Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Friday, July 18, 2008

LISSA’S: Wal-Mart’s Wages Increase in China, Rollback in US

Wal-Mart is raising wages for its employees -- in China, that is. Yes, the labor union representing Wal-Mart's Chinese workforce won yet another fight against Wal-Mart, successfully negotiating for an 8 percent raise for 2008 and 2009 as well as setting terms for paid vacation, social security, and overtime. This comes at a time when China's economy is booming, and demands for higher wages and better benefits are being pushed by none other than the Chinese government. Meanwhile, as the U.S. economy falters and Wal-Mart benefits, Wal-Mart's U.S. hourly workers are experiencing nothing short of a wage "rollback."

Sadly, wages for the average hourly U.S. Wal-Mart employee have actually fallen when adjusted for inflation. In 2004, Wal-Mart reported an average (Wal-Mart refuses to disclose a median wage which would provide a more accurate picture of wages at the company) hourly wage of $9.68. In 2008, the reported wage is $10.86. But in 2004 dollars, the average hourly wage is $9.55, which means workers are worse off today than they were four years ago. So, while the price of gas, food and health care are rising, Wal-Mart employees' wages are falling.

Even when not accounting for inflation, Wal-Mart's "average" disclosed hourly wage puts a family of four below the federal poverty line. In light of the fact that "full-time" work for Wal-Mart employees is often 34 hours a week, this means the "average" hourly worker earns only about $19,200 annually. Plus, starting wages at the company's stores are often much lower than the "average hourly wage."


So, it is no wonder that Wal-Mart employees top the public assistance rolls for Medicaid, SCHIP and other programs. But instead of actually raising wages to help employees lift themselves out of poverty, Wal-Mart chooses to get credit for telling them about how to get more government assistance. Case in point, just a few weeks ago, Wal-Mart came out in support of legislation that would require large employers to notify their employees about the availability of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Wal-Mart would never disclose how many of its employees likely qualify for this poverty-alleviating tax option, but given Wal-Mart's low wages, it is likely to be a sizeable number.


This is all happening in the context of an American economy that continues to decline while Wal-Mart's revenue continues to rise higher than ever. The company was again crowned the largest company in the world by Forbes, and has continued to outperform its retail competitors as shoppers trade down. The Walton family -- who control 43% of Wal-Mart stock through the Helen Walton Family Group -- earned close to $29 billion just on the increase in Wal-Mart stock prices during the previous seven months (November 2007 to June 2008) alone. The relationship between the Walton family and Wal-Mart workers is a stark example of the old adage that while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.


We don't begrudge Wal-Mart raising wages at its stores in China (the employees there certainly need it) and it's also appropriate for the company to inform its employees about issues such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. But the company's U.S. employees need higher wages now more than ever.


Instead of perpetuating a cycle of poverty among its workers with a low wage, poor benefit business model, it is time Wal-Mart consider a meaningful wage increase for its hourly U.S. employees who are struggling just to make ends meet for their families. Wal-Mart can and should do better for its 1.4 million U.S. workers.


source: The Huffington Post

Monday, May 19, 2008

LISSA’S: A Houston News Article ~ SMART Shopping

I love HOUSTON for many reasons. Check out this story I found from chron.com (Houston's online newspaper). I don't see anywhere in Texoma doing something like this... again, why would they?? Texomites LIVE in Wal-Mart!!! ~ Melissa (a Houstonian in 2 weeks!!)



Shoppers buying peace of mind
Co-op caters to consumers who have a bone to pick with big retailers



2008 Houston Chronicle



No longer does Jennifer Stelly push a metal shopping cart down supermarket aisles. Instead, she carries a reusable bag to pick out produce — all grown organically by local farmers — in the three rows at the Central City Co-Op in Montrose.



"Generally speaking, I absolutely refuse to shop at Wal-Mart and I always try to go just as local as possible. ... I try to stay away from corporate America as much as possible," said Stelly, who quit her engineering job four years ago to open an energy-medicine business.



Stelly said she prefers family-owned businesses to chain stores. She and friends purchase wholesale natural and organic products from a buying club that provides free shipping if they purchase more than $250 worth.



She is one of a growing number of consumers who have altered their shopping habits on the basis of their politics, moral and ethical beliefs, as well as concerns about human-rights or free-trade grounds.



Known commonly as moral purchasing or ethical consumerism, the practice involves buying things that are made without harm or exploitation of animals, laborers or the environment.





Jennifer Stelly, left, lifts a carton of organically grown tomatoes for Kerry Smith at the Central City Co-Op in Houston. The co-op caters to a growing trend of people exercising ethical consumerism.





Voting with their feet

Some, like Stelly, prefer to shop at area businesses not only to support the local economy, but also to avoid the costs and effects of the fuel used to transport products to Houston.



It is not a new idea. Consumers always have voted with their feet, shopping at retailers that offered the best price or the best service.



So-called "socially responsible" mutual funds that allow people to make investments that exclude certain kinds of companies, such as cigarette manufacturers, or firms that do not follow one's religious beliefs, have been popular for years.



And national exhortations to avoid certain products, from table grapes to products tested on animals, come and go.



Over the years, people have expanded their concerns by refusing to shop at companies and their suppliers that have poor records of protecting the environment, that purchase goods from foreign countries or that do not use Fair Trade-certified products.



Even illegal immigration has been raised as a reason to avoid a particular retailer. Last month's raid and roundup of illegal immigrants at a Shipley Do-Nuts office warehouse in near-north Houston prompted several commenters on the Houston Chronicle's Web site to say they would stop visiting the popular bakery.



Similarly, negative news about products made in China — including lead-tainted toys, melamine-tainted pet food, and toothpaste laced with antifreeze — have some shoppers leery of that country's merchandise.



Liana Winkler, visiting the Taft Street location of the Central City Co-Op for the first time last week, said she does not buy food grown in China and other countries.



"When I look at all the frozen food, it says 'Made in China,' " she said. "And I don't want to eat food where I don't know what they are fertilized with. I don't know where they are grown. I don't know whether they are made with slave labor."





Green initiatives

The moral-purchasing debate is widely discussed on Internet sites such as www.walmartwatch.com, a group devoted mainly to forcing the world's largest retailer to provide better wages and benefits for its employees.



"The bigger the company you are, probably the bigger the target you have on your back," said Scott Krugman, a spokesman with the Washington-based National Retail Federation, which represents 1.6 million retailers nationwide. "You can let other people tell your story for you, or you can take the responsibility to tell that story yourself. And that's what companies should be doing."



Wal-Mart, he said, is one of the pioneers in green initiatives with its efforts to assure that stores and their suppliers are environmentally friendly and energy efficient.



Wal-Mart officials did not return several phone calls for comment.





Bad publicity is costly

Meanwhile, Starbucks has had to defend itself against accusations that it does not buy "fair-trade" coffee. The movement is an organized effort to ensure that small growers in other countries are paid enough for their products to provide a decent living.



A Starbucks spokesman denied the charge and issued a statement saying the company "has a longstanding commitment of conducting business in an ethical and responsible manner."



Krugman said it is difficult to put a dollar amount on how much companies lose from bad publicity.



Al Norman, founder of www.sprawl-busters.com, a nationwide movement to stop construction of big-box stores such as Wal-Mart, The Home Depot, Kohl's, Target and Lowe's Home Improvement, said the impact of citizens not shopping at stores is small compared to the legal fees incurred when groups tie up store construction in courts or in planning hearings.



"Building a store four or five times the size of a football field ruins the neighborhood feel for many people who aren't interested in cheap underwear," he said. "A small-town quality of life is not sold at any Wal-Mart. And once they take it away from you, they can't sell it back at any price."



Jill Sundie, an assistant professor of marketing and entrepreneurship at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business, said consumers pay attention when there is negative news about a company, including the use of child labor or the abuse of its own employees.



"Certainly," she said, "you see consumers responding in terms of not shopping at certain outlets, not buying certain types of products or hiring people for services if they have violated some moral or ethical guidelines."





Food is locally grown

However, Sundie said, not all consumers can afford to adjust their shopping habits because the alternative could force them to pay more for products. Some will continue to shop at stores, she said, regardless of the companies' reputations.



Stelly said she spends less now. She said she volunteers at the co-op, which allows her to get some of her fruits and vegetables free. Items at the buying club — where she gets organic, sustainable or fair-trade dry foods, household products and health-care items — are sold at wholesale prices.



At the Central City Co-Op on Taft Street, some shoppers said they participate because the food is locally grown, organic and healthier.



Victoria Lugwin, who shops there every week, said she tries not to patronize stores that have what she considers ethical problems. Also, she tries to buy seafood that comes from the United States because she said this country takes better care of its waters.



"I think that not only supporting local agriculture, but also eating local agriculture is good for the farmers and good for the people eating the food," she said.