http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/20051118-nbh.html
http://www.corporatesnitch.com/Research/Entity.aspx?eID=10000086
http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id57.html
Two years ago, Wal-Mart paid $50 million to settle a class-action suit that asserted that 69,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees in Colorado had worked off the clock.
Originally posted by Devil King
The scandal about locking their illegal immigrant employees in the store at night, which I can assume doesn't happen since I assume they're all 24 hrs now.
They shouldn't have those in the first place, and it is just as bad as any other company having them.
Originally posted by Devil King
They have hundreds of law suits tied up by their legal department that address them paying less than minimum wage. It's cheaper to keep the lawsuits tied up in courts and red tape than it would be to got to trial.
Whether that's true or not I don't know. But always remember that paying someone more means that someone else will lose their job.
Originally posted by Devil King
They have many employees that aren't allowed to work more than 20 hours a week, becauase if they were full-time employees, they'd have to offer them insurance benefits
Why do they have to offer full time jobs to everyone? If the government wouldn't mandate shit like that those guys could work as much as they want. That's a government induced problem. WalMart just has to work with what they get.
Originally posted by Devil King
http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2005/11/_walmart_employ.html
She wants to change the company against the companies wills. Of course she won't be hailed by the company. I don't think it is the duty of any company to keep people that go directly against their policy happy. And WalMart has the right to employ for which times ever it wants. The rest of the blog is just trivial emotiongrabbing.
Originally posted by Devil King
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/walmart.htm
Apparently the region seems to suffer either way. Why would she blame WalMart for that. The bad service in that WalMart is likely a byproduct of the region going ****ed. She complains about too little employees, but employees cost money, if the store is not viable more employees won't help anyone. Besides she could easily use the Internet for items she is complaining about.
It's hypocritical, the poor businesses closing is sad and not their fault and bad, but the WalMart not getting good business that's Wal Marts fault, and they should just throw money at it, because they shouldn't want to make money. It's stupid.
People are acting like small stores don't ever have problems, all went smooth and friendly and everything was perfect, but when something goes wrong in WalMart they are the devil. I would say statistically a lot of shit should go wrong in WalMart and it should have the same judgement as something that happens at your little corner store.
Originally posted by Devil King
http://www.my3cents.com/search.cgi?criteria=Wal-mart
Oh my. Walmart is not perfect. SO ****ING WHAT. The supermarket around the corner didn't have bananas last week, am I going to start a ****ing campaign of all the things that go wrong there? Is there any...ANY piece of evidence that customer service at WalMart is on average worse than that of other, smaller stores? Because if you have like a billion stores....shit will go wrong. That's just a fact.
Originally posted by Devil King
http://offtheshelf.us/retail/wal-mart/
All some personal problems those people encountered. Big deal. Yes, Wal Mart wants cheap products....because their costumers want cheap products. No one forces you to buy the two cent socks....there are better quality ones available most places, but the thing is....most want the cheap one.
Originally posted by Devil King
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48056-2005Apr12.html
Originally posted by Devil King
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/complaints/civil/cwa/walmart2-cp.pdf <---This is the kind of crap they think they can get away with, simply because they're Wal-Mart.
Guilty until proven innocent I take it. Again, some government laws are bullshit and they should rather be changed than upheld.
Originally posted by Devil King
Or, you could let them speak for themselves:
And they have the right to avoid that. And I think it is an ******* thing to do. But WalMart still has the right to terminate the employment for people they don't need. And it is a ****ing good thing too.
Originally posted by Devil King
Not to mention the fact that they have gotten so large, that they are in a position to dictate the prices of products they purchase from the manufacturer.
W-which is a good thing for consumers.
Originally posted by RobtardN-no. Maybe think a little more after reading.
I'll look into it, but as DK posted below/above, they don't seem the "Uber Employer", as you might think. What he posted, pretty much supports why Wal Mart can offer things cheaper, they screw their employees.To both of you then!
If anything they can offer things cheaper because they "screw" their providers over. A good thing for you Americans, too. Again the P&T episode states that it saves on average over 1000 Dollars for the average family.
Some other facts portrayed there:
WalMart provided 20 million in cash, 1500 Truck Loads of merchandise, food for 100 000 meals and a job promise for everyone of their workers after Katrina.
They provide the 100 most popular prescriptions for just 4 Dollars a month
They are the largest employer in the US
They have programs for shared profits with their employers.
They are just not as shit as everyone wants to paint them.
10% of their managers came from their lowest entree jobs
Originally posted by Bardock42
They shouldn't have those in the first place, and it is just as bad as any other company having them.Whether that's true or not I don't know. But always remember that paying someone more means that someone else will lose their job.
Why do they have to offer full time jobs to everyone? If the government wouldn't mandate shit like that those guys could work as much as they want. That's a government induced problem. WalMart just has to work with what they get.
She wants to change the company against the companies wills. Of course she won't be hailed by the company. I don't think it is the duty of any company to keep people that go directly against their policy happy. And WalMart has the right to employ for which times ever it wants. The rest of the blog is just trivial emotiongrabbing.
Apparently the region seems to suffer either way. Why would she blame WalMart for that. The bad service in that WalMart is likely a byproduct of the region going ****ed. She complains about too little employees, but employees cost money, if the store is not viable more employees won't help anyone. Besides she could easily use the Internet for items she is complaining about.
It's hypocritical, the poor businesses closing is sad and not their fault and bad, but the WalMart not getting good business that's Wal Marts fault, and they should just throw money at it, because they shouldn't want to make money. It's stupid.
People are acting like small stores don't ever have problems, all went smooth and friendly and everything was perfect, but when something goes wrong in WalMart they are the devil. I would say statistically a lot of shit should go wrong in WalMart and it should have the same judgement as something that happens at your little corner store.
Oh my. Walmart is not perfect. SO ****ING WHAT. The supermarket around the corner didn't have bananas last week, am I going to start a ****ing campaign of all the things that go wrong there? Is there any...ANY piece of evidence that customer service at WalMart is on average worse than that of other, smaller stores? Because if you have like a billion stores....shit will go wrong. That's just a fact.
All some personal problems those people encountered. Big deal. Yes, Wal Mart wants cheap products....because their costumers want cheap products. No one forces you to buy the two cent socks....there are better quality ones available most places, but the thing is....most want the cheap one.
If there has been illegal activity going on it should be punished and probably will be. Though first you have to see whether they are actually guilty, what if the Unions just use the judiciary platform to strengthen their position. That is just as bad, actually worse.
Guilty until proven innocent I take it. Again, some government laws are bullshit and they should rather be changed than upheld.
And they have the right to avoid that. And I think it is an ******* thing to do. But WalMart still has the right to terminate the employment for people they don't need. And it is a ****ing good thing too.
W-which is a good thing for consumers.
N-no. Maybe think a little more after reading.
If anything they can offer things cheaper because they "screw" their providers over. A good thing for you Americans, too. Again the P&T episode states that it saves on average over 1000 Dollars for the average family.
Some other facts portrayed there:
WalMart provided 20 million in cash, 1500 Truck Loads of merchandise, food for 100 000 meals and a job promise for everyone of their workers after Katrina.
They provide the 100 most popular prescriptions for just 4 Dollars a month
They are the largest employer in the US
They have programs for shared profits with their employers.
They are just not as shit as everyone wants to paint them.
10% of their managers came from their lowest entree jobs
I didn't go through all those with an intention for you to list each complaint and what's wrong with the person, particularly.
But what you've done is exactly what Penn and Teller do, they bash the people making the statements, rather than bashing the reason the statement was made.
And I actually like Penn and Teller. I don't often catch the show when it's on, typically I watch it on youtube. But, I'm not going to say "OH! Penn and Teller and Bardock are right!" Just because Penn speaks to people like they're stupid, doesn't mean they're stupid, or that he's right.
And a lot of teh things he said were accurate, but it goes a little further than Penn's assumption that people are bashing Wal-Mart simply because they're successful.
Originally posted by Devil King
I didn't go through all those with an intention for you to list each complaint and what's wrong with the person, particularly.But what you've done is exactly what Penn and Teller do, they bash the people making the statements, rather than bashing the reason the statement was made.
And I actually like Penn and Teller. I don't often catch the show when it's on, typically I watch it on youtube. But, I'm not going to say "OH! Penn and Teller and Bardock are right!" Just because Penn speaks to people like they're stupid, doesn't mean they're stupid, or that he's right.
And a lot of teh things he said were accurate, but it goes a little further than Penn's assumption that people are bashing Wal-Mart simply because they're successful.
Well, Penn and I (hehe) would not deny that there are reasons for their complaints. My point is not that WalMart is the best thing that ever happened to anyone, but the immense hate it gets....is not justified. It just is not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact he is not even saying that.
That's what I said, Einstein.
Devil King was right. You really don't listen very well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And then they would use that weakness to invade your country with their large, well equipped armies.
You perceive US foreign affairs with such innocent simplicity I have to laugh! You think the politicians who make the decisions in this country only worry about countries that could rival our military! "Oh, they can't invade us? Ignore them." There is more to it then that.
Simple military strength isn't the only power in the world that demands respect. Sure, the US is on good, stable terms with all of the countries that have military strength comparable to our own. But that doesn't mean the opinion of a few puny little countries in the middle east couldn't turn our economy upside down right now...or at least revolutionize popular opinion of the economy.
For example, when gas prices in America went on a steady, upwards rise, it didn't have much effect on the economy...but it definitely did a lot to a bunch of idiot swing voters who decided that they would vote for anybody who would put a stop to the rising prices. I probably don't have to tell you how many American swing voters are completely controlled by their gas prices or food taxes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?What do you mean?
No idea how you figure that.
It all has to do with what I said about RP's foreign policy, pretty much. Unless you are asking me what good ideas Paul has.
Why don't you ever specify what your doubts are? Questions are generally easier to understand if they are more then one word long.
Originally posted by Quark_666
That's what I said, Einstein.Devil King was right. You really don't listen very well.
No, I listen well. You said he doesn't believe it but uses it. I said he doesn't even say it. He always denies that he says that. So, how is he "using" it. I think we know who isn't comprehending here...and...it's not me.
Originally posted by Quark_666
You perceive US foreign affairs with such innocent simplicity I have to laugh! You think the politicians who make the decisions in this country only worry about countries that could rival our military! "Oh, they can't invade us? Ignore them." There is more to it then that.
No. You don't know how I perceive your foreign policies. You just know that I made one point. That your country won't get attacked if you aren't over there. There are more points. But this one relates most to your "They will think we are cowards cry" approach.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Simple military strength isn't the only power in the world that demands respect. Sure, the US is on good, stable terms with all of the countries that have military strength comparable to our own. But that doesn't mean the opinion of a few puny little countries in the middle east couldn't turn our economy upside down right now...or at least revolutionize popular opinion of the economy.
Because your economy right now is so awesome? Borrowing money from communist countries all over the world. Ha. The dollar is close to being worse less than the Australian Dollar. Yeah...the Australian one...haha. Yeah, your strong foreign policy is really helping your economy. A diplomatic, non intervention approach would be an intelligent idea for the US as well as most other countries. Your nation building doesn't work. It costs you money, puts big businesses even more into control and kills the lives of thousands of Americans. Sorry, if you have no idea what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn't talk at all.
Originally posted by Quark_666
For example, when gas prices in America went on a steady, upwards rise, it didn't have much effect on the economy...but it definitely did a lot to a bunch of idiot swing voters who decided that they would vote for anybody who would put a stop to the rising prices. I probably don't have to tell you how many American swing voters are completely controlled by their gas prices or food taxes.
So what? At least that is a slightly political issue. Voting for someone because they cried on TV now, as it apparently does happen in the US, that's idiotic. So that point is pretty stupid. Your voters are idiots, good, I thought that was a well established fact after two terms of Bush....the rest of the world knows it, should start knowing it yourself.
Originally posted by Quark_666
It all has to do with what I said about RP's foreign policy, pretty much. Unless you are asking me what good ideas Paul has.Why don't you ever specify what your doubts are? Questions are generally easier to understand if they are more then one word long.
I think they were pretty clear. They always related one point you made that needed specification. Answers would have been easy.
"Why [do you think McCain should win]?"
"What do you mean [with "he has only has one [sic] that makes him the wrong guy for the job in specific]?"
"How do you figure that [his foreign policy is too logical]?"
Originally posted by Bardock42
the immense hate it gets....is not justified. It just is not.
Not when you approach the hate as though it exists because they're successful. My feelings on the matter are less a matter of the struggling economies of these small towns, and more the way they feel they can do as they please.
If a company employs 1 million people, and you get a number of class action law suits involving 70 thousand past and present employees, that's an indication of a broken company policy. That's not teh result of one bad store manager, that's the result of bad corporate policy.
If one store needs an operating staff of 40 employees, but actually employs 120 people so that no one can get over 40 hours(making them full time employees who are eligable for benefits) you're screwing those people.
Maybe in a Ron Paul world $5.10/hour would be a lot of money, but out here in the real world, it isn't. It just is not. Which goes beyond the fact that Penn&Teller said WM pays above minimum wage, on average; which ignores the fact that the national minimum wage isn't necessarily the state minimum wage (some are higher); which ignores the fact that they included the salaries of all those high end employees (like the pharmacist they mentioned and managers) which rasies their figures, dramatically.
Originally posted by Devil King
Not when you approach the hate as though it exists because they're successful. My feelings on the matter are less a matter of the struggling economies of these small towns, and more the way they feel they can do as they please.
Which I don't think you have even close to proven.
Originally posted by Devil King
If a company employs 1 million people, and you get a number of class action law suits involving 70 thousand past and present employees, that's an indication of a broken company policy. That's not teh result of one bad store manager, that's the result of bad corporate policy.
Or of stupid laws that give idiotic rights. Or the believe in the US that everyone ows you a big buck, and you can sue it in whenever you want.
Originally posted by Devil King
If one store needs an operating staff of 40 employees, but actually employs 120 people so that no one can get over 40 hours(making them full time employees who are eligable for benefits) you're screwing those people.
So you propose they have 40 full time employees. That means that 80 other people will NOT have a job. They just won't have one. Explain to me how those will eat and not die, please. 80 people that can't get a job anywhere else (if they could, they wouldn't have to work part time at WalMart). Explain it.
Originally posted by Devil King
Maybe in a Ron Paul world $5.10/hour would be a lot of money, but out here in the real world, it isn't. It just is not. Which goes beyond the fact that Penn&Teller said WM pays above minimum wage, [b]on average; which ignores the fact that the national minimum wage isn't necessarily the state minimum wage (some are higher); which ignores the fact that they included the salaries of all those high end employees (like the pharmacist they mentioned and managers) which rasies their figures, dramatically. [/B]
They state the average to be 10 Dollars an hour. That is good. There's no arguing about that. The jobs they need don't need much skill, it is true that it is not the best, most skilled workers that work there. But they get a job. What would they do without the job. There are no alternatives. Who feeds them and their family? Right now it is WalMart doing that. What you propose would put 100 thousands of Americans into unemployment. Just like that. What is good about that?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which I don't think you have even close to proven.
Proven what? That they act as though they can do as they wish? I posted a number of links, and that was just the first page of results. If I had all day to copy and paste links, I would do so. Lawsuits regarding employees mistreatment; thumbing their nose at environmental policy; the amounts of money they dump into lobbyists and defense attourneys. I simply don't have the patience for all that, especially when all you'll do is ignore that effort and respond with a Ron Paul soundbite; which would be completely rational and legitimate if we lived in a perfect world that doesn't ignore corporate misbehavings and dealings in favor of "hands off my money!".
Originally posted by Bardock42
Or of stupid laws that give idiotic rights. Or the believe in the US that everyone ows you a big buck, and you can sue it in whenever you want.
Stupid laws that give people the right to call out a corporation that locks them in the building while they clean it; pays them minimum wage if they're lucky; prevents them from working a full time job? Sure, that would be really great! And if you follow the idealistic notions of RP's hands-off-my-money policy, it just might even be illegal to sue Wal-Mart someday. That's, of course, if you can find a lawyer that isn't employed by Wal-Mart.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So you propose they have 40 full time employees. That means that 80 other people will NOT have a job. They just won't have one. Explain to me how those will eat and not die, please. 80 people that can't get a job anywhere else (if they could, they wouldn't have to work part time at WalMart). Explain it.
They can work one full time job, rather than having the two or three they need now to keep their heads above water now.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They state the average to be 10 Dollars an hour. That is good. There's no arguing about that.
Yeah, the average of 10 bucks an hour comes from the managers and the pharmacists, not the cashier with 2 children to feed and no insurance. If wal mart put as much effort into dropping insurance and medical costs as they do into keeping down the minimum wage, I'd see no problem with that.
You do realize I actually read all the links you threw at me and explained to you why they hardly prove anything.
Again. WalMart is not perfect. But they are not the freaking devil.
They do good business and are on the whole good for all of America. They don't have to offer fulltime jobs. They wouldn't be as successful and that is directly the fault of non-libertarian politics. They create situations that make WalMart and others have to deal business in such a way and then they use that for their political agendas. It's the laws that create the problems...not the market.
Sure I realize you read them. But all I recall you saying is something about bananas and how laws should be changed so wal mart can do what it's doing without being sued. Which actually does illustrate my point that they do as they please with no regard to it's customers, employees or the laws that govern the country. So, as I said, they do as they please and they seem to think that because they don't agree with a law or a policy that they can just step over it. (which is really just motivated by the bottom line) Stupid or not, a law is a law...until it's changed. You saying or thinking the law is stupid (and it may be) doesn't mean that Wal-Mart has the right to ignore it.
So, if you think people dislike Wal-Mart only because they're jeaslous of success, you'd have to see the converse that Wal-Mart sees it's success as justification to do as they please.
The only person calling WM the devil is you. I think they're crooked and motivated only by money, arrogant and liars. Just because I've an opinion on it, a rational and informed opinion, doesn't mean I'm starting websites to bash WM. I'm glad WM is successful. Good for them. Now they have to maintain it with a little integrity and fairness, rather than finding every loop hole they can to screw people. Especially since loop holes are built into laws by politicians who have lobbyists for companies like WM sitting in their office and have no issues with loop holes because they have their own businesses to consider, as well.
Originally posted by Devil KingAwesome. Then we agree...lets seal that fact with a blowjob.
It was a joke. Lighten up. But I do agree, it's not their fault. It's a sound business strategy in the current climate; it just screws people over and it's done on purpose. They're raking in the cash.
I'm hetero, so you will have to do the sucking.