Cheap Labor Update

Well this is interesting:

According to UC Berkeley's report, Walmart employees earn 14.5 percent less than other workers in large retail companies. Depressing stuff, but there is any easy enough fix: If Walmart implemented a $12 per hour minimum wage for all employees, it would cost the company $3.2 billion. That is a lot of money, unless you're Walmart, in which case it's just 1% of your overall annual $305 billion in sales. Even if Walmart passed on the entire burden of the wage increase to customers, it would only average out to a cost increase of 46 cents per shopping trip. That's surely something that most Walmart shoppers can afford.

But they wouldn't even have to. Remember Walmart's exceptional energy-saving plans? Perhaps it could take some of the money it will inevitably save from energy and materials efficiency and pass it on to workers.

Heh. Yeah don’t hold your breath.

Last month the New York Times looked at WalMart’s accelerated campaign to enter the New York market. They’ve been foiled for years and now that WalMart is all green and socially responsible they’re asking New Yorkers for another chance. But with WalMart depressing wages everywhere it sets up shop, can you blame people for being wary?

Here’s a thought for WalMart: Instead of spending so much money on elaborate TV and print ads, glossy brochures, polls, and hiring Michael Bloomberg’s ex-campaign manager, why not just pay people a living wage and be done with it?

For Shame

[UPDATE]:

Behold the power of Twitter. H&M says it will stop this practice, while WalMart said "oops." But this is what gets me:

It's hard to know why the employees of H&M and Walmart felt it their duty to destroy clothing in the first place, but my guess is it is a growing resentment against so-called freegans and other dumpster divers in the city. The New York Times itself has covered this phenomenon a few times, and it's well-known that many employees of restaurants and grocery stores occasionally render food inedible so the freegans won't come rummaging. There's the sentiment among some that no one deserves a free ride (or a free pair of pants) -- even if it's in someone else's trash.

Excuse me??!! You resent the freegans? Well fuck you. I resent that there are people without food and clothing in the world's most prosperous nation. I resent that we're the most wasteful nation on earth.

So take your resentment (and your boxcutter) and stuff it. Here's a little tip: if you don't want freegans rummaging through your trash, then don't throw it away. Use it. Recycle it. Don't buy it to begin with.

Things have got to change, America. We can't be the world's Hoovers, sucking up everything within our reach, and not expect to pay some kind of price for this profligacy.

---------------------------------
I’ve known that big companies like Wal-Mart do this, but kudos to grad student Cynthia Magnus for spreading the word about this shameful practice:

This week the New York Times reported a disheartening story about two of the largest retail chains. You see, instead of taking unsold items to sample sales or donating them to people in need, H&M and Wal-Mart have been throwing them out in giant trash bags. And in the case that someone may stumble on these bags and try to keep or re-sell the items, these companies have gone ahead and slashed up garments, cut off the sleeves of coats, and sliced holes in shoes so they are unwearable.

This unsettling discovery was made by graduate student Cynthia Magnus outside the back entrance of H&M on 35th street in New York City. Just a few doors down, she also found hundreds of Wal-Mart tagged items with holes made in them that were dumped by a contractor. On December 7, she spotted 20 bags of clothing outside of H&M including, "gloves with the fingers cut off, warm socks, cute patent leather Mary Jane school shoes, maybe for fourth graders, with the instep cut up with a scissor, men’s jackets, slashed across the body and the arms. The puffy fiber fill was coming out in big white cotton balls.”

You know, there’s so much human pain associated with modern American retail, from the overseas sweatshops which manufacture these items to the child labor used to pick the cotton to the feudal systems in third world countries which force farmers to grow cotton instead of food. All so we can have a $20 T-shirt that, when it’s not sold, will be torn to shreds to ensure no one can ever use it. It is then thrown in a New York landfill to be buried with the other garbage.

These are the sins of American life for which we will be judged. Not gays and abortion and failure to post the 10 Commandments in the courthouse. It’s this. When the wealth of the powerful and enfranchised is used to oppress the powerless and disenfranchised, that’s sin. The Bible is very clear on that. And someday, whether you’re religious or not, we’re all going to have to answer for that--indeed, we already are. It's not just a Biblical law, it's not just a religious law, it's a universal law. It's karma.

A couple years ago I wrote about how Wal-Mart padlocks its trash dumpsters to deter dumpster diving. I wrote:

One of the worst things I ever heard about Wal-Mart was that stores padlock their trash dumpsters. Former Wal-Mart employees have told me of the perfectly good food and merchandise that is thrown away on a daily basis, yet Wal-Mart locks people out of its trash. When your trash is so valuable that it requires padlocks, something is seriously wrong. Hey, Wal-Mart, if it’s that valuable, try donating this stuff to a shelter, OK?

This post sparked outrage among the free-market greed brigade (sadly, those comments got lost when I switched commenting formats.) No one could believe that I would be so anti-free market as to advocate “dumpster diving.” Now, I’m not a dumpster diver, but if something is trash, then why shouldn’t it be someone else’s treasure? It seems that the fear is that people won’t buy things if they can get it for free, but quite a lot of people can’t or won’t buy it anyway. And if the problem is that the “trash” still has value, then it’s not trash, is it? Donate it to an American charity, recycle it, mark it down, send it to an orphanage in India or Africa where the cycle of abuse started, quit overbuying to begin with.

Stop the sin cycle. Corporate America and American consumers alike need to come clean.

Wal-Mart Finds Payback’s A Bitch

[UPDATE]:

Oh my god. There's video on YouTube:


Wal-mart fired the independent video production company it used to document its internal meetings, and now a video archive spanning 30 years has been opened for our perusal. Everyone from attorneys to unions to the press can now see some hidden gems from Wal-Mart’s history, for a fee.

Can you say awkward!

Those moments never meant for public display include a scene of male managers parading in drag at an executive meeting, a clip used by union-backed critics at Wal-Mart Watch for a recent advertisement castigating the retailer's attitude toward female employees.

"The videos provide insight into the company's real corporate culture when they're not in the public eye," Wal-Mart Watch spokeswoman Stacie Lock Temple said Tuesday.

Much of the interest in the candid videos is coming from plaintiff lawyers pursuing cases against Wal-Mart.

Is this legal? The production company says it is, since apparently Wal-Mart and Flagler Productions never signed a contract. Flagler is selling access to the Wal-Mart archive to stay in business.

Wal-Mart was about 95 percent of Flagler's business, Villaneuva said. The loss meant the company nearly collapsed. So it looked to its assets and realized that it could charge for access to its video library.

"We would like to go back to being a production company, but right now we're getting by as an archive," Villaneuva said.

Looks like someone just got goosed by the free hand of the market.

Justice For The Shanks

Updating this post from last Friday, Wal-Mart has finally agreed to do the right thing and return Debbie Shank’s settlement money so she can pay for her longterm care. Via Wal-Mart Watch:

Statement from David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director: 

“We are elated that after months of public pressure and national outrage, Wal-Mart says it is finally going to do the right thing for Debbie Shank and her family. 

“During the past few weeks, Jim Shank has brought to life Debbie’s tragic circumstances and vividly shown that her case is a scorching symbol of Wal-Mart’s decision to insufficiently fund its health care plan for its 1.3 million U.S. workers.

“Debbie’s case exemplifies what Wal-Mart Watch and others see every day:  the world’s largest employer choosing to put less into its benefits than it should.  This leaves thousands of Wal-Mart associates with choices about preventative care and necessary care that are driven by what they can afford rather than by what is in their best interest.  Debbie Shank’s story is not only a personal tragedy; it poses a cautionary tale for all Wal-Mart associates.

“It is our sincere hope that Wal-Mart will not have to endure this level of shame again before it fixes its health care problem and does the right thing for its associates.  We wish the Shank family the very best and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that Wal-Mart keeps its promise to them.”

Thanks to CNN, Keith Olbermann, bloggers, and all of the good citizens outraged at Wal-Mart's callous attitude toward one of its employees, justice--at least this one time--has been served.

Wal-Mart Behaving Badly

It’s pretty sad when the fine print of your health plan says your employer can recoup what they’ve paid out when you got sick or injured. Seriously, what’s the point of a health insurance plan then? If I’m going to pay for it myself anyway? This is a benefit?

That appears to be the raw deal offered by Wal-Mart’s glorious employee health plan:

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

This makes no sense. The whole point of awarding damages in a lawsuit is to compensate the victim for their loss of earning potential and pay for their care. Debbie Shank is brain damaged, in a wheelchair, and lives in a nursing home. Her husband works two jobs and has prostate cancer; who is going to pay for her long-term care? That was the point of seeking damages in a lawsuit, after all: to collect from the one who did wrong, to compensate the injured party.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.



"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Conservatives piss and moan about the urgent need for “tort reform” and the need to cap the amount of awards received. But should employers be the ones to get that money? Long-term nursing home care ain’t cheap, and I wonder why Wal-Mart needs that money since their net income for the quarter ending Jan. 31 hit $4 billion.

$4 billion net income for just one quarter. Debbie Shank helped them earn their profits, in a small way, by working for them as a stocker. How nice of Wal-Mart to show their appreciation by taking the money awarded to pay for her nursing home care.

So much for "Save money. Live better."