Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

M.Dancer · December 16, 2009

Walmart has mnade it very clear they are a Christian company in deed and spirit, even to the point of humbly denying they are christian...

'Is Wal-Mart a Christian company? No,' said former Wal-Mart executive Don Soderquist at

a recent prayer breakfast.

'But the basis of our decisions was the values of Scripture'."

Decisions not to carry the morning after pill, or (horrors) Maxim magazine underscore this fact.

And like criticizing Mr. Canada, attacks on Walmart are attacks on Jesus Christ himself.

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Seg, listen carefully.

What, now you're responding to me? And you said you were done.

I guess another lie from Mr.Canada.

But then we should be used to that by now. Basically, all he has are lies, ad hominem attacks, straw men, and other flawed tactics.

I know it's really hard for you to comprehend this basic message. So I'm going to go really slowly for you. Just give me a yes you understand please for each instance I am describing below. Perhaps you aren't old enough to understand what I'm saying. How old are you? Just give me a age range you're in if you're too afraid to tell me. I have a hard time believing that a grown up has a hard time understanding what I'm saying.

Yup, quite typical of someone who's basic ability to think and reason logically is flawed. Rather than deal with the issues I have raised, he attempts to make it personal.

Lets look at the issues I have raised that you seem to ignore:

- Wal-Mart is innocent until proven guilty. Why do you keep pointing to the lawsuit as if simply having the lawsuit at all makes them guilty? Why won't you deal with that?

- Many (probably even the majority) of large corporations have had similar lawsuits. Why do you feel the need to single out Wal-Mart when other companies have similar problems?

- You've made the claim a while ago that somehow wal-mart destroys jobs. Yet I've posted a study that shows the number of small businesses has not changed in the time that wal-mart has experienced its signifcant growth in the past few decades. So, are you going to admit you were wrong?

Of course, rather than deal with those issues, let me make a couple of predictions:

- You will continue to ignore those issues

- You will once again point to the same tired information about the lawsuit (ignoring the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and ignoring the fact that other companies have had similar problems)

- You will once again attempt to engage in ad hominem attacks.

This site is based on factual events. http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/ The sources in in the quotes themselves. many of the sources are from government sites or from independent news agencies or from the CEO's own mouth or from WalMart itself. Do you understand that?

Once again, let me explain...

A site like wakeupwalmart should not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a reputable site. Furthermore, even if they do have references to material from "independent news agencies", the tendency is for them to cherry-pick their information.

Secondly, it is not my job to follow through on your demented rantings in order to try to figure out the truth. If you are to idiotic or lazy to post the references yourself then you bring nothing of value to any debate. (And, a little tip, ad hominem attacks are of no value...)

This http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM and http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/feb2003/ca20030221_1282_ca011.htm are the same article. One has a chart based on the facts and one doesn't. I said this in my post. Do you understand this?

Yeah, and you know what else I understand?

You orginally claimed that "90% of all managers at Wal-mart were men"... a figure which is actually contradicted by the sources that you yourself referred to.

Know what else I understand? Another independent source (Forbes magazine) pointed out that even the figures quoted in that article may be incorrect because of the way Wal-mart classifies its postions.

Know what else I understand? That at no point have you ever addressed the fact that other retailers are subject to similar lawsuits, and that the references that you yourself gave contained comments that suggested that the lawsuits may be pointless, a fact that you seem to be ignoring. (I wonder why?)

WalMart has been proven guilty many many times and has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement money already. Are you aware of this?

I am aware of many things Wal Mart has done wrong. I have admitted this on several occasions. Need me to go back and point out the posts where I've admitted that?

Are you aware that many other companies, even ones that are highly regarded have also been subject to lawsuits? How come you don't address that issue? Do you magically think that only Wal-mart is ever subject to these things?

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Walmart has mnade it very clear they are a Christian company in deed and spirit, even to the point of humbly denying they are christian...

'Is Wal-Mart a Christian company? No,' said former Wal-Mart executive Don Soderquist at
a recent prayer breakfast.
'But the basis of our decisions was the values of Scripture'."

Decisions not to carry the morning after pill, or (horrors) Maxim magazine underscore this fact.

And like criticizing Mr. Canada, attacks on Walmart are attacks on Jesus Christ himself.

Don't forget... they also don't carry Playboy. And many albums must get censored before Wal-Mart will carry them.

Frankly, I think most of those decisions are rather foolish. But, Wal-mart is a private company, and as such they should have the right to carry whatever products they want, and if they think that they can earn more profit by making their stores more "family friendly" they have that right. (If most people preferred to buy their stuff at a store than stocks Maxim, Playboy, and "dirty" rap lyrics, either Wal-mart would start carrying them, or people would start shopping at stores that did.)

The "morning after pill" is a slightly different matter... Wal-Mart should never have been allowed not to stock the pill. (But then, I'm not sure if most states required all pharmacies to stock all possible medications...)

Hey, I'm an atheist. I think society will be a lot better off once we cast off this childish belief in an invisible sky-daddy. If I thought the religious views of the Wal-mart owners were interfering with my shopping habits I would stop shopping there. But since the stuff Wal-mart does not sell are items that I either don't buy myself, or can't get at other major retailers, I'm not really affected.

You really want to stick it to Wal-mart? Here's a suggestion... buy stuff wherever you can get it cheapest. (Sometimes that will be Wal-mart, sometimes it will be at other stores.) Take the money you save, and donate it to an atheist or skeptics group.

Edited to add:

One thing to note: you are of course making the assumption that the decision to stock the "morning after pill" was based on the religious beliefs of Wal-mart owners/executives. But, the fact is, Wal-mart was not alone in its decision not to stock the medication. Other pharmacies similarly did not stock it. This suggests that there is at least a chance that their decision not to stock it was based on business (e.g. expected low demand) rather than religious/moral belief.

See:

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/get-EC.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143016418.html

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

Erm Seg, WalMart is not a private company, you must be mistaken, it is publicly traded. One who reads Forbes so religiously(for your Atheistic pleasure hehe) should know that. The Walton family keeps a 40% control but make no mistake about it they are a public company.

Almost every competitor of WalMart does price matching so all we would need to do is bring show the store we happen to be shopping at that WalMart has such and such item at such and such price and we will get it at the discounted price.

I wouldn't do it unless it were a big ticket item and even then I wouldn't buy it from a dept. store I'd go to a specialty shop. WalMArt is mostly for the poor and the extremely cheap to the best of my knowledge. We don't need to watch every penny so we shop where civilized people shop instead.

Alta4ever · December 16, 2009

We don't need to watch every penny so we shop where civilized people shop instead.

WOW this is ignorant.

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

WOW this is ignorant.

Oh boy. What am I ignorant of?

I know you're in Alberta so it's impossible for you but those in the GTA need to go to any WalMart in the GTA - Brampton specifically and tell me those people are civilized...lol. They aren't. They take stuff off the shelves then drop it in the middle of the aisles if the don't want it. Bumping inot me with their carts without saying excuse me and stuff like this. They lack the proper manners necessary...it's appalling really.

I'm not ignorant, I've seen it first hand on more than one occasion. Sorry I don't need to shop like a penned animal.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Erm Seg, WalMart is not a private company...

Actually, yes it is...

From Wikipedia (not always a definitive source, but they have a decent definition)....

In the broadest sense, the term private corporation refers to any business not owned by the state.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company)

And yes, you are right in that there are also valid definitions that classify wal-mart as a "public" company. I was using the definition to differentiate it from government-owned "public ownership". (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership)

Almost every competitor of WalMart does price matching so all we would need to do is bring show the store we happen to be shopping at that WalMart has such and such item at such and such price and we will get it at the discounted price.

By all means feel free to do so.

Of course, what exactly does that do to your "moral code"? If you really believe Wal-mart is "evil", then you would still be benefiting from the suffering of Wal-mart employees, at least part of the reason they offer low cost is their low pay.

I wouldn't do it unless it were a big ticket item and even then I wouldn't buy it from a dept. store I'd go to a specialty shop. WalMArt is mostly for the poor and the extremely cheap to the best of my knowledge.

Your knowledge here may also be flawed...

http://industry.bnet.com/retail/1000211/taking-a-look-at-the-wal-mart-shopper/

Who’s the fastest-growing Wal-Mart demographic? Shoppers making more than $70,000 a year, up 12 percent from 2007. (The article also mentions that approximately 58% of sales go to shoppers making more than $40,000). It is true that they do have a larger portion of low-income shoppers (since they often can't afford to shop elsewhere) but that doesn't mean that they're the only people who shop there.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would be proud to spend more money on something just because they don't like the stigma of shopping "where poor people shop". Sounds to me like a rather foolish thing to do. "Hey ! I paid twice the price for this tube of toothpaste! Aren't I superior?"

Oh, and by the way, that "specialty shop" that you seem to want to frequent? You do realize that many of those also pay their employees minimum wage (as well as not offering health and other benefits)? And not only that, while you seem to contemn Wal-mart for not promoting women to management roles, such "specialty shops" also lack the ability for employee advancement (as well as very limited ability for employee recourse). I've known people who have worked at such stores.... they had low pay, inconvenient hours, and had to contend with a bad store manager.

Maybe before you shop anywhere you should give all the employees in the store a job satisfaction questionaire to see just how happy they are.

Oh boy. What am I ignorant of?

Oh boy, where to begin?

How about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? You seem to not understand that idea. (Considering you seem to refer to the recent wal-mart lawsuit as definitive proof of their guilt.)

Oh, and how about being ignorant of similar problems at other large corporations? (You must be ignorant of that... after all, you keep criticising wal-mart while ignoring problems at Costco, Abercromby&Finch, Toyota, etc.)

Oh, and how about your earlier suggestion that "walmart destroys small business" even though I referred to a study that shows the number of small businesses have been stable while wal-mart has expanded?

Oh, and how about your ignorance of how Forbes pointed out differences in the way that Wal-mart defines managerial positions? You must be ignorant about it... after all, I've referred to it, and you've never responded to that particular issue.

I know you're in Alberta so it's impossible for you but those in the GTA need to go to any WalMart in the GTA - Brampton specifically and tell me those people are civilized...lol. They aren't. They take stuff off the shelves then drop it in the middle of the aisles if the don't want it.

As opposed to specialty shops?

Oh, but wait! The person that I know that worked at one spent a good portion of her day returning stock on the shelves after they had been left in the wrong location.

Bumping inot me with their carts without saying excuse me and stuff like this. They lack the proper manners necessary...it's appalling really.

Maybe they realize you're a flaming idiot who doesn't deserve respect. Or maybe, because you think you are 'superior' to the people who shop there, you appear smug.

Or maybe, because Wal-mart gets more business than most stores, they get more rude people just because they get more total shoppers.

Or maybe what you are giving is an anecdote, which is, in and of itself, worthless.

Oh, and just wondering... if you got your wish and wal-mart went away, just where do you think all those "low income, rude shoppers" will go?

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

Argus · December 16, 2009

So???

Welcome to the world of competition. There are a lot of big companies and there are few highly qualified CEO's to run them

Bullshit. CEOs get fat pay and big bonuses even while running their corporations into the ground. Then they get hired by someone else for another fat pay cheque and big bonuses.

All CEO pay is board approved.

Yes, I think that's one of the problems. Like governments, its just paper to the board members, and not their paper. He wants thirty million? Sure, why not? How about fifty? It ain't my money.

Yes they are more qualified than 30 yrs ago, larger companies to manage, knew tech and knowledge, that sort of thing.

Utter nonsense. Most of them know nothing about technology. Many know little or nothing about the particular industry they get hired into. And the bonus structure has led to extremely poor decision making based not on the future well-being of the company or even on maximizing the potential of shareholder ownings, but on maximizing the CEO's short term bonuses.

Like I said those investment and financial industry companies have to compete with other industries to hire the CEO's with the best qualifications. Those investment and financial companies were well run prior to the crap hitting the fan with mortgage backed securities as a result of the CRA. Blame the gov't, not the CEO's for trying to cover their ass for being forced to loan money out to trash.

Ahh, thank you for explaining to me. You see, I was under the impression that investment brokers (being paid huge, fat bonuses and salaries) spent bilolions on investments they didn't really understand, with risks they knew little about, in order to maximize their bonuses. I thought CEO's and senior management approved all these investments despite knowing little or nothing about the risks because they were just greedy. Clearly it was all a government plot. Those poor, multi-million dollar CEOs and executives were forced into making really, really, really stupid decisions by the evil government!

If you cut the pay and bonuses in half, you can bet your ass that any CEO worth his salt would be looking at another company for work.

It is my opinion that you could cut CEO pay by 90% and still attract someone who is every bit as capable as those being paid multi-million dollar bonuses. Hell, it'd be hard to hire someone LESS capable as there are very, very, very few high earning CEOs out there anyone would speak admiringly about.

Argus · December 16, 2009

WOW this is ignorant.

Wal-Mart has often been referred to as "white trash central" and its customers as "trailer trash". If you want to watch obese, middle aged women in leaporskin spandex Wal-mart is the place to be. It doesn't exactly cater to the elites.

Argus · December 16, 2009

Actually, yes it is...

From Wikipedia (not always a definitive source, but they have a decent definition)....

In the broadest sense, the term private corporation refers to any business not owned by the state.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company)

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would be proud to spend more money on something just because they don't like the stigma of shopping "where poor people shop". Sounds to me like a rather foolish thing to do. "Hey ! I paid twice the price for this tube of toothpaste!

But at least I can be fairly confident my toothpaste didn't originate in China and doesn't have all sorts of "additives" not printed on the label! Frankly, the only time I'm ever in wal-mart is when I'm dragged there by someone, but what I've seen of its stock, particularly its clothing, does not make me wish to reconsider shopping there.

M.Dancer · December 16, 2009

The "morning after pill" is a slightly different matter... Wal-Mart should never have been allowed not to stock the pill. (But then, I'm not sure if most states required all pharmacies to stock all possible medications...)

Walmart operates pharmacies in Canada and the US.

It's one of their drawing cards, their dispensing fees are lower than the chains and they sell the drugs lower too.

Last year I needed a moderately expensive prescription. It was $125 at Shoppers, $118 at Walmart.

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Bullshit. CEOs get fat pay and big bonuses even while running their corporations into the ground.

Hey, I agree... that does happen. I've even seen cases where a CEO does poorly, gets "fired", and still gets a "golden parachute" worth Millions.

Sadly, overcompensation is not a problem restricted to Wal-Mart. (I suggest if you want to discuss wage disparity then you might want to start another thread. Wal-mart is not the only company paying execs top dollar, they all are. And criticising Wal-Mart when its a common practice doesn't seem very reasonable.)

I'd be quite happy if each and every company decided to make their executive pay "performance-based". Until that happens, we're stuck with the current situation.

It is my opinion that you could cut CEO pay by 90% and still attract someone who is every bit as capable as those being paid multi-million dollar bonuses.

That would only work if each and every company similarly cut executive pay by 90%. But, for better or worse, such collusion would likely be illegal.

Even if an executive would be happy earning $100,000, if someone offers him $1,000,000 they'll likely take it.

Heck, I work as a software developer. It pays very well. I would probably be happy doing my particular job if I got paid 50% less. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to seek out higher paying jobs.

Wal-Mart has often been referred to as "white trash central"...

Yes... usually by people who have an anti-Wal Mart attitude. Not exactly an unbiased group to be making that assessment, is it.

Tell me, whatever political party you support, do you put much stock in the opinions of competing political parties? Or do you recognize that those other parties are putting their own particular spin on things?

Fact is, yes, poor people shop at Wal-mart. So do many middle-class people as well. And as I pointed out earlier, most sales at Wal-mart are made to people earning $40,000 or more.

And as I asked before... where exactly do you think all those "white trash" people are supposed to shop?

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would be proud to spend more money on something just because they don't like the stigma of shopping "where poor people shop". Sounds to me like a rather foolish thing to do. "Hey ! I paid twice the price for this tube of toothpaste

But at least I can be fairly confident my toothpaste didn't originate in China and doesn't have all sorts of "additives" not printed on the label!

Well, then you'd be wrong.

When you're talking about "name brands", problems with tainted products have affected many manufacturers (including some high-end ones), not just Wal-Mart.

Remember the recent pet food recall by a company called Menu Foods? (They found their products were contaminated with things like rat poison). Well, their brands were sold in stores like PetSmart. This also affected the high-end brand "Science Diet" (which is actually sold by my vet...)

http://www.hillspet.com/menu_foods/Menu_Foods_03272007_en_US.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/05/31/menufoods.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_Foods (yes, a wikipedia reference; I put it in there because it has historical information, but the basic information is contained in the previous links.)

Oh, and how about the recent recall of Mattel toys because there were concerns that they had lead paint?

Again, those toys were sold in more stores than just Wal-Mart

http://service.mattel.com/us/recall/default.asp?recall_id=52430

Frankly, the only time I'm ever in wal-mart is when I'm dragged there by someone, but what I've seen of its stock, particularly its clothing, does not make me wish to reconsider shopping there.

Yes, they sell low-end clothing. So does Zellers and K-mart.

Oh, and by the way, while they do sell their low-end clothing brands, they also sell mid-range products as well. (In the men's wear, they sell: Levis, Hanes, and Dickie, which, wile they are not the most expensive brands around, are certainly not low-end either.)

Just out of curiosity, if you go there, is there a particular reason you feel you have to buy clothing there? (I don't remember any store rules indicating it was a requirement.) If I go in to Wal-Mart to buy (for example) toothpaste, DVDs, or M&Ms, I can somehow pick up those items (name brand items by the way, identical to what I'd get at more expensive stores) and head to the cashier without ever setting foot in the clothing section.

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

The true way to get rid of WalMart is to organize unions in every location as they will close any unionized location, much like McDonald's does. Probably why there is a McDonald's in almost every WalMart. They have so much in common.

I don't know why I keep feeding Seg but I am having fun entertaining myself at the same time so it's worth it. He loves responding to me, makes me laugh at how easily I can control him or her.

WalMart isn't the only store that has deals. If people look it's quite easy to find the same product for a comparable price and sometimes even lower someplace else. Just have to keep your eyes open.

My wife is a corporate manager in one of WalMarts competitors so I get a unique perspective on the inner workings of large retail. She works at the head office so she isn't unionized but all the store workers are as are all all the distribution workers and the company still makes a lot of profit while paying good wages and giving amazing benefits.

It's the largest grocery chain in Canada founded by Canada's richest family. So I don't buy the whole you have to pay crappy wages and give next to no benefits in order to turn a profit.

Christmas time everyone gets a bonus. The level of bonus depends on the current level of your position at the time the bonuses are handed out. Every quarter it turns a profit.

With WalMart it comes down to greed, plain and simple. They aren't concerned with paying people a decent wage they can live on only how much money is being sent back to the USA. That's right all the money you spend at WalMart in Canada doesn't stay in Canada, it get's sent back down to Arkansas.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

M.Dancer · December 16, 2009

My wife is a corporate manager in one of WalMarts competitors so I get a unique perspective on the inner workings of large retail. She works at the head office so she isn't unionized but all the store workers are as are all all the distribution workers and the company still makes a lot of profit while paying good wages and giving amazing benefits.

It's the largest grocery chain in Canada founded by Canada's richest family. So I don't buy the whole you have to pay crappy wages and give next to no benefits in order to turn a profit.

Loblaws pays worse than Walmart

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/0v424a5vxje.php

As per usual, you are trolling for sake of argument.

blueblood · December 16, 2009

Bullshit. CEOs get fat pay and big bonuses even while running their corporations into the ground. Then they get hired by someone else for another fat pay cheque and big bonuses.

So?? They have their fat pay because that is what they negotiated with their contracts. The fact that CEO's get such large pay tells me there aren't enough CEO's in the world and the board of directors at companies of that size are willing to pay large amounts of compensation to attract the most qualified people to work at their company. It's also why the federal gov't wastes so much money because they will never attract the caliber of managers the private industry will thanks to their soviet system of pay.

Yes, I think that's one of the problems. Like governments, its just paper to the board members, and not their paper. He wants thirty million? Sure, why not? How about fifty? It ain't my money.

It's not paper, it's one of the most accountable methods of hiring/supervising management. If the CEO is underperforming, that person is canned. The board of directors is also accountable to shareholders, if the company is going the wrong direction the shareholders can vote to clean house. As things stand, a 20 million dollar salary for CEO of large companies has yet to be rejected by either shareholders or boards of directors. Corporations are by far the most accountable systems of operations of that size.

Utter nonsense. Most of them know nothing about technology. Many know little or nothing about the particular industry they get hired into. And the bonus structure has led to extremely poor decision making based not on the future well-being of the company or even on maximizing the potential of shareholder ownings, but on maximizing the CEO's short term bonuses.

They don't have to know about technology, they have to know how to manage. Technology has helped companies become more efficient and perform better. How has the bonus structure led to poor decision making? Based on what? You hear about a few CEO's who have been turfed because their company is underperforming, they get their pay/bonuses that are legally entitled to them, and all of a sudden all CEO's are bad. The majority of CEO's that run efficient companies that do make money are still getting paid the big bucks. The CEO of Potashcorp got paid 19 million in compensation last year. GM the last couple years went through CEO's faster than some people go through socks.

Ahh, thank you for explaining to me. You see, I was under the impression that investment brokers (being paid huge, fat bonuses and salaries) spent bilolions on investments they didn't really understand, with risks they knew little about, in order to maximize their bonuses. I thought CEO's and senior management approved all these investments despite knowing little or nothing about the risks because they were just greedy. Clearly it was all a government plot. Those poor, multi-million dollar CEOs and executives were forced into making really, really, really stupid decisions by the evil government!

You tell me how a company is supposed to make money by being forced to loan money out to white trash so they can have their house they can't afford. The CEO's job is to deliver profits, they found a way, and got as much money as they could. The CEO's were trying to make the best out of a bad situation, in your words that is greedy. The CRA forced those companies to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't make, the CEO's did their best to make money in spite of that, apparently that's greedy.

It is my opinion that you could cut CEO pay by 90% and still attract someone who is every bit as capable as those being paid multi-million dollar bonuses. Hell, it'd be hard to hire someone LESS capable as there are very, very, very few high earning CEOs out there anyone would speak admiringly about

The gov't pays its managers 90% less, who has more capable managers the gov't or the private sector? Those high earning CEO's run companies that make billions of dollars the honest way, those low earning managers at the gov't waste billions of dollars that they collect pretty much at gunpoint. That tells me that a) Pay has been justified based on performance b)There is a large demand for CEOs.

Wrap this around your head, imagine for a second that kids going to University instead of wasting their time in some Liberal Arts/Science program went to a commerce program instead. There would be a CEO pool large enough to spur large competition for jobs, and being that board of directors/shareholders wanting to make money would now have an opportunity to lower salaries as there is more competition for CEO positions.

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

The true way to get rid of WalMart is to organize unions in every location as they will close any unionized location...

So, are you also going to demand they unionize every job in Zellers, Giant Tiger, etc.? Every small boutique? Every gas station? What about your local corner store that has only a couple of employees and is getting by on a shoe-string budget paying their employees minimum wage? You going to expect that they unionize as well? Or is it just Wal-Mart that you think should be unionized?

I don't know why I keep feeding Seg but I am having fun entertaining myself at the same time so it's worth it. He loves responding to me, makes me laugh at how easily I can control him or her.

Yeah well, I just like pointing out how much of an idiot you are, and how devoid of content your posts are.

Still waiting to hear you respond about why:

- Wal-mart is condemned for having lawsuits yet other large companies with similar lawsuits get a free pass

- Forbes pointed out the calculations for "management staff are wrong"

- Why you lied about the "90% of wal-mart managers are men"

WalMart isn't the only store that has deals.

Well, DUH!

Who exactly claimed that they were?

Or is this some famous red herring that you like to throw up?

My wife is a corporate manager in one of WalMarts competitors...

Ahhh.... I SEE. So, that certainly could explain your, ahem, vitriol against Wal-mart. If Wal-Mart is too successful, they could end up putting your wife out of work.

so I get a unique perspective on the inner workings of large retail.

I think you wrote that incorrectly. I think you mean to say "you get a biased perspective on the inner workings of large retail."

It's the largest grocery chain in Canada founded by Canada's richest family.

Wait a second... wouldn't happen to be Loblaws, was it?

Oh, but wait! Loblaws has had lawsuits launched against it! I thought it was only evil Wal-mart that has had lawsuits launched against it!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/09/06/HepAsuit_020906.html

My prediction.... you will ignore this lawsuit, pretending like it never existed (even though it cost Loblaws), yet still harping on Wal-mart's problems.)

With WalMart it comes down to greed, plain and simple.

Which is neither a good thing nor a bad thing.

Oh, and by the way, Loblaws (if that is the company your wife works for) isn't exactly always friendly.

Here are some of the job cuts they've recently gone through:

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/173690

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3c0508c0-1e81-4378-b405-7fa14f023c9b&k=52697

If Loblaws wasn't interested in profits, then why exactly did they feel the need to cut all those jobs?

They aren't concerned with paying people a decent wage they can live on only how much money is being sent back to the USA. That's right all the money you spend at WalMart in Canada doesn't stay in Canada, it get's sent back down to Arkansas.

Actually, no it doesn't.

Some money spent at loblaws goes to the corporate owners in the U.S. (through profits) this however only reflects a tiny amount of the total. Other money goes to suppliers (some will be in Canada, some in Asia, some in the U.S.) Some money stays in Canada (through wages paid to employees).

Thing is, when someone spends money at any store, at least part of the money will find its way outside Canada. I'm sure many products available at Loblaws are similarly produced (or have components produced) outside of the country. (Just out of curioity, when I buy a bag of oranges at Loblaws, where eactly do you you think the supplier's company is stationed?)

Oh, and since you seem to want to turn this into a "Canada vs. US" thing....

- More than 70% of Sears is owned by the U.S. (http://argent.canoe.ca/lca/infos/canada/archives/2009/04/20090407-165033.html)

- What about Zellers and The Bay? Also are largely owned by U.S. interests

Strange though... I don't see you complaining about people shopping at Zellers, Sears or The Bay, only Wal-mart. Strange thing that...

Edited to add:

You know, if you really want to promote Canada, why don't you shop where you can buy stuff cheapest (which will sometimes be Wal-Mart, sometimes be another store), take the money you save, and spend it on something uniquely Canadian?

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

Riverwind · December 16, 2009

They have their fat pay because that is what they negotiated with their contracts.

Why don't we set up a situtation where employees at burger king get to set the wages for employees at macdonalds and vise versa. Do you think such as system would result in 'fair' market wages?

CEOs pay is set by an old boys network of executives at other companies who have an interest in inflating the wages.

blueblood · December 16, 2009

Why don't we set up a situtation where employees at burger king get to set the wages for employees at macdonalds and vise versa. Do you think such as system would result in 'fair' market wages?

CEOs pay is set by an old boys network of executives at other companies who have an interest in inflating the wages.

Being as CEO's are hired by boards of directors, it's management that sets the wages, not the CEO's themselves, so I'm not sure that analogy will fly. As much as some people can't wrap their heads around it, CEO's are ultimately accountable to the board. For your example their boards pick CEO's, and the CEO's make decisions about management, management states a wage for what the burger flippers get. The other restaurants do something similar and that sets the market wage.

The problem is there are too many burger flippers/unskilled labour to justify CEO caliber wages, hence the barely above minimum wage.

The CEO pay might be an "old boys network", but that is the going rate of what CEO's are getting paid.

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

Yeah well, I just like pointing out how much of an idiot you are, and how devoid of content your posts are.

Reported. Every instance of a personal attack on me has been reported.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

M.Dancer · December 16, 2009

Reported. Every instance of a personal attack on me has been reported.

Do you report them to the Pope or do you do it at night, on your knees before bed?

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

Do you report them to the Pope or do you do it at night, on your knees before bed?

Quoted.

M.Dancer · December 16, 2009

Quoted.

Quoited

Mr.Canada · December 16, 2009

Well, it's quite obvious that WalMart is a massive company that has a lot of shady business practices.

There is no need for them to hire illegals but they do. Found Guilty! Millions awarded!

They don't need to pay so low and to give no benfits but that's what they do.

Walmart also exploits the child labour laws. Found Guilty! Millions awarded!

WalMart has been found guilty of forcing its employees to work unpaid overtime. Found Guilty! Millions awarded!

WalMart has been found guilty of forcing its employees to not take breaks and keep working. Found Guilty! Millions awarded!

They have been found guilty of these things more than once leaving the impression that this is company policy, written or not.

segnosaur · December 16, 2009

Reported. Every instance of a personal attack on me has been reported.

I see..

Are you also reporting the time that you insinuated I was "unemployed" or "underage", or a lobbyist for Wal-Mart (all incorrect accusations, and in some cases a little insulting)?

Oh, and did you report the time that you lied and falsely claimed that I thought certain dishonest business practices were "fine" when, in effect I did no such thing?

GostHacked · December 16, 2009

Loblaws pays worse than Walmart

http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/0v424a5vxje.php

As per usual, you are trolling for sake of argument.

I dunno .. I get paid pretty well. !! Not to mention, Walmart lowered the bar, and because of that, other businesses had to change their strategy. One part of it was wage cuts.