Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Mr.Canada]

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.

WalMArt workers get paid much less then Loblaws workers. Entry level at WalMart is minimum wage. This isn't the case at Loblaws, not even close.

[segnosaur]

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

You know, all these have been dealt with before. None of these have been denied. Yet you still seem to harp on them, while ignoring the fact that I've pointed out similar lawsuits at other retailers.

At this point, I think we can safely assume you're a troll.

For some strange reason though I will address these issues (just in case there is someone else who might get the wrong impression...)

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

Those "illegal aliens" were actually hired by a subcontractor. Wal-mart didn't have the proper checks in place to prevent companies it dealt with to have proper hiring practices, but somewhere along the line you can't exactly be responsible for micromanaging everything.

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

The most notable case of "child labour" laws that were violated involved less than 100 minors and 25 stores. This works out to less than 1% of its stores, and 0.004% of its workforce. The charges involve people under 18 doing things like operating forklifts. While technically that is illegal, it is a far cry from forcing 9 year olds to toil 18 hours a day in a sweat shop.

Oh, and by the way.. cost of that particular case? Under $200,000. Far less than the "millions" claimed.

http://www.hrmguide.com/relations/wal-mart-child-labor.htm

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

Yeah, and as I pointed out, other stores have had identical lawsuits. In addition to Costco that I had previously mentioned, you can also find lawsuits for unpaid overtime launched against: AT&T, Scotiabank, CIBC, CN, etc.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/12/14/daily48.html

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/12/10/unpaidotsuit.html

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/cnw/article.jsp?content=20080325_110502_4_cnw_cnw

Looks like you seem to be ignoring that.

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

The most important word in that above statement is impression.

Once again, since you seem to be rather dense in understanding this... when you are dealing with any large organization, it is quite likely that you will get at least a few cases of mismanagement.

Oh, by the way.... once again, you've ignored the fact:

- Loblaws has been hit by multiple lawsuits (involving more than 1 incidence) involving exposing people to Hepatitis A.

Does that mean that its corporate policy for Loblaws to expose their customers to a potentially lethal disease?

Here's a question.. why won't you deal with the above issue?

[segnosaur]

On Wal-mart vs. Loblaws superstore wages...

I dunno .. I get paid pretty well. !!

Maybe you do. But then, you were probably one of the people who avoided the huge number of layoffs from a couple of years ago. (I have previously reported on several rounds of job cuts from Loblaws.)

What would you rather have? A low-paying job, or no job?

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.

Keep in mind that there have always been low paying retail jobs. Having unionized (and higher paying) jobs in the grocery retail sector to me, seemed rather out-of-place given the fact that department stores, corner stores, etc. seemed to pay minimum (or close to minimum) even before Wal-mart started its growth. Its only since stores have been diversifying the merchandise they sell that grocery stores have had to deal with real competition.

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

WalMArt workers get paid much less then Loblaws workers. Entry level at WalMart is minimum wage. This isn't the case at Loblaws, not even close.

First of all, another poster has given an actual link comparing the income of some Wal-mart workers to Loblaws workers. Hint: Loblaws workers do not come out on top. (Doesn't apply to all employees, but still its an interesting comparison.)

Secondly, I already pointed out how Loblaw was forced to lay off hundreds of people (as well as close some stores). How exactly does that figure into your pay calculations? Great... you can get a big wage! Ooops, just got laid off. Tough luck. Too bad.

Edited December 16, 2009 by segnosaur

[Mr.Canada]

First of all, another poster has given an actual link comparing the income of some Wal-mart workers to Loblaws workers. Hint: Loblaws workers do not come out on top. (Doesn't apply to all employees, but still its an interesting comparison.)

Secondly, I already pointed out how Loblaw was forced to lay off hundreds of people (as well as close some stores). How exactly does that figure into your pay calculations? Great... you can get a big wage! Ooops, just got laid off. Tough luck. Too bad.

You really are a hardcore WalMart lover. So basically anything I say you'll semantic me to death right? You'll oppose anything I say just for the sake of it right?

I'll never shop at WalMart no matter what you people say, well no matter what seg says. He seems to be leading the pro WalMart charge.

You like it fine shop there. I really don't care. I'm not sure why I'm still posting in this train wreck anymore.

as long as you knowwhen you shop at WalMart you're supporting.

The hiring of Illegals.

Workers not being paid for overtime.

Workers not getting their legally entitled breaks.

Workers receiving very poor pay and benefits.

A company that has issues with the child labor laws.

These things above they have been found guilty of and have paid millions in awards.

Spend hundreds of millions each year fighting unions and workers that want to unionize.

So as long as you know that and you still want to support them go ahead. Just do it informed.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

So basically anything I say you'll semantic me to death right?

Among the thousands of things you are unaware of, I assume the definition of semantics is included?

You'll oppose anything I say just for the sake of it right?

That sounds like what you messaged me explaining why you take such assinine positions....just for the sake of it. I wouldn't be sofast to assume that everyone is as obnoxious as you.

[segnosaur]

You really are a hardcore WalMart lover.

Nope, lover of facts, and of critical thinking.

Just so happens that in this case, the use of critical thinking supports the position that Wal-mart is not some inherently evil entity that must be destroyed.

So basically anything I say you'll semantic me to death right? You'll oppose anything I say just for the sake of it right?

Nope, I'll only criticize anything you say which is moronic, incorrect, or pointless.

Unfortunately, that seems to be just about everything on this thread.

I'll never shop at WalMart no matter what you people say, well no matter what seg says.

Never claimed you would. Again, another example of a straw-man.

I did however, point out your hypocricy when you suggested you could go to another retailer with evidence of Wal-mart's prices and get them to match the price. After all, in that situation, you'd still be benefiting indirectly from the business practices at wal-mart (even if Wal-mart did not profit from the sale).

You like it fine shop there. I really don't care. I'm not sure why I'm still posting in this train wreck anymore.

Never sure why you bothered posting at all. Not like you've actually brought any intelligent debate to the thread. (An no, ad homeniem attacks, straw men, outright lies, and the repetition of irrelevant information is not "bringing intelligent debate".)

as long as you knowwhen you shop at WalMart you're supporting.

The hiring of Illegals.

Workers not being paid for overtime.

Workers not getting their legally entitled breaks.

Workers receiving very poor pay and benefits.

A company that has issues with the child labor laws.

Depends.... do you think when you shop at Loblaws, that you're supporting the infection of shoppers with potentially lethal diseases (as Loblaws has been found guilty of?

Why won't you deal with that issue?

Oh, that's right... because not only are you ignorant, you're a hypocrite.

[segnosaur]

That sounds like what you messaged me explaining why you take such assinine positions....just for the sake of it. I wouldn't be sofast to assume that everyone is as obnoxious as you.

You know, I do recognize that Mr.Canada might be a troll. On the other hand, there are people who do end up believing the type of cr*p he's spewing.

So, even if he is a troll, there may still be some intellectual advantage in pointing out his multitude of flaws, even if its to cause one person who might otherwise believe that junk to engage in a little critical thinking and recognize that, indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

[Mr.Canada]

WalMart destroys communities make no mistake about it. They will take what is a quiet town and plop down a massive superstore totally ruining any semblance of serenity that was once in its place.

But as I wander around Wal-Mart, it becomes apparent that their prices are low because much of their merchandise is — cheap. Whatever happened to "well-made" or "worthwhile"? Their own-brand clothing, curiously called "George," is made of thin fabric harsh on my fingertips, badly shaped and sewn, and style-free. Gap and H&M sell cheap clothes too, but they aren't this badly constructed, and those two chains make an effort at rendering the customer physically appealing to fellow human beings.

Of course Wal-Mart is cheap. Its ethos is to sell the lowest priced, not the most durable, goods. So we can change our descriptors to "convenient but temporary."

I don't find it convenient to have a 1,700-space parking lot near Lake Ontario, I find it repellent. It would be lovely to have picnic grounds or dog runs, restaurants, stores or something lively in an area where, magically, we can actually live well without owning cars. We have great public transit here. Why build a car magnet when gas is set to hit $2.25 a litre in four years?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20080428.html

As we can see Mr.Canada isn't alone in his dislike for WalMart. On this forum apparently I am as it's chock full of WalMart lovers. They screw unions at every turn yet socialists here love WalMart....talk about hypocrisy.

All of these things WalMart has been found guilty of and fined hundreds of Millions of Dollars.

The hiring of Illegal workers who have no right to work in the country.

Workers not being paid for their overtime and being forced to work unpaid.

Employees not getting their legally entitled breaks.

Employees receiving very poor pay and benefits.

A company that has broken child labor laws.

I just Googled Wal-Mart Settlements paid and here are the results, see for your self. There are way too many for me to post them all here.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=HO4&ei=-HUpS4a5DpOvlAflwciWBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=WalMart+settlements+paid&spell=1

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[segnosaur]

WalMart destroys communities make no mistake about it.

Already pointed out that the number of small businesses has remained stable throughout the past few decades as wal-mart has expanded.

Also pointed out how there is no co-relation between the number of Wal-marts in a particular state and the number of small businesses.

This was all pointed out to you in post 358 of this thread. (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=2872&view=findpost&p=489686)

Sorry, you fail again.

Regardless of the number of times you try repeating that particular claim, it doesn't make it any truer.

As we can see Mr.Canada isn't alone in his dislike for WalMart. On this forum apparently I am as it's chock full of WalMart lovers. They screw unions at every turn yet socialists here love WalMart....talk about hypocrisy.

Know what a hypocrite is?

- Someone who suggests that I might be a wal-mart lobbyist while they themselves have family members who work for other retail outfits.

- Someone who compains about wal-mart practices, but says nothing when the company their wife works for gets sued for giving potentially fatal diseases to their customers!

- Someone who compains aboout wal-mart practices, but ignores it when those same practices occur in other companies

[segnosaur]

You know, I didn't bother replying to this part of the post earlier because I thought it was pointless... the person Mr.Canada quoted was basically expressing a personal opinion. But, after a little consideration, I realized that there were some really retarded things that were stated in it...

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20080428.html

But as I wander around Wal-Mart, it becomes apparent that their prices are low because much of their merchandise is — cheap.

Of course, this ignores the fact that while they have "cheap" merchendise, they also have stuff which is identical to what is found in other stores.

How exactly is the DVD I bought at Wal-mart different than the one I might by at the video store?

Whatever happened to "well-made" or "worthwhile"? Their own-brand clothing, curiously called "George," is made of thin fabric harsh on my fingertips, badly shaped and sewn, and style-free. Gap and H&M sell cheap clothes too, but they aren't this badly constructed....

You know, I took a couple of minutes to do some research.

The author claims that Gap sells "cheap clothes". The cheapest pair of men's jeans I could find on their web site was rougly $40. (actually $39.99). On the other hand, the cheapest pair of jeans I can find on the Wal-Mart web site was $10.

So, this idiot author was trying to compare a wal-mart item with one that was several times the price.

Of course Wal-Mart is cheap. Its ethos is to sell the lowest priced, not the most durable, goods.

Yes, and sometimes people don't necessarily want/need/can afford the "most durable" goods.

I don't find it convenient to have a 1,700-space parking lot near Lake Ontario, I find it repellent. It would be lovely to have picnic grounds or dog runs, restaurants, stores or something lively in an area where, magically, we can actually live well without owning cars.

Ummm... just wondering.... if you don't have a single location to do your shopping in for your major purposes/staple items, wouldn't that actually mean you'd have to do more travelling in order to actually buy the items you need, this increasing the need for a car?

We have great public transit here. Why build a car magnet when gas is set to hit $2.25 a litre in four years?

Ummm... how about because we live in a country where we have winder 11 out of 12 months and we'd rather limit the amount we have go to outside in bad weather while we do our shopping?

How about because if you forced people to go to individual stores to do their shopping, they may end up needing cars more to get to the various places they need to go?

[M.Dancer]

Ummm... how about because we live in a country where we have winder 11 out of 12 months and we'd rather limit the amount we have go to outside in bad weather while we do our shopping?

How about because if you forced people to go to individual stores to do their shopping, they may end up needing cars more to get to the various places they need to go?

How about the joy of taking the bus with two kids under 1o and your arms loaded down with parcels?

[bloodyminded]

Quote possibly. But then, so are pretty much every other company.

Guess what... in the business world, being "charitable" is a good way to find yourself out of business.

Because most "insults" are either totally baseless (the whole "walmart eliminates small business", which ignores the fact that there are roughly as many small businesses today as there were 2 decades ago), or ignore the fact that the types of problems wal-mart has are not unique to Wal-mart. I have no problems with people having valid criticisms of wal-mart, but any criticsm should be fair. Condemming wal-mart and wal-mart only when similar problems exist elsewhere is, in my opinion, dirty pool.

If you want to criticize Wal-mart, fine... but where is your criticism of Costco and Ambricrombie & Finch (subject to multiple lawsuits over unpaid overtime and gender discrimination)? Where is your criticism of toyota (subject to a sexual harrasement lawsuit)? Women executives typically earn less than male executives across virtually all industries. Why is Wal-mart being singled out?

(edited for typos)

If you're asking why WalMart is being singled out generally, you'll have to ask others, not me. I'm doing it here because

1. This thread is about WalMart, and

2. I have worked at WalMart and not at Costco et al.

I made no remarks about the litany of complaints against WalMart; I made my own complaints based upon my personal experience...after which the defenders of poor, victimized, underappreciated WalMart came to its stalwart support.

All I said was that it run by assholes. You agreed, actually, before determining that moral decrepitude is acceptable, while implying that criticizing moral decrepitude is a questionable practice.

In other words, every moral philospophy, all universal moral beliefs, and even what we teach our children, simply does not apply--is even unfair--if we apply it to the richest and most powerful people.

In other words, the richer one is, the lower should be the standards of behavior.

It's a sweet deal.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

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.

Didn't say it was. But you said they get their fat pay because they were worth it and I merely pointed out - well, not necessarily so.

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

Yes, anyone who gets their stuff from China. And more than 90% of Wal-Mart merchandise comes from China.

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

Well, it's been a while since I looked at any, but the last time I checked I'd say their clothing is about half the quality of what you'd find at Zellers.

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.)

You do know that any number of brand names now features extra low end stuff just so they can be sold at Wal-Mart and such places, right? The Levis you buy at Wal-Mart are probably not the same as the ones you buy at The Bay. And that goes double for electronic merchandise.

[segnosaur]

If you're asking why WalMart is being singled out generally, you'll have to ask others, not me. I'm doing it here because

1. This thread is about WalMart, and

2. I have worked at WalMart and not at Costco et al.

I made no remarks about the litany of complaints against WalMart;

That's fine. If you think that all retailers have problems my apologies... but even though this thread was specifically about wal-mart, you could have qualified your statements, saying something like "Wal-mart was bad to me...but the same situation might exist at other retailers"

I made my own complaints based upon my personal experience...after which the defenders of poor, victimized, underappreciated WalMart came to its stalwart support.

Sarcasm noted.

But, as I've said before, I am not posting with the sole purpose of defending wal-mart. I am posting because I believe in dealing with facts, and with applying some critical thinking to the situation. Pointing out where other posters have said things that were out-and-out wrong (e.g. wal-mart kills small business), or engaging in double standards/hypocricy (pointing out wal-mart's problems and ignoring similar issues with other retailers) is of no benefit to society.

All I said was that it run by assholes. You agreed, actually, before determining that moral decrepitude is acceptable...

Well, did Wal-mart do anything illegal?

I find running a company as an "assh*le" is neither acceptable, nor unacceptable. It just is. In the long run, it may be detrimental (depending on the company).

In other words, every moral philospophy, all universal moral beliefs, and even what we teach our children, simply does not apply--is even unfair--if we apply it to the richest and most powerful people.

Pssssst... poor people can be assh*les too.

Edited December 21, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Sadly, overcompensation is not a problem restricted to Wal-Mart.

Didn't say it was. But you said they get their fat pay because they were worth it and I merely pointed out - well, not necessarily so.

Can you point to any wal-mart execs that have been fired for incompetence after receiving multi-million dollar payouts?

As has been explained to you... if you want a good CEO, you often have to pay a lot. You may not think they're worth it. But if they don't pay them the high salary, a potential star-quality CEO may end up working for some other company (even the competition).

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

Yes, anyone who gets their stuff from China. And more than 90% of Wal-Mart merchandise comes from China.

You know, that 90% number was tossed out rather casually.

Do you have any proof that

A: 90% of their merchandise actually does come from china, and:

B: whatever the actual percentage is (whether its 90% or something different), that the percentage is substantially higher than the merchandise available from Zellers, K-mart or other low-end retailers?

Well, it's been a while since I looked at any, but the last time I checked I'd say their clothing is about half the quality of what you'd find at Zellers.

Got any proof of that? How are you measuring "quality"? Are you taking any cost differences into your calculations? (Stating it is "half the quality" seems like a rather specific claim... Got anything to back that up? Or is this just your own personal anecdote?)

[Mr.Canada]

You know, that 90% number was tossed out rather casually.

Do you have any proof that

A: 90% of their merchandise actually does come from china, and:

B: whatever the actual percentage is (whether its 90% or something different), that the percentage is substantially higher than the merchandise available from Zellers, K-mart or other low-end retailers?

This thread is about WalMart lets try to stay on topic. Never mind trying to deflect.

Got any proof of that? How are you measuring "quality"? Are you taking any cost differences into your calculations? (Stating it is "half the quality" seems like a rather specific claim... Got anything to back that up? Or is this just your own personal anecdote?)

Now you're arguing that WalMArt has top quality clothing and other goods? Please don't tell me you're serious.

So now that we know that you think that Wal Mart has top quality goods I have to say that it appears that you don't or haven't shopped at any name brand stores in quite a while. That would be the only excuse for you claiming that WalMart has great quality stuff.

You again further the stereotype of mostly poor people shopping at WalMart.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[blueblood]

This thread is about WalMart lets try to stay on topic. Never mind trying to deflect.

Now you're arguing that WalMArt has top quality clothing and other goods? Please don't tell me you're serious.

So now that we know that you think that Wal Mart has top quality goods I have to say that it appears that you don't or haven't shopped at any name brand stores in quite a while. That would be the only excuse for you claiming that WalMart has great quality stuff.

You again further the stereotype of mostly poor people shopping at WalMart.

Walmart carries Levi's clothing. It is a wide clothing line with jeans costing anywhere from 30$ to hundreds. Not that walmart sells 200$ jeans, but they carry the brand that does. Personally I don't shop for clothes at walmart, just seen they carry the brand.

Walmart also carries name brands like Remmington, braun, LG, Samsung, Sony, Texas Instruments, etc. Just like other places. It's electronics are on par with anywhere else.

I buy random stuff I need on short notice at Walmart, and save the clothing for trips to the city.

[cybercoma]

I buy stuff at Walmart because I'm a consumer and it's in my own best interest to purchase things for the lowest price possible. Why would I spend more money on an identical item somewhere else? There is only one exception if there is less than a 5% difference in price, I will purchase the product somewhere else. For example, Assassin's Creed 2 is $59.99 at Future Shop, but it's $59.87 at Walmart. For a lousy $0.12, I will pay the extra to avoid supporting them. However, If a coffee maker is $59.99 at Zellers and the identical make and model is $39.92 at Walmart, you can be sure I'm buying it at Walmart--who wouldn't?

[segnosaur]

This thread is about WalMart lets try to stay on topic. Never mind trying to deflect.

Still waiting to hear your opinion on shopping at Loblaws.

If you shop at loblaws, does that mean you support giving potentially fatal diseases to consumers?

Come on, you can answer that. Its a simple question.

So, how about it?

Now you're arguing that WalMArt has top quality clothing and other goods?

Thank you for illustrating your lack of intelligence.

Never said they had "top quality". Only a complete moron would assume that.

Strtangely enough, there are more than 2 levels of quality. You must be pretty brain damaged if you assume there is only low quality and high quality.

So, you going to tell us whether you support giving potentially fatal diseases to consumers?

[bloodyminded]

That's fine. If you think that all retailers have problems my apologies... but even though this thread was specifically about wal-mart, you could have qualified your statements, saying something like "Wal-mart was bad to me...but the same situation might exist at other retailers"

Well, hell, let's start qualifying. We can dilute every post to relativist meaninglessness, if we so choose. However, I searched your posts on this topic in vain for any qualifications of your own opinions on the matter.

But, as I've said before, I am not posting with the sole purpose of defending wal-mart. I am posting because I believe in dealing with facts, and with applying some critical thinking to the situation. Pointing out where other posters have said things that were out-and-out wrong (e.g. wal-mart kills small business), or engaging in double standards/hypocricy (pointing out wal-mart's problems and ignoring similar issues with other retailers) is of no benefit to society.

Sure, but like I said, you pointed out what other posters have said as a response to what I said...and what I said had no real relation to what the others have said.

Well, did Wal-mart do anything illegal?

I can't say what they have or have not done illegally; but for the sake of argument, I have already answered this question, directly, at least twice, in this very thread. I said they have every legal right to behave like elitist, insufferable little moral degenerates. I wasn't making a legal complaint, but an ethical one.

Ironically, people take great offense ( ie a MORAL response) if someone question the morality of rich and powerful businesspeople. There is a double standard based, ultimately, on power, which is a cringingly servile position to hold. It's an ancient weakness, this reflexive obedience to powerful men.

I find running a company as an "assh*le" is neither acceptable, nor unacceptable. It just is. In the long run, it may be detrimental (depending on the company).

Um...treating people badly is detrimental, by definition, to the people being treated badly.

Pssssst... poor people can be assh*les too.

Obviously, but it's hardly equal. The more power and influence you have, the more significant is your rotten behavior. That's just an elementary truism.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[segnosaur]

That's fine. If you think that all retailers have problems my apologies... but even though this thread was specifically about wal-mart, you could have qualified your statements, saying something like "Wal-mart was bad to me...but the same situation might exist at other retailers"

Well, hell, let's start qualifying. We can dilute every post to relativist meaninglessness, if we so choose. However, I searched your posts on this topic in vain for any qualifications of your own opinions on the matter.

Actually, I've been quite vocal. I've been quite willing to point out the faults of wal-mart, as well as pointing out the areas where criticism is unjustified.

Sure, but like I said, you pointed out what other posters have said as a response to what I said...and what I said had no real relation to what the others have said.

The issues that I brought up in relation to your post (even if its related to what other posters have said) IS relevant.

This thread seems to have been started with the sole intent to "bash wal-mart". I'm putting the actions of wal-mart into context. If I bring up stuff that other posters have said, its because the responses are all pretty much the same: Wal-mart is not a great company, but then pretty much every other company has its faults too.

Have they done anything illegal

I can't say what they have or have not done illegally

Actually, I should have qualified that... I should have said have they done anything illegal in their dealings with you.

...but for the sake of argument, I have already answered this question, directly, at least twice, in this very thread. I said they have every legal right to behave like elitist, insufferable little moral degenerates. I wasn't making a legal complaint, but an ethical one.

Fine... why don't you go and start a store. Offer every employee who works at your store $50/hour to work there, 4 weeks vacation, let them set their own schedules, etc. Be the most amazing, generous boss you can be. Do everything you can to assist the employees in joining a union.

Then, see exactly how long your business lasts.

Ironically, people take great offense ( ie a MORAL response) if someone question the morality of rich and powerful businesspeople.

Would you rather have a jerk for a boss and have a job, or hold out for the "perfect" boss and end up unemployeed?

There is a double standard based, ultimately, on power, which is a cringingly servile position to hold. It's an ancient weakness, this reflexive obedience to powerful men.

Nope, not obedient here.

You see, I didn't like working low paying/crappy jobs with bosses I didn't respect. So I got the necessary skills that made myself more marketable, and was able to find better employment.

Um...treating people badly is detrimental, by definition, to the people being treated badly.

Sorry, I meant treating employees badly (e.g. minimum wage only, less than ideal hours of work, etc.) could be detrimental to the company. Wal-mart, fast food places, your local corner store, etc. might be able to get away with it because working there doesn't necessarily require any special skills.

On the other hand, if my company (I work in IT) decided to do the same thing, most employees would leave, taking their knowlege/skills with them.

[bloodyminded]

Actually, I've been quite vocal. I've been quite willing to point out the faults of wal-mart, as well as pointing out the areas where criticism is unjustified.

But you don't consider the faults I bring up to be faults at all; again, your direct responses to my own remarks are virtual non sequiters. Walmart doesn't run small businesses out of town? That's good. I never said they did. Never hinted at it.

The issues that I brought up in relation to your post (even if its related to what other posters have said) IS relevant.

This thread seems to have been started with the sole intent to "bash wal-mart". I'm putting the actions of wal-mart into context. If I bring up stuff that other posters have said, its because the responses are all pretty much the same: Wal-mart is not a great company, but then pretty much every other company has its faults too.

But the responses are not all the same. Again, my remarks are totally unrelated to the points to which you object in others.

It APPEARS relevant to you because you assume every critic must be in lockstep. However, that has nothing to do with me; I'm certainly not some spokesperson for the anti-WalMart crusade.

Actually, I should have qualified that... I should have said have they done anything illegal in their dealings with you.

No, not a bit.

Fine... why don't you go and start a store. Offer every employee who works at your store $50/hour to work there, 4 weeks vacation, let them set their own schedules, etc. Be the most amazing, generous boss you can be. Do everything you can to assist the employees in joining a union.

Then, see exactly how long your business lasts.

I'm not arguing the efficacy of their business model. That it's been mostly successful is self-evident.

Your caricature aside, I'm not stating anything unreasonable; you caricature my views, and posit THAT as unreasonable.

If you'd read my posts for what they are, rather than scanning them for quick points of debate, you'd surely be aware I said nothing about wages, vacations, scheduling, or unions.

I am talking about the belittlement and disrespect shown to the employees. My entire point, from beginning to end.

Look at it this way: I have had many private sector jobs, and several low-paying jobs, and I am not opposed to that model. I am opposed to the combative model that keeps employees simultaneously worried (which is the policy) and resentful (not policy, but a predictable and understandable side-effect).

My other private sector jobs have not behaved this way. Not one of them.

Which means--by definition, mind you--that such tactics are not completely necessary to running a business.

Nope, not obedient here.

You see, I didn't like working low paying/crappy jobs with bosses I didn't respect. So I got the necessary skills that made myself more marketable, and was able to find better employment.

Hmm. Me too. And yet relative success didn't magically transform my thinking, so that I believe it's okay to treat unskilled workers with monumental disrespect.

Sorry, I meant treating employees badly (e.g. minimum wage only, less than ideal hours of work, etc.) could be detrimental to the company.

Yes, I understood it perfectly. I only maintained the heresey that I feel more for the people being disrespected than for the company doing the disrespecting. I suppose I would be a member in poor standing of the Satanic Church for this reason.

Wal-mart, fast food places, your local corner store, etc. might be able to get away with it because working there doesn't necessarily require any special skills.

On the other hand, if my company (I work in IT) decided to do the same thing, most employees would leave, taking their knowlege/skills with them.

You're correct on both counts. I'm only stating that I don't agree with this type of behavior, since we're human beings first, and economic cogs second (if that). I'm only surprised that these things are controversial assertions, rather than the truisms I had assumed them to be.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Dave_ON]

Hmmmm...So no employee should ever have a pay increase. Any such increase has to be compensated for by an increase in price - all to the detriment of the consumer. Employers have dick-all to do with it.

An employee seeking higher wages is a detriment to the consumer - a bad thing. But the employer can seek maximum profit margins from the consumer - a good thing.

Umm no I'm saying that a pay increase WILL result in an increase in prices and invariably defeat the very reason d’être of Walmart, i.e. having lower prices than the competition. Anyone is free to seek employment anywhere they wish. No one forced them to work at Walmart, and it is what it is. You can't expect high wages from a store that promises low prices, the two cannot co-exist.

Sorry I don't buy it. Employee's seek higher wages if they believe the employer has the profits to pay those higher wages. Whats wrong with that? According to you, whets wrong is that the Employer will then seek to maintain his profit margins by raising prices - wich is completely beyond the power of the employee to do. So if the employer raises prices - its the employee's fault. Why? Because the powerless employee made him do it!

And, it seems, people seeking higher wages is purely a unions fault. Nobody in a non-union workplace ever seeks a pay raise - right? And, it would seem, they'd never get one if they asked for it, or even deserved it.

I think you're running wildly out of context. We're not talking about neurosurgery here. We're talking about common Labour that anyone can do. Stocking shelves, waiting on customers, ringing sales through, definitely not work one has to train for. Again supply and demand rules the labour market. The more abundant the supply, the lower the demand and the lower the cost of an item. In this case the labour, that anyone can do, results in low pay.

As for non-union labour, somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of working Canadians are employed by non-unionized private companies. The same rules apply, if you have skills that are in high demand and low supply you can expect, and even demand a higher wage. You'll likely get it because the company knows that if they don't hire you someone else will. The reverse is true if you are a low skill worker. The ball is in the company's court, if you won't take the wage they offer, there are hundreds upon hundreds of others that are more than willing to do the work and are every bit as capable of doing it.

Whether or not someone "deserves" a high wage is a matter of interpretation. One could argue that someone who has educated themselves, or picked up a trade or skill "deserves" a higher wage. "Deserves" implies entitlement, and that's not the way the world works. Everything, even labour, is valued by how rare it is. Hence, gold is more valuable than gravel.

And what happened to 'supply' in that formulae? Supply would not increase? Supply is fixed? The only variable is demand?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that an increase in demand will result in an increase in supply (lagging to be sure), until some sort of equilibrium is reached. Is that not basic economic theory?

An increase in wages - increase in demand from wage-earners - increase in supply to meet the demand from entrepreneurs - more jobs to supply the demands.

That is the basic argument behind lower taxes.

That's my point exactly, supply was left off in my original post you're correct. But the supply that is affected is the amount of money that would be available to the general public. Again basic economics says the more common a commodity the less valuable it is. Ergo is everyone has more money, i.e. the supply of money increases, the less valuable it becomes and the more of it, it takes to buy those things you want and need. Increasing the supply of money only serves to inflate the prices.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Dave_ON

[Dave_ON]

Left wingers without a sense of civic or community responsibility. This isn't surprising to me at all. Civic pride and patriotism are all things for the right to embrace and are discarded by the left at any and every opportunity.

WalMart drives all small entrepreneurs out of business. If people continue to support these monsters the only stores, services and restaurants left will be huge corporate ones.

I thought the left hated big corporations and capitalism...hrm the hypocrisy of the left wing socialist continues.

I'd like to say this is the most asinine post you've ever made but I'm certain I could find one that was more so, were I so inclined.

To correlate one's patriotism to where one falls on an outmoded and largely misused political scale is ludicrous at best. I'd fall under the left side of the spectrum, for purely social reasons but I'd say I'm quite patriotic. I always will choose a Canadian owned/created company over an American one. Hence I shop at Zellers and not Walmart, Rona not Home Depot, Tim's not Duncan's.

The enemy of small business is not one particular big box store or even box stores in general, its malls and the convenience of one stop shopping they offer. Gone are the days of downtown shopping. If those mom and pop shops failed to adapt their demise was inevitable. As is the case in nature, so it is in business, those who don't adapt to their changing environment go extinct.