(Mint Press) – On Saturday, thousands of union members, pro-labor activists and community leaders demonstrated against a proposed Wal-Mart store in downtown Los Angeles. Organizers have called this the biggest protest against the retailer in the company’s 50 year history, as protests are expected to swell in anticipation of the store’s future opening.
Representatives of the world’s largest retailer contend that the new store will create local jobs while providing a much needed grocery store to the community. However, the pushback continues among pro-labor activists who cite the company’s staunchly anti-union policies, discriminatory pay system and lack of healthcare as reason for the city of Los Angeles to block the store’s opening.
L.A. Chinatown transformed
“The long-term effect of Wal-Mart when they move in, is to dismantle the middle-class,” said Peter Dreier, a labor expert in a Press TV interview. Dreier, who was among the hundreds of protesters, continued his scathing criticism saying, “They don’t have health insurance, so they [employees] end up relying on food stamps, Medicaid, and other forms of government benefits because they work for Wal-Mart but they live in poverty.”
Wal-Mart was granted building permits by the city of Los Angeles, a move that overturned a long-standing moratorium on big box stores in the second largest U.S. city. While developers have yet to break ground on the new store, protesters have already lined up in opposition to the proposed development.
Critics charge that the store will force small businesses to close, which will destroy local business and irreparably change the historic look of one of Los Angeles’ oldest neighborhoods. Some who assembled Saturday took a more moderate position, saying they were not explicitly “Anti Wal-Mart,” but rather that they wanted to see the company offer healthcare and a decent living wage, two things that the corporation has previously failed to offer many in their workforce.
Indeed, the costs to local communities have been extensive. The 2005 documentary, “Wal-Mart, the High Cost of the Low Price,” offered a scathing critique of the company. The information in the film has been scrutinized by independent studies with a recent study by UC Berkeley’s Labor Center confirming that over a 15-year period, Wal-Mart drove down wages in urban areas, accounting for at least $3 billion dollars in annual losses for retail workers.
Additionally, a 2004 study by UC Berkeley found that, “Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.”
One protester said, “I am not against Wal-Mart. They could build one but they have to fix the problems we have now. Give us respect. Give us better pay. Get us out of welfare.”
Some are cautiously optimistic that a Wal-Mart store could positively transform the Los Angeles community, which has had stagnant job growth for years. Richard K. Green, a blogger and contributor for Financial publications writes, “I am no fan of Wal-mart. Among other things, I wish that those who attempt to bring a class action suit against Wal-mart pay discrimination had prevailed in the Supreme Court case of Wal-mart vs Dukes. Nevertheless, it also concerns me that Los Angeles has had essentially no job growth in two decades, and that urban redevelopment is very difficult to do here.”
Class action suit
The class action lawsuit Green refers to is Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Inc., the largest class action lawsuit ever to be filed in the United States. The action began in 2000 when California Wal-Mart employee Betty Dukes claimed that despite being a qualified employee, she had been passed over for promotions and pay raises because she is a woman. Dukes reportedly had exemplary performance reviews and appeared well positioned to advance within the company. However, Dukes, like so many women working for Wal-Mart, claims to have been sexually discriminated against.
Indeed the trend is not an isolated one, as some 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees joined the suit when it first went to trial in 2001. The plaintiffs sought damages for years of sexual discrimination and lost wages. Legal defense for the plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart practices violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Despite these claims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wal-Mart’s favor June 2011, declaring that the wide variation in the claims and circumstances of the alleged discrimination made it impossible to say that all 1.6 million women constituted a common “class.” That is, the millions of women claiming a common, systematic discrimination failed to meet the court’s “threshold of certification” needed to show that the female employees of Wal-Mart were subject to the same type of systematic discrimination in pay and promotion.