Here is another recent item from the NYT on the $25 million a year campaign to organize Wal-Mart (WM), which appears to have morphed into a $25 million a year campaign to advise the world that WM pays its workers $9-$10 an hour (almost double the minimum wage – although the sponsors of these ads would argue that the minimum wage should be about $9-$10 an hour…).
Is it just me, or does this seem like a dumb strategy? First, WM could easily run 10 ads for every 1 the unions run, marching out genuinely happy workers who will praise their employer. Second, for the roughly 60% of America that shops at Wal-Mart these ads will probably be confused for commercials. To these shoppers low wages = low prices (which isn’t really true – the equation is more like: buying power + state of the art logistics + unprecedented technology + low wages = low prices. Labor costs are a factor, but are not that important in the scheme of things – if it were that simple any reasonably sized retailer would be able to beat WM at its own game. See this great HBR article on how retailers are countering WM’s huge logistics and purchasing power advantages by bobbing and weaving in areas where WM is weak – local connection, quality, style, – and doing pretty nicely these days going after the remaining 40% of the market who are not shopping on price alone. Finally, does anyone really expect America to be outraged that WM workers are making $9-$10 an hour? I’m a little surprised they are that high.
This is a monumental waste of dues money. I understand that WM is public enemy number 1, but their value proposition and the “contract” they have with their customers is that “we are huge, lean and our mission in life is passing the savings we generate on to you.” Reinforcing that is not going to get the people who accept that contract to stop shopping there – if you have a problem with the way WM does business you already don’t shop there – lots of people don’t. And their employees, by and large, buy into that proposition as well.
If unions are going to go after WM (if it was me I’d focus energy on lower hanging fruit and “softer” targets) the strategy should be creating a value proposition for WM workers FIRST. Invest money in local clinics that offer discounted health care to WM workers (in exchange for becoming associate members of your union). Offer free or discounted legal advice to WM workers who join your union. Provide cheap child care to associate members of your union. Stop trying to force your way in the front door – WM has defined unions well. Unions mean conflict (the ad campaigns only further cement this idea), higher prices to customers, and fewer jobs to workers. Give WM workers a different experience with unions and this caricature goes away – and perhaps unions win a few elections.
“But this will cost WAY more than $25 million a year.” I hear unions objecting now. Of course it will. Organizing WM will cost WAY more than $25 million a year – which is why the idea of an ad campaign getting a foot in the door is laughable.
