I wonder if Walmart puts Medicaid forms in its employee benefit packages that they handout to their new employees. Wal-Mart lashes out at competitors and unions in conference By Mary Jo Feldstein Of the Post-Dispatch 04/05/2005 ROGERS, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s chief executive fired back at critics Tuesday, saying labor unions and rival companies are afraid of competition and want to preserve a status quo that lines their pockets and hurts customers. Lee Scott said Wal-Mart's low prices help the world's biggest retailer to raise the standard of living for the 112 million Americans who shop at its stores each week, many of whom struggle to live paycheck-to-paycheck. "The truth is a lot of the criticism we get is not right, it's self-serving," he told reporters at a media conference. "I would ask them why they want to deny consumers the benefits of competition." Nationwide, Wal-Mart has been under increasing pressure from labor unions and other groups. It also has faced lawsuits about employment practices and working conditions. Wal-Mart invited the media to a two-day conference this week near its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to address such concerns and better explain the company's business and philosophies. In the St. Louis area, supermarket chains Shop 'n Save Warehouse Foods Inc., Dierbergs Markets Inc. and Schnuck Markets Inc. and the unions that represent their workers have publicly opposed Wal-Mart opening Supercenters that sell groceries along with other merchandise. They contend that Wal-Mart unfairly pressures suppliers and doesn't pay workers fair wages and benefits. "I do not oppose Wal-Mart or any other retailer's attempt to grow a business," said Craig Schnuck, chairman and chief executive of Schnuck Markets. "I believe that fair competition makes everyone try harder and work smarter and that, in fact, is what customers deserve. "However, the key word is 'fair,'" he said. "Unless we are able to level the playing field, customers will eventually lose their rights to choose where they shop for groceries and what they will pay at the check stands." A 2003 grocery strike and lockout in the St. Louis area largely was over concessions the three grocery chains said they needed to better compete with Wal-Mart. After a new contract was reached, both sides agreed to work together to keep Wal-Mart out of the St. Louis grocery business. "Our concern with Wal-Mart is they don't pay adequate wages and don't pay adequate benefits," said Dave Politte, collective bargaining director for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 655, which represents the 10,000 union grocery workers who were affected in 2003. "That really undermines employers that do. They need a level playing field." But Scott noted that the UFCW only became an activist when Wal-Mart started selling food. He said union leadership feels pressure from declining membership and has declared war on Wal-Mart, trying to force it to become unionized. "Most retail stores are not unionized; mom-and-pop stores are not unionized," Scott said. "I think they are trying to maintain a status quo that does not even exist today." Wal-Mart plans to build 240 to 250 Supercenters this year as part of an overall growth plan to expand its total retail space by 55 million square feet, or 8 percent. Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe avoided talking Tuesday about how many stores could sprout up in specific markets. He did say pricier urban real estate makes putting Supercenters in areas such as St. Louis more costly than, for example, Springfield, Mo. He also said the company would not worry about finding willing workers in an area where grocery stores traditionally were unionized. Wal-Mart said thousands of people showed up to apply for a few hundred of its jobs in California and New York. The company dismissed claims it doesn't make affordable health care available to its 1.3 million associates. Wal-Mart said about 85 percent of its workers have health coverage, and about 56 percent are under the company plan. Wal-mart said employees pay average premiums of $44 a month for a single person, $155 a month for a family. About 7 percent of its employees receive public health care assistance when they start working for the retailer, but that number falls to 3 percent for workers employed for two years. "There are government assistance programs out there that are so lucrative it's hard to be competitive, and it's expensive to be competitive," Scott said. Wal-Mart also disputed allegations that its wages fall short. Associates earn an average of $10 an hour, nearly double the minimum wage, the company said. Scott said larger retailers are improving conditions for workers by providing more stability, career advancement opportunities and benefits. "We believe the nature of retail work is being upgraded," Scott said.
I like Wal-Mart. I think its silly for communities to try and keep them out. If you don't like them, don't shop there. Many people do and a vocal minority seem to be hurting the majority who WOULD shop there and save money. As far as how they treat their workers, if they treat them poorly then their competitors should have easy access to the best employees - certainly a business advantage. I don't really know what the overall effect on the community is when balancing lower wages vs lower prices, but it would seem the effect would be more positive than negative.
if the workers at wal-mart agree to the wages they earn - then they gotta live with what they have. if they could be in a better situation, then why the hell aren't they? they have no right to complain about their wages or health care - they have all the rights in the world to look for another job if they feel as though they are being treated unfairly.
People can agree to work for conditions that are inhumane and it would still be the company that was violating the law. I'm not saying that is the case here, just that your logic went out in our nation after the robber-baron period.
Not really. His logic fits more in today's world than in the robber-barron period. Today we DO have laws designed to protect employees, both physically and wage wise. Unions suck. They had their day and were great for a certain period of time. I remember in high school working at Kroger's one summer. There was one guy that had been in the union forever and was making $20 an hour to stock the milk section. Do you think Wal Mart wants to pay some guy $20 an hour to do that? Of course not. SHOULD they? Hell no. These other companies have already let unions in and now are paying the price - and they want to use artificial barriers to protect themselves from a more efficient competitor.
The legit beef with Walmart, IMO, is the squeeze they put on their suppliers -- and their monolythic size that gives them a huge advantage over their competitors...This verges on monopolistic powers which are NOT good for the economy...ie -- the buyers in Arkansas can now dictate what music is sold as they control such a huge part of the market. They not only choose what they offer, but can influence what their suppliers (those happy-go-lucky record labels) produce, They can also squeeze deals that are not available to their competitors, and could, if they wanted, restrict their suppliers from selling to others on such favourable terms. Monopoly powers. That, and those creepy 'greeters' that stalk you at the doors. From what I understand, their wages are competitive (or often better than) their industry -- esp when benefits are included. Retail is hardly a gravy train for those in the trenches...I'm not surprised the Union reps disagree.
This thread is not going in the direction I thought it would. Where is the incentive for employers to provide health care insurance benefits when there are "government assistance programs out there that are so lucrative it's hard to be competitive, and it's expensive to be competitive"? One would expect that privately provided health care is less expensive than Medicaid. The cost for low income worker's health care will be born by someone. Forcing these workers into the least efficient choice does not make the most sense.
Maybe the federal government should carrot-and-stick employers like Walmart into providing health care for their employees.
Those are specific examples and not a general logic. Logic that whatever employees sign up for they deserve and are free to leave, is similar if not identical to robber-baron philosophy. Actually it depends on the union. I belong to 3 of them. One does suck, the other is both good and bad. The third is incredibly beneficial, and not just in terms of getting members high pay and cush job responsibilities. The AEA sucks and doesn't improve the quality of theatre very much. SAG does do a lot to protect its members and that is necessary in that business, but it is also limiting, and gets stuff that is easy beyond reason. The teachers Union I belong to has actually proposed, agreed to, and created standards that make more standards for the teacher. They also got rid of certain things like mandatory yard duty during recess and lunch which was taking away from teacher prep time, and not allowing teachers any breaks during the day. They are a great union that has improved the profession and not just gotten nice perks for its members. The schools are much better off today as a result of the teacher's union.
Private is less expensive, but you're confusing issues. Many Medicaid recipients receive their care through 'private' healthcare that has contracted with States to offer Medicaid services. Some States, like California, offer Medicaid coverage that has richer benefits than what many commercial members receive through their employers. Go figure.
I've heard some stuff too about WalMart educating employees of public health-care options. It may appear a little slimy to push the cost to the public but if the programs are there then I can't really fault them.
Plus if its in the employees best interest to go with the public plan...why ask them to pay for the private one???
I think 'lucrative' public health systems for low income earners is in the public's interest . But then, i'm also a tree-huggin' socialist Hillary-supporting, kyoto-backing commie pinko liberal... (I just don't see how you exclude Walmart employees from a government plan...even if Walmart is the anti-christ).
1. Give ERs tax incentives to provide their EEs with health care insurance. IOW bribe ERs to provide. Medicaid would for the unemployed and for the employees who work for an employer is not proficient in navigating the tax code. 2. Make health care like SS/Medicare. Make it a mandatory deduction. Medicaid would be for the unemployed.
I think a really good insight into health care is that our current system is a NATIONALIZED health care system, albeit a crappy one.
I agree. I believe it is a human right for a person to get "DECENT" medical treaments when he is ill.
