Inside the war room in Little Rock, corporate management of the largest retailer in the world has discovered that it's not always that great to be at top. Hailed by business-minded journals, Business Week and The Economist for its "competitive business strategy" and criticized by virtually anyone who doesn't vehemently hate unions--Wal-Mart execs are understandably worried. As the charges continue to mount, one has to wonder, can ordinary citizens really change the way Wal-Mart conducts business? I am sure most are familiar with Wal-Mart's business practices, but here's a brief summary of a couple issues with Wal-Mart.

The most disturbing charge facing Wal-Mart is its contribution to the health care crisis. As early as 2003, documents surfaced indicating that Wal-Mart encouraged employees to apply for food stamps and Medicaid--a charge Wal-Mart corporate denies. Less than half of Wal-Mart employees are covered by Wal-Mart's health care program compared to 66% (nationally) of employees at large corporations.

Wal-Mart has also made it harder for employees to gain health care coverage, requiring full time employees to wait six months to be eligible for the company plan. Part-time employees are required to wait two years before becoming eligible for the plan--which excludes family members (for part-timers). Now is the time to point out that Wal-Mart considers workers part time if they work under 34 hours a week. The average cashier works twenty-nine hours a week at approximately $7.92 an hour bringing in roughly $11,948, well under the poverty line for a family of one adult and a child. Moreover, Wal-Mart's plan has gradually shifted the cost to the employee, now requiring the employee to pay 42 percent of the costs. On average, employees at large corporations pay 16 percent of the costs of health care.

All the evidence says that Wal-Mart doesn't want to cover its employees, and wants somebody else to shoulder the burden. As a result, many Wal-Mart employees are forced to turn to state health care or ignore health care for more pressing needs--like food and housing costs. A study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at Berkeley, found that California taxpayers subsidized 20.5 million dollars of medical care for Wal-Mart in California alone.

Low wages are also an issue. The average wage at Wal-Mart is approximately eight dollars an hour, compared to the national average of $10.16, for large retailers. Combined with low wages, associates are hard pressed to get full time work. In an effort to drive down costs, managers are pushed exceedingly hard to hit yearly growth quotas set by Wal-Mart, while similarly cutting costs. As such, Wal-Mart prefers to hire more workers under the part-time label, rather than fewer full time workers. Under this model, fewer workers are eligible for the company health-care plan and wage costs are reduced.

But cutting costs doesn't stop at reducing the hours employees work like many other corporations. In a rare moment in 2001, Wal-Mart settled by paying $50 million dollars to Colorado employees to settle a class-action lawsuit maintaining Wal-Mart had an unofficial policy that required employees to finish work off the clock. Similar charges of unpaid overtime work have prompted employees to sue in New Mexico, Texas, Minnesota, Oregon and California. One manager in Oregon testified in court that she was forced to delete hours from employee time sheets for six years. Similar depositions and documents released to the press seem to bolster the idea that pressure exerted from the top is at the root of the problem. Of course, there are other issues with Wal-Mart, including its practices of unequal opportunities for women and people of color. Currently pending is a class action lawsuit, Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, which represents 1.6 million women on grounds of sexual discrimination. Child labor violations and Wal-Mart's support for sweatshops in China are also at issue.

As the largest retailer and company in the world, Wal-Mart is setting a terrible trend for labor practices. Responsible businesses find it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to compete with the Wal-Mart, which is leading to what is now being called the "Wal-Martization" of jobs in rich countries. This includes a pro-corporate, anti-union business model. Power is consolidated at the top, while breaking the back of unions is the goal. Witness the unsuccessful attempt by workers at supermarkets in California last year in demanding that employers shoulder a greater burden of the company healthcare plan.

What did Wal-Mart have to do with this? Everything. Many companies similar to Wal-Mart are finding they must begin to drastically reduce costs or risk becoming uncompetitive. In fact, I would argue the larger problem is not Wal-Mart's business practices, but the effect Wal-Mart is having on the U.S. labor market as well as the global economy. This is the context people should really be framing the problem, as it will eliminate the often used response of any criticism of Wal-Mart: that is "Wal-Mart employees have a choice in their employment." Yes, but this response doesn't address the larger problem of how to deal with stagnant wages, rising inequalities..etc. In framing the problem this way we can truly begin to address some of the problems Wal-Mart has created.

By the way, I would recommend anyone who hasn't see Robert Greenwald's film "Wal-Mart: the high cost of low price" to check it out. The LA times and the New Yorker have given it bad reviews, but I thought it was a good documentary--not perfect--but good.

Progessives should unite to defeat an intellectually dishonest argument currently in the public discourse. The argument that "we need to fight the terrorists over there so that we dont have to fight them on our soil." Rubbish. I heard some guy from Arkansas say this on C-SPAN this morning and just about died. The reason this statement aggravates me so much, ESPECIALLY when used by a public representative, is that it is just not a true statement, nor does it even understand terrorism.

The suicide bombers in the middle east are not some monolithic entity (just like communists weren't). You can't lump all terrorists into the same category, because their motivations and goals are often much different. Simply put, terrorism is a tactic. For instance, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, Chechen rebel groups and the IRA are all groups which have used terror, but are not collaboratively working together. Of course, it goes without saying (but i will say it anyways), state or group violence against innocent people is never justified.

No matter how much the Bush Administration wishes it, the "war on terror" is not WWII. We will probably have to live with terrorism the rest of our lives, because as I said, terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism can not be militarily defeated, because its proponents are not a monolithic entity nor is there a finite number of terrorists. This is why the only way to end terrorism is to address the root causes... through politics. By no means do I suggest coddling or catering to the needs of people who cut off journalists heads. These people should be held accountable. But at some point, people need to realize that terrorism manifests from resentment and grievances that people have with the west.

These grievances may not always be entirely accurate or fair, and surely some people may just follow others like lemmings. But, I would imagine, American hypocriscy concering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Bush Administration's arrogant foreign policy and documented evidence of torture by the military may be creating more people likely to use terrorism against Americans. If we really want to end terrorism, we should start with these issues.