Walmart 6
I am not a fan of Walmart. I much prefer Target. I like stores with ceilings.
Nor am I fan of their business practices. They squeeze their suppliers and their employees. This website, though it clearly has an anti-Walmart slant agenda, points out some of the reasons many persons do not like Walmart for political reasons. And it is true that Walmart has been caught with its pants down in several unfair labor practices suits.
And certainly there seems to have been a change since the Old Man died, at least in the atmosphere of the stores as observed by an infrequent customer. I can’t remember the last time I saw a greeter who wasn’t grumpy. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw a greeter. I’m not sure his heirs have been true to the Old Man’s vision, but that’s another story.
And as someone who carried a union card for 24 years, I resent the heavy-handed tactics they use to fight efforts of employees to organize.
Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings about the recent legislation in Maryland and the proposed legislation in New Jersey and other states that clearly singles out Walmart.
Andrew Cassel had some very interesting observations on the anti-Walmart legislation, which takes the form of mandating the company spend a percentage of revenue on healthcare, in Sunday’s local rag:
Welfare as we knew it was a decades-old disaster. Not only had it failed to end poverty in America, it had fostered social and political divisions that were at their most corrosive in cities such as Philadelphia.
Fixing welfare, in the view of Clinton and other reformers, meant reforming public assistance programs so they no longer discouraged poor people from taking jobs – even low-paying ones.
The idea was that work helps build skills, self-esteem and better lives. Thus, it was better for government not to abruptly cut off benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps when people took jobs, but rather offer them as supplements to entry-level wages.
Clinton labeled this strategy “making work pay.” Many progressive-minded people hailed it because it extended help to people who formerly had fallen through the cracks while putting government on the side of mainstream values such as work and thrift.
I’m not sure I agree with him, but I think his history lesson is worth attention.
I am certain of this: Legislation of this sort is not the way to fix healthcare costs. Maybe I’ll ramble about that some other time.
March 8, 2006 at 7:23 pm
For a while I was wondering how Walmart even stayed in business, in light of the number of people who claim to hate it. I think I got a little insight last night, though, when my sister told me that although she disapproves of Walmart and would never work there, she shops there because it’s “almost unavoidable.”
March 8, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Take a left and down the hall. Target’s on your right.
March 9, 2006 at 8:06 am
I hate Wal-Mart, & never shop there. But, my reasoning is different. In alot of cases, you really do get what you pay for. In Wal-Mart, the cost of things is lower, but then, so is the quality. Also, you don’t have to put up with kids screaming in a “foreign” language with no parental supervision, in Target. It’s rampant in Wal-Mart. And, the biggest plus: Target has Starbucks!!!
March 9, 2006 at 5:50 pm
You are right about the quality. To get the price down to meet Walmart’s demands, manufacturers compromise on quality.
Check out this link.
March 9, 2006 at 6:22 pm
There’s a place for a company demanding lower prices and lower quality. Some people cannot afford the best. I would rather have a nation where the poor can go to Walmart and buy a cheap TV rather than one where they can’t afford one at all.
March 9, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I can’t argue with this. But do Walmart customers buying Levis know that they are not classic Levis?
(Actually, I always got better service out of Wranglers anyway.)