Maybe their competitor outa study the way Walmart run its business with incredible efficiency. Their business model improves the whole supply chain process. When they squeeze their suppliers, the suppliers become more efficient, everyone becomes more competitive. In the end the consumers pay less for the same product. Oh yeah, Walmart didn't start out as a monopoly (even now they are not really a monopoly). They grew their company in the face of much large competitors with a better business model. Now that's market economy at its best.
Uh, no - its not. The world, ie the context, is not the same. To make that statement in the late 1800s is vastly different than saying it today. Then workers were almost serfs - getting low wages in poor conditions, being indebted to company stores that sold goods at higher than market values to trap workers, with no recourse to pick up and leave because of the debt. Now it is not so. A worker CAN leave their position at WalMart if they so choose. Today, tomorrow, or the next day. The way you view the question is like concluding Marie Antoinette saying 'let them eat cake' before the French Revolution and me saying 'let them eat cake' at my daughters birthday party - is the same logic. Its not.
Some circumstances in the world and labor have definitely changed. I'm accusing them of being the same. I even said that my argument wasn't applying to this particular argument per se. But while cicumstances changed the logic is still the same, and the fact that under certain circumstances that logic doesn't always hold out to be true is what I was commenting on. The fact that circumstances have existed and in some places do exist show that to be true. A worker could leave their job back then too, they might end up homeless and starving but they did have the option. Read my initial post. I even put in the disclaimer that I wasn't saying it was the case in this instance, just that the logic doesn't always hold true.
'What you say is true but has not always been true, for instance, 100 years ago you would have been wrong.' What is the point of posting that?
I pointed that out because the logic used in this case isn't always accurate. Just because someone posts that doesn't mean it is true. I didn't want to apply it directly to Wal Mar, because there are some differences but in some ways there are many similarities as well. Recently we've had higher unemployment. There is no guarantee that employees working for wal mart could leave and find another job. There is no guarantee that working another job would provide them with more money, or insurance. The level of full time workers who live below the poverty line is on the increase. So we aren't as removed from the robber baron period as we would like to think. I didn't say that his logic was out in out faulty in relation to this one case, just that it wasn't cut and dry, and gave a more clearly cut example than picking through the similarities and differences that exist now.
It doesn't force suppliers to become more efficient. It forces suppliers to cut corners. Half the goods Walmart imports would never pass a quality test in China.
well then wouldn't people get sick of being ripped off by walmart as all their goods broke down before they should and then wouldn't they stop shopping there? this would seem to be a problem that would correct itself. as for the thread, if they are meeting minimum wage standards and safety standards, and obeying the law, then what's the problem? why do they have to provide higher wages just to do it or their own healthcare if the state's got it. this would seem to be smart business. the kind of thing that gets you to the top.
Ha! I hope it's not one of the Texas teacher's unions. There are three I believe? My mother has been a HS teacher in Tennessee and Texas, working from the mid-sixties to the early 70's and then from the mid 80's until the present and she's still working, even though she had to do some goofy retire and work as a janitor for a day scheme to keep the Texas legslature from screwing her on her retirement benefits. I spent my entire youth listening to all the ways in which the unions screwed the students for the benefit of the teachers. She had an endless littany. She was able to hold her nose and be in 1 of the 3 becuase it sometimes worked for student benefit (the TEA?), but about 10 years ago she got fed up with them as well and quit. She is not some right-wing nazi. She listens to Joan Baez and her Masters thesis was on lynching in the South. That's not the description of someone abnormally biased against unions. Your descriptions of teachers unions fly in the face of everything I've heard for the past 20 years of my life.
Here's the problem. Yes it is smart business, but in 100 years when we have an underclass of wage slaves who have no option but to work for Wal-Mart, who's going to be able to afford to be the consumers in our consumer economy? At some point they begin to reshape the demographics of the United States, with the assistance of the Kmart’s of the world who are trying to "keep up with the Joneses". Pretty soon you end up with an underclass, disenfranchised people who would normally start a small business but can't compete with Wal-Mart. No growth in employment because of the emphasis is on efficiency, (i.e. giving workers more work), so you have people who are basically eternally unemployed. This destroys the consumer base which in turn supports the upper income portions of the market. It IS great business practice for Wal-Mart and I have no beef with them doing what they do, just as you can’t fault the robber-barons of the 19th century for what they did. You can’t fault your cat if he eats your new pet canary. He’s just being a cat, and an admirably good one at that. You can appreciate the prowess of your cat’s hunting skills. At the same time, you can understand that if you want to have both a cat and a canary you need to dissuade the cat from doing what comes naturally for it.
Walmart's wage tactics rely on shifting the entitlement burden onto the federal, state and local infrastructures. The effect it has on small towns concentrate wealth to a single point, Walmart, without providing any tangible benefits. Americans were down on the Japanese in the late 80s for their entrenched domestic market, but I'd like to see some of that here because Walmart and it's manufacturing allies are recieving the bulk of hard earned American money.
I'll wait until I see something that show's that Wal Mart pays less than Krogers (or any other competitor). I know I spent 2 summers (part-time in 1988-89) working at Krogers and boy did they screw over their employees. I mean they paid minimum wage to be a cashier or bagger and then after 3 months you had to pay $55/month to be a part of a union where you received no benefits. Was always fun gettign a check for $40 bucks after working 20 hours when they took out the union dues. So Krogers (and other union shops) show us the wage data, but include what it costs the employees to be in the union. Show me what the average employee (and do it by position) makes per hour (nettign out union dues) at Wal Mart vs your place. I'll believe it when I see it.
No I'm in Los Angeles. I didn't even know that Texas had a teacher's union. I have a few friends who teach in Texas, and I'm not sure if they are members or not. But if they ever bring it up, I will mention this story, and warn them to check it out. In California The Union was behind setting state wide standards that all curriculum must be based on. Teachers are required to teach to those standards. The Union then supported something called CSTP's which are basically teaching standards. They hold teachers to standards as well. Teachers must be evaluated every year when they start out by the administration and be in compliance with those standards or they will be removed from teaching. There is no second chance. After the first few years teachers must be evaluated on the CSTP's at least once every two years. Teachers are required to spend time outside of the class room preparing for the class. Teachers must also take a certain number of courses related to teaching every couple of years in order to constantly improve. These are all things that are designed to make schools better, teachers better, education better, and help the students. They are also either initiated from the union, and/or supported by the union. The union also struck down previous policy of forcing teachers to perform yard duty, which didn't allow them breaks during the day, or prep time during the day. The union did get teachers pay raises, and benefits for life after enough time served. The union did make some stupid mistakes such as step 1 before a strike only working from school hours, and not being on campus being before or after school. That only hurts the students. It would be better if schools rotated so that each school took off immediately after school one day a week, and spent the time calling and e-mailing legislators, school board members, the superintnendent, and the governator. That would actually affect the people who need to be affected. Either way, it appears to have worked in the most recent negotiations up to a point. I mentioned the two other unions I belong to, and my experiences with them didn't endear me to automatically love unions. It just so happens that this one is one of the best. It serves the purpose of a union very well.
Oh how i hate to defend Walmart, but some of the discussion here is getting plain silly -- even by our standards ....Where exactly are these lucrative retail jobs that walmart is squeezing out??? How much, do you figure, the cashier should be paid? Here's a link for you ...Walmart makes the top 40 of best employers. They were number 14 in Canada in 2004 according to a list i saw...and that's after a couple of very obvious and high profile union busting maneuvers -- in a country that's pretty receptive to unions... So bash all you like, about their sterile stores, polyester fashions, and how-to-prosper-by-selling-crap-to-poor-people business model...but i think the wage-slave, exploiting the poor worker label doesn't really apply there. It's a cool hook, and all...but i'm just not convinced its accurate.
in California, you have to join a union to sack groceries. had a friend in college whose high school job was sacking groceries...he was a card-carrying union member. always struck me as odd. i despise Wal-Mart for many reasons. dirty. too many people. its from Arkansas. but i think they're criticized for way too much crap that can be heaped on the doorstep of capitalism, in general. don't hate the playah...hate the game!
You know what the problem with that is? It's the "would you have a $15 dollar shirt or 15 $1 shirt" questions. At this point the 15 $1 shirt is still better, albeit only slightly, because they work. But, how low can you go? Theoretically the lowest is the cost of raw materials needed to produce. In reality, we know it's much higher than that (conversion cost, other OH, shipping back to America, etc). What happens if you drive the price so low that producers can't get the cotton to make shirts? I'd say all companies start off with some sort of inefficiencies. If Walmart was a (let's say) high end merchandising firm, then I'd say yeah, maybe they can still go lower. But Walmart is already a bottom level company in terms of product quality. Walmart is not too far from bottoming out, quality wise. Think on the supplier's behalf. You are already producing as efficiently as you can without incurring huge costs and Walmart says you have to go lower, what the hell can you do? PS. The other day I was stapling a report together. Not very long, only 6 pages, with a Walmart bought stapler and good old made in America staples. Know what happened? The damn staple broke. So I try again, it didn't go through the paper. After several tries I just gave up. I remember that as recent as 3 years ago, staples went through paper.
People make fun of walmart all they want, but they sell things people want to buy. Why should I pay for a $20 snow shovel when I can get one for $5? I am sure the $20 one does not last four time as long. When I was working for Big Mac, they paid just above minimum wage, walmart atually pays around $8/hour I believe. How much did those mom pop shop pay their grocery baggers? I have one local grocery store going out of business about 60 years. They have less selection, more expensive products and does not open the store as long as walmart. I don't know about you, but I have to pay for my bills, if you give me 30K extra I would be happy to spend more money on local stores. I am not sure if walmart is good for the country in the long run, but I will still go buy from their stores. or until I am rich like some members of the bbs.
