WalMart

WalMart is a discount store that operates mainly in the US, which was found in 1962 by Sam Walton. It is the world’s largest public corporation by revenue, generating an estimated $387.68billion. It operates in Mexico as Walmex, in the UK as ASDA, and in Japan as Seiyu. It has wholly-owned operations in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Puerto Rico. WalMart’s investments outside North America have had mixed results: its operations in South America and China are highly successful, while it was forced to pull out of Germany and South Korea when ventures there were unsuccessful.

WalMart has been criticized by some community groups, women’s rights groups, grassroots organizations, and labor unions, specifically for its extensive foreign product sourcing, low rates of employee health insurance enrollment, resistance to union representation, and alleged sexism.

WalMart’s business model is that they sell a wide variety of general products at competitively low prices. This has had various blips in its years of running, as their discounted products are generally frowned upon and are thought of as a cheap alternative. 

Full-time WalMart employees earn an average of $10.11 per hour. This isn’t a particularly princely sum, and the cruel reality is that many employees with children are frequently earning below the poverty line. WalMart have often been criticised for not giving their employees any financial backing, no healthcare cover for fulltime employees nor any sustanance. However, WalMart are often attacked because of the fact that they are the largest employer, and thereby the largest public company, in the USA. WalMart have also opposed having the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to form unions.

WalMart are currently in the midst of a gender discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit suggests that female employees were discriminated against for issues regarding salaries and promotions. According to WalMart’s own files, female employees made up 65% of WalMart’s hourly-paid workforce, but only 33% of its management.

Many people who oppose WalMart’s ways have set up various organisations and groups that work together to “fight the system”, and hopefully “end WalMart’s tyranny”. I completely disagree with this, and I think it’s not a feasilbe idea. WalMart have awful standards of pay, and they may face discriminatory hearings, but, unfortunately, this will never cease to happen. WalMart’s reign as America’s top-dog won’t come to an end any time soon. Their corporate structurs and business models dictate this and the general public will continue to buy from WalMart because of their ridiculously low prices. Unfortunately, smaller businesses who offer items on the cheap are suffering because of WalMart. 

However, I cannot ponder these questions for too long as my local WalMart just received a new order of oven gloves, and I need to get my hands of them soon before they all go out of stock.

Until next week…

Primark

Primark. A budget clothing brand in the UK and Ireland. They are known for having one of the worst workers’ rights out of any company in the UK. Their headquarters are based in Ireland and, in Ireland, they trade under the name Penney’s. Primark have been lambasted because of employing children to do the labour and make their budget clothes. I personally think that this is a disgrace to the company, and people should boycott it immediately. 

They employ over 26,000 people in their stores and factories. In 2005, Primark scored the worst out of any clothing manufacturer for the way it treats its workers. They scored a lowly 3.5 out of 20.  Since then, however, Primark have been duly contesting such scores and they have still denied ever having bad ” work ethics”. 

All of Primark stores have their own brands. Thus, this enables them to sell these brands at cheap prices as they don’t have to pay licensing fees and fees to other companies. They have 13 brands that are in their stores, each brand having a segment of the marketshare. 

Recently, Primark have started open many more stores. So why haven’t they been shut down because of their ethics and the child labour? No-one really knows. There still hasn’t been enough evidence against them, and because of this, they continue to trade. 

Child labour is still a growing problem in many of today’s corporate structures. I previously revealed Nike’s child labour in China and Indonesia. I can safely say that Primark are no better, and for that, they should be shut down. 

It has also been revealed that in September 2007, Primark were fined £8,000 for breaching the safety regulations on their clothing. Surely their clothing would have gone through rigorous testing before being sold to the public? Sadly not. 

Primark just fall short for me in every possible way. Sure, their clothing is cheap, but that in itself comes at a price. Their clothing just doesn’t live up to the standard of quality I expect from a high-street clothing chain. Then there’s the much-repeated child labour and safety regulations breach. For these reasons, Primark should never be allowed to trade again, and I stand by that. I never have bought, nor will I ever buy, any item from Primark.

Hmmm, I’m going out tonight. I heard about this great shirt from Primark!

Nike

Aah Nike. When it first started up it was the shoe of choice for athletes. However, nowadays, it’s an everyman shoe, that just about anyone can wear. So what are the roots, the fiscal matters and the whole corporate structure of Nike? And what about the world-renowned famous Nike Swoosh logo that adorns these shoes.

Over the years, it seems as though getting famous athletes to wear Nike’s shoes have been an intricate role in getting these shoes mass-marketed. Most famously, Michael Jordan wore these shoes during his playing career, and now has a line of his own at Nike. The new Air Jordan XX3 is almost in stores, and is designed “with the environment in mind”. Yeah right, if you call making them in China environmentally friendly.

That brings me to another, controversial topic. Nike has been previously lambasted because it used to produce its shoes and sports apparel in sweatshops in China. There has also been speculation that Nike has been using child labour to produce its products in Vietnam and Mexico.

Furthermore, there’s also been some controversy with the adverts that Nike air. One may recall that they aired a somewhat violent advert about a lunatic and a runner and it all ended happily. Or something like that. 

Nike sponsors almost every sport, and has many sponsors of various football (soccer) clubs including Arsenal and Manchester United. Nike is a growing corporation that has over 30,000 employees and takes in, in revenue, around $16.325 billion, a phenomenally large sum.

Nike’s environmental record isn’t so good. They make their equipment and clothing in foreign lands, such as the far east, which incurs major import tax, which is then passed onto the consumer. This is one of the reasons why Nike’s shoes are so expensive.

However, Nike has another company that deal with cheaper clothing. This company is called Starter, and sells their products in stores such as Wal-Mart.

But has Nike taken over the world? I, for one, sincerely hope not. Thank goodness they still haven’t touched on one of my favourite sports,  (American) football. Reebok owns that one. When will Nike’s reign of expensive-yet-worthless shoes come to an end? 

I’ll go ponder these question while I go for a run in my new Nike Air Jordans.

Hypocrite

So today I went out for lunch with a good friend of mine, Leigh. We first went to McDonalds, then sat down for a nice coffee at Starbucks. And during this whole time I actually thought to myself how hypocritical this is of me if I’m damning them. Oh well, I do love McNuggets and Frappucinos.

Starbucks

Aaah Starbucks. I do love a good Starbucks, occassionally. It’s just so damn expensive. And what with a revenue for the year ending 2007 of $9.411 billion. That’s a hell of a lot of money, some $60 contributed by me. And then there’s the 172,000 employees that work for Starbucks. Poor saps. My good friend Leigh has come up with another witty quip, calling Starbucks employees “Foreigniano”. Sounds Italian, with a hint of foreign about it. In all my time, I think I’ve seen one British employee at the many different Starbucks in and around London that I’ve been to. It’s as if a new Starbucks opens every week somewhere in the country. One just opened locally near me a few weeks ago. It’s now my hub for working on the laptop, drinking coffee, and generally meeting people. But, you may ask, what is it I have against Starbucks?

There are some good things too. Such as how Starbucks was voted one of the best companies to work for in the UK, according to the Financial Times survey of 2008. In contrast to this, 61 of the 84 Starbucks stores across Australia have recently been closed due to Starbucks wanting to focus it’s priorites on Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Many people have criticised Starbucks for this, saying that a country rich in coffee culture that has had 75% of stores closed is ridiculous. And I, for one, agree. Starbucks doesn’t need the money, they’re already a company making billions of dollars a year, and, of the 29 countries that Starbucks is currently in, I’m not quite sure that closing off 75% of one country will do them much harm.

Now onto how the Foreignianos (it’s catching on, isn’t it?) treat the customers. Each and every time I walk into Starbucks, I’m greeted by a saturnine melancholy of drowning hope as I walk up to the counter to order. It’s dreadful. And charging £3.50 for blended milk, ice and a bit of caramel/chocolate/strawberry flavouring. Profit, much? And the way that Starbucks has simply taken over out world and lives, it’s quite bemusing. Or how about £4.00 for a cup of coffee with “rich Arabica coffee beans that gives off a sumptuous aroma”. Instant coffee with some cream is what I say.

Then there’s the whole “We’re corporate and we need to protect our image. Go green. Environment!”. A lot of a crap. Starbucks use so much water and paper everyday, it’s unbearable. Just because you’re a corporate company doesn’t mean you have to advertise your stupid “Go green” campaign.

And my final bit of utter rubbish that shouldn’t be. Paying extra money for eating in. What. The. Hell?! Honestly, that money is just going to go to the huge power struggle at the top to which only the CEO and his partners will benefit.  I would, however, completely agree if the extra money from eating in went to the Foreignianos that worked there. They need it. And then think about the extra money Starbucks rake in (I’ve actually got to thank my good friend BenG for this one). 20 pence extra per average sit down meal. On average, 200 customers per store per day. Around 700 or so stores. That’s a few thousand pounds extra per day. And it all adds up.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to sign off. My Caramel Créme Frappucino© is getting cold.

October

So, today’s the first of the month of October, and with it we look forward to such things as Hallowe’en. Today is also the first day of Eid (the end of the fasting month of Ramadan) in the Islamic religion, and it’s also the second day of Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year). So, to the millions of people 3 people who actually read this, happy Eid, happy Rosh Hashana, and look forward to the month of October. As promised, on Monday, another rant by me, with a subject of Starbucks and it’s corporate measure on society.