Phillip Mella, Mayor Pro Tem of Woodland, Colorado, says,
The irony of the jihad against Wal-Mart by liberal activists and their brethren in the labor unions is that if they're successful in leveraging higher wages and benefits for workers it will be on the backs of the lower class, their natural constituency, who will be obliged to pay higher prices ("Labor Tries Political Tack Against Wal-Mart," Business column, Aug. 10).As a city councilman I recently spent several months fighting a small but vociferous group of zealots bent upon stopping Wal-Mart from building in town. This latest movement against a highly successful corporation is driven by the same brand of anticapitalist ideologues who are determined to rekindle the failed socialist ideals that were in fashion in the 1930s. The complaint that Wal-Mart doesn't reward its workers is a tiresome canard. The average hourly wage for new workers is $9.13, which, in our town, is about 25% higher than average entry-level retail wages. Further, Wal-Mart offers reasonably priced, basic health care to all employees.
More critically, Wal-Mart provides entry-level work for relatively low-skilled individuals who might otherwise never get the chance to demonstrate skills that are crucial to moving up the employment ladder.
Is it any wonder that nearly 70% of Wal-Mart managers began as front-line workers?This effort is, indeed, "the last gasp of a dying labor movement," because, not unlike the Democratic Party in the last election, they have fundamentally misread the mainstream Americans who pack Wal-Mart stores each week because the company offers them and their families real value for their hard-earned money.
In contrast to these elitist social engineers, consumers understand the core American values of free enterprise and choice in the marketplace.
Posted by TheEclecticEconoclast on August, 16 2005 at 05:48 PM
Brandon Weber wrote:[quote] lower class, their natural constituency, [/quote]
Actually labor unions' natural constituency is NOT the lower classes. IBEW members can make up to $110,000 a year with overtime. UAW members, similar. Some unions such as the UFCW and SEIU reach the poverty classes more, but unions are spread across all socio-economic strata.
[quote] anticapitalist ideologues who are determined to rekindle the failed socialist ideals that were in fashion in the 1930s. ]
Ever hear of Red-baiting? That's the pratice of raising the "soclialist/communist" spectre to shoot something down. Used to have a great effect until all of that cold war stuff went away...
[quote] The average hourly wage for new workers is $9.13, which, in our town, is about 25% higher than average entry-level retail wages.]
Key: IN YOUR TOWN. Averages (even the $9.13 "average" spouted by Wal-mart itself, which is about $2.00 higher than real) don't mean squat when folks who actually work there don't make that average because the wages in your town won't allow it. That's the nature of the "free" market.
[quote] Further, Wal-Mart offers reasonably priced, basic health care to all employees. [/quote]
Most Wal-Mart employees would disagree that it's reasonably priced, and it's NOT offered to all employees.
[quote] not unlike the Democratic Party in the last election, they have fundamentally misread the mainstream Americans who pack Wal-Mart stores [/quote]
Perhaps it is actually that they've been buffaloed and propagandized by endless marketing and advertising by Wal-Mart that it's a "wholesome, American" place to shop. Much like the American people who fundamentally misunderstood the right-wing's tactics, threats, and flat out lies during the last election. Those same American people, however, are indeed starting to wake up.
-- August 17, 2005 06:59 PM ∞
Bob Pence wrote:Brandon, well put that market conditions mean that the average starting wage (however calculated) is unlikely to prevail in what appears to be a low-wage area. But...
"Most Wal-Mart employees would disagree that it's reasonably priced, and it's NOT offered to all employees."
By what objective measure is it unreasonably priced? Evryone complains about the weather and their insurance premiums.
And to whom is it NOT offered? (If you mean domestic partners, I say they have made the decision not to marry and are not entitled to the benefits thereof, just as they are not entitled to various government protections. If you mean gay domestic partners, I say they should be pursuing the matter with their state legislators, not a corporation.)
Perhaps you mean the one-year wait time. If you said this it would have been influential, whereas your assertion that it is not offered to some is suspect and undermines your larger point. (Which is that WM is evil?) Yeah, a year wait is excessive in most industries and on the high side even in retail, working in which sucks.
But the fact that half of its employees get insurance through WM, which employs many minors and seniors not in the health insurance market, is stunning. Yes, some of that is from people struggling to support themselves and even kids on the WM wage, which is to say the retail wage, and I can attest that this is difficult. But I think it also means that we have at least some folks with a spouse in a better job still finding WM's health coverage the better alternative.
-- August 21, 2005 11:01 AM ∞
