America's biggest retailer, Wal-Mart, - loved by millions for
"always low
prices," loathed by others for "always low wages"
- is running into opposition
in America's biggest state.
On
Tuesday, voters in Inglewood, a community near Los Angeles International
Airport, chose not to let Wal-Mart develop a new superstore in
there. The giant
chain had fought hard to let "the people" decide, rather
than a zoning board,
but lost by a 2-to-1 margin.
The
giant chain's tactics of going around reluctant local officials
to woo
local voters is likely to continue in some cases and in new forms.
The retailer
has gotten voters or officials in other California cities to repeal
prohibitive
ordinances against "big box" stores, including Contra
Costa in the north and
Calexico in the south.
Still,
the vote Tuesday here may signal that, for all the benefits of
its
low-priced consumer goods, the Arkansas-based chain is at risk
of going too far
with its aggressive tactics.
"The
tide of public opinion is absolutely going against Wal-Mart,"
says Kent
Wong, labor expert at the University of California in Los Angeles.
"This has
broad implications for the expansion of Wal-Mart across the country..
They
invested tremendous resources to allow them to open this superstore."
In
the referendum, voters decided whether to let the chain bypass
ordinary
government oversight of its development. The idea was soundly
rebuffed by a
coalition of business, education and religious activists. "The
last thing we
wanted was for a corporation which is not a democracy to come
in here and act
like a sovereign nation," said volunteer Rachel Morris, who
walked the city
streets educating voters about what was at stake.
The
measure called for a complex the size of 17 football fields to
be built
without the usual traffic studies, environmental reviews, and
public hearings
required by state and local laws. "They were trying to tell
residents that
Wal-Mart is so big that they don't have to follow state and local
laws. That is
a nightmare and we didn't buy it," says Morris.
Rolling
back an expansion?
After
announcing last year it would build 40 supercenters in California,
the
chain has opened only one unopposed - in La Quinta, a desert community
200 miles
east of L.A. The city of Oakland last year banned Wal-Mart from
its communities
and San Diego recently passed an ordinance to keep "big boxes"
out.
After
Inglewood officials last year tried to keep Wal-Mart out, the
store got
10,000 signatures to take it directly to voters. Local officials
had already
filed suit, and more organizations were expected to follow, as
the state
attorney general held that the measure was likely unconstitutional.
The Tuesday
vote was considered a test case for similar moves by Wal-Mart
to get into other
communities nationwide.
"This
was a trial balloon to see if they could get away with it,"
says Gerome
Horton, state assemblyman for the district. "All indications
were that this was
a model they hoped to try again and again unless someone stopped
them."
The
negative vote reflects what several national experts say is increased
scrutiny of Wal-Mart as it expands across the country. The chain
now has 3,000
outlets and 1.2 million employees, the largest private employer
in the US.
"It's
almost unheard of to build a broad coalition to oppose Wal-Mart
... you
don't see this very often," says Mr. Wong of UCLA's Labor
Center. "It reflects a
maturing on the part of various community interests in trying
to determine how
to defeat this."
The
vote came after a high-profile PR battle, in which Wal-Mart peppered
the
airwaves for months with television ads showing happy employees
extolling the
virtues of working at Wal Mart. Meanwhile, local coalitions of
residents, small
businesses, and religious leaders canvassed neighborhoods with
pamphlets
questioning the authority of any corporation to exert its will
over and above
existing laws.
"This
clearly shows that corporations like Wal-Mart and other international
giants are not going to be able to bully their way into communities
with sweet
talk and plans to circumvent normal processes," says Daniel
Tabor, former
Inglewood councilman.
America's
debate over Wal-Mart
Although
activists wanted to make sure voters knew it was Wal-Mart's attempts
to avoid oversight that was at issue, the usual debate over the
plusses and
minuses of the retail giant ensued as well. Wal-Mart detractors
say its low
priced products and services drive out smaller local businesses
and other
established supermarket chains. They say low wages ($ 11,700,
on average) and
limited health coverage cost communities money in public healthcare
costs for
employees who have nowhere else to turn.
Moreover,
they say the company is now so strong that it forces its suppliers
to outsource jobs to India and China to compete, costing Americans
jobs. "In
recent years Wal-Mart has become the symbol for a ruthless corporation
that
throws its weight around to get its way," says Harley Shaiken,
a labor expert at
the University of California, Berkeley.
Supporters
counter that a Wal-Mart in a community provides hundreds of jobs,
bargain-basement prices for consumers, saving the average household
$ 500 a year
on foodstuffs alone. The Los Angeles Economic Development Council
called
Wal-Mart good for the area, while Mayor Roosevelt Dorn said it
would provide
1,000 local jobs and $ 5 million in sales tax for the city of
only 115,000.
But
scrutiny of Wal-Mart has expanded as the chain has grown. "The
California
vote is important because the whole issue has reached its tipping
point," says
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a labor economist at Cornell University.
"Is Wal-Mart going
to keep expanding or [will Americans say] 'that's enough?' "
