Dan wrote:
Is there any indication that their treatment of workers is unusual for
retail? We do know that without Wal-marts, K-marts, Targets, etc., lower
income people would have a much lower effective standard of living. I'm
willing to change my mind if places like Abercrombie and Fitch having high prices only because their employees get such good benefits.
So you're saying it's OK for the industry leader to mistreat their employees and compensate them poorly as long as everyone else is doing it?
Around here one of the arguments is that the super Walmarts - those that have grocery stores - will undercut unionized grocery stores. From what I understand, the difference in pay and benefits is substantial. Checking.... here's some stuff: http://tinyurl.com/4f7bf
"Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States, with over one million workers. It is the largest food retailer and the third largest pharmacy in the nation. The company employs approximately 44,000 workers in California, and has plans to expand significantly in the state over the next four years. Wal-Mart workers receive lower wages than other retail workers and are less likely to have health benefits. Other major retailers have begun to scale back wages and benefits in the state, citing their concerns about competition from Wal-Mart.
We estimate that Wal-Mart workers in California earn on average 31 percent less than workers employed in large retail as a whole, receiving an average wage of $9.70 per hour compared to the $14.01 average hourly earnings for employees in large retail (firms with 1,000 or more employees). In addition, 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart workers are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than large retail workers as a whole. The differences are even greater when Wal-Mart workers are compared to unionized grocery workers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, non-managerial Wal-Mart employees earn on average $9.40 an hour, compared to $15.31 for unionized grocery workersâ39 percent lessâand are half as likely to have health benefits.
At these low-wages, many Wal-Mart workers rely on public safety net programsâ such as food stamps, Medicare, and subsidized housingâto make ends meet. The presence of Wal-Mart stores in California thus creates a hidden cost to the stateâs taxpayers.
This study is the first to quantify the fiscal costs of Wal-Martâs substandard wages and benefits on public safety net programs in California. It also explores the potential impact on public programs of Wal-Martâs competitive effect on industry standards.
Main Findings:
Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.
The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.
If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Martâs wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees."
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
