The New York Sun has a great article on Wal-Mart and the Democrats campaign against it:
Who is driving the ‘Anti-Wal-Mart’ campaign?
Wal-Mart has recently been named by Black Enterprise magazine as one of the country’s top companies for diversity. The firm was also celebrated this year by Diversity Inc., Asian Enterprise Magazine, the National Association of Women, Black MBA Magazine, Careers & The Disabled Magazine and by Hispanic Magazine for similar accomplishments.
This is the company that Democrats are campaigning against?
Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million Americans, is one of the most successful companies in the country’s history, has by itself lowered the cost of living for all Americans, has inspired competitors to do the same, has improved the efficiency of American retailing and manufacturing at a time that most industries were reeling from intense foreign competition, and is currently pushing an extensive array of environmental initiatives.
This is the company that Democrats are campaigning against?
For fiscal 2006, ending in January of this year, the company recorded another year of strong income and revenue growth, and created 125,000 new jobs in America. In a store that opened near Chicago, Wal-Mart received 25,000 applications for 325 job openings.
This is the company that Democrats are campaigning against?
What is behind all the furor, and what exactly are Democratic candidates hoping to gain by jumping on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon? It’s about unions, or the lack thereof, in Wal-Mart’s employee ranks. A review of the major anti-Wal-Mart organizations campaigning against the company reveals that they are all union-funded…
Not only are the unions understandably frustrated that they have been so ineffective in breaking Wal-Mart’s ranks, they must also be tormented by the company’s success. As the United States’ economy tilts in favor of service enterprises from manufacturing, the ability of the unions to attract members has diminished. Logistically, if for no other reason, it must be harder to round up workers spread out all over the map in thousands of stores than those lumped all together in a factory…
Wal-Mart currently has more 615,000 employees in America enrolled in its health-insurance plans, providing coverage to more than one million people. Because of its size, Wal-Mart has been able to use its clout to lower prices paid by its employees for doctor visits and medications, providing, according to a Wal-Mart spokesman, significant savings. One year ago the company offered a new, lower price package to its employees which gave them medical coverage for as little as $11 per month. Such plans are available to both full time and part time employees who have been with the company for at least one year. This is not the norm in the retailing sector, where most part time workers receive no benefits.
In the interview with Charlie Rose, CEO Scott asserted that “you can’t hire 1.2 million people in the U.S.if you’re not paying competitive wages. “There seems to be some logic in this, which is bolstered by the recent openings of stores in Kearny, New Jersey and White Plains, New York. For the New Jersey store, eight miles outside New York City, the company received 8,000 applications for 300 jobs. In White Plains, a wealthy community with myriad retail establishments, 4,200 people asked for jobs.
Why would folks line up to work with Wal-Mart? Our view is that despite all the negative publicity, people think Wal-Mart offers unusual opportunity for those willing to work hard. It is a fact that more than 75% of store managers started out as hourly workers. It is also a fact that people have some confidence that the company will be around ten years from now, because it is smart, aggressive and determined to move every aspect of their business forward.
In the meantime, the company is paying an average hourly wage of $10.11, way above the minimum federal standard, and offers numerous overtime and bonus programs that actually boost that figure.
In his broadcast, Charlie Rose asked Mr. Scott how Wal-Mart might use its size to best advantage. It’s an interesting question, and Mr. Scott suggested that the company’s highly praised environmental initiatives were indicative of how the huge company can make life better for everyone. By pressuring suppliers to cut down on wasteful packaging, or provide longer-lasting light bulbs, for instance, everyone benefits.
He also discussed some thoughts on how the nation’s health care system could be improved, and costs cut. He noted that while Wal-Mart can record, respond to, order and replace a product bought in any of its stores almost immediately, most health care organizations still require massive amounts of duplicate paper work, and lack even rudimentary systems.
Possibly the most bullish thing one can imagine for health care costs in this country is Wal-Mart indeed lifting its benefits expenditures, and consequently playing a role in the modernization and improved efficiency of the health care industry. It works with bikes, lawn mowers, granola, plasma TVs and garbage bags — why not flu shots?
If you are for more jobs, minority opportunity, and a higher standard of living for those at the bottom, Wal-Mart is your friend.
Update: Tim Worstall has more.
So, according to the numbers above Walmart does not offer roughly half of their employees health coverage. That is approximately 600,000 Americans. This is precisely why I don’t think our private healthcare system works.
It’s unacceptable to have 600,000 people/families without healthcare when you profit over 10 billion dollars a year.
Who said Wal-Mart employees had no healthcare? All the article said is that they had no health insurance, but that is not the same as not having health care.
Many of Wal-Marts employees are part time workers, which means that many are teenagers or second income married earners, in which case many are already insured by other means.
Wal-Mart has two choices it can offer its employees: it can either offer them a higher wage and less health insurance, or it can use some of their wages and offer them health insurance and a lower wage - to Wal-Mart it is the same thing, it is the total wage it pays that employee that matters, it doesn’t matter how that money is spent, what matters is the amount.
But to that employee it makes all the difference in the world. What would you rather have, a higher wage and less health insurance or a lower wage and more health insurance? If you are a full time employee, you would probably prefer the latter, but if you are a part time worker - meaning the chances are high that you already have health insurance from somewhere else - you would probably prefer the former. And that is precisely the logic behind Wal-Marts decision.
This is how Richard Posner explains it: