Wal-Martians- Logical Fallacies

Although I think Barbara Ehrenreich did a good job of using pathos and logos in her Wal-Martians writing, I feel there are quite a few fallacies in her logic. Granted, she uses a lot of hyperbole, her logical fallacies should not escape scrutiny. The truth is that Walmart isn't responsible for any city having turns in its economic stability. The fault simply cannot be put upon them. Surely there may have been some small businesses who have closed their doors as a result of Walmart's presence, but where were the loyal customers to the Mom-and-Pop's? Did Wal-Martians zap their brains and their abilities to function independently? Were they robbed of their choices to shop at other stores? Of course not. No business can be expected to curtail their own growth to save those businesses affected by their success. The fault lies with the community and those businesses who could not adapt and improvise to address the competition.

Ms. Ehrenreich accuses Walmart of "abysmally low wages". There is no real evidence in her article detailing what these wages are, although I'm not sure it matters. Walmart pays its employees above minimum wage, to my knowledge, with some benefits offered to the majority. How much should stacking shopping carts and greeting people pay? Are these jobs really underpaid? Perhaps the fact that they even pay people to do these jobs instead of just eliminating "Greeter" from the payroll is a gesture of kindness by Walmart. Additionally, Ms. Ehrenreich's argument that Walmart's wages are horrible removes all responsibility from the employees being "victimized". These people have the agency to seek employment elsewhere, go to school, start their own business, etc. To paint them as helpless in their Walmart predicament is inane.

I think Ms. Ehrenreich steps a little over the line when she finally accuses Walmart of being criminal. She says Walmart is being faced with charges of sex-discrimination and non-payment of wages, as well as accusations of locking employees in at night without help in medical emergencies. These are charges and accusations. The validity of them is not apparent. She just skips right to "Confronted with its crimes", and assumes that Walmart is 100% guilty. In the USA it is intended that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Even if some of the charges and accusations are justified, Walmart cannot be held absolutely accountable for the individual actions of its employees, only for its company policies. Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions. If an employee is asked to do something unethical, that employee is liable for his/her choice, as is the person who asked him/her to act unethically.