Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 My comments are inline. Dennis De Jarnette wrote: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: [ ] Evil Wall Mart > > Lynn wrote: > > > Just writing to suggest that folks consider *not* shopping at Walmart, > > seeing as Walmart uses unconscionable tactics to save money. > > > > Recently it was discovered that some Walmarts made a practice of > > hiring illegal aliens as janitors, paying them less than minimum wage, > > working them seven days a week with never a day off. > > completely untrue. It was a subcontractor, as someone in business who > uses subcontractors I can say that I have no influence on their choice > of employees I recall an article I read about this specifically, and I apologize for failing to recall that the abused illegal aliens were subcontractors' employees rather than Wal-Mart employees. The article pointed out, however, that the illegal-alien-abusing subcontractors had bid so much lower than other, more ethical, subcontractors that it was obvious they were taking extreme cost-cutting measures. The Wal-Mart stores involved could have inquired as to how the subcontractors managed to do the job so cheaply. The Wal-Mart stores could also have realized that when something is too good to be true it's not true--and could have shunned the extreme low-bidder. The New York Times article reproduced at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0625-04.htm gives details about how " Wal-Mart has created a system of rewards and punishments that critics say gives managers strong incentives to [cut costs by ignoring more important issues]. " > > Some Walmarts locked night > > workers in for their shift, with no one on-site having a key--and on > > multiple occasions workers couldn't get out to obtain medical care > > when emergencies occurred. > > again if this occurred it was a subcontractor If so, again I'd say that Wal-Mart bears some of the responsibility. The abovereferenced New York Times article reports that in at least some cases Wal-Mart locks its own employees in: " Wal-Mart officials acknowledged that employees were sometimes locked in.... " > > Regular ongoing Walmart cost-cutting measures > > involve buying goods made in countries where there's child labor and > > other egregious worker abuses, along with severe abuse of the > > environment that wouldn't be tolerated in the U.S. > > Which retailer does not? I'd say we should work to correct these abuses, and meanwhile we shouldn't embrace the worst of the abusers. > > Meanwhile, in the U.S., Walmart > > employees are poorly paid, and benefits are poor or nonexistent, > > although the company's TV ads claim differently. > > If they are poorly paid, then they can go to work somewhere else as many > of them do their yearly turnover rate at 54% is the highest in the > industry. (a) A high turnover rate is an indication that Wal-Mart is a bad place to work. ( The Wal-Mart phenomenon is driving down wages across many communities (see articles in my post on the subject " Re: [ ] shopping at Walmart " --there's discussion of why various cities are fighting the influx of Wal-Marts into their communities. So the more we give business to Wal-Mart the more we reduce the employees' chances of finding better work. > > And, of course, Walmart superstores damage communities by driving > > small locally-owned stores out of business. > > Maybe, as a business man that completes with such stores what I have to > do is provide better product or service, if I don't then I deserve to be > out of business. Why do these stores close? Because they are charging > too much in comparison to Wall Mart. This is wrong? Yes, I would say it's definitely wrong to charge less by harming people and communities in the U.S. and abroad, and by harming the environment. > > Let's allow issues of right and wrong to have a place in our nutrition > > and purchasing choices! > > > > Lynn > > Lynn I agree that is why I always shop at Wall mart if they are cheaper. > > Positive Dennis I can't control your decisions, but it's my hope that I can influence readers to consider what they're doing in the broader sense before they support this company with their purchases or their investments. Instead of choosing to save money by aligning ourselves with abusers, instead of choosing to benefit financially from wrongful actions done on our behalf by others, we can choose to act ethically and then adjust our budgets by buying one fewer item here and there. This yields a life somewhat more " plain " (to use the Quaker word) and also a life more honorable. Positive Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 As for Walmart... > It was a subcontractor That means " it wasn't me, it was the one-armed man, " and " labour camps were run at arms length from the government " ... I'm sure that slave owners had a high turn-over rate too. Sorry for the analogies, but I don't think these are terribly extreme, and the cases referred to have all been well-documented in the mainstream media repeatedly over the past 10 years (though that may be from a perspective outside the USA, though we do have Walmart here). The ethics of our CR practice isn't really the topic of this listserv, but I think that anyone who plans to be around for more than another 20 years should have some sense of reciprocity with the rest of the world and the globalized economy, especially since reciprocity doesn't necessarily mean mutual profit, and in the long-term can mean a boomerang on exploitation. In the long-term, we're all dead, but as CR practitioners, we ought to have our minds turned to the long-term in at least some minor respects. A company that has the highest turn-over rate in the USA obviously has some very serious ethical issues to deal with, and I personally won't go near it -- I'm sure I could get a good deal, but for a few pennies more, I can avoid believing that I am a whole-hearted enthusiast for continuing the slave economy and obesity of Western consumption... Good night to y'all, ________________________ Gifford 3-5 Humanities Centre Department of English University of Alberta www.ualberta.ca/~gifford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Gifford wrote: As for Walmart... > It was a subcontractor That means "it wasn't me, it was the one-armed man," and "labour camps were run at arms length from the government"... you ever used a subcontractor? I have. you do not know what you are talking about. I'm sure that slave owners had a high turn-over rate too. actually no, they had a low turnover rate. Sorry for the analogies, but I don't think these are terribly extreme, and the cases referred to have all been well-documented in the mainstream media repeatedly over the past 10 years (though that may be from a perspective outside the USA, though we do have Walmart here). Tell me is it wrong for an employee to quit working for one employer and go to another for a higher wage? If not, they why is it wrong for an employer to hire someone at a smaller wage? The ethics of our CR practice isn't really the topic of this listserv, but I think that anyone who plans to be around for more than another 20 years should have some sense of reciprocity with the rest of the world and the globalized economy, especially since reciprocity doesn't necessarily mean mutual profit, and in the long-term can mean a boomerang on exploitation. In the long-term, we're all dead, but as CR practitioners, we ought to have our minds turned to the long-term in at least some minor respects. A company that has the highest turn-over rate in the USA obviously has some very serious ethical issues to deal with, and I personally won't go near it -- I'm sure I could get a good deal, but for a few pennies more, I can avoid believing that I am a whole-hearted enthusiast for continuing the slave economy and obesity of Western consumption... LOL. Someone who chooses to work at Wall mart is a slave. The wage structure is why their turnover of employees is so high. When they find a better job they go elsewhere. Now we blame the market place for obesity. Ever here of choice? Hah, people choosing their situation can't be right, it must be someone else's fault Positive Dennis Good night to y'all, ________________________ Gifford 3-5 Humanities Centre Department of English University of Alberta www.ualberta.ca/~gifford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hi folks: In my opinion the discussion of Wal-Mart is off topic for this page and does not contribute anything of value to the purposes of the page. (Just my opinion). I have refrained from joining the discussion. However, should it continue I will wade in with my thoughts, and I can assure you that those on the other side of the argument will not like what I have to say. No, I am not going to disclose which side that is. My hope is that we can move on to other more helpful information relating to nutrition and health. (But obviously I have nothing to do with how this page is run. No doubt thankfully for most of us here!) Rodney. > > > As for Walmart... > > > > > It was a subcontractor > > > > That means " it wasn't me, it was the one-armed man, " and " labour camps > > were > > run at arms length from the government " ... > > you ever used a subcontractor? I have. you do not know what you are > talking about. > > > I'm sure that slave owners had a > > high turn-over rate too. > > actually no, they had a low turnover rate. > > > Sorry for the analogies, but I don't think these > > are terribly extreme, and the cases referred to have all been > > well-documented in the mainstream media repeatedly over the past 10 years > > (though that may be from a perspective outside the USA, though we do have > > Walmart here). > > Tell me is it wrong for an employee to quit working for one employer and > go to another for a higher wage? If not, they why is it wrong for an > employer to hire someone at a smaller wage? > > > > > > > The ethics of our CR practice isn't really the topic of this listserv, > > but I > > think that anyone who plans to be around for more than another 20 years > > should have some sense of reciprocity with the rest of the world and the > > globalized economy, especially since reciprocity doesn't necessarily mean > > mutual profit, and in the long-term can mean a boomerang on exploitation. > > In the long-term, we're all dead, but as CR practitioners, we ought to > > have > > our minds turned to the long-term in at least some minor respects. A > > company that has the highest turn-over rate in the USA obviously has some > > very serious ethical issues to deal with, and I personally won't go near > > it -- I'm sure I could get a good deal, but for a few pennies more, I can > > avoid believing that I am a whole-hearted enthusiast for continuing the > > slave economy and obesity of Western consumption... > > LOL. Someone who chooses to work at Wall mart is a slave. The wage > structure is why their turnover of employees is so high. When they find > a better job they go elsewhere. Now we blame the market place for > obesity. Ever here of choice? Hah, people choosing their situation can't > be right, it must be someone else's fault > > Positive Dennis > > > > > > > Good night to y'all, > > > > ________________________ > > Gifford > > 3-5 Humanities Centre > > Department of English > > University of Alberta > > www.ualberta.ca/~gifford > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hello all, I won't go through this in detail, but... >It was a subcontractor > > >That means " it wasn't me, it was the one-armed man, " > >and " labour camps were run at arms length from the > >government " ... > >you ever used a subcontractor? I have. you do not >know what you are talking about. Actually, I think it's quite an apt comparison -- labour camps have run, in effect, as subcontractors, or through opaque supply lines. The natural extension of your position is that if you can possibly avoid knowing the ethics of your acts, then you need not make an ethical decision. For instance, even if we go with utterly absolving Wal-mart for actively supporting gross violations of labour laws and human rights because they generally manage to find someone else who would do the nastiness for them (though they've been directly charged with violating child labour laws in nearly 1500 cases in Maine), that does not absolve us, the consumers, who know that these practices are going on -- we are deciding whether or not we want to financially support violations of human rights in the production and sale of the goods and services we purchase. You position does not absolve us from making ethical decisions. > > why is it wrong for an employer to hire someone > > at a smaller wage? If the wage is below the poverty line, then the employee is clearly being under-rewarded for the value of his or her labour. Only an artificially created labour surplus could perpetuate such a situation, especially among the wealthiest nations in the world. > > Someone who chooses to work at Wall mart is a > > slave. [snip] Ever here of choice? Hah, people > > choosing their situation can't be right, it > > must be someone else's fault Hmmm. This is a reductive use of the word " choice. " We're discussing a situation where 'choice' is a complex word (and yes, I've heard of it over here). When choice is unduly curtailed by necessity or threat, I believe that people have a right to point to those limitations as unethical compulsions. For instance, I may have the choice to work in illegal conditions or starve, but that isn't really a choice, is it (and it's not a *necessary* curtailment of choice in the modern world -- we can certainly afford for choices to be real ones). Nonetheless, to take your position to its natural conclusion, are you truly comfortable telling your family and employees that if you can find a company that will sell you products made by slaves or forced labourers (I mean it literally, see below) who 'choose' to work rather than being beaten or killed, then you would gladly stock that product -- and if so, would you help your customers make an informed 'choice' over whether or not to buy that product, or would you do everything in your power to prevent them from being able to make such a choice? http://www.freetheslaves.net/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/946952.stm (direct pressure recently led Nestle to de-mystify their supply chain in order to ensure their cocoa is not produced by slaves) http://www.union-network.org/unisite/sectors/commerce/Multinationals/wal_mar t_campaign_index_page.htm (admittedly biased, but thorough) If you want to chat more about this, let me know off-list. I'm guessing we wouldn't have a productive talk, but I'm willing to engage in it & don't want to give the impression that I have any ill-will. Cheers, ________________________ Gifford 3-5 Humanities Centre Department of English University of Alberta www.ualberta.ca/~gifford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.