Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

spike

spike

New Member
Just saw this documentary last weekend and it's pretty enlightening.

The way that Wal-Mart drives down retail wages in areas in goes into, destroys long time family businesses and downtown areas, encourages their workers to use public assistance for health insurance and other things, keeps workers part-time so their not eligible for health care, spends a fortune on anti-union efforts, deletes time from worker's time cards, violates environmental regulations, exploits foreign workers, all while receiving government subsidies for development should make anyone think twice about saving a couple bucks.

Here's a list of some of the research from the flick:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php

You can also watch the whole movie here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925
 
2minkey

2minkey

bootlicker
there was a story on NPR this morning that seemed to portray WM's newer health insurance programs favorably.

that documentary is a few years old if'n it's the one i'm thinking of.

not that they are now "cool" and/or don't still do a lot of that shit.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
That one's been shown here in Atascadero a lot by Oppose Wal-Mart, since Wal-Mart is looking to build a store here.

For evidence on why it's bullshit that Wal-Mart necessarily destroys downtown areas, look at Paso Robles, CA. Downtown there was half empty and 2/3 of the businesses that were there were antique stores. Wal-Mart opened in October 1994, and now downtown Paso Robles is vibrant with many fluorishing businesses in the downtown area. It's amazing how many people in Atascadero overlook what happened in the town 10 miles north.
 
spike

spike

New Member
Inkara1 said:
For evidence on why it's bullshit that Wal-Mart necessarily destroys downtown areas, look at Paso Robles, CA. Downtown there was half empty and 2/3 of the businesses that were there were antique stores.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a claim that they destroyed every downtown that they opened near. Just a lot of them.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I've read a fuckload of letters to the editor in the paper I work at claiming they'll destory all that is good. I haven't seen the particular film in question so I can't bitch about specific claims made in it without knowing what they are.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Wal-Mart is the devil. So shop there today. You may go to hell but at least you'll have cash left over.
 
SouthernN'Proud

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
I'm making five stops for various items today to avoid making one at WalMart. And I'll grin like a mule eatin saw briars at every damn one of 'em. It'll be around $45 that WalMart WON'T get.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
With Lori working at Wal-Mart and getting an employee discount, it makes even more financial sense to shop there. But we also shop at the Albertson's that's a block away from the new place for food. Wal-Mart button-up shirts don't fit me right so I usually end up getting them at Target.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
we just got back from the grocery store.
Went only to the local (J&J's) for it all.
$475 bucks worth, but we loaded up on HB, pork and beef roasts, porkchops,
and various deli, bacon sausage...
one buggy Full of just canned veggies...will do us until the crops come in.

Really we got a bunch of good deals for the money.
We already spent 300 more 3 days ago, when we didn't get finished though.
Already had like the milk colas in that load.
 
A.B.Normal

A.B.Normal

New Member
Gonz said:
Wal-Mart is the devil. So shop there today. You may go to hell but at least you'll have cash left over.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing,you end up spending the same amount in the long run ,since Walmart quailty isn't made for longevity only low cost.Consumer nature on some level wants quantity even if its lower quality.Thats not to say that the Local shops that Walmart replaced weren't over charging for the stuff they sold,since they had a clientèle with no other option(the law of supply and demand ,don't ya know).
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
I tell ya...I used to be that way not long ago...before all the recalls started.
I'll pay more for brands I trust even if it is more, but I look for the deals for
a select group...no more "great value" "tru value" or any other off brand, when
it comes to my food.
 
paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
jimpeel said:
Its is a dead link.

I'm sure that wakeupwalmart.com or walmartwatch.com will have something on it. Anything negative that's fit to shout from the rooftops.
Click to expand...

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.


The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Click to expand...

link

It's sucky, but they make one exception it sets bad precedent for those who would abuse the system. They are within their rights, and if i was running a huge company I would have done what walmart did.

I would sue their lawyer, almost $600,000 in legal fees?
 
paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
did some more research, walmart is 100% correct, she sued the 3rd party to cover medical costs which walmart had covered, so walmart deserved that money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top