Striking against Wal-Mart will be ineffective

Shane Wade
Opinion Editor

In America, Wal-Mart is the corporate force to be reckoned with.

According to Fortune Global 500’s 2012 list, it’s the world’s third-largest public corporation; the biggest private employer, with over two million employees; and the largest retailer in the world, with 8,500 stores in 15 countries.

It’s a superlative-heavy corporation powered by a financially supportive customer base and employees working on comparatively low wages and low benefits.

It’s also the target of scorn from a notable portion of its 1.4 million U.S. employees, who criticize the company for denying them a livable wage and benefits. On Black Friday, while customers flocked to Wal-Mart stores for usual doorbuster deals, workers from stores nationwide walked out on their jobs in protest of the company’s working conditions.

Unfortunately, much like the Occupy movement last year, strikes against Wal-Mart will be largely ineffective in the long-term without government or consumer intervention.

One of the big complaints from the strikers is that Wal-Mart doesn’t pay a living wage. UC-Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education found that it would cost the average shopper an extra $12.49 a year if Wal-Mart increased worker pay to $12 an hour. Most people would be fine with forking over an extra $12.49 a year, but no one’s asking them to.

There’s no “worker donation” tin at the cash register. Wal-Mart doesn’t send out customer surveys. Other than employee satisfaction, Wal-Mart doesn’t currently have any incentive to meet their rebelious worker’s demands.

Strikers need to use to momentum and recognition gained from the strike to garner the support of the American people and the power of their politicians.

Customers need to show their dissatisfaction in droves, unlike ever before. In a nation where the Supreme Court rules that corporations have the same rights as people, money is the medium of consumer voice. Though the Walton family owns 48 percent of stock in Wal-Mart, it’s still a publically traded company. It’s not entirely unreasonable to suggest organizations and individuals band together either buy stock or influence stockholders to change their policies.

Even if you’re all for free market enterprise and the consumer capitalism that retailers like Wal-Mart favor, it’s imperative to recognize the extent of destruction Wal-Mart has done to the American economy. Although it employs over a million employees and contributes billions to the U.S. gross national product, a briefing paper series by the UC- Berkeley Labor Center has shown that it also burdens taxpayers by paying employees such a minimum that they’re reliant on government safety net programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In 2004 alone, California taxpayers paid an estimated $86 million to make up for the reliance of Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs.

Wal-Mart, however, isn’t the only employee offender and shouldn’t be the only retailer facing scorn. The “low-price, low-wage” model is now a standard throughout the discount retail industry. IBIS World, a market research organization, found that while the average sales associate at Wal-Mart makes $8.81 an hour, Target employees make even less, at a median of $8.13 an hour.

The problem with Wal-Mart isn’t exclusive – they are but a leader of an industry – wide issue concerning the compensatory treatment of workers. It also poses the question as to as who big-box discount retailers owe their success to: paying customers or working employees.