WalMart Attacks Free-Speech
- Thread starter Tony
- Start date
It's unlikely he will win on those grounds. It appears he is selling the items so Walmart can claim he is commercially benefiting from their trademark.
(ETA: Was selling.)
Last edited:
They can't get away with the business practices in Germany that they do in the US. Massively different labor laws.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Critics say many things about them. I'll list a few but don't mistake it for me giving a crap.
They pay low wages with few benifits in order to keep prices down
They keep the union out through '[firm]'arm tactics: if a store does unionize, they shut it down
They devistate local economies because mom and pop shops can't compete
They buy products produced with slave/child labor
These are just a few. I also heard they were in tight with various satanic churches...yada.
That explains, why they had so little effect in Germany and actually fail to grow like they did elsewhere - ALDI and LIDL do this here since 30 years.
But i understand this strategy has far less negative effect in Germany due to various social welfare systems.
Carn
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
To be fair, no one is "making" anyone buy anything. You can look at his t-shirts for free, if you want one for yourself, you can chose to buy one. But he doesn't make you do anything you don't want to do.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I know you may not necessarily agree with what the 'critics' say about Wal-mart, but still, I thought I'd address the points...
I find it ironic that people complain about both the low wages/benefits given to wal*mart employees, and the fact that Wal*mart tends to put 'mom and pop' stores out of business. After all, employees of those types of small business likely wouldn't be giving their employees huge salaries either.
It should also be pointed out that while Wal Mart earns huge profits, they are also a very large company, and thier profit per employee may actually be in line with other retailers.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...stType=Company&uniqueId=S4HB&datatype=Company
Perhaps. But then, I'm not a fan of unions myself. To me, unionization is a form of 'price fixing', something that would be illegal if done by any other group or organizaiton.
The thing is, 'mom and pop' stores and wal-mart are after different segments of the retail markets. People shop at wal-mart for low prices. If they weren't shopping at wal-mart, they'd be going to k-mart or target. Mom-and-pop stores cater to those people who want either A) more personal service, or B) service located closer to their home.
And while there may be some business that get negatively affected by Wal Mart, there may be others that actually do better.
http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/index.htm
Actually I think this cartoon says it best:
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09082004.shtml
I'm sure this has happened in the past with Wal*mart, and I'm sure it will happen in the future. However, I'm sure the same thing happens with every major retailer, so I don't see the fairness of blaming wal*mart over other (lets say) K-mart or Target. (Or Zellers up here in Canada.)
I find it ironic that people complain about both the low wages/benefits given to wal*mart employees, and the fact that Wal*mart tends to put 'mom and pop' stores out of business. After all, employees of those types of small business likely wouldn't be giving their employees huge salaries either.
It should also be pointed out that while Wal Mart earns huge profits, they are also a very large company, and thier profit per employee may actually be in line with other retailers.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists...stType=Company&uniqueId=S4HB&datatype=Company
Perhaps. But then, I'm not a fan of unions myself. To me, unionization is a form of 'price fixing', something that would be illegal if done by any other group or organizaiton.
The thing is, 'mom and pop' stores and wal-mart are after different segments of the retail markets. People shop at wal-mart for low prices. If they weren't shopping at wal-mart, they'd be going to k-mart or target. Mom-and-pop stores cater to those people who want either A) more personal service, or B) service located closer to their home.
And while there may be some business that get negatively affected by Wal Mart, there may be others that actually do better.
http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/index.htm
Actually I think this cartoon says it best:
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09082004.shtml
I'm sure this has happened in the past with Wal*mart, and I'm sure it will happen in the future. However, I'm sure the same thing happens with every major retailer, so I don't see the fairness of blaming wal*mart over other (lets say) K-mart or Target. (Or Zellers up here in Canada.)
Ausmerican
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 3,490
Actually there is a way Walmart can win in a court case here. The same way Sony won over Bleems software emulators. Every time the case went to coourt Bleem won but Sony had far far deeper pockets and just kept appealing and going back to court until Bleem went bankrupt paying the lawyers bills.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
I hate making new laws ... but if ever there was a need, it's for halting this type of 'legal' tactic. Of course, what lawyer is ever going to put forth such a proposal -- he'd be cutting his own throat. So much for ethics, eh?
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There's a saying attributed to Peter the Great after a visit to Westminster Hall : "Lawyers! In my whole kingdom I have but two, and when I get home I'll hang one of them!"
Well, of course I won't buy one from him; Wal-Mart sells them cheaper.