Two Thumbs Up

WOW.  Big surprise there.  An person who works for an organization who opposes Walmart liked a move which is anti-Walmart.

Westiminster CO got it right.  Walmart wanted to build in a run down strip mall.  The city council changed the zoning to allow it.  The anti Walamrt group got it on the ballot to let the CITIZENS vote on the zoning issue.  The CITIZENS voted to allow Wamart to build. 

It appears that the CITIZENS disagree with walmart watch when they talk about the citizens (read anti walmart crowd) not wanting Walmart.

Ok let’s see:

The film deals with a lot the usual Wal-Mart criticisms – affects on small business, workers, unions, the environment and health care – but does so in a uniquely engaging way.

--oh gee imagine this bring up the same garbage again and again and leave out anything good that walmart has to offer a community.

Another interesting portion of the film dealt with the crime that is so prevalent in Wal-Mart parking lots. The movie featured story after story about rapes, murders, kidnappings, robberies and molestations that occurred outside various Wal-Marts throughout the country

---Well I don’t have numbers but I guess the bronx and a few low income housing projects around the country have a much higher insidence of all these crimes did the movie point that out? Gee I guess not it wouldn’t help their cause.

From our New York City perspective, one of the most salient campaigns occurred in Arizona where the Bentonville-based giant wanted to build a store on the edge of a quiet, residential community. Not only did the planned supercenter abut a homeowner neighborhood, but it also was right by an elementary school and junior high. This is exactly the same situation we have in Staten Island where Wal-Mart is looking to built its first NYC location in residential Tottenville, right by PS6 (elementary) and IS34 (middle school). After a grassroots, neighborhood-based campaign, the Arizona store was unanimously defeated and I believe the same thing will happen in New York.

---No I don’t suppose the Giants in New York want a walmart store undercutting their outragous prices for the same thing. So yeah I guess they will fight Walmart to keep them from coming around. The people of New York may find out that a loaf of bread doesn’t have to cost $10 and the theives that now have dominance in the area can go on ripping off a clueless public.

This movie and article MIGHT be a bit more effective if it gave a balanced picture of Walmart instead of just the one sided Monster walmart distroying America.

Hmm.....Let’s interview disgruntled former employees, out of business mom and pop’s and union organizers. Then we’ll get a truly fair and balanced view of Wal-Mart.

How does Wal-Mart keep prices low? Their business practice of keeping the cost low from their suppliers.

What affect does this have on us, the American economy? In order to keep with Wal-Mart’s demands, suppliers must find cost effective means to still make a profit. This has lead to companies outsourcing their operations, closing plants in the U.S., lay-offs, adjusting corporate salaries and profits for share holders.

This is America’s high price for “guaranteed low prices”.

John,

Wal-Mart’s suppliers, on average, have seen their profit margins more than double over the last decade, while Wal-Mart has remained in the 3%-4% range. If it were the case that suppliers were passing the savings through to Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart is the greedy corporation they are accused of being, we would expect to see Wal-Mart’s margin rise. It has not. What that tells me is A: Suppliers are raking in the money and B: Any savings Wal-Mart sees are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.

Let me ask you this: do you think that Kroger, Safeway, Albertsons, Walgreens, Target, K-Mart, Sears, JC Penney and Costco all buy strictly American products? Do they all refuse to push suppliers? Do they all accept lower margins and pass all the savings along to consumers?

If you buy $200 worth of groceries at Wal-Mart vs. $200 worth of groceries at Kroger, you get more at Wal-Mart. You are also getting an item for which Kroger and Wal-Mart paid similar prices. For example, Wal-Mart sells Tide for $5.98; Kroger sells Tide for $7.59. Wal-Mart pays $5.00 for Tide. Kroger pays $5.25 for Tide. Who has the greater markup? In many cases Kroger may get something cheaper. Do they pass the savings on to the customer or do they keep it? That is what you need to ask yourself the next time you decide to shop somewhere other than Wal-Mart. ALL companies drive a hard bargain with suppliers. ALL companies buy merchandise overseas. ALL companies are either non-union or wish they were non-union. ALL companies pay nearly similar prices for familiar brands. But only Wal-Mart passes every penny of savings on to customers.

Keep that in mind.

Nick, wal-mart suppliers might be making more money but the american worker is not. The result has been higher pay for CEO’s (and some stockholders), and lower pay for the average american worker. Once again the right want the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer.

David, Nick and Lori,
you all sure know have a a low opinion of a movie YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN YET! Unless of course you made it to the premier? No? Yeah I didn’t think so.

Yet, another example of you three mindlessly reciting the same old tired Wal-mart PR lines . . .

A few skeptics here. Well I have to say I’m looking forward to viewing it. And yes I expect it will go over pretty much the same stuff that has often already been discussed here. Some might dismiss it as garbage but how WM treats and pays their workers and what kind of effects this has on local and even our national economy is something of interest to me.

Nick you are amazing trying to pass this info off as fact!  True the cost of goods for WM and Kroger is almost the exact same.  As a matter of fact cost of goods have bottomed out in the US and it would be hard lowering them any further for anyone.  Now that product cost can’t be cut any further, WM in an attempt to remain the lowest priced has focused on the last cost center it can cut, payroll.  So if you pay a little more at a WM competitor it is most likely going to their payroll costs, which I for one don’t mind paying.

As for the movie I will have to see it to make a statement.

“Another interesting portion of the film dealt with the crime that is so prevalent in Wal-Mart parking lots. The movie featured story after story about rapes, murders, kidnappings, robberies and molestations that occurred outside various Wal-Marts throughout the country “

YOU KNOW WHAT I FIND FUNNY IS, THAT THE CRIME WAS THERE BEFORE WAL-MART WAS PUT IN MORE THEN LIKELY. AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY SOME CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITED AT OTHER RETAILERS LOCATIONS , JUST ANOTHER SCAM TO MAKE WAL-MART THE ULTIMATE ENEMY, I DON’T HEAR ANYONE BELITTLING MARTHA STEWERT FOR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND HER SWEATSHOPS OVERSEA’S, AND THEN K-MART TURNING AROUND AND BUYING THOSE PRODUCTS TO SELL IN THEIR STORES, AND ALSO SEAR’S NOW THAT THEY OWN THEM AS WELL.

That’s why this is called Wal-Mart Watch....

It’s not K-Mart Watch or Martha Watch

Your’re right it is called walmart watch.  It should be called make-walmart-union watch.  That is called truth in advertising.

And Wal-Mart should be called China-Mart for all the goods it buys from China.

Wow Randy.  You thought that all by yourself, I bet.

Just being as lame as you.

On Target
So what’s the big difference between Target and Wal-Mart? We welcome one to a prime corner of Downtown Crossing but cold-shoulder the other.

Community groups organize against Wal-Mart, bloggers rail against it, and major unions - including the nation’s two top teachers unions - have urged consumers to boycott it. The Arkansas-based chain, the nation’s largest retailer, is routinely vilified for destroying mom-and-pop businesses, underpaying employees, resisting efforts to unionize, and selling foreign-made goods. Target, on the other hand, seems beloved. It’s an anomaly that puzzles many - Target, they argue, also undermines local businesses, shuns unions, squeezes employees and suppliers, and buys from overseas.

“For some reason, the same stigma doesn’t attach to Target,” says Suzanne Mulvee, a real estate economist with Boston-based Property & Portfolio Research. A case in point is the Washington, D.C.-based Wal-Mart Watch, one of numerous anti-Wal-Mart groups. Spokesman Nu Wexler acknowledges Target’s business practices differ little from those of Wal-Mart, but when asked why there is no Target Watch, he has no ready answer. “Wal-Mart,” he lamely offers up, “is the bigger target.”

It certainly is: six times Target’s size (still not shabby, however, Target is the country’s fifth-biggest retailer). Yet Boston’s snubbing of Wal-Mart had nothing to do with annual sales figures. It had, instead, to do with politics and culture and stereotypes, easily (albeit badly) summed up in a poem I penned:

Wal-Mart is red,
Target is blue,
One so downscale,
The other so cool.

Let us review the stereotypes. Wal-Mart evokes conservative red state; Target, liberal blue state. Wal-Mart is overalls, guns, and purged lyrics; Target is high thread counts, “Tar-zhay,” and Michael Graves designs. Wal-Mart is for people who can’t afford full retail; Target is for those who can, but would just as soon pay less.

Reality is less simple. In June, for instance, Black Enterprise magazine named Wal-Mart one of the 30 best companies for diversity.

Wal-Mart, founded in 1962 by Sam Walton, was based on a simple business proposition: low prices for the masses. The idea propelled the company to sales of $285.2 billion last year. Target, meanwhile, was the outgrowth of the Minneapolis-based Dayton department stores, and its first location also opened in 1962. To compete against the fast-growing Wal-Mart, however, price wasn’t enough. So Target went after customers Wal-Mart ignored - the middle and even the upper class. And to get them to walk in the door, it gave them something Wal-Mart didn’t have: style.

The way that difference has evolved explains why so many demonize Wal-Mart and praise Target. Target fits the culture and politics of the land of Kerry and Kennedy, making its business strategy - at least for the Northeast - perhaps more brilliant than its founders ever realized. Not only does its mix of price and cachet attract customers, it also keeps the opposition at bay.

Foolishly so, of course - low wages and meager benefits should be equally objectionable whatever an employer’s cultural hues. And it leads to strange sorts of political blindness. Wal-Mart, for example, isn’t to blame for the much-lamented collapse of full-price retailers such as Filene’s and Jordan Marsh. Its customers were never theirs to begin with. Target is a different story, however. By making discount shopping acceptable to the fashionistas, Target made obsolete the traditional department store. Should the firm eventually settle in Filene’s old downtown digs, ironically enough, it will be not unlike the fox who ate the chickens and then moved into their coop.

You big bussiness supporters have never worked for these eat-shit low income jobs have you? I have, and let me tell you a little about their “practices”:

THESE COMPANIES VERY RARELY OFFER FULL TIME EMPLOYEMENT YOU ASSES!!!

THAT MEANS THEY CUT HOURS WHEN THEY AREN’T GETTING BUSSINESS. LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU: T-H-E-Y A-S-K Y-O-U T-O G-O H-O-M-E A-N-D C-L-O-C-K O-U-T O-F T-H-E T-I-M-E C-L-O-C-K!!!! WHEN THE BUSSINESS IS SLOW THEY START TELLING PEOPLE TO *GO HOME* IN ORDER TO KEEP PROFITS UP. IF YOU’RE NON-UNION YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT GO HOME FOR THE DAY.

ALWAYS LOW WAGES, ALWAYS LOW PRICES AND ALWAYS FEW WORK HOURS FOR THE FUCKING WEEK.

NO BUSSINESS; NO WORK, NO WORK;NO PAYCHEK!!!

AND IN CASE YOU HAVN’T GOTTEN THE POINT: FUCK YOU AND YOUR BIG BUSSINESS SUPPORTING ASSES. I HOPE YOU ROT IN HELL!!!

Founder Sam Walton once argued that his company should be exempt from the minimum wage, and took advantage of an exception in the minimum wage law that, at the time, excluded small businesses from having to pay the minimum wage. While the federal minimum wage in 1962 was $1.50 an hour, Walton regularly paid his employees only 50 to 70 cents per hour.

Sources: Greg Palast, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy2002” PAGE 121, 2002 ISBN 0745318460

THE ROBEBR BARONS ARE BACK FROM THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND IN FULL FORCE. OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT TO REAP WHAT IT SOWS BIG TIME!!!

Well on the subject of Target they’re not a whole hell of a lot better IMO. It’s more or less the same premise only not quite as stark as at WM. As far as the quality of goods I don’t go there either so--so much for that. Costco (which is not in my neck of the woods) at least pays their employees a decent wage and for all you union critics out there is mostly non-union.
How about using them as an example of how a business can be profitable--pay its employees well and not have union problems? My brother out from Seattle a couple weeks ago who’s very pro-business (unlike myself) who voted for the clowns now in office (nobody’s perfect-and I forgive him--what else can I do?) thinks Costco is the best of them all by far.

I don’t understand why anyone would support a company that cheats workers out of time earned, forces suppliers to move factories to China, violates labor laws, hires illegal immigrants, and is in the process of breaking ADA employment laws with their new health plan. 

I thought conservatives were about morals, values, and the free-market (Wal-Mart does not play by free-market rules in any sense).  I guess you right wing business types are a bunch of mother fucking hypocrites.

Have any of you ever worked for Walmart?  By your comments I’m thinking, not.  Walmart has helped out alot of people who couldn’t find any other job, even though they have a college degree.  All work places have good and bad management, to pick on one company just because they are the biggest, is just wrong.

I see we have the usual Wal-Mart fan boys (and girls) posting comments. It looks like Nick is slowly coming out of the objectivism closet by moving to Ayn Rand fantasy land (Galt’s Gulch).

Just in case Nick (or anyone else) has not seen it yet, you can watch a nice little Frontline episode online for free titled “Is Wal-Mart Good For America?” to give you a little insight into how Wal-Mart passes down those “low” prices. Here is a preview:

JON LEHMAN: It’s the heart of Wal-Mart’s pricing strategy. Wal-Mart puts a tremendous amount of planning, organization and thinking into what their opening price points are going to be, based on last year’s sales, based on customer requests.

HEDRICK SMITH: Every line of goods has an opening price point, the cheapest item in the line. For example, this $29.87 microwave oven. It’s a good price, but it’s also the bait to lure customers to that department.

JON LEHMAN: It’s to get you in. You look at that, and you say, “Wow! What a great price.” Then they got you because you walk about 10 more feet, and you see the item you really want in that same category. Then you buy that item, but it’s not going to be, probably, the lowest price in town.

HEDRICK SMITH: [on camera] So are you saying that the opening price is the lowest price and actually will beat the competition, but maybe other items in the same category aren’t necessarily the lowest price?

JON LEHMAN: Oh, absolutely not. Once you walk past that opening price point, they got you because you’ve already formed the perception that everything in that department is the lowest price in town.

HEDRICK SMITH: And maybe it’s not.

JON LEHMAN: No, it’s not. No. I can tell you it’s not. I can tell you from experience, it’s not.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

Enjoy.

Yet another left-wing media outlet bashes Wal-Mart. Is this news?

Ayn Rand’s world may be fantasyland, but it sure is a much safer one than Karl Marx’s. While Objectivism is silly, the worst it can do is create an obnoxious hermit, lording over his own stuff. Marxism is much different: leftism is a megalomaniac fantasy land, where the marxist is not happy until he has run and ruined everyone’s life.

Back to the subject, are the prices really low? I learned after I went to compare prices at K-Mart right after going to Wal-Mart. I found myself wondering, “Why is everything at K-Mart 30% higher than Wal-Mart”?

Ok, when will people like stan in suttons bay, mi learn that there is a difference between communism and socialism? Well there is and it’s a big one. There are countries around the world that have very succesful democratic socialist/capitalist systems(Sweden for example).  Stan your McCarthyism is pretty backwards and sad. “Leftism” does not automatically equate to marxism just as being on “the right” does not automatically equate to fascism.

OK, I worked for a Super K for several years here in town.  I worked my way through college and also got a lot of on the job training in the meat department at this store.  Ok that said, when Wal-mart decided to build its 4th (yes 4th) supercenter in the county across from that K mart, K-Mart closed down.  Many of us went to the new wal mart in search of a job.
I have a college degree and more than 7 years of experience in retail as well as a milirary background.  Looks like some one they would WANT?
Nope.
Wal-Mart said I was Over qualified for the meat cutters positions, I was over qualified to do anything but be a third shift stocker (didnt make sense to me).  They hired less expirenced less educated MEN over a female.
They were rude and hateful during the application process and the “interview” was the HR director telling me the above.
I went down the street to ROSS and was hired on the spot.  I also was paid a trifle more than some other associates with less experience and education. 
Wal-Mart does business like many busineses do in that they are looking out for #1.  They can hire more drones if they need to from the little shops they helped shut down.  Sure they pay out in community grants, and sure they dump dollars into PR programing to keep their image good. 
But the bottom line is that the average Amercian worker is so addicted to the cheap products sold at Wal-Mart that very little will change.  The average shopper turns a blind eye to the closed up shops on main street, and the third world clothing they get if it makes that dollar go further.
As for health care.... Well that practice is common in many businesses we just never hear about it.  BMW, here in Greer, for example, is known for finding reasons to rid them selves of “unhealthy” employees.  South Carolina is a Right to work State so there is little that can be done.  I am not Union, but I cant help but to wonder if there was at least a threat of a unionized walmart would the working conditions be better?
I despise shopping at Wal-Mart, and I frequent Target as often as I can afford.  But when you are making low wages, as most of us are, you are forced by the very design of economics to have to shop at the place where the dollar goes further.  I wish it wasnt Wal Mart.

Spartanburg,

Right-To-Work does not mean you cannot have a union in the workplace. All it means is an employee cannot be forced to join a union in order to get a job somewhere.

Example: Your factory has 500 employees. 450 have opted to be represented by the United Steelworkers. If you apply for a job there, you are not required to join the union if you are hired. You are not required to pay union dues. If the employees at your workplace vote in a union, you are not required to join.

In a closed-shop state (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, New York, Michigan and Illinois-Rust Belt States), you are required to become a member of the union if you are hired on at a place that has a union. You cannot get the job without joining the union, whether you want to or not. Your choice is taken away. No suprise then, that states in the south, which are Right-To-Work, are growing their populations, economies and political clout, while the previously mentioned northern states are losing population and political and economic influence.

Nick, you forgot to mention that those employees who do not join a union in a right-to-work state still get all the advantages of union membership for free.  They are freeloading (welfare) off the backs of hard working employees.  They should take comparable pay and benefits in relation to nonunion jobs in the area.  They would never do this, because their union jobs are better in every respect.

tom.  You forgot that those union workers do get one additional advantage.  They get the union to fight for their rights.  However, it comes at a cost.  You have to join the union and pay their dues.  Some workers do not think it is worth the cost.  One of the reasons is that they work hard and have no quarrel with management and have no need for the union to intercede.

David in Zack AR
workers in right to work states that don’t join their unions are freeloading off the sacrifices and dues of the union members. When a union negotiates a new contract with better benefits and a raise all the workers get that raise and those benefits not just the union members. So in fact the non-members are freeloading off the union members.

For someone who is so bullish about the idea that our country has too many people who don’t work for what they get, your arguement pokes a pretty big hole in your own ideaology.

David, If a nonunion member in a right-to-work state is unjustly fired, he or she, will of course go to the union to get rehired.  Without a contract an employer can fire anyone at any time, for any reason or no reason (at-will employment in most states-very few limitations). 

The union will fight to get the nonmembers’ job back.  JT is right, the nonmember is getting a free ride and stealing from the members. The nonmember is getting union representation and legal help for free; the exact opposite of free-market ideas championed by most of the business class.

Tom,

You forget to mention that the union protects the lazy, the incompetent and the criminal. An employee shows up late 5 days in a row? So what. An employee can’t produce at the same rate as everyone else? Give him the same wages. An employee is caught stealing? Go to the union, which will protect him.

I used to work with retail businesses throughout a 4-state area so I have seen my share of union crap. One store chain had a 3-strike agreement with the union. An employee would not be fired for minor theft until their 3rd offense. Why would you protect a thief?

Another store had a manager, formerly of Germany, who complained to me about the union in his store. He said “Do you see those two guys stocking the dairy aisle? One of them is very lazy and he takes his time doing everything. The other is the best employee in the entire store. They’ve both been here a little over 2 years. Do you know what the problem is?” No, I said. He said “The lazy worker gets the same pay as the good worker. One day the good worker might wake up and realize that he is doing too much. He will know that his pay depends on how long he has been here, not how well he works. And I cannot give him a raise or a bonus for good work because the union would say that everyone with the same amount of time should get a bonus, too. So we reward the inefficient and punish the efficient. What am I doing here?” That is a true story. This was a good man. A very good manager. What he said was absolutely true.

Your employment should not be protected based on seniority. You should not be protected from termination for just cause, ie. theft, sexual harassment, crimes, missing work, etc. The most efficient people should get jobs and keep them, not those who have been there the longest.

The union is getting a free ride from the company. Without the company and its’ payroll, workers would have no jobs, no income and no union dues. Therefore, one can make the contention that unions are an unnecessary middleman who add to the cost of a transaction.

Guess what? We live in a global economy. You cannot pass on your increased cost of doing business anytime you want. Customers are savvy; they know how to shop for value. They will not buy your product to justify your higher costs. Unions want more and more money and benefits but do they give benefits and pay back in tough times? No, they don’t. They only do it when they have no choice. Then, it is self-preservation. If the company goes bankrupt, it can dump pensions and cut benefits and eliminate the union. So the union tries to save itself and generate good publicity at the same time.

Unions are getting a free ride from consumers, corporations and taxpayers. When they open their books COMPLETELY, as required by law, I will have a little more respect for them. Until then, they are mafia pawns.

i was also at the premiere in nyc…

the documentary was garbage, honestly...i hated faranheit 9/11 with a passion, but realize that it was at least a well-made propaganda piece...this on the other hand was just horrendous...the movie seemed like the project of a below average college film student...it was littered with personal stories (about two or three for each topic) and few hard facts...it would have been far more effective to include more facts and spend less time focusing on specific people who claim to have been destroyed by wal-mart...doing this gave the film a desperate appearance...as if greenwald could only find a few people to support his argument...obviously there is no shortage of people who oppose wal-mart - which is why it is baffling that greenwald took this approach...additionally, as i already mentioned, few solid facts are presented...at certain points, text appeared on screen, listing statistics...but these were few and far between...not to mention that much of what little evidence was presented was corrollary - which is obvious even without looking into it further...the film is entirely too sequential...it can be broken into chapters - it discusses the effect on local business, then low wages, then anti-union actions, etc...much too choppy…

so for all you anti-walmart people, may i suggest you look somewhere else for help in your crusade, because this film is going to be a waste of time...it is amateur, and feeble...and frankly, walmartwatch.com seems to be doing just fine without rob greenwalds help

tom

I guess no all unions are the same.  It must be up to the individual local, whether they would help a non-union employee.

I do know that many object to joining the union because unions frequently help causes they do not believe in and they are not even given the opportunity to vote on whether they want their money to go to that cause.

Anything a worker earns by working non-union in a union shop (under “right to work") the worker earns through his own work. He is not freeloading. It is insulting to call such good workers “freeloaders”.

Since unions usually protect the below-average worker, a worker who avoids joining is a worker who can stand on his own, and is likely an above average worker. If this worker somehow obtains the negotiated benefits of the union, it is likely below what he is really worth.

And as for the union giving him legal help if he is fired, or getting him benefits at negotiation, whose fault is this? Blame the union for choosing to give away stuff to non-members.

David brings up a very valid point: when you are forced to join a union, you lose rights and lose money. Against your will, you end up paying for causes that have nothing to do with your interests.

JT: Socialism and communism are interchangable terms. I suggest you get a map from before 1989. On it, you will see the USSR. The USSR was 100% communist (led by the Communist Party) and it was also 100% Socialist (every territory in it was a Socialist Republic).

In practice, however, socialism is used for a type of left-wing fascism which is somewhat less oppressive than communism. The greedy socialist rulers will rob you. They will likely not shoot you unless you refuse to hand over what you earned to the greedy rulers. The communists are greedy too, but they will often shoot you before or as they rob you. Just for fun.

And, actually, leftism is a move toward fascism. Any time you move away from the people having power to the state having power, you are moving toward fascism. Sweden is not “very successful”: its government is very oppressive in the financial sense, and its government has slowly begun to move in the direction of letting people have their power back.

Because socialism is failing, the government is moving to turn control of health care, social security, and other sectors back to the people.

I have a healthy disrespect for authority, and realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is very dangerous to let the government control our personal lives as the socialists (and their slightly more trigger-happy brothers the communists) want to do.

People that cant see the negative side of Wal-mart and simular stores have obviously not been outsourced yet.  Look at how many jobs have been lost so far in the textile industry and other manufaturing plants.  The factories are not making a mint either. Wal-Mart squeezes them as hard as they can.  If these other countries are doing so well, then lets make them follow the same safety and enviromental standards that we have in this country.  Then lets make them pay a living wage in the country they are in that matches the economy there.  That only makes sense.  There are factories where people work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week sewing sleeves on a shirt(1 every 15 seconds as an average,) and make 35 dollars for that weeks work.  That is a criminal wage and pace no matter what country you are in.  Sure other companies buy products from over seas, but Wal-Mart is the largest by far, while touting a “Good For America” attitude. All the while, American companies are going out of bussiness because their over paid employees make a whole 8 or 9 dollars an hour. On top of that, only shift managers and above can get full time and insurance or other benifits. That leaves a lot of the employees for the rest of America to help pay for their medical costs. The money I might save there is going back in taxes to pay for the outsourced people to get retrained, and the Wal-Mart employees that have to go on welfare, and the pay decrease I am faced with because less people can afford the product of the company I work for. You dont have to stop shopping at Wal-Mart, even though it is a good idea, but you can pressure them to treat people fairly, and buy american products, and become the store that Sam Walton started so many years ago.

I was at the west coast premier last night:

Say what you want about bias all you Walmart lovers out there- This is a documentary, which means that it is based on fact.  You can argue all you want about how these facts are presented, but at the end of the movie, you are left with countless chilling facts and evidence of Walmart’s unrelenting rule-bending.

This film reminded me of the Enron film: The Smartest Guys in the Room.  Instead of Jeff Skilling, you have Lee Scott making statements like, “75% of Walmart employees are full time.  Most people don’t know that.” Then you quickly find out that “full time” at Walmart means 28 hours per week.  If you make up your own rules, you can do whatever you want.

But the most disgruntling fact to me is that US tax payers are footing the medical bills for Walmart employees because Walmart won’t provide them affordable healthcare.  We paid $1.5 billion last year for Walmart employee health care.

How can the largest employer in the country not offer affordable health care and then run ads about “living the American Dream” if you work at Walmart?  Lee Scott tells us his favorite part of offering jobs at Walmart is the “opportunity for personal growth.”

Just like Enron, you can cheat your way to the top, and spend millions on building a brand that Wall Street will buy.  However, Enron stole it’s employees’ savings, while Walmart simply never lets them save...anything.

Either way, hubris undoes them eventually.

stan in suttons bay, mi

Here is websters definition of socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Here is the websters definition of communism:

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Can you see that there is in fact a big difference between the two now?

You also say “Sweden is not “very successful”” which again shows how little knowledge you have about the world.

Sweden has consistantly ben one of the most productive countries in the world, has one of the highest standards fo living in the world, has one of the most educated populations in the world and for a country of around only 10 million people has created a disproportionatly large amount of very successful international corporations (such as Ericsson, Saab, Volvo, and Ikea, to name a few).

Stan the fact that you say in Sweden “socialism is used for a type of left-wing fascism which is somewhat less oppressive than communism” i sjust sad and shows that you are very ignorant. Your red baiting is straight of of the McCarthy playbook of the 1950’s.

Please read a book on the subject (and not one written by Rush) and learn a little about the world before you start ranting like a crazy person. Better yet, please go visit Sweden . . .

Look again at your webster’s definitions.  The #1 in each are really quite similar, with little difference. The “means of production” and all that are really private property, and in socialism, control of this is taken from the people and reserved only for the government. In the communist definition, it is just a little more absolute. That is all.

Socialism is a major step downhill toward communism. Communists say “Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. ... As Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism”.

This is not red-baiting. It is the truth. Socialism is not even a viable or stable system: it is just one step in a slide down the slope toward communism.

Also, you denied that leftism equated with Marxism. Now you bring up your preferred definition(s) of socialism, which actually refer to Marxism.

If you think socialism is so great, why not look at the countries that have been even more socialist than Sweden? Saddam’s Iraq (Ba’ath Socialist Party). Serbia in the 1990s with its “ethnic cleansing”: orchestrated by Yugoslavia’s Socialist Party.

You also did not address the failure of socialism in Sweden (evidenced by increasing privatization) and its extremely greedy government.  An “educated” population? No educated population would vote to have the government take so much away from the people. But things are improving: Sweden is learning, hence the privatization trend.

nternational is based in DENMARK.

“Your red baiting is straight of of the McCarthy playbook of the 1950’s.”

Not at all. McCarthy accused people of being socialist/communist/stalinist when in fact they were not. This was his problem. This is what he did wrong. When someone readily admits this and is proud of it, it is not “McCarthyism” to point out the facts.

“Please read a book on the subject (and not one written by Rush)”

Why not? He is very factual. However, I’m certain that he has not written a book entirely about the problems of left-wing fascism (i.e. socialism/communism)

“i sjust sad and shows that you are very ignorant”.

You are the one who is ignorant, and are not recognizing the inherant immorality of government running our private lives.

JT’s Saab Story....

JT, in trying to defend Sweden’s unfortunate legacy of left-wing “Trust Big Brother” economics, said that Sweden has “created a disproportionatly large amount of very successful international corporations (such as Ericsson, Saab, Volvo, and Ikea, to name a few). “

Since JT has no idea what he is talking about when discussing fascism/socialism, I wonder if this is claim is actually true? Let’s find out:

- Ericsson. Yes, it is Swedish.
- Saab. This is not an international company. It is a division of GM. GM is based in downtown Detroit, not Stockholm.
- Volvo. This one is a division of the Ford Motor Company.
- Ikea International is based in Denmark.

There. JT could only name one Swedish international company. It is a small number. It will probably grow as Sweden continues is trend toward privatization and de-socialization.

Nick,

All union contracts have procedures for termination.  If an employee violates the contract the union can’t protect him or her.  It is usually the manager who is lazy, incompetent, and criminal.  Managers have the right to run the business; the union is there to ensure due-process in the workplace.  Democracy is not a bad thing, I’m sure we can agree on this.

If a manager doesn’t want to run an efficent business, it is not the fault of the union.

Nick,

All union contracts have procedures for termination.  If an employee violates the contract the union can’t protect him or her.  It is usually the manager who is lazy, incompetent, and criminal.  The union is there to ensure due-process in the workplace.  I think we can agree that democracy is not a bad thing.

If the manager wants to run an inefficient business, it is not the fault of the union. 

I also guess by your logic, you are against tax-breaks for Wal-mart, since this is government intervention into the economy and not the operation of the free-market

All,

Sorry about the double post, but it’s worth reading twice anyway.

David in AR,

It appears that you are of an Anti-Union mind.

What in the hell do you think a Union is? It’s not just the leadership that runs the Union, it’s the MEMBERSHIP!! It’s the MEMBERSHIP that votes on the contract with the company they work for when up for renegotiations! It’s the MEMBERSHIP that provides for the non-union workers their benifits and pay raise guarantees!! I could go on and on.

As for no choice in a “Voice”, you are incorrect about that, with all due respect, David. The greater number of a Union in the workplace, the greater the “Voice”. Are you familiar with the line..."UNITED WE BARGIN....ALONE WE BEG”? Workers at Wal*Mart have no voice.

How do I know all of this? My husband is a Union member in his UAW local, for which he is the Financial Secretary. I attend Education classes with him, Union functions, even have traveled to Detroit where the International Headquarters is located. We support the efforts of the other Unions to be fair to the workers who provide the goods and services, as well sa to keep the American economy going.

Wal*Mart resists the UFCW because they do not want to have to pay their employees any more than they have to or provide benifits that would reduce their $10 Billion and growing profits.

Their so called “Health Care” Plan is a joke. Why is it that close to half the number of Wal*Mart employees in many states rely on Public Assistance? Why does it take so long for many to qualify for Health Insurance? If they do qualify, they cannot afford it on the wages they make. 

I plan with my husband to see this film on 16 Nov. I have known about this documentary for months now.

Once again Stan you prove that you are ignorant about the world around you.

Here’s another little lesson for you about the company’s that you deny are “Swedish”.

Saab:

The name SAAB is actually an acronym. It comes from “Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget” which means “Swedish Aircraft Company.”

Over the years, Saab designers have had a hand in creating innovations such as turbo engines, heated seats, active head restraint systems, cabin air filters, headlamp washers and more.

Though today the aircraft manufacturer, Saab AB, is a separate, unaffiliated company, of Saab motor cars.

Volvo:

In 1927 the first series-manufactured Volvo car, the Volvo ÖV4, rolled off the production line on the island of Hisingen, Göteborg. Since then, Volvo has developed from a small local industry to one of the world’s largest manufacturers of heavy trucks, buses and construction equipment, with more than 76,000 employees world wide and a presence in over 125 countries.

Ikea:

Getting some money from his father - actually thought for financing his studies - the smart young Swede set up his own small company. The name for the new firm was created quickly: IKEA - I and K as the initials of his name, E stood for his parental home Elmtaryd and finally the A for Agunnaryd, the village where he grew up.

The first Ikea shop opened in Älmhult, the small town in Småland where Kamprad founded Ikea. (newsflash Stan that small town is in Sweden).

The fact that Saab car division and Volvo have recenty been purchased by other companies does not suddenly change the fact that they both were started in Sweden and were incredibly successful companies before they were purchased in the late 1990’s.

It is remarkable that all four of those company’s florished under the hight of the socialist system that you claim is so bad for Sweden.

As far as Ikea being headquartereed in Denmark:
There are so many US corporations that now have their “headquarters” in the Caribbean Islands. Are they no longer US company’s according to you?

Stan you are using the Marxist definitions of Socilaism and Capitalism not the more general a vague definitions that are listed by Websters. Don’t try to get out of your flawed comparison by mixing the two together. Socialism is a compromise between the two extremes of Capitalism and Communism.

Do you think the Democratic Republic of the Congo is actually a real democracy just because it has Democratic in its name? Do you think that the Iraqi Republican Guard stand for the same values as the US Republican party? No , I didn’t think so.  But according to your childlike logic that accepts any label as fact they would be one and the same.  To say that Saddam’s totalitarian regime was socialist, is so far from the truth that it really boggles the mind as how you can make the statement at all.  Iraqi was a totalitarian dictatorship there was no socialism in the picture at all. 

And Stan Democratic Socialist Countries do not run their citizens “private lives” (Taxes do not equate to running peoples lives).  There is much more freedom politically, and socially in Sweden than in the US.

You say “No educated population would vote to have the government take so much away from the people”
and once again you show how ignorant you are.

Here’s some info about Sweden’s population and the level of education achieved:

“Now more Swedes are highly educated than those who are low educated. 19 per cent of the population aged 25–64 have at least three years of post-secondary education, while 18 per cent only have a compulsory school education.

One in three Swedish adults aged between 25 and 64 has some form of post-secondary education.”

You can read more here:
http://www.scb.se/templates/Publikation____137356.asp

Sweden’s population is consistanly ranked in the top spots for the populations high literacy and mathematics mastery. when compared to the rest of the world.

Kathy

I am not anti union.  I just recognize that unions are a mixed bag.  They were a major driver for better treatment of workers.  The problem is that they have become an end in themselves.  Many care less about preserving the jobs and benefits than preserving the union itself.

A number of companies in the US are going out of business.  It is not solely the union’s fault, but they are helping in the effor to keep them in business.  Mainly I am talking about the airline and automotive industries.  It appears that the unions would prefer that the company go out of business than make any concessions which would help the company survive.  At that point, my sympathy for the union ends.  There have been some concessions by the unions and I applaud those, but they are few and far between.

I know the argument that the “Rich Owners” should give up more of their earnings.  Unfortunately, the “Rich Owners” are not so rich people like me who have retirement money in the stock market.  I cannot afford to donate my retirement for the benefit of a dying company, so I shift my investments elsewhere.  By the way, none of my inveestments are in Walmart, although all indications are that it would be a good investment.

I don’t even have a particular objection to Walmart be unionized.  However, it should be because the employees want to unionize and not because the unions are trying to drive the companie’s profits down which ultimately hurts the Walmart employees.  It is nothing more than a form of blackmail.

Blackmail, David??  Really!!

Please keep in mind that it was Unions that inspired the formation of Social Security back in the 1930’s, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the stricter standards for OSHA.

My years of experience with my husband’s UAW local has taught me that if something is worth fighting for like a job that puts food on the table for a family, a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, safe working conditions, the ability to keep that family healthy, etc., then it is worth it overall for everybody.

I willl not deny that some unions have become corrupt and strayed from the tenets established. There is corruption going on in the Boardrooms of Major companies and in Washington. But nor do I excuse that. Bad behavior and immortality is everywhere.

It is blackmail.  The union is not stating how they will help the Walmart employees with specifics such as we will increase your wages by XX, benefits by XX, etc including the inevitalbe downside such as union dues and the danger of store closures. They are just making it as bad as they can for Walmart and Walmart employees with the implication, that if you join the union, we will stop.

Whether, this is the intent or not and I suspect it is, that is certainly the message that is coming across.

David,

Employees vote on the contract, decide on wage-rates, benefits, etc. with the help of the union.  People seem to be forgetting that the employees are the union; if they don’t like a contract proposal, dues, etc, they can vote no on the agreement.  Trust me David, organizers are contacted by Wal-Mart employees all the time and answer questions on dues, plant closings, compensation, etc.  Workers are the ones who organize stores and the union has to be honest with them or no union.

Today walmart has its BigBox-Mart best face on when it says its going to OPEN UP and tell America its secrets. We will all be looking forward to more PR people putting it to us.

We just think that www.OffTheWalmart.com needs to open near as many Walmarts as possible with Made in USA and all the Things they are afraid to sell and say. Like T-Shirts that say,
NOT MADE IN CHINA or NOT FROM WALMART

JimBob

ok here is my opinion on this whole wal-mart situation......i am employed at my local wal-mart and it sucks big time..ive been there almost a year...prior i worked at one in arizona last year...maybe its just this certain one now, i dont know..i cant exactly speak on every single store but this one sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! im an ics memeber which is a day stocker...well no where in our job discription does it state we are to unload trucks...(one would think thts the unloaders job..right?) well not here we are doing it on a daily basis..because they are too cheap to hire more unloaders..even though they make a shit load of money every single day, somehow they just cant afford it(yeah right) some of you r probably thinkin if u hate it that bad quit...but when times are tough..and jobs are scarce u gotta do what u gotta do...i dont think there is one single employee that doesnt get stepped on in some way or another on a weekly basis.....general merchandise stockers always have to go help grocery ics but do they ever send them to help us when there are only like 3 people unloading a 1500 piece truck...hell noooooooooo!!!! so ive decided to start slacking as much as possible these days...i mean if u were getting treated like shit and walked on every daywould u wanna help the company out by busting your ass everyday.. no...when u realize the company u work for has no respect for u why should u respesct them and bust your ass.."do unto others” after awhile people think whats the point.......and the so called merit raises..yeah good luck in this store....i dont think anyone here has got one in awhile..because the cheap bastards are so tight they could squeeze the freakin eagle off the damn quarter....wal- mart isnt the way alot of u think it is...sure they help the community...alot… but thats only to look good...and to make people say” oh they r soo great helping the community like that.....” thats only to look good...so u shop at their stores...and bring them more money...they give out all that money only because they know they will get it back from the customers..becuse wal-mart is so giving. Guess what wal- mart employees recieved from the company this last year for cristmas...a five dollar gift card....if thats not a slap in the face....thanks for workin your ass off all year here is 5 dollars for a great value pack of beef jerky! which they get the money back anyways so what are they really givin… nothing! well i could go on and on and on....but unfortunate for me i have to go to this shitty place now....oh yeah one last thing everybodys hours are getting cut...guess how much my paycheck was for the last 2 weeks...$262.06 yeah..im sure thats gonna help out alot.....i could probably make more than that in one week workin for the pooper scooper companies...but they currently arent hiring either..i mean i put up with shit might as well pick it up too...!!!!!well bye bye wal- mart lovers hope u have fun supporting the wal- mart maffia!!!!!!!!!!