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

Ryan,

I know that you are never persuaded by common sense or proper context of Church Teaching! :p

Let�s look at what you quoted from the Church�s social doctrine:

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

The justice of the wage is proportional to the amount of fruit produced. Unskilled labor produces less fruit than skilled labor. Jobs that offer those who need skills to acquire them justly pay those workers less than they would pay skilled workers. A high school kid who takes a job stocking shelves is justly paid less than someone who has 30 years experience as a plumber. That is why this category of jobs is not intended to serve those who need to make a living wage.

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).

In due time and proportion to the work done. When the work done is simple the proportion of remuneration will be less. When the work done is complex and challenging the proportion of remuneration will be more.

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]

This section defines what a salary is and how it is to be used. It clearly relates the justice of the salary to the �the function and productiveness of each�. A starter job helps man to gain access to goods of the earth by teaching him the skills with which he may become a more productive member of the society. As he becomes more productive he has better job opportunities and his salary increases commensurate to his productivity. As his salary increases he is better able to gain access to the goods of the earth.

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 is the only section that is directly applicable to our discussion. I addressed at length earlier but will summarize.

A wage that is below the level of subsistence can be just if the job offered is not intended to provide a subsistence wage (living wage). Currently in the United States there are plenty of jobs that pay a living wage. The only people who do not have access to such jobs are those who will 1) don�t have the skills to be productive enough to justify a living wage, 2) don�t want such a job (many young and elderly) and 3) live in areas where unemployment remains high (places like Appalachia). The solution for those who do not have the skills is to obtain them (working at McDonald�s or Wal-Mart for a year can give you skills to move up somewhere else). Those who don�t want career jobs are already happy at Wal-Mart. Those who live in areas with prolonged unemployment can move to those areas that have opportunities for starter and career jobs.

I pay the high school kid that cuts my tiny front yard $5 each time he cuts it. This is a very just wage for his effort. It is not, however, a living wage. It is well below the level of subsistence. That�s OK because he is not looking for a job that pays him a subsistence wage. He is unconcerned about that at this point in his life.

A retired neighbor has a handyman business. He cleans rain gutters out for $25. That type of stuff. One or two jobs a day do not give him a living wage. His income is well below the level of subsistence. That�s OK because he is not looking for a job that pays him a subsistence wage. He is unconcerned about that at this point in his life.

The Wal-Marts and McDonald�s of America are doing almost the same thing for the same type of people. They give people a start an offer them an opportunity to learn skills that you can�t get by not working. They are not intended as career jobs.

Natural justice includes wages based upon productivity. The Church understands and is OK with this.

John

Dear John:

Do you really think you have a monopoly of knowledge as to what constitutes "common sense or proper context of Church Teaching"? And why are so eager to be an apologist on behalf of greedy corporations?

Ryan

Bill,

You bring up good questions that would make great discussions (in appropriate threads). The answer is not straightforward. Taxes take a vasty higher percentage of income than they did generations ago. People everywhere need the biggest and best house and car, and the latest and greatest toy (many don�t know how to live frugally).

A former co-worker of mine and his wife decided when they had their first child to find a way where the wife could stay at home and be a full-time mother to their children (a full time job that doesn�t pay a subsistence wage!). They moved out of this area (to a place where housing is less expensive), purchased a modest home, and stopped getting new cars as soon as the old ones were paid for. I�ve lost touch with them (that was almost 15 years ago) but I understand from mutual friends that they are doing just fine. It can be done!

I won�t mention that I have relatives where the husband and wife both work and have a combined income of over $200,000, a mini-mansion of a house, four vehicles (two bought this year). I really won�t mention that they are fairly miserable and up to their ears in debt!

John

Ryan,

A monopoly of knowledge? No. Just more experience in studying it and applying it in the real world than you have.

I�m no an apologist for greedy corporations. But I also don�t start from the position that all successful companies are automatically guilty of being greedy. Wal-Mart became a huge company because it provided desired goods at the most competitive price. If their jobs were really paying unjust wages no one would be working at Wal-Mart (there are lots of other, better paying jobs to be had). Yet we see that when a new Wal-Mart was slated to open near Chicago 25,000 people applied for the 300 jobs it was offering. Why do you think that these people were so eager to take wages that you consider unjust? Either your analysis of the situation is flawed or you are protecting some (in your opinion) even worse employers that these 25,000 people are fleeing from.

There is much I don�t like about the business practices of many companies, including Wal-Mart. But it is wrong not to consider that not all jobs are intended to be career jobs, the jobs that actually must pay a living wage. Wal-Mart is great for America!

John

Dear John,

As I said, I don't have the answers, and you're right, money can't buy happiness. As for my thoughts not being apprpriate to this thread, I concede and ask your forgiveness.

Bill

There is nothing to forgive!!! It's just a matter of good housekeeping.

PS: It's Ryan's turn to open a new bag of potato chips and put more beer in the 'fridge. Your turn is next Friday.

Wasn't this about Wal-Mart saying "Merry Christmas" to the customers or having the phrase in the store when it wasn't last year?

How we digress.

Dear Ryan,

I could not disagree with you more. I suggest that you study the content at:
http://www.mises.org

The Socialist agenda that you have so far described is unGodly and always hurts the Church and her people.

If you are so against organisations that provide a good value, (I don't really want you to do the following suggestions, I am just trying to prove a point) perhaps you should boycott the Byzantine Forum because the Moderators are not paid a living wage (or perhaps YOU should pay the Moderators a living wage , or perhaps you should stop going to Church because Priests are underpaid.

I repeat DO NOT do the aforementioned suggestions, their purpose is merely to prove a point.

John:
Aside from my reading of Holy Scripture and the Church's social teaching, there are three things that are an obstacle for me with respect to accepting some of your arguments-at least with respect to Wal-Mart (though not with all employers). You say that Wal-Mart is not a place for people seeking "career-type" jobs. I agree that there certainly are jobs that are not "career-type." My maternal grandfather was a watermelon farmer during summers-those who worked for him were generally very young men seeking extra money during the summer-not people seeking a career. But Wal-Mart puts out commercials suggesting that they are a good place for people seeking a career. Also, I would be more inclined to agree with you were it not for the tremendous disparity between earnings for shareholders and upper management and those earned by the employees working in the stores. Wal-Mart has made billionaires out of several members of the Walton have, and no telling how many millionaires-I think they can afford to be a bit more generous with their employees in the stores. Lastly, Wal-Mart is among the most hostile employers towards any efforts to unionize its employees. The Catholic Church affirms the rights of workers to unionize. I could accept some of the arguments you've made with respect to some companies. But not with Wal-Mart.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Dr Eric,
That's exactly what I was thinking. Without trying to sound rude, maybe some people want to start their own thread because this thread, started by myself, wasn't started to talk about the injustices in the wages and operations of Wal-Mart.
-Katie g

Centissimus Annus and Rerum Novarum teach the availibility of unions and the right of colective bargaining. Something WALMART employees (and many other employees) do not have. One really cannot use Catholic teaching to justify an unreconstructed 19th Century capitalism. It is just not there in the teaching. It might be conservative teaching but not Catholicism's social teaching.

katie, one cannot talk about Walmart objectively without mentioning these abuses and malpractices. If they want the good publicity , they must be able to stand a bit of needed criticism

the very "agenda" that you paint as "socialist" is actually the teaching of Popes!!

Brian,

Everbody is endowed by the creator with free will. One has the right to organize labor unions. One also has the right to not join labor unions. Try telling that to your union steward! One also has the right to work at WalMart. What you do not have the right to do is to impose your rights over mine. Sometimes in life, one must choose. By making choices, the natural chain of events is to eliminate other choices. By choosing to organize, one forfeits the right to work at WalMart. Let me paint a scenario for you. You and your spouse open a business. For convenience, lets call it Brian's House of Halushki and Lawnmower Repair. You and your spouse pour your life's savings into the business, and statistically, against the odds, it prospers. Business is doing so well, that you and your spouse decide to hire an employee to mix the cabbage and noodles and to change the oil in the lawnmowers, as capital gains taxes, federally mandated profit reports, OSHA regulations, Dept of Sanitation requirements, Health Inspector reviews and liability insurance paperwork take up 28 hours of your workday, and your lovely spouse, Olga, is occupied ladeling halushki into bowls and loading trucks with lawnmower engines. So you hire Stanley. You agree to pay Stanley $5.15 an hour, or whatever the current minimum wage is. So for a while, everyones is busy and happy. You smile as you pour over mounds of paperwork 28 hours a day. Stanley is content mixing the halushki while draining crankcase oil, and your lovely wife Olga has just negotiated a lower price from your cabbage and noodle supplier by arm wrestling him into submission. Then one day, Stanley shows up with some guy in a black suit with a white tie and dark glasses, smoking a cigar. Let's call him Guido. Guido pokes you in the chest with a fat finger, and informs you that you are no longer in control of your business, that it has been taken over by the International Brotherhood of Halushki Mixers and Crankcase Oil Drainers. From now on, Stanley will be paid $15.00 an hour plus health insurance at an additional $200.00 a month, plus profit sharing, plus a pension plan at an additional $400.00 a month. Also, Stanley will now have 28 days paid vacation each year, plus time and one half for working past 5:00 PM, as well as paid days off for Labor day, May Day, Lenin's Birthday and Bastille Day. And too bad if you don't like it, because if you resist, 50 goons from the International will show up at your business, overturning your mixing tables, setting fire to your trash bins, set up pickets in front of your storefront and terrorize your customers. And then to make matters even more interesting, you start to get anonymous phone calls in the middle of the night, threatening your children with bodily harm or worse if you do not agree to the union's demands. Your first reaction is of shock and disbelief. You have considerd Stanley to be almost one of the family. And now, he has turned on you. You get so mad, that you want to unchain Olga and let her deal physically with the 50 goons sitting on your doorstep, but as a Christian, you don't want to be responsible for the carnage that would undoubtably ensue. In no way, shape or form can you afford the unions demands, so tearfully, Olga and yourself close the doors to your business one last time and drive home. Confused, Stanley approaches Guido and says, "Hey, before I make $5.00 an hour and I happy make halushki and change oil. Now I no have nothing" Guido smiles as he puts his arm around Stanleys shoulder, making sure that Stanley can see the diamond encrusted Rolex under the sleeve of the Cartier suit, and tells him "Look, we got you a 300% raise, benefits , healthcare and the comraderie of your fellow workers. What more do you want? Oh, and by the way, you owe us $50.00 for Union dues plus $300.00 for initiation fees". Welcome to reality Brian.

Alexandr

Also, be aware that the current Pope Benedict is a staunch opponent of the Marxist "Liberation Theology" that is the basis of the agenda that you defend. See the Wikipedia definition of Liberation Theology below.

Alexandr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

InCogNeat3's:
I have not described a socialist agenda. Nowhere have I argued for the state ownership of the means of production or the elimination of private property. You are, of course, free to disagree with me. John may be correct in his assertion that my argument lacks common sense and takes Catholic social teaching out of its proper context, but I have not advocated for socialism.

Alexandr:
The basis of the opposition of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to some Liberation Theology is the use of Marxist social analysis by those particular writings which have been rejected. However, the notion of "preferential option for the poor", which is a fundamental principle of much Liberation Theology has not been condemned and is actually taught by the Catholic Church. "The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", which was written by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, states,

182. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force[384]. �This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and, above all, those without hope of a better future�[385].

Ryan, how has WalMart failed to live up to the points you raised?
I know that the WalMart near me has hired some severly disabled people and people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to work. Also, please give me a definition of the word poor. Most Americans have a skewed view of what poor means.
Alexandr

2005

Asian Enterprise Magazine list top 10 Companies for Asian Americans.
Latinos Hispanic Magazine list top 50 Vendor Programs for Supplier Diversity.
Black Enterprise Magazine list Top 30 Companies for African Americans.
Hispanic Magazine list 2005 Corporate 100 - The 100 Companies Providing the Most Opportunities for Hispanic.
Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility (HACR) Corporate Index Top 10
DiversityInc's list of the Top 50 Companies for Diversity.
2004

Fortune magazine placed Wal-Mart in the top spot on its "Most Admired Companies" list for the second year in a row.
Wal-Mart was included in the annual Hispanic Corporate 100 by Hispanic Magazine
In a poll sponsored by Careers & the Disabled magazine, Wal-Mart was recognized as one of the best companies in the nation for providing a positive working environment for people with disabilities.
Wal-Mart was honored with the "Corporate Patriotism Award" which is sponsored by Employer Support for Guard and Reserve and presented to a company that exhibits exceptional dedication to raising awareness and support of U.S. service members and their families.
Wal-Mart was named one of the "Top Ten Companies for Asian Americans" by Asian Enterprise magazine, the largest Asian American business-focus publication in the country. The publication's "Celebrating Asian Entrepreneurs Awards Committee" selected the top ten to showcase corporations that have documented records of responsible and conscientious business practices.
DiversityBusiness.com named Wal-Mart on of the top corporations for multicultural business opportunities.
Latin Trade Reader named Wal-Mart among Latin America�s 25 Most Respected Employers.
Vista Magazine included Wal-Mart among its Top Family Friendly Companies for Hispanics.
2003

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has been recognized as the "Largest Corporate Cash Giver" by Forbes magazine. The magazine cited The Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual survey based on sales and cash donations for 2002.
Fortune magazine named Wal-Mart the 1st most admired company in America.
2002

Black Collegian Magazine named Wal-Mart one of the top diversity employers in 2002.
The Hispanic National Bar Association names Wal-Mart the 2002 Corporate Partner Of The Year.
Wal-Mart was presented with the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership, a presidential award that recognizes companies for outstanding achievement in employee and community relations.
FORTUNE magazine named Wal-Mart number one on the FORTUNE 500 list.
2001

FORTUNE magazine named Wal-Mart the 3rd most admired company in America.
Wal-Mart ranked by Training magazine as one of the 50 best U.S. companies for providing associate training.

Alexandr

Alexandr:
Collective bargaining and unions are legitimate tools to which employees have recourse, and I for one think that they have played a positive role. Do you prefer that workers be subjected to the sort of inhumane working conditions that existed prior to the formation of unions? In the USA, the legitimacy of unions and the legal obligation of employers to negotiate with unions where a majority of employees have chosen to join a union are established by law-laws that employers are obligated to obey. Furthermore, the Catholic Church affirms both the right to organize and the legitimacy of unions. Here are two paragraphs from "The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church."

301. The rights of workers, like all other rights, are based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity. The Church's social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems: the right to a just wage; [651] the right to rest; [652] the right �to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers' physical health or to their moral integrity�; [653] the right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded �without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity�; [654] the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families; [655] the right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents; [656] the right to social security connected with maternity; [657] the right to assemble and form associations.[658] These rights are often infringed, as is confirmed by the sad fact of workers who are underpaid and without protection or adequate representation. It often happens that work conditions for men, women and children, especially in developing countries, are so inhumane that they are an offence to their dignity and compromise their health.

305. The Magisterium recognizes the fundamental role played by labour unions, whose existence is connected with the right to form associations or unions to defend the vital interests of workers employed in the various professions. Unions �grew up from the struggle of the workers � workers in general but especially the industrial workers � to protect their just rights vis-�-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production�.[667] Such organizations, while pursuing their specific purpose with regard to the common good, are a positive influence for social order and solidarity, and are therefore an indispensable element of social life. The recognition of workers' rights has always been a difficult problem to resolve because this recognition takes place within complex historical and institutional processes, and still today it remains incomplete. This makes the practice of authentic solidarity among workers more fitting and necessary than ever.

BTW, the entire text of "The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" is available online on the Vatican web page. The link is below.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

Alexandr:

Well I do agree with you when you write "Most Americans have a skewed view of what poor means" if what you mean is that what is often termed poverty in the USA is not nearly so severe as the conditions that can be found elsewhere in the world. In fact, I have sometimes said that in the USA, we have a lot of relative poverty, that is, those who have the least here are poor relative to the wealthiest. However, I would insist that the huge disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in the USA is not something to be celebrated. I would also say that I suspect very strongly that much of the actions for which Wal-Mart has been recognized in all the magazines you have pointed out are in response to a huge amount of very well-deserved negative press Wal-Mart has received over the last several years. I hardly think their actions are the result of altruism on the part of their executives. I also think that such behaviors will be short-lived without ongoing scrutiny. Working for large retail chains is not easy work-I've worked for several over the years-includeing Wal-Mart. The pay is low, you are expected to be available to work on holidays and weekends (something not expected of many people who hold jobs in other sectors), you are expected to work a variety different shifts and you may not know your schedule more than a few days in advance (which makes planning your life outside of work difficult), you may be coerced into giving up break periods to which you are legally entitled, you are exposed to abuse by a section of the clientele on a regular basis, etc. Having said that, if I were in a situation where I had little choice but to take a job with a retailer, I would do so, but Wal-Mart is the last of my former employers I would consider. Wal-Mart, of all retailers, can affort to be more generous with its employees and remain very profitable. They refuse to do so because they are motivated by sin-the sin of greed.
Ryan

Alexandr:
Collective bargaining and unions are legitimate tools to which employees have recourse, and I for one think that they have played a positive role. Do you prefer that workers be subjected to the sort of inhumane working conditions that existed prior to the formation of unions? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Ryan,
is this what you personally have observed, or is this what you have been told/taught? I am getting the strong impression that you are quite a young man, burning with zeal for social justice. And that is a good thing. Unfortunately, that very zeal makes you a target of those who would turn your zeal towards an agenda that is neither just, nor Christian. May I suggest the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

Alexandr

Ryan,
is this what you personally have observed, or is this what you have been told/taught? I am getting the strong impression that you are quite a young man, burning with zeal for social justice. And that is a good thing. Unfortunately, that very zeal makes you a target of those who would turn your zeal towards an agenda that is neither just, nor Christian. May I suggest the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

Alexandr [/QB][/QUOTE]

Alexandr:

I really could do without the patronizing. I don't know what you consider to be "quite a young man." I'm 35, and I have worked for somewhere around ten employers over the years. In only one of those workplaces was I represented by a union. That is the one workplace where I feel like I was fairly compensated and where you could count on having legitimate recourse when management acted unethically or illegally. Also, my father is a railroad worker who is represented by a union. His father was a railroad worker represented by a union. Just wages that were negotiated by the union lifted my family out of poverty. My dear late maternal grandmother was a postal worker who was prevented from falling into poverty when she became a widow at the age of 47 because of fair wages that were negotiated by her union. My father's sister is a retired postal worker whose late husband was a retired railroad worker. She has a union-negotiated pension and other union-negotiated benefits from her tenure as a postal worker. Also, she has the benefit of collecting a portion of the pension her husband would be collecting were he still alive-a pension that was union-negotiated. These union-negotiated benefits enable her to live out her retirement in a dignified, albeit modest, existence. Unions certainly are not perfect, as they are made up of people-who are not perfect. However, I would hate to think what life would be like in industrialized nations were it not for the role unions have played in bargaining for just wages, safer working conditions, and limiting the number of hours employers may require employees to work. Again, I would point out that the Catholic Church affirms both the legitimacy of unions and the positive role that they have played.
Sincerely,
Ryan

I'm 64 years old, and I certainly consider trade unions to be a quite legitimate and positive aspect of society. My mother was a librarian and belonged to a trade union - and collected both sick benefits and (later, of course) a pension, which the union had negotiated.

I have often read Animal Farm with considerable enjoyment. But it is a satire of the USSR, not of trade unions. I am reliably informed that members of trade unions have not been forbidden to sing Solidarity Forever and that Stakhanovite working conditions are not encouraged by the AFL-CIO.

Father Serge

But while all Wal-Mart employees are equal, some Wal-Mart employees are more equal than others...

Gordo

Ask Jimmy Hoffa if unions have outlived their usefulness.

I am the "product" of the unions. My mother's side are all union laborers and carpenters, in fact my godfather, (he he) who is my mom's first cousin, is a very powerful union boss for the carpenters. My father's side are all railroaders.

In both cases the unions have not protected the workers' rights at all. The UTU has let the crew on a train fall from 5 men to only 2. The caboose has been stripped from the train and now there is only the concuctor and the engineer. They can only ride on the engine and that leads to many more derailments.

My uncle had to sue to have his knee replaced after it had obviously been hurt on the job. He used to walk like a total "gimp" because of the injury. His working conditions were very unsafe as he had to work on an unstable knee.

I think that the Holy Father of blessed memory Leo XIII was right on for his time. But since the encyclicals in question are not infallible statements, I think they can and have to be modified to suit today's problems.

And again, I'm going to apologize to Katie G for the hijacking of this thread.

Gentlemen, where's our chivalry?

Dr. Eric,

The failure of unions to fulfill their mission is not an argument against them in principle, though.

Collective bargaining and trade unions certainly do play a vital role both within and outside of the United States. Many of the laws in our country protecting the rights of workers came about thanks to the unions, and I say this as one who has had first hand experience doing labor relations with a union. In my experience, the union was a necessity to protect the rights of the employees which would have been (and sometimes were) trampled by an irresponsible management team - the same management team who authorized the dumping of raw chemical sewage into a public lake, BTW. (This was in the 90's...)

With that said, unions need reform, especially in the age where individual accomplishment needs to be recognized, valued and rewarded in the corporation.

God bless,

Gordo

Chilvalry is dead Dr Eric. I can take criticism but it's not cool when the topic of a thread does a complete 180 from what it was originally intended for. Merry Christmas.
-Katie g

The teaching of the Popes on unions and a just wage (if you have actually read them) does not have anything to do with Marxism or trends in Liberation theology. Please don't try and put the Pope on your side in conservative economics.. As said before, they are most definitely not on that side.

Amen, Brian. The tyranny of the State or tyranny of the Marketplace...both are evil. So where is the middle ground? Perhaps distributism?

Katie - very, very happy about Wal-Marts change on this policy. Also about their growing shift into organic foods.

Gordo, a Crunchy Con

I owe Katie an apology, as it was my fault that this thread got hijacked. Katie, I apologize, and I, too, am glad that WalMart has seen fit to respect Christmas. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, I will be more than happy to follow in another thread.

Alexandr

Alexandr,

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. These conversations have a way of going in a number of directions (to say the least).

Besides, it was Ryan who derailed it! :p

Gordo

Sorry, Katie, but I'll derail your original discussion too ... in another direction ... I've received no less than 5 emails all with the same petition request to boycott Wal-Mart the days following turkey day because they support a gay-lesbian association. As Catholics, are we to miss out on the great deals because of their ideological standpoint?

http://www.afa.net/walmartpetition.asp

Diane

Diane,
I was just reading an article [worldnetdaily.com] at WND about this same issue.

Restoring 'Christmas' doesn't redeem Wal-Mart, critics say
American Family Association: Support for 'gays' objectionable

I'm sorry to interrupt this thread once again, but here's a reply from Jimmy Hoffa.

www.teamster.org/06news/hn_060626_2.asp [teamster.org]

Bill

By the way,

Merry Christmas!

Of course I meant the one who is rumored to have been killed by the Teamsters. But you knew that already!

Christos rozhdayet'sya!

Dear Dr. Eric,

Yes I did.

I'm not sure, I don't know the story or the history, but I think the "mob" was blamed for his disappearance.

Bill...proud union member going on 29 years; Teamster the past 12.

Maybe we should boycott Starbuck's for their support of planned parenthood, or is that too much to as to give up cafe latte frappicino
Stephanos I

We should boycott Starbucks simply for their ridiculous prices