Wal-Mart vs. America's Middle Class

[Craig]

Wal-Mart vs. America's Middle Class
by James O. Goldsborough

One way to look at President Bush's amnesty plan for illegal immigrants is through the lens of Southern California's grocery shutdown. Employers such as Wal-Mart, already under investigation for hiring illegal immigrants and other malpractices, will use amnestied workers to drive wages and benefits down still further.

The grocery business is living on the edge, and not just in California. Traditionally, grocery workers have been able to make a decent living. The wage of full-time unionized clerks averages around $15 an hour – $25,000-$30,000 annually, depending on hours worked. In addition, workers have had health care benefits.

At these levels, grocery clerks survived in this region despite its high real estate prices. Often they had long commutes, especially if their stores were in affluent suburbs, but for decades these workers were as much a part of America's solid middle class as service workers anywhere. They owned houses, raised families, took comfort in belonging to America's company-based health care system.

Along comes Wal-Mart, the world's largest business, whose revenues equal an astounding 2 percent of U.S. GDP and whose power rivals that of the great trusts of a century ago. Specifically, Wal-Mart resembles the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, which in its heyday owned 80 percent of the supermarket business, until Washington used the trust laws to whittle it down to size.

Wal-Mart plans to open 225 supercenters this year alone. That includes new stores and expansions of existing stores to add grocery departments directly in competition with Safeway (Vons), Ralphs and Albertsons, stores currently involved in the strike-lockout. Forty supercenters are planned for California in coming years.

Wal-Mart has the distinction of having four of its Walton owners ranked among America's 10 richest people, according to Forbes. The Waltons do especially well because their employees do especially poorly, with clerks earning, on average, 40 percent less than unionized workers, and receiving either marginal health care coverage or none at all.

The chain keeps its prices low and owners rich. Last year the five Walton heirs saw their net worth increase from $94 billion to $102 billion.

Wal-Mart's remarkable growth raises this question: How will blanketing the nation in supercenters affect our communities? In 1948, the A&P's abuses were flagrant enough that the government used the Robinson-Patman Act to enjoin the company from using price discrimination to drive smaller grocers out of business.

But antitrust vigor has faded in our globalized world, allowing mastodons to stroll the Earth again. Happy with low prices, Wal-Mart customers don't connect those prices to the demise of neighborhood stores, the influx of illegal immigrants or the use of foreign suppliers to replace U.S. companies.

Antitrust law once saw its goal as "the organization of industry in small units that can effectively compete against each other," as Judge Learned Hand wrote in U.S. v. Alcoa, 1945. Today, we have moved away from that view, but to where? Wal-Mart has replaced the A&P as the grocery leviathan changing the face of whole communities. Is this right?

In economic theory, the answer is, yes. In economic theory, pure competition drives down prices and everyone benefits: consumers with lower prices, owners with greater profits, workers with higher wages.

In the real world, competition is never pure, which is why antitrust legislation was written. The risk to society was that Standard Oil, Alcoa or the A&P would lower prices to drive competitors out of business.

And then raise prices.

Antitrust laws were one protection against rapaciousness, and organized labor was another. With unions, tycoons like Andrew Carnegie, George Pullman and Henry Ford no longer could dictate wages via goon squads.

Taken together, antitrust legislation and organized labor helped to modulate business practices and create the American middle class.

Where will Wal-Mart find minimum-wage workers for its new supercenters, to help lower its prices, break the unions at traditional stores and drive those stores out of business?

hat's where Bush's illegal immigrant amnesty comes in. Under his plan, illegal immigrants can be legalized if an employer sponsors them. Wal-Mart, already gaining national attention for its labor abuses, will be the first sponsor in line. Here are three current charges against the company:

A government investigation accuses it of employing illegal immigrants. A group of illegal immigrants is suing it for discrimination. A third case involves the company's so-called "lock-in" policy, under which employees are locked into stores overnight, a policy that has led to several accidents.

Communities are wrong to focus solely on the benefits of Wal-Mart's low prices. Low prices come at a social cost vastly outweighing their benefits.

We won't see this until smaller grocers are gone, more supplier companies are offshore, amnestied workers replace Americans and no one can ever walk to a grocery store again.

Then it will be too late.

[TB4000]

I get the feeling that all immigrants are now going to be stereotyped as Wal-Mart employees in addition to the other stereotypes.

[mr. x]

I get the feeling that all immigrants are now going to be stereotyped as Wal-Mart employees in addition to the other stereotypes.

i notice at Fry's that all their workers are people if color if not outright immigrants

[VV o n g B a]

while i totally hate wal-mart, i'm not convinced that wal-mart will have the capability to do what this article says it plans to do. i hate it specifically b/c of its price leadership which brings in the unwashed masses (so maybe i have an elitist streak... so what?). when i go to wal-mart, its always packed so its hard to get in and out quickly. there are tons of shit babies or brats in need of an ass-kicking that their parents take along and the place is just plain filthy. my friends and i never go to wal-mart unless we're forced to go when target doesn't have what we need. target's shopping experience is all around much better and target discount stores, as a business, have been competing pretty well with wal-mart in the past year. wal-mart's domination is NOT assured. they MUST keep their price leadership cuz their business will fall if they don't. the only reason ppl put up w/ the awful wal-mart experience is cuz they get stuff just a few cents cheaper sometimes. otherwise, who the hell would want to go there?

i also don't have too much sympathy for unionized workers. to earn $15/hr and have health insurance for being a grocery store clerk is pretty ridiculous. anybody can do that job. thats a minimum wage job if i've ever heard of one. it sucks if u worked there and now can't feed ur family but if thats the case then u need to be doing something else or find some new skills.

globalization is here whether u want it or not. american businesses and its ppl must adapt w/ the times or get left behind like japan. of course there's going to be a painful readjustment period where ppl will continue to lose their jobs but whats needed is not more barriers but something akin to a trampoline. it will catch ppl when the lose their jobs, rearm them will new and more useful skills, and then bounce them back out into the job force.

its possible that america's time of economic dominance is waining. it has enjoyed previously unmatched success mostly b/c it was the country that figured out how to run the system first and to the winner go the spoils. but a monopoly on ideas isn't possible in the world now and US citizens are going to have to learn to live in a world where everyone else has caught up. in that case, they CAN'T maintain the same lifestyle that they used to b/c they have to start sharing the spoils. tough shit. if u wanna live better than everyone else on earth, then u gotta earn it.

[rice cracker]

Lol, your assessment of Wal-Mart was right on. I prefer Target.

[TB4000]

Basically, if everybody can afford it, it's not worth getting, huh?LOL

[Chester]

Lol, your assessment of Wal-Mart was right on. I prefer Target.Amen. I made the mistake of walking through one last week. Never again.

What a fucking fiasco. I saw one father, fed up with rounding up his two small, totally undisciplined children, exclaim to his wife, "Next time we have to get a sitter!"

Which had me thinking..."yes...yes you do."

[SunWuKong]

Walmart is pretty evil. it pretty much throws its money around to knock the little guys out of business. they would open a regular Walmart store in one area, put all the little guys out of business, then close the location down and open a supercenter a little further away. that's really pushing the envelope of what is "fair competition".

[lethal]

Lol, your assessment of Wal-Mart was right on. I prefer Target.

Target and Costco are the very reason Walmart can't do what this article professes it will do.

[Yeahman]

Apart from concerns about unethical business practices, the main arguement against Wal-Mart in that article seems to be that they can become a monopoly and raise prices like Standard Oil, US Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, etc...
But Wal-Mart is not a manufacturer of proprietary goods like Microsoft, they don't have a monopoly on resources like Standard Oil, and they don't have a monopoly on high-barrier-to-entry infustructure like AT&T. Their competitive advantage comes from economy of scale and the ability to absorb temporary losses more easily. The former is a good thing, the later may be a subject of worry but let's look at an example. Say that they sell groceries for so cheap that it puts local stores out of business. Say that they then raise prices. The barrier-to-entry is not so high that local competition cannot rise. Say that a new store opens up selling groceries for cheaper. Wal-Mart would lower their prices again.

In the end we're left with low prices. I would think that the low barrier-to-entry in the retail industry would ensure that the prices stay low. Anybody have any counter-arguements?

[teaz0r]

i've never actually set foot in a wal mart
before. but my friend here in thailand owns
a gems gallery and he makes a fortune
exporting jewelry to walmart.

i don't think i could ever buy jewelry at
anyplace that ends with "mart".

i've never been to target either. i don't
think i've ever seen one. i live in boston
for over 3 years too. i've been inside a
sears before. and jc penny. like.. in natick
mall.

[John0101]

i've never actually set foot in a wal mart
before. but my friend here in thailand owns
a gems gallery and he makes a fortune
exporting jewelry to walmart.

i don't think i could ever buy jewelry at
anyplace that ends with "mart".

i've never been to target either. i don't
think i've ever seen one. i live in boston
for over 3 years too. i've been inside a
sears before. and jc penny. like.. in natick
mall.

natick mall is the shit, they got that huge filienes & filienes basement there!

Labours should unionize and gain whether barginning power they can get, but I guess walmat has huge turnover rates to really allow this to happen.

[teaz0r]

oh i liiiiiike filene's basement. there's one on
newbury too no? a teensy one? i forget. or
am i thinking about the place that sells energie
and diesel pants?

i got this microwavable rice cooker thingamajig
from FB. i thought it was ultra special.

[John0101]

nope, no filienes basement on newbury. There is a diesel store on newbury, but stores on newbury street come and go pretty fast so I would imagine it looks quite different as you remember it.

they don't sell anything electronic in filienes basement (the one downtown), just clearance clothing items.

[SunWuKong]

Apart from concerns about unethical business practices, the main arguement against Wal-Mart in that article seems to be that they can become a monopoly and raise prices like Standard Oil, US Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, etc...
But Wal-Mart is not a manufacturer of proprietary goods like Microsoft, they don't have a monopoly on resources like Standard Oil, and they don't have a monopoly on high-barrier-to-entry infustructure like AT&T. Their competitive advantage comes from economy of scale and the ability to absorb temporary losses more easily. The former is a good thing, the later may be a subject of worry but let's look at an example. Say that they sell groceries for so cheap that it puts local stores out of business. Say that they then raise prices. The barrier-to-entry is not so high that local competition cannot rise. Say that a new store opens up selling groceries for cheaper. Wal-Mart would lower their prices again.

In the end we're left with low prices. I would think that the low barrier-to-entry in the retail industry would ensure that the prices stay low. Anybody have any counter-arguements?

but i don't think it's really all that easy for small businesses to just start up from scratch. even if Wal-Mart raised their prices a little, it would be difficult for a new small business to compete with those prices. how many months of initial losses can they sustain right after they open?

[lethal]

So, the most Wal-Mart can charge is how much the competition can charge. If they drive the competition out of business, then start raising prices, new stores will open. Those stores will charge as little as possible while still making a profit.

Well, isn't that what the stores do now? Walmart can charge as much as the competition while making more money doing it. They can't raise prices above what people will pay or what the competition can charge.

Anyway, here's an article about WalMart and local zoning laws banning big box stores and elections.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/08/MNGKO4RLT51.DTL

Wal-Mart, loved by its shoppers for "always low prices'' and reviled by critics who claim it exploits workers and manufacturers, didn't get to be the world's wealthiest corporation by backing down from a fight.

Next month, it faces a critical showdown in Contra Costa County that could influence its plans to introduce in California its sprawling supercenters -- vast combination grocery and discount stores that sell everything from milk and meat to firearms and fabric in buildings as large as five football fields.

The county's board of supervisors decided last year to ban the supercenters from unincorporated areas, saying they would choke traffic and worsen sprawl, but Wal-Mart gathered enough signatures to qualify the issue for a referendum. Voters in the East Bay county will decide the matter, Measure L, on March 2.

"I don't think either side will tell you it's going to be a cheap election,'' said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Hill, acknowledging that the company had contributed about $500,000 to the No on Measure L campaign before the end of January and could easily spend more than $1 million. "Anything is possible.''

The high-stakes election is the first in the state since Wal-Mart announced its plans last year for 40 supercenters in California. A smattering of cities and counties have passed bans on the mega-stores, but Wal-Mart chose to take on lawmakers in Contra Costa, often considered a bellwether county because of its demographic similarity to the state as a whole.

Supporters of the ban say that along with increasing traffic, supercenters stamp out competition and lead to thousands of lost jobs and lower wages. Wal-Mart's expansion plans contributed to the long-running grocery strike in Southern California, with chains like Safeway and Albertson's saying they can't compete with Wal-Mart unless they slash wages and benefits.

But Wal-Mart, which had more than $245 billion in sales last year, says that consumers have the right to shop where they want and that they deserve grocery prices that could be 15 percent lower than supermarket prices.

Lee Jensen, a 70-year-old Martinez resident who was shopping at a regular Wal-Mart in that city last week, said he has mixed feelings about the supercenters.

"I'm on social security and my wife wants to retire,'' he said. "They have really reasonable prices. On the other hand, I don't like cutthroat operations.''

Supporters of Measure L, who include elected county officials, community members, environmentalists, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Safeway, say the ordinance does not single out Wal-Mart but instead applies to any non-membership store larger than 90,000 square feet that devotes more than 5 percent of its floor space to selling non-taxable groceries. They say that without sales tax revenue, they can't make the road improvements needed to handle increased traffic and other related impacts that the huge stores would have.

"Local government should have a right to plan where and how big-box stores come into their communities and not leave it totally up to the developer,'' said Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond. "This is a battle in a larger war over who controls development in a local community.''

Wal-Mart insists it's being discriminated against, although proponents of the law say Target and Sears would also be affected if they tried to build supercenters here. Wal-Mart has more than 1,400 supercenters in 42 other states that are between 175,000 and 250,000 square feet and devote about 30 percent of their floor space to groceries. Large Bay Area Safeway stores, by contrast, are about 55,000 square feet.

Hill said Wal-Mart does not have any plans to open a supercenter in Contra Costa County, but the retailer believes it is "in its best interest'' to fight the ban.

"We certainly do not believe these ordinances are legal,'' Hill said. "At the end of the day, the ultimate goal is to have the consumer choose where to shop.''

Consumer choice has become the campaign slogan for the opposition to Measure L, which is peppering households with flyers saying Measure L would unfairly restrict Wal-Mart from selling goods at lower prices to working families.

Walnut Creek Councilman Charlie Abrams, who is opposing Measure L, said he doesn't think the county should ban big-box stores in unincorporated areas, although he acknowledged it was unlikely that Wal-Mart would be able to build a supercenter in his upscale town.

"It's government interfering in consumer choice,'' Abrams said. "It's clear that the unions are behind this and are using the supervisors to steer this against Wal-Mart.''

Gioia said Wal-Mart and its proponents are being deceptive when they try to say the issue is a right to shop.

"They know they lose on the development issue,'' Gioia said. "They act like they are representing consumers, but Wal-Mart's interest is the bottom line. Their interest is in getting bigger, making more money. It's not in good community planning.''

While Wal-Mart has chosen to force a referendum on the county's ordinance in Contra Costa, it is trying different tactics in different communities to overturn new big-box ordinances. It did not challenge big-box prohibitions in Martinez and Oakland; it sued Alameda County. In April, it is asking voters in Inglewood (Los Angeles County) to approve a supercenter that the Inglewood City Council turned down. In San Marcos (San Diego County), Wal-Mart tried unsuccessfully to stop a March referendum by voters wanting to overturn their city council's approval of a regular Wal-Mart store.

Hill said efforts to block Wal-Marts are taken seriously by the company, which has also sued or gone to the ballot box in other states, with mixed results. She said community resistance to the chain is not "epidemic,'' and that at least in Contra Costa County, unions and competitors such as Safeway are the major opposition.

Wal-Mart, however, has become one of the most reviled retail chains in the country even as its business has grown to the point that it's the nation's largest seller of everything from toys to dog food. Sites critical of Wal-Mart number more than 2,000 on the Internet, and opponents are passionate in fighting the company, which they paint as a heartless employer whose business tactics destroy communities.

"Wal-Mart is choosing to come in with these huge windowless pieces of architecture,'' said Al Norman, a Massachusetts resident who runs the Web site sprawl-busters.com and has fought the chain throughout the country since leading a successful campaign to block Wal-Mart in his hometown of Greenfield. "They're saturating the American landscape. Folks are poorly paid and poorly covered by benefits. Wal-Mart is just a chain of exploitation. It stretches from the sweatshops of China to the sales floor in California.''

U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who is endorsing Measure L, also criticized Wal-Mart for "predatory'' business tactics.

"They want to put in place a business plan that undercuts other businesses in the county,'' Miller said. "It certainly undercuts the wages of other workers. It brings with it a long list of violations of labor laws, of workers' rights. I don't think that's good for our economy.''

Miller and county officials also contend that Wal-Mart workers could also be a drain on county health resources because the company doesn't offer adequate health insurance, an allegation Wal-Mart disputes.

"It's a crazy, ludicrous argument,'' Hill said. "It's crazy to insinuate that all Wal-Mart associates are going to be burdening the county.''

She said more than 90 percent of Wal-Mart workers have health benefits, including more than 40 percent who get it not through the company but through other means, such as a spouse who is employed elsewhere.

Hill said the main issue is competition.

"Competition drives down the cost and the consumer is the winner,'' Hill said. "We are not going to apologize for that.''

[Yeahman]

So, the most Wal-Mart can charge is how much the competition can charge. If they drive the competition out of business, then start raising prices, new stores will open. Those stores will charge as little as possible while still making a profit.

Well, isn't that what the stores do now? Walmart can charge as much as the competition while making more money doing it. They can't raise prices above what people will pay or what the competition can charge.
I think the concern is that it is harder for a new store to open than for Wal-Mart to lower prices again. Knowing this, people wouldn't want to open their own stores even if they can offer lower prices at the moment.

I can't think of any way around it though. As long as Wal-Mart keeps their prices low, I can't complain but the risk is there.

[lethal]

Walmart will always have an advantage due to economy of scale. They can buy in massive bulk driving down the cost of goods sold. They also have far lower labor costs due to lack of unionized workers, hiring illigal immigrants, and not offering many benefits.

However, no matter how much they sell, they cannot be a monopoly in the US Steel, Standard Oil sense.

These were horizontal monopolies and vertical monopolies. At one point, Standard Oil controlled something like 90% of the American oil market. Walmart will never control 90% of the American retail market nor will it control 90% of the grocery market. It won't even come close.

I guess the dilemma is while Walmart's low prices benefit the middle class consumer, the middle class consumer may be out of a job because he works for Walmert's now bankrupt competitor.

[Yeahman]

I guess the dilemma is while Walmart's low prices benefit the middle class consumer, the middle class consumer may be out of a job because he works for Walmert's now bankrupt competitor.
That is not a legitament concern at all unless you mean the individual workers who would loss jobs. The middle class, as a whole, would lose nothing in the long run. They save more money and cheaper goods increases consumption and boosts the economy.

Wal-Mart doesn't have to have a national monopoly to remain dominate. Local monopolies is the real concern. Wal-Mart can have a 100% monopoly on groceries at the local level.

[lethal]

That is not a legitament concern at all unless you mean the individual workers who would loss jobs. The middle class, as a whole, would lose nothing in the long run. They save more money and cheaper goods increases consumption and boosts the economy.

Wal-Mart doesn't have to have a national monopoly to remain dominate. Local monopolies is the real concern. Wal-Mart can have a 100% monopoly on groceries at the local level.

Right, the middle class consumer who is also an employee of a Walmart competitor would be harmed. Otherwise, all other consumers benefit. That's the short term implication. Long term a monopoly could raise prices. I submit the thesis that Walmart could not raise prices much (if any) higher than its current competition would charge if it had stayed in business because at that level, new stores would open up.

Now as for local monopolies, they would work the same way. However, with the presence of Target or CostCo and similar stores, I'd say Walmart could not create that many local monopolies. Perhaps they could have a few, but not many. Even then, local politicians could always zone them out. Even given that, I believe Walmart sets prices regionally, therefore even if they have a local monopoly, that particular store wouldn't charge higher prices than surrounding stores in towns that may have competition.

[Yeahman]

Right, the middle class consumer who is also an employee of a Walmart competitor would be harmed. Otherwise, all other consumers benefit. That's the short term implication. Long term a monopoly could raise prices. I submit the thesis that Walmart could not raise prices much (if any) higher than its current competition would charge if it had stayed in business because at that level, new stores would open up.
The question is, can new stores be openned with ease considering the fact that Wal-Mart can control their prices effortlessly?
For an internet business, it would be relatively easy for new competition to open and close. You gotta love the internet. E-commerce is capitalistic competition at its best. For something like telecommunications it was impossible to enter the market which is why Ma Bell had to be broken up. Brick-and-mortar retail is somewhere in between.

Now as for local monopolies, they would work the same way. However, with the presence of Target or CostCo and similar stores, I'd say Walmart could not create that many local monopolies. Perhaps they could have a few, but not many. Even then, local politicians could always zone them out. Even given that, I believe Walmart sets prices regionally, therefore even if they have a local monopoly, that particular store wouldn't charge higher prices than surrounding stores in towns that may have competition.
But people don't drive to other towns for groceries. They're stuck with their local Wal-Mart.
Thank God for Target and Costco. Hopefully they will continue to provide competition for Wal-Mart. K-Mart didn't fair so well and that's what makes me wary of Wal-Mart.

[SunWuKong]

i honestly don't think it is such an easy thing to simply just open a small shop, especially one that competes with Walmart. even if Walmart charges more, people may still go there because Walmart is a proven store and yours is new and smalltime.

plus, like i said, Walmart's strategy is not only to compete with the local competition with price, it actually closes its stores once it's beatened its competition, and consolidate several operations by opening a Super Walmart nearby. i've actually seen this happen. and with a strategy like that, you know perfectly well that opening new small stores is not really such an easy thing.

besides, who are Walmart's competition, really? when was the last time you saw a small time no-name store open up that sells what Walmart sells? most stores nowadays are chains or franchises already.

[Faithless]

If we're all for supporting Walmart workers, shouldn't be also in support of their efforts to unionize?

Workers Challenge Wal-Mart Canada Store Closure (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/ns02112005.cfm)

Feb. 11—The United Food and Commercial Workers and the Canadian union movement are launching a broad grassroots action against Wal-Mart in response to the retailer’s announcement it will close its first North American unionized store rather than accept binding arbitration in contract bargaining.

Nearly 200 workers at a Wal-Mart in Jonquière, Quebec, chose a voice at work with UFCW Local 503 last fall. After Wal-Mart refused to bargain in good faith over issues, including work schedules, seniority clauses and employee status, the union asked the Quebec Ministry of Labor to impose binding arbitration on contract negotiations, as Canadian law provides.

On Feb. 9, just hours after the Ministry of Labor announced its approval for the arbitration request, Wal-Mart Canada declared the store was unprofitable and planned to close it this spring.

“This latest action by Wal-Mart demonstrates, once again, the company’s systematic abuse of working families,” said UFCW President Joseph Hansen. “This is a company that prefers to spend millions and millions to dress up its image on TV, rather than treat workers with respect.”

Not the First Time Wal-Mart Shut Down Operations After Workers Join a Union
The announced closure of the Jonquière store follows a similar Wal-Mart action in 2000 when 11 Wal-Mart workers in Jacksonville, Texas, chose a voice at work with the UFCW. Wal-Mart eliminated the meat cutter positions and switched to selling pre-packaged meat. In June 2003, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled the company had broken labor law and ordered it to restore the meat cutting duties and bargain with the union over the effects of the change.

“Unfortunately, workers in Canada are finding out the hard way what many Wal-Mart workers in the United States already know—that Wal-Mart won’t negotiate to provide a basic, fair employment package for its workers,” says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney.

Wal-Mart Workers Continue Their Fight for Justice
Across the United States and Canada, Wal-Mart workers continue their struggle for a voice at work. In late January, the Denver director of the NLRB ruled that nearly 20 Wal-Mart auto service workers in Loveland, Colo., have the right to vote for representation by UFCW Local 7. Wal-Mart had argued that the union had to organize all 480 workers at the store, but the board said auto service employees work independently.

In St.-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Wal-Mart workers chose a voice with UFCW Canada Local 501 in January. An application for a bargaining unit has been submitted by one-third of the Quebec store, and the UFCW has applications in process in some dozen locations through Canada.

[yoMAMA]

hell yeah!

i'm all for more wages for wal mart workers.

and, fuck wal mart....hope they go bankrupt someday.

[haplesshobo]

The article makes several mistakes. First of all, AP demise wasn't due to anit-trust legilslation. Instead, the market changed and AP failed to adapt to these changes. It had the perfect model for the first half of the 20th century when 2 world wars and a a depression imprinted frugality upon Americans. In response, their stores had cheap, plentiful groceries sold in utilaritan stores. But, the prosperity of the second half changed our expectations: we wanted nicer, bigger stores with more choices. Its leadership was stuck in the past and wouldn't acknowledge any change. They kept on giving out cash dividends, instead of using the money to update its stores. It did attempt a price war, but it only ended up hurting the company as it had less money for upkeep and service.

The article fails to acknowledge that companies rise and fall. There's no gurantee that Walmart will be still dominant 20 years from now. Look at what happened to KMart. It was the Walmart of its day in the 70s, and dominated the discount retail business. According to everybody who's scared of Kmart, it should have been able to use its buying power to crush all of its competitors, including Walmart.

[Yeahman]

and, fuck wal mart....hope they go bankrupt someday.
3% drop in GDP, lower standard of living, and mass unemployment is what you want?

I'm fine with Wal-Mart unionization but the unions have to be kept in check too otherwise their power can exceed that of Wal-Mart. Anti-trust laws should also apply to unions.

[yoMAMA]

3% drop in GDP, lower standard of living, and mass unemployment is what you want?

lower standard of living?

more like higher standard of living.

[Yeahman]

lower standard of living?

more like higher standard of living.
More expensive products -> lower standard of living
Higher wages for a few does not make up for the higher prices for the masses.

[Jung Rhee]

Do you guys support the raising of the minimum wage?

[nola]

I do.

Nationally last week it was shot down although each state can raise it individually.

[Faithless]

...
I'm fine with Wal-Mart unionization but the unions have to be kept in check too otherwise their power can exceed that of Wal-Mart. Anti-trust laws should also apply to unions.
Explain to me how a trust situation could form in relation to unionized Walmart workers?

[Yeahman]

Explain to me how a trust situation could form in relation to unionized Walmart workers?
I admit, it would be difficult with unskilled labor.

[yoMAMA]

Do you guys support the raising of the minimum wage?

yes.

[nola]

I think the Dems tried to raise it to 7.25 over two years and the Repubs to 6.25 but both were shot down.

[haplesshobo]

Anti-trust laws should also apply to unions.

But, section 6 and 20 of clayton act permit labor unions to organize and strike without violating antitrust laws.

[Faithless]

More expensive products -> lower standard of living
Higher wages for a few does not make up for the higher prices for the masses.
What is the profit margin
Would you at least give Wal-Mart employees the access to better healthcare through Wal-Mart instead at the taxpayers expense?

[Yeahman]

But, section 6 and 20 of clayton act permit labor unions to organize and strike without violating antitrust laws.
That's why I said that maybe unions should be subject to anti-trust laws.

What is the profit margin
Would you at least give Wal-Mart employees the access to better healthcare through Wal-Mart instead at the taxpayers expense?
No. I'd be more inclined to accept universal taxpayer funded healthcare.
Why would companies have to pay for health insurance? That just makes US companies less competitive.

[haplesshobo]

Say that they sell groceries for so cheap that it puts local stores out of business. Say that they then raise prices. The barrier-to-entry is not so high that local competition cannot rise. Say that a new store opens up selling groceries for cheaper. Wal-Mart would lower their prices again.

In the end we're left with low prices. I would think that the low barrier-to-entry in the retail industry would ensure that the prices stay low. Anybody have any counter-arguements?

When we're talking about barrier to entry, are we talking about just entering the market or actually being able to compete with Walmart.

Sure, its fairly inexpensive to enter the market. The only costs you'd basically need would be the lease and employee costs. If you were efficient, you wouldn't need to pay for inventory.

However, in the long run, you'd still might not be able to compete in terms of price and eventually close down. Is this competition? Walmart has invested heavily in its distribution centers, its supply chain, IT, etc... That's not also including Walmart's powerful buying power, where it can get more favorable discounts than its competitors.

The question is whether or not is if it is so succesful that it has shut down any possible competition?

[Faithless]

...
No. I'd be more inclined to accept universal taxpayer funded healthcare.

Why would companies have to pay for health insurance? That just makes US companies less competitive.
I'd support universal healthcare.

But in the meantime, should taxpayers be subsidizing Wal-Mart worker's healthcare?

[Yeahman]

But in the meantime, should taxpayers be subsidizing Wal-Mart worker's healthcare?
How are taxpayers subsidizing Wal-Mart employees' healthcare?

[Faithless]

How are taxpayers subsidizing Wal-Mart employees' healthcare?
For the basic reason that Wal-Mart doesn't provide adequate options for it.

Even your pbs show talks about it (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/transform/protest.html). "In California, opponents say the company has cost taxpayers millions by shortchanging its employees on healthcare."

More from the PBS article: "Another charge that local communities have made against Wal-Mart is that the company provides inadequate benefits and that local taxpayers are forced to pick up the burden. Critics say Wal-Mart's healthcare benefits are often so poor and the coverage is so expensive that many employees chose to go without it and instead get their coverage through state programs like Medicaid and or hospital charity."

Iowa: (http://www.union-network.org/unicommerce.nsf/0/3C391DA2D0083E85C1256FBD003542E5?OpenDocument) "Iowa is the most recent U.S. State to reveal that Wal-Mart tops the list of companies who let taxpayers finance workers' health care. According to a report by the Iowa Department of Human Services, 845 Wal-Mart workers received benefits from the state's Medicaid programme.

"These latest revelations of Wal-Mart's poor healthcare performance come as Iowa is facing a 170 million USD deficit for its Medicaid programme.

"- 'If Wal-Mart has full-time employees that are on Medicaid, that's outrageous,'' State Senator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) said to QC Times (http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1046701&l=1&t=Iowa+%2F+Illinois&c=24,1046701).

"- This is a company making billions of dollars in profit a year with their low prices, but they also have a concurrent responsibility to not foist off the health care costs of their employees on Iowa taxpayers.' "

Connecticut: (http://hr.blr.com/Article.cfm/Nav/5.0.0.0.32276) "Connecticut lawmakers were outraged Thursday to learn that a state program meant to help poor families is footing the healthcare bills of workers at some major companies, led by Wal-Mart.

"For families under the poverty level, Connecticut's HUSKY program provides free health care for parents and children. At higher income limits, which depend on the size of the family, the so-called HUSKY B program offers co-payments of $5 for a medical office visit, $3 for a generic prescription, and $6 for a brand-name prescription.

"A report given to lawmakers Thursday says the program is paying an estimated $43 million annually to cover workers at Connecticut's top 25 major employers, according the Hartford Courant.

"Nearly half of the estimated total covers the top five employers, including Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, Dunkin' Donuts, and McDonald's--all highly profitable companies.

"Lawmakers reserved much of their ire for Wal-Mart. The retailer has 1,028 employees in the HUSKY program, or 11.3 percent of its workers in the state.

"'Here is the richest retail company in the world, and we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing their coverage,' said House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan. 'I think people aren't aware of the extent that we're subsidizing the biggest, richest, most powerful companies. Wal-Mart shoppers need to know there's an extra cost of doing business.'"

Other states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mass., Tenn., Washington, West Virginia, Wisonsin (http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/gjfhealthcaredisclosure.htm)

Same link: "ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF INTEREST ABOUT WAL-MART
AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS

"Allegations that the company’s pharmacies shortchanged recipients of Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs

"In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $2,866,904 to settle allegations that the company had submitted false prescription claims to federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid. The company’s pharmacies were alleged to have dispensed partial or “short” prescriptions due to insufficient stock, while it billed the government programs for the full quantities. The settlement amount in the case, which began as a whistleblower complaint, was to be divided up among the federal government, the District of Columbia, the states participating in the suit and a whistleblower. The company also agreed to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services."

Shucks, if Wal-Mart is starting to offer this coverage to some of its Sam' Club employees ( Sam's Club to Add Healthcare Discounts (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/consumer/la-fi-walmart8mar08,1,2349311.story?coll=la-health-consumer-news&ctrack=1&cset=true) ), they can do better by the others:

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Monday that Sam's Club, its warehouse members-only division, would offer members discounts on healthcare coverage.

"Members can save as much as 50% on services not normally covered by medical insurance, such as laser eye surgery and dental care, Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart said. Sam's Club will offer the program in partnership with Glendale-based HealthAllies, a division of UnitedHealth Group Inc., the second-biggest U.S. health insurer."

[Yeahman]

I don't like the Medicaid bureaucracy but it's the closest thing we have to universal taxpayer funded healthcare. I'd rather everyone go on Medicaid than force employers to pay for the healthcare of all working Americans.
The best would be a middle road. Universal taxpayer funded healthcare managed privately. There is some choice in Medicaid but not nearly enough.

[tint]

It's not the fault of Walmart that the US doesn't have an universal healthcare plan and the cost of healthcare is getting out of hand. The healthcare industry has not innovated to drive cost down. The pharmaceutical companies are marking up ridiculous margins on drugs. Walmart is innovation in retailing. People can afford to buy more. This is a result of free market forces and it's a good thing. The employees are just clerks. If they want to get more pay, then they should get an higher education and skillset where their work adds more value to the economy.

[Faithless]

It seems the fact is that retail industry generally does provide medical insurance coverage for its employees. Nationally, 66% of large firms like Wal-Mart do.

Minnesota (http://www.iseek.org/sv/41502.jsp) says that over 60% of retail businesses in its state provide coverage.

South Dakota (http://www.state.sd.us/dol/lmic/benefitsbyindustry.htm) says that over 84% of retail businesses in its state provide coverage.

According to the following study, Wal-Mart provides coverage for about 41-46% of its employees. Come on now -- Wal-Mart, the company that puts-on these gut-wrenching, "we care for our workers" advertisements on the radio, can do better than that.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/WALMARTREPORT.pdf

Among these uninsured working families are a significant number of Wal-Mart employees, many of whom instead secure their health care from publicly subsidized programs. Fewer than half – between 41 and 46 percent – of Wal-Mart’s employees are insured by the company’s health care plan, compared nationally to 66 percent of employees at large firms like Wal-Mart who receive health benefits from their employer.41 In recent years, the company increased obstacles for its workers to access its health care plan.

In 2002, Wal-Mart increased the waiting period for enrollment eligibility from 90 days to 6 months for full-time employees. Part-time employees must wait 2 years before they may enroll in the plan, and they may not purchase coverage for their spouses or children. The definition of part-time was changed from 28 hours or less per week to less than 34 hours per week. At the time, approximately one-third of Wal-Mart’s workforce was part-time. By comparison, nationally, the average waiting period for health coverage for employees at large firms like Wal-Mart was 1.3 months. 42

The Wal-Mart plan itself shifts much of the health care costs onto employees. In 1999, employees paid 36 percent of the costs. In 2001, the employee burden rose to 42 percent. Nationally, large-firm employees pay on average 16 percent of the premium for health insurance. Unionized grocery workers typically pay nothing.43 Studies show that much of the decline in employer-based health coverage is due to shifts of premium costs from employers to employees.44

Moreover, Wal-Mart employees who utilize their health care confront high deductibles and co-payments. A single worker could end up spending around $6,400 out-of-pocket – about 45 percent of her annual full-time salary – before seeing a single benefit from the health plan.45

According to an AFL-CIO report issued in October 2003, the employees’ low wages and Wal-Mart’s cost-shifting render health insurance unaffordable, particularly for those employees with families. Even under the Wal-Mart plan with the highest deductible ($1,000) – and therefore with the lowest employee premium contribution – it would take an $8 per hour employee, working 34 hours per week, almost one-and-a-half months of pre-tax earnings to pay for one year of family coverage.46

Wal-Mart’s spending on health care for its employees falls well below industry and national employer-spending averages. A Harvard Business School case study on Wal-Mart found that, in 2002, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 per employee. By comparison, the average spending per employee in the wholesale/retailing sector was $4,800. For U.S. employers in general, the average was $5,600 per employee.47
.
I don't like the Medicaid bureaucracy but it's the closest thing we have to universal taxpayer funded healthcare. I'd rather everyone go on Medicaid than force employers to pay for the healthcare of all working Americans.
...
Are you being consistent with your ideas on socialist government spending?

And I don't know about paying for all workers, but I think what many state governments, especially the ones in the red states, would like to see is employers paying for the healthcare of their own employees, first.

[nola]

From Christian Science Monitor:


On Monday, the Senate defeated a bill that would have raised the nation's minimum wage by $2.10 over the next 26 months. The bill was defeated by the Senate Republicans, who argued that the increase would stifle job growth.

That's a legitimate concern, though one that doesn't seem to bear up to scrutiny. The last two times the minimum wage was increased, in 1996 and 1997, the unemployment rate fell in the following months. And the wage is in need of a bump - adjusted for inflation, the 1997 $5.15-an-hour wage is worth only $4.33-an-hour in 2005.

Senate GOPers noted that the nation was still coming out of hard economic times, and proposed a more moderate increase of $1.10 over 18 months. That wasn't an unreasonable alternative, but they crammed their substitute bill with so many antiworker provisions (restrictions on overtime pay and the ability of states to raises wages for restaurant workers, for example) that they knew it would fail.

Then, fresh from defeating the minimum wage increase, the Senate on Thursday passed legislation that would change bankruptcy rules, making it harder for the those who go broke to cancel their debts and start over. Not a bad idea, right?

Well, yes and no. Everyone is for making sure people don't abuse the system and simply declare bankruptcy to get rid of credit-card bills that were run up on flat-screen TVs and trips to Paris. But the bill does nothing to exempt those who are stuck with massive debt from healthcare costs - which Congress is doing little to control. It ignored the fact that one-third of all personal bankruptcies are declared by families that meet the federal definition of poverty. And the legislation does nothing to punish credit-card companies that offer cards to people they know to be bad risks.

Worst of all, the bill keeps intact the "millionaire's loophole," a provision of the current law used by wealthy individuals as a shelter from creditors. There are five states that allow people who live anywhere in the country to establish trusts that cannot be reached by federal bankruptcy proceedings. One amendment proposed limiting what could be sheltered to $125,000. It was defeated.

So in one week you had the Senate saying, sorry, but the country just isn't in the position to give people working at the bottom of the pay scale a raise because times are tough, while simultaneously telling those same people that times may be tough but bankruptcy isn't an option. Oh, yeah, and if you are very wealthy, well, bankruptcy really is an option.

[Yeahman]

The last two times the minimum wage was increased, in 1996 and 1997, the unemployment rate fell in the following months.
We were in the greatest bull market in a generation! And it was only an 95 cent increase in total.
That's a different situtation entirely from the proposed $2.10 increase during these relatively slow economic times.

The minimum wage is fine where it is. Welfare should be expanded to better help working mothers.

[Faithless]

Wal-Mart Discovers Asian America (http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=17cafb391330b50d723c0 d98682d1a09)

AsianWeek, News Report, Grace Niwa, Jul 23, 2005

Wal-Mart has conquered retailing. It stands as undisputed number one in the world. But, the battle came at the expense of its image with consumers. An odd alliance of competitors, labor unions and activists has been pummeling Wal-Mart in the press. And now complaints from Asia America are catching the attention of the world’s largest retailer.

Many see Wal-Mart threatening the Asian American economic base of small businesses. Numerous studies from University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business to Iowa State University’s Department of Economics have questioned Wal-Mart’s aggressive pricing policies. Some say it’s survival of the fittest. But Wal-Mart’s practices have caught the eye of Congress and the ire of local politicians like Jun Choi, mayoral candidate for Edison, New Jersey.

Choi’s campaign has included an anti-Wal-Mart platform. “Blue collar jobs will be lost and small businesses ... owned by Asians will be threatened,” Choi said. “It’s safe to say that Wal-Mart has a negative effect on Asian Business owners. I disagree with Wal-Mart’s corporate philosophy in not providing health care benefits and acceptable wages for a state, which has the highest median household income in the U.S. It would be very tough for families to survive.” Choi is now trying to reverse a decision to let Wal-Mart into his town.

No other racial group depends on small businesses more than Asian America. We have 913,000 small businesses in our community. Without those opportunities, Asian Americans would have a harder time adapting and helping their children advance to more prestigious careers. Many APAs see Wal-Mart as narrowing the road we must take toward achieving the American dream.

Groups like the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) and the Los Angeles-based Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) have announced that they will not take donations from Wal-Mart. They cite Wal-Mart’s policy preventing working class Asian Americans from organizing. Low $8 an hour average wages and a union-free workplace are a part of the way Wal-Mart delivers on its “Always Low Prices” promise. Earlier this year, Wal-Mart said it will close a store in Canada and fire its workforce instead of accepting a collectively bargained contract.

But corporations like Wal-Mart cannot be successful without listening to customers with cash to spend. And Wal-Mart has recently started to court foreign-language speaking APAs. In April, the retailer started its first advertising campaign exclusively in Asian languages. The print and broadcast ads are running in Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Taglish. The campaign was developed by IW Group of Los Angeles. And it will be seen in 9 cities including Los Angeles, Houston and San Jose.

“Wal-Mart believes in featuring real-life people in their advertisements,” Bill Imada, chairman and CEO of IW Group says. “Many consumers have told us that they like the fact the people are real people. Some of them have accents. Some are a bit shy. But the nice thing about the people in Wal-Mart’s ads is that it reflects people who truly appreciate what they find at Wal-Mart.”

The advertising campaign has received mixed reviews and is targeted only to Asian immigrants rather than addressing the Asian American community as a whole.

“We’re excited about our campaign,” Wal-Mart’s Senior Communications Manager Linda Blakely said. “Our goals were two fold. We wanted to acknowledge and thank our Asian American shoppers and also extend an invitation to Asian Americans who have not been to our stores.”

While it is hard to imagine Wal-Mart taking time away from mahjong, the retailer deserves credit for making an effort. Wal-Mart employs about 30,000 Asian Americans. And unlike many U.S. corporations, Wal-Mart has appointed an APA within upper management. Senior Vice President Michael Fung is the company’s chief audit executive. He has a seat on the board of the Asian and Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund (APIASF), a group that Wal-Mart and other corporations helped to create. APIASF recently gave its first round of $330,000 in scholarships to 165 entering Asian American college freshmen. Wal-Mart also donates to APA groups such as the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA), the Asian American Business Association and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).

“Wal-Mart doesn’t just give money,” said Michael Chu, NAPABA president. “They put their money where their mouth is. At our last convention, 19 Wal-Mart employees … attended to show support.” NAPABA has received money from Wal-Mart for four years.

Wal-Mart says most of its charity money is given on a local level. So, the best person to contact about donations is often a store manager.

Wal-Mart likes to think of itself as an anchor store that attracts customers to surrounding Asian American small businesses. “We find that small businesses flourish because we bring traffic to the area,” Blakely said. To help small business, Wal-Mart has created a “second tier supplier” program to make it easier for small businesses to sell goods in its stores.

Wal-Mart has done a lot to try to repair its image within Asian America. But, most of its efforts have occurred recently, and repairing a corporation’s image takes a long-term commitment.

[TB4000]

Is that really a valid argument he can use for not wanting Wal-Mart?

[Faithless]

Is that really a valid argument he can use for not wanting Wal-Mart?
You mean from the article that I posted?

Sounds like it's a variation on the mom & pop's being hurt by Wal-Mart theme.

Here's another group that feels affected by Wal-Mart (and the like):

Christian Marketeers Spend to Counter Big Box Competition (http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2005/07/15/christian_marketeers_spend_to/index.php)

Organized Christian retailers - like mom-and-pop stores in other categories - are bemoaning the decline in market share because of retail giants such as Target and Wal-Mart entering the category, at this week's International Christian Retail Show in Denver. Their share of the $4.3 billion-a-year category, which includes everything from Bibles and jewelry to church furniture and religious-themed T-shirts, has dropped another four percentage points since 2002, to 53 percent, according to AdAge.

To combat the loss, the Christian Booksellers Association launched in April a multi-million dollar campaign, aided by money kicked in from suppliers. The campaign included a series of TV spots encouraging Christians to shop at Christian stores. The spots aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network and on ABC's Family Channel and are scheduled to run again the third and fourth quarter of 2005 in time for the holiday season. The majority of CBA members have sales of $125,000 or less.

[nola]

Wal-Mart asks appeals court to block suit By Michael Kahn
Mon Aug 8, 8:37 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Lawyers for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. urged a federal appeals court on Monday to block a sex-discrimination lawsuit against it that could cost the retailer an estimated billions of dollars.

The retailer is seeking to overturn a June 2004 U.S. District Court decision certifying as class-action a lawsuit that now covers more than 1.6 million women and charges Wal-Mart with discriminating against female workers in pay, promotions and training.

Attorneys for the six lead plaintiffs say the case is the largest civil-rights class-action in U.S. history ever certified and could cost Wal-Mart billions of dollars in economic losses.

But during a hearing in San Francisco, Wal-Mart attorney Ted Boutrous said the appellate judges should overturn the lower court's decision because the charges of the six lead plaintiffs were not typical or common of the entire class.

He also argued that the lower court's decision stripped Wal-Mart of its right to defend itself by ruling that the retailer could not call individual store managers to the stand to testify, for example, that there was no bias against women.

"Simply put, the named plaintiffs' experiences are not common or typical," Boutrous said. "Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to put on the testimony of a manager to say 'I didn't discriminate."'

The three-judge panel, whose decision will likely not come for months, grilled both sides during the less than one hour hearing and gave little indication on how they might rule.

In one round of questioning, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld asked plaintiff attorney Brad Seligman whether Wal-Mart's decision to leave its hiring up to local managers amounted to a systematic policy of discrimination.

"I have trouble getting from there to sex discrimination without statistics," the judge said.

Seligman, however, told the judges they should let the case proceed as class-action to prevent Wal-Mart from challenging each individual class member on an individual basis.

He argued this would make it more difficult to engender change and said Wal-Mart would not alter its policies until the company lost a nationwide case.

"What Wal-Mart is saying would lead to a more unjust result," Seligman said.

The lawsuit, filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charges Wal-Mart with discriminating against female employees in pay, promotion and training, and with retaliating against women employees who complain about the alleged abuse.

The suit demands a court order directing Wal-Mart to stop its allegedly discriminatory practices as well as compensation for lost wages.

The plaintiffs say that women only hold about one-third of the company's salaried managerial positions even though females make up about 65 percent of the U.S. Wal-Mart work force of nearly one million.

Wal-Mart has repeatedly denied there is a pattern of discrimination, and argues the number of men in management positions reflects the higher number of applications it receives from men - a defense that has been successfully used in other discrimination cases.

The lawsuit comes as Wal-Mart has faced a barrage of criticism for its employment practices. Earlier this year, it agreed to pay a record $11 million to settle a civil probe by U.S. authorities into charges it knowingly hired floor-cleaning contractors who employed illegal aliens.

Critics also charge that the Bentonville, Arkansas-company mistreats its workers and that the retailer's low wages force employees to seek government aid for health care, food and housing.

[nola]

Let's Educate Walmart

Pledge to Buy Back-to-School Supplies Somewhere Else

Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer, setting the standard for America’s workplaces—and it’s a standard of low wages, poor benefits and worker abuse that working families cannot accept .Together, we have to stop the Wal-Marting of America’s jobs.

Let’s educate Wal-Mart about how a rich company should treat its workers by pledging to buy back-to-school supplies at other stores this year.

Please sign this pledge and we’ll make sure Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott hears you.


http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/WalMart_Pledge

[nola]

Walmart as Thought Police. Walmart is the No. 1 CD retailer in the world (yes, the world) with sales accounting for 10% of total domestic CD sales, a Wal-Mart boycott can result in hundreds of thousands in lost album sales. Walmart refueled the best-selling runs of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly's books and its commercial crown jewel is the evangelical Left Behind series. Go Toby Keith!


The Wal-Mart Thought Police
Sometimes “family values” just means censorship.

By Amy Schiller, Brandeis University
Tuesday, August 9, 2005

Wal-Mart, America’s largest retailer, prides itself on being a “family-friendly” store, with smiley faces guiding stressed-out breadwinners to a land of low-cost, guilt-free consumption. Indeed, there are mega Wal-Marts that inhabit a space the size of five football fields. The total square footage of all of the Wal-Mart stores nationwide tops 25 million square feet, probably enough to make up an actual country to rival Luxembourg in size.

As you have probably heard before, the “everyday low prices” at these concrete boxes of utopian consumption have tremendous costs for our environment, our workers, our wages, our communities, and the public coffers. But they also come at the expense of free speech and artistic expression, as the corporation targets items that often include edgy, progressive criticism of conservative values.

Based in Bentonville, AR, the brand behemoth has become the self-appointed culture police by effectively screening the music, books and magazines that many Americans will be able to access – since in a number of communities, a Wal-Mart is the only convenient store in the area that stocks culture products.

Take, for example, Wal-Mart’s refusal to sell Sheryl Crow’s self-titled album in 1996, citing objections to a lyric that criticized Wal-Mart for selling handguns (a practice that the chain has since discontinued), which they felt was “unfair and irresponsible.” Much as Crow probably appreciated the paternalistic advice, as the No. 1 CD retailer in the world (yes, the world) with sales accounting for 10% of total domestic CD sales, a Wal-Mart boycott can result in hundreds of thousands in lost album sales.

The record industry, never too proud to bend over for sales, has started issuing two versions of the same album, one “sanitized.” Sometimes this entails altering the cover art, as John Mellencamp was asked to do for his album Mr. Happy Go Lucky, whose cover featured an angel and devil in the background. Nirvana actually changed its song title from "Rape Me" to "Waif Me" for the Wal-Mart version. Both they and the Goo Goo Dolls came under fire for portraying babies in their cover art as well. The cover of the Goo Goo Dolls album titled “A Boy Named Goo” featured a baby covered in blackberry juice; Wal-Mart banned it and only reversed its decision under pressure from the media.

Wal-Mart’s official statement on music is as follows: “Wal-Mart will not stock music with parental guidance stickers. While Wal-Mart sets high standards, it would not be possible to eliminate every image, word or topic that an individual might find objectionable. And the goal is not to eliminate the need for parents to review the merchandise their children buy. The policy simply helps eliminate the most objectionable material from Wal-Mart’s shelves.”

Objectionable material like a book cover with a comedian posing with an American flag and a bald eagle? Actually, yes. The huge bestseller, America: the Book, featuring Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the rest of the Daily Show crew, was banned from Wal-Mart in 2004. Granted, the company objected to the infamous page 99 featuring obviously photoshopped naked pictures of Supreme Court justices (just think, now we can all look at Justice O’Connor’s wrinkled, saggy flesh with great nostalgia.)

Stewart is not the only comedian with a book banned by Wal-Mart, though; a shipment of George Carlin’s When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops was returned, citing a mistake in ordering the book in the first place. A mistake which probably had nothing to do with Carlin’s cover of himself inserted into the Last Supper. Perhaps there is some legitimacy (however hysterical) to their objections to irreverent images. Yet the political bias inherent in Wal-Mart’s criteria became clearer when Wal-Mart’s merchandiser for films found Robert Greenwald’s acclaimed documentary, "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," (produced with the support of the Center for American Progress) “inappropriate for Wal-Mart.” For no conceivable reason could a documentary involving no gratuitous violence, expletives, or sex be inappropriate, other than its criticism of a conservative political administration.

Pathetically, the rationale for these items is that they “would not appeal to the majority of our customers” or would offend those proverbial family values. Fine, if they know their designated market and have complaints pouring in from their consumers. Except that those two books were both fixtures on the bestseller list for months and Sheryl Crow, Nirvana and the Goo Goo Dolls are top selling entertainers. And those items that are not religiously objectionable demonstrate the degree of hypocrisy within the “family values” standards.

Even something as potentially broadly appealing, positive, and utterly non-offensive as a T-shirt reading “Someday a woman will be president” was pulled from the sales floor because “the message goes against Wal-Mart family values.” So old school patriarchy and sexism are Wal-Mart values? Seems a little retrograde and moot in the age of “take your daughter to work day.”

Frighteningly and hypocritically, the family values red flag was absent for the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion , which describes a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Booksellers like Amazon that do offer it at least include a disclaimer that describes it as a "pernicious fraud," and "one of the most infamous, and tragically influential, examples of racist propaganda ever written." Wal-Mart’s site, in contrast, said "If … The Protocols are genuine (which can never be proven conclusively), it might cause some of us to keep a wary eye on world affairs." Yet another example of the cloak of “family values” serving as a euphemism for a more sinister ideology. (If the book actually featured a cover image of Jews milking children for blood, then would Wal-Mart ban it?) Wal-Mart only decided to stop selling the book in October of 2004.

Furthermore, ever wonder who is buying those oversize drink coasters also known as Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly’s perniciously partisan publications? Their publishers readily admit that Wal-Mart’s merchandising and promotion basically fueled their bestselling runs.

The crown jewel of Wal-Mart’s commercial triumph is the dystopic end of days series Left Behind. As reported in the New York Times, Tyndale House, publisher of the Left Behind series, credits Wal-Mart with a pivotal role in turning the evangelical thriller "Armageddon" (No. 11 in the Left Behind series) into the best-selling novel in the country. As Melani McAllister wrote in The Nation, “these novels work [because] they seamlessly integrate an apocalyptic religious view with a strongly conservative political vision, and locate both in a universe of supernatural action adventure in which good and evil are fully and finally revealed.” Left Behind books do not include any actual sex, except for when the faithful rail against abortion and immorality, though they include plenty of violence between good (evangelical warriors complete with fighter planes) and evil (the Antichrist fronting as a smooth-talking UN ambassador.) Granted, the Left Behind series is hardly comparable to Maxim, but really, though, it could be considered the equivalent of evangelical porn. Not to beat a dead metaphor, but they’re all about self-gratification and ultimate rapture. As many have noted, a lot of purchasers for right-wing screeds probably buy them for the element of fantasy and self-affirmation, particularly those who believe that the war in Iraq and conflict in Israel herald the impending end times.

In all seriousness, the most self-defeating attitude for progressives would be to give an elitist sneer to those who shop at Wal-Mart, shrugging our shoulders not only at Wal-Mart’s censorship but at its union busting, sex discrimination, and reprehensibly stingy health plans for already underpaid workers. To Wal-Mart shoppers: There’s nothing wrong with wanting religious or G-rated entertainment material in your own home and wanting to shield children from materials that you might find offensive. But, it is a problem when the biggest retailer in the country, which is a staple for millions of people, only offers up a sanitized world of culture that is comprised primarily of Veggie Tales videos and Toby Keith albums (wonder if they include the “gonna put a boot in your ass” lyric).

Still, this bleak picture seems to be changing as anti-Wal-Mart groups begin to gain strength and actually win some victories. In early August, Salon.com reported on the increasingly successful anti-Wal-Mart publicity efforts from organizations like Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart. These organizations have been particularly successful in mobilizing union members while making the public aware of the costs of sustaining Wal-Marts, including the millions and millions spent providing public health care assistance to the thousands of Wal-Mart employees who do not receive company health care.

Political change is happening too on the state and local level. Legislative efforts are underway to prevent more Wal-Marts from moving into communities like Inglewood, CA, and to enforce stricter labor laws for those that already do exist. And far from being restricted to perceived "liberal, anti-corporate" enclaves, even conservatives such as the Republican speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives have started to address the financial burden Wal-Mart’s health care negligence places on states.

Crucial, and hopefully successful, as these campaigns are, another lesson to take from Wal-Mart’s censorship policy is the danger of corporate conglomizoration that stifles free media under the misleading name of radically conservative “family values.”

[yoMAMA]

fuck Walmart.

[Tao]

fuck Walmart.
hahha, best thread summary ever.