Jump to content

San Diego to ban Wal-Mart Supercenters


Scotty

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

I think this whole issue got spoofed last night on "Family Guy" :lol:

Anyways....My rural town had one of the VERY few non-supercenter Wal-Mart's. It was a small little store, no grocery department, plenty of good parking.

Now, we have a supercenter...but it's not open 24 hours and it's not as big as a regular supercenter. But once you step through the doors, total chaos!! IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes this rural little "little town with a big heart" could have made. *disgruntled look*

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Posted

Well, seeing as though I live near the heart of Wal-Mart country, I feel like it's my right to defend.

To me, Wal-Mart represents a place where anyone can get anything at almost any time. Food, Auto Parts, Electronics, etc.

And it's also a place where anyone and EVERYONE feels welcomed, not like the cold, distant, Botox-ed DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES nightmare that is Target.

Yes, they pay their employees [!@#$%^&*]. Yes, there are ALWAYS people there. But these are things we know about Wal-Mart from Day One. But you don't HAVE to work there. YOU made the choice to do that. And because a lot of people are there during rush hour running amok does not make it trashy. The same could be said for people at sporting events, restaraunts, and even at other stores.

It's your right to shop somewhere else. It's the city of San Diego's right to refuse to have Wal-Mart in their city. But, PLEASE, don't generalize EVERYONE that shop at Wal-Mart(and not referring to one specific person, but that is the stigma that is always attached to people who shop there). That is your biggest mistake. I've met auto mechanics at Wal-Mart who probably have more intelligence and class than the Yankees saying that we're "trashy" for shopping there.

  • Members
Posted

I don't have a problem with people who work at Walmart nor do I have a problem with people who shop there (although it's a bit sad that some people either feel like that's their only store choice or are ignorant in or freely choose to support such a horrible multi-corporation). The same goes for any other similar chain like K-Mart, the HBC stores (now that most of it's owned by an American), McDonald's, etc.

Yeah, it's convenient..just like fast-food and it's one of the many tactics being used to get as many people to shop there.

Again, another tactic to sell to as many people as possible. It's funny..I recently watched a film called "McLibel" and in it, Eric Schlosser (the guy who wrote "Fast-food Nation") explains how fast-food restaurants target children and act all homey to attract people to eat there. And it works.

Did we really know all that info about Wal-Mart? I know as a kid, I loved the place and it was until I learned more from the media and in school about its practices that I realize how bad it really was (and still is). No, we don't have to work there but why should such poor working conditions locally and abroad even be allowed in the first place? :angry: A lot of Walmart's clothes are made by children in the Third World, did you know that? So it's not just the expensive stuff like Adidas and the Gap that exploits workers from the Third World. The people who shop there aren't trashy but the company's practices in almost every area (labour, the environment, pruduction, etc.) are. <_<

I suggest checking out Wake-Up Wal-Mart. On the Facts list are several points I've already made about how Wal-Mart hurts local business and how that cycle of poverty occurs when employees get low wages.

  • Members
Posted

I'm proud of San Diego.... I look forward to the day where Wal-Mart finally comes crashing down. I actually work for a competing chain and they've been a huge problem for us. I love my company; they treat the employees very well and we don't need to unionize. Wal-Mart, however, does not, and someday will be unionized. And then its troubles will start.

  • Members
Posted

But WHY is that sad? What makes Wal-Mart more evil than every other coprporation that have basically done the same thing that Wal-Mart has been doing. K-Mart, Walgreens, even Target have all tried to do the same thing Wal-Mart has in terms of expanding into things beyond "the department store." It just so happens that Wal-Mart was more successful at doing that.

Well if people LIKE fast food(even though it is harmful for them in the long run), why should the businesses be held accountable for people's ignorance or convenience?

I dunno about everyone else, but no matter where I go to buy groceries or eat a low-price meal, I want to be able to feel like being there without feeling like people want me to leave. So I don't get why this is bad. As far as fast food, everyone knows that if you eat too much of it, you're gonna gain weight. That is a given.

It's been widely known for awhile now that Wal-Mart is not a job to raise a family on. Everyone around here knows that. And if they try and fail, then that's when they get another job. It's that simple.

I knew stuff at Wal-Mart was made by children in sweatshops. HEL-LO...Kathie Lee Gifford and her shitty Wal-Mart Clothes anyone?!

Well, until the government steps in, it's always gonna be like that. Don't mean to sound like such a Conservative, but it doesn't matter HOW the goods got in the their packaging. It just matters how much they cost. People in sweatshops making the goods I buy are the LEAST of my concerns.

I know Wal-Mart puts mom and pop stores out of business. I know the crime rate increases when a town that never has a Wal-Mart gets one. I know that people who work at Wal-Mart never get a raise.

But, again, those are all personal choices. The mom and pop store should mark their prices down a little lower, and offer more attractive features. Also, again, people know how badly Wal-Mart sucks. Either get a job that pays just as much or more with less stress or get a second job.

I thought Wal-Mart forces their employees to sign something upon hire that clearly states they cannot be in unions. Or maybe that is another company.

Adn Wal-Mart ain't going nowhere. Can't stop a speeding train.

  • Members
Posted

The reason why you always see those psycho women at Target is because that's who they cater to. I worked in the clothing depts. there, and half of them were exclusively for women (ready-to-wear, juniors, maternity, plus-size, well-over half of shoes, lingerie, jewelry, accessories, hosiery). The rest were for men, girls, boys, and babies.

I would see women rack up $500-700 buying crap at Target. It was ridiculous. This one woman spent over $1,000 on X-mas gifts, and I told her about opening a Target card b/c...honestly, as much as those cards are crap and just put people in more debt, she would have been able to save $100. And she said no. :rolleyes:

  • Members
Posted

Oh, Wal-Mart is definitely not the only evil corporation out there but I think it's sad that people feel like they can only support those greedy corporations simply because they're the most accessible and provide the cheapest products.

People are definitely responsible for their actions and unfortunately, we live in a society where we like to live in ignorance and think about the consequences when they actually happen rather than right now. That said, I think the government has a HUGE part to play in promoting healthy living, good business practices, good working conditions, etc. Why the hell should we leave everything in the hands of those who have the money??? :angry: When multi-corporations are paying people like crap and mistreating their workers and the environment, they SHOULD be held accountable.

Well, yeah, of course but when you look past all that fluff and think about all the [!@#$%^&*] that had to take place to make that business successful..I'd feel a little unsettled. :blink:

Yeah, and everyone knows if you pull the trigger, you might kill someone. Should we allow guns in schools, then???

Again, why the hell do we have to accept that??? Why do we have to naturalize such crap treatment of people??? :angry: So maybe you don't have a family to raise but you're single and have to pay the rent or you're a high school kid. What makes it more acceptable to treat those people like crap? None that I can think of.

And you're okay with that? These aren't just children working...they're kids who aren't able to go to school and who sometimes have to take their work outside because they're forced to finish the quota and yet they're still heavily underpaid..nevermind the fact that they're families are depending on their incomes for financial support.

Yeah, the gov't does need to step in but unfortunately, most gov'ts have a tendency to be corrupt and feel like multi-billion dollar corporations should take priority over everyday citizens. So while I said the gov't has a huge part to play, I think everyone has a responsibility..including the citizens themselves. Like you said, people have choice and if enough people actually stopped supporting these corporations, something might actually happen.

No comment.

To expect a local business to mark their prices down like Wal-Mart and K-Mart is naive. Like I said before, they don't have the millions to be able to mark their prices low enough and still gain a profit. They also don't get as much promotion as those big corporations.

And again, why are these state of affairs our only choices??? Why does our society feel like this is the only way to live and that nothing else can be done to change the system??

I've been studying globalization for 2 years and your arguments are exactly what that process is all about. It gives the idea that all those things that I'm pretty sure people in general look down on are natural and inevitable. But they aren't. And the kind of apathy and blind acceptance that you seem to have about the whole thing is quite disturbing. :(

  • Members
Posted
OMG I HATE THAT. I close at nights and have to catch the last bus at 11:15. We close at 11 and some idiot will come in. Pisses me off.

I had to do that when I worked at Petro Canada. Although, we earned prizes when we did that. We'd get points and save those points for some nice prizes. But we had to sell 12 pack of waters one month and my boss used to get pissed at me cause I wasn't selling enough. I'd snap right back at her because I worked graveyards and nobody is going to come in at 3 am to buy a 12 pack of water.

  • Members
Posted

SpiritualJunkie, obviously we are not going to agree, nor change each other's minds on the issue.

The only think I ask is to not be judge for going into Wal-Mart JUST because they have lower prices, because of the convenience, and because they have almost everything I need in their one store. Most people don't care how their goods get into the stores. It's a sad reality, but it IS a reality nonetheless. And why should the poor take YOUR version of the high-road, just because you deem Wal-Mart an "eeevil corporation?"

The Walton family has earned every single dime of their Wal-Mart shares. Yeah, they've stepped on the little guy's toes, but as long as they provide a low-price, easy service, they're not gonna stop.

  • Members
Posted

IMO, the Walton family hasn't worked nearly as hard as the "little guys" so there's no way I'm going to believe they earned every single dime. Now, if you mean, they worked hard to exploit people to gain money, then you have a point.

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I still am baffled by why Monty brought back stunt hire Gerald Gordon in the early '80s out of nowhere for like a year. I haven't found anyone who can come up with a thing he did in that second stint of note.
    • It's interesting to watch this having watched The Doctors. I'm not sure I'm seeing that much of a difference in the characters Gerald Gordon and Anna Stuart played on The Doctors and what they're playing here.
    • I keep forgetting a huge chunk of that year was written by scabs. You're probably right, because by the time the strike was over, they were likely planning an exit for Alan's character as it must have been obvious by then that Bernau was not going to return. If he was still there, it's also doubtful they would have approached MZ and MG about coming back. Wild.
    • And to think the original plan was for David and Lesley to have an affair.  Not only would that have made no sense - Lesley wasn't THAT stupid, lol - but it also would've ruined her and GH.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Week ending March 5 1978 Second season shows are tested CBS finishes first week in March with stronger than usual 1 9.5, but not enough to beat ABC The prime -time ratings pattern continued to hold steady for the week ended March 5, and attention increasingly turns to second season entries as the networks probe one another's weaknesses or cover their own. As usual, ABC -TV won the week, scoring a 20.5 average rating. But CBS -TV was closer than usual with a 19.5 average garnered with the help of several strong specials and movies in addition to some of its dependable series regulars. NBC followed its habit of plummeting when its "évent "entries failed. In this case it was the miniseries, Loose Change, which scored only 24 and 22 shares on Monday and Tuesday, leaving the network with a 16.9 average rating for the week. Looking at new series and new time slots, ABC's Six Million Dollar Man on Monday (8 -9 p.m. NYT) continued to falter with a 22 share, while What's Happening, in its new slot on Saturday (8 -9 p.m.), also remained shaky with a 23 share. Starsky and Hutch is still healthy with a 38 share in its new slot following Charlie's Angels on Wednesday, and How the West Was Won also had a 38 on Sunday (8 -9 p.m.). Against West CBS's Rhoda and On Our Own came in poorly for the second week in a row of face to face competition, with each pulling 25 shares after a 41 share lead in from 60 Minutes. ABC's special two -hour presentation of the upcoming series tryout, Having Babies, scored a 27 share on Friday (9 -11 p.m.) against strong competition from both the other networks (the movie "Ski Lift to Death" on CBS and Rockford Files and Quincy on NBC). For CBS, its new Monday night leadoffs, Good Times and Baby I'm Back, scored so -so 27 and 28 shares respectively. But the second half of the night had its best performance since the new line -up came in- M *A*S *Hwith a 45, One Day at a Time with a 41 and Lou Grant with a 36. Celebrity Challenge of the Sexes and Shields and Yarnell showed no signs of reviving on Tuesday, with 16 shares each, but the new Tuesday movie slot held up with a 41 share from Clint Eastwood's "Magnum Force." The network's entire Saturday line up continued to limp in, as Bob Newhart Tony Randall, The Jeffersons, Maude and Kojak all scored sub 30 shares (with the exception of Newhart's 29, in fact, all scored sub -25 shares). NBC premiered its new Chuck Barris Rah Rah Show on Tuesday (8 -9 p.m.),when it pulled a 24 share. The second episode of Quark had a 27, three points down from its premiere. There might be the temptation to conclude that the 29 share turned in by the National Love, Sex and Marriage Test on Sunday (9:30 -10 p.m.) proves the appetite for "sophisticated" subject matter is not insatiable after all, except that its competition was not only CBS's strong comedy block but also ABC's rerun of "The Way We Were," which pulled a 35 share. Of NBC's other midseason entries -CPO Sharkey, Black Sheep Squadron, James at 16 and Class of '65 -CPO Sharkey turned in the highest score of the week, a 27.   *NBC were in dire straits at this point relying on movies and specials which could hit or bomb in equal measure.  Fred Silverman had his work cut out for him when he arrived that Summer. He favored sitcoms and series as the schedule's foundation and NBC had no sitcoms to build on and few solid series. He also had a big backlog of specials/mini series that had been committed to air. Also NBC had a long standing relationship with Universal so he was forced to work with that studio. He struggled to get quality producers on board as they were either tied into deals with ABC/CBS or were wary of having their shows on the 3rd rated network. He still felt variety had a place on the schedule however and that lead to duds like Susan Anton, The Big Show and Pink Lady and Jeff.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I spent years hoping we would get an oral history like the OLTL book, but it’s too late now with so many having passed away.
    • It’s also strange that it was Monica! I just don’t think of her as the staring off into space type of woman! I watched a bunch of other clips and stuff from random 1978 and 1979 episodes. I’m so used to seeing movement from Monty’s era, especially the early part, that this really is a cool relic. Pretty soon you have scenes start at the new nurses station, the elevators opening and doctors walking to the desk to get their messages from Jessie or Bobbie. People often walk towards doors while taking coats on or off, many Webber house scenes start or end with someone walking up the stairs. This episode is even more static than some of the way earlier ones I have seen, where you would have Steve or Jessie at least going from the old school nurses desk to the medicine room, Steve’s office, etc. That bland dialogue is very much like what they have now. The show picks up a lot of personality. Knowing what we know about David Hamilton and how that really started to get the ball rolling as far as viewers you really see just how vital Lesley and especially Laura were to get things moving for them. They focused on the right characters to get fast results. The show now could learn a thing or two from this.
    • It won't allow me to watch it via the link; I am only able to watch it with the app.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy