Gothamist: Walmart Protest Organized By... Walmart?

kelly

Wed, 24 May 2006 10:54:02 -0500

there is a relevant article in the current atlantic monthly.

Alexa

Tue, 23 May 2006 21:00:37 -0500

yes, that's right, Canada is successful with universal healthcare. Perhaps we should look to other nations (Canada, Sweden?) rather than thoughtlessly and tirelessly declaring ourselves the "best country in the world!" we are so f-ing insular. there is too much to say about Walmart and healthcare and America and poverty and greed... jesus. it's depressing. here's a shot: yes, of course walmart should provide healthcare and a living wage for their employees! is this seriously up for debate? yes, we shold protest unfair treatment of the working poor. yes overseas sweatshop employees (the ones who sell their products to walmart) should be paid fair wages. no, capitalism isn't the magic answer to all of our problems. if it were, there wouldn't be people dying of aids on our city streets and schools that can't afford books. if capitalism were the magic answer to all our problems we truly would be the best country in the world. but (unfortunately) we're not. so don't be afraid to protest, to speak out, to take action when we are treating each other poorly. we can be a great nation, but not by being greedy and apathetic.

MH

Tue, 23 May 2006 17:36:20 -0500

to em: blog [14].... I hope that the children of Sam Walton will continue to be fair. More importantly, I hope that they will not let the employees or outside public dictate their business. Their father worked very hard for it. He left them a fortune and the business. They are not required to be their father. Sound business is not about committing financial suicide by giving away your money. It is also not about giving the employee more money just because he needs it. You shoud do some research. I am certian that the majority of employees are not having the same problems. You are judging a situation based on what poor people working one job at minimum wage or a little above are telling you. The company qaurterly report is posted online. In the memory of Sam Walton, even when he built up a wealth of assets, he continued to live a very down to earth existance. He saved. Lived in the same house for years and drove the same pick-up truck. .75% or even .50% of 1.8 billion is quiet a bit. There is no rule for how much you should give to charity. Even if you make $10 and hour you are expected to give what you can afford to a charity. What are you giving? When most people look for a job, they know immediately before saying "yes...I would like to work here.." what kind of hours they will have. If Wal-Mart highers seasonal workers and keeps you on part-time, then you can't expect to work fulltime. If they tell you that the hours are 20 to 25, then you can not expect 40 hours. I believe the workers, as you move from Arkansas and other areas of the south, are trying to change Wal-Mart after they get inside. I have heard that Wal-Mart offers profit sharing benefits. My company doesn't. That of course is most likely for full time people with benefits. [http://www.walmartfacts.com] I don't think that Wal-Mart should change there practices. I believe that the part-time workers should seek an additional job, go elsewhere, or wait for the promotion. If you want EVERYONE to have health insurance, talk to Canada. They seem to be successful in this matter with the poor and rich alike.

mihow

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:54:01 -0500

I have made a public apology on my site. I do apologize here as well and to Jake. My mistake. I'm willing to fully accept it.

tobyjoe

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:43:14 -0500

Bad reporting? Who checks facts around here? It's always up to the publication. I'd say cowardly criticism is your crime, 'read_the_flyer' - at least Michele is clear about her identity.

mihow

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:27:21 -0500

Listen, I wrote jake right after sending him the email stating that I was incorrect about the initial belief that they were pro. I also left that bit of information here as well. I did state, however, that the people standing outside Grand Central were very anti-Wal-Mart. The guys handing out the flyers were clearly stating their distaste for the company. (See my above comment.) Either way, I was very confused with what they were actually selling in person. I realize, after spending quite a bit of time reading more about the group, that they seem to be trying to unionize Wal Mart. (See my comment above yours.) I think they were, at least. Again, sorry for the "bad reporting". However, the message I was given this morning by the actual guys handing out the flyers was, in fact, negative. I was conflicted. Still am, to be honest. I plan on asking the actual people tomorrow should they be there, what their goal is, personally.

read_the_flyer

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:20:44 -0500

Sorry, it was Mihow who saw the flyer, not Jake. Very irresponsible reporting. The flyer really isn't that long and the key is in the beginning and end. The middle is the list of moral responsibilities being urged.

read_the_flyer

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:13:21 -0500

Wow, the flyers do NOT read very pro, they just don't read con. They read as their purpose states, "Urge Wal-Mart to Adopt These Moral Responsibilities." After a list of moral responsibilities. They are trying to hold "OUR NATION’S LARGEST EMPLOYER and most financially successful company, Wal-Mart" to account and imply that the company has not held itself to Sam Walton's stated ideals. Did anyone actually read it? Jake? Too bad the comments aren't more relevant to the article or to the flyer depicted in the article. This is being promoted by other progressive grassroots orgs like ACT (America Coming Together).

mihow

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:21:54 -0500

After doing a little more research and discussing with a few people, I think this group is trying to merely unionize Wal-Mart workers. The weird part is, however, was that guys outside Grand Central were outspoken about their distaste for the massive corporation. They most definitely sent a separate message, if not a conflicting one when zeroing in on WalMartWatch's apparent message.

nola

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:10:15 -0500

The anti-Wal Mart nuts in NYC are a hoot. You don't think their employees get a fair shake? Then why do Wal Marts get flooded with applications whenever they open a new store? Every block in NYC has businesses with employees getting low wages, no benefits and who have no real hope for advancement within the company. Wal Mart provides all these things. If the whining hipsters around here actually cared about the "working poor" they could investigate how local businesses treat their employees and expose abusive practices. But it is more fun to type messages about Wal Mart into your laptop at your favorite coffee shop while some dishwasher in the back gets a worse deal than any Wal Mart employee ever did.

Common Sense

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:02:06 -0500

There is nothing wrong with Wal*Mart being a huge corporation. The problem is the treatment of its employees and its overall business practices. This is my favorite story about Wal*Mart: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Frank

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:57:02 -0500

Wal-Mart does not put competitors out of business. Customers do.

Wal-Mart Shopper

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:40:10 -0500

scout - Wal-Mart not only company subsidize. Car dealerships do it, farmers have been subsidized for years in some form or another. The purpose does not matter, the government is involved in their business. I would rather the government subsidize for the sake of health care then someone taking wellfare and not giving back to the system. I don't believe for a minute that companies lose money selling to Wal-Mart. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. The government subsidizes most company. Many company gets a tax break for every person coming off of wellfare which they hire. There are all kinds of subsidies going around.

misc. rantings

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:32:52 -0500

Em, again this is blaming Wal-mart for the individual and society's shortcomings. If you can't find a better job than Wal-mart either go get some marketable skills in school or move to where the opportunities are. Should Wal-mart pay more? Of course. But if you end up working at Wal-mart as a career I can only assume you have made some bad choices along the way. And so what if Sam's kids haven't given away their money? How old are they? Most philanthropists manage their giving over a lifetime. I seem to recall their was a year when Al and Tipper Gore gave a whoppinh $300 to charity. And how do you even know what their annual income is? Net worth and income are two entirely different things.

MH

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:27:22 -0500

I have no problem with Wal-Mart. It is a great store. Sam Walton built it from a town square unit into a multiple unit set of facilities. It has just as much right as K-Mart, who has been chasing Wal-Mart for years; and they can't seem to get their business savy together to catch up. Wal-Mart will help northern America to get back to the basics. It is the new generation "Sears and Roebuks." American values are out of whack in terms of saving a dollar. America is too materilistic. Wal-Mart is about low prices. Affordability. Too many people are living above their means. Wal-Mart will help people shop smarter and spend smarter. You can't compare the Northern and the Southern cities. Yes Wal-Mart has put some business on the square out business in the south. Times were changing anyway. It seems my town started changing in the North when industry changed. That had nothing to do with a Wal-Mart. Wool Worths closed and that maybe because of K-Mart. Wal-Mart was still good for the towns. It provided jobs and lower priced, affordible merchandise. Sam's is also more affordible then some grociery stores, when you buy in bulk. The northern cities do not have a town square. If they have down town businesses, they are now the cheap dollar stores and ten dollar stores and pizza stoes. They are not going out of business and the qaulity of their merchandise is generally shaby. Wal-Mart is be good for getting qaulity goods. Most employees know the benefit packages before they start working there. The benefits are better than most mom and pop stores. The mom and pop are lucky to be able to give benefits at all.

blind eye

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:20:55 -0500

Michele, "these people" is not limited to the group at Grand Central. As I am sure you are aware there is a large and vocal anti-Wal-Mart contingent in the world. And think about this people, Target may not be as big as Wal-Mart but they are riding Wal-Mart's coat tails. Every supplier that offshores production to meet Wal-marts price demands also sells to Target. Shopping across the street does not let you off the hook.

Em

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:19:51 -0500

My issue with Wal-Mart is Sam Walton's children (he has 4) are all worth between 1.3 and 1.8 billion dollars and give less than 1% of their income to charity.(whether they are obligated to do so is up for debate but I ak not getting into that here) Meanwhile many Wal-Mart employees are on various kinds of public assistance because they do not make enough working at Wal-Mart. Some former Wal-mart employees have gone on record saying that the company promotes going on public assistance and the like-which puts a strain on everyone does it not? The documentary high cost of low prices looks at many of these issues and while flawed it does show several communities who fought and won against having wal-mart lay stakes in their town.

blah blah blah

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:12:13 -0500

tobyjoe: the only thing naive and sophmoric was your was your post.

Michele

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:07:35 -0500

Nevermind: "WalmartWatch.com is a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics. This site is in no way connected with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. or any affiliate of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." Interesting. The flyer reads very, very pro.

tmoor

Tue, 23 May 2006 13:06:49 -0500

As d points out, this isn't Wal-Mart nor an organization affiliated with Wal-Mart -- in fact the not-for-profit is very anti-Wal-Mart. It appears the campaign reflects an honest assessment that the beast isn't going away, so why not try and change it by using the principles proclaimed by founder Sam Walton. Apparently the current executives have forgotten what Sam preached years ago.

Michele

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:59:21 -0500

d, do they have any affiliation with Wal-Mart? Like the Truth Campaign did with Phillip Morris? Just curious. Thanks for correcting.

d

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:55:38 -0500

these are from walmartwatch.com, not wal mart itself.

tobyjoe

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:38:28 -0500

"...what does it say about the rest of the world that the US gets raked over the coals for putting an Iraqi prisoner on a dog leash but nobody stands up to say that driving car bombs into marketplaces is not an acceptable form of settling disputes" Comparing actions undertaken by a state military and actions undertaken by militant citizens is naive and sophmoric.

Scout

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:36:36 -0500

Locke, people are not protesting Wal-Mart because of its size. Your statement that people don't protest Target is evidence of this. The reasons that people protest Wal-Mart are because of its unfair business practices, its use of the government to subsidize its business (by not providing health care that then must be provided by the govt, for example, and skirting wage laws by not hiring full time employees, as another). Wal-Mart has put many a business out of business, and not only their competition, they have been known to place such cost-cutting demands on their suppliers that many of them lost money on everything sold to Wal-Mart. People paying $8 for a slice of bread are not draining the country's resources. In fact, they are providing exactly the opposite effect.

Michele

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:29:58 -0500

Blame Wal-Mart: Who are "These people" you're referring to? If you're referring to the folks outside GC, you do realize that the above people (the ones outside Grand Central) worked for Wal-Mart and were merely trying to get pro-Wal-Mart info into the hands of the locals, right? They were protesting anything. Instead, they were using it to get people to notice. That's incredibly sneaky, don't you think? And interesting tactic to say the least.

blame Wal-mart first

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:22:55 -0500

This is so tiresome. If these people put half of their protesting energy into changing laws and creating a level playing field you wouldn't have to go after one business at a time - a tactic that is incredibly unfair. How about a decent minimum wage law for the city? And as for the America vs the world analogy, what does it say about the rest of the world that the US gets raked over the coals for putting an Iraqi prisoner on a dog leash but nobody stands up to say that driving car bombs into marketplaces is not an acceptable form of settling disputes?

John Locke

Tue, 23 May 2006 12:01:57 -0500

So you're not for everyday low prices?

Liechtenstein

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:59 -0500

If Locke doesn't want examples of how evil Wal-Mart is, he shouldn't ask why people protest them. Either you already know and shouldn't be asking, or you don't care and shouldn't be asking. Here's an analogy for you though, without resorting to Wal-Mart bashing: you protest the biggest entity that you perceive as a negative force because that's the one that has the broadest impact. For example, people worldwide protest the United States because our economic imperialism and military interventionism, and sheer power, affect exponentially more people than do the actions of tiny countries whose policies those same protesters might find objectionable.

John Locke

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:42:17 -0500

I always find it funny that people attack stores like Wal-Mart, Mc Donald’s and Starbucks because of their size. How come no one protests Target? Is it because they like their ads? Why isn’t anyone protesting Pax or Metro Cafe or Prêt a Manger? They charge $8 for a slice of bread with a piece of processed turkey on it. And please don’t reply with examples of evil they are.

Toby

Tue, 23 May 2006 11:37:22 -0500

More proof of the evil that is Wal*Mart!