Questions about Wal-Mart's business practices

I never set foot in Wal-Mart. I had a general idea about their questionable business practices, but I never had a clear idea about the specifics of their evil-ness.

Until, that is, I watched the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price.

A few questions arise:

  1. The film was produced in 2005. Has Wal-Mart cleaned up its act to any extent in the past five years?

  2. Knowing the damage a Wal-Mart invasion does to a small community, why do city councils even consider voting in favor of allowing them in? I can’t imagine the tax gains make up for the devastation on Main Street. And how do they (Wal-Mart) get so heavily subsidised?

  3. I know there have been tons of lawsuits against Wal-Mart. Is there any information as to what percentage of these are successful?
    mmm

I’m not sure why so many local communities feel the need to subsidize the expansion of Wal-Mart into their area. However, I am 100% in favor of Wal-Mart otherwise and think they’re great. It’s mostly just people that were living under the illusion that working for a Mom & Pop grocery store was a life time vocation who get upset when Wal-Mart comes in and drives them out of business.

Most people’s lives are much better when Wal-Mart comes into a town, especially rural towns where before there was virtually nothing.

I don’t think people understand the hardship of the rural poor, I grew up rural poor and anything beyond what might be carried at a local hardware or small grocery store you had to drive ~60 minutes to buy. That imposed a huge cost on my family that we could scarcely afford. Now, back in the area I grew up there are two Wal-Marts in that county and I know for a fact people are better off for it.

Even in urban areas this kind of applies as well. When I lived in D.C. I found it to be a burden that I couldn’t go to a supermarket to buy food. I don’t mean a Wal-Mart or a Kroger, but just any large grocery store that attempts to provide me with rock-bottom prices and a wide selection.

Instead, I had to go to a few different “boutique” grocers, that charged a ton of money and had a poor selection. I wasn’t really poor when I lived in DC, and in some ways I liked that situation because I was also buying a lot of fresh meat and produce. However, I saw that exact situation cause nightmarish hardship on many people I knew at the time who were trying to live off convenience store food because they could not afford to buy high priced groceries from a Korean millionaire who lived in Northern Virginia. I wanted to add that because most people don’t realize with these little quaint urban stores, most of the time the owner is a very wealthy individual who lives in the suburbs, they contribute little to the community they serve (most of their tax dollars go to their county/state of residence, not DC) and are far wealthier than the size of their business would suggest.

There’s nothing wrong with wealth, I love wealth, I love people fighting to acquire as much wealth as possible. However, let’s not pretend these millionaire small business owners are the downtrodden and the huddled masses that need protecting from Wal-Mart.

Thanks for replying, Martin.

I’d really like you to watch the movie I linked to, though.

Seriously.

(if you have Netflix, you can watch it instantly)
mmm

I mostly agree with Martin Hyde, although I would take issue with his contention about millionaire small business owners. There may be a few, but although certainly the vast majority of small businesses in small towns are simply making small livings.

I can’t remember whether I’ve seen that specific documentary, but I have been closely following the story in business publications for decades. I used to work for city government and did some graduate work in urban studies. The issues fascinate me.

The first thing you have to remember is that the documentary is pure propaganda. Even if all of its contentions are true, it’s only one side of the story. Don’t come here asking for the other side and then instantly dismiss it.

The second thing you should know is that Wal-Mart is merely a piece of an almost century-long story, not a unique evil. You can find virtually identical denunciations of every chain business since they began. Stores like Woolworth and A&P - stores that we would now find laughably small and quaint - were denounced for putting neighborhood stores out of business with their larger selections and lower prices. Barnes and Noble has been denounced for two decades for putting independent bookstores out of business, but it is now in trouble because people are turning to the Internet instead of bricks and mortar stores. It is a perpetual cycle. Businesses tend to consolidate and grow into giants that can offer more convenience. Conversely, that opens up specialty niches for businesses who can provide service or detail that the big ones can’t. The successful ones of these thrive and often grow into big ones themselves. It is part of capitalism and ineradicable.

Wal-Mart was formed at almost exactly the same time as K-Mart and Target in 1961 and 1962. They were a response to the availability of the automobile in every area of the country, even rural ones. Small town businesses were notoriously overpriced, had terrible selections, and often were violently discriminatory toward minorities. This wasn’t true of every single one, but it was generally true enough that a large, attractive store with huge selection and variety and low prices was a positive boon for the majority of people in the area. Yes, it did hurt some businesses. Yes, these businesses did tend to be congregated in central locations that were disproportionally hurt. People voted with their feet. The incumbents lost.

This still leaves the question of whether Wal-Mart in particular has business practices that are much worse than others. That’s a harder question to answer. The general answer is that no business grows to be the biggest in its industry, let alone in the world, without being utterly ruthless. That makes it a more prominent um, target. There is no doubt that activist groups target Wal-Mart more than any of its competitors simply because it is the most visible, just as the anti-globalists throw their garbage cans through the windows of Starbucks and not its competitors. It’s good business, just from the other side.

That said, Wal-Mart unquestionably has done many things that deserve condemnation. It does seem to be cleaning up its act to a certain degree in recent years. Towns and cities have found ways of fighting off Wal-Mart or requiring it to conform more to local mores. In the biggest irony of all, Wal-Mart has never been able to penetrate into New York City because of local opposition, although Target has managed that. Target is building a showplace in Harlem that expects to gross $90 million a year as compared to the $25 million of a typical store.

Wal-Mart makes for a great villain, just as banks do and the car industry and oil companies and any other concentrations of wealth and power. There’s a saying that behind every great fortune lies a great crime and my reading of history tells me that’s an absolute fact. But my reading of history also tells me that these fortunes were made because they gave more real people what they wanted than any of their competitors and we normally applaud anyone who manages that.

It’s easy to take sides, but history is never that simple. Don’t fall for the propaganda though. Both corporate PR is and activist documentaries are propaganda. You have to work hard to know what to believe and what to dismiss and few people are willing to take the time. And why should they? There are thousands of businesses and each one needs a separate study. There are villains in the corporate world and they should be condemned and made to clean up their acts.

But if you’re going to ask, listen to the answer.

I hope that’s not your only source of information, as it’s an extremely biased viewpoint. Why not enter a Wal-Mart and look around for yourself?

I live in a large city which is surrounded by several smaller towns.

I can give you an example of what WalMart does. WalMart used to carry fabric on bolts which was cut to order in just about all of its stores. While this fabric was generally not top quality, it was usually dandy for general crafting and sewing needs. The small towns usually had sewing and fabric stores which carried better quality fabric (and sewing machines, too), but they couldn’t compete with WalMart on the price, even on the same quality fabric. So, one by one, the smaller fabric/sewing shops closed. Then, Walmart made a corporate decision to eliminate its fabric/sewing/crafts departments, leaving many small towns without any place to buy fabric by the yard. The individual WalMarts might carry some precut lengths of fabric, or they might not, I’m not sure. But now everyone who does any sort of serious sewing in those small towns has to go to a larger town to get fabric lengths.

When Sam W. was alive, WalMart made a practice of trying to buy American. Now, the buyers are happy to order everything from China, no matter what the quality.

Yes, it’s VERY convenient to be able to buy a lot of stuff in one place. However, I’ve found that when I shopped at WalMart, I generally had only a couple of options on a lot of products, and none of the products were even worth buying. I don’t like to pay more than I have to, but neither do I like buying things that promptly break or fall apart.

I don’t shop at WalMart because I’m disappointed in the quality AND I disagree with their business practices.

I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’ve dismissed Martin’s response; I’m still mulling it over (as well as yours, Exapno).

And I know the documentary is entirely one-sided, and that one must actively seek out all viewpoints in order to arrive at any sort of rational conclusion (and even then, it’s often very difficult).

The film - once you sift through the sensationalism - is very compelling, though. It does not focus simply on the strafing of Mom & Pop’s, though. It covers the treatment of its workers, the often-illegal tactics employed by management, the very low wages and outrageously-expensive healthcare options offered, the bullying methods utilized whenever the word ‘union’ is whispered, the forced (and unpaid) overtime, the illegal firings, the methods of training managers to skirt the law, the illegal and environmentally dangerous storage of hazardous materials, the exploitation of third-world manufacturing workers, and the deceptions - and, at times, blatant lies - of their advertising campaigns.

Again, the doc is five years old. I’m certainly interested in learning about the good side of Wal-Mart, if someone wants to point me toward such a film, book, article, etc.

mmm

I have. When I said I ‘never set foot in Wal-Mart’, I didn’t mean that I have never been in one; I meant that I (currently) do not shop there.

Besides, I’m not sure what conclusions you can draw just by visiting the store.

Edit: Also, your parsing of the quoted text in my OP is deceptive.

mmm

I guess my question would be how is this different from other retail businesses? Every one of these criticisms would seem to me to be common to Wal-Mart’s competitors.

I worked menial jobs, as did most people I know, and they were all just as bad as Wal-Mart and possibly worse.

I’m not defending forcing people to work unpaid overtime; I just don’t understand why this is particular to Wal-Mart. It’s common in menial jobs, especially in the retail sector.

If you want a counter-point to this documentary, you might want to watch the Penn & Teller episode on Wal-Mart. It looks most of the episode is available on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=penn+and+teller+walmart&aq=f

Or streaming from Netflix:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Penn_Teller_Bullsh_t_Season_5/70085700?strackid=5e42cdab93ad297b_0_srl&strkid=565453236_0_0&trkid=222336

Warning: I usually don’t like the tone of the show even when I agree with them.

so why don’t you open a sewing shop? A niche business, focusing on serious sewing,for the serious connosieur… Give good service to a class of customers that knows quality.
If there’s a market for it, somebody will fill the need and take the profits.

Maybe the problem isn’t just that Walmart closed its sewing departments…Maybe the problem is that nowadays so few people do any serious sewing that even the old shops you enjoyed so much would have had to close down, too.

(anecdote is not data…but: 40 years ago, my grandmother & all her friends sewed a LOT…20 years ago my mother and all her friends sewed a little, and today nobody I know even owns a sewing machine… It’s not necessarily Walmart’s fault.)

Is it common in retail jobs? I’m sure it happens, but I’ve known lots of people who have worked retail, and none of them who were hourly workers ever complained about working unpaid overtime. Plenty of managers complained that they weren’t paid enough considering the hours they worked, but that’s a different issue (and not illegal).

I Googled Target , Kmart and Costco combined with unpaid overtime and found

- one article about a lawsuit for unpaid overtime filed against Target by employees of a separate business  which had a contract to Target to clean its stores- eventually dismissed against Target 
  • a few articles about Target and Costco assistant managers claiming that they are improperly classified as overtime exempt and should be paid overtime.
  • nothing about Kmart
  • a suit filed by Costco employees in which they are claiming overtime for a 15 minute period after they stopped working and were off the clock but were unable to leave the store while the manager performed closing activities.

I found nothing alleging that any of those companies required employees to begin working before punching in , to continue working after punching out, or alleging that the company altered time records. ( although I did see a few other companies such as Pep boys and Toy R us accused of altering records).
Walmart, on the other hand has not only been accused of all of those actions, but had also settled 63 unpaid overtime lawsuits in 42 states by December 2008. And then there allegations of illegal activities regarding union organization ( in at least a couple of cases, the NLRB found that Walmart acted illegally), and allegations of sex discrimination. What’s special about Walmart is that there are so many cases, so widely spread out that it makes the usual claim of “an isolated instance of a manager acting against company policy” unbelievable. When it’s happening in least 42 of the 50 states, it’s not one rogue store manager whose clueless regional manger never caught on. It’s either 42 rogue managers , all reporting to some number of clueless regional mangers (unlikely), or the practice is at least commonly accepted at a level above the store manager.

I second that emotion.

Would you believe that Wal-Mart cannot compete, indeed doesn’t even try, in some categories? That “competitors” are extremely profitable if they do it right? That some of those “competitors” are very happy when a new Wal-Mart store arrives, as it increases their customer base?

In my town, there is a locally-owned hardware store not far from Wal-Mart. This store’s floor space is maybe 5 times the size of the Wal-Mart hardware department – it’s the kind of store where the employees can give you advice and you can buy nails by the ounce or screws by the pound. And not long ago, after existing in the same neighborhood as Wal-Mart for at least 15 years, they expanded their store, doubling its size.

Does it compete on price? No, service and selection. And does a damn good job of it, too.

So some stores go out of business, some thrive. We can feel sad for the first, and celebrate the second. That’s what makes capitalism great. Imagine what would happen if no one was ever allowed to fail?

If Wal-mart treats its employees so badly, then why does anyone choose to work there? Yes, yes, because all the other employers are out of business, but how did Wal-mart drive them out of business without employees in the first place?

I’ve actually seen most of it, but I haven’t watched it from beginning to end (it was being shown a lot on one of the premium cable channels I subscribe to about 1-2 years ago.) I remember two subjects of the documentary particularly well, one was a long time store manager with Wal-Mart (he was the guy who was frequently interviewed in the car.) The other was an elderly gentleman who used to run a local supermarket that had been driven out of business by the arrival of the Wal-Mart.

I remember two things from the documentary:

  1. The portrayal of Wal-Mart treating its employees poorly is sort of a mixed bad. Wal-Mart isn’t a great place to work, but in a lot of communities it pays better than alternatives. For a long time for example in my neck of the woods, Wal-Mart paid about $1.00/hr over the bare-bottom minimum wage the Mom & Pop grocery stores paid. Wal-Mart also had the theoretical possibility of providing health insurance, the Mom & Pop grocer didn’t provide it at all. I’ve heard it’s very difficult to actually get into the Wal-Mart health insurance plan. I’ve also heard allegations of Wal-Mart intentionally limiting people’s hours to sub-40 each week to minimize the number of “Full Time Employees” they have and other such things.

Like I said, Wal-Mart isn’t a great place to work but I’ve worked low end retail and supermarket jobs and I never was in one that I considered great work. I’ve heard rumors that Costco pays “above market” for its floor staff and a few other places do the same, but for most of the country and most businesses, if you’re working entry-level floor jobs at big retailers or supermarkets you’re working for little to no benefits for poor pay and probably won’t get 40 hours a week.

  1. Given the size of the store that old man had, he’s a prime example of a “millionaire” small business owner. I used to work in a supermarket just that size growing up and years later (in the early 90s) I heard on the grapevine that it was still in business and doing something like $300,000/sales a week. Wal-Mart stores do way over 10x that, but $300k/week is still pretty good revenue stream. The old dude who owned the supermarket had long since retired and his son was running it, and his son drove around in a Porsche. (The old guy who I worked for seemed more in touch with the poverty he rose out of and was a traditional pickup truck kinda guy.)

A much more balanced approach can be found in the book The Walmart Effect by Charles Fisherman. In it, he covers some of the issues with Walmart, how some companied benefit and how others are harmed.

He even shops at Walmart although he hates the way its laid out. His take is that Walmart’s constant low price pushing was okay when Walmart was a small chain, but when it is one of the largest companies in America, it can have some detrimental effects. He compares it to a two year old who likes to run and jump into Daddy’s lap vs. a 20 year old doing the same thing. Somewhere in between, it is no longer that cute.

He talks about the low wages, and makes you realize that Walmart really can’t raise wages because Walmart’s profit margins are so thin. He talks about how it use to be in the old days managers would put up with the low wages, long hours, and the constant hassles because they got stock options for a stock that was constantly going up, but how things have changed. He compares Walmart with Target, and even compares how much smaller Target is than Walmart.

It’s a facinating book and isn’t a polemic as Wal-mart, the High Cost of Low Prices is.

By the way, I refuse to shop at Walmart. The stores are poorly laid out, the workers are either clueless or rude, the aisles are blocked by merchandise, and the check out lines take forever.

I shop at Target which is the complete opposite of shopping at Walmart. And, I’ve discovered except for a few items, Target isn’t more expensive than Walmart.

Another interesting read is this NY Times article How Costco Became the Anti-Walmart. It’s amazing how Costco and Walmart handle things completely different. Costco does everything Walmart doesn’t. It allows unions, gives employees benefits, etc. What Costco discovered is if you give good benefits employees stick around. That lowers your training cost which more than makes up for the cost of benefits.

I don’t know about the subsidies, let alone whether they are heavy. I am willing to imagine in some instances municipalities desperate for jobs, etc. have offered, say, tax abatements. Certainly tax abatements can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether prudently given or given in exchange for political donations, etc. (almost all the new construction where I live, and I mean high-end residential, is off the tax rolls for x years, which screws me over on my own property taxes).

To your “allowing them in” point: city councils don’t, per se, have the right to vote whether person x can open business y. The default is that if x buys/leases the land, it’s his to do with as he pleases. Of course a huge caveat to this is zoning laws, I get that. But, almost every municipality has blocks of land that are already zoned/approved for retail/industrial. That land trades on the open market. If WalMart buys retail zoned land, I don’t know that the city could, should, or would have the right to approve or disapprove their opening a retail store on it.

A further caveat, of course, arises if WalMart buys land that is zoned for, who knows, call it “light retail” or stores under xx,000 square feet (not sure how common this is, but I can imagine it), then applies for a variance to expand xx,000 to (3xx),000 s.f. Then, yeah, the city or zoning council gets to vote. Not sure how often this scenario even arises. But when it does – civic fathers are almost always pro-development, esp. in poorer areas. If nothing else, short term boom in construction activity for building the JumboMart.

I think WalMart’s business strategy is not sustainable.

WalMart controls a huge percentage of the retail sector. They’ve used this power to put pressure on manufacturers to discount prices to WalMart. Manufacturers that don’t comply are cut off and lose access to all of WalMart’s customers.

But this pressure is thinning the manufacturing herd. Some companies go out of business and the survivors cut costs by consolidating.

The result is going to be that WalMart is going to end up facing manufacturers who are its equivalents. WalMart won’t be able to pressure manufacturers with threats of refusing to buy from them because there will no longer be any competing manufacturer who can sell them enough inventory.

I know people who’ve worked at Wal Mart and none of THEM complained about working unpaid overtime, either. I can cite lots and lots of friends who’ve been mistreated by other employers, though. My ex-wife was just fired for having the nerve to get strep throat and take two (legally entitled) days off sick.

Bear in mind that Wal Mart is the largest private employer that has ever existed in the entire history of commerce; it has over 2,000,000 employees. If half of one percent of them work some unpaid overtime that’s 10,000 people, which by way of comparison is approximately the size of the entirety of Research In Motion.

It is VERY easy to find Wal Mart employees who’ve been mistreated simply because it is statistically inevitable that some will be. There’s just no way you wcould possibly NOT have lots of mistreated Walmart workers, no matter what the company does from head office. 63 cases, in the context of a company that large - especially one that is systematically targeted for this sort of thing just because it’s such a rich and symbolically meaningful target - is nothing.

63 lawsuits - not 63 employees. There were thousands of employees involved, as they were mostly class action lawsuits. For example, another lawsuit settled in 2009 apparently involved some 87,000 current and former employees.