Skip to main content

View Diary: Walmart warehouse workers strike in response to retaliation. And Black Friday is coming. (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I acknowledged Walmart could lean on the operator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    superscalar, CuriousBoston

    No question about it.  They could, but they won't.  Here's why:

    You say:

    Instead, Walmart says - give it to us cheaper - no, cheaper - no, cheaper.  Don't care how you do it, but we want it cheaper.
    I disagree - it's the consumer - the consumer - who says, and accepts, "give it to us cheaper - no cheaper - no, cheaper.  I don't care how you do it, but we want it cheaper."  

    Walmart responds to the market.  

    I'm not defending Walmart, their corporate employment practices, their contracting practices, their disdain for organized labor, or their marketing practices.  All I'm trying to get across in this entire thread of comments is that ultimately, Walmart can be painted as the bad guy I suppose (and it's not like they're not an easy target), but the issue posed by this diary is NOT Walmart's legal responsibility to resolve.  We could argue all day about whether it's their moral and ethical responsibility to intervene, but the workers who are the topic of this diary are not Walmart employees.

    "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

    by Richard Cranium on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 11:07:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo, The American 'Consumer' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Cranium

      Walmart responds to the market

      Has wanted it 'cheap' for a long time, it's only been recently that they've been interested in how it came to be so 'cheap' to begin with.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 11:08:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that's exactly what we're doing. Arguing (0+ / 0-)

      about whether it's their moral and ethical obligation.  We all know they don't have a legal obligation.  So what?

      Yes, consumers want things cheap.  Always have, always will.  And businesses will always  want to maximize their profit.

      The question is, who has the POWER to end some of the egregious violations of workers' rights?  It's not the consumers.  If I'm willing to pay higher prices, I don't get that option.  Even if I voluntary money to Walmart in the hope they'll give it to the workers, it's not going to happen.

      Walmart, however, does have the power.  They can say - okay, we'll accept that we might not make quite as much in profit  in order to make sure the workers are treated well. ' Or we might lose a little business if our products are a few cents more than K-marts.

      But They've been the ones that have pushed and pushed for cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.  They've driven companies out of business, they've driven down wages and benefits.  Other companies have been forced to join in, just to stay viable.  The responsibility for much of the current situation belongs squarely on their shoulders.

      I quit shopping at Walmart long ago.  But that doesn't, in reality, do anything.  If Walmart, however, threatened to quit using their contractors, it would make an immediate, huge difference.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 01:03:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The freaking consumers (0+ / 0-)

      Are also making Walmart wages. Of course they demand cheaper.  It is the vicious cycle writ large.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site