Wal-Mart Is Smart

Never let it be said that Wal-Mart is stupid. Venal, sure. Cruel, often. But stupid? Not by a long shot. We're in the busiest shopping season of the year -- what better time to announce that the company is willing to "allow its workers to set up a trade union if they want." One catch -- the announcement pertained only to Wal-Mart employees in China. Another catch -- Chinese unions bear more resemblance to Wal-Mart management than they do to authentic free trade unions.

Indeed, "official" Chinese unions such as those seeking to deal with Wal-Mart are so benign, from an employer's perspective, that many have questioned why Wal-Mart would seek to exclude them:

Andrew Rothman, a former US diplomat who is now the China country head for CLSA Emerging Markets, an investment bank, says, "Most multinational companies of any size in China have a union presence, and I've not heard of it causing a problem for anybody." That's little wonder, because the federation unit at most companies confines itself to such things as organizing outings for workers or, less often, administering workers' health or unemployment insurance payments.

Wal-Mart didn't really want to deal with the Chinese unions, toothless as they are, because doing so could increase the chance of unionization in other countries with real unions. But the Chinese government, which gets along with Wal-Mart just fine, wanted the company to work with their house unions -- the more workers in official unions, the less chance of a real free trade union movement developing in China. So Wal-Mart waited to cave until the holidays, allowing them to get good press in the US for "working with unions" at a time of year when good PR is critical for a retail operation, while conceding nothing in the US and losing no advantages in China. Sure, American unions can try to use this to their advantage in the future, but by then most Americans will forget that this China episode ever happened. It's a neat trick -- and just another example of the evil genius that is Wal-Mart.

•  Wal-Mart News Release

  Same as Friday Night News Releases; no press on the weekend.

  by ROGNM on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:00:33 PM PDT

•  I had a diary entry on this a few days ago

  My diary entry is at:

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/26/224536/00

  (Yeah, I know, it's a plug for my diary.)

  I don't see it as a ploy for American PR.  I see it as shameless hypocrisy.  They hate the unions that work for better wages and benefits in the U.S. and other western countries.   They love a union that is a puppet of the evil totalitarian regime in the P.R.C.

  by MJB on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:01:50 PM PDT

  •  More than hypocrisy

    They fought Chinese unionization for a while -- they didn't want to set a bad precedent. But they realized they had to cave to please their government/party allies. So when they finally caved, they ensured positive coverage at home on Thanksgiving weeked. Sure, they're not unhappy dealing with a company union in China, and they're hypocrites -- but there's more at work here, I think.

    by Trapper John on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:11:27 PM PDT

    •  Also a matter of cost

      As I understand it from reading the English language press in CHina while this was going down, this is also an issue of cost. Employers are expected to pay something like 1% of the salaries of the employees working in a company to the union. That money goes to pay for the union, as well as things like health care. And of course, WalMart can't afford 1% of the chicken scratch they pay Chinese retail workers...

      by emptywheel on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:28:22 PM PDT

•  Wal-Mart is all about cutting costs down.

  Whether it's running the Royals or busting the Unions. When Wal-Mart is so much about cutting costs like Frontline documented a couple of weeks ago, it's small wonder that the Royals are a perennial minor league franchise for the rest of the majors.

  by Eternal Hope on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:03:13 PM PDT

  •  Cutting cost, cutting wages, lowering standards

    keeping prices, expanding profits.

    I've boycotted Wal-Mart since 2002.

    Go Costco.  

    by Joe B on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:19:55 PM PDT

    •  Support Chinese Communism!!

      Shop At WAL MART  Today!

      by lazbumm on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:48:13 PM PDT

    •  I rarely go there ...

      ... but for completely diferent reasons.  It takes 10 minutes just to find a parking spot, then another 10 minutes to walk in.  The store is so large, I have to walk another 20-30 minutes.  Wait usually 5-10 minutes to check out (2-3 minutes in the self check line), then another 10 minutes to walk back out to the car.  

      I only go there when I have to, usually because nobody else has (you name it) available.

      by leadhead on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:37:10 PM PDT

      •  I never shop at Wal-Mart...

        ...and I tell other people why whenever I get the opportunity. Usually people respond by saying that They hadn't thought about what kind of company they are. They agree that they don't like what they are hearing, but then they say, "but it is where I get...." or "they are so much cheaper".

        I may not stop those people from shopping at Wal-Mart again but I bet they think about what I told them when they do go into the store. I also think that once people are aware of an issue they pay closer attention when it pops up in the news.

        by BMarshall on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 04:01:28 AM PDT

•  Heave Ho

  let it be a self-fufilling prophecy... push forward on WalMart.

  "WalMart we celebrate your decision to unionize"

  Perhaps a little constructive misunderstanding, letters to WalMart praising the decision and asking when the unions will be allowed to meet at your local WalMart.
  

  by pyrrho on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:05:47 PM PDT

•  Wal-Mart is Smart-Jodie Allen of USNews on C-span

  Jodie Allen, Managing Editor of USNews and World Report,
  was on C-span Friday.  She gave an excellent overview of the dollar plunge and potential impacts.  Mentioned during the talk that Wal Mart was actually pressuring Chinese sweat shops to LOWER PRICES-which she thought was disgusting.  I could not agree more-but then aren't we naive to expect anything different from these type of people.  I don't shop there and encourage all my friends and family to avoid it also.  There are other options, and we need to aspire to a society where people can DO BETTER than shopping at Walmart.

  by bushisaliar on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:08:17 PM PDT

  •  Discourage family/friends from shopping at Walmart

    I stopped shopping there when I learned about their business practices (denying unions, denying health care, sexism with respect to management positions, and killing local small businesses). I try to explain this to the people that I'm close to, but for many of them, the promise of Walmart's low prices is too much to resist.
    
    Like you said, we as consumers can do better than shopping at walmart.
    
    We will find it very worthwhile to shop at our local small-businesses. You might pay a little bit more for that bottle of shampoo, vacuum cleaner, or plastic lawn chair....but in the end we will help our small businesses survive.
    
    

    by up2orbit on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:27:06 PM PDT

    •  Tell them they outsource our jobs

      I tell all that I come in contact with that Walmart is a prime reason why jobs are outsourced overseas.

      It is interesting how sales grew this weekend, but they dropped at Walmart. That would be nice if it was a trend, but that is wishful thinking. The lure it too great, from the loss leader products to get you in the door and make you think that all their products are low priced to the one-stop shopping convenience for harried mothers.

      by shark on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:02:27 PM PDT

      •  Wal-Mart weak sales: the 2 economies

        Analysts say that this season, retailers of luxury goods and high-end merchandise will do fine, because the affluent are doing as well as ever. But retailers like Wal-Mart, and even the dollar stores, will do poorly, because the lower income folks are hit hard by rising energy and health care costs and the weak job market.

        So basically as poor folks aren't doing so hot, neither are the stores where they shop.

        by dirtgirl on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:11:05 PM PDT

    •  Labor actions?

      Does anyone know what the legal situation is surrounding picketing Walmarts if you aren't a labor union?

      They seem so un-American (and yet so American, alas) in that they are for their own profit margins no matter what the overall cost to their workers or American society at large.

      Aren't they vulnerable on this?  Would it be possible to initiate civil/labor actions against them that could gain popular support?

      What are the obstacles?

      by Citizen Clark on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:01:44 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        If you are not an employee and picket in protest, you would either be allowed to do so by the store (if you are on its property), or it will have you arrested for unlawful trespassing.  Some states, counties may have laws protecting that right, but I would check and see what they are before venturing such action.  My feeling is the Wal-Mart manager will call the cops and have ya dragged away.

        If you get employees to picket or strike, without first being unionized and within NLRA guidelines, they will likely be fired.  No protection in Federal law, maybe in some locals or states (California has the best employment laws in the nation, so my bet is it would be there if anywhere - though unlikely).

        by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:16:49 PM PDT

        •  I would think the sidewalks are public....

          so do you think actions on sidewalks at parking lot entrances could work.  

          It just seems the workers need support from people who cannot be intimidated so directly.

          by Citizen Clark on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:21:47 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            It's pretty complex - especially when dealing with Wal-Mart. Plus, you'd have to make sure there was employee support for the Union within that store.  You'd be surprised, but not everyone wants to be a part of a Union (paying union dues, etc., get protrayed as burdensome and not worth it - though it's mostly employer propoganda).

            If you want to make a difference, vote pro-union Democrats into local and state governments.  Republicans in small-town USA are killing pro-labor movements.

            by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:37:02 PM PDT

•  Chinese unions

  This is more like plugging Wal-Mart into normal state structures than unionisation, I think. According to Chinese labour law every company of sufficient size has to have one of these unions, and the weird thing is that Wal-Mart thought they could get away without one. (I'm getting this from a story in the Nation that Shashalnikya linked to in a diary a few days ago.)

  Trying to set up an actual union in China can get you in a great deal of trouble. (Every once and a while I check the China Labour Bulletin for news. Right now if you follow their link to "Independent Trade Union Movement" you get this.)

  by gong on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:12:20 PM PDT

  •  ha

    if you follow their link to "Independent Trade Union Movement" you get this

    Fantastic.

    by Trapper John on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:16:33 PM PDT

•  my Republican mom

  hates Wal-Mart. Mostly she doesn't seem to like it because she thinks their products are junk. But she made sure to watch Frontline's Wal-Mart program the other night.

  Hey, if my mom hates Wal-Mart, there may be a chance to get a lot more people hating it and refusing to shop there.

  The deacon at my church today retold the story of A Christmas Carol. Bob Cratchit hates Christmas because every year he and his wife have to go into deeper credit card debt buying stuff they don't need and can't afford. But his boss Ebenezer Scrooge loves Christmas, of course. He owns the big chain Ebenezer-Mart.

  Maybe you had to be there, but I got a chuckle out of it.
  

  by mimi9 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:12:56 PM PDT

  •  That Frontline episode...

    was right on.  Wal-Mart is very bad for America, and the rest of the world too.

    Here's the link if you missed it:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

    by bobburlap on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:38:49 PM PDT

    •  Yes and Like the NPR Special Last Summer

      it was broadcast 10 years too late to do anything about it.

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:09:58 PM PDT

•  Who can contest global capital?

  Without a global labor movemnt, there is essentially no force that can serve as a counterweight to global capital.  And we know from the experience of World War I, when the mighty Second International with its vast political parties and their deep networks of supporting and affiliated labor unions and social organizations, imploded at the first whiff of cordite, that "Workers of the world, unite" is an entirely ephemeral dream.  There remains no mechanism to offset the power of global capital, and it is highly likely that one can be developed.

  by Dancing Larry on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:13:34 PM PDT

•  Chinese unions

  Prison inmates can unionize? Wow, that really is a workers' paradise!

  by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:17:33 PM PDT

  •  Are you saying...

    ...that people who live in China are prison inmates? Damn, what are you smoking?

    by gong on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:43:45 PM PDT

    •  maybe they meant

      some chinese people working to produce products for wal-mart may be prisoners?

      by puppet10 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:05:04 PM PDT

      •  Why choose?

        Why choose between alternate meanings? I imagine living in China is probably like being in prison.  No freedom of speech, no freedom of travel, etc. I'll take my free, democratic America anyday, warts and all.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:15:07 PM PDT

        •  Has anyone here spent time in China?

          The reason I ask is that people continually make assumptions based upon how we live in the U.S.A. but the fact of the matter is that 2/3 of the rest of the world do not live anything at all like we do.  That is why we have Wal-Mart -- because the people of the U.S.A. want it all.  Two cars, four or five televisions, more clothes than a person really needs, thousands of toys and video games, etc., etc.  We are a consumer nation -- and we lost our souls to the devil a long time ago.  

          I never shop at Wal-Mart even though it is close to me.  But every time I drive by it the parking lot is full.  Its a classic case of what goes around, comes around.  The people of the U.S.A. were thrilled when Wal-Mart first opened because of its low, low prices.  Only they didn't realize that those low prices had a hidden cost; and now we have a service economy with lots of low paying, part-time jobs with no benefits.  But still people continue to shop at Wal-Mart.  Because well, they have these low prices, see ...

          Sorry, I was thinking about people in China and went off on a rant.  What I meant to ask is whether anyone has spent time in China and what their impressions are after being around the Chinese people.  Thanks.

          by humanist on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:33:34 AM PDT

•  Dems and the NLRA

  Wal-Mart can't legally stop employees for attempting to unionize in the United States.  The National Labor Relations Act pretty well covers that.

  The problem is that Wal-Mart has effectively tried to make the prospect of a union less desirable for employees. It also tries to make it difficult within the constraints of the law.  If the Democrats were smart, they would have every Union in the country soliciting workers to sign union authorization cards and getting teh required 30 percent of employees to "show interest" so this effort gets legs and goes to the National Labor Relations Board.

  I blame the Democrats too for not having the balls to stand-up to Wal-Mart and fight for these employees right to unionize.  Wal-Mart may be big, but the NLRA has pretty widespread protection for employees to unionize if a majority wishes to.

  Wal-Mart does not control an organizations right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining.

  Wal-mart can't stop a union organizer from starting the process, the problem is they can dissuade employees from doing so by making it appear less desirable.
  

  by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:17:33 PM PDT

  •  They can do a lot of things

    The episode with the butchers in Texas is a case in point.  The butchers voted to organize and join the UFCW.  Wal-Mart immediately responded by closing their meat-cutting departments and replacing them with prepackaged meat in cases.

    Read about it.  Don't forget that this company is run by evil-doers.

    Saturday, March 04, 2000
    Wal-Mart to cut butchers at 180 stores
    A retailer says its decision on meat-cutting departments is unrelated to a successful union vote at a Texas outlet.
    By David Koenig
    Associated Press

          DALLAS -- Seven butchers who took on the nation's biggest retailer by joining a union are facing an uncertain future now that Wal-Mart has decided to replace meat-cutting departments at 180 stores with prepackaged meat.
          Two weeks ago, the butchers at the Wal-Mart in Jacksonville, Texas, voted 7-3 to join the United Food and Commercial Workers, the first successful union vote in the country at a Wal-Mart, a company well-known for its opposition to organized labor.
          Union officials hoped the vote in the tiny Texas town southeast of Dallas would be a precursor to other successful elections, but now they face a legal fight to make the election stick.
          Wal-Mart, with about 885,000 workers in 2,985 U.S. stores, is the nation's biggest private employer. The company is so opposed to unionization of its workers that, during the past holiday season, it barred Salvation Army charity workers from its stores after union organizers demanded that they be allowed in as well.
          Wal-Mart ran into stiff opposition from UFCW Local 711 in Las Vegas last year when the company proposed building three supercenters in the valley. Substantial space in the 200,000-square-foot supercenters would be dedicated to grocery items.
          Clark County commissioners voted 3-2 in October to adopt an ordinance that restricts grocery space to no more than 7.5 percent of the space in big-box retail stores. Wal-Mart won a constitutional challenge of the ordinance in court.
          Les Copeland, a spokesman for the company, said none of the seven Wal-Mart stores in Las Vegas employs butchers and that any future stores would have case-ready meat.
          He said Wal-Mart has had case-ready poultry and beef cuts for several years, but it takes a while to get the logistics in place with suppliers for the meat.
          Local union officials were unavailable for comment.
          The company said Friday that it has been planning for months to replace the butchers in its supercenters with meat cut and wrapped by outside suppliers, said spokeswoman Jessica Moser. The company will offer displaced workers other jobs at their stores.
          "Our decision to expand case-ready meat has nothing to do with what went on in Jacksonville," Moser said. Prepackaged meat "has a better appearance and longer shelf life" and is easier to track in inventory, she said.
          The butchers aren't buying it.
          "They just remodeled our store. They spent about $40,000 on a new wrapping machine. They just got new pans to hold the meat," said one of the seven Texas butchers, 45-year-old Maurice Miller. "If they'd been thinking about this for months, why would they spend all that money?"
          Local and national union officials said Wal-Mart's decision to abolish the meat departments was a direct response to the Jacksonville vote, along with a pending election at its store in Palestine, Texas, and organizing efforts at about 20 Wal-Marts around the country.
          "This is just a ploy by Wal-Mart. It's an attempt to demoralize the workers," said John Rene Rodriguez, a Dallas-based business agent for the Jacksonville union local. "Wal-Mart has always been anti-union."
          Wal-Mart officials announced their plan to close meat-cutting operations during a National Labor Relations Board hearing Monday. Wal-Mart has argued -- thus far unsuccessfully -- that all 300 store employees in Jacksonville, and not just the meat cutters, should have been able to vote on joining a union. The company also says union officials took improper actions to influence the Jacksonville vote. A labor board hearing is scheduled for March 28.
          Union officials said Wal-Mart cannot legally eliminate meat-cutting operations in Jacksonville without first negotiating with the 10 employees and the union. Union spokesman Greg Denier said the union will file an unfair labor practices complaint and if necessary, take the retailer to court.
          A Washington lawyer who represents employers defended Wal-Mart's action. "It's well-established that employers have prerogatives about basic business decisions," said Mark de Bernardo, a managing partner of Littler Mendelson, the country's largest employer law firm.
          The meat-cutting departments that will close in May or June are located in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas and Missouri.
    

    by MJB on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:25:27 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      I'm not saying Wal-Mart gets a prize for their efforts, they are looking to squash a movement that will decrease their profits and sink their stock. They are looking out for its interests, albeit shameful, but its what big business does to protect its company's profits.  We need to fight them. We are doing it half-fast.  No organization (corporate not employees) want a union. But, the case is still in the courts, as the following quote notes:

      Wal-Mart has argued -- thus far unsuccessfully -- that all 300 store employees in Jacksonville, and not just the meat cutters, should have been able to vote on joining a union. The company also says union officials took improper actions to influence the Jacksonville vote. A labor board hearing is scheduled for March 28.

      Union officials said Wal-Mart cannot legally eliminate meat-cutting operations in Jacksonville without first negotiating with the 10 employees and the union. Union spokesman Greg Denier said the union will file an unfair labor practices complaint and if necessary, take the retailer to court.

      Unionizing is not a fast process, but if labor groups push this really hard, it would happen eventually as long as they motivated the employees to VOTE for it.  It's in the hands of the employees, unions and if a majority of employees want a union, then they get it. It's the law.  They need to unionize large stores where Wal-Mart can't simply "cut" the department (which is blatantly unlawful and these meatworkers need better lawyers if they lose).  

      Dems need to not be scared of Wal-Mart and REALLY push for this. The reality is Dems are not because they don't want to marginalize the largest company in the US. Wal-Mart's workers needs a firebrand union and spokesperson to get the Mojo flowing.  They do not have one and need one.

      by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:44:54 PM PDT

    •  So why, then...

      aren't the unions picketing that Walmart?

      by Citizen Clark on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:03:54 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        You can't picket unless the union is organized, approved and recognized by the NLRB.  Unions (e.g., Teamsters) work with employees to help them become part of its Union (unionization is a process that is ultimately determined by the employees via a majority vote - Wal-Mart must recognize it if a majority of employees vote for it - that's the law).  

        If a Union pickets prior to recognition, its not allowed under NLRA and then it would be breaking the law.  Consequently, the whole process would probably fall apart.

        by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:22:54 PM PDT

        •  Sounds like the labor relations laws need reform.

          It's obvious that employers have a lot of power over empoyees - that it isn't a negotiation of equals over what should happen.  And it sounds like the labor relation laws don't go very far towards guaranteeing a fair negotiation between labor and management.

          This is troublesome considering that it looks a lot to me as though the balance of power had tipped far to the corporate side in the last 20 years.

          I think it would be really healthy fo this country to have a resurgence of the labor movement - not an opinion I held 20 years ago - but that was then.

          Thanks for your very informative posts about labor law in this thread, Greg!

          by Citizen Clark on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:30:01 PM PDT

      •  SEIU

        One of the goals of the SEIU this year is to work on pushing unionization of WalMart employees. They plan to allocate $25 million towards this effort. You might want to see what they are going to do in your area. If they are going to picket or maybe have a meeting, volunteer to help. That is what I am planning to do. MKC

        by Deja Vu on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:29:44 PM PDT

  •  The corporate NLRB

    While the provisions of the NLRA remain on the books, as a matter of practice they might as well not exist.  How long does it take to get the average NLRA violation by management heard and adjudicated before the NLRB?  SUre, in the end, 3, 4, 5 yers down the line, the company will have to pay some token fine or settlement.  But in the meantime the union organizing drive has been crushed, the leaders fired and long since moved on, the remaining workforce intimidated or disillusioned.  A failed organizing drive leaves management in a position even more powerful than in the pre-organizing period, as there remains within the workforce an institutional memory that you can't fight the boss.

    As in anything else, with the NLRB perhaps even moreso, justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

    by Dancing Larry on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:29:20 PM PDT

    •  Disagree

      I disagree. I just interned with one of the top employment law attorney's in NYC and the law is alive and well.  Just because it takes time (in some cases), doesn't mean it is not doable. If it wasn't doable, there would be no unions in this country today.

      The problem is the corporations have done a better job at making unions less desirable, thus the decrease of unions country-wide. Wal-Mart employees and unions are only victims if they do nothing and don't exercise the law and rights on the books. Wal-Mart employees need an advocate like Nader to push this through and motivate the issue to a super-high level.  There is no such movement today.  Trying to unionize ten deli workers is not what needs to be done as a first step.  It needs the power of the people - informed and mobilized - to attain the ability to collectively bargain. The people have the power, and a firebrand motivator to inform a majority of these employees is what they need. If employees knew the law behind unionization (unions trying to organize in NY hand out simple cards telling employees their rights), then they would not be scared. Information is bliss - ignorance is what Wal-Mart wants and we need to change that.  

      by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:55:59 PM PDT

      •  That all sounds good

        But the practical reality is this:  a group of workers--far less than the majority of the workforce--get the idea that it's time to get a union in ther workplace.  Soon, within weeks, management has identified the agitators, and fired them.  This not only gets the highly motivated pro-union workers out of the workplace, and makes it impossible for them to communicate effectively with members of the workforce that they may not know personally, but it also sends a huge cold chill over all those in the plant that may have been sympathetic.  So, the fired workers file their NLRB complaint.  And a year passes, two years, the other workers at the plant have accepted the fait accompli with resignation, as their leaders are not there to rally them.  Meanwhile, those leaders have lives to live, they have bills to pay, all the pressures of daily life, famil, health, bills to pay, and they move on, find new jobs (when they aren't blacklisted), all while the NLRB grinds through its multi-years long process.  By the time the NLRB issues a judgement, the union drive in that place is dead and gone forever, because the people have given up, they have lives to live.  The institutional structure of the business allows fighting the union to be part of its normal operations.  To fight for a union, you have no institutional agency to pick up for you, you are naked and exposed to every kind of attack, it's totally on your own time and your own dime, and you pay price after price after price for it, your spouse grows resentful "you're making that damn union more important than your family!", you lose friends...

        I've been there.  That's how it works.

        Reforming the NLRB so it operates in a timely and expeditious fashion must be one goal we wish to fight for if unions are not to entirely die in this country.  This may not be obvious from the conference rooms of labor law firms, but it is clear as day from the kitchen tables of the working class.

        by Dancing Larry on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:30:01 PM PDT

        •  True

          There's good experiences and bad experiences. I may have worked for laywers who do meet in conference rooms, but they are working for unions and the employees and the unions we deal with and the firm I worked for do not walk away from those who seek to unionize.

          I feel for your plight, it's fucked up that your union reps, lawyers did not stand by you. They should be raked over coals.  But, I've seen it work and it can work and for every bad experience, there is a good one.  That's why Wal-Mart employees needs a firebrand advocate - someone with big lungs who won't back down when the going gets tough.

          Reforming the NLRA act under this administration will never happen.  Obviously the speed of hearings is something that needs to be addressed - bureacracy sucks.  But, I've seen too many people benefit from collective bargaining efforts to say the whole process is unworkable. If enough voices became active, and had experienced union organizers and lawyers helping out, situations like this would be minimized.

          I worked on one case where workers of a chain of laundromats in NJ unionized.  The owner of the stores tried to stop it - using the typical tactics.  The Teamsters were on top of it and caught the owner breaking the law via intimidation. We also served the owner with letters telling him if he fired any of the employees based on their rights to engage in union formation, he would be brought to court. Eventually, the union was formed.  

          I actually work in pharmaceuticals now, I abandoned the employment law arena because 12 hour days were a bit much just starting out, but I learned a lot of stuff and someday may go back because as long as their is commitment by the unions to stand by the workers wishing to unionize, real change can happen.  

          by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:55:57 PM PDT

  •  Wal-Mart contributes BIG to Repubs

    From June's The Nation

    Recently Wal-Mart decided that remaining union-free is a political issue, becoming 2003's number one corporate contributor to candidates, 85 percent of them Republicans. Most corporations, realizing that both Democrats and Republicans respond to business interests, give almost equally to the two parties. But Wal-Mart operates on the premise that while Democrats owe something to labor, Republicans don't--and therefore, if its donations can purchase GOP dominance, they are well spent.

    Wal-Mart's wallet is open wide for the Republican party, contributing to the decimation of local Democrats. It's a mutually beneficial relationship for Wal-Mart and the Republicans, since more labor votes go to the Democrats. Of course, who benefits more from the two-class system of wildly unequal distribution of wealth but the Republicans?

    by Ascendent on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:25:38 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      It's in Wal-Marts interest to stack local/state government with Repugs who are less likely to use political clout on behalf of the unions/employees looking to organize collective bargaining units.  

      This is why I am so amazed Republicans keep getting elected in towns that need Unions the most.

      Sigh.

      by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:55:20 PM PDT

      •  Wal-Mart vs. Costco and campaign contribs

        While Wal-Mart execs give freely to the GOP, so does Costco to the Dems. Here's a great article from this summer in the Seattle PI comparing the two companies, how they treat employees, and what that means politically:

        linked text
        

        by jenng on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:29:08 PM PDT

•  Bad sales volume over the weekend though

  "But Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was less fortunate _ the industry leader said its sales in the seven days that ended Friday were disappointing, and the company lowered its sales forecasts for November."

  -snip-

  "Wal-Mart's holiday weekend sales suffered because it didn't offer the deep discounts it did in past years, hoping to boost profits, analysts said. Penney and Sears did better by wooing customers with two days of big price breaks."

  " 'Wal-Mart was a big loser because they didn't get the same numbers of early bird shoppers as they did a year ago, ' said C. Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group, based in Charleston, S.C."

  http://www.comcast.net/News/BUSINESS//XML/1310_General_financial_business_news/6856a125-ef33-482f-a3 c2-6d588782257f.html

  by navajo on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:23:38 PM PDT

•  well if it's a pr ploy

  it's not good enough to overcome the news that wal-mart just lowered its sales forecast for the christmas season - based on not lowering prices enough to pull in the big after thanksgiving crowd.

  why do i find it ironic that a retailer that has gotten big off selling imported goods made by cheap labor to the lower end of the market is perhaps about to suffer because the lower end of the market is suffering from even less income as a result of job losses? hey, maybe what goes around actually does come around...

  so will wal-mart go back and squeeze the sweatshops more? wait for our next episode...

  by yankeedoodler on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:24:15 PM PDT

  •  Smile!

    "why do i find it ironic that a retailer that has gotten big off selling imported goods made by cheap labor to the lower end of the market is perhaps about to suffer because the lower end of the market is suffering from even less income as a result of job losses?"

    It makes me smile like that damn, big-ass smiley face, too. Funny how the upscale retailers are expecting a fat season...

    With middle-income shoppers uneasy about higher prices at the gasoline pump and the war in Iraq, sales of luxury goods are expected to lead holiday sales this season.

    Two Americas, indeed.

    by Ascendent on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:08:24 PM PDT

    •  and guess who benefits from luxury goods profits?

      the French!

      oh the irony.

      by challah on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:07:49 PM PDT

  •  Local San Diego News channel

    did a comparison between Big 3 stores in various locals using secret shoppers. The three were K-Mart, Target, and Wal Mart. Prices at each of the three retailers did vary from location to location, with the largest over all difference found at Target stores. However, the overall lowest prices at the three chains was also Target.

    Don't shop at Wal Mart due to all the issues related above, as well as working employees off the clock. With the intimation of job loss if they question working without pay.

    This week we found out that Target has refused to allow the Salvation Army to collect holiday donations outside their stores, so Target is now off the shopping destinations as well.

    I'm shopping and supporting local merchants.    

    by maggiemae on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:06:55 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      uh you do know why the Salvation Army is not being allowed to panhandle right?  It's not just the Salvation Army, it's everybody.  Nobody is allowed to beg for cash on Target property.

      And they are virulently anti-gay, I wouldn't be suprised if Fred Phelps had a job with them.

      by TealVeal on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:11:36 PM PDT

      •  I've heard of drug testing

        potential employees, but gay testing? How do they know?

        Funny about the begging for cash at Target stores. Everytime I've gone to my local store, there are people collecting for one thing or another, as well as Girl Scout cookie sales, and petition signing taking place.  Maybe my local store is just a rebel store.

        by maggiemae on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:32:52 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          link to google.

          by TealVeal on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

      •  Target is reportedly gay-friendly

        The Salvation Army is definitely anti-gay.
        

        by Ascendent on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:46:20 PM PDT

    •  Target and Salv Army

      The word in my local papaer (Raynham/Taunton, MA) is that Target has so many requests for people to collect, that they felt they could no longer say yes to the Salvation Army and no to everyone else.  Our local mall also said "no" to the Salvation Army for the same reason.  I am no "champion" of big retailers, so make your own judgements.

      by alou73 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:36:07 PM PDT

    •  in addition to the anti-gay issue

      (there was actually a diary on this awhile back), my mother pointed out that she has stopped giving to the salvation army because they have received an enormous gift from joan kroc's estate (founder of macdonald's) and are rolling in dough right now.

      by yankeedoodler on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 07:20:01 PM PDT

      •  Part of the gift is a huge community center

        located on the City of San Diego/City of La Mesa border. A city block which was a Home Depot was purchased by the Kroc foundation, torn down and an amazing community center was completed.  My Dad always jokes that it was built after all of his kids were grown when we could have taken advantage of the swimming pool, basketball courts, community hall, and tons of other offerings.

        The Kroc's donated to Saint Vincent de Paul and numerous other charities in San Diego.

        by maggiemae on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 08:08:47 PM PDT

        •  after reading about joan kroc

          and her philanthropy, i feel no guilt about going to macdonald's. what's a little extra cholesterol in exchange for the kind of endowments she handed around. :)

          by yankeedoodler on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 08:42:02 PM PDT

•  Walmart and Unions

  In our Labor Law class, we got a handout from Harper's Magazine (Oct 2004) that contained  anti-union information for managers from a walmart branch manager.

  It emphasized that managers are the "first line of defense against unionization", and included early warning signs that a union organization may be on the horizion: increased curiosity of benefits, associates talking to each other more, abuse of rest room visits, associates forming "strange alliances"

  The best part is their characterizations of those who are attracted to unions, and who to keep an eye out for: inefficient worker (union will afford him job security), rebellious worker, something-for-nothing worker (wants workers comp, and is always looking for a deal), and the overqualified worker.

  The nastiness in tone in the memo was pretty astounding.  It ends with stating that remaining union free is a full time commitment, and all managers must be vigilant in keeping unions out. IT even gives out a Union Hotline for the managers to call.

  by SairaLV on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:26:26 PM PDT

  •  Of course

    Of course, it happens all the time in any company that fears unionization.  Managers are always told to keep an eye out for those trying to unionize.  The problem is employees have rights and can NOT be fired for trying to unionize. Unions looking to represent Wal;-Mart employees need to fight harder, because the companies are not goingto back down from trying to supress collective bargaining.

    by GregNYC on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:01:48 PM PDT

    •  Getting fired in a small town

      Of course nobody is ever fired for "trying to organize a union."

      They just suddenly start having problems at work, get bad quarterly evaluations, or get their hours cut back to below subsistence level.  The firing, when it comes, is for "having a bad attitude," "inability to get along with co-workers," "complaints from customers," or some other cocked-up excuse.

      In a small town of the sort Wal-Mart specializes in, your options for other employment are pretty slim because the other stores have either already closed up, are working with only the owner's family as employees, or have cut wages, hours and quality of the goods they sell to, you guessed it, "compete with Wal-Mart."

      I have no doubt whatsoever that if any Wal-Mart store were to be organized, it would be immediately closed no matter how new, on any pretext plausible enough to get past the "laws" prohibiting such. Mold in the walls or something.

      Damn but I wish Costco would move into this part of W. Tn.....

      by Xan on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:52:38 PM PDT

      •  Jim Hightower's book Thieves in High Places

        discusses what happened to a meat department manager who tried to get his co-workers interested in unionizing. He was threatened, and  was ultimately fired for "stealing". The theft charge was used when the meat dept. manager bought some bananas from the Wal Mart produce depatment, and ate one while on his way to pay at the check out.  So technically, it was insisted, the banana was stolen since it was not yet paid for.

        Wal Mart will fly in a plane load of corporate attorneys at the first hint of a store unionizing.

        The book is a good read, and the reason I stopped shopping at Wal Mart originally.  

        by maggiemae on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:24:32 PM PDT

•  Always anti-union

  Always.  

  by johnowens2 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:28:13 PM PDT

  •  I've said it before

    and I'll say it again.  Every time I see those damn smiley faces that WalMart plasters everywhere, I want to vomit.  I cringe every time I step near a store of theirs.

    by chi mai on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:40:25 PM PDT

•  Poorer than expected sales this weekend

  As Walmart goes so the holiday shopping season?

  by Sera68 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:38:07 PM PDT

  •  here's why: Wal-Mart's customers are hurting

    Or that's the take I've heard from many retail analysts over the past few days, including Retail Analyst Kurt Barnard on the PBS Newshour the other night:
    

    consumers apparently have split into two groups now.

    That is the high income ones and the modest income ones.

    And stores that cater to the high income ones are going to do very, very well indeed this holiday shopping season while stores that are catering to the lower income groups, are very clearly going to struggle a little bit and not quite reach their goals.

    Or from Janet Forgrieve, Rocky Mountain News November 25, 2004:

    People of means plan to shop upscale this year, keeping luxury retailers in the black, retail experts agree.

    Where the forecasters part ways is on their shopping estimates for lower-income consumers, who are spending a bigger chunk of overall income for gasoline, home heating and health care this year.

    Some estimates say that decrease in disposable income could be a problem for discount stores

    Both explain the overall numbers will be OK this season because the rich have plenty of disposable income and will more than make up the difference in what the poor don't spend. So fret not, unless you're a Wal-Mart investor. Then again, if you are, you probably aren't reading this.
    

    by dirtgirl on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:24:37 PM PDT

•  Let's see-who do we listen to

  Gosh,
  Such a tough choice, there is Jodie Allen formerly of Washington Post and now at US News and World Report, who decries Walmarts actions, or there is Walmart Republican ridgedc who just bought a cheap camera.  What is one to do in the face of such equally compelling and knowledgeable sources. LOL

  by bushisaliar on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:43:34 PM PDT

•  Is America good for America?

  The Frontline doc was titled "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?"  But isn't the question really are we good for each other?

  Why is Wal-Mart so focused on cost reduction?  Because American consumers want low prices.  In fact, we demand them.  And that is bad exactly how?  Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work: sellers delivering what buyers ask for?

  Know what Wal-Mart's profit margin is?  About 3 percent.  And that is rapacious exactly how?

  We can debate the company's position on unions (Wal-Mart is no different from every other company: it doesn't like unions).   Or we can debate the company's relative generosity on benefits.  But how many of us are providing health insurance to the people who care for our children, or cut our grass?   How many of us would operate a small business at 3 percent margin?  

  The failure of our nation to provide national health insurance is a disgrace.  But we won't improve things simply by asking for more from the same broken system.  Until we disconnect health insurance from employment--and employment only by certain employers--we won't do anything about the 47 million uninsured (most of whom do not work for Wal-Mart, by the way).

  Wanna start winning elections in the South--and elsewhere--and make change at Wal-Mart all at once?  Reach the Wal-Mart consumer.  Stop telling them they're unpatriotic and stupid for shopping at the one place they can afford.  Lift their living standards.  Win their votes.

  Then, Wal-Mart, trust me, will adapt...or they'll die (my money, by the way, is on adaptation).  On this one, we would do well to do like Wal-Mart and trust the marketplace:  both of ideas and of stuff.

  by tlee61 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:44:49 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Why is Wal-Mart so focused on cost reduction?  Because American consumers want low prices.  In fact, we demand them.

    Do we also demand advertising plastered over every friggin thing?

    Also, the problem with Walmart is that they don't adapt to conditions - they lead. They do their best to create conditions where consumers, workers and suppliers have to comprimise themselves to adapt to Walmart's demands.  

    by Erin on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:18:28 PM PDT

  •  while we are on it

    It's not at all clear to me why health insurance should be linked to employment - it strikes me as a marriage of convenience and not a good one. How about this:

    universal health care at some basic level provided by the state
    better health care provided (from whoever wants to offer it) for those who wish to pay a premium over that basic amount
    strip health care from ALL labor contracts, completely remove it from the employers domain
    implement some basic regulations about truth in advertising

    open it up to everyone - no more special deals, let consumer advocates and web sites inform consumers on what is and isn't a good deal and let people choose their own plans, their own clinics and their own doctors - and have these 'bonus' plans only cost the difference between what the state covers and the extra services you are paying for.

    While we are at it, de-link insurance coverage from the hospital or clinic that provides health services and have all hospitals open to all patients. This will encourage the creation of local clinics that actively seek patients (hunting for customers). Publish rates so clinics know what to expect financially, and publish future rates so they know what to plan for.

    To keep costs low open the bidding for standardized services (flu shots, broken limbs, hourly consultation, etc) in local markets and have eliminate co-pays on the lowest 2 bids and have a graduated co-pay as the service gets more expensive. Basically, let hospitals charge what they want but use a co-pay market to encourage people to choose the economic choice both for them and the state.

    by storme on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:48:18 PM PDT

  •  The People Also Demand

    all sorts of intoxicating drugs and prostitution.

    consumers want low prices.  In fact, we demand them.  And that is bad exactly how?  Isn't that how a free market is supposed to work: _

    It's bad exactly the same way every appetite is bad when it is left to run unchecked. Free markets attempt to let consumer appetites run unchecked which is why every society everywhere in every time has erected barriers against them.

    Wal-Mart's profit margin is?  About 3 percent.  And that is rapacious exactly how?

    The percentage isn't bad, it's the way it achieves it. It gets that low margin along with incredibly low prices by allowing record low percentages of "wealth leakage" to the supplying owners and all the labor it draws on. Wal-Mart's practices are driving all sorts of activity out of the market altogether.

    For example it drove away our local hobby shop, not by selling all the same things cheaper, but by selling just a half dozen of the shop's lead items so cheap that it couldn't stay in business to sell the specialty stuff hobbiests demand but that Wal-Mart won't sell at any price.

    Of course it drives away ownership participation in every kind of market where it does compete directly, which almost every mainstream category, and it drives down standards of living everywhere it goes.

    Look, it's the nature of consumers to desire low prices. Well it's the nature of the wind to blow your sailboat over. The point of having a brain is to create systems of control to channel natural forces into forward direction so that society and life improve.

    The failure of our nation to provide national health insurance is a disgrace.  But we won't improve things simply by asking for more from the same broken system.

    But it's not the same broken system. This is a brand, new broken system for the first time since the New Deal generation were young adults. If we went back to the "same" system that created our middle class, instead of enlarging on the present system which is destroying the middle class, we'd be in a lot better condition to address a variety of concerns.

    by Gooserock on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:04:05 PM PDT

    •  That's not Wal-Mart's fault

      Your beef on the hobby shop is not with Wal-Mart, it's with the consumers who decided they'd rather have cheap prices on a few items than pay to keep the hobby shop open.

      "Bargains" are a way of life in America.  Ever seen any research for raising prices to support "buy American?"  It's less popular than Tom Brokaw at an Oklahoma-Nebraska game.  I grant that many "bargains" can be short-sighted, but there they are.

      ...it drives down standards of living everywhere it goes.

      Please produce the studies that support this.   These will be interesting studies because Wal-Mart "goes" everywhere.

      If we went back to the "same" system that created our middle class, instead of enlarging on the present system which is destroying the middle class, we'd be in a lot better condition to address a variety of concerns.

      I assume you're not talking about health insurance here, which I was.  If you are, you'd be referring to a pre-Medicare, pre-Medicaid time which, even counting the flaws, no one can seriously argue was better for Americans' health.  If you're referring to an economic system writ large, the ship has sailed on the American industrial-based economy is gone, and it isn't coming back.  We should preserve and, where possible, enhance our basic manufacturing infrastructure for national security reasons among others.   But the days of car, steel, and tool & die manufacturers leading our economy are over, a reality that at leats environmentalists should appreciate.

      Finally, if you spend some time in China, as I have, you begin to see that what Wal-Mart--and every other retailer--are doing is spreading wealth around the world, certainly not in the ways we defined wealth, but in ways that are real and having measurable impact on places that have never before seen this kind of money.

      Is that good or bad?  I think, for example, it is positive to have an economically healthy China.  Democrats need to come to terms with China, and our common interest in China's success in this century.  If we think Iraq is a hotbox now, wait'll a depression sweeps China's PRD.

      by tlee61 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 08:18:50 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        what Wal-Mart--and every other retailer--are doing is spreading wealth around the world, certainly not in the ways we defined wealth, but in ways that are real and having measurable impact on places that have never before seen this kind of money

        Please produce the studies that support this.

        by Erin on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:05:48 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for asking.

          Referring to East Asia's 2004 economic performance, the World Bank notes, "this strong performance has lifted 40 million East Asians out of poverty, mostly in China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. " 

          So that's not so awful.

          by tlee61 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 04:24:33 AM PDT

          •  taken at face value

            that means jobs that are a good living for people in the US are shipped overseas and turned into jobs that help people go from $2 a day to a little more than that.

            Also, I'm seeing things like this in your reference:

            Ravallion and Chen argue that China's agrarian reforms of the early 1980s were responsible for over half of all the poverty reduction in the period 1980-2001

            and

            the benefits of growth for poverty reduction have been partly offset by widening income inequality.

            Finally, do you have a source that doesn't have an agenda?

            by Erin on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:36:14 AM PDT

      •  Here's a study

        from Penn State that finds that the presence of a Wal-Mart store hinders counties' abilities to move families out of poverty: Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty. Several other studies about big box retailers' economic impacts on US communities are at The New Rules Project website.

        Overseas, Wal-Mart supplier factories may create jobs, but Wal-Mart pressures them to cut costs and/or increase production every year. Faced with these demands, factory managers often demand more from their workers, whether in the form of lower wages, unpaid overtime, fewer breaks, or increased production speed. The best explanation I've seen of this is the LA Times article "Scouring the Globe to Give Shoppers an $8.63 Polo Shirt" (subscription required) from the Pulitzer-winning series on "The Wal-Mart Effect." These kinds of arrangements might help China and other countries grow economically, but workers would be better off if Wal-Mart didn't make these kinds of demands on its supplier factories (and perhaps kept polo shirts priced at $9).

        That being said, Wal-Mart wouldn't exist if shoppers didn't buy from them. We need to educate people about the impacts of Wal-Mart and encourage them to keep supporting their local businesses.

        by dcvote on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:02:02 AM PDT

•  price check in aisle 125

  walmart should maybe sell stuff on ebay;

  http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=5537280095

  by moeman on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 03:45:54 PM PDT

  •  what?

    That guy on the link actually bid $127 for a $125 gift card? Please tell me I saw that wrong.

    by nater1979 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:33:00 PM PDT

  •  Somehow it makes sense

    that someone with the login 'Nascarfan' would spend $127 for a $125 Walmart gift card.

    The mind reels...

    by George on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:52:25 PM PDT

•  Got to love those Missoulians

  In Montana, the inhabitants of Missoula are often (rightly) viewed as the left wing nut cases of this mostly moderately conservative state. But I still love them when they have the guts to do theatre like this: Group protests at Missoula Wal-Mart.

  On another note, last weeks Frontline on the crazy import practices of WalMart was right on the money.  WalMart isn't interested in low prices/high quality products across the board for consumers. They are interested in higher profits across the board for WalMart, and their employees and country be damned.

  by Ed in Montana on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:02:02 PM PDT

•  The China Walmart Union Manifesto

  1. 18 hour workday (with double overtime for those putting in over 168 hours a week).

  2. A maximum wage of 10 cents/hr.

  3. An aspirin drug card for on the job maimings.

  4. No employees under four years of age allowed to work the cash registers.

  5. Mothers may bring their kids to work so long as they restock shelves.

  6. Chains must be removed from entry doors during business hours.

  7. Prison laborers allowed to smoke between beatings.

  8. All employess have the right to organize Chinese Checkers tournaments.

  9. Fired employees have the right of appeal to a military tribunal.

  Walmart Workers of the World Unite!

  by Voting Dem on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:10:04 PM PDT

•  Great article

  by Simon Head in the current New York Review of Books all about Wal-Mart (Dec. 16, Volume LI, No. 20). They are TOTAL slime. They brow beat their poorly-paid workers, even though they are amazingly productive, make their profit margins look great because they understaff stores,discriminate against women regarding pay and promotions, and, as has been noted, they are fervid and ruthless about keeping unions away from their workers. The article referenced a Feb 2004 by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. They determined that because Wal-Mart workers are so badly paid, the total annual federal welfare bill for Wal-Mart's $1.2 million US employees is $2.5 billion. Please tell everyone you know not to shop there.

  by Leslo on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:11:52 PM PDT

  •  OOOps

    I was so incensed that I didn't proof well. The House Education and Workforce Committee REPORT referred to 1.2 million employees...

    by Leslo on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:14:38 PM PDT

  •  I do...with little success

    I tell my friends/family who shop there to please stop, and they just shake their heads, in a "here she goes again" kind of way.  They embrace Wal-Mart, as in "I have the right to shop there, and I WILL shop there."  I call it the SUV of retail.  Even with all signs saying it's a gas-guzzling, polluting, dangerous vehicle, people will still buy a Hummer.  Because, dammit, it's my right!

    Another thing that concerns me is that Wal-Mart is the new Texaco, in terms of media sponsorship.  All three network news programs are now "brought to you by Wal-Mart."  Wal-Mart isn't a just a sponsor; it's a part of the program!  

    by alou73 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:55:38 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      did you know the WalMart near me has a WalMart brand gas station right next to the store?  I am dead serious.

      by chi mai on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:59:06 PM PDT

•  Wal-Mart Germany

  Even Wal-Mart is not infallible.

  by DowneastDem on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:21:32 PM PDT

•  I almost diaried Wal-Mart vs. the small town

  The town of Helotes (somewhat suburbian San Antonio) is vigorously fighting Wal-Mart's attempt to put a supercenter there.

  subscription required (I think) but here's a snippet

  http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA112804.1A.walmart.9c608d0d.html
  

  
  Michelle Koidin Jaffee
  San Antonio Express-News

  On the edge of the Hill Country, Helotes long has been known for its rolling green hills, spacious wooded lots and Willie Nelson shows at the John T. Floore Country Store, which never was a store but a hopping dance hall.

  Now the town of 4,285 in Northwest Bexar County is the latest stage for a showdown with the world's largest retailer.

  Word that Wal-Mart is planning to build a supercenter has spurred residents to take a stand like never before. Some are marching door-to-door with petitions, declaring a big box store would spoil a scenic spot and possibly harm endangered species.

  Others are trumpeting the would-be convenience of the store -- "You can go to one place and get anything you want or need," area resident Shrille Murphy, 80, said -- and projecting a 50 percent increase in the town's budget through sales taxes.

  In the past few weeks, resident Carolyn Kennedy has bumped into people she hasn't seen in years.

  "Everyone is coming out of the woodwork," said Kennedy, who has lived in Helotes for 47 of her 50 years. "They don't want this thing. It's really brought a lot of people together."

  The Helotes opponents have joined a swell of community groups and unions bucking Wal-Mart supercenters, charging that the low-price behemoth underpays, decimates small-town retail strips and erects enormous blue-and-white eyesores for stores -- stores they say contribute to the "genericizing" of America.
  

  by kineticdissent on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:21:46 PM PDT

•  Why

  would they even think that advertising this would bring them good PR in the US, when it is just a slap in the face to us and the US workers whom they work so hard to deny unions.  If they think that the US will be happy for the people of China because we are getting low prices off of the backs of the Chinese, isn't that an admission by Wallmart that they have been using the Chinese badly.  I don't know how this can reflect well upon them in the US any way you look at it. It seems to just be a reminder to us of outsourcing cheap labor.  And are they so stupid to think that we will believe that the unions in China are anything like real unions?

  by hopscotch1997 on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

•  WalMart is the company store...

  ...in the company town where the company town...is...shit a large part of the country.  The million plus workers make just enough money to feel that bargains at WalMart are exactly what they need to get by.  Those gallon jars of pickles turn out to be an important bargain...

  by heymister on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:40:59 PM PDT

•  We're a minority party

  until Wal-mart is busted up, like a 21st century Standard.  Up and down, their business model undermines progressive values and government.

  That's the mountain we're scaling.  But the view from the top will be fine.

  by Mogolori on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 04:59:26 PM PDT

•  I must be asleep...

  Wal-Mart's support for labor unions is as suspicious as the Bush administration's support for overturning an election in Ukraine. Someone please tell me it's all just a bad dream.

  by rightiswrong on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:30:37 PM PDT

•  In case anyone is interested

  Since holiday shopping is upon us...perhaps you want to support the companies that supported democrats - (segue) Wal Mart gave over 1.6 million to Republicans .... here's a list of who donated what to which party

  You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do... Anne Lamott

  by crkrjx on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 05:32:08 PM PDT

•  Ethics Start At Home

  Ethics start at home:

  LIKE many students, Elizabeth Paige Laurie found it difficult to balance work and play while at university. Unlike most of her friends, however, the Wal-Mart heiress could afford a solution to the problem.

  The 22-year-old graduate, heir to a $US2.8 billion ($3.5 billion) slice of the global supermarket empire, is facing an investigation by the University of Southern California into allegations that she paid a "surrogate" $US20,000 over three years to study in her place and complete her degree.

  http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11527140%255E13780,00.html
  

  by Laren on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:19:57 PM PDT

  •  Cute!

    I wonder if that is what Duh-W did to get his degrees?  It sure would explain a lot!

    by Marines Girl on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:44:17 PM PDT

•  The Sundown Rule...

  Check this out.

  Seems also to apply to Wal-Mart China.

  From Sam Walton's Manifesto:

  It's a rule we take seriously at Wal-Mart. In this busy place, where our jobs depend on one another, it's our standard to get things done today - before the sun goes down. Whether it's a request from a store across the country or a call from down the hall, every request gets same-day service. These are our working principles.

  All good and well. I believe in good customer service. But can this be used as a coercive tactic against Wal-Mart employees.?

  Wonder if Jeff, the pharmacist, bothered to clock in and out. Did he get paid for his service? Is asking workers to clock out and continue to work doing restocking or warehouse work part and parcel of the "Sundown Rule"?

  by rgilly on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:22:16 PM PDT

•  If you call...

  If you call your UAW Local, they will give you their list of local companies that they boycott.  If you want to help them in anyway, they also like volunteers.  :)  They have been boycotting Walmart a LONG time.  

  In the Saginaw, Bay City, MI area,  A guy named Al Kessel bought up the Kroger stores in that area with the agreement that he would keep all the current employees and their union.  As soon as the sale went through, he fired all the employees and kicked the union out.  He hired all new employees at much lower wages than before.  The UAW boycotted that store and advised all members to make sure their relatives and neighbors knew what went on there.  Those parking lots were empty and stayed empty.  Al ran lots of commericials and had incredible sales yet customers did not show up. Later he had to sell the stores himself because...no one would shop in them.  Years later the NLRB suits were settled and Al Kessel owed all the old employees back wages up to the current date.  He appealed and lost. The buyer for the Kessel stores restored the union and invited the Kroger employees back.  

  The Moral of the story?  It doesn't pay in the long run to be an asshole and also a community if they work together can do alot!  

  by Marines Girl on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:41:12 PM PDT

•  How Wal-Mart keeps prices low

  The Pulitzer-winning LA Times series on "The Wal-Mart Effect" was published in November 2003:

  The Wal-Mart Effect (free subscription required)

  The first article in the series explains: "By squeezing suppliers to cut wholesale costs, the company has hastened the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. By scouring the globe for the cheapest goods, it has driven factory jobs from one poor nation to another. Wal-Mart's penny-pinching extends to its own 1.2 million U.S. employees, none of them unionized. By the company's own admission, a full-time worker might not be able to support a family on a Wal-Mart paycheck. "
  

  by dcvote on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 06:53:28 PM PDT

•  Walmart Distribution Center

  When Walmart opened a Distribution Center just a mile away from us.  My now ex-husband went to apply for a job there. I waited in the parking lot while he went in.  He said right inside the door there is a sign for employees that they maybe searched upon leaving the building.  Just to fill out an application you get a visitor's badge then ushered to the employee breakroom to fill out the paperwork.  You are not allowed to leave the building with the application nor to bring in a purse or any kind of container.

  While he was filling out the application he could hear their loud speaker. Some loud mouth guy kept yelling that they couldn't have lunch until the trucks got out so MOVE MOVE MOVE! Come on People GO GO GO! He said it sounded like a sweat shop like atmosphere so he turned in his visitors badge and half-completed application at the front desk and left.    

  by Marines Girl on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 07:06:26 PM PDT

•  Thanks for reminding us, Trapper ...

  ...that some things never change, that the destruction of legitimate unions has been part and parcel of a large segment of people in government and business everywhere in the world since unions were developed. China now has a lovely system of Red Capitalism, a totalitarian-entrepreneurial system that would give 19th Century American robber barons wet dreams.

  by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 07:50:57 PM PDT

  •  The most stunningly accurate

    characterisation of china i've seen i got from accidentally landing on a far right wing blog.

    Fascism, not capitalism. Tyrranical state control of the citizenry. With the state being a servant of and partner with the corporate world.

    Corporations are organisms in every sense of the word. They serve themselves. An artificial life form in and of themselves. Maybe we'll wake up and see that some day.

    by cdreid on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:00:15 PM PDT

•  Why Is This Evil?

  Unless you are presupposing some moral right for workers to work for Wal-Mart only under conditions they see fit. This is similar to arguing that Ford is evil, because they simply refuse to put a Knight-Rider-esque turbo boost into their Mustang.

  The worker has no more right to work for Wal-Mart than Wal-Mart has to the worker's services. This is a VOLUNTARY negatiation between peaceful human beings, and deserves neither intervention nor ridicule.

  by The Statrix on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 08:24:35 PM PDT

  •  when

    Walmart workers in this country try to organize they INVOLUNTARILY lose their jobs.

    by Erin on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:09:16 PM PDT

  •  Umm...Statrix...

    Have you even been paying attention to this thread? Wal-Mart's impact is far beyond worker-employer relations- it forces ill-benefited workers onto public doles for medical care, housing, and even food. (That's right, it acts as a tax money sponge.) It pits countries against each other in a race to the bottom to see who can make a certain product the cheapest.

    Also, workers do have moral rights they can and indeed should demand- safety, decent wages, readily available benefits, non-draconian working hour amounts.

    I fail to see the logic in your comparison. It's a straw man argument that has more to do with cost-effective engineering on Ford's part (why no supercharged 'Stang? How much performance can Ford put into a car that sells for less than 30 grand?) than with labor rights on Wal-Mart's part (or its ilk).

    Even Adam Smith saw a need for rights and even government involvement in this regard. It's not so cut and dried as a pure voluntary negotiation as you seem to indicate. Many employees have little choice in the matter. We can't all work as bank executives, after all.

    I'm not going to troll-rate you, because you could be under the influence of Ayn Rand or some other real troll. You could also be young. My advice to you is to apply to Wal-Mart. Just that should open your eyes.

    by Black Brant on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 09:24:35 PM PDT

•  There's nothing we can do about this

  Walmart is the future. Walmart and companies like it are the invevitable end result of US economic policy, anti unionism, and blind worship of "free trade" and capitalism. We are going to see more and more walmart style businesses rather than less.

  The only way to stop the walmartisation of the world is to change our party. Our party supports this folks. Openly and actively. Labor unions cant do it. The democratic party treats labor like it treats minorities, the working class in general, the poor, women... ie "thanks for the vote we'll see you in a few years peasant".

  Want a reason to reform the party? This is it. If not well.. remind your children to thank you in twenty years when they are paying high taxes, laugh at you when you suggest there used to be a "minimum wage" and try to figure out a way to work 80 hours a week rather than 70.. and wonder what this "overtime" think people used to talk about is.. it sounds so very french..

  by cdreid on Sun Nov 28, 2004 at 08:57:33 PM PDT

•  Wal-Mart is starting to show signs of sputtering

  They've missed at least one profit forecast this year and did not do well for revenues after Thanksgiving. They are increasingly dependent on low-margin items like food or books to generate volume. Outside of rural or exurban areas where shopping is by necessity a one-stop trip, food shoppers are unlikely to also be clothing or jewelry shoppers (i.e., buyers of high margin merchandise). Wal-Mart, increasingly, must look to urban and inner