that legislative action might be the necessary! Who knew! Why didn't you ever say so! Don't be shy, this is a bulletin board, and you're anonymous, and nobody from Wal-Mart is gonna come and git you if you suggest that a law ought to be passed or pressure should be brought to bear on Wal-Mart to fix this mess.
Progress might actually be made if enough people - like these brave, generous DUers - actually criticize Wal-Mart's actions and try to think up what sort of legislative or voluntary solutions might be appropriate. Such as bringing our laws more closely in line with our notions of "social contract". Such as looking at a moral side to this issue rather than just the legalistic bottom-line you have been insisting is the ONLY dimension for so long.
This is a difficult problem, because it appears Wal-Mart usually isn't breaking {m}any laws, because Wal-Mart is very powerful, because the economy is very weak and people are very desperate. I can understand that you might be at a loss as to what to do. What I cannot understand is why you are wasting everyone's time and distracting people's attention from the real issues, when you admit that you have no idea what to do.
'outinforce':
And I believe that if you read through my posts a bit more closely, you will find that I have said in at least two or three different posts, that I do not condone what Walmart is doing.>> Well. It's mighty big of you to finally say that, 'outinforce'. Thank you so much for finally expressing (after dozens of posts which took this important thread seriously off-track) the fact that you "do not condone what Wal-Mart is doing".
= = =
We'll be polite here and summarize your vast verbiage with your
one useful aperçu:
'outinforce':
"I do not condone what Walmart is doing"Bravo! Thank you for your timely input, 'outinforce' - in post # 242 of this thread. Finally, you said what's on your mind. See - that didn't hurt now, did it? And if you had done that way back in your first post instead of in post #242 - just think of how much valuable
time you could have saved yourself, and me, and all these other busy people here at DU.
= = =
A modest proposalNow - one small hypothetical question. What do you condone "less", as it were:
- what Walmart is doing
or
- what its "willing victims" have been doing?
Seems to me you've been complaining pretty mightily all through this thread about the stupid things its "willing victims" have been doing. Whereas we had to wait all the way till your last post to finally hear that - lo and behold - you "do not condone what Wal-Mart is doing".
Go ahead, don't be afraid, come out in force, 'outinforce', just like the rest of us - only against Wal-Mart this time, not against its "willing victims":
Just for argument's sake, imagine a free society, not a monarchy (your training in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau - in French and English - may help you here) - a free society whose laws are formulated (and re-formulated over time) by the openly expressed will of the people and by their duly elected legislators in accordance with their sense of justice and morality.
Imagine further that there is a situation in such a free society under law where an outrage against morality (or at least against economics) is being perpetrated by a powerful institution against weak or nearly defenseless victims - but technically no law is being broken.
What would you do in this sort of situation? Would you speak out against the perpetrator and try to drum up support for bringing your society's laws and customs more in line with its morals - or would you pile on and blame the victims and try to distract the people who ARE trying to speak up and revise the laws and customs?= = =
(We return you now to your regularly-scheduled thread. Let's put these distractions peddled by 'outinforce' to rest and talk about the real issues now: corporate welfare, living wages, union-busting, employee compensation, universal healthcare - and the bigger question of what kind of society we
want to be - not what kind of society we could get away with being without technically violating {m}any laws.)