By Peter Jacques - Flagstaff Resident

In recent years, the Big Box stores have become the established American "success" story. They offer a variety of cheap stuff, all in one store and with acres of  parking. So what's the problem? 

Typically, if something seems too good to be true, it is. This goes for the Big Box stores too. If the decimation of open spaces and the increase in traffic congestion caused by Big Box stores is not troubling, the economic effects should be. 

If the mother of all Big Box stores, Super Wal-Mart, comes to Flagstaff, some people believe it will mean more jobs. However, Lake Placid, New York, did a study and found that for every job that Wal-Mart brought to Lake Placid, one and a half jobs were lost elsewhere in that town. To make matters worse, a Wal-Mart workweek is a maximum of 28 hours long. That means that nearly every job Wal-Mart "creates" is part-time, and those part-time jobs can be eroding full-time work at a disturbing rate. If companies like Wal-Mart call a 28-hour workweek "full-time," then, in fairness to their "full-time" employees, these companies should provide their workers with the same health benefits other companies provide to those who work a 40-hour workweek. However, studies show that Wal-Mart and other Big Box stores offer relatively few employee benefits. In fact, Big Box stores sometimes limit employee hours and wages to such an extent that many of their employees qualify to collect welfare. The National Labor Committee, a human rights organization, estimates that half of all Wal-Mart employees are eligible for food stamps. This makes sense since the median income for a Wal-Mart employee is around $12,000 a year while the national median income is $25,000. 

One reason that jobs are said to be lost to, instead of created at, Wal-Mart, is because corporate policy and practice competes directly within a town's current market, so retail customers switch from other stores to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart wins the competition, and small business owners know this. A recent poll across several states showed that 96 percent of respondents felt a Big Box in their area would damage their business. Seventy-nine percent anticipated a "drastic reduction in sales volume;" almost a fifth believed their sales volume would be cut by more than 50 percent; and 76 percent anticipated "serious reductions in profit." Almost a quarter believed their profit would drop by more than half. Small businesses run on small margins of profit, which means that a drop in sales by half results in a business that is hung out to dry. This is reaffirmed by research that points to a 19 percent loss of retail businesses over a 20-mile radius over five years when Wal-Mart sets up shop. Several studies over time, then, seem to be saying the same thing: small businesses fail when a Big Box comes to town. People lose their jobs, and those jobs that are created depend on public welfare systems to pick up the extra cost of supporting the working poor. In this way, the so-called free-market is being sustained by unseen government subsidies that take care of costs not covered when we buy our toasters and T-shirts at the retail giant. 

If working conditions at Wal-Mart are distressing, why haven't unions been formed to bargain collectively for better conditions? In fact, unions have tried to organize Wal-Mart but have had a difficult time climbing over barriers erected by the Wal. On several occasions, Wal-Mart has been brought before the National Labor Relations Board for charges of violating labor laws that protect the right of workers to organize. In the case of employee Robin Zaas, Wal-Mart was found to have threatened the conditions of her employment for being involved in union activity. In Ontario, the Canadian government approved and certified the unionization of a store in that province, even though employees voted 3 to 1 against unionizing. The government certified the union because it said Wal-Mart interfered with the organizing process.

Last year, in Jacksonville, Texas, a meat department in a Super Wal-Mart voted to unionize; the next week, Wal-Mart announced plans to get rid of its meat departments nationwide while denying the decision had anything to do with the union vote. Though there are 825,000-plus Wal-Mart employees in the U.S., not a single Wal-Mart employee is currently represented by a union. This would suggest that Wal-Mart has not been union-friendly, and has even violated the law, in some cases where employees have sought out collaborative bargaining power. Thus, employees have been discouraged from pursuing their right to organize as United States workers.

In addition to being a economic drain on a community, Wal-Mart can be a cultural drain as well. For instance, Wal-Mart refuses to carry the drug Previn, the "morning-after" pill. This means that if Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy in town, there is no Previn available. Wal-Mart carries only music and videos which have passed the corporation's test of acceptability. Several CDs and videos have had both their content and their covers censored, and Wal-Mart simply refuses to carry some artists. Since Wal-Mart is so ubiquitous, selling the same things everywhere, the choices that Wal-Mart offers can imbue cultural character with the monotone blandness emanating from corporate heads in Bentonville, Arkansas. This no doubt was farmer Jose Bove's rationale for trashing the McDonalds in France last year - the limited choices offered by large corporations, whether a fast food joint or supermart, suppress local character, uniqueness and spirit.

Currently, Super Wal-Mart cannot be a part of the mall expansion without a change in zoning. Zoning involves a decision by the city's representative council, and the council should consider the effect on Flagstaff's working poor, small businesses, and rich culture before deciding that our town can endure a mega-store from the world's largest
retailer.

Peter Jacques is a stay-at-home dad and husband. On the side, he is a student of political science and researcher for Canyon State Consulting.