Damn right I support it.

WalMart is a two-edged sword ~ it does some wonderful things supporting neighborhoods and schools where it has stores ~ and it employs people who would likely be unemployable elsewhere ~ but those "pluses" are easily countered by its treatment of its employees ~

I fully support the employees' strike ~ and my support is bolstered by what I'm reading about WalMart's "retaliation" against employees ~

Sooz

I support whichever side is at an unfair disadvantage.
In this case, it's the union.

the Wal Mart model is really bad for America.

Both the "Wal Mart model" and the mindset, Mac ~ here's another example of the terrific work Melissa Harris-Perry has been doing this year ~ other "big big box" stores, like Costco, pay their employees much better in both wages and benefits ~ and carry better products too ~ Sooz

Harris-Perry guest: real job creators are ‘low-wage workers who spend every dime that they get’
By Samantha Kimmey
Sunday, November 25, 2012 18:34 EST

Melissa Harris-Perry and a panel on her MSNBC show on Nov. 25 discussed Wal-Mart, the recent Black Friday strikes, and whether Wal-Mart’s business model of low prices necessitates low wages.

Wal-Mart dismissed the protests as “grossly exaggerated” and called the walkouts “made for TV events.”

There are 200 million customers a week at the retail giant worldwide, many of whom, Harris-Perry said, depend on the company’s low prices.

“Their model seems like it works — at least by one measure,” she said, citing Wal-Mart’s $16 billion in earnings in 2011.

She said that the four Walton’s who rank in Forbes’ list of the wealthiest in the country are worth almost as much as the bottom half of all Americans.

But Harris-Perry said that their wealth comes at a price to taxpayers. One study found that California Wal-Mart workers were 40 percent more likely to be on public assistance, which costs taxpayers $86 million a year.

On the other hand, the liberal think tank Demos claims that it would cost each Wal-Mart shopper an extra $17 a year if the retailer paid all workers at least $25,000 in annual wages.

“While Wal-Mart may not be alone in its low-wage, minimal labor benefits practices, as the nation’s biggest player, it can set the standards that make the difference,” she said.

Moving to a discussion of Wal-Mart’s reaction to the strikes, organizer and author of Making Change at Walmart Dan Schlademan said that the hundreds of workers who went on strike or walked out this past weekend did so despite the possibility they would lose their jobs.

“When our largest private employer is attacking its workers for wanting free speech, we have to stand up against that,” he said.

Harris-Perry asked if people would now link Wal-Mart’s low prices to “a circumstance where taxpayers are subsidizing Walton’s billion dollars of profits.”

“The more that we can have a conversation about the employer role, it takes business, it takes government, it takes individuals to sort of create a social contract, a middle class in this country, and employers have simply walked away from that bargain,” and from accountability, said Heather McGee, vice president of policy and outreach of Demos.

She claimed one Demos study found that increasing minimum wages at the biggest retailers to $25,000 year would create 130,000 new jobs by putting more money in the pockets of the “real job creators in this country, the low-wage workers who spend every dime that they get.”

It would also “lift a million and a half people out of poverty or near poverty” and that if the retailers passed the entire cost of those wage increases to consumers, it would cost an additional thirty cents per shopping trip, she said.

Watch the clip, via MSNBC, below. [Sooz comment: clip accessible via end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/25/harris-perry-guest-real-job-creators-are-low-wage-workers-who-spend-every-dime-that-they-get/

Although I support the strike, I do wish to point out that many people shop at Wal-Mart because they cannot afford to shop anywhere else.

If workers' wages were raised, then their prices would need to go up.

If someone has many kids to support and they're doing so badly with their wages from Wal-Mart that their kids are on food stamps, perhaps they should find a job elsewhere?!

If someone has many kids to support and they're doing so badly with their wages from Wal-Mart that their kids are on food stamps, perhaps they should find a job elsewhere?!

If there were better jobs available elsewhere they would probably already have them.

I actually hate to go in Walmart. It is big and the lines are ridiculous and the cashiers are slow. However, I understand why people shop there. The selection is huge and they have low prices.

A friend's mother works there and I don't think she could work anywhere else. She works in the woman's department and takes the clothing out of the dressing rooms and hangs them back on the racks neatly. I think she probably stocks the racks etc too. Walmart health insurance has gotten her through a heart attack and the ensuing surgeries.

I don't know their benefit schedule. I read they pay on average between $10 and 12 an hour. It's not great, but do other chains pay more?

There are other companies whose business models allow offering low pricing, better products, and much better wages and benefits than WalMart, SciFi ~ CostCo is the first that jumps into my mind ~ yes, you pay an annual membership fee to shop at CostCo but that isn't true for Trader Joe's or for others who provide very low prices ~ check out the commentary in my post #6 above on the very small annual increase it would cost shoppers [$17/year] to pay WalMart employees a living wage ~

Sooz

The one thing that Walmart excels at is worker exploitation.

There is no membership fee for Trader Joe's. it is free and open to the public. Walmart has Sam's Club, which offers bulk items at lower prices than Walmart stores, but you need a membership also about $40/yr. I really enjoy Costco like you guys do, but I recognize that the merchandise is usually high quality, so even though it is cheaper than other stores, it does not offer the cheapest stuff. They have a lot of organic and natural food but it still costs more than the commercial junk you can buy at Walmart. Also, poor people cannot afford to buy in bulk. I get a year's supply of plastice bags for $10, but most poor people I know don't have $10 extra to buy plastic bags for a year so they buy the small box for $2.88 at Walmart.

I was going to discuss that I thought we were talking apples and oranges this morning but left it go.

There are no Trader Joe's or Costco's within an hour of my home. There is a Sam's Club and the only time I go to it is to buy Halloween candy in bulk. Most people are NOT interested in bulk.

Walmart's are everywhere and it allows people to purchase household staples at very low prices.

I don't like Walmart because it is crowded and horrible, however I understand why people shop there. They sell Tide for $5.99 and Target/K-mart/Acme sells it for $6.99. This isn't a one off. They sell most/all their staples at cheaper prices than their competitors so people congregate.

Are they good to their employees? I don't know their policies. I know someone was complaining that their part time employees didn't get health insurance if they work less than 24 hours. Shore Medical Center where I work has that exact policy and they hire a significant number of low wage employees for less than 24 hours without insurance, too. Orderlies, nurses aides and cleaning personnel are extremely hand cuffed, I don't think this issue is exclusive to Walmart.

Are they good to their employees? I don't know their policies. I know someone was complaining that their part time employees didn't get health insurance if they work less than 24 hours.

Precisely! Companies in every sector have been using this ploy to keep overhead costs down for at least two decades if not longer. When I worked part time at Kmart in the 70's, very few of their employees were full time and qualified for benefits. The hospital where I worked afterwards had almost exclusively part-time lab employees for the midnight shift. They paid a small shift differential, but no bennies. A lot of the staff used it as their second jobs, but those that depended on it for their main income were hooped and usually had other part time jobs. No benefits to be found in either.

Walmart had become the whipping boy because of their huge success. Had Kmart successfully outpaced Walmart in sales, they would have been "it".

We're so far behind the Scandinavians in social policy that it's embarrassing.

It is definitely not exclusive to WalMart, Kath ~ but WalMart is [I believe] the single-largest employer in the US, so its policies affect a whole lot more people than localized for- and non-profit businesses/hospitals ~ and you're right on the mark with the greater penetration of WalMart stores, especially in less urban areas ~ the Target stores around here are all adding large fresh/frozen food departments that are real competition for local chain groceries but at MUCH better pricing ~ and, according to my mom, Target has the best Rx prices too ~ but I again note that, according to the commentary I posted above, for an additional @$17/year [which breaks down to something like 30 cents per trip] from customers, WalMart employees could have an enhanced [above-poverty level] wage and benefits package ~

And if you really do go to Sam's ONLY to buy Halloween candy, even in the quantities you buy, then your Sam's membership cost eats any savings you might have had ~

Sooz

but I again note that, according to the commentary I posted above, for an additional @$17/year [which breaks down to something like 30 cents per trip] from customers, WalMart employees could have an enhanced [above-poverty level] wage and benefits package ~


But! Could they then afford to shop at Walmart or would they have to go elsewhere? I mean, their higher wages for higher costs especially if they have a growing family. For some people, even a marginal increase in prices could be deleterious, which would send many to shop other places, reduce Walmarts profits, who would then cut hours....

It's a vicious circle, imo, which is why places like Family Dollar are doing a brisk business. I wonder how much they pay?

We have 2 Wal-Marts within 40 minutes drive. We've been to one once and to the other twice in the 10+ years we.ve been here. I don't even know if we bought anything. I doubt it since I refuse to stand in line wasting my life away for the sake of a few cents.
Besides, there are other outlets with competetive prices and usually better quality.

Going through the flyers here, Walmart prices don't appear to be any lower or higher than any of the other big box stores or grocery stores. I don't shop there and so far, I haven't had need to. Also... their impact on the downtown of this little place has been negligible.

There aren't as many Costcos as there are Wal-Marts. Or even K-Marts. Most communities have a Wal-Mart, but not a Costco. Also, how much do Costco employees earn?

I don't know about other areas but in this small urual area, every store regardless of what kind of business it is.... Dollar General, Family Dollar, Walmart, and office assistants start at minimum wage. From what I hear regarding restaurants around here they are paid minimum wage but all tips have to be turned in and split evenly among all wait staff and even tips are turned in as income by the employer.

The market penetration difference, especially in less urban areas, is noted above SciFi ~ also noted is the membership cost for both Costco and Sam's, but none for Walmart ~ the following article from this past weekend clearly shows the real difference is in the business plans and, even more importantly, the mindsets of the owners/management ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

November 25, 2012 2:20 PM
The Walmart way is not the only way
By Kathleen Geier

To follow up on yesterday’s post about the Black Friday Walmart strikes, I wanted to write about an argument that Walmart and its apologists frequently make — namely, that so far as retail work goes, low wages are the nature of the beast, particularly for retailers that emphasize low prices. But that isn’t the way it has to be. Indeed, for some notable retail chains, that isn’t the way it is at all.

Two of my favorite stores in the world are Costco and Trader Joe’s. Like Walmart, they make a point of offering rock-bottom prices. But in total contrast to Walmart, which exploits its employees and sells cheap crap, Costco and Trader Joe’s feature high-quality products and treat their employees well. I love Costco and Trader Joe’s both for their delicious food items, especially their cheese and chocolate (the chocolate truffles I recently bought at Costco were were frighteningly good, and extremely popular at my family’s Thanksgiving feast this year). I also go to Costco to buy dog food (their house brand is very high quality, and astonishingly cheap) and to fill my prescriptions. Generic meds at Costco are dirt cheap, which has been a godsend for me during times when I’ve lacked health insurance.

I’ve often wondered how Costco and Trader Joe’s manage to simultaneously provide high quality and low prices, while treating their employees decently in the bargain. Recently I came across an article from earlier this year in the Harvard Business Review which explains why. It’s written by Zeynep Ton, a visiting assistant professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT. Ton looked at the practices of four retailers which not only have excellent labor records but also boast “the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors.”

Those retailers are Costco and Trader Joe’s; QuikTrip, an American convenience store chain; and Mercadona, a Spanish supermarket. Here’s how employee compensation at these companies stacks up, vs. the competitors:


How can these retailers afford to pay their employees so much more and still remain competitive? Ton found that with these retailers, there is a sort of “virtuous circle” in effect. A high labor budget leads to adequate staffing levels and high-performing employees, which in turn leads to good operational execution, resulting in high sales and healthy profits. By contrast, retailers like Walmart are stuck in a vicious cycle, where low labor budgets lead to poorly trained, poorly motivated, understaffed workforces, which then leads to poor operational execution, all too predictably resulting in poor sales and razor-thin profit margins.

Here are more of the specifics of what Ton found:

— Investing in employees pays off. Retail work is much more complex than you might think, and well-paid, well-trained employees will perform much better at job functions like stocking products, deciding where to place products (which is surprisingly important), and answering customer’s questioners. Stores which perform better at tasks like these tend to be significantly more profitable.

— Investing in employees tends to lower turnover, which reduces recruiting and training costs.

— The business models of the four retailers Ton studied differs from the standard one. They offer fewer products, which lowers prices and simplifies the operating environment for store employees, causing them to be more efficient.

— The four retailers Ton studied cross-train their employees, so that employees can be kept busy doing other things (taking inventory rather than checking out customers, for example) during slow business periods. This boosts morale by alleviating the need for the employer to lay off employees or cut their hours.

— These retailers also streamline and standardize as many processes as possible, so as to eliminate waste. For example, Costco and Trader Joe’s purchase products directly from the manufacturers and get them into stores via their own distribution centers.

— They let employees make small decisions, such as how much of an item to order for their store. There are certain things that local employees will have a better handle on than the regional folks.

Most of this stuff is not rocket science, and many of these practices could easily be adapted by other retailers, without too much difficulty. As for the rest, well, it’s true that it would be a major break with standard practices if retailers began offering far fewer products than they do currently. But would that be so bad? Who needs fifty different kinds of toothpaste, anyway? There’s even a body of research that suggests that that kind of choice overload makes us more anxious rather more happy.

Even without changing its basic model, Walmart could simply increase wages without negatively affecting consumers all that much. Researchers at the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California at Berkeley recently found that if Walmart were to increase the minimum wage paid to all its workers to $12 per hour, and passed 100% of the cost to consumers, it would cost the average Walmart consumer only $12.49 per year.

I’m certain that Costco and Trader Joe’s, like every workplace, have their share of problems. By no means do I mean to suggest that they are ideal employers. But I have to say, my shopping experiences there have been uniformly pleasant. Their workers, from the people stocking the shelves at Trader Joe’s to ladies offering samples of tasty treats at Costco, have been friendly and helpful. Some of them even seem to be having fun.

This a notable contrast with another retailer where I regularly shop, albeit guiltily, because I know they don’t treat their employees much better than Walmart does. This retailer — for the purposes of this post I’ll call them MoreGet — tends to be so understaffed that when I need help, locating an employee who can assist me can be a challenge. And even when I manage to get a hold of one, they frequently give me the wrong information. I don’t blame the employees, because they clearly seem overworked and overwhelmed, and I’m assuming undertrained as well. Wouldn’t these employees be doing their job a lot better if their employers paid them more, trained them better, and treated them like human beings? And wouldn’t we as customers be enjoying a far more satisfying shopping experience, and be spending many more of our hard-earned dollars there as a result? I know I would. Is this simple lesson so hard for the nation’s retailers to get?

(Note: this post has been updated to reflect that Walmart is no longer spelled with a hyphen between the l and the m. D’oh!)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_11/the_walmart_way_is_not_the_onl041379.php#more

Good points. Trader Joe's is one of the most enjoyable places to shop. Everyone I have ever visited has been packed with people and there is always someone happy and helpful within arm's reach, and they always open more registers when lines form. They thank you for helping with bagging. They have many products that you cannot get elsewhere and you get addicted to. They have lots of all natural, organic, and fair trade products, and the same things cost less than they do at Whole Foods. I've been in TraderJoe's in six states and the experience is always good. I especially like the states where you can purchase beer, wine, and spirits , and in San Francisco they had a large deli counter which the tiny TJs up here in the East do not have.

For those of us fortunate enough to be able to choose Trader Joe's or Costco, I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't. But there is a large part of the population that need Walmart's prices. But I think that the $12/yr for them to offer better working conditions would not be that noticeable, and could easily be tacked on to the higher end items that people with a little more cash will be buying.

The Business Plans for Trader Joe's and Costco are significantly different than Walmart's because their products and clientelle are also very different. Isn't Trader Joe's a more upscale grocery store and Costco a nicer Sam's Club? I have to drive an hour to either.

I find myself defending Walmart and I don't even LIKE Walmart. I think the Walton family could pay their employees subsistence wages and provide benefits without passing the expense back to the customers.

That said in NJ or MD you are still going to qualify for foodstamps and subsidized school lunches if you are a single mother working with that salary of just under $25K. One of the reasons the employees are not jubilant in Walmart is because the store is CROWDED and the customers are cranky and rude. My friend's mom works in the woman's clothing department and the people trying on leave clothing items on the floor in a ball and if something falls off the hanger while the prospector customer is examing it, "Oh well."

they absolutely could. it would mean giving up a bit on margin, but that is what a good corporate citizen would do.

draw your own conclusions from that.