So Wal-Mart sucks? I pit you if you think this.

The BBQ Pit
41

I work for a huge, international manufacturer of household goods. I get paid a nice wage and benefits. I have seen the numbers that show the increasing percentage of sales, and the dismal profit margin we make, when we sell our products via Walmart. I cannot share the numbers because they are proprietary but suffice it to say that if the Walmart trend continues, my nice wage and benefits will disappear.

Yes, you can get a better price at these places. But it comes at a cost and that cost is jobs. So go ahead and shop at Walmart. Gleefully toss that gallon of Vlasic pickles in your cart priced at an unbelievable $1.99. Just know that the only two people making any money on that transaction are: a) you; and b) the upper management of Walmart. Don’t be surprised if you pick up the paper and read how Vlasic had to lay off 20% of their workers. And don’t be bitter when one of those workers is you.

42

But…but… they have a smiley face guy! He cuts the prices like crazy!

And they have a retiree at the door who will say hi to you.

They also give their employees kids an opportunity to model the clothes and toys for you.

If that doesn’t say caring, I don’t know what does.

43

Not once in the history of the universe has anyone been forced to work at Wal-Mart.

Everytime I hear about how unfair their business practices are or how low their wages are I get this mental picture.

Shut the fuck up and go wait tables or something if Wal-Mart sucks so bad.

44

So are you saying, that since anyone has that ability to quit there job at anytime, then there can be no merit to complaints of worker exploitation?

And since battered wives can leave their husbands at any time, they should just shut the fuck up too?

Please take your two brain cells, and rub them together elsewhere, you dumbass.

45

Not to be unsympathetic, but it’s not exactly WalMart’s fault that high volume, high margin products are unsustainable; this is a more or less immutable fact of doing business. Your business could, if it chose, occupy the higher end of whatever market it’s in, selling premium products at relatively low volumes while taking a high margin. If you’re selling through WalMart, then your company has pretty much chosen to go high-volume. Ultimately, WalMart can’t force you to make uneconomic sales. As you say, your company is a large international one, and as such will have considerable sway of its own. If selling through WalMart is damaging your company, then it shouldn’t do so. And if it’s not, then it’s hardly WalMart’s fault that your company can make more profit as a more efficient, low-margin operation.

I noticed recently that WalMart actually got some rare plaudits for challenging the exorbitant margins that major labels take on CDs, attempting to renegotiate the volume prices at which they can buy their stock. But this situation is no different; it’s simply business negotiation for you. Few people will cry if the labels lose this battle, but their slimming down will involve job losses too. It just so happens that the labels are even less popular than WalMart, so they get to be the bogeyman instead. Back in the world before WalMart, I could just as easily describe your company as the bogeyman, selling your products to mom and pop stores at huge margins, simply because they didn’t have the collective negotiating power to significantly alter the prices you offered.

WalMart employed about 1.2 million people in the USA alone at the end of 2003, with another 400,000-odd more worldwide. Presumably they deserve jobs also? I find it hard to believe that WalMart’s practices have destroyed a similar number of jobs, but then this is the sort of question that’s very unlikely to be resolved. However it seems to me that you’re ignoring these people entirely when you talk about consumer decisions “costing jobs”. Who’s to say you deserve a job more than them?

Like I say, I don’t want to be unsympathetic, and I know it sucks to see your job under threat. But the sort of business shifts you’re describing are inevitable, and are no more WalMart’s invention than the idea of low, low prices. Other jobs are created just as your company slims down, and while this undoubtedly is unpleasant for some of the people involved, it’s equally beneficial for others. It might be nice if everyone could continue doing what they’re doing indefinitely, but it just doesn’t work that way.

46

I know someone who has gone through Walmart’s manager training program. The majority of the program is teaching how to stop unionization. They have the managers rehearse scripts if a worker starts asking about unions and there’s a list of words to look out for that imply the workers are getting uppity. In fact, every Walmart employee is encouraged to rat out co-workers if they hear about unions. Plus, Walmart deliberately understaffs stores which they explain in management training as a way to foster a family atmosphere at work but really is about saving money. Yup, my friend felt like throwing up after training.

Beyond the damage Walmart has done to local business, I see the store as similar to Oprah: feeding this ridiculous U.S. consumerism that equates happiness with having stuff. Their stuff is cheaper so you can have more of their crap and be happier. Woohoo! The word evil does not do it justice.

47

Yeah - love it or leave it, motherfuckers! You should be grateful just to have your shitty, menial jobs - surely only selfish assholes ever complain about work, right?

Maybe I’m naive, but I find it truly bizarre that anyone, regardless of political affiliation, could be an apologist for Wal-Mart.

48

Let me amend that to read: an apologist for Wal-Mart’s draconian business practices.

49

A-fucking-men.

50

You are the biggest dipshit I have ever seen on this board. Cite one (ONE!) case the ACLU has taken that has involved an EEOC or OSHA violation. You won’t be able to. Know why? Because the ACLU takes on cases involving constitional violations.

Wal-Mart is a corporation. It is fundamentally incapable of a constitutional violation.

Dumbass.

51

I remember when I was a kid and my parents couldn’t afford a fancy bed for me because they were school teachers. I had to sleep on a hand me down bed and it was so sad that I was forced to shoot myself in the head. If only Walmart had been there.

52

Technically, you’re right, but laws that regulate corporate activity do come under Constitutional scrutiny and corporations have been parties to Supreme Court decisions that affect business law.

53

Heh. I was thinking much the same thing. It would have been a lot more poignant if it was about a struggling school teacher who was able to buy, I dunno, shoes for her kid or something thanks to Wally World’s low low prices. Saving some money on a several hundred dollar plastic bed? I dunno, my heartstrings are not being tugged here. Better luck next rant, duffer.

54

Yes, often the poor decisions and “evilness” are local managers. But an arguement can be made that its the corporate culture that permits that behavior. A corporate culture that puts heavy emphaisis on keeping the cost of business low. One that doesn’t adquetely train about what the reprocussions might be if you hire illegal immigrants. One that has cut the their costs down low enough that they can’t adequately audit for labor violations - so there is no “internal” check - managers only get caught when the employees squeel.

There used to be an unspoken agreement in supply chain that everyone was entitled to a share of the profits. This was seen as good for everyone, as that money paid living wages to employees, who would then go out and buy the products manufactured, distributed and sold by others. Wal-Mart is one of the biggest violators of that unspoken agreement. They actively encourage their suppliers to sell to them below cost - hoping to put their competitors out of business and be able to raise prices later (the WalMart model). Wal-Mart is certainly not the first nor only violator of this agreement (and its arguable if the agreement was ever good to start with - I think so - but I’m not an economist), but they’ve been the biggest target.

55

I tried to boycott Wal*Mart once. Unfortunately, it didn’t last for long because they are so cheap and sometimes a Target can’t be found close enough to justify the extra drive. Also, even though I’d love to shop there instead, the things I’d need most if so, are considered somewhat frivolous items (like clothes for work that I can pass over because I can make do with what I have or go to retail shops/Goodwill/garage sales in its place) that would make me pass. :frowning: I hate me for not sticking to my convictions and being cowed to my necessities.

But my objection to them is based on moral grounds. For example that whole mess where they were insuring their employees in case of death. Argh, I can’t remember exactly how that went, but trust me (since my dad has worked there for well over 20 years), the general stuff they offer is much worse than what they would have personally gained as an employer with the other.

Next, they have a propensity to play to their audience in their stores, yet do something differently after the brouhaha has died down. Take the RU486 pill. They came out very strongly against it due to the wants of the majority of their customers and were applauded. However, how many of those people now know they actually do carry it, but did so after the fact so that they could make the money off it without alienating anyone.

Then their was the Margaret (from the Dennis the Menace cartoon) t-shirt proclaiming that women would be president some day. A handful of folks protested (I’m not sure how many but it undoubtedly could be found) and the shirts were pulled. Why? How was it offensive? They censor some legal things while allowing others because they’re not considered a problem or border on a need, and therefore are a cash cow.

I also hate how they don’t promote many women overall or minorities, which I’ve seen from personal experience. They don’t seem to understand what the typical employee has to deal with (IE: sickness in their children, etc.) when they are the only parent, financially strapped or desperate. Yet they title themselves as “associate” - friendly. How’s about their “Made in America” campaign? Even though that got busted, why the blatant lie? If it is/was necessary to use sweatshops, they need not come right out and say so. But they were playing to our emotional sense of patriotism and then capitalized on it. Really scuzzy IMHO.

So there’s plenty I don’t like and mostly, people can theoretically find other jobs. However, if you are in a position where it’s the closest, best paying option over working at McDonalds, you suck it up and deal. If you have no skills, you pick that. Whatever, but the way they use everyone and sugar-coat it as a benefit to everyone is disgusting. Definitely a plus all the way around.

I wish my dad wasn’t so enamored of them and could go ahead and retire (he’s close to 70), but this provides him with his only source of friendship, an outlet and status. Sigh. I suppose that’s a trade off that works for him and makes him happy. Not to mention, he wouldn’t understand all the political nuances anyway. It does make me sad though and helps with fueling my dislike for them. If they only didn’t take such advantage of everything and run everything down. What a way to go to get affordable sustenance. Which it often is and why.

56

Yes, and Bill Clinton must have been completely innocent, because if he’d been guilty the Senate would surely have convicted him and removed him from office. :rolleyes:

57

I second most of faithfool’s statement.

Want the bed cheaper? Most of my grocery stores around here have boards you can buy and sell stuff off of. You can get a reasonably new looking one off of someone else who paid an arm and a leg for it that way, or review your local freecycle or craigslist sites.

58

[hijack]
Wait. The laws were under Consitutional scrutiny. What side of the court were the corporations on - defendant or plaintiff? I’m just curious now.

What sort of decisions were these - were they labor/work-environment related, commerce related, etc.?
[/hijack]

59

Well, it could violate the Thirteenth Amendment if it practiced slavery… :smiley:

60

duffer, have you ever come out on top in one of these threads? If you had any credibility to start with, you lost it when you invoked that old bugbear the ACLU. You obviously have little understanding of the important role they play.

And, just because everything is “North Dakota Nice” where you come from doesn’t mean shit. Pull your head out of your ass for once, man. Quit while you’re behind.

And bruce_daddy, this isn’t a kneejerk righty-lefty issue. Engage brain before fingers, please.