Unions Keep Wal-Mart Out of the Big Apple. Families Suffer.
By FredMaidment Posted in Economy — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
An Associated Press article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution caught my interest today. It details a recent flap where the Wal-Mart's CEO stated that doing buisiness in the Big Apple was so expensive that, "I don't care if we are ever here."
Wal-Mart execs were quick to point out that the Chief Executive was speaking of Manhattan, not the other four boroughs.
Read on...
Stuart Applebaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union which is leading th charge against Wal-Mart in New York, said Scott's comments were good news for the union. The union represents 100,000 workers throughout the United States and Canada, including 45,000 in New York.
'They are going to find that no matter where they are in New York City, the response is going to be the same,' Applebaum said. 'New Yorkers will not tolerate their way of operating. Their promises of low prices come at too high a cost.'
My question for Mr. Applebaum is, too high a cost for whom? Is it too high a cost for the struggling families who desire low cost goods? Or for low-income parents looking for discount prescription medications? What about the independent taxi driver needing new tires for his cab? Is having the low prices Wal-Mart offers bad for them?
Of course not. Wal-Mart is bad for the overpaid unionized workers at the grocery and department stores against which the staunchly anti-union Wal-Mart will compete. Wal-Mart will do two things:
First, it will offer jobs to people with few skills. Wal-Mart stores generally hire low-skill individuals at low pay, expecting them to learn the Wal-Mart system well enough to reach the level of service customers have come to expect there, which is a fairly low level of service despite their advertising. These individuals, having learned basic retailing skills, will then be potential competitors to union employees for higher-level jobs at other stores.
Second, Wal-Mart will compete with the stores that presently employ the unionized workers. As low-income families choose lower-priced Wal-Marts for food and other necessities, grocery and department store profits will suffer. If those profits fall too low, the stores will undoubtedly lay-off overpaid union workers, who will then be forced to go work non-union jobs with pay commensurate to their actual skill level, possibly even at Wal-Mart! Union membership will fall, member dues receipts will drop, and the union's power will be diminished.
In other words, to safeguard the jobs of the 45,000 RW&DSU members Mr. Applebaum is ready to force 8 million New Yorkers to pay more for groceries, sundries, and other products, just because Wal-Mart represents a threat to his authority and influence. That is fine, and he has a right to oppose Wal-Mart coming to his district.
What he does not have the right to do, and what he and his union cronies were set to do, is use the government to block Wal-Mart and its partners from being allowed to enter the market. The City Council's Land Use Committee was set to give Wal-Mart's partner, Vornado Realty Trust, a permit to build a mixed-use shopping and residential district in the Rego Park area of Queens. We'll never know if they would have issued such a permit with a Wal-Mart store included, since Vornado told Wal-Mart to pound sand after the public backlash.
Wal-Mart does what it does. It pays low-skill workers low pay for a very basic service. That service is optimized for low-income families, but can be used by anyone. There is simply no legitimate reason why other retailers should be allowed to conduct business in New York City and Wal-Mart should be singled out.
The market decides where people shop. If a person feels strongly enough about Wal-Mart that they will go elsewhere for their consumer needs, that is their perogative. However, if that person wishes to shop at a non-union retailer, the government should not have a say in the matter.
Period.
I've heard that, but have never really looked into it. It's kind of beside the point. The point at issue is whether or not a company should be singled out for reprisal by government simply because it does everything it can legally do to avoid unions setting up shop.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
In Southwest Michigan, Wal-Mart tends to pay its employees a higher wage than their union competitors (something some friends of mine found out the hard way after taking jobs with said competitors). The unions aren't worried about lower wages, they're worried about a smaller base of power, plain and simple.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
My wife works as an HR Manager at a paper mill, their location is unionized, but there are other mills that aren't. The mills that aren't unionized pay higher wages and usually better benefits in order to keep them from unionizing.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
higher wages than union employers plus; the union members have to contribute dues to the unions bosses,who then have enough to live high on the hog and also contribute to the Democrat party so that the Democrats can have a majority in Congress in order to raise taxes on all of us. Meanwhile the Walmart employee gets to keep whatever they earn and can contribute to whom they want, if or when they want. Seems to me more good reasons not to support unions or Democrats.
Wal-Mart should sue for denial of equal opportunity.
works in any unionized state, especially those with a Democrat government. You WILL give the unions what they want and maybe pay some "consulting fees" to union officials, or the government will not give you your permit.
In Vino Veritas
Good post, but I think your off on the wage issue. It is my understanding that Wal-Mart pays wages that are higher than most of their competitors (as such Wal-Mart's wages cannot truly be called low).
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---