Town Square

Post a New Topic

Walmart Once Again Under Scrutiny

Original post made by Oliver Towne, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Sep 3, 2013

Workers who've been fired by Walmart for their activism set a Labor Day deadline for Walmart to rehire them and raise wages to a livable level, or see the largest mobilization against Walmart since Black Friday. But, predictably, Walmart didn't rehire the 20 workers it fired after they went on strike in June; nor did it rescind other forms of punitive discipline leveled against dozens more worker activists. And it certainly didn't raise wages.

This story contains 531 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (6)

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 3, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Many Plutonians HATE WALMART and speak out against it frequently.

It's my impression that many residents are more concerned about the class and the color of the people that it draws.

Rarely is there any concern expressed for the lives of employees except that they are willing to work for low low wages. Many folks complain about the presence of latinos hanging out looking for day jobs.

It should be very interesting who posts and what they say...tee hee hee...

it's waiting...

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Many Plutonians luv to shoot from the hip at WALMART shoppers.

Many sneak in for the price and disguise their appearance with shades, wigs, and head wraps.

It's my impression that many Plutonians are primarily concerned with the cheaper prices and color/class of shoppers. Hmmmmmmmm...I guess that's why they choose to shop incognity...BUSTED!

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 3, 2013 at 8:22 pm

Correction: ...incognito...

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:42 pm

Oliver, well-written and well-researched.

I fully expect the opening of a Walmart to have a negative effect on job growth, for one simple reason. Walmart is more efficient than its competition. It's able to get more productivity from its workforce, and it's able to drive better deals with its suppliers. Walmart passes some of this efficiency back to its customers in the form of lower prices. I'm not surprised at all at the 1.4-to-1 ratio of jobs killed when Walmart comes to town.

I'm also not surprised that studies show that Walmart does little or nothing for an area's overall economic growth. Walmart doesn't do much in terms of bringing new and innovative products or services into the marketplace. Think about it - are you going to buy more bleach just because there's now another store, a Walmart, selling it? Walmart's angle is that if you are able to save a dollar buying that bleach at your local Walmart, then you're more likely to spend that dollar while you're in the store. As a business model, it works very well.

I've been following the battle between Walmart and the cities of DC and Chicago. At issue are wages, as you pointed out. In DC, a deal was struck that permitted Walmart to invest and build six stores; subsequently, the city is considering making a demand to increase the overall wage rate to $12.50 per hour. Walmart responded by threatening to stop construction on the three stores being built. The mayor is slated to make a decision next week.

Ultimately this is a business decision for both the city of Washington DC and for Walmart. The city can demand whatever it wants, and Walmart can choose to do business under those demands, or to walk.

I do believe, however, that DC's effort to legislate higher wages is misguided. Kind of like that San Jose councilman last week that wanted to legislate what kind of drinks were to be allowed in vending machines. The DC city government has no business legislating what the wage for a set of workers should be, just as it has no business in telling a retailer how much to charge for that gallon of bleach. DC is addressing one part of the overall equation, but not the other. It believes it can legislate wages, but is smart enough to know that it can't legislate prices. It's either a free market, or it isn't.

Like this comment
Posted by Oliver Towne
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2013 at 11:38 pm

Your idea of a "free market" is pure fiction. It is something you might have learned from a chapter in a now out-dated high school social science text, but it is not something that exists in reality. Anyone who's been associated with workplace practices knows this.

The confusion results from people like yourself thinking that an economic model -- used as an hypothetical in order to discuss hypothetical behavior -- is a reality. You can wish for it all you want, and you can voice consternation when I tell you the "free market" is real only in your head, but facts are facts.

There is no freedom in workers being compelled to either work for below subsistence wages or see their families starve. You might want to think of these workers as numbers in an hypothetical model (that you mistake for reality), but most of us know better; we've seen real people forced to work sometimes two full-time jobs while attempting to pay medical bills and keep food on the table. Believe or not, Joe, these people are real. They're not in a position -- as the fictive free market model suggests -- to simply pack up the family car and move from Pleasanton to N. Dakota, or even to attend night school in San Francisco. Many don't have cars; many can't afford to stop working in order to travel elsewhere; if you're a fast-food worker, you can't rely on a fixed work schedule upon which to sign up for classes.

About the closest thing to free markets, historically speaking, was the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, when 9 year-olds typically were forced to work the mines. They were not "free" to work the mines; they were forced to work them as a condition of survival. This may not bother you, especially since you seem to live in a universe where fictive models reduce people to abstract numbers.

Thankfully, unions agitated in order to bring about Child Labor Laws. Yes, this legislation restricted capital's ability to exploit child labor. I guess you'd bemoan these advances, yourself. I celebrate them. I celebrate numerous other intrusions into capital's past and present "freedoms" to exploit child labor, to exploit women's labor, to exclude people from the hiring process based upon their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. When you say you think "free market" is a reality and that you regret restrictions placed upon it, you are effectively saying that you embrace the idea of forced child labor, or companies that exercise their "freedom" by only hiring white males.

The necessary restrictions that have already been placed on capital have not yet reached their full realization. When companies like Walmart continue to hire and keep workers at below poverty wages, to fire workers who voice a desire to be heard as a recognized group, to hire out subsidiary companies overseas that continue to exploit child labor, then it is obvious to most rational folks that Walmart's "freedom" is overextended. This overextension cuts against our most basic moral principles. No individual deserves to be exploited. But that is what Walmart is doing: systematically taking advantage of people's basic need to survive, and implementing a wage level that keeps them and their children impoverished.

It seems to me, if you desire to argue your point, you're going to have to argue (1) that exploitation of humans by other humans is a good thing; (2) that children being compelled to work to help support a family is just hunky-dory; (3) that companies "freedom" to pay women less, or to keep ethnic minorities out, or to discriminate against gays, are all good things. You're also going to have to argue that govts' intervention -- largely in response to organized labor's push -- such as mandatory conditions of workplace health and safety, minimum wage, nondiscrimination in hiring and promotions, are bad things.

You see, Joe, once one steps outside one's little fictionalized bubble, the very idea of "free market" becomes more than a little fantastic -- as in fantasy land.

Now, if you're who I think you are, Joe, you will likely fail to grasp some of my points and will probably willfully ignore my others. But when I write I have to at least assume I'm dealing with a rational interlocutor.

Finally, your comment about keeping politics out of capital and labor's struggles verges on being ludicrous. Because, you see, Joe, it is and always has been political. Workers today are petitioning their legislators to pass more humane labor laws; capital today has high-paid and high-skilled people lobbying to maintain capital's sustained, unfair advantage. It's all politics, Joe. This is why those who once developed the "free market" MODEL (not reality) have been virtually unanimously rejected. We no longer live in Adam Smith's 18th century mind. Reality interceded. Workers speak. In unison. Viva!

Like this comment
Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 4, 2013 at 9:05 am

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

mittens and his alter-ego 'joe' must have been 'displaced', hence they ability to spend countless hours posting hit pieces against private companies that don't cave into union tactics. The tone of the topic and their comments show a desperation and hostility that typifies the union movement. While they and cholo can rant all they want about Pleasanton residents 'shooting from the hip at Walmart shoppers', all one has to do is stop by the new Walmart Neighborhood Grocery store in Pleasanton and look at the nearly full parking lot to expose their delusional claims. The fact is, their whining is motivated by union greed and they have absolutely no concern for shoppers in our town. On the contrary, they want all of us become poorer so we can support their union buddies. They know they are in the minority and their numbers continue to diminish, hence the desperate sad and pathetic. The majority in our town aren't buying what you're trying to shove down our throats, union trolls.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Prop 56: Tax ‘em if you smoke ‘em
By Tom Cushing | 7 comments | 1,062 views

Crazy Election
By Roz Rogoff | 86 comments | 970 views