The Walmartization Of America
- Thread starter autofixer
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,223
- 1,425
jimntx said:
Jim....couldn't help but notice the reference to SWA, which tends to come up eventually when WalMart is discussed. Big difference though. Seems like no other airline wanted to serve places like Midland or Harlingen Texas. Then SWA popularized them and low and behold "commuter" service by the others was started. But then SWA made a move into bigger cities. And here's the difference...Southwest pays a living wage...even to start. Stay with them a while and they pay more than most of the major airlines do. A guy staying with WalMart for 20 years is being paid maybe $12 an hour, and still has pathetic health care benefits - and had to wait two years to get them. Plus, many of the early on SWA employees retired millionaires. Think ANY Walmart employees outside the executive suite has retired as a millionaire?
IMHO, WalMart has HURT this country, not just by moving into the suburban neighborhoods. They are on a quest to keep costs low, well, except for those in the executive suite...the CEO owns the Kansas City Royals, but has found that the WalMart way of cutting costs to the bone doesn't work too well with a major league baseball team. And that quest has resulted in the use of sweatshop labor in parts of the world where that's still legal. And when a "quality" manufacturer make the mistake of trying to expand by getting into WalMart, they kill their reputation for quality. Levi's is a good example...Levi's wanted into WalMart, but Walmart didn't like what they had to pay to get their jeans in their stores. So, Levi's send a lot of production offshore - the result, lower quality jeans. Sure, they were cheap, but when the seams start to split after a couple of years, the term "cheap" takes on a whole new meaning. I remember when I was a teenager in the 70's, those jeans used to outlast me. Ain't that way any more. And someone who bought a pair of Levi's at a Walmart that crapped out after a year might see them for a higher price at the Gap, but they won't buy them because of the WalMart cheap jeans experience that they had.
And, as has been mentioned earlier...Walmart took out life insurance policies on their employees...not to benefit the family of the Walmart worker who left the world, but to pad the corporate bottom line. I don't believe Walmart even offers life insurance to their employees.
Things can change...30 years ago, the American auto industry was derided because of the "planned obsolecence of their product. American's demanded that they build a car that matched the quality of the imports. Detroit responded. Today, consumers willingly accept the "planned obsolecence" of inferior merchandise that is sold at a WalMart. I don't shop at WalMart if I can help it, but last June, I was supposed to dance in a dad's dance at my daughters dance recital. My tennis shoes were a little worse for wear, and with only an hour before we had to be at the recital, I ran up to Walmart and bought a pair of Starter tennis shoes. Paid $20. 3 months later, the things are coming apart. I guess I'd rather pay $50 for a pair of shoes that will last me a couple of years than $80 over the course of a year for crappy tennis shoes.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Nov 5, 2003
- 645
- 0
I'm surprised Wal-Mart has not created their own airline. They have brought down the retail business by treating their employees like slaves (not trying to offend anyone). So why not start Wal-Mart Airways and they can help all of these greedy CEO's bring down what is left of the airline industry. :down: :down: :down:
jimntx
Veteran
KCFlyer said:
KC, don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down SWA. I was just noting that in the early days of both, they created a market by serving a customer base that no one else wanted or cared about. The real difference in Wal-Mart and SWA though lies in the way they treat their employees. Would you not agree?
KCFlyer said:
It isn't "a lot" of their production, it is ALL of their production. Early this year, Levi Strauss closed their last two plants in the U.S. One was in San Antonio. I think the other was somewhere in California. Levi's, which for years were the quintessential symbol of America to most of the world, are no longer manufactured in the U.S.
Fortunately, I had a loving grandfather who taught me early on that "You get what you pay for"--particularly when it comes to footwear. He always told me that it was better to have 3 pairs of good shoes than 20 pairs of cheap shoes. And, he shined a pair of shoes every time he took them off from wearing them for a day. When he died in 1964, he still had wearable shoes in the closet that he had bought in the 1920's. (As men, we also have the advantage that our shoe styles don't change that much.KCFlyer said:
)When I was still flying, some of the younger male flight attendants couldn't believe that I would wear a pair of shoes on the a/c that I had bought for $150. Of course, I still have those shoes. In the same period of time, they probably bought 10 pairs of $30 shoes. Who saved money?
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Nov 5, 2003
- 645
- 0
I wonder if Garfield1966 has applied with Wal-Mart? Since he was fired from AA! 
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,223
- 1,425
JS said:
JS...Costco is profitable. They pay their employees a decent wage and provide excellent benefits. Their prices are quite competitive with Sams Clubs.
Now...my economic theory is that that "overpaid" cashier might just go spend some money on a new car from a local car dealer. He might go buy a new house from a local builder. He might go take the family to dinner at a local restaurant once a week. He won't go to the local (taxpayer funded) health department for basic medical care. He won't be applying for (taxpayer funded) food stamps. In short, he'll rely less on government assitance and provide more to the local economy. But all Wall Street cares about is superior profits, without a thought to the costs associated with those profits.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
and just to add one thing more kc, a happy content employee will in most cases produce a happy content customer. southwest figured that one out years ago when other carriers were losing money and welding the doors shut.
jimntx
Veteran
KCFlyer and local 12 proud, it is obvious to me that both of you must be Communists with connections to Al Qaeda. The only thing important in life is maximization of stockholder value! Well, to be exact, maximization of the value of stocks I hold. Employee satisfaction or ability to pay bills or to feed their families is an obvious Democratic ploy to raise taxes and destroy America! I'm reporting both of you!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: ( )
)jimntx said:KCFlyer and local 12 proud, it is obvious to me that both of you must be Communists with connections to Al Qaeda. The only thing important in life is maximization of stockholder value! Well, to be exact, maximization of the value of stocks I hold. Employee satisfaction or ability to pay bills or to feed their families is an obvious Democratic ploy to raise taxes and destroy America! I'm reporting both of you!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: (
[post="177548"][/post]
Hey, don't forget me! If not thinking like that is being a commie then I want to be a commie too!
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
Challenging the WalMarting of America
PLENTY IS WRONG WITH THE WAL-MART PICTURE
Dec 8, 2003
A drama is taking place about the future, not just of America's economy, but the global marketplace. A metaphor for this drama is the role that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, plays. Since its founding by Sam Walton in 1962, it has grown to be larger than the economies of 170 nations.
By rigorous cost containment and careful attention to detail, it has forced suppliers to be competitive and more effective. It has given Americans lower prices, and some experts even say has held down inflation. What could be wrong with this picture? Well, plenty.
First of all, there are the costs to communities. It appears that communities lose far more jobs with Wal-Mart than they gain. Depending upon that community and whether or not those jobs lost are unionized, the jobs that they do get are $2 to $10 an hour less than those destroyed. Much of the opposition is to the impact that Wal-Mart has on the fabric of the communities it operates in, often at the outskirts of town, drawing away from the vitality of the main street where businesses, slowly, are strangled.
The impact can even be devastating for its suppliers, as detailed in a cover story in this month's Fast Company magazine, discussing the impact on Huffy Bikes and Vlasic Pickles, where companies end up being squeezed and often cannibalizing themselves. Finally, there are grave questions about the treatment of workers in the factories around the world that supply Wal-Mart.
There appears to be a corrosive impact on Wal-Mart itself: It is not just anti-union, but blatantly so, firing workers who are sympathetic to unions. There is illegal coercion of their own employees who may be interested in unions, and illegal roadblocks to people who would organize.
Last June in the Wall Street Journal, there was a story about Wal-Mart firing workers earning $9.50/hour just because they were at the upper end of Wal-Mart's already low pay scale.
There is strong evidence that the corporate culture that knows every detail of its supply chain refuses to correct abuses that have been widely reported in its own operation.
Last year in Oregon, a jury found that company managers had coerced hundreds of employees to work overtime without compensation, as Wal-Mart managers were tampering with time cards, and forcing employees to work off the clock. This appears not to be an isolated example. Already Wal-Mart has settled overtime suits in Colorado and New Mexico, and there are more than 40 other cases pending across the country.
Equally as distressing was the raid this fall of 61 Wal-Mart stores where it appears they were contracting with companies to clean their stores who systematically used illegal immigrants. These employees were cheated out of overtime by these companies that often failed to pay their taxes. A systemic pattern by a company known for insisting on detailed, private financial information from its suppliers, but unable or unwilling to make sure that its own contractors follow the law. This raises huge questions about their 10,000 overseas contractors and subcontractors, about whether or not Wal-Mart has complied with its own vague code of conduct, especially since Wal-Mart is the only major retailer that refuses to allow independent auditing of its factories overseas.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Wal-Mart to open up to independent monitoring abroad, to stop cheating its employees at home, and to become a force to lift standards, to make our world a better place.
To help them, Congress ought to start now investigating the practices of America's largest retailer, particularly as it relates to labor and employment. Communities should help Wal-Mart by not cutting corners and cutting their own throats in competition for another store, and instead establish reasonable land use and planning regulations for Wal-Mart developments.
Most important, consumers should begin to consider whether the lowest price is worth any cost: to the poor of the world, to suppliers here at home, to the health of our main streets, and the abuse of Wal-Mart workers, and Americans denied basic organizing rights. There is a Wal-Mart Day of Action planned next month for January 14. This will give us all an opportunity to consider whether the lowest price, regardless of its cost, is worth it.
PLENTY IS WRONG WITH THE WAL-MART PICTURE
Dec 8, 2003
A drama is taking place about the future, not just of America's economy, but the global marketplace. A metaphor for this drama is the role that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, plays. Since its founding by Sam Walton in 1962, it has grown to be larger than the economies of 170 nations.
By rigorous cost containment and careful attention to detail, it has forced suppliers to be competitive and more effective. It has given Americans lower prices, and some experts even say has held down inflation. What could be wrong with this picture? Well, plenty.
First of all, there are the costs to communities. It appears that communities lose far more jobs with Wal-Mart than they gain. Depending upon that community and whether or not those jobs lost are unionized, the jobs that they do get are $2 to $10 an hour less than those destroyed. Much of the opposition is to the impact that Wal-Mart has on the fabric of the communities it operates in, often at the outskirts of town, drawing away from the vitality of the main street where businesses, slowly, are strangled.
The impact can even be devastating for its suppliers, as detailed in a cover story in this month's Fast Company magazine, discussing the impact on Huffy Bikes and Vlasic Pickles, where companies end up being squeezed and often cannibalizing themselves. Finally, there are grave questions about the treatment of workers in the factories around the world that supply Wal-Mart.
There appears to be a corrosive impact on Wal-Mart itself: It is not just anti-union, but blatantly so, firing workers who are sympathetic to unions. There is illegal coercion of their own employees who may be interested in unions, and illegal roadblocks to people who would organize.
Last June in the Wall Street Journal, there was a story about Wal-Mart firing workers earning $9.50/hour just because they were at the upper end of Wal-Mart's already low pay scale.
There is strong evidence that the corporate culture that knows every detail of its supply chain refuses to correct abuses that have been widely reported in its own operation.
Last year in Oregon, a jury found that company managers had coerced hundreds of employees to work overtime without compensation, as Wal-Mart managers were tampering with time cards, and forcing employees to work off the clock. This appears not to be an isolated example. Already Wal-Mart has settled overtime suits in Colorado and New Mexico, and there are more than 40 other cases pending across the country.
Equally as distressing was the raid this fall of 61 Wal-Mart stores where it appears they were contracting with companies to clean their stores who systematically used illegal immigrants. These employees were cheated out of overtime by these companies that often failed to pay their taxes. A systemic pattern by a company known for insisting on detailed, private financial information from its suppliers, but unable or unwilling to make sure that its own contractors follow the law. This raises huge questions about their 10,000 overseas contractors and subcontractors, about whether or not Wal-Mart has complied with its own vague code of conduct, especially since Wal-Mart is the only major retailer that refuses to allow independent auditing of its factories overseas.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Wal-Mart to open up to independent monitoring abroad, to stop cheating its employees at home, and to become a force to lift standards, to make our world a better place.
To help them, Congress ought to start now investigating the practices of America's largest retailer, particularly as it relates to labor and employment. Communities should help Wal-Mart by not cutting corners and cutting their own throats in competition for another store, and instead establish reasonable land use and planning regulations for Wal-Mart developments.
Most important, consumers should begin to consider whether the lowest price is worth any cost: to the poor of the world, to suppliers here at home, to the health of our main streets, and the abuse of Wal-Mart workers, and Americans denied basic organizing rights. There is a Wal-Mart Day of Action planned next month for January 14. This will give us all an opportunity to consider whether the lowest price, regardless of its cost, is worth it.
