www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Wal-Mart Brings Back Christmas

My Aunt informed me of this today so I thought I would check it out. Sounds like a good thing.

http://www.wndu.com/news/112006/news_53778.php

There's the link.

-Katie g

What wonderful news that the people's outcry did affect a change. All those who boycotted can now pat themselves on their backs. Christians united in peaceful protest really does send a message that can't be ignored.

If only people would continue to boycott WalMart until they pay their employees a decent wage!

yeah, then everyone could truly have a Merry Christmas for themselves and their families.
Much Love,
Jonn

The people that work at Wal Mart and Wal Mart type stores have the freedom to look for other work. If they want higher wages, there are many ways to get education in this country. The Wal Mart low prices are what make it possible for many to have some of the "goodies" of life that the higher income people already have. Stop trying to legislate everything or else we will not have a FREE country.

Not all jobs need to provide a living wage. Students and dependants, for example, may merely be looking to earn extra cash. These workers are well suited to companies like Wal-Mart (and many others) which pay less than a living wage. If such companies were required to pay a living wage, unskilled workers could expect to be replaced by workers whose production value would match the cost of their employment. This is result would likely hurt the very people it was intended to help.

The true problem is not that Wal-Mart et al do not pay enough but that Wal-Mart employees do not earn enough. If these employees were equipped with skills that commanded more remuneration, more remuneration they would get (albeit not at Wal-Mart).

Thus, a better solution would be to assist unskilled workers in training. You seem to assume that Wal-Mart, as an extremely profitable company, is better suited to bare the burden of social problems. This is the rational behind the graduated income tax. Wal-mart pays taxes and so do its shareholders.

When I go to Walmart, a nice, 70-year old man greets me at the door. Now, he does not get paid much, certainly no where near a "living wage". BUT, he does not do much. I assume he has this job because he wants to supplement his social security, the size of which is not Walmart's fault. If Walmart were forced to pay more money for a job like this, it would go away, how would that help. Would I hire an "undocumented worker" to do some menial labor at my house for a menial cash sum; sure. Would I pay a documented worker 5 or 10 times as much and deal with social security taxes and the like: heck no. So I can create a job that does not exist and does not steal work for an existing laborer, or I can do it my self and not help someone out - is that better? By the same token, if Nike pays someone two dollars a day to make $200 sneakers, it that bad. Maybe. But what if that person was making 75 cents a day before by scavanging a trash pile for recycles to feed their family, then $2 ain't so bad. The point is, it's all relative and we should becareful of setting artificial and arbitrary limits like a "living wage".

The people of this world who feel that another person (or perhaps the sky) owes them something always puzzle me for their lack of being able to see basic fundamental concepts of existence.

The economics everyone talks about regarding this idea are incidental and irrelevant to any decision to FORCE Walmart to pay anyone a certain amount of money, whether you are the government or the consumer.

For anyone to have a right to a certain economic status means some other person has to be forced to give it, and the decision (presumably made by yet other people) of who is sacrificed and who is rewarded is arbitrary. If other people can decide that I must be sacrificed to give someone else this or that economic status means we are not equal and this is no republic.

So I don't owe you a job. And if I employ you, all I owe you is what you agreed to work for to begin with (I didn't make you work for me, remember that). Now say another person runs the company with me (ie, a small business). He doesn't owe you anything more, and I still don't. Now say another 100 people run the company with me (ie, global corporation). They individually don't owe you anything beyond what you agreed to work for, I still don't, and we all together still don't assume some new responsibility for you by virtue of us running the company collectively. A group is a number, not an entity, it doesn't have rights or responsibilities. It's for counting. Nothing more.


I'm not sure where the idea got espoused that Wal-Mart doesn't contribute to the community. Believe me, I'm no fan of Wal-Mart and I don't shop there. But Wal-Mart pays taxes and employs people who buy goods and pay taxes. Both of these activities benefit the local community.

The other thing to understand is that if you increase the wages Wal-Mart (or anyone else) pays then they will have to make up that cost somewhere - either by not hiring as many people (which impacts the individual as well as others dependent on their taxes and purchasing) or by increasing prices which, again, impacts a number of people. If we determine that a "living wage" is $15,000 dollars a year, prices will reflect that and there will be people who struggle to afford what is determined to be the minimum they should have. If you increase that "living wage", prices will be raised and the people at the bottom of the wage scale will still be struggling. You can't legislate people into middle class, the costs will continue to increase. It's a never ending struggle


Alexandr

The Catholic Church teaches that employers are obligated to pay a living wage, and Holy Scripture is filled with extremely harsh warnings of the judgment that awaits those who are wealthy and also exploit/oppress the poor. Wal-Mart certainly exploits many poor employees (as do a whole host of other employers). The arguments you have articulated are based neither in the teachings of the Church nor in Holy Scripture, and therefore, I reject them entirely.
Ryan

Ryan,

Does that mean all part-time workers be paid $40,000.00 per year?

Most people who work at Wal-Mart are part time workers. And during the "Holiday Season" :p *gag* many workers work for about 2 months and that's it. Should they be paid $10,000.00 for working 2 months?

I don't like the big corporations either, but as a "small business owner" who buys equipment and supplies, I can tell you that raising wages will only lead to raising prices by a factor of at least 1.25. The little guy will only get squeezed by a wage increase, the CEOs are way too greedy.

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric
(former stockman, cashier, and garden center guy for Wal-Mart)

Ryan,

WalMart is not a career. It is a place for students, retirees, moonlighters etc to pick up a little extra cash. The same as McDonald's, and pretty much any retail outlet. Scipture is also very hard on those who would defraud their employer by not working in accordance to their wages.
" And the landowner replied to one of them, �Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn�t you agree with me to work for the standard wage? Take what is yours and go. I want to give to this last man the same as I gave to you. Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me?"

Alexandr

Ryan,

The Catholic Church does not teach that employers are obligated to pay a �living wage�. The Catechism speaks that �A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work.� A �just wage� is not only morally determined by negotiation but also by the type of work that is to be done as well as the free market (see Centesimus Annus).

As Alexandr noted, not all jobs are career jobs. Society certainly has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves (in this case rise above unskilled jobs). Employers also have some responsibility here. But there is no Christian obligation for an employer to only offer jobs that pay �living wages�.

Last year Wal-Mart announced plans to build at least one major distribution center nearby me in Maryland, in an area that has a higher than average unemployment rate. The estimated 700 full and part-time jobs were mostly for unskilled workers and would pay about $7/hr. The Maryland legislature passed laws requiring Wal-Mart to provide health care. Guess what happened? Wal-Mart is reconsidering its plans and might build their new regional distribution center in West Virginia. That�s good for West Virginia but that Maryland community will not get 700 new jobs.

Need I mention that when a Wal-Mart opened near me a few years back the prices at Food Lion, Giant, Safeway, and Shopper�s Food grocery stores and those at Target and Kohl�s all decreased noticeably because of the competition? That is good for the consumer!

John

I said nothing to suggest that I think a part-time retail employer should earn $40,000. However, I could point you to quite a few full time employees in a variety of workplaces who make earn a good bit less than $40,000, while the companies for which they work are making large profits. I think that is immoral.
Sincerely,
Ryan

I agree.

Dear John:
I have to disagree strongly on this one. I offer this quote from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

302. Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships.[659] The �just wage is the legitimate fruit of work�.[660]

They commit grave injustice who refuse to pay a just wage or who do not give it in due time and in proportion to the work done (cf. Lv 19:13; Dt 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). A salary is the instrument that permits the labourer to gain access to the goods of the earth. �Remuneration for labour is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good�.[661] The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a �just wage�, because a just wage �must not be below the level of subsistence�[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.

This passage speaks of the "just wage" and the "legitimate fruit of work" which you have referenced. It also states:

"'Remuneration for labour is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good�'.[661] The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a 'just wage', because a just wage 'must not be below the level of subsistence'[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract."

I don't see how you can read this and claim that the Church does not teach that employers are obligated to pay a living wage.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan,

I submit that you are misunderstanding what the Church teaches here, and extending in incorrectly to apply to all jobs at all times.

All jobs are not designed to pay a living wage. Some jobs are designed for other reasons. There is nothing unjust about this.

You might consider the concept of a just wage and how it is determined.

You don�t just start with whatever is considered a living wage and set that as the minimum level for a wage to be considered just. To determine a just wage you have to factor in the type of work that is being done, the skill level of the employee, why the employee takes that job, the market rate for such jobs, and the sector of the labor market that you will pull from.

Most Wal-Mart (and similar) type jobs are simply not intended to be career jobs. They are intended as starter jobs. These burger-flipping, shelf-stocking jobs play a vital role in our society. Younger and older workers are not especially productive. Young workers (especially part time workers) often don�t have the basic skills to hold a job, let alone one that pays a living wage. Working at places like Wal-Mart gives them the opportunity to develop those basic skills and then move on to a job that does offer them a living wage. [Earn less while you learn and then move on to something bigger.] The spouse who stays home with the children often wants a very flexible part time job to earn something extra, but doesn�t want lots of responsibility or benefits that the family already has elsewhere. The older worker might want a job to supplement their income or even just to keep them busy but is not especially challenging. Each situation is different and each has different factors that lead to the calculation of what wage is just.

All jobs that are offered do not have to be the types of jobs that need to pay a living wage. That is the point you are missing.

John

PS: When I was in high school and college one of my part time jobs was working for a caterer (at a banquet hall owned and operated by a Byzantine Catholic parish!). I received a salary of $1.50 / hour (late 1970s and early 1980s). Looking back I now realize that those jobs that didn�t give me a living wage gave me something far more important � the skills to move ahead and obtain and keep jobs that paid me that living wage. That is what the Wal-Marts and McDonald�s type employers are doing for people today!

Dear John
I'm sorry. I just don't buy your argument and I think that you are the one who doesn't understand what the Church teaches about the obligations of employers to pay employees a wage that permits them to live in a dignified manner. You keep talking about how there are just some jobs that aren't meant to be career jobs. I'm not the slightest bit persuaded by that argument, and in my opinion, the source of that line of thinking comes from the greedy corporations who benefit when people espouse that idea and can be supported neither by Holy Scripture, nor by the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Sincerely,
Ryan

I've been reading all of this with interest,and I'm not sure what to think or say at the moment.

All I know is when I was a kid, for the vast majority of Americans "mom" didn't have to go out to work let alone "grandma and grandpa".

I don't have the answers, but something has obviously gone wrong somewhere. And "trickle down" turned out to be no more than a "slow drip", if that.

Bill