Thearguments put forward by Olsson are that the Wal-Mart firm underpayand overwork their employees. The United Food and CommercialWorkers International Union (UFCW) have on numerous occasionsasked to help workers form a union in order to fight for theirrights. The firm is also intimidating its employees if they aredeemed to be unionizing (Olsson1). While responding to these criticisms, Sebastian refutes the claimthat Wal-Mart is bad for poor Americans. He observes that, the giantretail firm saves billion of shillings through discounting foods andother products for the welfare of the poor Americans and as such thecomplaints on low wages are trivial.
Inaddition, he argues that, the firm has been able to create more jobsto the poor Americans and that not everyone believes that the firmpay and benefits are bad. He says that, the amount purported to belost by underpaying workers cannot be compared to with over $50billion dollars poor consumers save on low-price food offered byWal-Mart(Mallaby 1).In the same note, he points out that, the purported wage suppressionfrom the victims is insignificant compared to the purchasing poweroffered by the same company and, therefore, the workers save in equalmeasure as the firm does. He further states that, there are noreports indicating that Wal-Mart suppresses its wages in poorcountries(Mallaby 1).
Thefirm is not as parasitic on tax payer’s money as critics put it inregard to Medicaid since the average contribution for such firms isonly 4 percent. In addition, he observes that all companies are notrun by good people and the complaints of oppression by workers arenot justified. The worker status is, as a result, of technologicaland economic factors occurring due to globalization which haveincreased inequality. Sebastian also adds that, it is the poorAmericans who gain more from the firm and, therefore, the criticscould only be derailing the firm from assisting more poor families.
Although,Sebastian arguments are valid, there is evidence that the firm doesnot adapt to the labor laws policy and respect for human dignity.Workers of any firm are entitled to form a union for addressing theirconcerns. Sebastian arguments are not justified on his generalizationthat the firm discounted products benefit the workers. Olsson wouldnot agree with Sebastian arguments the firm needs to address theworkers concern and not justify its suppressive policy by statingthat it provides discounted prices for products. Contrary toSebastian arguments, Wal-Mart as a law abiding corporate firm thatwants good corporate image through its social responsibility programsshould start by treating its employees well and creating an enablingenvironment for workers(Olsson1).
MallabySebastian, “Progressive Wal-Mart. Really,” November 28, 2005.Retrieved on 2014-07-11, from
OlssonKaren, “Up against Wal-Mart,” 2003. Retrieved on 2014-07-11,from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/03/against-wal-mart