I am not a member of PETA, although I am happy that they are trying to get more attention and better treatment for animals. I do think it is interesting that when you aren’t winning an argument, you throw totally unrelated subjects like this into the mix. Or maybe you feel so guilty about eating those poor suffering lame chickens that you must strike out in anger. I have no idea, really, but this gets really tedious.
PETA has lots of enemies, and certainly you can find articles on the web that are negative about PETA. The article you cited is sponsored by the North Carolina Fisheries Association, a natural enemy of an organization that wants to end fishing entirely, obviously. The meat and dairy industry are threatened by PETA’s attempts to let Americans know how the meat they are eating and the cows and chickens who were tortured for their milk and eggs actually suffer.
I am not surprised that you are able to find articles like this, but I think it’s stupid to keep bringing them up when they have nothing to do with what we are discussing, and are extremely partisan and prove nothing except that PETA has some enemies. As I have said before, I could talk all day about animal rights without ever using PETA materials, and could provide plenty of graphic photos of animals being abused. Perhaps I will start doing this!
The allegations that you raise are totally false, of course. The figures the article cites for PETA salaries are from 2000. Salaries have gone up since then. Did you read the article? Did you notice that PETA’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, only made $25,000 that year, that she lives very modestly in a rented apartment? PETA is not a big corporation; the people who will thrive there are idealistic do-gooders. Obviously there are enough people who are independently wealthy or extremely dedicated to PETA's goals that they willingly work there. Most people would be happy when they find out that a charity is keeping its overhead down! More money to defeat the animal abusers, rah rah rah!
Certainly I fail to see what is so objectionable about an organization where the CEO makes considerably less than some of the paid help. You probably neglected to read the article carefully enough to notice that the benefits for PETA employees are considerable (much better than Wal-Mart). I quote from your source materials:
"PETA's claim to be a "lean, mean' charity is borne out by the numbers as well as its antics. Most employees earn less than $25,000 a year. The biggest salary listed on the organization's most recent tax return is $62,370 for the director of media relations. Newkirk herself makes only $25,000. She lives frugally in a Norfolk apartment and does not own a car.
Most of PETA's revenue comes from small donations. It gets uniformly high ratings from charity watchdog groups for spending less than 25 percent of its budget on administration and fund raising.
PETA's low salaries are offset in part by an unconventional package of employee benefits, including health coverage for gay partners and bereavement leave for deaths of "companion animals,' PETA's term for pets.
Employees are encouraged to bring their pets to work."
Okay, now, Bill, contrast that with the statistics for Wal-mart employees from 2004 in California, a state where salaries are fairly high compared to those in Virginia, where PETA is located:
Hidden Cost Of Wal-Mart Jobs
Use of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Workers in California
Arindrajit Dube
UC Berkeley Institute for Industrial Relations
Ken Jacobs
UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
A Study for the UC Berkeley Labor Center
August 2, 2004
Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States, with over one million workers. It is the largest food retailer and the third largest pharmacy in the nation. The company employs approximately 44,000 workers in California, and has plans to expand significantly in the state over the next four years. Wal-Mart workers receive lower wages than other retail workers and are less likely to have health benefits. Other major retailers have begun to scale back wages and benefits in the state, citing their concerns about competition from Wal-Mart.
We estimate that Wal-Mart workers in California earn on average 31 percent less than workers employed in large retail as a whole, receiving an average wage of $9.70 per hour compared to the $14.01 average hourly earnings for employees in large retail (firms with 1,000 or more employees). In addition, 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart workers are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than large retail workers as a whole. The differences are even greater when Wal-Mart workers are compared to unionized grocery workers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, non-managerial Wal-Mart employees earn on average $9.40 an hour, compared to $15.31 for unionized grocery workers—39 percent less—and are half as likely to have health benefits.
At these low-wages, many Wal-Mart workers rely on public safety net programs— such as food stamps, Medicare, and subsidized housing—to make ends meet. The presence of Wal-Mart stores in California thus creates a hidden cost to the state’s taxpayers.
This study is the first to quantify the fiscal costs of Wal-Mart’s substandard wages and benefits on public safety net programs in California. It also explores the potential impact on public programs of Wal-Mart’s competitive effect on industry standards.
Main Findings:
· Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
· The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.
· The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.
· If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.
dsausa.org |
