Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

You don’t have to be a shopping addict, and it doesn’t have to be the holiday season—we all buy and consume goods pretty regularly. Most of us are aware that Wal-Mart treats workers poorly, but which stores treat workers well and have low prices? Is this even possible? Today, there are nearly 15 million people working in the retail industry, which makes up about 10 percent of the U.S. labor force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cashiers and retail salespeople were the most common occupations in the entire economy in 2011, with 3.3 million and 4.3 million employees respectively, and representing nearly 6 percent of total U.S. employment.

Although many retail workers are well-educated (a study conducted by the Retail Action Project (RAP) found that about 70 percent of front-line retail workers in New York completed some college or a college degree), they are not well compensated. In 2011, the national median hourly wage in the retail sector was $10.88 an hour, lower than the national median of $16.57 for all workers. For the two largest occupations in retail, cashiers and salespeople, the median wage was $9.05 and $10.10. Retail workers often have little control and opportunities for advancement in their jobs. The same study by RAP found that only 17 percent of workers had a set schedule, and only 30 percent reported knowing their work schedule at least one week in advance. The fact that fewer than 5 percent of retail employees were members of unions in 2011 may play a role. These limit in worker control prove especially difficult for people who work other jobs, or who have other responsibilities, including those of a parent.

At a recent discussion on the retail industry hosted by the Aspen Institute Workforce Strategy Initiative, MIT professor Zeynep Ton explained the employer perspective: they view employees as a cost to be minimized. When seeking to maximize profits, they cannot always control sales, but they can cut payroll, and when under pressure employers feel they must cut employee hours. When employers cut labor, they see an immediate decrease in cost, but the benefits of stable labor are long-term. In fact, studies conducted by Ton found that if employers had more labor, they would make more money.

So why don’t businesses do this? Walmart claims that they cannot afford to treat their employees well and keep prices low. Kim Owens, former Vice-President of QuickTrip Corporation, disagrees. QuickTrip is a gas station convenient store located in 13 states and expanding, and the employer of 13,000 employees. With the belief that retail can be a career, most of QuickTrip’s employees have at least some college education and they promote from within. They invest in their employees from the beginning through one-on-one training for at least two weeks, and by providing a mentor. Starting salary for a night sales manager is $35,000 per year, and some employees who have worked as managers for over 20 years retire with $1 million. They offer benefits such as health insurance, bonuses, and a tuition reimbursement program. QuickTrip is good to its employees, and it benefits the company: they are one of the most successful in their industry.

Ton explained that it is not one change a business can make, but a series of operational decisions made by companies to invest in employees that allow everyone to succeed. Simply spending more time on training, or increasing worker benefits is a necessary start, but it is not enough. Americans can begin to transform our business practices through education. Businesses leaders must not view profit maximization as a narrow goal. They should put their employees, customers, and society before investors. Business educators must teach these important values in school: that companies should maximize shared values, not just their shareholder’s values.

In addition, we need policies that defend the rights of workers. Carrie Gleason of RAP asserts that the minimum wage is not a living wage, and it must be elevated and indexed to adjust for inflation. This may be a possibility, with the recent introduction of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2012. In addition, all workers, including part-time workers, need access to benefits such as health care and family and medical leave. When businesses have an incentive to act in a way that is most profitable, American workers need a strong government to protect their right to work to the best of their ability and earn fair compensation.

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Last week I had the opportunity to testify before the New York City Board of Health in support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal amend the health law in New York City to limit sugary drinks sold by restaurants and movie theaters – not grocery or convenience stores – in New York City to 16-oz. servings.

That means thousands of restaurants across the city will need to reduce serving sizes for sugary drinks or face a $200 fine. Why this proposal from the Mayor? Because the obesity rates in New York – like the rest of America – are soaring (see NCL testimony) and calorie-laden drinks are ubiquitous and heavily marketed. They include typical soft drinks like Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Sprite, and more recently bottled Ice Teas and lemonade, sports drinks like Gatorade and Powerade, and so called “energy” drinks like Red Bull, Monster, and 5 Hour Energy filled with caffeine and sugar. These beverages are a major factor in the rising caloric intake of so many Americans and in the meteoric rise in Type 2 Diabetes (especially among children and teens) and heart disease.

NCL supports the Mayor’s proposal because we join with our public health colleagues and medical specialists in diabetes, heart, kidney and oral disease in blowing the whistle on the marketing of sweetened drinks to American consumers, especially the young. We’ve supported the Mayor in other health issues, like requiring that trans fat be listed on labels, posting calories on restaurant menus throughout NYC as of several years ago (and, having been in NYC this week, the info is very useful in steering calorie conscious consumers to healthier options).

Exempted under the Bloomberg amendment would be sugar-free drinks, beverages containing milk products (like Starbucks drinks for example), and the infamous “Big Gulp” drinks sold by 7-11 stores because they are not restaurants.

The New York Health Department in Long Island City hosted, and many of the Commissioners – all appointed by Mayor Bloomberg – were in attendance during the long afternoon hearing. I was surprised to see such a large turnout of interested parties signed up to testify. I especially appreciated and learned from the comments of so many prominent and outspoken medical academics and leaders of disease groups, like the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. There were ethnic group representatives from the Asian, Hispanic and Black communities who talked about the effects of obesity plaguing their communities. There were also prominent academics, like the head of dentistry at a local medical facility who noted that that, despite the fluoridation of NYC water, youngsters were coming in with unprecedented tooth decay from sugary drinks.

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal has already had an impact. (Our statement described it as bold, but noted that the proposal calls for really what is a modest limitation on the size of sweet drinks sold in NYC restaurants and movie theaters – allowing establishments to serve 16 oz of 14 teaspoons of liquid sugar is not a ban!)

The New Yorker magazine noted that the purveyors of a 64-ounce bucket drink – the notorious KFC – were in the doldrums because the Mayor’s proposal was giving these sugary drinks a “bad name.” Yay! That is exactly what should happen. And there is a buzz about this proposal. The UK, whose citizens never had to fight obesity before, is now considering a similar ban. Tragically, over the last few decades, American companies have exported our junk food abroad – with all its salt, sugar, and fat—and this has had a big impact on obesity rates worldwide.

I listened to opponents and came away thinking their arguments were weak. They ranged from claiming the proposal inhibits so-called consumer choice to buy supersize, unhealthy liquid calories, to the argument that adults can make their own decisions about what they eat, to saying the proposal will make costs prohibitive for struggling small business, killing 8,000 jobs.

This last argument made no sense to me. There are hundreds of drinks that are exempted – including all diet drinks, all bottled water, any drink containing a milk product. And restaurants can still serve sugary drinks, but just in lesser quantities. So I don’t really see the argument that this will kill jobs.

Mayor Bloomberg deserves plaudits for his proposal. It is a certainty that other jurisdictions will adopt similar measures, for extreme circumstances call for bold measures. This one meets the test.

Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

Marketing is no doubt a powerful, but often subtle, tool. We are bombarded with media everyday and navigate through logos and jingles to make decisions as consumers. But what about when marketing is aimed toward children, who cannot fully understand the power of advertising? And what about when these consumer decisions impact our health? One study demonstrated that when preschoolers were asked whether they would rather eat broccoli or a Hershey’s chocolate bar, 78 percent of the children chose the chocolate bar and 22 percent chose broccoli. When an Elmo sticker was placed on the broccoli, 50 percent of the children chose broccoli. This holds incredible weight for food marketers and the children’s entertainment industry.

In addition, food companies have found new and creative ways to market their products to children. Advergames are online games that food makers are increasingly putting on their Web sites as a way to introduce children to their products. It has been estimated that about 1.2 million children visit company Web sites that have advergames every month, and children spend up to an hour each month playing the games.

In great part to First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative, the epidemic of childhood obesity has been brought to the forefront over the past few years. Childhood obesity rates have tripled over the past three decades, and today, nearly one in three children in the United States are overweight or obese. These numbers are higher in African American and Hispanic communities, where nearly 40 percent of children are overweight or obese. *Obesity can lead to several health problems, even later in life, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, asthma, sleep apnea, as well as social and emotional problems.

The First Lady’s campaign, which aims to reduce childhood obesity by 5 percent by the year 2030, combines various strategies, such as prenatal health care, access to healthy lunches in school and exercise incentives. They also have an initiative to improve food marketing to children and youth. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that food, beverage, and quick-serve restaurant companies spent more than $1.6 billion to promote their products to young people in 2006.

The Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG) comprised of representatives of Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, United States Department of Agriculture developed recommendations for uniform standards for foods marketed to children ages 17 and under, as well recommendations for the media. They released voluntary standards in 2009.

Joining the self-regulating industry groups, Disney has created its own set of standards. The company announced earlier this month that over the next three years it will phase out junk food advertising on its TV and radio programming targeted at children. All foods marketed on Disney channel will have to align with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. In addition, Disney launched a new “Mickey Check” symbol, which will be used to mark nutritious foods on menus and packaging. This will take a positive step in encouraging children to associate healthy choices with entertainment, and it will make the decision to choose healthy foods easier on the whole family.

The media giant was praised by many public health leaders including Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, the Partnership for a Healthier America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Produce for Better Health foundation. First Lady Michelle Obama said in *her statement of support, “they’ve realized that what is good for our children can also be good business.”

*Links are no longer active as the original sources have removed the content, sometimes due to federal website changes or restructurings