Target: A Slick Operation

Target is a pretty slick operation.

But whereas Walmart is stereotyped (somewhat legitimately) as the evil empire, Target is presented as not only affordable, but also progressive and fashionable.

It’s all in the packaging.

To compete with Wally World, Target captures the middle and upper classes with style and sophistication. About 80 percent of its shoppers belong to the aforementioned social classes, according to a study by Maritz Research.  

Then we have Walmart — a vast, bland entity known for mistreating workers, relying on impoverished foreign workers for its products and pushing good ‘ol mom-and-pop stores to the brink of extinction. But is Target, despite its bargain designer lines and pristine appearance, really so different?

In truth, their business practices are rather similar. Both prohibit unions and threaten to boot employees if they try to establish one. Target employees’ starting wages are similar to Walmart employees’, and shockingly, their benefit packages are more difficult to obtain and cover less than Walmart’s, according to a survey administered by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). And, like nearly all major retailers, Target does indeed rely upon sweatshops in developing countries.

To be fair, Target spends a fair amount of money on charities compared to Walmart proportion-wise, 2.1 percent as opposed to Walmart’s donation of .02 percent of its income, according to Forbes. And yet, paying living wages and creating stable jobs may do more good for a community, as the organization CorpWatch suggests. Retailers such as Costco and The Container Store, both of whom pay workers around $16 an hour, prove that ruthless practices are not crucial to a business’ financial success.

But it is the Citizens United case, back to haunt the country, that has recently spurred polemics over Target and dampened its good publicity. Target donated $150,000 to Minnesota Forward, which in turn hands the funds to Tom Emmer, a Republican gubernatorial candidate for the state and prominent foe of LGBT rights.

A business corporation’s power to fund campaigns is prodigious, much more than an individual citizen could ever hope to contribute. Perhaps that is why, according to a recent Survey USA Poll, 77 percent of voters believe “corporate election spending is a way to bribe politicians.”

Free speech? Yes, if the business owners themselves were to privately make donations — but the Citizens United case gives corporations and unions undue weight in the democratic process. Target, as one of the first to toe the water of the Supreme Court ruling’s wide allowances, has invited backlash against Citizens United once again.

Who you choose to endorse is a personal decision. I’m not admonishing people for shopping at Target or Walmart; many Americans rely on their bargain buys. But if you do have the means and the opportunity to shop at more upright establishments — which admittedly may be a bit difficult here in Bloomington — I urge you to consider going out of your way.


E-mail: celgrund@indiana.edu