I was checking out another forum and there was this debate about Wal-Mart being evil and such. So what does everyone on here think of Wal-Mart? Personally, I think they attract too many of "those people". Discuss.

their business practices are despicable:

1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion.

2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance.

3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages.

4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat.

I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market.

Honestly, I don't watch or read the news very often and am not aware of too many details on their business practices. I really need to watch the news or read the paper more often, but always seem to be too busy with work, family, etc.

I personally love shopping at Walmart because they have virtually everything and it usually costs less than pretty much anywhere else. So perhaps selfishly, I'm a big fan of Wal-Mart.

it pains me to shop there. i went there yesterday ONLY because someone had given a relative a gift card. i was watching the AWA last week and Sgt. Slaughter was doing an interview and was talking about great Americans and he mentioned Sam Walton, i almost threw up in my mouth.
this story pretty much sealed it for me also:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.


Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.

1 of 3 The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

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

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

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

°'
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. "We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.


Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

I go there more now than when I lived in Danbury because up here in Naugatuck it is the only store that sells movies. I'm not a fan of their customer service or their policies though

I'm not a big fan for many of the same reasons Superstar Steve isn't. Most importantly...I believe they violate the anti-trust laws put in place in this country.

Superstar Steve wrote:

4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat.

i hate to tell you this but that majority of things you own in your home have come from foreign countries like this. almost any item that has molded plastic or metal parts has come from overseas countries like china. infact even the products that carry the "made in the usa" production stamp only need to have a percentage actually made in this country. walmart is basically just a buyer, product manufacturing is handled by the vendors who then sell their products to walmart. as someone who deals with these vendors daily i can tell you that the production overseas has little to do with walmart and more to do with the incredible competition of manufacturing prices there regardless of the buyer

Skip McGee wrote:

Superstar Steve wrote: 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. i hate to tell you this but that majority of things you own in your home have come from foreign countries like this. almost any item that has molded plastic or metal parts has come from overseas countries like china. infact even the products that carry the "made in the usa" production stamp only need to have a percentage actually made in this country. walmart is basically just a buyer, product manufacturing is handled by the vendors who then sell their products to walmart. as someone who deals with these vendors daily i can tell you that the production overseas has little to do with walmart and more to do with the incredible competition of manufacturing prices there regardless of the buyer

1) But does that justify that some poor Guatimalan kid is sitting in a shoe factory receiveing 12 cents a day and all the shoe glue he can sniff? It may be legal, but the Incredible Hulk/Bruce Banner said it best...
"When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time".

2) That stil doesn't defend the violation of our Anti-Trust laws. Chances are if they were enforced the way they are supposed to be, Wal-Mart wouldn't have that kind of buying power.

Superstar Steve wrote:

their business practices are despicable: 1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion. 2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance. 3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages. 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market.

That could apply to almost every other big business in America.

MAV wrote:

"When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time".

Sorry, but I care more about what's right for my wallet and bank account.

MAV wrote:

1) But does that justify that some poor Guatimalan kid is sitting in a shoe factory receiveing 12 cents a day and all the shoe glue he can sniff? It may be legal, but the Incredible Hulk/Bruce Banner said it best... "When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time". 2) That stil doesn't defend the violation of our Anti-Trust laws. Chances are if they were enforced the way they are supposed to be, Wal-Mart wouldn't have that kind of buying power.

my ppint isnt whats "right or wrong". my point is its not necessarily walmarts fault as to what manufacturers their sellers use. in many cases it doesnt change between selling things at walmart and selling them at any other retailer. if injection molding is 3 times the cost in this country why would any company not go overseas? Also its a stereotype to assume that just because something is made outside this country, that its made by some 8 yr old spanish kid. unfortunately that does happen but that doesnt mean its the standard.

in alot of cases its an 80 yr old chinese woman, haha j/k

again, i am not defending walmart, im simply telling you that walmart cant always be a scapegoat because manufacturers are trying to find competitive prices. in a bargain valued society its the nature of the beast

Skip McGee wrote:

in alot of cases its an 80 yr old chinese woman, haha j/k

Hey, at least she has some work experience.

This is why I don't like WalMart.

Quote:

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," supposedly paving the way for freedom of expression. The censorship practices of the Wal-Mart Corporation against musicians seeking a market for their music, however, are as effective in undermining the First Amendment as any Congressional act could be. With its 2,300 stores selling a total of over 52 million CDs a year, Wal-Mart controls approximately 10 percent of the domestic sales of music CDs. When faced with the threat of being completely excluded from a large segment of the market, most record companies will cut a sanitized version to comply with Wal-Mart's family-appropriate standards. Since Wal-Mart refuses to stock CDs with parental guidance stickers, musicians are routinely told to change any part of a song or album cover that the corporate headquarters deem inappropriate, lewd, violent, explicitly sexual, or in any way offensive. Ironically, movies such as Die Hard, Halloween, and Lethal Weapon, all of which contain extreme violence, sexuality, and strong language, can be found unaltered on the store's shelves. Wal-Mart argues that the changes in lyrics, cover art and even entire song titles, create cleaner and more family and child-friendly versions of popular songs while still maintaining the music's artistic integrity and value. This argument fails to recognize the complexity of some of the more controversial songs and artists, who specifically use provocative words and imagery to convey a point. Sheryl Crow, one of the few artists to stand up to Wal-Mart's pressure, refused to change the lyrics of a recent song containing the line "Watch our children as they kill each other with a gun they bought at Wal-Mart discount stores." In order to have his records sold on Wal-Mart shelves, John Cougar Mellencamp was asked to airbrush an angel and a devil out of his album covers. Nirvana's In Utero album underwent similar cover changes, airbrushing out fetuses that were deemed objectionable; they also changed the title and lyrics of the song "Rape Me" to "Waif Me." A corporation cannot force such a radical change and still preserve the integrity of the music. It merely serves to degrade and water down the content of the music being produced. Most well-known musicians can afford to make two cuts of a record, one for the family market and one for general consumption; many record companies now act preemptively, automatically making a second, sanitized version for their more popular artists. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart's policy severely inhibits developing musicians who lack major record label support. These performers must choose between self-censorship and limiting their market audience to only music-store shoppers. Because of the pressure on rising artists to sell a large number of records, they all too frequently choose the former. They are not given the chance to contribute something genuine and thought provoking, and are instead compelled to conform to Wal-Mart's cookie-cutter image of American propriety. Although more established artists have the industry support necessary to make separate versions of their records, the public suffers when Wal-Mart is the only music supplier in an area. Many small towns have no independent music stores, making it difficult or inconvenient for consumers to find uncensored music. In places that do have separate music stores, their prices are usually undercut by Wal-Mart, again making it more difficult for consumers to have access to award-winning albums such as The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill in their uncut form. Wal-Mart's dominance of the music market is dangerous for both artists and consumers, as it discourages expression and risk-taking by rising musicians and fosters a censored musical environment for listeners. Its corporate censorship tactics are as effective as government-sponsored censorship, threatening the career of any musician who challenges its ideas of propriety. For Wal-Mart to designate itself the moral guardian of the music business by using its status as the largest single seller of CDs in the country as leverage to cleanse the industry, is a direct affront to free speech.

I remember listening to an interview with Jerry Cantrell where he said Wal-Mart wouldn't sell his debut CD because it had guns on the cover, but Wal-Mart had no problem selling guns.

enforcer wrote:

MAV wrote: "When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time". Sorry, but I care more about what's right for my wallet and bank account.

I do too and I don't blame you...but your being short sighted. Once there is no remaining competition, you'll pay what they damn well feel like charging. That was the biggest reason anti-trust/non-monopoly laws were placed into effect; to allow the consumer to have more of a choice. Choice usually is dictated by what you can best afford (unless you're shopping for a sub prime real estate loan).

Once Wal-Mart is the last of the Highlanders, you're bank account and wallet is going to suffer. No one left to shop against Wal-Mart means Wall Mart gets to raise prices with fear of losing business over it. They've already done it in markets where they've run the competition out of town on a rail. It's their modus operandi.

enforcer wrote:

Superstar Steve wrote: their business practices are despicable: 1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion. 2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance. 3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages. 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market. That could apply to almost every other big business in America.

Not number 2. They are the only ones I've heard of that actually train their workers to get government assistance because they pay them below the poverty level.

MAV wrote:

enforcer wrote: MAV wrote: "When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time". Sorry, but I care more about what's right for my wallet and bank account. I do too and I don't blame you...but your being short sighted. Once there is no remaining competition,

There will always be competition.

Superstar Steve wrote:

their business practices are despicable: 1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion. 2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance. 3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages. 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market.

Thats pretty crappy..

My friend bought 2 leather couches from sams club, next time i see him im going to kick his ass for supporting these assholes.

Watch this movie:



http://www.walmartmovie.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-High-Cost-Low-Price/dp/B000BTH4K4

I just won a $1,000 Wal*Mart gift card. Thank you Burning Hammer and Ads by Google.

enforcer wrote:

MAV wrote: enforcer wrote: MAV wrote: "When given a choice between what's legal and what's right, I'll take what's right every time". Sorry, but I care more about what's right for my wallet and bank account. I do too and I don't blame you...but your being short sighted. Once there is no remaining competition, There will always be competition.

Evidence doesn't support that assumption. The closest city to where I live is Gardner, Ma. Wal-Mart has helped muscle out/put out to pasture the JC Penny plus 3 local department stores; Ames, (based out of NY?), McCrorys & Rich's Department Store. Oddly enough...If you go to our Wal-Mart and comparison shop 20-25 minutes down the road in Lunenburg...the prices run higher at the Gardner Wal-Mart.

That may have something to do with K-Mart, Sears (now owned by the same comany) and a few others still kicking around in Fitchburg and Leominster (which border Lunenburg). K-Mart has been on shaky ground for years, and have been viewed as nearly done on more than one occasion.

Rich Casey wrote:

Superstar Steve wrote: their business practices are despicable: 1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion. 2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance. 3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages. 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market. Thats pretty crappy.. My friend bought 2 leather couches from sams club, next time i see him im going to kick his ass for supporting these assholes.

Hang the fucker.

Randy Orton wrote:

Rich Casey wrote: Superstar Steve wrote: their business practices are despicable: 1. They use their giant backing to sell items artificially low until their competition goes out of business, then they jack up their prices in true monopolist fashion. 2. They pay their employees very poorly, and then run classes on how to get government assistance. 3. Many have used illegal labor to pay even lower wages. 4. Most of their products come from foreign countries where the production workers get paid squat. I don't like them at all, because their practices are monopolist and ultimately hurt the market. Thats pretty crappy.. My friend bought 2 leather couches from sams club, next time i see him im going to kick his ass for supporting these assholes. Hang the fucker.

Why would you give a shit about Wal-Mart? You're Randy Orton...you don't buy off the rack.

MAV wrote:

Evidence doesn't support that assumption. The closest city to where I live is Gardner, Ma. Wal-Mart has helped muscle out/put out to pasture the JC Penny plus 3 local department stores; Ames, (based out of NY?), McCrorys & Rich's Department Store. Oddly enough...If you go to our Wal-Mart and comparison shop 20-25 minutes down the road in Lunenburg...the prices run higher at the Gardner Wal-Mart. That may have something to do with K-Mart, Sears (now owned by the same comany) and a few others still kicking around in Fitchburg and Leominster (which border Lunenburg). K-Mart has been on shaky ground for years, and have been viewed as nearly done on more than one occasion.

In my area after Wal-Mart opened, Service Merchandise, Ames (which was Zayre's) and a few locals closed. However in the last couple years the area had grown 10 fold with many, many, many new stores coming in including Best Buy, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, 3 Big Box Pet stores, and Kohls.

Also I remeber a McCrory's from when I was a kid, it was very small, but had a nice luncheon counter that took up 1/4 of the store. Is that one and the same?