Joe's Union Review

Congressional Staff Study Agrees, #Walmart Costs All Taxpayers!
#1u #Tcot #p2 #Ows
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/02/25/walmart-costs-taxpayers-1557000000-the-conservative-circle-of-life/
OK, totally Corrected: WelfareMart
Full text from report Feb.16th 2004 Congressman George Miller - Everyday Low Wages:
The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart's Labor Record: http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-Labor-Record16feb04.htm

Walmart costs taxpayers $1,557,000,000: the Conservative Circle of Life




Posted on February 25, 2012




image: questionall

WAL-MART Costs Taxpayers $1,557,000,000,00 to Support its Employees

• “The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one
  200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of
  $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low
  wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along
  to taxpayers:
  

• $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
  
• $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent
  of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per
  family.
  
• $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for
  low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a
  child and 50 are married with two children.
  
• $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
  
• $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of
  moving into state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP),
  assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
  
• $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.”
  

• The total figure is based on the average $420,750 per-store figure,
  multiplied by 3700 (the approximate number of stores currently in the
  United States).
  
• Source: Rep. George Miller / Democratic Staff of the Committee on
  Education and the Workforce, “Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We
  All Pay for Wal-Mart”, February 16, 2004.
  

Also, too: Rob Walton, Chairman, Walmart — How the 1% Exploits America:


…

When confronted with facts like these, how do you suppose the
majority of Teabagistan would react? If you suppose that they’d defend
Walmart’s cost to the American taxpayer as Freedom Loving Capitalism and
Rob Walton’s wealth as rightfully earned through his own “hard work”
and “God-fearing American Patriotism,” you’d probably be right. And it
wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to note that these self-loathing toads
would also likely dismiss this information immediately by saying the
need for health care reform is a Socialist / Fascist / Communist Kenyan
Plot.

With the Republican Party and their presidential candidates at war
with labor unions and working and middle class Americans, one day a job
at Walmart is going to be the best any of us can hope for.

If the GOP wins, the difference will be that none of the benefits
today’s Walmart employees have to rely on to simply live will be
available for tomorrow’s Walmart employees. Still, when that day comes,
Walmart and Rob Walton will have great tax rates and loopholes
because of the Republican party — and they’ll be celebrated as job
creators to boot. That’s called the Conservative Circle of Life.

Everyday Low Wages:
The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart


Wal-Mart's Labor Record


CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER
Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives
16feb04




INTRODUCTION

The retail giant Wal-Mart has become the nation's largest
private sector employer with an estimated 1.2 million employees.[1] The
company's annual revenues now amount to 2 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product.[2] Wal-Mart's success is attributed to its ability to charge low prices
in mega-stores offering everything from toys and furniture to groceries. While
charging low prices obviously has some consumer benefits, mounting evidence from
across the country indicates that these benefits come at a steep price for
American workers, U.S. labor laws, and community living standards.

Wal-Mart is undercutting labor standards at home and abroad,
while those federal officials charged with protecting labor standards have been
largely indifferent. Public outcry against Wal-Mart's labor practices has been
answered by the company with a cosmetic response. Wal-Mart has attempted to
offset its labor record with advertising campaigns utilizing employees (who are
euphemistically called "associates") to attest to Wal-Mart's
employment benefits and support of local communities. Nevertheless – whether
the issue is basic organizing rights of workers, or wages, or health benefits,
or working conditions, or trade policy – Wal-Mart has come to represent the
lowest common denominator in the treatment of working people.

This report reviews Wal-Mart's labor practices across the
country and around the world and provides an overview of how working Americans
and their allies in Congress are seeking to address the gamut of issues raised
by this new standard-bearer of American retail.

WAL-MART'S LABOR PRACTICES

WORKERS' ORGANIZING RIGHTS

The United States recognizes workers' right to organize unions.
Government employers generally may not interfere with public sector employees'
freedom of association. In the private sector, workers' right to organize is
protected by the National Labor Relations Act.[3] Internationally, this right is
recognized as a core labor standard and a basic human right.[4]

Wal-Mart's record on the right to organize recently achieved
international notoriety. On January 14, 2004, the International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), an organization representing 151 million workers in
233 affiliated unions around the world, issued a report on U.S. labor
standards.[5] Wal-Mart's rampant violations of workers' rights figured
prominently. In the last few years, well over 100 unfair labor practice charges
have been lodged against Wal-Mart throughout the country, with 43 charges filed
in 2002 alone. Since 1995, the U.S. government has been forced to issue at least
60 complaints against Wal-Mart at the National Labor Relations Board.[6]
Wal-Mart's labor law violations range from illegally firing workers who attempt
to organize a union to unlawful surveillance, threats, and intimidation of
employees who dare to speak out.

With not a single Wal-Mart store in the United States represented by a union,
the company takes a pro-active role in maintaining its union-free status.
Wal-Mart has issued "A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free,"
which provides managers with lists of warning signs that workers might be
organizing, including "frequent meetings at associates' homes" and
"associates who are never seen together start talking or associating with
each other."[7] The "Toolbox" gives managers a hotline to call so
that company specialists can respond rapidly and head off any attempt by
employees to organize.

When employees have managed to obtain a union election and vote for a union,
Wal-Mart has taken sweeping action in response. In 2000, when a small
meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in
Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its
meatcutting departments entirely. Because of deficient labor laws, it took the
meatcutters in Texas three years to win their jobs back with an order that
Wal-Mart bargain with their union.[8] Rather than comply, Wal-Mart is appealing
this decision.[9]

Wal-Mart's aggressive anti-union activity, along with the nation's weak labor
laws, have kept the largest private sector employer in the U.S. union-free.
Breaking the law that guarantees workers' right to organize has material
consequences for both the workers and the company. According to data released by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2004, union workers earn median weekly
salaries of $760, compared to non-union workers' median weekly salaries of $599
– a difference of over 26 percent.[10] In the supermarket industry, the union
difference is even more pronounced, with union members making 30 percent more
than non-union workers. Union representation also correlates with higher
benefits.[11] For instance, 72 percent of union workers have guaranteed pensions
with defined benefits, while only 15 percent of non-union workers enjoy such
retirement security.[12] On the health care front, which will be explored in
more detail later, 60 percent of union workers have medical care benefits on the
job, compared to only 44 percent of non-union workers.[13] For companies like
Wal-Mart seeking to maintain low labor costs, these statistics obviously provide
an incentive to remain union-free. Unfortunately, U.S. labor laws fail to
provide a sufficient disincentive against violating workers' rights.

LOW WAGES

By keeping unions at bay, Wal-Mart keeps its wages low – even
by general industry standards. The average supermarket employee makes $10.35 per
hour.[14] Sales clerks at Wal-Mart, on the other hand, made only $8.23 per hour
on average, or $13,861 per year, in 2001.[15] Some estimate that average
"associate" salaries range from $7.50 to $8.50 per hour.[16] With an
average on-the-clock workweek of 32 hours, many workers take home less than
$1,000 per month.[17] Even the higher estimate of a $13,861 annual salary fell
below the 2001 federal poverty line of $14,630 for a family of three.[18] About
one-third of Wal-Mart's employees are part-time, restricting their access to
benefits.[19] These low wages, to say the least, complicate employees' ability
to obtain essential benefits, such as health care coverage, which will be
explored in a later section.

The low pay stands in stark contrast to Wal-Mart's slogan,
"Our people make the difference." Now-retired Senior Vice President
Don Soderquist has explained: "`Our people make the difference' is not a
meaningless slogan – it's a reality at Wal-Mart. We are a group of dedicated,
hardworking, ordinary people who have teamed together to accomplish
extraordinary things."[20] With 2002 company profits hitting $6.6 billion,
Wal-Mart employees do indeed "accomplish extraordinary things."[21]
But at poverty level wages, these workers are not sharing in the company's
success.

UNEQUAL PAY AND TREATMENT

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in
employment based on employees' race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.[22] Additionally, the Equal Pay Act, an amendment to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, prohibits unequal pay for equal work on the basis of sex.[23]
These basic labor and civil rights laws have become an issue at Wal-Mart.

In 2001, six women sued Wal-Mart in California claiming the
company discriminated against women by systematically denying them promotions
and paying them less than men. The lawsuit has expanded to potentially the
largest class action in U.S. history – on behalf of more than 1 million
current and former female employees. While two-thirds of the company's hourly
workers are female, women hold only one-third of managerial positions and
constitute less than 15 percent of store managers.[24] The suit also claims that
women are pushed into "female" departments and are demoted if they
complain about unequal treatment. One plaintiff, a single mother of four,
started at Wal-Mart in 1990 at a mere $3.85 an hour. Even with her persistent
requests for training and promotions, it took her eight years to reach $7.32 an
hour and seven years to reach management, while her male counterparts were given
raises and promotions much more quickly. For this plaintiff, annual pay
increases were as little as 10 cents and never more than 35 cents per hour.[25]

OFF-THE-CLOCK WORK

While wages are low at Wal-Mart, too often employees are not
paid at all. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), along with state wage and hour
laws, requires hourly employees to be paid for all time actually worked at no
less than a minimum wage and at time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 40 in
a week.[26] These labor laws have posed a particular obstacle for Wal-Mart. As
of December 2002, there were thirty-nine class-action lawsuits against the
company in thirty states, claiming tens of millions of dollars in back pay for
hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart employees.[27]

In 2001, Wal-Mart forked over $50 million in unpaid wages to
69,000 workers in Colorado. These wages were paid only after the workers filed a
class action lawsuit. Wal-Mart had been working the employees off-the-clock. The
company also paid $500,000 to 120 workers in Gallup, New Mexico, who filed a
lawsuit over unpaid work.[28]

In a Texas class-action certified in 2002 on behalf of 200,000
former and current Wal-Mart employees, statisticians estimated that the company
shortchanged its workers $150 million over four years – just based on the
frequency of employees working through their daily 15 minute breaks.[29]

In Oregon, 400 employees in 27 stores sued the company for unpaid,
off-the-clock overtime. In their suit, the workers explained that managers would
delete hours from their time records and tell employees to clean the store after
they clocked out. In December 2002, a jury found in favor of the workers.[30]
One personnel manager claimed that, for six years, she was forced to delete
hours from employee time sheets.[31]

In the latest class-action, filed in November 2003, noting evidence of
systematic violations of the wage-and-hour law, a judge certified a lawsuit for
65,000 Wal-Mart employees in Minnesota. Reacting to the certification, a
Wal-Mart spokesperson told the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "We have no reason
to believe these isolated situations . . . represent a widespread problem with
off-the-clock work."[32]

Many observers blame the wage-and-hour problems at Wal-Mart on pressure
placed on managers to keep labor costs down. In 2002, operating costs for
Wal-Mart were just 16.6 percent of total sales, compared to a 20.7 percent
average for the retail industry as a whole.[33] Wal-Mart reportedly awards
bonuses to its employees based on earnings. With other operating and inventory
costs set by higher level management, store managers must turn to wages to
increase profits. While Wal-Mart expects those managers to increase sales each
year, it expects the labor costs to be cut by two-tenths of a percentage point
each year as well.[34]

Reports from former Wal-Mart managers seem to corroborate this dynamic. Joyce
Moody, a former manager in Alabama and Mississippi, told the New York Times that
Wal-Mart "threatened to write up managers if they didn't bring the payroll
in low enough." Depositions in wage and hour lawsuits reveal that company
headquarters leaned on management to keep their labor costs at 8 percent of
sales or less, and managers in turn leaned on assistant managers to work their
employees off-the-clock or simply delete time from employee time sheets.[35]

CHILD LABOR AND WORK BREAKS VIOLATIONS

The Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws also
govern child labor and work breaks. These work time regulations have likewise
posed a problem at Wal-Mart stores.

In January 2004, the New York Times reported on an internal
Wal-Mart audit which found "extensive violations of child-labor laws and
state regulations requiring time for breaks and meals."[36] One week of
time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found 1,371 instances of minors
working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. There
were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times.[37]

According to the New York Times report: "Verette
Richardson, a former Wal-Mart cashier in Kansas City, Mo., said it was sometimes
so hard to get a break that some cashiers urinated on themselves. Bella
Blaubergs, a diabetic who worked at a Wal-Mart in Washington State, said she
sometimes nearly fainted from low blood sugar because managers often would not
give breaks."[38]

A store manager in Kentucky told the New York Times that, after the audit was
issued, he received no word from company executives to try harder to cut down on
violations: "There was no follow-up to that audit, there was nothing sent
out I was aware of saying, `We're bad. We screwed up. This is the remedy we're
going to follow to correct the situation.'"[39]

UNAFFORDABLE OR UNAVAILABLE HEALTH CARE

In 2002, 43 million non-elderly Americans lacked health
insurance coverage – an increase of almost 2.5 million from the previous year.
Most Americans receive their health insurance coverage through their employers.
At the same time, most of the uninsured are working Americans and their
families, with low to moderate incomes. Their employers, however, either do not
offer health insurance at all or the health insurance offered is simply
unaffordable.[40]

Among these uninsured working families are a significant number
of Wal-Mart employees, many of whom instead secure their health care from
publicly subsidized programs. Fewer than half – between 41 and 46 percent –
of Wal-Mart's employees are insured by the company's health care plan, compared
nationally to 66 percent of employees at large firms like Wal-Mart who receive
health benefits from their employer.[41] In recent years, the company increased
obstacles for its workers to access its health care plan.

In 2002, Wal-Mart increased the waiting period for enrollment
eligibility from 90 days to 6 months for full-time employees. Part-time
employees must wait 2 years before they may enroll in the plan, and they may not
purchase coverage for their spouses or children. The definition of part-time was
changed from 28 hours or less per week to less than 34 hours per week. At the
time, approximately one-third of Wal-Mart's workforce was part-time. By
comparison, nationally, the average waiting period for health coverage for
employees at large firms like Wal-Mart was 1.3 months.[42]

The Wal-Mart plan itself shifts much of the health care costs
onto employees. In 1999, employees paid 36 percent of the costs. In 2001, the
employee burden rose to 42 percent. Nationally, large-firm employees pay on
average 16 percent of the premium for health insurance. Unionized grocery
workers typically pay nothing.[43] Studies show that much of the decline in
employer-based health coverage is due to shifts of premium costs from employers
to employees.[44]

Moreover, Wal-Mart employees who utilize their health care
confront high deductibles and co-payments. A single worker could end up spending
around $6,400 out-of-pocket – about 45 percent of her annual full-time salary
– before seeing a single benefit from the health plan.[45]

According to an AFL-CIO report issued in October 2003, the
employees' low wages and Wal-Mart's cost-shifting render health insurance
unaffordable, particularly for those employees with families. Even under the
Wal-Mart plan with the highest deductible ($1,000) – and therefore with the
lowest employee premium contribution – it would take an $8 per hour employee,
working 34 hours per week, almost one-and-a-half months of pre-tax earnings to
pay for one year of family coverage.[46]

Wal-Mart's spending on health care for its employees falls well below
industry and national employer-spending averages. A Harvard Business School case
study on Wal-Mart found that, in 2002, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 per
employee. By comparison, the average spending per employee in the
wholesale/retailing sector was $4,800. For U.S. employers in general, the
average was $5,600 per employee.[47]

In the end, because they cannot afford the company health plan, many Wal-Mart
workers must turn to public assistance for health care or forego their health
care needs altogether. Effectively, Wal-Mart forces taxpayers to subsidize what
should be a company-funded health plan. According to a study by the Institute
for Labor and Employment at the University of California-Berkeley, California
taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart in that
state alone.[48] In fact, Wal-Mart personnel offices, knowing employees cannot
afford the company health plan, actually encourage employees to apply for
charitable and public assistance, according to a recent report by the PBS news
program Now With Bill Moyers.[49]

When a giant like Wal-Mart shifts health insurance costs to employees, its
competitors invariably come under pressure to do the same. Currently engaged in
the largest ongoing labor dispute in the nation, unionized grocery workers in
southern California have refused to accept higher health care costs resulting
from cost-shifting on health insurance premiums by their grocery chain employers
– cost-shifting, the grocers say, inspired by the threat of Wal-Mart
competition. Beginning on October 11, 2003, 70,000 grocery employees of Vons,
Pavilions, Ralphs, and Albertsons have either been on strike or locked out. The
companies want to dramatically increase workers' share of health costs, claiming
that the change is necessary in order to compete with Wal-Mart's incursion in
the southern California market. E. Richard Brown, the director of the Center for
Health Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the Sacramento
Bee that, if the grocery chains drastically reduce health benefits, the trends
toward cost shifting and elimination of health coverage will accelerate.
Following the grocers' lead, more employers would offer fewer benefits, would
require their workers to pay more, and may even drop health benefits
altogether.[50] Whether the current pressure from Wal-Mart is real or imagined
or merely a convenient excuse for the grocers' cost-cutting bargaining position,
Wal-Mart has sparked a new race to the bottom among American retail employers.
Undeniably, such a race threatens to undermine the employer-based health
insurance system.

LOW WAGES MEAN HIGH COSTS TO TAXPAYERS

Because Wal-Mart wages are generally not living wages, the
company uses taxpayers to subsidize its labor costs. While the California study
showed how much taxpayers were subsidizing Wal-Mart on health care alone, the
total costs to taxpayers for Wal-Mart's labor policies are much greater.

The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal
taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the
low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to
taxpayers:

• $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying
  Wal-Mart families.
  

• $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the
  store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
  

• $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income
  families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50
  are married with two children.
  

• $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart
  families qualify with an average of 2 children.
  

• $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving
  into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30
  employees with an average of two children qualify.
  

• $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
  

Among Wal-Mart employees, some single workers may be able to make ends meet.
Others may be forced to take on two or three jobs. Others may have a spouse with
a better job. And others simply cannot make ends meet. Because Wal-Mart fails to
pay sufficient wages, U.S. taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. In this
sense, Wal-Mart's profits are not made only on the backs of its employees –
but on the backs of every U.S. taxpayer.

The ultimate costs are not limited to subsidies for underpaid Wal-Mart
workers. When a Wal-Mart comes to town, the new competition has a ripple effect
throughout the community. Other stores are forced out of business or forced to
cut employees' wages and benefits in order to compete with Wal-Mart. The Los
Angeles City Council commissioned a report in 2003 on the effects of allowing
Wal-Mart Supercenters into their communities. The report, prepared by consulting
firm Rodino and Associates, found that Supercenters drive down wages in the
local retail industry, place a strain on public services, and damage small
businesses. It recommended that the City Council refuse to allow any
Supercenters to be built in Los Angeles without a promise from Wal-Mart to
increase wages and benefits for its employees.[51]

The findings of the Rodino report are alarming. The labor impacts of a
Wal-Mart Supercenter on low-income communities include:

• "Big box retailers and superstores may negatively impact the labor
  market in an area by the conversion of higher paying retail jobs to a fewer
  number of lower paying retail jobs. The difference in overall compensation
  (wages and benefits) may be as much as $8.00."
  

• "Lack of health care benefits of many big box and superstore
  employees can result in a greater public financial burden as workers utilize
  emergency rooms as a major component of their health care."
  

• "A study conducted by the San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), a
  nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, found that an influx of big-box stores
  into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits
  between $105 million and $221 million, and an increase of $9 million in
  public health costs. SDCTA also estimated that the region would lose
  pensions and retirement benefits valued between $89 million and $170 million
  per year and that even increased sales and property tax revenues would not
  cover the extra costs of necessary public services."
  

• "[The threat of Wal-Mart's incursion into the southern California
  grocery market] is already triggering a dynamic in which the grocery stores
  are negotiating with workers for lowered compensation, in an attempt to
  re-level the `playing field.'
  

• "One study of superstores and their potential impact on grocery
  industry employees found that the entry of such stores into the Southern
  California regional grocery business was expected to depress industry wages
  and benefits at an estimated range from a low of $500 million to a high of
  almost $1.4 billion annually, potentially affecting 250,000 grocery industry
  employees ... [T]he full impact of lost wages and benefits throughout
  Southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year."[52]
  

Reports such as these have provided supporting evidence to localities which
seek to pass ordinances restricting "big box" or supercenter stores.
Such ordinances were recently passed in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in
California. Wal-Mart, however, has moved to overturn those ordinances. In Contra
Costa, Wal-Mart launched a petition drive to challenge that county's ordinance
in a referendum in March 2004. In Alameda, the company has filed a lawsuit to
void an ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors in January 2004.[53]

One of the most cited studies on Wal-Mart's impact on local communities was
performed by economist Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University in 1993. Stone
looked at the impact of Wal-Mart on small towns in Iowa. He found a 3 percent
spike in total retail sales in communities immediately after a Wal-Mart opened.
But the longer term effects of Wal-Mart were disastrous for nearby independent
businesses. Over the course of the next several years, retailers' sales of mens'
and boys' apparel dropped 44 percent on average, hardware sales fell by 31
percent, and lawn and garden sales fell by 26 percent. Likewise, a Congressional
Research Service report in 1994 explained that Wal-Mart uses a saturation
strategy with store development. In other words, it builds stores in nearby
connected markets in order to stifle any competition in the targeted area by the
size of its presence.[54]

By all accounts, Wal-Mart's development strategy has been working. Currently,
Wal-Mart operates around 3,000 total stores and close to 1,400 Supercenters. It
is the largest grocer in the U.S., with a 19 percent market share, and the
third-largest pharmacy, with a 16 percent market share. According to Retail
Forward, a global management consulting and research firm, for every one
Supercenter that will open, two supermarkets will close.[55] Since 1992, the
supermarket industry has experienced a net loss of 13,500 stores.[56] Over the
next five years, Wal-Mart plans to open 1,000 more Supercenters in the U.S.[57]
By 2007, Wal-Mart is expected to control 35 percent of food and drug sales in
the U.S.[58]

ILLEGAL USE OF UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS

Among the lowest paid workers in the U.S. economy are undocumented
immigrants. As was reported in the fall of 2003, these workers are not foreign
to the floors of Wal-Mart stores. On October 23, 2003, federal agents raided 61
Wal-Mart stores in 21 states. When they left, the agents had arrested 250
nightshift janitors who were undocumented workers.[59]

Following the arrests, a grand jury convened to consider charging Wal-Mart
executives with labor racketeering crimes for knowingly allowing undocumented
workers to work at their stores. The workers themselves were employed by
agencies Wal-Mart contracted with for cheap cleaning services. While Wal-Mart
executives have tried to lay the blame squarely with the contractors, federal
investigators point to wiretapped conversations showing that executives knew the
workers were undocumented.[60]

Additionally, some of the janitors have filed a class-action lawsuit against
Wal-Mart alleging both racketeering and wage-and-hour violations. According to
the janitors, Wal-Mart and its contractors failed to pay them overtime totaling,
along with other damages, $200,000. One of the plaintiffs told the New York
Times that he worked seven days per week for eight months, earning $325 for
60-hour weeks, and he never received overtime.[61] A legal question now being
raised is whether these undocumented workers even have the right to sue their
employers.[62]

Not surprisingly, this recent raid was not the first time Wal-Mart was caught
using undocumented workers. In 1998 and 2001, federal agents arrested 102
undocumented workers at Wal-Marts around the country.[63]

President Bush's newly proposed temporary foreign worker plan
would legalize such undocumented workers without granting them an opportunity
for citizenship, creating a new class of indentured servants and a safer source
of cheap labor for companies like Wal-Mart.

TRADING AWAY JOBS

Since the recession began in March 2001, the United States has
lost 2.4 million jobs. In every recession, since the Great Depression, jobs were
recovered within the first 31 months after the recession began – until now.
The latest recession began 34 months ago and officially ended in November 2001,
but the jobs have not been recovered. For American working families, by all
accounts, the "jobless recovery" has been of little benefit to them.
While GDP growth was strong or solid in the third and fourth quarters of 2003,
real wages for workers remained stagnant and even declined.[64]

Indeed, of the jobs that remain, the pay is low. The country has
seen a dramatic shift from high-paying jobs to low-paying jobs. For instance, in
New Hampshire, which still has not recovered the number of jobs it lost in the
recession, new jobs pay 35 percent lower wages than lost jobs. In Delaware,
those wages are 43 percent lower; in Colorado, 35 percent lower; in West
Virginia, 33 percent lower. In fact, the low-pay shift has hit all but two of
the fifty states.[65]

Moreover, these changes in the labor market reveal themselves in a marked
decline in living standards for low- and middle-income workers. The real weekly
earnings for full-time workers age 25 and older fell for the bottom half of the
workforce between the fourth quarters of 2002 and 2003. In particular, workers
in the 10th percentile saw their weekly earnings fall 1.2 percent; in the 20th
percentile, by 0.5 percent, in the 50th percentile, by 0.1 percent.[66]
Conversely, earners in the top percentiles of income experienced growth. The 90t
percentile, for instance, saw a 1.1 percent increase in weekly earnings. As the
Economic Policy Institute points out: "This pattern of earnings growth
suggests that while the economy is expanding, the benefits of growth are flowing
to those at the top of the wage scale."[67]

These lower-paying jobs are largely service sector jobs, like retail,
replacing traditionally higher-paying and unionized manufacturing jobs. Between
January 1998 and August 2003, the nation experienced a net loss of 3 million
manufacturing jobs.[68] During the "recovery," 1.3 million
manufacturing jobs disappeared.[69] American manufacturers find it increasingly
difficult to keep jobs in the U.S., given the availability of cheap labor
abroad. In 2003, the U.S. trade deficit hit a record high of $551 billion,
increasing 15 percent from 2002 and exceeding 5 percent of GDP.[70]

Wal-Mart plays a curiously illustrative role in this jobs phenomenon – not
just in the creation of low-paying jobs and the downward pressure on wages and
benefits, but also in the export of existing manufacturing jobs to foreign
countries offering cheap labor. Wal-Mart markets itself with a patriotic,
small-town, red-white-and-blue advertising motif. But Wal-Mart's trade practices
are anything but small-town. Indeed, Wal-Mart conducts international trade in
manufactured goods on a scale that can bring down entire nations' economies.

While the red-white-and-blue banners remain, long-gone are the days when
Wal-Mart abided by the mottos of "Buy American" and "Bring It
Home to the USA." In 1995, Wal-Mart claimed only 6 percent of its
merchandise was imported. Today an estimated 50-60 percent of its products come
from overseas.[71] In the past five years, Wal-Mart has doubled its imports from
China. In 2002, the company bought 14 percent of the $1.9 billion of clothes
exported by Bangladesh to the United States. Also in 2002, the company purchased
$12 billion in merchandise from China, or 10 percent of China's total U.S.-bound
exports, a 20 percent increase from the previous year. In 2003, these Chinese
purchases jumped to $15 billion, or almost one-eighth of all Chinese exports to
the United States.[72] Today, more than 3,000 supplier factories in China
produce for Wal-Mart.[73]

Wal-Mart maintains an extensive global network of 10,000 suppliers.[74]
Whether American, Bangladeshi, Chinese, or Honduran, Wal-Mart plays these
producers against one another in search of lower and lower prices. American
suppliers have been forced to relocate their businesses overseas to maintain
Wal-Mart contracts.[75] Overseas manufacturers are forced to engage in cutthroat
competition that further erodes wages and working conditions of what often
already are sweatshops. To keep up with the pressure to produce ever cheaper
goods, factories force employees to work overtime or work for weeks without a
day off. A Bangladeshi factory worker told the Los Angeles Times that employees
at her factory worked from 8 a.m. to 3 a.m. for 10 and 15 day stretches just to
meet Wal-Mart price demands. And still, Wal-Mart's general manager for
Bangladesh complained of his country's factories, telling the Los Angeles Times,
"I think they need to improve. When I entered a factory in China, it seemed
they are very fast."[76]

While low-wage jobs displace higher-paid manufacturing jobs in the United
States, undercutting living standards at home, living standards abroad are not
reaping the benefits one might expect. Reports indicate that Wal-Mart's
bargaining power is able to maintain low wages and poor working conditions among
its foreign suppliers. The Washington Post has explained: "As capital
scours the globe for cheaper and more malleable workers, and as poor countries
seek multinational companies to provide jobs, lift production, and open export
markets, Wal-Mart and China have forged themselves into the ultimate joint
venture, their symbiosis influencing the terms of labor and consumption the
world over."[77] Thanks to a ban on independent trade unions and a lack of
other basic human rights, China offers Wal-Mart a highly-disciplined and cheap
workforce. A Chinese labor official who asked to remain anonymous for fear of
punishment told the Washington Post that "Wal-Mart pressures the factory to
cut its price, and the factory responds with longer hours or lower pay. And the
workers have no options."[78]

One employee of a Chinese supplier described the difficulties of surviving on
$75 per month. She could rarely afford to buy meat, and her family largely
subsisted on vegetables. Over four years, she had not received a single salary
increase.[79]

Wal-Mart has countered that it insists that its suppliers enforce labor
standards and comply with Chinese law. One-hundred Wal-Mart auditors inspect
Chinese plants, and the company has suspended contracts with about 400
suppliers, mainly for violating overtime limits. An additional 72 factories were
permanently blacklisted in 2003 for violating child labor standards. Still,
critics point out that the Wal-Mart does not regularly inspect smaller factories
that use middlemen to sell to the company. Nor does it inspect the factories of
subcontractors. A Chinese labor organizer explained that the inspections are
"ineffective," since Wal-Mart usually notifies the factories in
advance. The factories "often prepare by cleaning up, creating fake time
sheets and briefing workers on what to say."[80]

The factories themselves complain that, because Wal-Mart demands such low
prices, they have slim profit margins – if any. A manager of one Chinese
supplier told the Washington Post, "In the beginning, we made money ... But
when Wal-Mart started to launch nationwide distribution, they pressured us for a
special price below our cost. Now, we're losing money on every box, while
Wal-Mart is making more money."[81] Obviously, one way to regain a profit
for such suppliers would be to begin cutting back on labor costs.

Finally, as testament to Wal-Mart's stalwart anti-union policy, none of its
31 stores in China are unionized, despite the fact that the Communist
Party-controlled official union has told the company that it would not help
workers fight for higher pay.[82] Oddly enough, Article 10 of China's Trade
Union Law requires that any establishment with 25 or more workers must have a
union. Wal-Mart, however, claims that it has received assurances from the
central government that it need not allow unions in any of its stores.[83] As
one reporter has explained, "The explanation for the apparent contradiction
may be that the government's desire for foreign investment and jobs trumps any
concern for workers' rights. That wouldn't be surprising in the Chinese
environment, where strikes are forbidden and the official labor grouping
actively supports the government's efforts to block the rise of independent
unions."[84] With China, any company in search of pliant and cheap labor
has found a perfect mix of cooperative government officials and workers made
submissive through fear.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits
discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment matters. In
particular, an employer may not discriminate against an employee or prospective
employee who is otherwise qualified to perform the job if given reasonable
accommodations.[85]

In addition to lawsuits over lost wages or unequal pay, Wal-Mart
has faced a barrage of lawsuits alleging that the company discriminates against
workers with disabilities. In 2001, Wal-Mart paid over $6 million to settle 13
such lawsuits. These cases were brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) on behalf of disabled persons whom Wal-Mart failed to hire.
The settlement also required Wal-Mart to change its procedures in dealing with
disabled job applicants and provide more training for its employees on
anti-discrimination laws.[86]

Yet, on January 20, 2004, the EEOC filed another lawsuit
against the retail giant on behalf of a job applicant who claims he was not
hired because he needed a wheelchair. The lawsuit was filed in Kansas City after
the EEOC failed to obtain a settlement with Wal-Mart.[87]

WORKER SAFETY

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is designed to
protect workers from workplace injuries and illnesses.[88] OSHA is enforced by
the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Regulations issued by that agency lay out clear rules for such safety matters as
the provision of exits for employees.[89]

The latest Wal-Mart scandal to hit the news is its reported
lockdown of its nighttime shift various stores around the country. According to
a January 18, 2004, New York Times report, the company institutes a
"lock-in" policy at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores.[90]
The stores lock their doors at night so that no one can enter or leave the
building, leaving workers inside trapped. Some workers are then threatened that,
if they ever use the fire exit to leave the building, they will be fired.
Instead, a manager is supposed to have a key that will unlock doors to allow
employees to escape. Many workers have found themselves locked in without a
manager who has a key, as the New York Times story detailed.[91]

The company has claimed that the policy is designed to protect
stores and employees from crime. Former store managers, however, have claimed
the real reason behind the lockdown is to prevent "shrinkage" –
i.e., theft by either employees or outsiders. It is also designed to eliminate
unauthorized cigarette breaks or quick trips home.[92]

Locked-in workers have had to wait for hours off-the-clock for a manager to
show up to let them go home after they completed their shift. One worker claims
to have broken his foot on the job and had to wait four hours for someone to
open the door. Another worker alleges she cut her hand with box cutters one
night and was forced to wait until morning to go to the hospital, where she
received thirteen stitches.[93]

In the history of American worker safety, some of the worst tragedies have
involved employees locked in their workplaces in an emergency, including the
Triangle Waist Company fire of 1911 in which 146 women died in a fire because
the garment factory's doors were locked. As recently as 1991, 25 workers
perished in a fire at a chicken processing plant in North Carolina. The plant's
owner had locked the doors for fear of employee theft and unauthorized breaks.
According to recent reports, ten percent of Wal-Mart's stores are subjected to
the nighttime lockdown.[94]

In 2002, in a telling junction of alleged labor law violations, the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against a Wal-Mart in Texas
regarding health and safety threats made by management against employees.
According to the complaint, a company official told workers that, after a worker
filed complaints regarding unsafe conditions with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), any fines imposed upon the company would come out
of employee bonuses.[95]

WAL-MART'S RESPONSE

Wal-Mart's response to this extensive list of labor problems
has been to treat the charges as a public-relations matter and not a substantive
issue of workplace fairness. Seemingly, Wal-Mart believes only its image – not
its behavior – needs to be adjusted. In that regard, Wal-Mart has undertaken
aggressive advertising campaigns, has financed its own economic-impact studies
to counter those that show the costs of Wal-Mart to local communities, and has
become a major political campaign contributor.

On the advertising front, Wal-Mart launched a television ad
series called "Good Jobs" in early 2004. The ads feature Wal-Mart
employees talking about how great it is to work at Wal-Mart. Spots also show
Wal-Mart's community involvement. One ad features a Wal-Mart employee who
attests that Wal-Mart health insurance made it possible to treat his 7-year-old
son for liver disease.[96] It is not known what the total cost of the ad series
will be in the end.

Wal-Mart has also financed its own studies, to counter publicly
commissioned reports which detail the burden that Wal-Mart imposes on
communities. After the Rodino report was commissioned by Los Angeles City
Council members, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), a
private non-profit corporation, released its own study. The LAEDC study was
commissioned and financed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Unsurprisingly, it claimed
that Wal-Mart Supercenters would provide extraordinary benefits for the Los
Angeles economy.

Because Wal-Mart would be charging lower prices, according to the report,
households would experience greater savings. If Wal-Mart penetrates 20 percent
of the market in the seven Southland counties, the savings, an estimated $3.6
billion, would then translate into the creation of an incredible 36,400 jobs
annually. That is, while the study estimates that 3,000 to 5,000 jobs would be
lost in the grocery business, consumer savings on food prices would turn into
more consumer spending on non-grocery goods, creating more jobs in those
sectors.[97] Of course, it is not at all clear why job loss would be limited to
the grocery business, since Supercenters, by their very nature, sell virtually
any consumer good, except for durables like automobiles. According to the study,
California consumers "may opt to spend their savings on sports equipment,
continuing education classes, or restaurant meals."[98] The study failed to
mention that Wal-Mart already offers an extensive line of "sports
equipment."[99] The "continuing education classes" were
presumably listed because they may constitute job training for better jobs. And
where would those better jobs be? It can only be assumed, as more people spend
their grocery savings for "restaurant meals," much of the claimed job
creation would be in restaurants and similar low-paying service sector
businesses, for which continuing education classes offer little advantage.

The ultimate household savings projections by the LAEDC study should also be
questioned. First, downward pressure on wages and benefits, spurred by the giant
employer, would cause people to have less money to spend. Thus, while they may
spend less on groceries, they also make less or may be spending more on former
benefits like health care. Indeed, the study appears to not take into account
the loss of such benefits as health care and pensions that workers are likely to
experience. Second, when Wal-Mart has successfully reduced the number of
surrounding competitors, there is less pressure on the company to keep its
prices low. Third, the claim that Wal-Mart does in fact charge consumers less is
open to question. Economist Kenneth Stone has found that Wal-Mart lowers the
prices of "price sensitive" items such as milk and bread. Consumers
pay attention to the prices of these items – the kind of everyday items
consumers buy most often – and less attention to the prices of other items
such as light bulbs – which are not reduced and may be more expensive at
Wal-Mart than at other retailers. The lower-priced items are displayed
prominently, grabbing customers' attention and leading them to mistakenly
believe that they are getting similarly low prices on other items throughout the
store.[100]

The LAEDC study also disputed the extent of wage and benefit differences
between Wal-Mart employees and other retail or grocery workers. According to the
LAEDC, wage comparisons are often skewed for two reasons. First, most Wal-Mart
Supercenters have not been open long enough to allow employees to accumulate
seniority and, therefore, higher rates of pay. Second, because Wal-Mart promotes
to management from within its own ranks, those employees with the greatest
longevity are usually no longer counted as hourly employees.[101]

The first reason does not appear to square with prolific reports about the
intense pressure on stores to keep labor costs down. This story first appeared
in the Wall Street Journal:

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
At Wal-Mart Stores Inc., managers are judged in part on their ability to
keep payroll costs at a strict percentage of sales, according to former
managers. Some say that puts extra pressure on higher-paid workers to be
more productive.

"You keep people making $ 10 an hour to a high standard,"
putting more pressure on them for small mistakes, said Lyndol Jackson, a
Wal-Mart manager until he left for another job in 1998.

Often, those workers quit and can be replaced less expensively, added
Jackson, who lives in Memphis, Tenn.

Former Wal-Mart cashier Dana Mailloux, 33, worked for eight years at a
store in Fort Myers, Fla., moving up to $ 9.15 an hour. Last fall, her
manager called her and more than a dozen other longtime employees into his
office and told them he had to lay them off because of lack of work.

That same day, Mailloux said, she passed a room with six new hires, red
vests in hand, filling out paperwork.

Returning to the store that weekend, she said, she saw newly advertised
positions listed on a bulletin board.

"Basically, I was thrown out like a piece of trash," said
Mailloux.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said the company continually lays off
and hires workers as sales rise and fall. She said that if "labor
adjustments are necessary," the company before making cuts asks for
volunteers to take time off and carefully controls hours.

"It is ludicrous and contrary to our business model to think the
company would benefit from replacing experienced associates with new,
lower-paid ones," Clark said in a statement. "It's clear that
experienced associates are golden with us."

Clark declined to discuss Mailloux's dismissal, citing employee
privacy.[102]

</blockquote>
</blockquote>
In other words, there may be other reasons for the wage difference than just
the frequency of store openings. Nor does the lack-of-longevity reason for the
wage differences square with previously-mentioned accounts of actual pay raises
of just a few cents per year.

The second reason claimed for wage differences – that Wal-Mart promotes its
best employees to management – would appear to be exaggerated. To the extent
that such promotions do happen, their effect on the average Wal-Mart wage must
be minimal. Wal-Mart is not promoting half of its workforce. The average
Wal-Mart store has one manager, one-to-three assistant managers, and 15
department heads (who may or may not be counted as hourly), compared to 300 to
350 "associates."[103]

Moreover, according to the study, Wal-Mart's health care benefits are better
than often portrayed. The authors acknowledge that the Wal-Mart health insurance
plan is not as comprehensive as the unionized grocery store plans in Southern
California and that Wal-Mart employees must pay part of the premium while union
workers pay nothing. However, the authors note, the Wal-Mart plan does not
include a cap on medical expenses, thereby protecting participating employees
from the bankrupting costs of catastrophic illnesses. The unionized store plans
do have a cap, according to the LAEDC study.[104]

The relative worth of a catastrophic plan versus a more comprehensive health
plan comes into focus when considering the frequency with which workers utilize
various services. While childrens' vaccinations are covered by the union plans,
such routine medical needs are excluded from Wal-Mart's coverge. Such
out-of-pocket costs for these low-wage employees might be $75 per shot at a
private clinic. On the other hand, Wal-Mart touts the 60 transplants it covers
per year at a cost of $1 million each. As one commentator has noted, 60
transplants amounts to slightly over one-hundredth of one percent of Wal-Mart's
500,000 insured workers.[105]

On the issue of health care coverage, the LAEDC study explained:

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Since they must pay some of the upfront costs of medical care, many
Wal-Mart employees who are eligible for the coverage choose not to
participate. This leads to much lower participation rates among Wal-Mart
employees than among union workers, virtually all of whom participate since
their up front costs are paid by their employer. It is worth noting that
more than 90 percent of all Wal-Mart employees have health coverage from
some source, including the company itself, a covered spouse, parents,
through retirement benefits (from another job), etc.[106]

</blockquote>
</blockquote>
According to the LAEDC, low participation rates in Wal-Mart's health plan are
a matter of mere "choice," not affordability. Nevertheless, most
Wal-Mart employees, according to the study, have health care from "some
source," including "a covered spouse" – that is, a spouse at
another company with better health care benefits, now subsidizing what should be
Wal-Mart's labor cost. The study did not go into any further detail on what
these unnamed other sources of coverage might be, but did not rule out public
assistance programs. In July 2003, California Assemblywoman Sandy Lieber (D-San
Jose) released copies of employee handouts from Wal-Mart which explained how to
use an employment verification service when applying for Medicaid, food stamps,
and other public services.[107]

The LAEDC study continued on the topic of health care coverage: "The
issue of participation rates may become moot in California, however. In October,
Governor Davis signed SB2 – Health Care for Working Families that mandates
large employers to provide health coverage to all of their employees."[108]
While Wal-Mart currently covers about two-thirds of the costs of employee health
care, SB2 would require Wal-Mart to cover 80 percent. The long waiting periods
for Wal-Mart coverage would also have to be cut by 3 months for full-time
workers and one-year and nine months for part-time workers. While the study
claimed SB2 might render the debate over participation rates moot, it failed to
mention that Wal-Mart has helped finance an employer-backed campaign for a
referendum to repeal SB2.[109]

On the political front, Wal-Mart has stepped up its campaign donations. The
company contributed about $475,000 in soft money to the Republicans in the 2000
and 2002 election cycles, compared to $50,000 for Democrats in the same time
period.[110] In 2003, Wal-Mart contributed over $1 million to federal campaigns
– 85 percent to Republicans and 15 percent to Democrats – jumping from the
71st biggest campaign contributor in 2002 to the second biggest single
contributor in 2003.[111] These contributions come at a time when the public
outcry against Wal-Mart's behavior is louder than ever.

CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSES

Wal-Mart is certainly emblematic of structural changes within
the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, as a rising standard-bearer of those changes,
its employment practices pose a real and growing threat to U.S. labor standards.
Indeed, Wal-Mart's sheer size and market power render it more than just an
emblem but a leading agent of these changes.

While Congress has failed to address the issues posed by
Wal-Mart's ascension, Congressional Democrats advocate a legislative program
that tackles issues such as growing income disparities, the plight of the
working poor, the lack of health care, unemployment and the shift from
high-paying to low-paying jobs, the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the
country, and the lack of effective enforcement of workers' rights.

LABOR LAW REFORM AND THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE

Representative George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Ted Kennedy
(D-MA), along with over 130 cosponsors, have introduced HR 3619 "The
Employee Free Choice Act." This bill consists of comprehensive reform of
the nation's labor laws in order to give meaningful effect to workers' right to
organize – an internationally-recognized human right. The Employee Free Choice
Act proposes triple damages for unlawful firings of pro-union workers during
organizing drives, instead of the meager straight backpay remedy which allows
employers to violate rights and destroy organizing drives at very little cost to
them; imposes civil fines on employers who commit serious or repeated violations
of the right to organize, instead of often meaningless and ineffective notice
postings; provides for a card check system for choosing a union, rather than the
easily-manipulated NLRB election process; and provides for first-contract
mediation and binding arbitration, so that employers cannot stall bargaining
until workers give up and abandon their union.

PROPOSALS TO INCREASE WAGES AND PROTECT OVERTIME

Democratic Members of Congress and Senators continue to fight
for a higher minimum wage so that one day no one working full-time will be
forced to live in poverty. While Wal-Mart typically pays more than the minimum
wage, its average hourly rate still puts many working families below the poverty
line.

Additionally, Democratic Members of Congress and Senators are
fighting the Bush Administration's attempt to gut the nation's overtime laws.
Under the Bush Administration's proposed rule, 8 million working Americans will
lose their overtime pay. In exchange, the Bush Administration claims 1.3 million
Americans will gain the right to overtime pay; the real number is actually much
less, according to analysts at the Economic Policy Institute. President Bush's
Department of Labor has issued public advice to employers on how to skirt the
law and avoid paying even those additional workers any overtime pay.

Other proposals aimed at improving workers' living standards include tax cuts
targeted to working families and making higher education more affordable by
boosting funding to Pell grants and increasing the HOPE Scholarship tax credit.
Congressmembers and Senators have fought the Bush Administration's efforts to
privatize Social Security and have worked to shore up the private pension system
of employer-based retirement plans with proposals to protect the pensions of
older employees and give workers greater control over their pension savings.

CHILD LABOR

Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), along with over 40 cosponsors,
has introduced HR 3139, "The Youth Worker Protection Act," which
imposes limits on the amount of hours teenagers – who should be focused on
their education – may work. Wal-Mart's internal audit in 2000 pointed to
extensive child labor violations. Longstanding research has established the
detrimental impacts of excessive work on school performance.

SWEATSHOPS

Democrats, led by Representative George Miller (D-CA), have
introduced HR 3550, "The Recruiter Accountability Act." This bill
holds labor recruiters and employers accountable for the promises they make to
foreign workers when they lure them to the U.S. Recruited workers often find
that, despite promises of good pay and healthy working conditions, their new
jobs provide poverty wages – if any wages, at all – and no benefits such as
basic health insurance. Additionally, workers are kept in debt to their
recruiter for bringing them to the U.S. Democrats will put an end to this
practice – which not only amounts to exploitation of foreign workers but
undercuts the wages and benefits of working Americans.

Democrats are also introducing a bill to prevent federal
agencies from contracting with anyone who operates or does business with a
sweatshop. Taxpayer dollars should no longer be used to enrich those who violate
basic human rights at home or overseas.

AFFORDABLE AND MEANINGFUL HEALTH INSURANCE

Congress continues to look for solutions to the health care
crisis in this country. Democrats have offered mixes of public and
employer-sponsored plans to achieve universal care – a key policy goal of the
party. They have also focused on the cost of health care. As Wal-Mart
demonstrates, offering a health care plan to employees is not enough if
employees cannot afford to participate. Proposals include providing tax credits
to small businesses to assist them in providing a health plan, reducing the
prescription drug prices by making it easier for generic drugs to be sold, and
ensuring a Medicare prescription drug benefit that obtains the best prices for
seniors.

FAIR TRADE AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE GOOD-PAYING JOBS

Democrats have led the call for fair trade agreements – with
environmental and labor standard protections. American manufacturers simply
cannot compete with foreign workforces that are paid pennies per hour, utilize
child and slave labor, and do not enjoy basic human rights. Democrats are
exploring ways to end sweatshop practices around the world; to ensure basic
human rights at home and abroad for all workers; and to ultimately stop the
exodus of jobs out of the country. Proposals include tax deductions for
manufacturers who expand their U.S. operations and fully funding job training
and manufacturing development programs.

CONCLUSION

Wal-Mart's success has meant downward pressures on wages and
benefits, rampant violations of basic workers' rights, and threats to the
standard of living in communities across the country. The success of a business
need not come at the expense of workers and their families. Such short-sighted
profit-making strategies ultimately undermine our economy.

In the past few years, Wal-Mart has been subjected to dozens of
class-action suits seeking backpay for hundreds of thousands of shortchanged
workers, dozens of unfair labor practice complaints by the U.S. government for
violations of workers' right to organize, and other legal actions stemming from
the company's employment practices. At the same time, it has managed to keep its
wages low and put suppliers on a downward spiral to cut their own wages. To keep
up with Wal-Mart's low-cost demands, U.S. manufacturers have found it
increasingly difficult to remain in the U.S. Cuts in health care benefits to
Wal-Mart employees are pushing other U.S. grocers to do the same.

Wal-Mart's current behavior must not be allowed to set the
standard for American labor practices. Standing together, America's working
families, including Wal-Mart employees, and their allies in Congress can reverse
this race to the bottom in the fast-expanding service industry. The promise that
every American can work an honest day's work, receive an honest day's wages,
raise a family, own a home, have decent health care, and send their children to
college is a promise that is not easily abandoned. It is, in short, the American
Dream.


http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-Labor-Record16feb04.htm