DEAR EDITOR:
In response to John Reese’s letter, I take issue with several of
Mr. Reese’s main points and contentions.
DEAR EDITOR:
In response to John Reese’s letter, I take issue with several of Mr. Reese’s main points and contentions.
Mr. Reese first stated that a previous letter to the editor written by Mark Zappa had ” … the smell of one of Wal-Mart’s ‘anti-union suits.’ That assertion seems a little hypocritical considering Mr. Reese’s letter read like he himself was leading the Wal-Mart pro-union campaign.
Mr. Reese used single mothers as his model for why Wal-Mart should pay a living wage to its employees. Statistics and data do show that the numbers of single mothers in the United States are incredibly high, but are single mothers the largest group of employees working for Wal-Mart in Gilroy? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Still, why have single mothers suddenly become the example of a Wal-Mart worker? Could it be that Mr. Reese used single mothers as his example because they invoke the most pity from readers? Just a thought. And Mr. Reese continued his outcry over how Wal-Mart treats its single-mother employees by attacking the store’s pay scale. He wrote that Wal-Mart considers 28 hours a week full-time and those 28 hours, at $7.50 an hour, amounts to (gross) $910 a week.
Admittedly, that is not a lot of money for a mother raising kid(s). However, take those same monetary numbers and give them to a teenager or a retiree and they do not seem so meager. And since when has someone, single mother or not, been required to work only one job and for only 28 hours a week? If Wal-Mart does not choose to allot more than 28 hours a week for employees to work then they should have plenty of time to work another job and make considerably more than $910 a month. Mr. Reese would have us believe that if a single mother could not work more than the 28 hours Wal-Mart apportions her then she would be incapable of finding another job to make more money and, “forced to be on welfare, food stamps and/ or WIC for her baby (only one?).”
Finally, Mr. Reese made his argument as to how and why Wal-Mart should pay its employees more money saying, “… Wal-Mart, the richest company in the world, could easily afford a living wage!.” I highly doubt Wal-Mart is, in fact, the richest company in the world and when did companies and corporations start paying their employees according to what that company/corporation could afford?
When Microsoft, or any other business, ran in the black by billions of dollars was the public clamoring for Microsoft to pay its employees more? They certainly could afford it. Just because a business owner turns a big profit they are automatically supposed to redistribute that wealth throughout the whole company and all its employees? I’m sure stockholders would have loved that idea. Besides, Wal-Mart offers its employees a 401K plan. If they choose to invest in that plan and buy Wal-Mart stock then when Wal-Mart starts to make more money, thus becoming even more capable of affording a more living wage for its workers, those employees will benefit.
Mr. Reese’s specious arguments masked some interesting questions his letter provoked such as the 50 percent-plus turnover rate at Wal-Mart and the purportedly high number of lawsuits and anti-union practices filed against the company annually. But most of the letter seemed like he had a personal axe to grind. Consequently, as an outside observer, Mr. Reese’s position seemed self-serving and it was all the more incredulous that The Dispatch awarded his letter with The Golden Quill.
GORDON ALLEN-OLAVARRI, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, Feb. 26 to ed****@****ic.com
