I disagree with your statement Dog. Having been busy with the local protest against Walmart here. Helping to organize and actually talking with some black Friday shoppers. I've come to one realization. Most Walmart shoppers I encounter know what shopping at Walmart means. To the town it resides in, and to the economy. Ignorance may not be a choice. It may be a coping mechanism for the working poor and poverty stricken who have no choice but to shop at Walmart.
Well, we're all BORN ignorant, but it seems that for a significant minority of the electorate, it's important to STAY ignorant or, as I prefer to say, indignorant.
You are right to a point, JOB. When people have to operate as lone individuals, rather than cooperatively as part of a group, they have far less power to affect their lives, or corporate policy.
But when people are organizing and taking action, to join, or to continue to be part of the cycle that is hurting you becomes your choice. When you can make your life better, and the lives of others better - here, and in other parts of the world where people are squeezed and exploited even worse than this? That is a moral choice, and people should begin to look beyond day to day coping mechanisms to taking back the power over their own lives that they have lost to corporate greed like Wallyworld.
I am not speaking about the people working at Walmart DG, I'm speaking about the people that shop there. Through my encounters, people do not choose to shop at Walmart. These people are not all together ignorant of what the Walmart brand does, or stands for. They are there because they have no choice. If you know anyone on welfare, ask them how much they receive per month. The impoverished people of this country have no choice of where to shop. Walmart knows this. And they do everything they can to take advantage of it, including keeping their own employees in poverty.
I DO understand your point JOB. When Rosa Parks made her stand, and when there were protests against segregation on buses, many of those people protesting had no other way to get to work, the grocery store, etc. EITHER.
But they united and found ways to boycott those bus companies, even though it was hard and their resources were relatively few.
The ONLY way to break this cycle of poverty is to force WalMart to change their practices. DEMOS just did a study, which is supported by other analyses, that WalMart could correct their offending practices, and that it would only cost between 7 cents and 15 cents more per shopping trip.
THAT is still affordable to people in poverty if it means that those working there are no longer the working poor, but earning a living wage. It would also mean that with fewer people needing the help, those resources available to the social safety net could be used to serve fewer people better.
But WalMart will not make those changes voluntarily; it will take some pushing from their consumers and their employees --- and all of us, pressuring our members of congress and the state legislatures.
JOB, do you see people risking their jobs, which they need, or the punitive and illegal actions in retaliation that WalMart is known for as any different than Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus rather than just going, as a coping mechanism rather than buck the system and authority? That was 1955; we have seen since then how peaceful protest and even civil disobedience can change the status quo. Time to use those lessons again.
I thought your post was directed towards Walmart shoppers, but if you want to talk about the employees that's fine. To answer your question, I do not think it is the same. Ms Parks fought for racial equality. Walmart employees would fight for what? Better pay and benefits.
In Chicago, Better pay and benefits might be found right down the road. But when it comes to rural areas, it's a whole different story. What employment opportunities does the community have? Can better jobs be found?
Walmart has perfected the art of having the poor feast off of each other. Until we can find better opportunities for our citizens who live in poverty, Walmart will continue to flourish , no matter how hard we try.
If shoppers unite with employees -- who are usually ALSO shoppers, using their discount to offset even the littlest bit their wage slave compensation.
We can unite, shoppers, non-shoppers, employees, concerned citizens and oppose wealth and income inequality policies.
That can mean a mixture of efforts -- ranging from the extra health care protections included in the ACA (Obamacare) to passing a federal living wage requirement, by raising the minimum wage, and by changing how it is adjusted (annually instead of randomly and rarely). We could add a sur tax on the profits of companies like WalMart that engage in a pattern of persistent labor law violations.
There are tons of possibilities, not all of which require boycotting WalMart, but might involve organizing car pooling and food shelves and other alternatives for shopping the way that Rosa Parks and those who protested for freedom from racial inequality organized to circumvent the bus transportation problem. On the up side, corporations like WalMart can no longer hire thugs like the Pinkertons, or use tactics like police beatings, police attack dogs or fire hoses. So there have to be aspects of doing something that are actually easier than ending Jim Crow laws.
This is wage slavery. Slavery is on some levels still slavery.
I disagree with your statement Dog. Having been busy with the local protest against Walmart here. Helping to organize and actually talking with some black Friday shoppers. I've come to one realization. Most Walmart shoppers I encounter know what shopping at Walmart means. To the town it resides in, and to the economy.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance may not be a choice. It may be a coping mechanism for the working poor and poverty stricken who have no choice but to shop at Walmart.
Well, we're all BORN ignorant, but it seems that for a significant minority of the electorate, it's important to STAY ignorant or, as I prefer to say, indignorant.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to a point, JOB. When people have to operate as lone individuals, rather than cooperatively as part of a group, they have far less power to affect their lives, or corporate policy.
ReplyDeleteBut when people are organizing and taking action, to join, or to continue to be part of the cycle that is hurting you becomes your choice. When you can make your life better, and the lives of others better - here, and in other parts of the world where people are squeezed and exploited even worse than this? That is a moral choice, and people should begin to look beyond day to day coping mechanisms to taking back the power over their own lives that they have lost to corporate greed like Wallyworld.
I am not speaking about the people working at Walmart DG, I'm speaking about the people that shop there. Through my encounters, people do not choose to shop at Walmart. These people are not all together ignorant of what the Walmart brand does, or stands for. They are there because they have no choice. If you know anyone on welfare, ask them how much they receive per month. The impoverished people of this country have no choice of where to shop.
DeleteWalmart knows this. And they do everything they can to take advantage of it, including keeping their own employees in poverty.
I DO understand your point JOB. When Rosa Parks made her stand, and when there were protests against segregation on buses, many of those people protesting had no other way to get to work, the grocery store, etc. EITHER.
DeleteBut they united and found ways to boycott those bus companies, even though it was hard and their resources were relatively few.
The ONLY way to break this cycle of poverty is to force WalMart to change their practices. DEMOS just did a study, which is supported by other analyses, that WalMart could correct their offending practices, and that it would only cost between 7 cents and 15 cents more per shopping trip.
THAT is still affordable to people in poverty if it means that those working there are no longer the working poor, but earning a living wage. It would also mean that with fewer people needing the help, those resources available to the social safety net could be used to serve fewer people better.
But WalMart will not make those changes voluntarily; it will take some pushing from their consumers and their employees --- and all of us, pressuring our members of congress and the state legislatures.
JOB, do you see people risking their jobs, which they need, or the punitive and illegal actions in retaliation that WalMart is known for as any different than Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus rather than just going, as a coping mechanism rather than buck the system and authority? That was 1955; we have seen since then how peaceful protest and even civil disobedience can change the status quo. Time to use those lessons again.
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was directed towards Walmart shoppers, but if you want to talk about the employees that's fine. To answer your question, I do not think it is the same. Ms Parks fought for racial equality. Walmart employees would fight for what? Better pay and benefits.
DeleteIn Chicago, Better pay and benefits might be found right down the road. But when it comes to rural areas, it's a whole different story. What employment opportunities does the community have? Can better jobs be found?
Walmart has perfected the art of having the poor feast off of each other. Until we can find better opportunities for our citizens who live in poverty, Walmart will continue to flourish , no matter how hard we try.
If shoppers unite with employees -- who are usually ALSO shoppers, using their discount to offset even the littlest bit their wage slave compensation.
ReplyDeleteWe can unite, shoppers, non-shoppers, employees, concerned citizens and oppose wealth and income inequality policies.
That can mean a mixture of efforts -- ranging from the extra health care protections included in the ACA (Obamacare) to passing a federal living wage requirement, by raising the minimum wage, and by changing how it is adjusted (annually instead of randomly and rarely). We could add a sur tax on the profits of companies like WalMart that engage in a pattern of persistent labor law violations.
There are tons of possibilities, not all of which require boycotting WalMart, but might involve organizing car pooling and food shelves and other alternatives for shopping the way that Rosa Parks and those who protested for freedom from racial inequality organized to circumvent the bus transportation problem. On the up side, corporations like WalMart can no longer hire thugs like the Pinkertons, or use tactics like police beatings, police attack dogs or fire hoses. So there have to be aspects of doing something that are actually easier than ending Jim Crow laws.
This is wage slavery. Slavery is on some levels still slavery.