Walmart

[GoOKC1991]

I worked at the store on Memorial and Penn, since I was fired (May of last year) there has been a lot of turnover, including a new store manager. I had gone to the regional manager or whatever you call it after I was fired and he said "We have had issues at that store".

[GoOKC1991]

Before you are start your job, you watch a series of videos and read a Wal-Mart guide in training and are taught to do it Sam's way, all about the customer. That is what I did, getting the shelves stocked correctly so the customer will not have a problem finding it. Too bad that wasn't good enough for them.

[ljbab728]

Of course, I've been captivated by Ayn Rand's philosophy for more years than I like to admit -- particularly her essays on "The Virtues of Selfishness" (which, unlike her two best-known novels, actually seem to indicate acknowledgement of the real world). In particular, I appreciate her position that true altruism doesn't exist, and her conclusion that those who claim to practice it are either attempting to control others, or are deceiving themselves. I see Sam Walton as an example of one of her heroes, who achieved success primarily because of enlightened self-interest -- which just by accident did help other people as a by-product when it provided jobs that had not existed previously.

I absolutely agree with that also, Jim. Even someone who gives up their life for someone else is doing it because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no totally unselfish act unless it's an accident.

[GoOKC1991]

I went in there recently (store I was fired from) to get a bluray player, saw one for $50, go to purchase it and it rings up as $70, it was stocked wrong (shocking), I said I want it for $50, the cashier said "We can't do that, Wal-Mart would lose $20" LOL please....the manager (one I had never seen before, so obviously came aboard since I was fired) agreed with me and gave it to me for $50.

[RadicalModerate]

I'm probably wrong about this, but just because an item is in the wrong place on the shelves shouldn't mean the wrong price should apply. If this were the case, all semi-shoplifters (thieves) would have to do is shuffle the merchandise to get lower prices. That or move the price tags on the shelves.

Sorry. I didn't mean to get away from dissin' Walmart. It won't happen again. =)

[Jim Kyle]

Just because such mis-stocking is so prevalent -- not just at Walmart by any means -- I always compare the UPC code number on the item itself with the one on the posted price tag to verify that the price tag applies to the item. These numbers are assigned by an industry group and just about every place that posts prices uses them on the tags...

[Just the facts]

In the case of misplaced items - it appears Walmart has decided that misstocking the store shelf cost less than adjusting the price to give 'discounts' to people who point out the error. Personally, I hate it when I select an item with a sale sticker on the shelf and then get to the register to find out the item next to the sale sticker isn't the one on sale. To me that is deceptive marketing. To Jim's point, I always end up double checking the sale tag to make sure what I have in my hand is what is on sale - and sometime there is still a problem when I get to the register.

[Just the facts]

@GoOKC1991 - were you ever instructed, encouraged, or supplied with any information on how to apply for any state or federal social programs while a Walmart employee? I once worked for a company here in Jax that had a vast majority of the employees involved in customer service phone support and state and federal benefit applications were supplied in the New Hire packet, as well as a book on how to obtain your GED.

[GoOKC1991]

I was not.

[WilliamTell]

Oddly enough - From the two neighborhood walmarts ive been too (rarely go, maybe 3 within the last calendar year) i haven't noticed the stocking problem there.

[ThomPaine]

I absolutely agree with that also, Jim. Even someone who gives up their life for someone else is doing it because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no totally unselfish act unless it's an accident.

ljbab728,
Really sorry that this is your experience. I personally know this not to be true. While unselfish acts are not necessarily common, they are certainly not extinct. If you are in a marriage/serious relationship, I hope you experience both sides of the equation.

[ThomPaine]

Had to run into a Neighborhood Wal-Mart the other day. About 6:15 a.m., so nothing else in the area I was in was open. Bought about ten items for a breakfast meeting. Store was open and I saw one employee in the store near the dairy case. Went to check out and nobody there. Checked out using the self checkout (which I really hate), and was on my way.

Maybe the plan is to make their checkout employees obsolete, and basically make it a complete self-serve experience. I'm sure the money lost due to shrinkage would be more than offset by the savings in hiring the stereotypical Wal-Mart employee to stand around a be of little help anyway.

[RadicalModerate]

. I'm sure the money lost due to shrinkage would be more than offset by the savings in hiring the stereotypical Wal-Mart employee to stand around a be of little help anyway.

The only problem would be that the robot shelf stockers can be a bit off-putting and they have a tendency to run over customers who aren't paying attention and get in their way. On the other hand, their laser cannons are good at preventing door crashing by the mobs on Black Friday.

[ljbab728]

ljbab728,
Really sorry that this is your experience. I personally know this not to be true. While unselfish acts are not necessarily common, they are certainly not extinct. If you are in a marriage/serious relationship, I hope you experience both sides of the equation.

That has nothing to do with my experiences. It's just common sense. If someone was pointing a gun at your wife and you jumped in front of the bullet to save her life, it pleases you and makes you feel good to save her. You may not take time to think about how good it will make you feel but it certainly would. I don't think that is a change in human nature, I believe that has been human nature forever.

[ThomPaine]

That has nothing to do with my experiences. It's just common sense. If someone was pointing a gun at your wife and you jumped in front of the bullet to save her life, it pleases you and makes you feel good to save her. You may not take time to think about how good it will make you feel but it certainly would. I don't think that is a change in human nature, I believe that has been human nature forever.

You might feel good later, you might not, and you sure might not ever get a "thank you." I can speak for nobody else, but I can tell you that when actual bullets are flying, or the threat of them coming in your direction is imminent, the last thing on your mind is whether or not you'll be thanked for any acts. Your natural, first thoughts are of self preservation at all costs, and your your second thoughts are how to eliminate the source of the bullets. Which is why it is indeed rare for somebody to "take a bullet" for somebody else. But it does happen.

I guess, since I have spent the majority of my adult life in an organization that places Selfless Service amongst its most important values, this is a touchy subject. There are always those who fake their altruism (one of the reasons I gave up on organized religion), but history has many examples where that is not the case (here's a good place to start: Medal of Honor Recipients | Center of Military History) And while I understand that you might argue that going down in history is a reward, that is not the driving force in most of these actions,when they were taken.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.

Here's an interesting piece that seems to treat the subject fairly.

Selfless Service, Part I: Is Selfless Service Possible? | Psychology Today


Sorry, I don't mean to get off the topic of bashings the evil empire...

[Jim Kyle]

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.

Of course they do. Rand's essays on the subject recognize that fact, too. She used the word "selfishness" for its shock value, not at all meaning it in its usual sense. When going into detail about her theories, she spoke instead of "enlightened self-interest" and the real emphasis was on "enlightened."

Would you agree that "making the world a better place in which to live" is a "sort of reward" for those who do good things for no other reason? If so, you would be accepting her theory about motivation. Another "reward" for those with strict moral compasses is simply the ability to live comfortably with one's memories.

To bring it back to speaking of Sam, he seems to have been enlightened by the discovery that he profited more when he treated his workers "right"...

[ThomPaine]

Of course they do. Rand's essays on the subject recognize that fact, too. She used the word "selfishness" for its shock value, not at all meaning it in its usual sense. When going into detail about her theories, she spoke instead of "enlightened self-interest" and the real emphasis was on "enlightened."

Would you agree that "making the world a better place in which to live" is a "sort of reward" for those who do good things for no other reason? If so, you would be accepting her theory about motivation. Another "reward" for those with strict moral compasses is simply the ability to live comfortably with one's memories.

To bring it back to speaking of Sam, he seems to have been enlightened by the discovery that he profited more when he treated his workers "right"...

Yes, I would agree with that statement, but agreeing with that does not tie me to any specific theory, Rand's or otherwise...

[BBatesokc]

I'm probably wrong about this, but just because an item is in the wrong place on the shelves shouldn't mean the wrong price should apply. If this were the case, all semi-shoplifters (thieves) would have to do is shuffle the merchandise to get lower prices. That or move the price tags on the shelves.

Sorry. I didn't mean to get away from dissin' Walmart. It won't happen again. =)

I've actually had this happen several times while shopping - most notably at Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

One day at Target they put the wrong microwave ovens on the endcap for the $89 Microwave sale. Should have been a regularly price $107 model and instead they stocked it with an almost $200 model.

Without any hassle they verified it was their mistake and honored the price.

Was at a Best Buy and they had neglected to remove a sale tag from an item that went off sale two days prior. No biggie, they honored the price.

However, at a MWC Radio Shack they had placed the wrong item on clearance and when they caught it at the register they had a 'too bad, so sad' attitude. Talked with the store manager and she said they made a mistake and would not honor the price even though it only reducd the price by $8. To me it was the principle of the matter and I can honestly say I've never been back in to a Radio Shack (this was maybe 2 years ago).

I did find something out about Target awhile back. I always price compare via my smart phone to places like Amazon. I found an electronic item at Target that was 35% less online. Took the item to the customer service desk and they honored the price. Said Target has a fairly new policy of matching most online retailers prices on the exact same item. I've used that policy now 4-5 times with 100% success.

A week ago I went to Home Depot for a $99 cordless drill and driver combo package. Normally around $200. They were all out and didn't know when they'd get more. The manager then said he'd take another brand they sell for almost $300 and sell it to me at the sale price of $99 for my trouble (was buying it as a gift).

I think policies like this build loyal customers.

[ljbab728]

You might feel good later, you might not, and you sure might not ever get a "thank you." I can speak for nobody else, but I can tell you that when actual bullets are flying, or the threat of them coming in your direction is imminent, the last thing on your mind is whether or not you'll be thanked for any acts. Your natural, first thoughts are of self preservation at all costs, and your your second thoughts are how to eliminate the source of the bullets. Which is why it is indeed rare for somebody to "take a bullet" for somebody else. But it does happen.

I guess, since I have spent the majority of my adult life in an organization that places Selfless Service amongst its most important values, this is a touchy subject. There are always those who fake their altruism (one of the reasons I gave up on organized religion), but history has many examples where that is not the case (here's a good place to start: Medal of Honor Recipients | Center of Military History) And while I understand that you might argue that going down in history is a reward, that is not the driving force in most of these actions,when they were taken.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but good (and sometimes not so good) people do good things every day, without even the thought of any sort of reward.

Here's an interesting piece that seems to treat the subject fairly.

Selfless Service, Part I: Is Selfless Service Possible? | Psychology Today


Sorry, I don't mean to get off the topic of bashings the evil empire...

This will be my last word on this subject because it is off topic. I'm certainly not saying that all actions people take are solely self serving. I'm saying that the reward you get is feeling good about yourself, at the very least, for having done a good deed. When you do something that makes you feel good about yourself that can be considered selfish. Whether a person stops to think in advance what reward they would get when doing something makes no difference at all. This is not a new concept to me. I've thought about this many times in years past.

[Stew]

Perhaps somebody should start an objectivism thread.

[Dubya61]

Perhaps somebody should start an objectivism thread.

LOL! What's more objective than WalMart?

[RadicalModerate]

Uh . . . do you mean objectionable? =)

[ThomPaine]

Just because it is a profitable company, doesn't make it a good company.

Wal-Mart?s newest scheme to ruin the middle class - Salon.com

Almost 30 years ago, as the U.S. was bleeding jobs, Walmart launched a “Buy America” program and started hanging “Made in America” signs in its 750 stores. It was a marketing success, cementing the retailer’s popularity in the country’s struggling, blue-collar heartland. A few years later, NBC’s Dateline revealed the program to be a sham. Sure, Walmart was willing to buy U.S.-made goods — so long as they were as cheap as imports, which, of course, they weren’t. Dateline found that Walmart’s sourcing was in fact rapidly shifting to Asia.

This year, Walmart is back with a new “Buy America” program. In January, the company announced that it would purchase an additional $50 billion worth of domestic goods over the next decade. This week, Walmart is convening several hundred suppliers, along with a handful of governors, for a summit on U.S. manufacturing.


This sounds pretty substantial, but in fact it’s just a more sophisticated and media savvy version of Walmart’s hollow 1980s Buy America campaign. For starters, $50 billion over a decade may sound huge at first, but measured against Walmart’s galactic size, it’s not. An additional $5 billion a year amounts to only 1.5 percent of what Walmart currently spends on inventory.


Worse, very little of this small increase in spending on American-made goods will actually result in new U.S. production and jobs. Most of the projected increase will simply be a byproduct of Walmart’s continued takeover of the grocery industry. Most grocery products sold in the U.S. are produced here. As Walmart expands its share of U.S. grocery sales — it now captures 25 percent, up from 6 percent in 1998 — it will buy more U.S. foods. But this doesn’t mean new jobs, because other grocers are losing market share and buying less. What it does mean is lower wages. As I reported earlier this year, Walmart’s growing control of the grocery sector is pushing down wages throughout food production.


Groceries now account for 55 percent of Walmart’s U.S. revenue, up from 24 percent in 2003. The company is planning to grow that ratio even further, with about 100 Neighborhood Market stores (Walmart’s new-ish supermarket format) in the pipeline this year alone, along with 125 new supercenters. So we can expect that at least half of Walmart’s new spending on U.S. goods will be for groceries, with no net gain in jobs and, very likely, a further decline in wages.

[RadicalModerate]

Just because it is a profitable company, doesn't make it a good company.

Obviously you are operating using a different dictionary than the one used in the modern era.
Profitable means Good by definition. To paraphrase Mr. Lombardi: Money isn't the main thing; it's the only thing.
Geez. Where have you been?

[ThomPaine]

Obviously you are operating using a different dictionary than the one used in the modern era.
Profitable means Good by definition. To paraphrase Mr. Lombardi: Money isn't the main thing; it's the only thing.
Geez. Where have you been?

Not in Walmart when I can help it...