B If one person opposed shopped in Moscow, how do you know how many others did?
c Did they say they would shop at any WM or that they wouldn't shop at this one, because they resented it being in their town.
D If they said they wouldn't shop there, does that mean they can't change their mind later?
E If they said they wouldn't shop there and they were bluffing, is that so bad? Don't many people bluff for many reasons? Is it always bad? Because it is lying?
F Again, how do you know that the ones who said they wouldn't shop there are the same ones who shop in Moscow? How many faces could you possibly recognize?
I suspected as much. You would do well to consult even the lowliest dictionary for elucidation.
IIRC, Walmart was fined BIG TIME for wage and hour violations related to the practice many years ago. As I understand it, I am liable to be fired if caught working off the clock. Given I PREFER to be paid for my time AND wish to keep my job, I won't be testing their policy.
I believe you THINK you understand.
Ahhhhh. Are you cynical about everything or just when it comes to mean and evil BIG business?
In this case, yes.
No, YOU are saying that. I adamantly (oops, there's that word again) deny that they "screw" their suppliers. No one is FORCED to do business with Walmart.
Not always. But, in this case, yes. Complying with a contract or the terms of an agreement can be a bitch but, after all, it IS a contract or agreement - which requires - as the word implies - an AGREEMENT.
One person's nonsense is another's common sense - and obvious fact. As for defending Walmart, forget it: They don't need it in ANY case and certainly not from me. Your baseless prejudice against an American success story is obvious and quite revealing.
"Somehow" at least. You'll need to explain that one to me - a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and anything BUT a Obama supporter.
Unless you are implicating yourself in this baseless charge, can provide empirical evidence of the practice or, as am I, you are an "insider", I don't believe you. There. That was easy. :)
Interesting that nobody ever thinks that maybe the greed of the SUPPLIERS has something to do here. They see the great big numbers WM could order and start salivating to the point where the figures become unreadable but they sign anyway.
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 punished.
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.
If I wished to establish a business, and tax breaks were available, I would most certainly avail myself of them. As I said, only a fool would decline a legitimate gift - "corporate welfare" if you prefer.
It might. Of course, most THINKING voters (there are a few) would realize the folly of the charge that Walmart "doesn't pay anything".
When in the voting booth, I am more careful to cast my ballot for a candidate that will appoint judges that will support my interpretation of the law. I am much less likely to be concerned that an incumbent supported Tax Increment Financing to the benefit of a particular incoming business.
I am skeptical of "a bundle". In fact, I doubt there is any NET savings, given the considerations I previously listed.
Let's just say the lights switch on and off frequently enough that, when working in the store, it is annoying.
I do, however, acknowledge that natural light is physically and emotionally beneficial. Regardless, I'll have to get used to the "light show" on partly cloudy days.
I never considered that but I don't doubt it. Having your [widget] appear on a Walmart shelf virtually guarantees vast exposure. Having Walmart FEATURE the thing would likely "bury" a small vendor in orders.
I agree it is an amazing thing and one in which I take great national pride. However, I dispute the "mostly" part of those that detest it. Those detractors are a VERY small - but vocal - minority.
Think about it: You aren't going to find too many folks motivated to shout from the rooftops, "I just LOVE buying all that CHEAP STUFF at Walmart!"
N.I.M.B.Y.? (Not In My Backyard)
Not I, said the duck. I would LOVE to be able to site a cell tower in my backyard - perhaps even a landfill. I could retire.
Why don't you just go out of business anyway? If you can't make business choices that involve selling something for less than it costs you to make it, you don't sound like business material to me. Unless, of course, you get government contracts.
In contrast to the charges that Walmart runs roughshod over local and state governments, steals candy from babies and polishes the Teflon with which they coat their handicapped parking spots, their latest "intrusions" into our otherwise idyllic, serene locale were accomplished by Walmart accommodating the local governing bodies:
A couple of stores were "forced" to make significant changes and improvements to the entire store facade to improve its appearance. The newest store, in order to gain approval, agreed to NO merchandise outside the store.
This resulted in an interesting SNAFU a couple years ago when, in the store's first spring, semi-loads of nursery stock (bedding plants, trees and shrubs), lawn and garden bagged goods and landscaping timbers and blocks appeared at their door, ready to be delivered. Oops. It was all turned away and went to other stores.
Of course, all those that would have availed themselves of that merchandise drove many more miles to get it. But, take heart: At least there isn't all that unsightly stuff in the parking lot each spring.
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.
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.
My work station is directly across from the clock/alarm display. It is amazing to watch the occasional customer that methodically opens the carton of literally EVERY model (there are about 4 or 5). Sometimes they select one and take it away, often not. Sometimes they are able to get it all back into its box properly, often not. Given this particular example, simply as an ordinary consumer, I wonder what they discover about the product having opened it that was not apparent from the outer packaging.
You are probably among rare company. I regularly use an X-Acto knife for MY convenience but never go to your extent.
Well, that depends: If the buyer was YOU, it MIGHT be resold. Good chances are it wouldn't sell. Most customers will reach behind an apparently previously opened package to take a "new" one. The previously opened package will languish on the shelf or peg hook while the "repaired" package stays behind. The constant handling of the repaired package worsens its appearance and, after a while, it is usually returned to the vendor. Most times, when charged with the disposition of such an opened package, I'll simply "claim it out" and immediately send it back, dispensing with the usually fruitless "game" of placing it back on the shelf or peg hook for a while.
I occasionally do the same if I can do so with confidence that the product is as good as new. However, I seriously doubt that we are doing any favor to the retailer. There is a well-honed process for returning and repackaging such item. Your contribution would keep but a single item out of a very large "stream".
That is an EXCELLENT reason to NOT do what you do.
You were fortunate that the returned package was not closely inspected for "completeness" by TWO, successive clerks.
If an opened package that contains several parts or unique parts (electronics comes to mind) of which the returns clerk is unfamiliar, s/he is supposed to summon a clerk from the department that sells the item for their inspection of the it and approval of the return - that the package has all its parts. Occasionally, as you have discovered, this is not always done.
Yours is an admirable practice but, I suspect, not practiced by many. Obviously, if the product is on display, the retailer hopes it will sell. They are not surprised, however, when it often doesn't.
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 Capitalist.
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.
The original thread started with the story about a community activist who fought against the possibility of a local Walmart. Walmart finally gave up and a metal reclamation company took over the location. Now the community activist dearly wishes he had a local Walmart -- so he could buy earplugs.
As for "mostly detests" Walmart, I dunno 'bout that. Walmart is the largest business and largest employer in the nation.
I can relate an example of this. The particular company is now gone and folks I know have moved on so I don't think it will cause grief for anyone. The company whose branding includes the words "57 varieties" owned a pet food division. They definitely ran it above board and in a reputable fashion. They had an sophisticated onsite lab for inspection of materials and animals on site in their quality lab for testing purposes. There was no union but folks who worked there got decent pay and benefits. Everything I know was from responsible people and because of providing certain services. This isn't Bob the forklift guy overhearing someone and creating a rumor.
They started selling to Walmart and eventually they became their biggest customer. For the folks without business experience who will now say "but they didn't have to to sell to Wally" just read on.
They went through the various steps of minimizing packaging and improving efficiency. Walmart placed huge orders and things were good. They installed additional process equipment and expanded the building and things were good. Then each time Walmart placed an order they would demand a lower price even though costs of operation had risen. So they needed to figure out how to meet the pricing demands. If you are reputable and have a moral compass there is only so much you can do.
Along the way someone at Walmart got the idea that people wouldn't notice if packaging changed from 6 up to 4 up (that refers to the common packaging where they bind 6 cans with a plastic ring) so they could sell
4 cans of "happy cat" for the price of 6 cans of "happy cat". The company spent a large amount of money putting a line in to do 4 up packaging but it didn't work out at retail so they had to absorb all of the costs of that failed idea.
Meanwhile each time Walmart placed an order it would go like "1 million cans of happy cat, last time $0.12/can, this time $0.11/can.
They had already cheapened up their process as much as they could and the only options left were to cut even more corners, pay Walmart wages to their employees etc so they simply decided to close the division and sell it off. Net result was lots of good jobs lost and a reputable company with losses.
But there is always someone without a moral compass just like Walmart who will step in. So another outfit whose name I can't remember picked up the slack. According to my friends they were a perfect match and would do whatever was necessary.
Then some might remember the fairly recent melamine flavored pet food incident. According to my friends the reason it happened was that the company without a moral compass was shopping around for the cheapest stuff they could find and got a good deal on the contaminated supplies. The "57 varieties" place would have caught contaminated supplies because their lab tested all materials and the final result was fed to their lab animals.
And for those who would suggest "no one has to sell to Walmart" just consider the chronology. The deal starts off good, the supplier makes enough margin to stay in business and keeps expanding. Once Walmart becomes their major or sole customer they then demand unreasonably cheap prices. If you have a large investment in a facility you can't afford to loose major volume because you loose your economy of scale so your only choice is to do whatever is necessary which includes cheapening the product, paying Walmart wages, closing the plant and going offshore depending on what is being manufactured etc.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.