Debate: Wal-Mart
 

Recently I have been informed that the store that provided my family--and millions of other low income families--with the most affordable prices, Wal-Mart, has been a major violator of workers' rights. Accordingly, "The people employed in their overseas factories are beaten and/or fired if they request safer working conditions." This, however, will not stop me from shopping @ Wal-Mart.

The way I look at it, there are two possibilities: Either Wal Mart represses employees, many employees suffer, but many more low-income families benefit from lower prices, OR Wal Mart fixes their practice, employees are in better condition, but prices are driven higher, and more low-income people are in worse condition.

For sure, in my family's situation a few years ago, we needed a place like Wal Mart to provide low prices. As far as employees being beaten--well, there's certainly more violence in the ghetto. Take out the gangs from Bronx if you want less beating.

By all means, I don't approve of Wal-Mart's harsh treatment of employees, if they are true; but I don't exactly think starving is much better than being beaten either.

I don't know how much was going on during his reign, but since Sam Walton died, Wal-Mart has become a whole new beast.

The one good thing I can say about Wal-Mart is that they are practically the owners of the St. Louis Blues. (Bill Laurie's wife is one of Sam Walton's kids...one of the richest people in America.)

Wal-Mart has gotten a lot of flack recently for apparently preventing employees from unionizing. In a situation like Wal-Mart, I would imagine that being unionized COULD possibly be a good thing. I know how shitty I was treated when working for Venture (along with Caldor, one of the former discount divisions of May Department Stores, though May had already spun both off by the time I started there).

There's no doubt that Wal-Mart offers good stuff at good prices...hell, most of my work wardrobe is from there. But I would say that Wal-Mart undercuts competition like a motherfucker. Add to that the other allegations, and you have to wonder what the hell is going on over there.

(Having said that, however, Target has done a great job of keeping up with Wal-Mart. Maybe it's because Target also owns more high end stores like Marshall Field's, Dayton's, and Hudson's, but still...Target offers good stuff at good prices. And the difference between going to a Target and going to a Wal-Mart is like night and day.)

Point of order, pjshimmer.. threads should only be started in the "user-hosted forums" by the person who owns said forum. Replying to others' threads in a user-hosted forum is OK, but you should start threads in one of the general areas.

So, how exactly were you "informed" that Wal Mart has such practices? I've never heard anything like that.

Yeah, no shit...what's up with people hijacking my forum today? Geez.

Not like I really care, depending on the situation. PJ can slide...for the moment. However, I will merge Colhar's thread into the other poetry thread.

Don't you remember telling him?

I've heard allegations like this for a while now...the whole union thing has been the more recent issue though. I wouldn't be surprised if Wal-Mart was guilty of both issues.

[totally] I wanted to several times too but decided not to step on Sick-man's toes. If I get kicked outta the cellar, it's back to the bus station for me to recruit friends. [/off topic]

This is how Wal-Mart became the single strongest Financial Institution in The World. Stronger than Microsoft, Stronger than any other company in the world Seccond only To the United states Government.

I had not heard anything regarding treatment of workers who produce stuff FOR Walmart. Most of the Walmart is evil stories that I've heard are based on information related to the actual retail stores.

There's a couple different ones going around. They are supposed to have a lot of arcane employment policies and procedures that favor the corporation and not the employees. There are a number of lawsuits pending against them.

It is not unusual for Walmart employees to be told they have to work a certain number of hours "off the clock" in order to keep their jobs. They are putting in full or overtime hours, but only clock in for a part-time number of hours, thus saving corporate from having to provide them insurance benefits due to full time workers.

If a worker gets injured during one of these "off the clock" times (back injuries from lifting or other injuries from being struck by falling merchandise for example) they do NOT qualify for Workman's Comp to which they would otherwise be entitled.

I recently admitted a Walmart employee who DID qualify for the insurance benefits ... even had an official Blue Cross ID card with the patient's name and plan numbers ... the Blue Cross provider had NO record of the policy ever having been placed into effect. (I asked this person about the off-the-clock policy and it was confirmed)

I've heard other stuff as well ... that the corporate no fraternization rules state that employees cannot "form relationships" (i.e., date each other) and if a marriage DOES ultimately result, the female employee is the one who is fired.

THE anti-Walmart Site

Myths and Truths About Walmart

Walmart Forces Workers to Work Off The Clock

5,000 Lawsuits Pending Against Walmart

Class Action Suit for Gender Discrimination

Walmart Found Guilty in Unpaid Overtime Suit

Oh, heck ... Just google it; there are tons of examples.

I don't as a general rule shop in Walmart, just in case you were wondering. There was an attempt many years ago to keep Walmart out of the part of Montgomery County in which I live ... it was unsuccessful. A (regular sized, not super) Walmart opened in East Norriton last year.

Retail stores trying to keep out unions is no news. My wife worked at Borders for some a few years back and there was a movement afoot to unionize that was resisted tooth and nail by the company. Ironically, by the time the vote was carried out--the union won--most of the people agitating for it had turned over. The actual negotiation of the contract could, for all I know, still be ongoing today some 5 years later. (A lot of these people were morons IMNSHO... they thought having a union would cure every single problem they had, and a lot of the agitation was based on "they're exploiting me because I have a master's degree and they're not paying me well enough." I was rolling my eyes & thinking, "dude, you're a retail clerk.. you could have five PhDs and a Nobel Prize and you'd be getting the same pay.) So while it might not be nice of Wal-Mart to try to suppress the unions, they aren't alone in trying.

I've never known what to make of all the labor abuse allegations. Yes, unclocked overtime is bad, but I'm hard pressed to say it's worse than the company that chops its workforce and whose president then preens about how efficient and lean they are while his staff are on the verge of nervous breakdowns because each of them is doing work that 2 or 3 people used to do. Every company gets away with what it can. If you're going to hang Wal-Mart out to dry, don't leave everybody else behind.

Cute little tricks like taking out a $65k life insurance policy on employees without their knowledge explains why they had so many older workers. They got caught insuring employees in states where it's illegal by writing the policy in a state where it is legal.
For every two jobs Walmart creates in a community the same community loses three elsewhere.
They also force suppliers to move their operations offshore costing American more jobs.
Another big problem is buying from a supplier at a steady or increasing rate causes that supplier to hire people and buy machinery. Then they find another source (usually offshore) and suddenly stop buying, forceing layoffs and bankruptcy. Walmart also has a habit of puting pressure on suppliers to keep cutting the wholesale prices until they lose money and fail.
Walmart is not doing you or the country any favors. :(

Except for that providing good choices of products cheaply in well-lit stores with trained employees running good systems.

What people really don't like is the continual churn of change that our economy demands. It would appear that some of Walmart's worst qualities come from demanding -- and getting -- the very lowest of prices from their suppliers. In doing so, they are price advocates for every one of their customers, too; they reflect the needs of their customers, because that's what the very best retailers do.

Walmart is successful because our economy needed a vast consolidation of retailers. If they replace three employees with two, they are creating wealth through improving the very logistics of the nation. We are all sore about it because retailing is drying up as a source for entrepreneurship, and as a nation we appreciate entrepreneurs and worship the underdog. But we like the changes in our lifestyle that this is bringing about even better. We don't like the underdog so much that we want to shop in Kmarts, for chrissakes.

UT, you should change your title from "Snacker" to "Insightful Motherfucker."

'Cept the next time I get something frightfully wrong I would be an ass.

Say what???? I don't think so!
What people really don't like is being un/underemployed.
That'll do them a lot of good when there's nobody left with a job except their employees.
Bullshit, they're consolidating wealth. The rich are getting richer, the poor, poorer and the middle class extinct. Who the hell is we? I know a hell of a lot of people that don't. Of course I don't hang with the big money boys. The way it's going Radar might get his wish to kill the income tax when there is nobody left to collect from except the wealthy and powerful.:vomit:

You may not like the setup, Bruce, but given that they've only had one losing quarter in umpteen years, they have a pretty good thing going.

You and your crew are the minority. As the Dead Kennedys said, "Give me convenience or give me death!"

(I see valid points on both sides of the table. But until a majority of people shed the cheap/fast/now concept, we will see more and more Wal-Mart-esque situations.)

Oh, sorry -- that "we" was an editorial sort of we, meaning roughly the majority in our culture.

Bruce, I don't think a year's gone by, since I started paying attention (in 1981), when there wasn't a major complaint in the air that the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer. All it ever turned out to be was a sort of paranoid class warfare combined with wonton misuse of statistics.

In our economy, any waste is located and slowly wrung out. Obviously, it's simpler to manage the movement of huge masses of goods than to sprinkle them over hundreds of little ma and pa stores. Take the cost savings of buying and selling 1 times 100,000 of something, instead of 10000 times 10.

Then see an entire middleman - the warehouser - no longer takes a cut. The savings are passed along to the consumer. Watch as every major retail sector slowly converts to this style of mass-merchandising.

Meanwhile, see how the public demands enormous amounts of choice but how ma and pa can't work out more than about 3000 items, with or without automation. Witness how the slow decline in free time means the average person has less time to discern between smaller stores. Consider the lack of afforable advertising space in most major markets. (I considered running radio ads once -- one of the least effective types of ads btw -- but a full campaign in Philly would have cost $30,000, more than I could possibly afford without knowing what kind of sales it would really turn around.) See how real estate gets cheaper when you buy it in bulk.

Walmart doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Yes, I think Sam would be churning in his graves if he knew what has happened to his company. I think if Wal Mart continues to repress their employees, their success can't last long. In the long run, a repressive system will collapse. Remember, your workers are just as important as your customers. But then again, as the richer gets richer and the poor gets poorer, maybe Wal Mart will uphold its power as more people depend on their super cheap prices.

If Walmart were to collapse, what would happen to Asda (the UK-based supermarket chain they own)?

So a big corporation uses its huge size to try to force better deals from its suppliers. Then they take their business elsewhere if that supplier can't meet their needs. That's the American way. As long as they aren't doing anything anticompetitive, there's nothing wrong with that.

If Wal-Mart has so much control over a supplier that losing them as a buyer can cause the supplier to go under, it sounds like the supplier either isn't managing their business very well, or else didn't try hard enough to keep the contract.

Wal-Mart is trying to make more money, and in doing so they are streamlining the entire retail industry. The economies of scale that are benefiting them benefit the consumer as well.

Another thing -- every company has disgruntled employees. You can find anti-McDonald's, anti-Intel, anti-Home Depot sites all over the internet, with claims of institutional disregard for employees, unfair labor practices, etc. etc. I know there are two sides to every story, but I really don't care enough about the issue to research it further. But I'm certainly not gonna believe a company is corrupt from head to toe because some outspoken, pissed-off workers put up a website.

I'm missing the point here. Who is harmed? The insurance company knows the risk and old folks who typically can't get work make a few bucks.

that's why I only work for "Fortune's Best 100 companies to work for "from now.

Ah yes, the Go-Go eighties. Junk bonds, Bahama banks and the rise of what our Spanish freinds would call Viva Yo. Translated to Philadelphian as Hooray for me- Fuck thee.
The robber barons were always ruthless bastards in business but this new breed thats grown out of this attitude in the last 20 years has no parallel. It's become acceptable to destroy the company and stockholders along with employees to achive personal wealth. Even when you already more money than most countries.
Dismantling healthy companies for a quick buck with enormous bonuses and golden parachutes. Exectutive pay rates grown from 40 times the employees rates to 500, 700 even 1000 times.
Incredibly when the company is dead the move on to the next company because that board of directors are hoping they'll make them filthy rich at the expense of the stockholders and employees.

When a supplier sells to 100 accounts they can manage their business. But when one of those accounts keeps getting bigger by forcing the others to close, then they control your company, not you. You survive by their whim. You even invest and expand if they demand it because you have no choice. Sink or swim. Then, as recently happened to Tupperware when the cost of raw materials went up, Walasaurous stops buying cold and you're in a world of hurt.

Griff, you don't see any problem with the one that determines the level and quality of your health care, holding a secret life insurance policy on you? That's why so many states have made it illegal. Oh, and it's on all employees. Sorry if I misled you on that, but it does give them impetus to hire as many oldsters as they can.

Ah, elimination of the irrelevant middleman. Streamlining the process. Good for you, good for me, good for Wal-Mart, good for the country's productivity and GNP. Maybe bad for said middleman in the short term, but he'll find another job.

Why should Joe Consumer have to pay to subsidize an irrelevant, unnecessary position?

The suppliers have to understand the rule changes too. Of course there is danger in selling a huge percentage of your sales to a single customer without a good contract involved.

But when you think about it, all Walmart has done is to speed up the economic process.

The customer doesn't want Tupperware; the customer wants "cheap unbreakable containers to hold their stuff". If the raw materials to produce Tupperware are too expensive, it is of benefit to the whole economy if people stop buying it and start buying cheap unbreakable containers made of something else. Walmart sends that message faster than the consumers by being relentless about its choices.

Also, frankly, Tupperware sucks. It is not air-tight and so the whole "burping" concept is useless marketing fluff. Most stuff that needs to be stored also wants to be air-tight. If people don't prefer the brand maybe something is wrong with the brand.

The only choice the people have is to buy, what Walasaurous chooses to put on the shelf, or not. You know damn well if the customer needs a plastic container and they're at walmart they'll buy whatever's there. They're not going to comparison shop or check the net for a plastic container.
Of course around here, if you're adamant, you can go somewhere else. But across much of America they don't have an alternative, other than driving for hours, because the local businesses have been driven out.
Oh, and MY Tupperware doesn't leak and will hold its "burp" for weeks. Perhaps you got some substandard stuff from Walmart.:p

The "secret" policy had to be underwritten by an insurance company. If that company thinks the oldsters are not getting a reasonable level of health care the rates for the life insurance policy should go up. Were they secret because the states have arcane laws or because Wal Mart is murdering its employees? ;) I don't really want to be the WallyWorld defender here. It sounds like Mart thought they knew more about their employees than the insurance company but its a risk the insurance company wanted to take so...

<drowsy rant>As with any big corp I'm gonna assume they are guilty of playing with the system and owning politicians. Thats the danger of allowing the states to sanction corporations, it stops being about personal responsibility, morality, or fear of doing time, and becomes about limiting liability, writing law useful to the company, screwing the system most efficiently, sopping up tax dollars, and out-litigating any trouble makers. Its a modern take on good old fashioned mercantilism. Haliburton gets to play the East India Company in this administrations production but I'm sure Kerry will have his favored actors as well.</drowsy rant>

They were group term policy deals. Strictly actuarial stuff for the insurance companies. Walasaurus was the only one to benefit or in a position to influence the outcome.:(

I still don't get the big picture... why was this bad again? Because they were betting they could kill the employees?

If the customer cares so little about the brand of plastic container they buy that they'll just go get whatever is at Wal-Mart, then it sounds like Wal-Mart is doing them a favor by finding the most economic alternative, and then getting the best deal they can for that product.

Kinda like the whole generic drug situation. Many patients don't know there are generic equivalents to name-brand drugs, so they pay out the nose for the exact same thing in a different package. If Kupperware is almost as good as the "real" thing, at half the price, please explain to me again how the consumers are harmed.

So what about those two people in that small town, who absolutely demand Tupperware? Before, they could go to Mom 'n' Pop's grocery store and get it, and now they can't because Wal Mart drove them out. The reason that Mom 'n' Pop were driven out is that <I>most</I> people liked Wal Mart better. Wal Mart has no power except what they're given by consumers, conspiracy theories aside. Those consumers decided they didn't want to subsidize those two people who want name-brand Tupperware.

The market has spoken.

Just a short chime-in on the life insurance deal. I believe the big stink about the policies wasn't that they were taken out, and in secret, but that the monies from said policies were given to Wal-Mart, not the families of the deceased.

The insurance policy thing came out a few years back. Despite all the sinister-sounding propaganda, what it really seemed to be was a fancy tax shelter.

Yes. They made millions off it.
How would you feel about your doctor having a life insurance policy on you? Walasaurus has more bearing on employees health care than their own doctors.

Okay, but still, there are a number of possible scenarios here.

One is that they figured out that by both denying health care AND taking out life insurance policies, they could duke the system for a while and make a quick buck. Until the insurance companies notice. Which they will, clearly, because they write the damn policies and the checks, and are just as vicious and sneaky as Walmart.

Another is that they looked at demographic studies of their own employee population, found that in certain locations they were very old, and took out policies on that basis simply to manage their own risk without consulting the insurance implications at all.

Another is that some dumb Walmart executive wanted to build his own little empire within the company, and came up with a really complicated scheme to attach finances to hiring policies or something, and BSed his boss that it was a great idea and that he should be in charge of it, and hid the questionable sides of it to protect his own ass.

I believe this is close. If I remember correctly it was a guy in charge of benefits (national) trying to cut expences in his area, but with the approval of higher ups. It was unethical and in most states, illegal. But this is just one incidence of ruthless management.
I'm more concerned with the negative impact on jobs. The more people I know that are unemployed, the less faith I have in the economy, regardless of "leading economic indicators". I don't think I'm alone in this perception. Most of the economists I hear say the the public's perception of the economy has a large effect on it's health. That's why when the stock market tanked the economy kept chugging along.

Life without Wal Mart
 

This is what happens when I don't shop at wal mart. I paid $10 for a hard plastic drinking bottle at Target. Seriously, $10 for this?

(...imagine a pic of a skinny water bottle...)

It was the cheapest I found find of its kind. Sorry, but I usually pay 1/3 of that at Wal Mart. In fact, I was looking at a similar bottle in wal mart 2 weeks ago and put it back on the shelf b/c I thought the price of $3.50 was too much. Now, I can only think "What in the world?!"

I am definitely not used to paying what most middle class families pay. At this rate, I will overspend maybe $500 a year. I am going back to Wal Mart as soon as possible (which unfortunately won't be for 3 more months).

Of course, you could have gone to the quickimart and paid $1 for a "sport cap" bottle of yuppie water or sucky-top Gatorade and reused the bottle ... If it had to be a "hard" bottle with a wider screwcap so you could fit ice cubes in it, Arizona Ice Tea has an insulated sport bottle version too, for around $1.35.

Of course, if you're going for the Barbie or SpongeBob Squarepants graphics, that does cost yah more.

Well, it was one of these. Perhaps "mug" should have been the word of choice, rather than "bottle." Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between mug, cup, bottle, jar, etc... heh

http://migo.net/imgproducts/THELMARE.jpg

I just returned from a trip to Western MN to visit family. I had a discussion with my aunt about Walmart. (She is, like many of my rellies out there, pure gold in my opinion.) She said she's heard negative things about Walmart, but that it allows her to afford things she wouldn't normally be able to afford. She also said Walmart provides more jobs than any Mom'n'Pop stores ever did and that employees seem pretty happy to her (well, I'm not sure on either of those points, especially the former).

It doesn't really matter though, because Walmart is the only dept store within 80 miles of there.

bmgb: I am in the Twin Cities for the summer, and I haven't found a Wal Mart yet. There are like 25 Targets, so that's where I shop. I'm paying about 40% more for everything, which is not making me happy. Once you get used to wal mart's unbeatable prices (unless you shop @ Burma or something), there is no turning back.

Well, given that Target is based in Minneapolis and all...

Yeah, it's weird. I went on a shopping spree at Walmart in Redwood Falls just for the novelty of it... feel kinda guilty though. But they have DVDs for $6! (B-list titles, but I like that crap).

Well, I'm back in the metro area now, so it's back to Target for me.

The upper midwest lobe of the Cellar grows!

Target will grow on you. They have so much stuff that turns over each "season", watch out when it goes on clearance. Super cheap. Check the endcaps.

For a regional adventure, might I suggest a junket to Fleet Farm! Beyond the clothing, housewares, and auto supplies, you can play a great game of "what the hell is this ?!?" in the livestock accessories area. :)

Operation "Rollback"? laf

Fucking a.

It was funny until my editor came over and told me to re-report this story. It's FOUR FUCKING O CLOCK YOU FAT FUCKER!!!&(@!#$(@!*#!@#*(@J#R)J#)RJ{#$PIRLKJG_#$(JTY_(#

What does that mean, you rewrite the story from the wire services with info and quotes from local Wal-Marters?

It means I have to stop jerking off and do something today (although I've filed 1500 words of copy already).

But yeah, you have the right idea. PA attorney general was involved ... they want background on the case and info about arrests in east Pennsylvania (there were 2 or 3).

It started in 1998 as a money laundering investigation in central PA. A year later they started connecting dots to other states (Ohio ... um, NY ... Fla) - which is when they called the feds. No money - but a paddy wagon full of ruskies.

Can't get INS on the phone though ... I have 10 minutes or they're pulling the plug on my rewrite. Thank God. PLEASE EVERYONE keep me occupied!

I like that Cellar has her own news feed now, very cool. Make sure we get the early good stuff when PA office holders melt down. :)

So this theoretical piece would go out in Saturday's edition, or Sunday? This stuff is fascinating to me even if it seems routine to you.

My story was cut (phew!). Wire story will run tomorrow, maybe cops and robbers will follow up with PA stuff on Sunday.

I'm interested in the alien worker aspect (I'm a business reporter, btw). If there is larger ongoing investigation (sure there is), I may pursue as a labor story. I'll keep y'all posted.

Oh, and you have no idea the kind of political dirt that gets tossed around here all day long. You might think the inquirer is better connected, but they're all fucking snobs and have serious corporate vanity issues. We are level-headed middle-class grindstone workers.

I am totally amazed, in this internet world, how little news the Inqy actually covers; what little information is considered enough content for this massive media beast; what crap passes for quality opinion...

Around here the local daily is still the only way anyone is going to get any information about their local pols. The questions remain - my brain reels at them - how to maybe use the net to close the gap. How to monetize that local stuff. What tipping points there are. How stuff can be sold.

What is a blog, UT?

We're not a phenomenal government news source, but our cops and courts reporters get some damn good stories. Harrisburg correspondants do decent coverage, and we cover the community like mold on french cheese.

I think our specialty is municipal absurdities. When shit hits the fan - like the Woodhaven Road extension, sewer authority disagreements - we're there and give a good consistent recant of what kind of dumb shitheads run Bucks county.

I like my position because I don't get caught up with stupid company stock updates like inquirer beat writers - we run stories a day or two late, but with a solid trend story with local appeal. Sad thing is, i'm looking at the inky for my next job - hard to get away from big name press. :(

As a natural career progression (mo money) or to try to improve their paper?:confused:

Blog is too broad a term - it covers both 13-year-old diarists, and major news organizations.

News blogs share news and opinion, and, some people feel, may eventually replace the old media or at least become a major part of the mix.

The problem is that blogs don't make enough money to fund people like you, gathering information and writing. They can only take advantage of the fact that almost every major news information makes a few cents by putting their stories online. If there was no WaPo for them to link to, they would quickly become irrelevant.

On the other hand, bloggers almost never link to Inquirer stories.

I don't know what the Inqy's business writing is like right now. A few years ago, it was awful. Just foul.

It still sucks. They're very straight-laced, conversative and uptight. They haven't caught onto most papers going for the progressive Newsweek-style biz sections.

Courier-Times or Intelligencer?

Courier Times.

Gun store, eh? I wrote a brief earlier this summer about some guy who confessed to stealing a whole arsenal of guns from a Bristol store (with like 10 other guys) and using them to rob a bunch of Wawas.

I read the Courier-Times on occasion--pretty decent paper. Their paper boxes look retarded though.

What, those nasty yellow trash cans?

If you saw the dinosaurs that work in circulation and business, you'd understand why we look like a newspaper from 1960.

Although that's all changing ... they're building a new automated press plant (only 10 years behind that trend) and reducing the physical size of the paper to Philly Inky size. Therefore, our photos will actually be aligned (not blurry), and one will have to hold his/her hands about, oh, four inches closer to read the Courier.

Going after the short arm market?:D