Wal-Mart still uses illegal immigrant labor.

Wal-mart: lower prices at the expense of society and illegal immigrants...


Police: Wal-Mart site raided
About 125 arrested on immigration violations at Pennsylvania construction location.
November 18, 2005: 12:59 PM EST

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/18/news/fortune500/walmart_raid/index.htm?cnn=yes
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A raid by federal, state and local authorities at a Wal-Mart Stores construction site in Pennsylvania netted about 125 arrests for alleged immigration violations.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->Schuylkill County Capt. Dennis Kane confirmed the raid to CNN. USA Today reported that the workers were working on a million-square-foot distribution center in Butler Township, in eastern Pennsylvania.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude--><SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--var clickExpire = "-1";//--></SCRIPT>Kane said immigrants who were arrested were taken to nearby Philadelphia. The county police worked in conjunction with Pennsylvania state police and federal immigration agents, he said.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->Wal-Mart (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=WMT) (Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=WMT)) officials told the newspaper those arrested were employees of a subcontractor and that the nation's largest retailer has contracts with subcontractors requiring that they follow all federal, state and local laws.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->"We will cooperate fully with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforce) and the U.S. attorney's office in this matter," Wal-Mart said in a statement to the paper.

This is a tough one. Wal-Mart may not have known the sub was using illegals. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's buying practices (in this case they're buying a building) almost guarantee the contractors will use the lowest cost labor they can find. Wal-Mart can't simply hide behind a clause in a contract. They're obligated to use due diligence and when bids come in so low as to look suspicious they need to look into it.

Did you miss this part?

"Wal-Mart officials told the newspaper those arrested were employees of a subcontractor and that the nation's largest retailer has contracts with subcontractors requiring that they follow all federal, state and local laws."

Wal-Mart sells things. It does not build things. It's a real stretch to say Wal-Mart uses illegal immigrant labor based on this.

This is a tough one. Wal-Mart may not have known the sub was using illegals. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's buying practices (in this case they're buying a building) almost guarantee the contractors will use the lowest cost labor they can find. Wal-Mart can't simply hide behind a clause in a contract. They're obligated to use due diligence and when bids come in so low as to look suspicious they need to look into it.

I've boycotted Wal-Mart for years....for another reason. Wal-mart, as this nations largest music distributor, uses their clout to get recording studios to alter lyrics, or have "sing overs" over any objectional portions. I have no problem with labeling music, as parents have a right to know what their kids are listening to, as a musician however, I take serious issue with any company using financial clout to change or alter someone's art. White Zombie among others, refuse to allow their music to be changed, and will not allow it to be sold in Wal Mart stores. Censorship is wrong..plain and simple.

I mean there's a zillion reasons to not shop there. which is why I don't

I mean there's a zillion reasons to not shop there. which is why I don't
yup...let me count the ways...

This is a tough one. Wal-Mart may not have known the sub was using illegals. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's buying practices (in this case they're buying a building) almost guarantee the contractors will use the lowest cost labor they can find. Wal-Mart can't simply hide behind a clause in a contract. They're obligated to use due diligence and when bids come in so low as to look suspicious they need to look into it.

Assuming that Walmart is responsible because of their compeititive bidding practices is taking it a little too far. That practice is common throughout the construction industry. The company that got the bid is responsible for their own profit margins and bidding contracts in a responsible manner. What is more likely is that they found a way to sweeten the margin a bit, Walmart doesn't have exclusive rights to greed or to working to enhance the bottom line.

Every company has the same obligation, not just Wal-Mart. Yes, companies share responsibility with the companies they hire. Even if it's a sub, Wal-Mart hired them and has a responsibility to ensure the contractors are living up to the contract clauses.

Every company has the same obligation, not just Wal-Mart. Yes, companies share responsibility with the companies they hire. Even if it's a sub, Wal-Mart hired them and has a responsibility to ensure the contractors are living up to the contract clauses.

Walmart's concern is to see that they get value for their dollar. That's what all companies do. Screening is the job of those who hire the individual workers.

Subcontractors cheat all the time. If they can find a way to cut costs, they'll do it. If every business was required by law to check out their subcontractors every day, things wouldn't get done.
I didn't read about how the subcontractors were arrested.......

I mean there's a zillion reasons to not shop there. which is why I don't
There has got to be something to stop the millions of people from shopping there. The average person doesn't realize how Wal-Mart is a blight on society. Taking jobs away from Americans might just motivate people to stay away.

They are the largest company/employer and yet they still use illegal immigrants. The excuse of this being a subcontractor doesn't hold water. Fact of the matter, proper vendor management can restrict any behavior of a subcontractor. Their whole business model forces vendors to either off-shore their work to China, or use local illegals to do the work.

If Wal-Mart was serious about not using illegals, they would put simple clauses in their contracts restricting vendors from such behavior.

I haven't shopped there in years. The only way I would shop there was if I was bleeding to death and that was the only place I could get a bandage. Not likely.

Subcontractors cheat all the time. If they can find a way to cut costs, they'll do it. If every business was required by law to check out their subcontractors every day, things wouldn't get done.
I didn't read about how the subcontractors were arrested.......

Wouldn't you find the same thing on any major construction site? I get the impression that the construction industry is right up there with agriculture and landscaping in employing illegals.

Well, I can see you've never administered a construction contract.

There is no Wal-Mart in San Francisco (and I hope that there never will be one). Actually, we have few "big box stores" and any proposal to bring one in is a huge political nightmare on both sides. Even Starbucks receives lots of opposition when it tries to open in certain neighborhoods. (Politics here a very strange.)

I think, though, that there is going to be a new Wal-Mart, not in S.F., but across the Bay Bridge, in Oakland, I think. (That's too close for my comfort!)

Anyway, when I travel to less urban areas (Arizona, recently Washington and Montana) I like to shop at Wal-Mart for cultural reasons. In S.F., we're very parochial, and have no contact with the rest of the country and the dominant culture (except through situation comedies, which I avoid anyway). Going to Wal-Mart allows me at least a tourist's view of a "normal" environment and way of life.

Is Wal-Mart corrupt? My god, yes! Will I still go there when I travel? Probably, although the novelty might wear off. (When I used to go to Southern California I always went to In-N-Out Burger, as much for the novelty as for the quality of the food. Now they're also in Northern California, even in S.F., within walking distance of where I live. I never go there. No novelty.)

As long as there's novelty in the cultural experience, I'll still probably go to Wal-Mart. I may not buy anything (although my once or twice a year purchases maybe total $10), but it's still a (free) cultural experience.

Do I boycott Coors because the Coors family is reputed to be right-wingers? No! I don't buy their beer because I hate it. It's like (bad) flavored water. If I liked their product, maybe I'd buy it despite their (reputed) right-wing politics. At least I don't have to decide. Besides, I spend more in a week on beer than I could spend in Wal-Mart in 10 years.

Do I boycott Coors because the Coors family is reputed to be right-wingers? No! I don't buy their beer because I hate it. It's like (bad) flavored water. If I liked their product, maybe I'd buy it despite their (reputed) right-wing politics. At least I don't have to decide. Besides, I spend more in a week on beer than I could spend in Wal-Mart in 10 years.
SOme of the stuff Coors makes isn't all that bad--it isn't all Coors light--still I never buy Coors unless I can't help it due to their politics. Plenty of other great beer out there that is more in line with my way of thinking. New Belgium Brewery is probably one of my fave breweries--and they are also one of the most environmentally concious ones as well using 100% wind power and recycling "beer gasses" into energy.

Wal-Mart still uses illegal immigrant labor.
.


[best Gomer Pile voice]

Surprise Surprise Suprise........


Like I've said a million times, until the employer is heavily fined, illegals will always be used by those wanting to cut corners.....greed is a very powerful condition

Can proudly say I have only been in a Wal-Mart twice in my life, once in OR when it was raining to get an Umbrella (didn't have time to drive around) and once in Argentina because it was the only store open and I needed some antibiotic cream.....it is a blight upon this country.....

It's kinda like buying stolen goods. Gee officer, it never crossed my mind a mint Colnago for $100 might be stolen. When bids come in significantly lower they have a responsibility to keep an eye on the contractors for this type of behaviour. They don't have to check every day but Wal-Mart and many other companies turn a blind eye and use the "I didn't know" defense way too much, especially when it's been shown in other cases they did know. They don't come into this with clean hands.

[best Gomer Pile voice]

Surprise Surprise Suprise........


Like I've said a million times, until the employer is heavily fined, illegals will always be used by those wanting to cut corners.....greed is a very powerful condition

Can proudly say I have only been in a Wal-Mart twice in my life, once in OR when it was raining to get an Umbrella (didn't have time to drive around) and once in Argentina because it was the only store open and I needed some antibiotic cream.....it is a blight upon this country.....
Well at least you have a choice. In some small rural towns WalMart is it for certain items--it's not like you can just drive to Target instead.

[best Gomer Pile voice]

Surprise Surprise Suprise........


Like I've said a million times, until the employer is heavily fined, illegals will always be used by those wanting to cut corners.....greed is a very powerful condition

Can proudly say I have only been in a Wal-Mart twice in my life, once in OR when it was raining to get an Umbrella (didn't have time to drive around) and once in Argentina because it was the only store open and I needed some antibiotic cream.....it is a blight upon this country.....

That's a shame, forced into a Walmart. You must have felt so .......... dirty.

I mean there's a zillion reasons to not shop there. which is why I don't

Feel free not to shop there, but do it for the right reasons. For reasonable reasons. Discovering illegals working for a subcontractor on the construction crew building a Wal-Mart doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

By the way, make sure your ideology is consistent. I assume you don't buy a lot of fruit or vegetables anywhere because illegals might have picked them and been underpaid. I assume you don't drink a lot of wine, either.

Well at least you have a choice. In some small rural towns WalMart is it for certain items--it's not like you can just drive to Target instead.

That is what the interNets is for....besides p0rn...those rural folk just need to get some dial up and they can buy whatever they need, and I do mean whatever....
:D

BJ II-

Coors Light is also part of the cultural experience. In S.F. we're lucky to have some great brew pubs. When I was in Montana (where they also have good craft breweries) we went into a local saloon and-- most guys were drinking bottled Coors Light! even though they had pretty good beer and ale on tap -- and a pitcher was way cheaper than bottled beer.

Again, it's cultural, like Wal-Mart. In those areas it's normal to go to Wal-Mart and normal to drink Coors beer. If I didn't go on vacation I'd have no idea.

That's a shame, forced into a Walmart. You must have felt so .......... dirty.

I did....real dirty.....said ten hail marys when I left just to be safe

It's kinda like buying stolen goods. Gee officer, it never crossed my mind a mint Colnago for $100 might be stolen. When bids come in significantly lower they have a responsibility to keep an eye on the contractors for this type of behaviour. They don't have to check every day but Wal-Mart and many other companies turn a blind eye and use the "I didn't know" defense way too much, especially when it's been shown in other cases they did know. They don't come into this with clean hands.

So you've seen all the bids? Otherwise, you are just making huge assumptions that are probably groundless.

Feel free not to shop there, but do it for the right reasons. For reasonable reasons. Discovering illegals working for a subcontractor on the construction crew building a Wal-Mart doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

By the way, make sure your ideology is consistent. I assume you don't buy a lot of fruit or vegetables anywhere because illegals might have picked them and been underpaid. I assume you don't drink a lot of wine, either.



I don't shop at Wal-Mart due to their heavy handed censorship, refusal to allow unionization and a whole litany of other things, not due to illegals....as long as someone pays an illegal the lawfull wages, I'm fine with it....

It's going that way for sure. My father finally set up his biz on the net and is making better money than he ever did in the old brick and mortar. That said...sometimes your toilet breaks and you need a new float right away or you need some tool for the weekend fix it up project and WalMart is there to provide it.

That would be fine...they would go out of business if people limited their purchases to such....

That is what the interNets is for....besides p0rn...those rural folk just need to get some dial up and they can buy whatever they need, and I do mean whatever....
:D
It's going that way for sure. My father finally set up his biz on the net and is making better money than he ever did in the old brick and mortar. That said...sometimes your toilet breaks and you need a new float right away or you need some tool for the weekend fix it up project and WalMart is there to provide it.

BJ II-

Coors Light is also part of the cultural experience. In S.F. we're lucky to have some great brew pubs. When I was in Montana (where they also have good craft breweries) we went into a local saloon and-- most guys were drinking bottled Coors Light! even though they had pretty good beer and ale on tap -- and a pitcher was way cheaper than bottled beer.

Again, it's cultural, like Wal-Mart. In those areas it's normal to go to Wal-Mart and normal to drink Coors beer. If I didn't go on vacation I'd have no idea.

Yep, where I'm from everybody shops at Walmart and drinks Coors Light or Bud. To do otherwise is just flat un-American. Heineken is still that fancy foreign beer. My dad drives his SUV the 2 miles to and from work as well. Why would you shop anywhere else but Walmart, it's the cheapest?

That's my point. Here in SF we're completely out of touch. Doesn't mean that I will drink Bud Light or Coors Light, but I want to know what the rest of the country is like. As for Wal-Mart, as long as they stay outside S.F., I'll still consider it a cultural experience. (I doubt that S.F. will ever allow Wal-Mart within the city limits, although we have no say in what adjacent cities will allow. Nor do I think that Wal-Mart would want to take the risk of opening a store here. Besides, S.F. has strict laws governing minimum wage, domestic partners, and other things that would make it unprofitable.)

It's a cultural experience alright. It's where I come from but i've not lived there for over 15 years now and it always takes some getting use to to hear people use ******s for black people or faggots for homosexuals again. It would never cross most of their minds that a fellow white person would fine that kind of language objectionable. And you better like to talk NASCAR, football, hunting or cars since that's what 90% of the conversation will revolve around. Gotta love small town America.

I've only ever lived in NYC or SF, and still have an idealized view of small town America. (It's also nice to get out of a city once in awhile, just for the change in geography). I like going to small towns and eating in local places, seeing local bars (saloons), and seeing where / how people shop.

And, I try to keep politics out of it for those few excursions. I wish that rural people could do the same with cities, and not just see us as a bunch of "deviated preverts" who use drugs, marry outside our race (which I did in my first marriage, by the way), and hate America.

I could never live outside a city, but it's a nice fantasy. The reality, of course, is probably much different.

I've only ever lived in NYC or SF, and still have an idealized view of small town America. (It's also nice to get out of a city once in awhile, just for the change in geography). I like going to small towns and eating in local places, seeing local bars (saloons), and seeing where / how people shop.

And, I try to keep politics out of it for those few excursions. I wish that rural people could do the same with cities, and not just see us as a bunch of "deviated preverts" who use drugs, marry outside our race (which I did in my first marriage, by the way), and hate America.

I could never live outside a city, but it's a nice fantasy. The reality, of course, is probably much different.
Having grown up in a small town in the Midwest I can vouch for Dwayne's version of small town life. Though there are many positive aspects there is a dark side as well.

Seems to me that for the most part, the people who shop at Walmart aren't the kind riding around on $5000 bikes. They shop there because they have little money, and they get more for their money there. They need to. You may as well advocate boycotting air.

...out of touch with every other place in the country period.
And the world for that matter. Think about it...


That's my point. Here in SF we're completely out of touch. Doesn't mean that I will drink Bud Light or Coors Light, but I want to know what the rest of the country is like. As for Wal-Mart, as long as they stay outside S.F., I'll still consider it a cultural experience. (I doubt that S.F. will ever allow Wal-Mart within the city limits, although we have no say in what adjacent cities will allow. Nor do I think that Wal-Mart would want to take the risk of opening a store here. Besides, S.F. has strict laws governing minimum wage, domestic partners, and other things that would make it unprofitable.)

My girlfriend grew up in a small town in Michigan, farm country. She knows the reality of small town / rural life, and tells me that my idealization is far from the reality. She tells me how small-minded, bigoted, scared, the people there can be. And, I believe her.

But, that's most of the country, and I think that it's important (for me) not to forget that reality. Live there? I wouldn't last 6 months.

But most of those small-town Americans wouldn't even give SF or NY a day! Even people in the East Bay Area, 20 or 30 miles from SF would never cross the bridge to come here if they didn't have to work. Many can go years without crossing the bridge.

Seems to me that for the most part, the people who shop at Walmart aren't the kind riding around on $5000 bikes. They shop there because they have little money, and they get more for their money there. They need to. You may as well advocate boycotting air.


Thats right they're riding around on $100 dollar bikes...with pegs and sweet shocks.....

I want to go on the record that from here on out, to protest Wal-Mart, The Bush Admin and fecklessness everywhere, I am boycotting air. I will not buy it anymore.

Seems to me that for the most part, the people who shop at Walmart aren't the kind riding around on $5000 bikes. They shop there because they have little money, and they get more for their money there. They need to. You may as well advocate boycotting air.

I think you can't discount how many people are just living their lives. They don't worry about things like the environment, fair wages, the town's small businesses being run out. Walmart is there, it's cheap and it's convenient. What more do you need to know about it? They sell clothes made by kids in sweat shops in Asia. That's a real shame, no one should have to live like that would be the sentiment but they're not going to waste their time trying to figure out what is alright to buy and what's not.

Having grown up in a small town in the Midwest I can vouch for Dwayne's version of small town life. Though there are many positive aspects there is a dark side as well.

I could definitely live in small town America, but my wife who grew up in a college town (the bastions of culture between the coasts) in an otherwise very rural state says she never could.

I could definitely live in small town America, but my wife who grew up in a college town (the bastions of culture between the coasts) in an otherwise very rural state says she never could.
I think I could as well, but when I visit my father after having not lived there for some time it doesn't feel like "home" anymore.

I haven't seen these bids but I've seen plenty of bids and been on numerous construction management teams. We check out the bidders and the subs. We monitor them on site. Given Wal-Marts purchasing history and their other problems with illegals it's not a big stretch or a huge assumption. Even if the bids were very close and seemed consistent with other bid awards for similar projects it doesn't absolve them from making sure the contractor and subs comply with the construction agreement. If the agreement says the contractor and subs have to comply with all applicable laws (Duhh, that's a no brainer) then the company (Wal-Mart or any other) should be running herd to make sure they comply. It's not enough to simply put it in the contract and then wash your hands when the contractor gets caught by hiding behind the language. In fact, it doesn't even have to be in the contract, it's the law. It's only there to give them the exact defense they're offering. Wal-Mart has construction managers. They're on the construction site frequently. I have a hard time believing they didn't see who was working for the subs. It's a simple matter to ask for green cards. All part of the job.

There has got to be something to stop the millions of people from shopping there. The average person doesn't realize how Wal-Mart is a blight on society. Taking jobs away from Americans might just motivate people to stay away.

They are the largest company/employer and yet they still use illegal immigrants. The excuse of this being a subcontractor doesn't hold water. Fact of the matter, proper vendor management can restrict any behavior of a subcontractor. Their whole business model forces vendors to either off-shore their work to China, or use local illegals to do the work.

If Wal-Mart was serious about not using illegals, they would put simple clauses in their contracts restricting vendors from such behavior.

Want to really put millions out of work? Shut down Wal Mart. Employees, contractors, manufacturers, truck drivers, truck stops, etc., etc.

Illegals / clauses - you mean like this? "Subcontractors will obey the law". Since it appears that these people ("illegals" as you call them) were working without permits, it was illegal. Using that method of reasoning, it should also state in the subcontractor's agreement that things like murder, theft and general skullduggery won't be tolerated, either. While they are at it, perhaps referencing the entire US code, as well as all state and local statutes and ordinances should be included in the contract.

And since you will have shut down the lowest price store, tell me where the poor people, whom you seem to care so much about, will shop for diapers, soap, and food? Maybe at the corner grocery that will charge them an additional 30%? And what about all those people you just put out of work? And where will the states and municipalities turn to replace the taxes that Wal Mart generates so they can continue to provide the services needed?

Boycott Wal Mart to force them out of business. Now there's a novel idea. Ridiculous and stupid, too.

I never thought I'd read "Wal-Mart" and "cultural experience" in the same sentence. I can die now.

Want to really put millions out of work? Shut down Wal Mart. Employees, contractors, manufacturers, truck drivers, truck stops, etc., etc.

Illegals / clauses - you mean like this? "Subcontractors will obey the law". Since it appears that these people ("illegals" as you call them) were working without permits, it was illegal. Using that method of reasoning, it should also state in the subcontractor's agreement that things like murder, theft and general skullduggery won't be tolerated, either. While they are at it, perhaps referencing the entire US code, as well as all state and local statutes and ordinances should be included in the contract.

And since you will have shut down the lowest price store, tell me where the poor people, whom you seem to care so much about, will shop for diapers, soap, and food? Maybe at the corner grocery that will charge them an additional 30%? And what about all those people you just put out of work? And where will the states and municipalities turn to replace the taxes that Wal Mart generates so they can continue to provide the services needed?

Boycott Wal Mart to force them out of business. Now there's a novel idea. Ridiculous and stupid, too.
Money,

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.
2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.

Wal-Mart has placed downward pressure on wages and benefits. They've been found to violate basic workers’ rights. Wal-Mart threatens the standard of living in communities across the country. The success of a business need not come at the expense of workers and their families. Such short-sighted profit-making "strategeries" ultimately undermine our economy.

So, what is it you like about Wal-Mart?

By the way, make sure your ideology is consistent. I assume you don't buy a lot of fruit or vegetables anywhere because illegals might have picked them and been underpaid. I assume you don't drink a lot of wine, either

and haven't followed my position on illegals and everything we benefit from their labor.

I avoid WalMart for reasons BESIDES the alien issue. that is what I was trying to say. They do crazy crap to their vendors as well. they ordered somany of the 'cheap models' of a certain brand that they basically produced nothing but that model for walmart who because of the volume paid next to nothing and every other store that used their product got nothing.

aliens don't bother me, I've worked with them many times (grew up in the wine country).
good, hard working, care about their family and take jobs nobody wants.

I think you can't discount how many people are just living their lives. They don't worry about things like the environment, fair wages, the town's small businesses being run out. Walmart is there, it's cheap and it's convenient. What more do you need to know about it? They sell clothes made by kids in sweat shops in Asia. That's a real shame, no one should have to live like that would be the sentiment but they're not going to waste their time trying to figure out what is alright to buy and what's not.

It's not that most people couldn't care less about some kids in China, but I'd think that many people probably are so saturated with causes that they potentially could care about that they are completely jaded. Let's see, we can't eat net caught tuna, farm raised salmon, chickens from certain farm operations, genetically engineered anything, Russian caviar, use too much oil, no fur, imported cars, can't buy products that advertise on Rush Limbaugh or watch CBS news (alternatively)... the list of causes could go on for pages. How can we not have cause burnout, especially for most people who aren't the slightest bit politically interested in the first place?

and don't think about global, economic and/or environmental impacts etc...and just shop for price wind up getting what they deserve. when all the local businesses in the 'downtown area' of their small town USA shut down because of the Big Box on the outskirts, the town center becomes a ghost town and folks wind up losing their jobs and take substandard ones serving the monoliths, well that's the ends of that little trip.
ignorance eqiuals self sodomization again.

My girlfriend grew up in a small town in Michigan, farm country. She knows the reality of small town / rural life, and tells me that my idealization is far from the reality. She tells me how small-minded, bigoted, scared, the people there can be. And, I believe her.

But, that's most of the country, and I think that it's important (for me) not to forget that reality. Live there? I wouldn't last 6 months.

But most of those small-town Americans wouldn't even give SF or NY a day! Even people in the East Bay Area, 20 or 30 miles from SF would never cross the bridge to come here if they didn't have to work. Many can go years without crossing the bridge.

No offense, but I'm the opposite, I own an acre of land with my house on it and in the summer time when the trees are in bloom, I have 33 by the way, I can't see my neighbors....I love it. No street lights, no sidewalks, QUIET.. I agree that some small town folk can be bigoted, but that is certainly not the way most of them are. I grew up on a horse farm, and I thought I'd like the big city, so I moved to Cleveland, and lived in the greater area for about 8 years while I was in school. I got out as fast as I could....Too busy, WAY too much traffic, and too many people. I've told my wife many times, if we weren't married, I would move to Alaska in a heartbeat....thousands of miles of open space....ahhh..would love it. I just sat and watched the deer come through earlier....might have to go grab the bow and cull a little supper.. still haven't filled my tag yet, the damn 16 pointer walked towards me last weekend, and then veered away before I could get a good shot...b$#%%^D

and don't think about global, economic and/or environmental impacts etc...and just shop for price wind up getting what they deserve. when all the local businesses in the 'downtown area' of their small town USA shut down because of the Big Box on the outskirts, the town center becomes a ghost town and folks wind up losing their jobs and take substandard ones serving the monoliths, well that's the ends of that little trip.
ignorance eqiuals self sodomization again.

The monolith is better stocked and prices are lower. Mom and Pop can get jobs there and you can still shoot the sh&% with them when you go in. A win win situation.

And all those local businesses were paying taxes. Wal-Mart generally moves into places and gets tax abatements.

so it doesn't matter as much, but I've seen too many small towns ruined by the big box.
yeah just what mom n pop need,jobs with crap pay and little to no bennies and staying all night off the clock for inventory. sorry I'll pay the extra .50 c an item and support my local business as much as I can.

And mom and pop and all the other workers are making less and there are fewer jobs in total. The monolith offers no service and only carries the national brands. Try and buy just one or two bolts or get the odd size you need at the monolith. Chances are the mom and pop would have it. Mom and pop don't squeeze the suppliers, driving some out of business. Mom and pop aren't responsible for out sourcing thousands of jobs. Blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before.

The capitalist economic system is a marvel but it's not without it's foibles. It's far from perfect and Wal-Mart is a good example of some of it's excesses as well as some of it's strengths.

This is a tough one. Wal-Mart may not have known the sub was using illegals. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's buying practices (in this case they're buying a building) almost guarantee the contractors will use the lowest cost labor they can find. Wal-Mart can't simply hide behind a clause in a contract. They're obligated to use due diligence and when bids come in so low as to look suspicious they need to look into it.

I'd say their ignorance is more believeable on a construction contract than it would be on a building cleaning contract or a warehouse operations contract.

With construction the actual people doing the work change, sometimes daily, depending on what actual operations are being done that day. I think that it would be hard for Wal Mart to monitor the legality of each individual construction worker so I'd be inclined to let them slide on this one.

With cleaning or operations contracts, the work and the workers basically remain the same. In those cases, you have to ask yourself why sub contractors are being used to perform those functions. I suspect that many such contracts are simply a ruse to remove questionable or illegal labor practices a step away from the mother company.

Money,

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.
2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.

Wal-Mart has placed downward pressure on wages and benefits. They've been found to violate basic workers’ rights. Wal-Mart threatens the standard of living in communities across the country. The success of a business need not come at the expense of workers and their families. Such short-sighted profit-making "strategeries" ultimately undermine our economy.

So, what is it you like about Wal-Mart?
[crickets chirping]

Actually, I think that Wal Mart is doing us all a huge favor. They've become the poster child for medical coverage reform. It's exactly what we need to get us moving in the right direction.

The way that we finance medical care in the United States today is crazy. Wal Mart didn't write the rules, they're just playing the game in the way that best fits their salary cost structure. Their management mandate is to do whatever's best for Wal Mart, not necessarily what's best for the United States.

One of the things that private insurance companies do today is to spend large amounts of money to find ways to exclude people who are likely to have high dollar claims or high frequency of claims. Wal Mart is playing that game by rewriting all of their job descriptions to include physically taxing responsibilities in every job. At least part of it's purpose is to discourage the hiring of less healthy people which makes them a more attractive group to insure. Another scheme is to artifically hold down the hours and salaries of some employees to keep them eligible for Medicaid. The cost of private health insurance is so high (my employer funded plan costs me and my wife $207.00 per week) that this may actually be a cost effective ploy for many Wal Mart employees.

The high risk people that Wal Mart doesn't hire and the Wal Mart employees who are being held back to maintain their Medicaid elegability still have medical needs. Ultimately the money to pay for every medical procedure in the United States has to come from somewhere. The medical providers and the insurance companies generate no wealth on their own so absolutely none of it comes from them. All medical procedures are paid for by the fees and co-pays of individuals, insurance premiums, the government, and by charitable contributions. Medical providers presumably provide some "pro bono" services that are financed by over charging regular paying customers. Defaults due to medical expense driven personal bankrupticies are ultimately covered by everybody who uses credit cards. Like it or not, even the way that it is today, we're paying for everybody's medical bills in these several different ways.

If we had a one payer system, usage would undoubtedly rise but only for the lower working classes who can't afford private health insurance and who don't qualify for Medicaid under our current system. With everyone in one pool however, the costs of identifying and excluding the high risk people, much of the administrative expense, and many bankrupticy defaults, which we're paying now, would be eliminated. Honestly, the only losers that I can see are the insurance companies who rake a percentage off of the top of this enormous pot of money just for pro rateing the costs of medical services.

Wal Mart is forth rightly moving more of their employees toward the single payer system. They are big enough to be visible on a national scale. We should thank them for being a force for moving the country in the direction that we eventually must go.

That's my point. Here in SF we're completely out of touch. Doesn't mean that I will drink Bud Light or Coors Light, but I want to know what the rest of the country is like. As for Wal-Mart, as long as they stay outside S.F., I'll still consider it a cultural experience. (I doubt that S.F. will ever allow Wal-Mart within the city limits, although we have no say in what adjacent cities will allow. Nor do I think that Wal-Mart would want to take the risk of opening a store here. Besides, S.F. has strict laws governing minimum wage, domestic partners, and other things that would make it unprofitable.)

I doubt that SF will ever allow WM within city limits. Kinda like saying SF sh$t dont stink. I've always said SF,ok for vacation but i'd never live there.

I doubt that SF will ever allow WM within city limits. Kinda like saying SF sh$t dont stink. I've always said SF,ok for vacation but i'd never live there.

I'll shop wherever the best price is for what i need,WM,Target,or a hole in the wall.

And mom and pop and all the other workers are making less and there are fewer jobs in total. The monolith offers no service and only carries the national brands. Try and buy just one or two bolts or get the odd size you need at the monolith. Chances are the mom and pop would have it. Mom and pop don't squeeze the suppliers, driving some out of business. Mom and pop aren't responsible for out sourcing thousands of jobs. Blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before.

The capitalist economic system is a marvel but it's not without it's foibles. It's far from perfect and Wal-Mart is a good example of some of it's excesses as well as some of it's strengths.

Smaller stores haven't disappeared, theyre just not so many of them. The price of six bolts at the monolith is usually not out of line with the mom and pop for one or two. Monoliths compete with each other, that's why KMart went out of business where I live, Wall Mart kicked their butts with service, products and prices. Mom and pop had the same toaster for sale for two years till someone boutht it, at the monolith, if it dowsn't move they put it on for a reduced price and move it and stay current. If it weren't better, it wouldn't be working so well. By the way, they hire many more people than mom and pop. It's a trade off. I prefer the monllith.

Smaller stores haven't disappeared, theyre just not so many of them. The price of six bolts at the monolith is usually not out of line with the mom and pop for one or two. Monoliths compete with each other, that's why KMart went out of business where I live, Wall Mart kicked their butts with service, products and prices. Mom and pop had the same toaster for sale for two years till someone boutht it, at the monolith, if it dowsn't move they put it on for a reduced price and move it and stay current. If it weren't better, it wouldn't be working so well. By the way, they hire many more people than mom and pop. It's a trade off. I prefer the monllith.


You say smaller stores haven't disappeared yet you also say there aren't as many of them. Which is it? If there are fewer of them some have disappeared. The price may be close but the selection isn't and there are many sizes you can't get at the big box that mom and pop carry. Check your studies on the hiring. Probably the seminal study is by Emek Basker, a University of Missouri professor. After five years there was a net gain of 30 jobs after Wal Mart but the wages were lower and it didn't measure the loss of jobs in support industries (accounting, lawyers, wholesalers, etc.) where Wal-Mart has centralized and uses their own people. Net loss of jobs and lower wages.

Smaller stores haven't disappeared, theyre just not so many of them. The price of six bolts at the monolith is usually not out of line with the mom and pop for one or two. Monoliths compete with each other, that's why KMart went out of business where I live, Wall Mart kicked their butts with service, products and prices. Mom and pop had the same toaster for sale for two years till someone boutht it, at the monolith, if it dowsn't move they put it on for a reduced price and move it and stay current. If it weren't better, it wouldn't be working so well. By the way, they hire many more people than mom and pop. It's a trade off. I prefer the monllith.
I presume you've never worked for one of the monoliths to earn your living Snake?

BTW-I'll take mom & pop any day, they usually know what it is they're selling & how to use it-and if not where to find it--in addition to solving your problems if your're puzzeled....Too often @ places (i.e. B*st Buy, Wal/K Mart etc.)employees have no idea how to fix things, what they're selling etc.

The only good thing out of K/Wal/Taget & etc. is their low prices. Up here, all such places have moved to the far out skirts of town, where they're hard to get to, due to distance/traffic etc...also they can buy HUGE chunks of very nice land & turn them into seldom used empty parking lots--it's also nice because all the grease joint monopolies (i.e. B. King, McDon's, etc) have moved to the same areas-so most of the cafés/restaurants downtown are mom & pop places :D

Actually, I think that Wal Mart is doing us all a huge favor. They've become the poster child for medical coverage reform. It's exactly what we need to get us moving in the right direction.

The way that we finance medical care in the United States today is crazy. Wal Mart didn't write the rules, they're just playing the game in the way that best fits their salary cost structure. Their management mandate is to do whatever's best for Wal Mart, not necessarily what's best for the United States.


While the discussion is important, companies like Wal-Mart have social responsibility. To increase the size of their company at the expense of their employees is reprehensible. I have zero respect for any Wal-Mart executive. Good corporate citizenship has always been linked to social awareness.

This is not just a few rotten eggs at Wal-mart. It's their business practices that are un-American. This is not a zero sum game.

The better model is GE.

While the discussion is important, companies like Wal-Mart have social responsibility. To increase the size of their company at the expense of their employees is reprehensible. I have zero respect for any Wal-Mart executive. Good corporate citizenship has always been linked to social awareness.

This is not just a few rotten eggs at Wal-mart. It's their business practices that are un-American. This is not a zero sum game.

The better model is GE.

This isn't really about respect for executives, I have zero respect for any CEO. They have built little insulated empires and they build them on the backs of worker ants. In that respect, Walmart is no different. The compensation for the people who actually work in these stores is in line with the importance of the job. there are full time employees in these stores who earn a living. Most of the positions there are not career jobs. 30 years as a cashier isn't really something to aspire to. These are entry level and part time jobs, jobs for people who share household expenses with a partner, a husband or wife, second incomes. The fact that there are so many single mothers working there is more a commentary on the social problems in this country than the hireing practices of Walmart. Mom and pop didn't pay these same level workers any more, in many cases, probably less. It's a changed world. Every industry in this country is using many of the same tactics you complain about at Walmart. Consolodation of companies, contracts with suppliers to force prices down. It's the new world order. I like Walmart, they have good products for low prices and are open 24/7. The illegal immigrant problem is pandemic, even the French don't seem to be immune to it. Have nots are moving to have places to get some. New world order.

You say smaller stores haven't disappeared yet you also say there aren't as many of them. Which is it? If there are fewer of them some have disappeared. The price may be close but the selection isn't and there are many sizes you can't get at the big box that mom and pop carry. Check your studies on the hiring. Probably the seminal study is by Emek Basker, a University of Missouri professor. After five years there was a net gain of 30 jobs after Wal Mart but the wages were lower and it didn't measure the loss of jobs in support industries (accounting, lawyers, wholesalers, etc.) where Wal-Mart has centralized and uses their own people. Net loss of jobs and lower wages.

Maybe this is a stupid response, but if you owned wal-mart, wouldn't you want to make more money? A net wage deficiency is a sign that the company operates more efficiently than what it has replaced. That means they can and may offer better prices, although that is arguable.

If you don't like what they do to urban development, that's really the government's fault. If they put a $2 a gallon tax on gas these places would never have appeared miles out of town.

When you assign corporations with social responsibility and profitmaking they will fail at one or the other.

Silas

Want to really put millions out of work? Shut down Wal Mart. Employees, contractors, manufacturers, truck drivers, truck stops, etc., etc.

Illegals / clauses - you mean like this? "Subcontractors will obey the law". Since it appears that these people ("illegals" as you call them) were working without permits, it was illegal. Using that method of reasoning, it should also state in the subcontractor's agreement that things like murder, theft and general skullduggery won't be tolerated, either. While they are at it, perhaps referencing the entire US code, as well as all state and local statutes and ordinances should be included in the contract.

And since you will have shut down the lowest price store, tell me where the poor people, whom you seem to care so much about, will shop for diapers, soap, and food? Maybe at the corner grocery that will charge them an additional 30%? And what about all those people you just put out of work? And where will the states and municipalities turn to replace the taxes that Wal Mart generates so they can continue to provide the services needed?

Boycott Wal Mart to force them out of business. Now there's a novel idea. Ridiculous and stupid, too.
On balance, WalMart is probably a net good for the working class. On a certain level, WalMart is a giant wealth-redistribution scheme. Of course, it's run by heartless capitalist pigs like Moneyman, and there's plenty NOT to like about it, but honest analysis says more working class families win with WalMart than lose.

On balance, WalMart is probably a net good for the working class. On a certain level, WalMart is a giant wealth-redistribution scheme. Of course, it's run by heartless capitalist pigs like Moneyman, and there's plenty NOT to like about it, but honest analysis says more working class families win with WalMart than lose.Does the working class truly benefit by purchasing cheap, poor quality, imported knock-off crap that has the lifespan of a roentgenium isotope? Do they benefit by contributing to the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs that big box stores like Wal-Mart, specifically Wal-Mart, contribute directly to?

Wal-Mart keeps 'em poor and keeps 'em coming back for more. So, if by wealth redistribution you mean redistributing the wealth out of the pockets of the working class Americans to the Chinese (including sweatshop owners and counterfiters), I guess that's a valid statement.

Does the working class truly benefit by purchasing cheap, poor quality, imported knock-off crap that has the lifespan of a roentgenium isotope? Do they benefit by contributing to the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs that big box stores like Wal-Mart, specifically Wal-Mart, contribute directly to?

Wal-Mart keeps 'em poor and keeps 'em coming back for more. So, if by wealth redistribution you mean redistributing the wealth out of the pockets of the working class Americans to the Chinese (including sweatshop owners and counterfiters), I guess that's a valid statement.
When were working class Americans' Pampers and laundry detergent and motor oil for old cars that burn a lot of it and eyeglasses and food replaced by cheap imported knock-off crap? Jeez, living in the country, I miss out on all sorts of major developments.

Does the working class truly benefit by purchasing cheap, poor quality, imported knock-off crap that has the lifespan of a roentgenium isotope? Do they benefit by contributing to the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs that big box stores like Wal-Mart, specifically Wal-Mart, contribute directly to?

Wal-Mart keeps 'em poor and keeps 'em coming back for more. So, if by wealth redistribution you mean redistributing the wealth out of the pockets of the working class Americans to the Chinese (including sweatshop owners and counterfiters), I guess that's a valid statement.

This is a silly argument, because if the stuff was made in the USA it would cost twice as much, meaning the poor would be able to buy half as much. Oh wait, you say they'd be making a middle class living making the stuff, well then the stuff just got more expensive again.

The bottom line is, to meet our insane consumer demands, we somehow need to keep the people making our stuff dirt poor and hopeless, while we exert control over them. Otherwise the junk would get too expensive and we would have to buy less. Maybe if americans didn't crave so much junk, the few things we do buy could be made here.

Silas

When were working class Americans' Pampers and laundry detergent and motor oil for old cars that burn a lot of it and eyeglasses and food replaced by cheap imported knock-off crap? Jeez, living in the country, I miss out on all sorts of major developments.I guess you need to find a better supermarket then because Pampers, Penzoil and Tide are usually cheaper at Giant or Pep Boys than they are at Wal-Mart where I live, as is pretty much everything else EXCEPT the cheap knock-off, imported crap electronics, clothing and housewares found at Wal-Mart. Not to mention that our Giant cashiers are union.

You may have me on eye glasses though but I'll bet I could easily beat WM prices there too if nowhere else but on the Internet.

But, if all you have is Wal-Mart to choose from, I guess it would be the cheapest around.

This is a silly argument, because if the stuff was made in the USA it would cost twice as much, meaning the poor would be able to buy half as much. Oh wait, you say they'd be making a middle class living making the stuff, well then the stuff just got more expensive again.

The bottom line is, to meet our insane consumer demands, we somehow need to keep the people making our stuff dirt poor and hopeless, while we exert control over them. Otherwise the junk would get too expensive and we would have to buy less. Maybe if americans didn't crave so much junk, the few things we do buy could be made here.

SilasI call BS.

The number of people living at or below the poverty level has increased in the USA since big box stores like Wal-Mart became all the rage. In the meantime, the number of general manufacturing jobs (textiles, widgets) have declined sharply -- most of them going to Mexico or Asia.

We were able to afford the stuff back before the big box stores because wages were relatively higher. Also, the products were typically of much higher quality and therefore needed to be purchased far less often. A TV, for example, had a lifespan of a decade or more, not the 3 or so years we get out of them now.

On balance, WalMart is probably a net good for the working class. On a certain level, WalMart is a giant wealth-redistribution scheme. Of course, it's run by heartless capitalist pigs like Moneyman, and there's plenty NOT to like about it, but honest analysis says more working class families win with WalMart than lose.

A few talking heads put it that way, but I've never seen any hard data.

They're playing a zero sum game, and it's not good for society.

So, what is it you like about Wal-Mart?



"7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union."

Do all of you anti Walmart snobs that are faaarr to high falutin' to shop at Walmart really want the rest of us in YOUR stores?

I call BS.

The number of people living at or below the poverty level has increased in the USA since big box stores like Wal-Mart became all the rage. In the meantime, the number of general manufacturing jobs (textiles, widgets) have declined sharply -- most of them going to Mexico or Asia.

We were able to afford the stuff back before the big box stores because wages were relatively higher. Also, the products were typically of much higher quality and therefore needed to be purchased far less often. A TV, for example, had a lifespan of a decade or more, not the 3 or so years we get out of them now.

Come on, Ken. This is way below your standards. To make the equation that Wal Mart causes poverty is really outside the realm of even modest credibility. And manufacturing jobs of the kind you describe have declined for a couple of reasons: One, the unions have outpriced the value of their labor, and; two, as an economy matures and grows, like in the US, low skilled jobs, like those in textile mills, go away not because the products aren't in demand, but rather because the goods being produced are more complex, requiring greater skills by the workforce demanding higher wages. Blame Bill Gates if you must, but Sam Walton didn't drive Nike's manufacturing to Beijing. You did, because your skills are worth more than those of a textile worker in a developing nation who likely had no job before the one s/he has now! Assuming you would buy Nike shoes (just play along, OK?), would you be willing to pay $300 for them because the labor to make those shoes, the largest component in their cost structure, was three or four times more expensive than it is now, simply to save the job of a low-skilled textile worker in North Carolina?

Its a cruel world, Ken, but that's how it is. You don't shop at WalMart because you can save more at Pep Boys and Giant. Nike doesn't contract with US unionized textile shops because its cheaper to make stuff in Beijing. Both actions cost people jobs while at the same time helping others get and stay employed. Why is your model more just than Nike's?

Money,

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.
2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.

Wal-Mart has placed downward pressure on wages and benefits. They've been found to violate basic workers’ rights. Wal-Mart threatens the standard of living in communities across the country. The success of a business need not come at the expense of workers and their families. Such short-sighted profit-making "strategeries" ultimately undermine our economy.

So, what is it you like about Wal-Mart?

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.

Ha! I went to buy a hand-mixer this weekend. I could have bought one at Target, K Mart, Sears, Wal Mart, The Prairie Pantry, Home Depot, Lowes, or a hal-dozen other stores in town. Or, I could have driven to Fort Collins, CO or Denver and found hundreds of stores that sell hand mixers. I don't know about you, but in my econ classes, granted that they were a long time ago, they told us that monopolies controlled the process of manufature and distribution with no competition by creating insurmountable barriers to entry. I think Wal Mart has some competition.

2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
So is every other business. I don't help my competitors, either. And why, exactly, should I?

3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
Really? I know you believe it, but do you have a reliable source to justify this rather unbelievable claim?

4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
No. They pay them exactly what they are worth, and exactly what the market will bear for the skills they bring to Wal Mart. It's a supply and demand thing.
5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
Again, a reliable source would be helpful, because I say its BS.

6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
Again, a reliable source, please. And we're not talking about contractors, but Wal Mart employees.

7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
Yep. Hurts the bottom line and the shareholders. BTW- How many of the 1.7 million employees of Wal Mart do you suppose own stock in the company? Do you suppose that they put that "Todays Share Price" sign for in the stores for the employees or for all the stock traders who need that info?

8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
More BS. Its an illegal practice, spydie. You'll need more reliable information to back up that claim.

9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.
That's a big leap. Wal Mart employs 1.7 million people (Wall Street Journal statistics for WMT), and insures 950,000 (from their website). I can see where you can do the math and come up with your number, but you should have stopped there. How many "associates" choose to work part-time and decline the insurance? How many are insured through their spouse? How many actually do receive public aid because they can't make it on their Wal Mart wages? Can you actually answer those questions? To make the assumption that people don't take the insurance because they can't afford it just makes you look ignorant.

Please get off your self-righteous high horse. Wal Mart exists not because it is an evil entity run by evil people, but rather because the American people, as well as many internationally, demand that it exists by shopping there.

I'm surprised I saw no mention of this by anyone ...unless I overlooked it.

Wal-Mart execs knew of aliens
Document proves VP knew about housing illegal employees

By Marcus Kabel

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

November 07, 2005

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — A pair of senior Wal-Mart executives knew cleaning contractors were hiring illegal immigrants, many of whom were housed in crowded conditions and sometimes slept in the backs of stores, according to a federal agency’s affidavit.

The affidavit, unsealed last week, was part of an investigation of Wal-Mart by federal immigration officials that led to the 2003 raid on 60 Wal-Mart stores in 21 states, and the arrests of 245 illegal workers. The retailer agreed to pay $11 million in March to settle the case. It has maintained that top executives neither knew of nor encouraged the practice, but that is contradicted by the newly released documents.

The affidavit was filed by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to secure search warrants for a 2003 raid on Wal-Mart Stores Inc. headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

The document was unsealed Nov. 2 by a U.S. district judge in Fayetteville, Ark. at the request of a New York attorney representing more than 200 former employees in a civil lawsuit against the world’s largest retailer.

In the affidavit, investigators said testimony and taped conversations from 2003 showed two executives at Wal-Mart headquarters knew that contractors and subcontractors cleaning its stores in several states employed illegal immigrants from eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The lawyer who asked that the affidavit be unsealed said it shows Wal-Mart knew it had illegal janitors in its stores.

“The sworn testimony [in the affidavit] establishes that top Wal-Mart executives conspired with contractors to exploit undocumented immigrants,” said James L. Linsey, a New York attorney leading a class-action lawsuit on behalf of former janitors.

Wal-Mart denied there was any incriminating evidence in the affidavit and said the comments by executives that it contained were “bits and pieces of information from larger conversations.”

“As we have maintained all along, no company senior official had any direct knowledge that undocumented workers were working in our stores,” Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

According to the affidavit, one cleaning contractor, Christopher Walters, told INS investigators that his company, IMC Associates of St. Louis, had been dropped by Wal-Mart in 1997 after INS raids in the St. Louis area found illegal workers cleaning the retailers’ stores.

Federal raids later found immigrants crowded into small apartments or trailers in sleeping bags and, in some cases, sleeping in the backs of Wal-Mart stores, carrying their personal belongings from job site to job site.

Come on, Ken. This is way below your standards. To make the equation that Wal Mart causes poverty is really outside the realm of even modest credibility. And manufacturing jobs of the kind you describe have declined for a couple of reasons: One, the unions have outpriced the value of their labor, and; two, as an economy matures and grows, like in the US, low skilled jobs, like those in textile mills, go away not because the products aren't in demand, but rather because the goods being produced are more complex, requiring greater skills by the workforce demanding higher wages. Blame Bill Gates if you must, but Sam Walton didn't drive Nike's manufacturing to Beijing. You did, because your skills are worth more than those of a textile worker in a developing nation who likely had no job before the one s/he has now! Assuming you would buy Nike shoes (just play along, OK?), would you be willing to pay $300 for them because the labor to make those shoes, the largest component in their cost structure, was three or four times more expensive than it is now, simply to save the job of a low-skilled textile worker in North Carolina?

Its a cruel world, Ken, but that's how it is. You don't shop at WalMart because you can save more at Pep Boys and Giant. Nike doesn't contract with US unionized textile shops because its cheaper to make stuff in Beijing. Both actions cost people jobs while at the same time helping others get and stay employed. Why is your model more just than Nike's?I didn't mean to come across like I blame Wal-Mart for poverty in the US. It's not a vacuum and I understand that. I will just as readily lay a large share of the blame on unions and consumers.

Some things are worth paying for. As I see it, American companies have a duty to the country to employ Americans at as high a wage as possible. In return, American workers have a duty to their employers to produce as much quality product as possible. American consumers have a responsibility to buy American products whenever possible. All sides have broken that compact but that shouldn't change the responsibility each side shares.

I consider my model more just than Nike's because my model keeps the money and jobs here. I really don't care about the Chinese people. Not my concern. What's the margin on a pair of $150 Nike sneakers? 100%? 200%? How about a $75 pair of Calvin Klein jeans or a $150 Tommy Hilfiger sweater? With margins so high I find it difficult to lend credibility to the argument that these companies off-shore because they can't afford domestic labor. They do have a right to make as much money as they can, no doubt, but lets call a spade a spade.

My point about Giant and Pep Boys was that Wal-Mart, even with its cheap Chinese imports and cheap part-time, non-union American labor often does not beat American companies with unionized labor (Giant) or selling domestically made products (Pep Boys) in terms of price and service.

Costco? From what I've heard Costco is where the smart money is.

FORTUNE - Investing

COSTCO
The Only Company Wal-Mart Fears
Nobody runs warehouse clubs better than Costco, where shoppers can't resist luxury products at bargain prices.
By John Helyar

In the world of retailing, Wal-Mart is the unstoppable, insatiable force. With $247 billion in revenues and growing 15% a year it reduces downtown shop owners to quivering jelly and once-formidable competitors, like Kmart, to bankruptcy. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott rules the commercial strip the way Julius Caesar once ruled the Roman republic.

Except, that is, for a solitary rebel-held province where a company 20% the size of Wal-Mart has made a monkey of the 800-pound gorilla. In the retail niche of warehouse clubs, the irresistible force is an irresolute flailer. During the past ten years Wal-Mart has gone through five CEOs and countless stratagems at Sam's Club trying to assume its customary command. All have been thwarted by Costco Wholesale, the master of the cavernous space.


Consider some figures. Sam's Club has 71% more U.S. stores than Costco (532 to 312), yet for the year ended Aug. 31, Costco had 5% more sales ($34.4 billion vs. an estimated $32.9 billion). The average Costco store generates nearly double the revenue of a Sam's Club ($112 million vs. $63 million). Costco is the U.S.'s biggest seller of fine wines ($600 million a year) and baster of poultry (55,000 rotisserie chickens a day). Last year it sold 45 million hot dogs at $1.50 each and 60,000 carats of diamonds at up to $100,000. Chef Julia Child buys meat at Costco. Yuppies seek the latest gadgets there. Even people who don't have to pinch pennies shop at Costco. "I like bargain securities," says Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger, a Costco shopper, investor, and director. "Why shouldn't I like bargain golf balls?"

The one man Wal-Mart fears doesn't seem fearsome in person. At 66, he has hair as thin as his company's margins, and he seems more like a twinkle-eyed grandfather (which he is, eight times over) than a killer retailer. His office in suburban Seattle overlooks the parking lot of the Costco next door. The folding chairs for visitors bear Los Angeles Lakers logos. The lamp on his desk is festooned with old nametags. One wall has two Swiffer mops leaning against... Continue


http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,538834,00.html

I didn't mean to come across like I blame Wal-Mart for poverty in the US. It's not a vacuum and I understand that. I will just as readily lay a large share of the blame on unions and consumers.

Some things are worth paying for. As I see it, American companies have a duty to the country to employ Americans at as high a wage as possible. In return, American workers have a duty to their employers to produce as much quality product as possible. American consumers have a responsibility to buy American products whenever possible. All sides have broken that compact but that shouldn't change the responsibility each side shares.

I consider my model more just than Nike's because my model keeps the money and jobs here. I really don't care about the Chinese people. Not my concern. What's the margin on a pair of $150 Nike sneakers? 100%? 200%? How about a $75 pair of Calvin Klein jeans or a $150 Tommy Hilfiger sweater? With margins so high I find it difficult to lend credibility to the argument that these companies off-shore because they can't afford domestic labor. They do have a right to make as much money as they can, no doubt, but lets call a spade a spade.

My point about Giant and Pep Boys was that Wal-Mart, even with its cheap Chinese imports and cheap part-time, non-union American labor often does not beat American companies with unionized labor (Giant) or selling domestically made products (Pep Boys) in terms of price and service.

A duty? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Surely as a Libertarian you can see the speciousness in that. Each individual should be able to freely pursue his/her own desires with respect to maximizing profit. There's no compact that says so. As to "buy American", If I buy a Ford that's made in Mexico or a Honda that's made in the US, which is "American"?

Its not that Nike can't afford it, but that it makes no sense to pay $20 /hr for the same work they can obtain for $5/hr - or less. Their loyalty is ultimately to their owners to mazimize profit, and they do that by mfg. outside the US. Not that there aren't others factors involved, but that's really the base of it.

You can't be a Libertarian who chooses issues from a Chinese restaurant menu - one from column A and two from column B. Your model is protectionist, isolationist and ignores the realities of a global economy.

A duty? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Surely as a Libertarian you can see the speciousness in that. Each individual should be able to freely pursue his/her own desires with respect to maximizing profit. There's no compact that says so. As to "buy American", If I buy a Ford that's made in Mexico or a Honda that's made in the US, which is "American"?

Its not that Nike can't afford it, but that it makes no sense to pay $20 /hr for the same work they can obtain for $5/hr - or less. Their loyalty is ultimately to their owners to mazimize profit, and they do that by mfg. outside the US. Not that there aren't others factors involved, but that's really the base of it.

You can't be a Libertarian who chooses issues from a Chinese restaurant menu - one from column A and two from column B. Your model is protectionist, isolationist and ignores the realities of a global economy.Money, if you don't believe that there is.... was.... a social compact between Americans and their employers then you truly don't understand from where we hail. The founders believed in virtuosity at the business level just as much as they believed in virtuosity on the personal level. They saw the need to do good for society through their business ventures. So, while it's not written into the Constitution (doing would defies liberty) it is, nonetheless, part of our heritage.

Regarding libertarianism... part of the libertarian ethos is that, although you can do as you wish, each individual and corporation voluntarily works for the greater good of society. That's the reason why most consider it an unworkable utopian dream. It's only unworkable, however, in the midst of corporations and individuals who mindfully break the social compact in the name of maximizing profits at the expense of society.

Your defense of Nike in this last post reveals that it's not about not being unable to afford domestic labor, it's about heedlessly reaping as much profit as possible regardless of the social impact. This is what has become of many modern American corporations and it's driven by greed.

Protectionist, yes. Isolationist, no. I have no problem with international trade and the purchase or sale of imported products. We each, however, have a duty to each other whether you believe it or not. I refuse to do business with socially irresponsible corporations and individuals and I'll work to see them held accountable for their irresponsibility. It's my right and responsibility as an American to do so.

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.

Ha! I went to buy a hand-mixer this weekend. I could have bought one at Target, K Mart, Sears, Wal Mart, The Prairie Pantry, Home Depot, Lowes, or a hal-dozen other stores in town. Or, I could have driven to Fort Collins, CO or Denver and found hundreds of stores that sell hand mixers. I don't know about you, but in my econ classes, granted that they were a long time ago, they told us that monopolies controlled the process of manufature and distribution with no competition by creating insurmountable barriers to entry. I think Wal Mart has some competition.

2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
So is every other business. I don't help my competitors, either. And why, exactly, should I?

3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
Really? I know you believe it, but do you have a reliable source to justify this rather unbelievable claim?

4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
No. They pay them exactly what they are worth, and exactly what the market will bear for the skills they bring to Wal Mart. It's a supply and demand thing.
5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
Again, a reliable source would be helpful, because I say its BS.

6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
Again, a reliable source, please. And we're not talking about contractors, but Wal Mart employees.

7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
Yep. Hurts the bottom line and the shareholders. BTW- How many of the 1.7 million employees of Wal Mart do you suppose own stock in the company? Do you suppose that they put that "Todays Share Price" sign for in the stores for the employees or for all the stock traders who need that info?

8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
More BS. Its an illegal practice, spydie. You'll need more reliable information to back up that claim.

9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.
That's a big leap. Wal Mart employs 1.7 million people (Wall Street Journal statistics for WMT), and insures 950,000 (from their website). I can see where you can do the math and come up with your number, but you should have stopped there. How many "associates" choose to work part-time and decline the insurance? How many are insured through their spouse? How many actually do receive public aid because they can't make it on their Wal Mart wages? Can you actually answer those questions? To make the assumption that people don't take the insurance because they can't afford it just makes you look ignorant.

Please get off your self-righteous high horse. Wal Mart exists not because it is an evil entity run by evil people, but rather because the American people, as well as many internationally, demand that it exists by shopping there.

chirp, chirp

chirp, chirp


now you're gonna piss Fixed off and he'll continue to stay away......he hates the crickets, more than 'ol Sorelian.......

there are some facts that seem to support some of Spydies assertions, when I have more time I'll see if I can dig them up......

Money, if you don't believe that there is.... was.... a social compact between Americans and their employers then you truly don't understand from where we hail. The founders believed in virtuosity at the business level just as much as they believed in virtuosity on the personal level. They saw the need to do good for society through their business ventures. So, while it's not written into the Constitution (doing would defies liberty) it is, nonetheless, part of our heritage.

Are you talking about the same country that called in the militia countless times when unions were forming or strikes were occuring? Sure it was 100-150 years ago, but the idea that workers and employers share a common bond through our country's history seems phony to me.

It sounds like you would like this to be, but that doesn't mean it is. I would like it if businesses and workers were committed to doing good and doing well together, but I don't see it as a tenet of our society.

Silas

Are you talking about the same country that called in the militia countless times when unions were forming or strikes were occuring? Sure it was 100-150 years ago, but the idea that workers and employers share a common bond through our country's history seems phony to me.

It sounds like you would like this to be, but that doesn't mean it is. I would like it if businesses and workers were committed to doing good and doing well together, but I don't see it as a tenet of our society.

SilasUnions were almost non-existant until the very late 1800s. They grew in popularity because of the abuses foisted on the workers by the railroads, mining and timber companies for the most part. By that time, the American government had been purchased by those industries, making it easy to get them to bust up the unions. The period you refer to is well after all of the Founding Fathers were dead and gone.

Unions would not have been needed had the corps not broken the trust. We did fine for well over 100 years without them. Employers and workers did indeed share a common bond. Apprenticeship was a one example. Into the industrial era, companies like Ford also exhibited these traits. Good work was rewarded by good companies. Even post-WWII, companies like IBM and RCA took care of their employees. When you went to work with them it was probably the last job you would have because you'd be there until you retired and received a pension from them. Now, benefits have been slashed and wages are down when adjusted for inflation. I'm against SSI but how the hell do we expect people to provide for themselves when they can no longer work if they're barely making enough to get by thanks to companies that feel they owe nothing to the society that sustains them?

I hear all of these high-minded and lofty notions coming out of the so-called conservatives like welfare programs should be replaced by charities and such that would lead one to think that they truly do believe in social responsibility. That is until you suggest that they actually do have a social responsibility. Then it's all "The Constitution doesn't say anything about social responsibility!"

Ugh! The Constitution is ALL about social responsibility.

I've boycotted Wal-Mart for years....for another reason. Wal-mart, as this nations largest music distributor, uses their clout to get recording studios to alter lyrics, or have "sing overs" over any objectional portions. I have no problem with labeling music, as parents have a right to know what their kids are listening to, as a musician however, I take serious issue with any company using financial clout to change or alter someone's art. White Zombie among others, refuse to allow their music to be changed, and will not allow it to be sold in Wal Mart stores. Censorship is wrong..plain and simple.

It is somewhat hypocritical of you, isnt it?

You use your financial clout to put forth your ideas but denigrate Wal-Mart for donig the same.

The Government is the only one who can "censor." Wal-Mart did not censor anyone. They dont have a problem with any musical group saying anything they want. They just cant say it in Wal-Mart.

In some circles it is hip to hate success and hipper to hate Wal-Mart.

The Government is the only one who can "censor." Wal-Mart did not censor anyone. They dont have a problem with any musical group saying anything they want. They just cant say it in Wal-Mart.

Tell that to the Clear Channel :rolleyes:

Unions were almost non-existant until the very late 1800s. They grew in popularity because of the abuses foisted on the workers by the railroads, mining and timber companies for the most part. By that time, the American government had been purchased by those industries, making it easy to get them to bust up the unions. The period you refer to is well after all of the Founding Fathers were dead and gone.

Unions would not have been needed had the corps not broken the trust. We did fine for well over 100 years without them. Employers and workers did indeed share a common bond. Apprenticeship was a one example. Into the industrial era, companies like Ford also exhibited these traits. Good work was rewarded by good companies. Even post-WWII, companies like IBM and RCA took care of their employees. When you went to work with them it was probably the last job you would have because you'd be there until you retired and received a pension from them. Now, benefits have been slashed and wages are down when adjusted for inflation. I'm against SSI but how the hell do we expect people to provide for themselves when they can no longer work if they're barely making enough to get by thanks to companies that feel they owe nothing to the society that sustains them?

I hear all of these high-minded and lofty notions coming out of the so-called conservatives like welfare programs should be replaced by charities and such that would lead one to think that they truly do believe in social responsibility. That is until you suggest that they actually do have a social responsibility. Then it's all "The Constitution doesn't say anything about social responsibility!"

Ugh! The Constitution is ALL about social responsibility.

First, your view of our history is a bit different than mine, but I am no expert, so I'll go along with what you have said.

Second, you and I share much of the same vision but a very different means to acheive it.

Here's my opposite means but same ends perspective: Corporations should be charged with profitmaking at all costs. The Gov. should regulate them so they don't get out of hand and cause us harm. The corporations should also pay taxes to the gov. which should be spent on providing the society's needs. What those exact programs are is up for debate, but healthcare and basic nets would be a requirement.

My only contention that my method is better is that corporations, when provided with the choice to make money or be socially responsible, will likely pick the moneymaking route. Eventually, all traces of social responsibility are gone, and we are left with business supposedly doing both, while they are really doing one. And unless we become more realistic about this, the social needs will continue to fall by the wayside.

Walmart is a perfect example of this. They play by the rules (more or less) but have no contribution to the greater good. So, they should be taxed accordingly and their workers needs should be provided for by the government.

Silas

It is somewhat hypocritical of you, isnt it?

You use your financial clout to put forth your ideas but denigrate Wal-Mart for donig the same.

The Government is the only one who can "censor." Wal-Mart did not censor anyone. They dont have a problem with any musical group saying anything they want. They just cant say it in Wal-Mart.

In some circles it is hip to hate success and hipper to hate Wal-Mart.

I'm failing to see how that is hypocritical, I don't support the alteration of any books, music, art, or personal works of any sort. It is an extension of the person's personality. Changing it in any way is shortchanging them. I have no problem with labeling it as offensive so that parents are aware of what the album contains. My problem lies in ALTERATION of the product, which is plain and simple wrong. Most artists don't condone it, but they have little say, as the record companies will cow to Wal Marts influence as the largest music distributor in the country, and the artist gets pushed to the side.
Changing someones art is simply wrong, plain and simple. Label it, don't buy it if don't want to, but don't alter it.

1. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. They do NOT offer the lowest price. That's why they advertise "lower prices" and not the lowest prices.

Ha! I went to buy a hand-mixer this weekend. I could have bought one at Target, K Mart, Sears, Wal Mart, The Prairie Pantry, Home Depot, Lowes, or a hal-dozen other stores in town. Or, I could have driven to Fort Collins, CO or Denver and found hundreds of stores that sell hand mixers. I don't know about you, but in my econ classes, granted that they were a long time ago, they told us that monopolies controlled the process of manufature and distribution with no competition by creating insurmountable barriers to entry. I think Wal Mart has some competition.

great so you have demonstrated that in your specific location Walmart does not have a monopoly, and the truth is that they currently do not. However they are on the way to monopolizing some sales indutries (Wal-Mart, which owns a hefty 30% of the U.S. consumer staples market and 15% to 20% of all music and video sales, and more specifically Wal-Mart accounts for 28% of Dial's, sales, 24% of Del Monte Foods' sales, and 23% of Clorox's) source: http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2003/mft03092917.htm?source=EDNWFT
Just because they arent a monopoly doesnt mean they cant engage in predatory pricing and with such large market shares, if they arent already (its very hard to see) you can be sure that they will.

2. Wal-Mart is anti-competitive.
So is every other business. I don't help my competitors, either. And why, exactly, should I?
its bad because both conservative and liberal economist and policy makers endorse anti-trust laws, competition is good for the consumer, thats why there are laws. for further evidence please see point 1

3. Wal-Mart pressures their suppliers into off-shoring jobs to China.
Really? I know you believe it, but do you have a reliable source to justify this rather unbelievable claim?
just a logic chain would lead you to this conclusion but you fail to follow a logic claim instead demanding that someone do a study and show you the numbers...heres the chain-->walmart forces suppliers to accept lower prices-->suppliers seek to lower costs-->offshoring positions is very popular method of lowering costs...of course it not necesarily the only conclusion that can be drawn, they could of course get rid of jobs, decrease benefits to current workers, or maybe senior management takes pay cuts (ha!)

while hasbro can't be held up as having been pressured by walmart:
Today, Wal-Mart is the largest purchaser of Hasbro products—accounting for 21 percent of all Hasbro goods or more than $600 million in sales. But Hasbro reports, “We source production of substantially all of our toy products and certain of our game products through unrelated manufacturers in various Far East countries, principally China.” Hasbro specifies that “the substantial majority of our toy products are manufactured in China.” [2004 Hasbro 10-K filed with the SEC]



4. Wal-Mart underpays their employees.
No. They pay them exactly what they are worth, and exactly what the market will bear for the skills they bring to Wal Mart. It's a supply and demand thing.
Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee. [Analysis of Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]

5. Wal-Mart sexually discriminates.
Again, a reliable source would be helpful, because I say its BS.


In 2001, six women sued Wal-Mart in California claiming the company discriminated against women by systematically denying them promotions and paying them less than men. The lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, has expanded to include more than 1 million current and former female employees, and was certified on June 21 2004 as the largest class action lawsuit ever. It is now being appealed by Wal-Mart.

In 2001, while more than two-thirds of Wal-Mart's hourly workers were female, women held only one-third of managerial positions and constituted less than 15 percent of store managers. This is all despite women having had on average longer seniority and higher merit ratings than their male counterparts. [Neil Buckley and Caroline Daniel, “Wal-Mart vs. the Workers: Labour Grievances Are Stacking Up Against the World’s Biggest Company,"” Financial Times 11, 11/20/03]

In 2001, women managers on average earned $14,500 less than their male counterparts. Female hourly workers earned on average $1,100 less than male counterparts. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
In 2001, for the same job classification, women earned from 5 percent to 15 percent less than men, even after taking into account factors such as seniority and performance. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]


6. Wal-Mart uses illegal labor.
Again, a reliable source, please. And we're not talking about contractors, but Wal Mart employees.
In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used undocumented immigrants to clean its stores. [CNN Money, “Wal-Mart pays $11m over illegal labor”, 2005]
I know it doesnt completely implicate them, they could just be paying the fine to avoid the legal fees...but the legal fees wouldnt be there in the first place if they didnt employ illegal workers.

part 2:

Wal-Mart has also been fined $205,650 for 1,436 violations of child labor laws in Maine for the period 1995 to 1998. The settlement represents the largest number of citations as well as the largest fine ever issued by the Maine Department of Labor for child labor violations. (Bureau of Business Practice News)

One week of time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. There were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. [Steven Greenhouse, “Suits Say Wal-Mart Forces Workers to Toil Off the Clock,” New York Times, A1, 6/25/02]

Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle child labor violation charges in January 2005 for allegedly breaking child labor laws in 24 incidents. (Wall Street Journal, 2/12/05)


7. Wal-Mart is anti-Union.
Yep. Hurts the bottom line and the shareholders. BTW- How many of the 1.7 million employees of Wal Mart do you suppose own stock in the company? Do you suppose that they put that "Todays Share Price" sign for in the stores for the employees or for all the stock traders who need that info?

i really dont understand your response, you dismiss the walmart anti-union stance as being effectively "countered" by the fact that walmart employees are also stockholders. So, your saying that the thousands of dollars in benefits and wages that the employees could get each year is countered fairly by the dividends and gains in the stock price? Wait, walmart stock price is tanking...thats gotta be good for employees.
I did a little calculation for you to show you how much employees "gain" from walmart stock. First i found out how much stock the employees really hold...this was found rather easily at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=WMT look closely, 1% of all stocks are held by insiders and 5% owners. Assuming that that 1% includes every single employee (estimated at 1.7m) and walmart has approximately 4.3B shares (approximated by using waltons 39% estimate of 1.68b shares). That means that each employee holds 2.5 shares. walmart states on their website that "Yes, Wal-Mart pays a quarterly cash dividend. Wal-Mart’s current annual dividend is $0.60 per share. Click here to view our most recent dividend press release or click here to view our dividend history." so the gross benefit of holding those 2.5 shares is a whopping $1.50. If you onyl use U.S. employees as a measure the # of shares owned jumps to 3.3!!! thats more than $2.00 per year! Good thing they have those shares rather than a union contract ensuring health insurance, vacation, job security etc...
------
and here is some evidence of what walmart does in the face of unions:
In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide. [Pan Demetrakakes, "Is Wal-Mart Wrapped in Union Phobia?" Food & Packaging 76 (August 1, 2003).]

A Wal-Mart employee in Quebec filed a request in a Canadian Superior Court seeking a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Canada, saying the retailer’s decision to close a Jonquierre, Quebec, store after its employees received union certification violated the rights of its workers, and entitles them to compensation and damages. [Quebec Union Seeks Class-Action Suit vs. Wal-Mart,” Supermarket News, April 22, 2005]


8. Wal-Mart forces employees to work "off-the-clock."
More BS. Its an illegal practice, spydie. You'll need more reliable information to back up that claim.
As of the printing of their 2005 Annual Report, Wal-Mart faced 44 wage and hour lawsuits. Major law-suits have either been won or are working their way through the legal process in states such as California, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. [Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]

Wal-Mart was recently ordered by courts to pay up to 120 workers in Gallup, New Mexico and 400 workers in 27 stores in Oregon for violating wage and hour laws.

In 2002, statisticians estimated Wal-Mart shortchanged its Texas workers $150 million over four years by regularly not paying them for working through their 15-minute breaks. [Sources include Associated Press, "Federal Jury Finds Wal-Mart Guilty in Overtime Pay Case," Chicago Tribune, Business 3, 12/20/03 and Steven Greenhouse, “Suits Say Wal-Mart Forces Workers to Toil Off the Clock,” New York Times, A1, 6/25/02)]


9. 700,000 Wal-Mart employees can't afford their healthcare, forced to receive public aid.
That's a big leap. Wal Mart employs 1.7 million people (Wall Street Journal statistics for WMT), and insures 950,000 (from their website). I can see where you can do the math and come up with your number, but you should have stopped there. How many "associates" choose to work part-time and decline the insurance? How many are insured through their spouse? How many actually do receive public aid because they can't make it on their Wal Mart wages? Can you actually answer those questions? To make the assumption that people don't take the insurance because they can't afford it just makes you look ignorant.

In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03]

A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. [“Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart’s Workforce”, Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]

now look at this:
The national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705, well above the average associate's annual wages of $13,861. [“Poverty and Family Budgets” online at www.epinet.org]

and back to the issue of health care: Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees. [Analysis of Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]

Part-timers—anybody below 34 hours a week – must wait 2 years before they can enroll. Moreover, part-time employees are ineligible for family health care coverage. Full-time hourly employees must wait 180 days (approximately 6 months) before being able to enroll in Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan. Managers have no waiting period. (Wal-Mart 2005 Associate Guide)

Nationally, the average wait time for new employees to become eligible is 1.6 months. For the retail industry it is 2.8 months. (Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, 2004)

If a full-time Wal-Mart hourly employee elects for single coverage, the employee would have to spend on average 9% of their earnings before the health insurance provided any reimbursement.
If a full-time employee elected for family coverage, an average employee would have to spend 27% of their average earnings before the health insurance covered any costs. (Wal-Mart 2004 Associate Guide and UFCW Analysis).

One Out of Seven Wal-Mart Employees Has No Health Care Coverage At All
This is nearly double the national percentage for large firms (firms with over 100 employees). In fact, we estimate that Wal-Mart accounts for more than 1 out of every 40 uninsured workers, who are employed at a large firm. (walmartfacts.com; Wal-Mart Annual Report; “Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Coverage: Sponsorship, Eligibility, and Participation Patterns in 2001,” Bowen Garrett, Ph.D., released by the Kaiser Family Foundation September 2004).

Please get off your self-righteous high horse. Wal Mart exists not because it is an evil entity run by evil people, but rather because the American people, as well as many internationally, demand that it exists by shopping there.

some additional, interesting facts abotu walmart (that have sources)

Wal-Mart reports that it purchased $18 billion of goods from China in 2004.

Wal-Mart is responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China.
[“U.S. Stock Investors Wary of Analyst `Yuan Plays': Taking Stock, Bloomberg, 7/1/05]

If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China’s eight-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada.
[China Business Weekly, 12/02/2004]



maybe you should get off your high horse and start using a different big evil corporation, google provided all the sources i need, its a terrible corporation that takes advantage of the american people to line the pockets of the richest, lower prices does not always mean better deal.

some additional, interesting facts abotu walmart (that have sources)

Wal-Mart reports that it purchased $18 billion of goods from China in 2004.

Wal-Mart is responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China.
[“U.S. Stock Investors Wary of Analyst `Yuan Plays': Taking Stock, Bloomberg, 7/1/05]

If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China’s eight-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada.
[China Business Weekly, 12/02/2004]



Well Done! I heard that B!tch slap clear through the ether......

First, your view of our history is a bit different than mine, but I am no expert, so I'll go along with what you have said.

Second, you and I share much of the same vision but a very different means to acheive it.

Here's my opposite means but same ends perspective: Corporations should be charged with profitmaking at all costs. The Gov. should regulate them so they don't get out of hand and cause us harm. The corporations should also pay taxes to the gov. which should be spent on providing the society's needs. What those exact programs are is up for debate, but healthcare and basic nets would be a requirement.

My only contention that my method is better is that corporations, when provided with the choice to make money or be socially responsible, will likely pick the moneymaking route. Eventually, all traces of social responsibility are gone, and we are left with business supposedly doing both, while they are really doing one. And unless we become more realistic about this, the social needs will continue to fall by the wayside.

Walmart is a perfect example of this. They play by the rules (more or less) but have no contribution to the greater good. So, they should be taxed accordingly and their workers needs should be provided for by the government.

Silas
My libertarian leanings aren't in favor of government regulation and excessive taxes HOWEVER..... I have no problem with using tarriffs to normalize the prices of imported goods so that they are in line with those produced domestically. The Constitution specifically provides for such action. I would stretch it (I'll admit to activist interpretation on this but it's not a big stretch) to include domestic goods produced offshore. The intention is to remove the incentive to offshore. Other nations do it, we should as well.

I think taking that one action would go a long way to restoring the balance between worker and employer without spawning new bureaucracies and crazy tax structures. I'd prefer social responsibility to be voluntary and natural so to speak but I agree that nowadays green wins out over good almost always.

That's how I'd do it.

/I'd also like to see unions rolled back quite a bit. They are part of the problem too.

I don't have the time to refute each and every accusation you make, but they are all refuteable.

Wal Mart is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. They are a huge player in retail marketplace, but they do not OWN the retail marketplace. In a dynamic economy like ours, there is another Wal mart just around the corner. Notice the recent travails of GM ("What's good for GM is good for the country"). Many of the same things you are saying about Wal Mart were said about GM. Then along came those pesky Japanese and their cheaper cars. Wal Mart is not immune from competition. "Predatory pricing"? Sounds like a judgment to me. If predatory pricing is meant to put the competition in trouble, so be it. That's how it works, and while its not so great for the company in competition, the consumers usually win.

Pressuring suppliers? If suppliers want to play, they have to play by the rules. WalMart can dictate that suppliers show lower prices. Suppliers get those by manufacturing outside US borders. Guess what? They don't have to sell to Wal Mart! They are pressuring suppliers to lower prices, not to manufacture in China. Big difference. Suppliers could possibly figure out a way to lower prices without going to China.

Underpay employees? I stand by my answer. You claim that if they raised the price of socks by a penny, they could pay their employees more. I say that they are efficient because they pay their employees exactly what needs to be paid, and not a penny more! Why should Wal mart pay more simply to pay more? If they didn't pay enough, they wouldn't have employees. That's how a free market works.

Class action lawsuits mean very little. Wal Mart has the deepest pockets and trial lawyers look for deep pockets. By changing the lawsuit from a single case to class action, the lawyers get boatloads of money while the plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar. I see this stuff almost daily with specious class action suits against publicly traded companies where awards end up being coupons for $1 off the next purchase, while the attorneys fees are in the millions. And more often than not, the corps settle out of court because of the wild card that is a jury.

Dr. Drogin is the expert witness for the plaintiff. His credentials are impeccable, but as a skilled statistician, he can make the numbers say whatever he - or his plaintiff attorney employers - want them to say. I don't know if he has a political agenda with Wal Mart or not, but because he is working for the plaintiff, his conclusions need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Heavens! Some kids missed their breaks! And Wal Mart pays $135,000 for 24 violations. With a payroll of 1.7mm, 24 is really not very significant. No doubt there are bad managers, but its hard to indict and convict the entire company based on that. As to the NY Times article, once again its in the interpretation of the data.

Your stock conclusion is ridiculous. An "insider" is not a greeter. An insider is a Board Member, or someone high up the food chain who has a part in company proprietary strategy. Your numbers are meaningless.

Last one - your conclusions about health care and wages. Extrapolating yearly salaries from hourly wages, then comparing against poverty levels is meaningless. The numbers you cite are for entry level positions. They should be the lowest paid as they have the least skill and are most easily replaced. And you make the assumption that they work full time and support a family, neither of which is verifiable. How many are, for example, students who only want part time work? I have a 22 year old daughter who is attending a university. She works part time at Wal MArt and makes about the wage you cite. What's missing here is that her health care is paid for by me, as she is a student and still a dependant. She lives in a house that I own. I send her a check each month for food. She has a car that I bought for her, but she is responsible for its maintenance. She fits into your category, but she is neither impoverished nor uninsured. And the store she works in is staffed by hundreds of employees fitting the same demographic characteristics.

Wal Mart is not responsible for the US trade deficit. US consumers are. They demand lower prices and Wal Mart answers the demand.

How many are, for example, students who only want part time work?
Not a significant percentage I'd guess. Most of the employees I see at WalMarts are old people.

I have to agree with MM on this one.

Walmart doesn't make the rules, they just p