Newsweek recently published an article on Wal-Mart's operations in Mexico. According to the article around 4,300 teenagers work as baggers in the company's Mexican stores, but the company does not pay them for their services. Instead the baggers rely on tips from their customers - a practice which Wal-Mart claims is normal in Mexico. But human rights groups like Global Exchange point to the article of further proof of Wal-Mart's policy of exploitation.
Global Exchange has called Wal-Mart "the poster child for globalization gone awry." The group condemns what it calls "Wal-Mart's long record of worker abuse, from forced overtime to sex discrimination to illegal child labor to relentless union busting." And Global Exchange is not alone in its criticism of Sam Walton's creation.
In May, Human Rights Watch published a report on Wal-Mart entitled: "Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association". The 210 page report details Wal-Mart's zero tolerance policy regarding employee efforts to organize. In practice, the company's tactics have been highly successful at preventing employees from organizing. According to the report, none of Wal-Mart's 1.3 million employees belong to a union.
Wal-Mart's first line of defense against unionization is indoctrination. New employees watch videos and attend training sessions that characterize unions as antiquated, run by embittered employees bent on revenge, unconcerned with the interests of the company or the average employee, or too expensive to join. When employees do attempt to organize, Wal-Mart's managers are required to contact the company's "Union Hotline". Labor specialists and lawyers then provide the manager with advice on how to best quash the organizing effort. The activity is then recorded in a data-base entitled the "Remedy System", which tracks all union and organizing activity at Wal-Mart stores in the U.S.
Wal-Mart also employs a quick reaction force that carries out the company's union busting policies. Akin to the special forces units found in the American military, the LRT is designed to be rapidly deployed to hot spots of union activity.Once on the scene, the team conducts meetings with employees where the interests of the company are emphasized, anti-union propoganda is reiterated, and the interests of the organizing workers are downplayed or ignored all together.
The Human Rights Watch report touches upon some other interesting facts related to Wal-Mart's treatment of its employees. It notes, for example, that between 2000 and 2005 Wal-Mart enjoyed a comfortable lead over its competitors in terms of total numbers of violations of U.S. labor laws. This is the case even when the total violations by seven of Wal-Mart's biggest competitors - Albertson's, Costco, K-Mart, Kroger, Home Depot, Sears, and Target - are combined. Fourteen rulings against Wal-Mart involving violations of labor law from that period continue to stand today. Only four such rulings against the other seven companies continue to stand. This is true despite the fact that, when combined, these other seven companies employ more people and enjoy a total higher revenue than Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has faced a number of legal cases involving labor disputes in the past seven years as well, according to the report. Fifty-seven class action lawsuits claiming that the company broke wage and hour laws have been filed since 2000. The company has been accused of forcing employees to work off the clock, denying breaks to its workers, and failing to pay for over-time. Wal-Mart also faces the biggest class action lawsuit in U.S. history, involving 1.5 million women who claim the company purposefully engaged in sex discrimination in the areas of wages and salary, advancement, job assignments, and training opportunities.
The Human Rights Watch report also alleges that Wal-Mart eliminates long-term employees in order hire new ones at lower wages. An internal memo to the company's board of directors reads as follows, "Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an Associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an Associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity." Wal-Mart denies that it engages in such a practice.
The report notes that Wal-Mart's profits for the fiscal year ending in January of 2007 stood at around $11.3 billion. A nice sum. One has to wonder why such a wealthy company cannot afford to dole out a few extra benefits or a few extra dollars an hour to its hard working employees. Instead, the company seems comfortable operating from a paranoid position that imagines unionized workers pillaging the corporations vast profits. It is time for Wal-Mart's corporate leadership to realize that what their workers want is their fair share.
"Our World" is a weekly column published by Gather Political Correspondent David Anderson. You can read all of his correspondent pieces under the tag, "live from new hampshire".
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 113
Wal-mart fights unions because unions drive up wages and would drive the company out of buisness, just like they have killed the us automakers.
You can find single events in single stores about any large chain brand. Wal-mart is not an evil horrible insitution that many liberal activists groups want them to be. Most of their workers are happy and there is a lot of promotion and opportunites for those who work there. Unlike many other places in American people who start as a cashier can move into managment and end up high up in the Wal-mart organization.
They have a rather strict policy against tipping in the United States, but I wouldn't be surprised if they would allow tipping if it meant they could legally get out of paying people to work at Wal-Mart. (Incidentally, I've known quite a few stockpeople who've gladly accepted tips from customers, company policy or not.)
John:
Wal-Mart does occasionally change its policies, but usually only when the cost of doing so is much less than the expected return on investment. (Case in point - their current 'environmental sustainability' initiative has come about after years of being slapped with EPA fines, and seems mostly focused on ways the company can save money through more efficient design. The average employee paycheck has not seen much change.)
And, heh, considering that I'm a former Wal-Mart associate who was a few months away from that seven-year point at which we actually get fully vested in our profit sharing plan, before getting terminated for resting (after suffering an injury on the job that I'm still getting treated for, and being placed on restricted duty) at unauthorized times instead of searching our 180,000 square foot store for one of the only two managers in the building, I'm not the person to ask for a good opinion of Wal-Mart's employment practices. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Wal-Mart employs the desperate, of which there is never a short supply. They cut costs by shortstaffing their departments, and constantly remind associates of the mercurial nature of their position - "Wal-Mart or the associate may terminate the associate's employment at any time, for any reason". They are in business to turn as much profit as possible, whether it involves extorting their associates, suppliers, or customers.
At least they stopped the practice of collecting on life insurance policies for associate deaths... (supposedly.)
Most associates are happy? You obviously haven't seen a supercenter's checkout lines. As for promotion opportunities, Wal-Mart's staffing ensures that advancement within the company is slow, arduous, and often requires transferring to stores across the country (at least, when you enter the salaried range). I know one assistant manager who was an intern for several years (paid as an hourly associate, but with the responsibilities of an assistant manager), because there simply wasn't room for him to advance. They recently opened a new Wal-Mart in Rio Grande, which is how he finally got his promotion to assistant manager. (No comment on whether unions driving Wal-Mart out of business would be a good or bad thing.)
When your buying your goods from China, Malaysia, Mexico and places like them where people are getting paid 30 cents an hour to work. Thats how Wal-Mart can make so much money. This is as far as I look at it Slavery at best. Just think about 5 pairs of Jeans that were made in one hour in China for 30 cents plus material. Even if Wal-Mart paid 5 dollars a pair and then turned around and sold them for 15 a pair what kind of profit margin is that? Our Big Bisuness has turned into Slave Profiteers. Make as much as you can as fast as you can and who cares who gets stepped on in the process. We have a Wal-Mart moving into town where I live and I think its the biggest mistake we have ever made allowing them to build there.
The folks that run Walmart are the very, very rich. Why are you picking on such a fine, educated, royal crew. They have their ways, we must respect them because deep down they are full...of...full off wisdom and they care for every single employee that they have. The money they have and earn is for all the good and wonderful love they have for all their employees!
But for the foolish that all have a bit of Imus in them let me sin a bit in word.
All the women biggies that run Walmart should visit and apply for work with some of those fancy dressed Pimps in Manhattan and the the men biggies sould see the other Pimps that specialize in selling what those male biggies sit on. And please remember, while they performed their work...they would not in any way be sinning because they would be paid well, have great benefits and performing a much needed service. (And of course, paid well.)
Now I'll apologize for writing that Jerry Forwell is downstairs blowing the Devil....Rev. Forwell...I'm sorry....So sorry....You're going to have lots of company before you're finished...Oops...I didn't mean it to come out that way....
I guess it's time for another dose of Zyprexa, and a touch of aspirin?
Because if they don't give Wal-Mart their best price (even if it means cutting deeply into their profits), they'll end up like Rubbermaid. Sometime, I'd like to go around and find out what the profit margin is on the same item at various stores ... but somehow I don't think there'd be a lot of willingness of stores to participate. Still, now it's a thought. Hmmm.
Shoppers, mostly older women who had no car, would pay us in the form of tips (anywhere from 25 cents to a dollar, depending on what they could afford and how we treated them). A&P didn't pay us a plug nickle. We never thought they should. We were quite happy making anywhere from $5 to $25 for a full day's work.
One could argue that these customers went to the A&P with the expectation that someone would carry their groceries home, so A&P should have paid us as well.
Is someone in Mexico is dragging these kids off the streets and forcing them to bag for free and just rely on tips?
Stop whining. If you don't like WalMart's practices, don't shop there. If you think they're abusive to their employees, don't shop or work their.
Wal-Mart wants to pay nothing to their workers if it can get away with it.
Pathetic. Just a bunch of losers and thieves at Wal-Mart
I do not shop at WalMart and encourage others not to do so either. I try to educate people on the things discussed in your article and the comments and other issues with WalMart, but the truth is that most people don't really care about these things. They have a vision that what they are getting is cheaper and so they go. Although, the prices aren't really that much cheaper, when they are cheaper. I've done comparison shopping between WalMart and Target and other stores and don't see a huge difference. Prices fluctuate weekly on products at all stores, so it keeps people guessing.
My personal experience in going to a WalMart is it is an unpleasant environment with crowded aisles, rude employees, and crap service. I understand that employees who aren't treated well are certainly not going to treat their customers well. Maybe WalMart needs to recognize that.
Thanks for adding to the info out there and bringing the subject back out front. It's important to share information with each other. If people choose to not care about the implications of the information, that's their decision, but at least they have something on which to base their choice.
I did the same thing when I was a young boy. It was a great way to make some pocket change. Wal-Mart has been known to advise its associates about how to obtain welfare benefits because they know that they aren't paying a living wage. To have such terrific profits and not pay the help well is criminal. They would provide better service and the store would still be around as a good neighbor instead of the eyesore that they are.
Furthermore, any company that can't be good to the employee won't ultimately be good to the customer.
The Capitalistic model says that if we start out with this kind of thing economic growth will lead to a higher standard of living. That is may take longer than our lifetimes is a good reason to talk about it and regulate it, and that is happening.
I read a book called the Wal-Mart Effect, that talked about WM from many different aspects. I heard the author speak and even emailed him. It is a good book and can open your eyes about what WM does and how it behaves.
I think when a corporation does something wrong or commits a crime, there should be hell to pay, but that does not mean anytime you read something about corporations doing anything it is automatically time to bring out the hammer and bash them. Why is it that people find it so hard to be reasonable or objective.
I think we need to educate people more, and then we also need to see more progress from corporations so that people have a real understanding and secure feeling from first hand experience that corporations are good ... or can be.
I can think of at least two similar chains (on a smaller scale) that operated the same type of business as WalMart -- E. J. Korvettes (a play on words for "Eight Jewish Korean Veterans") and Two Guys.
Both companies were driven out of business when their employees unionized and demanded higher pay and benefits.
Again, if you don't like their practices, boycott them. But remember, you'll not only be hurting WalMart, you're more likely to hurt the employees who, until WalMart arrived in their town, had no job -- at least no better job.
I've never been inside one, by the way. Frankly, I wouldn't trust the stuff they sell.
I worked for Ma Bell and watched as they went from companies that took great care of employees, customers and shareholders. Then greed set in. They show no concern for anybody any more. And guess what? They're making money hand over fist.
Every corporation has problems. If you do a search of class action suits you will find every single big corporation in at least ten. I know K-Mart has been sued for gift card fraud as well as wage discrimination. I know for a fact that pepboys has at least twenty law suits pending for time card fixing, discrimination, not standing behind parts sold and more. Target is another company that doesn't support any thing in america because they are a French company. Target doesn't mind taking American money but they won't support our causes.
As far as the labor unions. I am not sure that they are a good thing. I have seen a lot of big companies leave Maryland or go out of business because they could not affort the big salaries.
So I guess as a poor person I have to buy where I get the best price. Sorry
In terms of your anti-union arguments I would say that, once again, gross generalizations rarely capture the truth. In terms of our countries history, corporations have been protected by the law to a far greater degree than the interests of workers and unions. Unions have become less powerful, and their goals have become less and less demanding over time. Often management and unions have worked together, even resulting in lower wages in the interests of long-term viability. In many companies the relationship between union and management is not all that antogonistic. Indeed, if unions supply members with health insurance it saves a company money. So I don't think your argument that unions destroyed the auto industry is relevant. Perhaps unionization contributed to some degree, but one also has to factor in the hefty salaries of management, the decades of producing a poor product at a high price, and the reliability of imported vehicles into the mix.
Companies did not do these things out of the goodness of their hearts, labor unions made them happen.
Companies that make money off the labor of their workforce need to share the largess. A large company with huge profits such as WalMart, paying employees so little that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid is reprehensible.
Why aren't some of the neocons decrying WalMart using tax payer funds to supplement there work force? Double standard maybe?
If you don't think unions are good, go to the library and read about the formation of the american labor movement, start with the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Then the next time someone babbles about unions ruining our country you will know their real agenda.
The book points out some good stuff and some bad stuff about Wal-Mart.
One good thing that we do not normally think about is what Wal-Marts massive influence in the marketplace can do. Wal-Mart realized that when they sell shampoo, or deodorant, or a number of products that are in plastic bottles, they used to see a carboard box with them as well. Wal-Mart was the first to go to these producers and say, ship me the product without the box, 1/3 of the saving will go to you, 1/3 of the saving will go to Wal-Mart, and 1/3 of the savings goes to the consumer. No more thousands of tons of cardboard, ink, and chemicals in landfills. Now this practice is almost universal.
There are several stories like this, and some that go the other way. The pull Wal-Mart has is a powerful thing and is sometimes used for good.
I also met Sam Walton on several occasions. The first time I met him was in 1978 when I was working there part-time. I was gathering shopping carts from the parking lot when I noticed this old rusty Ford pick-up park in the front of the store. When the driver got out of the truck, I noticed that he was wearing a buisness suit and a baseball cap ( which I thought was an odd combination) . Then the baseball cap buisness suit wearing man walked up to me and said " Hi....I'm Sam Walton"
My first thought was " Just why is the owner of a retail chain driving and old rusty Ford pick-up truck? Surely this is a front as well as a publicity stunt?"
All in all, after meeting Sam several times, listening to his speeches at company meetings and actually driving him to the airport once, I can tell you first hand that what you are witnessing from Wal-Mart nowadays is ' Sam's Dream ' ....the human rights violations, exploitation of cheap labor overseas..the whole bit.
Of course most people back in those days saw Sam as a person who cared about his customers as well as his associates, however I personally witnessed Sam threatening associates on more than one occasion.
Again..what you are witnessing from Wal-Mart nowadays is ' Sam's Dream ' ..I seriously doubt that he is turning in his grave. His children are living up to his expectations.
Regarding Wal-Mart, well everyone has summed it up pretty well. They sell themselves as "American" but everything is made in sweatshops overseas; they keep prices low until the competition is consumed and then prices go up dramatically (predatory pricing); they sell some products at a loss for instance (gasoline, online dvd rentals, etc.) only to devour new markets. Essentially they are proof that competitive capitalism is nice on paper but without government intervention is not feasible.
Marilee, I think a whole host of social issues would fall right in line if we could somehow modify this motive, or insure fair and global regulation of corporations, and just maybe we could get past the knee-jerk idea that we are doing something politically progressive by sitting at home and insulting Wal-Mart and not shopping there.
Bruce,
This is the same old defense employed by corporations that outsource or go overseas so that they can avoid American standards. These are standards that have taken a long time to develop in our country, and naturally corporations like Wal-Mart essentially attempt to go around them. It might be justifiable if these corporations simply set up shops elsewhere and employed citizens from other countries but that is not really the case. First they are subsidized (heavily) by American taxpayers (for instance, Wal-Mart does not offer a reasonable health plan, instead they pay their employees poverty wages which enables them to qualify for government assistance; that is Wal-Mart health-care plan).
What we have is AMerican transnational corporations that were made competitive and big through American governmental support but yet refuse to accept our progressive ideals on a living wage, working conditions, etc. You cant have it both ways; if you want to employ people in Honduras go right ahead, but be a Honduras company and demand support from that govt not ours.
What Wal-Mart is doing is exploiting countries by pitting them against one another and driving down wages and conditions. I will set up a new store in Honduras or Guatemala depending on who is willing to work for the least and for the longest hours and in the worst condition. Just like when Wal-Mart comes to your neighborhood suddenly wages go down because everyone has to compete with wal-Mart and slash their benefits packages. Proft-making might be a natural feature to capitalism but it doesnt make it right. And we shouldnt applaud Wal-Mart for anything.
They symbolize everything that is wrong with the modern corporation: profit over people.
In the long run--and in spite of Wal-Mart's buying power and the supposed benefits--no one benefits from the company's ability to supply the mass consumption of all the cheap plastic crap the companty sells. The old belief that growth is everything needs to really be reconsidered, and so does our insistence that Wal-Mart is a prerequisite to living a good life. Its unsustainable. And less is more.
So no, I dont believe I benefit from Wal-Mart in any way, shape or form. It may save me a dollar or two on soap and a tee-shirt now, but in the long run it is just fueling our disasterous path to ecological destruction and the lowering of socio-economic standards everywhere.
> and the supposed benefits--no one benefits from the
> company's ability to supply the mass consumption of
> all the cheap plastic crap the companty sells.
.... in your opinion.
You are throwing out so many emotional feel-good
sound bytes here ...
* cheap plastic crap
Plastic does not mean cheap or poor quality, this meaningless
phrase is just an cheap plastic emotional pseudo-fact.
* that Wal-Mart is a prerequisite to living a good life.
No one is saying that, but there are millions of low income
people who can only afford to buy things at Wa-Mart and
patronizing attitude towards them can hurt them.
* Its unsustainable
The fact is that Wal-Mart is the biggest and most efficient
business on the planet, it manages and improves products
yearly by the millions, and you need to preface your remarks
with, "don't confuse me with the facts, I am determined to
hate Wal-Mart whatever I hear or need to deny".
Wal-Mart as I mentioned and your mind is closed to hearing
is doing thing to help the environment. They well know if
they they promote environmental and human policies it
will be good for them.
A lot of you do not realize that a business needs to repond
to competition and complaints, like you are all bringing up.
Wal-Mart is not going to go away anytime soon, the best
you can do is to educate yourself about them, and nail them
when they are wrong, but also, give them a break when they
do something good.
Like it or not, believe it or not, Wal-Mart is so huge that it
does help quality and prices even on other stores.
That, in turn, has helped make our $400 billion dollar a year trade deficit with China .....so that the Chinese govt is now a huge holder of US treasury notes (hint: that means Bush's budget deficits are being underwritten with Chinese debt instruments)
So, they got us coming, going, and all bent over!
Solution? Don't buy anything that says: Made in China.....
Check this out:The FREE TIBET Group on Gather
Today is the start of the Tibet Awareness Protests all over the world!
You all can do something to help this mess. Just stop buying stuff you don't really need...and avoid buying anything from China at WalMart! :-)
Simple! Et volia!
:-)
Modern Publius - Unions have not destroyed the car industry in the United States. Yes, benefit costs are high. You might want to spread some of the blame for that to the health care industry. The basic reason the car industry in this country is all but destroyed is due to about 40 years of shortsightedness on their part. They never learn. After the oil embargo of the 70's they just kept their total focus on gas guzzling vehicles. Foreign car companies have not done that.
business on the planet, it manages and improves products
yearly by the millions, and you need to preface your remarks
with, "don't confuse me with the facts, I am determined to
hate Wal-Mart whatever I hear or need to deny".
Wal-Mart as I mentioned and your mind is closed to hearing
is doing thing to help the environment. They well know if
they they promote environmental and human policies it
will be good for them."
Bruce,
I appreciate your comments and the discussion were having. Its an important one.
Maybe I am guilty of my own emotional biases towards Wal-Mart, but this does not mean that nothing I have accused Wal-Mart of is based on objective truths. In fact you intentionally avoided the important points I made on Wal-Mart. Im not suprised, really.
You have not really taken up my accusations. You have side stepped them like a Wal-Mart rep would. Heres the facts.
First:
Wal-Mart is only cheap until the competition is ousted. Surely you are not so naive to believe that wal-Mart acts on altruistic, moral values like keeping prices low so that the working class can survive. If this were the case, they would be violating their own principle, the holy principle, of what is in the interest of stock holders. In fact, wal-Mart has only one rule: increase shareholder value. Profit. Profit. Profit. That means predatory pricing when needed.
Wal-Mart will sell gasoline and lose money until they have effectively put out local retailers and then prices go up, naturally. It is not benevolence. It is capitalism.
This also means putting out mom and pop shops.
Two, Wal-Mart depends on the government subsidizing its profit making by not offering a decent health care package. Instead employees make low enough wages that they can qualify for government programs. This in turn shifts the responsibility to tax payers like me and you.
Three, Wal-Mart is not the environmental defender you pretend them to be. On this issue I would accuse you of employing emotions in your assesments. Look at all the communities that are now rejecting Wal-Mart's arrival precisely because of their run-off and environmental carelessness, among other reasons not to want a Wal-Mart.
Finally,
Wal-Mart pits governments versus governments. I will use Littleton, Co and Fort Collins, Co as an example. Wal-Mart demands the government subsidize the creation of a wal-Mart, which provides low wages and therefore drives down living standards in the area, so therefore these govmts bid to pay wal-Mart to come to their town. Hows that for absurdity!!
You have also not shown how Wal-Mart does not have the effect of driving down living standards, or making other companies compete by cutting their health programs and benefits to match Wal-Mart.
My thesis is that Wal-Mart, as a phenomenon, is not a good one. Sure "good" is subjective, but there is enormous proof that Wal-Mart has a terrible effect on the very people it is supposedly helping.
Instead of attacking me, why not attack my complaints with Wal-Mart. I will address your statements and agree that Wal-Mart has buying power and basically can bully retailers to make prices low. But so what? At what cost to consumers?
Please reply back and clear up these attacks and dont dismiss them like Wal-Mart does...
I know that you are only concerned with "facts", though you despise
"emotional feel-good sound bytes", but who is guilty of the latter (fluff, emotion, sound bytes) and not the former (facts)? You keep cheerleading Wal-Mart's benevolent attempts to be an environmental leader without any supporting facts and overwhelming evidence that Wal-Mart is a destructive force for the environment.
Here is some facts for you, provided courtesy of Wal-Mart Watch:
_______________________________________________________
http://walmartwatch.com/press/releases/wal_mart_announces_acres_for_
america/
WAL-MART'S ENVIRONMENTAL MALFEASANCE AND LEGAL WOES IN THE STATES
Wal-Mart Fined $3.1 Million In 2004 For Environmental Violations In Nine States.
The U.S. Justice Department in 2004 levied $3.1 million in fines to Wal-Mart. The fines stemmed from environmental violations namely excessive storm water
runoff at construction sites at 24 of its sites in nine states. In the federal settlement, the corporation is charged with failing to get required permits, not instituting a runoff control plan, and failing to install controls to prevent
discharges. The nine states are California, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. [Associated Press, 5/12/04]
Florida: Wal-Mart Fined $765,000 for Petroleum Storage Violations.
Wal-Mart was levied $765,000 in fines for violating Florida's petroleum storage
tank laws at its automobile service centers. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection said that Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks with
the state and failed to install devices that prevent overflows, among other problems. As well, Wal-Mart also did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked
current technologies to prevent overflows, blocked state inspectors from
reviewing maintenance records, and failed to submit proper insurance documentation. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]
Georgia: Wal-Mart Levied With Fines For Water Contamination.
"The violations included failure to maintain silt fencing around the construction sites, failure to install detention ponds to prevent runoff, and failure to keep records, according to the EPD. Mud from the sites ran into creeks in the Alcovy
River basin. Construction site runoff is the biggest polluter of Georgia's waters.
EPD [Environmental Protection Division ] Assistant Director David Word said the severity of the violations warranted the fines, which are some of the highest
levied by EPD for violations of the federal Clean Water Act. EPD fined Wal-Mart $95,000 for a Monroe site and $65,000 for a Loganville site." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05]
Headline: "EPA Takes Action Against Wal-Mart, Its Contractor for Clean Water
Act Violations at Construction Site" [EPA release, 1/24/05]
Wal-Mart Settled Case Involving Clear Air Act Violations. "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed Jan. 22 to pay $400,000 to settle claims that its Sam's Club stores
violated federal air pollution regulations in 11 states, including Missouri. U.S. Attorney Todd Graves filed suit in Kansas City federal court, charging Wal-Mart
with 20 Clean Air Act violations." [The Business Journal, 1/30/04]
_______________________________________________________________
And this is only a very small sample. In other words, if Wal-Mart were a person then such a person would be behind bars for such an extensive record of
criminal activity.
We can add to our list of complaints that Wal-Mart has no regard for laws. So before you accuse me of speaking on emotion please check your "facts". Just because Wal-Mart says it wants to be environmentally friendly does not mean
it is. It is simply PR just like their benevolent "community service" initiatives. The money the company spends on such "image building" is more then made up for with its huge profits.
> You keep cheerleading Wal-Mart's benevolent attempts
> to be an environmental leader
I am not a cheerleader for Wal-Mart - PERIOD.
I informed myself about Wal-Mart and all is not how it appears from
the JEER-leader's point of view ... is all I was saying.
Wal-Mart is certainly not an environmental leader, but they are a
US Corporation, and unlike many groups in this world do respond
to their image, and public and consumer pressure.
Like all corporations they will try to buy their way out of it, or
cover things up ... it is the people's responsibility to keep after
government and industry .,.. but they do not do it.
The other thing is that I hear people saying unconditionally good
things about Target, or Costco ... what do we really know about
them? Is what we hear true? Greed is not unique to Wal-Mart.
Maybe most Americans are OK with Wal-Mart because they are
OK with that kind of greed. Maybe the vocal hateful bile spewing
minority that hates Wal-Mart is perfectly right ... so what ... what
are any of them going to do about it, and what is the good
in being uninformed and prejudiced about something when you need
to convince other people to join you in boycotting Wal-Mart?
You are speaking on emotion Gustavo, there is nothing necessarily
wrong about that, it is just that most American or foreign businesses
are as bad or worse than Wal-Mart. You are picking out an innovative
business to single out over issues because you just do not like
Wal-Mart. I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
Someone is shopping there. What good does all your bad feeling
do? Does it make you feel better? Good!
I hear a lot of mean talk aiming hate and anger at Bush, or Wal-Mart,
or whatever ... and this talk makes no sense to me. Why not go nuts
on Sear? Or 7-11. Coke ... there is a good one -symbolic of everything,
what greed - selling the world sugar water that rots their teeth out.
I just think there is a big picture that is worth talking about ... I don't
get anything by sitting here agreeing with fanatical people who just
spew the same stuff here day after day.
Wal-Mart is an employer. We have laws and they get busted for violations. People complain about Wal-mart but why can't they be responsible for their own lifes. Why is it always someone elses fault? Did anyone put a gun on your head to go work there? Oh I know the big company came in and all the little guys went bankrupt. We live in an evolving society. Are you going after the auto industry because you worked for a Horse and Buggy company and now you have a lot full of carriages that you can't move?
I work for a company where I get paid a little less then what I could make somewhere else. I like it here. My family likes it here. Should I get on the web and complain about unfair wages because I think I am worth more? NO its MY choice to work here. You know what makes companies change? LOOSING employees. Turn overs is one of the most expensive things for ANY company. If you don't like it go find another job. Go to school and educate yourself. We have a HUGE nursing shortage. Huge Teacher shortage, heck even OTHER retail companies are hurting for more employees if you just want to make a lateral move. Quit complaining and take some responsibility for your future.
At what point do you apply ethics to business practices and hold the Corporate heads accountable for there actions? I agree that turnover is a good tool to use but when a Corporate Giant like Wal-Mart comes to a small town that is put under by them where are people supposed to go then? They are captive by the wims of Wal-Mart ethics. Victor a question I have asked in the past is when is enough money enough and at what cost to your employees? This world is a me first and the hell with the rest of you breeding ground and that starts at home, that is a learned trait. How do we fix it?
I read your response and found much of it agreeable. I respect your position, and I would like to just agree to disagree with you on this particular issue, because you always offer excellent insight on subjects and further debate. I just cant agree with you entirely on wal-Mart. But your point on the "big picture" has some truth to it..
Another thing that was in "The Wal-Mart Effect" was that studies have shown there is a small negative effect on jobs, but not much in terms of businesses closing. Some or most of that effect can be due to smaller inefficient businesses not being able to compete.
The mob mentality on this issue has made Wal-Mart really careful about giving out any infomation at all about themselves - and the misunderstanding of Americans - their inability to understand most issues of mathematics, business or law.
I forget the name of the person who did the study on Wal-Mart, but she could not even get a list of all the Wal-Mart stores, and when they opened to be able to compare. She had to compile the list on her own, and then go to the cities in question and look through old newpaper clips to find articles about when the new Wal-Mart opened.
Why don't people do productive things that are not so easy as ranting on the Internet, like supporting regulations on businesses and requiring them to produced information about themselves so citizens know what is going on.
One more thing. One of the reasons Wal-Mart does not have great benefits you can discern by comparing their profit per employee.
Microsoft makes $177,000 per employee, that is why there are great benefits. They do not need lots of unskilled people, they do not even produce a physical product, it is all just symbolics ... Wal-Mart on the other hand is almost the exact opposite. WM makes $6000 per employee.
Considering the people who work at Wal-Mart, what do you think their risk is for Medical insurance. They are poorer people with health problems, probably many with children, it is more understandable, though not entirely understandable why health insurance is not offered. How many of the smaller Mom and Pop stores offer a health plan?
Where did you get the 6K per employee stat? Just wondering? Why dont we use, lets say JC Penny or Sears as a Comparison that way we are staying in the same balpark and even Target. Does Target pay better and give there employees benefits? Why is it that I as a consumer hear the same hoopla about Target? Its the same kind of store.
Correction on my last post. Why is it that I as a consumer dont hear the same hoopla about Target as I do about Wal-Mart? Target and K-Mart are the same kind of store but I dont hear people complaining about them.
One thing is that Target, Costco are not the same kind of stores. I do not remember the whole spiel on what the exact differences where. mostly that Wal-Mart manages like 10x the number of products, and the supply chain. there were several important differences, good and bad. I think there is no question about it, Costco is a more socially responsible store. The prices are slightly higher, the seletion lower. WalMart has grown more to be the largest because of its business model. There is something like 90% of Americans live less than 30 minutes from a Wal-Mart ... that is something Costco cannot match. If WalMart outgrew Costco and wins the battle, what does that say?
Oh found one ... check this out ... this is a mostly costco pov -
> Sinegal was asked in a recent Bloomberg TV interview about
> the company's health-care benefits. Costco provides health
> insurance to its 93,000 domestic employees and pays 90%
> of the cost, which runs about $6,000 annually per employee.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx?page=all
Here is another white paper about wal-mart and how it is "progressive"?
The claim is kind of absurd, but that is because the whole argument of
nice/mean, progressive/regressive, socially conscious is kind of a ficticious
one. My first job when I started working, I worked for a Mom and Pop type
business ... the pay was totally dirt. I probably would not have worked for a Wal-Mart had they existed, but I would have been better off. Small business are not necessarily socially conscious either, every penny they had to pay me and the 5 other employess that worked there came out of their own bottom line.
There is a lot behind these systems that does not come up in a fair argument. Like most things in America or elsewhere, people lie to promote their own best interest. We attack Wal-Mart because we feel bad about the whole sector of people who have to work there, or the poor. But we do not look at the overall big picture.
Neither do the Capitalists though either, they just look at profit.
My major bottom line is global. As it is easier to get Indians and Chinese and the third world to appreciate education or work, and as labor markets open up globally, Americans are getting screwed. It is not an unfair screwing ... whatever that means, in that why should'nt people all over the world have the right to work jobs and improve themselves and sell their labor to world markets?
What benefits Americans most is the rule of law, stability, and countries that enter our sphere of influence and can hook up to our standards.
In other words how can workers of the world unite and demand "fair" whatever that means wages while these difference sphere of influence exist with labor, trade, environmental and civil rights gaps.
When so-called progressives attack American "hegemony" - the extension of our economic, legal and trades system as "imperialism" we set back our own issues in many ways. For as long as it takes to get one universal system ... which many people demonize with these stories about 666 and the mark of the beast, as long as we have all these warring factions, china, russis, europe, american, south america, pacific rim, etc, the more we will have no standards and economic war ... meaning labor and environment will pay the price ... like Walmart and Costco ... we end up with the Walmarts because it grows faster and gains control faster.
the longer it takes to get one system the longer the workers everywhere will have to wait to get better conditions and better environment, and the longer the people in the developed countries will have to see their living standard decline. at least in my opinion, I'd like to be more able to prove this with facts.
I worked for WM during their seasonal increases for 2 years. The store I worked at was the only place I've ever worked at that I actually got real breaks. (previous employment was management in fast food.) BUT, you could tell the propaganda from their all day orientation which forced you to watch "union---bad, non union---good" speeches. The vidoes appeared that they were created for "Stepford," and were unnerving at best. I needed the job, and at that time they paid about $2 an hour higher than many other places, but that was only because of "points" I earned by having so much previous experience in cash handling and longevity at Taco Bell.
There are MANY low skill jobs which allow for promotion, not just Wal-Mart. Many of those places will also reimburse you for successful completion of college as you work your way up. Wal-Mart is pure unadulterated greed and I've watched them run 6 smaller businesses out of town when they first arrived here. I refuse to buy Wal-Mart.
1. What Walmart does is morally wrong, but legally right -- like most corporations.
2. I believe that unions are necessary and need more power, but it takes the union members to give the union strength.
3. While we won't get as much sympathy because we're paid a little better, but most management employees are being forced to work 60+ hours per week just to complete assigned tasks. Believe me it takes its toll.
I will also say that as long as they continue to keep their customers in spite of their policies, they will continue to exploit their employees.
No matter what their per employee profit, they are one of THE largest employers in the nation, and are in NO WAY going to be hurt by paying an above poverty level wage AND providing medical insurance!
Yes there ARE mom and pop companies that provide insurance AND pay decent wages!!! And at the expense of their bottom line. There are those businesses out there that think like I and my cousin do. If you take good care of your employees, they will take care of the business!!
I have never been so pompous as to think that my business would be just as good without the people who work for me. The problem with Wal-Mart and many other big corporations is that they have forgotten that without the employees, those at the top could NOT live the elite lifestyle they live!! Curb the greed of those at the top, distribute the profits more toward those who are actually responsible for the bottom line, and that bottom line will continue to grow.
There has always been the adage that you must spend money to make money. What more important avenue to spend than on those who will ultimately bring in the money.
When I would walk into a Wal-mart store and could not receive decent customer service, who was I supposed to blame, the underpaid employee or the company that is responsible for creating the indifferent attitude? I blame the company, and now refuse to patronize the store at all!!
Wal-Mart is just another example of the corporate excess that is destroying our middle class, and the family is benefitting heavily by it.