Users Trash Wal-Mart On Its Facebook Site

hhavensteincw writes "Only two weeks after Wal-Mart launched its latest foray into Web 2.0 land, Facebook users have hijacked a page aimed at selling back-to-school supplies to college kids to instead post rants about the company's labor practices. Of the 100-plus comments, none relates to dorm decorating as Wal-Mart had originally envisioned."

This is *exactly* why

[BiggestPOS]

You need one of those ancient "greeters" as gate-keepers on the system. I don't even let people post comments on *my* lowly page without approving them first, how can they be so naive?

Re:This is *exactly* why

[Anonymous Coward]

Their "forway" into Web 2.0? I don't get it. Did he mean four way into Web 2.0? It does look like they're getting f*cked.

Re:This is *exactly* why

[CastrTroy]

2.0? They aren't even at web 1.0 yet here in Canada. You can't even buy stuff online in Canada, and they have only a few select items up on their website, not even close to their entire catalog. However, there is an option to add stuff to your shopping list, and print that out for buying at the B&M stores. Which is pretty useless though, considering the items may not be at the store you shop at, and like I said, the online product selection is maybe 10% of the items they actually stock.

Re:This is *exactly* why

[Phantom of the Opera]

You need one of those ancient "greeters" as gate-keepers on the system. I don't even let people post comments on *my* lowly page without approving them first, how can they be so naive?

Would they pay the greeter a decent wage? But seriously, how many would they have to hire to keep up?

The special place in hell for the Wal-Mart greeter

[MillionthMonkey]

This made me think of the Far Side strip where a demon is greeting newcomers to hell and the sign behind him says "This is the first day of the rest of your life."

In fact hell has been working on a "Web 2.0 style" social network for ages. I can't wait to meet up with all my friends there.

Re:The special place in hell for the Wal-Mart gree

[grazzy]

No, what .. didnt you say you already joined facebook?

"Only two weeks after"

[More_Cowbell]

Only?

Am I the only one surprised it took so long?

Re:

[g0dsp33d]

Probably due to the large number of people who cared enough to search for Walmart :-p. Don't know about you, but I tend to ignore ads, even blatant ones.

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

[karnal]

Wal-mart just has cheap socks and asshole management.

I've heard the older you get, the more you might need asshole management. (I read that sentence wrong.)

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

[timmarhy]

They treat them horribly? you mean worse then child prositution or working your self into an early grave in the fields? because that's often the choices a poor person has in "other" countries. they choose sweat shops, as horrible as they are, because they are the best choice they have. it's much the same as it was for our countries when they first industrialised.

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

[bentcd]

Offering to feed peoples children, on the condition that they convert to christianity would be wrong.

Offering a woman who is in the wilderness with a broken leg a ride to the nearest hospital, on the condition that she give you a blowjob would be wrong.

Offering someone whose family is starving $2/day, on the condition that they work as slaves for you is wrong.

Yes, in each of these cases, not doing anything at all could be argued to be even worse. But that ain't enough. By that you've just demonstrated that the action is not the worst-possible-action. But there's a long step from being "not-the-worst" and to being "good".

The second example is particularily interesting; it would actually be a *crime* not to help a helpless person in such a situation.

For all of your examples, choosing to help the people involved is not something that you are obliged to do in any way. Yes, you could establish your altruism by aiding them with no strings attached but you are not required to do so. (Some nations will probably have laws that require you to aid people in distress even if this comes at some cost to you - this changes things as you note.)

Assuming that you are not an altruist, however, then /not/ making any offer to help the people mentioned has to be /worse/ than making the morally questionable offers that you suggest. Since you are not actually forcing them to accept by threatening further distress should they not take up your offer, making those offers can only improve their situation or, at worst, maintain the status quo. Since not making the offer is "worse", then making it must be "better".

Whether this becomes "good" or just remains "better" is entirely a subjective assessment. I would tend to think that so long as you are candid about what your offer entails, then giving more options is a good thing even if you are offering them for entirely selfish reasons. Whether that makes you a "good" person is a different question altogether, but that has no bearing on whether or not the offer should have been made.

As an example, if I were in grave debt I might be happy to hear the offering from the local loan shark with tendencies towards knee breaking so long as he's up front about his interest rates and methods of sanction. I might end up not accepting the offer, but at least I have it on the table along with all my other options.

They should take it one step further

[bigtrike]

They should go a step further and allow college students to network with the 9 year old children making the products they're buying.

Re:

[g0dsp33d]

Why would they let the children have computers? Plus the 'net would take away from their 18 hour work days.

Re:They should take it one step further

[justinlee37]

The issue with Walmart is that the company opposes labor unions -- if the workers at a store try to unionize, Walmart shuts down the store and puts them all out of a job. They have the resources to pull that kind of shit.

Re:They should take it one step further

[CastrTroy]

Lots of businesses oppose labour unions. And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper. How are they supposed to compete? There are many stores that do not pay union rates for workers. Why should Walmart be required to. Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine. That's their choice as a corporation. Meanwhile, there's still people lining up for jobs every time a walmart opens, and people lining up to buy stuff from there. So while there may be a lot of people who don't like them, there's a ton more people who do like what walmart is doing.

Re:They should take it one step further

[notamisfit]

Labor unions only have power as long as the companies that sponsor them are willing to blank-out the law of supply and demand. I remember a piece by George Reisman about the auto industry back when Japan was seriously kicking the American companies' asses (Ok, still true), and it's not even that the pay was significantly lower (about 5 or 6 dollars different, IIRC, in an industry where 25-30 dollar wage rates aren't uncommon). In a union shop, employees don't compete with each other for a higher spot on the food chain, don't cross train (their job is their job, and they're not going to sweep floors or mount tires if their job goes a little slow that day), and any attempt to swap benefits plans for something more economical requires a union vote. The non-union Japanese shops were able to save considerable money both on benefits and man-hours.

Quite wrong!

[threaded]

I have seen at first hand the running of a 'Japanese' and a 'Domestic' car plant. The staff at the Japanese plant had much higher pay and benefits.

The problem stems from statistics, and how the numbers are played with. Basically in the 'west' retiree benefits are paid from 'current' income. In the past these 'western' companies saved money by failing to invest for the future benefits they contractually agreed too. They did this by setting up shells that actually gave the investment money back to the originating company This made the companies look profitable and growing, and raised their then share price. This sort of nonsense was encouraged by the markets and governments which fed back into the management which gave more of the same. Behind the scenes everyone crossed their fingers and hoped that growth would make up the difference. There were many at the time who said it was all a house of cards, but they were starved of research funding and quite effectively silenced. Now time has caught up with these companies and governments and they have to pay, which is then, by accountancy tricks, spread across the current employee base, making current employees look way more expensive and quite unproductive.

Contrast this with Japanese companies who invested for the future benefits with strict governmental controls on how they were allowed to do it. Now these companies not only receive income from the investments, they also have a much lower cost base as they only pay out for their current workforce which makes them look less than half the price and considerably more productive.

Re:Quite wrong!

[CaptainZapp]

Psssst! Will you shut up? You're ruining all the carefully cultivated prejudices of all those fine /.ers.

What next? You want to tell us about lean production (where Toyota is world leader, bar none)? Total quality management (which was laughed out by everybody, except by the Japanese, who listended very carefully and then went to implement it)? Innovation, like Hybrids (not feasible and too expensive for most, except for some Japanese companies)?

Next you will reason that over-motorized GM junk is unsellable in the rest of the world due to gas guzzling, quality problems and overall borishness, while we all no that's a French conspiracy to hurt America.

Re:They should take it one step further

[Original Replica]

all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

They can do it so much cheaper because the first $1500 of each car goes to cover medical insurance costs, not so in Japan. 69% of that health care cost is going to cover retired employees.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901385.html [washingtonpost.com] Labor Unions are largely responsible for health insurance and retirement benefits for full time employees being the standard. Walmart skirts this by having the majority of their employees work part time. They can enroll for health insurance only if they enroll their dependents as well, which is a problem because on their part time salary they can't afford the enrollment premiums. As for people lining up for the jobs and products, they lined up for Standard Oil as well. Walmart employees aren't usually in a position to be picky about their jobs, but just because they have to settle for "better than nothing" work doesn't mean that society should advocate their marginalization.

Re:They should take it one step further

[king-manic]

And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

You may have a point about other goods but many foreign cars are domestically assembled and many domestic cars have as high or higher quotient of foreign parts. Also Japanese companies have historically felt obligations to their workers while US companies have not as much compunctions of screwing over workers to guard the bottom line. Over all your point about this one product type is full holes.

Re:

[esme]

Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine. That's their choice as a corporation.

no, it isn't. workers have a right to unionize, and the tactics that walmart (and some others) use to prevent unionization are illegal.

i think some unions have unrealistic goals, and many seem to serve their leadership better than their membership. but US law isn't at all vague about the right of workers to unionize.

-esme

Re:They should take it one step further

[esme]

even threatening to shutdown operations because the employees unionize is illegal. actually doing so, when the purpose it only thwart unionization, is definitely illegal.

as I said before, some unions have unreasonable expectations. and i can imagine a scenario where a union forms and demands wages and benefits that would make it impossible for the business to operate. and that business would be within its rights to shut down.

but that's not what wal-mart is doing. they pull every trick in the book to prevent unionization, legal or otherwise. and shutting down a location to break a union is illegal. NRLA [nlrb.gov] is pretty clear on this.

-esme

Re:

[shma]

Even threatening to shutdown operations because the employees unionize is illegal. Actually doing so, when the purpose it only thwart unionization, is definitely illegal.

And in Canada, they did exactly that. The first Wal-Mart store in North America to unionize, located in Jonquiere, Quebec, was shut down immediately afterwards due to 'lack of profitability'. Fortunately the labor board saw through that bs and ordered Wal-Mart to compensate the workers.

Re:

[blahplusplus]

"Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine."

What a crock of shit, in modern market society many "business models" are little more then mathematical slavery. People do not have an independent resource base (food,shelter, etc) outside of the market. If people were truly resource independent many businesses would go belly up, or not even be possible. Right now private industry and families hold all the carrots and fo

Re:

[jlarocco]

Most modern economic liberals forget that wealth is just transferred, and if you're one of the millions that wealth is being transferred from because you've been replaced or have been FORCED into redundancy, that's hardly 'the persons fault'. The system has many negative aspects and that's why George Soros is doing what he can because of the threats capitalism poses to itself.

That's just bullshit. Working is mutual exploitation. I go to work for 8 hours a day because I value the money I get more than t

Re:

[unix_core]

That's just bullshit. Working is mutual exploitation. I go to work for 8 hours a day because I value the money I get more than the work I put in. My employer pays me because they value my work more than they value the money they pay me. Both my employer and I receive value from the setup, and if either of those conditions ceases to be true, I'm going to stop working there. Same thing with Walmart. If the tard stocking shelves thinks their labor is worth more than minimum wage, they can find a job where they

Re:

[anaesthetica]

Most modern economic liberals forget that wealth is just transferred

This is just flat wrong. Some wealth is transferred, but most wealth is created. Inventing something new, increasing productivity, finding a more efficient or less wasteful organizational structure--all of these things create wealth. Every year someone invents something new, makes an incremental improvement on existing products, or re-organizes a system in order to cut out waste. The end result is more products, better products, at

Re:Labour Unions

[shking]

Lots of businesses oppose labour unions. And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

You are dead wrong. The U.S. has one of the lowest levels of unionization among industrialized countries. Union density was 12.4% in 2003, roughly 2/3 of Japan's (19.7%) and 1/2 of Canada (28.4%) or the E.U. (26.3%). Statistics used are from the U.S. Department of Labor [bls.gov].

Re:They should take it one step further

[fyngyrz]

Seriously, name one american vehicle that would be improved by the abolition of labour unions.

All of them could be. Because it would decrease the cost to build them, which opens up the potential to either sell them for less, or sell them at the same price with more capability. Either of which would also put them on a better competitive footing with Japan, Korea, and so forth.

Don't imagine for a minute that artificially high costs of labor have no effect upon the ability of a business to produce a quality product.

Don't worry about it though; even though labor unions seem to have the upper hand at the moment, they are one of the key forces that bring automation to assembly lines. Sure, they have the power to blackmail employers right now; but at the same time those ridiculous wages are being handed to them across the table, management is handing contracts to industrial robotics firms. American unions are destroying their own member's jobs by making sure they cost more to the company than automation does, and that they are more annoying to have around than robots are.

Re:

[Wansu]

Don't worry about it though; even though labor unions seem to have the upper hand at the moment, they are one of the key forces that bring automation to assembly lines.

You think labor unions have the upper hand?

Union membership has been shriveling for decades. The UAW is on the ropes.

Because it would decrease the cost to build them, which opens up the potential to either sell them for less, or sell them at the same price with more capability. Either of which would also put them on a better competit

Competition would take care of that...

[Firethorn]

Basically what Bendodge said.

Sooner or later, one of the companies, native or foreign would take the opportunity to drop prices a bit and steal business from the other companies.

Let's ask this question: If they'd take the opportunity to keep their prices the same if costs drop, why don't they raise prices? After all, what's to stop them from making more profit?

Heck - look at gasoline prices. Sure, it takes a little time, but when the refineries are operational and oil costs are down, gasoline at the pump

Re:

[Alex Zepeda]

The prices of American cars is not the issue. The value of American cars is. Simply put, Japanese cars are more expensive than their American counterparts. However, people will buy these more expensive cars because they are of higher quality. In the same vein, the reason that the Big 3 were able to move cars when they slashed prices was because people will adjust their expectations downward appropriately.

The big issue isn't wages (Toyota pays pretty competitive wages in their USA plants), but benefits.

Re:

[Alex Zepeda]

Check the window stickers in any new Big 3 car. Like the new Ford Fusion (giant gaping holes between the body panels and all)? It's made in Mexico. Focus SVT? Made in Mexico until last year. Dodge Ram? Made in Mexico. Chrysler product with a (recent) Hemi or the "Phoenix" V6? Mexican made.

FWIW, here's a list of Canadian motor vehicle plants:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/auto-auto.nsf/ en/am00767e.html [ic.gc.ca]

Re:

[FLEB]

Unions were vitally necessary organizations, working to protect and promote workers' fundamental rights.
Unions are vitally necessary organizations, working to protect and promote workers' fundamental rights.

These sentences need not be mutually true. Yes, in their time, unions helped correct a number of glaring fundamental injustices, and they helped to bring a bit of sanity and equity into the worker/company relationship. I'd even agree that there's a real chance that backsliding of these rights could happe

Re:

[Sunburnt]

Well, if the unions were abolished (I'm not big on abolition, but IMO government ceasing to coerce employers to negotiate would be both moral and practical), the US automakers could compete in the small to midsize auto market, and wouldn't have to rely on truck and SUV sales to bring home the bacon (like they did for most of the '80s and '90s).

Yeah...at least in some fantasy world where "U.S." cars aren't made in Mexico. Where, I understand, there aren't any maquiladora labor unions.

Silly Canadian...it's the health care

[Foerstner]

At least from my experiences here in Canada, they stock the exact same stuff as most other discount department stores, and pay their employees about the same amount. How much do you expect them to pay people to stock shelves?

In the US, where there is no national health care, it is left up to the employer to provide health insurance. This represents a cost to the company, and Wal-Mart is pretty good at avoiding it.

Its health plans are open to part-time employees (those who work fewer than a specified number

Re:Silly Canadian...it's the health care

[CastrTroy]

Sorry to be so smug, but that's what happens when you rely on corporations to provide you with health care. Health care is a cost, and it's in the constition of most corporations to reduce costs where possible. This is why it isn't a good idea to rely on corporations for your health care. Telling people to either pay-up, or be sick/die, isn't something a corporation should have the power to do. That's why I'm happy to live somewhere with socialized health care. There's just too much room for corruption and taking advantage of people when you can dangle their health/life in front of them to get them to pay whatever you want them to pay.

I don't get it

[rossz]

From that I have heard, Wal-Mart pays a decent amount, far more than the minimum wage. They aggressively hire people who normally have a hard time getting a job (elderly), they have benefits, and such. So why is their a small group of idiots protesting against them? Is it only because they are a large corporation?

Re:

[spleen_blender]

Perhaps because the consequences of their business practices don't necessarily only affect consumers, but the companies from which they are buying their products, specifically the labour practices of the manufacturers. Walmart has low prices, this is true, but the value we enjoy from those prices are supported solely by the unfair wages and operations of overseas manufacturers. It is just like thermodynamics. The low cost of these products has to come from somewhere. It just happens this somewhere is somet

Re:I don't get it

[Bombula]

From that I have heard

Do us all a favor and do something about your ignorance before posting next time: http://walmartwatch.com/ [walmartwatch.com]

Re:

[harlows_monkeys]

Do us all a favor and do something about your ignorance before posting next time: http://walmartwatch.com/ [walmartwatch.com]

Do us all a favor and take your own advice. Watch the Penn & Teller 'Bullshit!' episode about Wal-Mart, where they thoroughly demolish the anti-Wal-Mart arguments.

Re:I don't get it

[BrendanMcGrail]

As good as Penn and Teller are about promoting atheism, they have a decidedly Libertarian agenda that they push right along side it, and have a tendency to sweep arguments against that view (which tend to go hand in hand with the the anti-Wal-Mart arguments) under the rug.

Re:I don't get it

[Snowspinner]

When an argument is using a propaganda sight and Penn and Teller as its sources, we all lose, kids.

Re:I don't get it

[Snowspinner]

Ugh. Don't mod me up when I screw up spelling and grammar that badly!

Re:

[dr_dank]

Don't apologize. Using poor grammar and butchering the english language is every Slashdotter's God-given right.

You keep using these words

[Scrameustache]

Watch the Penn & Teller 'Bullshit!' episode about Wal-Mart, where they thoroughly demolish the anti-Wal-Mart arguments.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

And those would be the same Pen & Teller that think that arming students would end all school massacres [wikipedia.org]? They're funny magicians, not prophets.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Having watched their gun episode, that's not what they said. Cite, if you will.

Re:You keep using these words

[Scrameustache]

Having watched their gun episode, that's not what they said.

Their logic that the "walk in and shoot the sitting ducks" method would be foiled is solid.
But they conveniently ignore the fact that back when anyone could have been carrying a gun, massacres still happened, just with a different technique [wikipedia.org].

The part where their own reasoning was bullshit is where they imply that "school shooting" == "walk and shoot at point blank" and that they exist because of gun laws; It's bullshit because if that stopped working, people who want to kill a lot of people as part of their suicide will go back to bombs and sniping.

I don't remember the walmart ep all that well, but I remember that they spent a lot of time talking about how a non-representative sample of people who dislike that store were idiots, and not at all any time on how walmart up and closes any store that dares start a union, build on native burial grounds, etc. They glossed over the evils and focused on people you wouldn't want to be associated with and declared them the anti-walmart type.

P.S. In their "environmentalists are t3h dumb" ep, they pass around a fake petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and then say they told no lie... meaning that they really intended to ban water? Bullshit. I like watching those guys, really I do, but they produce bullshit whilst decrying other people's bovine manure: they are entertainers, not the mighty defenders of the Truth.

P.P.S. Mythbusters also "bust" myths that they simply failed to do right: It's TV, corners are cut. Watchers beware.

Re:

[Gregory Cox]

GGP post only asked "Why are they complaining?" That link gives plenty of reasons. Whether they are justified in their complaints is another question.

Hypoxia

[MillionthMonkey]

Penn and Teller have spent too much time underwater for me to trust their opinion of Wal-Mart.

Re:I don't get it

[Jim in Buffalo]

Penn & Teller use the Straw Man a lot, a potent and popular tactic in a visual medium.

They find someone to act as the spokesperson for the position they're arguing against, and that person is always going to be someone who is utterly disagreeable to pretty much anyone who isn't a complete psycho.

For the Wal-Mart episode, they want to show what the anti-Wal-Mart crowd looks like, so they find these two nasty people who print up nasty t-shirts belittling some cruel stereotype of the Wal-Mart shopper, as well as the stereotype's wife and children.

Who's going to agree with that?

Then, on the pro-Wal-Mart side, they've got a nicely-dressed, soft-spoken young college professor.

Penn & Teller are funny and I agree with a lot of their conclusions, but they are very manipulative in their approach.

Re:I don't get it

[bladesjester]

I was in a wal-mart at 2am one night because I realized that I needed some things for a trip the next morning and couldn't pick them up on my way out of town.

I get to the checkout and in front of me are two guys and a girl. The guys had matching tatoos on their necks that read "100% Honky"

I kid you not. I nearly choked because I was trying very hard not to laugh.

Re:

[WedgeTalon]

it doesn't change the fact that banning smoking in private establishments is bullshit

As a non-smoker, I for one appreciate (greatly) any establishment that bans smoking, especially restaurants. I don't particularly want my $20 steak tasting like cigarettes, thank you very much.

Re:I don't get it

[avenj]

And I don't particularly want somebody's screaming kids in the place fucking up my perfectly good dinner but you don't see me pushing to ban 'em. Instead I pick up and take my money elsewhere. It's pretty neat how that works

Re:

[iq in binary]

Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.

It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.

It's not your right to make MY business decisions.

Re:I don't get it

[king-manic]

Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.

It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.

It's not your right to make MY business decisions.

Can you brandish a gun in public areas? Can you drive drunk? Similar rationale. Smoke at your home thats fine. But the waitress isn't paid enough to breath all your second hand smoke and most restruants are too cheap to get separate ventilation so either they should ban smoking or mandates separate smoking section ventilation and higher wages to waitresses/waiters who work there.

Re:

[TheDugong]

As a vegetarian, I for one appreciate (greatly) any establishment that does not cook meat. I do not particularly want my chickpea and lentil burger tasting like a $20 steak thank you very much.

Note: I am vegetarian, but do not think the above (well maybe a secret 0.5 - 1%). However, I hope you get my point though?

Re:

[wizardforce]

too bad people keep shopping there and making them boatloads of money. seriously, walmart does just like any other very larger company, they do as much as they can to control the market and make money as is allowed under the law. is that right? perhaps not, is it legal? yes. don't like what they are doing? don't shop there. don't work there and certainly try to get the applicable laws changed. the only way companies will stop taking advantage of their situation is if people strangle the companies that d

Re:

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Far more than minimum wage? How much is 'far more' to you? 10 cents? 50 cents?

Than why do so many Wal Mart employees in California require social assistance to just to scrape by?

Re:I don't get it

[the unbeliever]

Maybe because the cost of living in california is exceedingly high, and even making $65,000/year there is barely enough to live alone without any assistance?

In SF maybe, but not all over Cali

[infonography]

Last time I lived there I paid $850 for a one bedroom in Mountain View with a back yard. And that was right at the height of the tech boom in 1999.

Walmart isn't a employee friendly company. The reason their employees go on welfare is because they can't get full time work. walmart doesn't want have to pay benefits so there are few full timers.

Re:

[the unbeliever]

That's funny, I know more than my fair share of wal-mart employees, and they all work full time. And they're not managers either.

Anecdotal, yes. But it's a fact.

Re:

[notamisfit]

I've had a few friends do short stints at Wal-Mart after crashing and burning elsewhere, and I got to meet a few of their co-workers. The job really pays about as well as anything else they'd be competent and motivated enough to do. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.

Re:

[Ichijo]

In California, living alone is is practically a luxury.

Employer of Last Resort

[yintercept]

"Than why do so many Wal Mart employees in California require social assistance to just to scrape by?"

Walmart is an employer of last resort.

Employers of last resort tend to hire people who are already on the margins. Walmart is more likely to be drawing people from the welfare roles than say Sun Microsystems.

Since Walmart is an employer of last resort there will be a lot more movement between welfare roles and employment than in higher end companies. It is difficult to tell if Walmart is abusing the wel

Re:Employer of Last Resort

[notamisfit]

You make a really good point here. I'll just point out that working at Wal-Mart is also in that comfort zone where 'working' generally consists of standing around, operating a cash register, and moving around pallet jacks. I mean, I'm sure there's probably some disaffected underemployed would-be software designers in there somewhere (I'm taking this as an article of faith, I've never *met* any of these), but this isn't exactly high-demand labor. And it's not as if these people are unemployable anywhere else. The jobs they can get might not be as comfortable, or may not be within climate controlled environments, or they may have to load up all of their cheap shit and get on a Greyhound to another town, but there's opportunities out there for those willing to break out of their comfort zone and look for them.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Why is the minimum wage set such that somebody working full time at minimum wage should not be able to support themselves. If they cannot support themselves, then either they are not spending their money correctly, or the minimum wage is too low. Is it Walmart's fault that the minimum wage is too low? They are just complying with the law, and try to make their owners happy. Just as any business does. Maybe the minimum wage is not meant to be the wage required to raise a family. Maybe one person living

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Which is fine. I don't think that it says in the constitution that you have a right to receive wages high enough to support yourself or your family. Not every job should have to pay enough to support a person, or their family. There are many people who don't need that much money, and are just looking for something to do in their spare time. Making the wages too high will just raise prices, and everything will go back to square one. Also, if everyone was entitle to a living wage, then where's the motiva

Re:I don't get it

[mosb1000]

When my girlfriend worked at wal-mart last year she made $8.50/hour, while the minimum wage was $5.15. Before that she worked for a small business downtown which paid her $5.50. Six years ago when I worked at wal-mart they paid me $7.50/hr. So yes, wal-mart does usually pay significantly better than other retail businesses.

Re:

[treimor]

You're missing the point.

I work for a major grocery store chain that is unionized in the Northeastern US. I started there at minimum wage (5.15 at the time), but there was a detailed plan as to my financial advancement. Seven years later, I now make basically triple that, and also maintain benefits for myself and my family.

My college buddy has worked at Wal-Mart for the same time that I have worked for the grocery store, and he is making a dollar more an hour then he did when he started, and with mini

Re:

[The Dobber]

That cheap stuff would still be made regardless of whether WalMart was the retailer. Do you for one moment think that Target and the other big box stores get their products from some alternative world?

The American consumer drives the market and we won't pay one more penny than we have to. WalMart just profits from our greed.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

That cheap stuff would still be made regardless of whether WalMart was the retailer.

If you've been paying any attention at all to the business world during the last >5 years, you might have heard about the WalMart Effect [google.com]. Numerous single and multi-part articles have been written about it.

Wal Mart doesn't just buy "that cheap stuff" which "would still be made regardless of whether WalMart was the retailer". Wal Mart goes to the manufacturer and says "here are the specs that we want you to build to and here is how much we're going to pay for it".

Wal Mart is actively driving the creation

Re:

[Bartab]

$1.50 above $7.50 is in fact, "far above the minimum wage." Even more so for the -federal- minimum wage, instead of California. What are you hoping for? $15/hr? That sort of position requires skills, boy.

As for their health insurance, who can blame them? Pay attention sometime and you'll find that all companies from all strata of employment are bitching about health care costs. This shit ain't free no matter how much your local soap box screamer has said it is. In fact, as much I expect gov't controlled hea

Re:I don't get it

[bladesjester]

Nope. They offer what they're willing to pay, some people take them up on it, and others don't. The only way to "drive wages down" is by force, like when Dick Nixon instituted wage and price controls to keep the economy from coping with inflation.

You're missing an important part of the equation. When a wal-mart comes into a smaller town, it tends to drive a lot of the smaller shops out of business because people go to by the uber-cheap (usually poorly made) stuff at wal-mart. Those were stores that were supporting the people who owned them and their employees.

Those people have to have a job to pay the bills. Since Wal put so many places out of business, they are, in effect, the only game in town.

And that DOES drive the wages in an area down.

Another Example of G.I.F.T.

[klenwell]

(Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory)

Now if they had actually gone to their local Wal-Mart store and defaced that, I'd be more impressed.

I'd be even more impressed if they started hand-crafting their own dorm furniture from self-produced resources instead of just shopping at Target or Ikea instead.

On the larger problem, see today's New York Times article [nytimes.com] on China's (and soon, the world's) environmental problems.

Funny how things like this work out.

[Lumpy]

Most people out there know someone that worked at or works for Walmart. I have never met someone that had anything good to say about working there, yes even higher up district managers.

And if anyone is surprised that a publicity stunt / Advertising trick that intrudes on what many college students think of as their "hallowed ground" of friend networking backfired in such a way that it's incredibly embarrassing, they must be either silly or don't know what they are doing.

That's like Microsoft putting a "tell us how you love Microsoft" section in the middle of a linux community.

The fun part, Let's see if they try it on MySpace and expect a different result.

Re:Funny how things like this work out.

[rinkjustice]

The fun part, Let's see if they try it on MySpace and expect a different result.

They might actually have a modicum of success of myspace, unlike Facebook . Facebook users are more socioeconomically advantaged [nytimes.com] than those on MySpace and tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college, and who end up having higher income than their myspace counterparts.

Simply put, myspace users are more likely to shop at Wal-Mart than Facebook users.

Re:

[Scrameustache]

The fun part, Let's see if they try it on MySpace and expect a different result.

They might actually have a modicum of success of myspace, unlike Facebook . Facebook users are more socioeconomically advantaged [nytimes.com] than those on MySpace and tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college, and who end up having higher income than their myspace counterparts.

Simply put, myspace users are more likely to shop at Wal-Mart than Facebook users.

That was true, and still is, somewhat. But Facebook used to be a gated community.
Now that everyone can join, the class divide is fading rapidly.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

And if anyone is surprised that a publicity stunt / Advertising trick that intrudes on what many college students think of as their "hallowed ground" of friend networking backfired in such a way that it's incredibly embarrassing, they must be either silly or don't know what they are doing.

"Hallowed ground"? It's a web site!

So...

[g0dsp33d]

Walmart bursts into a community where its not wanted and people there complain. They must be turning over a new leaf.

Re:So...

[CastrTroy]

Where my dad lives there was a vocal minority who complained, and the city refused to let them build a walmart. Or just about any other big box store. What happened? the surrounding cities let all these big box stores come in, and their economy flourished. Meanwhile, their retail sector pretty much disappeared, because everybody went to the surrounding towns (that aren't more than 1/2 an hour away) to do their shopping. They are finally letting these stores move in, after they saw how negatively not having them affected their business sector. Luckily things seem to be recovering from this bad decision.

Facebook is about rebelion

[syousef]

The Facebook college crowd may mostly be out of their teenage years but they're still about rebellion and experimentation (college). Having the "grown ups" come in and be organized and taking over their little corner of the world just annoys them. Our Australian politicians have been trying to use the Net - social network sites (including myspace which does have a teenage bent) and wikipedia. They're quickly realizing that having some old ass politician come in and try and be one of the cool kids is just going to get them trashed. They're about as cool as golf pants. Well some corporations are going throught he same thing. Short of getting younger already cool representation (look at the softdrink companies hiring rock stars) and having a youngster targetted product range, this is what they can continue to expect.

I think Wal-Mart might believe its own propaganda

[Glowing Fish]

I think it often happens with organizations that are large enough to be insulated from the world, or that have very active propaganda machines, that they start believing their own propaganda.
And Wal-Mart is probably one of these.
They probably do think that the anti-Wal-Mart people are just a few malcontents, and that for most people, Wal-Mart is the center of happy shiny communities. And so they are probably surprised to learn that among many people, especially the educated, they aren't popular.

Not enough workers available

[backslashdot]

If someone is willing to do work for you for less, why isn't it moral to choose that person?

The alternative to Wal-mart is people starving and dying like in Africa where there is hardly any industry.

Wal-mart isn't forcing people to work at Chinese factories. People are choosing to work there instead of dying of starvation and preventable diseases on the farm.

American workers can easily do other stuff instead of repetitive and boring factory jobs. Plus with the flood of cheap goods less work would be needed. Come on gardeners get paid $50 an hour. You think a factory worker would get anything beyond minimum wage? Also, we currently have a 5% unemployment rate here. Which jobs taht people are currently doing would they have to leave to fill up the shoe making factories? Are you prepared to give up cell phones and great computer software so that you can have shoes made by americans ... americans who could have been designing technology instead?

The world still needs cures for major diseases. There aren't cheap cars of BMW quality. Ferrari performance is not available cheaply yet. Not everyone has a large house, there is mad demand fror pre-fabbed structures so that infrastructure to be built. All of this shows there is a need for products and services .. products and services the world wants .. that Americans can provide.

Do you think China has enough workers to construct all the machinery to develop their infrastructure? I don't think so .. there is already signs of labor shortage emerging in China ..factories are having to provide beter and better incentives for their works (google china labor shortage ) .. just to make products for export.

Re:Not enough workers available

[backslashdot]

Wal-mart isn't forcing people to work at Chinese factories. People are choosing to work there instead of dying of starvation and preventable diseases on the farm.
So it's work for walmart or die. I don't see how that's a choice. In fact, I'd call it coercion.

How is it coercion? They aren't the ones causing people to die. Think about it, without the factory .. the person wouldn't have a job at all. Walmart is not causing them to be poor. They would be poorer without Walmart. I mean, shit in that case i am being coerced to work too .. as is Bill Gates and Donald Trump. To make a coercion accusation, you have to show that Wal-mart created the horrible farming conditions. Good luck, because those conditions have existed for a long time (people in China as recently as 1950 had a life expectancy of under 40 years .. and infant mortality was very high).

If someone is willing to do work for you for less, why isn't it moral to choose that person?
Because in this case, you'd be exploiting them by paying them wages less than the value of what they produce

Unless a person is being forced to work at gunpoint, that is impossible. Value of work is determined by supply and demand -- not anything intrinsic to the product. If there are others who are willing to provide a product for cheaper, I have the moral prerogative to choose the cheaper one provided by someone who is willing to work harder. The whole point of any work/pay contract is that the each person is choosing to work because they are going to be compensated equal to or more than what they feel the usefulness of their time/energy is. You can always choose not to work if you feel the deal is bad. So a doctor gives me a simple antibiotic and cures me of pneumonia so I live and can work .. by your logic, do I have to pay them my whole salary for life? After all, the value of the doctors work is my whole life. Obviously, if the doctor demanded that .. I would have chosen a different cheaper doctor.

Better source of Info?

[patently obvious nam]

One look at the YouTube video confirms that Penn and Teller have no interest in examining the Walmart issue. Might I suggest http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walm art/ [slashdot.org] as a more reputable source? There are so many things wrong and destructive about Walmart that it's hardly worth trying to communicate them. If you can't see it, it can only be because you don't want, or are incapable of believing it.

Corporate Web 2.0 is a dumb idea anyway

[ErichTheRed]

Every company is now trying to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. It's the equivalent of a guy trying to be cool in a hip. trendy nightclub wearing a pair of plaid golf pants.

It really surprises me that marketing departments don't take one look at the concept of a corporate Facebook page, MySpace page, or Second Life presence and fire the idiot who produced it.

Imagine trying to sell life insurance to a bunch of skater dudes drinking Mountain Dew...that's the success rate this will have.

They chose to work there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me again why unskilled labor should be payed at the same rate as a highly trained, skilled worker? If the pay was the same, what incentive would people have to learn skills and work in a more demanding, higher stress job?

These people chose to work at Wal Mart and knew going into it what the pay was. Its simple economics. Wal Mart pays poorly because they have an abundant pool of workers who are quite willing to work at their pay scale.

Don't like the wages? Take a few night courses and move up. Or just work somewhere else.

Don't like how Wal Mart treats its employees? Don't shop there.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

... and the same goes for the children in third world countries that produce the products they sell. They CHOSE to be starving third world citizens. If they cannot afford bread on what they make, let them eat cake, I say ...

Re:They chose to work there.

[solar_blitz]

These people chose to work at Wal Mart and knew going into it what the pay was. Its simple economics. Wal Mart pays poorly because they have an abundant pool of workers who are quite willing to work at their pay scale.

Don't like the wages? Take a few night courses and move up. Or just work somewhere else.

Wal-Mart destroys locally run "mom & pop" stores, lowers the real estate value of business districts, and as a result Wal-Mart is one of the few businesses left. People don't choose to work at Wal-Mart; they're forced to. Furthermore, corporate executives of some areas even ask that its employees go onto welfare, medicare, and medicaid. (See "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"). I'd think more people would jump on the anti-Wal-Mart wagon if they knew our tax dollars were being used to give Wal-Mart a free ride like that.

Y'see, something about this post bugs me. Most people in the lower salary brackets are less likely to move up to higher level salary brackets (i.e., earn better jobs). That's because they don't have the proper resources to make that kind of progress. I'm sure there are some cases where people can attend night classes and earn some sort of certification for their efforts, but that's the exception from the norm. Fortunate folks like to think things are simple all across the board - for all people rich and poor-, but when you're smart enough to the point where you have a college degree (and can comprehend the majority of the stuff on /.), you don't realize that a lot of these people in these situations aren't as fortunate or as capable as you are. It's amazing how so many of us educated individuals can have such poor insight on important topics like this.

One of the other problems people have is that they don't like to acknowledge this kind of social issue in today's society. [sarcasm]God forbid we ever acknowledge the plight of the poor and feel guilty about being so well-off. We might just feel a bit too uncomfortable to even turn on our television sets.[/sarcasm] People think that if they don't acknowledge these issues then the issues will go away. And even if they do have to read about it, they'll just cast it off with a simple no-bs remark "don't like such-and-such? don't give em' your business." If things were that simple, I would've stopped paying my taxes when we went to war with Iraq in 2003.

What did they expect?

[justinlee37]

They launched a campaign targeted at college students, trying to get them to discuss dorm decoration?

That might have worked on grade school kids, but college students aren't so easy to "put one over" on -- they're adults, and they're usually informed about the issues. Wal-Mart's marketing suits should have realized that their terrible reputation would precede them.

Fix me

[Miracle Jones]

Reactionary internet graffiti aside, the divisiveness of Wal-Mart signals a more complicated problem than the superficial split between the caring and the cold-hearted.

Wal-Mart's revolting nature comes on a gut level, and not a rational one. There are arguments against its existence for worker's rights reasons, for anti-globalization reasons, and for aesthetic reasons - but most people go looking for these reasons in the first place as a result of actual time spent in the store, and the feeling of sweaty, raw animal terror that the experience inspires in a person who has a choice to go elsewhere.

Should Wal-Mart be allowed to exist? Of course it should. It's a free market, baby, and they are PROVIDING. Jobs, cheap-ass crockery, optometry, etc. But that's no reason not to feel overwhelming pity for the people that are forced to shop and work there. It's a horrible place, but so is the overnight shift at a city hospital. You can't get rid of a place like that because it is ugly.

If anything, Wal-Mart does a public service for the impoverished of a community. It forces the middle-class to look at them -- under stark, neuron-scrambling fluorescents -- and see that they are neither institutionally lazy nor inhuman. They are falling apart, and the only people interested in helping are a corporation with a profit motive that panders to their every prejudice and weakness.

The first impulse is to trample that ant-hive. Find a reason to get rid of it. The ant-hive is the problem!

But Wal-Mart is a challenge. Can we do better to provide for the bottom of society? If not, then Wal-Mart is better than nothing. I think we can do better. I think -- in the same way that Scientology is challenge to scale down the state protections for religion -- Wal-Mart is a challenge to improve the quality of life of impoverished America. It is the natural outgrowth of the system that we have created. It is a website under construction that says "FIX ME."

So shop Wal-Mart, think real hard about how to make it better, and SAVE.

I work at Wal-Mart now.

[mojosmackwit]

I work at WalMart now, I make 8.30 an hour. For telling you that I make that much, I would be immediately fired on the spot. There are about 7 pay grades, and being that I work in the Electronics department I am on grade 6. Each pay grade equals to about a 40 cent difference in pay. There are two departments that are on my pay grade: Produce and Bakery. Everyone else is on pay grades 1-3, they make around 6.50 to 7.50, and the minimum wage is 6.15. In each department there are between 1 and 3 full time positions, and over 5 part time positions depending on the size of the store. Benefits for part-time associates are basically intangible. Company policy states they are not to receive over 32 hours a week, they are usually given about 28, so they can't afford health insurance. And they have to be with the company for two before they are even eligible, full time associates are eligible immediately. My wages are capped at 10.00 an hour. I will never make more than that without a promotion. Promotions are generally handed out to friends of management. Why do I really evil though? Because on more than one occasion with more than just a few people (myself included), management has gone back to modify the number of hours recorded in the system that you worked. People have gotten fired for working overtime, when the only reason they had overtime was because management held them over working on something (unloading an especially large truck, cleaning an isle where some jackass dropped a 6-pack of Corona and didn't bother to tell anyone, running a cash register and never being relieved, regardless of the number of times they called management and told them they needed to clock out, etc). Or maybe its the fact that after all the years, not a single manager has come up from the bottom of the company? Throughout your orientation you are told that WalMart promotes from within (also that unions are evil and only want your money, but that's an entirely different subject). But I have yet to see a manager who has actually worked below their current rank. How about the "Open Door Policy" where all associates are supposed to be able to go to management whenever there is a problem, but how the door is always locked with paper taped over the window. People have been fired for knocking too many times when the door was locked and a customer wanted to talk with them. Also, my store itself has been robbed too many times to count. Not petty theft I refer to, I'm talking about men with guns demanding money or merchandise. Yet there has never been even the consideration to hire any kind of security to protect neither the customers nor the employees. Surely some part of the 80,000 salary of the BOTTOM rank managers at my store could be taken to hire an armed guard or something. But oh well, I guess I'll just suck it up and not starve and continue to follow the WalMart-provided pamphlets helping me get on government money just so I can survive.

Re:

[Shados]

Walmart really IS an awful place to work at... A few things caught my attention though. Its quite a common policy, no matter your job or social rank, for companies to fire (or at least threaten to) someone giving their salary. Usually work conditions are between you and your employer, so on that, Walmart isn't really special. And while your salary is total crap (like virtually everyone who work there), from what one of my friends who worked there told me, you DO get a bonus at the end of the year (which sti

Re:

[king-manic]

A non evil union and a non evil company can make things good. A evil company or an evil union will automatically convert their counterpart as a defensive mechanism. At my previous union job I made a good 6-10/h more then a similar non-union job. (6 when I started, 10 when I left 3 years later). Conditions where pretty decent. Full benefits for full timers, a decent number of full timers, and a lot of hiring from within. We had occasional strikes and the union didn't have a iron grip on the company but over

Re:I work at Wal-Mart now.

[notamisfit]

If it blows that much, quit. Go clean bedpans at a nursing home, or roof buildings, or even take some of that free money the govt throws around, take some college courses and learn how to do something that pays money. It's your life, man.

Re:I work at Wal-Mart now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should go to the "Career Preference Dashboard" on the WIRE. It's easy: sign on to the WIRE, click on the green "Life" tab and finally click on "Career Preference" in the "My Career" box. Now research some of what you are saying. Electronics is not pay grade 6. Electronics salesfloor is pay grade 4. Electronics department manager is pay grade 7. Assuming you started as an Electronics salesfloor associate at $8.30, and assuming you had previous work experience for extra credits that bumped your pay (the difference between pay grade 3 and pay grade 4 is $0.20 or $0.30, so if you are making $8.30 per hour, you must have had some extra credits), then your cap will be higher than $10.00. I'm afraid I don't remember the exact formula, but the cap for pay grade 4 would be (for you) around $13.00 to $14.00.

As for promotions being handed out to friends, what happens in your store does not mean that it happens in all stores.

Another example of "what happens in your store does not happen in all stores": Remember your comment about management working "below their current rank", I've seen my store manager go outside and push carts numerous times when our store was low on carts. He started out in the company as a cart pusher, by the way. I've seen the front end assistant manager clean a bathroom. I've seen a grocery assistant manager mop the floor. Management expectations start with your store manager. One store manager is not a representative sample of all store managers.

Management (or anybody else) modifying the number of hours an associate works is a terminable offense. I am not salaried management, but I have the ability to edit an associate's time. If I modified an associate's time (either increased or decreased), I have no doubt in my mind that I would be terminated on the spot. There's a report that runs every Saturday morning called the "Time Clock Archive" that lists every associate's time and if that time was edited, it lists the name of the person who edited it. The information is also recorded in the SMART system under the program called "Electronic Time Adjustment" (select "Change/View Time Adjustment"). All associates are given access to the Electronic Time Adjustment automatically when hired.

The "Open Door Policy" is more than your local store management. Have you tried talking to your district manager? Your regional manager?

What Wal-Mart provided pamphlets? In my store, we're usually griping (under our breath) about the number of customers coming in to our store that do not have jobs and whip out their EBT cards- customers we are supporting with our tax dollars.

my turn to bitch

[tomstdenis]

My complaint about walmart and their kind isn't so much the shitty labour conditions, low pay, or buying stuff from China. For me, it's the total lack of selection that gets me.

For such huge stores, they have many different sorts of products, but in each category usually very low selection. About the only well represented categories are clothing and snack foods. But even in the clothing it's fairly low. I haven't seen cotton shorts there at the one near my place, in a long time for instance.

I went looking for various things for the kitchen a couple weeks back. They had maybe 2-3 styles of plates, 2 styles of cups, etc. Barely any of the odds and ends [e.g. peeler, can opener, cheese grater, etc]. Then head over to home hardware. No real variety in the light bulbs, power strips, fuses, etc. Head over to the music dept, oh look 300 country albums and the top 20 from Sony/EMI/etc. Wow, wonders never cease to amaze me! I've walked out of dept stores many times this year alone empty handed. Not for lack of want, but just because they didn't have anything I needed. And I have to ask myself, for a store so big, how can they fail in this respect so miserably?

I like the concept of a dept store, where I don't have to drive around the city to get say towels, movies, dishes, some junk food, etc. It's simpler, faster, and environmentally friendlier. But I find myself increasingly having to shop around anyways.

Tom

Wal Mart has good taste in music.

[maeka]

http://www.last.fm/user/Wal_Mart [www.last.fm]

Oh no.

[vinividivici]

I heard that SOMETIMES people even vandalize Wikipedia! I can't believe people these days! Seriously, what is the point of posting an article that pertains to a single page on a massive social networking site? Get a blog.