Since everything I've posted here starts with a meandering backstory, I'll instead post my intentions first, then fill you in.
Simply, I would like PD'ers to brainstorm ways that Wal-Mart can be taken down. Any idea, no matter how off the wall it is. I want to see this through, I want to end that company, and I want nothing more than every Walton to hang themselves when they discover they are only two bankruptcies away from standing in a soup line.
Backstory (the following has a degree of artistic license, as to make it easier to stomach):
I've been at a lull in my professional life. I haven't been able to get motivated, and I haven't completed anything remotely presentable to publishers in a long time. I've since returned to my other job full time. It was a moderate paying part-time that I held onto so I could provide health insurance for the wife and kids. I've just felt completely shitty, and I know it's because I can't just get myself to get my shit together.
After having a long conversation with a former colleague who invited me to his massive house, last night (his most recent textbook making obscene amounts of money), we got on the topic of Life and quantum physics. He's a science guru, and he's one of those who is too polite to tell me I'm drunk and talking out of my ass. Thanks to my state of mind, I kept shifting the conversation to how my current state applies to whatever specific theme we were touching on, because I'm a dick like that. He's a good enough guy that he humored me in this regard, even though it was probably the last thing he wanted to discuss. He pointed out that I've had some success in my past, but every time it's usually followed by a period of languidness until I reach the point where my situation is severe, then I usually turn it around to get another little taste of success. He said that Tolstoy did something similar (or maybe it was Dostoyevski... I can't remember, nor be bothered to Google it), in which he would publish a novel that would earn him considerable amounts of money, only to then gamble himself into debt, forcing him to write another great work. For that author, he said, it was the only way he could achieve the level of clarity and focus necessary to get to that creative state... to have his very livelihood hinging upon his next work. My friend's suggestion was that I was in the same boat, but for me, it was slightly different, because for me it was a matter of getting so bored with my life, I have to find something inspiring and challenging to get to the next "mountaintop."
His suggestion was to find something seemingly impossible to defeat. He then asked what angers me more than anything in the world, and I said "the mighty exploiting the weak and desperate." So, we thought of some situations that particularly disgusted me, and the first one I mentioned was child sex slaves. After some discussion, we decided that I would most likely get myself killed, so it'd be better if I pursued something in which the opposition would be less eager to shoot me in the head. I then mentioned something awful my wife's friend just went through... employment at Wal-Mart. My wife's friend is a very caring and wonderful person, but she isn't very smart, and she has had the most unlucky life of anyone I've ever met. Without getting into her life story (trust me, it would make you want to douse yourself in gas, then nuke the planet), she went to work for them because she was in a shitty situation where her husband had just died of leukemia, leaving her with three wonderful children (4, 7, and 9), a trailer they were still paying for, tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt from her now dead husband's treatment (we tried to get her to divorce him so the debt would die with him, but she said she couldn't do it because "[She] made a promise to God that, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer..."etc), and her previous employer fired her after 10+ years of dedicated service (she had to schedule the funeral for the evening because they wouldn't give her the day off, I shit you not) after she asked for a raise to help her in this situation.
So, the only job she was able to find was Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart wouldn't schedule around picking up or taking care of the kids, so my wife and her sister were taking care of them, and sometimes she wouldn't even get to see them for 5 minutes to kiss them goodnight. But then she started seeing them more because when she hit 6 months, they cut her down so she was working 27 hours a week (Wal-Mart considers 28 hours "full time" to receive health benefits, I guess). Only, when I say "working 27 hours", I mean "scheduled for 27 hours" because almost every day they told her to punch out before going back for another hour or two to "zone out", which doesn't mean what you and I think it means. To "zone" something means clean it up and fix the merchandise displays in that area. So, she worked 50-60 hour weeks at $8.25/hr (minimum where I'm at), but only getting paid for 40 of it, for six months. And desperately clinging to the hope that if she manages to make it to 6 months, she can finally get health insurance and stop living in fear that her kids may get sick or go to the hospital. However, then Wal-Mart not only didn't qualify her for health insurance, they were cutting her hours to the point where she has "borrowed" money from us, so she can eat (they've been without power for almost a month), and providing her with information on how to get Medicaire and WIC. As if it wasn't fucked up already, she came to my house crying uncontrollably. Wal-Mart fired her. They said it was because she was "failing to be a team player." While she sat in my kitchen, crying and shaking, saying over and over again "What am I going to do?!", I contacted a friend who has a son working there part-time this summer to see what the hell happened. He knew exactly why she got fired: she was in the break room and when one of the older women was asking about her husband's funeral, she mentioned that one of his old union pals (from the candy factory he worked at until it closed back in 2003 or 2004) placed their union patch in the casket with him during Last Respects. I guess a few minutes after that, one of the managers was asking everybody where she was, and soon after she was walked out. I asked her if she remembered that conversation, and she nodded. I didn't have the heart to tell her that's most likely the reason she got fired.
So, after everything she's endured, Wal-Mart fired her because her dead husband was in a Union a decade ago. Or, because she wasn't a team player, if you want to believe they're story.
After explaining to my friend that we're considering letting her move in with our family, since she doesn't have any money, they're losing the trailer, and we've been practically feeding them since (unemployment only pays 60% of what you were earning before, so thanks to those 27 hour weeks, she's getting a whopping $106 a week to support she and her three kids, and no Cobra because she didn't have insurance, so fuck her, right?), he told me that my next task is to take down Wal-Mart.* I said "Ah, so David versus Goliath." And his reply was "You don't even have a slingshot, and Wal-Mart is the largest employer and retail outfit in the world, so it's more like Lazarus versus Jericho."
Wal-Mart and their proprietors are the scum of the earth (the people working there have my sympathies), and if they were a country, they would be the 25th richest country in the world. An evil regime and a force that must be not only stopped, but dismantled, and shit upon. Please help me think of creative ways that I could do that.
*My friend gave me a very large sum of money to help her out. She wouldn't take it, at first, but I told her that if she didn't, my friend would be heartbroken.
Wal-Mart is going to collapse under its own weight, and I'll tell you why; it's because they have the same ethic toward their employees as K-Mart has: "Hire 'em, use 'em up, and fire 'em". Screw them all out of benefits, make them work for free, and keep them so in fear for their jobs that no one dares try to organize.
I really want to hope you're right, but my fear is that part of the reason KMart collapsed is because another company, using the same formula but to an even more sadistic degree, knocked it off the top of the ladder.
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on July 12, 2013, 01:56:23 AM
I really want to hope you're right, but my fear is that part of the reason KMart collapsed is because another company, using the same formula but to an even more sadistic degree, knocked it off the top of the ladder.
Naw, K-Mart's legs were crumpling under them 17-18 years ago while they were still on top, it just took this long to manifest. I worked for a company that K-Mart purchased back then, and the signs were clear then.
Well, here's one tactic for nut-punching: stealthily unionize the workforce.
Walmart knows they couldn't survive if their employees were union, there's no question about it and that's why they're so aggressive when people mention unions even in passing. Part of the employee indoctrination is inoculating them against the idea, and most people working at Walmart are desperate enough for the job that they won't want to risk it even if they can overcome the conditioning against the idea. That said, a nationwide picket on Walmart that resulted in every store closing would be devastating. I cannot even begin to comprehend the kinds of numbers that go through that chain on a daily basis, but I can tell you that the majority of profits end up getting shipped down to corporate.
So, how do you infect them with the idea of unions? Well, how about getting a bunch of people fired for "not being team players"? Slip union literature into their shit and rat on them for it, get local union reps to meet them for dinner under false pretenses and take pics to the boss. Make sure the people you're getting fired are asshats who would sell you out. Get people hired who are very quietly pro-union and take over the joint. Do it quietly and over time. Don't get caught. When the time comes, you need control of the entire workforce. Have your plants make friends with the existing employees and see who will play ball, and utterly ruin the ones who won't. Plan the strike day anonymously online and make sure everyone tells the bosses there's no way they'd participate, and yes sir we'll tell you if we figure out who's doing this.
And the day of make sure the cameras are rolling, and anyone who goes to work you beat within an inch of their lives. Because if you think this is a thing Walmart did to America you are horribly mistaken. I'm not a big fan of "THE AMERICA WE DEMANDED" line, because I think some things are less public demand and more institutional momentum, but FUCKING WALMART IS OUR FAULT. WE LET THIS HAPPEN. You can be as mad as you want at the people at the top, but it's every single person who went in that store and everyone who took a job there and every spineless town council that approved their permits that MADE THIS HAPPEN.
I'm in awe.
"In awe" in both ways. I'm amazed and startled (and turned on, sorta... Like the part of my brain that gets turned on when my wife threatens to beat me within an inch of my life for leaving the dome light on again, resulting in her being late for work)
so blackmail and thug people into making a union? sounds like a plan :?
Quote from: The Johnny on July 12, 2013, 03:46:24 AM
so blackmail and thug people into making a union? sounds like a plan :?
He said nut punch. I figured being nice guys was right out the window already.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 12, 2013, 03:46:24 AM
so blackmail and thug people into making a union? sounds like a plan :?
Worked in the 20s. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 03:51:33 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 12, 2013, 03:46:24 AM
so blackmail and thug people into making a union? sounds like a plan :?
Worked in the 20s. :lulz:
its ok do, end justify the means :whack:
To be fair, the violence and nastiness was started by the business magnates and the robber barons (see Pinkterons). You could say it became a matter of survival. Could have been worse. Ask Russia/USSR/Russia.
Ok... Bringing us back now.
Creative ideas, people. I don't care if they're shitty. Just help my brain get going.
[Unrelated side note: If you have to brush your teeth and drink Chardonnay in the same night, do it in the opposite order I did this evening. Blah...]
walmart is the consequence of larger things than itself, socio-economical and systemic things
fix poverty and people will not be willing to be exploited by walmart
good luck with that
also, deregulation of work contracts, good luck with that too
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on July 12, 2013, 04:14:55 AM
Creative ideas, people. I don't care if they're shitty. Just help my brain get going.
Spread rumors that the Walton Family are a family of ritual cultists who sacrifice babies to Satan?
...The sort of people who believe that will believe it if it says so in the interwebs with lots of Biblical references.
(And you did say shitty was ok)
Put created by slave labor tags on everything?
You know what's crazy? What REALLY gets me?
A comment upthread made me think of this.
Wal-Mart wouldn't die if it were Unionized. Wal-Mart would fucking THRIVE, especially if it invited the unions in. What would suffer, only momentarily, would be its shareholder profits, which are, short term, EVERYTHING. But if Wal-Mart said, fuck it, we're going to pay better than anyone and make sure all our employees make a living wage and stay with us forever and get great benefits and we're going to try to carry as many American-made products as we can source, they are absolutely positioned to create massive consumer loyalty other than the creepy, coerced, compulsory type they've created by driving other companies out of business. They're positioned to create REMAKE AMERICA GREAT loyalty, which is a brand that, right now, some other company is poised to make.
Not kidding.
Within ten years.
Let Wal-Mart become another Dollar General Franchise.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 12, 2013, 06:07:48 AM
You know what's crazy? What REALLY gets me?
A comment upthread made me think of this.
Wal-Mart wouldn't die if it were Unionized. Wal-Mart would fucking THRIVE, especially if it invited the unions in. What would suffer, only momentarily, would be its shareholder profits, which are, short term, EVERYTHING. But if Wal-Mart said, fuck it, we're going to pay better than anyone and make sure all our employees make a living wage and stay with us forever and get great benefits and we're going to try to carry as many American-made products as we can source, they are absolutely positioned to create massive consumer loyalty other than the creepy, coerced, compulsory type they've created by driving other companies out of business. They're positioned to create REMAKE AMERICA GREAT loyalty, which is a brand that, right now, some other company is poised to make.
Not kidding.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 12, 2013, 06:08:10 AM
Within ten years.
Yep, they'd be making the shareholders more money in the long run as well.
I am in love with this thread. I'll try to get some ideas on paper tonight after work.
Wal-Mart seems somewhat unique in that not only do they screw over the lowly serfs, they also seem to manage to screw over other large corporations. This in turn leads to layoffs and general badness for the employees of corporations that don't even work for Wal-Mart.
I used to live in a town that was Rubbermaid's HQ and watched the beginning of tons of rubbermaid plants being closed. The jist of Wal-Mart and their relationship with suppliers was explained to me, via a former rubbermaid employee, as this:
Wal-Mart: "Hey, you're a big company that makes product X, we'd like to sell a lot of product X, we'll pay Y for it."
Supplier: "That sounds mutually beneficial. We'd love to supply a bunch of product X to you."
(things go okay for a while and they both sell tons and tons of product X)
Wal-Mart: "We want to pay less for product X. Make the price lower or we'll stop buying from you and go somewhere else."
Supplier: "Gosh, Walmart, we already gave you a pretty good price for bulk. Also due to our own sources of raw material, sometimes our cost goes up and we still have to keep the same price. I don't know if we can afford to do that."
Wal-Mart: "Tough. We are large and account for a huge amount of your sales. Lower the price or we stop buying and ruin you."
Supplier: "......Okay."
(this second step is repeated multiple times. Meanwhile:)
Completely different chain store: "Hey! We see Wal-Mart pays tons less for product X. Give us same price or we'll go somewhere else."
Supplier: "But but but......<whimper>"
(eventually the supplier gets squeezed and one of two things happen. They go under when Wal-Mart stops buying from them, or as in the case of rubbermaid, they get bought out by another company who decides to do things 'Wal-mart's way' i.e. screw over their employees and/or unethical overseas suppliers.)
In the end, with this business model, which supplier companies are going to win out? The made-in-America/Living wage/Non-sweatshop type corporations or the Overseas/Sweatshop/Lowpaying Companies? Thus Wal-Mart's negative effects spread into multiple other large corporations.
Thing is, WalMart doesn't deserve your business. To them, you are fungible goods. That's true with a lot of companies, but most companies don't grind it into their employee's faces with mandatory "pep rallies" at each shift change.
Costco, on the other hand, while still a corporation, manages to treat their employees as people, and guess what? They're gaining market share.
Not only that, but you've described the inevitable path of corporate capitalism. In order to be considered profitable in a capitalist model, a publicly traded corporation must not only be profitable, but INCREASINGLY profitable, always. At first, a company can do that simply by growing, but after a point the market is saturated, so it must increase profitability in one of three ways; it can grow by 1. driving other companies out of business (eliminating the competition which is considered necessary to keep capitalism honest) by 2. buying up other companies (eliminating the competition which is considered necessary to keep capitalism honest) or by 3. diversifying its product (entering other markets, at which point return to step 1). Once it has exhausted the above options for growth, it must increase profitability by 1. reducing costs (wages, benefits, staffing, cost of goods), and 2. increasing prices.
Corporations are required by Federal law to put their shareholders interest above all other considerations. In other words, because they MUST grow, MUST increase profitability, the above trajectory is inevitable. Corporations may start out with good intentions but eventually they must do evil things in order to fulfill their highest legal responsibility, which is increasing the value of their shares.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
Thing is, WalMart doesn't deserve your business. To them, you are fungible goods. That's true with a lot of companies, but most companies don't grind it into their employee's faces with mandatory "pep rallies" at each shift change.
Costco, on the other hand, while still a corporation, manages to treat their employees as people, and guess what? They're gaining market share.
Costco also puts the hurt to suppliers, and has financially ruined more than a few, FYI.
Nigel, your above post about corporate capitalism perfectly summarizes my thoughts on it, which started when capitalism was explained to me when I was 11 or 12, and has grown cleared with each passing year. Perfect.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 12, 2013, 05:39:32 PM
Nigel, your above post about corporate capitalism perfectly summarizes my thoughts on it, which started when capitalism was explained to me when I was 11 or 12, and has grown cleared with each passing year. Perfect.
Thank you!
Capitalism requires a legitimate outside threat. Once the USSR - the last real threat - fell, capitalism became bloated and unworkable, and is more and more resembling the last pathetic years of the USSR.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
Capitalism requires a legitimate outside threat. Once the USSR - the last real threat - fell, capitalism became bloated and unworkable, and is more and more resembling the last pathetic years of the USSR.
It requires an outside threat for what?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 12, 2013, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
Capitalism requires a legitimate outside threat. Once the USSR - the last real threat - fell, capitalism became bloated and unworkable, and is more and more resembling the last pathetic years of the USSR.
It requires an outside threat for what?
For the surplus goods to be purchased in opposition to the outside threat.
McDonald Douglass and all it's feeder industries wouldn't have existed without the USSR.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 12, 2013, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
Capitalism requires a legitimate outside threat. Once the USSR - the last real threat - fell, capitalism became bloated and unworkable, and is more and more resembling the last pathetic years of the USSR.
It requires an outside threat for what?
For the surplus goods to be purchased in opposition to the outside threat.
McDonald Douglass and all it's feeder industries wouldn't have existed without the USSR.
Dead On Dok!
Otherwise, Capitalism (as defined in the US anyway), just continues to feed on itself to the detriment of the employees, customers and eventually the shareholders.
I've never really understood why a company has to continually grow. I guess I think in a, what, "naturalistic" view, where a company grows to fill a niche, and then supplies product , makes profit, and pays employees at a constant rate. I know I'm missing something, because that sounds so naive I want to punch myself.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 12, 2013, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
Capitalism requires a legitimate outside threat. Once the USSR - the last real threat - fell, capitalism became bloated and unworkable, and is more and more resembling the last pathetic years of the USSR.
It requires an outside threat for what?
For the surplus goods to be purchased in opposition to the outside threat.
McDonald Douglass and all it's feeder industries wouldn't have existed without the USSR.
Well, now the surplus goods are all disposable, and we buy buy buy just to have things we can throw away.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 12, 2013, 06:30:54 PM
I've never really understood why a company has to continually grow. I guess I think in a, what, "naturalistic" view, where a company grows to fill a niche, and then supplies product , makes profit, and pays employees at a constant rate. I know I'm missing something, because that sounds so naive I want to punch myself.
Because at that rate, the stock maintains value but doesn't grow. This means that speculators have no interest in that stock, because the returns on dividends are not high enough to maintain their OWN profit margins. Gross margin must be high enough, and continue rising, or the speculator side of the market - which is small in number but HUGE in value - drops out.
Given that they already have financial muscle, do you expect they'll allow that to happen?
This has, of course, happened before. From 1865 to World War I, the market and working conditions were a very scary parallel to today.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 12, 2013, 06:30:54 PM
I've never really understood why a company has to continually grow. I guess I think in a, what, "naturalistic" view, where a company grows to fill a niche, and then supplies product , makes profit, and pays employees at a constant rate. I know I'm missing something, because that sounds so naive I want to punch myself.
Because of the stock market. Stocks are essentially speculation that a company is going to not merely turn a profit, but turn an
increased profit. That's how they work. The only way to shut this madness down is to eliminate or severely curtail the domain of the stock market. Originally, it was heavily regulated to prevent exactly this type of outcome, but, um, Reagan and the Free Market. Real wages started to decline in 1973 (February, to be exact... the same month that the Senate voted to investigate Watergate, China and Japan reopened diplomatic relations, and the US and China agreed to open liaison offices) and corporations began to institute aggressively anti-worker policies and commenced a direct assault on unions, a trend that accelerated and was reinforced heavily by Reagan-era deregulation and the commensurate shift in government policies toward corporations and against workers. Clinton intensified the problem by administering the coup-de-grace to regulation of the stock market in 1999.
Part of the push from growth increased around 1999 because of the expansion of electronic trading. I don't remember the name of the type of application, but there are hedge funds with software that buys when a stock's movement and beta changes in a certain fashion, and dumps it if it acts a certain way. It's called High Frequency Trading, or Algorithmic Trading, and it nearly caused the stock market to crash in 2010:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash
The answer, in my opinion, would be to have a tax on each trade, or a fee on each trade that is done within a certain period of time from when it was originally purchased.
But then I would be accused of hating capitalism and threatened with deportation.
If I knew anything about algorithms, I'd say this would be one way to knock WalMart down a peg or two, but I don't, so... Crap.
Look at this prophetic article from 1999: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/11/bank-n01.html
Ah, the stock market. Forgot about that piece. Thanks, all.
Exposing your company to the stock market should involve a more obvious CASH NOW FOR SOUL LATER exchange.
I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 01:44:00 AM
I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...
Mars.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 13, 2013, 02:05:33 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 01:44:00 AM
I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...
Mars.
That's right...Earth first, then we get to destroy the other planets...
Walmart is now romulan empire
if this thread is still about taking down wal-mart - would it be possible to buy enough shares of wal-mart stock to railroad shareholder's meetings and set wal-mart on a path to demise? if so, could a large group of investors have a single voice at shareholder's meetings?
it seems that the internet could be a tool for large groups of investors to take over publicly traded companies
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 02:07:34 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 13, 2013, 02:05:33 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 01:44:00 AM
I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...
Mars.
That's right...Earth first, then we get to destroy the other planets...
1. Balls of rock. People > rock.
2. We would need to launch 200 people per minute to break even. Not viable.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 13, 2013, 05:45:57 AM
2. We would need to launch 200 people per minute to break even. Not viable.
Provided one wants them to be alive before, during, and after launch.
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001718095/445123245_total_recall_bulge_eyes_300_large.jpeg)
...Wal-mart must be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: rong on July 13, 2013, 04:54:23 AM
if this thread is still about taking down wal-mart - would it be possible to buy enough shares of wal-mart stock to railroad shareholder's meetings and set wal-mart on a path to demise? if so, could a large group of investors have a single voice at shareholder's meetings?
it seems that the internet could be a tool for large groups of investors to take over publicly traded companies
Hmmmmmm this idea has some serious potential, actually. Like, considerable monkey wrench in the works potential.
To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 07:42:09 AM
To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.
I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...
QuoteShareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443
...OK, that's basic, so...
http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc
Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)
As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 07:42:09 AM
To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.
I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...
QuoteShareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443
...OK, that's basic, so...
http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc
Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)
As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.
Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 08:21:06 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 07:42:09 AM
To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.
I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...
QuoteShareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443
...OK, that's basic, so...
http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc
Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)
As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.
Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.
And it can even be make circular. GE has sort of specialized in that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 13, 2013, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 08:21:06 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 07:42:09 AM
To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.
I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...
QuoteShareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443
...OK, that's basic, so...
http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc
Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)
As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.
Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.
And it can even be make circular. GE has sort of specialized in that.
Where this becomes interesting to me, personally, is where any system is interesting to me, which is the areas in which it can be used exactly as it was designed to be used.
EXACTLY AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE USED.
Quote from: rong on July 13, 2013, 04:54:23 AM
if this thread is still about taking down wal-mart - would it be possible to buy enough shares of wal-mart stock to railroad shareholder's meetings and set wal-mart on a path to demise? if so, could a large group of investors have a single voice at shareholder's meetings?
it seems that the internet could be a tool for large groups of investors to take over publicly traded companies
Wait a minute... Wait a minute... Wait a minute...
What if we formed an LLC called "Shoppers and Associates, LLC." I'm remembering a strategy in The Art of War, which basically suggests turning an army's biggest asset into a liability. What we do is approach the associates and the shoppers of WalMart (which are in a magnitude of millions, if you recall) and ask for $1. We pool a million dollars or so into WalMart stock. We now have voting rights as a shareholder, and when the dividends pay out, we buy more stock. We have no intention of making a profit, rather, we're just insuring we are a major shareholder so we can raise a ruckus. They call them "activist shareholders." We're technically not a union, just a unified collective in the post-union era. Plus, if we're only asking the associates for a one-time $1 fee, we aren't charging dues.
I realize there's holes in this idea, but if this got the idea ball rolling...
It's a good idea, IMO.
This feels like a thimblefull of water on a fire, but here's what I got.
Have a local movement in each town that doesn't want to be totally Wal-Marted. Make a list of locally owned businesses. Also rate them in terms of where they get their own raw products or supplies (i.e. local businesses buying from other local businesses is better). The list is available online and you can search based on what you want. You want to buy a hammer, a couch, or some food? You can find out where to get that stuff in a way that doesn't encourage the giant mega box stores. I got the idea when I moved as I began to make a list of places nearby that I can go to and not feel like I'm feeding the corporate beast. (although using phrases like 'the corporate beast' would be a turnoff for some. Maybe emphasize local business and local workers)
The downside is that it would be entirely dependent on whoever does the research to be accurate, also it's a colosall pain in the butt. For example there's a restauraunt nearby that is family owned and all the workers are relatives, but what if they purchase their food from some big evil company? How do you decide where to draw the line and/or define local and worker friendly?
Also it would require people to vote with their dollar. The insidious thing about Wal-Mart is that voting against them with your dollar tends to cost more, as exploitation is a pretty good way to keep prices down, as is being an insanely large company. Even worse, if you are a worker affected by Wal-Mart, you now don't make as much money, making it even harder to vote with your dollar.
I'm lucky. I'm single, have no kids, and have a pretty good job. I can afford to take the extra time and go to the local food coop and pay a few extra dollars for local meats and vegatables, or hang around enough flea markets and garage sales until I find a nice couch. If you're a single parent with kids and a low paying job, it becomes a much more difficult decision to make.
I dunno, at the very least putting a website with such lists up could potentially make alternatives to Wal-Mart a little bit more convenient but, at the heart of it, the people themselves have to want to choose those alternatives.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 13, 2013, 01:44:00 AM
I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...
My favorite part of that is that capitalism somehow plays it both ways. When it comes to growth, resources are considered infinite. If it comes to sharing a piece of the pie, all of a sudden it becomes a zero-sum game and how dare you ask anything of your corporate masters for nothing, you dirty dirty commie.
I don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.
I feel like this might be a good angle -- the Frank Luntzes and right wing fast talkers are trying to brand minimum wage as an unemployment issue. "If we pay people fairly, we'll have to fire all these people!" But this bill wouldn't really affect small businesses. I saw an article somewhere in which small businesses were relieved - if more walmarts are built, it would put all those little general stores and hardware stores out of business.
So maybe this is a good moment to champion the increased min.wage framed as in terms of small businesses and upward mobility? I am curious to see how this issue progresses. I think the trick to blowing up a topic like this is to highlight evocative symbolic conflict. The Waldens vs the Poor. Prop up the champions of the living wage bill as heroes, etc. I wonder whose side America would take if you could frame an issue as big business vs small business.
I dunno, a bit of a ramble, but I'm just chewing on ideas...
IIRC, there were some vocal proponents of the Bangladeshi workers rights pledge thingy at the last big Wal-Mart hoopla. I can't remember if they got to speak, but their presence was known.
The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....
On the stock purchase front, the best people to do it would be walmart employees.
Think of the PR when you have to kick a bunch of activist/shareholder/employees out of the AGM.
Possibly a letter writing campaign for some change that can only be detrimental to the business? (Bring back VHS! More choice of water!)
Given the size of the company, it would probably be most effective concentrating on one store at a time. "All of X walmart employees are shareholders" "X walmart caters to local demand for Y"
For something like this I have a feeling it's not about the size of the movement, more the appearance of size.
There's also the problem of actually stopping people (and yourself) spending cash there at all. That's a little trickier.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 08:49:45 AM
IIRC, there were some vocal proponents of the Bangladeshi workers rights pledge thingy at the last big Wal-Mart hoopla. I can't remember if they got to speak, but their presence was known.
The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....
Announcing that discordians own almost half their shares should be enough to persuade the stock markets to pull the rug out from under them :evil:
QuoteI don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.
Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 16, 2013, 08:49:45 AM
The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....
How many of the heirs are married? Use seduction as a path to power? We show a little leg, break up some marriages, then marry into being majority shareholders.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
QuoteI don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.
Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/
Last I heard that bill passed in council. I think it will go through. One potentially troubling thing is a late addition exempting stores operating with less than 75k square feet. Average Wal-Mart Supercenter is 182k square feet so it would still apply to them. I just can't shake visions of brand new 74,999 square foot stores popping up next to each other. I still really like the bill and hope it becomes a trend.
wal-mart does offer stock options to workers, so having employees purchase stock would not be difficult.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 16, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
QuoteI don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.
Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/
that is fucking beautiful.
Thing is, this is all great and so on, but how many of us can actually afford to buy ANY stock? And as far as controlling interest or even enough to form a proxy worth mentioning is roughly the same as saying we should all meet up and build a spaceship to fly to Saturn.
Pixie, I was actually discussing your point with an executive friend (Fortune 500 company, but it's more a tech company)...
He pointed out that even if you have voting influence as a shareholder, the influence is limited to approving executive appointments, salary and compensation, and other board members. Just like "democracy", you can elect people who seem to be on the same page as you, but when they're put in those positions their decisions are influenced more by a) Primary stock holders (in this case, the Walton family), and b) being stockholders themselves, as much of their compensation is stock options. So, they'd want to keep the Waltons happy first, and foremost, and they'd want their stock/paycheck to be high in February/March (When they sell their stock after filing their taxes) and lower in October/November, when they slowly start buying back and extending their options so they can write it off.
Simply, shareholders don't get to directly decide how much to pay workers and, you could say, they don't have a lot of influence, even indirectly.
Another thing that was brought up is the perceived image of WalMart is to certain, conservative types. Though you and I know how much WalMart hurts the working man, and the small American communities, they don't see it that way. The comparison was made to Garth Brooks. Even if Garth charges $260 for his next concert, southerners and country fans will make sure every one sells out. Same with Toby Keith. Once you are perceived to be a "good ol' boy," the cognitive dissonance never registers. There could be a document posted on Fox News that says "Walton family likes punching unborn babies in the neck", and they'd shrug their shoulders and say "Well, it's the only place for 30 miles, and besides, Rick is the manager over their, so they can't be all bad."
However...
Remember Garth Brooks and Toby Keith? Once public figures hit a certain level of success (in the eyes of southerners/conservative minded folk), it's next to impossible to fall out of favor with them. BUT... the opposite holds true. Once you have done something that irks their "values", you might as well consider yourself blacklisted south of the Mason Dixon line. Example: Dixie Chicks. Once one of the band members said "George Bush isn't a real Texan and we're ashamed of him" or whatever it was... people lost their shit.
How could we paint WalMart to be liberal? What sort of campaign, outlining a company that breaks with "Amurrica" would get these people to turn on it as they did with the Dixie Chicks? Not actual examples of how Walmart truly fucks the small town communities in the ass (that evidence is out there for everyone to see), but what policies or practices would these people consider un-American if it were to be highlighted?
Palling around with Bill Ayers.
There is an ocean of difference between Wal-Mart and the Dixie Chicks. The Dixies Chicks were just a band that a pretty small portion of the American populace were into.
Wal-Mart is fucking everywhere. Also, Wal-Mart is frequented by people of certain socio-economic status with limited shopping options. Where I live, if you aren't going to get your toilet paper, and your Cheetohs, and your plastic tubs at Wal-Mart you are going to get them.....oh yeah, nowhere.
You could publish a photo of some Wal-Mart brass in a three way with Obama and Michael Moore and people are still going to flock to Wal-Mart to buy their shit. Face it, Wal-Mart is pretty much inextricably entrenched in American society.