Wal-Mart in the crosshairs

[BigSqwert]

You all can think what you want but I refuse to support a company which has 5 of the richest 10 people in the world yet contribute virtually nothing to charity. On the other hand, Bill Gates contributed over 50% of his personal income to charity in 2004 alone.

 

The Walton family represents the ultimate in greed and it makes me sick. f*** them and their greed. I'll buy my milk elsewhere.

Edited December 22, 2005 by BigSqwert

[Mercy!]

.... f*** them and their greed.  I'll buy my milk elsewhere.

We understand. But just be careful out there.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Sure get your $1.98 gallon of milk.  Oh by the way your also helping shell out to subsidize all the millions of dollars being spent on Wal-Mart employees who are on welfare, getting food stamps and getting all sorts of state and federal aid because their greedy company doesn't pay them enough and provide them with benefits. 

 

Maybe you are exempt from helping pay for that welfare but I'm pretty sure my taxes help pay for that.

 

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and making them work at WalMart. If they need more money, get a different job.

[BigSqwert]

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and making them work at WalMart.  If they need more money, get a different job.

 

Unfortunately that is easier said than done in a lot of small communities where Wal-Mart wiped away a bunch of small businesses. Easy to say in the Chicagoland area but not the same in a small town in Montana.

Edited December 22, 2005 by BigSqwert

[southsideirish71]

You all can think what you want but I refuse to support a company which has 5 of the richest 10 people in the world yet contribute virtually nothing to charity.  On the other hand, Bill Gates contributed over 50% of his personal income to charity in 2004 alone.

 

The Walton family represents the ultimate in greed and it makes me sick.  f*** them and their greed.  I'll buy my milk elsewhere.

 

 

The Microsoft Corporation is definately the one you want to use for fair trade practices and the interest of the smaller corporation. Nothing like a few anti-trade suits to make you charitable.

 

 

 

But as long as the Waltons cut a check to Unicef then they will be okay in your book.

[southsideirish71]

Unfortunately that is easier said than done in a lot of small communities where Wal-Mart wiped away a bunch of small businesses.  Easy to say in the Chicagoland area but not the same in a small town in Montana.

 

I have no patience for the "well if you only understood that they live in a remote area with no opportunity".

 

Oddly my father just after I was born, packed up the family with barely nothing in his pocket moved from Ireland to the US with pretty much no money, joined the Army, got out and worked a few jobs while he went to school at night, then made sure that all of his kids got their educations and went to college. Nothing that a lot of hard work, and some vision cannot fix. You can blame the walmarts of the world, or you can better yourself and your situation. People can get their degrees or learn a trade. If you dont want to go to college, become a carpenter, electrician, pipe fitter, or something. But dont get the job at walmart and then b**** because they are not paying you enough.

Edited December 22, 2005 by southsideirish71

[BigSqwert]

But as long as the Waltons cut a check to Unicef then they will be okay in your book.

 

No. I just provided one example out of many of why they make me ill.

[Chisoxfn]

I have no patience for the "well if you only understood that they live in a remote area with no opportunity".

 

Oddly my father just after I was born, packed up the family with barely nothing in his pocket moved from Ireland to the US with pretty much no money, joined the Army, got out and worked a few jobs while he went to school at night, then made sure that all of his kids got their educations and went to college.  Nothing that a lot of hard work, and some vision cannot fix.  You can blame the walmarts of the world, or you can better yourself and your situation.  People can get their degrees or learn a trade.  If you dont want to go to college, become a carpenter, electrician, pipe fitter, or something.  But dont get the job at walmart and then b**** because they are not paying you enough.

[southsider2k5]

Nice idea, but good luck with that.  You could probably choose all the companies in the S&P, choose a major politician at random, and find similar questionable connections for half of the companies with that individual and some issue they are big on.

 

I think they would suffice to just avoid the biggest potholes.  And yeah, Walmart was maybe one of those.  But again, doubtful the Kerrys thought about it, or the broker.

 

You think there are 250 companies that politicians have spent $25 million and repeatedly called "evil" along with other not so flattering terms on the campaign trail? 250 other companies that have had union officials lobbying Congress about? 250 other companies that have their building sites picketed and protested? 250 other companies that have hate websites setup by union officials? If so, I would be impressed.

[Texsox]

We understand.  But just be careful out there.

 

 

[Texsox]

Sure get your $1.98 gallon of milk.  Oh by the way your also helping shell out to subsidize all the millions of dollars being spent on Wal-Mart employees who are on welfare, getting food stamps and getting all sorts of state and federal aid because their greedy company doesn't pay them enough and provide them with benefits. 

 

Maybe you are exempt from helping pay for that welfare but I'm pretty sure my taxes help pay for that.

 

I've heard that complaint before and I don't understand it.

 

We have government programs to help the jobless and the working poor.

Working poor use those programs.

Are all those employers bad? Is the complaint about those programs, the workers, or the companies?

 

If it is a good program, why complain about the working poor using them?

If it is the workers, why criticize them for using a program they qualify for?

If it is the companies, then we should eliminate all working poor programs and increase the minimum wage to above the poverty level. These aren't special WalMart only programs that the government puts out there.

 

I was involved in a program discussing the varies hurdles to child care help for the working poor. Child care cost are huge compared to the wages of a new worker. There are various programs, through multiple agencies, with multiple requirements and qualifying standards. It was agreed, that it wasn't the lack of programs, but the inability of poorly educated, young mothers (sorry, but it always fell on the mom) to make sense of it all. I was lost after the second hour of alphabet soup.

 

The solution was for more employers to be knowledgable about these assistance programs and having the HR managers help direct the workers. Giving every employee a $60 per week raise was never even considered. The company that was regarded as the role model in helping their employees make sense of it all? Walmart.

[NorthSideSox72]

You think there are 250 companies that politicians have spent $25 million and repeatedly called "evil" along with other not so flattering terms on the campaign trail?  250 other companies that have had union officials lobbying Congress about?  250 other companies that have their building sites picketed and protested?  250 other companies that have hate websites setup by union officials? If so, I would be impressed.

 

250 that fall into at least one of those categories? Possibly. If you add in, as I earlier stated, any other sorts of investigations of misconduct or connections to political campaigns? Absolutely.

[Controlled Chaos]

Does Walmart pay below minimum wage?

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

V

 

 

 

ok then...so what's the problem again?

[NorthSideSox72]

Does Walmart pay below minimum wage?

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

V

ok then...so what's the problem again?

 

Nothing, from a business or legal perspective. I can't speak for the others in this thread, but I'm not saying Walmart is evil. As previously stated, I think they are damn impressive, and they definitely provide some positives. But I ALSO think that they provide some big negatives to a community, and I see no issue with people pushing back against that. It is likely to make Walmart more valuable to those communities, and that's a good thing.

[kapkomet]

You know, it's funny when you start talking about charitable causes. I know that the Wal Mart in my local community has given 10's of thousands of dollars for many local causes. The stores are incentivized to do so.

[BigSqwert]

I've heard that complaint before and I don't understand it.

 

We have government programs to help the jobless and the working poor.

Working poor use those programs.

Are all those employers bad? Is the complaint about those programs, the workers, or the companies?

 

If it is a good program, why complain about the working poor using them?

If it is the workers, why criticize them for using a program they qualify for?

 

I just find it ironic that a company of this size (bigger than any oil company) is making bilions and billions of dollars and so many of their employees need government assistance. Perhaps they can take some of their record breaking profits and give back to the people who got them there. Provide some affordable health care at least.

[BigSqwert]

I have no patience for the "well if you only understood that they live in a remote area with no opportunity".

 

Oddly my father just after I was born, packed up the family with barely nothing in his pocket moved from Ireland to the US with pretty much no money, joined the Army, got out and worked a few jobs while he went to school at night, then made sure that all of his kids got their educations and went to college.  Nothing that a lot of hard work, and some vision cannot fix.  You can blame the walmarts of the world, or you can better yourself and your situation.  People can get their degrees or learn a trade.  If you dont want to go to college, become a carpenter, electrician, pipe fitter, or something.  But dont get the job at walmart and then b**** because they are not paying you enough.

 

I will let you slide on this one since you are a liberal. Because republicans have "moral values" right? And if you have moral values you care about people less fortunate and try to help when you can, not criticize them. Only a liberal would bash the unfortunate.

Edited December 22, 2005 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

I just find it ironic that a company of this size (bigger than any oil company) is making bilions and billions of dollars and so many of their employees need government assistance.  Perhaps they can take some of their record breaking profits and give back to the people who got them there.  Provide some affordable health care at least.

 

This is one thing that bugs me. The ultimate motivation of America is self determination. People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability. Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else. Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters. Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck. The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits. Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee. This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension. Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle. They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc. They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there.

[kapkomet]

This is one thing that bugs me.  The ultimate motivation of America is self determination.  People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability.  Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else.  Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters.  Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck.  The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits.  Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee.  This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension.  Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle.  They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc.  They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there.

*GASP* PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!

 

What the eff is *THAT*?

 

Where's MY HANDOUT?!?!?!?

[Controlled Chaos]

Why the war against Wal-Mart?

Michael M. Bates

 

Chicago aldermen are taking a break from whatever it is they usually do to save the city’s populace from a fate that’s apparently at least as bad as death.

 

They’re fighting to keep Wal-Mart from defiling the toddlin’ town.

 

Aiding them in this valiant struggle are labor unions. The president of the Chicago Federation of Labor outlined a terrifying scenario for the Chicago Sun-Times: "Once this first Wal-Mart comes, you’ll see two more pop up quick and, within a year, you'll probably see 10 of ‘em. This is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of labor."

 

What he should have said is that Wal-Mart is Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of union labor. Almost 90% of American workers don’t belong to a union. Their Public Enemy No. 1 possibly, just possibly, might not be a giant retailer offering a large selection of merchandise at good prices.

 

Who knows? There may even be a union member or two who wouldn’t mind saving a few bucks.

 

Opening a Wal-Mart means jobs and plenty of them. Many of them would be at entry-level positions, which are so badly needed in the inner city.

 

But they’re not union jobs. It must be an alderman’s sacred duty to protect Chicago’s unemployed from the humiliation of earning less than what union bosses dictate.

 

Those who would have been hired by Wal-Mart may be impoverished. They may be dependent on public assistance of one kind or another. They may have to ask for help from relatives and friends.

 

But, thanks to Chicago’s city council, they’re able to hold their heads high and proudly proclaim, "No, I don’t have a job, but if I did, it’d pay union scale."

 

One of the aldermen blocking the proposal to build a Wal-Mart told the Chicago Tribune, "I’m here for union labor." How very comforting. Can you spell "lapdog", boys and girls?

 

Not to be overlooked are the millions of dollars in tax revenue that a Wal-Mart or two would bring to the city’s coffers. Certainly Chicago has a reputation for fiscal prudence. It’s renowned for having absolutely no fraud, waste, mismanagement or kickbacks. Still, I’m sure that city officials would have found a way to spend all that additional revenue.

 

Wal-Mart seems to aggravate the heck out of some liberals, and it’s not just the company’s non-union policy. There are other problems.

 

John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said a few weeks ago that Wal-Marts "drive me crazy" because "they destroy communities."

 

The same week in a Los Angeles debate, her husband also disclosed his revulsion for the retailer: "And you've got companies like Wal-Mart . . . that hire part-time people, that have actually advertised to come and work, so they won't do their health care."

 

Not all of us are as wealthy as the Kerrys, who own five multimillion-dollar homes. We weren’t raised in an affluence that permitted shopping at the most exclusive and expensive stores.

 

There is, I suspect, an element of elitism in some of the opposition to Wal-Mart. I recently heard from a reader critical of a column I wrote about Costco executives giving large contributions to defeat President Bush.

 

Wal-Mart wasn’t even mentioned in the column, yet the reader wrote how the store "pays miniscule wages, offers lousy health benefits, and stabs consumers with voodoo pricing," whatever that is.

 

What particularly interested me was the way he finished his communication: "I'll stick with Costco, you go ahead and fill your double-wide with Wal-Mart crap." For those of you not familiar with the James Carville School of Deprecating Remarks, the double-wide reference is a suggestion I live in a trailer.

 

Again, there seems to be some snobbery at work in all the Wal-Mart loathing. Is it because the stores provide decent goods at affordable prices to the great unwashed, thereby improving their living standards even to the point of having some of the same conveniences as their betters?

 

Perhaps a reason is the chain has a policy of not selling CDs with sexually explicit lyrics. Maybe the irritation is the senior citizens hired to be greeters. Wal-Mart sells religious literature, even Bibles. Possibly that’s an annoyance.

 

Or is it because Wal-Mart is a prime example of how free enterprise can benefit millions of Americans, including the more than one million who work there? Capitalism can just be so unbridled sometimes.

 

_____________________________

 

 

I didn't know much about this whole walmart thing when they were first pushing for stores in those areas...so when I started reading articles that people didn't want them I was like...huh?? It will create a ton of jobs in a community that needs work. People can buy their essentials at discount prices. It will create tax revenue for the city. I just didn't get the whole wal mart is bad thing. All entry level jobs are minimum wage. Then I saw these comments and I didn't have to wonder anymore where the people were getting their ideas from. With leaders and role models like this, it's no wonder the area is still the way it is....

 

"I think we have to get away from the mentality that we're just glad to get a job," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger. "We've got to stop accepting crumbs as if it's the only thing we're meant to eat. A slave job is a slave job."

 

"I'm for jobs in this community, but I have an insult level," said state Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago). "People need a livable wage. As an African-American woman, I once worked for $1 an hour. I'm not talking about what I don't know."

 

Glad to get a job, isn't a bad mentality it's a good one...a positive one. You are developing a skill...you can eventually move forward with that skill. If you want to talk about being insulted...take it as an insult to be sitting on your ass at home collecting welfare. That's insulting!! It isn't insulting to be working. If you're making minimum wage and also getting help from the government, that's what its there for, but if you want to really feel insulted then just stay home and collect welfare.

 

Do you think the areas in Chicago are better off now? Hundereds of jobs that would have been created are gone!! Is it better to sit home and collect welfare than to work for your own money on a job, where you can possibly move up and maybe get off of government assistance for good?

[BigSqwert]

This is one thing that bugs me.  The ultimate motivation of America is self determination.  People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability.  Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else.  Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters.  Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck.  The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits.  Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee.  This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension.  Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle.  They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc.  They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there.

Be a leader....turn down all of your benefits and pay for everything out of your own pockets. Everyone will follow.

[southsider2k5]

Be a leader....turn down all of your benefits and pay for everything out of your own pockets.  Everyone will follow. 

 

Or we could just look at what happened to the airlines, automakers, and steel industry in the US as to what happens when you can't control your costs. I am sure the people of places like Gary would tell you that less benefits or lower pay is better than a bankruptcy filing and no jobs at all.

[kapkomet]

Or we could just look at what happened to the airlines, automakers, and steel industry in the US as to what happens when you can't control your costs.  I am sure the people of places like Gary would tell you that less benefits or lower pay is better than a bankruptcy filing and no jobs at all.

Actually, I bet they wouldn't. They live and die (foolishly I might add) by their union.

 

When I worked for the airline, we had a lot of old Eastern Airlines pilots working for us. They were PROUD that the brotherhood took down Eastern. They GLOATED about it. That mentality just amazes me.

[BigSqwert]

Reason #673 to hate on Wal-Mart.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/walmart....h.ap/index.html

 

Quote from the article:

The company added lower-cost health insurance this year after an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured.

 

Guess who pays for that Medicaid? We do as taxpayers.

Edited December 23, 2005 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

So now it's Walmart's job to give everyone health insurance. And furthermore, it's the socioeconomic class that tends to work in a retail environment... so that's walmart's fault too. Yet, they took some sort of corrective action it sounds like...