Walmart vs Whole Foods taste challenge.... Ooops!

I have yet to find anything worthwhile at walmart, the prices aren't that much lower and having worked there at one time I can't believe any of those stats mentioned...I'd have to see the proof. Only a few people at my store had the company offered insurance; management and pharmacists were the only ones that could afford it.

While I have heard a good bit about the changes they are trying to make, I still can't support them until it proves to be their culture not just the current trend. As much as I detest the company, I have found one good thing about them... http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ So live on Walmart and your slimey ways...all in the name of humor.

I've seen that website before. Amazingly funny pictures. Anybody ever go to Walmart in the middle of the night? It is a trip. Very very entertaining, no purchase required.

What amazes me is how emotional people who are anti-Walmart get. I've seen people almost break into tears arguing their case. How much better is Target really, is one question I ask. (many yuppies frown on Walmart, and head over to Target).

Another thought I've had on Walmart, is that because so many of the workers get gov't assistance (because they are working poor), and basically Walmart is being subsidized by tax dollars, can't we just look at Walmart as a state-subsidized store for low priced items? Just like Venezuela has state subsidized food stores, we have state subsidized Walmart (with Sam Walton taking a cut of course).

Eventually, our country will have "The Store" and "The Bank," etc.....that is the direction we're going. But I suspect there will aways be a few indies out there. In the meantime, until we get rid of capitalism, we're going to have the Walmarts, because they've figured out how to work within this screwed up system...

Cheers, and happy shopping!

P.s. if you want cheap tools, go to Harbor Freight! And support your local businesses!!!!

If you are saying you are against some place because they are "anti-union", I stop thinking you are being logical about the whole picture. Personally, I don't want to be part of a union. Unions DO do some good, but they also protect lazy, inefficient people from being fired when they screw up. My brother was the president of his union at a local magnet producer, and he and I had discussions about unions MANY times.

but they allow people to make $25/hr to tighten a screw.

P.s. if you want cheap tools, go to Harbor Freight! And support your local businesses!!!!

I have to assume Nimbus is being sarcastic here. While Harbor might be an American owned company(I think they started in California) almost everything they sell comes from China. It wouldnt be so annoying, but they like to brand things with an American-like name such as Chicago Electric, U.S. General, and Pittsburgh Tool etc. They are cheap,but also some of the worst machined tools and equipment around. I was suckered into buying a set of drill bits there once and had the bits "untwist" while drilling into pine lumber. It was incredible,never before have I seen a bit uncoil into a long thin strip metal. The socket sets are also notorious for having shoddy specs,often fitting loose and then rounding your bolts. When we worked on a salvage boat in the great lakes, we would hit the Harbor Freight to get what would call "disposable tools" or "Taiwan tools". It didnt mater if they ended up on the bottom of the lake.

If you are saying you are against some place because they are "anti-union", I stop thinking you are being logical about the whole picture. Personally, I don't want to be part of a union. Unions DO do some good, but they also protect lazy, inefficient people from being fired when they screw up. My brother was the president of his union at a local magnet producer, and he and I had discussions about unions MANY times.

With a few exceptions, I try and stay out of these political/socioeconomic discussions. I'll make this one of those exceptions.

I was a "card carrying" Union member (National Association of Air Traffic Controllers) for almost 25 years. Our membership was neither lazy nor inefficient. NATCA has been at the forefront of every major improvement in aviation safety...and yes, they DID protect us from a a Federal agency that has consistently been ranked dead last (among 49 agencies) in employee satisfaction by both unionized and non-unionized employees for the past God knows how many years. In addition they protected a retirement that, while not making me wealthy, assures me of a moderate level of comfort for as long as I live (and a comfortable survivor benefit for my spouse as well). In return I gave my company 25 years of productive employment...everybody wins.

While comparing a public sector union to one in the private sector is not exactly comparing brother to brother...the two entities are certainly kissin' cousins. One primary difference is that a private corporation (to give a couple of local examples: Ford and UPS) has a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders...and do not doubt for a second the extremes these companies will go to in order to cater to the almighty shareholder (just ask any union member). In the PERFECT world there would be a balance between the rights of the workers and the rights of the corporations and it's shareholders. Alas, this is not a perfect world but don't kid yourself for one nanosecond, if it weren't for union members YOUR standard of living wouldn't be what it is today.

As a side note, I've always got to chuckle when people start laying it on those poor folks sweating on the assembly line "turning screws for $25 an hour"...almost universally those same people would jump all OVER those same jobs if they had the chance.

If you are saying you are against some place because they are "anti-union", I stop thinking you are being logical about the whole picture. Personally, I don't want to be part of a union. Unions DO do some good, but they also protect lazy, inefficient people from being fired when they screw up. My brother was the president of his union at a local magnet producer, and he and I had discussions about unions MANY times.

but they allow people to make $25/hr to tighten a screw.

...and YOU wouldn't "tighten a screw" for $25 an hour I suppose.

If you are saying you are against some place because they are "anti-union", I stop thinking you are being logical about the whole picture. Personally, I don't want to be part of a union. Unions DO do some good, but they also protect lazy, inefficient people from being fired when they screw up. My brother was the president of his union at a local magnet producer, and he and I had discussions about unions MANY times.

but they allow people to make $25/hr to tighten a screw.

...and YOU wouldn't "tighten a screw" for $25 an hour I suppose.

I don't think I am cut out for assembly line work. If I had to do it I wouldn't complain, but that doesn't make it right.

My knowledge of unions if minimal, but the power they have to influence/set high wages on non-skilled jobs is crazy. I migh be able to afford a car if Ford wasen't paying people $25 a hour to put screws in. The $25 is also on the low end from what I hear.

I don't think I am cut out for assembly line work. If I had to do it I wouldn't complain, but that doesn't make it right.

My knowledge of unions if minimal, but the power they have to influence/set high wages on non-skilled jobs is crazy. I migh be able to afford a car if Ford wasen't paying people $25 a hour to put screws in. The $25 is also on the low end from what I hear.

Justin,

I am not aware of a single example of a major unionized industry passing along the savings from increased productivity to the consumer...and I have tried to find one. On the other hand I don't think one would have to look too far to find numerous examples of those same industries passing along the benefits of increased productivity to shareholders in the form of dividends.

If you are saying you are against some place because they are "anti-union", I stop thinking you are being logical about the whole picture. Personally, I don't want to be part of a union. Unions DO do some good, but they also protect lazy, inefficient people from being fired when they screw up. My brother was the president of his union at a local magnet producer, and he and I had discussions about unions MANY times.

With a few exceptions, I try and stay out of these political/socioeconomic discussions. I'll make this one of those exceptions.

I was a "card carrying" Union member (National Association of Air Traffic Controllers) for almost 25 years. Our membership was neither lazy nor inefficient. NATCA has been at the forefront of every major improvement in aviation safety...and yes, they DID protect us from a a Federal agency that has consistently been ranked dead last (among 49 agencies) in employee satisfaction by both unionized and non-unionized employees for the past God knows how many years. In addition they protected a retirement that, while not making me wealthy, assures me of a moderate level of comfort for as long as I live (and a comfortable survivor benefit for my spouse as well). In return I gave my company 25 years of productive employment...everybody wins.

While comparing a public sector union to one in the private sector is not exactly comparing brother to brother...the two entities are certainly kissin' cousins. One primary difference is that a private corporation (to give a couple of local examples: Ford and UPS) has a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders...and do not doubt for a second the extremes these companies will go to in order to cater to the almighty shareholder (just ask any union member). In the PERFECT world there would be a balance between the rights of the workers and the rights of the corporations and it's shareholders. Alas, this is not a perfect world but don't kid yourself for one nanosecond, if it weren't for union members YOUR standard of living wouldn't be what it is today.

As a side note, I've always got to chuckle when people start laying it on those poor folks sweating on the assembly line "turning screws for $25 an hour"...almost universally those same people would jump all OVER those same jobs if they had the chance.

I completely, completely agree with you...

...EXCEPT if workers were just thankful for their jobs (most of them are "unskilled" after all), would just shut up, and do what THE MAN tells them to do, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with unions. THE MAN obviously has the worker's best interest in mind, so the union is just there to get in the way, to artificially inflate wages (which in turns make my shit cost more!), and to protect workers who aren't doing their jobs in the first place. Who are these workers to think they should have an opportunity at the American Dream?

On a serious note, if you want to get to know more about unions and their role in our nation's history, read texts by/about Justice Brandeis.

On a serious note, if you want to get to know more about unions and their role in our nation's history, read texts by/about Justice Brandeis.

Or listen to a little Woody Guthrie.

When Wal-Mart was in rapid expansion mode, they had an early adverse effect on the downtowns of many small communities, but most of them have bounced back with businesses that do not compete with the local Wal-mart (formal clothiers, appliance centers, restaurants etc.). Economies adjusted and often thrived.

While I agree with much of what you say in your post, from personal experience what you say here isn't always the case.

I grew up in Ashland, on the Ohio and WV borders. From the turn of the century through about the late 80s to early 90s, Ashland had a rather booming, exciting downtown. Pictures from the 40s and 50s show well dressed folks strolling downtown, doing their shopping, in scenes that look rather New Yorkish. I remember shopping downtown with my parents as a child in the 80s, and it being a bustling scene.

Sometime around 1990, Walmart came to town, and along with it the mall, with Walmart as the anchor. So, unfortunatley, not only did businesses downtown that competed with Walmart go by the wayside, just about ALL other stores did as well, as there was something at the mall that was a competitor.

So, those communities in which a free-standing WalMart came to town may not have suffered as much, and were able to bounce back more easily compared to those where a WalMart was used to anchor a large mall. Ashland's downtown has never recovered. Things have improved slightly, but it's still largely a ghost town.

Now, other factors have contibuted, such as Ashland Oil moving large numbers of its employees out of town, Armco and then AK Steel slowing operations, and Kentucky Power moving most of its people to Columbus and other places. However, the Walmart-anchored-to-the-mall was a big part of Ashland's downtown decay, and recovery simply hasn't happened.

I think the problem in Ashland is more the mall (and the other factors you mentioned) than the Wal-Mart. Those complementary businesses rightly opened in the mall as opposed to the downtown area. I'm betting a whole slew of businesses opened up all around the Wal-mart given the ready access to space. "Downtown" moved. Beckley, WVa had a similar circumstance when a mall opened outside of town. Wal-mart later opened by the mall (then Lowe's, then Home Depot) and retail all shifted. Their downtown eventually recovered, but it took decades to do so and ended up more as professional and entertainment space (Doctor's, restaurants etc.) than retail.

Most rural Wal-marts were/are free standing. Sure, you might have a couple of fast food places out front (which wouldn't open in a downtown area anyway) but that's about it. The complementary businesses opened in the vacant downtown space, which was typically available and cheap.

The mall is as much to blame for what happened in Ashland and Beckley as Wal-mart is. Malls have killed many a small downtown. They just aren't as plentiful as Wal-marts, and therefore not the evil scourage that many make Wal-mart out to be.

Personally, I think downtowns are over-rated. Nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia. Downtowns were the center of commerce and retail. Nothing more. So what if they move? Do people conversing with their neighbors in the isles of Wal-Mart have any less connection than those talking on a downtown sidewalk? Is buying everything you need at one place better or worse than walking from store to store? Contrary to popular myth, most small town downtowns were filled with now bankrupt chains. Woolworths, Sears, Montgomery Ward, Hecks, and the like were the center of commerce. Now it's Wal-mart.

Downtowns are just a shrine to the very commerce and businesses that the anti-capitalist crowd in the next breath tears down. "We hate business, but we love the old places where business used to be!" "We miss Woolworth's but we hate Wal-Mart!"

The truth is, they typically don't really hate business or capitalism (they, in fact, practice both), they hate change. Wal-Mart brought change. Change is bad. Wal-mart was new. New is bad.

Old is good.

Or maybe old is just old.

I rarely post anymore, but I thought that I could provide some much needed information in this discussion. I have been a union member at several different chemical and nuclear facilities for the past 13 years and I can tell you that what is commonly called "unskilled labor" is a terrible misnomer. Yes, an individual does not necessarily have to have a degree for such a position (although this is not always the case), but it requires a certain way of thinking and learning that many individuals do not possess. I have witnessed a lot of people who were initially cocky and felt that they were doing work that was beneath them simply not able to function in a manufacturing environment. In addition, this type of work is inherently dangerous, frequently involves rotating shifts and requires a higher level of concentration than a lot of the office work that I did in my younger days. Quite simply it can be very hard work.

Regarding defending less than stellar employees, it is simply an unsatisfactory part of the game. Union officials are required to defend their members in much the same way that an attorney is required to defend his client. I am not certain, but I believe that an employee could even sue the union officials if he felt that he was not being defended properly. That being said, I have seen companies try to fire or discipline employees who had a bad history, but the manner in which they went about it was unethical and possibly illegal in a few cases. I have also seen the union defend good employees who were being targeted by individuals in management for raising valid safety or environmental concerns. This happens WAY more often than you realize. A corporation may have a stated policy regarding such matters, but an overly ambitious manager may try to use shortcuts to get ahead. There are good and bad employees at every business and fairness does not always come into play in deciding who gets ahead and who gets let go.

Justin, I am not calling you out on a personal level, but your comment about people making $25 per hour to tighten screws calls for an anecdote (I am fresh out of limericks at the moment). At one facility where I worked, the engineers and managers seemed to have a lot of contempt for the workers because our wages seemed too high to them. This attitude seemed to change anytime that they had to work a 12 hour night shift with us to monitor a new process. They usually did not realize how much work we actually did and their knowledge of the equipment and its capabilities was often more theoretical than practical. Most of them could not stay awake most of the night even though we could have been fired for sleeping on the job. Point being, the view up close is often vastly different than from afar. Anyone can turn a screw for an hour or so, but to do so for an 8 to 12 hour (sometimes 16) shift and do it correctly under pressure is an entirely different story. You said yourself that you were not cut out for the work . . . which is fine, but don't begrudge the people who are. Wages are a negotiated matter whether it is on an individual basis or by a group of workers -- fairness is not really a factor in this case either.

Darren F,

Very well said...Been there, done all that.

On a serious note, if you want to get to know more about unions and their role in our nation's history, read texts by/about Justice Brandeis.

Or listen to a little Woody Guthrie.

And don't you know listening to music is so much easier than reading supreme court cases and notes! Not to mention more enjoyable, most of the time.

Hecks, and the like were the center of commerce. Now it's Wal-mart.

Downtowns are just a shrine to the very commerce and businesses that the anti-capitalist crowd in the next breath tears down. "We hate business, but we love the old places where business used to be!" "We miss Woolworth's but we hate Wal-Mart!"

The truth is, they typically don't really hate business or capitalism (they, in fact, practice both), they hate change. Wal-Mart brought change. Change is bad. Wal-mart was new. New is bad.

Old is good.

Or maybe old is just old.

I was nodding along, in something just short of agreement, up until the "downtowns are just shrines..." part. Everything after that point just seemed like an unnecessary "Fox News" move based in broad generalizations, name calling, and pointless rhetoric. You caught me. I pine - in the form of crying in my pillow nightly - for a time so far past. That's the anti-capitalist in me. Back when Ma and Pa owned the corner deli, Grandma came over nightly for dinner, and the world was a better place. Wait, what? You know, way back in 1982, the year of my birth. Those good ole days I miss so much.

It's not so much I hate change, I just hate the "all progress is good progress," "bigger is better, but bigger and faster is the best," and "you either support progress or hate America" mindsets.

I rarely post anymore


At one facility where I worked, the engineers and managers seemed to have a lot of contempt for the workers because our wages seemed too high to them. This attitude seemed to change anytime that they had to work a 12 hour night shift with us to monitor a new process. Most of them could not stay awake most of the night even though we could have been fired for sleeping on the job. Anyone can turn a screw for an hour or so, but to do so for an 8 to 12 hour (sometimes 16) shift and do it correctly under pressure is an entirely different story. You said yourself that you were not cut out for the work . . . which is fine, but don't begrudge the people who are. Wages are a negotiated matter whether it is on an individual basis or by a group of workers -- fairness is not really a factor in this case either.

First, you should post more often. very well said.

I have edited your post to address my issues.

You are correct, I am not cut out for the repetitive assembly line life, but I do not begrudge them. I don't see the relationship between how long I perform a process and how much I am paid. Tightening a screw should be paid the same $ amount per hour for 1 hour vs. 8 hours. My wage does not increase as the day goes on and I doubt most workers do.