Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's been a tough year for Wal-Mart, and things are about to get tougher.
Last Tuesday, at the world premiere of Robert Greenwald's Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, SEIU chief Andy Stern declared: "This isn't just the premiere of a movie, it's the premiere of a movement." During the week of November 13 to 19, over 3000 screenings of the film are planned in all 50 states and 19 countries. Throughout "Wal-Mart Week," the two largest groups opposing the retail behemoth's practices, Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart, are planning an unprecedented series of actions.
Spiraling into PR crisis mode, the world's largest corporation has just assembled a "rapid-response public relations team in Arkansas," which includes former presidential advisors Michael K. Deaver of the Reagan Administration and Leslie Dach of the Clinton White House. Wal-Mart's new "war room" certainly has its work cut out for itself.
While the movement to change Wal-Mart has reached a fever pitch, throughout the year, Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart have waged a tireless and highly coordinated campaign. Here are some of the highlights:
-- Innovative Boycotts: Over 2,000 teachers, students, and activists in more than 20 states participated in Wake Up Wal-Mart's national "Send Wal-Mart Back to School" campaign with the AFT and NEA (the country's two largest teacher unions), urging students to buy school supplies at stores other than Wal-Mart. Over 20,000 Americans pledged not to buy their Mother's Day gifts at Wal-Mart thanks to Wake Up Wal-Mart's Love Mom, Not Wal-Mart" campaign.
-- Make Wal-Mart Care About Health Care Campaign: Wake Up Wal-Mart helped coordinate more than120 house parties in 38 states, which led to over 150 actions encouraging legislators to crack down on Wal-Mart's health care policy. Thanks largely to pressure from Wake-Up Wal-Mart supporters, Rep. Anthony Weiner, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Sen. Jon Corzine introduced the Health Care Accountability Act in Congress--which would require states to disclose the names of large employers whose workers are on Medicaid as a result of the companies refusal to provide insurance benefits.
-- Fair Share Health Care Act: Representatives of Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch lobbied Maryland's legislature and helped pass the first legislation in the nation that would require large companies (specifically Wal-Mart) to pay for health benefits for employees. Although Republican Gov. Robert Erlich vetoed the bill, the movement to get such legislation passed in other states has just begun. Over 2,000 Wake Up Wal-Mart supporters have pledged to lead the fight in their states to introduce Fair Share Health Care legislation (click here to help introduce such a bill in your state). In September, the Working Families Party and the Long Island Federation of Labor helped get a bill passed in Suffolk County, New York.
-- Blocking the Bank: In September, Wal-Mart Watch delivered over 11,000 signed petitions to the FDIC in opposition to Wal-Mart's application for an Industrial Loan Charter (ILC) in Utah. According to Wal-Mart Watch, a Utah ILC "would effectively grant Wal-Mart the ability to loan businesses and individuals money to spend in Wal-Mart stores, violating prohibitions against the mixing of banking and commerce." The petitions have had a "staggering impact on the FDIC" and has significantly delayed the ILC process, says Wal-Mart Watch spokesperson Tracy Sefl.
-- The Leaked Memo: On October 26th, Wal-Mart Watch delivered a knock-out blow to Wal-Mart. The corporation had just made giant strides to rebuild its image--publicly declaring its intentions to offer health care plans for its employees and voicing support for a Federal minimum-wage increase. The very next day, the New York Times published a cover-story on a leaked internal memo, acquired by Wal-Mart Watch, which detailed Wal-Mart's plans to systematically weed out unhealthy employees and applicants in order to avoid health care costs. The exposure of the memo instantly deflated Wal-Mart's hollow attempt at an image makeover.
"We don't want to destroy Wal-Mart. We want to change it, to make it a decent, humane company, which it could easily do," says Chris Kofinis, communications director of Wake Up Wal-Mart, who stresses that Wal-Mart will be a key issue in the 2006 and 2008 elections. "We're not going to rest or sleep one bit until that happens."
[Full disclosure: The Nation is part of a wide coalition of groups, organizations and publications helping to generate interest in the screenings.]
We also want to hear from you. Please let us know if you have a sweet victory you think we should cover by e-mailing nationvictories@gmail.com.
Co-written by Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist, documentary filmmaker and blogger (www.boldprint.net) living in Brooklyn.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I'm not naive enought to think that anyone would ever use it, but what is the criteria for the prosecution of a company under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or other anti-monopoly legislation? I was too young to understand what led to the breakup of AT&T in the 80's, but I cannot believe that Ma Bell was more of a threat than Wal-Mart is. I would imagine that the breakup of Ma Bell was simply an opportunity for venture capitalists to start up their own telecommunications companies, most of which have been run into the ground by now. AT&T workers were paid well, recieved great benefits (one of my relatives worked for them for 32 years), and provided comparable service to anything we have today. Wal-Mart, obviously, does not. AT&T provided a very specific service with very specialized technology. Wal-Mart simply uses economies of scale to disembowel their competitors, and that is only possible due to the Third-World wage structure, nonexistent benefits, and rapacious I'll-break-your-back-unless-you-scratch-mine business practices with their suppliers, unless it's the Chinese Communist Party. For all of their drawbacks, the corporations that Wal-Mart has directly or indirectly driven out of business or into bankruptcy: Sears, KMart, Hudsons-Marshall Fields, and countless local and regional stores, ALL were of more benefit to their local economies than Wal-Mart. I don't recall their being a Sears Watch, or Wake Up Piggly Wiggly organizations formed. The American economy takes its lead from the most powerful companies, as Ford's $5-a day promise initiated a nationwide increase in wages for the auto workers, which filtered its way down. Wal-Mart, by undercutting everyone else with $7 an hour wages, has depressed wage growth on a massive scale. We have a tendency to ignore the fact that everyone is a consumer, and almost everyone would like to be a worker. Workers who make more, spend more. Workers who make less, spend less. People who lose their jobs spend nothing. Doesn't this present a "clear and present danger" to the well-being of the United States? Don't they seek to reduce the quality of life of Americans? Don't they engage in political blackmail to have policies enacted which are the antithesis of a healthy economic plan for the nation as a whole? Do they not restrict our freedom of expression by having critics silenced, and promote censorship by refusing to carry publications which don't fit into their worldwview? Hmmm... sounds almost like terrorism to me. The only difference between Al Qaida and Wal-Mart, is that while the former might rejoice in the deaths of Americans, while Wal-Mart would rather we live in abject poverty, as long as we have no choice but to spend our pittance on Wal-Mart's foreign-made goods. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd take the first choice over the second. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: "Give me dignity, or give me death".
Posted by Robespierre at 11/04/2005 @ 11:28am
Robespierre, I can't go along with the entirety of your either-or prognosis, but will agree with the idea that the walmartization of economics is far more threatening than the terrorism bogie. The U.S. plutocrats financed the terrorist bastards when they thought it was in their interest to do so, and now, it's all come home, just like in the Mary Shelly novel.
Meanwhile, the market groupies continue to blithely pave the way for a re-introduction of indentured servitude through shoddy goods, consumer mentality, mass personal indebtedness and national security states. It is a very telling fact of the age that, 500 years after its inception, capitalism has fallen back on the very same domestic and overseas piracy that marked its beginnings. If the world today looks a lot like the world of centuries ago that Ferdinand Braudel outlines in his writings, there is small wonder in that, given the senility of the speculator system.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/04/2005 @ 11:49am
The owner of Wal Mart should take a lesson from one of Ayn Rands characters in the novel "Atlas Shrugged". Having endured unfair socialistic attacks on his business methods, he responded by burning his business to the ground, and when the commissars got there to assume control, they found a blackened moonscape with a cryptic sign at the entrance " I LEAVE IT TO YOU AS I FOUND IT" Maybe old Sam should just pack up and let the Government have it, and we'll see how well THEY handle it. No doubt as well as they do the railroads. (Be cute to see some Nation staff workin' in the Men's department)
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/04/2005 @ 12:36pm
Do you think that the Walmonster could ever ignore its appetite long enough to burn itself down?
Does a large grassroots consumer effort to compel the Walmonster to inject some conscience into its commerce constitute an unfair socialist attack?
Posted by drhammer at 11/04/2005 @ 12:53pm
I think Walmart should unionize and follow the lead of heavily unionized GM and Ford and the airlines as well. Sure, they'll be bankrupt soon enough, they'll freeze pensions and payouts, but the left will be satisfied... I'm no Walmart fan - I've never even shopped in one, but this anti-Walmart movement seems to be led by an increasinly shrinking Union movement - self serving to be sure, and not really about workers but about Union fatcats making sure their turf stays THEIRS... Again, look to the auto and airlines to see how well heavily unionized industries are doing...
Posted by jabelson at 11/04/2005 @ 1:16pm
Socialism is for the rich, capitalism is for the poor. Nice to see some organized resistance to the corporations. I wonder if Fox "News" will report these things, and if they do, will they resist the urge to use the phrase "leftwing extremists"?
Posted by Footsie at 11/04/2005 @ 1:19pm
I couldn't even dream of a better result than the Wal-Mart people burning down their own stores! Even if it was inspired by a deluded anarchist like Ayn Rand, it would be the greatest thing that had happened to America since the end of WWII! Why don't some of these parasites blogging where they're not wanted send a few emails to the Wal-Mart CEO and recommend it? I'll bring the marshmellows and all of my laid-off union "fatcats" can sit around and reminisce about how we used to be able to afford houses, and cars, and could shop at real stores, unlike Hell-Mart. It's always so funny to hear "conservatives", who drone on and on about how great the market is, how great competition is, how great entrepreneurialism is.... are the ones who are so quick to defend Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart skews the market, destroys all competition, and stifles entrepeneurs by closing ever-increasing numbers of industries to entry-level competition. Only other monoliths like Costco can compete, and while they're better than Wal-Mart, I wouldn't want to see the country covered with Costco's either. When I see people pulling up to a Wal-Mart in their Lexus's and Hummers, I can only imagine that we're headed for disaster, much like Joseph Kennedy felt when his shoe-shine boy described his stock portfolio. OF COURSE there's a market for low-priced garbage, but there needs to be a middle class that spends 98% of their income on goods and services (and yes, I suppose we even need a few aristocrats to buy those Cadillacs, yachts, etc.). If we are all reduced to the level of Wal-Mart employee and / or shoppers, where is the national greatness in that? How proud can someone be working for peanuts, but not be able to afford real peanuts? The Right wants us to go back to being peasants, while they can go back to being feudal lords.
Posted by Robespierre at 11/04/2005 @ 2:38pm
I think Walmart should unionize and follow the lead of heavily unionized GM and Ford and the airlines as well. Sure, they'll be bankrupt soon enough, they'll freeze pensions and payouts, but the left will be satisfied...
Posted by JABELSON 11/04/2005 @ 1:16pm
but are the airlines failing because of unions or because of frequent flyer miles. Let's see we can't pay our bills. Solution! Let's give away our seats for free.
brillent, everyone on three golf, golf clap
Posted by Will C. at 11/04/2005 @ 2:50pm
Interestingly, Walmart's latest response to all this employee and consumer unrest is to create a "war room", hire former government PR hacks, and spin away. Does any of this sound familiar?
And does anyone believe that if Walmart treated their employees with a modicum of dignity, unionization would even be an issue? Given the diminishing power and relevance of unions today, what would the success of a union here say about Walmart's social perspective?
Posted by drhammer at 11/04/2005 @ 2:54pm
JABELSON said: "I think Walmart should unionize and follow the lead of heavily unionized GM and Ford and the airlines as well. Sure, they'll be bankrupt soon enough, they'll freeze pensions and payouts, but the left will be satisfied..."
Sure, you can use this (or anything) to slam the unions and/or blame "the left..." but at some point everyone will arrive at the same conclusion: This isn't about Left v Right... it's about basic human decency and fairness. WalMart understands neither. For the record, Costco (a company currently giving WalMart major headaches) pays it's employees, some of which are union, decent wages and health care... and they are a long way from going in GM or Ford's direction.
Posted by rikkdavid at 11/04/2005 @ 3:36pm
I work for a WM supplier that manufactures goods overseas. The products we make are no longer made in the US because my former company and all of the ones like it could not compete with the low wages of China. My company now employs over 200 people in the US, but it is not nearly the number that were employed here before the rise of WM. I am fortunate to have a job in my industry, but I witness firsthand how WM shifts its costs onto its suppliers (even the foriegn ones), but we are at their mercy. If we didn't comply with their "requests" they would move their business elsewhere and we would be done.
Additionally, my 75 year old mother works in a WM store. She has limited skills, but needs the money and WM is about the only place that will hire her. She makes 11.25 an hour after being full time for 8 years there. She draws Social Security and Medicare because of her age and because it is better than the WM program. WM demands loyalty from its employees, but will cut their employees hours (and therefore paycheck) at the drop of a hat if sales are off by any margin.
All of this is to say that I have a very personal distaste for Wal-Mart. I believe they do not value their employees as they claim and I also believe they are bad for the US economy. However, I see very little in the way of legitimate ideas or suggestions for how to bring the company around.
The Southern Baptists have boycotted Disney for years to no effect. Suggesting burning down all of the 3000+ stores is just silly. Adding Government legislation to control them would lead to infinitely more problems if previous governmental attempts to control commerce are any indication.
The questions we really need to answer should be more like "how do we deal with the vast numbers of people that WM would invariably lay off if they were forced (by protest or legislation) to pay more or offer more benefits?" No one can force WM to maintain the current size of its workforce. I will concede that there are people in Hummers and Cadillacs who do not "need" the low prices that WM offers, but there is a large segment of the population that does (including many of the people in the manufacturing industry who lost their jobs because of WM). How would we deal with rising levels of poverty and need if WM is forced (by legislation or protest) to raise its prices to offer better wages and benefits? There are a large number of WM employees who would rather work for WM and complain about it than actually take the time and energy to look for or train for another job; however, there are employees like my mom who have very few options. The reality is that WM has such low wages, they hire many people who cannot find work elsewhere. What would we do with all of the senior citizens and unskilled workers that would reenter the workforce when WM laid them off? I don't have the answers to all these questions, but just hating Wal-Mart for being big and obviously successful is not the solution. This is a real company with real humans at all levels. Because WM is a public company, it is legally obligated (like all public companies) to make as much of a profit as possible for its shareholders.
Most of Wal-Mart's detractors are not offering up any valid suggestions to deal with the problems that would arise from the downfall of this company. Perhaps the best way to bring Wal-Mart down is by bringing its employees and customers up. It might just be more productive and effective to eliminate the need for employees to work there and customers to shop there. That, however, requires a lot more effort on our part.
Posted by cj0819 at 11/04/2005 @ 4:30pm
The government didn't seem to care about the fate of the employees when they broke up AT&T, which, once forced to compete with the "Baby Bells", was doomed. I don't have the figures, but I can only imagine that there are tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a result of the breakup and subsequent "investor wars", in which each new telecom company sought to reduce costs and improve profits by laying off their workforces and raising prices. The government didn't care about losing thousands of skilled workers and their tax revenue and economic impact, why should they care that thousands of unskilled people with negligable economic impact and a constant drain on governmental health care are suddenly on the streets? Doesn't anyone realize that Wal-Mart hires those who have been reduced to seeking such crappy jobs by dire economic straits, such as the gentleman above whose poor mother is forced to work there. If Wal-Mart didn't exist, there would be opportunities for new businesses to be started by enterprising individuals and families, there would be less money flushed down the toilet by WM employee's desperate use of Medicare, Medicaid, and emergency rooms as health care providers, and increased income tax revenue from higher-paid employees (unlike the rich, who pay less when they earn more). The handicapped, the elderly, and other groups are targeted by WM because they are desperate and are less likely to make a fuss. These people are herded into the workforce because their entitlement programs and pensions have been eliminated or sacked by the GOP and their two-faced Democratic allies. I guess WM can't get enough illegal immigrants to work there, since they can't compete with farmers paying them $100 a day to pick lettuce. I'd rather deal with the question of what are we going to do without Wal-Mart, rather than what are we going to do with them. That's not a problem, that's an opportunity.
Posted by Robespierre at 11/04/2005 @ 5:04pm
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1)failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2)deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3)impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4)irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5)reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6)consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7)lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
The manual lists the following additional necessary criteria:
The individual is at least age 18 years. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
"The Corporation", a documentary exploring the psyche of the corporation, came to the conclusion that if the corporation can be regarded as a legal person, as it is under United States law, its personality would meet all of the DSM-IV requirements for being a psychopath (such as conning others for profit and recklessness).
from http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/sociopath
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/04/2005 @ 6:19pm
I'm sorry, but has ANYBODY run Ms vanden Heuval's "numbers", yet?
Over 2,000 teachers, students, and activists in more than 20 states participated in Wake Up Wal-Mart's national "Send Wal-Mart Back to School" campaign"-----That's ONE HUNDRED people per state.
Over 20,000 Americans pledged not to buy their Mother's Day gifts at Wal-Mart thanks to Wake Up Wal-Mart's Love Mom, Not Wal-Mart" campaign.----out of TWO HUNDRED NINETY MILLION?
Make Wal-Mart Care About Health Care Campaign: Wake Up Wal-Mart helped coordinate more than 120 house parties in 38 states...---That's 3.157 per state.
Oh, and ONE film that will be shown in a few "art houses" in New York, LA, San Fran, and Chicago.
These are hardly the figures for a "mass movement" that is "crippling" or even "scaring" Wal-Mart.
Posted by Mask at 11/04/2005 @ 7:56pm
Or...just for percentages
Over 2,000 teachers, students, and activists in more than 20 states participated in Wake Up Wal-Mart's national "Send Wal-Mart Back to School" campaign"-----(Take an average state like Indiana, population 6,080,000) 100 people? that's 0.0016447% of the state
Over 20,000 Americans pledged not to buy their Mother's Day gifts at Wal-Mart thanks to Wake Up Wal-Mart's Love Mom, Not Wal-Mart" campaign.----0.006896% of the US population
Posted by Mask at 11/04/2005 @ 8:18pm
With regard to unionizing Walmart (and unionizing Walmart vs. unions at Ford and GM):
I would be highly satisfied if a store like Walmart were to unionize. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that over the long haul, every job that can possibly be sent overseas is going to be sent overseas. You can't offshore the job of selling stuff to people, though. If the service industry was heavily unionized... well, Walmart wouldn't be able to just up and move its stores to China. Those stores have to be in America if they're going to sell things to Americans. If Walmart couldn't pay a decent wage and survive, then another company would fill its place...
However, unlike foreign car makers that will supplant GM and Ford, any company that replaces Walmart would still have to locate its stores in America. The trick then is to make sure that those workers are able to unionize.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that Walmart workers should be able to unionize, that I'd be impressed if paying decent wages bankrupted the company, and that we have to ensure that it's possible to unionize in general, not just to organize workers at a specific store.
Posted by CmdrFalafel at 11/04/2005 @ 10:45pm
Right on for the right ons, CMDRFALAFEL. A lot of right wing blockheads who post here have yet to understand that the snares the labor movement has fallen into with business unionism are not decisive, and that when labor regains its bearings, a lot of stuff is going to shift in the right direction.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/05/2005 @ 2:20pm
I hope someday to build a business successful and weathly enough to make it onto The Nation's radar screen. I will then know I've done all the right things.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/05/2005 @ 9:27pm
Whatever in hell that means.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/05/2005 @ 11:58pm
I hope someday to build a business successful and weathly enough to make it onto The Nation's radar screen. I will then know I've done all the right things.
Posted by LIL' EICHMAN 11/05/2005 @ 9:27pm
It's not likely you could achieve success with even a small-time business as long as your self-esteem is so low that you have to name yourself after mass murderers to attract attention to your miserable self.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 09:39am
Then, there's MASSK, who enhances his self-perception by identifying himself closely with a corporation. No, it's not rational but then, of course, no one really cares about his personal problems, either, otherwise someone would tell him that he's just eddying around in a hopeless whirlpool of personality inadequacy.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 09:46am
???...not sure I get that reference, REDBIRD. "Mask" is simply an acknowledgement that "nicks" are not usually people's real names, and that we assume "masks" as we appear on these blogs, as we do in ALL of our lives.
Is there a corporation named "MASSK"? I believe it's Dutch for "mask", but that's the only thing I can Google about it.
Or is the chief reason for your attack on me, that I actually READ what Ms vanden Heuval wrote...looked at the FIGURES...and discovered that, far from being a "mass movement", the protestors to Wal-Mart that she cites....add up to less than the number of people who voted for the "Constitution Party" Presidential candidate in 2004...or that they would ALL (nation-wide) fit in the football stadium of Ball State University?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2005 @ 10:11am
It's redundant that you didn't get the reference, MASSK, and your whole post(s) is assinine, by the way. Data like that are meaningless at any one moment in time as anyone who doesn't have their head in their massk realizes by noticing how much remaining support the Republicans have for their mass murder spree. You have no figures on the number of people who refuse to shop at Walmart, regardless of their prices, which makes your calculations additionally meaningless.
The important point is that those who oppose Walmart's antisocial behavior have achieved initial successes. They have recently adjusted some of their healthcare policies. That's a start.
But you needn't feel any compulsion to follow suit. You can remain completely antisocial if you like. If it makes you feel good that a person less fortunate than you has lousy healthcare then please enjoy yourself. Spice your life up a little by being a cheerleader for war crimes.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 10:39am
Most of Wal-Mart's detractors are not offering up any valid suggestions to deal with the problems that would arise from the downfall of this company. Perhaps the best way to bring Wal-Mart down is by bringing its employees and customers up.
Posted by CJ0819 11/04/2005 @ 4:30pm
I disagree with much of what you say. Walmart could provide much better pay and benefits while having more loyal employees without coming anywhere close to going out of business. It is a ludicrous red herring that Walmart couldn't stay in business unless they continued operating in the same manner. Walmart, for example, has gross and operating margins that are more than twice those of Costco. The reason is that Costco offers it's employees a pay and benefit package that is reasonable while Walmart provides a package that smells. And Costco offers consumers prices that are equally as low as Walmart's. The difference goes in Walmart's corporate pockets. Costco isn't about to go out of business. It's stock price has performed slightly better than Walmart's the last five years and they're financially sound.
I agree with your assertion that Walmart wouldn't employ many of the people that they do if they adopted a Costco model. That can be seen by going in both stores and comparing the employees. Costco's are younger, more healthy, and better educated. On the other hand, if Walmart had better compensated employees, those employees would spend money at other businesses that would create new jobs that a currently typical Walmart employee might find employment at.
What's really missing here is a national, universal healthcare program that would provide to all Americans the same level of basic healthcare and a minimum wage policy that provides a reasonable income. Healthcare in Canada and Europe is far cheaper than in the US and this country is more than wealthy enough to pay somewhat higher prices at fast food outlets, etc.
See: competitive comparison [finance.yahoo.com] and How Costco Became The Anti-Walmart [tinyurl.com]
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 11:13am
And, did anyone miss the fact that Hillary Clinton was on Walmart's board of directors for six years?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 11:25am
The owner of Wal Mart should take a lesson from one of Ayn Rands characters in the novel "Atlas Shrugged". Having endured unfair socialistic attacks on his business methods, he responded by burning his business to the ground, and when the commissars got there to assume control, they found a blackened moonscape with a cryptic sign at the entrance " I LEAVE IT TO YOU AS I FOUND IT" Maybe old Sam should just pack up and let the Government have it, and we'll see how well THEY handle it. No doubt as well as they do the railroads. (Be cute to see some Nation staff workin' in the Men's department)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/04/2005 @ 12:36am
Have you ever wondered why the only place that ever happened was in an exceedingly poorly-written novel?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 11:31am
REDBIRD...
It wasn't MY column...it was Ms vanden Heuval's and HER figures on the number of people, parties, etc. that were occurring NATIONWIDE in this "scaring the bejeezus out of Wal-mart" mass movement.
As I noted in Mr Rothberg's column on the evil "W" (the other one, hehe!)...no hearts and minds are being changed, just those that NEVER shopped at Wal-mart becoming LOUDER in their dislike of the company. Wal-mart's pre-emptive move at P.R. is basically to head off things getting started, before they get started.
Look at again at Ms vanden Heuval's citations for "protestors" and add it up yourself. Are 100 each in 20 states a "mass movement"...is less than 4 "house parties" in 38 states a "March on Washington"....do propaganda films REALLY change hearts and minds, or just preach to the choir?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2005 @ 1:05pm
And why, exactly, are those meaningless assertions so vitally important to you? Don't you have anything productive to do?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 1:20pm
Fromrebird, You are misunderstanding my name. Some here may already have heard the explanation. My name is a reference to the infamous Ward Churchill of Colorado St. U., and his calling the victims of 911 "Little Eichmans." It's my way of saying "fuck you" to the Ward Churchills of the world. I am one of his little Eichmans.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/06/2005 @ 8:51pm
Many of your writers lament the disdain with which the American government treats its own citizens. Imagine how it disempowering feels to be living in a country whose prime minister is so enamored of your president that our country does everything asked of it by him. Dealing with the greater topic of disenfranchisement that accompanies greater and greater levels of political and economic hegemony, it seems to me that many such challenges as have become associated with "bigger = better" thinking might be turned upside down with the simple reversal of the governmental pyramid: empower local government to supercede state, which in turn supercedes federal in legal precedence. Where state and local laws clash, let the latter take precedence. By positing real political power (taxation) in the immediate, the hazy and distant posturing in state capitols, Washington and beyond will become less relevant and less of a drain to the tax base. Just imagine all the lovely schools and hospitals you Americans could have, for the price of just one of those massive submarines your federally sponsored military can't seem to get enough of!
Posted by biisuto at 11/06/2005 @ 9:11pm
BIISUTO:
Now here's a person who has actually hit on just the right thing. I'll wager, though, that he doesn't realize the offence he has just caused the group of readers. Imagine if here in the wonderful United States power rested at the local level. Imagine what this would mean to social experiments such as Planned Parenthood, Smart Start, and others. Or wellfare programs such as Medicade, Medicare, Social Security...on and on. And don't forget the impact it would have on the sacred sacrament of abortion. You could kiss them all goodbye.
Without being mandated from on High, localities across the country could choose for themselves what to do in each of the aforementioned issues. And my suspicion is that many of these items would meet an early demise.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/06/2005 @ 9:28pm
Oh, by the way, REBIRD. My name is Jon Caldwell. I live in the Capital City of the beautiful state of North Carolina.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/06/2005 @ 9:53pm
Fromrebird, You are misunderstanding my name. Some here may already have heard the explanation. My name is a reference to the infamous Ward Churchill of Colorado St. U., and his calling the victims of 911 "Little Eichmans." It's my way of saying "fuck you" to the Ward Churchills of the world. I am one of his little Eichmans.
Posted by LIL' EICHMAN 11/06/2005 @ 8:51pm
Congratulations on being Ward Churchill's puppet. That's about as interesting as your name and where you live.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 10:22pm
Well, Fromrebird, I see that I am no match for your wit and intellect. Thank you for humoring a inferior such as myself.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/06/2005 @ 10:24pm
pardon me, "an inferior."
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/06/2005 @ 10:25pm
Dealing with the greater topic of disenfranchisement that accompanies greater and greater levels of political and economic hegemony, it seems to me that many such challenges as have become associated with "bigger = better" thinking might be turned upside down with the simple reversal of the governmental pyramid: empower local government to supercede state, which in turn supercedes federal in legal precedence. Where state and local laws clash, let the latter take precedence. By positing real political power (taxation) in the immediate, the hazy and distant posturing in state capitols, Washington and beyond will become less relevant. .
Posted by BIISUTO 11/06/2005 @ 9:11pm
They've been trying it in a number areas of France for the last 10 days or so.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2005 @ 10:27pm
And why, exactly, are those meaningless assertions so vitally important to you? Don't you have anything productive to do?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2005 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person
???...so I should ignore the meaningless assertions of Ms vanden Heuval and find something more productive to do?
OK...so if that's "un-productive"...how un-productive is it to RESPOND to my response, REDBIRD?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2005 @ 10:33pm
One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder."
Fromredbird
Nice link my friend.
If my cut and paste from the article isn't an MRI of the corporate worlds values structure then I'll have to stop saying Laissez Corporate Wel-faire Capitalism creates Lazy Corporate Welfare Queens.
I would hate to have to stop saying that
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2005 @ 12:57am
As someone who works for a semi-large retailer and makes little over minimum wage, I understand why grown people working full time are either on programs to help assist with needs, either government or charitable, or simply live without basic necessities many take for granted. Many of the people I work with have a good work ethic, treat customers well ( even though we are not treated well at times) and help promote and protect our stores interests. It's a shame that our store's owner is one of the wealthiest people in America, and our store is Christian owned, but the employees are poorly compensated for the service they provide and are given no pay raise structure or quarterly bonus incentives or anything else that would fairly reward them for the work they do. I wish when customers complain and verbally abuse employees, (many of our customers make considerably more in income than we do) had a clue. If many people were educated on the conditions people abroad must work in such as 12 hour days and 7 day work weeks, making little more than nothing to live on, and the conditions people here work under while employers make record profits, maybe they would do more. Most people I know have never heard of Wal-Mart Watch. Many I know do most of their shopping there, because they don't make enough to have many choices.
Posted by jackomann at 11/07/2005 @ 03:09am
Jackomann, I know this sounds overly simple, but quit your job. Find a better one. Do whatever it takes to aquire the skills, training, and education you need in order to find a better job. And this goes for anyone in any job. If you don't like it, leave it. And don't give me a bunch of excuses, "It's too hard", "You don't understand", "It can't be done." There are way too many people out there who have overcome overwhelming odds for me to beleive you can't do it.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/07/2005 @ 06:44am
Seems to me Wal-Mart works very hard to shift the burden of it's costs on the govt, thereby securing govt charity, based on it's need to lower the bottom line. Far above, someone suggested that Wal-Mart should burn thier stores to the ground, like the Ayn Rand character did. It looks to me like ol Sam is one of the moochers, not the good guys in the book. He's demanding something (free assistance in various forms from the govt) based on his need to drive down prices. He has the right to not purchase health care for his workers. He doesn't have the right to shift the cost of health care onto the govt. That's mooching. Hank Rearden in Atlas shrugged paid for and got the best workers, and his company produced a great product at a price that was fair.
Posted by wereverywhere at 11/07/2005 @ 12:21pm
One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder."
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2005 @ 12:57am
The complaint of "stock analyst" Bill Dreher is also completely invalid. $10,000 invested in WMT five years ago would now be worth $10,825. $10,000 invested in COST five years ago would now be worth $13,401.
What's "stock analyst's" real motivation? He's just fronting for the WMT execs that he's probably attempting to curry favor with by attacking COST. The top five executives in WMT are paid $12.6 million a year. The top five executives in COST are paid $2.7 million a year.
"Stock analyst" is suffering from the same disease as the posters here who are attacking Katrina Vanden Heuvel over this article- thay have a kneejerk need to support the party that is more big, more wealthy, and more antisocial.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 12:24pm
Hank Rearden in Atlas shrugged paid for and got the best workers, and his company produced a great product at a price that was fair.
Posted by WEREVERYWHERE 11/07/2005 @ 12:21am
Funny, isn't it, how the imaginary hero in Atlas Shrugged sounds more like Costco than Walmart? Yet, in the real world, Costco is not having any such problems with the "meddling government". The "values" of the "right" can be made efficient only in a fictional context.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 12:32pm
Yes, well, that's why they love Ayn Rand to begin with, isn't it?
Posted by bkarloff at 11/07/2005 @ 12:59pm
First - to Fromredbird - by stooping to the level of personal attacks, you have lost all credibility in a meaningful discussion. While you might actually make some valid points in your posts, they are bracketed with venom. If you want people to understand or subscribe to your point of view, you really should improve your debating skills. From here on out I, and probably most of the rest of us, will just be ignoring you, just as we would any obnoxious, noisy child.
Secondly, to correct what seems to be a general misunderstanding about the corporation: Sam Walton died about 12 years ago. The company has changed very dramatically since that time, and from what I know of the man, I think he would be truly appalled by the current atmosphere surrounding his creation. WM has become the largest company in the world and rivals the Oil companies in terms of greed.
Costco is a brilliant success story in terms of the benefits and wages it provides to its empolyees. However, a Costco store and a Wal-Mart store are nothing alike. Costco employs far fewer employees per square foot of store than any WM can. WM stores sell products that require a greater degree of customer/employee interaction, whereas Costco is largely a serve yourself environement. WM could not actually operate its business if it had as few employees in the building as a typical Costco. This is certainly not a defense of WM and its practices but just a note that comparing WM and Costco is not really an apples to apples comparison.
Finally, it does not seem realistic to think that Wal-Mart will be changed by external pressure. They have been more sucessful than any other retailer in history with their methods and therefore have no motive for changing. In fact, many other retailers look to the WM model and trying to apply it to their own structure (in some cases, only to be competitive and stay in business). Wal-Mart is a business and, being a publically held and traded company, is required by law to produce as much of a return for its shareholders as possible. WM is not a charity, nor is it a public assistance entity. If you apply the laws of supply and demand to Wal-Marts workforce, then you would see that WM only has to pay its employees as much as the market requires. If all of the other retailers in a market pay significantly higher, then WM would have trouble hiring people and would be forced to pay more. In effect, the way that WM changes is simply a reaction to things that happen outside of its doors in the open market. Most WM employees have the option of working elsewhere if they so choose.
From Wal-Marts perspective, why should they change a single thing that they do (or don't do)? The company does almost $350B in sales a year - as much as the next 8 top retailers combined. By all estimates, they will continue to grow at an astronomical pace. Yes, they are monopolistic in every way (save one), but the government won't move to break them up until they actually start screwing the customer like AT&T did. WM provides lower prices than almost anywhere else, so the government will leave it alone.
The way to get Wal-Mart to change is by changing the mindset of the people who shop there. Some of the current negative publicity will do that, but I would wager that the majority of the people who have a low opinion of WM do not shop there anyway. We really have to address the root cause of why people need to shop there or work there. We really have to address poverty for starters and then also address some type of universal healthcare. If we can pull people up, then maybe they will realize that they deserve better than the crap that WM hands them.
Posted by cj0819 at 11/07/2005 @ 1:01pm
The only way Wal-Mart is able to sell anything is the armed guards at the door that haul the unthinking masses into their stores. Get a life, any stores that would replace Wal-Mart will provide no health care for their employees and pay those same employees low wages. basically, retail employment is not a high value added job.
Posted by arfaarth at 11/07/2005 @ 1:38pm
And don't forget the impact it would have on the sacred sacrament of abortion. You could kiss them all goodbye.
Without being mandated from on High, localities across the country could choose for themselves what to do in each of the aforementioned issues. And my suspicion is that many of these items would meet an early demise.
Posted by LIL' EICHMAN 11/06/2005 @ 9:28p
And all the good Christian parents in North Carolina whose good little Christian girls get pregnant would take them to New York for their sacred sacrements, all the while voting to make it illegal in Raleigh and the rest of the state.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2005 @ 2:26pm
There are way too many people out there who have overcome overwhelming odds for me to beleive you can't do it.
Posted by LIL' EICHMAN 11/07/2005 @ 06:44am
So is that your justification for making the odds overwhelming? I guess I don't get your point. Is it that we should defund education and job training programs in order to have more inspiring success stories to watch on the McNews channel?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2005 @ 2:29pm
CJ nailed it...like Ms vanden Heuval and Mr Rothberg did not---
The way to get Wal-Mart to change is by changing the mindset of the people who shop there. Some of the current negative publicity will do that, but I would wager that the majority of the people who have a low opinion of WM do not shop there anyway.... If we can pull people up, then maybe they will realize that they deserve better than the crap that WM hands them.
Posted by CJ0819 11/07/2005 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person
100 people each in 20 states won't show up on a typical Wal-mart consumer's radar...nor will 3 1/5 "house parties" held in Blue States...want Wal-mart out of business, change the market, don't try to impose "the way things OUGHT to be" and then hope that the NEXT "Wal-mart" doesn't do things WORSE.
This story is typical of a "locked-in-1969-stone" mentality of the Left...whereby "coffee-shop protests" and the potential for draconian sanctions attacking a industry that provides a service in a way THEY don't like...is a recipe for "social justice success".
Want to stop people from buying cheap stuff at Wal-mart...get them enough money that they don't WANT to buy cheap stuff, but the expensive stuff from the "American, unionized, employee-healthcar" stores and manufacturers.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2005 @ 3:03pm
Why doesn't anyone ask what the whole point to Wal-Mart is? Like any aspiring monopoly, (see: Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Firestone Rubber, etc.) Wal-Mart wants to drive any and all competitors out of business. They will brutally undercut prices, threaten and cajole suppliers, and open stores in areas that will have the maximum amount of destructive power in a community. Where I grew up, a midsized city (100,000+) spent millions redeveloping a former horse track area, placing a large shopping plaza with dozens of chain stores and restaurants. Now, as bland and annoying as that was, Wal-Mart bought a big-box store across the street a few weeks later, converted it almost overnight, and revved up the business-killing machine. Within six months, half of the businesses in the shopping plaza were gone, and now, only a handful of shops, and one small restaurant remain. The Wal-Mart that killed them? It's slated to be closed, when WM opens a new gigantic supercenter barely a 1/4 mile down the road. If this doesn't illustrate what WM is all about, I don't know what is. They want everyone else that could compete on any level gone... so that they can start raising their prices. Although, I have a feeling that a raise in employee wages and benefits won't follow.
I'm done with this post. Listening to people defend Wal-Mart makes me want to rip my ears off. If there is a God, then that vapid yellow smiley face is the Mark of the Beast if I ever saw one...
Posted by Robespierre at 11/07/2005 @ 3:05pm
So is that your justification for making the odds overwhelming? I guess I don't get your point. Is it that we should defund education and job training programs in order to have more inspiring success stories to watch on the McNews channel?
When did I say I want to create overwhelming odds? If I had the power to create the world the way I wanted, we would all be living in paradise. What I'm saying is that we are all free to pursue the jobs we want in the places we want. If you don't like the place you work, leave. Some people will be able to do this more easily than others. That's simple reality. If companies like Wal-Mart start loosing their best employees, or have a hard time recruiting new employees they will offer more. This is such an elementary concept that applies in nearly every aspect of our lives, both personally and financially. And guess what, it works.
And all the good Christian parents in North Carolina whose good little Christian girls get pregnant would take them to New York for their sacred sacrements, all the while voting to make it illegal in Raleigh and the rest of the state.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop; or the number of adoptions would rise; or the people of the State could decide to allow abortions under certain cercumstances. All I know is that the people of North Carolina would choose what works best for them, practically and morally.
In another discussion I would explain the misconceptions regarding abortion law.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/07/2005 @ 3:24pm
Lil'E - Oh goody. It's always interesting to hear men sharing their insights on abortion.
Posted by Fishbite at 11/07/2005 @ 5:29pm
Posted by CJ0819 11/07/2005 @ 1:01pm First - to Fromredbird - by stooping to the level of personal attacks, you have lost all credibility in a meaningful discussion. While you might actually make some valid points in your posts, they are bracketed with venom. If you want people to understand or subscribe to your point of view, you really should improve your debating skills. From here on out I, and probably most of the rest of us, will just be ignoring you, just as we would any obnoxious, noisy child.
You've got some good points there. I really shouldn't engage in personal attacks against LIL' EICHMAN and MASK, especially not venomous, noisy, and childish personal attacks.
You don't have a good point here: a Costco store and a Wal-Mart store are nothing alike. Costco employs far fewer employees per square foot of store than any WM can. WM stores sell products that require a greater degree of customer/employee interaction, whereas Costco is largely a serve yourself environement. WM could not actually operate its business if it had as few employees in the building as a typical Costco. This is certainly not a defense of WM and its practices but just a note that comparing WM and Costco is not really an apples to apples comparison.
Walmart and Costco are very much alike. They are both very much self-serve. Interaction in either one usually amounts to no more than asking a product location. That's not the case in their restaurant or prescription eyewear departments but in those cases I think you will find that Costco staffs their own restaurant facility while Walmart contracts out to McDonalds. Therefore, the opposite of what you're saying in that department. I assume that both prescription eyewear departments are contracted out.
Walmart has .00255 employees per sq ft. Costco has .00178 employees per sq ft. That's nowhere near enough of a difference to account for the fact that Walmart pays it's employees half or less what Costco does and the truly lousy healthcare plan at Walmart vs. the very good healthcare plan at Costco. I also don't think your idea that Walmart would go out of business with the same number of employees per square foot as Costco has any validity. Walmart uses the extra employees as a form of advertising and brand recognition. That's what those blue vests are for and the low wages they pay are a cheap advertising cost.
No. I will stick with the contention in my original post at - 11/06/2005 @ 11:13am - the real difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart's gross profit margins are about twice those of Costco and that is primarily explained by the fact that their employees receive lousy wages and benefits.
You also say: WM is not a charity, nor is it a public assistance entity. If you apply the laws of supply and demand to Wal-Marts workforce, then you would see that WM only has to pay its employees as much as the market requires. If all of the other retailers in a market pay significantly higher, then WM would have trouble hiring people and would be forced to pay more.
Walmart will always be able to hire low wage employees because the market will always have a surplus of workers whose choices have been limited for any number of reasons- for example, low investment in education, and inefficient, overpriced healthcare. Those are exactly the kinds of policies advocated by politicians who are contributed to by, guess who . . Walmart.
You seem to be saying that those who are organizing against Walmart are doing something wrong and that what they should do is concentrate on changing all of society, not just Walmart. I really don't see why you're proposing an astonomically greater task yet not proposing an astronomically more effective way of accomplishing it. No. I don't think so. Those organizing against Walmart are doing a good job and they're doing the right job. The best way to cut down a forest is to start chopping wood not by trying to figure out a way to make the forest disappear without cutting down any trees. If Americans had never done that there wouldn't be any unions, or social security, or Bill of Rights in this country.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2005 @ 6:58pm
Lil'E - Oh goody. It's always interesting to hear men sharing their insights on abortion.
Fishbite: So long as men play a role in conceiving babies, they should have a say in what happens to the baby. I don't understand why men are cut out of the life or death decision making over an unborn child that is as much theirs as the mother's.
Posted by Lil' Eichman at 11/07/2005 @ 7:31pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/07/2005 @ 6:58pm: Walmart and Costco are very much alike. RE: Costco vs. Wal-Mart. Costco drops pallets of products in place and WM uses staff to stock individual shelves/hooks. Costco makes you bag your own purchase, WM has someone do that for you. Throughout the majority of the store, Costco does not have employees on the floor for assistance - WM does, albeit generally unhelpful ones. The pharmacy, meat department, and a few other departments are equally staffed. The remaining points regarding WM profit margins are valid.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/07/2005 @ 6:58pm: You seem to be saying that those who are organizing against Walmart are doing something wrong. I am not suggesting that it is wrong to criticize or organize against WM. I think it is good to continue to put pressure on them from every angle. What I am trying to say is that criticism and pressure alone are probably not enough to disturb the giant. I work for a manufacturer that supplies Wal-Mart, I know and understand how they operate and for them, it is all about the money. They won't change their ways unless it starts costing them the money they so desperately desire. Criticism and pressure may eventually contribute to lower sales – but if the only people who subscribe to the bad press are people who don't shop there anyway, then it won't make a huge difference. I still contend that changing the mindset of its customers will have the biggest impact; however, I enjoy watching Wal-Mart squirm over the bad press (incidentally, I don't shop at Wal-Mart anyway, so all of the bad press I have seen has not cost them any of my dollars). I think Wal-Mart is generally bad for the US economy, bad for US manufacturers, bad for small, independent businesses, and downright horrible to its own employees.
Posted by ROBESPIERRE 11/07/2005 @ 3:05pm: Wal-Mart bought a big-box store across the street a few weeks later, converted it almost overnight, and revved up the business-killing machine. Wal-Mart is completely insensitive to the places that it sets its sights on. They have no regard for the established communities where they open stores and then, just as quickly, close or relocate them. There are more vacant Wal-Mart stores in the US than there are open Kmarts. However, the businesses that close when Wal-Mart opens do so because their customers stop shopping there. The residents of these communities bitch and moan about how Wal-Mart destroyed their quaint little town, all the while spending their cash at the Supercenter. In some cases, the businesses themselves are to blame – for instance: I tried to support my local hardware store when Home Depot opened a new mega center up the street. The local store had better customer service and, being smaller, it was easier to find things and get in and out, even though the prices were higher. I could live with that and continued to shop there. Unfortunately, the local store decided to start closing on Sundays, they reduced their weekday hours to 8 to 6, and started closing at 5 on Saturdays. Their unusual competitive strategy did not accommodate the needs or shopping patterns of their customer base and, within just a few months of changing their hours of operation, they closed and blamed it on Home Depot. Wal-Mart just gives the customers the option. If people willingly choose to send their money to Bentonville and not keep it at home, then those same people are complicit in the destruction on the towns they cherish. Again, this points back to working to change the mindset of the people who shop there. Hopefully, all of the bad press pointed at Wal-Mart will help to convince some of WMs actual customers.
Listening to people defend Wal-Mart makes me want to rip my ears off. Please accept my sincerest apologies if anything I ever say sounds like it is in defense of Wal-Mart. I do not like that company on a very personal level. I am only trying to steer the conversation into a realistic discussion based on what Wal-Mart has historically shown its methods to be.
Wal-Mart does more volume annually than Home Depot, Target, JCPenney, Sears, Kmart, Kroger, Kohl's, Macy's, Lowe's, Costco, Linens N Things, and Bed Bath & Beyond combined. They are not stealing this money, American consumers are willingly giving it to them. I work for an importer that sells to many of these companies and they all are looking at the Wal-Mart model to see how they can apply it to their own organization. I fear things will get worse for retail employees long before it gets better. Hopefully, the intense scrutiny of Wally World will help change this trend.
Glad to see today's headline about Wal-Mart execs having knowledge of illegal workers in their stores… While it is certainly not a knock out blow, if you throw enough pebbles at a giant, it will eventually get buried.
Posted by cj0819 at 11/08/2005 @ 11:22am