How Walmart’s owners give thanks and give back

Workers at Walmart are using the Black Friday shopping rush to elevate their demands to receive a living wage from the nation’s largest employer and retailer. Among the protesters are 12 who gave up their Thanksgiving feasts and instead went on a 24-hour fast.

But while many Walmart workers and their supporters are making great sacrifices—and taking great risks—to stir its corporate conscience, the family that owns the retailing giant is giving back almost nothing at all.

By 2010, the wealth of Sam Walton’s six heirs was equivalent to that of 41 percent of all American households—over 48 million of them—combined. Yet those six siblings combined have contributed a minuscule $59 million—just 0.04 percent of their total wealth—to the foundation that bears their name.

That's the shocking conclusion of an analysis from Walmart 1 Percent, a project of the union-backed Making Change at Walmart:

The central finding of this report is simple: Our analysis of 23 years' worth of the Walton Family Foundation's tax returns shows that Rob, Jim, Alice and Christy Walton--the second generation Walmart heirs--have contributed almost none of their personal fortune to the foundation which bears their family name.

[,,,]
For starters, for decades the Waltons have relied on a tax dodge that now bears their name to keep billions of dollars from Uncle Sam. The Walton grantor-retained annuity trust, or Walton GRAT, has allowed billionaires like the Walmart heirs and casino mogul and GOP bag man Sheldon Adelson to shield $100 billion from the IRS since 2000. Named after the tactic lawyer Richard Covey, the dodge was developed for Sam Walton:

GRATs work by rapidly shifting large volumes of stock into a trust fund that is legally required to return that initial investment after two years. The stocks in the trust gain enough value that when it comes time to repay the initial investment there is a substantial amount of stock left over that can be transferred on to some third party without triggering the gift tax.

[,,,]
As it turns out, his daughter Alice Walton has even better way: Get rid of the estate tax altogether.

With their combined wealth now estimated at $139.9 billion dollars, on paper zeroing out the 40-percent state tax would allow the Waltons to redirect roughly $56 billion from the United States Treasury into the accounts of their heirs. (Because of tax avoidance techniques used by the very rich, the effective estate tax rate is closer to 17 percent.) All those zeroes explain why Alice Walton had been trying to kill the estate tax for years. As USA Today summed it up in 2005:

Led by Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show.

The Waltons have joined a coterie of wealthy families trying to save fortunes through permanent repeal of the estate tax, government watchdogs say. The election of President Bush and more conservatives to Congress gave momentum to the long-fought effort. The Waltons add more.

How Walmart’s owners give thanks and give back

D.C. Council approves ‘living wage’ bill over Wal-Mart ultimatum - Washington Post

D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned that the law would jeopardize its plans in the city.

The retail giant had linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But its ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8 to 5 roll call matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter, taken before Wal-Mart’s warning.

“The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”

D.C. Council approves ‘living wage’ bill over Wal-Mart ultimatum - Washington Post

Some sobering statistics to consider

• According to NELP real wages fall across the board by 2.8 percent between 2009 and 2012 and real wages for five of the top 10 lower-wage jobs (restaurant cooks, food prep workers, home health aides, personal care aides and housekeepers) fell by more than 5 percent during that period and 58 percent of all recovery growth being in low-paying jobs.
• In 1968, minimum wage was $10.71. Since then, it has decreased by 32 percent, resulting in millions of Americans working full-time hours and yet being unable to feed their families without assistance. Escaping poverty became, and is, a struggle. Of course, that isn’t true — the minimum wage in 1968 wasn’t $10.71. It was $1.60. However, $1.60 doesn’t have as much buying power as it used to, and when adjusted for inflation (as of today, June 29, 2013), that number is $10.71. Minimum wage was designed to increase with inflation. It has not done so.
• According to the USDA, in 2011, 14.9 percent of Americans (roughly 50 million individuals) had difficulty securing food "meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food."
• Global food prices continue to rise, "Continuing a decade-long increase, global food prices rose 2.7 percent in 2012,,," devaluing SNAP benefits by 7%.
• According to the Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesr SNAP provides estimated 22 million children a nutritionally adequate diet; 47% of all SNAP recipients are children.

Currently welfare as a whole falls under the 1996 reform law signed by President Clinton, though controlled by individual states, the federal government provides some of the funding through Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits.

Despite this, the House Republicans have introduced a bill that would cut $40 billion from SNAP over 10 years. Their reasoning, SNAP has been taken advantage of by people who aren't willing to work hard enough. For a bit of perspective, in 2012, our total underlying cost for SNAP $65 billion. But yet we spent $689 billion on the Department of Defense.

What's even more troubling, many co-called conservatives are jumping on a recent study by the CATO Institute which has concluded that welfare provides too high a level of benefits: "Welfare currently pays more than a minimum wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.,,,[m]oreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements."

So instead of taking that as a sign that minimum wage has stagnated and is too low, they are intent on slashing much needed help for the unemployed and underemployed. Also not being taken into consideration by conservatives and pundits (Faux News):

They [Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes at the CATO Institute] also acknowledge the central flaw in their conclusion: in real life the “typical” family in their study doesn’t come close to receiving the maximum benefit from every single program for which they’re eligible. But here the authors’ caveat doesn’t go far enough. Due largely to the fact that eligibility requirements have already become harder to overcome, these programs are helping fewer poor families get by. In 2009, around three out of four poor families with kids weren’t getting any TANF benefits. At the height of the economic crash, about 25 percent of those eligible for food stamps weren’t receiving them; during better times, that number hovers around 40 percent. And as the CATO study concedes, six out of seven poor families aren’t getting housing assistance.

So a study that claims to tell us about the “typical” poor family is really describing a rarity — the equivalent of a four-leaf clover. But the purpose of these studies isn’t to inform good policymaking. They feed a narrative that the poor are lazy and undeserving, and provide wonky cover for further weakening our social safety net. When studies like this one are picked up by the conservative media, all of the authors’ caveats tend to be stripped away, and they become straightforward claims that poor families sit back enjoying a good life, forcing overburdened tax-payers to pick up the tab. [Emphasis mine]

What I don't understand, how is the economic downturn we are trying to overcome now any different than what occurred in the 1930's? Why was it proper for the US government to intercede then but not now? Our country, our government, has a long history of helping the unemployed and underemployed dating back to the 1860s with the Civil War Pension Program; further still if you consider the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. Why are people making less money than when I was four years old?

Walmart Will Begin Offering Same-Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits In 2014 | ThinkProgress

The teaser line read "The nation's largest employer to offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners." Intrigued I just had to see who it was that was taking such a bold step forward. Imagine my surprise and disgust when I discovered it was Walmart.

Disgust? But it's a good thing isn't it?

Yes, disgust. Walmart employs approximately 1.3 million workers in the US through it 4500 stores. Thought they do not release actual figures in regard to the percentage of full-time workers, a recent report found that just that one, 300-empolyee Wisconsin Supercenter store costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year.” Now multiply that by 50 stores per states.

Since 2009 Walmart refuses to disclose the number of associates covered by their healthcare plan. At that time is was 52% with the company paying about 66% of the cost. But recently Walmart stopped offering health insurance to part-time employees (working less than 24 hours per week). Factoring in the numbers above, I am guessing that less than 52% of their employees are now covered.

Yes, disgust when you consider, "In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart "associate" costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance." Or so says Alan Grayson's in his HuffPo column My Thanksgiving: A Turkey Sandwich at Walmart from 2102. For once, a politician got it right according to a list from Good Jobs First.

Yes, disgust that the Walton family refuses to pay their 1.3 million US workers a living wage. There is a common misconception that if minimum wage were to be increased the cost of said increase will be passed on to consumers. I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is that this does not have to happen, Walmart does not need to follow the mindset of its founder Sam Walton, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

Instead of treating their employees like lowly peons and cogs in a wheel, maybe they should leave their draconian obsession with cost containment, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages, in the past where it belongs. As Thom Hartmann opines in his recent Op for AlterNet:

A job that pays a living wage isn’t just good for the workers who get to take home a livable paycheck, it’s good for other business owners and the economy as a whole. Businesses need people with a reasonable income to buy their goods. When workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat, they can’t spend additional money and as a result, the entire economy suffers. This is economics 101.

[,,,]
The point here is that it is possible for companies to pay their workers a living wage, make money, and give their customers an excellent product, all at the same time. The idea that we have to choose between paying workers well and having successful businesses is just false. That choice only exists when the owners insist on squeezing billions out of their workers.

Yes disgust. When the real reason for such a bold announcement is meant to distract from their renewed "Buy American" campaign which was deemed an utter failure the first go round. Some have been so bold as to label it a sham

Yes disgust. When one considers their human rights abuses,,, but I think you see my point. Walmart and other businesses that that espouse this draconian obsession with a cost containment "business" model should be shunned. Making such a bold claim as above only exposes their true agenda.. They are not offering anything of value to their workers and the only value is to the company in the form of PR. If Walmart wants to do some good they would get their employees off the dole by paying a decent livable wage, offering the option of insurance to all their employees whether full or part-time, and truly buy American.

Walmart Will Begin Offering Same-Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits In 2014 | ThinkProgress

Largest fast food strike ever today: 58 cities will be affected - Salon.com

Fast food workers today plan to mount one-day walkouts against nearly a thousand stores in over fifty cities — the largest-ever mobilization against their growing, low-wage, non-union industry, which until last fall had never faced a substantial U.S. strike. The work stoppage comes four weeks after a four-day, seven-city strike wave in which organizers say thousands walked off the job.

Today, the strikes – which started with a single-city November work stoppage in New York — are expected to hit several cities. In each city – from Los Angeles to Peoria – workers are demanding a raise to $15 an hour, and the chance to form a union without intimidation by their boss.

“I’m not a kid,” Raleigh, North Carolina, Little Caesar’s worker Julio Wilson told Salon. Rather, he said, “I am a single father, I have a daughter with special needs that needs attending to on a daily basis.” He said many of his co-workers and their families “need to be compensated to be able to live.”

Wilson, 34, first learned about the campaign when he saw a striking New York workers on TV. “They kind of sparked my interest,” he said, and led him to search online for a local organization tied to the cause. Over the past eight years, he’s worked at Burger King, Subway, Arby’s and McDonald’s. “I’ve made my way through the fast food circuit,” said Wilson, “and they’re all the same.”

Asked about the coming strike, McDonald’s e-mailed, “The story promoted by the individuals organizing these events does not provide an accurate picture of what it means to work at McDonald’s.” The company said it “aims to offer competitive pay and benefits to our employees” and that “Our history is full of examples of individuals who worked their first job with McDonald’s and went on to successful careers both within and outside of McDonald’s.” A recent study by the pro-labor National Employment Law Project found that “only 2.2 percent of jobs in the fast food industry are managerial, professional, or technical occupations,” and that the average pay for a front-line fast food worker is $8.94 per hour.

Largest fast food strike ever today: 58 cities will be affected - Salon.com

Colbert on the Consequences of Raising the Minimum Wage—It Would Eliminate a Lot of Poor People | Alternet

"It pains me that in a country of such wealth as ours, so many live in poverty," Stephen Colbert opened a segment on the minimum wage and the growing activism of low-wage workers last night. "It pains me even more when those people won't shut up whining about it — 'I want a union, I want a living wage, I want all my fingers,'" he joked.

He then exclaimed about how fast food workers are demanding a doubling of their paltry wages to $15 an hour. "What do they think? That those arches are made of gold?"

Colbert on the Consequences of Raising the Minimum Wage—It Would Eliminate a Lot of Poor People | Alternet

If a Business Won't Pay a Living Wage, It Shouldn't Exist

The point here is that it is possible for companies to pay their workers a living wage, make money, and give their customers an excellent product, all at the same time. The idea that we have to choose between paying workers well and having successful businesses is just false. That choice only exists when the owners insist on squeezing billions out of their workers.

A living wage isn’t just something corporations owe their workers, it’s something corporations owe America.

If a Business Won't Pay a Living Wage, It Shouldn't Exist

Walmart Threatens To Shut Down Stores If DC Passes Living Wage Bill | ThinkProgress

This is one reason I do not shop at Walmart,,,

Walmart claims that the bill, which applies to retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and stores that are 75,000 square feet or larger, is “arbitrary and discriminatory.” In a Washington Post editorial, general manager Alex Barron issued an ultimatum to Mayor Vincent Gray: veto the bill, or Walmart will halt construction on stores at Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue.

[,,,]
Walmart is accustomed to singlehandedly taking down worker rights legislation. Seven years ago, Walmart threatened to scrap its plans to open stores in Chicago after the city passed a similar living wage law. The mayor promptly vetoed the bill. In March, New York raised its minimum wage but gave tax subsidies to Walmart and other firms that hire seasonal workers. Unions claimed at the time that Walmart had influenced the deal behind the scenes.

Will be curious as to how these retailers respond,,,

Other large stores like Costco, Home Depot, Target, and Macy’s would also have to abide by the DC proposal. But the new $12.50 minimum would be an especially dramatic change for Walmart, which currently pays workers 28 percent less on average than other large retailers,,,

Walmart Threatens To Shut Down Stores If DC Passes Living Wage Bill | ThinkProgress

Report: A Living Wage Would Boost Economic Growth & Employment ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists

Many people say raising the minimum wage is a job killer. In real wage terms (when you factor in inflation) – the minimum wage is lower today than at any time from 1956 to 1983. The money a person makes today on minimum wage buys less than it would during those years. But the report found that contrary to the myth that jobs will be lost – we would see an increase in jobs overall due to strengthening the buying power of those making these entry level wages and thus we would see economic growth. In addition to this – over 750k people would be lifted out of poverty with another 750k would see significant personal gains from near poverty levels. The bottom line is this – raising the minimum wage is a major win for the middle and lower classes.

Report: A Living Wage Would Boost Economic Growth & Employment ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists