The Wal-Mart campaign plank
The NY Times writes today about Democratic candidates' use of Wal-Mart as a whipping boy in political campaigns. We think -- and we say this from experience as a frequent critic of Wal-Mart policies and practices -- that the reporter has it right when he says this is a tactic fraught with risk. Simple reason: Wal-Mart has millions of happy customers who are concerned with cost and supply of goods, period.
Impact of the company on American manufacturing, the burden Wal-Mart shifts to government through its pay and benefit practices and the whole range of other issues presented by this mammoth corporation are of little interest to legions of shoppers. Plus, Wal-Mart has undertaken a charm offensive to change its image. In time, the PR campaign will help, as will some small but significant changes in Wal-Mart operating policies on such matters as employment discrimination, encouragement of diversity among contractors and less near-criminal misbehavior in conduct of its legal affairs.



Comments
No douibt that Wal-Mart is an easy target on these issues. This concentrated effort by the Dems may or may not play well in "Peoria". Never underestimate Jane and Joe Sixpack whose social life is "going to Wal-Mart". The Dems have a much better target in how the Republicans have us in a quagmire war again and the price of gasoline.
Posted by: Jim | August 17, 2006 07:58 AM
You are correct, Jim. The Democrats need to learn how to be an opposition party rather than being a stooge. I don't know how many WM shoppers vote but I am sure we are sizeable.
Posted by: Cato | August 17, 2006 08:37 AM
Good grief talk about not being in touch.
America may not care for many of Wally-World's business decisions but Americans spend more dollars each year at Wal-Mart than they did the year before.
Wal-Mart's clean-up its act PR campaign isn't aimed at the people who do most of their spending there, it is aimed at the media and a handful of active opponents.
I don't see much political benefit in taking on the business that most Americans shop at and in most markets Americans have plenty of options and choose Wal-Mart over them.
Non-starter and wasted effort.
Posted by: Well | August 17, 2006 08:38 AM
hmmm...
we should leave wal-mart alone because we can't beat them, because it won't earn us votes....
what about What's Right?
Oftentimes, "Jane and Joe Sixpack" have family members or friends who work there: not realizing that their rights to unionize, affordable health care, and nondiscrimination are being ignored.
This is one of the many reasons why the other side of the world dislikes us so much-we choose affordability and convenience over what's just and humane. Then get upset when others hold us accountable for our choices.
Posted by: katei | August 17, 2006 09:45 AM
Another way in which the Wal-mart focus is instructive.
ARkids First, and other state or federal socialized health care plans like it, encourage folks to drop out of co-pay company plans long enough to qualify their kids for the programs. In the meantime, those families are uninsured (I hope they don't need a doctor). After 6 months to a year, they are free to re-up with the company health care plan minus their kids and save because the socialized plans pick up the tab. Some folks do, some don't. Wal-Mart and other companies didn't make these rules and once again, taxpayers pay for it.
.
Posted by: real deal | August 17, 2006 09:46 AM
Political parties have very little value if they do not win elections and have an opportunity to govern.
No matter how much the GOP enjoys screwing up the world, the Democratic Party will continue conceding the power to govern to the GOP if such a weak campaign plank is all there is.
Wal-Mart's customer base has large representation that is uninsured or underinsured, think they really give a crap that Wal-Mart employees are in the same boat they are in?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2006 09:52 AM
the same folks that hate communism flock to walmart and buy made in china inferior crap, poeple those are the same commies i was sent to southeast asia to kill, but now are ok. cuba is still bad, right?
Posted by: caz | August 17, 2006 09:52 AM
I can sum this up pretty easy. We're greedy and would buy cheap shaving cream from child molesting Communist gay Mexican flag-burners if we could save 15 cents. We also are too concerned with our own little lives to worry about Wal-mart worker's rights and benefits. Screw em! Get an education! Lazy blue-vestwearing-dumb-sumbitch!
Reports of sadistic slavery in African diamond mines never stopped anyone in the US from buying a diamond. Killing everyone in the Middle East while stealing their oil is A-OK as long as I can fill up the Tahoe. Half the clothing we wear comes from 3rd world sweatshops.....big deal! Who cares if any kid ever goes to school again...I want my tax cut!
Wal-Mart isn't the devil, it's just the best evidence that we're selling out our own country to save a few cents on cheap trinkets made in Communist China. When all our jobs are gone, no one has a pension and China uses our money to invade the US and own us like cattle, will anyone remember the Democrats warned us in 2006?
At the rate we're going the only jobs available in the US in 20 years will be working at Wal-Mart. Look in the mirror now and see how good you'll look in your blue vest.
All you have to do is read about the turn of the 20th century and Standard Oil to see where we are right now. Big business monopolies are back in style and are repeating the exact sins of Standard Oil. Supporters of Wal-Mart are reincarnations of long dead Standard Oil supporters. And like Standard Oil, Wal-Mart kills it's competition and abuses it's workers and even their own suppliers.
It took Theodore Roosevelt, going against his own fat cat party to curb Standard Oil. If he had not done that we'd all be shopping at Standard-Mart, working for Standard INC., and living in little Standard Oil shanty towns today.
We only have so much to work with.....and bad things rarely happen by accident. The natural greed that is within us all built and sustained Standard Oil and now Wal-Mart. I'm glad a few Democrats have awakened to the always low pit we'll be in if we become the United States of Wal-Mart. Keep buying your cheap China crap, but please do a little thinking while you're standing at the checkout counter. Go ahead and call me a commie while you load your trunk with crap made in the largest Communist country in the world. But think! The job you save might be your own.
Posted by: Deathbyinches | August 17, 2006 11:57 AM
Thats right! Candidates should ignore the fact that Wal-Mart is the stateīs largest employer and provides a valuable retail service to 98% of the stateīs residents (I suspect even Max Brantley goes there from time to time).
Even though an entire County depends on Wal Mart for its livelyhood and an entire region of our state can trace its massive growth to this company, candidates who accept campaign contributions from Wal Mart and the Waltons are corrupt and evil. After all, once you become wealthy you can no longer engage in politics or be interested in how your state is managed.
Even though an employer of that size probably wants to have a relationship with any movers and shakers in government, regardless of Party, anyone who accepts money from the Waltons or Wal Mart automatically adopts the ideology of the Walton family - right Max?
I think the way the Arkansas Times treats Democrats who take contributions from the Waltons is juvenile and selective. Brantley beats up on Blanche Lincoln for it, was unfair to Mac Campbell about it, yet they donīt mention the fact that Mike Beebe has the support of the evil empire?
What gives?
In my opinion, any Democrat who can mitigate Wal Mart deserves more respect than ridicule - but I am sure that will also be considered treason rather than reason.
Posted by: Benton County Democrat | August 17, 2006 12:12 PM
"...not realizing that their rights to unionize, affordable health care, and nondiscrimination are being ignored."
---Katei
1). Are you telling us WM circumvents the National Labor Relations Board and our government looks the other way as they keep their employees from organizing and voting on whether to have labor unions or not? Or is the truth the labor unions do a very poor job in selling, organization, etc., their product to WM workers?
2) And WM is at fault because the whole country is the victiom of not having "affordable health care"? Just how is WM responsible for what the medical profession does in this arena? I would like to know how WM can make the medical profession provide affordable health care.
3). Would you please elaborate on the discrimination factor you subscribe to WM. I am in the dark on this one.
I will tell you this: WM is the biggest employer in America, other than government. The great bulk of their employees are people who have few marketable skills as a labor force and many of them would have difficulty in finding jobs in the American economy. And let me add, WM pays above the minimum wage, which is more than most of the mom and pop operations ever paid their 3 or 4 employees.
Posted by: Cato | August 17, 2006 01:17 PM
"2) And WM is at fault because the whole country is the victiom of not having "affordable health care"? Just how is WM responsible for what the medical profession does in this arena? I would like to know how WM can make the medical profession provide affordable health care."
The health profession doesn't arbitrarily set the cost of health care. What the person is obviously referring to is the widely publicized policy WM has of keeping almost all of its employees just under the limit on hours per week (either 30 or 35) at which they would have to provide health insurance. By skirting the "full time" issue they are able to avoid paying health insurance and avoid the benefits issues that are crippling the Big 3 automakers in Detroit. What they're doing isn't illegal but it is viewed by many to be immoral.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2006 03:11 PM
cato:
i think anonymous answered #2 for me, lemme take a stab at #s 1 and 3...
1. unions: Wal-Mart uses anti-union propaganda in their orientation meetings...Wal-Marts have been known to shut down after they unionize. Everyone knows your job is on the line if you're a W-M employee and you start talking unions....read "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In American" by Barbara
Echenrich (sp?) if you want more details...
3. dicrimination: About a year ago W-M lost a big lawsuit alleging that there was gender discrimination in promotions-a primarily female workforce, an overwhelmingly male management force.
Anymore questions?
Posted by: katei | August 17, 2006 04:41 PM
cato:
i think anonymous answered #2 for me, lemme take a stab at #s 1 and 3...
1. unions: Wal-Mart uses anti-union propaganda in their orientation meetings...Wal-Marts have been known to shut down after they unionize. Everyone knows your job is on the line if you're a W-M employee and you start talking unions....read "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America" by Barbara
Echenrich (sp?) if you want more details...
3. discrimination: About a year ago W-M lost a big lawsuit alleging that there was gender discrimination in promotions-a primarily female workforce, an overwhelmingly male management force.
Any more questions?
Posted by: katei | August 17, 2006 04:46 PM
Cato, I'm not going to lecture you. There are hundreds of stories on the web which you can check out for yourself.
I will just tell you that if anyone you know goes to work for the evil giant, better warn them not to ever, ever, under any circumstances, mention the word "union." What happens to them is not pretty.
Always low ethics, always.
Posted by: Paula | August 17, 2006 10:49 PM