Rollback America: Wal-Mart Undermines Workers' Rights

Top 3. Jan 27, 2004 5:04 PM

» AgentSun - Re: Walmart

In response to message posted by malthus6:

Though Wal-Mart has good prices and efficiency written in its name, the thing it is best at is driving smaller privately owned businesses out of business. And with the advent of the Wal-Mart Superstore opening here and there (i have one in town and it's the most popular place for us collegians to shop for food), you have an eventual closing of all small businesses, some of which are only surviving because of their patrons who have long had nowhere else to go.
Small communities thrive on small businesses. Backyard Cookout Day at a neighbor's house will eventually get overshadowed if Disneyland decides to add a theme park right next door. That is just the way things are.

Now the second issue at hand is the fact that Wal-Mart is unethical in it's employee practices. Minors working is fine, but to violate the state and federal laws that determine how long they work and how hard, that isn't right. But the reality is, one must survey the kinds of people who usually work at Wal-Mart. This is not meant to offend, but go ahead. Go to Wal-Mart and survey the employees. Yes, many of them are middle aged, middle class homeowners, male and female. But the majority of them are either high school to college age or elderly.

This is a slight generalization, since I am only basing this from observations of a new area stores. But on the whole, you're going to find that not many of them are college-educated, if they are not too old. Either they're in high school or they're elderly. Now, one must survey the motives for working at Wal-Mart. High school and college students aren't being counted because their education IS their job. But unfortunately (and this may be a slight generalization, i don't mean to offend) those who tend to work at Wal-Mart are the ones that are struggling for money, somewhere approaching a substantial poverty line, or are in a lower middle class economic state.

"Wal-Mart officials insist that most of the alleged violations were simply due to employees’ failure to clock out for breaks and meals. "

That quote to me sounds like Wal-Mart wants to blame their "uneducated" and "irresponsible" employees for not sticking with the state and federal guidelines that they themselves were supposed to enforce. And it's definitely not a stretch to think that a large corporation such as Wal-Mart would lie and cheat their way into intimidating their employees to work longer and harder without being recognized for it. Saying something akin to "it's not our fault you can't clock out" seems to make them look snobby and arrogant, as if they believe their employees are only working at their local Wal-Mart because they are the losers of their generation who haven't risen to the top like they have.

another thing is the fact that a look at the economic status of Wal-Mart employees would reveal the fact that many of them just can't afford not to work. if they need the money, they will be very hard to convince to say something against the idea of working. that is, if they get paid for it.

-- posted by AgentSun

Top 4. Jan 27, 2004 7:51 PM

» malthus6 - Re: Re: Walmart

In response to message posted by mswogger:

Michael, I am an old man and I live in a retirement community. Most of the people who reside here vote Republican, support Bush's war, and so called "free trade". To them it would be an unforgiveable sin to interfere in any way with the unrestricted actions of corporations, however immoral.

I know that is defeatist.

I think that when the people have no bread and our rulers suggest they eat cake, that the matter will straighten itself out, though I fear, not without bloodshed.

-- posted by malthus6

Top 5. Jan 28, 2004 7:22 AM

» mswogger - Re: Re: Re: Walmart

In response to message posted by malthus6:

Sounds like you're kind of a fish out of water there. It often surprises me that even the people of the Depression-WWII generation can be so unabashedly pro-corporation and conservative when it comes to workers' rights. That era itself defined workers' rights through the New Deal labor legislation brought on by the most timultuous period of labor unrest in American history. But I understand your position. It can often seem bleak. But what of the rest of your community? No doubt the folks in your retirement community don't plan on seeking employment at WalMart. Is the rest of the area as conservative?

-- posted by mswogger

Top 6. Jan 28, 2004 7:28 AM

» mswogger - AgentSun

In response to message posted by AgentSun:

I really don't disagree with the substance of any of your points. They simply tend to coalesce with my article. You point out that:

But unfortunately (and this may be a slight generalization, i don't mean to offend) those who tend to work at Wal-Mart are the ones that are struggling for money, somewhere approaching a substantial poverty line, or are in a lower middle class economic state.

Well that's basically correct. You're not going to find many wealthy folks working for WalMart, unless they are just working for something to do. The problem is, as I have pointed out, that WalMart's ability to determine "acceptable" wages nationwide is having the effect of driving folks out of the middle class into poverty wages. Then, it seems to me, those very people will then be castigated for needing public subsidy by those who favor WalMart's right to keep wages low. In the meantime, WalMart corporare will simply get richer off of them.

-- posted by mswogger

Top 7. Jan 28, 2004 12:53 PM

» malthus6 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Walmart

In response to message posted by mswogger:

Michael, this is a community with about 13,000 population carved out of six square miles of woodland. It has (at last count) seven golf courses and I suppose the mean home value would run about 150 thousand.

But surprisingly, our Democratic club has over a hundred members and I know several closet liberals, who simply don't want to argue.

I have always felt like an "observer", interested in how things will work out and whether justice will be served. Will wealth continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands with the middle class disappearing and the ranks of the poor growing ever larger? How long will this process continue? And will it end under the leadership of a Lenin? Or a FDR?

-- posted by malthus6

Top 8. Feb 3, 2004 4:36 PM

» Red - Walmart in Ontario...

Michael,

I have heard so much about the evils of Walmart in the US, so have done some research here in Ontario. The workers I have spoken to have nothing but praise for their employer. They do admit that the wages aren't terrific, but since Ontario's minimum wage has just gone up to $7.15, they are making more than they were at Christmas. However, Walmart in Ontario has profit sharing and so the employees (after a certain time frame) get a check in December that can amount to thousands.

The clerks here tell me that they always get their breaks and lunch hours and are always paid overtime. This is probably because of Ontario's Labor Laws, which are fairly strict about what employers can and cannot do. If there is a complaint, the employer is investigated immediately and are subject for large fines if not following the Labor Laws.

The one thing that I do know about Walmart here, is that they don't have unions. Possibly the US States need stricter Labor Laws. I know in Arkansas, which is the home of Walmart's head office, that employees are treated terribly. It's time that Arkansas, as well as other states, takes a look at their Labor Laws and stops the exploitation of the people who work hard for their living.

-- posted by Red

Top 9. Feb 3, 2004 5:12 PM

» mswogger - Re: Walmart in Ontario...

In response to message posted by Red:

Thank you for your perspective. I'll certainly be the first to admit I'm nowhere near an expert on Canadian labor laws and support for workers. However, I do believe that Canada is currently more progressive with its labor law enforcement. America does not need new labor laws necessarily, but a true committment to enforce the ones currently on the books.

You might find this of interest, that much of Canada's liberal social democratic movement was borne in America's Populist Movement in the late 1800s. From Main Currents in American History by Gabriel Kolko (1976):

Perhaps most disturbing of all to conventional wisdom is the fact that between 1898 and 1914 about one million American residents, the vast majority of whom had been previously in the states with large agrarian radical movements, moved to Canada, predominantly the rich wheat-growing provinces. Many had been Populists, and some outstanding former Populist political leaders were among their ranks, and this constituency and its inheritance became an important strand in the Canadian social democratic movement.

Also, from Paul Sharp's "When Our West Moved North" in American Historical Review, January 1950:

Many [emigrants to Canada from the U.S.] sought release from political conditions in the States which they considered intolerable. It was no accident that the movement into the Canadian West had its Populist contingent after the election of 1896. In the vanguard were men like John W. Leedy, an ex-Populist governor of Kansas, Bertram Wilson Huffman, a recruit in Coxey's famous army, George Bevington, an "expert" on money and credits, and Henry Wise Wood, whose Populism profoundly shaped the farmers' movements in western Canada. Many of the farmers who made the trek into the Northwest later insisted that this dissatisfaction had reinforced their decision to leave for Canada. They cited the growth of trusts and the overweening strength of the "money-power" as developments in the republic they hoped to escape. As one former Iowan testified, "I didn't much mind leaving the States, the trusts were getting so bad there it didn't seem to be the same country to me any more."

Just some food for thought. :-)

-- posted by mswogger

Top 10. Feb 3, 2004 7:18 PM

» AgentSun - Re: Re: Walmart in Ontario...

RED:

i have a question for you. how is the employment divided up at Wal-Mart in Ontario? do you have many immigrants/so-called "poor" up there? for that matter, how much of the population in general is made up of immigrants from foreign countries that are right at or below the poverty line?

i'm curious because though labor laws in the US are different and are certainly to some point not being enforced, and Canada is different, could the makeup of the employees' backgrounds make a difference in the feedback towards the employers? yes, Canada has stricter laws, but does who work for Wal-Mart change how they are being treated?

-- posted by AgentSun

Top 11. Feb 4, 2004 10:24 AM

» Red - Re: Re: Re: Walmart in Ontario...

In response to message posted by AgentSun:

Thanks for bringing this question to my attention. Though I would hate to think so, it is possible that the makeup of the employees' background does make a difference.

The majority of people who work at Wal Mart here in my city are Canadian born. We do have other minorities working there, but the majority would be working class Canadians.

Though Ontario does have hundreds of immigrants living here, they tend to take on more "labor" jobs, such as working in planting and harvesting and working in factories. This indeed could be part of the reason that Wal Mart doesn't get away with its shananigans here in Ontario. The workers would certainly report them to the Labor Board and that means an investigation and can result in thousands of dollars in fines.

Thanks again for asking this question. It's certainly food for thought. Still, I think Wal Mart is very aware of what the labor laws are, and don't push their luck because they know these laws are enforced here in Ontario.

-- posted by Red