i didn't really need anything else.
But here is another reason that proves Wal-mart sucks...
Most businesses on the Gulf Coast are giving their employees two weeks' worth of pay. In most cases, there isn't even a place to go to work.
In fact, Harrah's is giving their employees 90 days' worth of pay, and paying their health insurance premiums.
Wal-mart (where, if you'll note, most workers are paid BELOW THE POVERTY LINE) is just giving the three days' worth of pay. From the most profitable retailer in the country. Nice.
Most businesses on the Gulf Coast are giving their employees two weeks' worth of pay. In most cases, there isn't even a place to go to work.
In fact, Harrah's is giving their employees 90 days' worth of pay, and paying their health insurance premiums.
Wal-mart (where, if you'll note, most workers are paid BELOW THE POVERTY LINE) is just giving the three days' worth of pay. From the most profitable retailer in the country. Nice.
posted by erika @ 4:23 PM
6 Comments:
At 1:43 PM,
BubbaJoe said…
Millions of people are paid below hte poverty line, yet you choose to pick on Wal-mart. I just don't understand this obsession. Why not go yell at the people that bring in illegals and pay them pennies an hour? Hmmm... Why is Wal-mart evil for paying their employees what is required, yet people along the Mexican border who purposely feed on the problems if illegal aliens don't raise a flag with you.
I'll tell you why, because you have never lived in poverty. You need to go live off a Wal-mart paycheck, and then feel free to judge the companies that pay their employees exactly what is required. I admit that right now I have a great job with a solid pay, but I have been in the minimum wage world and I know how hard it is to live under those circumstances. If you had any such understanding you would not be so quick to judge institutions like Wal-mart.
Someone better yank this soap box out from under me, before I hurt anyone... =/
At 9:24 AM,
GiromiDe said…
Wal-Mart is successful because people shop there. We have only ourselves to blame.
At 1:15 PM,
Anonymous said…
Since you asked, Bubbajoe, here's one of many reasons to pick on Wal-Mart out of all the companies who pay below the poverty line:
It's not just a question of pay--it's a question of treatment. I invite you to do some research on how Wal-Mart employees are treated as being less than human. In their overseas sweatshops, employees (indentured servants, more accurately) are often locked in without air-conditioning for twenty hour shifts. Women are subject to mandatory pregnancy tests and their are age limits on who can work on those sweatshops--heaven forbid they get too old and tired to meet quota. Many of the workers are under eighteen. I've many a time heard the argument that people working in sweatshops overseas depend on their meagre income, and so the sweatshops are necessary because they wouldn't have that income otherwise. While I'll concur that it's a logical argument (albeit the morality of it is questionable), that doesn't excuse the poor treatment of the people working there. It wouldn't put a dent in Wal-Mart's pocket to provide air-conditioning, nor would it cost them much to hire more workers so that each only had a shift of eight hours. People working in their factories actually have to ask permission to use the restroom. That's the difference. And other companies are just as bad as Wal-Mart (such as Nike) and I boycott them as well.
And I'll also tell you why the 18 million dollars Wal-Mart donated isn't as good as it seems: first, they get a tax break. A huge one. Second, they get publicity. Third, that $18 million doesn't even begin to break even with all the damage they've done as far as hurting employees and putting people out of business (and thus costing so many people their jobs). Over the fifteen or so years Wal-Mart's been in existence, they've done far more than $18 million worth of damage.
Also, I'm not to blame for the existence of Wal-Mart. I don't shop there.
And I'm somewhat confused, Bubbajoe, by your argument that we shouldn't judge Wal-Mart until we know what it's like to work there and live below the poverty line. I'm not judging Wal-Mart's employees--on the contrary, I'm against the company's poor treatment of its workers and I believe all of its employees deserve a higher wage. No, people who pick on Wal-Mart are against the corporation itself, against those who've become rich by exploiting others and who continue to keep others in poverty so that they may remain rich.
This is why we "pick" on Wal-Mart.
At 1:49 PM,
BubbaJoe said…
Wal-mart is providing a service. That service is to employ MILLIONS of people here and abroad and establish a retail establishment that is affordable for the minimumm wage person.
I cannot see how you can boycot every company that exploits manual labor in some respect. EVERY MAJOR CORPORATION does it. So unless you only purchase home made ssandals, socks that you have woven yourself, and clothing that is second hand grocery bags, you are supporting some level of exploitation.
My point about living below the poverty line, is simply this. If you ever had to scrap together enough change to buy some Top Raman for dinner, you would understand the SERVICE that Wal-mart provides, which is employment.
You make it seem like those people that work in their 'sweat shops' (assuming this is how it happens, which to date I have seen no proof) are fine financially, and thus are not reduced to working there. This is the worst of the worst. People do not sign up for this work unless they have no other choice to survive. You make it sound like Wal-mart drops into a country, buys out all of its other industries and forces every citizen to work for them. The work may not be great, but they are providing work for those that have none.
I just thought you were less naive to think that other companies don't exploit their employees on some level.
At 7:05 AM,
Anonymous said…
And then there are simple economics:
http://www.fastcompany.com/
magazine/77/walmart.html
Sorry for the link wrap. Wanted to make sure it fit.
At 9:48 AM,
Anonymous said…
Bubbajoe,
I think there's more agreement between us than you see--I'm not, nor is anyone else, protesting people who work at Wal-Mart. On the contrary, I understand that those who work in sweatshops have no other choice. THAT is precisely why I'm against the company--they know that they're employees need what little they give them. The company is so rich and they can choose to pay their employees better but they don't. Why don't they? Because they don't have to.
I'm not judging anyone who works for Wal-Mart or shops at Wal-Mart--I don't live very much above the poverty line, myself, and I understand that when you have very little money, you have no choice but to live by the cheapest means. That, again, is my argument against all the CEOs and people in charge of the company--they know this and take advantage of this. It's not a matter of "in order to provide cheap goods, we have to pay low wages to these people"--no, the company makes enough money to *at the very least* not require 20-hour work days. *At the very least* they can pay their female and male workers equally (don't worry, I'll be providing a link at the end of this post to provide some back-up to my claims of how Wal-Mart treats its employees).
But again, I don't judge anyone who works there because they need a job, and I don't judge anyone who shops there. And your point that every major corporation exploits labor--yes, that's true and that's why we all have a responsibility to inform ourselves so we, as individuals, can make choices. Solving the exploitation problem is much bigger than Wal-Mart; for one thing, our minimum wage is not a living wage. For another thing, it should be law that American companies have a responsibility to not subject their foreign employees to worse working conditions than their American employees (and the only reason American employees aren't subject to as horrid conditions is that there are laws regulating minimum standards).
Furthermore, Wal-Mart isn't the only company I boycott. And I'm also against the all-or-nothing mentality. No, I can't boycott every single company that exploits its workers. But doing what I can is better than doing nothing--especially because change often has to come gradually. And because Wal-Mart exploits its employees in worse ways than any other company I know of, I choose to boycott them first.
But the argument against Wal-Mart has never been a personal attack on those who have no choice but to work or shop there. It's on behalf of people who are forced into working for Wal-Mart that people choose to boycott the company.
Since I'm technologically inept, and don't know how to create a hyperlink, go here: http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_actions/walmart_workers_campaign_info/facts_and_figures/index.cfm
There's some stats and facts about Wal-Mart on that site.
Also, if anyone's interested, nosweatapparel.com sells sweatshop-free clothing (and provides links to other sites that do so).
Post a Comment
<< Home