Last year, Wal-Mart came under attack from the religious right over its "pro-gay agenda"-specifically, its support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (the retail giant donated $25,000 to the gay business group and agreed to sponsor two of its conferences).
Wal-mart also has an anti-discrimination policy banning discrimination against its LGBT employees, and supports a network for its gay (and lesbian, and bisexual, and transgender) workers.
So why has the Human Rights Campaign, the Washington-based LGBT political lobby, given Wal-Mart a "do not buy" rating in its new consumer guide, at the start of the vital holiday shopping season?
HRC says its because Wal-Mart doesn't provide domestic partner benefits. But given the chain's other gay-inclusive actions, and the attacks it has endured from the anti-gay right for doing so, doesn't HRC's rebuke come off as a wee bit excessive? This seems no way to treat our mostly (if not yet quite 100%) friends.
The explanation, I'd suggest, has all to do with the Democratic Party's strategy of making non-union Wal-Mart a political whipping boy, and HRC's now predominant role as water-carrier for the Democratic Party.
24 Comments for “Wal-Mart Bashing”
posted by Things that make you go... on
Interesting idea. To support it, one might look through the HRC ratings to see if Wal-Mart received a lower score compared to other companies with similar gay rights records. That way you could see if if has “all to do with the Democratic Party’s strategy….”
Yes, I do realize that this would require at least some minimal research on your part.
As for me, considering how many businesses there are to shop at that do offer domestic partner benefits, I’m perfectly comfortable giving Wal-Mart a personal “do-not-buy” rating this holiday season.
posted by Jorge on
Personally I can’t remember whether the past gripes against the HRC were about it being a slave to the Democratic party and its other interest groups or a genuine bastion of inflexible progressive ideology. Or does it switch depending on which method is the easiest way to put it down?
This strikes me as much more the inflexible liberal hit job than the partisan Democratic thing. Aren’t you normally supposed to play the hypocrite card when you’re suggesting the HRC is sleeping with the Democrats?
Accusing the HRC of carrying water for union-fanatic democrats is quite an accusation. Doing anything related to the union issue would really be stretching the HRC’s mission. I don’t remember reading anything anywhere saying the HRC is pro-union, so I don’t buy it. This is a legitimate position they are taking.
posted by Avee on
Miller is right that Wal-Mart is a whipping boy for the Democrats and that bashing Wal-Mart is part of the party’s “talking points” that all good Democrats and organizaitonal allies are expected to comply with.
Check out the links in his post and read about Wal-Mart’ outreach to gays, and then read the USA Today piece promoting HRC’s “do not buy” ratingt, and it’s clear Miller has a valid point.
posted by Jimbo on
I agree with Mr. Miller on this one. I’m as pro-labor as any other union member & I try to shop at Wally World as little as possible, but come on now. Just because Wal-Mart is not 100% lockstep for the gay community doesn’t mean it deserves this red zone “do not buy” rating. Given the flack Wal Mart has gotten from the Christianists on their non-discrimination policy, you’d think HRC would cut them some slack. They must be thinking “we’re getting holy hell from the Religious Right & we stuck by you guys & THIS is the thanks we get?”. Hopefully Wal Mart won’t backtrack on anything.
posted by Randy on
The Wall Street Journal just had a front page article about Wal-Mart earlier this week. Seems an employee was hit by a truck (a truck not related to Wal-Mart) and received severe injuries that left her permanently disabled. She sued, and rec’d all of $400,000.
Then Wal-mart sued HER for the $400,000 based upon a clause in her employee contract that allows them to sue any employee who rec’d health care for any injuries as reimbursement. Wal-Mart won, and today the woman is disabled and survives totally upon social security and her husband’s small earnings.
there are plenty of reasons why Wal-Mart is the whipping boy for the Democrats, and with good reason.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, if one reads that story, the problem with that logic becomes much more obvious.
1. Her accident had nothing to do with the company or being on company time.
2. It is a standard provision in virtually every health plan, mainly because it prevents the other people in the risk pool from being forced to absorb costs for accidents that they did not cause by reimbursing the pool from those who did cause the accidents.
Meanwhile, what makes the hypocrisy of Democrats who blast Wal-Mart for doing this blatantly obvious is the fact that the socialized medical plans they create and fully support — Medicare and Medicaid — require the same thing.
I quote:
Under the federal Medicare program, eligible recipients1 receive publicly funded medical benefits for illnesses or injuries. Personal injury attorneys should understand the basics of the Medicare Secondary Payer Program (MSP). Congress intended Medicare to be the last resort for medical care. Therefore, if a recipient is entitled to receive compensation for his or her injuries from other sources such as workers’ compensation or private health insurance, Medicare will not be responsible for the costs. If Medicare initially provides benefits and the recipient later receives health benefits by another provider, Medicare must be reimbursed.
In short, the Democrats are screaming foul over Wal-Mart’s plan doing exactly what they demand — with even greater legal authority — the health insurance plans THEY wrote do to recover costs.
Furthermore, making it even more amusing, the woman’s settlement was nearly twice the amount Randy touted — until, of course, the Democrat-supporting trial lawyers took nearly half of it for “legal fees”.
The reason Wal-Mart is the whipping boy is simple; the Democrat Party knows that the vast majority of its base is either too uneducated to recognize the hypocrisy of their attacks or, like HRC and gays, too ideologically enslaved to ask questions of their masters.
posted by Brian Miller on
Gosh, HRC seems to be doing to Walmart “worse” than what we do to Democrat and Republican politicians.
When we point out that an anti-marriage politician like Hillary or Rudy doesn’t deserve our votes, HRC will often come out to criticize us and say we don’t understand “strategy” — while often using terms like “purist.”
Yet here’s Walmart — a company more “on the side” of the average gay person than Hillary or Rudy — getting the good old heave-ho from HRC and the Republicrats and Demopublicans.
posted by Randy on
Well, Dallas, if it’s a standard provision “mainly because it prevents the other people in the risk pool from being forced to absorb costs for accidents that they did not cause by reimbursing the pool from those who did cause the accidents,” then that’s a GOOD thing, and you should support the Democrats for continuing in their policies.
If, however, it’s a BAD thing, in that a woman was injured through no fault of her own and now has nothing to show for it, then you should support either party in their attempt to get rid of, or at least modify, that clause.
So, please, which is it?
posted by Randy on
Personally, I’m glad to see our old friend ND30 back. Throughout the entire ENDA debate, he was no where to be seen. I guess it’s really hard to keep saying that the Republicans are so pro-gay, unlike the Dems, when in fact it was the Dems who got it passed.
Kinda hurts when you have to give credit to your enemies….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, please, which is it?
What the facts clearly show, Randy, is that you and your fellow Democrats are bashing Wal-Mart for a policy that you yourself follow and support in your own health plans.
The difference between you and I is that I do not bash Wal-Mart for something which in my experience makes perfect sense. The individual in question received $460,000 in health care for which she did not have to pay. That money comes from other peoples’ premiums and, unreimbursed, will increase the costs for all of them. This is why Medicare and Medicaid do it.
In short, it’s not the principle that is the problem; it is the fact that you and your fellow Democrats are bashing Wal-Mart for it when you follow it yourself.
Furthermore, in regards to ENDA, as I said over yonder, it is not “pro-gay” to force gay business owners to hire straight people when they don’t wish to do so, or require them to keep employees who are incompetent because of their sexual orientation or risk a lawsuit.
That is, of course, unless ENDA doesn’t apply to straight people — in which case it is a “special protections” law.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Furthermore, in regards to ENDA, as I said over yonder, it is not “pro-gay” to force gay business owners to hire straight people when they don’t wish to do so, or require them to keep employees who are incompetent because of their sexual orientation or risk a lawsuit.
That is, of course, unless ENDA doesn’t apply to straight people — in which case it is a ‘special protections’ law.”
Very well said, NDT. Of course I’ve been saying the same thing on other threads here ’til I’m blue in the face and still seem to have made no headway.
Indoctrination from the Supreme Soviet dies hard…
posted by Samantha on
LOL…I love some of these stories. Why be fair about an issue, when instead you can slander the HRC and shove a sharp stick in the eye of the democractic party? Which is more fun?
If you bother to read the article that Miller so kindly provides, it says that Walmart has made progress but has since caved in to the religious right. Quote:
“In December 2005, HRC executives were invited to the first of two meetings at the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. On the agenda: the intricacies of implementing domestic partner benefits. Conservative groups angered by Wal-Mart contributions to gay organizations threatened a boycott, and in June, the company announced a policy to avoid “highly controversial issues.” Talks on gay benefits ended, Herrschaft says.”
I don’t know if walmart should be recommended to buy or not, but the HRC certainly has explained to my satisfaction their reason for concern, and ultimately it’s our decision as consumers.
It certainly gives me pause, when you put it all in context and compare Walmart to their peers, and not to the mom and pop store on the corner.
This is the fortune 500 list. You’ll notice Walmart is not just ON the list, not just in the top ten, they are actually number 1:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/index.html
Ok, Walmart doesn’t provide benefits. Maybe nobody else towards the top of the list does either, right? Wrong. One after another I checked and they all provide benefits. Even Target does, at number 33. Actually, it turns out more than half of the whole fortune 500 do, as well.
Here’s the HRC list of the fortune 500 providing benefits:
http://w3.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Search_the_Database&Template=/CustomSource/WorkNet/srch_list.cfm
Puts it all in context, doesn’t it? Darn those dirty gay liberals.
posted by John on
I don’t care what political party, what religious faith, or what other difference there are, to me the whole issue is equal pay for equal work. Companies should provide equal benefits to all it’s employees, period. The company should not care anything beyond that. It always frosts me when a company says it can’t provide domestic partner benefits because it would cost too much. Well if all Gay people at the company were straight, they’d have to pay out the benefits, so what difference does it make? Or is the company happy it has Gay employees so it doesn’t have to pay out the benefits?
I think the issue is not politics, but fairness. The company should provide benefits to all. Period, end of story.
Who cares if your Democrat or Republican, we all need benefits.
posted by Samantha on
John, I agree. And if our marriages could be legally recognized by the government, then this would be a moot point.
Frankly, in my opinion Walmart is a behemoth and can afford anything it wants. It should lead on this issue, not follow.
posted by instafaggot on
Samantha, You’re right on the money. This “independent” forum is really nothing more than a dem-bashing (read: Republican) site. One of thousands of phlogs that pretend to be information-gathering site but are really partisan “non-partisan” agenda-working phoneys. There’s no authentic discussion here.
posted by Brian Miller on
So let’s compare.
Walmart takes my money and gives me things that I want to buy in exchange for the money. Not a bad trade.
HRC takes my money and gives it to Democrats who are opposed to marriage equality and refuse to lead on adoption equality, immigration equality, and equality in military service. Which seems to me to be far less of a bargain.
If HRC is going to consistently attack public figures who “go back” on gay rights, they should start with Hillary Clinton — their preferred candidate.
This doyenne of HRC’s board has, for instance, declared point blank that she opposes marriage equality. She also flip-flopped on UAFA partner immigration legislation by declaring she will not support it because it “facilitates illegal immigration.” At the same time, she supported legislation that would have transformed 12 million + illegal Mexican immigrants into US citizens.
HRC the organization, as usual, is crying wolf on this issue. WalMart’s flip-flopping, according to them, is a “cause for concern.” Meanwhile, Hillary’s flip-flopping — which is far more important to most gay people — is completely ignored.
So if HRC the organization is going to ignore the backtracking (and backstabbing) of HRC the candidate, why shouldn’t gay people just ignore both HRCs and their opinions on our issues?
posted by Brian Miller on
unless ENDA doesn’t apply to straight people — in which case it is a ‘special protections’ law.
Regardless of the intent of the law, the Supreme Court has already ruled that a “protection” special-rights law can *never* apply to a member of the majority class.
This is well-worn case law.
White men cannot sue for racial profiling. And straight men cannot sue for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It’s case law. ENDA’s proponents know this. ENDA’s proponents know that this will be upheld the minute someone sues over it, when SCOTUS will rule that ENDA only protects gay people.
It doesn’t stop them from lying about it, however. Just like the Supreme Soviet that Lori referred to.
It seems to me that the only debate going on over these issues is boring partisan team-sports touch-football, by the way. The entire substance of the “debate” on the thread so far is “ohhhh, these people are Republicans, yuckie!”
I’m not a GOPer nor a Dem, but it doesn’t stop 3/4 of the debate from being “you’re a leftist/rightist who hates America” platitudes rather than a thoughtful, facts-based analysis of the issues at hand. This sort of knee-jerk “thinking” is likely at the heart of the lack of real progress that gay people have made in the legislature, despite pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into political party coffers the last 20 years or so.
posted by Samantha on
Instafaggot, I know, what is up with that? I guess you’re right, it’s a very partisan site. If a few of us weren’t here to express a different sentiment, there wouldn’t be a progressive voice at all. Or really, even an accurately mainstream one. Why not change the name from IGF to Log Cabin Republicans? And I don’t want to be picky, but what was wrong with the coral color,…why did it change to standard navy blue? (Maybe the pink tones are too swishy.)
Mr. Miller, I appreciate your perspective on the Hillary/Walmart comparison, but let’s face it, it’s apples and oranges. Walmart is a corporation, and it lags behind its peers as a corporation. Hillary is an actual person, and her position is consistant with peers in her party. Kerry didn’t support gay marriage either. I would love that the party could move further toward gay issues, but how on earth is that possible in the current hostile climate?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, HRC’s argument goes south when one realizes that they are spending literally millions of dollars on FMA and state constitutional amendment supporters, not to mention those who pander to the religious right and fire gay employees for their PARTNER speaking out against the organization’s homophobia.
Finally, whether or not Wal-Mart chooses to offer domestic partner benefits is entirely their business, as it is for every other company in the United States. The reason most companies choose to do so is purely as a recruiting tool, as it is for all benefit packages, and they have likely decided that it doesn’t make any sense for them from a business standpoint. If gay people don’t like that, they can work elsewhere, just like any other benefits package.
But I notice that the so-called “progressives” didn’t comment on the fact that their nationalized health care plans require reimbursement as well — despite their bashing Wal-Mart for doing so.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t suppose any of you know that the secon trailer for Cloverfield is out?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or really, even an accurately mainstream one.
Notice what Samantha considers to be “accurately mainstream” in viewpoint:
Can you picture Rove pressing his brown uniform, finding glee in discrediting the educated classes, the professors, researchers, scientists, artists, musicians, and moderates, while hyping up the simple patriotic ferver of the german homeland and worship of the state? I can.
The moderates, the free-thinkers, the writers, the “liberal academe” are opposing forces to fascism and bushism. They are enemies which need to be destroyed. That was my point, that it’s no surprise to me that those types of people would be Miller’s verbal target, given Miller’s apparent politics.
In other words, she’s calling Steve Miller a Nazi.
This is even better:
And I don’t want to be picky, but what was wrong with the coral color,…why did it change to standard navy blue? (Maybe the pink tones are too swishy.)
Had Samantha bothered to ask someone who has been around IGF for a while, she would know that IGF changes color schemes for the holidays; hence the snowscape and the little trees.
But her automatic assumption that it was changed because it was “too swishy” is an excellent insight into the mind of a gay “progressive”, in which literally every word, every color choice, every attitude, and every position is determined by sexual orientation. In the world of “progressives”, there is no room for deviance; merely deviating from the color scheme that is considers acceptably “gay”, regardless of the actual reason, means you hate yourself and are ashamed of your sexual orientation.
posted by Samantha on
ND30, I usually skip over your posts, especially if they’re long, because of course it’s all doo doo. But I’ll comment on your observation that I haven’t “been around IGF” long enough to know the color scheme changes. Nope…I’m not an oldie here, I don’t fit the profile – I’m not a dem-bashing, gay-bashing self-hating log cabin republican.
So thanks for pointing out the OH SO VITAL issue of color. I had only made a passing comment on it, it’s not a manifesto…lol. If the colors change, then fine. But it’s not a stretch to observe that a conservative color was a good fit for the site.
By the way, how is the color a “holiday” color? Don’t you mean a winter color? Because Christmas is red and green. Unless you are assuming they’re going for the Hannukah look….lol.
posted by Brian Miller on
Walmart is a corporation, and it lags behind its peers as a corporation. Hillary is an actual person, and her position is consistant with peers in her party.
And I can vote with my dollars against WalMart (by shopping elsewhere) if need be.
While Democrats seem to demand that I not shop with my VOTE away from their homophobic candidates.
Sure, Hillary is median in her party, but Mitt Romney is median in his party too. I’d much rather vote for a candidate who is actually, you know, good on the issues that matter from an objective standpoint.
posted by ETJB on
Everyone has a sexual orientation, and this ENDA would apply to gay and straight employees in similar circumstances.
Civil rights legislation applies to everyone. If you prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that means gay, straight or bisexual.
If you prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of ‘race’ then that includes every race…or…religion.
The only exception is Affirmative Action, which has entirely different purposes and legal issues involved.
Where are these so-called court cases? Perhaps they are in the same magical land where right-libertarians pretend that civil rights laws are unconstitutional, the income tax amendment was not ratified and people do not have to pay…
It seems to me that the only debate going on over these issues is boring partisan team-sports touch-football, by the way. The entire substance of the “debate” on the thread so far is “ohhhh, these people are Republicans, yuckie!”
I’m not a GOPer nor a Dem, but it doesn’t stop 3/4 of the debate from being “you’re a leftist/rightist who hates America” platitudes rather than a thoughtful, facts-based analysis of the issues at hand. This sort of knee-jerk “thinking” is likely at the heart of the lack of real progress that gay people have made in the legislature, despite pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into political party coffers the last 20 years or so.