The Wal-Mart hatred bandwagon is a load of crap...

[Zer_]

You're seriously defending a company that attempted to pay its workers with company scrip? [http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN0546591320080905]

Sure, being paid $0.15 per hour is better than starving, but it's also fucking heinous when you consider that the company made $11.3bn [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1551.html] in profits in 2007. Does the corporation not owe a living wage to the workers that made them that 11 billion?

Just because the situation isn't as bad as it could be doesn't mean that it can't be any better.

EDIT: I re-read the beginning of your post and I just can't make sense of it. Are you saying that Wal-Mart making the areas surrounding it measurably poorer is somehow not Wal-Mart's fault?

The research done on the issue was dodgy at best. They saw a Wal-Mart get built somewhere (somewhere that could have already been on a downslide), then they monitor the area without taking into consideration the hundreds of other factors that could have affected the economy. Wal-Mart isn't causing poverty. Poverty causes Wal-Mart.

I've already explained why Wal-Mart is against labor unions. It goes against Wal-Mart's policy of providing goods at a lower price.

The books and movie(s) that some of you are referring to are nothing more then another way to make a profit on something. So yes these books and documentaries are biased because that's how they make a profit off of it.

 

[SuperUberBob]

Wal-Mart doesn't need defending.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Hoho! Looks like someone watches Penn & Teller here! I am thankful for this forums good taste in television shows.

 

[Zer_]

1. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. They should have CALLED THE POLICE. They should have CLOSED THE STORE. Somebody DIED. Hello? Do they really need the profits from that one store so badly they're willing to let one of their own employees rot on the floor to make a little money? I can't imagine any decent store (Bi-Mart, Target, Sears) pulling this kind of garbage.

The stampede broke through the door. They did call the police, and they did close the store. It was re-opened later on after the mess had been cleared up. Just because the World Trade Center was destroyed, should all of America shut down? Think a little. The other employees working in that Wal-Mart work there for a reason, and if they shut down the store, they aren't making money to fund their education or feed their families.

They SAW how many people were out there. They should have done something about it... Something better than sending 10 minimum-wage employees out to hold back the crowd. It IS their fault (although it's also the fault of the employees who thought their cruddy pay was WORTH obeying their bosses for.)

I'm sure this was covered in the Wal-Mart official stampede prevention plan... Oh wait...

2. There are plenty of other placed that sell low-priced goods without all of the crud and hassle of Wal-Mart. If you want electronics at a low price, shop online. If you want food, try places like Winco and Fred Meyer. Not only are these places MUCH nicer to shop in, they employ people who actually care and MAY even have some idea what they are doing. Wal-Mart is NOT the only place to buy things for cheap. It's absurd to even suggest that people will have to "go without" if a Wal-Mart isn't around.

Tell that to a single mother feeding her kids on a low wage salary at Wal-Mart. But you're right, a lot of people don't need Wal-Mart, just like we don't need McDonald's or Target. You're just targeting Wal-Mart because you hate it. I call that discrimination.

3. Hmm... Maybe I'm leaving myself open to misinterpretation. Because of the low quality of the service, the absolute focus on prices and the hassle associated with shopping at Wal-Mart, people will frequently shop there without bathing/wearing clean clothes/taking needed medication/ doing their daily sanity checks. I'm not saying I'm any better than them, just that some of the people there aren't people I'd want to be in a dark alley with. If you would, fine.

Oh so now your generalizing the type of people who shop at Wal-Mart? Get off your podium jackass. Last time I checked, Wal-Mart's service was pretty good.

4. As somebody else said, you can have both if you know where to shop. As long as you're not in a pawn shop/secondhand electronics store, MOST stores will give refunds for valid complaints with receipts. I can have what I want at a good price AND be able to return it if it doesn't work, so why would I shop someplace where I lose one of those choices (or both, considering the selection at Wal-Mart is pretty poor.)?

Wrong. Most stores only accept exchanges. If everyone and their mother was allowed to refund something, then it would get abused. Wal-Mart is protecting themselves by having policies on refunds and exchanges, this isn't anything new or evil.

5. Wal-Mart is a bad place to shop because it's almost ALWAYS crowded with the literally unwashed masses. Opening more stores only gives them more business, and I don't think it'll help keep the crowds manageable.

Discrimination. Ass.

6. What, I'm not allowed to hate them because I'm smart enough to mostly shop elsewhere? I never said I've NEVER shopped there. Actually it's like if I met someone, decided he/she was a jerk, then stopped hanging around them. Then somebody told me I had no right to complain because I never knew them. I know firsthand about all of Wal-Mart's evil, so I feel perfectly within my rights to hate them. My grandfather even worked for them. He's in his sixties, and they had him working graveyard shift all the time. Nice people, huh? Oh, and they really DON'T care about their employees. Just trust me, they don't.

This is a fact that isn't isolated to Wal-Mart alone. Again you're just pinning it on Wal-Mart out of discrimination.

Barnes and Noble point: Shopping is about convenience. If shopping isn't convenient anymore, why don't I just take up farming? But seriously, with the ease of internet shopping, stores should be trying to provide customers with intangible reasons to choose shopping in person over buying online. Things like customer service, employing smart people who know what they're doing and making transactions smooth and painless. Wal-Mart does none of these things.

I'll let the fact that you just called Wal-Mart employees stupid slide. A lot of shoppers don't need good service to be satisfied. When I go do my grocery shopping I rarely ask where I can find anything because I know where everything is. If I need a piece of meat cut then yeah the butcher is there to take my service, just like the Pharmacist is behind the counter at Wal-Mart.

This isn't about "wonderful things falling on me," it's about being able to find WHAT I WENT THERE LOOKING FOR. If it's not in stock and never will be, then I wasted a trip. I think most people would agree that going to a store looking for something you would expect them to have, then hearing that they don't have it is pretty annoying.

Oh wait so it's Wal-Mart's fault they don't have every product that ever existed on sale? You can always call them ahead of time and ask them if they have something in stock, you know do what smart shoppers do. The fact that Wal-Mart sells such a high variety of goods is already a positive trait of the store. It's just unrealistic to think that Wal-Mart has everything.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

* n 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

Wal-Mart's 2006 Annual Report reported that the company faced 57 wage and hour lawsuits. Major lawsuits have either been won or are working their way through the legal process in states such as California, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. [Wal-Mart Annual Report 2006]

Wal-Mart had to settle in January 2005 for violations that took place from 1998 to 2002, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle U.S. Dept. of Labor charges that the company had violated provisions against minors operating hazardous machinery. [Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart's Labor Agreement Is Criticized by Former Official," Wall Street Journal, 2/15/05]

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005]

In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other pollutants to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05]

In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida's petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]

Over the course of [a few years after Wal-Mart entered a community], retailers' sales of apparel dropped 28% on average, hardware sales fell by 20%, and sales of specialty stores fell by 17%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997]

70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China. [China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004]

Workers making clothing for Wal-Mart in Shenzhen, China filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005 claiming that they were not paid the legal minimum wage, not permitted to take holidays off and were forced to work overtime. They said their employer had withheld the first three months of all workers' pay, almost making them indentured servants because the company refused to pay the money if they quit. [New York Times, September 14, 2005]

A former Wal-Mart executive James Lynn has sued the company claiming he was fired because he warned the company that an inspection manager was intimidating underlings into passing Central American suppliers. Lynn documented forced pregnancy tests, 24-hour work shifts, extreme heat, pat-down searches, locked exits, and other violations of the labor laws of these Central American countries. [New York Times, July 1, 2005 and James Lynn to Odair Violim, April 28, 2002, www.nclnet.org]

* In 2001, six women sued Wal-Mart in California claiming the company discriminated against women by systematically denying them promotions and paying them less than men. The lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, has expanded to include more than 1.6 million current and former female employees, and was certified on June 21 2004 as the largest class action lawsuit ever. [Mondaq Business Briefing, November 1, 2004]

....Anyone else need to know why I think walmart is ruining the world economy?

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of our society. But you're discriminating by pinning the blame on Wal-Mart alone. It's like blaming the black guy when in fact there was also an Asian, Caucasian, and South American involved.

There are always cases of discrimination, and it happens in McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster's, local stores and even some of the family owned stores.

 

[Rankao]

*snip*

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of our society. But you're discriminating by pinning the blame on Wal-Mart alone. It's like blaming the black guy when in fact there was also an Asian, Caucasian, and South American involved.

There are always cases of discrimination, and it happens in McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster's, local stores and even some of the family owned stores.

Well I personally believe that people who hate Wal-mart really just out to oppress minorities and poor people. These stores generally allow people who would be food insecure to be able to better their lives. Of course America's largest employer is going to be hit a lot by problems. This is usually largely to poor managers at specific stores.

A lot of attack on Wal-Mart is completely bases on the fact that they think the million of people who shop at Wal-Mart are mindless cows that need to be herd into slavery because they don't know any better.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

*snip*

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of our society. But you're discriminating by pinning the blame on Wal-Mart alone. It's like blaming the black guy when in fact there was also an Asian, Caucasian, and South American involved.

There are always cases of discrimination, and it happens in McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster's, local stores and even some of the family owned stores.

McDonalds reformed its practices-

And I'd love to see you come up with quite the same type of comprehensive list of things that Target and Blockbuster do wrong as that one. And even if you do, that was only the most extreme one of each type of infringement. I've got more,so many more.
My point being: a company with a track record as bad as Walmart's deserves all the crap it gets. If you're a grade F student, do not the teachers treat you differently from the Grade A ones?
And Walmart is not getting treated differently, so people have to band together, and make a concerted point of avoiding Walmart in order for any sort of point to be made.

And yes, there are always cases of discrimination. Discrimination cases aren't quite the same as "The largest class action lawsuit ever.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

*snip*

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the pinnacle of our society. But you're discriminating by pinning the blame on Wal-Mart alone. It's like blaming the black guy when in fact there was also an Asian, Caucasian, and South American involved.

There are always cases of discrimination, and it happens in McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster's, local stores and even some of the family owned stores.

Well I personally believe that people who hate Wal-mart really just out to oppress minorities and poor people. These stores generally allow people who would be food insecure to be able to better their lives. Of course America's largest employer is going to be hit a lot by problems. This is usually largely to poor managers at specific stores.

A lot of attack on Wal-Mart is completely bases on the fact that they think the million of people who shop at Wal-Mart are mindless cows that need to be herd into slavery because they don't k

* n 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]

Come again?

 

[dijital101]

From what I've read, they need to let the unions in, give more power to their workers and store managers, and charge a few cents more to offer their staff and suppliers a better deal, price of gas how it is now, if you find out you're paying an extra 7c on a gallon of washing liquid, you aint getting back in your car to go elsewhere.

Are you really pulling the gas card? Gas is $1.37. It hasn't been that low in a long time


I work for wal-mart and I will try to clear up a few things.

1. The person trampled on black friday was a manager unlocking the fucking door and those oh so intelligent New Yorkers couldn't tell that they were stepping on somebodies chest.

2. In the OP it talks about a town (Cameron, MO) that spent 2.1 million on infrastructure when Wal-mart started to build there. What it doesn't say is that most of that money went into preparing the city's systems to handle the state prison that was being built at the same time up the road.

3. Everybody keeps posting these anecdotal tales of evil, illegals sleeping in the store, race descrimination, unpaid overtime. Really these are isolated incidents, if they weren't that wouldn't be such a big deal and splashed all over the news. Wal-Mart has over 1 million workers, there are going to be unscrupulous managers that try to advance themselves on the backs of their subordinates.

4. Unions are for skilled labor and hazardous jobs. Putting green beans on a shelf is not a skilled labor. Get ahold of some of the workers from the Wal-Mart in Canada that unionized. Their own union negotiators negotiated them into lower wages and less benefits. Then the workers had to pool their own money to pay to have the union legally disbanded.

 

[Good morning blues]

The research done on the issue was dodgy at best. They saw a Wal-Mart get built somewhere (somewhere that could have already been on a downslide), then they monitor the area without taking into consideration the hundreds of other factors that could have affected the economy. Wal-Mart isn't causing poverty. Poverty causes Wal-Mart.

I've already explained why Wal-Mart is against labor unions. It goes against Wal-Mart's policy of providing goods at a lower price.

The books and movie(s) that some of you are referring to are nothing more then another way to make a profit on something. So yes these books and documentaries are biased because that's how they make a profit off of it.

...You can actually say that "poverty causes Wal-Mart" as if it's a positive argument for your side? We're all aware that Wal-Mart sustains itself on the money of people who can't afford to shop elsewhere, the problem is that it makes these people even poorer. Have you read this study? Can you point me to the specific problems with its methodology? Can you show me where controls are missing?

Unions don't go against Wal-Mart's policy of providing goods at a lower price, they go against Wal-Mart's policy of minimizing wages so that they can generate maximum profits (well over 11 billion, remember). Again, I ask you, does Wal-Mart not owe much more of those profits to the workers that generated them than they are getting? Obviously they won't willingly do this, however, because it cuts into the paychecks for the guys at the top, and because if their employees had living wages they wouldn't be forced to shop at Wal-Mart.

 

[Zer_]

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates.

Does it now? I guess they forgot to mention that they didn't include unemployed people in the study, did they? If a Wal-Mart gets built in an area with a high unemployment rate, the average salary (which doesn't include the unemployed) goes down slightly, yes but Wal-Mart doesn't directly reduce the salary of other companies, it just means Wal-Mart provided low paying jobs to those who were previously unemployed.

The fact is most of you have no idea why you hate Wal-Mart. You just take someone else's reasons and claim it to be legitimate reason for your hatred. You see class action lawsuits against Wal-Mart because it's how the law works. When someone in a company fucks up, the company as a whole is responsible. Personally I think it's bullshit that a group of CEOs who never met Jack Manager are the ones who have to pay for his mistake.

Unions don't go against Wal-Mart's policy of providing goods at a lower price, they go against Wal-Mart's policy of minimizing wages so that they can generate maximum profits (well over 11 billion, remember). Again, I ask you, does Wal-Mart not owe much more of those profits to the workers that generated them than they are getting? Obviously they won't willingly do this, however, because it cuts into the paychecks for the guys at the top, and because if their employees had living wages they wouldn't be forced to shop at Wal-Mart.

The whole point of a corporation is to make money, what else is new? If Wal-Mart had to pay union fees, they would up the prices of their products. Prices are changed based on the projected profit and expenses the company will make. Wal-Mart has the right to make a profit and keep their profits in their bank accounts. They are allowed to for the exact same reason we as people are allowed to save up some cash.

Also, providing a competitive salary is just as important as providing competitive pricing. If the employees at Wal-Mart are so poorly treated, so underpayed and miserable then why don't they go work at another retail outlet? There are tons of jobs for people with only a high school education, they may pay as well as other jobs, but they're there.

If Wal-Mart was evil, racist and corrupt like you all say it is, then it wouldn't be able to function as a business. Whenever something bad happens in a Wal-Mart store people go get all angry like little teenagers, it sickens me. It's like "Hey look, there's a Wal-Mart manager who mistreated one of his/her employees, Wal-Mart is such an evil company."

A lot of the negative aspects Wal-Mart brings is not just Wal-Mart's doing. My mother works for a payroll company, she's got a decent office job, right? Nope. She's underpayed, and has a fixed yearly salary, which means she doesn't get payed overtime when she does over 70 hours a week, and that happens often. You don't see the masses complaining and protesting Medi-Solution for that? They don't protest it because it doesn't have the Wal-Mart logo in its brand.

Stop looking at it like it's a problem with Wal-Mart, but a problem with our society.

 

[Ray Huling]

Personally I think it's bullshit that a group of CEOs who never met Jack Manager are the ones who have to pay for his mistake.

Then vote against the legal status afforded to corporations.

One of the huge mistakes both you and a number of the people on your team are making is to assume that Wal-Mart exists in some sort of vacuum. It doesn't.

Wal-Mart--and all corporations--exist at the pleasure of the government. We extend them the privilege of status as a corporation, rather than demand that a collection of individuals operate as, well, a mere collection of individuals.

Because we do this, because Wal-Mart exists at our pleasure, we can make all sorts of demands about how Wal-Mart conducts its business.

If the Wal-Mart CEOs don't like being held accountable for Jack Manager's decisions, then they can choose, any time they like, to give up their corporate status--and, subsequently, relinquish all their claim to the profits generated by the Jack Managers who haven't fucked up.

You starting to see the balance here?

People seem to forget that capitalism is an invention of government. And that governments can decide how capitalism functions.

 

[Zer_]

*snip

You're right in that sense. But you've also proven my point. People say they are angry at Wal-Mart just because it's Wal-Mart. In fact they are angry at the Government and even the society itself.

The fact that a corporation is treated as a single person is both just as detrimental as it is helpful. In the case of smaller corporations it's really beneficial. It's a lot easier to control a smaller corporation and prevent incidents of racism and negligence. When you get to the larger corporations it starts to become a logistical nightmare to impose the same controls on each and every employee. I doubt this was ever considered when corporations were introduced into our legal systems.

 

[hypothetical fact]

It sounds like you watched that Penn and Teller bullsh!t episode on wallmart and are using their arguments to vent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

 

[Kragey]

This is the whole problem I have with Barnes and Noble. Our mall used to have a Borders book store, which was great. It had tons of books and lots of manga at reasonable prices (for new books.) Lo and behold, a Barnes and Noble opened right across from them. That Borders location went out of business fast, and now there's none near me. So what do I get? I get to trudge through the Barnes and Noble...

SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO BORDERS! I've always preferred Borders--I think they're much better organized and have an amazing selection--but I can never find a Borders anymore. =/



I will say that my sister worked for Wal-Mart a while ago. They asked her to do something with some merchandise she didn't want to do (not going to go in to details, but get your mind out of the gutter, pervs), she politely refused, they politely responded that it was okay, then they laid her off--and everybody else who had refused--a few days later. Everyone who had agreed to do unsavory things with the merchandise miraculously survived the lay-off sweep.

But that was just at our local Wal-Mart, so I can't speak for the chain as a whole.

 

[Zer_]

It sounds like you watched that Penn and Teller bullsh!t episode on wallmart and are using their arguments to vent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGb9OLqsvV8

I have seen that episode, and yeah some of my arguments are based on Penn & Teller's. I use the same logic and many of the same facts that P&T would use. But I've also addressed arguments not covered by Penn & Teller. My favorite P&T episode is "Eat This!". I recommend it.

 

[Zer_]

This is the whole problem I have with Barnes and Noble. Our mall used to have a Borders book store, which was great. It had tons of books and lots of manga at reasonable prices (for new books.) Lo and behold, a Barnes and Noble opened right across from them. That Borders location went out of business fast, and now there's none near me. So what do I get? I get to trudge through the Barnes and Noble...

SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO BORDERS! I've always preferred Borders--I think they're much better organized and have an amazing selection--but I can never find a Borders anymore. =/



I will say that my sister worked for Wal-Mart a while ago. They asked her to do something with some merchandise she didn't want to do (not going to go in to details, but get your mind out of the gutter, pervs), she politely refused, they politely responded that it was okay, then they laid her off--and everybody else who had refused--a few days later. Everyone who had agreed to do unsavory things with the merchandise miraculously survived the lay-off sweep.

But that was just at our local Wal-Mart, so I can't speak for the chain as a whole.

Holy shit common sense. Did it have anything to do with rotten produce being put back onto the shelves knowingly? If it was something like that then yeah the local manager should be fired and replaced to say the least. If I was to be in that situation I would send a letter signed by the other ex-employees to both Wal-Mart and a local authority on the matter. The ideal situation is Wal-Mart deals with the issue internally and takes appropriate action. The less ideal situation is some other source goes public with this information and more people use it as ammunition to label Wal-Mart as a whole as evil.

 

[Kragey]

^ More like asking people to basically steal from the charity programs it supposedly supported.