Wal-Mart Values

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
What do you think about when you shop at Wal-Mart? Do you see low prices and capitalize on buying as much as you can? Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?



Well consider these

<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216&s=featherstone&c=1"; target="_blank">Wal-Mart Values</a>. Agree or disagree that unionization could alleviate those problems- it doesn't matter. Discuss.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>What do you think about when you shop at Wal-Mart? Do you see low prices and capitalize on buying as much as you can? Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?



    Well consider these

    <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216&s=featherstone&c=1"; target="_blank">Wal-Mart Values</a>. Agree or disagree that unionization could alleviate those problems- it doesn't matter. Discuss.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You brought up a good issue here SPJ and I give you a lot of credit for this issue.



    First off I will say that I believe Wal-Mart has practices that are anti-employee. I believe Wal-Mart has policies that strain workers and managers to perform in ways that are both against the law and are again anti-employee. I believe Wal-Mart in their goal to run a lean machine has indeed met that goal but at too high a cost. The cost does not go away in a vacuum. The workers are forced to face steep penalty such as losing their job if their performance does not live up to the demands Wal-Mart expects. In most Business this is not such a bad or strange thing however with Wal-Mart it is a very serious problem. Bad choices are made out of fear of penalty by various manager levels of Wal-Mart employees. This is so that the quota is met in order that their job is not lost. This results in outrageous abuse for all Wal-Mart employees.



    I for one will not step foot in a Wal-Mart store. I take my business to other places of business Target is one place I turn to. I have two different friends of mine that back in the day when around age 16-17 one worked at Wal-Mart and one worked for Target and I can tell you there is a VAST difference in structure and employee respect and management.



    Will a union help with the Wal-Mart situation? It could help the employees. I do think there are other much more dominent proplems that lead to what we find with Wal-Mart however. The stated goal of being a discount price leader from the get go presents Wal-Mart with a tall order to fill. This order is filled by abuse of employees and Supplier strong arming. Wal-Mart puts tremendous pressure on the Suppliers as well to sell to Wal-Mart at a low low price with threat of cancelation if the lower prices are not agreed to. This pressure all adds up to why Wal-Mart is a low cost provider of goods. As I see how this works with them I never and I mean I never step foot in their stores. Back to will Unions help. As I said earlier sure they could but what we are really facing is a segment of the public in the marketplace who are Wal-Mart customers who want the bottom line price. These customers don't go to Wal-Mart for the service I can tell you that. These customers do not go there for the feel of a fancy department store shopping experience. These shoppers shop there for the bottom line price on goods. This was a good stategy for Wal-Mart to bet on as far as knowing what the consumer wants.



    I believe the solution to this problem falls into several components. First of all bad press on what Wal-Mart does with its poor treatment is all game. Let it be seen on the media how Wal-Mart treats employees. This I would hope would change the minds of some would be Wal-Mart shoppers. Secondly we must as a society prefer to be an educated society. More people need a college / University education. With more education as a priority we will invent and service higher paying jobs all together. In such a situation of higher levels of education less people would be willing to entertain the idea of working at a place like Wal-Mart for such low wages or salary. Education is key for this. We will never fix this situation until people realize that education opens doors. Unions are sometimes needed for basic humane issues. I do think however that it would be the wrong choice to always rely on a union to protect low skill jobs in order to get ahead. The true way to get ahead is by way of Education, Training, Talent and Problem Solving Skills. Where Wal-Mart is concerned in this case however I would have no problem with a union penetrating their oppressive system and putting pressure to change it for the better.



    Fellowship



    [ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 25
    Hmm. I agree with your conclusion, but you missed a big part of that article: Sexual Discrimination.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>Hmm. I agree with your conclusion, but you missed a big part of that article: Sexual Discrimination.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sorry I only read page one of the link...



    I had my views of Wal-Mart for some time now.



    Fellows
  • Reply 4 of 25
    [quote]Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?<hr></blockquote>



    What's wrong with Dell?? As far as Peecees go I think they're acceptable.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    Just to follow up:



    There may be some Gender abuse with Wal-Mart but how I see it Wal-Mart is abuse all the way around.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 6 of 25
    [quote]just to follow up: There may be some Gender abuse with Wal-Mart but how I see it Wal-Mart is abuse all the way around.

    Fellowship<hr></blockquote>



    Strange...but isn't Walmart the model of American big business capitalism 2000 style? After all, aren't they the the world's largest and most successful/profitable retailer and they open new store in new territories with the whole organization getting bigger and bigger each year?? They keep their stockholders very very happy; maximum profits is the *only* real consideration, happy employees, fair practises, etc etc are minor issues to be addressed grudgingly; a trade union for walmart workers (eeeek!!...*communism!!!!*) is the arch enemy!



    Wal-Mart? read Mall Wart.



    Yuk!
  • Reply 7 of 25
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I know that our local Super-market chains are buying up land like crazy to prevent Walmart from infiltrating and dominating the area. Especially with WM pushing their super center stores.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I know that our local Super-market chains are buying up land like crazy to prevent Walmart from infiltrating and dominating the area. Especially with WM pushing their super center stores.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is simple... Do what I do.



    Don't shop there.



    They can push and push but it takes a "sell out your values to save a dime" kind of consumer to shop there.





    Fellowship
  • Reply 9 of 25
    oops



    [ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 25
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I have to stop reading stuff like this when I hit the second or third claim that is highly suspect and presented with no supporting evidence.



    40% of women go to wall mart once a week?



    wall mart health insurance is so costly 3/5 don't buy it?



    I'm sure those two are either untrue or unproven.
  • Reply 11 of 25
    Right. I equally abhor arguments without backing or support such as "this statistic is untrue..... because..... um.......... because I KNOW IT IS ."









    Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.







    [ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 25
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Well I can't speak to the gender specific issues with regard to those particular cases, but I can say as a whole retail is not the greatest "career" to be in. I believe the number of women in it does not so much reflect discrimination by men so much as women looking for a job that can allow flexible hours, pay a reasonable wage, not be too demanding, and of course not require any legitimate education or advanced training.



    In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.



    I work in a female dominated field (Elemantary school teachers are 95% female) and whenever a child is sick or just even when someone wants to go on a field trip, I can tell you that the mom's be they teachers, aides, yard duties, you name it, simply bail on their job responsibilities.



    Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.



    However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.



    The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?



    Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.



    The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.



    Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>Well I can't speak to the gender specific issues with regard to those particular cases, but I can say as a whole retail is not the greatest "career" to be in. I believe the number of women in it does not so much reflect discrimination by men so much as women looking for a job that can allow flexible hours, pay a reasonable wage, not be too demanding, and of course not require any legitimate education or advanced training.



    In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.



    I work in a female dominated field (Elemantary school teachers are 95% female) and whenever a child is sick or just even when someone wants to go on a field trip, I can tell you that the mom's be they teachers, aides, yard duties, you name it, simply bail on their job responsibilities.



    Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.



    However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.



    The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?



    Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.



    The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.



    Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)



    Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree with you completely but IT HAS TO BE A SEXUAL THING!!! IT HAS TO!!! (little joke)



    Trust me I am no fan of Wal-Mart but it is not because I have nothing to do and want to find deep pockets to sue. I think Wal-Mart is a little on the rough side all the way around so I simply do not shop there. If the Jobs are so bad I would not work there. Not so complicated.



    The kind of rhetoric you see these days from the "Labor" Voice is often times a joke in a disguise of trying to come across as legit.



    Some of the stuff is just beyond any reason what so ever.



    Fellowship



    [ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 25
    actually, i think Wal-Mart has this coming to them. i've heard rumblings from different business school professors about the subject.



    looks like the subject has been ripening for a while, and Wal-Mart is going to take this one hard.



    the problem Wal-Mart is going to run into will not really come from just them, but rather where they stack up next to their competitors, and from what i've heard it's not good. (which is, in part, why they're kicking ass)



    but then again, shortcuts don't often pay off long-term.



    as for examples of businesses doing it right, companies like 3M and Target come to mind. a company doesn't have to be evil and treat their employees like shit to be successful, they just happen to get more press when they have.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...



    Ah've been hornswaggled!
  • Reply 16 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...



    Ah've been hornswaggled!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    LOL <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I love that word!!!!
  • Reply 17 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...



    Ah've been hornswaggled!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What can I say. I've been a Target shopper since the store opened a few weeks ago in my area. Can't argue with iPods on display!
  • Reply 18 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, yes, that is the aim of the lawsuit to shove the company.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your contention ignores the arguments by the women in the lawsuit.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    So? They don't want those jobs. The case is about women not getting jobs that they both want and are qualified for.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    NOW= National Organization for WOMEN. They are not interested in the plight of men who drill the oil for plastics.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's not that easy to look past the lowest prices, Trumpman.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your logic is laughable at best. Why should women work at all? Afterall, the man bringing home the paycheck benefits his WIFE... Seriously your comments ignore the fact that gender discrimination exists at Wal-Mart



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sure 72% of the applicants for Wal-Mart jobs are only women. Minimum wage jobs are no to low-skilled- they take just about anyone who applies. The issues is about gender discrimination in job duties and in advancement.



    So I disagree with you on several fronts here. Basically, you're saying that gender discrimination exists and it's a good thing?...?
  • Reply 19 of 25
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>Right. I equally abhor arguments without backing or support such as "this statistic is untrue..... because..... um.......... because I KNOW IT IS ."









    Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.







    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh. I'm just saying that the facts that the author present smell of bullshit. 40% of women go to wal mart once a week? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Workers don't get the health insurance because it cost to much. Prove it.



    It make for a real tear jerker huh?
  • Reply 20 of 25
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>

    Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's not the real issue here. It's that the article mentions a lawsuit which means it must be bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.