Skip to main content

View Diary: Hell Hath No Fury Like a Wal-Mart Vendor Scorned (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So every Wal*Mart supplier is stupid (0+ / 0-)

    How many suppliers of Wal*Mart have been put out of business by Wal*Mart's ramping up orders and then cutting them off? How many factories in the USA are closed because Wal*Mart told suppliers to move to China or lose the business?

    •  I don't even understand your line (0+ / 0-)

      of thinking here.  You're running from a local vendor who was too short-sighted to get more than one client (or sign a long-term contract that would have covered them) to China?  Huh?  Are we outsourcing taped board meetings to the Chinese now?  

      jesus.  My grandparents were small business owners, and if they ran their place like Flagler apparently ran theirs, they never would have survived.  When a client decides they no longer need you, you either find other clients or you fold.  There's no ethics here.  There's no right or wrong.  These are basic business relationships.

      See, this is why this conversation is so hard to have: your only concern is presenting Wal-Mart as an evil corporation.  I agree that they do terrible things, but that doesn't mean every interaction they have is evil, just because they're involved.  

      You know nothing about the decision-making process involved, but because it's Wal-Mart, you're going to assume that they had some nefarious plan to screw over a small business owner.  That's weak.  Then when the small business owner does something that, in any other circumstance, would seem at least questionable ethics, people are cheering because it's against Wal-Mart.  That's twice as weak.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You aren't listening (0+ / 0-)

        You start with the assumption that those who defend Flagler are doing it only because they hate Wal*Mart. You also assert, without a shred of evidence, that it is unethical in business to follow the law. Then, you  complain that it is the fault of the company that did business with Wal*Mart for allowing Wal*Mart to be their biggest customer.

        I concluded from your claim that you believe that the folks at Rubbermaid and all of the other Wal*Mart suppliers that Wal*Mart drove out of business were also fools for doing business with Wal*Mart to the extent that they did. They should have told Wal*Mart that their orders were too large and that they were becoming dangerously reliant on Wal*Mart.

        Flagler was a supplier to Wal*Mart for over 35 years. That's not bad. Clearly Wal*Mart was quite happy until a new executive decided that he had to show people that he could change things and then new owners took over at Flagler. It's interesting that he waited until the sale was closed before he cut them off nine days later. That is no more and no less unethical than what Flagler did. It was perfectly legal.

        Flagler owns something of value. You insist, without any explanation, that they are being unethical in selling it. If you actually provide a reason for us to accept your assertion that their ethics were lacking, then I'll consider what you want me to. Right now, you have nothing.

        I find it very interesting that you have no problem asserting that there is a lack of ethics on Flagler's part, but have no problem with Wal*Mart's ethics. As far as you are concerned, they were completely fair in hiding the fact that they had decided to cut Flagler off until the purchase closed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site