How workers are using globalization against Walmart

I found an interesting article in Waging Nonviolence, a website for people to put up articles  "a source for original news and analysis about struggles for justice and peace around the globe". In this website the article of workers in walmart taking advantage of globalization against Walmart. 

The article writes that low skilled employees started a rampage "wildcat" of strikes at certain levels of the supply chain in order to show that they would like something more than just a low pay and get better working conditions. These wildcat strikes had affected Walmart's delivery datelines due to the accurate hit of the strike. Walmart is not a production company but a selling one. Hence it relies on daily deliveries to different  venues at certain times and at the right price. When these timings are not met, it affects their reputation as well as their profits. 
This article shows that even though workers at walmart are low-skilled and lowly educated, they still have the brains to use their work venue as their advantage to get what they want. 
 The warehouse at Elwood located at the outskirt of Chicago, is a prime example of these workers using it as their vantage point. Elwood area processes 70 percent of Walmart's domestic goods. In this area, there are warehouses, distribution centres,container storage locations and intermodel facilities that are all vital to the production and deliveries of Walmart's goods. If one of these facilities were to stall, Walmart's production system would be deeply affected, as transportation is the crucial role here.
When workers in Elwood went on strike, it affected Walmart badly, since then, when workers asked for safety equipment, they were given. In addition, they were given full back-pay. The managers were more afraid of the workers than the workers of them.
This article shows that globalization has turned the tables on managers. Despite being on the losing end for unions, they still can find a way to come back and show that workers have the power as well, when they strike at the right point.

Article:
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/how-workers-are-using-globalization-against-walmart/ 

Week 4 Blog: Percarious Work in the U.S

Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition

The article I have chosen to review is written by Professor Arne Kalleberg of the University of North Carolina, and was published in the American Sociological Review 2009. This article addresses the emergence and growth of precarious work in the U.S since the 1970s. It outlines the evidence of the growth of precarious work in the U.S and its consequences on the national economy. Kalleberg describes precarious work as “employment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (Kalleberg 2009, p.2), and outlines the importance of understanding the new workplace arrangements and employment relationship that promotes this form of work.

Kalleberg outlines five factors, which are evidence that precarious work is growing in the U.S.  These factors are as follows:

1. Decline in attachment to employers

• By this Kalleberg is suggesting that the length of time that workers spend in one particular job, or for one particular employer, is declining.

2. Increase in long-term unemployment

• Rates of job growth remain low and challenges in manufacturing industries remain difficult, specifically after the U.S recession in 2001.

3. Growth in perceived job insecurity

• Workers are increasingly worried about losing their jobs, mainly because the consequences have become much more severe in the current economic climate.

4. Growth of non-standard work arrangements

• In line with neoliberal practice, employers have pursued ways in which to easily adjust their workforce in response to market mechanisms such as supply and demand.
• They seek to achieve this by moving to more non-standard arrangements such as contracting and temporary employment.

5. Increasing shift of risk from employers to employees

• Increases in defined contribution pension and health insurance sees employees paying more of the premium

Kalleberg goes on to outline the consequences of this increase in precarious work, suggesting that it creates greater economic inequality, insecurity, and instability. Consequences focusing more on the individual worker see that this increase in precarious work is a causal factor in wider social problems, gender and race disparities, civil rights and economic justice, family insecurity and work-family imbalances, identity politics, and immigration and migration.

This article provides a great insight into how the nature of work has changed in the U.S since the 1970s, and just what aspects of the employment relationship and the economic environment have driven this transformation towards increasingly precarious work. With precarious employment being one of the front running issues in employment relations in many developed countries around the world it is important to understand not only the effects on the employer but also how the workers are affected. Employers aim to achieve the flexibility to compete in the ever-fluctuating international market, but this article brings to light that they also need to provide security and stability for their employees. Where this article could improve would be to provide some alternative solutions or direction whereby sustainable international competitiveness is achieved while at the same time removing the precarious nature of the employment relationship that is becoming more and more evident in todays workplaces around the globe.

REFERENCE

Kalleberg, AL 2009, ‘Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment relations in transition’, American Sociological Review, vol. 74, no. 1, p. 1-22.