A pretty spectacular one, to boot:
Unless you opt to go into management, (Walmart) is an in-between-jobs employer. They are not paying anyone less than minimum wage nor are they forcing anyone to work there. They are employing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans. With 22-23 million Americans under or unemployed, the last thing people who are gainfully employed should do is threaten to walk out because their bosses make more than they do.
In-between-jobs employer, eh? Apparently someone forgot to tell that to the head honchos, because Walmart has always marketed itself as a great place to have a career — which is pretty much the opposite of an “in-between-jobs employer.” And they continue to do this in spite of the next point.
23 million Americans un- or under-employed. Well, guess what? If a person has gone to work at Walmart in the last couple of years, the chances are good that person is under-employed. After all, if a person is “underemployed,” that person has a job that is not sufficient to meet his basic needs — things like, you know, paying the rent and the electric bill. With Walmart only hiring part-time workers, in addition to cutting back on raises, it ought to be pretty obvious that Walmart is contributing to under-employment.
And it sucks, of course. I would guess they do it out of economic necessity, and I doubt that the CEOs giving up their well-deserved pay is going to make things any better for the bulk of Walmart workers. I don’t necessarily begrudge Walmart its decisions. But if you’re going to defend a company and paint a certain phenomenon as a problem, it’s more than a little bit asinine to gloss right over the role of your company in exacerbating it.