Dear Editor,

Walmart has been prominently in the news lately but not in a good light. It is probably the largest employer in the world with 2.2 million employees and profits of US $316 billion on revenues of US $425 billion last year, two-thirds of which was in the United States. In 2012 there were nearly 3,900 stores and 1.29 million employees in the U.S.

The thrust of the news stories about Walmart is not about its huge financial successes, but rather the fact that many of their employees on average are paid less than the Federal minimum wage (US $7.25 per hour) with a medium wage of US $8.25 per hour. Most of the employees earn less than what is considered to be poverty level income.  

Some Walmart employees sought to unionise so as to obtain improved wages and they set up rallies as part of their efforts. Walmart, however, retaliated by firing those it perceived were the leaders of this campaign. This had the effect, as Walmart expected, of causing most employees to become fearful of losing their jobs, upon which they depended to support their families, and interest in unionising slackened. But the National Labour Relations Board then filed a complaint against Walmart for violating a rule that companies cannot discipline employees for seeking union support, and employees became more willing to demonstrate for better wages while seeking union support.

The recent news reports involve coverage of these demonstrations and rallies by Walmart employees, along with employees from fast food companies who work under similar conditions. People are now beginning to recognise just how these employees are suffering in working for poverty level wages from companies making vast profits.

Let us look at some of those fast food companies. The largest, by far, is McDonalds which has 34,000 restaurants in 119 countries worldwide, most of course in the United States. In 2012, it racked up US $5.5 billion in profits on US $27.5 billion in revenue. The wages for its employees, similar to Walmart, are barely the Federal minimum (US $7.25), namely what is considered to be poverty level income. Indeed, a study conducted in New York City in April 2013 showed that 84 per cent of McDonald employees were actually paid below the minimum wage.

Although these workers work hard and diligently, they still have to rely on public assistance, such as food stamps, to survive because of the low wages the companies pay them. In the period 2007 to 2011, McDonald employees received on average US $1.4 billion in public assistance each year, a total of US $7 billion for the five year period. Tax payers of the United States are in effect subsidising McDonalds for its failure to provide its employees with living wages.

Subsidising figures are not available for Walmart, undoubtedly because this is not information they would want the public to see, but you can bet that the public assistance figures for Walmart, which has far more employees in the United States than McDonalds, is significantly higher than McDonalds’ average annual figure of US $1.4 billion.

Beyond McDonalds, there are other successful fast-food companies which also pay their employees such similarly low wages that those employees also must rely upon public assistance. Burger King employees recently received US $118 million in assistance and Dunkin Donut’s employees US $108 million. Yum Brand Inc., the parent company of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut has 39,000 restaurants in 120 countries with revenue in 2011 of US $3.8 billion and profits of US $589 million. Its employees in the United States in one recent year received US $1.6 billion in public assistance.

President Obama several years ago, hoping to rejuvenate the economy and help the downtrodden, proposed to Congress that the minimum wage of US $7.25, which had not been increased for many years, be increased to US $10.10 per hour. Naturally, Walmart and the fast food companies strongly opposed this proposal, making the absurd argument that although they consistently enjoy profits in the in the billions, if this small increase was put into operation, they would face insolvency.

The right wing Republicans who control the House of Representatives and always bow to the wishes of their corporate benefactors, opposed this minor increase, and John Boehner, then House Speaker, refused even to bring the bill to a vote as he is doing relative to other bills Obama has submitted.

So here we have a situation in which tax payers are paying subsidies by way of public assistance to hard working Americans to survive because the companies they work for, while making billions in profits, do absolutely nothing to improve the conditions of the workers who help them in attaining those profits. These companies have obligations to provide their workers with living wages, thus assisting them to avoid the need for Government benefits which the tax payers are funding. These corporations should be ashamed that they are ignoring these obligations in their greedy pursuit of even greater profits.

From 2002 to 2007 the income of the wealthy increased on average 10 per cent per year, ending with an average income of US $1.34 million while paying even less in taxes. They have made even more in the years since 2007. The income of the middle and lower classes went down in the same period. Some wealthy persons are genuinely concerned about the struggles of the less fortunate, but most could care less and are more interested in buying a new private jet or another mansion.

In the meantime, the Republicans pursued their agenda of obstructing Obama at every turn, even to the detriment of the ordinary tax payer who is providing subsidies for the rich companies. And they continue to protect the wealthy by opposing any additional tax on this pampered controlling group even though those taxes are the lowest they have ever been.

Stephen A. Hopkins

Dear Editor,

I would like to make public, that when I got involved in the discussions about finding a suitable location on Dutch St. Maarten for a Water Treatment Facility, the country was already facing the end of an extended period and deadline placed by the EU Funding agency. I was informed that St. Maarten had requested and received an extension and that extension was nearing its end.

In July of last year I was requested to sit in on a meeting with then Prime Minister and Minister of VROMI a.t. Marcel Gumbs, along with various department heads of VROMI and its Acting SG to discuss the possibility of acquiring land to make this fading opportunity for a multi-million dollar facility a reality for the island and its people.

At that meeting we all agreed on a possible way forward and presented that to the representative of Princess Port de Plaisance Mr. Hakan, who also took part in the discussions.

What was also negotiated was an extra 1,000 square metres of land in Cole Bay to develop a community centre for the people of Cole Bay. As the representative and not the ultimate decision maker of the Princess Group, Mr. Hakan promised that he would get back to government on its requests and offers. A few weeks later the principles of PDP responded favourably to governments request and the process to finalize the agreement continued under my leadership as Minister of VROMI.

Before leaving office I set in motion the processes to finalize this agreement and as soon as the NA led government took office they immediately began the process of reversing this and other decisions such as the agreements made with APS to develop homes for the civil service, the plans for PDP to develop its Kim-Sha property where they had agreed to construct public parking in Kim-Sha, which was a prerequisite of government, all of these efforts were made to have direct positive impact and effects on the economy and for the people of St. Maarten.

Now I read in the local media that Prime Minister William Marlin has decided to construct an island in the lagoon to build the water treatment facility on. Here the island will have to invest millions unnecessarily, not mentioning yet another delay in the EU funded project, in addition to further destruction of the ecosystem of the lagoon. For these haphazard, not well planned out reasons the international community doesn't take us seriously as a country.

For those who have been critical of the decision to grant Princess Port de Plaisance the property on Kim-Sha beach must be informed that the company already own property on Kim-Sha since the late 1980's and have been requesting government for years for additional property to aid with the ingress and egress of their planned resort development. What they have also agreed to as a condition is that public parking would be part of the development on Kim-Sha. This would then allow for the public to have security surveillance public parking in this heavily commercialised area as any parking facility in that area would require.

It is shameful and embarrassing when for personal and political reasons government would ignore positive developments for short-sighted and ignorant ambitions.

Claret M. Connor

Dear Editor,

It is time our Government take into consideration to uplift and beautify Dawn Beach, Oyster Pond and the Border Area.

There are three hotels down at the east side of the Island and it is high time Government put proper sidewalks, streetlights, a bridge at the border at Oyster Pond because when it rains it is very difficult to cross from either side.

Many people you can see walking and some exercising even our tourists just sometimes walk enjoying our Island. This area really needs Government attention.

Beautifying, light up the area, enlarge the road with proper sidewalks, a nice little bridge to cross the little river at Dawn Beach, and Oyster Pond where our tourist at the east side do walk to visit Captain Oliver.

The big tourist bus drivers will appreciate if these roads are enlarged; they are very friendly and good drivers, also Middle Region.

People are calling on Government to uplift the east area. Start negotiating with businesses and property owners at Dawn Beach and Oyster Pond to really do something with these narrow roads.

We the citizens of Middle Region feel there should be only one office at this area to pay all bills and even use this same office as a post office also a bus shed is urgently needed at this area.

Cuthbert Bannis

Concerned citizen

Dear Editor,

I am a long time vacationer to St. Martin. My wife and I are on our 27th visit to the Island spanning 39 years. We are currently being held against our will at Orient Beach by a lawless mob due to the blockade of the road heading in both directions. Neighbors missed their planes, friends could not get back to the Dutch side for medicine, and tourists were unable to travel to activities and reservations. Local shops were closed as their employees could not get to work.

Protestors, regardless of the merit of their cause, have decided that they can shut down ingress and egress to the Orient Beach community and effectively hold thousands of people hostage. And the worst part is that the government on the French side has had the gendarmes stand down, and let the mobs rule. I have always had great respect for the gendarmes, but now I know they are responsive to politics and do not protect visitors entrusted to their protection.

When a government loses the ability to protect visitors who are the major contributors to the economy and are visiting legally; it is time to question whether French St. Martin has a modern government or is a third world country with protesters who are immune from the law. Evidently, the protesters have the right to close roads and insult tourists who want to pass. This is not exactly the "Friendly Island."

While this is happening on the French side, it impacts the Dutch side as well. We and many of our friends stay on both sides of the island. We have previously enjoyed two countries and cultures, with open boarders and free access to beaches, restaurants and tourist attractions.

St. Martin has developed the reputation as being increasingly unconcerned about the lifeblood of their economy, the tourism industry. While I have watched real estate litigation and the loss of investment in vacation property; experienced the routine loss of electricity and water, I have now experienced the loss of my freedom. It has really made me think whether or not this Island has really become a modern country.

Media reports indicate that the blockades will be reinstituted today. Maybe the United States State Department needs to put out a travelers advisory for St. Martin, "Visitors to the Island should be prepared to lose their freedom and be held captive by protestors, the government will do nothing to protect them. Visitors should proceed at their own risk."

Paul Burgdorf

New York