Wal-Mart Airs Ad Comparing Oppoents To Nazis

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 09:14:12 AM EDT

Always a proud member of the local community, I see:Wal-Mart has said it reviewed and cleared for publication a full-page advertisement in the May 8 edition of the Arizona Daily Sun featuring a 1933 photo of Germans throwing books on a pyre at Berlin's Opernplatz. The ad was part of a campaign, funded by Wal-Mart, to defeat a Flagstaff, Ariz., ballot initiative that would have restricted the chain's growth. Voters later narrowly rejected the measure.

The ad drew criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, members of Congress and Wake-Up Wal-Mart, a union-funded organization. (...)

"We're just a bunch of humans trying to run this company," Walton said of the incident. "We make mistakes."

Ahh, the "I'm a human and I have feelings" defense. It is always refreshing to hear that coming from the largest corporation in America after it calls local grassroots activists Nazis.

Tags: Labor (all tags)

  • 10 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

10 Comments

Shadow_head_small
wal-mart
Why can't we just let the market allow/disallow Wal-Mart?  What business does the legislation have interfering with private enterprise?  And on what grounds do they decide that Wal-Mart (or any store, for that matter) is not good enough, or not desireable in a certain area?

If nobody in the area wants to shop their, Wal-Mart's market research will indicate that, and they will make plans elsewhere. If their market research is flawed, and they open up a store where one isn't wanted, it will soon find itself out of business, and all the citizens will be satisfied, as the market runs its course.

I don't want to hear about non-union wal-mart, or non-health-care walmart, or non-whatever wal-mart.  Nobody forces anyone to take a job there.  Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you work without health-care.  But people do it.

And to those of you who proclaim that Wal-Mart forces mom-pop stores out of business, I thumb my nose at you.  You know who forces those stores out of business?... that's right!  The Market, by which I mean, all of the people who spoke so loudly against Wal-Mart to begin with.  Turns out they would rather pay $1.99 for a gallon of milk at WM than 2.69 for the same gallon of milk at Mom's grocery down the street.  The people decided with their wallets, which business will succeed and fail, and until mom&pop can justify their significantly higher prices with significantly better service and/or selection, Wal-Mart will continue to win out.

Get used to it.  It's called Economics, and it doesn't explain what anyone "ought to do," but rather, "why they do what they do."

by doinkicarus 2005-06-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: wal-mart
I'd have much less problem with this attitude if government weren't so involved in subsidizing development of these businesses.  As it stands, local and state governments pick up huge bills building roads, intersections, preparing land, selling land below market rate, giving tax deferals and exemptions, and then picking up the tab for health care and similar social programs for the workers.  Economic studies in San Diego have shown that in some situations adding a Wal-Mart causes an overall net economic drain on a community.  I believe the citizens of a place have a right to pass laws that protect or encourage economic growth where they live.
by PghArch 2005-06-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: wal-mart
oh don't get me started on government subsidizing-- talk about a waste of money.  That's one of the biggest problems that alot of people perceive with capitalism, in general, at least in my experience, people want to attribute the government's action to some sort of capitalist ideal, when in fact it's really anything but.  The problem is with the legal & business environment, and that it "allows" for things that a market economy would correct.  Government subsidies force taxpayers to support programs that ought to fail.  It is a futile waste of capital that could be more gainfully employed in other ventures.

<sarcasm>But what the fuck do I know, let's just start bailing out every failing bankrupt business, I mean, it's only my income taxes. </sarcasm>

by doinkicarus 2005-06-09 12:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How about if Wal-Mart
really creates a level playing field by giving up its corporate charter? Then they'll be competing with the Mom-and-Pop stores on a more equal basis.

They'll still have their massive infrastructure and bulk purchasing advantage, but at least they won't have the ability to shunt liability around and conceal their misdeeds under a shroud of corporate privacy.

Just like Mom-and-Pop, when they violate their employees' civil rights and/or hire illegal immigrants, Wal-Mart management will be held to account for their actions. The owners will also be liable for actions taken by their employees to further their business.

Just like Mom-and-Pop.

You think the Waltons like the sound of that arrangement? No? Neither do I.

So, if they're going to continue to hide behind the shield of their government-granted corporate charter, they can damn well submit to government regulation of their activity.

Get used to it.

by catastrophile 2005-06-09 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: How about if Wal-Mart
Conceded.  I'm just saying that you've got to draw the line somewhere, and I think it is well before we start legislating when and where entrepreneurs and business can set up shop.  because what we are really talking about here is restrictions on people and business entities that prevent them from making decisions that they think would be in their best interest, when the result is really an uncertainty, either way.  We are talking about restricting competition, restricting consumer choice, restricting the ability of men to enter into contracts with one another, and all pretty much arbitrarily.  We can't be doing this on a case-by-case basis.  It cannot be "Ok" some of the time for some of the people at some group's arbitrary discretion.
by doinkicarus 2005-06-09 12:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Good answer.
But on the other hand, we're talking about democratic institutions making these decisions. Municipalities ban or regulate strip clubs, and other establishments which wouldn't exist if there weren't a demand for them -- and the good of the community is the reason given.

I'd actually argue that banning a company based on its business practices is less arbitrary than banning a company based on its very nature. After all, if Wal-Mart wants to do business in a town, it can clean up its act. The Throttled Chicken doesn't really have that option.

Granted, it kind of sucks that individuals who disagree with their local electees often have no recourse other than to vote with their feet, giving up their community and home in the process. But them's the breaks. A city charter, or a state constitution, is a contract, too. If you inheirit a house in a planned community, you're bound by the Codes and Covenants, even if you never agreed to them.

by catastrophile 2005-06-09 01:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Good answer.
I work in the real estate industry, so I'm pretty familiar with building and use restrictions, codes, covenants, and what-not; and that's all well and good.  Certainly, wal-mart can't buy a bunch of space in a high-rise condo development and complain that the B&U restrictions prevent them from opening up shop, those are pre-existing conditions which run with the land, and cannot be removed or eliminated.

My question is:  "and the good of the community is the reason given."

please define "the good of the community."

I know it is an oft-cited reason, but I've yet to hear a comprehensive, objective definition of this term.  It seems to me that terms like this value the ideas and rights of the majority at the expense of those with less popular beliefs.

by doinkicarus 2005-06-10 05:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I don't think there is
a comprehensive, objective definition of the term. The good of the community is just the rationale behind all sorts of measures that a government body is apt to take.

Sometimes that means giving Wal-Mart the big finger. Other times it may mean taking millions of tax dollars and sinking them into a new privately-owned stadium. The point is, our electees do this stuff, and if we don't like it we can vote them out.

And yeah, it's a system that tends to favor the majority and can often screw the minority. But what's the alternative?

Nobody's arbitrarily blocking Wal-Mart -- the idea of having one move into town is bound to get most local officials salivating. There's a growing movement that says "we'd rather keep our small corner stores than have Wal-Mart come in and run everybody else out."

You're absolutely right that anti-Wal-Mart activists are depriving their neighbors of the choice to go buy cheap Chinese imports. And yeah, it seems sort of unfair. But that's the nature of the beast. When Wal-Mart or some other megacorp wants to get its way, its people can go grease a few officials and get what it wants without hardly anybody ever hearing about it.

A grassroots effort to keep a company out of a community is, at the very least, more democratic and fair than some backroom deal that hurts the taxpayer and benefits a company. At least the other side is given a chance to make their case.

When it comes right down to it, our government is set up primarily to protect property rights. Property rights are typically only restricted when there's a pressing public demand for it.

The government started regulating business practices in the first place because the alternative was torches and pitchforks. It used to be that the national guard would have to be called out to defend companies against their own employees, even shooting striking workers.

Over time we developed a system designed to protect people against the worst excesses of capitalism and keep the people from rioting in the streets or burning down the factory. And despite all the agitating by the Ownership Society, that system is what created our once-vibrant middle class. Total deregulation produces Third World conditions, where the very rich live in fortresses and the very poor starve outside the walls.

Wal-Mart is free to find some other country to do business in if they don't like it here. Some wealthy, democratic, glorious bastion of unfettered property rights like . . . uh . . .

Hmm . . .

Lessee . . .

by catastrophile 2005-06-10 10:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My gripe
I live in Flagstaff where this ad appeared.  We already have a Wal-Mart here, so we weren't fighting Wal-Mart alone, but any huge-sized store.  We aren't a big city with lots of available land (lots of forest land around town) and many of us believe there should be size limits.
by Erin in Flagstaff 2005-06-09 03:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
WalMart Most Expensive Retailer Ever
Consider the land grab/rights....the hiring of people and then directing them to Medicaid for Medical/Financial help. Consider the evasive and insidious avoidance of unions in  order to keep workers at below poverty line.  The use of illegals......desperate people who will work for anything.  This is a company that costs us more in spite of the low prices.  Just think of the welfare receipients on WalMart's payrolls.

Their treatment of workers is draconian.  Secrecy. Forced overtime work without overtime pay, etc.  We remain consumers in need of instant gratification which prevents us from understanding how really expensive WalMart is. Until we come to terms with this American Labor will get short schrift.  A huge protest about all of WalMart's practices, size, and access to the land they do business on should happen ASAP.  

by morris1030 2005-06-10 05:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------