Excellent Op-ed by Robert Reich: "Don't Blame Wal-Mart"

[LSdemocrat]

This article clearly points out the role that the federal government must play in order to protect workers and prevent negative trends in the marketplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28reich.html?hp

"The fact is, today's economy offers us a Faustian bargain: it can give consumers deals largely because it hammers workers and communities.

We can blame big corporations, but we're mostly making this bargain with ourselves. The easier it is for us to get great deals, the stronger the downward pressure on wages and benefits. Last year, the real wages of hourly workers, who make up about 80 percent of the work force, actually dropped for the first time in more than a decade; hourly workers' health and pension benefits are in free fall. The easier it is for us to find better professional services, the harder professionals have to hustle to attract and keep clients. The more efficiently we can summon products from anywhere on the globe, the more stress we put on our own communities."

"The problem is, the choices we make in the market don't fully reflect our values as workers or as citizens. I didn't want our community bookstore in Cambridge, Mass., to close (as it did last fall) yet I still bought lots of books from Amazon.com. In addition, we may not see the larger bargain when our own job or community isn't directly at stake. I don't like what's happening to airline workers, but I still try for the cheapest fare I can get.

The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one. A requirement that companies with more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their goods and services. My inner consumer won't like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for employees to organize and negotiate better terms."

[Frances]

1. I do blame Walmart

2 wrongs don't make a right. Walmart needs to be competitive, but it doesn't have to be so greedy that it locks workers inside at night etc.

[WLKjr]

2. What?!?!?!

please elaborate a little.

[LSdemocrat]

4. That's the point

You can't trust companies to regulate themselves. The government needs to step in to protect workers. To expect companies to act against their profit interest on their own is just silly.

[WLKjr]

6. I'm talking about the locking people inside part

The editor is sort of right, in a way, consumers have kind of brought it on themselves in our quest to find the cheapest goods. Cheap isnt always the best.

[1gobluedem]

7. Wal Mart locks their stockers in overnight

Won't let them out until the shift is over. Not for a break, not for illness, nothing.

[WLKjr]

8. Never happend at the store I work at

Just where is this?


there's probably a lot of factorys that do the same too.

[JanMichael]

21. It's been documented. As to bringing up that factories might do it too?

WTF is that supposed to prove? That other piece of shit companies exist?

We already know that.

[WLKjr]

25. Show me documentation then, no one has so far

not trying to be a smart ass, I just like to have things proven.


I only believe half what I hear and half what I see.

[JanMichael]

28. Try using Google.

Here.

"The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several longtime Wal · Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the fire doors of some Wal · Marts were chained shut.

Wal · Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in 1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there was no manager with a key."

[WLKjr]

29. okay, one source

but this one seems like one of those fox news "some people say" qoutes:

But several longtime Wal · Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the fire doors of some Wal · Marts were chained shut.

[JanMichael]

33. You know what? You don't want to hear the truth, that's fine.

I'm not going to start combing court records so you can finally see the light, ok? That's your job.

BTW: Check the fire doors:-)

[Armstead]

31. Other Big Boxes do the same thing. I know someone...

My neice's boyfriend worked for one of the Big Box chains, supposedly on the night shift til 5 a.m. But they kept the doors locked until 8 a.m. so he and his fellow shift workers had to hang around for a couple of hours doing nothing.

[jmowreader]

18. I think that's pretty rare now...

Most Wal-Marts are 24-hour operations now, hence it's impossible to lock the stockers in.

One of our managers spies on the five Wal-Marts in Cumberland County on a regular basis, and he says he can't figure out where anyone got the idea that Wal-Mart stocks shelves at night; the ones around here stock right during the middle of the day.

[theboss]

3. Steel towns have been facing this idea for 20 years

When my grandfather was alive, he bought brand new steel garbage cans every few years. They rusted out quickly and got dented easily. But he bought them because he was a SteelWorker and that's what Steelworkers do. He would never ever ever cross a picket line, because he was a Union Man.

Now Union members think nothing of buying their plastic garbage cans at Wal-Mart and flying to Disney World on non-union airlines in their clothes made in sweat shops....and all the while they bitch about the decline of unions.

[WLKjr]

5. Grandfather of mine said the same thing, said

that a union was no better than the people who get elected to represent you. In short, if you elect shills, you get screwed.

[gratuitous]

9. I'd agree with Reich except for one or two salient points

First, when Wal-Mart blows into a new town, they have an army of lawyers, public relations folks, advertising, and most importantly bag-men spreading around the gospel of Wal-Mart and how wonderful everything will be once this retailing behemoth is plunked down in the midst of a formerly placid pond. No mention is made of the waves that result or the displacement of economic water, and those that raise these concerns are denigrated and ridiculed as anti-free market hippie-dippies or Luddite shutterbrains, unwilling to advance into the brave new world of Wal-Mart retailing.

Another point that Reich seems to miss is the old-fashioned method Wal-Mart often employs in receiving favorable consideration from zoning boards and municipal councils: Graft. A LOT of money gets spread around to create a fertile field for growing a new monstrosity, and the political folks are by no means left out of Wal-Mart's computations.

The third aspect that Reich elides is the availability of information. All of that PR and advertising is invested by Wal-Mart in order to obscure some of the more unsavory aspects of their retailing philosophy, and soon, enough people are persuaded to vote against their own interests, invite in Wal-Mart, and only after the store has been in operation for a couple of years do they get a true picture of the totality of the impact it has on their community. Yes, there are low-priced goods available. But a lot of local jobs went by the wayside, and it doesn't much matter whether your toothpaste costs $1.29 or $1.59 when you can't afford either price.

Does Wal-Mart hold a gun to anyone's head? No, they're slightly more sophisticated than that, but not by much.

[napi21]

12. Reich didn't mention those things in THIS article, but the people

are learning! Almost every week, there's another article about a community that rejected WM.

Just two months ago, the residents of N. Hall Cty Ga. flat out told their counselmen to vote against WM, they just don't want it! WM had spent many months of cajoling, advertising, and probably bribing, to get to build that store, and after the final vote, the WM rep said he just couldn't understand how people can ignore their own best interest like that. He went back to Ar. with his head hanging!!!!!

[napi21]

10. Reich always makes sense. He's right this time too.

I know I search the net for the best price on almost everything I buy! I do not shop at WM, because of the way they treat their employees, AND that almost everything they sell is JUNK!

I like the idea of forcing companies with over, say 500 employees, to provide affordable health insurance. Thet might add 5% to their prices at the retail level, but I don't think even the low income people would find that a major burden.

Of course, the liklihood of that happening with a Pub comtrolled Gov't is about as good as getting snow in Arizona in July!

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Your 5% Seems Pretty Darned High!

I agree with you on the health coverage, but i really don't think requiring it would raise prices 5%. At around $4000 per person per year, at the revenues of a Wal-Mart, i think the cost to the firm will fall under a half-percent. That's not a very big sacrifice for the consumer to assure that their neighbors are well-protected.

I agree with you on this, but i think you're estimate is far worse than what would actually occur. So, there's even LESS reason not to do it.
The Professor

[napi21]

22. I purposly estimated high to show that in reality, it's a no brainer!

They employ over 1 million employees, 1.2 I think I heard this morning. I started out thinking a penny added to every item should do it, but the % seemed much more understandable.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. I Understand

I was amplifying the point to show how much a no-brainer it would truly be.
The Professor

[yella_dawg]

11. I agree that the root problem is the consumer.

But it's the government's role to insure that these self-defeating situations are defused. That's why we have government. I can't research every purchase I make. It isn't possible. I need someone I can trust to insure that "great prices" and "easy availability" aren't some kind of trap that actually subverts my long-term well-being to line the pockets of some entrepreneur somewhere.

I am a hard-liner about shopping in the community. But when the community doesn't offer what I need, what do I do? I'm in a real catch-22 because once Wal-Mart moved a supercenter into my community of 20,000 all the locals folded. Do I shop at Wal-Mart or drive around all day hunting a local business in the surrounding communities?

I need government to subsidize local businesses and impose restrictions on Wal-Mart (living wage laws?) that will even the playing field. The same goes for the offshoring of jobs. Even if I work hard to avoid businesses like Wal-Mart, how can I know if I'm helping or hurting the local economy? What if I'm working at cross-purposes with my neighbor who also wants to support local business? This is why I pay taxes. So someone can research the problem and coordinate a response.

[utopian]

13. I was just having this discussion yesterday

And I made a similar point to my sister.

She's from Ketchican (sp?)Alaska, where a Wal Mart came in and many businesses closed. Same old story. The way she tells it, a lot of people in her town were excited that Wal Mart was coming.

It's like people voting against their own best interests. They often fail to see the big picture. Hell, they often fail to see past the end of their noses. It's a lot easier to believe the propaganda, whether it's from the government or corporate giants.

[paineinthearse]

14. Utah and take Mitt and Texas can have *

Reissssscccccchhhhh is my governor and Kerry is my President.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

[paineinthearse]

15. Utah and take Mitt and Texas can have *

Reissssscccccchhhhh is my governor and Kerry is my President.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

[European Socialist]

16. I disagree-the government must set the rules.

You can't really expect a person to do what is socially right while his neighbor gets all the good deals. I do blame Wall Street and our ruling classes for this dog eat dog economy they forced on us.

[progressoid]

17. Well, Duh.

Reich is stating the obvious. The problem is, the choices we make in the market don't fully reflect our values as workers or as citizens. No shit?

You know what else? I heard that over half of the voting public voted for Bush. Can you believe it? Hey Robert, how about I distill your article to this simple idea, "Americans are idiots".

[Democrats_win]

20. Working @ Wal-Mart is pure hell. Bullying, micromanaging-union needed!

As some indicated, they won't give you time to take ten-minute breaks which is required by law. We already know about their time-card tricks to cheat people out of the money they earned.

Its not a matter of market economics--its a matter for the police!!!!

[napi21]

24. Do you work for WM? If so, is the problem the Corp. mgmt, or is it

the store managers? I realize it's the Corp responsibility to control what their mgrs do, but I'd like to know where the employees think the real problem lies.

[WLKjr]

26. Like a lot of places, it's a mixture of a little of both

They do have some shitty management at some stores, they eventually get caught and get fired. Sometimes that takes a while, sometimes it doesn't. The one I work at, doesn't take long for a manager to be told to move on if they don't do thier job. Not every store is like that.

Take for example the store manager that hired the company to clean floors that just happend to employ illegals, that was irresponsible on his part according to our management, which said the proper thing to do is to check that place out before they hire someone outside to do a job. That didn't happen in this case and I think that manager was let go due to this.

Now I have witnessed some people I work with purposely start trouble to get people in trouble and or fired. That includes working and not taking thier 15 minute breaks every 2 hours, and 1 hour lunch every 4 hours. Then they turn around and try to say that they were denied, when in all honesty they were making the decision not to follow thru with thier break. I worked with someone like that. Finally when they started taking breaks, they took them for a.....well lets just say they disappeared from where tehy were supposed to be for hours on end. And that person was fired.

I would have to say that problems trickle down from the top, if you have bad leadership, then of course your going to have problems.

[Toots]

27. If you don't support local business then you won't have local business

It is quite straight forward. We should not be shocked at all. The largest customer base for Walmart is lower income people who just can not afford to shop elsewhere. This is the Democrat's core base. They/we just don't get it. Kind of like the frog in the kettle that is being brought to a slow boil. By the time we realize what we are doing to our country it will be entirely too late.

[WLKjr]

30. I feel exactly the same way

everyone wants to blame a store for thier problems, when it's the consumer causing the problem in the first place.

People always want cheap, they get cheap, then bitch about it cuz it's cheap. I never understood that mindset.

[Armstead]

32. Reich makes a great point -- but he also does liberal waffling

The basic point of the article is spot on.

But Reich does some waffling that has become all too typical of modern liberals and centrists:

"I wouldn't go so far as to re-regulate the airline industry or hobble free trade with China and India - that would cost me as a consumer far too much - but I'd like the government to offer wage insurance to ease the pain of sudden losses of pay. And I'd support labor standards that make trade agreements a bit more fair."

No damn it. We need to get to the base of the problem, not just "soften the blow" a bit. It is a more systemic cancer eating away at the base of the basis of our middle class.

International trade is good, but it should not be at the expense of destroying our economy. The goal should not to "ease the pain" but look for ways to stop the pain from happening.