Is Walmart getting a bum rap?
These days everyone seems to be picking on Walmart. Not to say they may not deserve some of it for past actions, but some of the things going on today do seem like Walmart is being held to a different standard than some of its competitors. For example, Walmart has been crucified in the media for not offering affordable health insurance to its workers, many of whom then end up on public assistance. Numerous states have introduced, or threatened to introduce, legislation requiring them to provide better health care coverage. What is wrong with that you ask? Well, in some cases the law is so narrowly written, it would apply to walmart but exempt most other companies in a similiar situation. One state set the threshold high enough (regarding the total number of employees in that state employed by a given company) so that only one company would be affected. Which company is that? You guessed it, Walmart.
Don't get me wrong, I do think people working full time should be able to afford health care for themselves and their families, and especially with retailers, hourly employees wages are not that high (part of why prices are low). But I think its wrong for only one company to have to pay by the rules. Does anyone really believe that similiar workers at Target, Kmart or Sears would be that much better off? In a word, NO! Having worked for Walmart some years ago, I would be the first to say they don't always treat people the best, but that was a decade ago and since I only worked in one store I can't exactly say that is scientific evidence. Having also worked for Target, I can stay that they treat people better in some ways (but certainly not in this area) but not in others. Someone working at Target close to full time hours but not a supervisor is going to also have limited benefits, just like someone working at Walmart. The truth with most retailers (Costco being an exception in some ways) is that supervisors and above are considered full time, and the rest of the employees (even those averaging 40 hours a week or close to it) are considered part time and get little or no health benefits.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if these groups attacking walmart are really concerned about workers, they should be concerned about those at every company, not just Walmart. Considering that many of these efforts are union sponsored and organinzed, I would take what they say with not a grain of salt, but with a salt shaker of salt. Name one major retailer today with a union work force that is growing, that would be hard to find. I also don't feel that its fair for the government to legislate mimimum benefits for one industry or company but not others. You either do it to everyone or you don't do it, at least make it far.
Companies such as Walmart could pay more in benefits, but if they do, guess how picks up the tab for that? You guessed it, the consumer. I personally think benefits should be higher, but that does impact prices as well, and the health care system is part of them problem. But to try and force just Walmart to a higher standard does not really seem far to me, it should be a level playing field, should it not?
Maybe its time the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers Union) realizes it might have more success if it told the truth in trying to recruit Walmart workers to join its union. There have been a number of recent campaigns by the UFCW and others that, to put it mildly, were not exactly truthful, like the recent one showing that over 90% of Walmart's merchandise was imported, even though the ad showed a supercenter (they have food there, much of which is not imported, thereby making the 90% claim seem dubious). As if their competitors are going to not be in the same boat (every major retail chain imports tons of merchandise each year- literally) so if the UFCW going to boycott them all? Maybe the UFCW should instead talk about how the union staffed retailers have fared lately instead?
I guess the saying holds true, if you are king of the mountain, everyone will try and knock you off. In Walmart's case they certainly deserve at least some of what they are getting but they are trying to change their approach to seem more friendly and they also are fighting lawsuits harder to make sure they are not seen as an easy target.
Here is the article, from the Tenessean.com, if you want to read it:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/BUSINESS01/508030444/1003
Don't get me wrong, I do think people working full time should be able to afford health care for themselves and their families, and especially with retailers, hourly employees wages are not that high (part of why prices are low). But I think its wrong for only one company to have to pay by the rules. Does anyone really believe that similiar workers at Target, Kmart or Sears would be that much better off? In a word, NO! Having worked for Walmart some years ago, I would be the first to say they don't always treat people the best, but that was a decade ago and since I only worked in one store I can't exactly say that is scientific evidence. Having also worked for Target, I can stay that they treat people better in some ways (but certainly not in this area) but not in others. Someone working at Target close to full time hours but not a supervisor is going to also have limited benefits, just like someone working at Walmart. The truth with most retailers (Costco being an exception in some ways) is that supervisors and above are considered full time, and the rest of the employees (even those averaging 40 hours a week or close to it) are considered part time and get little or no health benefits.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if these groups attacking walmart are really concerned about workers, they should be concerned about those at every company, not just Walmart. Considering that many of these efforts are union sponsored and organinzed, I would take what they say with not a grain of salt, but with a salt shaker of salt. Name one major retailer today with a union work force that is growing, that would be hard to find. I also don't feel that its fair for the government to legislate mimimum benefits for one industry or company but not others. You either do it to everyone or you don't do it, at least make it far.
Companies such as Walmart could pay more in benefits, but if they do, guess how picks up the tab for that? You guessed it, the consumer. I personally think benefits should be higher, but that does impact prices as well, and the health care system is part of them problem. But to try and force just Walmart to a higher standard does not really seem far to me, it should be a level playing field, should it not?
Maybe its time the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers Union) realizes it might have more success if it told the truth in trying to recruit Walmart workers to join its union. There have been a number of recent campaigns by the UFCW and others that, to put it mildly, were not exactly truthful, like the recent one showing that over 90% of Walmart's merchandise was imported, even though the ad showed a supercenter (they have food there, much of which is not imported, thereby making the 90% claim seem dubious). As if their competitors are going to not be in the same boat (every major retail chain imports tons of merchandise each year- literally) so if the UFCW going to boycott them all? Maybe the UFCW should instead talk about how the union staffed retailers have fared lately instead?
I guess the saying holds true, if you are king of the mountain, everyone will try and knock you off. In Walmart's case they certainly deserve at least some of what they are getting but they are trying to change their approach to seem more friendly and they also are fighting lawsuits harder to make sure they are not seen as an easy target.
Here is the article, from the Tenessean.com, if you want to read it:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/BUSINESS01/508030444/1003
posted by bigalsbeans at 10:05 PM
1 Comments:
Health insurance tends to be far more expensive for an individual or family to buy rather than getting it through an employer group plan. I don't think companies should be forced to provide full coverage for every employee, but corporate tax policy should definitely reward employers that do provide good coverage and punish all but the tiniest employers that don't. Forcing people who can't afford coverage to go see Carter in the ER raises the cost for everyone. A huge chunk of personal bankruptcies are apparently due to medical bills, and the cost of those gets passed on to everyone else as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home