The article doesn't say that Wal-Mart cut their profit margin in half, but the difference between their margin and Costco's margin. If Wal-Mart has 4% profit and Costco has 2%, they cut 1% and are at 3%.
I'm well aware of the fact that Wal-Mart is a run-for-profit business and not a jobs program, but there are ethics that define the border between good are evil and giving your employees shittier jobs so you can gain more money puts you into the evil column.
I also don't understand how in your logic Costco hasn't been sold yet when 2% profit is not enough.
The article doesn't say that Wal-Mart cut their profit margin in half, but the difference between their margin and Costco's margin. If Wal-Mart has 4% profit and Costco has 2%, they cut 1% and are at 3%.
That would be a 25% reduction in profits. I must have read the 4% and 2% and missed something. (4% profit margin means every 1% reduction equates to 25% of the profit margin.)
I also don't understand how in your logic Costco hasn't been sold yet when 2% profit is not enough.
There are other factors aside from profit margins when deciding to invest in a company.
I also don't understand how in your logic Costco hasn't been sold yet when 2% profit is not enough.
There are other factors aside from profit margins when deciding to invest in a company.
Then why would Wal-Mart, which in terms of market penetration is one of the most successful companies ever, need to be sold if they reduced their profit margin 1 percentage point?
I also don't understand how in your logic Costco hasn't been sold yet when 2% profit is not enough.
There are other factors aside from profit margins when deciding to invest in a company.
Then why would Wal-Mart, which in terms of market penetration is one of the most successful companies ever, need to be sold if they reduced their profit margin 1 percentage point?
Why is everyone getting stuck on the idea of selling Walmart?
Corporate America is not a jobs program.
Why should Walmart lower their profit margin? If the people who work at Walmart had marketable skills they would not be working there.
Why is everyone getting stuck on the idea of selling Walmart?
Because you're the one that brought it up.
At 2% the owners of Walmart would be better off selling the business and investing their money in certificates of deposit!
Corporate America is not a jobs program.
Yes, but is there not a corporate responsibility to treat your employees well? Granted, you're never going to make everyone happy, but gathering your employees in a room and showing them what amounts to anti-union propaganda is over the line.
Why should Walmart lower their profit margin?
Because, business-wise or not, it's the MORAL thing to do.
Why is everyone getting stuck on the idea of selling Walmart?
Because you're the one that brought it up.
At 2% the owners of Walmart would be better off selling the business and investing their money in certificates of deposit!
Corporate America is not a jobs program.
Yes, but is there not a corporate responsibility to treat your employees well? Granted, you're never going to make everyone happy, but gathering your employees in a room and showing them what amounts to anti-union propaganda is over the line.
Why should Walmart lower their profit margin?
Because, business-wise or not, it's the MORAL thing to do.
I have a friend that worked for two years as a Walmart manager after he got out of college (he works in the Boston financial district now). From what he told me Walmart is not a good place to work. They are not just dicks to the regular employees but also to their managers.
Walmart often fails at treating its employees well. There are countless lawsuits in their history that prove the point. However, as long as there is a class of people who are willing to work under those conditions Walmart will continue to act as it does.
Business and morality do not always go together. Often business hires morality only when it feels a PR nightmare coming.
Why'd you quote my whole post if you were only going to respond to the last part? Anyway.
However, as long as there is a class of people who are willing to work under those conditions Walmart will continue to act as it does.
But that doesn't make it right, which is what you seem to be arguing, at least to me(and if I'm wrong, please let me know). You seem to be saying "Well, they have no choice, sucks to be them, Wal-Mart's perfectly within their rights". I'm not sure they are.
Why'd you quote my whole post if you were only going to respond to the last part? Anyway.
However, as long as there is a class of people who are willing to work under those conditions Walmart will continue to act as it does.
But that doesn't make it right, which is what you seem to be arguing, at least to me(and if I'm wrong, please let me know). You seem to be saying "Well, they have no choice, sucks to be them, Wal-Mart's perfectly within their rights". I'm not sure they are.
No, I'm saying that when Walmart screws up they get sued and the plaintiffs win. Walmart is evil and they do a lot of shady things. However, until the unskilled workforce decides they have had enough Walmart will continue to behave as such.
I'm still waiting for an answer about "too much profit" and what is an acceptable profit margin.
The way Wal-Mart has to be sued to give a damn about their employees is just nuts. I'm happy to work at a good, unionized store. Some people, however, live in neighborhoods where Wal-Mart undercut smaller businesses and sent them under, then the lower class people have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart and work at that and similar minimum wage jobs.
And it's not *that* much cheaper either, at least not cheap enough to justify dealing with rednecks and long lines.
Steve, I really don't know why you are arguing in this discussion and also not in what direction. You yourself just said that Wal-Mart is evil and I gave an example why, which is the topic of this very discussion. You have a first hand witness about what shitty jobs Wal-Mart offers and provided a paper that shows that it wouldn't have to be this way.
You say that nothing will change for the workforce unless they band together and do something about it, which is exactly what unions are for.
I started my participation in this discussion to disprove Jason's argument that unionization and resulting higher wages would mean that the prices would rise. You gave me the ammunition to do so.
I have often wondered that same thing. Infuriating, isn't it? The only answer that will give you any peace is that, just as he said in the Obama thread, he's "playing a part" and doing it badly.
It doesn't really matter what you say. If you said that Wal-Mart was heroically good, he would say that they are evil. He'll just argue the opposite of whatever you say because he's an attention-seeking troll.
So in a perfect word a corporation cares about it's profit margin and Unions care about their workers and with the power both control, everyone should compromise and get a bit of the action. People care about their job more when they have a personal stake in it. Treat your workers well and your profits will go up.
So in a perfect word a corporation cares about it's profit margin and Unions care about their workers and with the power both control, everyone should compromise and get a bit of the action. People care about their job more when they have a personal stake in it. Treat your workers well and your profits will go up.
However there has been many laws and actions done especially under the Reagen administration that upset the balance of power and Unions were horribly weakened.
When both the company and the union understand their relationship is symbiotic and not parasitic everything works well. If either one sees the relationship as anything other than symbiotic it fails.
I'm probably in the minority, but I always have a lot of trouble finding what I'm looking for at Walmart. Spoiled by the anal-retentive preciseness the Internet allows, I guess.
Walmart is great at providing low-cost consumable goods, but they have a habit of producing all goods as consumable goods, which can be more expensive for individuals in the long run and is also more wasteful in general. Like shoes. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of resoleable shoes at Walmart. (Although admittedly I've never gone specifically hunting for them) Usually the soles that they do choose are the least durable kind, like "chunky" soles that are actually just honeycomb lattices covered in a thin layer of rubber, Or Chuck Taylor style soles that have not been secured well at all... the side rubber cracks and the entire bottom sole just falls off. I don't think I've ever had a pair of Walmart shoes last more than maybe 2 years of heavy use. Multiply that by several million pairs, and that's a lot of waste.
Like shoes. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of resoleable shoes at Walmart...I don't think I've ever had a pair of Walmart shoes last more than maybe 2 years of heavy use. Multiply that by several million pairs, and that's a lot of waste.
If they made shoes that lasted longer, then you wouldn't need to buy more shoes from them next year. I am not old enough to remember it clearly, but I think there used to be a time in America when we fixed things that broke. Now, if it is under warranty, we return it and get a new one. If it is out of warranty, we throw it away and get a new one. If the consumers don't care, why should the retailers provide them with better quality products?
Most of the low dollar stuff you buy is crap. I went through three rakes this summer in three days until I went to a local merchant and paid three times the price for a rake. The $10 ones I had been buying were worthless. The $30 one I bought will last for years.
Like shoes. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of resoleable shoes at Walmart...I don't think I've ever had a pair of Walmart shoes last more than maybe 2 years of heavy use. Multiply that by several million pairs, and that's a lot of waste.
If they made shoes that lasted longer, then you wouldn't need to buy more shoes from them next year. I am not old enough to remember it clearly, but I think there used to be a time in America when we fixed things that broke. Now, if it is under warranty, we return it and get a new one. If it is out of warranty, we throw it away and get a new one. If the consumers don't care, why should the retailers provide them with better quality products?
I think most people don't care because they haven't thought it through. Like take soda, for instance. Most people would understand that when they shell out a several bucks for a case of soda they are actually paying less money per can than if they bought it from the vending machine, even though more money is being used up in the initial transaction. But they don't realize that the same sort of thing applies when buying a more expensive rake that has a bunch of use time stored in it compared to a cheapo rake that you can only use a few times. Also, the sort of things that indicate quality in different items aren't always obvious, so a lot of people just pick a brand name or a price point and hope for the best, which tends to involve getting suckered a lot. So people get into the frame of mind that if it's going to fall apart anyhow, they might as well get the cheapest one.
You know when you go to Staples they have lists of supplies submitted by local schools and teachers, so you know what to buy? Wal-Mart has lists, too. The difference is that at Wal-Mart the lists aren't submitted by teachers, they are just made up. Not only that, but the lists include items which kids are not allowed to bring to school.
Since Scott revived this topic from the dead and I only heard about it today look at the following story. Please forgive me if you heard about it before, it seems to have been on a lot of media outlets before (but not yet mentioned in this thread):
Debbie Shank is a former Wal-Mart shelf stocker in Missouri and when she was still employed with the company she got into a traffic accident involving a tractor trailer which left her with severe brain damage and she now requires 24 hour care. The lawsuit against the responsible trucking company awarded her $1 Million and after subtraction of lawyer fees that leaves her with $417,000.
Now Wal-Mart, as many other employers in the United States, reserves the right to be compensated for first-aid etc. which comes out of their pockets through the ways of insurance. Wal-Mart promptly sued Debbie Shank for 470,000.
To Wal-Marts credit, they later opted not to take the money after they had won the suit, probably because had been chastised by the entirety of news media. Here's a write-up about the story.
Aside from Wal-Mart's wrongdoings above, not only is this story unbelievable sad and tragic, but what's even worse and speaks even more about the U.S. justice and medical system that a person is expected to be able to pay for her 24 hour medical care for the rest of her life with $417,000, but that she also went through a divorce to increase eligibility with her HMO.
What's even more terrible is that her son was killed in Iraq and in addition to that, due to her brain damage she keeps forgetting about it, repeating the emotional trauma of such an event would bring on whenever she is told about his fate.
And rather than helping this person out which would have probably given them good PR to no end, probably a worth a whole lot more than $470,000, Wal-Mart has the nerve to sue her and cement the public opinion that Wal-Mart is the fucking devil.
What's even more terrible is that her son was killed in Iraq and in addition to that, due to her brain damage she keeps forgetting about it, repeating the emotional trauma of such an event would bring on whenever she is told about his fate.
As sad as that story may be, this part is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of Wal Mart.
I think this quote from the story by CNN is very telling:
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.
I think it's very telling that Wal-Mart was willing to spend $417,000 to treat it's lowest-level employee. Why is Wal-Mart being criticized for spending more on the employee than she would ever contribute in labor to the company?
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.
Is this really unique to Wal-Mart?
I haven't had time to read everything, so let me know if I have this wrong. Wal-Mart (or their insurer) paid lots of medical bills for this lady. The lady got a settlement, that included compensation for her medical expenses. She did not pay the expenses, Wal-Mart (or their insurer) did. Wal-Mart (or the insurer) gets reimbursed for what they spent from the settlement money.
What's so wrong with that? If her lawyers didn't get her enough money for future medical expenses, that's hardly Wal-Mart's fault. But at the same time, shouldn't the party who paid the bill be the one who gets reimbursed?
Again, I haven't read any of this carefully, so please tell me that I'm wrong.
The issue of the lady with medical bills is not something unique to Wal-Mart. Fraudulent back to school lists are. The school systems, teachers, and parents, should see if there is any legal action they can take.
I've been searching for about 40 minutes now trying to find any other source or coverage of the alleged Wal-Mart back-to-school supply list scam, but every single reference hits back to Kelby Carr's blog. There isn't anything else -- no newspaper coverage, TV news coverage, other blogs, no Better Business Bureau entries, nothing. That gets my reporter sense tingling. I'm not saying it isn't true; I'm saying that if something has only one source, it loses credibility.
Can anybody else find second-party confirmation for the school supplies scam story?
I think it's very telling that Wal-Mart was willing to spend $417,000 to treat it's lowest-level employee. Why is Wal-Mart being criticized for spending more on the employee than she would ever contribute in labor to the company?
I don't think it is so much willing as being forced to as an entity of the insurance contract. However, they do not "spend" that money as they go back and take the money they payed back from the employee, sometimes as in this case by law (suit).
@ kilarney: No, it's not unique to Wal-Mart and it isn't legally wrong or wrong from a business-standpoint, but it is pretty much morally condemnable which is the main focus of the discussion in this thread.
@all: I'm sorry that I dragged up an already discussed topic. Next time I'll take a little more time in this thread.
@Scott: Yup, this is a pretty shitty sales tactic, but partially it is also the american school system to blame for it. When I was still going to school we were directly told by the teachers what materials like exercise books etc. we needed to bring to class. Basically the parents just were stupid enough to believe an advertisement and take it for granted. "Your child needs these crayons for school" just like a car salesperson will tell you that "you need 100 hp even if you never leave the city".
Comments
I'm well aware of the fact that Wal-Mart is a run-for-profit business and not a jobs program, but there are ethics that define the border between good are evil and giving your employees shittier jobs so you can gain more money puts you into the evil column.
I also don't understand how in your logic Costco hasn't been sold yet when 2% profit is not enough.
Corporate America is not a jobs program.
Why should Walmart lower their profit margin? If the people who work at Walmart had marketable skills they would not be working there.
Walmart often fails at treating its employees well. There are countless lawsuits in their history that prove the point. However, as long as there is a class of people who are willing to work under those conditions Walmart will continue to act as it does.
Business and morality do not always go together. Often business hires morality only when it feels a PR nightmare coming.
Anyway. But that doesn't make it right, which is what you seem to be arguing, at least to me(and if I'm wrong, please let me know). You seem to be saying "Well, they have no choice, sucks to be them, Wal-Mart's perfectly within their rights". I'm not sure they are.
I'm still waiting for an answer about "too much profit" and what is an acceptable profit margin.
And it's not *that* much cheaper either, at least not cheap enough to justify dealing with rednecks and long lines.
You say that nothing will change for the workforce unless they band together and do something about it, which is exactly what unions are for.
I started my participation in this discussion to disprove Jason's argument that unionization and resulting higher wages would mean that the prices would rise. You gave me the ammunition to do so.
Please tell me, what is your problem?
It doesn't really matter what you say. If you said that Wal-Mart was heroically good, he would say that they are evil. He'll just argue the opposite of whatever you say because he's an attention-seeking troll.
There may be hope
Walmart is great at providing low-cost consumable goods, but they have a habit of producing all goods as consumable goods, which can be more expensive for individuals in the long run and is also more wasteful in general. Like shoes. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of resoleable shoes at Walmart. (Although admittedly I've never gone specifically hunting for them) Usually the soles that they do choose are the least durable kind, like "chunky" soles that are actually just honeycomb lattices covered in a thin layer of rubber, Or Chuck Taylor style soles that have not been secured well at all... the side rubber cracks and the entire bottom sole just falls off. I don't think I've ever had a pair of Walmart shoes last more than maybe 2 years of heavy use. Multiply that by several million pairs, and that's a lot of waste.
Debbie Shank is a former Wal-Mart shelf stocker in Missouri and when she was still employed with the company she got into a traffic accident involving a tractor trailer which left her with severe brain damage and she now requires 24 hour care. The lawsuit against the responsible trucking company awarded her $1 Million and after subtraction of lawyer fees that leaves her with $417,000.
Now Wal-Mart, as many other employers in the United States, reserves the right to be compensated for first-aid etc. which comes out of their pockets through the ways of insurance. Wal-Mart promptly sued Debbie Shank for 470,000.
To Wal-Marts credit, they later opted not to take the money after they had won the suit, probably because had been chastised by the entirety of news media. Here's a write-up about the story.
Aside from Wal-Mart's wrongdoings above, not only is this story unbelievable sad and tragic, but what's even worse and speaks even more about the U.S. justice and medical system that a person is expected to be able to pay for her 24 hour medical care for the rest of her life with $417,000, but that she also went through a divorce to increase eligibility with her HMO.
What's even more terrible is that her son was killed in Iraq and in addition to that, due to her brain damage she keeps forgetting about it, repeating the emotional trauma of such an event would bring on whenever she is told about his fate.
And rather than helping this person out which would have probably given them good PR to no end, probably a worth a whole lot more than $470,000, Wal-Mart has the nerve to sue her and cement the public opinion that Wal-Mart is the fucking devil.
I haven't had time to read everything, so let me know if I have this wrong. Wal-Mart (or their insurer) paid lots of medical bills for this lady. The lady got a settlement, that included compensation for her medical expenses. She did not pay the expenses, Wal-Mart (or their insurer) did. Wal-Mart (or the insurer) gets reimbursed for what they spent from the settlement money.
What's so wrong with that? If her lawyers didn't get her enough money for future medical expenses, that's hardly Wal-Mart's fault. But at the same time, shouldn't the party who paid the bill be the one who gets reimbursed?
Again, I haven't read any of this carefully, so please tell me that I'm wrong.
Can anybody else find second-party confirmation for the school supplies scam story?
@ kilarney: No, it's not unique to Wal-Mart and it isn't legally wrong or wrong from a business-standpoint, but it is pretty much morally condemnable which is the main focus of the discussion in this thread.
@all: I'm sorry that I dragged up an already discussed topic. Next time I'll take a little more time in this thread.
@Scott: Yup, this is a pretty shitty sales tactic, but partially it is also the american school system to blame for it. When I was still going to school we were directly told by the teachers what materials like exercise books etc. we needed to bring to class. Basically the parents just were stupid enough to believe an advertisement and take it for granted. "Your child needs these crayons for school" just like a car salesperson will tell you that "you need 100 hp even if you never leave the city".