Collectivism At Walmart

The timeless burden of financial constraint on the working class offers a stark prevailing motif about the American economy: capitalism does not favor all with equal magnitudes. It is an eminent truth that the perils of a system dominated by unfettered entrepreneurial activity are eschewed with the upmost repugnance. Yet, even with the mixed market economy of the United States, some retail giants appear unscathed by the alleged regulation of commerce. Walmart is the world’s largest company and employer, with $258 billion in U.S. sales in the 2014 fiscal year. This goliath corporation commands great influence over local economies through its perpetual expansion. Many economists decry the devastating impact of the retailer as it burgeons through

American employees of the superstore are cast into poverty, with the average full–time worker earning less than $8 per hour for 28 to 40 hour weeks. The most prominent practice of Walmart is the relentless screening for union activity. This should be intrinsically alarming to most Americans since much of the history of the United States is characterized by collection bargaining for change. The company claims that in “maintaining an environment of open communications,” unions—or “third–party representation”—are undesirable. The aggressive crackdown on the slightest emergence of collectivism prompts a cascade response from the corporate giant. Intimidation and coercion are abundantly visited techniques of quelling unity. Managers are mandated to report union activity to higher levels. In fact, a December 2014 ruling in California condemned Walmart for improperly disciplining employees who had gone on strike. However, even with a history of such violations, Walmart contends that it acts within the law in its employee relations. Civil cases against the company domestically total over 3000 every year. The lax legislation on labor as overseen by companies such as Walmart creates an atmosphere ripe with unfair

Walmart employees in countries such as the UK, Canada, South Africa, and Mexico have experienced various different standards concerning the company’s stance on unionization. Despite a decidedly tepid approach to worker rights in developing nations that supply an emerging workforce for cheap labor, Walmart sees a rise in labor rights in its other global markets. In one instance, the company closed a Canadian store after a union formed. There is also a lack of the giant’s presence in Germany, where a venture into the market failed in 2006. Many speculate that this reflects the inability to harmonize with the ardently unionized labor of the country. However, there are also active unions in many countries. Walmart workers in South Africa call for fair labor practices but also equal opportunity for their American counterparts. Chinese law requires that unions be recognized. Central American countries have begun the quest for organization. The domestic scene remains relatively