This last week-end I got angry with my sister because she asked me what was the point of boycotting Wal-mart when all other stores were just as bad. I was indignant. Of course, Wal-mart is the worst. They are the hugest and the "reddest". Right? Then today I found this article posted in Sojourners on-line magazine comparing Target and Wal-Mart. Hum, the differences aren't so different...Read on...
The article, originally found of AlterNet is found
here:
I thought I was doing a good deed by boycotting Walmart but now I'm wondering
"People ask what the difference between Wal-Mart and Target is," said UFCW organizer Bernie Hesse. "Nothing, except that Wal-Mart is six times bigger. The wages start at $7.25 to $7.50 an hour [at Target]. They'll say that's a competitive wage, but they can't say it's a living wage. We know a lot of their managers are telling people, 'If we find out you're involved in organizing a union you'll get fired.'"
I have my reasons, of course for the boycott. 1. I hate shopping at Walmart. 2. They don't pay their workers a living wage and Wal-mart is the single biggest employer in the state of Washington whose employees request and qualify for state-assisted health care. 3. My union, NEA, has suggest we "no go" to Walmart. And 4. Sam Walden and his family are huge contributors to the Republican machine. But look what this article says about Target.
A survey by the UFCW found that starting wages are similar in Targets and Wal-Marts -- possibly higher overall at Wal-Marts - and that Target benefits packages are often harder to qualify for and less comprehensive. (Target's media relations department refused to comment on its wages and benefits policies; individual wages and benefits policies are not included in their annual report.)
And what about the huge amounts that the CEOs make in comparison to the workers
The starting wage... a single parent with two kids working full time at Target just slightly above the poverty line; someone with more children or working fewer hours would fall below the poverty line.
Compare that to Target CEO Robert Ulrich, who earned $23.1 million in 2005, according to Forbes, making him the second-highest paid CEO in the retail sector. That's more than 1300 times as much as the worker.
Don't we, as progressives interested in justice and fairness, need to stand up for the little-guy who can't even make a living wage at work? Yet look at what Target does in comparion to Wal-mart
Even as American consumerism thrives, however, there is growing public awareness and critique of the problems it spawns. Wal-Mart is becoming a lightning rod for the public's increasing dissatisfaction and animosity. A recent study by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell showed that 63 percent of people would oppose a Wal-Mart opening in their community. Groups such as Wal-Mart Watch, several documentarians have harshly critiqued Wal-Mart's working conditions and its effects on communities and international labor standards.
But somehow, perhaps because of its relative small size compared to Wal-Mart, Target has largely avoided negative publicity.
In fact, it benefits from anti-Wal-Mart anger, a fact that isn't lost on company officials.
Now, I'm confused. Do I add Target to my boycott, or "no-go" list? Or do I just stick with my anti-Wal-mart stand? Or forget it all?