For decades, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) expanded, in part, by blocking unions and crushing local competitors in small towns across the U.S. Eventually Wal-Mart ran out of small towns to dominate and had to move closer to cities. And now Wal-Mart's dismissive attitude towards workers and small retailers is catching up with it politically.
As today's New York Times [subscription required] reports, Wal-Mart now finds itself being used as a symbol of economic inequality by Democratic congressional candidates. I've never been elected to anything so I can't judge the wisdom of using Wal-Mart as a political football. But when a company reaches the scale of Wal-Mart, it can't keep burying its head in the sands of Bentonville, AK when it comes to politics.
Although I think Wal-Mart's economic benefits to society may exceed its costs, the political turmoil reflected in the Times article puts a cap on its stock price.
In my view, here are some of Wal-Mart's economic benefits and costs:
BENEFITS
- Lower prices of consumer goods. Wal-Mart claims that its low price strategy has reduced consumer prices by 3.1% -- saving consumers an estimated $263 billion in 2004;
- Tax payments. Wal-Mart paid about $6 billion in income taxes in the last 12 months; and
- Supplier efficiency. Wal-Mart is a demanding customer that forces its suppliers to become more efficient. This pressure leads to improvements in supplier business processes that push down suppliers' costs -- enabling surviving suppliers to earn higher margins in selling to other customers.
COSTS
- Low wages, poor benefits. Wal-Mart employs 1% of the US workforce, it has blocked unions and its wages are low. For example, in 2001, Wal-Mart paid its employees an average $8.23 per hour, compared with $10.35 for an average supermarket worker. Furthermore, Wal-Mart has been involved in 39 class action lawsuits, involving hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs who charged Wal-Mart with withholding earned wages, either by deleting hours from time sheets or forcing workers to work unpaid overtime hours. Finally, Wal-Mart does not give health benefits to most of its workers. While 66% of employees at large firms like Wal-Mart receive health benefits from their employer, only 41% to 46% of Wal-Mart employees do; and
- Small business failures. Wal-Mart has driven small retailers out of business in the local communities in which it operates -- reducing overall retail sector employment by between 2% and 4%.
Whether Wal-Mart's societal benefits outweigh its costs cannot be reduced to a simple calculation. But all the free publicity Wal-Mart is getting from the political debate -- in which Democratic candidates argue on behalf of Wal-Mart workers -- is not good for Wal-Mart shareholders.
By fanning the flames of anti-Wal-Mart sentiment, Democratic candidates are in effect limiting the company's ability to grow by opening new stores. This places greater pressure on Wal-Mart to sell more through its existing stores -- a huge challenge when one considers that in order to maintain its 11% sales growth, Wal-Mart will need to add $34 billion to its revenues in the next year.
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College. He has no financial interest in Wal-Mart securities.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-17-2006 @ 10:50AM
EJ Passeos said...
Great post.
Is there anything worse than pandering politicians? There is no easier layup than criticizing Wal-Mart (other than George bashing businesses after Enron and his laughable steel tariffs).
Frankly, politicians really shouldn't criticize a business unless there is proof they are harming society. Tobacco companies? Ok, but they don't profit from death by collecting sin taxes. Online gambling? Ok, but don't arrest CEOs of companies that operate legally.
Wal-Mart, sure, politicians wish they gave away health care to everyone. Again, an easy solution, not realistic, but easy.
I guess this inevitably was headed to a red vs. blue state matchup.
8-17-2006 @ 12:10PM
Deborah Clarke said...
According to this article, Wal-Mart's average wage to its employees is $8.23/hour. Why is this a surprise when when the federal minimum wage is only $5.15/hour, and has been for about the last 10 years? And the fact that Wal-Mart has been hit with 39 class actions is meaningless except to the plaintiff's bar who have found their ticket to second homes, exotic vacations, and early retirement. They bring these cases because (1) they are easy to bring, and (2) they are easy to settle for big bucks even in the absence of any wrongdoing because defending them is prohibitively expensive. In fact, if you want to take a closer look at "low wages," take a close look at the settlements in these class actions. The lawyers are making out like bandits and the employees are taking home pennies. There's nothing altruistic in that.