Walmart: Yay or Nay?

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]

....fair enough...this is a subject on which I have a very short fuse, and it's easily ignited, and I apologize for letting loose on you.

Without going into a dissertation, there is a significant body of evidence on record that illustrates MANY violations of Walmart throughout the whole spectrum of their business........


[/ QUOTE ]
And are all other corporations innocent of labor, environmental, and other violations? Wal-Mart is a prime target for labor class actions, and they get sued more than their fare share. They have the pockets.

[ QUOTE ]

Whether it's illegal and unethical treatment of their own employees or the competition, or their suppliers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Say you went to buy a car. You tell the salesmen you won't pay more than 24,500 out the door. Is that illegal or unethical? What makes Wal-Mart saying the same thing to its supplier immoral? The line between "hard dealing" and extortion is sometimes thin, but a court will basically never find extortion if the talk and action is only about dollars and cents.

I don't even know why I'm defending them. I never shopped there.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating state minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal immigration laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's child labor law violations?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's forcing of workers to miss meals on 16,000 occasions, a violation of most state labor regulations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am against all violations of law and regulations by Wal-Mart.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating state minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal immigration laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's child labor law violations?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's forcing of workers to miss meals on 16,000 occasions, a violation of most state labor regulations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am against all violations of law and regulations by Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. Well, if you are aware of all of these violations(and if you're not, just google any of these, to see the proof), then how can you continue to support them with a clear conscience?

[Anders_G]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is the unemployment-rate in the US? (percentage of the workforce that is not employed) Sweden has 4.6% but I think that's a lot lower than most european countries...

[/ QUOTE ]

No it hasn't. The 4.6% figure refers only to so called 'open unemployment' and doesn't include the substantial number of unemployed Swedes which take part in various government schemes and still receive benefits (the real figure is probably at least 8%). Only about 75% of all working age Swedes are actually employed, which I believe is low compared with other western countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4.6% is the relevant figure when comparing to other countries since all other figures are more or less approximations. The "relativ utvidgad arbetslöshet" (relative expanded unemployment) is at 7.4% which combined with 2.5% in "arbetsmarknadspolitiska program" (political employment-programs) makes about 10% without employment. This remaining 15% you are mentioning are studying, which is a good thing, and should therefore not be confused with the unemployed.

In Sweden two govenment-controlled instances, Statistiska Centralbyrån (The Central Beaureu of Statistics) and Konjukturinstitutet (Institute of Conjuncture) provide all kinds of statistics free for anyone and a lot available on the net.
Does the US have anything similar where one could get hold of statistics like this for free?

[Jakesta]

Anders, don't forget that "underemployed" people are not counted in the United States totals of unemployed people. If they were included, that would make our rate about 8%

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]

I see. Well, if you are aware of all of these violations(and if you're not, just google any of these, to see the proof), then how can you continue to support them with a clear conscience?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you refused to purchase items from any corporation that was guilty of labor, immigration, or environmental regulations, then you wouldn't be buying much of anything.

There are private and public enforcement mechanisms for all the violations referred to earlier. If those mechanisms are insufficient, it is a legislative problem, not a problem with Wal-Mart.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating state minimum wage laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart violating federal immigration laws?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's child labor law violations?

Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's forcing of workers to miss meals on 16,000 occasions, a violation of most state labor regulations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am against all violations of law and regulations by Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. Well, if you are aware of all of these violations(and if you're not, just google any of these, to see the proof), then how can you continue to support them with a clear conscience?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider any violations significant enough to detract from the massive overall positive economic impact Wal-Mart has had on the U.S. and the world. Wal-Mart's impact, both direct and indirect, has been extraordinary not only measured in dollars but also in the basic philosophy management has taken to manage it's business more efficiently.

I'm trying to see the overall picture. While pointing out any law or regulatory violations is necessary, it shouldn't blind you to everything else.

[Anders_G]

[ QUOTE ]
Anders, don't forget that "underemployed" people are not counted in the United States totals of unemployed people. If they were included, that would make our rate about 8%

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "underemployed"?

[Jakesta]

Gvibes- very true. Many corporations violate these laws.

But I can't think of another company in the United States that has violated these laws with a higher frequency than Wal-Mart in the past 10 years.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
union jobs do NOT depress productivity growth - this is like saying a minimum wage depresses productivity growth or hour regulations depress productivity growth.

relative to non-union jobs, union jobs MAY depress productivity growth, but they replace this with worker welfare (many would argue that this "excess" productivity growth that non-union jobs exhibit is a cost borne by workers in a non-unionized setting - e.g. cheaper labour, fewer breaks, more stress, fewer benefits, etc.)

i think the problem with our society is that we look at "america" as us and everyone else can just fend for themselves. this is not optimal for our world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right when you say that relative to non-union jobs union jobs suppress productivity growth. But, eliminate union jobs and non-union jobs will fill the void therefore increasing productivity growth. Moreover, prices will fall, making the economy more comptetitive, which helps the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with absolutely everything you just said

my argument is that corporations shouldn't be able to set the terms of employment (unions should be involved)

if you are arguing that non-unionized jobs are better for america's economy in our capitalistic society than union jobs, you won't hear an argument from me

i argue that unions are extremely good for american workers (which is my point), while not necessarily optimal for our current capitalistic society

i think having no unions at all gives companies way too much power (even more than they already have) - but to change this trend we will need to adopt a semi-closed, semi-open economic system

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when I agree with someone. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I think the difference is opinion primarily stems from the fact that you're operating from an American belief system, or at least I think you are, and therefore you're arguing that American jobs are good for American workers. Which is true. But the problem is, as you correctly note, that they aren't good for the global economy.

I agree that workers should have some say in the terms of their employment. Collective bargaining isn't bad, unions, imo, are. Unions make American companies not competitive in today's global marketplace.

I think we agree. Agreeing is dumb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]