Following my retirement from Qwest, I signed-up for the services of a
reputable, local employment agency.
When I was hired (again) by Walmart, I was asked by owner of the
aforementioned agency to reveal my starting wage. When I did so, she
remarked that that was "quite good for retail".
It was almost a third of what I was making after almost 35 years at the
phone company but significantly more than minimum wage.
No. I can't even give you a BAD reason.
Can YOU give me a reason - ANY reason - why Walmart is a "welfare
queen". (This should be entertaining.)
Of course, while unexpected, specific citations would be helpful.
If Walmart is breaking laws or committing crimes, they should be
If Walmart is NOT breaking laws or committing crimes, you should shut up.
If Walmart is operating within the law, your prejudice against the
corporation is undeserved and misguided. Your ire should be directed at
those "improperly" accommodating Walmart. The ballot box and initiative
process comes to mind.
Jim Redelfs wrote:
> If Walmart is breaking laws or committing crimes, they should be
> If Walmart is NOT breaking laws or committing crimes, you should shut up.
> If Walmart is operating within the law, your prejudice against the
> corporation is undeserved and misguided. Your ire should be directed at
> those "improperly" accommodating Walmart. The ballot box and initiative
> process comes to mind.
It is entirely possible for a business to be operating within the law
and have an unethical business practice or an unsound business
philosophy or to violate something that falls out outside the capacity
for legal redress and to have a legitimate complaint against them.
One example of a different nature: I stopped doing business with Sears
26 years ago when I bought a house and was looking at washers and dryers
and was told that they didn't have any incentive financing for major
appliance purchasers, the reason being, and I quote, "We don't have to
do anything extra to get your business. We're Sears -- you are
automatically going to come to us." I figured that if they felt like
they didn't need to do anything to get my business, they didn't deserve
it, and I have not bought a single thing at Sears department store since
(although I do make some purchases at Orchard Supply Hardware, which is
owned by Sears but which *does* go the extra mile to help customers and
encourage their business).
I have the right to complain about Sears' shoddy business philosophy
even though they have not broken the law. You cannot tell me that I
cannot complain because they are breaking the law. I think it
absolutely stinks that a business feels that they are doing you a favor
by staying in business and that you owe it to them to shop with them to
the point that they take it for granted.
Walmart used to be a good place before Sam died. I think the stores
that have been built since he died have a totally different atmosphere
than the ones that have been around for ages -- at least, when a group
of us were discussing Walmarts all around the country and what made some
of them great and others abysmal, that was the general consensus.
Perhaps you work at one that has been around forever and is totally
different than the one here that was built after Sam died.
You'll notice how poorly Sears has done in the ensuing years. It's a
reasonable conclusion that your experience was not unique and that the
attitude you describe pervaded the company to its detriment.
You did the right thing (stopped shopping at Sears).
Absolutely. In fact, you might consider doing so as your DUTY as a
Agreed, and I have not been telling you that. However, I am equally
vocal when I believe someone or some thing - including a business for
which I care - is being unfairly maligned.
I agree. I contend, however, that Walmart (specifically) has never
employed that concept as corporate practice. They didn't get to be the
world's largest employer and retailer by abusing their customers. If
they did, they would eventually fade as has Sears and K-Mart.
I work in Omaha's first Supercenter, but its third store. IIRC, it was
built in 1999 or 2000 - well after Walton died in 1992.
I am skeptical of your contention that newer stores have a "totally
different" atmosphere than older ones. They are all operated and
managed in virtually the same manner with some, minor differences based
on demographics. Indeed, I have patronized more than a few, distant
stores, of varying ages in different communities and notice a specific
sameness among them.
I recall Sam's "Made in USA" campaign that proliferated for a time
before his death. He would surely be disappointed to know the extent to
which that concept has changed.
It seems you are really fixated on the Rush Limbagh version of
capitalism where whatever is done is just OK as long as someone is
So let me pose a question. Lets say your folks are retired/elderly. You
really aren't in frequent touch with them but one day they sheepishly
admit they lost a significant part of their nest egg because they were
scammed by a broker who was on the fine edge of legality.
Would you immediately ask for at least the phone number of the broker so
you could congratulate him and if not why not?
Michael Milken was known as the "Junk Bond King." He was sent to prison for
marketing high-yield, essentially worthless, bonds to finance corporate
mergers and acquisitions.
His "creative" efforts helped launch, MCI, Turner Broadcasting (CNN), AOL,
the cell-phone industry (via Craig McCaw), several of Steve Wynn's Las Vegas
hotels, and other endeavors.
I'm sure some got hurt by his shenanigans (including Milken himself). But
millions more got jobs.
So what is your point? That those companies would never exist unless it
was for a POS like milken without a moral compass screwing people? That
the cellphone industry or hotels wouldn't exist? That somehow everything
is OK because lots of folks got screwed but some folks got jobs they
would have gotten anyway through normal growth?
It was not my contention; it was the consensus drawn of quite a large
number of NG participants as we were discussing Walmarts.
You are in the midwest, yes? I am in California. Sam was gone for a
long time before the first Walmart made its appearance here. I have
been to Walmarts back east as well as out here, and honest, the
atmosphere is different.
Of that we are in total agreement, and I suspect there would be other
things he wouldn't be happy with, either.
Yep, same here. Corporate welfare.
The business entity gets the town to do the infrastructure improvement
($30 million on the last project here). The local politicos get the
tax revenue to shower on their favorite friends & projects, the
taxpayers get to pay the bill and the neighbors get to live with the
noise and congestion.
Works great for everyone except the tax payers and neighbors.
If this is a BAD THING<tm>, perhaps you should express your
dissatisfaction for such accommodation at the ballot box. It is, after
all, your (presumably) elected representatives that are giving the
accommodations. Walmart, and any OTHER business, can ASK for the sun,
moon and stars. Those in the position to GIVE those things are
responsible for the "gift" - not the recipient.
Only a fool would turn down legitimate gifts.
Actually lots of businesses choose not to take the welfare. Would you
proudly announce to your friends you were on welfare?
Also I am only one voter and can call this to the attention of a few
family members and friends. Maybe if just a few people read my words
and think "gee, we have a tiny house and pay $5,000/year property taxes
and Walmart doesn't pay anything" it might get thenm to act differently
at the poll.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.