BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Wal Mart

 
 
wicker woman
09:07 / 06.12.04
As though Wal Mart wasn't frightening enough before, Forbes.com has listed the next businesses being threatened by WalMart's ever-expanding stranglehold on pretty much everything.

Apparently, they're expected to make another play to enter the banking industry. Starting up their own chain of gas stations. Opening up a chain of their own pharmacies. Starting up their own line of cheap-ass electronic gear to go toe-to-toe with Best Buy and such. Their recent surge in Supercenter expansions is threatening to squeeze out a local (well, tri-state local, anyway) chain of stores called Meijer's. From what I've heard, they're considering starting up used car sales at the Supercenter outlets.

This is genuinely starting to weird me out a bit. I mean, really, I do not want WalMart becoming the only place in town to go for everything. Yet, how do I convince people to shop somewhere else when they can go to WalMart instead and save five, 10 whole cents? I'm starting to wonder when they'll start up the Minor Surgery division. Right next to the socks, first come, first serve!
 
 
sleazenation
10:10 / 06.12.04
They'll get into insureance first, then move into the health care industry...
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
18:52 / 06.12.04
The sad thing is that people will blindly ignore Wal-Mart's hideous employment policies and the terrible quality of their products just to save a couple of bucks.

My town, after years of being Wal-Mart - free, just passed a resolution to let big box stores in. There is a Wal-Mart about a half hour away, but that is apparently too far to drive for some people. "It will bring jobs," they say. Yes, it will. Bottom of the barrel, minimum wage, part-time jobs. Benefits: a discount at Wal-Mart! Fantastic! Now the only merchandise you can afford is the crap they sell at the store you work for! I'm sickened. Maybe someday I can live in the United States of America (brought to you by Wal-Mart)!

I can't wait.
 
 
w1rebaby
19:44 / 06.12.04
Well, you say to somebody who's not earning much "don't buy things at WalMart, they're bad and they drive the economy down so that the only things you can afford to buy, maybe, are from WalMart" and they look at their own earnings and they look at the prices at WalMart and they say "fuck you, I'm earning fuck all anyway, I'd like to be able to buy a microwave thank you very much".

It's all part of a larger position, and while WalMart are a good target as consistently bad employers who manage to break even the US's pisspoor labour laws, consumer campaigns against them are IMO going to remain consistently middle-class and thus ineffective. It's the wage gap and income inequality that need to be addressed. Some of that addressing might come through boycotting WalMart, but without that basis nobody's going to get anywhere.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:06 / 06.12.04
The sad thing is that people will blindly ignore Wal-Mart's hideous employment policies and the terrible quality of their products just to save a couple of bucks.

Yeah, you do have to remember that there are people who can't afford to do other than ignore this stuff. Of course, if you CAN afford to boycott them, I'd argue you should. But you can't blame people for not doing so (not that I'm accusing you of doing that, mind you. Just thought I'd make that clear).

(It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when even the ability to exercise a social conscience is dependent on income, I know.)
 
 
Liger Null
17:25 / 08.12.04
We've got about four or five Wal-marts in my city. I hardly ever go to any of them, mainly because I work for another major grocery chain and it's just more practical to pick something up at work whenever I need food.

One thing I've noticed on those rare occasions when I do go to Wal-mart is that they've jacked up their prices. Now you can get just about anything as cheap or even cheaper somewhere else. So that's what they do: establish themselves in a community, drive as many other businesses under as they can, than raise their prices so customers end up paying just as much as they did without Wal-mart.

People are getting wise to it though. Whether or not it's too late now, I can't say.
 
 
LykeX
05:41 / 09.12.04
In only slightly related news Wal-Mart and unions
 
 
Sekhmet
16:45 / 09.12.04
I have a friend who works for a (major, brand name) company that works with WalMart. He says that WalMart is now in a mode where they tell their suppliers where to have their products made, to keep their prices down. And the suppliers do it, or they don't get to sell their products through America's #1 Retailer.

Thus, it's not only the American retail industry that WalMart is jeopardizing, it's also manufacturing. Major companies are sending their production overseas just to keep WalMart happy.

Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas.
 
 
Hieronymus
17:03 / 09.12.04
FRONTLINE's special on Wal-Mart was the best I've ever seen.

They're a capitalist's neutron bomb. They roll into town and decimate everything around them.

I've been trying to persuade more people to shop at CostCo, who contributes to several Democratic groups and treats their employees far better than Wal-Mart.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
17:15 / 09.12.04
The difference in price between Wal-Mart products and similar products in smaller stores is not as great as Wal-Mart would like people to believe, at least not in my experience. Say I spent $100 at normal stores on a mixture of things; groceries, clothes, a DVD, tools, whatever. If I had shopped at Wal-Mart, it might have cost me $90, but the quality of the items I purchased would have been utter shit, and I probably have to spend the meager $10 difference on replacing things I got at Wal-Mart that broke. Nothing you can buy at Wal-Mart is built to last any period of time.

I really find it hard to listen to anyone justify shopping at Wal-Mart. You pay slightly less, but you get significantly less quality. It doesn't seem to pan out for me. And, quality aside, I'm willing to throw down a little more to support a local New England business that treats employess with a modicum of respect.
 
 
diz
19:19 / 09.12.04
I've been trying to persuade more people to shop at CostCo, who contributes to several Democratic groups and treats their employees far better than Wal-Mart.

i'm thinking that this might be the best way to go, myself. i think the trend towards big-box retailers is a juggernaut that cannot be stopped at this point, but we might be able to direct our dollars to supporting the ones who are less evil. also, i think Wal-Mart has more to fear from rivals than from protestors.

also, CostCo in my experience, is even cheaper than Wal-Mart and doesn't have the aura of soul-crushing horribleness that smothers you the moment you walk in the door.
 
 
wicker woman
05:00 / 18.12.04
The difference in price between Wal-Mart products and similar products in smaller stores is not as great as Wal-Mart would like people to believe, at least not in my experience. Say I spent $100 at normal stores on a mixture of things; groceries, clothes, a DVD, tools, whatever. If I had shopped at Wal-Mart, it might have cost me $90, but the quality of the items I purchased would have been utter shit, and I probably have to spend the meager $10 difference on replacing things I got at Wal-Mart that broke. Nothing you can buy at Wal-Mart is built to last any period of time.

Didn't intend to completely abandon this thread, but... I did. So there.

Anyway, I'd definitely agree with that. I did, one time only, do my grocery shopping at a newly opened WalMart Supercenter just to see if I would actually save "all that money". I think I cut about $5 off of my average grocery bill. Whee.

I'm trying to come up with ways to convince a greater number of people than just my friends to shop at WalMart. I'm not sure the argument that some people can't afford to ignore the cheaper prices really holds up, since as jakegnosis pointed out, you really don't save that much and you're buying shit anyway.

On an almost completely unrelated note, WalMart is getting sued for selling an un-censored Evanescence cd. This amuses me to no end. I'll throw up a link later to the story.
 
 
Baz Auckland
18:03 / 12.02.05
An interesting bit in the news today:

Wal-Mart fined over $100,000 for child labour violations

The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., will pay $135,540 to settle charges it violated child labor laws in three states, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing Labor Department officials, the newspaper said the settlement covered 24 violations mainly involving workers under the age of 18 operating dangerous machinery including cardboard balers and chain saws in Connecticut, Arkansas and New Hampshire

A provision in the agreement between the Labor Department and Wal-Mart gives Wal-Mart 15 days' notice before the department can investigate other accusations such as failure to pay minimum wage or overtime, said the newspaper. The Times said some department officials suggested the notice provision might give the retail giant a chance to conceal violations.

Wal-Mart has faced previous child labor charges including a fine of $205,650 for child labor law violations in 20 stores in Maine in 2000. A 2004 internal audit of 128 stores found 1,371 instances where minors worked too long, too late or during school hours -- an audit Wal-Mart later said was faulty, the Times reported.
 
 
Hieronymus
19:40 / 12.02.05
Methinks they've shown their soft underbelly.

TORONTO - A union Friday said it will file charges against Wal-Mart Canada for exhibiting "bad faith" during its first-ever contract talks by secretly planning to close the affected store.

Earlier this week the Canadian unit of retailing giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it will close the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in May.

In October, a few months after the store received automatic union certification by the Quebec Labour Relations Board, the company revealed the store wasn't making money.

The company said union demands wouldn't allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably, compounding its already "fragile" economic state.
 
 
Salamander
15:16 / 14.02.05
Let me start by saying this, I work for Wal-Mart as an overnight stocker. I also went to high school in a small town. I do not make minimum wage, I make about 9.60 an hour, (I was being payed 9.10, but they gave me a raise just to make my wage competitive with the surrounding job market). I have never worked off the clock, in fact, you can get fired at Wal-Mart for doing that. The prices aren't much lower, that much is true, and I only buy my lunch at Wal-Mart, yes the quality is shit. But I remember when the supercenter came to that little pissant town. It was like we had joined up with the 20th century. I bought my first computer from wal-mart, which was shitty but thats because of the manufacturer, not because of wal-mart. When I go to work, I don't feel that my soul is being crushed, and I get paid better there then at Wendys or mc fucksticks. But I will give you the secret of wal-marts demise, which DM has already guessed. Unionize the employees. It is wal-marts achilles heal, and they know it, oh boy do they know it, they are shit scared of it. But I'll tell you one fun fact, when 9/11 happened, wal-mart was the first on scene with free food, blankets, water and other things needed for basic living. For like a couple of weeks, freight was pretty scarce at the distribution centers. They never advertised this, because they thought it would be crass to take credit for helping people in need. They do alot of things like that, and noone ever hears about it. In the end your just going to have to face facts, wal-mart is to other retailers what mammals are to reptiles, its just plain and simple evolution, and the buissness world is darwinistic as hell. Now instead of just sitting there and ineffectually coveting wal-marts demise or boycotting them, why don't you try and unionize the employees? It would kill them dead, do it quick before the primate of retailers comes into the scene.
 
 
Hieronymus
01:18 / 20.04.05
I know it's old but a friend of mine sent this Times article about Wal-Mart's idea of employee health benefits to me.

They'll do anything to save a dime, won't they?
 
 
jeed
10:05 / 20.04.05
So, salamander, and i don't mean to sound tetchy, but you're defending wal-mart by telling us...

1) Their 'quality is shit'
2) 'Prices aren't much lower'
3) Your wages are shit
4) The computer you bought from there was shit (ergo: wal-mart sell shit computers, the fact that they don't make the items means nothing when they're a retailer)
5) You shopped there first because it felt 'new' (to paraphrase)
6) They close unionised stores (see post above)
7) They sent blankets and water to New York and Washington. Big wow...It's not the Serengeti, don't they have running water in New York?

I apologise, i'm too cynical and I don't mean to get at you, but I've just been reading the links above and I have little time for apologists for the most destructive business practices this side of anywhere. Doesn't it worry you that your job relies on both non-unionised employees, and customers thinking all food comes processed and wrapped out of central despatch? Don't you feel a bit shaky?
 
 
lord henry strikes back
13:47 / 20.04.05
I've been thinking about it, and we don't appear to have a Wal-Mart comparison here in Britain. In terms of size the closest that we have is Tesco, a retailer that sells everything from "fresh" fruit to TVs, along with home insurance and their very own credit card. They employ a lot of people on low wages (as far as I know, though I've never worked for them) and hate unions. Healthcare is not the same issue over here, thanks to the NHS, but as far as I know they offer little or no pension assistance for the majority of their workers. Non-the-less, they do not engender anything like the level of anger that I hear from so many Americans/Canadians when they talk about Wal-Mart. Nor does any other outlet, even Asda, which is Wal-Marts very own UK branch. Why is this?
 
 
sleazenation
15:24 / 20.04.05
While Tesco's pay hovers close to the minimum wage, it is not especially hostile to Unionisation - When at college I worked at Tescos and there was Union representation in the store... having said which, the chief shop steward was sacked for sexual harassment of a customer...
 
 
distractile
16:58 / 20.04.05
We are a nation of shopkeepers, after all. I think Tesco is still perceived as a member of an familiar oligopoly, not an invading monopoly, even though it dominates its market to a degree that puts even WalMart to shame. You don't have to go too far back to remember when it was the also-ran to Sainsbury's, which I think gives people a (false?) sense of security that its status may not be permanent. But I think resentment may grow as it becomes more apparent that it's colonising all niches from corner shop to superstore.

What I find creepy about the UK chains is the degree to which they're assuming roles that arguably belong more properly to the state. The sorely-needed redevelopment of my nearest town centre has been made possible only by Asda's agreement to open a superstore there: the local council has unsuccessfully been trying to attract funding for years. Tesco has the Computers for Schools program, Sainsbury's now has the Active Kids thing. Both of these amount to extremely inefficient and only partially voluntary consumption taxes. To say nothing of their more overt meddling in central and local government ...
 
 
sleazenation
21:23 / 20.04.05
Swings and rounderbouts here - and much of it to do with the ideological difference between what people think is the responsibility of government/what people think governments do well.

In No Logo Naomi Klein talks at length about the hazards involved in retailer-led regeneration projects; how they often remove areas owned collectively by the people and place that in private hands.

However governments are eager to produce as much as they can while passing as little as possible to the people in terms of tax burden... governments that rely on tax revenue tend not to be re-elected...

Meanwhile... as robot zero points out, Tesco has grown massively in the past 20 years from a smaller player in the retail sector specializing in cheaper products to its dominent position today, and it has perhaps yet to gain recognition for it's market controlling status yet in terms of public perception. It is not good for any single copmpany to dominate a market, but surely it is beneficial to the nation as a whole to have a strong UK-based retailer leading that particular market rather than a foreign based competitor..
 
 
distractile
08:58 / 21.04.05
However governments are eager to produce as much as they can while passing as little as possible to the people in terms of tax burden... governments that rely on tax revenue tend not to be re-elected

It's not just a question of where the money comes from, though. There's also the question of the choice and scale of redevelopment. The commercial imperative is to pick areas where there are many "underserved" customers and drive towards maximum scale. That doesn't necessarily correlate well with areas that are socially deprived, and has a tendency to create unnecessarily grandiose developments that become white elephants as soon as an even bigger scheme is announced one town over.

Klein's "appropriation of public property" argument carries some weight for me too. Recent UK politics has been big on selling off long-term public assets to meet short-term economic needs - North Sea oil, PFI etc - and I think something similar is propelling the UK's retail market today. My feeling (unsupported by hard evidence) is that it's the supermarkets and housing developers that are driving redevelopment policy while local and central government pockets the cash and looks the other way.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:55 / 21.04.05
We had the situation of two library redevelopments in the area being tied to other development, in one case a brand new multistory arts centre and the other a Waitrose ground floor with the library above. The arts centre library just never happened for some unknown reason, the Waitrose was opposed by local residents as it would increase trafiic, net result our library service continues to use two antiquated, out-of-date, unsuitable, listed buildings.
 
  
Add Your Reply