Mikaela says:
What's the real story? You decide.
On October 24, the New York Times wrote this story:Wal-Mart Expands Health Care for Workers
And today, October 26, the New York Times writes this story:Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefits Costs
There is no acknowledgement by the paper that the two stories are contradictory. That seems ... unethical and irresponsible and ... outrageous for a paper with the Times' reputation. What's behind it? And does the author of the mouthpiece article from the 24th feel properly ashamed? We can only hope so.
Still, the paper should issue a retraction or at least point out that previous reporting should be re-analyzed in the light of this significant unveiling of the deeper maneuvering of Wal-Mart executives. They are playing with PR fire, and the Times got burnt. If nothing else, the Times should be mad enought to point out just how duplicitous Wal-Mart was in this case.
Why would we ever belive a press release from Wal-Mart again? I would hope that the Times would never print an article without intensive vetting of each of Wal-Mart's claims in the future.
Just look at how awful this discrepancy is.
From the first article:
Wal-Mart, which has long been criticized for the benefits it offers to its workers, is introducing a cheaper health insurance plan, with monthly premiums as low as $11, that the company hopes will greatly increase the number of its employees who can afford coverage.From the second article:
...
Health insurance specialists generally praised the new plan, saying its lower premiums were likely to attract more employees and thereby reduce the ranks of the uninsured.
An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.
...
The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.
...
The theme throughout the memo was how to slow the increase in benefit costs without giving more ammunition to critics who contend that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits are dragging down those of other American workers.
Acknowledging that Wal-Mart has image problems, Ms. Chambers wrote: "Wal-Mart's critics can easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance."
The memo noted that Wal-Mart workers "are getting sicker than the national population, particularly in obesity-related diseases," including diabetes and coronary artery disease. ... "The least healthy, least productive associates are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with Wal-Mart."
"It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one," the memo said. "These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."
UPDATE: See today's LA Times for article laying out the above, but be forewarned that I do not agree with its characterization of the discrepancy of Wal-Mart's message as simply reflective of its "mission" to bring low-cost goods to America. Let's be clear this is about PROFIT, plain and simple, at the expense of their workers, suppliers, and distributors.
