Organic Consumers Association


Previous Page

Click here to print this page

Make a Donation!


Broad Alliance Forming to Challenge Wal-Mart


Please consider subscribing to the print edition and supporting independent

This article is permanently archived at:

A Healthy Choice

A movement builds to take on Wal-Mart

By Hans Johnson
January 25, 2005

Until last year, Wal-Mart, the global retail chain known for undercutting
local competitors by curbing wages and benefits, enjoyed so much clout that
it placed its sprawling warehouse stores practically at will. But grassroots
challenges to the healthcare practices of America's largest employer have
stalled its expansion bids, exposing a bullying streak beneath its homey
veneer of red, white and blue.

The skirmishes feature charges that Wal-Mart racks up huge profits while
covering health care for just 45 percent of its workers and freeloading on
taxpayers, who are stuck with the tab for the uninsured and their family
members. The conflict pits a wide alliance of interfaith, labor and
community groups against a retail chain whose profits topped $9 billion in
2003, with 3,200 outlets and 1.2 million employees in the United States

In defending the very premise of the New Deal and reasserting the notion of
a social contract, the campaign to rein in Wal-Mart could define the next
decade of progressive organizing, policy and politics.

"The platform that Wal-Mart keeps advocating is bringing in jobs to
low-income communities," says Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Catholic
Church in Chicago. "But low-wage jobs, often without health care, keep
families in poverty and keep people in shackles."

Pfleger marshaled a diverse coalition of ministers, small business owners
and union activists that in May headed off Wal-Mart's drive to change zoning
laws and open a mega-market on his city's South Side. A Wal-Mart spokesman
even had to refute charges that the company's wage and health policies are
exploitative. "We are not the evil empire," he told USA Today. A majority of
the aldermen were poised to block the proposal, and the bid was withdrawn.

At Wal-Mart, full-time workers have to endure six months‹and part-timers,
two years‹before applying for health coverage through the company. Wal-Mart
told the New York Times in November that about 77 percent of its employees
are eligible for health coverage through the company plan. But since
Wal-Mart saddles its staff with 33 percent premiums, the coverage often
costs more than $200 a month per worker to maintain‹a steep price for
workers making between $8 and $10 per hour. As a result, just 58 percent of
those eligible, less than half of all workers, or about 537,000 people,
actually have the insurance.

This compares with the complete coverage that became common for workers and
their dependents after World War II. The rise of collectively bargained
union contracts in the era of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman gave rise
to the notion of a so-called social contract. It stipulated that a worker
receive livable wages and health benefits in return for loyal hard work.

Not all companies have torn up the social contract. Costco, a competitor in
the large-scale retail business, provides insurance to more than 19 out of
every 20 of its workers and pays more than 90 percent of the premium.

When Wal-Mart bows out on covering the healthcare costs of staff members,
the public often picks up the tab. More than 10,000 Georgia children whose
parents work at Wal-Mart are on a state health program, thus neatly passing
on the $10 million yearly expense to state residents. And in California,
taxpayers are footing the bill for about $32 million in healthcare costs
from Wal-Mart workers that the employer would typically cover.

Such revelations are the latest black eye in a string of high-profile
setbacks. In August, community activists along with union members involved
in the Metropolitan Washington Council of the AFL-CIO discouraged Wal-Mart
from plunking down a mammoth store in the city's northeast quadrant. Facing
rising community hostility and the threat of bad publicity, Wal-Mart backed

The triumphs in Chicago and Washington follow an April victory near Los
Angeles. By a two-to-one margin, voters in Inglewood rejected the retailer's
bid to circumvent a zoning board and approve a superstore widely seen as
disruptive to local businesses, traffic patterns, and the quality of life.

Wal-Mart has fought back, joining with California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger in attacking a state ballot measure that would have mandated
either corporate coverage for workers or payments into a state plan. Opposed
by half a million Wal-Mart dollars, Proposition 72 very narrowly failed on
November 2.

Local coalitions and policy-makers remain keen to put some checks on the
retail giant. "Wal-Mart executives chose to remove the responsibility from
themselves," Mike Kreidler, former congressman and current state insurance
commissioner for Washington state told the New York Times. He is working
with state lawmakers to pass a measure similar to the California

Having succeeded in moving the debate about Wal-Mart beyond the public's
almost religious fixation on low prices and into the realm of healthcare,
activists are adhering to theologian Reinhold Niebuhr's encouragement "to be
wiser than our creed." Niebuhr, a mentor of Martin Luther King Jr.,
understood the danger of Americans being seduced into undermining their own
way of life. Faced with a grave threat to healthcare, labor and community
leaders are reasserting King's vision of a beloved community and rising to
the occasion to create it.

Hans Johnson, a board member of the BISC Foundation, writes about labor,
religion and politics from Washington, D.C.