OT: WalMart, the devil du jour

The REAL facts about how WalMart compares to other companies.

George F. Will: Wal-Mart: Devil du jour By George F. Will Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, January 19, 2006 WASHINGTON - In 1786 the Annapolis Convention, requested by Virginia and attended by only four other states, called for a second gathering to revise the Articles of Confederation in order to strengthen the federal government. Some revision: The second meeting became the Constitutional Convention. It scrapped the articles, partly because the founding fathers were alarmed by states legislating relief of debtors at the expense of creditors, often in ways not easily distinguished from theft. Something not easily distinguished from theft recently occurred in Annapolis. In legislation ostensibly concerned with any company with

10,000 employees but pertaining only to one, Maryland has said Wal-Mart must spend 8 percent of its payroll on health care, or must give the difference to the state.

The Constitution's foremost framer, James Madison, understood the perils of democracy at the state rather than the national level of an "extensive republic": State legislatures have fewer factions competing for favors than compete for Congress' favors. States, being smaller than the nation, have legislatures more easily captured by overbearing majorities. Madison would have understood what Maryland has done.

Organized labor, having mightily tried and miserably failed to unionize even one of Wal-Mart's 3,250 American stores, has turned to organizing state legislators. Maryland was a natural place to begin because it has lopsided Democratic majorities in both houses of its legislature.

Labor's allies include the "progressives," who have made Wal-Mart the left's devil du jour. Wal-Mart's supposed sin is this: One way it holds down prices (when it enters a market, retail prices decline 5 percent to

8 percent; nationally, it saves consumers $16 billion annually) is by not being a welfare state. That is, by not offering higher wages and benefits than the labor market requires. Labor's other allies are Wal-Mart's unionized competitors. These allies are engaging in what economists call rent-seeking - using government to impose disadvantages on competitors with whom they are competing and losing.

Wal-Mart's enemies say Maryland is justified in expropriating some of the company's revenues because the company's pay and medical benefits are insufficient to prevent some employees from being eligible for Medicaid. Well.

Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance, more than half through the company, which offers 18 plans, one with $11 monthly premiums and another with $3 co-payments. Wal-Mart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers. In the last 12 months, Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the nation and in 25 states, estimates it has paid its 1.3 million employees $4.7 billion in benefits. That sum is almost half as large as the company's profits, which last fiscal year were $10.3 billion - just 3.6 percent - on revenues of $285 billion.

Wal-Mart earns just $6,000 per employee, one-third below the national average. Anyway, Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are sufficient to attract hordes of job applicants whenever it opens a new American store, which it does once every three days.

The mugging of profitable businesses may be just beginning. The threshold of 10,000 employees can be lowered by knocking off a zero. Then two. The 8 percent requirement can be raised. It might be raised in Maryland, if, as is possible, Wal-Mart's current policies almost reach it.

Fortunately, as labor unions and allied rent-seekers in 30 or so other states contemplate mimicking Maryland, Wal-Mart can contemplate an advantage of federalism.

States engage in "entrepreneurial federalism," competing to be especially attractive to businesses. A Wal-Mart distribution center, creating at least 800 jobs, that has been planned for Maryland could be located instead in more hospitable Delaware.

About the writer: George F. Will's column routinely appears in The Bee on Sunday and Thursday and occasionally on other days. Reach him at snipped-for-privacy@washpost.com.

Reply to
Karen C - California
Loading thread data ...

Really? Where?

What you posted was mostly George Will's opinion about Wal-Mart. Interesting, yes, but real facts? Nope.

Elizabeth

Reply to
Dr. Brat

FACT: 86% of WalMart employees have health insurance, more than half through the company (i.e., there goes the notion that only top management are insured and everyone else is on Medicaid) FACT: company health insurance plans cost as little as $11 (i.e., not so outrageously priced as to be unaffordable)

FACT: WalMart employees are only slightly more likely to collect Medicaid than the average among the nation's large retailers. (i.e., just as I've said all along, it's not like they are the only company whose employees are eligible for Medicaid)

FACT: WalMart earns just $6000 per employee, one-third below the national average. (i.e., they didn't limit benefits/salaries to maximize profits out of proportion to Target; they're making a *lower* percentage of profit than the competition)

FACT: WalMart's current health insurance spending in Maryland almost reaches the 8% required by the new legislation (i.e., they're not as far from compliance as people would have you believe)

Reply to
Karen C - California

Where does Will get this fact from? And where did you see anyone argue that "everyone else is on Medicaid?" I never saw that assertion made.

They have a variety of plans. What do the other ones cost and what is covered? I know from my own options that insurance plans vary wildly.

Everybody's doing it doesn't make it right. I've said before it's not just Wal*Mart, but all the large chains that get me mad. And please define "slightly" for me, will you?

Well no. You have no idea how Walmart compares to its competition from that statement. In particular, you have no idea how it compares to Target. You only know how it compares to the national average (of what, by the way. Which kinds of companies are included in that average? Also, in this case, a median might be more useful.) Also, Walmart has more employees than its competitors, so the per employee figure doesn't give the whole picture.

If compliance with the law is all you're looking for. You yourself have argued that the laws are inadequate.

I'd still like to see Will's facts corroborated and I stand by my statement that his editorial consisted *mostly* of his opinion rather than the "real facts" as you characterized it. If you'd simply prefaced it as interesting, I wouldn't have had anything to say, but your claims go well beyond that and don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Elizabeth

Reply to
Dr. Brat

I agree. But to hear the detractors, WalMart is the only guilty one and every other large retail chain is totally innocent.

Reply to
Karen C - California

If fringe benefits at Wal-Mart are so bad, why don't the employees vote to unionize and negoatiate a contract they like better?

Barbara T

Reply to
Barbara Thompson

Because anyone who even mentions unionizing at Wal*Mart is fired as soon as possible. Unionizing takes organization and Wal*Mart makes sure that such organization does not happen.

Elizabeth

Reply to
Dr. Brat

x-no-archive:yes

Ask the employees in Quebec who were repeatedly warned not to unionise. When they did, Wartmart closed the store down as a warning to any other places thinking they would introduce a union.

Reply to
lucretia borgia

Because it's Walmart Nation and in many part of the country don't have any other jobs for dozens of miles.

Reply to
Jangchub

...all of the major retailers do the same thing. If management gets one little whiff of employees discussing organizing those employees are gone very quickly. They find something to fire them for. I'm sure many of you would be shocked to know what actually happens in the retail world.

...Linda

Reply to
Linda D.

"Barbara Thompson" wrote

They have unionised, at several Canadian WalMarts. And instead of a first contract, they get notices that the store is closing--the Quebec workers did, anyway. There is a certification battle going on here in Saskatchewan, and WalMart has been extremely hostile. Dawne

Reply to
Dawne Peterson

I didn't realize that more Walmarts had organized. I thought the Quebec store was the only one that actuall managed to get unionized, and then negotiations were hopeless. The store closed.

So are there other Walmart stores trying to get a first contract?

...Linda

Reply to
Linda D.

OH OK Thanks

Barbara T

Reply to
Barbara Thompson

x-no-archive:yes

I definitely heard about one in Ontario. Whether they persisted after the Jonquierre one closed, I am not sure.

Reply to
lucretia borgia

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.