There’s a story about Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, only wearing clothes that he bought at his own store and driving around in an old pick-up truck, in effect living out the cost-cutting philosophy of his all-conquering business.
True or not, it’s emblematic of Wal-Mart’s commitment to frugality, which for a long time has benefited consumers, but has also affected the company’s 1.7 million employees. Figures compiled by Wake Up Wal-Mart show that in 2001 “sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630.”
So why don’t they unionise, you might ask, and take up the fight with the company as a group? Power in numbers and all that. Well, one thing you won’t find Wal-Mart’s “sales associates” doing is forming a union. Wal-Mart’s antipathy for unions reached a very public peak last year when it closed down a store in Jonquiere, Quebec after staff attempted to establish a union because “there was injustice at the company and it did not respect its workforce”.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
The union didn’t last long, with Wal-Mart preferring to close down the store rather than have it unionised. If Wal-Mart’s interest in acquiring Coles becomes a reality, can this be seen as a cautionary tale for workers at Australia’s largest private sector employer? And has the WorkChoices legislation made Coles look a lot juicier to Wal-Mart than it has in the past?
For their part, Wal-Mart doesn’t see the need for unions because staff and managers have such a wonderful working relationship. “There has never been a precedent in Wal-Mart history for a union to be necessary. Other organisations feel that a Wal-Mart Anti Union stance is born from greed or negligence to our employees’ needs. In actuality, there has never been a need for unions at Wal-Mart due to the close, personal relationship between Wal-Mart associates and their managers,” one Wal-Mart website says.