So I just got back from Philly this morning and I am tired as hell. I was up there for 6 days working at a tradeshow for educators. The show was pretty good and Philly is a cool place to visit, so the trip itself was cool all-in-all.
There were a few perplexing moments however:
We stayed across the Ben Franklin Bridge in Cherry Hill, NJ. I don't know a lot about Jersey, but this had to be the worst city/ town ever. There is virtually no such thing as a left turn in Cherry Hill. You literally have to go right in some cock-a-mamie type of "U","V" shaped direction to make a left turn. And of course these turning contraptions aren't available at every street, so you may have to ride 3 extra miles just to go 200 feet into a restaurant's parking lot. The shit was ridiculous to say the least.
I'm not sure what the traffic and engineering departments of the state of NJ were thinking, but they all should be fired and sent back to kindergarten to first, learn shapes. Then, sent to Geometry 101 for concepts such as angles. Finally, a swift foot up the ass for stupidity. Then again, maybe to many feet up the ass lead to the state's governor (not sure if "former" should be in front of the title) making the announcement he did. LOL
I know. I know. That was a joke in bad taste, but what kind of expectations are you holding for this blog. Lower them now! lol
The other bullshit we faced was the strength of the union in Philly. No knock to unions (more on this later), but really I should be allowed to help set-up and dismanlte my company's booth. Because what happens when they do it wrong? We end up paying an hour's worth of extra time for them to correct what it was they did wrong in the first place. I understand the concept of protecting jobs in your city, but for logic's sake why should I be forced to pay an hour minimum's worth of time for something I can do in 10 minutes. It's not that I am smarter (cause I'm probably not), but there is the fact that I have set the booth up more times than they ever will. It's the experience that makes it both cheaper and easier for me to do the work. I guess my problem is that I hate being forced to sit in those hot halls waiting. It's like a slow day at work, the day just drags and minutes seem to pass slower than George Bush learning how to pronounce gnat or opossum.
Speaking of unions, there is a growing content against Wal-Mart and their outright contempt for their employees forming unions. Even the
National Education Association (NEA) has joined the fight and asked parents and teachers to avoid shopping at Walmart for their school supplies. Veiwing their site lead me to a more interesting one. Apparently, Walmart has pissed people off so much that they have started an official campaign, complete with slogan and logo.
"Wake Up Walmart" is a campaign designed to publicize Walmart's shortcomings when it comes to paying their employees. There are some interesting facts and things addressed, but I do have a small problem with the campaign. But first, the stuff I found interesting:
Below the Poverty Level. In 2002, the federal poverty line for a family of three was $15,020 (Department of Health and Human Services.) Using the above estimates, a vast majority of Wal-Mart employees would be eligible for government programs. By paying wages that are below the poverty line and therefore forcing employees to rely on government welfare programs, Wal-Mart shifts costs to taxpayers, communities, and responsible employers.
High Turnover Results in Lower Wages. The Company reports that its U.S. turnover in 2002 was 45%. Based on these figures, 500,000 U.S. employees will leave the Company in 2003, and 540,000 new employees will need to be hired just to maintain the existing size of their labor force. In past years, turnover was even more extreme — in 1999, Company turnover was 70 percent (“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03).
The world’s largest and richest retailer can afford wage increases. Wal-Mart could pay each employee a dollar more per hour if it increased its prices by a half-penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee (UFCW estimate using the Drogin 2003 study).
Now back to my thoughts:
Okay. So Walmart is paying folks less than the national average for retail but well above the minimum wage. But really thinks they can really earn a living and support their family on even $10/ hour? That's not a Walmart issue, that is a United Stated issue. Their are millions of people considered the working poor who can not afford to get off of public assistance. Why? Because it is more feasible for their families because healthcare costs are ridiculous. And the sickest thing about it is that the healthcare industry has not cured a motherfuckin' thing since polio or some shit like that, but costs continue to rise. The other side of that coin is all the ridiculous lawsuits people have filed that have caused healthcare insurance costs to rise astronomically. So really Walmart is doing the same thing just to two different groups of people. Walmart is fleecing their employees. Healthcare is fleecing their patients.
Getting back to the original point, I am wondering if Walmart is being targeted so heavily because they do things as they see fit. They make the world come to them in Arkansas and they play by their own rules. Does McDonald's have a union? I don't know, so I'm asking. However unempathetic this may sound, but does anyone go into Walmart thinking this cashier's job is going to get me rich. Do they think the union will get them far enough above the poverty line to join the rest of us getting fleeced for healthcare in the US? Maybe they can, but it could turn into another self-serving organization who starts to with good intentions, but ends up with some type of pension plan fiasco. It is a 50/50 chance.
With that said, I do think Walmart could at least go halfway on some of their employee's wants. If it is true that a half cent per $1 increase in cost could lead to roughly $1800 more in earnings, then why not go for it? Why? Because it could effect the people Walmart is most concerned with (well, besides themselves)
their customers. I am willing to bet that at least 50% of their business comes from people living beneath the poverty line. So the same people they are being threatened by are the same people they are servicing the most. Which side do you think is going to win? I remember a friend of mine in high school telling me how his uncle ran a 7-11 in the hood. He said his uncle told him one thing,
"Treat people as nice as they treat you." Meaning, if they come into the store with respect, treat them with respect, but if they come in on some ignorant type tip, then give it back to them. Why? Because they had no where else to go! That 7-11 was their best choice. Walmart serves the same purpose to (my estimate) 50% of their clientele. They can't afford to shop in the "nicer" supercenters. And who can deny the fact that Walmarts prices for groceries are below most chains while their quality is pretty good. I don't think that "neighboorhood grocery stores" can always make that claim.
This is getting too long, so I am going to finish up by saying this. Those employees deserve the right to unionize if they so choose, but it will not solve any real problems. This thing is larger than Walmart, no matter how much of the Walton bloodline spills into the Forbes list of the most wealthiest. It is just a snapshot of a greater problem.
