Talk:Walmart/Archive 2

message: The June 2005 issue of Gourmet (magazine) has a feature story on Wal-Mart. There are some interesting factoids that are relevant to the wiki article... I can't get access to an online version, so I'm working from memory here:
#Kraft cites Wal-Mart as a driver for cutting product lines to a few 'bests in brand.' Since Wal-Mart will only stock two or three leaders in a product category, suppliers are reducing product diversity in an attempt to aggregate their market share and reach Wal-Mart's radar screen.
#A sales rep states that doing business with Wal-Mart is much more straight-forward and honest than with other grocers. Apparently other major grocers play all kinds of funny business (demand World Series tix, demand big kickbacks, charge high shelving fees) to geneate profit from their product selection biz. Wal-Mart doesn't do those things... instead purchasing products with no kickback-type costs.
#There was a stat quoted in the article... WMT lowers prices 14%. Not sure if that was exclusive to grocery items, exclusive to department store items or inclusive on both. Also not sure if that was a measured price effect in a new market or the price differential upon entering. Feco 16:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content to be added when protection ends

message: Alice Walton paid $35 million for a painting at an auction, this amount of money could have insured 8,572 Walmart employees for a year.
The average full time sales clerk at Walmart is paid $14,000 a year before taxes, the cheapest health insurance plan Walmart offers full time employees is $60 a month ($720 a year) and has a $1,000 deductible, before the plan starts paying at 80/20, this means that if said employee's appendix ruptures, and that is the only medical cost that year, assuming the operation runs $20,000 (which is ludicrously CHEAP for the medical industry), that would leave the worker responsible for $5,720 of their bill, or more than 40% of their yearly pay, Walmart likes to pat themselves on the back for "protecting employees from financial ruin" through their health care plan, but thats still exactly what will happen to them anyway even if they are among the less than half of Walmart's employees that are even offered insurance.
Walmart deliberately violates child labor laws forcing children to work past 10 PM and operate hazardous machinery, after caught doing this with over a hundred minor employees in 2004 and paying little more than $100,000 in fines (slap on the wrist) and promised by George W. Bush's cronies at the labor department that they would be informed 24 hours ahead of time about any further investigations by the federal government, Connecticut found them violating the labor laws again, this time the company will have to deal with a "whopping" $3,300 fine—the maximum fine of $300 per incident. The 11 violations took place in Hartford, Norwalk and Putnam, and included illegally assigning youngsters to work on hazardous equipment such as compacters and vehicles, and working these children past 10 p.m. Children younger than 18 who are students are not supposed to work past 10 pm. A spokesman for Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, said it's "worth considering toughening the fines" against employers that "willfully and repeatedly" violate child labor laws.
Walmart breaks the law by firing employees that are involved in union organizing, in several cases where found guilty they were forced by the court to re-instate the employees with full back pay, in many other cases they mask their illegal firings by citing other reasons.
Walmart says that it supports over 3 million supplier jobs in the US in an effort to belittle the figure of 1 millions manufacturing jobs they are responsible for deporting to China, many of these supplier jobs are office jobs, food vendor jobs, food manufacturing jobs, etc. that would have existed even if Walmart did not exist.
Walmart fired their number 2 executive, Tom Coughlin, in early 2005 for "$500,000 in questionable transactions", Mr. Coughlin has stated that the funds were used to stage anti-union activities, including paying bribes, in addition, Walmart also fired Rob Hey and Jared Bowen, the executives who reported Coughlin, apparantly in an attempt to silence a pair of whistle blowers.
Walmart has been found GUILTY in court of law, repeatedly for working their emoployees unpaid overtime and falsifying their time sheets to record only 40 hours worked, they are estimated by some accounts to have shorted their workers over $50 million.
Walmart refuses to carry magazines and CD's which have content "not suitable for families", in some rural areas Walmart is the only place to purchase music, worse yet, Walmart is such a huge customer that some smaller artists cannot afford to release two versions of their music, and are effectively forced to release an edited version only, this effectively forces the company's arbitrary, right wing, religiously motivated agenda onto their customers.
Worst of all is that even though we have labor laws and regulations to prevent the abuse of monopolies here in the United States, as long as George Bush is in office, they may as well not even exist. Izanbardprince 08:43, 20 Jun 2005 
: you are welcome to post germane, factual criticisms to the article if they are not already covered. Be prepared to include references for the source of facts you use. As an example, criticism of the Bush Administration's enforcement of regulations would better fit in George W. Bush than in Wal-Mart. I assume an admin protected the article because you were deleting content without any discussion the the talk page. Wikipedia should cover all elements of a topic, so please refrain from removing opposing viewpoints. Feco 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it was protected becauee of this 3RR violation report, followed by attempts to avoid the 3RR penalty by using open proxies. Noel (talk) 20:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Izan- are you still around? Either way, does anyone object to unprotecting the article? Feco 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can unprotect it tonight or tomorrow morning if there's no objections.  If users are breaking the 3RR, of course report them on the appropriate subpage of WP:AN and it'll be handled appropriately.  Pakaran 23:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc criticisms from Izanbardprince

message: Alright, since there's no objections, I've unlocked the article.  I'll be keeping an eye on it over the weekend.  If users are vandalizing or breaking 3RR, of course report them at WP:VIP or the appropriate WP:AN subpages.  Pakaran 14:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlocked 

message: I've changed this paragraph to reflect the current company policy. It's against policy to work off the clock. Its the first thing you're told when you go to Day 1 Orientation. Your first task when you show up is to fill out a time adjustment sheet, stating the time you arrived. When you are at Wal-Mart, you are paid regardless if you are training or performing work. I have known associates that were disciplined for not filling out time adjustment sheets in the quantity of FIVE MINUTES (they were leaving and a customer asked them a question, according to policy, this is working and you should be paid).--Txredcoat 6 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
:I don't think their official, stated policy was ever in question. The problem is that in many stores there have been numerous, widespread violations of this policy, resulting in a de facto policy in which there is an expectation that associates will work off-the-clock. The criticisms should be characterized as such. If anything, discplining the associates for working off-the-clock seems to reinforce the impression that the managers who sometimes pressure them into doing it are never held responsible. — mjb 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
::Your statement is completely rational. As far as your view that managers are not held responsible, this is quite false. The door swings both ways in this case, as Associates who work off the clock are disciplined, as well as any management that may have asked/coerced/etc. the associate to violate the policy. Believe me, management is held to a high standard when it comes to policy enforcement. Again, I do understand your statement and find it rational. The only thing I can do is to try and clarify these misconceptions. As with all jobs, there are good things and bad things. Believe me, if something comes up that is completely true, I'm not going to deny it. If anything (and if I can legally do it) I will try to bring the full situation to light. However, in this case, what had been reported was incomplete. Yes, this has happened before, but the company has taken the responsibility to correct these actions.--Txredcoat 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anything has changed, but as of about 10 minutes ago, the article ran in such a way that below the external links, part of the criticism section ran again, I don't know if this part is a repeat of the criticism in the article or additional criticism, but the article seems longer due to the repeat of sections.
==== Etiquette ====
I think some people here need a refresher on Principles of Wikipedia etiquette
* Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
* Treat others as you would have them treat you.
* Be polite please!
** People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think.
* Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).
* Work toward agreement.
* Argue facts, not personalities.
* Don't ignore questions.
** If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
* Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
** Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
* Be prepared to apologize.
** In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
* Forgive and forget.
* Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
* Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on user's talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress.
* Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
* Help mediate disagreements between others.
* If you're arguing, take a break; if you're mediating, recommend a break.
** Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
** Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 665,371 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
* Remember what Wikipedia is not.
* Review the list of faux pas.
* Be civil.
* Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
** Amend, edit, discuss.
The Ace!
:Kettle, meet Pot. — mjb 07:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employees working off the clock 

message: I think some people here need a refresher on Principles of Wikipedia etiquette
* Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
* Treat others as you would have them treat you.
* Be polite please!
** People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think.
* Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).
* Work toward agreement.
* Argue facts, not personalities.
* Don't ignore questions.
** If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
* Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
** Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
* Be prepared to apologize.
** In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
* Forgive and forget.
* Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
* Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on user's talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress.
* Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
* Help mediate disagreements between others.
* If you're arguing, take a break; if you're mediating, recommend a break.
** Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
** Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 665,371 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
* Remember what Wikipedia is not.
* Review the list of faux pas.
* Be civil.
* Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
** Amend, edit, discuss.
The Ace!
:Kettle, meet Pot. — mjb 07:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette 

message: An anon user removed the table showing Wal-Mart's Board of Directors and CxOs. I belive the information is useful, especially since notable business/political figures often sit on boards these days (such individuals could be wikilinked as appropriate). In the spirit of 'wiki is not paper,' it doesn't seem like inclusion of this information does any harm. Since it's all raw facts that seem neutral to me (the act of stating who's on the board doesn't imply bias), I'd like to re-add the table. Comments? Feco 29 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
:I agree. Including the information seems useful, especially since some of the directors have wikipedia articles already, and completely NPOV. Gary D Robson 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)
:I agree as well.  At the very least, there should be a separate article for Wal-Mart's directors and officers linked from the Wal-Mart article.  Having nothing there at all leaves a void.  I suggest adding them back in here, and if there's enough opposition, breaking out to a related linked article (but still have the most prominent officers and their compensation here.)  Unfocused 29 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
:I also agree.  I am apalled at how this article seems to be actively manipulated to remove factual content.  Wal-Mart should just change their policies and behaviors and salaries etc., rather than trying to censor facts about their store.  Using anonymous editors too, to hide their obvious tampering. Pedant 2005 June 30 18:24 (UTC)
:I disagree. An encyclopedia is a place you go to find good general background on a topic, not extremely detailed information of interest only to a tiny percentage of readers. It makes an article burdensome for a casual user. BTW, such information was not included on three companies I arbitrarily pulled up on wikipedia to compare.
::I removed the table of directors (logged in BTW) because it was superfluous and unlikely to be up to date. Anyone who wants that information can easily obtain an up to date copy from the Walmat Web site, the NYSE or any of the stock report companies. With the exception of the CEO and CFO already mentioned at the start of the article none of the people links for the board of directors gave any further information. since people were complaining that the article was far too long for there to be any comment on the criticism of walmart it seemed to be the most appropriate thing to cut --Gorgonzilla 13:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it appears you're going against a recently-established consensus. I'm going to put the content back in. Feco 21:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: My problem with the article is that there is no linked information on any of the officers listed. It appears to me to be nothing more than a way to pad out the article and provide a 'justification' for eliminating the criticism section. I can see the point in listing directors if there is an article linked to each director's name but as it stands there is no more than a stub behind any of them. --Gorgonzilla 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Officers/Directors from article

message: See also the previous discussion on this topic.
The only reason that the benefits section is relevant is to rebut the frequent allegations that Wal-Mart is a poor employer. The section needs serious editing to bring it up to NPOV. And no, links to an external article are not a substitute. 
This piece should probably be integrated into the general 'criticism' section because it is essentially a rebuttal of the claims of being a poor employer. Or it should be removed to the separate criticisms article. --Gorgonzilla 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, there should certainly be a section devoted to WMT's employee benefits. Their benefits (or lack thereof) are a major point of contention for anti-WMT activists. Wikipedia would be an excellent home on the internet for the exact details of their benefit plan, since I don't think the information is readily available (can be googled in <5 min). Corporate benefits are also objective facts: here's the benefit plan, here's who qualifies. For balance, the article should include comparable companies' benfits plans (I'm thinking Costco and Target). I don't think the benfits section should become a blanket section for pseudo-facts like "if an employee gets in a car accident, WMT only covers X" or "Wal-Mart doesn't offer elective surgery coverage". I think the strict comparison of Wal-Mart to its two closest peers will suffice. If all three are lacking a benfit item, the criticism belongs in a more general topic, not in WMT's article. If WMT lacks a benefit that the others provide, it can certainly be highlighted. The same goes if WMT has a benefit the others do not. Feco 21:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this would be the prefered way forward. I strongly suspect that the origins of the benefits section was as a rebuttal to complaints about poor treatment of workers and that the partisan pro-Wal-Mart editors then cut out the criticism. Incidentaly comparison with Costco is likely to be very unfavorable to WalMart since Costco is currently facing lawsuits from 'shareholders' complaining that they pay their employees too much and that their benefits are too generous! I would suggest comparison both to Costco and to industry averages. The real criticism of Walmart here is that their pay is so low that many of their 'benefits' which require an employee co-pay are utterly meaningless. A cashier making $14K a year does not have much money to put into a 401Km, the 50% match on 4% of income is only worth $260 a year in any case. Similarly health care benefits that cost $720 a year with a $1000 dollar deductable and only pay out 80% of costs above that fall well short of a comprehensive plan. As is the section is simply corporate PR spin with no context or balance.--Gorgonzilla 21:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the benefits section 

message: Shouldn't Teotihacan be spelled Teotihuacan? Google says so. And one has a wiki article, the other doesn't.
I'm not making the change myself because I know nothing about either word. I just noticed google trying to correct the spelling.
Actually, it's TeotiWalmartcan, they bought the town, remember? Izanbardprince 14:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling of Teotihacan 

message: Not much to add. This needs more people less figures... Ericd 16:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want and history section !

message: The Wal-Mart#Opposition_to_unions section reads horribly.  You don't need to start of every single sentence with "Wal-Mart".  It sounds very uneducated.
:There is no reason to include the actual union hotline phone number, but Izanbardprince keeps adding it - probably in an attempt to get people to harass Wal-Mart. This isn't the purpose of encyclopedia articles. The scare quotes around "labor relations hotline" are also useless and POV. Rhobite 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reasoning above that the phone number shouldn't be included. If it keeps re-appearing, the issue can go to WP:RFC. Feco 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So Mr. Anonymous poster, care to tell us why you vandalized the page? 70.224.38.243 16:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He removed some of the exhaustive lists of Wal-Mart criticism which you routinely add to the article without attribution to groups like the UFCW. This isn't the place for you to add every bit of information which you feel reflects negatively on Wal-Mart. And by the way, you are editing anonymously too, although it's obvious who you are. Rhobite 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Did I say a disputed tag? I meant dubious. Deadsalmon 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up Oppositions to Unions section

message: Wal-Mart still sells Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas . Stop adding lies to the article Izanbard. Rhobite 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that it's the "edited" version, in direct contradiction to the removed assertion... Deadsalmon 00:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The store I work at does not have it, there is a note to customers that it has been permenantly removed from sale. 70.224.69.170 17:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you find out if that was a decision by the local management, or if it was corporate policy? — mjb 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Local management has no say in it, if corporate says we're carrying a certain game, all stores are carrying it. 70.224.32.171 12:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's figure this out. Anonymous user at 70.224.32.171 says GTA:SA is not being sold at all in 1 store, and believes no other stores would have it because local management has no say over product selection. Rhobite found that the censored version of GTA:SA is being sold through Wal-Mart online. Is that correct? We could probably say in the article, then, that after the game's hidden, explicit scene was publicized, GTA:SA was pulled from Wal-Mart stores permanently, although a censored version could still be ordered from Wal-Mart online. Sound OK? — mjb 19:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA 

message: I copied over text from the stand-alone Criticism page into the product controversy section of this article. The prior version of this article wasn't factually accurate. Wal-Mart cannot alter a record label's copyrighted property and then re-sell it. The record label must do so directly. Wal-Mart only carries edited albums released by record labels. Feco 20:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited versions of music albums