Let me tell you something about working at Wal*Mart- I worked there.

I worked at WalMart- one summer during college when I could not otherwise find a temporary job. This is a walmart in a working-class area of Maine. Bad economy- of course, WalMart is doing very well there.

I was lucky to only be there for 3 months. But even these 3 months were hell. And many of the older women cashiers that I worked with are STILL THERE- doing the same boring, crappy job 10 YEARS later. They haven't moved up- they still get strickly timed 15 minute breaks. Walmart workers are VICTIMS of larger social problems- poverty, fewer factory jobs, and a lack of better jobs in that area. They are trapped there- there are NOT other alternatives.

Retail sucks regardless (since working at walmart I worked 7 years of retail and retail management) but working at WalMart sucks even more as their labor is more exploited and they have less of a voice, less autonomy as workers, and they are kept at low-skilled work instead of being empowered to move up. The way walmart treats their employees is EXACTLY the opposite of their commercials- the ones where the happy walmart employee talks about how they moved up in the company and how good the healthcare is.

ANY direct action that makes walmart workers days WORSE than they already are is JUST CRUEL. Walmart workers need support- they need literature about how to organize. They need alternative means of incomes-more jobs, companies that want to hire them etc... They need a stronger economy.

They DON'T need us making their days suck any worse than they already do.

I'm not defending the "leave a cart" idea, but...

Suppose boycotts were incredibly successful against one Wal-Mart (such as the one in Maine you worked at). And in fact, the Wal-Mart had to close bcs it lost so much business. All those Wal-mart workers would now be unemployed and in even more desperate straits than they are now. Plus, the town would now be flooded with unemployed people all looking for similar jobs. Very bleak situation.

With this in mind, are you against boycotting Wal-mart?

Because if boycotts are successful, they will indeed shut down Wal-Marts and lay off hundreds of needy people.

Slaying the Wal-mart giant is going to bring down their employees, too, no matter how it happens, is the point I'm making.

The stores that were forced out of business could come back. These businesses would hire those unemployed. Many of the businesses that Mall-Wart forced out had employees who were layed off.

They are the worst company to ever employ a person in this country. Let them go, there are new, more worker friendly blue companies like Costco who would be glad to step in and hire the WalMart workers...

is another great discount store that could replace the exosting Wal Marts.

I seriously can't believe that anybody is stupid enough to shop at Wal Mart in the first place.

Named after "Sam" Walton.

Typical rethuglican corporate tactict, to change the name so enlightened people will be tricked into shopping there. I'm cutting up my Sams Club card right now.

That's why we need to close down these stores by any means necessary. The average working stiff just doesn't know enough to make intelligent decisions on his own, he's lured in by the low prices, and doesn't have a CLUE that he's walking into a trap, and feeding the behemouth its daily ration of human blood and sweat.

Their truck fleet says Walmart Sam's Club right on the side of the trucks.

http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/misc_cal_roadtrip2001.htm

Wal-Mart and Sams Club are two totally different kind of stores.

Wal-Mart is intended to put Main Street USA out of business.

Sams Club is intended to put the independent business-to-business dealers out of business.

Small locally owned foodservice, 5 employees, which includes two owners. Though the closest Sam's is an hour away, restaurants and other businesses are willing to drive that far to save $5. Makes no sense, since they spent all that money on gas, plus their time. It drives me nuts at work to hear people say (read this with a whining voice) "well, I can get this for $2 less at Sam's club, why do you think that is?" Well, fuck me. Let me tell you something, we don't have the fucking buying power that sam's has. We don't have thousands of stores across the fucking country and around the world. But, when you buy here, you're helping 5 people put food on their table, as opposed to putting millions in the pockets of the Walton family who already have fucking millions, who continue to pay people at un-livable wages, which in turn more of their employees are on welfare, and since they buy all of their shit from china they continue to contribute to the major trade deficit of this country. What a great fucking company Walmart is.

The Pullman Railroad Company? Carnegie Steel? Conditions at these (and other) companies in the 1890s were about as bad as it got. All of these companies were notorious for trying to control all aspects of their employees' (and employees' families') lives, even as they cut employee pay. Peabody (and other mining companies, especially in Appalachia) was especially bad, paying its employees in scrip that could only be used at the overpriced company store. Lots of companies back then even hired goons to make sure that the employees ("chattel") didn't get out of line.

Nobody ever set foot in a Wal-Mart again. Within days new stores will be popping up all over the place. The demand for triple the amount of employees will cause those store to offer good working conditions good pay and benefits just to compete for those workers. You see when your the only master in town, you write the rules.
Reading these posts I feel like we want back in time. And all the things that the unions have fought for just seem to getting handed back to these bullies, if your just going to lay down and take what you get then it will never end.

The logic of a boycott of the variety directed toward retail stores is that you take business you would give to one company and give it to another company. You're not boycotting purchasing entirely, rather purchasing from particular stores. If enough people engage in the boycott, that store does poorly, but other stores do well. Those other stores then need more employees, or still other stores open or more to the point re-open or find themselves replaced. The employment level of communities without a Wal-Mart is actually higher than those with one.

My home town is a prime example. It's one of those towns that almost never changes materially, thus providing excellent baseline observations when new elements are introduced. The population never varied more than +/-1000 people from the day I was born thru the mid-90's. The businesses, however, have changed, in large part due to Wal-Mart.

To provide a summary, the retail sector of town lost 46 businesses within three years of a Wal-Mart Supercenter opening. Those businesses, on average, employed ten people each. (That is, some employed a half dozen, others twenty or more.) The prevailing wage for front-line retail workers at the time was approximately 20% above minimum wage. The store owners, managers, etc. made well above minimum. Wal-Mart, at its peak before I left, employed 150 people, 92% of which made minimum wage to 25 cents above. Last I bothered to check, it employs less than half that, and the wages breakdown has not changed. The population of the town has, however, dropped. Real estate is definitely a buyer's market, with the average cost of a 3-bedroom home coming it at half the national average, which sounds great until you realize there are no jobs. Some of the former business owners moved away, others went to work for Wal-Mart or a grocery chain that competes with Wal-Mart, while others decided to give up and attempt to live off what they'd managed to save over the years.

In short, the economy tanked. The unemployment rate rose, and the younger people of the town leave in greater numbers than they once did due to a lack of opportunity. The goal of a Wal-Mart boycott is essentially to reverse this trend.

The job wouldn't be so bad if you made a living wage, were paid overtime, got holiday pay and pregnancy leave, had worker contracts, representation, grievance procedures, health care, etc.
check out posts 109 & 120 on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5337560

They fire anyone who tries it. Believe me, it is not hard to cook up some half assed reason to fire someone when you want to. And on the few occasions when unionization is actually voted for, management intimidates the hell out of the employees to vote no. People who want nothing more than to earn a living, pay their bills, and feed their kids don't want trouble for themselves and will do what is necessary to avoid that trouble including voting no for unions.

say anything can be worked out and want you to come to management and air your complaint. Trouble is, two or three weeks down the road you'll be in an unemployment line finding out that thanks to republican politicians you know longer have a right to wrongful termination unemployment compensation!

Mind if I use it?

I hear exactly what you're saying. I've been associated with radio for toooooooo long. When I started the unions...AFTRA, NABET and IBEW were strong and had representation in small and medium market stations. Then the unions decided these smaller fish weren't as important as the big one. In some cases, it was there was a lot of intermingling between management and union...union members would get management jobs and forgot where they came from.

There were many who joined the unions...paid the dues and got little in return. For most it was, and still is, the health insurance or some collective bargaining. When it came to an individual case, many found the unions very lacking. Even worse, carrying a union card reduced the chances for someone to find a job and the union did precious little to help members find new ones...they were lucky to hold on to the ones they had.

In the end, broadcast unions have been all but busted out of most stations...even the largest by a combination of government deregulation and the union's own survival problems that alienated a lot of the rank and file.

Slowly I see the union movement starting to come back, but it's still viewed with suspect by many who see more disadavantages of workers uniting than advantages. It's a shame.

in fact i stressed that they would need support from National organisations, and that it would be tantamount to a spy game. I admit Sprawl-Mart will be a hard nut to crack... but a coordinated attempt needs to be made! And really, just imagine if the country's largest employer faced mass Unionization... what would they do?

SOLIDARITY!
COMMUNITY!
UNION!

(sorry, going to a Union rally next week hadda get my shouts out!)

But, "leave carts behind" is not the way to make it happen.

I'm also living in Massachusetts and going to a Union rally next week. Think we're going to the same one?

People who want nothing more than to earn a living, pay their bills, and feed their kids don't want trouble for themselves and will do what is necessary to avoid that trouble including voting no for unions.

It's too bad people have bought the right wing spin about unions to the extent that they believe forming a union will make it harder to get by. What can we do to reverse this?

Educate people on all the benefits of being unionized. That's all I can think of. And make sure that people have some sort of alternative if they lose their jobs. As hard as it is to find a job, no one wants to do anything to jeopardize the job they have -- especially if they have kids.

not sure the day...
as far as what we can do...

EDUCATE!
OUTREACH!
form coalitions, organize collective actions, SUPPORT other unions (I go to my local Stop & Shop and make sure i stop in to say to Management that i shop there BECAUSE the employees are unionized), more, so much more...
if there were only enough time in the day!

in some places, rather than allow employees to organize. Creeps!:grr:

...the WalMarts in Canada which authorized a union, which were promptly closed due to 'poor performance.'

Sam's Greedy Kids CLOSED the store!
Maybe not such a bad thing in itself, but how long do you think the retail job vaccuum would be until enough Mom n' Pops got going again?

Who cares? Just get them out of there!

Fine, let them close works great for Wal-Mart; they'll just open a new one the next town over and refuse to hire any of the people from the old store. It is the workers who will suffer. Wal-Mart has effectively sent out the message that if you try to unionize, you're out of a job. This chills any other workers from trying to unionize or protesting Wal-Mart's actions. So Wal-Mart can keep exploiting workers & making big $$$. This allows them to spread like a virus across the U.S. Closing ONE store allows Wal-Mart to keep opening many new ones, & allows them to keep bad labor conditions. When you say "fine, let it close" that seems short-sighted & a little callous. It's sort of like saying progressives & Wal-Mart executives are on the same side - let's close it, who cares? We should care, because it's those kind of intimidation tactics that allow Wal-Mart to stop unions, HURT people, and come to a town near you with the same policies. Pretty soon other local businesses are cutting benefits too to compete, pretty soon your union benefits might be gone too. It's all related, & I don't think any of us can afford to gloat from a distance at the plight of these workers.

I understand that it may appear that way to some, though. I guess I'm just frustrated.

Okay, so I don't get it. Do we want them to leave? Or not?

forcing Wal-Mart to accept their employees to unionize, and sign a contract within a month, or have their corporate charter revoked. All profits from the newly liquidated business would be dispersed out to all lower level employeees and lower management, which would most likely amount to two years pay. Since this would be his second action, after bringing the troops home, then he can threaten to place troops at every store they own to make sure it happens. Then he uses it as an example for Rite Aid, Best Buy, Circuit Shitty, Target, Mervyn's, Khol's, Office Despot, Homo Deepthroat, Loweblowe's, you name it. You think Joementum would be up to the task?:crazy:

They can't shut all their stores down at once.

TR would have done it, so would FDR.

Walmart working conditions are deplorable ... and they resent any real action to make their conditions better.

I'm sorry but "literature" on how to organize isn't going to do any good if their prevailing attitude is that they're unwilling to inconvenience themselves to improve their working conditions.

That's like handing a brochure to a battered wife who has no means of supporting herself without the husband who's abusing her. She'll throw the brochure in the trash. Sometimes you need a neighbor to complain, and the cops to come and put the guy in jail, because she's not in a position to make the decision to leave. Yes, it's temporarily more stressful for her.

The reason non-walmart employees are fighting this fight, even though the employees themselves may not be willing to, is that we aren't willing to let that become OUR futures, too. They're driving other businesses out of town, destroying other job opportunities in the area, as well as becoming a drain on social services that we all pay taxes for.

The walmartization of America affects more than just the people who currently work at Walmart.

as tactics need to be revisited. SOmeone posted on measures that are clearly overt vandalism or even corporate terrorism last night. While others are suggesting measures that will have no effect but to make the workers' lives miserable.

We need to take on Walmart in an effective, global, manner, but not so focally that the only person hurt is the trapped worker.

Every boycott is designed to decrease business for the company, less profits, and logically results in having to layoff workers because there's less business.

Abandoning carts is sort of the opposite tactic - it results in a need for more labor, not less, but still reduces profits.

There's not a miracle way to hit a company in the pocket book without affecting their employees one way or another.

And I think that was their plan all along. Get to a position where the economy all but hinges on their survival which make them all but invincible. They're the 10,000 pound gorilla that will ALWAYS get their own way, and they've put themselves in the position where they can say "Go ahead and kill us--YOU'LL BE SORRY!" (laying off their employees as well as those of all the companies that have made them their main distribution outlet and taking the economy with it)

Abandoning carts does not, in any way shape or form, result in the need for more labor hours, nor does it in the slightest bit reduce profits. That is simply wrong.

Now before you think I'm ranting or piling on or attacking you personally, let me just make clear I am not. I understand the intent here with at least some people, you apparently being among them, and I understand that intent is positive. I am not criticizing that intent. I am taking issue with the tactic. Good intentions don't necessarily translate into good tactics.

I am repeating myself so much in these threads, I am sure I have becoming obnoxious, both to those who agree and disagree, so I'll attempt to summarize using somewhat different language.

The tactic being suggested with the abandoned carts full of merchandise scenario is, at best, an annoyance to management, but be clear on this. Management is aware of what is happening on the floor. They account for it. They do so in a way that maximizes profits. I worked in retail management for nearly 3/4 of my working life so far. I've seen this before, many times. It's a joke. Management laughs an irritated laugh. The employees work. The profits are not affected.

This is the 8th time I've asked this. If anyone, anywhere, has any hard data that even suggests moving store merchandise in a realistic manner (that is, not a vaudeville act or a Mr. Whipple commercial script) substantially affects the profits of a retail store in an unpredicted, and thus unaccounted for, negative way, please do present the evidence.

Now, while you're searching, here's some fact to chew on. At one post I held, I was responsible for, among other things, scheduling labor for several teams of six laborers. I was budgeted 224 hours for each team. If the net profit margin of the department in which these people worked increased by 6% over the cost of budgeting 8 more hours of labor during a given quarter, I would be given another eight hours *the next year* assuming other factors had not intervened to suggest that increase was not sustainable. Extra work due to factors that did not increase revenue were *never* part of the equation. Ever. The extra work was done, but no overtime was given, no employees hired (except those hired to replace, at a lower wage usually, those who got fed up and left), no profits reduced. My company was so structured and managed that it could suffer an 8% drop in revenue over a certain year and increase its stock value by 5%. And quite frankly, if anyone thinks an 8% drop in revenue is an achievable goal with a "cart placement protest," well, I have some ocean front property in Siberia for you.

of the "Fill your Cart and Leave it" campaign.

First of all, thank you for taking the time and going to the trouble of writing your detailed post, and your willingness to educate people to another point of view in a patient and respectful way. I and many others respect that so much, even when we disagree with the point being made. Not that I disagree with your point... I am still trying to make sense of both sides of the argument.

As for me, I somewhat understood your post (my fault, not yours - I don't have a great "business mind"), but I still don't understand how the FYC&LI campaign would not affect Walmart's bottom line.

It seems to me that if people increase Walmart's expenditure on labor without a corresponding increase in sales, it cannot help but negatively effect the bottom line. I understand the part about hiring two laborers at a lower rate to replace one... but it seems to me that tactic would not apply here as Walmart is already paying the minimum wage, so how can hiring two workers be beneficial, when the same amount of (increased) labor is needed and everyone is making the same wage (and getting - or not getting, in this case - the same benefits)?

Here is the part I don't understand:

Management is aware of what is happening on the floor. They account for it. They do so in a way that maximizes profits.

Hypothetically, on a very simple level: I am a manager. Would-be "customers" come into my store and leave full carts behind. They don't purchase anything. Their action on a given day creates five extra hours of employee labor in taking the merchandise from the cart and putting it back where it belongs on a shelf. But for the "customers," I would not otherwise have the five additional hours of labor expense. There is no corresponding increase in profit, because the "customers" buy nothing. How, from parameters of this situation, can I "maximize profits"? In other words, how does this fact pattern not create a net loss?

I THINK what you are ultimately saying is that Walmart already makes so much money, that the minor decrease in profit caused by the FYC&LI campaign is so small as to be laughable to them; that they can absorb that cost, never even feel it, and still make an obscene profit; that the amount of loss the FYC&LI campaign will create will just be passed along to the consumer in increased prices, and Walmart will still be able to under-price the competition, because of how crappy they treat their employees. Am I close?

I do agree that this campaign alone will probably not be effective enough to put Walmart out of business. However, it seems to me it would have the intrinsic value of making a statement. Much like a protest at the White House in and of itself won't directly change the government, but it certainly attracts public attention, and makes a statement to the powers that be. Do you agree that there is value in the statement aspect alone?

Thanks, if you find the time to answer this. If not, maybe somebody else can.

This whole thing would be a much more reasonable discussion if more give and take took place, such as asking and answering questions and taking the time to understand the other person's point of view.

I've flirted with offering a detailed breakdown of how labor hours are budgeted, but I stop doing so when I realize how long the message would be. Few would bother to read it. Still, this fact in and of itself provides some insight into what we're dealing with here. Budgeting labor hours is not as simple a process as is assumed by most scenarios regarding the abandoned cart tactic. That is, this seems to be based on the assumption that one more hour of labor equates to one more labor hour. Granted, if this were the case, the tactic might have some merit. Unfortunately, it is not the case.

I will now *attempt* a "brief" explanation of what I'm talking about. (Yes, the detailed explanation is much, much longer, and even has math. :-))

Labor and labor hours are related but two different things. One is a measure of work, the other an accounting term based on units of time and the costs involved. Labor has no inherit time value, and assigning a numerical value is difficult, so it tends to be averaged for various situations based on what an "average" worker can accomplish within a given period of time, which means you can't really say your actions create X amount more hours of labor; you're only creating more work, but how that relates to labor hours is variable. This variable is then used in budgeting labor hours.

Take a simple example using a manufacturing setting where workers are paid a base hourly wage if they meet a quota. Workers are given a quota of units they must assemble within a given period of time. This is labor. That quota can change depending on the needs of the company, but time itself doesn't change naturally. When the quota is increased, the labor increases, but the labor hours remain the same. If management determines the amount of labor it can extract from its most efficient employees has been maximized, yet the demand for product continues to rise, it will budget more labor hours when the cost of doing so has been exceeded by the revenue benefits.

In a retail setting, workers are not producing anything, so this determination is more difficult. The job of a retail manager in assigning labor hours basically boils down to figuring out the minimum number of labor hours required to care for customers and complete all the duties of maintaining the store while maintaining a nearly constant profit margin. (This is a very simplistic summary, but it gets the point across I hope.) The only time a competent manager increases the budget of labor hours is when, again, the cost of doing so is exceeded by the revenue benefit, or more simply, when the profit margin can be maintained after the cost of the increase is calculated.

So, let's take your scenario and analyze it in these terms. You've created a need for 5 extra hours of labor. (This is unrealistic, by the way, for related by somewhat different reasons, but I'll assume it for our purposes here.) Does that equate to 5 labor hours? Go back to the manufacturing example. In this situation, what a manager would do is raise the labor "quota" from the employees already present. Since a place like Wal-Mart has so many employees working at any given time, it can do this more efficiently than, for example, a convenience store with 2 employees working a single shift. In this situation a floor manager would require each employee to exert more effort during their allotted time, i.e. raise their quota. Employees aren't "dogging it," to use the insulting phrase offered by some proponents of this idea, but they aren't typically working at maximum levels of exertion for the entire eight hours of their shifts. If they still can't complete the work required, the manager would do one of two things: use legal methods of spreading out the work across different shifts, raising everyone's quota, or use illegal methods to urge employees to "donate" their labor without compensation.

The latter does happen, regularly, in many retail environments and deserves specific attention. Requiring an employee to work off the clock is, of course, illegal. (So is smoking marijuana, which approximately 16 million Americans do on a daily basis.) The key to "requiring" it from a management perspective is to maximize the labor quota during a given hour, which is perfectly legal, and evaluate employees on their consistency in getting this maximized minimum requirement completed. To keep their jobs, get raises, or have hope of promotion, employees can and will offer 15 minutes here, 30 minutes there to get things done so that they don't run at full throttle for 8 full hours or get a bad evaluation. Management looks the other way at how they accomplish these tasks, incorporates the fact that some employees, on paper, do more during a given time than others into its determination of what constitutes an "average" amount of labor a worker can complete in a labor hour, and the cycle continues. Over time the company weeds out those who are not willing to give free time. In environments that employ workers with fewer options, like Wal-Mart, this is more easily accomplished than in environments that require highly skilled, specialized workers, but it takes place there too.

And the "best" part? Someone who quits or is let go because he or she refused to give "free" time has no basis for a law suit if they aren't directly asked to do so. Only those who do work off the clock can sue, and then only under specific conditions, but it doesn't matter much because people willing to give free time are less likely to sue both because proving intent in this situation is difficult, and they will lose their jobs when they do so and have difficulty finding employment later. This is not strictly legal either, but in the "real" world, what is strictly legal doesn't always matter a great deal.

As an aside, the Bush administration's tweaking of laws governing overtime was a blatant ploy to make this sort of practice perfectly legal for larger numbers of employees.

I'll leave it at that for now. What I'm basically saying is a company like Wal-Mart can absorb the extra *labor* required without ever touching its labor hours requirement, through both legal and illegal means, all which affect the common worker far more than the company itself.

I read that through, and, well... I think I'm going to take a break, clear my mind out, get something to eat, build my strength up... and try reading it again!

Seriously though, thank you for caring enough to put that kind of effort into an answer, and for not getting too frustrated with my naivety. Your response was very well written and very well organized. And I think I understand it, but I will read it again later for better comprehension. Though so far it does make sense.

Thanks too for not including any m-a-t-h. :scared:

Numbers make my head explode.

Take care! :hi:

where it hurts them.. their reputation. Some TV spots with statistics..like what they are costing us in public assistance...might do the trick.

But what group would pay for the ads?

I'd give money to see ads condemning their awful practices. Thiw RW WACKO company needs to be put under...

dot com of course...
they have helped organize local actions here in MA, and have helped fund opposition to a proposed Mega Sprawl-mart... they also have some tv ads on their site... which of course only need our funding to get on the air... but they seem reputable.

I'll check them out this afternoon...

stations will refuse their money and refuse to run the ads. Has happened many times before to people who wanted to get anti-consumerist ads, and social policy ads too, on cable and TV. The stations simply refuse to run anything against the prevailing corporate mindset.

I have already seen a few spots here in Western Mass on network television (CBS i think). Currently they are trying to quadruple the size of the existing WM in town to create an uber-Sprawl-Mart, local groups have pooled together to buy spots...
this is one of them:
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/corrupt.html

if lots of showings of this could be scheduled, the word would get around as to just how evil Wal-Fart is:

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

I don't know details about the film, but happened into the Oklahoma Forum tonight and saw that there is going to be a showing in Norman this week. I'd love to go, but will have to see if I can work around the kids' sport practices, etc.

I made the abused spouse analogy and got my post being deleted as well. I second all that you say in your post. I tried to make the same point in another thread, but not as eloquently put as your's I suppose. These people simply don't have a clue in regards to making sacrifices for the greater good in the end. My god, restocking merchandise, please don't abuse me, after all, it's just part of the job in the first place. I give up!

when a person stays in a situation they know is abusive even though they know they deserve better, because they are powerless to change it and because if they leave, they risk losing a roof over their heads and food for their children.

The analogy falls apart though when you look at the impact on the rest of society.

You can't blame a person for staying when they have no other options, but when the rest of us can see that allowing the status quo is actually resulting in us falling into identical circumstances, one by one, don't blame us for doing whatever we can to change things before we become the next victims.

If more people had stepped up to the plate 10 years ago to take aggressive action against Walmart, instead of shaking their heads and saying "those poor workers, oh well, what can you do" those "poor workers" might have actually had decent benefits and working conditions by now.

It would be nice if, ten years into the future, I'm not making the exact same post.

Oh and this little prank a few people are going to pull represents "real action"?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And all the employee needs to do is suck it up and smile knowing his extra work will be part of a greater effort to bring this behemoth into the living wage world.

1. You have this idea that it's OK to impose things on the Wal*Mart workers if you see it as being for their own good, rather than letting them choose how to go about helping them (vanguardism).
2. You're being sarcastic.

I am not imposing anything on them. If I patronized the place, I suppose that would be an imposition on them for making them check out my merchandise. I guess that's a little over the top, but I'm not the one who started this whole brou-ha-ha in the first place. What they are doing to this nation is deplorable, so in the grand scheme of things, what they do to their employees is my business. I simply thought it would be a good way to cost wal-mart money by making them pay their employees for something that they as a corporation gain nothing from. I'm all ears. Wal-mart employees, how can we help you? Moral support just doesn't cut it. The only thing these people understand is what it costs them. So how do we cost them anything unless we go in their stores and do something such as this?

Sometimes I think many American workers have been beaten down and have no hope. They have given up.

Other times I think they just want to stay arrogantly ignorant because it is easier....just sit and watch TV and drink beer.

I'm with you...the Walmarts of the world have to be stopped. They are crushing us...exploiting us. I'll fight that.

Why don't you go apply for a job at WalMart and change the system by fighting from WITHIN? Seriously. You seem to have enough extra time to peck around on the keyboard for hours, talking about changing WalMart. Why not go fill out the application, take the drug and psych tests, and then get your blue vest and be the Walmart Norma Rae of Ohio? Since you're such a martyr, and all...

Filling up a stupid buggy and leaving it in the aisle is only a way to harm people who have already been harmed. I think you would be much more effective in the role of unionizer in a blue vest, with a smiley face pinned on it. If you don't mind making others do extra work to "prove a point," why don't you go get a job at Walmart, let other assholes come in and do this ridiculous "protest" and then you can get all angry as you are restocking items in a buggy, and lead the charge.

And, while you are at it, you might want to check out the mental transformation that occurs to Walmart employees, by reading Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickle and Dimed." She was like you before she took the job: snotty and arrogant about "those" people in the blue vest.

Go forth and conduct this anthropological, sacrificial study for the good of all workers. Put your labor where your mouth is.

anonymous to us, they are who we ultimately WANT to help. The goal is not just to take on the "big bad company."

I know of people in rural America who are trapped in these kind of jobs. Thank you for expressing so well, what they are facing.

more than Walmart.

I am kind of hashing this out as I post.

Many, many people actually do depend on walmart for an income. Boycotts etc... would just hurt these people in the short term- and turn them off from the anti-walmart cause. There are millions of walmart workers- they could be a force for the anti-walmart movement or they could really resent it and make it very difficult.

I think targeting the economy- more jobs for the people who are ending up at walmart needs to be part of the picture. Alternative jobs and sources of income are key. Walmart feeds on poverty. I know talking about this with Bushy-boy in office is almost silly- but getting a dem in the whitehouse in 2008 who gives a damn about poverty and the working class would help. (edwards??!!)

Unionization is hard-- if not impossible. Walmart screens employees now for any involvement in unions or left-wing politics. I couldn't get a job there anymore as I have been a steward for our grad student union. Unionization would certainly be difficult against such an anti-union force, but that is a possibility as well.

Of course, communities not allowing walmart to build at all helps too- such battles here in Wisconsin though have resulted in walmart moving in, as many people see the need for jobs.

Walmart is one of the main culprits driving others out of business. You can't target the one without targeting the other.

It doesn't make any sense to say we shouldn't at a minimum boycott them because a boycott will turn people off of the anti-walmart movement.

The alternative to a boycott is to shop there. Encouraging people to shop/financially support Walmart in an effort to turn people against Walmart is absurd.

If you financially support the company, you are contributing to its growth, which reduces other job opportunities in the US.

There have to be ways for people to work together against Walmart....Walmart the biggest damn company in the WORLD! It rules the world. We must fight this monster...or stay on your knees until death.

there) was pissed, I mean, certifiably mad over the conditions that they are living with.... her story made me realize how good I have it.... "sort of".

As a cashier. Boy did that suck.

...that won't heal until the status quo is upset. Corporations OWN and run America. That's a problem. The current crime ring in the White House is part of it.

How does a person get thier jollies off making trouble for a minimum wage worker that doesn't get a full 40 hrs for being full time any how let alone not having good health benifits? so you go, act like a 2 year old, shit on a floor in wal-mart and watch the 6 dollar an hour "droid" walk over and have to clean it up. Why not go to the corporate office in Bentonville AR and protest there? DUH!

And that's what happens to most people who end up at Walmart. There are no other jobs. There are no other so called "opportunities". Especially when you reach a certain age and have no college education or training and need to pay the bills and feed the family.

Walmart is literally a dead end....truly the end of the line.

The cart idea everyone's talking about is not going to hurt anyone but the employees. If people really want to get at the evil upper management and greedy corporate head honchos, start talking "UNION" to the employees. Hand out some "UNION" flyers. The downside is that the employees are REQUIRED to tell management about anyone who talks "UNION" to them....but....

BUT! If there are lots and lots of shoppers dropping flyers and talking "UNION" what is management gonna be able to do? They can't stop a flood of people coming through the doors talking to the employees about "UNIONIZING"!

Bwahaha! Take that Walmart!!! :evilgrin:

I can't stand the low quality of the junk they sell. It is easy to boycott them, where I live there are better alternatives.

too. This is over ten years ago, and yes, there are still some of the same women working in the exact same position of cashier from when I worked there. I was one of those high school kids, working forty hours on top of going to high school, but they could schedule me for pretty much anything because I was 18 at the time. I would go in after school and work until closing. I did get bumped up slightly in the food chain to a CSM (customer service manager) and then department manager for a short period of time, then I decided I didn't want the responsibility and went back to CSM. The people I see still in those same positions, are mostly women, and over 50. I don't know if they are happy being in the same position, maybe they are and don't want the responsibility of a management job. Over all, working for walmart does suck,their bennie's suck and their commercials are complete BS.

before you abuse criticise and confuse walk a mile in my shoes.
And while it may be a red company - I would like to think when I shop there my money goes to a worker who votes democrat.
And then again what is alot more productice is taking that money you saved and putting it into the DNC. Just food for thought.