You're Never Weaker Than When You Try Not to Appear Weak

I have really dropped the ball on WalMart blogging lately in favor of other issues and now I'm very sorry I made that choice.  Thomas of the Newsrack Blog has stayed on top of WalMart's freeloading policy of using public programs to pick up the enormous slack their employee healthcare program leaves with some excellent results.  It appears that Wal-Mart agrees.  Check out the comment thread of this post, Back-to-School Wal-Mart Boycott Goes Coast-to-Coast, and you'll see a comment left by "Roger C." a person Thomas suspects is blogging from deep in the heart of Bentonville:

Thomas,

Your statement about Wal-Mart's health care benefits is not correct. Wal-Mart offers benefits to its employees, but some choose not to take them. For example, take a look at your local Wal-Mart and notice that many of their employees are high school students, college students, and retirees. Those type of people are already covered by someone else's insurance — parents, spouse, former career, etc.

I don't think it's fair to say that Wal-Mart isn't paying for their benefits. Those people probably chose not to take Wal-Mart's benefits.

While I respect your opinion, it seems that you aren't giving the issue a fair analysis.

Roger C [e] @ 2005-08-12 18:14

---

Nice try, "Roger."  But they picked the wrong guy to troll.  Thomas knows his stuff and is nothing if not fair:

I said "This company doesn't pay health care benefits for 53% of its employees." That statement is based on the health care link provided in the post, and is an estimate in line with other reports.

I didn't say they didn't offer benefits, I said they don't pay benefits for 53%. That's because they price and time those benefits so that they're noncompetitive with Medicaid for low wage earners, so of course people don't "choose" them:
1) it takes a long time to even be eligible for health care benefits : full-time (181 days); part-time (731 days)
2) huge deductibles ($1000) — for people not making a lot of money
3) additional fees for ambulance, spouse, etc.

It's perfectly "fair" to say they don't pay benefits to 53% because it's a simple fact. The effect is to fob off a large part of the nation's workforce health care needs on state taxpayers — or, as you point out, on other insurance sources; either way it's freeloading, but it's particularly galling in the case of Medicaid. In every state that has been studied, Wal-Mart is at or near the top of the list of companies with employees on state Medicaid rolls; it even supplies employees with detailed instructions on how to apply for public services.

But I think that Wal-Mart's heavy use of part-time employees is part of the problem too, you raise a good point there.

[return to "Back-to-school Wal-Mart boycott goes coast to coast"]

Thomas Nephew [w] @ 2005-08-12 22:25

---

Incidentally, Roger C, I got what may be my first visit ever from walmart.com in Bentonville, Arkansas, IP address 161.165.196.84, just about exactly when you left your comment here. It was an honor! Care to clear up any "full disclosure"?

I don't think "Roger C." will be clearing up any full disclosure issues anytime soon.  Fairness has its limits, you know.  But you've got to hand it to Wal-Mart - no threat is too small to them.  That's partly because they live and die on razor-thin margins and the constant acclaim of Wall Street and partly because of their astounding organizational skills.  But sadly for them, their paranoia is showing.  All Roger succeeded in doing was exposing the depth of Wal-Mart's panic when it comes to Labor's united effort to protect workers around the world by helping Wal-Mart to see the error of its ways. 

If you blog, blog about Wal-Mart - it's working. 

Hey, Mick.  When are they going to get around to your site?  I would imagine they'd have a team of blog propaganda strategists working on you too.

Comments

[Mick]

Nary a peep. Unlike Tom, my little effort is under the radar, I guess. As you well know, the only reader who ever comments on my posts slamming WM is...you. But we can always hope. I'd like nothing better than a chance to answer a WM troll in person.

[Thomas Nephew]

My effort could only have been barely above the radar level. It was an amusing moment.

I'll check by "Trenches" more often -- excellent blog, Mick.

[eRobin]

Mick's Trenches and Jordan's Confined Space are two of the best labor blogs out there.

[paperwight]

I don't know why someone isn't paying Mick for his work.

[eRobin]

Paperwight! I must report this sighting to the search committee. You have us all quite upset.

[Mick]

Golly, y'all're gonna turn my pwetty widdle head with talk like that.

But thanks anyway.

paperwight: Damned if I know. Actually, I'm paying to do this. So are you. Seems backwards, don't it? I can certainly understand why you're re-evaluating. We'll miss you if you go, though.