A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 24, 2005Christians against Wal-MartThis item caught my eye, fresh off the discussion about "moral values" and politics. We've heard a lot of negatives against Wal-Mart. And I guess I fell in the trap of assuming its "those nasty liberals and unioneers fighting a rock bed American company that appeals to good value and middle class America." (Personally, I don't like shopping at Wal-Mart.) Well this article in Christianity Today, of all places, points out this "moral value" has "people of faith" on both sides. "Wal-Mart's practices are immoral and unfair," says Reginald Williams Jr., associate pastor for justice ministries at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pastors at the 8,500-member Trinity United and eight other African American congregations in Chicago called for a boycott of Wal-Mart.Now the article does point out that the churches "fighting"Wal-Mart are primarily mainline, liberal, and Roman Catholic but clearly here are "church-going"people expressing their "moral values"(and I bet many aren't Republican). In a previous post I mentioned how Christianity seems to be so easily co-opted into the "moral values" fight. This quote says it all Indeed, based in the Bible Belt town of Bentonville, Arkansas, Wal-Mart has a tradition of tailoring its service to churchgoing customers. It sells only the sanitized versions of hip-hop cds bearing warnings of objectionable content. Responding to a campaign by the largest evangelical mutual fund group, The Timothy Plan, to keep Cosmopolitan magazine covers out of view of Wal-Mart customers, the company slapped plastic sheathes over suggestive women's periodicals and banned "lad mags" such as Maxim. Just like Tully's post from the NYT brings out, these are good discussions to have. They hopefully help us realize that neither party monopolizes "moral values" and that people of faith must be able to discern what's a moral question vs a political one. Posted by c3 at April 24, 2005 08:15 PMComments
Walmart responds to its customer base when it come to what it sells. I wish they treated their employees a little bit better and paid them alittle bit more. The wages you earn at Walmart are barely sussistence level, and around here, probably not even that. But basically, Walmart is the biggest free market there is for American consumers, and their prices reflect it. I can't say that I ENJOY shopping there, as the shopping experience generally ranges from zoo to nightmare. But they keep a lot more money in my pocket. I trul;y don't get the sense that if I bought my stuff at some other store for a littlebit more money, I'd be supporting a higher quality of life for retail workers. I worked retail, and it's a nightmare. Posted by: bk at April 24, 2005 08:41 PMI truly don't get the sense that if I bought my stuff at some other store for a little bit more money, I'd be supporting a higher quality of life for retail workers. Approximately 47% of WalMart's employees have health care coverage whereas the national average for employers is 67%. Granted, some of the discrepency is the quantity of part-time employees hired by Wal-Mart, the health care costs of those employees who have no insurance will be borne by your state taxes and by your own health costs (un-insured people getting care via ER and the costs are then passed to HMOs via rate hikes). Some of the savings you gained in the shopping cart will be given to your health plan and state later. Posted by: EG at April 25, 2005 09:27 AMI don't think it's especially relevant to compare Walmart worker to all other employers, which is what your statistics seem to be doing, at least as you stated them. Perhaps you were merely imprecise? Do other retailers insure 67% of their workers? My experience is that retailers have increasingly avoided paying for health insurance by hiring more and more part-timers. It's an industry wide practice, to my knowledge. But I could be wrong. So that's what I meant, that if I shopped at Target or Kohls instead of at Walmart, there'd be little result other than less money in my pocket. I'm not seeing how doing this would either send retail workers to industries with higher healthcare coverage rates or decrease the numbers of retail workers needed to service consumers. Posted by: bk at April 25, 2005 10:44 AMThe 67% number is for all employers, not retailers. WalMart opponents constrast Costco with 70% of its employees having company-sponsored health insurance. I hve no idea what are the other discount retailers insurance practices (and I'm sure they attempt to hide it to squash bad PR). I agree that shopping at KMart, Target or Kohl's may not result in lower increases in HMO rates but I was attempting to state that 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. Posted by: EG at April 25, 2005 12:49 PMInteresting juxtaposition this am while listening to NPR. They did a piece on union activity at Wal-Mart and the various issues regarding Wal-Mart. As expected they had a Wal-Mart spokesperson and then the piece was over. Immediately over we had the usual announcements of "underwriting" of NPR programs and there was Wal-Mart as an underwriter and also mentioning their support of employee education and training. THe PR campaing continues. Posted by: c3 at April 25, 2005 03:14 PMI never shop at WalMart. I would rather not be part of the problem. Posted by: tim at April 25, 2005 03:32 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
