Users Trash Wal-Mart On Its Facebook Site

hhavensteincw writes "Only two weeks after Wal-Mart launched its latest foray into Web 2.0 land, Facebook users have hijacked a page aimed at selling back-to-school supplies to college kids to instead post rants about the company's labor practices. Of the 100-plus comments, none relates to dorm decorating as Wal-Mart had originally envisioned."

This is *exactly* why

You need one of those ancient "greeters" as gate-keepers on the system. I don't even let people post comments on *my* lowly page without approving them first, how can they be so naive?

Re:This is *exactly* why

Their "forway" into Web 2.0? I don't get it. Did he mean four way into Web 2.0? It does look like they're getting f*cked.

Re:This is *exactly* why

2.0? They aren't even at web 1.0 yet here in Canada. You can't even buy stuff online in Canada, and they have only a few select items up on their website, not even close to their entire catalog. However, there is an option to add stuff to your shopping list, and print that out for buying at the B&M stores. Which is pretty useless though, considering the items may not be at the store you shop at, and like I said, the online product selection is maybe 10% of the items they actually stock.

Re:This is *exactly* why

You need one of those ancient "greeters" as gate-keepers on the system. I don't even let people post comments on *my* lowly page without approving them first, how can they be so naive?

Would they pay the greeter a decent wage? But seriously, how many would they have to hire to keep up?

"Only two weeks after"

Only?

Am I the only one surprised it took so long?

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

Wal-mart just has cheap socks and asshole management.

I've heard the older you get, the more you might need asshole management. (I read that sentence wrong.)

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

They treat them horribly? you mean worse then child prositution or working your self into an early grave in the fields? because that's often the choices a poor person has in "other" countries. they choose sweat shops, as horrible as they are, because they are the best choice they have. it's much the same as it was for our countries when they first industrialised.

Re:Just an incredibly banal version of the Borg...

Offering to feed peoples children, on the condition that they convert to christianity would be wrong.

Offering a woman who is in the wilderness with a broken leg a ride to the nearest hospital, on the condition that she give you a blowjob would be wrong.

Offering someone whose family is starving $2/day, on the condition that they work as slaves for you is wrong.

Yes, in each of these cases, not doing anything at all could be argued to be even worse. But that ain't enough. By that you've just demonstrated that the action is not the worst-possible-action. But there's a long step from being "not-the-worst" and to being "good".

The second example is particularily interesting; it would actually be a *crime* not to help a helpless person in such a situation.

For all of your examples, choosing to help the people involved is not something that you are obliged to do in any way. Yes, you could establish your altruism by aiding them with no strings attached but you are not required to do so. (Some nations will probably have laws that require you to aid people in distress even if this comes at some cost to you - this changes things as you note.)

Assuming that you are not an altruist, however, then /not/ making any offer to help the people mentioned has to be /worse/ than making the morally questionable offers that you suggest. Since you are not actually forcing them to accept by threatening further distress should they not take up your offer, making those offers can only improve their situation or, at worst, maintain the status quo. Since not making the offer is "worse", then making it must be "better".

Whether this becomes "good" or just remains "better" is entirely a subjective assessment. I would tend to think that so long as you are candid about what your offer entails, then giving more options is a good thing even if you are offering them for entirely selfish reasons. Whether that makes you a "good" person is a different question altogether, but that has no bearing on whether or not the offer should have been made.

As an example, if I were in grave debt I might be happy to hear the offering from the local loan shark with tendencies towards knee breaking so long as he's up front about his interest rates and methods of sanction. I might end up not accepting the offer, but at least I have it on the table along with all my other options.

They should take it one step further

They should go a step further and allow college students to network with the 9 year old children making the products they're buying.

Re:They should take it one step further

The issue with Walmart is that the company opposes labor unions -- if the workers at a store try to unionize, Walmart shuts down the store and puts them all out of a job. They have the resources to pull that kind of shit.

Re:They should take it one step further

Lots of businesses oppose labour unions. And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper. How are they supposed to compete? There are many stores that do not pay union rates for workers. Why should Walmart be required to. Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine. That's their choice as a corporation. Meanwhile, there's still people lining up for jobs every time a walmart opens, and people lining up to buy stuff from there. So while there may be a lot of people who don't like them, there's a ton more people who do like what walmart is doing.

Re:They should take it one step further

Labor unions only have power as long as the companies that sponsor them are willing to blank-out the law of supply and demand. I remember a piece by George Reisman about the auto industry back when Japan was seriously kicking the American companies' asses (Ok, still true), and it's not even that the pay was significantly lower (about 5 or 6 dollars different, IIRC, in an industry where 25-30 dollar wage rates aren't uncommon). In a union shop, employees don't compete with each other for a higher spot on the food chain, don't cross train (their job is their job, and they're not going to sweep floors or mount tires if their job goes a little slow that day), and any attempt to swap benefits plans for something more economical requires a union vote. The non-union Japanese shops were able to save considerable money both on benefits and man-hours.

Quite wrong!

I have seen at first hand the running of a 'Japanese' and a 'Domestic' car plant. The staff at the Japanese plant had much higher pay and benefits.

The problem stems from statistics, and how the numbers are played with. Basically in the 'west' retiree benefits are paid from 'current' income. In the past these 'western' companies saved money by failing to invest for the future benefits they contractually agreed too. They did this by setting up shells that actually gave the investment money back to the originating company This made the companies look profitable and growing, and raised their then share price. This sort of nonsense was encouraged by the markets and governments which fed back into the management which gave more of the same. Behind the scenes everyone crossed their fingers and hoped that growth would make up the difference. There were many at the time who said it was all a house of cards, but they were starved of research funding and quite effectively silenced. Now time has caught up with these companies and governments and they have to pay, which is then, by accountancy tricks, spread across the current employee base, making current employees look way more expensive and quite unproductive.

Contrast this with Japanese companies who invested for the future benefits with strict governmental controls on how they were allowed to do it. Now these companies not only receive income from the investments, they also have a much lower cost base as they only pay out for their current workforce which makes them look less than half the price and considerably more productive.

Re:Quite wrong!

Psssst! Will you shut up? You're ruining all the carefully cultivated prejudices of all those fine /.ers.

What next? You want to tell us about lean production (where Toyota is world leader, bar none)? Total quality management (which was laughed out by everybody, except by the Japanese, who listended very carefully and then went to implement it)? Innovation, like Hybrids (not feasible and too expensive for most, except for some Japanese companies)?

Next you will reason that over-motorized GM junk is unsellable in the rest of the world due to gas guzzling, quality problems and overall borishness, while we all no that's a French conspiracy to hurt America.

Re:They should take it one step further

Seriously, name one american vehicle that would be improved by the abolition of labour unions.

All of them could be. Because it would decrease the cost to build them, which opens up the potential to either sell them for less, or sell them at the same price with more capability. Either of which would also put them on a better competitive footing with Japan, Korea, and so forth.

Don't imagine for a minute that artificially high costs of labor have no effect upon the ability of a business to produce a quality product.

Don't worry about it though; even though labor unions seem to have the upper hand at the moment, they are one of the key forces that bring automation to assembly lines. Sure, they have the power to blackmail employers right now; but at the same time those ridiculous wages are being handed to them across the table, management is handing contracts to industrial robotics firms. American unions are destroying their own member's jobs by making sure they cost more to the company than automation does, and that they are more annoying to have around than robots are.

Re:They should take it one step further

all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

They can do it so much cheaper because the first $1500 of each car goes to cover medical insurance costs, not so in Japan. 69% of that health care cost is going to cover retired employees.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901385.html [washingtonpost.com] Labor Unions are largely responsible for health insurance and retirement benefits for full time employees being the standard. Walmart skirts this by having the majority of their employees work part time. They can enroll for health insurance only if they enroll their dependents as well, which is a problem because on their part time salary they can't afford the enrollment premiums. As for people lining up for the jobs and products, they lined up for Standard Oil as well. Walmart employees aren't usually in a position to be picky about their jobs, but just because they have to settle for "better than nothing" work doesn't mean that society should advocate their marginalization.

Re:They should take it one step further

And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

You may have a point about other goods but many foreign cars are domestically assembled and many domestic cars have as high or higher quotient of foreign parts. Also Japanese companies have historically felt obligations to their workers while US companies have not as much compunctions of screwing over workers to guard the bottom line. Over all your point about this one product type is full holes.

Re:They should take it one step further

even threatening to shutdown operations because the employees unionize is illegal. actually doing so, when the purpose it only thwart unionization, is definitely illegal.

as I said before, some unions have unreasonable expectations. and i can imagine a scenario where a union forms and demands wages and benefits that would make it impossible for the business to operate. and that business would be within its rights to shut down.

but that's not what wal-mart is doing. they pull every trick in the book to prevent unionization, legal or otherwise. and shutting down a location to break a union is illegal. NRLA [nlrb.gov] is pretty clear on this.

-esme

Re:Labour Unions

Lots of businesses oppose labour unions. And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

You are dead wrong. The U.S. has one of the lowest levels of unionization among industrialized countries. Union density was 12.4% in 2003, roughly 2/3 of Japan's (19.7%) and 1/2 of Canada (28.4%) or the E.U. (26.3%). Statistics used are from the U.S. Department of Labor [bls.gov].

Re:Silly Canadian...it's the health care

Sorry to be so smug, but that's what happens when you rely on corporations to provide you with health care. Health care is a cost, and it's in the constition of most corporations to reduce costs where possible. This is why it isn't a good idea to rely on corporations for your health care. Telling people to either pay-up, or be sick/die, isn't something a corporation should have the power to do. That's why I'm happy to live somewhere with socialized health care. There's just too much room for corruption and taking advantage of people when you can dangle their health/life in front of them to get them to pay whatever you want them to pay.

I don't get it

From that I have heard, Wal-Mart pays a decent amount, far more than the minimum wage. They aggressively hire people who normally have a hard time getting a job (elderly), they have benefits, and such. So why is their a small group of idiots protesting against them? Is it only because they are a large corporation?

Re:I don't get it

From that I have heard

Do us all a favor and do something about your ignorance before posting next time: http://walmartwatch.com/ [walmartwatch.com]

Re:I don't get it

As good as Penn and Teller are about promoting atheism, they have a decidedly Libertarian agenda that they push right along side it, and have a tendency to sweep arguments against that view (which tend to go hand in hand with the the anti-Wal-Mart arguments) under the rug.

Re:I don't get it

When an argument is using a propaganda sight and Penn and Teller as its sources, we all lose, kids.

Re:I don't get it

Ugh. Don't mod me up when I screw up spelling and grammar that badly!

You keep using these words

Watch the Penn & Teller 'Bullshit!' episode about Wal-Mart, where they thoroughly demolish the anti-Wal-Mart arguments.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

And those would be the same Pen & Teller that think that arming students would end all school massacres [wikipedia.org]? They're funny magicians, not prophets.

Re:You keep using these words

Having watched their gun episode, that's not what they said.

Their logic that the "walk in and shoot the sitting ducks" method would be foiled is solid.
But they conveniently ignore the fact that back when anyone could have been carrying a gun, massacres still happened, just with a different technique [wikipedia.org].

The part where their own reasoning was bullshit is where they imply that "school shooting" == "walk and shoot at point blank" and that they exist because of gun laws; It's bullshit because if that stopped working, people who want to kill a lot of people as part of their suicide will go back to bombs and sniping.

I don't remember the walmart ep all that well, but I remember that they spent a lot of time talking about how a non-representative sample of people who dislike that store were idiots, and not at all any time on how walmart up and closes any store that dares start a union, build on native burial grounds, etc. They glossed over the evils and focused on people you wouldn't want to be associated with and declared them the anti-walmart type.

P.S. In their "environmentalists are t3h dumb" ep, they pass around a fake petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, and then say they told no lie... meaning that they really intended to ban water? Bullshit. I like watching those guys, really I do, but they produce bullshit whilst decrying other people's bovine manure: they are entertainers, not the mighty defenders of the Truth.

P.P.S. Mythbusters also "bust" myths that they simply failed to do right: It's TV, corners are cut. Watchers beware.

Re:I don't get it

And I don't particularly want somebody's screaming kids in the place fucking up my perfectly good dinner but you don't see me pushing to ban 'em. Instead I pick up and take my money elsewhere. It's pretty neat how that works

Re:I don't get it

Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.

It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.

It's not your right to make MY business decisions.

Can you brandish a gun in public areas? Can you drive drunk? Similar rationale. Smoke at your home thats fine. But the waitress isn't paid enough to breath all your second hand smoke and most restruants are too cheap to get separate ventilation so either they should ban smoking or mandates separate smoking section ventilation and higher wages to waitresses/waiters who work there.

Hypoxia

Penn and Teller have spent too much time underwater for me to trust their opinion of Wal-Mart.

Re:I don't get it

Penn & Teller use the Straw Man a lot, a potent and popular tactic in a visual medium.

They find someone to act as the spokesperson for the position they're arguing against, and that person is always going to be someone who is utterly disagreeable to pretty much anyone who isn't a complete psycho.

For the Wal-Mart episode, they want to show what the anti-Wal-Mart crowd looks like, so they find these two nasty people who print up nasty t-shirts belittling some cruel stereotype of the Wal-Mart shopper, as well as the stereotype's wife and children.

Who's going to agree with that?

Then, on the pro-Wal-Mart side, they've got a nicely-dressed, soft-spoken young college professor.

Penn & Teller are funny and I agree with a lot of their conclusions, but they are very manipulative in their approach.