babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Walmart Again

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Walmart Again
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 September 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This time it is Mexico that has put an end to another Walmart scam....

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) — Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wal-Mart de México, the country’s top retailer, violated the Constitution by paying a worker in part with store cards usable only in Wal-Mart stores.

Wal-Mart de México, which is also known as Walmex and is a unit of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., gives employees electronic store cards as part of their salaries. The court said the practice harked back to exploitative wage schemes of a century ago.


http://tinyurl.com/6zj6ev

[ 06 September 2008: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bliss
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9964

posted 06 September 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for Bliss     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why wouldn't someone who works at Walmart want to shop there? Wouldn't that be like the guy working at Ford in Windsor drving to work in a Honda. And then wondering why more people are not buying Fords when he gets his notice he's being laid off.

I don't necessarily think it should be forced, but if you don't support the company you work for don't be surprised when others don't either.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 September 2008 07:04 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reminds me of an old folk song - 16 tons and what do you get, another year older and deeper in debt - lord don't call me cause I can't go, I OWE MY SOUL TO THE COMPANY STORE.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 06 September 2008 07:29 AM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tennessee Ernie Ford (about 1955, when AFL-CIO came together as I recall). Good times!
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 September 2008 08:16 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You are correct GV, but the roots go back further. This is from Wikipedia:

"A controversy surrounds the authorship of "Sixteen Tons". It is generally attributed to Merle Travis, to whom it is credited on his 1947 recording. However, Kentucky ex-coalminer and singer/songwriter George S. Davis (1904-1992), when recorded by John Cohen for Folkways in 1966, claimed to have written this song in the 1930s. [3]. Davis' 1966 recording of his version of the song is preserved on the albums George Davis: When Kentucky Had No Union Men (Folkways FA 2343, 1967) and Classic Mountain Songs from Smithsonian (Folkways Recordings ASIN B000S9DIHK, 2002)."


Also, I was quoting from memory (not a good habit). It isn't "lord, don't call me...", but rather her COO, Saint Peter.

On the "Walbucks" issue itself, one can perhaps find other and older analogies. Workers in lower Canada in the late 1600s were often paid in handwritten "script" by the land barons that provided them with a loaf or two of bread from the owner's bakery. The handwritten notes are fascinating and I feel fortunate to have one in my collection.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 September 2008 08:28 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This supports my theory:

quote:
On Thursday Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people ) reported that back-to-school sales and groceries helped fuel its 2.8% jump in August same-store-sales, and a 4.2% rise in sales at Sam's Club.

Wal-Mart Stores' total sales jumped 3.1%, while analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had, on average, only expected a 1.6% increase for the four weeks ending on Aug. 29. Wal-Mart's shares increased 0.7%, or 43 cents, to $60.22, in late-afternon trading.

"The underlying business performance for Wal-Mart U.S. continued to show strength and the improved relative performance has resulted in market share gains," said Eduardo Castro-Wright, Wal-Mart's U.S. president.



Forbes

As more people find themselves in economic difficulty, Wal-Mart does better as its most loyal customers are also the most financially strapped.

Poverty is good for Wal-Mart's bottom line.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 06 September 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bliss:
Why wouldn't someone who works at Walmart want to shop there? Wouldn't that be like the guy working at Ford in Windsor drving to work in a Honda. And then wondering why more people are not buying Fords when he gets his notice he's being laid off.

I don't necessarily think it should be forced, but if you don't support the company you work for don't be surprised when others don't either.


The questions for me here is what are the details of this case. I don't think that this article explains it all very well or really what the lawsuit is about. There's more to the story.
It appears that it was constitutionally based and perhaps on a principle but then again it could be more complicated then that. It implies that the reason for the lawsuit is that the employee was somehow forced because of the statement that this employee won't have to receive the cards due to the ruling but in order for other employees to get the same deal they'll have enact their own lawsuits. Yet at the end it says the program according to Walmex is voluntary. When put together makes little sense as to the actual reasons for the lawsuit.

So it raises some questions. What's the scoop. Is the payment plan actually voluntary as stated by Walmex? If it is then why the lawsuit? It would likely have to be about more then just being forced by 'official' company policy. The article eludes to the Constitional issue but it's not really clear.
If it's not actually voluntary in practice and I can totally see a scenario where 'officially' it's voluntary but in practice is another story then the implied reason for it makes sense but we're missing what in my mind important piece of info which makes the whole thing even worse. That Walmex says one thing to the outside and does another to it's employees whether through internal dictate or unofficial company culture. This could be case. Think something like in the back office, "Look, if you really want to keep you're job you'd better tick off that box on your form. But hey beyond this room we will deny making this threat."
So then this employee decided to fight back with some sort of constitutional challenge.
Or of course it could be that the last comment from Walmex is just a big fat lie and they hope that it will somehow deflect people from paying attention.

In term of the Ford analogy more then likely the Ford person would drive a Ford because of loyalty and for the reasons you state but they aren't forced to. They might get some added bonus as an employee in terms of a discount, which is a benefit but I never heard of Ford saying...you absolutely must drive a Ford by paying them only in Ford credits and if you don't like it tough tooties. The main point being that it's about choice.

I also don't think you can really generalize the whole company loyalty thing either. All companies aren't the same though, the Ford analogy might be true to very specific sort of specialized products like cars but a company like Walmart is quite different as well as people's reasons for working are quite different. It's extremely doubtful that if every single employee at the Walmex stores decided that they didn't want to shop there that the company would go out of business.

Would you suggest that in the past the employees that worked in buggy whip making shops continue to buy buggy whips out of loyalty and keeping the company in business when cars came on the scene and the product became obselete?

I personally have worked at places that I would never patronize out of choice out of sheer necessity of survival: bad product or bad service and bad management or basically doing something that I had absolutely no need of outside of work or couldn't even afford their product even if I wanted it. The upscale art store I worked in comes to mind. No I just didn't feel like I should support the company by dropping a couple of thousand on a sculpture. I worked in restaurant once where the average dinner bill was a couple of hundred dollars and though the tips were great I wasn't about to come back on my day off and spend a day or two's wages on dinner just so they'd stay in business.

In the situations where I was forced to take what was available even though I strongly disliked what I was selling or doing I always did my best to find something else that was a better fit but sometimes when it comes down to it if it's having a roof over your head and food on the table you do what you have to do.
At one time when living on my own and the company I did work for went out of business due to retirement, the absolutely only job around was at popular fast food chain. So I took it because at that time I really didn't want to have to move into a tent. Beyond maybe a coffee or tea and the occasional muffin brought my own food for lunch because I physically could and still can't stomach their food, regardless of the half price discount that came as a benefit. I didn't and still don't have any qualms about being disloyal or not supporting the company that paid me. There product stank in my opinion. My time and skills that I gave in exchange for some bills in my pocket are just as valuable in any sort of moral sense. I did the job given to me well and when on the job supported them by just being there and doing the best I could in accordance to what they laid out. I sold the stinky food to whomever else wanted it with a smile on my face.

IMO working shouldn't just be looked at as a company providing a service or some sort favour to their employees by giving them money so ergo..you owe us. It goes both ways. If I make the choice that's one thing. Forced to? No way in heck would I be forced to eat those durn cheeseburgers every single day just because I felt I owed them something or worse part of my pay was in french fries. If my not eating those cheeseburgers because they are awful somehow leads to a whole lot of people not eating those cheeseburgers because they are awful or enough people stop eating there because the food is awful and the company goes out of business because what they do stinks overall then that company isn't a viable company anymore and shouldn't be in business. A company like that isn't going to be any good to their employees over the long term anyways imo because their main focus is just wrong and priorities directed elsewhere. Employee loyalty has very little to do with keeping any company viable if what they do or make overall stinks or simply isn't desired or needed by the community they depend on.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 September 2008 10:06 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wouldn't that be like the guy working at Ford in Windsor drving to work in a Honda.

I think it would be more like the guy working at Ford being paid in hubcaps.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 September 2008 11:25 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't find the link but a few years ago I recall a story where GM employees blocked Japanese cars belonging to other employees from entering the GM parking lot.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 06 September 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My own feeling is that al-Qa'Bong's hubcap analogy is the best. They did it because they're cheap bastards who won't miss an opportunity to save a couple of bucks by screwing their employees, and treating them like dirt. They'll do whatever they think they can get away with, in any country they operate in, and take every opportunity to push the bar lower no matter how low it was in the first place.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 September 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Walmart screw workers?

Oldgoat, say it isn't true!!!!

(I also like the hubcap analogy, except the parts were probably outsourced anyway. Mind you,all of Walmart's goods are "out sourced").


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca