Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Wal-Mart's New Marketing Strategy Hides Dirty Practices

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted January 30, 2007.


Wal-Mart is making over its image to cater to a more affluent crowd. But behind its increasingly upscale image are the same lowbrow business tactics.
Jim Hightower

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Jim Hightower

Checks for $600 Won't Fix Our Economy
America can't shop its way to greatness, and this one-time, government-funded shopping spree won't lead us to a sound economy.
Mar 28, 2008

Swim Against the Current: Ordinary Americans Can Make Change Happen
The fight for our country's future is still in our hands. Grass-roots movements are breaking free from corporate control.
Mar 7, 2008

Immigrants Come Here Because Globalization Took Their Jobs Back There
Seal-the-border hysteria is everywhere. Instead of blaming immigrants for America's problems, let's look at executives on both sides of the border.
Feb 7, 2008

More stories by Jim Hightower

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

You know that our world has turned totally topsy-turvy when Wal-Mart -- the low-price, bare-knuckle retailing behemoth known far and wide as the Bully of Bentonville for its ruthless corporate practices -- is suddenly putting on airs and positioning itself as (dare I say it?) metrosexual.

Yes, the world's largest and meanest merchandiser -- stung in the last few years by a grassroots rebellion of employees, small businesses, unions, neighborhood groups, environmentalists, and others that it has been so arrogantly stiffing -- is now straining to project a kinder and gentler image: urbane, upscale, green, socially responsible … even sensitive, for goodness sake. The image spiff-up comes as Wal-Mart executives have made a marketing decision to move from their suburban/rural base into cities, reaching out to a clientele that wants finer goods … and a more refined company.

But has the beast really changed? Inside the stores, and you can see a Nouveau Wal-Martique emerging. To appeal to more affluent customers (this advanced Wally-World calls them "selective shoppers"), Wal-Mart is upgrading its merchandise to include $500 bottles of wine, organic foods, $2,000 plasma TVs, 400-thread-count sheets, imported balsamic vinegar, organic-cotton baby clothes, microbrewed beers, and a new "Metro 7" line of designer fashions. Never mind that the average Wal-Mart shopper lives in the suburbs, is female, stands 5-foot-2, wears a size 14, and is looking for sensible skirts and durable go-to-work clothing -- the reinvented retailing giant is proffering skinny-legged, fur-trimmed jeans for the stylish set. It has even run an 8-page fashion spread in Vogue magazine.

Last March, this high-toned Wal-Martique opened a model store in the well-to-do corporate haven of Plano, Texas. No downscale blue-and-gray, concrete-block facade for this baby. It features two tone brick walls, wood floors, wide aisles, uncluttered shelves with cherry finish, halogen lights, and discrete fitting rooms for a hoity toity clientele. Also, forget the usual in-store McDonald's. There's an espresso bar with free wi-fi and -- Holy Sam Walton! -- a sushi bar to enhance what cosmopolitan retail consultants call "the shopping experience."

In addition, you might note what's not there. No more layaway plans, for example. No shotguns and hunting gear, either. Also, far less in the way of automotive tools and supplies. As the model store's project manager explains, "This customer is telling us they're not doing it themselves. They don't change their own oil."

Eliza Doolittles

Naturally, an upwardly mobile Wal-Mart cannot have its workers -- excuse me, "associates," as they are called in Wal-Martspeak -- garbed in those dowdy blue vests with "How May I Help You?" emblazoned on the back. Too, too tacky. When a corporate fashion designer was brought in, he took one look at Sam Walton's friendly vests and termed them "the lowest guppy in the pool" of retail outfits.

So Wal-Mart is giving a makeover not only to 1,800 stores, but also to clerks. A new dress code dictates a positively preppy look of khaki pants and navy-blue polo shirts, giving the place a feel described by the fashion designer as "much more business casual than working class." Yes, but should workers tuck their polos into their khakis for a sharp, snappy appearance, or leave the shirts untucked as a sign of an easygoing, fun-loving workplace? Believe it or not, the tucking question reached the top levels of HQ in Bentonville. Finally, the word came down from on high: "If they want to tuck it in they can. If not, they can leave it out."

And you thought there was no workplace democracy at Wal-Mart!

Workers, however, are less than charmed by the change in couture, for the company expects them to dig into their own pockets to buy the preppy uniforms. Perhaps these employees will find solace in the assertion by the fashion designer that the new duds "will raise the status of the 1.3 million Americans" who work there. It's entirely possible, of course, that workers would prefer to trade "status" for the genuine elevation that comes from higher paychecks and better treatment.

Beneath Wal-Mart's new cosmetic sheen lies the same old ugliness. The average employee toils for $8.23 an hour -- a poverty-level wage that amounts to about $16,700 a year gross (in both meanings of that word). Many don't even make that, for Wal-Mart defines "fulltime" work as 36 hours a week rather than the usual 40. It's common for bosses to hold workers to under 24 hours a week, which reduces gross annual income to only about $10,000.

Contrast this miserliness with the company's lavishing of wealth on those at the top. CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr., had a base salary of $1.3 million in 2005, plus $4 million in "incentive" payments, as well as stock and other compensation that raised his total haul to $17.5 million (including more than $100,000 for personal use of corporate jets). Also, Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's widow and their four children, who collectively hold 40 percent of the corporation's stock, are living grandly. At present, they are sitting on personal nest-eggs of $15.5 billion each, putting all five of them among America's 11 richest people.

Meanwhile, fewer than half of Wal-Mart's employees get any healthcare benefits at all -- and those who do must pay 41 percent of the cost for a lousy plan that carries a $3,000 deductible per family plus a $300 pharmacy deductible and a $1,000 in-patient hospital deductible. Honchos at headquarters keep insisting that the health benefits they offer are "competitive" with other retailers. But look no further than Costco, where a good plan covers 80 percent of employees and the company pays 90 percent of the premiums.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: walmart, wal-mart, corporations, corporate greed, corporate responsibility, living wage, environment, labor

From "The Hightower Lowdown," edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, January 2007. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wal-Mart: So Rad, so cool, selling poverty still
Posted by: edsmith on Jan 30, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can never get enough expose stuff about Wal-Mart. I call them corporate communists, with their big red star representing China, and all of the slave labor used to produce all that Wal-Mart crap. I'm willing to bet that most of the stuff sold in Wal-Mart is not even manufactured according to the brand that is on the label. China is the place where knock-offs and imitations are produced in galactical quantities. For example, for every name brand item product sold in WalMart I'm guessing 50% are actually knock-off items. As an example, this was a revealed within the past fe months when Walmart got caught by a fashion designer, who had no contract with Walmart, for selling its mega-expensive expensive fashion accesories. WalMart also recently got busted for selling its standard coporate farmed ddt laden produce as "organic" and was exposed for selling, basically placebos in a bottle; its brand of Vitamins, which are 100% bogus - what a sad joke. Wal-mart sells poverty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Must be related to George Bush.
Posted by: Magginkat on Jan 30, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first thought as I finshed reading this article was that these people must be related to George Bu$h. The whole thing sounds like Bu$h policy.

These welfare fraudsters should be put out of business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where to you shop?
Posted by: underledge on Jan 30, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever happened to the concept that who ever builds the "better mouse trap wins". It would seem that WalMart has accomplished what every capitalist dreams of. Can one have it's cake and eat it also? Perhaps those so against WalMart can let others know what chains or stores they frequent which provide all their employees with a living wage, health insurance, feature products only made in the USA and are of the highest quality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where to you shop? Posted by: algodees
» RE: Where to you shop? Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: Where to you shop? Posted by: Leman
» RE: Where to you shop? Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: Where to you shop? Posted by: Guy
» Well, for one or two... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Well, for one or two... Posted by: GenErik
AMERICANS CONTINUE TO FFED THE WALMART BEAST
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 30, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Countless businesses vanish shorly after a Walmart springs up in the neighborhood because people flock to Walmart and THEY abandon the small stores. No law says that we must shop there. True, as a corporation they have no conscience but then neither do the people who shop at Walmart for stuff they don't even need. Lower prices? Take a second look. IGNORE THEM AND THEY WILL GO AWAY. Any business that mistreats its people is unamerican. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to "take on" Wal*Mart
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Jan 30, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that, if you don't like Wal*Mart's practices, policies, business plan or merchandise, don't buy from them and don't go to work for them.
TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I see... Posted by: meddlehead
The Dirty Truth
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, but many of it's competitors buy from the very same or similar suppliers with the same practices and tens of millions living in the good old USA have little choice anymore.

When Americans paid little attention to the systemic dismantling of trade, labor and monopoly laws and regulations by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, State Legislatures and the Executive Branch from the 1970's through now the die was cast. Bush v1 may have negotiated NAFTA, but Clinton is the one who signed it. There is plenty of blame to go around and putting another DLC type (Hillary, Obama, etc) at the top of the Democratic Ticket in '08 will not improve things.

American consumers also undercut their own interests when they turned away from US produced clothing to save a buck or 2 back in the same time frame and abandoned smaller retailers for the big box retailers. They fueled Wal-Mart's growth with community development bonds and 'friendly' tax breaks, zoning and other 'considerations', giving them an unfair advantage in towns across our land.

Going up-market is also no easy option for even those with the finances to do so as the high dollar brands that populate department and specialty stores are made under similar conditions in the same countries. A $150 shirt in the Men's department has about the same, if not greater, markup.

We need to transition back to a more locally sourced economic model as Peak Oil is upon us- it's not just Chilean grapes that have long supply lines dependent upon cheap fossil fuels. As the price of Oil takes it's inevitable steady rise to the stratosphere it will no longer be possible for geographically dispersed big box retailers using just-in time methods with global supply chains to be profitable at low prices.

Where are the exurbanites going to get their stuff when Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy, etc can no longer function in the face of high energy prices and all local suppliers and retailers have long since departed? At the same time, high fuel prices will make long commutes in search of goods expensive and maybe prohibitive. Peak Oil, like Global Warming, is only an issue of when, not a question of validity.

I ask my Progressive brothers and sisters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and elsewhere to nail all candidates on this set of issues. Now is the time to undo the bad trade deals and slave wage economy so that we can rebuild local sourcing, distribution and retail at a living wage BEFORE the wolf is at the door. While energy is still relatively cheap and the dollar is not totally deflated, we have the resources necessary to set the pattern for the future that faces all of us.

Noah built the ark before the rains came, not while the water was rising. We should do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Dirty Truth Posted by: badkitty
Lowbrow
Posted by: willymack on Jan 30, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good word. Apt description. American business people are by far, the most odious and poisonous self-serving bastards on earth. They simply can't see beyond their own twisted desires, and will do what it takes to maximise their profits, no matter what or who it hurts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lowbrow Posted by: Leman
stop buying
Posted by: karyse on Jan 30, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been well over a year since I spent a dime in Walmart, and well over three since I spent more than a couple of bucks.

Even better, I stopped buying cheap, plastic, crap altogether, and have been removing the stuff from my house (donating anything usable to charity stores, giving stuff away). I don't buy disposable anything -- why use paper towels if a washcloth will do?

I buy nothing made anywhere that doesn't have strong labor practices. If it has a U.S. label, I want a union label. Anyone remember the day when a pair of socks didn't look old in a week? If I can't find something I think I need or want that isn't union made, I buy at a thrift store where the money is put to good use. If I can't find it anywhere I do without.

Untill all of us realize that "stuff" only clutters our lives, we are condemned to be trapped by it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stop buying Posted by: WadeZim
» RE: stop buying Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: stop buying Posted by: sasquuatch55
Wal-Mart - Always . . . Good For A Laugh!
Posted by: MAD on Jan 30, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"To appeal to more affluent customers (this advanced Wally-World calls them "selective shoppers"), Wal-Mart is upgrading its merchandise to include $500 bottles of wine, organic foods, $2,000 plasma TVs, 400-thread-count sheets, imported balsamic vinegar, organic-cotton baby clothes, microbrewed beers, and a new "Metro 7" line of designer fashions."

Finally, a place where the "average" American can pick up a 1985 Lafite Rothschild to go with their can of Pringles. You fashion conscious ladies can stop in for that sexy Donna Karan number you've had your eye on and pick up a bag of kitty litter in one convenient place. And you thought the Wal-Mart jewelry department was only for meth addicts buying cubic zirconia-studded bracelets reading "Darlene" for their toothless lovers.

Just a few questions before I jump in my car and head for the boutique nearest me. Will there be a tailor on site? Will the new boutiques still be employing the same overzealous greeters? Have you done away with the yellow smiley face and "Always" motif, because that would be a shame. And finally, can I expect to encounter the same level of typically American sophistication and refinement in the clientele which I have grown accustomed to in all Wal-Mart stores?

Wal-Mart sucks ass. Don't shop there. They are the pinnacle of exploitation and corporate greed. Let them try this Jaclyn Smith meets Versace scheme and crash and burn in the process. I love to see Wal-Mart fail and this, although highly entertaining, is a horrible idea that is definitely destined for failure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walmart is Hypocritical
Posted by: cleangulf on Jan 30, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walmart has now started selling organic foods in an effort to promote its image as a "green" company. The truth is that many of their business practices are environmentally destructive.
They have not agreed to stop celling cypress mulch despite the fact that it comes from Louisiana forests that will not regenerate. Walmart says it has embraced sustainability, but its actions speak differently.
To learn more, and take action, click here:
http://saveourcypress.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help China rid the world of Bush... shop Wal-Mart
Posted by: xbj on Jan 30, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every penny spent at Wal-Mart will go directly to buy the Chinese nukes that will relieve the world of BushCo forever, so by all means, shop til you, uh, glow!

Especially American flags. Buy a LOT of American flags. Buy ALL your American flags at Wal-Mart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walmart Business Model
Posted by: mr.ed on Jan 30, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can an outfit that loses a third of its employees every year stay in business? They have to constantly train new help, and can't rely on the loyalty of a large number of staff. Their shrinkage must be amazing.
Also, they quote an average wage that most assume is for store help. It includes warehouse, transportation, office and supervisors, and helps to explain the large number who have to get public assistance while still clocking in at work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Walmart Business Model Posted by: carcinoid112
Using Walmart
Posted by: shaynafay on Jan 30, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our kids here in the suburbs have learned to "use" walmart. After they dont get a job at their favorite store because of lack of job experience, 16 year olds flock to walmart as their first job. They stay for 3 months to get their "experience", and then they apply to their favorite places again, now with job experience. I also know a few single moms who have done this too. Anyway, Ive heard that 3 months is about all anyone can tolerate working there. In some ways they are "helping" the community by providing first job experience. I also know of immigrants (I don't know their legal status, but who cares) who are working there to get better english language skills, then they go to work somewhere else. Living in a community that has allowed walmart to build a superstore, even after evidence was presented as to what walmart does to small communities, has taught me a world about local politics. My family hasn't shopped there for several years now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uniform didn't work before, won't work now
Posted by: marintha on Jan 30, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was actually working at a Wal-Mart in SE Minnesota when this exact dress code policy (khaki pants and a navy shirt, they didn't insist it be a polo) was instituted in Summer 2001, at the District Manager's insistence. Everyone hated it, and it didn't even look good (khaki shows everything). Tiny bit of democracy, finally, when it was put to a vote two years later, which was unanimous against.

What makes them think it'll work this time? Or did they even bother to check and see if it had been tried before? (Do I have to ask?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, Like Corporations really aren't in it for the money
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 30, 2007 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon. We're talking mega-corporations, bottom line: Money. Let's get real: Do you think these other corporations are so above board? No. None of them. And if you read the New Economist they discuss the fact that corporations really cannot by their structure really be pro-person as they really need to make profits to exist. So, big deal. Wal Mart is the company that got caught. You don't think these other corporations are doing the exact same thing? Get real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Laws Must Change or Nothing Really Happens
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 30, 2007 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, besides Wal-Mart, what about Exxon-Mobil, GM, GE, Conoco-Phillips, etc.? Do you buy gas? You subsidize the Chinese manufacturing machine. But, here is the problem I have. I am no fan of Wal-Mart. However, American law sets the principles under which this retailer and other retailers, in the USA operate. So, America has no universal health care, a crappy minimum wage, few worker rights, etc. And, these principles are enshrined in American law. Sure, Wal-Mart lobbies and throws money at the politicians to keep it this way, along with the other mega corporations. But, isn't it up to the politicians and American law to set the bottom line on all this? Wal-Mart will go away or become benign if we gut so-called "free trade," raise the minimum wage, instigate universal health care and give workers better rights to organize. Otherwise, Wal-Mart, along with all the other mega corps and all the other American businesses, rakes us all over the coals. These companies all want to make money. And, besides, even if you don't do Wal-Marts but go to some neighborhood store or something, what is the difference if that same business also pays its workers crap wages or gets all its stuff from China? No, you have to change the laws under which we all operate for real change to occur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Success of WM = purging of American soul
Posted by: spanky on Jan 30, 2007 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The success of WM is symbolic of the purging of the collective American soul. It illustrates several of our worst traits and tendencies:

- lust for convenience
- fixation with conusming, shopping, acquiring: the result of mass systematic indoctrination and programming, and of lives devoid of meaning
- ignorance about the consequences of consumer choices and habits (supporting unsustainable business model, bad labor practices)
- acceptance of a sterile, homogenized landcape and experience, with big box next to strip mall next to big box, like the repeating background in a cartoon, in exchange for comfort, convenience, and a few bucks saved
- waste, excess, low quality

Much of this also applies to the popularity of institutions like McDs, the giant shopping mall, chain grocery stores selling heavily processed and heavily packaged slime, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hahahaha! Wal-Martique!
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Jan 30, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are they for real? Remember what happened to their attempt to create a "rad, cool" new version of MySpace for the kiddies? Yeah, neither do I...because NOTHING. HAPPENED. Their marketing department has got to be staffed by some of the biggest fools in the world!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let the buyer beware
Posted by: sheena2u on Jan 30, 2007 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These Walmart folks seem to know what they are doing, and don't mind running their company like a military machine. They are capable of completely trampling good character and human values in the pursuit of the bottom line.

While its fine to expect to turn a profit who wrote the law that says we have to throw all ethics and decency out the window in the process? Walmart ought to scare us all. They are very good at making a profit, and running over anything and anyone they can, including America. If their company indicates what our future will be like then we are all in very big trouble.

It applied to the smarmy snake oil salesman of yesterday, and it applies to Walmart today, "Let the buyer beware." Walmart will remain on my boycott list until they change for the better in ways that matter. I can buy organic goods and I can get everything I need elsewhere, thank you.

I live in a small town. It can be a challenge to always get everything I need. But I find I can live just fine without Walmart, and the longer I do it, the easier it is. Since Walmart isn't changing in any way that matters to me then I will continue to avoid them. More than anything else I specifically refuse to deal with Walmart because of their extensive web of human rights abuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hh
Posted by: hh on Jan 30, 2007 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, this is good. More Wal-Mart bashing. All well-deserved, undoubtedly. And, I'll start taking you people seriously when you start pointing out that Wal-Mart is no worse than the majority of small businesses, outfits that the left (and right) tends to place on a pedestal, to be admired and worshiped. Wal-Mart is nothing but a small business that grew into a giant while maintaining a primitive small-business approach to employee relations. My childhood was spent in a rural county whose politics were dictated by the owners of small businesses, livestock graziers, and timber interests. All three looked down on the working class, although their existence depended on us as customers and employees. And, by the time I graduated from high school, I'd had a bellyful of all three.

In college, I worked half to full time in small businesses to pay for food, rent, books, and fees. My dislike of small businesses was not changed a bit by my experiences: owners never making enough pay more in wages; always someone tapping the till; expecting employees to come in early and leave late without compensation; health benefits, you ask – Ha! And so on ... but always enough for a new car, a new truck, a new house, out-of state hunting trips, vacations, and the like. Once I got a real job – and in the crummy economy of the mid '70's, that was no small accomplishment – with benefits and security, I never looked back. Of course, the whole time, politicians were falling over each other with praise for the noble small business owner ... Needless to say, I do my best to avoid dealing with small businesses.

In the late 80's and early 90's, I watched as kids took small business jobs they thought would give them a future, only to learn 5 months and 29 days later, just before benefits would have kicked in, that they had been "let go". Three cheers for the nobility of small business, eh? But, hey, let's single out Wal-Mart as the "great evil", and forget about the rest of the monsters who don't give a good goddamn about their employees.

All right, let's look at Wal-Mart. They come into a town, used to be towns of 35,000 or less were their targets, now it's anywhere, apparently. Now, where do the employees for their stores come from? Either Wal-Mart targets areas of high unemployment, imports its own work force, or hires people who choose to leave their existing exploitative small-business jobs hoping (and being disappointed) for something better with the new kid in town. The latter seems the most plausible. And yet, the left reserves its condemnation for Wal-Mart alone!

Well, you imitation progressives, until you pull your heads out of whatever damp, warm orifice they are stuck in and start including ALL employers who treat employees badly, I will continue to shop at Wal-Mart. At least there I can buy some of my foreign-made goods (the same ones offered by the local small businesses) at a decent price.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hh Posted by: sofla100
exploitation
Posted by: candara on Jan 31, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm certain that WalMart's is going "high(er) class" because they don't think that class of people will care if WalMart is exploiting the "lower" class. They probably figured they won't have to worry about boycotts anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Part of it... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
New kind of slavery
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 31, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poorest of the poor all the way to the middle-class shop Walmart because it is the cheapest place to go. Simple arithmetic. Walmart, along with most of corporate America, loves the reinstitution of slavery. Back in the old days, a slave owner had to provide housing and food for their slaves, now the new slavery provides nothing but a chance to make a low-wage. I have to admit, I shopped Walmart for a long time, but something happened to me after Katrina, and now I seldom enter a Walmart. I spend a little more money, but enjoy the smaller businesses much more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Few Thoughts About Costco…
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Jan 31, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve read AlterNet for a few years, this is my first post, and I will continue to enjoy this site, regardless of the following rant: After reading the article, I’m reminded of other AlterNet articles comparing Costco and Wal Mart’s worker benefits, with Costco maintaining higher wages and better benefits. Still, why are we led to believe we should instead shop at Costco? Is this not the implication when making these types of comparisons?

Recently, Costco had a gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit filed against them, on a much smaller scale but similar to Wal Mart’s, and although Wal Mart’s negative impact is greater in every regard, none of these comparisons address the problems Americans continue to have with “big box” consumerism as a pervasive mentality, or cultural meme (is “cultural meme” redundant?) that continues to support these two corporations. Neither has gone out of business, so who’s still shopping sufficient to keep them in business? It’s not me.

Excesses in America outweigh (no pun intended) levels of consumption anywhere else in the world (per capita) for our food, shelter, transportation, and “entertainment” with excesses in energy and waste production as a result. Can anyone tell me why I’ve missed any AlterNet articles finding a link between Costco and its support of sweatshop practices if it’s also true the majority of goods Costco buys come from China and/or other developing nations? Am I wrong when saying this?

Are we to believe Costco is that transparent, and why wouldn’t journalists write about Costco’s business practices detailing fair labor and wage conditions for workers in countries from which they buy? Why is there so little of this type of reporting for any company? Buying “green” has become more prevalent in advertising (also to assuage consumer guilt and increase sales), why not then bring up this angle more often?

Substituting one consumer “choice” for another seems misguided and doesn’t lead to what I consider to be the larger issue, one that few AlterNet posters discuss: Overpopulation. Might I assume everyone has an opinion on this? Unfortunately, AlterNet doesn’t provide articles that stimulate this debate, and overpopulation remains in the background as a source of so many problems concerning resources, pollution, and inequities around the world.

If anyone counter argues the problem of overpopulation is too complicated, or mired in seemingly impossible conflicts inherent in religion, politics, and more, I wouldn’t disagree, but the quality of life so many Americans enjoy, if not now, will someday soon have terrible consequences without an effort to adopt vs procreate, or make a choice not to have (more) children. Lastly, the idea that technology will save us, well, if you’ve been reading AlterNet for a while, you’ll see alternatives for clean energy production, countered with ever-increasing levels of human-made toxins, won’t likely be solvable anytime soon, or, I’ll believe it when I see it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Associate my ASS
Posted by: JSquercia on Jan 31, 2007 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One sure sign that your company is going to screw you BIG TIME is when they start referring to you as an ASSOCIATE
It is a ploy to make you think "We all the same" and "I'm
NOT just a LOWLY employee I'm an ASSOCIATE " . Yes that is why the CEO makes 400 times what you as an ASSOCIATE make .
I saw this first hand when the company for which I worked started using the term . This was a company that prided itself on NOT having laid off anyone during the Depression . That proud tradition quickly went the way of the Dodo bird .

It is unfortunately modern business practice to treat EMPLOYEES ( and make no mistake that's what most of us are ) as an EXPENSE and not an ASSET . It proably explains why wages and salaries are at their lowest percentage since statistics have been kept .

I often wondered why those numerous Vice President's who could so readily find cheaper workers overseas could not find cheaper Vice President's as well . Surely all those Japense Auto executives could be hired away by Detroit and for half the cost .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walmart Joins Communist Party
Posted by: Linda on Feb 2, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my Jan. 31st issue of Paducah Sun (Paducah, KY) issue of "EXTRA", in the "Chuck Shepard 'News of the Weird' :

"Leading Economic Indicators
(1) Employees at Wal-Mart's headquarters in China have set up a branch of the Communist Party, according to a December Associated Press dispatch, to go with 5 existing branches at individual stores (but the party said it would not interfere with Wal-Mart management).

(2) Outsourcing of American jobs recently reached a new category of corporate employeees: lawyers. An estimated 23,000 lawyers' jobs were lost in the U.S. last year to India, where document review and legal research can be performed at about half the cost as in America, according to a December story in the News Journal of Wilmington, Del."

Even something as American as the SUPERBOWL won't be for Americans either, it seems, in the future, as Owners of Teams IMPORT FOOTBALL PLAYERS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Owners in all types of sports are increasingly looking outside the U.S.A. for talent, & what up to now has been an interesting novelty (such as the dude from China who plays basketball) may well make American high school, college & pro athletes. another casualty of "Globalization".

I saw TV news report on Superbowl, which was about the "Exhibition Football Games" between the Superbowl teams, & FOREIGN football teams; the reporter talked with some of the foreign players, who spoke about their hopes to be hired by American Football team owners, to play in the U.S.A. -- I'm sure their Governments, especially our Economic & Military Rivals like Communist China, are encouraging!)

It is one thing to have a few foreign players on American sports teams, as an interesting novelty. But, it's a WHOLE OTHER "BALL GAME" to take the "AMERICAN" out of American sports!!!

It is shameful to see so many jobs on the "Homefront" go to foreigners here on Visas, & to see jobs eliminated as Corporate America closes plants & moves production overseas or to Mexico. It's not just shameful.... it's un-American!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]