Walmart

[Just the facts]

Funny Pictures at WalMart

At a Wal-Mart in Tennessee.



This is in Virginia

[GoOKC1991]

You should have just worked off-the-clock an extra hour every night. I am sure that would have smoothed things over.

Working off the clock is not allowed.

[Just the facts]

Working off the clock is not allowed.

I guess all those 'back wages' lawsuits finally worked.

[Martin]

[RadicalModerate]

I guess the guy in the top two pictures is too sexy for his shirt . . . and his pants.
I have no guesses at all about the guy in the bottom picture.

[kevinpate]

mmm, those are fairly tame for people of walmart images.

[kevinpate]

[QUOTE=RadicalModerate;679431... I have no guesses at all about the guy in the bottom picture.[/QUOTE]

Ah, that's too easy. he's just head over heels to be living in a Walmart world.

[Martin]

mmm, those are fairly tame for people of walmart images.

nope. not gonna look. -M

[kevinpate]

Might be for the best. ya never know when you'll stumble across someone you know.

<beenthere.donethat.gotthetshirttheyshouldaworn>

[Just the facts]

mmm, those are fairly tame for people of walmart images.

I didn't want to post anything that might get me banned. Clearly some people have mental issues (like I suspect the guy in the pink above has), but some of the others don't have any excuse - and probably even think they look good.

[Bunty]

I have no guesses at all about the guy in the bottom picture.

At least he has his shirt on. But if I had a thing for wearing high heels, I don't think I would feel quite right wearing them dressed like that.

[kevinpate]

The chap who preferred sensible height heels to sandals had a modicum of fashion sense, at least at the color level. The chap in the white speedo, well, to borrow a style from Maher - NEW RULE - If you're a member of the chunky monkey club and you're wearing less fabric than your lady friend ... don't. Please, just don't.

[BBatesokc]

A couple people mentioned Wal-Marts here poorly stocked, you want to know why? The stores here at least, have this system called MyGuide, which lists your stocking chore for the day/night and you are given an amount of time to do it mostly an hour and a half. I usually took longer, but that was because I put an emphasis on making sure the items were placed correctly in the right spot, it's easy to get it done in your set time if you just throw your freight on the shelves and not worry if it's correct or not (and many employees do it that way). I was fired because I wasn't getting it done on time, despite putting the items in the right place, even if that took a little extra time. The employees who just threw the items on the shelves, not worrying about it being the right spot, were kept. What a joke.

Glad it wasn't like that when I worked there. I worked at the now closed Warr Acres location. Had me in 'chemicals' - which was basically toilet paper, paper towels and cleaning products. Pretty much left me alone as long as my section always looked tidy and well stocked. When I was done they asked that we'd see if any other sections needed any help. There was always opportunities to get in overtime by signing up to stock overnight. I did that when I needed extra cash. All-in-all I enjoyed working there an there was plenty of opportunity to move up if someone wanted to. Sounds like its changed since I was there in the late early 90's.

[Jim Kyle]

In the early 90s, Sam was still around and emphasizing good morale and service. The MBAs hadn't yet come into the picture and changed the goal to short-term profits...

[BBatesokc]

In the early 90s, Sam was still around and emphasizing good morale and service. The MBAs hadn't yet come into the picture and changed the goal to short-term profits...

Have you read his bio? Sam was all about profit.

[RadicalModerate]

Ah, that's too easy. he's just head over heels to be living in a Walmart world.

{Thought bubble over the conservative cross-dresser's head}:
{Let's see . . . Next stop Dr. Scholl's . . . It's probably close to The Fabled Acre o' Tampons . . .
This getting in touch with your feminine side is more complicated than one might imagine!
Gee . . . I wonder if I am Pretty in Pink . . .}

The guy is obviously on a work release program mandated by his court appointed shrink to make up for the fact that previously he would have been shopping The Wife-Beater Tee Department.

[RadicalModerate]

Have you read his bio? Sam was all about profit.

Yes He Was . . . so's he could share his gift with his faithful employees and thereby empower them to spread the wealth.
(as i said earlier: They--the slug brigade interlopers, armed with MBAs and no real world experience--recently opened his grave to drive a stake through his heart to make sure he wouldn't return. They were all mumbling to each other in a mysterious language that sounded vaguely Chinese.)

[Jim Kyle]

Have you read his bio? Sam was all about profit.

Of course he was -- but he was also a quite savvy entrepreneur, and was well aware that moderate profit over the long term was much better than high profit over a very short term, followed by quickly declining profits as people found other places to trade. That's why he put so much emphasis on group morale and good service -- and also on keeping his image on the "poor boy" side by such acts as driving a battered old pickup rather than riding in a limo (which he could easily have afforded).

The major difference between his methods, and those currently being used, revolved around just that difference in outlook. When you were there, as you said, you had the freedom (and I suspect were encouraged to use it) to keep your area cleaned up, well stocked, and easy for the customers to buy from. The current by-the-book methods, using a book that's not related to reality, actually reduce the attractiveness of the merchandise, and I'd bet that the total profit margin is less today than it was in the early 90s!

[BBatesokc]

Of course he was -- but he was also a quite savvy entrepreneur, and was well aware that moderate profit over the long term was much better than high profit over a very short term, followed by quickly declining profits as people found other places to trade. That's why he put so much emphasis on group morale and good service -- and also on keeping his image on the "poor boy" side by such acts as driving a battered old pickup rather than riding in a limo (which he could easily have afforded).

The major difference between his methods, and those currently being used, revolved around just that difference in outlook. When you were there, as you said, you had the freedom (and I suspect were encouraged to use it) to keep your area cleaned up, well stocked, and easy for the customers to buy from. The current by-the-book methods, using a book that's not related to reality, actually reduce the attractiveness of the merchandise, and I'd bet that the total profit margin is less today than it was in the early 90s!

I'm not so convinced things would be that much different had Sam lived to today. He knew the value of a dollar and he had very aggressive plans to have his company make its first billion and he didn't do it thinking he'd have to be cuddly and nice.

As I've said, he didn't like to pay above average salaries and he didn't much care for women in leadership roles. He also kept his profits close and within the family on purpose. He really, really liked money. But more than money he liked to win at all costs in virtually everything that he did.

People admire Sam because he was frugal and not showy. I don't think he was so much humble as he knew every dime he could save/cut was a dime of profit (which is spelled out in his book). I have no reason to believe he would not have applied that same school of thought to many of the policies so many people today frown upon.

[Stew]

Have you read his bio? Sam was all about profit.

It's been awhile since I read it but if memory serves he said at first he saw payroll as just more overhead that needed to be cut to the bone but then later came to realize that much like the paradox that the lower you cut prices the more profit you'll make the same holds true that the more profits you share with the work force the more profits your company will make. Whether he practiced and/or believed it I don't know but that's pretty much what he stated in his autobiography 'Made In America'.

[soonerguru]

I'm not so convinced things would be that much different had Sam lived to today. He knew the value of a dollar and he had very aggressive plans to have his company make its first billion and he didn't do it thinking he'd have to be cuddly and nice.

As I've said, he didn't like to pay above average salaries and he didn't much care for women in leadership roles. He also kept his profits close and within the family on purpose. He really, really liked money. But more than money he liked to win at all costs in virtually everything that he did.

People admire Sam because he was frugal and not showy. I don't think he was so much humble as he knew every dime he could save/cut was a dime of profit (which is spelled out in his book). I have no reason to believe he would not have applied that same school of thought to many of the policies so many people today frown upon.

You're just arguing at this point. No one buys this.

[RadicalModerate]

Does the amount of Walmart stock held in one's personal portfolio(s) define the thrust of one's arguments vis-a-vis Walmart?
(nah . . . that can't be . . .)

[BBatesokc]

You're just arguing at this point. No one buys this.

Good to know you were elected spokesperson for everyone else. None of you knew him and very few here have even worked for Walmart. I did and I read biographies on him (biographies are about the only books I enjoy reading) and my perspective is what I gained from those two things. Which weighs a heck of lot more to the truth than nostalgia, myth and BS.

[BBatesokc]

It's been awhile since I read it but if memory serves he said at first he saw payroll as just more overhead that needed to be cut to the bone but then later came to realize that much like the paradox that the lower you cut prices the more profit you'll make the same holds true that the more profits you share with the work force the more profits your company will make. Whether he practiced and/or believed it I don't know but that's pretty much what he stated in his autobiography 'Made In America'.

Which goes back to my points. Much of what he did wasn't because "he's such a great guy thinking of all the little people." Its because it made him more money. He didn't put Hillary on his board because he was for equality, he did it for business reasons. If he could make even more by paying less, than that's what he did. If the opposite held true then he did that. It was about profits first, people second, like it or not. People apply the way Walmart is run today to business models and technologies from the 80's. That's apples and oranges. I personally have no problem with how Walmart is run. They are in business to make lots of money. If people decide they don't like them then they'll stop shopping there. Was he 'better' than those running it today - sure by some standards he was. But the image so many conjure up of Sam Walton is just simply not true IMO. Someone can be likable and frugal and still be a shrewd business person whose eye is always on the profits.

[Jim Kyle]

Brian, you've misinterpreted at least my comments. I agree with you, completely, that Sam Walton was what he was -- a businessman driven to maximize his profits. There was no hint of philanthropy about him; unlike Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, or Bill Gates, he never showed any tendency to give money away for any reason that didn't wind up benefitting his own self. Still, he did improve matters while he was alive, and the current hatred and distrust didn't appear until he had been gone for quite a while.

I do think that the difference between his business model that worked so well for him in the 80s and 90s, and that of the Wall Street MBAs who now control the empire he left them (and far too many other aspects of our economy), is that Sam's model recognized that treating his employees as capable people resulted in increase of his profits, while the current model attempts to treat all those working there as interchangeable cogs in a huge machine and does not allow them to vary from their scripted roles. He never lost sight of next year; the MBAs don't look beyond the end of the current quarter.

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.