Protesters picket outside a Walmart store as holiday sales commence in San Leandro, California, November 22, 2012. (Reuters/Noah Berger)
On Black Friday, amongst the chaos, several protesters at Walmart across the nation were arrested. In Ontario, California, a man dressed as Santa Clause holding a sign that read, "Santa Clause supports workers, why doesn't Walmart?" was amongst those arrested.
According to a 2012 study by the National Employment Law Project, "Walmart is the worst paying company in America". Walmart has also been cited as retaliating against workers who protest.
Amongst those protesting is Anthony Goytia. "I'm a hard worker and take pride in my work," said the 31-year-old. "I'm not a slacker. I'm there on time. I give it my all, and it's only fair I should be compensated for that." Like other protesters, he believes that retail should increase the wages by 42%, raising the current wage of $8.81 an hour to $12.50 an hour.
It is interesting to note that the majority of the protesters are not workers themselves. The protests were primarily organized by Our Walmart, a group closely associated with the United Food and Commercial Workers. The opposition criticizes Our Walmart for it is acting not on behalf of the workers. In a sense, the group acts as a trustee, who does necessarily not act in accordance to the people it represents. I wonder if this helps or hurts the workers. On one hand, it is advocating change that may benefit the workers. On the other hand, it is not representative of the workers. Our Walmart states they speak on behalf of the workers for they fear retaliation, however, I feel Our Walmart may unintentionally portray Walmart workers in a negative light. Do you think Our Walmart should continue working as a trustee to its workers? Or do you think the labor group should function more of a delegate?
-----
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/arrests-made-wal-mart-black-friday-wage-protests-2D11673668
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/11/19/walmart-will-win-black-friday-despite-worker-strikes-labor-violations-and-food-bank-woes/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-friday-walmart-faces-employees-protests/
3 comments:
I've definitely heard allegations of Walmart threatening to terminate employment of activist workers. It's interesting to note, however, that Black Friday sales broke records this year.
With regards to the protesters themselves, I also encourage you to read about the National Labor Relations Board's decision to rule the distribution of $50 gift cards to protesters as legal.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-nlrb-black-friday-gift-card-20131128,0,2843264.story#axzz2m3FMrD2Q
I can somewhat see the arguments on both sides, but a reimbursement for striking just seems a bit contradictory in of itself.
As the economy improves, workers are beginning to realize that while corporations continue to reap in record profits and executives enjoy fat bonuses, they have gotten little, and, if you consider inflation and cost of living, actually lost.
The friction between Walmart and its employees is just one example of a renewed push to redefine corporate responsibility. Those pushing for better wages have powerful arguments on their sides. To me, perhaps the strongest is that the low wages are compensated by us, the taxpayer.
When workers are paid low wages, their income level qualifies them for government welfare - taxpayers pay for that. When workers who don't receive employer health care are paid low wages, they can't afford health care, so they take advantage of government-sponsored health care services - taxpayers pay for that. Ultimately, Americans end up subsidizing employees and, in turn, corporations, who hand out their massive profits to executives and shareholders. That's business. One principle question that protesters are pushing is, "Does Walmart have a responsibility to pay their workers fair and livable wages?" and to them, the answer is a resounding YES.
For the protesters, they face an uphill battle. As this article clearly demonstrates, Walmart has huge marketing and PR capabilities that keep consumers returning and the media presentation framed. As long as those two factors don't change much, Walmart is safe. The question is whether or not that will hold, as we see more and more cracks from attacks on Walmart's wages.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-29/on-black-friday-strikes-and-counter-strikes-at-walmart
The other side of the argument seeks to present itself as a provider of opportunity. The average wage is $12.81 an hour. Well, if you factor in higher paid managers and store owners, of course! The median wage is probably a whole different story - and Walmart doesn't seem intent on providing that number. A very common argument is that Walmart is a stepping stone. Workers gain experience and money, so that they can pursue greater careers. It's the same argument against raising fast food worker wages. While it may be a very logical and valid argument, in a country where middle class manufacturing jobs are disappearing and the service industry dominates, it may not be a valid argument forever.
By now, you can probably tell which side I lean. For me, I'm aware that raising wages would likely translate into higher prices, but paying one percent or a few percent more for grocery to support fellow workers doesn't seem to bad an idea.
I think that Our Walmart should continue working as a a trustee to its workers. The workers cannot stand up to Walmart on their own because Walmart would probably find ways to get back at them, so I think that Our Walmart is doing a good thing by choosing to represent them. I'm still getting over the fact that Walmart actually punishes its employees for speaking their minds. In my eyes, this only gives the workers increases the importance of Our Walmart. If Walmart is going to punish its workers just because they are exercising their freedom of speech, then they need a group that can speak on their behalf without fear of retaliation.
Post a Comment