Rethinking retail – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

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.

Weighing in on NYC’s proposed soda limits – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

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.

Curbing junk food marketing to kids – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

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

Whatever happened to P.E.? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

As a kid I participated in the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. What did that mean? Well, my classmates and I were required to run the 50-yard-dash (I remember running past my gym teacher who stood with a whistle around her neck and a stopwatch in her hand – my time was disappointing), do a certain number of sit-ups (I surpassed my own expectations) and pull-ups (I could only do the girl version that allowed you to lean back with the pull up bar in front of you) and I can’t remember what else but the point was, the President thought our physical fitness was important and as a result, so did we.

Things are different today, according to the new CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) biennial report. There’s no more expectation from the highest office for the nation’s youth to be physically fit.

Nearly half of all high school students take no physical education classes. In California, while state regs say that elementary students must get at least 20 minutes of exercise a day, only 20 percent of schools are complying. At many schools, there is no gymnasium, and no gym teacher, and thus no opportunity for exercise. In New York, K-3 students are supposed to get phys ed class every day, three times a week for grades 4-6, and 90 minutes a week for 7 and 8th graders. But none of the schools that were audited for the report were complying with this regimen.

What has happened to the focus on physical education that came with the imprimatur of the President of the United States? Principals blame budget cuts and the need to prepare students for tests, but also a lack of attention to phys ed from the Department of Education as well as school boards and superintendents.

It seems like a disconnect to me. First lady Michelle Obama has championed her “Let’s Move” campaign, introducing dance and exercise into schools and the kids love it – dance and music is a really fun way to get exercise. The President should revive the Council on Physical Fitness and make it fun, blending it with Michelle’s Let’s Move program and bringing in classes like power dance, yoga, pilates, and zoomba.

Harvard professor John Ratey, author of “Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain,” says physical education helps promote better academic outcomes, but that phys ed teachers are fighting to hold onto their jobs and that it is dawning on educators that we’ve “missed the boat.” We’re facing ever-growing obesity among our nation’s youth; this CDC report is a wake-up call and a great opportunity for the President to step up and re-brand – Obama-style – what was once a priority for the American President: physical fitness.

Women, work… and making it work – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Lili Gecker, NCL public policy intern

Lili Gecker, currently a summer public policy intern at NCL, is a rising senior at Brandeis University where she is studying sociology. Lili’s internship was made possible through the Louis D. Brandeis Social Justice World of Work (WOW) Fellowship.

As a summer intern for NCL, I recently had the opportunity to see Professor Marian Baird from the University of Sydney speak at AFL-CIO on the topic of Gender Equality Bargaining. Australia’s National Employment Standards was able to gain many rights for workers, and their policies include rights and needs of women and families. The Fair Work Act 2009, which included 10 entitlements, sets a minimum wage standard each year, and also offers four weeks paid vacation leave, ten days paid sick leave, and the right to request accommodations if a worker is responsible for caring for a preschool-age child or a child under the age of 18 with disabilities, among others. This law provides a baseline and a safety net for all workers.  In addition, on Mother’s Day in 2009, workers gained the right to paid maternity leave. This includes same-sex couples, and adoptive parents.

The United States certainly has a lot of work to do. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, an organization that advocates on behalf of such issues, workers in 145 countries around the world have paid sick days, but not in the United States. In addition, we are one of only three countries (those being Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Liberia) that do not offer paid leave to new mothers. Although unpaid leave is available through the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, (FMLA), it is only available to fewer than 50 percent of workers, and many cannot afford to take it.

Professor Baird explained the role unions can play in reaching gender equality and fair labor standards. Some factors that facilitate equality include:

  • Supportive union leadership
  • Union membership support
  • Negotiator abilities (on both sides)
  • Negotiator gender and age (younger may be open to more diverse ideas)
  • Intra-union cohesion
  • Setting common claims across and within unions
  • Arguing the business case/ building on HR policy
  • Alliances formed with community and other advocacy groups
  • The social and political contexts

Factors that inhibit equality include:

  • Low trust bargaining relationships
  • Delegates attitudes and posturing
  • Centralized union leadership
  • Lack of educating members about family pensions
  • Member minority v. majority interests
  • Organizations’ finances

With all the ways in which the United States is behind, it is no wonder that we are publicly debating if women can “have it all” (and concluding they can’t). A 2011 study by the Families and Work Institute showed that increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention, and employee health. Other scholars have found that good family policies attract better talent, which results in raised productivity. Perhaps we can look to countries such as Australia as an example. Their use of organized labor and gender equality bargaining played a strong role in progressing their labor practices and transforming gender relations. While they will continue to fight for more progressive changes, such as paid leave for workers who have been victims of domestic violence, we in the United States have more than one job to do—fair and equal labor standards will take work, but it is time to catch up.

Sweetheart deal between banks and universities preying on students – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

*U.S. PIRG released a report recently that reveals an unholy would even say sleazy – relationship between a huge number of well-known colleges and universities and banks that issue debit cards to their students. The colleges may provide student loans onto the cards and then get what amounts to a kickback – some percentage of the fees – when the bank takes fees from the students’ cards for things like overdrafts or for reloading their cards or depositing money on the cards at the ATMs.

PIRG found close to 900 card partnerships between colleges and banks or other financial firms at schools with over 9 million students, or over 2 in 5 (42 percent) of all students nationwide. Thirty-two of the 50 largest public 4-year universities, 26 of the largest 50 community colleges, and 6 of the largest 20 private not-for-profit schools had debit or prepaid card contracts with a bank or a financial firm. US Bank had the most card agreements, at 52 campuses with more than 1.7 million students. Wells Fargo had card agreements at schools with the most students; its contracts were at 43 campuses that have more than 2 million students.

A contract between Ohio State University and Huntington Bank includes $25 million in payments to the school over 15 years. It also includes an additional $100 million in lending and investment to neighborhoods surrounding campus. Fees to students include a variety of per-swipe fees, inactivity fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees, and fees to reload prepaid cards.

The PIRG report is very measured in making a series of recommendations about these practices, like suggesting relationships between banks and colleges should be disclosed so that the public knows that the school chose the debit card program that gives students the best deal rather than the one that gave the college the most money.

So what’s wrong with these programs? Don’t they provide schools with much-needed revenues while giving students the convenience of having their funds on a debit card that they can easily reload?

Plenty, that is what is wrong with these sweetheart deals between colleges and banks. Student debt has topped a trillion dollars. Tuition at colleges has gone up far out of proportion to inflation. (Tuition has seen an average annual increase of 6 percent during the 10 years prior to the economic downturn.)

Therefore *students have to borrow heavily to finance their education. So now we have students getting loans put directly on a debit card and being charged predatory fees with their own colleges getting a cut of those fees. In every way, that is just wrong!

So we applaud US PIRG for its revelatory and important study and urge upon lawmakers and regulators the sensible recommendations provided in the US PIRG study. Someone has to take the side of students and their parents and say, “enough is enough!” US PIRG has given us all the evidence we need to do that. We just need the will to act.

 

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

‘CN U PIK ME UP FRM SOCCR, MOM?’ – NCL survey examines pre-teens and cell phones – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By John Breyault, NCL Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud

In addition to lunch money, friendship bracelets and the occasional frog for teacher’s desk, today’s pre-teens are just as likely to carry a cell phone in their backpacks.  According to a new survey released today by NCL, nearly 6 in 10 (56 percent) of parents of tweens have purchased a cell phone for their tween-aged (8-12) children.

Why the focus on pre-teens?  According to a 2007 survey by C&R Research, 46 percent of children ages 9-11 had cell phones.  Today’s report shows that cell phone penetration rates among this demographic continues to climb.

In response to this development, over the past twelve months, NCL has worked to provide parents of younger children the tools they need to make an informed buying decision.  Parents of pre-teens clearly have different priorities to consider regarding cell phone use than parents of teenagers.  In addition, more than 30 percent of American households now have cell phones as their only phones.  These market developments have left many parents scratching their heads as to how they deal with this brave new world of kids and phones.

That’s why NCL has developed a parent’s guide to pre-teen cell phone use.  We also have tips for parents on how to take advantage of parental control technologies to manage kids’ cell phones.  Indeed, NCL’s survey found that among parents whose cell phones bills were higher than expected, investigating parental controls was the preferred method to control costs (62 percent), higher than setting a monthly budget (38 percent), cancelling the phone (23 percent) or switching to an unlimited service plan (22 percent).

It’s never a good idea to go grocery shopping without a list (or on an empty stomach), because you’re likely to buy things you don’t really need.  The same principles are at work when it comes to buying a cell phone. A rough game plan developed before you start shopping can help you stay within budget and get a phone that fits for your kids. Our pre-teen cell phone guide has some suggested questions to ask yourself before you head in to the cell phone store and your child’s eyes get wide at the site of the latest iPhone or Android superphone.

Armed with a good idea of what kind of phone works for your child and how much you want to spend, parents can (hopefully!) avoid sticker shock from pre-teen cell phone use.

Now if they could just make a consumer guide for getting kids to eat their broccoli and stop picking on their kid brothers …

Weighing in on the overuse of antibiotics in livestock – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health problem. While there are many causes of resistance, one major reservoir for resistant bacteria is livestock. With more than 80 percent of the antibiotics used in this country administered to livestock, resistance arising from food-producing animals is of no small concern. Antibiotics are used in livestock for three main purposes. First, they are used to treat a sick animal. Secondly, they are used to prevent illnesses, diseases which are largely the result of the crowded agricultural conditions that are so common these days. Finally, antibiotics are used to promote faster growth so that animals may be taken to slaughter at younger ages, a practice which yields higher rates of profit for farmers.

Because antibiotic resistance develops when bacteria are exposed to antimicrobials intended to kill them, all three uses of these drugs can lead to problems. Some bacteria are stronger, often due to a genetic mutation. Antibiotics may kill the weaker bugs but these stronger bacteria will survive and flourish.

The consequences of increasing antimicrobial resistance are very real. Patients who become ill with a resistant infection will have to make choices about alternative drugs, which may be less effective or have more serious side effects.

In response to the problem of increasing drug resistance caused by livestock, the FDA recently issued a draft Guidance for Industry which set outs a new paradigm for reducing antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately, this new framework is entirely voluntary, meaning that manufacturers of these drugs get to decide whether or not they abide by FDA’s recommendations.

In formal comments filed with the FDA, NCL made the following recommendations for strengthening the program:

  1. Because disease prevention uses of antibiotics create the same selective pressures as growth promotion, FDA should move forward with withdrawing approvals for the use of antimicrobials for prevention of diseases. This is necessary as drug companies are unlikely to make this move on their own.
  2. The new system that FDA has proposed relies on a voluntary scheme for eliminating the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion. Because some companies may choose not to participate, a voluntary system is not sufficient for reducing the use of antibiotics. We encourage FDA to use its regulatory authority to create a mandatory reduction plan that will ensure compliance and increased public health.
  3. The FDA should choose a measure of success that is meaningful to public health. Because of our concerns that drug sponsors may add indications to their drugs for prevention uses, merely looking at whether sponsors do away with growth promotion uses of antimicrobials is an insufficient measure of whether the program is succeeding. A more appropriate measure of success would be to look at whether or not the amount of antibiotics used has decreased.
  4. Transparency in the implementation of this new process is essential. FDA has proposed a three year implementation period. FDA should publish detailed quarterly reports on proposed and finalized voluntary changes. These reports should facilitate the independent verification of progress made towards implementation as well as an assessment of the public health implications of these changes.

NCL urges FDA to implement mandatory reductions in antibiotic use in livestock. Without these changes, we face the very real possibility of losing our arsenal of drugs we use to treat human disease.

Women’s Health Initiative: Ten years later – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Many older women’s lives are overcomplicated by difficult menopause symptoms, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, as well as other health issues that come with aging. For years, even healthy women who experienced no symptoms were encouraged to take hormone therapy (HT), and it quickly became the most common method of menopause symptom prevention. Ten years ago today, the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) announced the results of a research study called the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI): hormone therapy increases the risks of breast and ovarian cancers. The announcement came after a decade of thorough research of some of the most common hormone therapy drugs available.

Because of that monumental research, breast cancer rates decreased for the first time in history, according to the NWHN, “there are 160,000 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over the last 10 years because they avoided unnecessary exposure to drugs that would have caused it.” By questioning the mainstream medical treatment, which happened to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies, WHI literally saved the lives of thousands of women. There is much to celebrate, but there is still much more work to be done.

In the years after the WHI results, many other hormone therapy treatments were introduced onto the marketplace. Many of these have not been tested as thoroughly as the treatments used in the WHI study. It is too simplistic to dismiss all hormone therapy treatments as bad for women, but caution should be taken. As the NWHN writes, “Research on HT is an ongoing process. While the search for definitive answers about the long-term health effects of other forms of HT continues, the Network recommends that women consider menopause HT as a last resort for short-term symptom relief rather than a tool for long-term health maintenance.”

The Mayo Clinic recommends hormone therapy for some women in small doses for hot flashes and vaginal dryness. It notes that “Long-term systemic hormone therapy for the prevention of postmenopausal conditions is no longer routinely recommended.” For consumers, navigating sometimes conflicting or changing information about health care and treatment options can often be overwhelming, which is why it’s so important to use reliable resources for information and maintain open dialogue with health care professionals. Important research such as the WHI study will continue to shed light on modern health care, but – when it comes down to it – the most useful tool for making good decisions is the relationship and communication between patients and their health care professionals.

Liberia: Are foreign corporations helping or hurting? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Brianne Pitts, NCL public policy intern

Recently, members of the nonprofit community gathered in Washington, DC to attend a forum that examined the current social, economical, and political conditions in the West African nation of Liberia. After two decades of instability and two civil wars that killed 250,000 people, Liberia has begun the process of picking up the pieces of its shattered nation, which is no easy task: Six in seven Liberians live in dire poverty. Fortunately, the country, founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century, has abundant natural resources. With the restructuring of Liberian government to a unitary constitutional republic led by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa’s first female elected head of state and a Harvard-trained economist, it seems as if these resources could bring some needed revenues into the country.

With the return of political and economical stability, however, there is a rising concern over worker’s rights for Liberians. There has been a steady and growing increase in land ownership and the extraction of Liberia’s natural resources by U.S. companies like Chevron, Firestone, and other conglomerates.

As Western outsiders acquire more land, Liberians already living on the land are being pushed from their homes. Village lines have had to be redrawn due to land grabbing. Different communities have been squeezed together and forced to share increasingly limited resources left behind by the corporations.

Large-scale extraction of the land has caused rivers and streams to become polluted, simultaneously wiping out the food and water sources as well as possible trade opportunities for local families.

A major problem with the presence of big business in Liberia is the corporation’s failure to invest in the Liberian people. Alfred Brownell, a Liberian lawyer, told event participants that “the (American) Firestone Corporation has been present in Liberia for over 80 years, and still to this day there is not a single person of Liberian descent in a position of power within that company.”

Liberian workers are relegated to labor-intensive, menial, low-paying jobs. If companies like Firestone or Chevron proceed to invest only in the land without investing in the people, and provide wealth for themselves but not the Liberians, then the American-Liberian relationship will continue to be exploitative. Consumers should hold big corporations accountable for how they produce their products and the devastation they leave behind. American corporations must be held to a high standard when it comes to extracting resources from the world’s poorest nations.