Wal-Mart in Canada: I've done my bit!

[iverglas]

So I just turned down work worth about $1300.00 because it was for a firm seeking a contract with Wal-Mart.

Okay ... it was a crap job I didn't want to do anyway. And I'm pretty busy and would have had to squeeze it in, and will probably get something I'd rather do, to make up for it anyhow. And, how to put this delicately, that amount of money isn't going to make or break me.

I dunno. Presumably it was a local firm (western Canada) whose workers would at least be getting work (short-term) from the beast. Somebody will get it anyhow, one way or another. I wouldn't actually be working for Wal-Mart. And I'm letting down my own customer, the one contracting out the work that the firm wanting to contract with Wal-Mart has contracted out. (Sounds complicated, but it's a specialized service that has nothing to do with the service the firm provides to Wal-Mart).

It just felt scabby. I mean, the firm that is seeking the contract with Wal-Mart looks scabby. If it's a union firm, which I very much doubt, should it be working for Wal-Mart? (Actually, I suppose so. It shouldn't be buying goods or services from non-union firms, if it were union, but it can't really not work for non-union firms.) It's one of those what are ya gonna do situations, I guess.

Me, I wouldn't do work for Wal-Mart directly, period. But a local firm, probably not a big one, that employs ordinary working people not in a position to have such tender scruples (and this firm might be one at a slight disadvantage in the market to start with because of cultural minority status), often needs to take work where it can get it. When Wal-Mart's the only big show in town ...

Working for them isn't the same as buying from them; that I've never done, and I'm pleased to say that my white-collar union activist best friend Wal-Mart shopper has decided to reform.

Any union types wanna give me the correct line?

I've left a message for my customer saying I'm reconsidering ... if it's only my personal ick factor involved, I should probably stifle it. As long as I'm doing the work for good reasons, and not just for the money. ;)

[flygal]

1. Good for you!! I hate wally world - fight the bastards!

[satya]

2. Cheers to you for taking a principled stand! If more of us do the same,

we can make a real difference.


:yourock:

[Village Idiot]

3. Way to go!

I've never even set foot in a Wal-Mart.

[Lautremont]

4. Wal-Mart don't wash off

no matter how many showers you take. Avoid them, even at a step removed. I don't even like driving past the ugly places.

[hermetic]

5. Here's an article

I had never seen before, just found it 20 minutes ago oddly enough. It's kind of long but I think it paints a very clear picture of both the "good" and bad sides of the beast.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
And be advised you might want to turn your cookie blocker on.

[iverglas]

7. that's an excellent point

And a good article.

Yes, I do know about the "other side" of the Wal-Mart equation -- the downward pressure on wages everywhere else in the economy where it gets its supplies, as its suppliers must continually compete to offer the only major buyer in the market the lowest prices. That's really the worst aspect of the whole phenomenon. Monopolies don't just screw consumers by monopolizing the supply to consumers, they screw suppliers by monopolizing the demand from suppliers. They are able to effectively set the wages and working conditions for people way up the line.

But -- the firm I'd be indirectly doing the work for would not actually be in that position. The service it provides is one that has to be obtained locally; can't be out-sourced, because the workers have to be on site. So the competition would all be local, and the job wouldn't be much different, from their standpoint, from any other similar-sized job in the area.

And in their field, Wal-Mart isn't the only game in town. This would certainly be a significant contract for whoever gets it, but the firms competing aren't selling to the "company store" in that sense; the losing bidders won't be put out of business and Wal-Mart's terms won't determine the wages and working conditions in the entire industry. I'd actually already thought about this aspect, and that's one major reason I wouldn't feel quite so icky.

[iverglas]

6. wellll ...

I may have caved. My own customer doesn't know whether her customer -- the firm seeking the contract with Wal-Mart -- wants this particular work done for sure or not. But I've said that if her other contractor doesn't want it, I'll probably do it.

Somebody's going to get this contract from Wal-Mart, and I know the firm I'd be working for is a local one and, as I mentioned, may be at a slight disadvantage generally because of minority status. It isn't likely a large firm, and its workers, blue-collar, depend on this kind of job, which is likely bigger than most they get and therefore gives them some security.

I think the rule is, generally, don't buy from the beasts. But sell to them? There may not be a choice. After all, we don't castigate the people who actually work in Wal-Marts. We want them to be treated decently.

My dad drove for a small trucking firm, for a few years, whose only contract was moving car parts around southeastern Ontario and the northeastern US for one of the Big Five. The owner of the firm was the kind of piggie who used her Lincoln to haul the hay for her stable of horses. She had to be unionized, because the union contract at the car manufacturer required that all shipping be contracted to union firms. The union she found to bring in (the truckers weren't the most sophisticated lot) was shit, but it met the requirement, and it was microscopically better than no union.

But would the union in that auto manufacturer require that its employer not sell to Wal-Mart? I don't think so! They want to sell their stuff; that's the whole point, that's what keeps them working.

Certainly if a Wal-Mart were on strike, unionized suppliers wouldn't cross the line. But that's a different thing -- that's a pressure tactic to support the union in the store.

If the unions in Canada actually were calling for a consumer boycott of Wal-Mart, even if there were no strike, I'd certainly be more inclined to go on a selling boycott too, including not selling to somebody selling to them. That would be crossing a sort of picket line, vicariously.

But in this case, there doesn't seem to be much point. There isn't a strike or a boycott. The local people need the jobs that Wal-Mart provides, directly or indirectly, simply because those are the jobs there are. And me, I'm just irrelevant. Yeah, my ick level might rise, but I'm thinking that that's not sufficient for me to let down my own customer (also a small local firm) and her customer.

Kick me.

[Mother Jones]

8. Don't sweat it too much iverglas

My husband does some contract work on behalf of a supplier to Walmart. This is in a technical capacity - he's a subk to a subk -kinda thing.

As we don't shop Walmart on principle, we have resigned ourselves to being OK with this.

There are many contradictions in our daily lives, that we all have to contend with. We simply do the best we can in ensuring we do the right thing.

[iverglas]

9. ah, I know ;)

We all pollute and waste and all that, just for starters.

One can consume less, and waste less, but one is still ultimately a blight on the earth. ;)

If one is not going to jump off a cliff, or move to an island and live on berries, one just does one's best and rationalizes the rest.

Ah. The ringing phone a minute ago was my customer calling ... better see whether I even have cause for rationalization!

... Nope, no answer on that one, just something else in the meantime. I knew I wouldn't miss it. But being good when it's easy doesn't count, of course. ;)

[satya]

10. On the bright side, you'd be taking money out of Walmart's hands

(indirectly) and putting into your pocket, where I'm sure it will be put to better use. If you take the job, and feel guilty, donate some of the money to one of your favorite causes.
I still salute you for having a conscience.:toast: