|WalmartPage 7 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)|
|Sam Walton was a completely different type of businessman than the Waltons who inherited the fruits of his hard work and good will. Completely.|
Posted: 4/12/2006 8:51:06 AM
|Amen to that rain...It's obvious that you, Tony, know nothing about Sam Walton and the Walton family. For cripes sake, the guy was a gazillionaire when he died and STILL drove a beat-up pick up truck everywhere he went. He was night and DAY different from those who run the company now.|
Posted: 4/12/2006 9:00:45 PM
|no_free_speech_4_whites, the Walmart here in Barrie is notorious for other things as well; one of the managers was taking advantage of some of the young girls there; created quite the scandal.|
I'm well aware of the treatment of the employees there, though. Pretty bad stuff. Zellers pays less, but you get treated much better there. I don't do that stuff anymore; I won't do sales unless I'm earning commission.
Posted: 4/12/2006 11:02:25 PM
|Too bad Wal-Mart didn't include comparative pay levels and promotion data for males and females employed at the same level. Probably they couldn't because it would be used against them in the pending lawsuit. |
Wal-Mart opens books on labor diversity
By Marcus Kabel
AP business writer
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 · Last updated 2:26 p.m. PT
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has opened its books to show exactly how many women and minorities in the United States work for the world's largest employer, the first time it has released the data it files each year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Wal-Mart's move comes amid calls from religious investors and workers rights groups for the Bentonville, Ark.-based company to prove it is meeting verbal commitments to increase diversity and prevent discrimination. Wal-Mart also faces a class-action discrimination lawsuit on behalf of all current and former U.S. female employees.
"It's extremely important," said Sister Barbara Aires of Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth, N.J., a member of a coalition of faith-based investors called the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.
The ICCR holds about 2 million shares of Wal-Mart stock and has lobbied Wal-Mart for several years to publish the confidential diversity data that companies with more than 100 workers must file by law with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
"We have assurances that they will continue to provide that information each year so that we can begin to compare and look from year to year and note their progress, which is what we want them to do," she told The Associated Press.
The report for 2005 showed that 32 percent of the 1.34 million Wal-Mart employees in the United States were minorities. That level varied by occupational group, including 21 percent of top officers and managers, 20 percent of professionals and 33 percent of sales workers.
Women accounted for 60 percent of the overall work force, 39 percent of officers and managers and 75 percent of sales workers.
The report did not provide comparative data for previous years.
Wal-Mart did compare its 2005 numbers with the retail industry and large employers overall, although those numbers were based on 2003 findings, the latest comprehensive tallies published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Wal-Mart said its minority employment of 32 percent compared to 31 percent for the retail sector and 30 percent for all large U.S. employers. Total female employment of 60 percent compared to 63 percent in retail and 48 percent nationwide.
Other Wal-Mart critics said the report did not go far enough, including not listing any data on pay levels or promotions among minorities and women.
"If Wal-Mart was serious about diversity, it would hire independent auditors, stop refusing to disclose its diversity goals, and finally release the hard data about what Wal-Mart pays its women and minority workers," said Chris Kofinis, spokesman for the union-funded campaign group, WakeUpWalMart.com.
In the report, Chief Executive Lee Scott said that Wal-Mart last year expanded diversity targets for managers from a group of 3,500 officers and senior managers to include more than 51,000 store-level managers. Scott said the goals were all met.
The publication of the 2005 employment data comes a year after Wal-Mart first provided a summary of some of those numbers, but not the full report, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said.
"This year is another step toward being a more transparent corporation in all aspects of our business, including diversity," spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.
Clark said Wal-Mart wants to continue to increase the number of women and minorities at all levels.
That includes promoting diversity among Wal-Mart's huge pool of suppliers. Wal-Mart said it does business with more than 3,100 minority and women-owned businesses, totaling more than $4 billion in 2005 compared with $2 million in 1994.
Wal-Mart is also working with its largest suppliers to make sure they deal with more minority and women-owned businesses and in late 2005 began collecting data to monitor that business, the company said.
Posted: 4/13/2006 1:10:20 AM
|remember whom actually makes the money your spending. i'd rather walk 20 blocks to an idepentantly owned store than shop at a franchise, where the owner makes all the money yet pays his employees minimum wage. it's easy, it's called conscientious consumerism. seriously. screw convenience. doesn't anyone here over the age of 30 ever remember shoe stores downtown? womens clothing stores? drug stores where they knew you? it's not hard to figure out what killed that.|
Posted: 4/13/2006 2:59:36 PM
the Walmart here in Barrie is notorious for other things as well; one of the managers was taking advantage of some of the young girls there; created quite the scandal.
What relevence is that information??
Things of that nature occur all over the world in every aspect of every society.
Posted: 4/13/2006 6:57:49 PM
|Because the company knew about it and tried to cover it up.|
Posted: 4/13/2006 9:05:29 PM
|Very interesting thread...|
remember whom actually makes the money your spending. i'd rather walk 20 blocks to an idepentantly owned store than shop at a franchise, where the owner makes all the money yet pays his employees minimum wage. it's easy, it's called conscientious consumerism. seriously. screw convenience. doesn't anyone here over the age of 30 ever remember shoe stores downtown? womens clothing stores? drug stores where they knew you? it's not hard to figure out what killed that.
I remember those little shops... I will take my business to an independant retailer whenever possible, and I absolutely will NOT shop at Walmart. I have not spent a penny in Walmart in years and I intend to keep it that way. As far as employees go...Walmart is a corporate slavedriver unless you are in upper level management.
Posted: 4/13/2006 9:41:32 PM
|I know one thing...I get good deals from Wal-Mart, I have a job where I am treated with respect, and I work with people who are proud of who they are and what they do. And of all the jobs I have had in the past, there's not ONE of them that could say the same. And I have had jobs making $14 - $20 per hour. So a good payrate and a good job do NOT necessarily go hand in hand. So to all the people whining and crying about how bad Wal-Mart is, the solution is simple. Don't shop there and shut up.|
Posted: 4/13/2006 10:06:29 PM
|It's that attitude that pushes people further away. While I can understand your angst (as crappy as my pay was at Zellers, I did admittedly really like there), Wal Mart (like Zellers) is not a real job unless you make a career of it because the pay is crap. And unless you have some experience you can't get working for them, they don't pay you much attention; |
I was a stereo store owner's kid, I knew everything about anything in the electronics department and that's why any input i gave held any credibility in my department.
Without that, I would've been worthless.
Right now, I work for Wireless Wave (because right now, Computers and cellphones are converging so rapidly its unbelievable), and I will probably be jumping ship to another company shortly because it's selling the next generation of stereo equipment, which is what I've always wanted to do. And I'll be working with people I know will be able to help me grow; an environment like Wal Mart or Zellers is almost completely devoid of that, because the order there is to handle customer service, but not actually grow as a representative of the company you work for because there aren't enough expectations.
Posted: 4/14/2006 12:31:55 AM
|zellars is a fairly good example. many americans won't know what zellars is..........but yes, good for you, and if you really are ambitious, your achievements/drives won't be met with those employers. good luck....cheers|
Posted: 4/14/2006 4:42:41 AM
Because the company knew about it and tried to cover it up.
Is that fact or an opinion? I don't recall this story, im not saying it did not happen, but I would like to see some proof they tried to cover it up.
Either way, if they did try to cover it up, its not exactly the first time a major company tried to hide their skeletons, and really isnt an issue, in my opinion.
Posted: 4/14/2006 6:02:38 AM
|I like Wal-Mart for their cheap prices and even cheaper products. Plus they have a liberal return policy, which helps when the crap breaks.|
Posted: 4/14/2006 6:42:07 AM
|if local small businesses paid decent wages to employees, I would patronize them as exclusively as I can afford. Since they won't.... I'll only use them when it's more convenient.|
Posted: 4/14/2006 7:35:44 AM
|If everyone dislikes Walmart so much, who do you shop there? I never have.|
Posted: 4/14/2006 8:47:12 AM
I like Wal-Mart for their cheap prices and even cheaper products. Plus they have a liberal return policy, which helps when the crap breaks.
I love this mode of thinking. And one wonders why the Yugo didn't become a runaway success.....hahahhaha. Probably because Wal-Mart didn't sell them.
Posted: 4/14/2006 10:39:07 AM
|^^^^ lol...yeah, the crap from China....their hope is most ppl won't return it.|
Posted: 4/14/2006 10:04:52 PM
|Ummm.....low prices rule? You're out of work - it's no wonder you'd think that.|
The only reason why you're unemployed or unemployable is because of the
state of the economy as the republicans dictate it to be.
At age 51 the economic reality of this Bushonomics hits hardest....you're not
gonna like what comes next when your health eventually fails.
Posted: 4/15/2006 5:21:41 AM
You're out of work - it's no wonder you'd think that.
Being retired is hardly the same thing has being out of work.
Usually people do not retire until they have enough of an income to do so.
Id suggest if that poster managed to retire earlier then age 65 thats not to bad.
Posted: 4/15/2006 10:51:56 AM
|Wal Mart is a joke. First of all, they treat their people like krap and pay them minimum wage which no one can live off of now a days. They refuse to give their empolees benefits. Did you know that when congress proposed to increase the minimum wage that wal-mart and outback steakhouse payed lobbyists 4 billion dollars to lobby against raising the minimum wage. Why didn't wal-mart and outback just take the 4 billion and give all their workers raises? I would never shop at wal-mart or eat at outback for this reason|
Posted: 4/15/2006 4:12:08 PM
So to all the people whining and crying about how bad Wal-Mart is, the solution is simple. Don't shop there and shut up.
tony: I don't shop there. But I don't have to shut up. With more people exposed to the truth, hopefully there will be at least a few who'll have the option to stop shopping there and will pursue it. If they don't have that option or don't wish to exercise it, that's their prerogative. I don't begrudge people who want or need to shop there, or work there -- I just appreciate that there are many who want to boycott Wal-Mart.
Nonetheless, I'm tickled that you're pleased with your job. Best of luck to you!
Posted: 4/15/2006 5:37:34 PM
|Smiling; the reason the Walmarts haven't impacted Barrie is because Barrie's downtown core is why people come there. But, Walmart here also pays A LOT better than in the states; iirc, starting pay is over $9 an hour.|
Posted: 4/16/2006 2:22:42 AM
|Large sized families don't even blink their eyes on this issue. I live in a medium sized city, and for the price on many items that I use this is where I come to buy. Sorry that you are affected by the large corporation of Walmart. Majority rules due to economic reality as stated by message guy--lazyboy.|
Posted: 4/16/2006 7:09:14 AM
Smiling; the reason the Walmarts haven't impacted Barrie is because Barrie's downtown core is why people come there.
So all the growth / investment that exploded around both Wallmart locations after they were built is because of the downtown core?
Are you suggesting the Georgian Mall on Bayfield Street (which is directly across the street from Wallmart) is getting a multi million dollar facelift, (more like a rebuilding), because of the downtown?
All those companies, banks, chains, car dealerships, investors sinking millions right beside both locations have nothing to do with the shopping traffic Wallmart generates........
But, Walmart here also pays A LOT better than in the states
You can buy more for a dollar in the states.
So nine bucks an hour here I think is sort of the equivalent to what they would get paid in the states. It seems low to us but their money goes further. (not every-thing is as expensive due to lower taxation and the competition in their market)
Also, one of the main arguements against Wallmart by some Americans in this thread is that the state has to pick up the financial cost of full time Wallmart employee's health care.
Which would be a concern for me also, if I was an American.
I have to admit, thats a good arguement by the unions.
But, Im not sure why the unions have a problem with Wallmart employees being subsidized by the state and not the rest of the large corporations down there who pay at the same scale and do the same thing.
Think its political? lol.
Posted: 4/16/2006 6:09:08 PM
Also, one of the main arguements against Wallmart by some Americans in this thread is that the state has to pick up the financial cost of full time Wallmart employee's health care...Im not sure why the unions have a problem with Wallmart employees being subsidized by the state and not the rest of the large corporations down there who pay at the same scale and do the same thing.
from the Seattle Times (emphasis added) It cost the state an estimated $12 million in 2004 to provide government-subsidized health care to Wal-Mart employees, according to a state Senate analysis released Tuesday.
The total was nearly double that amount if costs to federal taxpayers are included.
The new figures provide fresh ammunition for a labor-dominated coalition that is pushing for legislation that would force some big employers to spend more on health-care benefits and stop shifting those costs to the state.
"The numbers tell us why it's imperative that we act now," said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, chairwoman of the Senate Labor, Commerce and Research and Development Committee.
Jennifer Holder, a regional spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said the figures used in the analysis are outdated and probably flawed. She said the company has "significantly" improved its health plans since 2004.
"Taking this report and kowtowing to the unions is doing no one any good," Holder said.
The new analysis, prepared by Senate committee staff, is based on data from two confidential state reports that listed the top 20 companies that had the most employees receiving state-subsidized health coverage through Medicaid or the state's Basic Health Plan (BHP).
Wal-Mart came out on top of both lists, with 3,180 employees receiving Medicaid benefits for themselves or a family member and 456 more on the BHP. The company employs about 16,000 people in Washington.
Medicaid is a state-federal program that provides health coverage to families on welfare and children in low-income families. The Basic Health Plan, funded entirely by the state, mostly covers low-income adults.
Using average monthly costs for the two programs, the committee staff estimated the state spent about $11 million to cover Wal-Mart employees who received Medicaid benefits in 2004 and $1 million more for those on the BHP.
"We're talking about an $11 million subsidy to the most profitable corporation in the country," said House Labor and Commerce Committee Chairman Steve Conway, D-Tacoma.
Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing legislation that would require companies with 5,000 or more employees to put at least 9 percent of their payroll costs toward health-care benefits.
A coalition of labor unions and health-care groups is pushing similar measures in more than two dozen states. So far, Maryland is the only place where they have succeeded in getting a bill approved. That law is being challenged in court.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which represents workers for most of Wal-Mart's biggest competitors, last week launched a $100,000 television ad campaign urging lawmakers to pass the legislation.
The new Senate analysis focused on four of the 20 companies listed in the confidential reports: Wal-Mart, Safeway, Fred Meyer and Target. The committee staff said the four likely would be affected by the Democrats' proposed legislation.
Safeway has roughly the same number of employees in Washington state as Wal-Mart, but in 2004 had less than half as many workers on state-subsidized health care. Its employees received nearly $6 million in state-subsidized health coverage, according to the analysis.
Fred Meyer employees received an estimated $3.6 million in state-subsidized health care, while Target workers received nearly $2.9 million.
Lawmakers said the true costs to taxpayers were probably much higher. They pointed out the analysis does not factor in the additional expense of providing Medicaid coverage to the employees' children.
And it is clear that companies like Wal-Mart make up only a fraction of the total cost to the state of providing health coverage to private employees.
Applying the same monthly averages used in the Senate analysis to all of the companies named in last month's confidential reports, the total cost to state taxpayers comes to nearly $77 million.
Holder said Wal-Mart has made repeated efforts to get more information from the state about the numbers behind the recent reports.
For instance, she said, Wal-Mart employs numerous people who get government-subsidized health coverage because they have a disability or are on the state's WorkFirst program for people working their way off welfare. She said it's unclear whether those employees are included in the reports.
"We've gotten zero answers on anything," Holder said. "It's very frustrating for us."
(The bill did not pass.)