Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bigness is Badness

President Ronald Reagan started the destruction of our anti-trust system and the current Bush administration has almost completed it. Almost all mergers are approved. A company can get as big as it wants. Wal-Mart has succeeded in becoming the biggest corporation. Wal-Mart is so big and so powerful that it can and does easily stifle competition, not only among its competitors, but also among its suppliers. Left alone, Wal-Mart can destroy our free enterprise system.

At the beginning of Reagan's administration, Attorney General William French Smith declared:

"Bigness is not necessarily badness."

Reagan eviscerated anti-trust. He decided that corporations should be left alone - laissez-faire. Only gouging of customers was not allowed. One result of this terrible change in government policy was the growth of the great monster: Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart and its friends tell us that it is a huge success. In the highly competitive retail market it has managed to come out on top. It is so sophisticated in its operations that it has the lowest prices. All true.

But recently I read "The Anti-Trust Case Against Wal-Mart," in the July issue of Harper's Magazine and it placed Wal-Mart's bigness in a very different light. The fact that it does 20% of all retail business gives it the kind of power not available to any other corporation. It has the power to subvert the free market. Here are a few big-corporate-names that have been laid low by Wal-Mart:

  • Coca Cola - The company planned a new line of diet drinks. Wal-Mart did not approve the artificial sweetener Coca Cola wanted to use. So Coca Cola changed plans

  • Kraft Foods - Because of soaring energy and materials' costs, they wanted to increase prices on their products. Wal-Mart said no. Kraft is now shutting 39 plants and letting go 13,500 workers

  • Gillette - A company with 70% of the razor blade sales was forced by Wal-Mart to reduce its margins. The company was in such bad shape as a result that it was bought out by Proctor and Gamble
This is power! This power comes from its bigness. Not only does Wal-Mart dictate prices a supplier charges Wal-Mart, it wants to know what prices a supplier charges competitors of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has a hand in packaging, shipping and in all types of information associated with the product. As the author states:

"... the firm is also one of the world's most intrusive, jealous, fastidious micromanagers, and its aim is nothing less than to remake entirely how its suppliers do business, not least so that it can shift many of its own costs of doing business onto them."

Wal-Mart and other companies in the monster range have accumulated too much power. This power is stifling competition. Corporations are not free to establish their own prices. An order from Wal-Mart causes 13,500 workers to lose their jobs. Wal-Mart is a menace to our free enterprise system.

Let's get rid of laissez-faire. It produces huge corporations that make their own marketing rules. We must reinvigorate our anti-trust system.

Bigness IS Badness.
Posted by Paul Siegel at June 19, 2006 5:55 PM
Comments
Comment #159264

Are y’all so intimidated by Wal-Mart that y’all have to attack it all the time to make yourselves fell better? Or are y’all just jealous that ya didn’t get in on the ground floor and ain’t millionaires like the folks that did are?
I’m no big fan of Wal-Mart myself. But my main problem with it is quality. Although they do have a negative effect on the local stores in the areas they move into.
I doubt that a corporation as big a Coca Cola is intimidated by Wal-Mart that they’ll change plans just because it don’t like their plans.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 19, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #159276

It is no surprise to anyone who knows me that I am no fan of Big Business (Big Bidness, in Texas), the Corporate Mentality, or the Shareholders vs. Employees arguments justifying the many absurdities The Fat Brass. Telephone companies and Insurance companies come to mind. I call these the Feeding Hands, and these hands are feeding a lot of people!
It seems many of the Takers of this Feed are those in Government. They realize what is happening, but do little to curb it. In fact, they promote it in the form of reducing regulations so as to leave a “freer market” in which American Business can more “freely” operate. This reduction of Watchful Eyes doesn’t help the Market as much as it helps the Feeding Hands. After all, those regulations were originally put there for some reason.
But, on the WalMart issue, I might sound like I’m on the other side of the “aisle.” While they are huge behemoths, with many of the ills that entails, they DO keep prices low. That helps me. The Coca-Colas, Krafts, and Gillettes you mention are ALSO huge, although less so, but their efforts to raise prices do NOT help me. So, it seems I have a behemoth in the bull pen who is finally on my side, albeit in a somewhat haphazard way (shopping at WM can be very frustrating, for example, as they never have the same “good deal” twice, and specialty items - like sugar-free choices my wife and I need - are seldom found there… not enough “numbers” in the sales for WM to stock them.) I can, however, go to my neighborhood grocery store for some of these things.
I do not mean to belittle the plight of the 13,500 laid off workers, but I don’t see that a “slap on the wrist” by WM would be that bottom-line cause. A poorly run business is just that, and I can’t fault a thwarted attempt to raise the profit line as a good excuse for laying off people.
I DO agree with you, however, that overall, bigness can be badness, and the Feeding Hands need more Watchful Eyes than they are currently getting. But in context, I think WalMart is dealing with the supply/demand thing in our favor… I could not have caused those supplier corporations to keep their prices low.

Posted by: Myles at June 19, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #159277

Ron -

That’s the best response… sling some insults? Come on. Read up and make a qualified comment. I’ve seen you do it…

I don’t think Wal-Mart today will be the giant of tomorrow… there’s just going to be a bigger monstet that knocks this one down. Also, the pressure of online shopping will also have it’s toll - most things you can buy at Wal-mart can be bought easily online, and the cost is about the same, if you take into account the shipping fees.

Personally, I hate Wal-Mart, so I shop at Target. Is there a real difference… probably not. Wal-marts feel cheap, hire cheap and sell cheap. I’ll spend an extra $ or two to not go there.

I’m not surprised that coke would bow to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart control access to a huge percentage of the market… and in many areas, it’s the only large-scale access. They still have their direct/point of sale distribution, but that has got to be a lot more expensive to maintain that going through Wal-Mart.

Rad this for more about Wal-Mart : http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

This isn’t a “yuk-yuk we hates big business” - there’s way more to it than that.

Posted by: tony at June 19, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #159279

Btw - 80% of everything sold (mostly packaging) at Wal-Mart is in a landfill within 2 months. On $245 billion sales… what does that add up to?

Posted by: tony at June 19, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #159281

tony,

Assuming your figures are correct (I have no idea about that percentage), I would counter that 80% of everyone’s

Hopefully we can do something on this front some day, too.

Posted by: Myles at June 19, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #159284

hmmm… that didn’t go so well… I had an “intrusion attempt” notice from Norton halfway through my reply, so I wonder…

I was saying 80% of all purchases are in land-fills because we, as a whole, don’t have interest in or access to recycling opportunities.

Posted by: Myles at June 19, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #159287

Wasn’t ATT divested in 1984? I velieve ATT at the time was the largest employer in the world, and if memory serves correct, regan was at the helm…

Who knew!

Posted by: b0mbay at June 19, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #159297

tony
I’ve got some bad news for ya buddy. Target is just as bad as Wal-Mart. Just not as big. Yet!
I kinda got the idea that Target might be the one to topple Wal-Mart from the top spot.
If Wal-Mart’s suppliers don’t like the way the company treats them they’re a liberty to quit doing business with them. If enough suppliers did that Wal-Mart would have to change it’s practices in dealing with them. Of course most of it’s suppliers are so use to the income from sales to Wal-Mart that they’ll take the BS and won’t quit doing business with them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 19, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #159301

Wal-Mart is not the enemy here at all. They are in business to make money and that’s what they do. I have worked at 2 businesses that supplied Wal-Mart. We had many long negotiations with them and we always came out on top. If they wanted our products, they had to buy them for a fair price and they did. (We even walked away from the table and eventually they begged us back). The problem with these companies you mentioned, is that they were afraid.

The examples given are weak…Big companies giving it to big companies? You should really like that Paul…I believe you want all big business to choke, thus putting millions out of work?

Makes a lot of sense to me…

Posted by: Cliff at June 19, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #159302

We have been here before. But, back then, it was called AT&T. Their breakup, though painful for some, launched the greatest revolution and competitive reach for innovation in communications since Gutenberg’s printing press.

Big is not necessarily bad. But, today, some of the biggest like the oil companies, have such huge power in the bribing of Congress and the White House, or black mailing them if they won’t accept the bribes, through threats of funding campaigns against them during election years, that government becomes a puppet to these mega-semi-monopolies and oligopolies. And rest assured, the public suffers. Take a look at the pilots of United losing their pensions, same story with GM, and the threat from Ford, and a host of others.

Let’s take United’s argument. They say they will belly up if Pilots won’t negotiate away their pensions. They say they can’t pass fuel costs on to their customers because that would invite other airlines to underbid them in price competition.

But the falsity of these arguments are, other airlines have pensions and are honoring them and other airlines are paying the same cost for fuel. So, if United is not capable of competing they scream to sugar daddy’s in Congress that their going belly up will be bad for elections as travellers wait in long lines for higher priced tickets.

But, the truth is, if they belly up, the management that couldn’t make a go of it, will be gone, and United will be bought out by someone who can compete and provide the pension plans that other airlines do. And United will continue to fly albeit, under different management.

What else is going on here is a nod and wink amongst the airlines oligopoly. They are all agreeing to not pass on higher fuel costs to passengers because they all know, few people will travel by air if they do. So, they ask the pilots and the government to bail it out, rather than suffer lower margins of return on investment through lower air travel rates.

But the question is: What is wrong with fewer air travellers? Shouldn’t the consumer demand be allowed to reduce during times of high fuel costs? Does this not work to bring supply and demand back into balance? Yes, of course it would. The airlines don’t want to buy into that, because that means protracted periods of lower profit margins and some market share readjustments.

This is the power we should be afraid of. It is the power to negate market forces, fudge the rules of free enterprise, and stick the public tax payer for the consequences if their representatives won’t play ball, as well as the representatives themselves when it comes time for campaign contributions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #159311

If you build a better mouse trap the world will beat a path to your door.Ever hear of microsoft? Your level of perpetual, paranoid,perplexity is only to be exceeded by my intense exstream laughter at the very ponderous level of left-wing librial socialist diatribe spewed fourth in your piece. The one word you conveniently left out and the one I interpret you may fear the most, perhaps one of the greatest powers of american freedom CAPITALISM.—$$$$$$$$$—Mr.Webster defines CAPITALISM AS—-$$$—- CAPITALISM n. 1.The state of having capital;the position of a capitalist.2.An economic system in which capital and capitalists play the principal part;specif.,one in which the ownership of land and natural wealth, the production,distribution, and exchange of goods,and the opreation of the system itself,are effected by private enterprise and control under competitive conditions.

Posted by: infidel capitalist pig at June 19, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #159334

Paul,

I never get tired of your Corporate rants.

The problem with the left is there is a boogie man behind every corner. Their solution is to make the 800 lb gorrila (government), 900 lb to solve the problem. The problem is that the solution is worse than the problem. When the government gets sufficiently large enough… it because the best friend with….you guessed it….corporations.

I’m not concerned about big bad corporations. They come and go. That is what is great about Capitalism. We tear it all down and build it back up again. Our government is here to stay. The railroad barons were replaced by semi-trucks. Walmart will be replaced by some new way to purchase junk online from China.

Posted by: JimmyRay at June 19, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #159347

The old line about power corrupting doesn’t just apply to public officials. Wal-Mart has inordinate power on the supply side. Left to continue on this way, it will have that kind of market power, then that kind of pricing power. When that happens, watch out.

Traditionally when this kind of problem arose, people turned to politicians of one party or the other to restore some semblance of balance. That may not be possible any longer, and if it’s not, we’re deep in you know what.

Posted by: S.W. Anderson at June 20, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #159353

S.W. Anderson:

Don’t you know we can’t let Fags and Queers marry each other? We have our priorities!!!

Posted by: Aldous at June 20, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #159382

I asked some employees at Wal-mart how they liked working there. Just two or three privately. They all thought it was a great job and they seemed truthful. On further questioning I was somewhat shocked to find out what they thought was good pay. They will probably never be able to buy a new car let alone a home. Some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.Pity.
Probably the best way to deal with the Wal-marts of the world is to get some real striker protection laws passed like every other industrial democracy has and for big labor to go after them in a big way. Now if a store goes union they just close it(except in China). Think they would close all their stores in California or New York to keep the union out?I doubt it. Sorry to bring this thread to the mindless union bashing we will get now but it was bound to happen.

Posted by: BillS at June 20, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #159395

The point of this article seems to be to rail against efficiency and profitablity. I wonder what part of the operation are we supposed to make work less efficiently so that we as a nation can be saved from economic fascism through the wonder of increased costs to the citizens? Should we return to the days of the small town department store with 25 shirts, 15 pants and 20 assorted styles of fancy dress? Why not try reinventing the neighborhood grocery and just reduce the inventory by 40% and increase the prices by 30%? Today’s shopkeeper is tomorrow’s Sam Walton. I think that only catalogue sales should be allowed to reduce the spread of rampant efficiency. Maybe we should recognize that all merchantile ventures are inherently corrupted and only use those goods that we produce ourselves thereby protecting ourselves from both efficiency and division of labor.

In order to save America, I think we had all better plant our gardens and learn to use that loom now!

Posted by: goodkingned at June 20, 2006 3:28 AM
Comment #159428

On products that I really buy lots of here in OR I buy mostly from Costco, and for food items I shop at Food for less and Grocery Outlet. These places many times have lower prices then Wal-Mart. As for guns I can get a beter price at Bi-Mart every day of the week. Wal-Mart has driven prices at their stores almost as low as they can. Now smaller stores/chains can get local/regional stuff that doesn’t sell at the volume of Wal-Mart but is priced the same or even less. The only reason I do shop at Wal-Mart from time to time is just that it is the closest store that has the variety of products I am looking for at the time.

Posted by: timesend at June 20, 2006 6:05 AM
Comment #159441

Ned:

Awesome analysis…but that is exactly what the far leftie liberal environmentalists want. They would love to see us “return to nature”, never realizing or recognizing that the practices of 100, 200 and more years ago were far more harmful to the enviroment, and much less regulated, than the practices of today. Money and progress bring better technology which in turn brings solutions to the problems we create along the way. A return to looms, horse drawn carriages and wood burning stoves is not only not feasable, but would in the long run be the very death knell for the planet that the enviro-wackos have been trying to avoid all these years.

Posted by: DaveR at June 20, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #159454

DaveR, you are posing an all or none false choice, return to the past, (not possible) or accept the present with all its foibles. The reason this is a false choice is because you don’t include the option of reinstating attributes of the past which were positive and which would fit well with modern times.

Example, local self-contained communities. Diversely structured communities in which employment, housing and recreation are all mixed and located within the community is a social structural component of the past that would bode well for a great many new development projects in the present. The benefits would be enormous, from mixed income housing which research shows benefits property values, human values, and the sense of neighborly community, as well as radically reducing commute times to and from work and the stress and energy that this would save as well as lowering the cost of living by making vehicles last longer. Build in bike paths, and modern mass transit to the work place, again the savings and health factors increase dramatically.

But, these require government intervention and partnership with developers in which government takes the lead, not the developers. A concept foreign to Republican government.

One of Oregon’s urban redevelopment plans which virtually eradicated slums, ended urban flight, and halted the sprawl of suburban unplanned communities was so successful, that the state has borrowed many of its innovative concepts which can be read about here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 20, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #159467

David,

Two points regarding your airline post:

1) Regarding the airlines, you contend that they can pass on the price of oil the passengers because they are all paying the same price for oil. Not true in all cases. Southwest for example having a cash rich position does not. They are able to buy oil for months in advance smoothing out price changes that would allow for their price of oil to be consistently lower than there competitors. One of the ways they do that is by having a compensation package for their employees that is more tightly coupled with profits which has worked out great for the employees in the past ten years but if the airlines make it back to early 90’s levels of profitability, they will ulitmately be paid under the industry average.

2) You stated that someone else would have bought United that could have bought United and honored the pensions. Who? None of the major carriers in a fiscally sound enough position to do it short of Southwest. Southwest would have no interest in it because they can grow more profitably through organic growth than they can through mergers.

Two more, regarding “planned communities”:

1) Government need not always take the lead on these inintiatives. The town that I grew up in is developing one such community right now. The developer took the initiative to create it. They did so because they did the research and proved the strategy in other places to be profitable. No government leadership was required, though they of course participated in the traditional ways: zoning, approving road and sewer improvements, etc.

2) Republicans are not necessarily disinclined to support government leadership in community planning on the local levels. Again, the county that I grew up in went for Bush in both elections by almost a 2 to 1 margin each time. However, the towns in the county have a long tradition of heavy government planning for new communities.

For my town, this started in the 70’s with protecting a Historical zone. In the 80’s the government took the lead on revitalizing the down town area. In the 90’s they did several expansions of the city limits to take in more rural areas as the town grew. Part of that was a huge expansion of the school system that moved. The number of local schools went from 4 with no High School to probably around 20 now with 3 High Schools. In the 2000’s now, the new focus is on expanding the system of sidewalks and bike paths to make walking and riding easier, parking to hanlde all of the new people, and adding some public transportation for the first time.

Oh yeah, home values are up about 300% from the late 80’s for existing homes, and the average price of a home is probably 600% what it was then due to all of the new home construction. So the new initiative for the rest of this decade and into next is adding some affordable housing so that kids who grew up in the town can live there again. So Republicans at the local level don’t mind the government leadership when it works. When the power starts moving from town hall to the State Capitol and then to D.C. they get less interested.

2) Of course, even in the best intentioned planning things get silly and this causes Republicans to amp up their distrust. In other example from my home town, the sidewalk expansion was one. Sidewalks are now mandated in all new construction. There is a modest industrial zone in town. One of the factories added an addition, they were required to put a side-walk in front of the entire factory. The side walk runs for about 500 yards and then hits an access road on one side with no sidewalk and a drainage ditch on the other. I’d be willing to be that the number of feet that will hit that side-walk in the next ten years will be less than the number of feet that it took to build it. But we can even abide that silliness if we get the benefits of having a place where we can raise happy, safe kids.

Posted by: Rob at June 20, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #159502

Another Liberal Democrat Mayor caught on Video Snorting Cocaine.Mayor John M.Fabrizi Mayor of Bridgeport Conn.admits tuesday that he had abused cocaine while in office.A big time drug dealer droped the dime on Mayor Fabrizi.So much for the Culture Of Corruption.

Posted by: lookingout at June 20, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #159512

lookingout,

Do you know much about my wonderful state of Connecticut? Google John Rowland and Philip A. Giordano. See what you get.

Posted by: Greg at June 20, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #159529

Rob, that is one very atypical developer you have there. But, hopefully, their success will permeate throughout the developer professional journals and others will follow suit. What is amazing to me is that the research for this kind of multi-tiered economic mixing of homes and heads of households in common housing areas sharing multiple industries embedded in and around the housing communities was done and proved theoretically back in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. I know, because that research was part of my environmental psychology and one of sociology courses.

It took another 2 decades for a major urban planning government to adopt the strategy of re-investing in the urban area and halt suburban expansion using the models of the research mentioned. That was such a huge success in a myriad of ways, that it doesn’t surprise me that at least one developer has recognized there is a niche market for that kind of development model.

But, a survey done several years ago, demonstrates that city council officials and mayors of urban areas are still ignorant of the research and successful results established heretofore.

As for the buying out United, it will happen. That is what venture capital borrowing is all about. It may not be another airline that buys them out. It may be a consortium, or another corporation branching out into a new market. But, United would leave to large a demand for it to remain bankrupt and defunct. Where there is an established demand, capital and investment will follow. That is afterall one of the great strenghts of American society.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 20, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #159631

—Paul- I love to see a post the spinmeisters an troll buggers can’t spin.Good job

Posted by: DAVID at June 20, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #159741

David,

You may be right that some venture capitalist may be crazy enough to buy United but do really think that they would ever honor the pensions? It would be one of the very first pieces of the deal that could in place. I can’t see anyone in their right mind doing an ROI with that much pension liability on the books and thinking that they could make it work in today’s airline market.

I agree with you on mixed income. It works. I think the message is getting to the cities that are in the top 20 in terms of population.


I think it’ll be another decade or two before it penetrates beyond that. Right now, suburban and smaller cities are still thriving on the notion that they are not mixed. Until the big cities can face down some major challenges, the biggest is the improvement of inner city schools, I think, the surburbs will stay wary.

Posted by: Rob at June 20, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #159754

David R.

Your planning boondoggle sounds like you have discovered government funded gentrification. I have had some experience with planning and the flaw in urban revitalization plans is that the residents don’t seem to want the things that earnest, dedicated planners believe they need.

In the 70’s my home town in a ill advised effort to save the downtown shopping district created a walking mall, closing the main street and shunting parking to ancillary areas. Soon tumbleweeds could traverse the mall unimpeded by ambulatory citizens.

At the same time, planners advocated the removal of multiple story public housing projects on the basis that these structures dehumanized the residents, ultimately driving them to become antisocial, see crack shootings. On the advice of these planners, smaller structures adjacent to green spaces were constructed for the public housing stock. The green spaces made excellent outdoor markets for the crack and gave clearer fields of fire for the drive-by shootings.

Whenever I hear a plan that is contingent upon the products of urban planners, I think of the simplicity and efficiency that is a modern shopping center parking lot approved by local planners.

Instead of the discovery the advantages of socially and economically diverse urban community, I belief that the movement to the ‘burbs slowed due to the corruption of the ‘burbs (you can take the gangsta out of the city, but … ) and the gentrification of formerly poor urban areas with gates and housing costs segregating the haves from the have-nots-and-want-yours.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #159801

DAVID,

You said, “Paul- I love to see a post the spinmeisters an troll buggers can’t spin.Good job.”

This post itself is the spin. Bigness is Badness? That’s a slogan that Republican’s have used for years regarding government and unions. Everyone hates when their political opponents are big because with bigness comes power and inertia.

But is big really bad when it is on your side? Is it bad when it helps achieve your goals? Wal-Mart just recently passed GM. Does Paul have a huge problem with a big employer if they predominantly employ members of big labor? Wal-Mart is still not as big an employer in the U.S. as the Federal Governement. Is a big Federal Goverment bad? Bigness as it relates to badness is truly in the eye of the beholder.

However, the reality is that Paul’s post is trying to use the anti-trust laws to remedy Wal-Mart’s behavior which he uses in a Marxist like argument as the embodmient of Capital. This however, is not what the anti-trust laws were designed to do. They weren’t meant to punish companies that succeed. They were meant to ensure that they did so within the bounds of fair competition. Wal-Mart had pleanty of competitor’s in the past and the still do so today.

Take a look at Wikipedia’s description of the anti-trust laws here and see if you think any of the things that Paul described Wal-Mart doing are covered. On the contrary, they are competitive moves, used to maintain their mission of providing consumers with the lowest possible price for their products. Microsoft’s bundling is the closest any of the truly big companies have come to actually violating any of these provisions.

So the real issue, then must be broader than anti-trust. So what we are looking for is a new standard for regulating business. One that is distinctly geared toward punishing success and not allowing companies to set the terms under which they want to do business. The examples Paul cites, Kraft, Coca-Cola, and Gilitee were all forced to make accomodations for Wal-Mart. The question is why is that bad. It feels bad for these companies because it is a paradigm shift in terms of who has the upper hand in negotations.

In the “good old days,” manufacturers could set their own prices and demand that retailers pay them. If the prices were too high and the products didn’t sell in one location, they were ok because their risk was spread over many retailers. The retailer bore the risk. If a retailer had the bad luck of being situated in a place that was more succeptible to inflation than most, then they could end up out of business. Now Wal-Mart has the power to demand the lower prices, and that power acts as an overall check on inflation in the U.S.

There is no doubt that the check against inflation that Wal-Mart provides causes some changes to be made in manufacturing. As does, Wal-Mart willingness to buy from overseas compeition. This no doubt causes consternation amongst manufacturers and more to Paul’s chagrin labor unions who had their largest base of workers in those jobs most succeptible to Wal-Mart’s new power.

Posted by: Rob at June 20, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #159884

—Every K-Mart near wall-mart closed with the exception of a very few. With most of wall-marts products coming from China, Indonesia and parts unknown. Wall Mart has been fined for hiring illegal aliens building their new stores thus they were not using American workers. This mode of operation is being copied by other smart companies! India has taken over our telemarketing jobs and I could go on an on. As long as people keep buying junk from foreign entities we will keep loosing jobs, then all the crybabies will be asking why! Keep supporting your local NAFTA and GAT treaty, It cant hurt me but I feel sorry for all the sheep following their great leaders. SORRY to have to say that.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #159901

DAVID:

In regard to WalMart’s use of illegal aliens, the widely publicized case I heard about involved a third contractors use of illegals to do outsourced contractual maintenance duties. Upon closer examination, the incident did not seem to indicate a pattern of hiring illegal labor.

I’m sure there are lots of other things about WalMart you hate, so you don’t need to gild the lily with half proved assertions.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #159907

—If you call more than one hundred brick layers electricians and every one else except the Main General foreman, I think this is more than half a spin was true, and the other half of you spin according to my rather large news paper stated these outsourcing of jobs to foreigners have been going on in several states. these people were all deported and Wall-Mart receives over one million dollar fine. There by making my assertions true, an by the the way, I do not hate Wall-Mart, just the harm in the long run.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 3:06 AM
Comment #159912

DAVID:

Not intending to spin. The story I heard was a while back and the workers were an outsourced clean-up crew of some kind. We must be talking about different stories.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 3:43 AM
Comment #159916

—2005 11 million dollar fine for illegal immigrant in 60 stores in 21 states. 2002-50 million dollar fine back pay 69.000 emps.—172 million dollar fine for refusing lunch breaks,$205.650 fine for refusing lunch breaks $135.540 fine for child labor violations. From media matters this is just a few. Is this what you called half truths must prove you do,being polite! Spin

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #159918

—Sorry I really did not need to add that spin bit DAVID

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #159927

That’s OK. I don’t have the data to be specific about WalMart, but whenever I hear that they have violated some labor law or are being sued by employees, I have to consider the sheer size of the company. Mistakes, errors and downright criminal acts are committed in the course of business, many times without the knowledge of upper management. I suspect that the majority of national chains have been accused and convicted of similar offences. Without comparative data for the industry as a whole, I find it hard to gauge WalMart’s relative culpability.

You, however, seem very well informed about WalMart’s misdeeds. Don’t fall off your horse while tilting at windmills.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 21, 2006 4:29 AM
Comment #159991

—Sour Grapes -You can take an Ass to the water but you can not make him drink it. You can defend WalMart all you like and put your spinning wheel right next to my wind-mills, and I have several horses and ride quiet well. Don’t expect to fall off soon.

Posted by: DAVID at June 21, 2006 12:21 PM
Post a comment