Walmart: "Worst company in the world"

[Region Rat]

So now that Wal-Mart has let this family have $400,000 of its money even though their own lawyer admits Wal-Mart had no legal obligation to do so, do you now think that Wal-Mart is no longer the worst company in the world?

Of course not. Its because they don't want to deal with unions. And because they force old people to stand in the front entryway to greet people, where they could get hot (or cold).

Myself, I think they're the worst company in the world because they don't carry garlic dill pickles. They have all kinds of pickles and gerkins, including kosher pickles, but not a garlic dill in sight. I have waste gas driving to the Kroger in the next town to get a good garlic dill. Those bastiges.

 

[gumboot]

The title of this OP is misleading. If fleecing someone of some money via some wily contracting was sufficient to earn the title of "worst company in the world" we wouldn't have even a fraction of the problems we face.

Surely companies that annually dump millions of gallons of waste into the environment would be a rung or two above Wal-mart in the rankings? How about those little stores where the owner only hires young girls and then watches security camera footage of them going to the staff bathroom?

 

[BPSCG]

The title of this OP is misleading. If fleecing someone of some money via some wily contracting was sufficient to earn the title of "worst company in the world" we wouldn't have even a fraction of the problems we face.

Surely companies that annually dump millions of gallons of waste into the environment would be a rung or two above Wal-mart in the rankings? How about those little stores where the owner only hires young girls and then watches security camera footage of them going to the staff bathroom?

Nonononono... Wal-Mart is the worst. Because it employs tens of thousands of people around the world, and gives its employees benefits that include health care coverage, and sells poor people the necessities of life cheaper than they could buy them anywhere else, and pays millions in corporate taxes, and gives millions of dollars to charities.

Yes, Wal-Mart is the worst.

Wal-Mart = Hitler.
Wal-Mart gives you cancer.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think it is well known that Wal Mart is aggressively against unions in principle and that it has little or nothing to do with the reasons you mentioned.

Wal-mart's principle is to earn a profit. Just as is the principle of pretty much every other retailer or company. If there are unions, then either profits will go down, and/or prices will go up. Probably both will happen. (Where do you think the money comes from if a union manages to negotiate increased pay/benefits?)

THe Quebec Labour Board found that
'In September 2005, the Québec Labor Board ruled that the closing of a Wal-Mart store amounted to a reprisal against unionized workers...'

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart

If you go to the reference cited in the wikipedia article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20/business/walmart.php), you will find the following statement: The labor board's decision did not look at the store's financial results, however. So, basically, the Quebec Labor board ruled against Wal-Mart without even considering all the evidence on whether they were profitable. You might find the labor board's ruling accurate; I however, have serious concerns about their lack of consideration for their finances.

(By the way, my question about whether a company should be forced to keep their doors open if it becomes unprofitable is admittedly an extreme case. Its also possible for a unionized store to still turn a profit, but less of a profit than a non-unionized store. But then, if a store is earning only a tiny fraction of the profits of its competitors, should it also be forced to stay open?)

They have also broken state law in forcing people to work during their breaks.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6050022.stm

I'm sure they've broken a lot of laws. But then, Wal-mart IS a huge retailer. When you employ that many people in that many stores, you are going to get law suits (some justified, some not) simply because you're dealing with so many people. (Some small independant store may also be guilty of similar problems, but lawsuits against them won't quite get the publicity that Wal-mart gets.)

 

[Cainkane1]

I think Home Depot is worse than Walmart.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

So now that Wal-Mart has let this family have $400,000 of its money even though their own lawyer admits Wal-Mart had no legal obligation to do so, do you now think that Wal-Mart is no longer the worst company in the world?

In what way has what Wal Mart finally been forced to do in this case have any bearing on the behaviour I posted and linked to.

Does this in someway absolve them from their despicable other behaviour.

Not sure why any rational person would think that - unless they were at least to some extent apologists for Wal Mart.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Wal-mart's principle is to earn a profit. Just as is the principle of pretty much every other retailer or company. If there are unions, then either profits will go down, and/or prices will go up. Probably both will happen. (Where do you think the money comes from if a union manages to negotiate increased pay/benefits?)

The logic of that response is that Wal Mart should pay their workers nothing because they would be able to make more money and paying the workers even a penny would reduce their ability to make money.

If you go to the reference cited in the wikipedia article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20/business/walmart.php), you will find the following statement: The labor board's decision did not look at the store's financial results, however. So, basically, the Quebec Labor board ruled against Wal-Mart without even considering all the evidence on whether they were profitable. You might find the labor board's ruling accurate; I however, have serious concerns about their lack of consideration for their finances.

I think Wal Mart is entitled like every other company to due process of the law. THey deserve no special treatment either in favour or against. If they are so good where do all the issues come from that are so prevalent on the internet. Perhaps they are all lies.

(By the way, my question about whether a company should be forced to keep their doors open if it becomes unprofitable is admittedly an extreme case. Its also possible for a unionized store to still turn a profit, but less of a profit than a non-unionized store. But then, if a store is earning only a tiny fraction of the profits of its competitors, should it also be forced to stay open?)

As I said their profits would be greater if they paid nothing so where do you draw the line. I would rather not have a society where a predatory company sells at below cost price to drive smaller stores out of business as Wal Mart has done in the USA. There is a cost to their behaviour.

I'm sure they've broken a lot of laws. But then, Wal-mart IS a huge retailer. When you employ that many people in that many stores, you are going to get law suits (some justified, some not) simply because you're dealing with so many people. (Some small independant store may also be guilty of similar problems, but lawsuits against them won't quite get the publicity that Wal-mart gets.)

That would be fine if there was any evidence for it. Are you aware of any?

 

[RandFan]

...unless they were at least to some extent apologists for Wal Mart.

Only an apologist would think that...

Argument ad hominem.

Thanks E.J. It's nice to see that the free exchange of ideas and logical debate is alive and well at the JREF.

What other poison for the well do you have?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Only an apologist would think that...

Argument ad hominem.

Thanks E.J. It's nice to see that the free exchange of ideas and logical debate is alive and well at the JREF.

What other poison for the well do you have?

I see. Plus ca change. Assertion as evidence.

It was implied to me that Wal Mart being forced to let the family keep their money in some way mitigated all their other despicable behaviour. That was the justified basis for my comment. I note you have ignored that non-sequitur in your haste to hurl personal abuse at me.

Do you have a rational point to make supported by some evidence (other than more assertion) perhaps?

 

[BPSCG]

In what way has what Wal Mart finally been forced to do in this case have any bearing on the behaviour I posted and linked to.

Does this in someway absolve them from their despicable other behaviour.

Not sure why any rational person would think that - unless they were at least to some extent apologists for Wal Mart.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Which was, do you now think that Wal-Mart is no longer the worst company in the world?

Yes or no?

 

[Segnosaur]

The logic of that response is that Wal Mart should pay their workers nothing because they would be able to make more money and paying the workers even a penny would reduce their ability to make money.

No, because if they paid nothing, people wouldn't work there and they wouldn't be able to sell their products.

Workers should be paid according to the skill, difficulty, and training that their job demands, and according to the available labor for potential job openings. If a company (Wal-Mart or otherwise) pays too little for what the job demands, they won't work there. The problem is, unions mess that relationship up. A worker may only be doing a job worth $X/hour, but because they are unionized they may be earning more than that. Its legalized collusion. (Such collusion would likely be illegal if done in any other area of the economy.)

I think Wal Mart is entitled like every other company to due process of the law. THey deserve no special treatment either in favour or against. If they are so good where do all the issues come from that are so prevalent on the internet. Perhaps they are all lies.

I never said they were "all" good. Yes, they have and done things which are illegal or downright boneheaded. But they have also been victims of bad publicity, and of people who don't necessarily look at things logically and/or have an ax to grind.

Do you at least admit that the claims made by the Quebec Labor board (that Wal-Mart closed a profitable store) might in fact be incorrect due to the board's non-examination of all facts related to the case?

As I said their profits would be greater if they paid nothing so where do you draw the line.

And as I said before, for the most part wages should largely be determined by supply and demand.

I would rather not have a society where a predatory company sells at below cost price to drive smaller stores out of business as Wal Mart has done in the USA. There is a cost to their behaviour.

First of all, where is your proof that they're selling below cost price? Wal-mart does sell stuff cheaper than most other companies, but they also still manage to turn a profit. (The profit isn't as high as with many other large companies, but its still there.). They do so by being able to purchase larger quantities (thus getting bulk discounts), by having efficient inventory systems, and by controlling costs. (And yes, avoiding unions is part of that, but not the only part.) If they were selling below cost, then they wouldn't be turning a profit.

Secondly, Wal-mart isn't necessarily driving small stores out of business. Wal-mart is not competing with your neighbourhood mom&pop store. They're competing with K-Mart and Target (or Zellers up here in Canada). We have several Wal-marts in the city. Still have plenty of small stores around too. People will continue to shop at smaller stores for convenience (e.g. closer to home) or for better service/quality.

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09082004.shtml

I do wonder though... Wal-mart does undersell their competition (even though they still manage to turn a profit, so they're not selling 'below cost'.) Do you think its a good idea for Wal-mart to have to charge people (many of whom are poor) MORE for their stuff just so other stores can compete a bit better?

I'm sure they've broken a lot of laws. But then, Wal-mart IS a huge retailer. When you employ that many people in that many stores, you are going to get law suits (some justified, some not) simply because you're dealing with so many people. (Some small independant store may also be guilty of similar problems, but lawsuits against them won't quite get the publicity that Wal-mart gets.)

That would be fine if there was any evidence for it. Are you aware of any?

Well, I just did a google search on 'retail lawsuits' and found the following articles:

Racial discrimination cases against Dillard's and Abercrombie & Finch
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/on...ial-Profiling-to-Fight-Shoplifting/6106SIW379
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/60minutes/main587099.shtml

American with Disabilities act problems with Target:
http://www.webaim.org/blog/target_lawsuit/

Truth in advertising lawsuit against K-mart:
http://retailtrafficmag.com/news/retail_federal_lawsuit_charges/

Customer privacy issues with The Container Store:
http://organizingla.blogs.com/organizingla_blog/2006/04/container_store.html

That's 5 articles covering 5 different retailers on the first 2 pages of google results.

I also modified the search a bit to search specifically for employee lawsuits and found:

Sexual discrimination: (Signet)
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Employees-Lawsuit-Jeopardizes-Signets-Future-Sales-Growth-22815.html

Unpaid commissions: (Sprint/Nextel)
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS137883+11-Feb-2008+MW20080211

So yeah, 2 minutes of searching has found lawsuits at 7 different (non Wal-mart) companies.

Ok, those aren't exactly small, independent stores. But they are smaller than Wall-Mart. Still, none of these retailers have been given the label of 'worst company ever' in any threads here.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Which was, do you now think that Wal-Mart is no longer the worst company in the world?

Yes or no?

I think the premise of your question is illogical. For a start as well as never claiming that Wal Mart if the worst company in the world I have no idea how they stand against every company in the world.

I also believe that them being forced to pay the family money in this case has absolutely no bearing on the other despicable practices of Wal Mart I posted links to. Practices I don't want in my country. I guess according to you and dudalb I now hate all unborn American children and their chiuldren and their children yeah verily until the seas runneth over because I have criticised Wal Mart again. Ah well.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? That has the same relevance as your question.

 

[RandFan]

I see. Plus ca change. Assertion as evidence.

It was implied to me that Wal Mart being forced to let the family keep their money in some way mitigated all their other despicable behaviour. That was the justified basis for my comment. I note you have ignored that non-sequitur in your haste to hurl personal abuse at me.

Do you have a rational point to make supported by some evidence (other than more assertion) perhaps?

You clearly engaged in ad hominem poisoning the well. Your rationalization not withstanding.

...unless they were at least to some extent apologists for Wal Mart.

That is ad hominem. Pointing that out is not abuse.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

No, because if they paid nothing, people wouldn't work there and they wouldn't be able to sell their products.

That is however the logic of your statment.

Workers should be paid according to the skill, difficulty, and training that their job demands, and according to the available labor for potential job openings. If a company (Wal-Mart or otherwise) pays too little for what the job demands, they won't work there. The problem is, unions mess that relationship up. A worker may only be doing a job worth $X/hour, but because they are unionized they may be earning more than that. Its legalized collusion. (Such collusion would likely be illegal if done in any other area of the economy.)

I note your unsupported sweeping allegations about unions. All around the world unions act to prevent unscrupulous businesses taking advantage of their employees, to ensure that their rights are protected and to ensure that they receive a fair share of the rewards their work produces.

I never said they were "all" good. Yes, they have and done things which are illegal or downright boneheaded. But they have also been victims of bad publicity, and of people who don't necessarily look at things logically and/or have an ax to grind.

and vice versa. The primary difference largely is that they are the ones who wield the power.

Do you at least admit that the claims made by the Quebec Labor board (that Wal-Mart closed a profitable store) might in fact be incorrect due to the board's non-examination of all facts related to the case?

It might be. I have also indicated Wal Mart is entitled to all proper treatment under the law.

And as I said before, for the most part wages should largely be determined by supply and demand.

Does that mean you will allow Chinese workers to fill all Wal Marts stores. I doubt it so unless you indicate otherwise you would not actually believe in a true supply and demand.

First of all, where is your proof that they're selling below cost price? Wal-mart does sell stuff cheaper than most other companies, but they also still manage to turn a profit. (The profit isn't as high as with many other large companies, but its still there.). They do so by being able to purchase larger quantities (thus getting bulk discounts), by having efficient inventory systems, and by controlling costs. (And yes, avoiding unions is part of that, but not the only part.) If they were selling below cost, then they wouldn't be turning a profit.

Wal Mart is well known for going into some towns and selling goods under cost price and drive other perfectly good mom and pop businesses out of business. Can I suggest you look at the links I posted in a bit more detail? Also see

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=28 This is very well known.

Secondly, Wal-mart isn't necessarily driving small stores out of business. Wal-mart is not competing with your neighbourhood mom&pop store. They're competing with K-Mart and Target (or Zellers up here in Canada). We have several Wal-marts in the city. Still have plenty of small stores around too. People will continue to shop at smaller stores for convenience (e.g. closer to home) or for better service/quality.

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09082004.shtml

I do wonder though... Wal-mart does undersell their competition (even though they still manage to turn a profit, so they're not selling 'below cost'.) Do you think its a good idea for Wal-mart to have to charge people (many of whom are poor) MORE for their stuff just so other stores can compete a bit better?

Wal Mart has been convicted of predatory pricing.

See http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:25541

The links I posted above also give the lie to this claim.

It is well known around the world that Wal Mart has a history of predatory pricing and has destroyed small businesses with its illegal activity. I am surprised you are in ignorance of this so hope the few links I have posted will demonstrate the true despicable magnitude of its activities.

Well, I just did a google search on 'retail lawsuits' and found the following articles:

Racial discrimination cases against Dillard's and Abercrombie & Finch
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/on...ial-Profiling-to-Fight-Shoplifting/6106SIW379
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/60minutes/main587099.shtml

American with Disabilities act problems with Target:
http://www.webaim.org/blog/target_lawsuit/

Truth in advertising lawsuit against K-mart:
http://retailtrafficmag.com/news/retail_federal_lawsuit_charges/

Customer privacy issues with The Container Store:
http://organizingla.blogs.com/organizingla_blog/2006/04/container_store.html

That's 5 articles covering 5 different retailers on the first 2 pages of google results.

I also modified the search a bit to search specifically for employee lawsuits and found:

Sexual discrimination: (Signet)
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Employees-Lawsuit-Jeopardizes-Signets-Future-Sales-Growth-22815.html

Unpaid commissions: (Sprint/Nextel)
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS137883+11-Feb-2008+MW20080211

So yeah, 2 minutes of searching has found lawsuits at 7 different (non Wal-mart) companies.

Ok, those aren't exactly small, independent stores. But they are smaller than Wall-Mart. Still, none of these retailers have been given the label of 'worst company ever' in any threads here.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that because other stores have issues that makes Wal Mart's despicable practices OK? How many lawsuits has Wal Mart faced? How many of those stores have been convicted of predatory behaviour like Wal Mart?

 

[BPSCG]

I think the premise of your question is illogical.

Don't blame me for the premise of the OP.

For a start as well as never claiming that Wal Mart if the worst company in the world I have no idea how they stand against every company in the world.

Fair enough...

I also believe that them being forced to pay the family money in this case has absolutely no bearing on the other despicable practices of Wal Mart I posted links to.

And the other "despicable practices" you refer to have nothing to do with this thread. Unless you are trying to prove that Wal-Mart is indeed the worst company in the world.

By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? That has the same relevance as your question.

Actually, no, it doesn't, since my question is directly related to the topic of the OP, while yours is related to nothing in particular at all.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

You clearly engaged in ad hominem poisoning the well. Your rationalization not withstanding.

I clearly was not, as demonstrated above. I have also documented the reason for my argument - unlike you.

That is ad hominem. Pointing that out is not abuse.

As demonstrated above it was not. Random non-sequiturs while ignoring the key issue clearly suggested apologist behaviour.

You also called me an apologist when you claimed '... Only and apologist would think that. ...' yet despite me asking for evidence to support your claims you have yet to supply any. Any chance of getting some in the near future? I am completely in the dark. What am I supposed to be an apologist for again?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Don't blame me for the premise of the OP.

I do not blame you for the premise of the OP. As specifically stated I blame you for the premise of your question. Unless someone else is responsible for it.

Fair enough...

And the other "despicable practices" you refer to have nothing to do with this thread. Unless you are trying to prove that Wal-Mart is indeed the worst company in the world.

Er yes they do. Wal Mart was cited for a specific action. I and others cited other actions by the same company of a despicable nature. Unless you are the forum police I really don't think you have the authority to decide what people can and can't do on the thread or decide that the thread means something it doesn't. Simply joining a thread does not make you agree with the thesis. That sort of argument is akin to claiming someone hates the USA simply because they dispute certain specific policies of the US and is by definition therefore, cretinous.

Actually, no, it doesn't, since my question is directly related to the topic of the OP, while yours is related to nothing in particular at all.

Since I never made the claim you were insisting I answer to my question was equally as valid as yours.

 

[RandFan]

I clearly was not, as demonstrated above. I have also documented the reason for my argument - unlike you.

You have demonstrated absolutely nothing. The argument is specious.

Random non-sequiturs while ignoring the key issue clearly suggested apologist behaviour.

Whether they do or not has no bearing on the truth value of the claims made. You are engaging in ad hominem.

You also called me an apologist when you claimed '... Only and apologist would think that. ...'

What? I never made any such claim. I was mocking you.

...yet despite me asking for evidence to support your claims you have yet to supply any.

Other than pointing out that you are engaging in specious rhetoric I've made no such claims.

I am completely in the dark. What am I supposed to be an apologist for again?

I never made any such claim. I'm mocking you.

 

[Segnosaur]

No, because if they paid nothing, people wouldn't work there and they wouldn't be able to sell their products.

That is however the logic of your statment.

No, its not.

I initially suggested unions provide a negative impact on the economy because they artificially inflate the price of labor, compared to what it would be under the conditions of supply/demand. Initially I did not state the reason for there to be a floor because it wasn't relevant.

I note your unsupported sweeping allegations about unions. All around the world unions act to prevent unscrupulous businesses taking advantage of their employees, to ensure that their rights are protected and to ensure that they receive a fair share of the rewards their work produces.

I find it ironic that you address my argument as being 'unsupported sweeping allegations by providing your own unsupported sweeping allegations.

Its the 21st century. At least here in the western world we're far removed from the days of the robber barons, etc. There's no 'great evil' that unions are protecting us from.

Unions don't "protect rights". They take away rights. I worked at jobs where I was covered by the union. The union in that case took away my personal right to negotiate with my employer for my own wages/benefits.

And your definition of 'fair share' basically means "more than they should be getting, just because they have the ability to demand more".

Would you be upset if you found out that all the barbershops in your town were banding together and artificially setting prices too high? How about if all the corner stores got together to say "Lets all double the price of milk... since we're the only places to get milk late at night, they'll be forced to buy from us and increase our profits". Both of those cases are illegal (and as well they should be). Its called collusion. So why is it considered good if the employees get together and say "we'll work together and demand more, because an employer is forced to work with us."

I never said they were "all" good. Yes, they have and done things which are illegal or downright boneheaded. But they have also been victims of bad publicity, and of people who don't necessarily look at things logically and/or have an ax to grind.

and vice versa. The primary difference largely is that they are the ones who wield the power.

Really? Last time I checked, there was no law forcing people to shop at Wal-Mart. Slavery has been abolished, so people aren't forced to work there. There's also a first amendment in the U.S., so there's freedom of the press. So, what exactly does Wal-mart have the ability to do that gives it all this power?

Do you at least admit that the claims made by the Quebec Labor board (that Wal-Mart closed a profitable store) might in fact be incorrect due to the board's non-examination of all facts related to the case?

It might be. I have also indicated Wal Mart is entitled to all proper treatment under the law.

Hey, at least admitting that the Labor board made a mistake is a step in the right direction.

I could also point out that the 'Labor board' is not a court of law.

And by the way, the 'law' isn't perfect. Its quite possible for a person or company to be treated 'properly' under the law, but have that treatment be unethical or bad from an economical point of view. How would you feel if it were a person sentenced to jail, while the police and/or judge refused to consider possible evidence clearing the accused?

Does that mean you will allow Chinese workers to fill all Wal Marts stores. I doubt it so unless you indicate otherwise you would not actually believe in a true supply and demand.

Straw man. If you're talking about somehow importing workers, then you run into all sorts of issues dealing with immigration. That in itself would make the idea of bringing in Chinese workers to be a non-starter.

Wal Mart is well known for going into some towns and selling goods under cost price and drive other perfectly good mom and pop businesses out of business. Can I suggest you look at the links I posted in a bit more detail? Also see

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=28 This is very well known.

Wal Mart has been convicted of predatory pricing.

See http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:25541

The links I posted above also give the lie to this claim.

Ok, I've done some research into the cases mentioned in your links, and found a few flaws...

First of all, Wal-mart wasn't necessarily convicted of 'predatory pricing'. Predatory pricing suggests that prices are set low to deliberately drive competitors out of business. However, there is a concept of a 'loss leader', items sold at minimum or below cost as a tactic to generate sales. However, in Germany and Wisconsin, there are laws against below-cost pricing, even if its done as a loss-leader and not done for malevolent purposes.

Secondly... the German case talked about in one of your links? Turns out that for some products Wal-Mart had reduced its prices to compete with other supermarkets who were also selling below cost. They were still convicted under German law because the other companies were likewise guilty, but I don't think Wal-Mart should be carrying the blame for trying to match the prices of its competitors.

And the Oklahoma case? Guess what? Wal-Mart won that court case.

http://www.wilmerhale.com/files/Pub...ternational Competition Law Update12-2-02.pdf
http://adams.law.ou.edu/olr/articles/vol57/vol574/meyers574.pdf

It is well known around the world that Wal Mart has a history of predatory pricing...

Its also 'well known' around the world that homeopathy works, that Mother Theresa really was a saint, and that someone was drugged and woke up in a bathtub full of ice missing his kidneys. The trouble is, what's 'well known' doesn't necessarily always match up with reality.

and has destroyed small businesses with its illegal activity. I am surprised you are in ignorance of this so hope the few links I have posted will demonstrate the true despicable magnitude of its activities.

Actually, I'm aware of the claims that Wal-Mart destroys small businesses. But the fact is, as Wal-Mart has expanded, the number of small and single proprieter business has not dropped.

As a study by the University of West Virginia states: our results suggest that the
process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no
statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and
profitability of the small business sector in the United States..

http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/Walmart.pdf

(List of similar lawsuits against other companies)

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that because other stores have issues that makes Wal Mart's despicable practices OK? How many lawsuits has Wal Mart faced? How many of those stores have been convicted of predatory behaviour like Wal Mart?

I already stated what my point was... many (probably most) companies are going to make mistakes. Wal-mart, being one of the bigger companies, is going to make more mistakes simply because of its size. That doesn't mean the company is somehow 'evil', or deserves the reputation its getting (such as being labeled "worst company in the world", as the thread title suggests.)

Condemn companies (or people) for their actual actions, not on perceptions.

 

[BPSCG]

Simply joining a thread does not make you agree with the thesis.

You are quite correct.

Now that we agree on that, would you care to tell us whether you agree or disagree with the thesis? Do you believe:

• Wal-Mart is the worst company in the world;
• Wal-Mart is not the worst company in the world, or;
• You do not believe you have enough information to make an informed decision.

I, personally, do not think Wal-Mart is the worst company in the world. There, I've said it. Now it's your turn. Go ahead, E.J., be a brave lad and just pick one. It's easy.