THE reason for the current hate for Wal-Mart.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Recently there has been some serious bad media and coverage of Wally World. America's favorite place to shop. But why?

There are those that slam wally world for shoving mom and pop places out of business.. yes it does do that.

Yes wally world uses its vast resources to pummel the competition by offering insanely low prices across the board. If you understand economics, you see not only why they can do this and make a profit, but why its so benificial to them.

One of the two biggest claims is that Wally World is "bad for the enviroment" I cannot atm find the article, but it was in relation to the super wally world that was voted down out in Cali... that was one of the issues agaisnt it..

The other is Wally Worlds hiring and labour practices.

Now, you can break down the good and bad of wal marts policies, debate them and argue them all you want. Thats not why there is hate, the specifics of their practices. Rather its the KEY reason so many Democracts, and Dem's affiliated groups are against wal-mart. And yes it is they who have their guns aimed as it were, at the retail giant.

Why though, you would think that a company KEEPING jobs in America, with all the cries about outsourcing, a company known for hiring minorites, and improving, through jobs and cheap products the quality of life for the little man, would be championed by the democrats... but they aren't... why?

Whats the number one biggest organization that backs the democrats... besides trail lawyers?

(que the Jeapordy theme...)

Buzzzzz

What are Unions?

Bingo.

Wal-Mart refuses to work with unions. And that, is why there is such a current level of hate for wal-mart.

[Suburbanite]

We are Americans. As such, we aren't scared by a loss of jobs that we will give up more rights as an employee. They only hire part time. They never hire Union. Sorry that the average guy who wants more money and more rights at his Job isn't jumping for joy! The work place for every country that is more Unionized than America is better off, more pay, more vacation, medicle, social security, etc. But lets end Unions, make the government pay for Social Security and then complain about that.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Eh?

Wal-Mart, has lower pay and only hires part time? Lower wages???

Last time I checked, Wally World didn't hire at minimum wage, most of their managers (2/3) are in house, (I.E. low level people move up the rung...) and oh yeah, it has a large base of young people who are just entering the market...
Over 90% of thier employees have health insurance... not bad for the second largest employer next too... the US Government.

Now granted its not a perfect business, please show me one that is, but 100 million people shop there, every week... and I for one really hate, REALLY hate to pay a penny more for anything I buy, and since I am not rich... it matters to me.

BTW This whole hate wally world smells of the 1980's hate of McD's

[Suburbanite]

I don't remember saying it has lower wages. But yes, it does maintain a massive level of part-time only employees. Part Tiem employees don't get health insurance.

[Mr.Vicchio]

90% of their employees have health insurance.

10% is a massive level?

[dismal]

Who hates Wal-Mart? Not many people based on their sales.

They opened a new superstore near me and I probably save 20-30% on groceries there. I don't know why some people think it's good to pay more for things. I prefer to pay less, and don't feel as if I'm alone.

[white rice]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Now, you can break down the good and bad of wal marts policies, debate them and argue them all you want.  Thats not why there is hate, the specifics of their practices.  Rather its the KEY reason so many Democracts, and Dem's affiliated groups are against wal-mart.  And yes it is they who have their guns aimed as it were, at the retail giant.  Why though, you would think that a company KEEPING jobs in America, with all the cries about outsourcing, a company known for hiring minorites, and improving, through jobs and cheap products the quality of life for the little man, would be championed by the democrats... but they aren't... why?

If people actually "hated" Wal-mart they don't show it by buying their products....

Actually Wal-Mart has been caught hiring illegal immigrants, not paying their employees for overtime, locking them in after hours and making them work, and not giving them full-time employee benefits. Your aimless rant against democrats and promoting Wal-Mart would actually help if you worked there before.

If you want to know Wal-Mart's issues, check out the Pulitzer Prize winning Wal-Mart articles from the LA Times.

Special Three-Part Series: "The Wal-Mart Effect"

Registration is free and fake info can apply.

[Mr.Vicchio]

LA Times... no thanks.

I would rather not read pulitzer prize winning propoganda.

Wal Mart... isn't perfect.

But as a whole, the company is a good force, and thanks to it, 1.4 million people have jobs. 100 Million shoppers save lots of money daily.

Me thinks thats a good thing.

This is just rediculous. Where do you think these Walmart employees are from China? How do you think they would get away with locking employees in after hours? Way back when I worked in Retail, we often worked after hours and guess what, the doors were locked. Does that mean I was being held hostage? NO. I could have left at any time, as I'm sure current Wally world employees could leave if they wanted while working after hours. There are not chain gangs in Wally world.
AS to the fact WW doesn't allow Unions, I say GOOD FOR THEM. Unions raise the cost of production, which, in turn, raises the price of the goods or services produced by that company. Therefore, the companies with Union labor are less able to compete with companies that don't. This hurts the consumer who has to pay more, and hurts Unionized companies because they loose business to non-Union companies.

And I too will pass on the LA Times drivel.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, LA Times=propoganda. Wal Mart=isn't perfect=good force=1.4 million people have jobs.

You said a lot of stuff in your initial post. Any sources for your allegations?
Things like:
"a company KEEPING jobs in America"
"hiring minorites"
"improving, through jobs and cheap products the quality of life for the little man"
"Wal-Mart refuses to work with unions is why there is such a current level of hate for wal-mart."

You also said:
"90% of their employees have health insurance"
Source?

And:
"Wal-Mart didn't hire at minimum wage"
" most of their managers (2/3) are in house, (I.E. low level people move up the rung...)"
"a large base of young people who are just entering the market"
Your sources, please.

[Mr.Vicchio]

My source for the story was from... drum roll please, the latest issue of National Review, 19 April 2004. I know I know, slam the LA Times but use info from the NR... I like the NR. I hate the LA Times almost as much as I hate the NYT.

You can also find the info on the web but I will leave that to the doubters to disprove me.

Go for it, I dare ya.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, My source for the story was from National Review, 19 April 2004.

I couldn't locate the story at NR Online. Any quotes from the article, or do I have to go to the library? BTW, I shop at Walmart, too. I'm simply looking for how people get the information that shows up on volconvo...

[Mr.Vicchio]

I have the magazine right in front of me, don't know if its online or not haven't checked. But its the 19th or April 2k4 issue.

I get most of my ifno from:

Foxnews, JWR, WND, Newsmax, Drudge, NR, CNN, BBC, Washington Times, talk Radio and a few other websites that I don't have on my work comp.

Oh yeah I like Frontpagemag too, even if its in your face.

[Osborn F Enready]

Collective bargaining built this country. Killing collective bargaining will kill it. Unions are only needed due to the ridiculous laws imposed on business in taxation and trade restrictions to protect the weakest link in the business, the labor.
Unions only voice the workers opinion in unison, as opposed to individually. Name a union that currently does differently?

Take away the power of the group by seperating them, and you play to the old adage "divide and conquer". That is exactly what is happening in our entire society right now.

Smokers- Targeted for health risks and high insurance costs

Drug Users- Blamed for supporting terrorists

Overweight people- Targeted for health risks and high insurance costs

Sinners- Sin taxes on Alchohol, Cigarettes

Athiests- For not agreeing that God should be in the pledge

Gay people- Not allowing their right to marriage, and its tax breaks

Gun owners- Restricting their rights more every election

Privacy lovers- Removing your right to privacy for most things

Abortion- By trying to make blanket laws that say NO abortion should be legal.

Muslims, Quakers, Mormons, Rastafarians, etc, etc- targeted for suspicion by anti-seperatists (F.B.I., B.A.T.F.)

ANYONE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, OR THE WAR IN IRAQ- LABELED ANTI AMERICAN AND UNPATRIOTIC.

The list goes on and on and on. How long will it take to wake up?

You are a target too, just how long will it take?

[argonak]

Smokers- Targeted for health risks and high insurance costs Overweight people- Targeted for health risks and high insurance costs

if you participate in an activity that raises your probability of injury, then it is in the best interests of your insurance company and all of its other members to raise your rates, because your probality of requireing money from it is higher than someone who does not participate in that activity. thats the way insurance WORKS. some people seem to be of the mind that insurance is some sort of automatic free health care system. they don't realize that the money an insurance company gives out comes from the people who use it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thats exactly RIGHT! Charge the INDIVIDUAL not the entire insured public, so what is their excuse now?

[Osborn F Enready]

And while you are thinking that over, why don't you ask who is should be responsible for "terrorism insurance", which Bush forced insurance companies to offer to airlines, after the bailout. Weren't the airports charging for security all along? Wasn't that what all those security guards, dope dogs, customs agents and all that other stuff was for?? What were the metal detectors? Hello?

So is BUSH solely responsible for raising all of the insureds insurance rates then?

This is of course after the bailout he said was "our responsibility", because with an airline going under it would "devastate" our economy and way of life. Hell, they had to create the FDIC to get the same insurance for banks! Not long after we gave the money for the bail out, a new, yes NEW airline opened up!!! WHY WOULD a company open a new business in a failing market?!?!?!?! Why would we allow it after being forced to bail out ANOTHER COMPETING COMPANY IN A BAD MARKET???

HELLO?


Sorry, hot button issue.

[white rice]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>LA Times... no thanks. I would rather not read pulitzer prize winning propoganda. Wal Mart... isn't perfect. But as a whole, the company is a good force, and thanks to it, 1.4 million people have jobs.  100 Million shoppers save lots of money daily. Me thinks thats a good thing.[/b]

If Pulitzer Prize winning articles are not credible or considered propaganda, what news source do you hold in high regard? The slickest salesman/reporter?

Anyways, one can argue that the consumer also derives value in forms other than low costs and employment. McDonalds hires around a million employees. Their turnover rate is horrendous but the food they produce is cheap cheap cheap. One way that Wal-Mart is hurting the American public is its reliance on Chinese made products. People assume that the clothes and merchandise are locally produced, but that is definitely not the case. Most of all, if the workers are recieving lower wages and benefits, the return they give back to the local economy is significantly lower while Wal-Mart pockets the profits. Who exactly are you defending here? The stockowners and corporate suits?

This isn't a Liberal induced rant either. The general sentiment is shared by local and national groceries, American manufacturers who have to compete with Chinese production, and the American jobs lost from these American manufacturers.

Low price savings, at what cost? That's your own conclusion to form.

<!--QuoteBegin-dave654,
This is just rediculous.  Where do you think these Walmart employees are from China?  How do you think they would get away with locking employees in after hours?  Way back when I worked in Retail, we often worked after hours and guess what, the doors were locked.  Does that mean I was being held hostage?  NO.  I could have left at any time, as I'm sure current Wally world employees could leave if they wanted while working after hours.  There are not chain gangs in Wally world. 
AS to the fact WW doesn't allow Unions, I say GOOD FOR THEM.  Unions raise the cost of production, which, in turn, raises the price of the goods or services produced by that company.  Therefore, the companies with Union labor are less able to compete with companies that don't.  This hurts the consumer who has to pay more, and hurts Unionized companies because they loose business to non-Union companies.

And I too will pass on the LA Times drivel.[/quote]

I didn't exagerate the facts or give the impression they were working in China. In fact, you corroborated one and came up with your own conclusion of what I meant and how you feel.

Oh yeah, journalism is at such a low level that their most prestious prize goes to any shill articles.

[VXerick]

Originally posted by white rice,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (white rice,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One way that Wal-Mart is hurting the American public is its reliance on Chinese made products. People assume that the clothes and merchandise are locally produced, but that is definitely not the case. Most of all, if the workers are recieving lower wages and benefits, the return they give back to the local economy is significantly lower while Wal-Mart pockets the profits. Who exactly are you defending here? The stockowners and corporate suits? [/b]

People assume? Can't they read labels?

It's the Union's hierarchy that is down on Wal-Mart, because they are a non-union entity. Otherwise they couldn't have some of the lowest prices for standard trade goods as anywhere else in this country. And the most ridiculous item of the day (or any time) is that it's the union members who depend on Wal-Mart to save a penny here and a nickel there. Oh, but hurray for unions. Wal-Mart cares more about their workers than any Union ever did.

I believe Wal-Mart participates in charitable contributions in all the areas where they are located. They are a fair employer and unless you've worked for them, how do you know, except from anti-Wal-Mart propaganda, that they are not a good employer?
<!--QuoteBegin-white rice,
McDonalds hires around a million employees. Their turnover rate is horrendous but the food they produce is cheap cheap cheap[/quote] McDonald's hires students and senior citizens who are supplementing their income and couldn't work full time anyhow. They are already covered under their parent's health plan (students) or their own or medicare (senior citizens).

[commonsense]

By no means am I "Tree-Hugger" or anything close, but the only thing I can remotely object to from WalMart, and other huge stores like the HomeDepot/Lowe's Wars is this---If you're not already aware:

That, in a very general ecological sense, or simply hating egegious waste, their business model/tactics do have some avoidable temporary detrimental environmental results:

These companies are so huge and their national profits are determined by the national average, so they can afford to build two huge stores (in the case of Walmart) close enough together (driving distance) in order to drive-out smaller stores in-between, when staying put with the one would little jeopardize losing business to the smaller stores. The two large Walmarts basically divide the pie, splitting serving the same clientele, doubling their "overhead" until they decide which store will do better, sacrificing one of them after the trial period.

Walmart will also do this to drive smaller places under in a larger region, in the hopes that once they're the "only game in town" or more often "in the county" then they'll secure much more of the business in the entire area.

Of course, this is part of a cycle which has mixed results because once "main street" becomes deserted, rents will go down, and a new crop of entrepreneurs will have a crack at fulfilling consumer needs/desires of personal service or quality that even the best-run Superstore can't provide.

Actually, leftists who view themselves as "for the common people" should welcome this because it allows greater numbers of people to become more wealthy, replacing long-standing "dynasties" of established family businesses that no longer are as hungry or have become inefficiently-run but still linger for generations. We can all think of local examples...

Of course, if "leftists" were truly "for the common people" they wouldn't be leftists, but that's another story.

Back to my slight "ecological" argument:

When HomeDepot puts one of its stores very close to another of its own stores for the sole purpose of "driving-out" a huge competing nearby Lowes's in a war of attrition, both stores may operate for a long time without profitability because one wants to remain in business and secure all the future trade from being once again "the only game in town" and calculates the years of lingering as being made-up for in the long haul.

Walmart also does this against Target in regions where a customer could easily drive to the nearest WalMart passing a Target Store if he wanted to shop at WalMart, but Walmart doesn't want to risk him stopping at Target instead.

Again, I only cite these as remotely objectionable ecological factors because here in my area, there are two Home Depots five minutes apart, with Lowe's in between! There are two Walmarts twenty minutes apart with a Target in between, and twenty minutes more to the next Target, which is also another twenty minute's driving away!

As a business model, I guess nationally averaged-out it makes sense, and only if you fail to look at the benefits of all these huge stores close together providing plenty of immediate employment, and the longer cyclic dynamic for providing entrepreneurial opportunity,
does it appear "ruthless" and "bad" .

But once these behemoths from the store from the losing company or the one of the two from the same company that was "sacrificed", which were usually newly built on fresh landscapes, vacant land, or worse, picturesque farmland, eventually gets torn-down and rebuilt, there is an unrecoverable loss of environment that's pleasant to look at, presumably some negative impact on soil runoff, etc and eventual overcrowding when the developed-then-redeveloped area becomes a hideous townhouse development.

Libertarians are often confused as being anarchists, but this is wrong. What we oppose is the illegitimacy of the redundancy of Federal control when issues like this are caused by local govt's clamoring to meet inefficient, not to mention unconstitutional mandates from centralized control for funds sucked out of the hapless taxpayer that in effect destroy his environment locally indirectly by planners in Washington.

Both local and federal governments are at fault.
Mixed-use zoning prevents much of this environmental phenomenon I describe, instead of the "suburban sprawl" which the morass of local/federal laws create.