# Oh, for the love of God!



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CBC: http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=to-walmart20050809&ref=rss

Even the very sight of Wal-Mart is a threat to religious freedom? Give me a break!

Given the history of the order, having the Jesuits speak for religious freedom is a bloody joke.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Has Walmart ever been prevented from coming to a community? 

Funny how there are so many protests before it opens, but after, you can barely walk around the place it is so busy. The people shopping there weren't protesting, so who was?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> CBC: http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=to-walmart20050809&ref=rss
> 
> Even the very sight of Wal-Mart is a threat to religious freedom? Give me a break!
> 
> Given the history of the order, having the Jesuits speak for religious freedom is a bloody joke.


 Contrary to the implication of your post, however, the appeal was not brought by the Jesuits, but by a group of local residents calling themselves, "Residents for Sustainable Development" 

If the report is accurate (i.e. this was the essence of the appeal), I would expect that the appellants will be reamed.

News reports on legal proceedings are, in any event, frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue. Frankly, you can't really do justice, in a couple of short paragraphs, to issues that will take hours to present in Court. 

I suspect that there were issues like noise, pollution and traffic that were more focal to the case.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Carex said:


> Has Walmart ever been prevented from coming to a community?
> 
> Funny how there are so many protests before it opens, but after, you can barely walk around the place it is so busy. The people shopping there weren't protesting, so who was?


Walmart has cannibalised main streets in small towns all over North America (killing small, local businesses) and there are many people who will argue that their communities were severely damaged as a result.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> News reports on legal proceedings are, in any event, frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue.


Oh, and I suppose news reports on non-legal issues are completely accurate, rather than focusing on issues that engage the reporter?

Yes, news reports must be taken with a grain of salt. But actually, everything must be taken with a grain of salt. When a buddy tells me what happened at a club last night, I take for granted that his story is only his perspective (and he was drunk, anyways). When my son tells me that he ripped his new jeans by accident, I know he's leaving out how he was jumping the fence behind the school again.



nxnw said:


> I suspect that there were issues like noise, pollution and traffic that were more focal to the case.


Except, as the news report states, the noise, pollution, and traffic issues were dealt with in the original case. According to the news story, this appeal is solely based on the fact that "spiritual issues" were not considered.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Walmart has cannibalised main streets in small towns all over North America (killing small, local businesses) and there are many people who will argue that their communities were severely damaged as a result.


Got any facts to back that up, or have you read news reports that are "frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue?"

Wal-Mart has become the boogeyman of capitalism.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Carex said:


> Has Walmart ever been prevented from coming to a community?


Yes, I believe Berkeley was one and there was probably another.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Got any facts to back that up, or have you read news reports that are "frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue?"


There are books on this phenomenon and I remember reading one about...7-8 years ago.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"Books on this phenomenon" are a dime a dozen, both for or against Wal-Mart.

I just want to hear why people on the board might hate Wal-Mart.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sam Walton is a pirate in the old sense - he coddled up to towns and govs when building his empire by promising 60% or more Made in America goods.
He got lots of help and tax breaks and support.

NOW he abandoned that policy, most areas his wages are efectively subsidized by the local gov as staff cannot afford healthcare.
He beats up on suppliers at the other end in China and the few he has left in the US and refuses to allow unions a foothold.
He effectivley holds both ends of the supply chain at ransom to his demands due to size.

Unlike say Ford and GM he supplies very few "living wage" employment opportunities at either end of the chain.
No value added.
Yes he brings low prices but they are often deceiving as it's only the price leaders that are truly low.

Luckily unlike many small towns in the US, Ontario at least has some offsets like Canadian Tire to offer an alternative.

I certainly support NOT shopping Walmart and have for the last couple of years to support local retailers.

I'll give him this he's shippd a lot of US wealth abroad and taken a good slice of it as booty. Perhaps a non violent pirate but a pirate none the less.

[Article exceprts removed - Please provide source]

It's called holding an econmic gun to the head of municipalities - just look at the Quebec store that was closed when they legally voted in a union.

Vote with your $$ .....shop elsewhere


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Vancouver City recently rejected a Walmart store within its city limits, this despite the fact that the proposed design was the most ecologically sound building ever built in the city (solar/wind/geothermal power, water recycling, planting on roof, etc...).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> (solar/wind/geothermal power, water recycling, planting on roof, etc...).


 Now THAT's progressive :clap:

There was another interview on the radio where Walmart was impacting local campgrounds by letting RVs use their parking lot overnight despite it being against city bylaws.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> "Books on this phenomenon" are a dime a dozen, both for or against Wal-Mart.
> 
> I just want to hear why people on the board might hate Wal-Mart.


A. You asked for facts to back up the assertion that Wal-Mart destroys Main Street shops.

B. If you knew that there are books on this phenomenon why did you bother asking in the first place?

C. Now, you want to hear why people hate Wal-Mart?

Contradictory to say the least.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Reasons I avoid spending my money at Walmart*

1. I've bought too much stuff that was just poor quality in terms of manufacture, longevity, and ability to use. (ie: Most of the stuff they sell is crap.)

2. Most of its goods come from China. I like to support Canadian manufactured goods as much as possible. This is for environmental reasons associated with transferring goods to Newfoundland all the way from China and for labour reasons. If we do not buy Canadian manufactured goods, more manufactures here leave or shut down and Canada loses capability and jobs.

3. Walmart has a history of paying low wages and busting union organization attempts and not paying its employees approprate overtime.

4. They hurt local small businesses.

5. I'm sure I have more but, I'm at work.


Also Walmart recently "rolled-back" it's refund and exchange policies. Satisfaction garranteed my ass.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Many of these arguments are valid (low wages, hurting local business, foreign sorces etc.), but the fact is still that the base of the economic pyramid (low wage earners, blue collar workers), shop there in droves. Everything in there is cheap and affordable (maybe not in that order). I can vote with my dollars and my feet and not go there, but I don't suspect that Walmart has noticed. 

It is like a warehouse sized 7-11 store.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> "Books on this phenomenon" are a dime a dozen, both for or against Wal-Mart.
> 
> I just want to hear why people on the board might hate Wal-Mart.


I don't "hate" wal-mart. I don't think your initial post was fair or accurate, particularly where you impute the (reportedly) unreasonable appeal to the Jesuits, although it was brought by a group of local residents. 

Your response struck me as being somewhat hostile.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

For people on a budget (aka moi), certain things make Walmart worth shopping at. I don't go there often, but I wouldn't say that I haven't shopped there maybe on average once a month.

My personal beef with Walmart (aside from community and environmental conditions already noted) is what I call the "Walmart metality" spilling over into all other sales transactions.

For those who don't know, I work for a Japanese auto/motorcycle manufacturer. You would not believe how many people ask for a refund if they've had a few problems. Sorry, we don't actually have a money back guarantee, and very few auto manufacturers do. It's not like returning a box of knives.

A car or a bike is a huge purchase, and the manufacturer clearly indicates in the warranty policy (NOT guarantee) what our obligations are.

People's expectations in this day and age have been greatly inflated by retailers like Walmart which simply means we can't meet those expectations (because in certain industries they're completely unreasonable), and this increases customer dissatisfaction. 

/rant


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

What a bunch of crap. If they are so against consumerism, then they should be trying to shut cancel their credit cards and move to the wilderness. Or try to shut down every business within a 10 KM radius. Sure Wal Mart is hated, but don't pick on them because they started small and made themselves huge.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I stopped shopping at Wal Mar after watching the PBS Frontline documentary.
Wal Mart is nothing short of pirates.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Sure Wal Mart is hated, but don't pick on them because they started small and made themselves huge*

Gee from Calgary and you support corporate welfare.......

Canadian Tire is BIG, Timmy is BIG an not hated the way Walmart is and are not sucking the teat of gov subsidized employees and broken promises over sourcing of products.

How stupid - marginal savings and every tax payer kicks in to support Sam Walton's dreams of glory.
Nice if you can get away with it. Not something to emulate.

I'll bring my biz to employers who treat employees fairly and provide a living wage.
I do, so can where I buy from.
Ikea guy is now the richest in the world - not treated like Walmart.

With good reason.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Gee from Calgary and you support corporate welfare.......


And do we honestly believe that Corporations will stop their practices? Are you kidding? Corporations rule the world, they are all about money, always will be, and there is nothing we can do about it (Short of becoming CEO and changing the way it is done, but good luck getting past the board with that!).


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacDaddy said:


> And do we honestly believe that Corporations will stop their practices? Are you kidding? Corporations rule the world, they are all about money, always will be, and there is nothing we can do about it (Short of becoming CEO and changing the way it is done, but good luck getting past the board with that!).


There is a wide range of corporate conduct. There is no doubt that some companies adhere to ethical standards that are beyond reproach, and others are at the other end of the spectrum. 

I think it is very desirable that corporate behaviour, good and bad, is known to the public, who can choose to reward or sanction these companies.

People make buying decisions every day based on criteria like, "I didn't like their customer service last time I had a problem." Why not do the same to express disapproval of, for instance, a company's treatment workers in their foreign plants? I'm sure a lot of people would consider that very important.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: exactly.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

IronMac said:


> A. You asked for facts to back up the assertion that Wal-Mart destroys Main Street shops.
> 
> B. If you knew that there are books on this phenomenon why did you bother asking in the first place?
> 
> ...


Facts != Books. I wanted to hear the reasons people were against Wal-Mart. Then we can talk whether these reasons are actually facts.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I have to admit my bias here. I used to work at Wal-Mart.

In fact, I worked at Woolco for 2 years, and continued there for 2 years after Wal-Mart took over. It was a great weekend job for a student.

Woolco was a disaster. The stockrooms were always clogged and disorganized. The merchandise was often mislabeled, and the floor layout was absurb. For example, the rugs were all laid out one on top of the other in a pile about 2 feet high. If a customer wanted a rug deep in the pile, I would have to remove every single damn rug until I got the one desired. And then pile the rugs back on, of course. The furniture department was ridiculous; there was no inventory system, so if a customer wanted something that was on display but not on the shelf, the staff member would have to root thru the clogged and cluttered stockrooms to see if there were more.

Woolco had its own employees keep the public restrooms clean. Nothing can damage the relationship between staff and management like a dispute over bathroom cleanliness. It didn't matter anyways. The washrooms were beyond unsanitary. What do you expect when you hire teenagers to clean them?

Tuesdays were a nightmare. The store had a low-price sale every Wednesday, so skids had to be hauled out from the back with merchandise stocked on them. The merchandise was displayed IN the cardboard containers they were shipped in, with just enough cardboard cut away to get at the product. And everything was left on the skids in the main aisles. It looked extremely unprofessional.

Wal-Mart changed everything. They brought in standardized display units and fixtures for everything. They re-worked the layout so it was less onerous for the staff. The stockrooms were used efficiently, with good use of space, and Wal-Mart instituted a policy that all stock gets put on the floor (within reason). The cleaning of the bathrooms, floors, and even the staff lunchroom was passed over to the hands of an outside cleaning company, doing most of their work when the store was closed.

The entire management and supervisory staff were replaced. New leadership was brought in, and a system for promotion to supervisor was instituted. Several lowly workers applied and were elevated, which never could have happened in Woolco. Finally, Wal-Mart put an employee evaluation system in place, so workers knew how well they were doing, and workers could making written recommendations for improving their jobs in their annual evaluation. (A written statement on the rug piles would have been nice, since no one cared about the whining.)

I can't really comment on how Wal-Mart developed its reputation as a predator, since there doesn't seem to be any such occurrences in Canada (to my knowledge). So I thought I'd share why I saw Wal-Mart as a significant improvement over Woolco, from my perspective as a former worker.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> There is a wide range of corporate conduct. There is no doubt that some companies adhere to ethical standards that are beyond reproach, and others are at the other end of the spectrum.
> 
> I think it is very desirable that corporate behaviour, good and bad, is known to the public, who can choose to reward or sanction these companies.
> 
> People make buying decisions every day based on criteria like, "I didn't like their customer service last time I had a problem." Why not do the same to express disapproval of, for instance, a company's treatment workers in their foreign plants? I'm sure a lot of people would consider that very important.



While this is true, are people going to stop shopping at Wal Mart or these other Unethical companies? Sure a few will, but the chances of putting them out of business is slim to nill. I shop there, why? The price and selection, which is why most people shop there, regardless of their ethics. 
Do I agree with their ethics? Not really, but when your broke, cheap is better.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I have noticed a peculiar trend among people I know. They often have an intense hatred of a particular company, boycott it, and are often quite vociferous about it.

I know a man who refuses to order from Pizza Pizza, because he read a book claiming they are a front for the mob.
I know a woman who refuses to go to Ikea, because she says that the family owning Ikea were complicit in the Holocaust.
I know a woman who refused to eat at the specific ethnic restaurant, because she knew that it was a front for an Asian gang.
I know someone who refuses to drink Cools (and now Molson) because the Cools family has a history of supporting right-wing causes, and hassles its gay workers.
My sister never goes to Wal-Mart, for many of the reasons voiced on this thread.

I find that people like to have some object to focus their hatred. It defines them, the way that a teenager might define himself by his clothes or music.

But it's no less juvenile.

It's like the intense anti-Microsoft feeling some Mac or Linux users project. It isn't relating to dislike of the product, but a more deeply held political belief. They have a sense that Microsoft has "wronged" them, and are unforgivably evil.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Most of its goods come from China. I like to support Canadian manufactured goods as much as possible. This is for environmental reasons associated with transferring goods to Newfoundland all the way from China and for labour reasons. If we do not buy Canadian manufactured goods, more manufactures here leave or shut down and Canada loses capability and jobs.


Sounds like a few computer companies we all know.

The "Buy Canadian" line doesn't wash. Remember, the goods you buy from Wal-Mart are stuff like cookware, garbage cans, lawn furniture, and other comparatively simple manufactured products. Wouldn't you prefer that we import these goods so our workforce can manufacture high-tech or pharmaceutical goods?

"Buy Canadian" is psuedo-patriotism. And you should consider: Canada relies more on supplying goods to the US that they rely on supplying goods to us. If "Buy American" ever takes off, it will be Canadian manufacturing that suffers the most.

Goose, meet Gander.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Facts != Books. I wanted to hear the reasons people were against Wal-Mart. Then we can talk whether these reasons are actually facts.


Get real...you're going to get anecdotal evidence...hardly something to base arguments on.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

It's interesting how people rag on the "evil corporation" which comes along to suck their souls and sell their newborns. What do you think motivates these corporations? Surprise! It's people like you and me who own stock in these companies, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds.

If you want your "evil corporation" to behave then simply demand that it change its ways. Don't own stock? Go and buy a share. Show up at the stockholders' meetings. Vote! Make your views known to the board! Be an activist stockholder rather than a whiner.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> It's interesting how people rag on the "evil corporation" which comes along to suck their souls and sell their newborns. What do you think motivates these corporations? Surprise! It's people like you and me who own stock in these companies, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds.
> 
> If you want your "evil corporation" to behave then simply demand that it change its ways. Don't own stock? Go and buy a share. Show up at the stockholders' meetings. Vote! Make your views known to the board! Be an activist stockholder rather than a whiner.


I wonder how Enron and Worldcomm shareholders feel about that kind of logic.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

reasons i don't shop at wal-mart:

queues: in the three times that i have been to my friendly neighbourhood wal-mart, every cashier station had approximately fifteen-twenty customers i.e. buggies in line. the amount of money i would have saved was not worth the wait in line.

it's unorganised: the place is a zoo. there is merchandise on the floor, hanging off of shelves, in the wrong location. sale bins become free-for-alls with much jostling. sales people don't know where anything is. we've been sent on one too many goose chases for items that we were looking for. on top of that it always seems over-crowded, and i've only ever been on tuesday evenings (supposedly the slowest retail night).

product quality: the quality of products (at least the ones i'm looking for) is crap-tacular.

the last time i was there i was on crutches because of knee surgery, and i was left in an aisle while my wife went to look for a buggy. i must have had a dejected look on my face because a staff person came up and asked if i was ok. when i told her that i was just waiting (half an hour at this point) for my wife to find a buggy she just snorted and said "yeah, good luck finding one in this zoo!". 

i've never been back.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Ya know, neither Wal-Mart nor Woolco could ever manage to have enough shopping buggies. In my last year at Wal-Mart, the entire last half of my shift was collecting buggies from outside because we were always short.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> I have noticed a peculiar trend among people I know. They often have an intense hatred of a particular company, boycott it, and are often quite vociferous about it....
> 
> I find that people like to have some object to focus their hatred. It defines them, the way that a teenager might define himself by his clothes or music.
> 
> But it's no less juvenile.


I don't think that's a fair generalization.

Lots of people are motivated by sincere and well informed views about the company they are choosing not to buy from. You derogate their sincerity and intelligencem by lumping them in with people who are motivated by hate and and groundless or unfounded criticism.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*Please only post excerpts*

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Sounds like a few computer companies we all know.


Tell me about it. That's a great example. If you don't support an industry in your own country (or heck, continent) it simply won't exist. Where are all those electronics made in Canada or the US?



> The "Buy Canadian" line doesn't wash. Remember, the goods you buy from Wal-Mart are stuff like cookware, garbage cans, lawn furniture, and other comparatively simple manufactured products. Wouldn't you prefer that we import these goods so our workforce can manufacture high-tech or pharmaceutical goods?


It does wash. If the goods are so simply and Canada has so much natural resources why are they produced thousands of kilometres away across an ocean? What's the unemployment rate in Canada? 6.8%, I think I heard on TV the other night. What's it in Newfoundland... above ten percent no doubt. Having more manufacturing jobs in Canada wouldn't take about from high tech jobs. It would mean the unambitious could have factory jobs instead of welfare and unemployment insurance.



> "Buy Canadian" is psuedo-patriotism. And you should consider: Canada relies more on supplying goods to the US that they rely on supplying goods to us. If "Buy American" ever takes off, it will be Canadian manufacturing that suffers the most.
> 
> Goose, meet Gander.


Listen I'm one of the last guys in line to be considered partriotic. Psuedo patriotism is the Montreal Canadiens being owned by foreign interest for years. Psuedo patriotism is Molson Canadian beer wrapping itself in the flag when they're owned by US interests. Psuedo patriotism is the Loblaw family of stores selling Canada/maple leaf branded lawn chairs, backpacks, flags, and patio ubrellas all made in China. The same goes for Canadian Tire or Tims or whatever.

It does take some searching. But you can buy simple Canadian products like cookware or garbage bags or T-shirts or even, dare I suggest, Canadian flags.

Shipping natural resources by fossil fuel burning transport to Asia so that they can manufacture goods and ship them back via fossil fuel burning transport to the arse end of North America is a complete environmental waste.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

HowEver said:


> So you buy your Chinese-made goods at Zellers, then?


Like I've said before, if you don't buy/support local you won't be able to in the future.

Buying goods form corporations is alot like voting for political leaders. Often you go with the lesser of evils.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Tell me about it. That's a great example. If you don't support an industry in your own country (or heck, continent) it simply won't exist. Where are all those electronics made in Canada or the US?


Have you heard of a small Canadian electronics company called ATi? (That's the only one I can remember off the top of my head.)



Paul O'Keefe said:


> It does wash. If the goods are so simply and Canada has so much natural resources why are they produced thousands of kilometres away across an ocean? What's the unemployment rate in Canada? 6.8%, I think I heard on TV the other night. What's it in Newfoundland... above ten percent no doubt. Having more manufacturing jobs in Canada wouldn't take about from high tech jobs. It would mean the unambitious could have factory jobs instead of welfare and unemployment insurance.


If the industry dedicated to, say, plastic cookware returned to Canada, it wouldn't set up shop in NFLD. Besides, while unemployment is indeed high, surveys of the business world consistently tell the same story: Canada's workforce is underskilled. An enormous number of jobs are left empty because no there are no qualified applicants.

Employment isn't a zero-sum game. I don't want to tar you as a racist, so don't take this the wrong way. But, for the same reason immigration doesn't cause unemployment, importation of goods doesn't cause unemployment. 



Paul O'Keefe said:


> Shipping natural resources by fossil fuel burning transport to Asia so that they can manufacture goods and ship them back via fossil fuel burning transport to the arse end of North America is a complete environmental waste.


It may be. But some countries cannot thrive without exporting goods (like Japan or Taiwan or Switzerland) because they don't have much in the way of natural resources. Importing resources and exporting manufactured goods is a requirement for them, not just for production, but survival. If you were to ask them whether polluting the environment was worth it so everyone can eat, I'm sure they'd say it was.

Your justification based on environmentalism is moored in the geopolitical good fortune of Canada and the US. The majority of the world does not enjoy immense natural resources, vast farmlands, unlimited fresh water, or (potential) energy independence. This is why "Buy Canadian/American" is unique to us. "Buy Japanese" or "Buy Polish" would be a recipe for self-annihilation.

(I have just realized I may have inadvertently "proven" Marx's theory of historical materialism: material conditions progenate political values. My good liberal conscience is now weeping.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The concept is *fair* trading .....with the emphasis on fair.

Boycotts and protests can definitely change business practices and even entire industries. ( Canadian fur industry ).

Canadian Tire sells many of the same goods but doesn't need odious employment practices to do so.

Good companies can thrive AND practice ethical business. Corporations are are only reflections of the ethics of those in power.
Body Shop built much of it's success on a combination of policies of empowering women as owners and ethical testing of cosmetics.

People vote with the $$ - Walmart is getting hurt and it's on a massive "we're good guys" campaign. ( Hence the Maclean's article )

Here's an excellent summary

Non Attributed Article removed

As I become aware of damaging practices I try to support companies like those that offer Fair Trade coffee to name one area. Yes I pay a bit more but it's important to give fair value for what I perceive as a good product with fair trade as it's basis.

One only has to look at the difference between Stelco and Dofasco to see clear differences right here in Canada

http://www.corporateknights.ca/best50/2004medalists.asp
in a nutshell



> CORPORATE KNIGHTS 2004 BEST EMPLOYER: DOFASCO INC.
> 
> For the second consecutive year, Dofasco was designated one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers by Maclean’s magazine and one of the 50 Best Employers in Canada by Report on Business Magazine. Dofasco’s medical team and the employee-led Lifestyle Group were recognized by Canadian Healthcare Manager magazine with a Who’s Who in Healthcare Award in 2003 for providing exceptional health services.
> 
> Some might consider it odd that a steel company with a non-unionized labour force ranks at the top of an employee relations category. But Dofasco has proved for decades that a company that encourages employee success, on its own volition, is a successful company in turn. Richard Yerema, editor of Mediacorp’s guide to Canada's Top 100 Employers (Canada’s #1 selling business book according to the Globe and Mail), praises Dofasco’s attitude towards its workers. "From a pioneering employee ownership plan that began in 1938, to impressive investments in employee training, to significant efforts to minimize the environmental impacts of its operations, Dofasco has a long history of leadership in its community," Yerema says.












How much is getting on this list worth.??? A hell of a lot. The companies attract the best employees and attract conscientious consumers.

When Ford restructured a few years back they went into every supplier to make sure they were being paid enough to supply quality goods in a sustainable business model - Henry had it very right when he paid his workers twice the going rate when the company started - "I need to pay my workers enough that they can buy my products"

This article is a good summary of the wider implications

Non attributed article removed

Pretty strong words.......and the basis of why I don't shop at Walmart.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Excellent post, MacDoc.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Get real...you're going to get anecdotal evidence...hardly something to base arguments on.


Take a look at MacDoc's post. That's what I was looking for. That's "real."


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I wonder how Enron and Worldcomm shareholders feel about that kind of logic.


Most of what you hear people complain about when it comes to companies are not because the executives are crooks but the policies involved. Are the executives running Wal-Mart criminals? No.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Take a look at MacDoc's post. That's what I was looking for. That's "real."


Really? Remember this quote?



lpkmckenna said:


> Got any facts to back that up, or have you read news reports that are "frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue?"


First, you dismiss news reports, then, you dismiss books, and, now, you're supporting an article that talks about the gutting of Main Street? (Out of Mac Doc's entire post, only one can be considered an article directly relating to Wal-Mart.)

Contradictions galore!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

This thread has reminded me of a wonderful song by David Wilcox (not the Canadian one, the American one)...

David Wilcox, East Asheville Hardware lyrics 
from the album- East Asheville Hardware
..............................................
An angel appeared
in a holy vision
Stood by my bedside
in shivering light
Spoke my name
Told me my mission
I could not believe I was hearing him right
Because he said, 'Go, my son, go...
Always go to East Asheville Hardware
Before you go to Lowe's
He said, Go to East Asheville Hardware
Before you go to Lowe's
You'll help to keep them open
I'm worried they might close
From the stiff competition
From the national conglomerate
With the full page ad
in the color section of the Sunday paper supplement
and stacks of plastic swimming pools
and seven brands of power tools
and rows and rows of registers
all having nice days
But no, you go, he said to me with light around his face
He said, You go first to that age-old place
To that old wooden door
that you have to close behind you
To the wide-board wooden floor
worn down soft
To the real thing
Good advice, quality at a fair price
And know that they know how deep the frost goes here.
Sure there's stuff you'll have to find at Paty's, Lowe's or Sears
But go to East Asheville Hardware
Go to East Asheville Hardware
Before it disappears.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Are the executives running Wal-Mart criminals? No.


Close to at times but I think that's the not the issue - the issue is ethical socially progressive business that enhances communities versus socially regressive business with marginal business ethics that is destructive to it's own constituency and employees.

Voting with $$ AND supporting gov efforts ( ie preventing union busting ) to moderate aggressive or illegal business practices.

Low price is NOT everything nor is efficiency for it's own sake. Sustainable commerce and FAIR trade engage many additional components beyond price and efficiency.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

So, does this mean based on the evidence in this thread that those that hate Wal-Mart make up maybe 0.01% of the population that doesn't shop there?

Face it, millions of people shop at Wal-Mart, even the ones that hate or don't like going, why do they go? Because of price and sorry but money talks. The old "If you build it, they will come" holds true.

If Guelph or Stratford receive a Wal-Mart in their area, you can bet that those stores will be full and sales will be high, despite all the angry people prior to it being built.

Who's fault is it that Wal-Mart is so successful? The consumer! Yes, the consumer is at fault. You take the consumer away, and Wal-Mart will perish into the dust. Wal-Mart is even doing well in Europe, yes Europe, out of all places. You would think over in Europe that consumers would support anything but Wal-Mart. Yet again, the consumer speaks with their dollars. The worst part is, tourists come to Canada from Europe and shop at Wal-Mart thinking it is the greatest thing. Once gain, the consumer is keeping Wal-Mart alive. 

You will even find the wealthy people in any given area shopping at a Wal-Mart, the highly educated people, and yet some of these people are the ones who complain. When you ask them why do they shop at Wal-Mart, the answer is the same like everyone else who shops there, you see even though they complain, they still agree about the low prices aspect.

In some urban communities, the number one customer at a Wal-Mart is a foreigner who doesn't speak English so well, or just moved to Canada etc... These people love Wal-Mart for some reason. They could careless about the actual name, all they care about is how they are saving money. 

Point is, you can complain all you want about Wal-Mart, but in the end, it is useless to complain, as the consumer is the one keeping Wal-Mart thriving over the years and continues to do so.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Close to at times but I think that's the not the issue - the issue is ethical socially progressive business that enhances communities versus socially regressive business with marginal business ethics that is destructive to it's own constituency and employees.
> 
> Voting with $$ AND supporting gov efforts ( ie preventing union busting ) to moderate aggressive or illegal business practices.
> 
> Low price is NOT everything nor is efficiency for it's own sake. Sustainable commerce and FAIR trade engage many additional components beyond price and efficiency.


I think that in Wal-Mart's case the issue is that the ends justify the means. They haven't broken any laws but they are willing to use every tool and tactic that they can in order to win. It's up to society to decide what it will or will not tolerate and take appropriate measures.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

This is an interesting web page: http://www.newrules.org/retail/econimpact.html

It sites (and links) a number of economic and other studies respecting Big Box retailers. here is a germane example:



> <h2>4.  EXISTING BUSINESSES AND JOBS</h2>
> These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify.
> 
> <a href="http://www.missouri.edu/~baskere/papers/" target="_blank">Job Creation or Destruction? Labor-Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion</a>
> ...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Really? Remember this quote?
> 
> Got any facts to back that up, or have you read news reports that are "frequently inaccurate and misleading, focussing on issues that engage the reporter, rather than providing a cogent analysis of the matters in issue?"
> 
> First, you dismiss news reports, then, you dismiss books, and, now, you're supporting an article that talks about the gutting of Main Street? (Out of Mac Doc's entire post, only one can be considered an article directly relating to Wal-Mart.)


I didn't dismiss news reports. I was quoting nxnw, and mocking playfully him by doing so.

I didn't dismiss books. There are many thoughtful books on this issue, both pro and con. What I wanted to hear was WHY people HERE were anti-Wal-Mart. MacDoc did that, but you didn't.


IronMac said:


> Contradictions galore!





Inigo Montoya said:


> You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

When I started this thread, I wanted to see whether anyone would actually defend the idea that putting a Wal-Mart in sight of a Jesuit retreat threatens religious freedom. Evidently, no one does.

We might disagree about Wal-Mart, but at least no one thinks the tender feelings of religious retreaters entitles them to shelter from witnessing "symbols of consumerism."


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> I was quoting nxnw, and mocking playfully him by doing so.


 Mocking playfully me you were? Someone else mocking you were, playfully, think I.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

Walmart is a religion in and of itself. 

Yoda? what are you doing here

ha ha


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Mocking playfully me you were? Someone else mocking you were, playfully, think I.


  
Speaking of books, I think I need to re-read a good book on sentence construction.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> I didn't dismiss books.





lpkmckenna said:


> Facts != Books.


I think we all know a "contradiction" when we see one.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

There is nothing stupid or childish about voting with your wallet. The notion that boycotts don't work is a falacy. Don't believe me? Just ask Cesar Chavez about his grape boycott.
Don't think the Wallmart boycott is working? Look at the stats posted above and at the desperation shown in the advertising to try and counter this trend.
I often make choices about how I spend my money in order to try and influence politics and buisness. I currently boycot Coke and its various products because of union busting practices in Columbia (they kill organisers trying to organise their botteling plants there) and because of their practices in India (it takes 9 liters of water to make one liter of coke and the new Coke and Pepsi bottling plants are having a profound effect on the level of the water table in various parts of India). 

I see nothing "juvenile" about taking responsibility for what the money you spend is funding and I find it negligent to ignore this factor. Even if I do not effect the change I hope to by my careful spending, I have the satisfaction of knowing that my money is not going to killing union organisers in Columbia or the raping of India's fresh water supply. Please explain why this is "juvenile?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

martman said:


> I see nothing "juvenile" about taking responsibility for what the money you spend is funding and I find it negligent to ignore this factor. Even if I do not effect the change I hope to by my careful spending, I have the satisfaction of knowing that my money is not going to killing union organisers in Columbia or the raping of India's fresh water supply. Please explain why this is "juvenile?


Finding a company with questionable policies is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Picking one "villian" out of the hundreds of businesses that need to improve their ethics is juvenile. I will typically point out to Wal-Mart haters that they appear to be wearing Nikes, that I'm sure the Egg McMuffin he had for breakfast wasn't from free-range chickens, and oh, is that an iPod from that environment polluter Apple?

Boycotts work. An organized boycott of a business can make very impressive changes. However, "private boycotts" are mostly self-congratulatory boasting. Voting with your wallet is a fantastic economic tool, but politically-motivated boycotts are ineffective unless they are widely organized and publicized.

When someone says "I don't shop at [X] because they do [Y]," I ask: "Do you shop at [A], *, [C]? Because they also do [Y]."

And now I must get cynical. Very often, [X] will turn out to be a major contributor to the Republican party, but [A], , and [C] will be Democratic contributors. Which is why you won't be hearing a call for the boycott of Apple any time soon.*


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

IronMac said:


> I think we all know a "contradiction" when we see one.


Damn, I HATE that phrase. "We all know." Don't tell me what I know, because you don't.

And you clearly don't know what a contradiction is, either.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

draz said:


> Walmart is a religion in and of itself.
> 
> Yoda? what are you doing here
> 
> ha ha


Religion in and of itself, Walmart is
- Yoda


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> And now I must get cynical. Very often, [X] will turn out to be a major contributor to the Republican party, but [A], *, and [C] will be Democratic contributors. Which is why you won't be hearing a call for the boycott of Apple any time soon.*


*

any, umm, facts and figures to back up "Very often"?
or just a "feeling?"*


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> any, umm, facts and figures to back up "Very often"?
> or just a "feeling?"


I have to go with "faded memory" on this one.  

It's been a while since I've been politically active, so many details have faded. And examples from about 8 years ago wouldn't be very helpful here. I haven't kept up with who-funds-whom, so I'm kinda in the dark on this for both Canada and the US.

The expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" comes into play on this issue. Major businesses tend not to get criticized by the party/movement they suppport financially. This is why Microsoft was so easily pounded despite its huge size; MS wasn't politically active. They know better now, and give huge sums of money to both parties. And the legal pressure subsided.

If I happen to remember a specific example I'll post it. Otherwise, feel free to dismiss my theory as a "feeling."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I routinely have a better experience as a customer at other retailers.

End of story.

They may have good prices, but almost every other retailer has a price matching policy for the few times when there is more than a 5$ difference.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Timely thread



> US parents urged to boycott Wal-Mart
> By David Litterick in New York (Filed: 11/08/2005)
> 
> The two largest teachers' unions in the United States have joined the backlash against the country's most successful retailer by urging Americans to shun Wal-Mart when it comes to buying back-to-school supplies.
> ...


This boycott may work big time.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Don't tell me what I know, because you don't.
> 
> And you clearly don't know what a contradiction is, either.


 1.
1. The act of contradicting.
2. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
*3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.*
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

Go back over what you posted. #3 applies to you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

> ..you clearly don't know what a contradiction is..


Yes, he does!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm gents - on topic please.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As I pointed out the efficacy of so called "private" boycotts is secondary to the issue of what you are supporting when you spend your money without paying attention. As for this Wallmart Boycotter:
I don't do McDonalds, Nike, Wallmart, Coke, Pepsi, and General Mills.
Infact I try to boycott all corporations that donate to the Republican party in the US. I may slip on the rare occasion (mostly through ignorance) but that is life. It does affect the companies because they are getting less money. 
If you want to believe that your conveniance is more important than your ethics so be it. I will continue to be the best person I can be and a big part of that is making sure that as little of my money as possible goes to f*ckers that are making the world a worse place.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

martman said:


> Infact I try to boycott all corporations that donate to the Republican party in the US.


A great many corporations in the US and Canada donate to multiple political parties, as a "civic duty" to the democratic process. Microsoft is the only one I can remember off the top of my head.


martman said:


> If you want to believe that your conveniance is more important than your ethics so be it.


I don't believe my convenience is more important than my ethics, and I certainly didn't say it was.

My point was that "private boycotts" do not make a political impact, only organized boycotts do. Can you imagine how effective the Alabama bus boycott would have been if it wasn't organized by MLK?

Feel free to vote with your wallet if you disapprove of a company's policies. I do. But I don't call it a "boycott," and I don't condemn those who do shop there as unethical.

Telling me that I've chosen convenience over ethics is the type of "self-congratulatory boasting" I was wary of. Thanks for making my point for me.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

IronMac said:


> *3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.*
> Go back over what you posted. #3 applies to you.


(Dismissing books) != (Facts != Books)

I could give you a link to a good site on arguments, logic, and definitions. But why? You are having enough trouble understanding the dictionary.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Yes, he does!


You need to shake your pom-poms more.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Ummm gents - on topic please.


We are on topic. The issue is the effectiveness of "private boycotts." Claiming that someone's argument is logically faulty is appropriate.

Besides, we are talking about boycotts of Wal-Mart in a thread about legal action against Wal-Mart based on religious concerns. We have veered off topic a great deal already.

The thread is only detoured, not derailed. Unless you would like to go back to discussing the agony of prayerful Jesuits weeping at the mere sight of Wal-Mart.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> You need to shake your pom-poms more.


As my youngest often says, I don't know what you mean.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I thought Walmart's recent activities worth a refresh.
Call is what you will but the "action" both organized and individual is certainly having its effect.

Walmarts stock in in the doldrums and then these clearly defensive moves

Please attribute articles with a link.

and this



> November 1, 2005
> A New Weapon for Wal-Mart: A War Room
> 
> By MICHAEL BARBARO
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/b...=1130907600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Some companies ( Kellogs for instance ) start from a good for society/ good for workers/ good for company synergy.

Others ..Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates new found benevolence seem to be acquired AFTER the rape and pillage of the claw to the top.
The there is Disney of course.....

Is Walmart at the turn point or is it simply whitewashing questionable practices to relieve some pressure???


----------

