FAO Circe / Living wage at Kohl's?

I've never shopped at Wal-Mart anyway because there isn't one convenient
to me, but in light of the recent discussion I'm wondering if Kohl's is
OK to shop at? Anyone know how fairly they compensate their employees?
Thanks.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 7 mo.
And Jaden, 2 months

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.

"Cheryl S." wrote in message
...
I've never shopped at Wal-Mart anyway because there isn't one convenient
to me, but in light of the recent discussion I'm wondering if Kohl's is
OK to shop at? Anyone know how fairly they compensate their employees?

Honestly, Cheryl, I don't know. They're not a retail chain that operates in
my area, so I don't have any experience with them.

FWIW, my impression from what I've read is that most retail
chains/department stores pay relatively low wages compared to what employees
of unionized grocery stores earn. Most of them pay better than Wal-Mart,
though. Honestly, I shop at Target and some of the other low-wage payihng
chains because I can't buy everything I need at the supermarket (think
clothes, toys, etc., and you get the idea).

There is not always an alternative to a fairly low-paying retailer for at
least *some* goods. I just try to shop at stores that I know pay better
wages and benefits when I can (as I can do in the case of buying groceries
from unionized supermarkets).
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote in message
news:TC6ub.7354$iS6.2526@fed1read04...
Honestly, Cheryl, I don't know. They're not a retail chain
that operates in my area, so I don't have any experience
with them.

Oh - didn't know they weren't national. They're somewhere between a
Target and a JC Penney, usually near a mall but not in the mall IME, and
sell clothes, toys, and household goods but no food. They often have
really good deals on kids' clothes, and probably women's clothes too,
but I so rarely buy clothes for myself I don't know.

FWIW, my impression from what I've read is that most
retail chains/department stores pay relatively low wages
compared to what employees of unionized grocery stores
earn. Most of them pay better than Wal-Mart, though.
Honestly, I shop at Target and some of the other low-wage
payihng chains because I can't buy everything I need at the
supermarket (think clothes, toys, etc., and you get the idea).

Some of the Wal-Mart commercials seem really creepy now that I know how
they *really* treat their employees.

There is not always an alternative to a fairly low-paying retailer
for at least *some* goods. I just try to shop at stores that I know
pay better wages and benefits when I can (as I can do in the case
of buying groceries from unionized supermarkets).

Shortly after the discussion here I asked one of my friends about her
cleaning service and she said she'd picked it because they were one of
the only housecleaning companies that provide their employees with
health insurance. I do think it is good to be aware of that to factor
into decisions about where to purchase goods and services when possible.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 7 mo.
And Jaden, 2 months

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.

Cheryl S. wrote:

I've never shopped at Wal-Mart anyway because there isn't one convenient
to me, but in light of the recent discussion I'm wondering if Kohl's is
OK to shop at? Anyone know how fairly they compensate their employees?


No idea at all personally, but I found this article
with a little googling. I don't know how accurate it is,
but here ya go:

http://bostonworks.boston.com/globe/...02_retail.html

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Cheryl S." wrote in message ...

I've never shopped at Wal-Mart anyway because there isn't one convenient
to me, but in light of the recent discussion I'm wondering if Kohl's is
OK to shop at? Anyone know how fairly they compensate their employees?
Thanks.

If you are interested in helping those who earn low wages, you are better
off shopping at stores which do not have or follow a living wage policy.
The living wage and, most especially, the minimum wage are artificial
impediments which slow the economy, cause economic inefficiencies and
encourage discrimination.

'Fair Trade Coffee' is a good example of the failure of such ideas. By
overpaying for a commodity businesses encouraged more individuals to
enter the market. Now those S. American coffee growers/laborers are
facing increased competition from SE Asia and other parts of the world
where growing and selling coffee was at one time cost prohibitive.

Unfortunately in 2003 results are not measured by what is accomplished,
but by what is intended.

-TOE

"The prosaic, depressing and somewhat shameful fact is that the secret
to getting ahead is just what my parents told me it was."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Shortly after the discussion here I asked one of my friends about her
cleaning service and she said she'd picked it because they were one of
the only housecleaning companies that provide their employees with
health insurance.

Interesting. Part of the reason so few people I know use housecleaning
companies is because they'd rather pay their money directly to the person doing
the work, instead of having some bureaucrat take the lion's share and pay the
actual cleaning people low wages. :-)

(Also, the individuals tend to do a much better job.)

Of course, it's relatively easy to find individual cleaners in my area; I
suppose that might not be true everywhere.

I do think it is good to be aware of that to factor
into decisions about where to purchase goods and services when possible.
--
Cheryl S.

That's one reason we prefer to avoid chains whenever possible. I like to
support local small businesses. I get my prescription drugs at a local
pharmacy instead of a supermarket or Rite-Aid. I buy toys at the little shop
down the street that sells both new and used items, rather than at Toys R Us.
I buy books at the local independent booksellers (fortunately my 'hood is
blessed with many of them) or, when I want or need to order online, from
powells.com, rather than from Barnes & Noble. I tend to buy hardware at the
local shop rather than at Home Depot.

Sadly, I do mostly buy clothing at chain stores, because it is *so* much more
convenient and cheaper. But for most other things, there is little or no
difference in price or selection as between the mega chain store and the
neighborhood business. And you often get much better service in the smaller
store, too.

Holly
Mom to Camden, 2.5 yrs

HollyLewis wrote:

Interesting. Part of the reason so few people I know use housecleaning
companies is because they'd rather pay their money directly to the person
doing the work, instead of having some bureaucrat take the lion's share
and pay the actual cleaning people low wages. :-)

(Also, the individuals tend to do a much better job.)

Of course, it's relatively easy to find individual cleaners in my area; I
suppose that might not be true everywhere.

That's one reason we prefer to avoid chains whenever possible. I like to
support local small businesses. I get my prescription drugs at a local
pharmacy instead of a supermarket or Rite-Aid. I buy toys at the little shop
down the street that sells both new and used items, rather than at Toys R Us.
I buy books at the local independent booksellers (fortunately my 'hood is
blessed with many of them) or, when I want or need to order online, from
powells.com, rather than from Barnes & Noble. I tend to buy hardware at the
local shop rather than at Home Depot.

Sadly, I do mostly buy clothing at chain stores, because it is *so* much more
convenient and cheaper. But for most other things, there is little or no
difference in price or selection as between the mega chain store and the
neighborhood business. And you often get much better service in the smaller
store, too.

There seems to be some confusion here. The living wage and minimun wage hurt
small businesses. If you want to help the Wal-Marts of the world, be sure to
push for strict wage laws. These laws prevent small businesses from starting
up and favors large corporations.

-TOE

Holly
Mom to Camden, 2.5 yrs

"Tom Enright" wrote in message
om...
There seems to be some confusion here. The living wage and minimun wage
hurt
small businesses.

That's the conventional wisdom and the business lobby certainly like to
trumpet it as fact. A recent survey (1998) of small businesses suggests
otherwise, however. While the study revolved around a hypothetical minimum
wage increase from $5.15 to $6.00 an hour, which hardly represents a "living
wage" by most people's standards, it seems to pretty much blow out of the
water the idea that minimum wage laws result in either significant
disemployment or measurable harm to the majority of small businesses. From
http://www.levy.org/docs/pn/98-3.html:

"It has long been the conventional wisdom that an increase in the minimum
wage results in lower employment. This wisdom stems from both theoretical
precepts taught in most economic textbooks and statements from employers
regarding their anticipated reaction to an increase. It is also suggested
that much of the opposition to the minimum wage comes from the small
business community. Arguments against raising the minimum wage presume that
an increase reduces profits for small businesses and forces them to lay
workers off. There is little empirical evidence measuring the actual
responses of small businesses to changes in the minimum wage. What is
available is anecdotal evidence, the results of a few studies by academics
on the effects of the minimum wage on the teen labor market, and the
predictions of the minimum wage study commission that a 10 percent increase
in the minimum wage might result in a 1 percent reduction in teen employment
(Kosters and Welch 1972; Welch 1974, 1978; Meyer and Wise 1983; Neumark and
Wascher 1992).

Most of the studies on the teen labor market were conducted during the 1970s
and early 1980s. What has been done recently, most notably the work of Card
and Krueger (summarized in Card and Krueger 1995), has been controversial,
not simply because critics argue that the conclusions are wrong, but because
the findings represent an affront to the orthodoxy of the economics
profession and a threat to those with a vested interest in resisting minimum
wage increases. According to Card and Krueger (1995), when California and
New Jersey both increased their minimum wages, there were no adverse effects
on employment. These findings were confirmed for New Jersey and Pennsylvania
(Card and Krueger 1998).

Implicit in all the theoretical or empirical work regarding the minimum wage
is the assumption that the minimum wage is set above the competitive market
clearing level; that is, the wage is high enough so that labor demand
dictates the number of people hired. Little is known about the relative
sensitivity of firms' labor demand to changes in wages, a concept known as
"wage elasticity of demand." In the minimum wage commission study mentioned
above, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage resulted in a 1 percent
reduction in employment (a wage elasticity of 0.1). In the work that
follows, we suggest that in a range of wages around the current minimum wage
this estimate of wage elasticity is too high. In other words, small business
employers are extremely insensitive to changes in the minimum wage.

Most empirical research on the minimum wage focuses on a specific group of
employees (teenage workers) or a specific industry (the fast-food industry).
In this policy note, we present some early findings from more comprehensive
data obtained through a survey of small businesses conducted at the Levy
Institute. The data provide useful information on the hiring and employment
practices of small businesses. Our analysis suggests that a large majority
of small businesses were not affected by the recent minimum wage hike.
Further, there is strong evidence that were the minimum wage to be increased
from its current $5.15 per hour to $6.00 per hour, the hiring practices of
most small businesses still would not be affected. These findings add to the
considerable body of empirical research on the minimum wage that contradicts
the theoretical presuppositions that have driven minimum wage policy thus
far."

You can read the remainder of the survey at the same URL.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

HollyLewis wrote:


Interesting. Part of the reason so few people I know use housecleaning
companies is because they'd rather pay their money directly to the person doing
the work, instead of having some bureaucrat take the lion's share and pay the
actual cleaning people low wages. :-)

(Also, the individuals tend to do a much better job.)

Of course, it's relatively easy to find individual cleaners in my area; I
suppose that might not be true everywhere.


They're not always easy to find, they're not always
good, and the costs of experimentation can be high since
they're often not bonded and insured. They also tend to
take more time (since they tend to work solo rather than
in teams). That's not to say there aren't some advantages
as well, or that one shouldn't use that option. I'm just
saying that there are advantages to services too, if you
can find one that's ethical and well run.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:25:43 -0800, "Circe" wrote:

There is not always an alternative to a fairly low-paying retailer for at
least *some* goods. I just try to shop at stores that I know pay better
wages and benefits when I can (as I can do in the case of buying groceries
from unionized supermarkets).

Interestingly and pertaining to this discussion, there is an article
about Walmart in FastCompany magazine's december issue.

I can't give a URL because the december issue just came out and
is not online atm, but the URL for the magazine itself is

http://www.fastcompany.com/homepage/index.html

The article talks about how Walmart's drive for lower prices and
it's clout as the biggest retailer (and in fact, that largest US
company actually) is driving suppliers into outsourcing jobs
even faster than they were before Walmart's pressure tactics
and how companies that supply the goods for Walmart are being
squeezed into unprofitability in various ways.

One example they used was Vlasic Pickles. Walmart wanted
the gallon jar of vlasic pickles and got it to sell at $2.97, but
vlasic then lost much of its high end business which had a
higher profit margin to the sales from walmart on which they
made only a few pennies a jar. Vlasic tried to renegotiate
the price and eventually, they were allowed to sell 1/2 gallon
jars for $2.79, but by that time, it was too late. While it wasn't
*a critical factor,* Walmart's tough insistence certainly played
a part in the fact that Vlasic filed for bankruptcy in January
2001. Another example is Huffy Bikes. Huffy committed to
supply Walmart with an extra thin-margin entry level bike.
Sales took off on this bike and the company could not meet
the production for Walmart unless they stopped producing
some of their high end bikes which were more profitable
per unit. So to free up production for Walmart (because
Walmart doesn't renegotiate when it wants something), they
gave the designs for 4 of their high-end bikes to their
competitors. Huffy didn't just relinquish profits to keep
Walmart happy, they relinquished profits to their competitors.
Huffy made its last bike in the US in 1999. Walmart is the
number one retailer of bikes and about 98% of all bikes are
now imported from China, Mexico and Taiwan. A third
example is Levi Strauss. In order to sell to Walmart, Levi
had to restructure itself to sell less expensive clothing.
Levis as sold by Walmart are less in price, but they have
also been downgraded in terms of their quality, so what
Levi will gain if its Walmart line takes off will be at the
expense of its reputation as a quality brand of jeans. And
Levi is closing its last two US plants. A company that had
60 US plants 22 years ago and that was known as one of
the most socially responsible companies will have no
plants at all by 2004. It won't be making any clothing, it
will simply be importing its jeans.

There was a lot more in the article that was interesting.
The December issue is on newstands now and I don't know
when they will put the issue online.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits