Supporting Corporations Of The United States

It's not a good week for our big box overlords around here on NWF. Although in the rest of the world, they're sitting pretty.

The Supreme Court ruled that a massive class-action lawsuit brought against Wal-Mart goes too far. This is a happy day for big business and a terrible day for working people, especially women.

As I understand it, female Wal-Mart employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the corporate giant because they were being paid less than men and receiving fewer promotions. Wal-Mart said that decisions like who was getting paid what were left in the hands of managers. Of course, if most of the managers are men, and a boys'-club atmosphere is encouraged down the corporate ladder, that's not going to be conducive to the whole equal-pay-for-equal-work thing, as was argued in the dissenting opinion.

This decision from the court does not say that Wal-Mart is not guilty of gender bias, just that these women can't pursue a class-action lawsuit, because their cases do not hang together sufficiently to have them tried together. This is because of Wal-Mart's point that the decisions were not based in corporate policy, but were made at lower levels. This is too disparate to fulfill the requirement that they be cohesive claims, according to the majority opinion.

All of the women on the court, plus Breyer, thought the decision should go forward. The others, all men, did not. I am not convinced that is a coincidence. Also, the Roberts court will, apparently, always make pro-business decisions (see also: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which people have been heralding as the end of democracy as we thought we knew it).

As several people have pointed out, it's not as though the women can't still sue as individuals. They certainly can. But part of the benefit of having a class action lawsuit is that it gives the people involved a fighting chance. There is no way an individual with standing to sue Wal-Mart over a pay discrepancy will be able to afford legal representation that can sufficiently challenge Wal-Mart on her own. Having a class is kind of like having a union: it lets regular people have a shot against the big business.

It's 2011, and we're still suing about gender bias in pay and promotions. I know I'm not meant to be surprised by that - or by the decision - but just because something isn't a surprise doesn't mean it doesn't suck. The privileging of business interests over the welfare of the people on the part of SCOTUS is horrifying and gross. It is one more sign that our government is favoring corporations over people, and we can't even vote the Justices out. Clarence Thomas has known connections to the Koch brothers, and no mention has been made of his resignation. And don't even get me started on Congress. This corporate ownership of politics has me very worried.

Image via.

Let's Practice Boycotting Some More: Target Edition

Apparently I really like to suggest that we boycott stuff. But I haven't done it in awhile, so here we go again. Next on the list: Target.

I can hear you from here. Yes, they have cheap colorful stuff that you need for your house. Yes, they have the only jeans around that fit you and that you can also afford. Yes, you can buy your produce and your new bedspread in one place. I know. Trust me, this hurts me as much as it hurts you.

The catalyst for this post is their corporate anti-union video that has been making the round on the internet lately. A friend of mine brought it to my attention, appropriately describing it as "funny and fucked all at the same time." All Target employees have to watch this video, so you should too, out of empathy, and so you know what the hell I'm talking about in the next paragraph! Go ahead, you're looking for a reason to procrastinate anyway.

Here are the things that Target is willing to prioritize above treating people humanely, according to what the goons in this video say:
* The health of the business.
* The convenience of guests (clearly related to health of the business - all of these points are).
* Being A Valuable Team Member (because you are not valuable if you have rights).
* Your "freedom" to work in any department, not just the one you were assigned.
* The labor relations dude's "freedom" to dress like a jackass. Yes, I am judging his turtleneck.

I'm glad we got that cleared up. Happy customers and productivity matter more than anything else. This video also plays right into the myth of meritocracy: Someone else might get something that you "deserve" more! Whatever that means. And this is also more important than treating people humanely, obviously. All of this also makes me wonder why they need to make this video, since they bend over backwards to say that Target team members have the freedom to join unions but never do. If joining a union is such a horrible idea, this video isn't necessary, and anyone who can think critically will figure that out. So I'm guessing that people would maybe sometimes like to join a union, but feel that their job or well-being would be threatened if they did. Videos like this certainly contribute to that sense.

Much of what they say about unions in this video is wrong, of course. Ezra Klein does a good job laying out some of the reasons we still need unions here, and I shall summarize his points for you: Unions do give people a voice, allowing them to raise issues with management without fear of reprisal. In an economy dominated by corporations, they serve as what John Kenneth Galbraith called a "countervailing force" and push back against policies that are against the best interests of workers or the environment. And in a world where politics is dominated by money and big businesses have most of that money, it helps to have another big organization pushing back. Robert Reich over at Talking Points Memo also points out that if we want to get the economy back on track, we need to expand the purchasing power of the middle class, and studies show that unionized employees make 30% more than non-unionized employees and are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance. He also makes the point that at many large corporations - ahem - employees might want to unionize but are intimidated or threatened into not doing so.

Need some more reasons? How about the fact that the Target CEO doesn't even want to talk about their donations to anti-gay political candidates? As Queerty points out, they can't claim to be neutral on a civil rights issue. This fact alone has many people in the queer community avoiding Target.

Oh, also, Target totally lets its pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control if they have a religious objection to it. This is lunacy. If you don't want to fill prescriptions, don't be a pharmacist. Being a pharmacist should not give you the power to make decisions about someone else's reproductive health. Corporations should not be getting behind this kind of moral judgment-making, though Target crossed that line, if you will, already.

That's enough for me. I'll be getting my cute throw pillows on Etsy.

Image is of the Lawrence textile strike of 1912.

By Request, Part 1: We Really Need to Boycott Abercrombie and Fitch

Lordy day Amelia. Abercrombie & Fitch apparently thinks it hasn't done enough to cement itself in my mind as ridiculous. It is now selling push-up bikinis to children. Our friend Sarah has made another request that we discuss this issue. I know Kyrie is about to write something about how this is fucked up from the angle of sexualizing girls and conflating women and children, so I want to say something about how we really, seriously need to boycott Abercrombie. It isn't funny anymore. Not that it ever was.

Here's why I think Abercrombie & Fitch should be boycotted, broken down into a handy-dandy list:

1. Abercrombie & Fitch is doing work here to push gender norms onto people. And who, exactly, is supposed to be appreciating the sight of seven year old girls in padded bikini tops? This isn't doing a thing for body-acceptance/self-love, I can tell you that. Wear whatever you want, ye autonomous adults, but I do have a problem with teaching first graders that their body should look a certain way ASAP, and here, we have something you can buy to look more socially acceptable. This is revolting. Kids that age, regardless of gender, are really impressionable. I was kind of screwed up when I was that age* thanks in part to these messages, and I think the culture of body-shaming is only getting worse. This is part of it, and it's truly harmful, both from the gender/heteronormativity perspective, and from the body acceptance perspective.

2. Abercrombie & Fitch is racist. Or, at least, it's fine with selling racist t-shirts. Is there a difference? Good for the people who freaked out on their asses and got this revolting t-shirt pulled from the shelves.

3. A&F also sells sexist t-shirts, according to Wikipedia, including one that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast, and t-shirts that said "Who needs brains when you need these?," "Available for Parties," "I had a nightmare I was a brunette," "Female streaking encouraged," "Show the twins," and "Female students wanted for sexual research." The message that women exist for men's sexual pleasure comes through loud and clear. It's awfully hetero/cis-normative, too.

4. Abercrombie & Fitch is guilty of workplace discrimination based on race and gender. I'm not sure how "gender" is being defined here - well, it isn't, but I'm guessing they mean discrimination against cis women? This idea of gender discrimination being something that is presumed to mean discrimination against cis women is something that needs to be raised in a future blog post. Anyway. These aren't hiring practices we want to support with our dollars, right?

5. A&F also discriminates by ability. They made a woman with a prosthetic arm work in the store room because she didn't suit their "look policy"? Are you fucking KIDDING me? So even if they are forced to widen their hiring pool, that doesn't meant they're going to treat people better. The look policy says that staff need to have a "natural, classic American style." What the hell does that mean? What is "natural"? Do they mean women shouldn't shave? Because I kind of doubt it. What about "classic"? Petticoats are classic, is that what they want? Or do they mean monocles and top-hats? And, finally, "American" - I don't even know where to begin with that one, but I fear it means "white." Their web site as of today only features skinny white models, some of whom aren't wearing much clothing anyway. Nothing against skinny people, white people, models, or people who aren't wearing much clothing. It's just not exactly representing an array of "natural, classic American style." I guess that is something A&F defines narrowly. Fortunately, this woman won her wrongful dismissal case.

6. You know who else doesn't fit their "look policy"? Muslims! That's right: A&F has now, through its corporate policy, treated people unfairly on the basis of race, gender, ability, and religion. A Muslim teenager was fired for wearing her headscarf to work.

That article also contains this gem:

The youth-oriented retailer describes its brand as "rooted in east coast traditions and Ivy League heritage," and as "the essence of privilege."

I'm sorry, folks. I just cannot possibly condone this. "East coast traditions" very clearly means "rich white people" traditions. In using these kinds of words, they are not only aligning themselves with the most privileged possible customer base, they are less-than-implicitly excluding people who can't fit into it demographically - including the Muslim woman they fired. This east coast-dwelling white person will have nothing to do with this kind of narrow-mindedness.

7. As if all of that weren't enough, A&F is size-ist. Their sizes only run up to a large, and reports on the web say that the sizes run small. Judging by their size chart, I'd wear a medium, which means there is only one size up from what I'd wear. This sends yet another message about who they think should be buying their clothes, and it is a message I cannot possibly endorse.

8. A&F uses unfair labor practices. In fact, the International Labor Rights Forum inducted it into the 2010 Sweatshop Hall of Shame.

A quote from their web site:

Most of the companies listed employ laborers who toil for long hours under dangerous working conditions for poverty wages. When these workers attempt to form a union to voice their collective concerns, they face threats from management and risk being fired or even beaten. Many of this years’ inductees use suppliers that practice illegal tactics to suppress workers’ rights to organize. Some of the companies mentioned weave shame into their clothing by continuing to use cotton sourced from Uzbekistan where harvesting is accomplished through forced child labor.

This is what the PDF says about A&F specifically, for those who don't want to download:

Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) clothing is manufactured at Alta Mode factory in the Philippines. Employees of the factory sought to form a union to address concerns and on the day the Alta Mode Worker’s Union was to be certified, all of the more than 100 union members and officers were placed on forced leave, a clear case of employer interference in the exercise of the right to unionize and an unfair labor practice by law. Workers have struggled for a union as an antidote to a production quota set beyond human capacity.

It is essential for A&F to send a strong signal to the factory that freedom of association violations will not be tolerated. The A&F supplier has even filed criminal cases against the union members. This factory case is a clear example of the flagrant disregard for the law by garment factory owners in the Philippines.

Unfortunately A&F doesn’t even have a public code of conduct and utilizes factory inspectors that have missed glaring issues such as the ones highlighted in the Alta Mode factory. One major concern is that A&F shifts its production around from factory to factory which results in lack of stable orders at the factory. ILRF encourages A&F to build long term meaningful relationships with suppliers so that their standards around wages, overtime and freedom of association are clearly enforced.

Every single instance I listed above is unacceptable and reason alone to boycott A&F. You can rip holes in your own jeans, you know.

* It only got worse over time, too. Thanks, body-shaming culture! It took me til my mid-20s to be cool with myself. That's a lot of wasted time, folks.