#highcostoflowprices

[walmarteconomy]

Walmart ' s shamefulness

I have never worked at Walmart but I have not shopped there in years after seeing the documentary “The High Cost of Low Prices” and hearing stories from younger relatives or family friends that use to work there about the horrible way employees are treated.

[letterstomrblock-blog]

On Mike Rowe as Mr Block or 'Always Low Expectations, Always' Part Four

Part Four

Now, if we read this literally, some of his earlier comments seem to make sense. For instance, when he says that “Jobs are just a happy consequence” of successful businesses like Wal-Mart. The fact that these factories will employ people is inconsequential for Rowe and besides business does not even exist to employ people: “Wal-Mart does not exist for the purpose of employing people.” What they care about is Profit.

So, for Rowe what is important is ‘America’, but its not the American worker and companies do not care (or do not have to care) about workers-jobs are an unseemly by-product. As Rowe dutifully points out, businesses care about consumers…but how does this harken back to what he cares about, America? He seems to be excited that there will be US manufacturing jobs, but if we read his ad literally then his ‘America’ is just all actually existing factories that are soon to be revitalized?

And what if we return to Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart cares about consumers and jobs are just a happy side effect, then Wal-Mart doesn’t have a stake in our communities. If we ditch the ‘worker’ label and get more complex and use terms like mother, father, sister, brother, friend, and neighbor and I think what Rowe is saying gets even more complicated (or absurd, stupid). These are the people that Wal-mart is (inadvertently) hiring because they must to do what they really want to do-that is serve consumers.

The people employed by Wal-Mart are people who are related to us, or live near us; people who have needs, wants, and desires, and yet this company that Mike Rowe did an ad for does not care about these people. They only care about consumers; that’s who they exist for. In fact, they label the people mentioned above as ‘associates’ instead of these non-two dimensional labels (presumably so they can dis-associate with you very easily if you use long-term relationship words like ‘union’).

Why should we let a company that does not care about our family or friends be in and part of our communities? If they are so one-sided that they only see us as associates and consumers we should expel them from our communities. Wal-Mart is not America. A functioning factory is not America. Neither of these things would function without us-as people, not consumers or associates. To emphasize the product without consideration for the process is to permit many abominable things (i.e., sweatshops, deforestation, animals testing, torture…).

Though Mike Rowe is fond of ascribing cognitive dissonance to his opponents/detractors I think he needs to be more self-reflective. I don’t think he was prepared for such a huge public response especially one that was hostile. Instead of listening to some of his more thoughtful detractors, he tries to explain them away by presenting their claims as ungrounded, irrational, psychological; after creating a caricature of his detractors, he abruptly dismisses them.

The ad comes at a time when there is a historic movement to change the working conditions for Wal-Mart workers (not associates). So, on the one hand, we may applaud new U.S. manufacturing jobs, but this cannot be looked at as having no relationship to Wal-Mart’s treatment of its workers; simply because they do one thing that is good doesn’t mean they are not accountable for something else that is abhorrent. It’s this type of thinking, as demonstrated by Rowe, which makes the simple act of drawing connections or remembering, a radical act.

  Mike Rowe: If we should accept you as that person who has always been that guy on tv who is trying to sell us crap that we don’t want, then ok, I’ve seen the Wal-Mart ad I know you are capable of making a turd shine. However, if you want us to respect you as someone who cares about Americans-not an abstract entity ‘America’-then join with the people who will be working in those factories and the current workers of Wal-Mart and help improve America.

_________

This is the final part of our four part short essay on Mike Rowe. Mike Rowe will probably be referenced in the future, but this will most likely be the last time any substantial time is ever set aside for him. Rowe is not particularly important, but his ad for Wal-Mart comes at a time when Wal-Mart workers are trying to change their working conditions. For Rowe to ignore that is on par with Mr. Blocks ignorance, so we felt it necessary to demonstrate his incoherent opinion on the subject (for better or worse, we stopped looking at his asinine comments after the one's we referenced). Likewise, we want to interject the fact that there are human beings that work at Wal-Mart not 'associates' and that there are people behind America, not some abstract idea. If this wasn't demonstrated sufficiently...maybe it will be in further posts. Also, we are now Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) members, but we are sympathetic to their historic/current role in the struggle against capitalism and the state.

Thank you for reading our blog.

[letterstomrblock-blog]

On Mike Rowe as Mr Block or 'Always Low Expectations, Always' Part Three

Part Three

I wanted to point out two more things Mike Rowe has (com)passionately exclaimed. As part of his response to sean-one of our friendly detractors-Rowe characterizes Sean and other detractors as presenting a reductive and dangerous view of a world where workers are struggling against bosses. He enlightens us and says, “The world is bigger than “Workers vs. Bosses,” and so is this campaign.” And, I think he is correct. There are all sorts of other ways that power relations manifest themselves, however, workers verses bosses is one of them. But before going deeper into that (w)hole, I wonder Who is Mike Rowe in favor of? Don’t worry this is a Rhetorical question that gets results. 

In his Feburary 12th Facebook post “Clean-up In Aisle Four!”, Rowe gives a recap of the controversy that overtook him in the previous few days. He mentions some of the stories written, the interviews he did and then offers a couple of thoughts on different aspects of the ‘controversy.’ He again, dismisses detractors as having ‘cognitive dissonance’, and not being able to see past their own deeply held bias. In particular, he singles out Marc Lamont as having the narrow view that pins workers vs bosses and cannot admit that Wal-Mart is doing something ‘good’, or important. Again, I think generally we should be charitable and listen to what Rowe is saying.

So, I opened up the CNN link Rowe provided and actually the first thing Lamont states is, “No one’s rooting against the initiative…they are saying, you can’t be a champion of the everyday guy, the ever day women and then work with Wal-Mart.” Lamont proceeds to make the issue more complex, which is something that Mike Rowe keeps gesturing at yet reduces his detractors to a 2-d image, by addressing the greater concerns with Walmart in general. He states, “They should do the intuitive…it doesn’t let them off the hook. They are not above critique.” Later in Rowe’s post, he seems to address Lamont directly and it is worth quoting at length for funzies and to further illustrate a worldview that should be coming into view:

People are asking how the ‘champion of the working man,’ (their words, not mine,) can support a big company like Walmart? This goes straight to the heart of the problem. Because it’s a question designed to insight a fight. We’ve become adept at putting people into boxes and assigning labels that reduce individuals to a single dimension. Thus, Democrats must behave like Democrats. Republicans like Republicans. It's expected. If you wander too far afield, you’re labelled a “sell-out.” A “Rino." A “Scab.” And so forth. Consequently, if the “champion of the working man” fails to burst into a chorus of “Look For the Union Label,” the country is suddenly confused. They shouldn’t be. Because the truth is, I’m a big fan of the American Worker. I’m just a bigger fan of America.

In one way, this summarizes nicely what I’ve been trying to show, that is, what seems to be Rowe’s general worldview. In another way, this seems to reach a conclusion that is pretty indistinguishable. So, what Rowe is saying here, as said above over and over without any real evidence for his view, is that people essentialize themselves. Democrats and Republicans alike reify their view and party as if it is the view, the party; any straying off the beaten path will lead to public condemnation. Rowe sees himself as not adhering strictly to either party line, so all the responses that he receives from his detractors are simply failing to step out of their own partisan, biased views to see the objective truth of the situation. Wal-Mart is doing something good, now deal with it. Of course, Rowe doesn’t provide much evidence for his view, nor does he offer any meaningful rebuttal to any actual concerns that ‘detractors’ raise. Also he is guilty of essentializing all his opposition and offers a similarly reductive, simple argument that ignores a lot of the nuances-such as the bigger picture and Wal-Mart’s other dirty practices, which he accuse his opponents has adhering, too.

Again, Rowe is not writing a treatise, so we cannot hold him under great scrutiny for his lack of argument, evidence, etc., and to some extent, that is not the point. Those things are easy to point out and simultaneously easy to grapple with if you just look up other information on Wal-Mart you can get a more sophisticated analysis (for and against) from other sources. So, what is important for my purposes in this particular controversy is the worldview that seems to appear. Look at Rowe’s last two sentences: “Because the truth is, I’m a big fan of the American Worker. I’m just a bigger fan of America.” I couldn’t help, but be completely dumbstruck by this. This whole time the ‘American worker’ seemed to be at the center of his attention. I thought, the ad was about bringing manufacturing jobs (back?) to America, presumably to employ American workers. But this seems to call that into doubt; the focus is not on the American worker, but on America.

So, Mike Rowe unabashedly loves America-more than the American worker. Ok…what the hell does he love then, what is this ‘America’? Is it not American workers, because I thought that is what the ad was about? I thought that Rowe was pretending to be a factory that is soon to be revitalized, which will then employ American’s. I didn’t think it was meant to be literal; I didn’t think the ad was actually a factory speaking. Is the commercial literally about factories being reborn?

Part four to follow soon! 

[letterstomrblock-blog]

On Mike Rowe as Mr Block or 'Always Low Expectations, Always' Part Two

Part Two

Mike Rowe was bombarded with responses about the ad, both positive and negative. On his Facebook, some of the positive revolved around the fact that Wal-Mart is going to put 250 billion dollars into US manufacturing over the next ten years. This is obviously a plus for American workers – there will be more jobs, which may lower unemployment and put Americans back to work. Others said things like, ‘jobs a job…at least its honest.’ Those defending Wal-Mart and Rowe said to their detractors things like, ‘Wal-Mart doesn’t owe you anything,’ ‘if you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there or shop somewhere else,’ and others admit that Wal-Mart may not offer ‘top-notch jobs…but at least its honest work.’ Before commenting on this I want to look at Mike Rowe’s responses to individual ‘detractors’ and then ‘detractors’ in general so as to paint a picture (or, perhaps, draw a cartoon) of a worldview.

Mike Rowe goes down the list in his one Facebook post (Feb. 9th) and responds to individual critics. One detractor said that Wal-Mart has helped to make American factories empty and their “products are all made in China.” Mike corrects them-not all their products are made in China-, but doesn’t mention what percentage of the products are produced elsewhere and what percentage is produced in the US. But he insists that if this is the case, don’t you-the detractor-want to see that change and wouldn’t that be good for Wal-Mart to invest in US manufacturing?

Mike’s position here seems to be that Wal-Mart approached him to do this ad and because he sees this particular intuitive as a good thing, he was willing to do it. If Wal-Mart does this initiative it may encourage others to do this, too. The point for Rowe at this particular juncture is to not focus on these other issues, but focus on this particular initiative to ‘create’ US manufacturing. He states his position in the form of a rhetorical question, “Do you really think America has any hope of reinvigorating our manufacturing base without support from the biggest retailer in the world?”

This is an interesting way to put it, because it problematizes the retort ‘if you don’t like it, shop elsewhere’ – stated differently for a different context, ‘if you don’t like America, leave.’ The problem of course is that Wal-Mart (and America) is a huge player in the global and national economy and political and social issues. When they make decisions it affects everyone. Everyone who works for them, everyone that shops there, all their competitors, and all their detractors are effected by their decisions because they are a global player. This is important that Mike Rowe is making this point because as one scrolls down Rowe’s responses seem to forget that he made this point and shifts responsibility from “the biggest retailer in the world” to the consumer and tv viewers.

So, in one response he makes a very simple argument: a slight majority of Americans shop at Wal-Mart therefore Wal-Mart is successful: “60% of all Americans shop there. That’s why Walmart is so successful.” In another response, he explains that it is the consumer who controls business and decides how things are run; a ‘job’ is not the point of business, but a sort of side effect (?): “Walmart’s first order of business is to serve their customer. Ultimately, the customer calls the shots. Not management. Not labor”; “Walmart does not exist for the purpose of employing people”; “Jobs are just a happy consequence of that success.” This is bizarre, and he extends this analogy (if we are charitable we should call it an analogy, if it is not an analogy then substitute in ‘line of reasoning’) to tv viewers. 

Rowe dismisses one detractor’s, Sean, comment because they copied and pasted parts from the report “Not made in America: top 10 ways Walmart destroys us manufacturing jobs” from Demos.org-a liberal think tank. Rowe justifies his simple dismissal because the site is a, “political site dedicated to destroying Walmart. And also because reactions like yours are the reason our country is paralyzed.” Rowe follows this with his explanation of how commercial tv works. He explains that if you watch tv then YOU are the one who has control. So, these programs have to be paid for by someone and where that money comes from is the person/group that calls the shots. 

“No matter what your job is Sean [i.e. detractor], if you work in commercial television, the money all flows from the same place. And no - it’s not the advertisers or the corporations that pay the bills. It’s you, Sean. The viewer. Just like the customer in a Walmart, the viewer on the sofa programs the airwaves by deciding what to watch and what to buy. In other words, you’re the boss.”

Before proceeding, we should all keep in mind that to be fair to Rowe he is responding on Facebook to an extreme amount of comments, which half amount to some mixture of ‘you suck’ or ‘you rock’. Like anyone else who has responded to a flood of Facebook comments, his response is not a rigorous treatise on the finer points of Wal-Mart’s initiative. Likewise, I’ve given a superficial reading of his comments to just touch on certain problematic ‘talking points’, in order to (eventually) bring out a bigger, broader argument that problematizes Rowe’s worldview, as I’ve explained it, that I think many others share. Part three to follow soon!

[letterstomrblock-blog]

On Mike Rowe as Mr Block or 'Always Low Expectations, Always'

Part One

A number of years ago I purchased a record called ‘Rebel Voices’ from an Industrial Worker of the World (I.W.W.) member. The entire record is worth listening to, but there are two songs in particular that I want to highlight: Mr Block and Power in the Union.

  Mr Block is a cartoon/comic character that was created by IWW member Ernest Riebe. Mr Block is “a common worker,” as the Joe Hill song goes, who “thinks he may be president some day.” Mr Block is suppose to represent the one-dimensional or block headed thinking of common workers who identify with their bosses or believe that anyone can become president. A type of person who does not pay attention to the the conflict between what workers want and what bosses want and without paying attention to the structural barriers (or blocks) that marginalized groups/people face that may prevent them from obtaining certain political, economic, and social positions, i.e. becoming President. In one cartoon, “Mr. Block: He Tires to Be a Union Scab” (Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology by Joyce Kornbluh p.171) Mr Block can be seen reading a IWW notice stating that they are on strike. Mr Block, an A.F.L. member at the time, says he will go to work because the AFL is a union that “believes in Harmony between capital and labor.” This cartoon is intended to point out the problem with unions and ‘common workers’ who do not make common cause with other unions and do not respect picket lines thereby hurting fellow workers and strengthening the bosses, capital and business. In the introduction to the song “Power in the Union,” Utah Phillips talks about a union member (who is just like Mr Block) that complains about people coming to the US and ‘stealing’ jobs from American workers. Instead of getting angry at this xenophobic remark, Utah turns inward and reflects. He asks, “What did he get in school? What did he get in his work experience?...What did he get even from his own union…?” The assumption being that in each of the cases this clouded thinking-fear of foreigners and praise for the homeland was present, and unquestioned. Utah retorts that, “If he had grown up with the true and sure knowledge of who he was and where he had come from, he would have been a lot more pissed off than he was and he would have known exactly who to be pissed off at, too.” The purpose of the story is that this union member seems to miss the point of the (general) idea of the union, at least as envisioned by people like the IWW.

  Now, of course, one does not have to subscribe to the IWW’s vision to be empathic to many of things described in the song. Such as wanting to put an end to ‘wage-slavery,’ alleviating starvation and misery, obtaining housing for everyone, and reducing wealth disparity/inequality among other things. The larger purpose of describing these two songs is to highlight an obstinate attitude often exhibited by people who fail to see beyond these base stereotypes or develop a more complex understanding of history generally. The result being that this worker fails to see how their struggle at their job relates to the struggle of other workers in other parts of the country and the world. Put differently, this worker is more heavily influenced (perhaps, blinded by his patriotism) by his veneration of his country of origin, rather than, identifying with a worker who he has more in common with than his (American) boss, business in general, politicians and numerous others.

Mike Rowe as a Factory

Mike Rowe, known for hosting and participating in Dirty Jobs, recently narrated an add for Wal-Mart called “I am a Factory.” It is a passionate and inspiring ad. It begins, “At one time, I made things, and I took pride in the things I made.” It becomes apparent, if you didn’t know the name of the ad, that it is a dialogue by an out of use factory that, despite being out of use, will “rise again.” Close to the end the narrator states, “Its time to get back to what America does best,” followed by a dramatic pause by the narrator with a message on the screen from Wal-Mart that states: “Over the next ten years, we’re putting $250 billion to work to help create new manufacturing jobs in America.” After this message, the ad shows two families embracing and then a child looking out his door at a car in the driveway, which we are suppose to assume is a parent coming home from work, while the narrator ends with, “because work is a beautiful thing.”

There is much to say about this ad, about Mike Rowe and about ‘Work’ in general. In part two, I plan on briefly summarizing Rowe’s responses to both the positive and negative feedback he has received in an attempt to encapsulate his particular view as it reflects a more general worldview. I know there is much that has already been said about Rowe and this issue, so I will try to be brief and draw on others work where possible to avoid being redundant. Part two to follow soon! p.s. i was inspired by a comic done by the artist Ryan Spahr who was kind enough to allow me to repost the comic he drew. Enjoy