I think I have stepped in Wal-Mart for the last time. (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Copeland]

Wal-Mart does not care who is killed by falling merchandise. Again, they treat this as a cost of doing business. It's not safe to work or shop in Wal-Mart. I'd hate to be in a Wal-Mart in an earthquake. It doesn't take an earthquake for goods to fall off those high shelves. A box bends some and down comes everything on top of it. This has been widely reported by the media. I've seen several network magazine shows cover this recurring phenomenon. There's more falling than just prices at Wally-World. Oh, I question if prices are falling, BTW!

OK, I've heard of this one before and it's totally ridiculous. Are high shelves somehow exclusive to Wal-Mart? Ever been to a Home Depot, National, or Lowes? They have shelves so high they need special lifts to reach them. Hell, even Target and K-Mart have high shelves. I'd much rather be in a Wal-Mart than a Home Depot and have lumber and glass falling off shelves that are higher than Wal-Mart's...or in their outside area and have large bags of soil and fertilizer falling on my head. This is yet another example of Wal-Mart being singled out because they are the "the big guy".

Aaron

 

[AjayM]

One night, about 10 P.M., I was the the seventh person in line at one of the two checkout lanes open. You know how many they have, 20+. I noticed a little sign at the register that GUARNTEED THAT IF MORE THAN 3 PATRONS WERE IN LINE THAT ADDITIONAL CASH REGISTERS WOULD BE OPENED.
So after waiting over 20 minutes to pay, I asked the cashier, I asked the cashier something to this effect.... I wasn't waited on promptly, no additional lanes were opened, you haven't honoured the guarantee. What do I get? A gift certificate? A discount? Just what? Her reply, " I-eee dooon't Knooow. Well, I said, ask your manager.

The manager came and mumbled alot and looked dumfounded. He refused to award me anything. A day or two later I was in a similar evening circumstance and regretfully had to go to Wal-Mart again or quit work for the day. When I got to the checkout, I just chuckled, every bleeding one of those signs were gone!

Ummm, did the sign say you were going to get something if more people were in line and the other registers weren't open? Nope. So why would you expect it?

I always like how Walmart get's singled out for everything, if you looked at just about every large retail store (stores like Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Kmart, grocery stores, etc) you will find all kinds of things that you won't like, does that mean you won't shop at those places anymore?

Andrew

 

[SteveA]

Someone made a comment about Wal-Mart not paying a so-called "living wage". Well, around here, most Wal-Mart employees are young kids working to buy CDs, movie tickets, and bubble gum. Why should I feel sorry that they don't earn enough to support a family of four?

I'm also skeptical of the claims that Wal-Mart goes into a new town, drives the local mom-and-pops out of business, and then raises prices. Please post a link to a valid news story from a reputable source confirming this practice. Until someone can prove to me that this is happening, I'm going to give Wal-Mart the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Rachael B]

Steve, they were in trouble repeatedly in the 60's and 70's for selling below cost specifically to run other busnesses out. This is not a lately thing. They've already changed the landscape of retailing.

 

[Rachael B]

AJ, they guaranteed to wait on people promptly. When taken to task to actually do so, they snapped into action and took the signs down. Isn't that plain enough?

 

[Rachael B]

Aaron, I don't thnk Wal-Mart was singled out because they're the big guy. They've been singled out because they've had alot of accidents. I used to date someone who workes at Home Depot. HD has a well-trained workforce and a very low accident rate. The same can't be said about Wal-Mart. Granted, in an earthquake it would be dangerous to be in any "wharehouse style" store.

 

[RobertR]

Has anybody ever noticed that Wal-Mart almost never advertises any actual prices?

If true, that would mean they've gained their reputation for low prices from individual consumers doing comparison shopping. I think there's very little doubt that their prices actually ARE lower, otherwise there wouldn't be much incentive to shop there. You may not like it, but plenty of people have made the choice to save money by shopping there.

 

[Trace Downing]

Here Ya' go Steve!
http://www.pbs.org/storewars/talkback.html
There are numerous anectdotes from residents all over the country, about stores closing. "Reputable"? Depends on what you are willing to believe. These people wrote these letters long before we heard of this event. It's exhaustive, as i've only gotten through 1/3rd of the letters, and I'm on my 2nd day.

If true, that would mean they've gained their reputation for low prices from individual consumers doing comparison shopping. I think there's very little doubt that their prices actually ARE lower, otherwise there wouldn't be much incentive to shop there.

There was a study done by an Ark. Newspaper to test WM's claim of "lower prices". 19 common household items were bought, and Wal-Mart had the lowest price on 2 of them. The lowest reciept was $12.91, WM's was $15.86. source...
http://www.walmartwatch.com/info/myt...section_id=103
And the "Volume Buying" that so many here praise Wal-Mart for...is illegal!...Do a google search for the Robinson-Patman Act.

 

[Jon_Are]

AJ, they guaranteed to wait on people promptly. When taken to task to actually do so, they snapped into action and took the signs down. Isn't that plain enough?

And if they'd left them up, Rachael, you'd point to that as proof they don't listen to customers.

Suggesting that they purposely allow their stock to tower precariously high and they don't care on whom it falls?

Suggesting that their engaged in slavery?

Suggesting that the workers are lazy, uncaring morons or zombies who regularly work for free and have no alternative but to do so?

Suggesting that Wal Mart is inherently more evil than Target, K Mart, and any number of retailers?

I'm no fan of Wal Mart, lord knows, but so much of this thread is mis-placed indignation, urban legend, and half-truths that my first reaction upon reading this thread is to defend them against such nonsense.

Jon

 

[RobertR]

Do a google search for the Robinson-Patman Act.

I did. Interesting law. I don't particularly agree with it, as I think that consenting parties should be able to buy and sell at whatever price they mutually agree to. Nixon froze wages and prices, but making it "law" didn't make it "right". It seems I'm not alone in disfavoring it,either. I found this quote:


"In recent years, the Robinson-Patman Act has fallen into disfavor with many antitrust scholars and enforcers. They view its focus on maintaining a decentralized economy as inconsistent with the current approach to antitrust, which focuses more narrowly on consumer prices.

Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor the Justice Department have had the impetus or the resources to fully investigate and pursue allegations of Robinson-Patman Act violations."

I view this in the same light as I do a cop choosing not to bust a kid for smoking a joint, as in "I have more important things to do".

 

[Trace Downing]

Robert; does an average single couple really bother to check prices more than the anal penny pincher? I doubt it.
But, Wal-Mart does advertise that they do, and people believe it, so it must be as true as their "Bring it home to the USA" campaign did. They are the great American store, even though 85% of their products are made in sweatshops, by underage workers, for 15-20 hours a day, and usually beaten, and sometimes raped.
Just because a cop won't arrest a kid for pot smoking doesn't make what he's doing legal. Wal-Mart has too much political influence, economic leverage, and power for any Gov law enforcement agency to go after. That would put a stall into their colonization schedule.

 

[RobertR]

Just because a cop won't arrest a kid for pot smoking doesn't make what he's doing legal.

And just because someone breaks a law does not, in and of itself, make the activity that breaks the law "evil" or "unethical". It is sometimes the law itself that is bad (such as Jim Crow laws). Contrary to what you imply, not every action by people is dictated by the use of "power". I would praise the hell out of a cop in 1963 Alabama who refused to bow to "political influence, economic leverage, and power" and arrest a black man for drinking at the "illegal" water fountain.

 

[John Thomas]

The moral of the story is that Wal-Mart has no ethics. Time and again their actions prove it.

You could remove "Wal-Mart" from that sentence and replace it with the name of any big business. It boils down to what a company's willing to do to make the almighty dollar. If one company is willing to do 'it' (referring to whatever immoral/shady practice) and another one isn't, the one that doesn't do it will not make as much profit and eventually be run out of business by it's unethical competition.

It may not be ethical, but if it's legal, big business will take advantage of that particular practice everytime. In the case of Wal-Mart, what they've done (destroyed small businesses) fits this to a T.

 

[RichardMA]

Has Walmart or it's employees ever heard the term
"forcible confinement?"

 

[Trace Downing]

Where did anyone get the idea that to criticize a corporation with questionable business practices and unprecedented C-S ratios become "anti-American", socialist, or against a free market system? It has always been my belief that criticism and protest was always our most valuable, and precious rights we have.
Harping on this again...:b

Please post a link to a valid news story from a reputable source confirming this practice. Until someone can prove to me that this is happening, I'm going to give Wal-Mart the benefit of the doubt.

My heart kind of sinks when I hear these kinds of rhetorical questions. How many studys would be adequate for either of you to take the allegations seriously? 20? 50? 1000? If I were looking at this honestly, I would gather that no matter how many facts I can bring to you, it will never be enough, because you've already made up your minds that Wal-Mart is telling the truth, and the rest of us are a load of alarmists. Classic debate tactic.
I speak only for myself in this. I know what I've learned, and can't look at this company as just "another retailer".
There was a time that retail was an honorable profession. In the times of Woolco, Penny's, Sears, Ward's, ect. peope were able to bring home living wages. They had commissions, vendor spiffs, and were dedicated to what they did. Then, in the 1950s, Sam Walton unsuccessfully fought in US federal court to pay his employees less than minimum wage.
Today, almost half of Wal-Mart employees earn well below the poverty line. Why should you care? Because people who have kids work there. It's not just old ladies and teenagers. Most of these family people earn so little at Wal-Mart that they qualify for food stamps. A WM worker with 2 kids gets medicare, and the community pays for their free lunches at school, which subsidizes Wal-Mart's cheap wages. The largest, and richest employer in the country gets corporate welfare, and is also able to set the standard for the wages it's competition pays. Everybody loses, except Wal-Mart.
Now Wal-Mart has created copy cat companies almost as powerful as them. Home Depot, Best Buy, Office Max, Target, CompUSA...the list goes on, but their all forced to play by Wal-Mart's rules, which compound the problems of cheap clothing made by sweatshops, toys made by children in China, et al.
IMO, Wal-Mart does not enbody competition or the American spirit. It embodys homogenization. Choices have been, and will continue to be eliminated in the quest for the lowest price. What does anybody want America to look like 50 years from now. Will you still be able to buy a bookshelf, not made out of fiberboard, and that actually won't bow inward when you try and stack books on it? Can you be sure you can? Will we still have democracy, or will it be plutocracy?
Whatever happened to quality of life, and not just the stock values in a corporation? What about compassion, and justice? Have we ceased to be citizens, and are now just consumers? Aside from low prices, how do these architectual abortions, that cause blight, traffic congestion, and crime actually enrich our lives?
Cheap products from a colonizing retailer (all of them) are no way to run a society. I belive theres much more to life than just a cheap pair of socks.

 

[Aaron Copeland]

Volume discounts are allowed only to the extent that they reflect actual differences in the cost of manufacture or sale of the product.

If you know anything about manufacturing, this is an easy one to prove. Say you are a manufacturer that makes products for several distributors. You have a given production line that is used to produce several different products under different brand names. One customer orders 5000 units of a product and another orders 100,000 units. Both products use the same production area. The cost to change over and start up a line is going to be the same for both products. Therefore, the more units you produce during a single run the lower the cost per unit. This is very common and legal.
Aaron

 

[SteveA]

Because people who have kids work there. It's not just old ladies and teenagers. Most of these family people earn so little at Wal-Mart that they qualify for food stamps.

These people would be earning the same low-wages even if Wal-Mart had never existed. Most Wal-Mart jobs are unskilled - and unskilled workers are a dime-a-dozen, resulting in low-wages. Wal-Mart, like any profitable company, pays it's workers what the market will bear, and they shouldn't be held responsible for curing all of society's ills.

 

[Trace Downing]

Steve, how is a mother of 2 who works full time, and still qualifies for food stamps, and her kids get free lunches at school, while her employer rakes in billions of dollars a year, "what the market will bear?" The government is covering expenses what her employer refuses to, because it hurts their bottom line. But of course, Wal-Mart is the epitome of the American Dream, isn't it?

Wal-Mart opens a new store every other day. They have a stated goal of opening one every day by 2004. They plan on taking over the grocery industry by that time. With plans like that, they can surely afford to raise their employees salaries, at least to the point of self sufficiency.

They abandon their old, ugly big boxes, leaving the town to deal with it, and build a new "SuperCenter" across town, or down the street. Most times, either right next door, or across the street from an existing grocer. Wal-Mart pushing out other "little guys" is not a matter of conjecture, it's obvious. By shopping at WM, we are turning numerous entrepeneurs, into potential Wal-Mart employees, and thus furthering the cycle of creating a two class system.

 

[James L White]

If you know anything about manufacturing, this is an easy one to prove. Say you are a manufacturer that makes products for several distributors. You have a given production line that is used to produce several different products under different brand names. One customer orders 5000 units of a product and another orders 100,000 units. Both products use the same production area. The cost to change over and start up a line is going to be the same for both products. Therefore, the more units you produce during a single run the lower the cost per unit. This is very common and legal.

Excatly, If volume buying were illegal, prices of everything would be through the roof

and this whole arguement that WalMart is killing businesses is lame, You should take a trip to where Wal-Mart is headquartered and you'll see that businesses there are booming.just ask Aaron Copeland, he should know he lives practicly on Wal_Mart's doorsteps

 

[Trace Downing]

and this whole arguement that WalMart is killing businesses is lame, You should take a trip to where Wal-Mart is headquartered and you'll see that businesses there are booming.

Sigh. You give them proof. They refuse to read it, and claim it doesn't exist. Why do I bother?:rolleyes