9,664,784 dollars.
9,664,784 dollars!
More money than most people would ever dream of seeing in their lifetimes. According to the American Federation of Labour (AFL-CIO) Thomas Falk makes $9,664,784 in one year destroying ancient forests. How much really is $9,664,784? With that much cash you could, for example, pay for daycare for one year for 2,461 working parents.
Who’s Thomas Falk? He’s the big guy at the top of the corporate ladder at Kimberly-Clark. He’s the man behind the largest tissue product manufacturer in the world – he’s the one that continues to drive this corporation to consume more and more pulp from trees, much of them from ancient forests, every year. Over 3 million tonnes last year alone. That’s about equal to the weight of 17,000 jumbo jets. Not those fancy small business leerjets, though I’m sure Thomas Falk could afford one or two of those. We're talking the monster two-level jets that made you all starry eyed when you first saw them on televsion or at the airport when you were 6 years old.
The story of Kimberly-Clark and its CEO, Thomas Falk, is a story of excess.
Prepare yourself: Nearly 16 billion dollars in annual sales, individual clearcuts totalling over 10,000 hectares (17,000 football fields) in size, paycheques that total millions of dollars, 3 million tonnes of virgin pulp used year, tens of thousands of trees flushed down the toilet.
I hate to be cynical but when someone makes more money in a year than I would make working for 254 years at my current salary, it has got to make a you wonder about inequality in the world.
It's particularly galling to me because the Falk’s incredible salary comes at the expenses of not only forests but also workers. Check out the AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch Database for more info.
While Falk makes more green this year than last, workers at KC are being hit with mill and plant closures, layoffs and permanent job losses.
In fact, over 6,000 jobs cuts were announced by Kimberly-Clark in June last year and the cuts continue to happen. Funny thing, especially, when you consider the company made over 2.6 billion dollars in profit in 2005.
Check out some recent news articles about Kimberly-Clark mill closures.
- Kimberly-Clark Announces Plans to Cut 6,000 Jobs
- Kimberly-Clark Australia staff in shock on mill closure news
- K-C plans cloud local mill’s future
- Kimberly-Clark plans 6,000 job cuts
So what’s this mean?
In my opinion, here’s a corporate behemoth which is addicted to excess. In fact addicted to profits. It’s a consumer product monster that is keen to expand markets into countries such as Turkey and Brazil to make a few more bucks. Countries where it will market disposable diapers like Huggies in single packs because the citizens of those countries can’t afford a 12 pack. “They can use these single packs, signs of affluence, on special occasions,” said Falk at Kimberly-Clark’s annual meeting last April. Think about that statement for a couple of minutes.
Further, Kimberly-Clark wants to create even more of a disposable society than ever before - and get more folks hooked on their products. Including such globally beneficial things as disposable picnic sheets. Why get stuck with soiling a blanket with heaven-forbid leaves or grass clippings when you can just throw out your blanket, plates and all, when you’re done with your picnic?
Is it getting better? Doesn’t look like it. In 2004, Kimberly-Clark used 23% more virgin fiber from forests to produce toilet paper, facial tissue and other tissue products than it did in 2003. What are the stats going to be for next year? More ancient forests wiped out, more jobs lost, more mills closed… and a bigger paycheque for Thomas?
So what’s the solution?
How about Thomas use that big paycheque of his to keep more workers working. How about Thomas share some of those corporate profits with the folks working in the mills and manufacturing plants making $15-20/hour (afterall Thomas Falk makes $4,676/hour - if he indeed does work a 40 hour workweek). How about spending some of that windfall on switching product lines to use more recycled fiber and fiber from sustainable forestry operations instead of trashing ancient forests? Sounds like a start to me.
Is this a rant? Sure it is. But when you’re fighting a corporation that cares more about CEO paycheques and profits than ancient forests and jobs, I think you should be allowed one rant, at least once in a while.
Thanks for reading,
Richard
Richard Brooks is a forest campaigner with Greenpeace who doesn’t mind making the fight personal.
