Wal-Mart: “We’re Sorry”

The Free Enterprise Action Fund—a conservative activist mutual fund was evaluated as a “potential threat”?

Conservative stockholders a threat?

It appears that irrational paranoia had caused the Beast to run amok!

What group is left (or right) that Wal-Mart hasn’t alienated?

“Flaherty said groups like his cannot know whether or not they are being watched by Wal-Mart, whose security division is run by veteran CIA and FBI agents.”
[Toronto Star April 6 2007]

Do the professional bloggers defending Walmart take their orders from these veteran CIA and FBI agents?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

“Do the professional bloggers defending Walmart take their orders from these veteran CIA and FBI agents?”

First off, I am not a professional blogger and I take orders from no one at Wal-Mart, I get my orders from ‘Common Sense’.  Second, when you have a group of people spying on YOU, why shouldn’t it be reasonable for YOU to set up an organization, to counteract that spying and protect yourself?  One way, that has been used for centuries, is to spy in return.  If they are infiltrating your organization, you look for ways to infiltrate theirs.

I have tried to operate under the concept of the “Golden Rule”, ‘do unto others’, so when the unions use underhanded tactics of obtaining “Confidential” information, it shouldn’t come as a suprise to them for the entity to strike back and try to plug those leaks.  Let them either operate within the legal system or change the rules, but, until the rules are changed, abide by the rules of ‘common sense’.  If you hit me, expect to get hit back.

“First off, I am not a professional blogger and I take orders from no one at Wal-Mart,...” [Bob]

It is my opinion that most of the activity on this board from the Walmart folks is part of the 100,000 dollars Walmart budget for fighting unions. I love the ever changing cast of names and characters that come and go. Support for Walmart is in my opinion much much weaker than this board would suggest.

Happy Blogging.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker abuse.

The person who posted ahead of me is so full of it!! 

The only money I “get” from Wal-Mart is the money I save when I shop at one of their stores—period.

You can quote me on that, and take it to the bank!

JB

“Support for Walmart is in my opinion much much weaker than this board would suggest.”

You’ve got that right Alex.  How many millions of people shop at Walmart every week?  How many BILLIONS of dollars does Walmart generate in sales every year?  You better believe it.  No one shops there.....  My gosh Alex, you’re brilliant!!!!!

How many millions of people shop at Walmart every week?

Is that a rhetorical question, Mary? Or do you have an answer?  According to Wal-Mart 176 million people visit Wal-Mart weekly, but how many of them shop there?

Ken V, you are absolutely right.  I can’t find a definitive source that says “176 million” and how they count those millions.  So let just stick with “millions” (as I did say) and more importantly the bottom line of 348.65 billion in revenue for the most recent year as quoted by Yahoo Finance.

Now back to what I said earlier…

You’ve got that right Alex.  How many millions of people shop at Walmart every week?  How many BILLIONS of dollars does Walmart generate in sales every year?  You better believe it.  No one shops there.....  My gosh Alex, you’re brilliant!!!!!

And you know what.... I’m STILL 100% accurate in my statement.  Alex is an idiot and Ken V is “reaching” to find something wrong with Walmart and strikes out again… and again… and again

So you pose a question you have no answer for, Mary?

Perhaps you can answer this one.  Recently Wal-Mart jumped from claiming 134 million “visitors” per week to 176.  According to my abacus, that’s an increase of over 30%.

But sales aren’t up 30% nor is profits, so my question is: What is the significance of this foot-traffic count?  Does it merely prove that millions of people loiter in Wal-Marts? And has Wal-Mart used their computer scheduling to beef up the help to deal with amazing increase in foot traffic?

What strike is that? (I lost count.)

Alex & Ken

You guys are brilliant! Whether Wal-Mart gets 1 visitor or 176 million visitors per week is irrelevant. What matters is the $345,000,000,000.00 that shoppers spent at Wal-Mart last year. In case you can’t handle the math (and you’ve clearly demonstrated that you can’t), let me help you out.

Wal-Mart’s Sales:

Per Year: $345,000,000,000.00
Per Month: $28,750,000,000.00
Per Week: $6,634,615,384.62
Per Day: $945,205,479.45
Per Hour: $39,383,561.64
Per Minute: $656,392.64
Per Second: $10,939.88

So, in the blink of an eye, customers spend nearly $11,000 at a Wal-Mart store. I don’t know who is shopping at Wal-Mart but there are sure spending a lot of money!

“So you pose a question you have no answer for, Mary?”

OMG Ken V… will you please grow up and fact the FACTS.  I will site them when I seem them.... it’s called 345 BILLION in sales in most recent fiscal year.  It is completely irrevelevent how many people do shop.  What count’s is the sales.  If you want to claim that Walmart has fewer and fewer shoppers then guess what… those existing shoppers seem to spend even more money at Walmart.... which equates to shoppers who prove they must love Walmart for one reason or another since they shop there and spend even more money.

You need to move beyond that hard head of yours and face the facts not the rumors and speculation that fills your head.

You two are sounding a little desparate.

Whether Wal-Mart gets 1 visitor or 176 million visitors per week is irrelevant.

Like most of the numbers you and your little sister Mary qoute, 176 million is irrelevant. (and tedious)

What count’s is the sales.

Really?  I thought profit was what a business is after.

Just so I understand, if Mary and Nick tell us something it’s fact! If business analysts tell us something it’s mere “rumor and specualtion”.  Like the rumor Wal-Mart stock has lost 30% of it’s value since Lee Scott took the reins.

Have you explained to stockholders this is just a rumor?

11.284 Billion

How about that number Ken?  That was the total net income (profit for neophyte’s like Ken) for the most recent fiscal year… and that was AFTER deductions for discontinued operations which you harp about. 

I know Ken… it’s hard to accept the truth when it is presented to you in black and white… but you need to really get some preofessional help if you won’t accept the FACTS.

mary,

Don’t fool yourself, Ken V. knows exactly what you are talking about, he is just being stubborn and trying to get your goat.  Kind of like the little child the keeps asking WHY!!!  I think Ken likes to play games and will always go against anything you ever say, if you say right, he’ll reply left and if you say left, he ‘ll reply right!!  I’m not so sure, that he didn’t even go to Wal-Mart this afternoon to pick up some last minute Easter stuff!!

...Ken V. knows exactly what you are talking about...

Here’s what I know, Bob.  There’s more to blogging for Wal-Mart than merely going to the walmartfacts site, cherry picking some numbers, and beating everyone over the head with them.

If you readers have been following the back-and-forth between the pro and anti side, you may have noticed a trend.

First the pro side spouts a number. In many cases, however, when this number is closely examined, we find it is “meaningless” or “irrelevant”, but it sure does sound good!

Wal-Mart may still be growing, but they are growing slower than they did last year, and slower than the year before.  According to Bentonvilles own figures, they grew their square footage by 8% last year but their profits didn’t grow at that rate.  (Especially when you factor out inflation.)

Nick and Mary have chosen to play the numbers game.  It’s easy, doesn’t take any research to speak of, and it’s meaningless.

Did I mention boring?

You are absolutly right Ken… 348.65 BILLION in sales and 11.284 BILLION in total net income is absolutely meaningless… especially in the retail industry.  I’m sure everyone would agree.

WalMart is probably no longer growing inside the United States. The statements from Bentonville and business reports are showing that WalMart must expand in foriegn countries to keep a growth rate. WalMart has simply worn out its welcome across America and now faces a slow death as the nation realizes what Bentonville is all about. Their former employees have become the foremost witnesses against WalMart business practices. Just because WalMart’s reputation is in the sewer doesn’t mean it can’t get worse.

Mary, Bob, Nick, Sage, Someone and Jim-

Obviously your new WalMart kneepads can be sent to the same address-

WalMart- So you found us out again on illegal surveillance of reporters, critics and stockholders, employees, suppliers and competitive companies and politicians and lawyers and judges etc etc. Wait until you find out about the rest of it.
Bruce Gabbard has friends and history to tell after 19 years.
Tip of the iceberg is the right phrase.

SDV

Wal-Mart had RECORD sales & profits last year. Their sales grew more than 9% overall. It does not matter that their growth is slower than it once was. Every company eventually reaches a point where sales cannot grow as fast as before. Remember, at one point Wal-Mart was opening 400 + new stores in a year. Maybe they are reaching their limit. Who knows? What I do know is that, unlike K-Mart & Target, Wal-Mart operates abroad. I also know that Wal-Mart, unlike Target, controls its’ own supply chain and owns its’ distribution centers. Control of the supply chain and huge room for growth overseas means Wal-Mart can continue to grow sales AND increase profits. I would venture to guess that Wal-Mart’s sales will hit the $400 billion mark by fiscal year 2008. I would hardly call record sales and profits a failure.

Why can’t you guys admit that the financial statements that Wal-Mart gives to the IRS, the SEC, shareholders, investment analysts, investment banks, the media and their employees are ACCURATE? They are either accurate or they are not. If they are not, please provide proof to support your claim. If they are, admit that the facts are correct. Time to put up or shut up. Are the numbers real? If they are, it damages your whole theory about Wal-Mart’s unpopularity. Somehow, I don’t think Ken & SDV want us to focus on the black and white of numbers.

Ken

You say that Mary and I have chosen to play the “numbers game”. What game would that be? You meant the same game played by the IRS & the SEC? Should your numbers have more credibility than the IRS & the SEC’s numbers? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn’t? You don’t like numbers when they don’t support your cause. You want people to believe (because you are paid by the UFCW) that Wal-Mart is evil and unpopular and in a decline. When the reported numbers prove your theory wrong, you have to change the subject, complain, engage in name calling, distract, etc. to take the attention off the numbers that destroy your campaign. Even complete morons are going to question you when you tell them Wal-Mart is having trouble and then they see RECORD sales & profits for 2006 being reported.

Facts don’t appeal to liberals like yourself because they can’t be adjusted or have an emotional score attached. They are cold and unfair to you. To people like you, it is not right to focus on reality. Instead, we should focus on things as you wished they would be. Unfortunately for you, the rest of the world has grown up and numbers are an accepted way to measure a company’s success.

the rest of the world has grown up and numbers are an accepted way to measure a company’s success.

On Thursday, Wal-Mart posted better-than-expected results for December following a dismal November, but the discounter’s overall holiday season was still its worst ever, analysts said. ~ Washington Post

U.S. stores account for two-thirds of Wal-Mart’s $345 billion yearly revenue. Comparable U.S.-store sales, seen as a key measure of revenue gains, rose 0.9 percent in February compared with 3.5 percent a year earlier. link

Since you’re a graduate of 3rd Grade math, Mary, perhaps you can tell us.  Is .9% lower than 3.5%?

Wal-Mart boasts of “Always low prices” and being home to the middle- to low-income shopper. But when the company turned its attention recently to a more upscale consumer by introducing a stylish line of apparel and home decor, the move flopped. Same-store sales became sluggish, and Wal-Mart management conceded it made missteps and began talking about returning to basics.

And finally this.....

Wal-Mart also is dealing with more than its image as a low-price but upscale retailer. In late February, the University of Michigan released its annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which showed that consumers’ overall happiness with the goods and services they received during the fourth quarter of 2006 was the highest since the report began in 1994.

Wal-Mart, however, ranked at the bottom in customer satisfaction in the supermarket category. While supermarkets scored a 75 rating as a group, led by an 83 from Publix and impressive jumps by Safeway, Wal-Mart lagged the category with a 69, the survey reported.

“Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” ~ Mark Twain

Ken,

Time to clear things up (again)…

For those who have never been inside Publix (that chain is predominant in Florida and stretches north to Nashville, TN), I would put them on more on a par with similar “upscalers” like Wegman’s (certainly not Wal-Mart, Kroger, and other mainstream supermarkets) in the Northeast.

As for Safeway, though I haven’t set foot in one of their stores in a couple of years (you see, for the past 10 or so years, the industry created something of a grocery monopoly in the St. Louis area that doesn’t include many of the nation’s big chains, so I don’t get to see what Kroger and Safeway are doing, first-hand) then, they were comparable to the rest of the grocery pack--they only recently received their wake-up call and began improving their stores to the new “Lifestyle” format, which I understand is more upscale than before and makes for a enhanced shopping experience.

People who tend to shop at these upscale stores, shop only for the joy of shopping at expanded bakery/deli sections, sushi bars, etc., regardless of price.  People who shop for national-branded goods solely based on price either go to Wal-Mart, or they hopscotch around the neighbohood to 3 or 4 stores with a wallet full of loyalty cards in hand, as that’s where the best deals are, more often than not.

So, to compare WM with Publix is like trying to compare apples and oranges (so to speak).

JB

So, to compare WM with Publix is like trying to compare apples and oranges..

Wal-Mart lagged the category with a 69... Not just Publix!

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Ken,

Looking at those scores again, 69 is a closer to 75 than 83.

That means what, you ask?

75 is the “ group average”—I will go so far to say as grocers go, I consider WM’s in-store offerings to be more or less “average” (basically, the cans of stuff on the aisleways are the same packaged merchandise you can get anywhere-else).  I don’t consider WM to be any better than those representing the high-end of this group, but I don’t consider them to be bottom of the barrel, either.

Publix, on the other hand, is on the high end of this group, because they are considered, by all accounts, a place where (to coin their corporate slogan that’s been around for as long as I can remember) “shopping is a pleasure”, which I think is still an accurate description.

And if Safeway is doing even half as well, they are obviously doing much better than they have in recent years (anybody in Chicagoland recall the Dominick’s fiasco?).

You call ‘em excuses, I call ‘em facts…

JB

Alex & Ken

You guys are brilliant! Whether Wal-Mart gets 1 visitor or 176 million visitors per week is irrelevant. What matters is the $345,000,000,000.00 that shoppers spent at Wal-Mart last year. In case you can’t handle the math (and you’ve clearly demonstrated that you can’t), let me help you out.

Wal-Mart’s Sales:

Per Year: $345,000,000,000.00
Per Month: $28,750,000,000.00
Per Week: $6,634,615,384.62
Per Day: $945,205,479.45
Per Hour: $39,383,561.64
Per Minute: $656,392.64
Per Second: $10,939.88

So, in the blink of an eye, customers spend nearly $11,000 at a Wal-Mart store. I don’t know who is shopping at Wal-Mart but there are sure spending a lot of money!

Nick in
Sunday, April 08 at 01:24 PM

All these good things happening at Walmart yet the so called ‘associates’ need wage caps/low pay/ little benefits while fat cats like Lee Scott slurp up 22 million in a year.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will NEVER forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Nice numbers, Nick, but they are only good for one year, not per year.

Why not post those same categories of numbers for several years running so we can see how they compare?

(Maybe walmartfacts doesn’t give those?)

Whenever anyone posts these numbers it always makes me wonder how bitter the Bentonvillians must be to see Exxon, with only slightly higher sales ($365 billion) but almost <b.four</b> times the profit. ($40 billion)

If you’re so smart, why are you in retail?  :o)

Ken V,

“Whenever anyone posts these numbers it always makes me wonder how bitter the Bentonvillians must be to see Exxon, with only slightly higher sales ($365 billion) but almost <b.four</b> times the profit. ($40 billion)”

Then again, maybe Wal-Mart (unlike Alex and others), is only concerned with what THEY earn, not what others earn!!!  If they did, maybe they would get out of retail and go into oil, don’t you think?  They just might be happy, making $12 billion in profits, right now!!!

“Then again, maybe Wal-Mart (unlike Alex and others), is only concerned with what THEY earn, not what others earn!!!”

Bob in

Show me where I said that I was concerned what others earn Bob.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Alex,

“Show me where I said that I was concerned what others earn Bob.”

How about this one for starters!!!  I could go through this blog and show you many more of the same!!!

“All these good things happening at Walmart yet the so called ‘associates’ need wage caps/low pay/ little benefits while fat cats like Lee Scott slurp up 22 million in a year.

Alex in Ontario, Canada
Monday, April 09 at 05:51 PM”

Seems that you are concerned with what both the ‘associates’ and Lee Scott make!!!

Lee [fat cat] Scott works for Walmart.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.

Ken

If retail is so bad, how did the Waltons earn $90 billion doing it? Apparently, they are smarter than any other family in the world. I mean, how do you feel, knowing that the Waltons earn about $3,806 in dividends in 1 minute? How much do you earn in 1 minute? I know you earn very little but let’s say, for argument’s sake, you earn $100,000 per year. This means that it takes you a year of work to earn what the Waltons make in less than a half hour of collecting dividends?How does that feel? Obviously, they are much smarter than you are. How does it feel to know that Lee Scott earned $6 million last year? All these unqualified, incompetent people who are less talented than Ken yet earn far more money. How does it feel?

While I’m at it, here are some Wal-Mart numbers for you to ignore and lie about.

The first number is sales. The second is profits. The numbers in parenthesis are the INCREASE in sales and the INCREASE in profits. (sales & profits in millions).

1996: $104,859/$3,056
1997: $117,958/$3,526 (12.3%/15.4%)
1998: $137,634/$4,430 (16.6%/25.6%)
1999: $165,013/$5,377 (19.8%/21.3%)
2000: $191,329/$6,295 (15.7%/17%)
2001: $217,799/$6,671 (13.8%/5.9%)
2002: $244,524/$8,039 (12.2%/20.5%)
2003: $256,329/$9,054 (4.9%/12.6%)
2004: $285,222/$10,267 (11.3%/13.3%)
2005: $315,000/$11,231 (10.4%/9.4%)
2006: $345,000/$11,284 (9.6%/0.047%)

So, Ken, even you can follow these simple numbers. Each year lists sales & profits that were higher than the year before. This has been the case throughout Wal-Mart’s history. If they grow sales & profits at a 9% rate this year, 2007 numbers will be $376 billion in sales and $12.3 billion in profits.

Now, do these numbers mean nothing and am I making them up? Time to put up or shut up, Ken.

Great Scott!!! Look what an Arkansas newpaper wrote about Lee Scotts salary.

Scott Gets $22 Million Stock Bonus
This article was published on Monday, March 12, 2007 8:59 PM CDT in Business
By Anita French
The Morning News
Email this story Print this story Comment on this story Wal-Mart Stores Inc. awarding President and CEO Lee Scott a stock bonus worth $22 million for “reaching revenue targets” last year has raised a few eyebrows. The Bentonville-based retailer disclosed the news in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission on Friday.

“It seems rather extreme. I’m not sure what the justification for it is. It wasn’t a great fiscal year (for Wal-Mart),” said Jeff Macke, founder and president of Macke Asset Management and a regular contributor to CNBC.

The compensation committee of Wal-Mart’s board voted Wednesday to make the award to Scott and also grant shares to other executives, including Mike Duke, who heads Wal-Mart’s International division.

“I’ve no idea what their logic was,” Macke said about the board of directors. “I’m a capitalist, but I’m not sure how you can justify $22 million.”

Although Wal-Mart had record sales of $344.9 billion and a profit of $98 billion for the year ending Jan. 31, the company has reported dismal same-store sales—sales for stores open at least a year and a measure of a retailer’s health—for months and its stock price has remained sluggish since Scott took over the company six years ago.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said Scott’s stock bonus was a “performance-based, revenue-growth award” granted in fiscal 2006 and approved by the board this year once performance goals were met.

He also said Scott is “paid competitively compared to other large company CEOs.”

Scott’s salary and bonus for 2006 was $5.23 million. His total compensation for that year, excluding restricted stock awards, was $15.7 million. The $22 million bonus was for Wal-Mart’s 2007 fiscal year, which ended Jan. 31.

“Apparently, Wal-Mart’s incentive structures aren’t tied to stock performance. We wish they would spend that ($22 million) to shore up their employees’ health care plan,” said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, a Washington-based group that has been highly critical of Wal-Mart over its wages and benefits.

Tovar replied that Wal-Mart was “very proud” of its health care plans for employees.

The filing Friday says Scott was awarded 459,348 Wal-Mart shares, which will be 50 percent vested in three years and fully vested in five years. The award brings Scott’s total Wal-Mart holding to 1,185,002 shares, worth $56.8 million, based on the share price of $47.93 listed in the filing.

Wal-Mart shares (NYSE: WMT) closed Monday at $47.26, down 16 cents. For the past 52 weeks the share price has ranged from a $52.15 high to a $42.31 low.

-- The Associated Press contributed to this article.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Anyone seen a fat cat named L__ S___t?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.

Wow! That’s quite a drop from 1999 to 2006! Sales increased by a staggering 19.8% and profits did even better, a mind boggling 21.3% in ‘99.  2006, on the other hand, the increase in sales were still acceptable (9.6%), the increase in profits were....um...we may need a mathematician here. Somebody call Mary!  But I think a 0.047% increase in profits could be considered lackluster.

In another thread I was lectured long and hard about the accounting principals used in big business and how little things like loses in overseas operations and increased costs here at home could all be smoothed away and not show up in the financial statement.

You folks weren’t being completely forthcoming with me. It does show up. Right there:

2005 profits: $11.23 billion
2006 profits: $11.28

One wouldn’t have to spin very hard to say Wal-Mart’s profit growth has stopped!

Ken

Unless you are a complete retard, you should be able to understand that $11,28 billion is larger than $11.23 billion. This means that Wal-Mart earned more in 2006 than they did in 2005 DESPITE A WRITE-DOWN OF MORE THAN $800 MILLION FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS. Operating profits, which is profits before write downs, were a record high. Of course, net profits were also a record high ($11.28 is larger than $11.23).

I don’t know about you but if I earned $50 million more this year than I did last year, I would consider that a GAIN.

Profits grew, moron. Therefore, how could profit GROWTH have stopped? If I grow 2 inches, did my growth stop?

Ken, you usually make idiotic statements but your most recent post takes the cake. You are truly in low IQ land.

Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Hairsplitter.

($11.28 is larger than $11.23)

Duh!  Let me amend my remark.

“One wouldn’t have to spin very hard to say Wal-Mart’s profit growth has slowed to a crawl!”

I knew you couldn’t possibly understand the ramifications of those numbers I requested or you never would have posted them

Nick,

Isn’t it funny, how someone will think that Lee Scott’s bonus of $22 million, is a gigantic leap upwards, but $50 million is a CRAWL!!!

My question is: “If Wal-Mart never makes more than $11.28 billion profit a year in the future, at what point would someone consider that ‘not enough money’ and they are starting to LOSE money”?

Look at the growth of a child, they grow real fast the first few years, then they slow down, but still keep growing.  Then there comes a point when growth is almost stopped, do we at that point, no longer consider them a worthwhile entity?

People like Ken, amaze me.  They complain that Wal-Mart is getting too big and then complain that Wal-Mart is not growing fast enough.

Guys,

If Lee Scott’s $22 million gets people in an uproar, I wonder what this CEO’s money will do:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/070409/1444655.html?.v=1

JB

“If Lee Scott’s $22 million gets people in an uproar, I wonder what this CEO’s money will do:”

That’s only part of the uproar. The other part is the fact that Walmart wants the ‘associates’ to live very very close to the bottom on the salary scale, while Mr. Lee Scott takes tens of millions.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

You amaze me, Bob.  Where have you ever seen me “complain that Wal-Mart is not growing fast enough”?

I’m not complaining that Wal-Mart’s profit growth has flatlined. I use it to illustrate the combined effects of incompetent upper level management and the anti Wal-Mart movement.

The trusty abacus won’t go high enough to figure this but Wal-Mart increased sales by $50 billion but only increased profits by $50 million. What sort of profit margin is that?

If they grow sales & profits at a 9% rate this year, 2007 numbers will be $376 billion in sales and $12.3 billion in profits.

You’re not looking at your own numbers, Nick. Wal-Mart claimed sales grew at 9.6% but profit only grew by 0.047% so 2007’s projected profit should be $11,814,348,000.

:o)

Ken V,

“I use it to illustrate the combined effects of incompetent upper level management and the anti Wal-Mart movement.”

Even if what you say is true and Wal-Mart is operating under both of the handicaps mentioned, the fact is, they are still growing, even if it is only at a smaller percentage, which means that even incompetence of upper level management and the anti Wal-Mart movement, aren’t causing a NEGATIVE growth.  What would their growth be with competent management (in your view) and an end to the movement?

Your movement is like a fly buzzing around someones head, annoying, but, not stopping the person’s work from getting done!!

By the way, what would competent (in your view) management do differently than the management in charge now, to increase Wal-Mart’s ‘bottomline’?

“Your movement is like a fly buzzing around someones head, annoying, but, not stopping the person’s work from getting done!!”

Bob in

Must be a little more than annoying when Walmart has a hundred thousand dollars a day budget to fight unionization.
Walmart has blown it’s chance in my opinion to be known as a good employer. I am glad that there are those who believe that this movement is only “annoying”.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Your movement is like a fly buzzing around someones head...

That’s not what H.Lee Scott, Jr. said:

I liken it to being nibbled to death by guppies.

Old Lee was trying to minimize the anti Wal-Mart Movement but he couldn’t even get that right. The operative phrase is “to death”. 

We may take tiny bites but eventually the result is death! (evil guppy laugh)

Also bad news for you collectors of the ultra-rare Wal-Mart apologies.

Mr. Flaherty said the official declined to put the apology in writing.