Latest Headlines
Chicago alderman pleads for a Wal-Mart -07.01.09 | [Chicago Tribune]
Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage -07.01.09 | [Wall Street Journal]
Key hearing set on Wal-Mart near Va battlefield -07.01.09 | [WMDT-TV (Va.)]
Fact Sheets
The Employee Free Choice Act Legislation that will truly make a difference for Wal-Mart workers
Wage & Hour Issues Read how Wal-Mart continually fails to pay every worker for every hour worked
Health Care Wal-Mart's still insures barely over half its employees on the company plan
Always Low Wages Poverty-level wages make life extremely difficult for Wal-Mart's 1.4 million workers
The Environment How Wal-Mart's business model is detrimental for our planet
| Jul 02, 2009
| Jul 02, 2009
| Jul 02, 2009
| Jul 02, 2009
| Jul 01, 2009
| Jul 01, 2009
| Jul 01, 2009
| Jun 29, 2009
| Jun 26, 2009
| Jun 26, 2009
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
We’ve received many, many emails and submissions from Wal-Mart employees over the past few years. And even more have gone to our Wal-Mart Speak Out site to share their stories. It’s much more infrequent that we come across an industry professional that deals with Wal-Mart employees on a regular basis, but in today’s Baltimore Sun that’s exactly what we found. It’s a letter from a doctor, and we’ll let it stand on its own merits.
Wal-Mart is an image conscious opportunist. I have several Wal-Mart employees as my patients. I can in all honesty declare that Wal-Mart, a wealthy corporation, for years got away with providing its employees no health care coverage at all or the type of coverage from which doctors could barely eke out payments.
Out of pocket expenses for patients are outrageous with this coverage. Hand me a Wal-Mart health insurance card, and I will let out a spontaneous sigh of exasperation because I know from experience what lies ahead is a runaround for meager compensation after I have delivered all the services.
You say Wal-Mart has obtained religion and is behind Obama’s health plan? Will there be a richer bounty on my plate now for tending to my overworked and underpaid Wal-Mart flock tenderly? Somehow I doubt my sighs of exasperation will cease with this new miracle under way in the health care sector.
A fed up doc
Wal-Mart stingy with health benefits [Baltimore Sun]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Earlier today, we gave you a rundown on Internet reaction to Wal-Mart’s support of employee-mandated health care. Well, now yet another voice has weighed in, and this one has a fairly large pedestal.
In its Opinions section, The Wall Street Journal writes that by throwing its support behind the controversial measure, Wal-Mart may have bought itself some protection by selling out its competitors in the business community.
The employer-mandate endorsement falls into the same self-interest department. A boost in the minimum wage helps Wal-Mart because most of its workers already earn well over the wage floor, and it hurts smaller, less-profitable competitors that can’t afford to pay more. On health care, an employer mandate will also reduce the margins of their rivals. This is especially true for businesses of a slightly smaller size that cannot insure on the same scale or currently don’t reach the 55% of the 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees who are insured through the company. (Another 40% or so are covered by spouses or the likes of Medicaid.)
The piece also offers more speculation as to additional motives for the move:
Businesses are going along with this and other gambits in part because of a prisoners’ dilemma: They’re terrified of being shut out of Democratic health negotiations lest they get stuck with the bill. Wal-Mart may also be trying to pre-empt an employer mandate the Senate is considering that would target companies with predominantly low-wage, low-skilled or entry-level work forces.
Everyday Low Politics [The Wall Street Journal]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Here are what the voices on the Internet are saying about Wal-Mart’s support of employer-mandated health care...not surprisingly, it hasn’t taken long for most to deduce that Wal-Mart is hardly acting in an altruistic way.
Number one on Wal-Mart’s hit list? Easy. Target. Because small businesses would either be exempt from the mandate or face a less-strenuous requirement, it would be Wal-Mart’s large competitors (and more specifically those who have to this point been better at managing health care costs than Wal-Mart) that would feel the brunt of the hurt.
Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:
I don’t want to make too much of this: Wal-Mart may chicken out once the specifics of an employer mandate end up on the table. Even if they don’t, they may not lift a finger to help. And, make no mistake, Wal-Mart is acting--as it always does--out of pure self-interest.
My undestanding is that, after all of these years, Wal-Mart has suddenly found itself in the same situation its competitors once did: Dealing with unpredictable health costs and facing new competition from businesses that have found ways to spend even less on employee health benefits. Is there some justice there? You bet.
Reihan Salam with the National Review:
There is another way of looking at this. As a large, powerful, deep-pocketed firm, Wal-Mart can sustain regulatory burdens that mom-and-pops and new entrants can’t. And so burdensome regulations are invariably Wal-Mart’s ally. Jonathan Rauch explained this dynamic brilliantly in his book Government’s End. It makes perfect sense for Wal-Mart to back a regulatory initiative that hurts its bottom line as long as it hurts its competitors more.
Megan McArdle for The Atlantic:
Wal-Mart is always going to have a seat at the table when employer mandates are discussed, because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private employer. Target and Macy’s probably won’t have a seat at the table. So Wal-Mart can influence the rules in ways that benefit Wal-Mart at the expense of the competition.
Jeffrey Young in The Atlantic:
Based on the axiom that nobody in business or politics acts strictly out of altruism, it’s safe to assume that Duke and Wal-Mart’s board of directors concluded that backing the employer mandate would provide the company with some kind of competitive advantage. When I originally reported the story, it wasn’t immediately clear to me what that might be, though I suspected it must have had something to do with Wal-Mart’s calculation of how much money the mandate would cost them relative to other retailers.
Michael Cannon, for the Cato Institute:
A couple of years ago, I shared a cab to the airport with a Wal-Mart lobbyist, who told me that Wal-Mart supports an “employer mandate.” An employer mandate is a legal requirement that employers provide a government-defined package of health benefits to their workers...But it all became clear when the lobbyist explained the reason for Wal-Mart’s position: “Target’s health-benefits costs are lower.”
I have no idea what Target’s or Wal-Mart’s health-benefits costs are. Let’s say that Target spends $5,000 per worker on health benefits and Wal-Mart spends $10,000. An employer mandate that requires both retail giants to spend $9,000 per worker would have no effect on Wal-Mart. But it would cripple one of Wal-Mart’s chief competitors.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, quoted nearly everywhere (here courtesy again, of Mr. Jeffrey Young):
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took a pretty nasty swipe at Wal-Mart when I emailed them for a comment. Here’s the statement the Chamber’s press office sent me, attributed to James Gelfand, its senior manager for health policy: “Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition. We do not agree with this method.” Ouch.
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
It’s like deja vu all over again. Alderman Brookins is still pushing for another Wal-Mart store in Chicago. This time he is ratcheting up the pressure on his fellow city council members to support the South Side project.
His message is clear: build a Wal-Mart store and soon there will be hundreds of high paying jobs and Chicago will become a retailing utopia.
Unfortunately, most Wal-Mart jobs are low wage and part-time. On our speak out website, veteran employees—some who have worked for the company over 10 years—describe how Wal-Mart is using the recession to cut hours like never before. As in...let’s hire 500 people to inflate our job numbers to the press, while cutting everyone to 10 hours a week.
As we outlined in our urban campaign, Wal-Mart is just not a good fit for the city of Chicago. According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, “There is strong evidence that jobs created by Wal-Mart in metropolitan areas pay less and are less likely to offer benefits than those they replace.” In addition, analysis by Civic Economics concludes “For every $100 in consumer spending with a local firm, $68 remains in the Chicago economy...For every $100 in consumer spending with a chain firm, $43 remains in the Chicago economy.”
City leaders have done a good job so far of keeping another Wal-Mart out of Chicago. Now is not the time to give in to pressure from Wal-Mart lobbyists and Alderman Brookins.
Posted by Research Team | Permalink
This is it, so don’t get scared now.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors is set to make a decision once and for all on the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart - a public hearing has been scheduled for July 27th, which will be the last time the public (and Robert Duvall) will be able to make their opinions known before the board takes the matter for good. Note: As a Civil War vet, Robert Duvall can actually comment all he’d like.
What will they decide? Will Wal-Mart be allowed to desecrate a piece of American history? Will they be denied, and an alternate site be recommended?
There seems to be a divide between the County Planning Commission and Orange County residents - the Commission voted 5-4 last week to approve development on the Battlefield site, yet at previous public hearings, the majority of Orange County residents were against the project (by an estimated 2-1 margin). This public outcry, combined with the history of the land at stake, would make it seem appropriate that Wal-Mart would be eager for a compromise that would still allow them to develop in the area, if one were presented...but to this point, no dice. Which is why County Administrator Bill Rolfe believes it’s now up to the supervisors to make the “win-win” a reality.
“The question that begs to be asked is, ‘Why isn’t the county trying to broker a deal that keeps Wal-Mart in the county and moves it further away from the congressionally approved boundary line of the Wilderness Battlefield?’ Both would be in our best interest,” Rolfe wrote the Board of Supervisors in a June 15 e-mail...He noted two goals--that Orange enlarge and diversify its tax base, and not do anything that would “detract from the [Wilderness] battlefield as a tourism destination for our community.”
Rolfe went on to point out that the coalition of historic preservation groups currently fighting the Wilderness plan would appear to be amenable to a development located farther from the battlefield park. And it just so happens that just such a piece of land could be made available next to a nearby 51-acre retail development. The question is, will County Supervisors go for it, or will they doom the Wilderness Battlefield to witnessing another brutal defeat?
Seeking win-win in store debate [Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart Watch Daily Clips emails will be suspended indefinitely after today. Make sure to check the Wal-Mart Watch Blog for updates on what's happening in the world of Wal-Mart.
WAL-MART SUPPORTS EMPLOYER MANDATE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM
- Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage [Wall Street Journal]
In a major break with most other large companies, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Tuesday told the White House that it supports requiring employers to provide health insurance to workers, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to provide near-universal coverage to Americans. The support of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, could give momentum to one of the most-contentious aspects of legislation taking shape in Congress to fix the health system. To help pay for covering the 46 million uninsured, lawmakers have proposed mandating that all but small employers provide insurance for workers or help pay for it.
- Wal-Mart Says It Backs a Mandate on Insurance [New York Times]
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, joined hands with a major labor union Tuesday to endorse the idea of requiring large companies to provide health insurance to their workers, a move that gives a boost to President Obama as he is pushing for health legislation on Capitol Hill."Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution," Wal-Mart's chief executive, Michael T. Duke, wrote in a letter to White House and Congressional officials, adding that he favored "an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage."
- Wal-Mart, Union Jointly Endorse Employer Health Insurance Mandate [Workforce Management]
Wal-Mart, in a letter about health care reform to President Barack Obama, has endorsed an employer mandate, undercutting employer opposition to the provision and delivering Democrats a key victory. The letter, sent Tuesday, June 30, reflects the company's effort to bury a Senate proposal that would require employers to pay for employees who get their health coverage with government assistance.
- Wal-Mart supports employer-mandated health coverage [Reuters]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the world's largest retailer, said on Tuesday that it supports President Barack Obama's push to require large employers to offer health insurance to workers. "We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage," stated a letter addressed to Obama and signed by Mike Duke, the chief executive of Wal-Mart; Andy Stern, the president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and John Podesta, the CEO of the Center for American Progress.
- Wal-Mart backs health insurance mandate [Jacksonville Business Journal (Fla.)]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is backing President Barack Obama's push to require that large employers offer health insurance to their workers. Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) joined the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress economic think tank in voicing support for mandated health coverage. The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer is Northeast Florida's second-largest private employer and has come under criticism in the past for the quality of benefits offered to some workers. Wal-Mart has expanded benefits in recent years and supports federal health care reform that would include requirements that employers offer at least some coverage.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Research Team | Permalink
Bloomberg is reporting today that Wal-Mart and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among those opposing legislation that would allow the U.S. to cut off duty-free imports from factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if they fail to adhere to international labor standards on matters such as prohibiting forced labor and child labor. The bill, titled the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act, is meant to help strengthen democracy in the two countries by creating “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” and increasing their ability to export goods to the U.S. - and in return, it only requires that the countries make sure their factories are providing adequate working conditions.
Wal-Mart, however, is among those arguing that such labor restrictions would reduce any beneficial effect the legislation might otherwise have - and besides, if factories in Pakistan can’t export products to the U.S. because of labor and human rights abuses, Wal-Mart can’t then turn around and sell those products at their everyday low prices, right?
“Pakistan doesn’t have a good record in terms of child labor and the employment of women,” [Susan Aaronson, a professor at George Washington University in Washington who has written on trade and human rights] said. “This ensures the rule of law will be followed.”
The House bill states that each country “shall continue to receive duty-free treatment under this Act only if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be has implemented the requirements set forth” - said requirements including insuring the following:
(A) compliance with core labor standards; and
(B) compliance with the labor laws of Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be, that relate directly to core labor standards and to ensuring acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety.
We’ve already documented Wal-Mart’s sourcing issues in other international locales, so it shouldn’t be all that surprising that they would oppose such regulations here. Links to summaries of both the House version of the bill (with labor requirements) and the Senate version can be found after the jump.
Obama’s Bid to Boost Exports From Pakistan Hits Snag Over Labor [Bloomberg]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
For years, we’ve heard hints that Wal-Mart might support a broad-based government health care plan. Now that health care reform is on the table, Wal-Mart is coming out in force to support it. One executive even wrote an op-ed in the The Tennessean recently about how:
Everyone must have access to quality, affordable health coverage, and businesses, individuals and governments must share responsibility for financing and managing a system that ensures we meet that goal.
But as you all know, Wal-Mart could have been helping the problem all along by putting some of its multi-billion-dollar profits into its health care plan. At Wal-Mart Watch, we’ve heard for years from Wal-Mart employees that aren’t eligible for the company plan, can’t afford it - or have been somehow shortchanged by the plan. But there’s no need to take our word for it - here’s a sampling of what we’ve heard from real employees lately.
Is Wal-Mart serious about health care reform? Let us know in the blog comments below.
Wal-Mart’s High Deductible Plans Are Only For Emergencies
I signed up for the Wal-Mart health insurance plan as soon as I was eligible, but after a few years, the price kept going UP UP UP and I had to trade down to the lower level insurance with a high deductible. Wal-Mart lies about its employees being insured under its plan. At my store, hardly anyone can afford to get the insurance. Some were on their spouse’s insurance, some did without insurance at all, and some were on Medicaid.
When I was making just over $11 an hour, my insurance went from $170 to $240 every two weeks and I had to go with the lesser insurance, which really would only cover you for a catastrophe. Let’s face it, you can’t raise a family, let alone pay for health insurance and run a used car on $9 to $15 an hour like Wal-Mart pays its employees. Since I quit, I’ve found better insurance for about the same rate as I was paying for the inferior Wal-Mart insurance.
- Anonymous in New Jersey
I have insurance through Wal-Mart. It’s not expensive - about $20.00 a month - but it has a high deductible and I can only afford to use it for emergencies. I can’t afford to buy a plan with a smaller deductible because I can’t afford to take $100.00 more out of my paycheck. Last year, they offered a plan like I have now, but with three doctors visits and a $20.00 co-pay. My 2-year-old is on state medical insurance because I can’t afford to pay the high deductible on my insurance.
- Anonymous in Louisiana
Wal-Mart Health Care is Too Expensive, Employees Forced To Find Coverage Elsewhere
While working for Wal-Mart, I had to get health care coverage through a charity program connected to the Wheaton Franciscan health care system. They pay 100% of my bills when I got to their facilities. Their program has literally saved my life on a couple of occasions—once through surgery on my left foot and again when I had to have surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. Thank God for these charity programs. Even though employees give their blood, sweat and tears to Wal-Mart, they won’t do the same for you. I had to be carried out on a stretcher with chest pains two years ago. I had a stress test, which thankfully came back negative, but I was told the chest pains were stress related. I wonder where the stress came from?
- P.F. in Wisconsin
I have worked for Wal-Mart for close to a year now and I have carefully read about all the different health plan choices they offer. To a person who makes a lot more than the average Wal-Mart employee, their plans might seem affordable.
My wife--who works for another company--makes three times more than I do and she only has to pay a fraction for comparable insurance. With over two million associates, half of them in the U.S., Wal-Mart should be able to provide much better plans than what they have now. For this reason, I’ll stick with my wife’s insurance.
- Anonymous in Illinois
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
So were back to this? And we thought worker intimidation was soooooooo last year.
In 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing Wal-Mart’s unionbusting policies and practices in the United States. According to the report, “while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus.”
That aggressiveness is back in the news, courtesy of a unionizing push in St. Paul, Minnesota:
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 filed unfair labor practices complaints this week with the National Labor Relations Board. The union contends that during meetings with employees at its Midway store in St. Paul, Wal-Mart managers said people who sign union authorization cards would be fired. The union also charges that store managers interrogated employees regarding their union support and whether they had signed cards in favor of the union.
Of course this shouldn’t be very surprising, though it does seem pretty interesting that management staff came right out and told people that they’d no longer be a Wal-Mart employee if they supported unionization. You’d think they would hew closer to the Godfather-esque, vague threat route - we can’t be held responsible if, say, a supporter “had an accident” type thing. They should know that threatening workers’ employment status is illegal, right? Or do they just not care? One thing we do know is that they’ve certainly had problems with labor issues in Minnesota before.
Anyway, we’re attempting to get a copy of the NLRB complaint. In the meantime, feel free to check out video of the Local 789 worker rally after the jump.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Connect
