Everyone remember the Walmart argument ?

04/13/2004 11:52:48 AM · #76

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by louddog:
Poor Walmart. They get bashed because they succeed. Walmart started as a Mom and Pop store. They gave their customers what they wanted and they have grown to the nations top employer.

So it doesn't matter to you if they cheated and broke the law to get where they are, all that matters is that they ultimately succeeded. That's not the game we've agreed to play in this country ....

If they cheated and broke the law, why is no one in jail? Why have they not been stopped? What laws have they broke?
They buy cheap stuff and sell it using cheap labor and avoid the unions. They cut their prices below everyone elses and drive them out of business. They aren't the first to do this and they won't be the last. Home Depot did it to the hardware stores, Blockbuster did it to the video rental stores and Starbucks is doing it to the coffee shops.

Russell2566

04/13/2004 12:09:08 PM · #77

Originally posted by louddog:

...Starbucks is doing it to the coffee shops.

I'm only going to disagree with this single point :) Starbucks doesn't under sell anyone. They sell an implied status and an assumed "best product". It's my opinion that buying coffess from Starbucks is much like buying a Harley...

Now that I've ventured off topic :)

04/13/2004 02:24:29 PM · #78

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by louddog:
...Starbucks is doing it to the coffee shops.

I'm only going to disagree with this single point :) Starbucks doesn't under sell anyone. They sell an implied status and an assumed "best product". It's my opinion that buying coffess from Starbucks is much like buying a Harley...

Now that I've ventured off topic :)

Well then, with sheer numbers of stores and high quality, Starbucks is killing the Mom and Pop coffee shops. (there are three starbucks within 1/4 mile near my house).

04/13/2004 03:33:59 PM · #79

Here are some articles regarding WalMart violations of the law:

Originally posted by louddog:

If they cheated and broke the law, why is no one in jail? Why have they not been stopped? What laws have they broke?

article 1

article 2

article 3

article 4

article 5

04/13/2004 03:49:06 PM · #80

I agree Ron, congress is beholden to the special interests but that doesn't mean that we should give up on regulations. Other laws need to be passed to asssure that special interests have less, or no, impact on our congress people, who should be beholden to the American public, but we've become a nation where corporations and special interests have alot more clout than the general population.

I'm not sure I agree with you about deregulation of the utilites such as water and energy, as these are needed for our security and well being. In todays economic climate of mergers, oligopolies and monopolies deregulation of these industries will wreck havoc with our economic infrastructure and we won't be able to do much about it.

As far as the ot regulation changes, I took that from the AFL/CIO web site. Why would they be against the Bush admin rules changes if they benefited those making less than $22,000?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Nurses are not an industry, they are professional individuals who individually have minimal impact on the system as a whole. I'm talking about regulating an entire industry that effect thousands or millions of people and the environment and natural resources. I don't understand what the big deal with deciding what industries and how they get regulated is...can't that be decided by our congress people with input from the general public and those industries effected by such regulation?

But many think that the congress is too beholding to the special interest groups to be fair and objective. Many already think that they cave in on regulating industries today. For example, the lumber industry, power plants ( clean air act ), water production, coal mining, and on and on.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can you be a bit more specific and give me examples of the kinds of industries that you DON'T think should be regulated (by the criteria you mentioned below). Imo, so many industries do have an effect on our safety and well being that most would fall under your criteria to be regulated.

Do not misinterpret what I say. I DO feel that regulations for ANY industry or business or individual profession are valid so long as they pertain to health and safety ( that includes nursing, barbers, cosmeticians, etc. ). But examples of where I believe deregulation is needed are:

1) Interstate commerce. Just as an example - folks in many states cannot buy wine from a vineyard in California to be delivered to their home. Instead they must buy it locally at a "regulated" retail outlet ( and, obviously, at a higher price ). As another example - trucks must pay tax on the diesel fuel that they USE ( not BUY ) passing through many states. That is to say, even if the driver does not BUY a drop of fuel in the state, he must pay tax on the fuel he USES in passing through the state, just as though he DID buy it in that state.

2) International commerce. The strongest union in the world is the International Longshoremen's Association. They control every item that is imported or exported. Until their new contract, they refused to permit automation of the manifest processing in the loading/unloading of cargo. Under their new contract, "By 2008, a union member will receive an annual pension of $1,800 multiplied by the number of years worked -- a 30-year veteran, for example, would get $54,000 per year in retirement. Salaries would increase 12 percent by the end of the six-year contract, giving the average longshoreman around $90,000 in annual pay." ref HERE Guess who pays for all of that in the end.

3) Fuel industry - minimum pricing laws exist in many states.

4) Water, Electricity, etc.

That's just a few of examples

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Here's what I understand about the regulations that the Bush admin would like to institute regarding overtime pay:
1) Anyone making more than about $22,000 would be exempt from receiving overtime pay,
2) Anyone with any kind of supervisory duty or managerial duties making under $22,000 would be exempt,
3) Anyone making more than $65,000 would be exempt from ot pay,
4) Employers would most likely assign overtime to those workers who are
exempt since they don't have to pay them and then those workers
making under $22,000 would not be really increasing their salary as
much as they would like.
5) Employers would thus be paying out much less in ot pay since ot pay based on salaries, or hourly rates of pay, for those making under $22,000 would be much less! I think that unions, already weakened greatly would not have much bargaining power to guarantee ot pay to their members.

PS Sorry for not responding point by point with bold type as you do...I have to figure that one out as every time I try that it doesn't seem to work.

1) Not true. Only those making more than $65,000 would be automatically exempt from overtime pay. All others would have their status determined by the characteristics of their job content.
2) Not true. NO ONE making under $22,000 could be classified as exempt, regardless of their job content.
3) True.
4) In non-union situations ( that is, those businesses that operate without contracts ), I can see your point - that could possibly happen - assuming that both the exempt and non-exempt employees perform similar duties ( apart from those duties that make the exempt employees exempt in the first place ).
5) For shops in which most employees make less than $22,000, that wouldn't happen - since everyone who worked overtime would automatically have to be given a raise to $22,000 and additional ( supervisory ) duties before no OT would be required.

Do not underestimate the power of the unions - they still control the majority of our economy. ( See point number 2 about the longshoremen above )

The font in your posts can be changed by surrounding the text with mark up. Use {b} but with brackets instead of braces to make the text bold, {i} but with brackets to make it italic.

Ron

04/13/2004 04:21:16 PM · #81

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Here are some articles regarding WalMart violations of the law:

Originally posted by louddog:

If they cheated and broke the law, why is no one in jail? Why have they not been stopped? What laws have they broke?

article 1

article 2

article 3

article 4

article 5

That's it? Other then the union thing they had in their employee handbook, all these violations were from single stores, not cooperate Walmart. If you look up any chain store you will find these same issues, you will even find these same violations and worse at mom and pop stores.
So are these the examples of Walmart breaking the rules and thus, why they are so big? I don't see the connection.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/13/2004 05:17:20 PM · #82

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm not sure I agree with you about deregulation of the utilites such as water and energy, as these are needed for our security and well being. In todays economic climate of mergers, oligopolies and monopolies deregulation of these industries will wreck havoc with our economic infrastructure and we won't be able to do much about it.

I'm not talking about deregulation of health & safety issues - only the regulation of monopolistic licensing and pricing. There HAS been SOME deregulation of the power companies, at least - for instance they are now required to buy back excess energy produced by privately owned wind turbines, etc. and that's a good thing. But I still think that there could be more deregulation.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

As far as the ot regulation changes, I took that from the AFL/CIO web site. Why would they be against the Bush admin rules changes if they benefited those making less than $22,000?

Look again at the longshoremen. The AVERAGE pay for longshore clerks right now is around $105,000 and for foremen it's $129,000. The union doesn't "really" care about the low-wage earners, it cares about those who control the union and the union shops. ( Just like Wal-Mart, they don't care about the "little guys", only about their own pocketbooks ).

Ron

(edited to correct formatting problems)

Message edited by author 2004-04-13 21:18:52.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/13/2004 05:31:23 PM · #83

Perhaps you've heard about the criminal indictments of Reliant Energy, accused of price manipulation during the California "Energy Crisis."

PG&E was a regulated monopoly for about 90 years; we had reliable if somewhat above average-priced energy (as is everything in California); stockholders were guaranteed a "reasonable" rate of return (like 8-10%) and it was a favorite secure investment for retirees and widows.

Deregulate the industry and you have a speculative company driven into bankruptcy in about ten years, even while multimillion-dollar bonuses are given to executives AFTER the bankruptcy; even as the people and State are saddled with long-term contracts at predatory rates exacted under false pretenses; even as we suffered through a decaying infrastructure and blackouts, deferred maintenance and tree-trimming programs.

What is the purpose of having a society, a government, if not to regulate the behavior of those tempted by greed and profit to cheat and take advantage of the ordinary citizen.

In the old days, those who proposed "de-regulation" were labeled anarchists, and (wholly incorrectly) depicted as bearded bomb-throwers. I don't think wearing Armani suits makes this kind of de-regulation make any more sense.

Just out of curiosity, I'd love to see a list of businesses/professions which regulate themselves successfully, striking a balance between the needs/obligations of the owners, employees, and the public. I have a feeling, in most of them, we'd agree that the professions are markedly weighted in favor of the owners at the expense of the other two ...

04/13/2004 05:58:02 PM · #84

I just posted 5 articles that I found quickly because you asked for some laws that have been broken...so there you go. But you've minimized their seriousness, so what can I do? If I remember correctly from reading the articles the violations involved thousands of their stores, and if you can believe that these violations don't come down from their corporate offices, then what can I do? Did you read article 5 by Jim Hightower? In it he exposes what WalMarts business practices are overseas. Some pretty serious stuff, if you ask me.

But you are correct, these types of violations occur in many of these types of stores and businesses today, and throughout history seems to be very prevalent. Yet, it continues, but this doesn't bother you? YOu think because it's common practice that it's ok? Yet you describe yourself in your bio as being "an honest guy," even "brutally honest."
Now I don't understand.

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Here are some articles regarding WalMart violations of the law:

Originally posted by louddog:

If they cheated and broke the law, why is no one in jail? Why have they not been stopped? What laws have they broke?

article 1

article 2

article 3

article 4

article 5

That's it? Other then the union thing they had in their employee handbook, all these violations were from single stores, not cooperate Walmart. If you look up any chain store you will find these same issues, you will even find these same violations and worse at mom and pop stores.
So are these the examples of Walmart breaking the rules and thus, why they are so big? I don't see the connection.

04/13/2004 06:26:32 PM · #85

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It was posted that Walmart "cheated and broke the law to get where they are." That is a serious charge and I asked for examples of that. What you posted were bad things Walmart has done, but not things that would "get them where they are." I was expecting Enron/Worldcom type accusations. That's why I minimized them.
I won't defend Walmart of there wrong doings. They should be punished for what they have done wrong. I don't even enjoy shopping at Walmart. I think they cut corners a little too much when it comes to the apperance of the store and customer service. Plus those greeters always creep me out. However, my grocery bill dropped by at least 25% when I started grocery shopping there, so I keep going back.

04/13/2004 06:40:06 PM · #86

I think they have gotten to where they are because of these kinds of illegal business practices. And the sheer number of these violations are really atrocious. And the fact that they are destroying communities with their business practices, as was reported above by SonnyH is pretty serious, as well as, what they are doing overseas.

How you can even defend a company like them because they are successful is beyond me. But again, you are correct, this is the business climate we live in today. Shame on these corporations!

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I just posted 5 articles that I found quickly because you asked for some laws that have been broken...so there you go. But you've minimized their seriousness, so what can I do? If I remember correctly from reading the articles the violations involved thousands of their stores, and if you can believe that these violations don't come down from their corporate offices, then what can I do? Did you read article 5 by Jim Hightower? In it he exposes what WalMarts business practices are overseas. Some pretty serious stuff, if you ask me.

It was posted that Walmart "cheated and broke the law to get where they are." That is a serious charge and I asked for examples of that. What you posted were bad things Walmart has done, but not things that would "get them where they are." I was expecting Enron/Worldcom type accusations. That's why I minimized them.
I won't defend Walmart of there wrong doings. They should be punished for what they have done wrong. I don't even enjoy shopping at Walmart. I think they cut corners a little too much when it comes to the apperance of the store and customer service. Plus those greeters always creep me out. However, my grocery bill dropped by at least 25% when I started grocery shopping there, so I keep going back.

04/13/2004 08:04:52 PM · #87

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I think they have gotten to where they are because of these kinds of illegal business practices. And the sheer number of these violations are really atrocious.

Well if you think so, it must be true. And they did it that many times!!!!! I'm convinced. I'll stop shopping there now. I better stop "defending" them now.

The business climate we live in today is to give the customer what they want, when they want it, cheaper then the competition. Companies that don't do that die (i.e. mom and pop stores). Walmart does that very well and a lot of people shop there. You can think they are evil if you chose, and buy your groceries at higher price at another store if you chose.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

04/14/2004 05:18:38 AM · #88

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I believe that regulation wouldn't have done anything to prevent the kind of abuses that occurred. The company was driven into bankruptcy not because industry was deregulated, but because of greed and corruption, pure and simple.
More and more, deregulation has enabled successful competition by small power cooperatives - non-profit companies owned by their member customers, and operated by people who are employed at the will of those customers. For example: the Community Energy Cooperative, a Chicago-based non-profit membership organization has found that participants are saving an average of 20 percent on electric bills while managing their energy use in ways that benefit both the electrical system and the environment. ( ref HERE ). AND, more and more of these cooperatives are also offering customers the alternative of buying "green" power - power produced by wind turbines and biomass generators - at a slightly higher price ( typically $3-$4 a month higher ).

Originally posted by GeneralE:

In the old days, those who proposed "de-regulation" were labeled anarchists, and (wholly incorrectly) depicted as bearded bomb-throwers. I don't think wearing Armani suits makes this kind of de-regulation make any more sense.

Actually, I believe that Capitalist is a more accurate term. A society in which industry is highly regulated is more accurately called either socialism ( if some industry remains privately owned but all industry is under government control ) or communism ( if industry is no longer privately owned ). If de-regulation doesn't make sense to you, then Armani or K-Mart doesn't matter.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Just out of curiosity, I'd love to see a list of businesses/professions which regulate themselves successfully, striking a balance between the needs/obligations of the owners, employees, and the public. I have a feeling, in most of them, we'd agree that the professions are markedly weighted in favor of the owners at the expense of the other two ...

I agree, self-regulation typically doesn't work very well. Two glaringly bad examples are the American Medical Association that sets the "requirements" for the practice of medicine, but only very rarely expels a doctor for incompetency and the American Bar Association that sets the "requirements" for the practice of law, but only very rarely expels a lawyer for incompetency. In fact, it would seem that the entire purpose of these groups is the preservation of their right to control membership in their groups. They are nothing BUT self-serving.

That being said, I don't believe that the solution is regulation. I'd rather see each profession come under the authority of an independent review board on a case-by-case basis for the discipline of members who are the targets of complaints.

Ron

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

04/14/2004 05:34:37 AM · #89

Here is an article on Costco, who , in contrast to Walmart, has a corporate policy of treating its employees very well.

Some might call that corporate responsibility. Even "family values" ?

//www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/costco_employee_benefits_walmart.html

The Wall Street Journal evidently savaged Costco for paying such high wages (!?), but here is a rejoinder article from the Teamsters - about 16% of Costco employees are unionized. Interesting - he says Costco is kicking Walmart's butt in a relative sense.

//www.teamster.org/04news/hn_040211_6.htm

Message edited by author 2004-04-14 09:42:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/14/2004 06:41:37 AM · #90

Originally posted by RonB:

That being said, I don't believe that the solution is regulation. I'd rather see each profession come under the authority of an independent review board on a case-by-case basis for the discipline of members who are the targets of complaints.

Ron

What would they be investigating except violations of regulations. You are describing the essence of regulation there to me ... rules to follow, and an independent group with the authority to enforce the rules and punish the cheaters.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/14/2004 06:44:19 AM · #91

PG&E was bankrupted because it was allowed to split into two companies, one to deliver energy to people, and one to hide the assets in. Only one part of the company was forced into bankruptcy.

bitfarmer

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/14/2004 06:46:46 AM · #92

I gave you a 5, now I think it was too low, but there where several very similar ones, and the other looked nicer... as it appeared after all the other similar ones, I rated it lower. A matter of luck, but also a matter of trying to be different from what you guess the others will do.

Also was important the size, I remember I thought it loked like a banner graph... this two point (small and similar to other ones) think that costed you one or two point in several votes.

04/14/2004 06:47:59 AM · #93

Good example, Roger. Another great example is Rosenbluth Travel, one of the largest travel management companies in the world. They have a 98% customer retention rate and over 6.2 Billion dollars in annual sales. Hal Rosenbluth and his communications officer Diane Peters authored a book outlining their philosophy of how to run a successful company - the book is called The Customer Comes Second: Put Your People First and Watch 'em Kick Butt The premise is that if a company treats its people well, then its people will treat the customers well.

Ron