miller report :on wal-mart and then some

 ( parts of the commentary here
   will be  ghost posted
        by 
lady eve 
and trick sleeves....
       ....okay ....
           all of it will be   )


=================================

 
here's an article

containing 
the gutz
   of the miller report

       the hidden 
              public  subsidy 
                     assault 
             on walmart's
                    low ball
                            jobbling
                            of wagery amerika


---------------------------------------------------------
 

- ------------ good news ----------------


"  Stepped up
  and novel
 community and legal
     challenges 
    are making 
      the mammoth retailer 
             expend energy 
          on repositioning its image."

 Hence 
  
the major image-oriented 
television ads,

 the sponsorships  
on National Public Radio 

 and 
  the huge surge 
in campaign contributions.

  

--------------N.B. 

bottom  feeder communities rebel
on the location line 
internal memo reveals
toe pinch :


 "this  company 
 is losing "too many"
         site fights" -------------------------------

  

------------------------------------ 


thesis A:

lead in 
  to miller report:


  
" The company’s business model 
has relied   centrally 
on undercompensating employees 
and externalizing costs
               on to society. "

-----------------------------------



now to the real deal:


the miller report:


"A February 2004 report 
issued by Representative George Miller
 encapsulated 
the ways that Wal-Mart
 squeezes and cheats its employees,
 among them: 

blocking union organizing efforts,

 paying employees 
an average $8.23 an hour 
(as compared to more than $10
 for an average supermarket worker), 

extracting off-the-clock work, 
and providing inadequate 
and unaffordable
 healthcare packages for employees. 

Miller’s report’s 
innovation:


 documenting how Wal-Mart’s 
    low wages 
and inadequate benefits 
not only hurt workers directly,
 but impose costs on taxpayers. "


example numbers :


"The report estimated 
that one 200-person Wal-Mart store 
may result in a cost 
to federal taxpayers 
of $420,750 per year
 $2,103 per employee. "

----notice union maids

but fuck
this subsidy  problem 
 is endemic systemic
 ancient of age 
 and lethally intractable 
to agit prop useage

cause notice first of all
the chumps here
are all uz
  federal taxpayers 
not  some local property owners or ...

so where's
 the local negative impact story
if you're lokin to keep em out? ------------

" public costs include:

$36,000 a year 
for free and reduced lunches 
for  50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
 
$42,000 a year
 for Section 8 housing assistance,
 assuming 3 percent 
of the store employees qualify 
for such assistance, 
at $6,700 per family. 

$125,000 a year 
for federal tax credits 
and deductions for low-income families,
 assuming 50 employees 
are heads of household 
with a child 
and 50 are married 
with two children. 

$100,000 a year
 for the additional Title I 
[educational] expenses,
 assuming 50 Wal-Mart families 
qualify with an average 
of two children. 

$108,000 a year
 for the additional federal healthcare costs
 of moving into 
state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP),
 assuming 30 employees 
with an average of two children qualify."


--great
 stuff
       but how do ya move 
  an  particular bunch of folks with it ? 

this is indeed why social spending exists in the present form
       we wagery pay for our own dorked  wage mates
   corporate  dorkery thats the reserve army systemfor ya

 loop  back the up keep
            of the  predator's surplus stock of  prey
        on the necessary prey themselves  --------------------

------------------------------ 

okay kool but largely useless
outside a college lecture hall 

  but here's somethin
 that at least is a  palpable 
                        state rap

---------------------------------------------

wal mash  doodle's
                  prop 72 

" In California, in November,
 the company was able to help stave off 
         by a 51-to 49 percent margin 

a state wide proposition 
that would have required 
every large and medium employer
 to provide 
decent healthcare coverage 
               for their workers
 
with the employer contribution
 set at a minimum 
               of 80 percent of costs." 

" Wal-Mart dumped 
a half million dollars 
into the anti-Proposition 72 campaign 
just a week before the vote. "



-----------undo influence ?
              now read this lovely patch 
                     of corporate  demo-speak-------------

“As one of California’s  
   leading employers,
 we care about the health 
of our 60,000 employees here,”

 “That’s why we provide 
our employees with affordable, 
quality health care coverage.” 

“Prop. 72 was never about Wal-Mart,” 


 “prop 72
    was about 
        unreasonable government mandates,
 it was about 
  the survival 
of small businesses 
and it was about 
  consumer choice
 in healthcare benefits.” 


-----text book eh?

"choice "
"unreasonable mandates"
and shit
how 'bout that 
small biz survival  buzz ?
love seenin' 
the timber wolf of timber wolves
  lookin after the sheeps' welfare  ---------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
------------ as to the true course
of any anti wally
          community rumble
                 heres 
          at least the right tree to climb ----------------


“Unlike its female workforce,” 
  the women who shop at Wal-Mart 
                can’t be ignored,"
                    

"but so far  
 there is no  sign 
of a consumer rebellion 
on anything like 
the scale necessary 
to make the company 
revisit its employment policies. "

---------------------------------------------