Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tony speller

mexican protestors storm local walmart

49 posts in this topic

This is awesome. I wonder why no one has organized anything like this in the US. Sure, people would probably get beat pretty bad and gassed or something... but this just goes to show you that besides those opposed to Walmart in the US, there are others just as or more concerned world wide. I mean, they have more reasons to hate a walmart invasion than Americans do.

So... what do you think? Should Americans stand up to Walmart like these people in Mexico have? What about the other countries that walmart is in? Would a world-wide Walmart rebellion be worth it, or should people use more of a political approach to change the way they do business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


We have no integrity, we like our low prices, no matter the long-term cost. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like low prices, I'll make no bones about it. I don't shop there, though. It's a pain to get in and out of the local store, and its usually too crowded.

If you don't like Wally-world don't shop there. I can even see a peaceful protest on the public way in front of the store. I cannot advocate 'storming the store.' That's a little out there, and probably criminal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because something is "criminal" does not mean we shouldn't do it, if there is an injustice involved.

Martin Luther King, Jr. comitted illegal acts to get his message across and there's no doubt that MLKs impact on our society was nothing short of revolutionary.

Saying to someone "If you don't like it, don't shop there" is like saying "I'm not a terrorist so I have no problem if people listen in my phone conversations" or "if you don't like the way things are in this country, leave!"

The people of Mexico (farmers, mainly) that lose their livelihood because of policies set forth by Wal-Mart have a right to have a chip on their shoulder and, I believe, have every right to stop the business of Wal-Mart like Wal-Mart stopped theirs, even if they can only do it for a half hour at a time.

It's obvious that Wal-Mart wields power at a governmental level and therefore little will be done to stop Wal-Mart from continuing to lower prices and put competition out of business... so people have to take it into their own hands.

The same thing happened with America's revolution, our women's rights movement, our civil rights movement...

Being law-abiding isn't always the right thing to do... not when the laws are allowing injustices to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I hate Walmart, but for some reason give Target a pass. I'm not sure if that's me just being a snob or simply not having a Walmart in my area, but a Target. Either way, Walmart sucks. And I do sympathize with those people.

I say this though: When Mexico dives into Civil War or takes a huge step to the left (and becomes even more anti-USA) you'll have Walmart and the like to thank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you percieve an injustice doesn't mean there is one. There is a huge jump from 'low prices hurt me' to injustices against people based on race.

And as Pillsbury said, what of Target? I shop at Kmart, where the prices are just as low as Walmart, for now at least. Why is Walmart the target de jour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a company comes in and exploits a population's low wages and drives them further down, that is an injustice.

I place the interests of the individual above the interests of a business. I am almost supportive of having a minimum profit margin on products sold at large retailers to prevent them from taking a loss at local stores to drive out competition.

Target is basically Wal-Mart lite, but they don't operate stores in other countries and don't seek to out compete Wal-Mart. Target has a target demographic that they are searching for, not just a general "everything we can get" like Wal-mart does.

That's why Target stresses value over price. You might pay an extra 30 cents for a ultra-mega pack of toilet paper, but your experience shopping there was probably much higher.

Also, Target always donates 5% of their profit to organizations in their local communities... something that Wal-Mart does not do.

Sure, Wal-mart wins the hearts and minds of veterans because they'll give puny cash vouchers to people who come in and apply or let people sell Girl Scout cookies or let bell ringers stand out front.. but Target is by far the more charitable of the two.. which is why communities don't mind Target coming in like they do Wal-Mart.

These people have the right to protest Wal-Marts practices by halting their business for short periods of time. Their goal obviously was not to inflict violence on the employees/shoppers, but to peacefully hit Wal-Mart where it hurts.

A lot of Americans would just rather assume that nobody protest.. that we have designated free speech zones and we pre-screen audiences so that our leaders don't get criticized.. this is dangerous to the very essence of our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a company comes in and exploits a population's low wages and drives them further down, that is an injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


When you are driving down the road and you hit a J-walker, it's always your fault as the driver. J-walking is illegal, but it's still your fault because you're driving a 2,500 lb. hunk of steel and running over a 150 lb. hunk of flesh. You both have the opportunity to avoid such a situation, but you have the power to inflict much more damage than you would sustain, therefore you're at fault.

Wal-Mart coming into a town, driving down prices, putting others out of business by taking losses on certain products until the competition goes away is the same deal because it is not a level playing field.

The freer the market, the freer the people only works if you have a level playing field and fair competition.

Wal-Mart uses unfair and often illegal practices to drive out competition and they use their clout to prevent unions.

I would have no problem with Wal-Mart if:

-They allowed unions

-Contributed to communities what local businesses do

-Didn't follow such morally bankrupt real estate practices

-Weren't so hostile to competition

People should shop at Wal-mart because they WANT to shop there, not because all the other stores in town went out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you are driving down the road and you hit a J-walker, it's always your fault as the driver. J-walking is illegal, but it's still your fault because you're driving a 2,500 lb. hunk of steel and running over a 150 lb. hunk of flesh. You both have the opportunity to avoid such a situation, but you have the power to inflict much more damage than you would sustain, therefore you're at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Minnesota, if you hit a pedestrian, it's your fault no matter what. It is your duty as a driver to be vigilant and watch the road. It is a written law that the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, no matter what.

If you hit that pedestrian, even if they were running across the street and J-Walking, you're still at fault. You should be paying attention and shouldn't be driving so fast that you can't actively stop in time not to hit the pedestrian. It's called the Minnesota Basic Speed law.

So, basically, in regards to Wal-mart, you support Wal-marts policies to use their clout as a company to bust unions, come into towns, and become the only major retailer in town?

Wal-Mart should be broken up into several smaller companies. Our Anti-trust laws have been seriously eroded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad I don't live in Minnesota!

I support their efforts to bust unions, and I haven't ever seen them become the only retailer in town. If they did, I'd miss the old retailers, but that's the nature of competition.

Anti-trust becomes an issue only if one competitor controls over 50% of the market. I don't think Wally-world is anywhere near that, but I'm sure they are shooting for it. I'll worry about that when it happens.

As an aside, GM had over 50% of the market in the early 60s and were afraid that they might be investigated for Anti-Trust violations. That's the reason they pulled out of factory based racing and put limitations on their high performance offerings. They didn't want to attract any unnecessary attention.

From a business point of view, it might be a good idea for Walmart to voluntarily break up into several regional entities. If they could still maintain entral purchasing to buy for all of their stores, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very pro-union. I believe that employees have every right to come together and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. Of course both sides should have a say in the final result, but that's the whole point: You bargain for a better wage.

My step-father works for a company where employees had sought to form a union. Instead of forming a union, however, the owners of the company turned over ownership to the employees. A portion of the company's profit now goes into the retirement accounts of the employees based on how much of the company they own (which is based on seniority).

I don't see Wal-Mart ever becoming an employee owned corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, I really like the idea of employee owned-corporations. It builds a better work ethic and makes you a part of your company. While it would be difficult for large corporations to do this, smaller companies can do this.

In my city, for example, telephone and electricity are provided by cooperatives which are member owned. The same goes for many grain elevators, etc. up here.

I know.. it's a bit communist.. but it has been to everyone's benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because you percieve an injustice doesn't mean there is one. There is a huge jump from 'low prices hurt me' to injustices against people based on race.

And as Pillsbury said, what of Target? I shop at Kmart, where the prices are just as low as Walmart, for now at least. Why is Walmart the target de jour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm entering this latest Wal-Mart issue on my long list of reasons why I shop at Meijer. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately for Wal Mart that they can keep prices so absurdly low........no one would go in there if the prices were at the community norm.

Wal Mart is an extremely unpleasant place to shop. EVERY TIME I've ever been to a Wal Mart I have personally witnessed someone being slammed with a grocery cart. And not just a little bump either! The isles are much too narrow, the stores are unbelievably loud and raucous, and besides specific sale items, the stores really have nothing unusual to offer.

The only time I ever go to a Wal Mart is if everything else is closed, like at 3:00 AM when I need something to keep a project going~~

Even at that time of the day it is difficult to manuever the isles. It's less noisy, but no more pleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I really like the idea of employee owned-corporations. It builds a better work ethic and makes you a part of your company. While it would be difficult for large corporations to do this, smaller companies can do this.

In my city, for example, telephone and electricity are provided by cooperatives which are member owned. The same goes for many grain elevators, etc. up here.

I know.. it's a bit communist.. but it has been to everyone's benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Minnesota, if you hit a pedestrian, it's your fault no matter what. It is your duty as a driver to be vigilant and watch the road. It is a written law that the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, no matter what.

If you hit that pedestrian, even if they were running across the street and J-Walking, you're still at fault. You should be paying attention and shouldn't be driving so fast that you can't actively stop in time not to hit the pedestrian. It's called the Minnesota Basic Speed law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Minnesota, if you hit a pedestrian, it's your fault no matter what. It is your duty as a driver to be vigilant and watch the road. It is a written law that the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, no matter what.

If you hit that pedestrian, even if they were running across the street and J-Walking, you're still at fault. You should be paying attention and shouldn't be driving so fast that you can't actively stop in time not to hit the pedestrian. It's called the Minnesota Basic Speed law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, the Captain knows his laws. This is from the SC laws website:

SECTION 56 5 3150. Crossing at other than crosswalks.

(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, the Captain knows his laws. This is from the SC laws website:

SECTION 56 5 3150. Crossing at other than crosswalks.

(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.