Wal-mart - Corporate Power Run Amuck?

[supercanuk]

A former worker at Wal-Mart is claiming the retail giant is running a sophisticated surveillance operation that targets employees, journalists, stockholders and critics. The worker, Bruce Gabbard, says the retail giant spied on employees, journalists, stockholders and critics of the company.

 

Democracy Now! has an interview this week with the journalist you can find here.

 

 

This is nothing new, the movie "Wal-Mart the high cost of low prices" made similar statements. LINK!

 

Seeing as how Wal-Mart is one of if not the biggest American company who trades in vast amounts with China and is railing through the economy greater scrutiny may be needed for such a large corporate power. Wal-Mart has now grown to the size the old oil companies were in the 60's 70's that were broken up simply because they dominated the market. Will this happen to wal-mart? If not, why isn't that happening?

Anyone want to discuss?

 

Edit: link to walmart watch, good link for some info.

Edited April 7, 2007 by supercanuk

[garsk]

as long as Wal-Mart is giving consumers the lowest cost for the goods they are selling, i don't think many people will care what they do. I mean, this is the same company that built a store on top of an Indian burial ground in Mexico, and they didn't care about it. As long as the Wal-mart does everything legal, 99% of the public won't care what they do.

[supercanuk]

as long as Wal-Mart is giving consumers the lowest cost for the goods they are selling, i don't think many people will care what they do. I mean, this is the same company that built a store on top of an Indian burial ground in Mexico, and they didn't care about it. As long as the Wal-mart does everything legal, 99% of the public won't care what they do.

That's just it garsk, they are breaking the law, domestic and international law. Sure maybe people won't care, but there is a massive amount of people who are pushing wal-mart out of their communities in the U.S. and internationally. I'd like to know if people do care or not whether a massive company searches through their things, monitors them outside of work and inside of work, and whether or not they care if their employer looks to see who their associating with, in case there are some "anti-wal-mart" elements influencing there employees.

The lowest price has its consequences lol... i had to add in a cheesy line there lol

[marx marvelous]

I think the Wal-Mart protestors take the case a bit too far. If they want to portray Wal-Mart as a kind of lowest common denominator place to work, that's fine, because they really don't pay well (but should you be paid well for a job that requires no skills?) But when they try to paint it as an evil corporation that thrives off of exploitation, that's a little too sensational for me. In most of the countries where Wal-Mart has sweat shops, those jobs are preferable to the alternatives (prostitution, farming with no equipment in terrible conditions, starvation, etc.) Of COURSE Wal-Mart employees, their lawyers, and journalists are going to rail against the company's practices--they all stand to gain from it. I just think that the cold truth of it is that economic inequity is always going to exist.

 

Edit: Oh, the whole point of this post: there's gamesmanship on both sides. Yes, Wal-Mart is only concerned with its own interests--but "Wal-Mart Watch" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" aren't unbiased voices in the matter.

Edited April 7, 2007 by NotFromOklahoma

[garsk]

meh, in the end i don't shop at wal-mart, so it doesn't affect me at all. If they want to spy on their employee's go for it, it is no different then the governments doing security audits for it's employee's.

[Sparq]

Quick note. No one will ever find an 'unbiased' view of anything.

 

 

Ever.

[no yu begin wher i end]

There's a Wal-Mart next to the Sobey's where I work. I was talking with a guy who works there, and apparently an entire shipment of X-Box 360s went missing because the night staff wanted them. That's probably the only cool thing I've ever been able to associate with Wal-Mart.

[HoboFactory]

I've never been to Wal-Mart before; they wanted to build one about 5 min from my house, but the community wouldn't allow it, so the idea was abandoned. It doesn't seem like I missed out on much of anything though.

[supercanuk]

I think the Wal-Mart protestors take the case a bit too far.  If they want to portray Wal-Mart as a kind of lowest common denominator place to work, that's fine, because they really don't pay well (but should you be paid well for a job that requires no skills?)  But when they try to paint it as an evil corporation that thrives off of exploitation, that's  a little too sensational for me.  In most of the countries where Wal-Mart has sweat shops, those jobs are preferable to the alternatives (prostitution, farming with no equipment in terrible conditions, starvation, etc.)  Of COURSE Wal-Mart employees, their lawyers, and journalists are going to rail against the company's practices--they all stand to gain from it.  I just think that the cold truth of it is that economic inequity is always going to exist.

 

Edit:  Oh, the whole point of this post: there's gamesmanship on both sides.  Yes, Wal-Mart is only concerned with its own interests--but "Wal-Mart Watch" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" aren't unbiased voices in the matter.

Okay, so it's clear from the post that you didn't listen to the Democracy Now! link because theres a ton of evidence to substantiate the claims being made.

 

I never said this was an unbiased opinion, i never stated that as the intent at all.

 

"But when they try to paint it as an evil corporation that thrives off of exploitation, that's a little too sensational for me. In most of the countries where Wal-Mart has sweat shops, those jobs are preferable to the alternatives (prostitution, farming with no equipment in terrible conditions, starvation, etc.)"

 

I don't know if you know about the exploitation that wal-mart reaps massive profits from - so i'll leave some of this post alone.

Who is saying that sweat shops are preferable to the indigenous communities way of life prior to the arrival of wal-mart? Or for that matter any other industrial company? They're literally endentured servants to the one plant that arrives. I'd really like to know why you seem to think that a sweat shop is preferable to a way of life that a community has been living for thousands of years? What makes you think "underdeveloped" nations are rife with prostitution, no equipment to farm (if there need be in the first place) and starvation?

I'd love to know the sources you seem to be taking from - because prostitution, starvation, and bad conditions are almost ALWAYS because of industrialization of "underdeveloped" communities, not something that is rife in "underdeveloped" communities without industrialization. Big companies who pay off tyrannical rulers to open up sweat shops create conditions of starvation - through for starters using the land the original inhabitants once used for farming and turning into industrial wasteland ( look at where we throw away our old computer parts in underdeveloped nations it makes the ground poisonous with mercury). Also, there is a privatization of land, so all of a sudden what was once communal is now guarded by private security forces who are also paid by these companies (look at Coca-Cola in Columbia where they literally kill union leaders).

There is a great amount of first world arrogance that we are the "civilizers" of the world who must go out and help poor people make money by putting our companies overseas. It's tantamount to "white mans burden" syndrome, and if you don't know what im referring to look it up.

 

 

On another note, why do you think that wal-mart employee's have anything to gain? They're out of a job, they have to pay a lawyer which ain't cheap. So i still fail to see this "benefit", i don't really buy "making wal mart look bad" as a benefit because they pay millions to PR agencies to make sure that will never happen.

 

So what im getting from your post is that because economic inequality exists we should just stop trying to make things a little bit better?

Let's just all vote republican then, why does it matter? Rich people will only get richer.

I guess i'll just keep working my de-skilled grocerie store job, i wont go to school, because whats the point? There will always be inequality.

lol C'mawn, gimmie a break here, you can always make the world better then what it is, and dismissing the problems aren't going to make it go away, until these problems are at your doorstep - and believe me, they will be at all our door-steps one day - we will have to deal with them one way or another.

 

EDIT:

This whole thread went way off it's original posting. I'd like to know what people think of wal-marts actions to their domestic employees? WOuld you be pissed if you found out they were monitoring your emails, your home life etc?

Edited April 8, 2007 by supercanuk

[marx marvelous]

What makes you think "underdeveloped" nations are rife with prostitution, no equipment to farm (if there need be in the first place) and starvation?

Because they ARE? It's not racism or anything particularly sensational, it's just a sad fact of life. I truly wish that every person on earth could lead happy, healthy, and safe lives by picking dreamfruit from rainbow trees, but that's just not the way it works.

[supercanuk]

Because they ARE?  It's not racism or anything particularly sensational, it's just a sad fact of life.  I truly wish that every person on earth could lead happy, healthy, and safe lives by picking dreamfruit from rainbow trees, but that's just not the way it works.

I'm not saying your racist at all, sensational, well that's not what i meant by my comment. I was asking more of WHY you think this, show me some evidence as to why underdeveloped nations are in this situation? Sure people are poor in lots of areas of the globe. Is it because there is a drought, is it because of a political climate in their country? Why is there "rife" prostitution? Are they morally inferior? Are they put in a circumstance which leads them to no other options? WHY are they in that circumstance? Things don't just occur in a vacuum, there are reasons for poverty, benign or malicious, there are reasons to starvation, again benign and malicious. What's being done here is really wide brush-strokes of at least 70% of the globe - the inequality that exists is overwhelmingly the majority of the population. So then, let's hear some specific examples of a third world nation that is desperatly poor, rife with prostitution, starvation, etc and reasons for this, and use it as a case study. Since you seem to believe that the third world is in this way, i'll assume you have a specific region in mind. It's really easy to dismiss people who are not like us, and just paint a broad brush stroke, its far harder to understand their circumstances politically, culturally, socio-economically. So i invite you to discuss this with me, and will allow you to pick a country or reason and give some examples as to WHY they are in the situation their in.

I'll do the same, and we can learn why, together, the disparity between developed and underdeveloped countries are so large.

Edited April 8, 2007 by supercanuk

[Moonlight_Graham]

I've never been to Wal-Mart before; they wanted to build one about 5 min from my house, but the community wouldn't allow it, so the idea was abandoned. It doesn't seem like I missed out on much of anything though.

except low, low prices & excellent service.

 

But seriously i love shopping at Wal-Mart, im sure there's some seedy crap that goes on as with all large corporations. But they just treat their customers with a superb amount of respect & sell stuff for great prices, which is what made them huge in the first place.

 

The only people i feel bad for are the smaller competitors like Zellers or Mom & Pop stores who just have no chance to compete with Wally World.

[supercanuk]

except low, low prices & excellent service.

 

But seriously i love shopping at Wal-Mart, im sure there's some seedy crap that goes on as with all large corporations. But they just treat their customers with a superb amount of respect & sell stuff for great prices, which is what made them huge in the first place.

 

The only people i feel bad for are the smaller competitors like Zellers or Mom & Pop stores who just have no chance to compete with Wally World.

Just out of curiosity, would you find it depressing if all we had were Wal-Marts and big box stores? Do you or anyone else here find Mom and Pop stores valuable? Despite slightly higher prices would you rather help the little guy or just indifferent?

[Monochrome Rainbow]

I find Walmart has terrible customer service. And other stores sell at comparable prices on certain items. The only difference is Walmart basically has everything you need in one spot and good prices, so you get one stop shopping.

 

I just go to individual stores to get certain things rather than going to Walmart to get everything.

[marx marvelous]

Plus Wal-Mart is great for low income families who can't afford to shop for customer service.

 

For the record, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because they don't carry the things I like. But I have no issue with them satisfying people's needs at low prices.

Edited April 8, 2007 by NotFromOklahoma

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Yeah, I'm kind of torn. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because of a lot of their actions but I can't be mad at the fact that because my girlfriend's sister (mother of a newborn who recently split with her partner) shops at Wal-Mart she can afford to put away some money for her son's education and whatnot, whereas normally she probably would barely be able to make ends meet.

[supercanuk]

Yeah, I'm kind of torn. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because of a lot of their actions but I can't be mad at the fact that because my girlfriend's sister (mother of a newborn who recently split with her partner) shops at Wal-Mart she can afford to put away some money for her son's education and whatnot, whereas normally she probably would barely be able to make ends meet.

That really speaks volumes of the society we live in, especially with respect to gender equality and social equality.

Shopping at Wal-Mart because you have few, or no alternatives should not be moralized into a situation where those who shop at wal-mart are despised. It's really not about that, especially when you realize a national boycott of the company is just unrealistic in our society where the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Wal-Mart ought to be addressed in alternative ways, breaking the company up, actually administering the laws on the books which are against a lot of their behavior, maybe even forcing Wal-Mart to provide social insurance and health benefits to their employee's instead of forcing them to turn to state social health welfare.

People who cannot afford alternatives should never be blamed for their decision making, their stuck. That said, those of us who can afford alternatives might do so because of their actions abroad and domestically which are unethical.

Low prices actually have grave social consequences that are kept hidden and rarely brought to the fore. When you look at why they can keep prices so low, you may feel differently about their great customer service. And if that's all they can vouch for - they are a limited company indeed in terms of social welfare of their brothers and sisters, a concept lost on today's businesses which yesterday's businesses knew quite well. Community is a facade under the new globalized market - and increasingly dangerous facade at that.

[marx marvelous]

I don't think anyone here despises people who shop at Wal-Mart, whether by choice or not.

 

Wal-Mart should no more be required to give health benefits to employees than Target, Best Buy, or any other company that relies on quantity buying and selling.

 

Yesterday's businesses weren't really concerned with social welfare. Rockefeller did lots of "community work", but it was the same Puritan mantra that's always been used to justify monopolization--"It's my duty to generate wealth so that I can do these good works."

 

The only feasible solution for a more progressive marketplace is to educate consumers and future consumers. No motherly government will ever successfully use legal action to stop people from finding ways to get ahead.

 

Edit: Line breaks for easier reading.

Edited April 8, 2007 by NotFromOklahoma

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Sorry if I was confusing, supercanuk; I think you misunderstood.

 

I don't expect anyone to boycott, I was stating that I find it hard to be critical of some of Wal-Mart's actions at times because it's how they sell their products at such low prices. It's hard to hate what they do when their price points make such a huge difference for a lot of families.

[supercanuk]

I don't think anyone here despises people who shop at Wal-Mart, whether by choice or not.

 

Wal-Mart should no more be required to give health benefits to employees than Target, Best Buy, or any other company that relies on quantity buying and selling.

 

Yesterday's businesses weren't really concerned with social welfare. Rockefeller did lots of "community work", but it was the same Puritan mantra that's always been used to justify monopolization--"It's my duty to generate wealth so that I can do these good works."

 

The only feasible solution for a more progressive marketplace is to educate consumers and future consumers. No motherly government will ever successfully use legal action to stop people from finding ways to get ahead.

 

Edit: Line breaks for easier reading.

Very true, but the facade of community then, is still more than now. Rockefellar is only one of the many people then who had money who used it to get bigger monopoly's. But lots of others didn't - again it's too easy to paint these broad brush strokes.

 

I think companies do have a requirement to provide health insurance to their employee's - i don't think that has to do with any motherly government (I don't even believe in the state) - BUT if such a thing as a corporation which is essentially an economic tyranny is to exist it ought to have a responsibility to who it employ's beyond a paycheck. This includes any large corporation and small businesses, you have a duty, under law, to your neighbor, and this extends to a corporation in tort law.

If you get health insurance you are in fact saving money because then people can't sue you directly, they'll get money from insurance they pay into to recover any losses from accidents. So its really in the best interest of the employer, unless of course your employee's cant afford legal representation.. they are just gambling that their employee's cant pursue legal action against them in case they want to sue in tort for an accident. And they'd be right, they hardly pay their workers a living salary so they certainly can't pay for legal aid.

 

Again, i just don't believe human beings should be treated like peasants who have no recourse against their employers who could be exploiting them.

Sure one could say, get a different job, but when all the employer's act the same or very similiar, or if you live in small town Texas, you don't have a lot of choices.

 

I agree education is a great idea to help create a more progressive marketplace, and in fact that is occuring. I know that you can get whats called "ethical" stock options now and there is increasing pressure for companies to perform ethical business practices.

Of course, this doesn't change what they do internationally that much since they are beyond the jurisdiction of our courts.

 

To me, I feel as if corporations have much more power then a regular citizen, they are in fact, super humans with billions of dollars and thousands of votes. Am I the only one that feels democracy should still be rule by the people? Should a corporate entity have the same rights as human beings, which they have right now under law? This is to me, a stretch, far beyond what the founding father's of the Canadian or American constitution meant.

Can we have democracy when the market place determines our social goals? Or in the very least influences to quite high proportions?

 

 

Rainbow:

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

What i'm curious about is do you feel the same empathy for the families in China?

Would you want them to have the same prices North American poor people have to survive in society? Certainly their prices help a lot of families... North American and European families sure.. but for the producers of the goods, i don't think they get the same pleasures. Are they're lives worth less?

[HoboFactory]

except low, low prices & excellent service.

 

But seriously i love shopping at Wal-Mart, im sure there's some seedy crap that goes on as with all large corporations. But they just treat their customers with a superb amount of respect & sell stuff for great prices, which is what made them huge in the first place.

 

The only people i feel bad for are the smaller competitors like Zellers or Mom & Pop stores who just have no chance to compete with Wally World.

A discerning buyer can find good prices without "needing" Wal-Mart.

 

I really don't care about customer service at that sort of store... I'm the type of person who goes the the store, find exactly what I'm looking for, and then go home... I don't need a greeter telling me what deals they have that day and all that crap.

[no yu begin wher i end]

At the grocery store where I work, our prices are more expensive than those of our competitors, but I've heard from a fair number of customers that they shop at Sobey's (shameless corporate plug) because of our customer service and the quality of our products. I think that speaks volumes about the shopping patterns of many consumers.

[bishopx]

Walmart is fucking evil, soul stealing, scum....they eat up small businesses, underpay their employees...need I say more?

[mself084]

Anyone seen the south park about walmart (err...wallmart)?

 

I hate walmart.... the building is ugly, its always jam packed, lots of crying kids, etc... so why am i there 2-3 times a month?

[bishopx]

Because they undercut prices so damned low that you can't help but to go. That an you undoubtedly have the hots for the midget girl with no teeth, and a wooden leg, who greets you with hungry eyes, everytime you come through the door.