Wal-Mart accused of consumer fraud

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh brother this thread has gone past its expiration date. :rollseyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Robert or anyone else here has specifically told anyone that can't choose to shop at Walmart if they want to. All Robert has attempted to do was to post information as to Walmart's business practices, particularly in light of the fact that many are indifferent or content in not knowing that information.

Like I said before, if we discovered today that Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs, you'd all be humming a different tune. I love choice and I love having choices. That isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of ethical or moral responsibilities do we, as consumers have with regard to the types of choices we make. Would you all be getting defensive if Robert were trying to show you facts that indeed Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs? (as an example).

It seems that all of us have our own sense of social responsibility, it's just too bad that while some information posted here about something terrible is well received (mistreatment of animals to name one), while other information is taken as a threat to one's freedom of choice as a consumer. If you still want to buy a product that you know was made from dog fur, that is your right, but would you be so apt to defend that right?

Edited January 24, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Sinergy 3]

Give it up Marylin he is mr know it all and he knows best. with that, goodnight

[Robor007 0]

Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?

Lengthy article that is 99.99% OPINION snipped

http://www.mises.org/story/1521

The writer of that article could put a positive spin on Katrina destroying the N.O. area.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Robor007

[Marilyn. 340]

Oh brother this thread has gone past its expiration date. :rollseyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Robert or anyone else here has specifically told anyone that can't choose to shop at Walmart if they want to. All Robert has attempted to do was to post information as to Walmart's business practices, particularly in light of the fact that many are indifferent or content in not knowing that information.

Like I said before, if we discovered today that Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs, you'd all be humming a different tune. I love choice and I love having choices. That isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of ethical or moral responsibilities do we, as consumers have with regard to the types of choices we make. Would you all be getting defensive if Robert were trying to show you facts that indeed Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs? (as an example).

It seems that all of us have our own sense of social responsibility, it's just too bad that while some information posted here about something terrible is well received (mistreatment of animals to name one), while other information is taken as a threat to one's freedom of choice as a consumer. If you still want to buy a product that you know was made from dog fur, that is your right, but would you be so apt to defend that right?

he hasn't come out and said it maybe but he did say that because we chose to shop at Walmart we are choosing cost and convenience over morals and values...

of course we would be singing a different tune.... because that is something different entirely then what you guys are talking about....

so it is not ok to defend our right to shop where we want??

[Marilyn. 340]

Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?

Lengthy article that is 99.99% OPINION snipped

http://www.mises.org/story/1521

The writer of that article could put a positive spin on Katrina destroying the N.O. area.

all I can say is

[Robor007 0]

Believe me if he didnt care weather ppl like walmart or not, he wouldnt have attacked ppl as he has with his "quoted" reasons. Again as i said, he has hardly stated his feelings in words, only in other peoples words.

He doesnt bother me I know walmart rules and there will always be more ppl who love walmart then there will be for him to ever make his "quoted by other ppl" points of view

Attacked? I believe it was you who called me 'small minded' or 'simple minded' or 'tedious' or something to that effect. I'm not going to sift though this thread but I'm pretty sure it was you who said those 'attacks' (your term, not mine) on me.

I wish you'd stop saying I haven't stated *MY* reasons for not shopping there because I have, several times. While we're on the subject of points of view, please tell me what constructive content you've offered to this thread other than, 'I love WalMart' and 'WalMart rules'?

I'll wait...

[Robor007 0]

he hasn't come out and said it maybe but he did say that because we chose to shop at Walmart we are choosing cost and convenience over morals and values...

of course we would be singing a different tune.... because that is something different entirely then what you guys are talking about....

so it is not ok to defend our right to shop where we want??

I consider WalMart to be a 'bad' corporation. One of the reasons I have that opinion is because I know someone (a relative) who works in Sales and has a colleague with first hand knowledge of how WalMart deals with their suppliers. They are bullies. They don't negotiate, they demand, and because they're as close to a monopoly as you can get you either play ball or you lose shelf space or are replaced with another vendor. Period.

I do not agree with that kind of business practice so for that reason (among others I've given here) I do not shop there anymore. If I did I would be choosing their (sometimes) lower prices and convenience over my own morals and values. That's my decision and my choice. If others don't see things the same way I do there's nothing I can do about it. It's a case of having to agree to disagree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so it is not ok to defend our right to shop where we want??

Why do you feel the need to defend that right? I don't see how you can equate him posting facts about Walmart's business practices as trying to impede on your right of choice anymore than someone here being critical towards another for being indifferent about buying products made from dog fur. In his opinion, Walmart has violated some very serious moral and ethical standards and continues to do so which is why he chooses not to shop there.

[Robor007 0]

Oh brother this thread has gone past its expiration date. :rollseyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Robert or anyone else here has specifically told anyone that can't choose to shop at Walmart if they want to. All Robert has attempted to do was to post information as to Walmart's business practices, particularly in light of the fact that many are indifferent or content in not knowing that information.

Like I said before, if we discovered today that Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs, you'd all be humming a different tune. I love choice and I love having choices. That isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of ethical or moral responsibilities do we, as consumers have with regard to the types of choices we make. Would you all be getting defensive if Robert were trying to show you facts that indeed Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs? (as an example).

It seems that all of us have our own sense of social responsibility, it's just too bad that while some information posted here about something terrible is well received (mistreatment of animals to name one), while other information is taken as a threat to one's freedom of choice as a consumer. If you still want to buy a product that you know was made from dog fur, that is your right, but would you be so apt to defend that right?

Thank you... And you're correct. This thread has spun WAY out of control. It started as WalMart mislabeling food as organic and turned into a Love or Hate Walmart battle. I will confess that I am partly to blame. I didn't mean to hi-jack your thread.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

They don't negotiate, they demand, and because they're as close to a monopoly as you can get you either play ball or you lose shelf space or are replaced with another vendor. Period.

what exactly is wrong with that? wal-mart retaining a competitive edge, demanding the supplier be competitive too! sounds like the

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh brother this thread has gone past its expiration date. :rollseyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Robert or anyone else here has specifically told anyone that can't choose to shop at Walmart if they want to. All Robert has attempted to do was to post information as to Walmart's business practices, particularly in light of the fact that many are indifferent or content in not knowing that information.

Like I said before, if we discovered today that Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs, you'd all be humming a different tune. I love choice and I love having choices. That isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of ethical or moral responsibilities do we, as consumers have with regard to the types of choices we make. Would you all be getting defensive if Robert were trying to show you facts that indeed Walmart was selling products made from the hides of cats and dogs? (as an example).

It seems that all of us have our own sense of social responsibility, it's just too bad that while some information posted here about something terrible is well received (mistreatment of animals to name one), while other information is taken as a threat to one's freedom of choice as a consumer. If you still want to buy a product that you know was made from dog fur, that is your right, but would you be so apt to defend that right?

Thank you... And you're correct. This thread has spun WAY out of control. It started as WalMart mislabeling food as organic and turned into a Love or Hate Walmart battle. I will confess that I am partly to blame. I didn't mean to hi-jack your thread.

No problem, bro. It's a tough crowd here...sometimes. Must be something in the water these days.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have to say that before this thread started I didn't know much about Walmart. I don't shop there, but then again I don't shop in dozens of large stores so it's much of a muchness to me.

However, since the pro and anti Wal-Mart thing has gone on, I thought I would have a dig and a read and I have come across many reports. Some are favourable, some not. There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides and a lot of hot air.

The part that I read that interested me most was the way Walmart, as the world's largest retailer, has a very strong hold over suppliers. The relentless persuit of low prices - and decreasing prices - can and does squeeze suppliers dry until they simply cannot continue and the giant Walmart moves on to the next supplier, often oversees.

This particular story I found summed it up:

Wal-Mart has also lulled shoppers into ignoring the difference between the price of something and the cost. Its unending focus on price underscores something that Americans are only starting to realize about globalization: Ever-cheaper prices have consequences. Says Steve Dobbins, president of thread maker Carolina Mills: "We want clean air, clear water, good living conditions, the best health care in the world--yet we aren't willing to pay for anything manufactured under those restrictions."

Randall Larrimore, a former CEO of MasterBrand Industries, the parent company of Master Lock, understands that contradiction too well. For years, he says, as manufacturing costs in the United States rose, Master Lock was able to pass them along. But at some point in the 1990s, Asian manufacturers started producing locks for much less. "When the difference is $1, retailers like Wal-Mart would prefer to have the brand-name padlock or faucet or hammer," Larrimore says. "But as the spread becomes greater, when our padlock was $9, and the import was $6, then they can offer the consumer a real discount by carrying two lines. Ultimately, they may only carry one line."

In January 1997, Master Lock announced that, after 75 years making locks in Milwaukee, it would begin importing more products from Asia. Not too long after, Master Lock opened a factory of its own in Nogales, Mexico. Today, it makes just 10% to 15% of its locks in Milwaukee--its 300 employees there mostly make parts that are sent to Nogales, where there are now 800 factory workers.

Larrimore did the first manufacturing layoffs at Master Lock. He negotiated with Master Lock's unions himself. He went to Bentonville. "I loved dealing with Wal-Mart, with Home Depot," he says. "They are all very rational people. There wasn't a whole lot of room for negotiation. And they had a good point. Everyone was willing to pay more for a Master Lock. But how much more can they justify? If they can buy a lock that has arguably similar qual-ity, at a cheaper price, well, they can get their consumers a deal."

It's Wal-Mart in the role of Adam Smith's invisible hand. And the Milwaukee employees of Master Lock who shopped at Wal-Mart to save money helped that hand shove their own jobs right to Nogales. Not consciously, not directly, but inevitably. "Do we as consumers appreciate what we're doing?" Larrimore asks. "I don't think so. But even if we do, I think we say, Here's a Master Lock for $9, here's another lock for $6--let the other guy pay $9."

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/77/walmart.html

I don't know the source, so it's possible that it's not 100% reliable. However, it isn't a huge leap of the imagination to think that this retailer giant would try to squeeze suppliers for all they are worth.

Personally, I think it's dangerous to have so much power with one or two companies, and that's my angle. Other's can and will choose to do things differently.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At least the criticisms of Walmart has some economic basis and as a result are reasonable - as opposed to the accusations that have been levelled at Target by certain groups who are outraged for no other reason than that "Target supports the gays".

[Marilyn. 340]

he hasn't come out and said it maybe but he did say that because we chose to shop at Walmart we are choosing cost and convenience over morals and values...

of course we would be singing a different tune.... because that is something different entirely then what you guys are talking about....

so it is not ok to defend our right to shop where we want??

I consider WalMart to be a 'bad' corporation. One of the reasons I have that opinion is because I know someone (a relative) who works in Sales and has a colleague with first hand knowledge of how WalMart deals with their suppliers. They are bullies. They don't negotiate, they demand, and because they're as close to a monopoly as you can get you either play ball or you lose shelf space or are replaced with another vendor. Period.

I do not agree with that kind of business practice so for that reason (among others I've given here) I do not shop there anymore. If I did I would be choosing their (sometimes) lower prices and convenience over my own morals and values. That's my decision and my choice. If others don't see things the same way I do there's nothing I can do about it. It's a case of having to agree to disagree.

and I have told you a couple of times that I really don't care that you don't shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower morals and values because I do....

[Robor007 0]

and I have told you a couple of times that I really don't care that you don't shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower morals and values because I do....

Sorry, I guess we'll both have to live with it.