Women vs. Wal-Mart

One could argue that Wal-Mart is good for women -- especially poor women -- because it makes it possible for them to get quality merchandise at low prices.

Part of the reason Wal-Mart is so popular with people -- and women in particular -- is that it brings low prices to areas where people are really struggling, and it brings an enormous amount of convenience to women's lives. Consuming for the household is still very much women's labor. Even after a full day of work, women still have to do the shopping, and having a place where you can do all your shopping in one store instead of driving all over your county is a great blessing. It's understandable that people would be grateful for that.

What's disturbing is that Wal-Mart is really profiting from female poverty -- both from its workers and its shoppers. Part of the problem with the Wal-Mart business model is that it requires more poverty in order to grow. They really have no incentive to improve working conditions. If they are lowering living standards everywhere they go, people have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart.

You could also argue that when Wal-Mart moves into economically depressed areas, they are providing jobs for people who really need them. Some Wal-Mart commercials exploit this concept, promising jobs and community involvement. But in your book, you say that this is misleading.

While Wal-Mart will provide jobs, workers have low wages and few benefits. In addition, the company has a disregard for workers' rights and a willingness to break the law to make profits. People deserve better than that. Communities should try to think of alternative ways to develop their economies.

Now, when Wal-Mart says, "We're bringing low-cost goods to the community," it's hard to argue with that. Wal-Mart really will offer lower-cost goods than many small retailers. It's hard to counter that by saying the public costs don't always show up on the receipt, that there are hidden costs to Wal-Mart that you aren't always aware of.

Are those hidden costs what you were referring to when you called Wal-Mart "one of the biggest welfare queens of our time"?

Yes. American taxpayers chip in to pay for many full-time Wal-Mart employees because they usually require incremental health insurance, public housing, food stamps -- there are so many ways in which Wal-Mart employees are not able to be self-sufficient. This is very ironic, because Sam Walton is embraced as the American symbol of self-sufficiency. It is really troubling and dishonest that Wal-Mart supports Republican candidates in the way that they do: 80 percent of their corporate campaign contributions go to Republicans. But Republicans tend not to support the types of public assistance programs that Wal-Mart depends on. If anything, Wal-Mart should be crusading for national health insurance. They should at least be acknowledging that because they are unable to provide these things for their employees, we should have a more general welfare state.

In the book, you make it clear that "a class-action suit can compensate individuals and perhaps force some lawyer-mediated changes in the company, but it cannot, in the long run, give workers more power." So do you think that unions are a more feasible, realistic solution?

I would certainly hope that one outcome of this class-action suit and this wave of public awareness would be to strengthen the campaign to organize workers. I don't think these problems are really going to be ultimately solved by lawsuits, although they can be a helpful tool. Workers really need a way of negotiating for themselves. Not in the sense that Wal-Mart means when they give employees [anti-union] buttons that say, "I can speak for myself." When you speak for yourself to the world's largest retailer, you need a lot of people behind you. You need to be speaking collectively.

But, to be fair, some labor unions also have a record of gender discrimination. As you mention in the book, Equal Rights Advocates [one of the organizations litigating the Dukes case] frequently sues trade unions for excluding women. How do you think that unions can specifically benefit female Wal-Mart employees?

Studies of the retail industry have shown that in unionized companies, the disparity between men's and women's wages tends to be much smaller. Research also shows that in unionized companies, women are able to be promoted more easily, and there is less disparity between male and female management. Even if you have a very flawed union, you have some way of dealing with grievances and there is some mechanism in place that ensures that you won't be retaliated against for bringing a complaint. That alone makes an enormous difference.

Wal-Mart has been called a red-state retailer, while other stores like Target and Costco are seen as more blue state because they have more progressive policies.

I found Wal-Mart to be a really interesting analog to the Republican Party, in the way that party convinces ordinary people, especially in rural areas, that it shares their interests and embodies their culture. The Wal-Mart CEO has even said, "City people don't understand Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is for country people." That's so similar to the way that Republicans convince rural people that "we get you, we understand you, we support you." And it's really amazing and instructive how powerful that language is.

Many of the women fighting sex discrimination at Wal-Mart refuse to refer to themselves as "feminists."

Yet so many people who really wouldn't consider themselves feminists, would resist the label, are still fighting for women's rights on the most important, fundamental issues, on the issues of equal pay and equal treatment. I found that very inspiring. I think it's wonderful that people who have such a negative idea of feminism are still out there, actively fighting for women's rights. It's really a triumph of feminism that the ideas behind it, not the labels, are what cross class lines.

In terms of class relations, is there anything that the left can learn from the Dukes case?

This case shows that when it comes to issues that really affect people in their daily lives, people will stand up and fight and will take progressive positions. This suit also shows that a lot of people who have those "traditional values" that we've heard so much about don't believe that those values justify corporate wrongdoing or discrimination toward women. In fact, many people feel like traditional Christian values are also about decency and fairness, and are very disappointed when a company like Wal-Mart doesn't see it that way -- or when Wal-Mart interprets these values to mean simply refusing to sell adult materials and music with improper lyrics. For many people in this country, values mean a lot more than that, and that's very heartening.

• 
• Be the first to post a letter about this story
• View blog reactions