As I previously indicated in my blog about, Negotiating at Wal-Mart, I haven't finished giving Wal-Mart customer feedback and won't until the last of a gift card has been used up. However this may not be good enough. Wal-Mart isn't the only corporation that takes a portion of the money they collect from consumers and uses it for political purposes without passing on the political influence to those that ultimately pay for this political speech; which is why I think that most if not all business with large corporations is political activity as well. If you start plugging the name of any national or multinational corporation at Open Secrets.org you will almost always find that they're involved in political activities which they finance with money they get from their customers and they rarely if ever look out for the best interest of the customer who indirectly provides those funds.
In the long run it would be better to shop at businesses that aren't conducting political activities that threaten democratic participation or are involved in all these scandals at all; in this case it would still be a good idea to give them positive feedback that might include suggestions about how they might be able to obtain a competitive advantage over corporate oligarchies like Wal-Mart by buying locally which in many cases is better for the environment and saves money on shipping and in the case of food it may mean fresher food that could also be healthier. Buying locally also means that they're helping the local economy without trying to make people compete for work with those that have little or no worker rights. Presumably they already know this but they might not know how much their customers care. A small number of people that express sincere concern could make a difference.
As long as I'm going to use up this card I figured I might as well give them feed back in writing each time I make a purchase and mention what it about briefly while leaving the store. This might include a statement "This is customer feed back to ask the management not to support voter suppressant laws either through American Legislation Exchange Counsel or any other ways," or "please ask them to drop charges against Penny Winters for eating an Oreo cookie; with all the scandals that Wal-Mart executives are involved in it is highly inappropriate for them to be using tax payer money to intimidate their employees." I have little doubt that Wal-Mart would almost certainly not care much about the feedback that they receive from me unless it impacts their sales as well and they will have no way of knowing exactly how much it might do so. The bigger impact on their sales won't be from me; it will be from the enormous amount of stories about their activities that are being reported from sources that are much more widely read and from the fact that many other customers have also had major problems with the quality of their merchandise as well; however I can still provide a small contribution.
For every one letter that I have given them I have attempted to give away at least a few others to other people suggesting that they consider this too either with this letter or their own; and I have recommended that in most cases at least with Wal-Mart the best thing to do is to just boycott them when ever possible. Considering the fact that Wal-Mart has responded in draconian manners to many of the protests that they have encountered and that they routinely attempt to intimidate their critics including any employee that stands up for their rights or anyone that raises issues including former customers that sued them over their defective bikes it might be a good idea to let other people know about their complaints about Wal-Mart first then bring them to Wal-Mart. The old saying that many retailers used to have, "If you like our service let your friends know; if you have any concerns let us know," is based on the assumption that the business will actually try to address these concerns; this no longer seems to apply to Wal-Mart. They seem to think they can rely more on their deceptive advertising, public relations and market share to keep their customers than actually addressing anyone's concerns. Unfortunately there are many areas of the country where people don't have any other options since Wal-Mart has wiped out the competition, often with the help of government subsidies in the form of tax breaks or road construction paid for by local tax payers. In the long run more needs to be done to give them better options, but in the short run anything that can help let them know people are going to start standing up to corporate corruption even if our politicians don't will help.
The following are a couple of the letters that I have written to Wal-Mart and given to the cashiers or the people at the service desk asking them to pass it on to the management; if anyone else thinks this is a good idea for Wal-Mart or anywhere else feel free to use this or improvise with your own comments.
This is from a paying customer
I write this to inform you that just because I am conducting business at this store doesn’t mean I want a portion of the money you collect from me to be used for political purposes that I may not agree with. Over the past thirty years many corporations have dramatically increased the amount of money they have spent on lobbying, campaign contributions, including some to encourage voter suppression laws, advertising (most if not all of which is deceptive), shipping from half way around the world, activities to promote the privatization of schools even thought they have been overwhelmingly proven to be detrimental to the education of children by organizations like the “National Education Policy Center” at Colorado University and many other credible sources that receive little or no attention from the commercial media. This has been happening at the same time that corporations have consolidated into a much smaller number of outlets for goods that no longer seem to be providing real competition against each other. These corporations or oligarchies have simultaneously been cutting the cost of many activities that have contributed to the value of their merchandise, including worker pay or safety. A recent NYT article has quoted a Wal-Mart representative as saying “It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments,” in reference to the safety conditions of workers. They claim this was taken out of context which to some degree is true; however when it is put in proper context it may not make Wal-Mart look that much better. The safety of the workers also has an impact on the quality of the merchandise they pass on to the consumers. This has been indicated by the fact that many products being manufactured in these sweatshops half way around the world that have to go through expensive shipping and distribution subcontractors and add up additional bureaucratic expenses haven’t been that much cheaper but the quality has been gradually reduced over the past thirty years. This seems to mean that worker safety and quality control doesn’t seem to be “financially feasible” but advertising lobbying and campaign contributions and many other expenses that don’t benefit the customer is “financially feasible,” judging by the fact that these expenses aren’t being cut.
We have been told that corporations compete against each other to provide quality products at a low price. This clearly doesn’t appear to be true anymore; now that they have gone through an enormous amount of mergers and acquisitions. Most if not all corporations now rely on merchandise that is produced in sweat shops half way around the world, they add on the same bureaucratic expenses and the products fall apart much faster than they used to. An enormous amount of evidence from many reliable sources, unlike the commercial media which has a financial incentive to withhold information about the people that provide advertising money, is available to back this up and indicate that there are many more problems. In some cases they have become so extreme that even the commercial media has found it needs to report on it to maintain what they seem to consider a minimal amount of credibility.
Please redirect the money now being used for political purposes, whether it is through the American Legislative Exchange Council or other sources, back to manufacturing and services that actually benefit the customer that ultimately pays for corporate speech which is, justifiably or not, protected. If customers have to pay, indirectly, as a cost of business that is passed on to consumers, for corporate speech they should be entitled to influence on that speech whether that speech is in the form of advertising or political activities. The customer should also have equal rights to their own free speech, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that many activities are being conducted that result in fraudulent activities that cost the customer money. If corporations continue behaving in this manner and politicians that collect campaign contributions continue looking the other way then greater peaceful efforts will have to be made to inform more people of these activities before this country is ruined, if necessary.
I write this to inform you that just because I am conducting business at this store doesn’t mean I want a portion of the money you collect from me to be used for political purposes that I may not agree with. Over the past thirty years many corporations have dramatically increased the amount of money they have spent on lobbying, campaign contributions, including some to encourage voter suppression laws, advertising (most if not all of which is deceptive), shipping from half way around the world, activities to promote the privatization of schools even thought they have been overwhelmingly proven to be detrimental to the education of children by organizations like the “National Education Policy Center” at Colorado University and many other credible sources that receive little or no attention from the commercial media. This has been happening at the same time that corporations have consolidated into a much smaller number of outlets for goods that no longer seem to be providing real competition against each other. These corporations or oligarchies have simultaneously been cutting the cost of many activities that have contributed to the value of their merchandise, including worker pay or safety. A recent NYT article has quoted a Wal-Mart representative as saying “It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments,” in reference to the safety conditions of workers. They claim this was taken out of context which to some degree is true; however when it is put in proper context it may not make Wal-Mart look that much better. The safety of the workers also has an impact on the quality of the merchandise they pass on to the consumers. This has been indicated by the fact that many products being manufactured in these sweatshops half way around the world that have to go through expensive shipping and distribution subcontractors and add up additional bureaucratic expenses haven’t been that much cheaper but the quality has been gradually reduced over the past thirty years. This seems to mean that worker safety and quality control doesn’t seem to be “financially feasible” but advertising lobbying and campaign contributions and many other expenses that don’t benefit the customer is “financially feasible,” judging by the fact that these expenses aren’t being cut.
We have been told that corporations compete against each other to provide quality products at a low price. This clearly doesn’t appear to be true anymore; now that they have gone through an enormous amount of mergers and acquisitions. Most if not all corporations now rely on merchandise that is produced in sweat shops half way around the world, they add on the same bureaucratic expenses and the products fall apart much faster than they used to. An enormous amount of evidence from many reliable sources, unlike the commercial media which has a financial incentive to withhold information about the people that provide advertising money, is available to back this up and indicate that there are many more problems. In some cases they have become so extreme that even the commercial media has found it needs to report on it to maintain what they seem to consider a minimal amount of credibility.
Please redirect the money now being used for political purposes, whether it is through the American Legislative Exchange Council or other sources, back to manufacturing and services that actually benefit the customer that ultimately pays for corporate speech which is, justifiably or not, protected. If customers have to pay, indirectly, as a cost of business that is passed on to consumers, for corporate speech they should be entitled to influence on that speech whether that speech is in the form of advertising or political activities. The customer should also have equal rights to their own free speech, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that many activities are being conducted that result in fraudulent activities that cost the customer money. If corporations continue behaving in this manner and politicians that collect campaign contributions continue looking the other way then greater peaceful efforts will have to be made to inform more people of these activities before this country is ruined, if necessary.
This is from a paying customer
Please ask the people in they appropriate position to drop charges against Penny Winters for taking a package of Oreo cookies. The fact that she appears to have been charged at all should be considered outrageous by any reasonable person. Wal-Mart has been using highly unethical methods to suppress wages for decades and this has led to a much greater poverty rates in the US. At the same time they have managed to find ways to donate an enormous amount of money to political campaigns and lobby to suppress the voting rights of many of their own customers with the money they collect from them. Wal-Mart executives have also cut manufacturing expenses so much that the quality of their merchandise has been suffering dramatically; and this has even led to safety violations and human rights violations. A Wal-Mart memo has stated that, “It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments.” They claim this was taken out of context which to some degree is true; however when it is put in proper context it may not make Wal-Mart look that much better. The safety of the workers also has an impact on the quality of the merchandise they pass on to the consumers. This has been indicated by the fact that many products being manufactured in these sweatshops half way around the world that have to go through expensive shipping and distribution subcontractors and add up additional bureaucratic expenses haven’t been that much cheaper but the quality has been gradually reduced over the past thirty years. This seems to mean that worker safety and quality control doesn’t seem to be “financially feasible” but advertising lobbying and campaign contributions and many other expenses that don’t benefit the customer is “financially feasible,” judging by the fact that these expenses aren’t being cut.
Wal-Mart has benefited from an enormous amount of tax subsidies and they have done little or nothing to provide a return to the tax payer for these subsidies. Instead they have used this to gain a competitive edge over business that may have actually done a better job than Wal-Mart; in many cases by taking advantage of factory direct sales to cut costs for consumers without cutting the quality. By having her charged with this crime it will cost tax payers much more money and add to the subsidies that they have already received. At the same time the Wal-Mart executives seem to be able to avoid any accountability for their abuses of workers, bribery scandals, use of undocumented aliens and many other activities that probably should be considered illegal. Some might conclude this might be because of their political connections; whether this is true or not it is highly inappropriate to ask tax payers to spend an enormous amount of money to intimidate their workers while the executives are reaping enormous profits without providing customers with nearly as good a quality product as they attempt to convince people they do. Most if not all corporations now rely on merchandise that is produced in sweat shops half way around the world, they add on the same bureaucratic expenses and the products fall apart much faster than they used to. An enormous amount of evidence from many reliable sources, unlike the commercial media which has a financial incentive to withhold information about the people that provide advertising money, is available to back this up and indicate that there are many more problems. In some cases they have become so extreme that even the commercial media has found it needs to report on it to maintain what they seem to consider a minimal amount of credibility.
Please redirect the money now being used for political purposes, whether it is through the American Legislative Exchange Council or other sources, back to manufacturing and services that actually benefit the customer that ultimately pays for corporate speech which is, justifiably or not, protected. If customers have to pay, indirectly, as a cost of business that is passed on to consumers, for corporate speech they should be entitled to influence on that speech whether that speech is in the form of advertising or political activities. The customer should also have equal rights to their own free speech, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that many activities are being conducted that result in fraudulent activities that cost the customer money. There are already many calls to boycott Wal-Mart and there will be more which I will almost certainly join soon unless Wal-Mart dramatically changes their practices and improves their ethical activities and quality of their merchandise.
Please ask the people in they appropriate position to drop charges against Penny Winters for taking a package of Oreo cookies. The fact that she appears to have been charged at all should be considered outrageous by any reasonable person. Wal-Mart has been using highly unethical methods to suppress wages for decades and this has led to a much greater poverty rates in the US. At the same time they have managed to find ways to donate an enormous amount of money to political campaigns and lobby to suppress the voting rights of many of their own customers with the money they collect from them. Wal-Mart executives have also cut manufacturing expenses so much that the quality of their merchandise has been suffering dramatically; and this has even led to safety violations and human rights violations. A Wal-Mart memo has stated that, “It is not financially feasible for the brands to make such investments.” They claim this was taken out of context which to some degree is true; however when it is put in proper context it may not make Wal-Mart look that much better. The safety of the workers also has an impact on the quality of the merchandise they pass on to the consumers. This has been indicated by the fact that many products being manufactured in these sweatshops half way around the world that have to go through expensive shipping and distribution subcontractors and add up additional bureaucratic expenses haven’t been that much cheaper but the quality has been gradually reduced over the past thirty years. This seems to mean that worker safety and quality control doesn’t seem to be “financially feasible” but advertising lobbying and campaign contributions and many other expenses that don’t benefit the customer is “financially feasible,” judging by the fact that these expenses aren’t being cut.
Wal-Mart has benefited from an enormous amount of tax subsidies and they have done little or nothing to provide a return to the tax payer for these subsidies. Instead they have used this to gain a competitive edge over business that may have actually done a better job than Wal-Mart; in many cases by taking advantage of factory direct sales to cut costs for consumers without cutting the quality. By having her charged with this crime it will cost tax payers much more money and add to the subsidies that they have already received. At the same time the Wal-Mart executives seem to be able to avoid any accountability for their abuses of workers, bribery scandals, use of undocumented aliens and many other activities that probably should be considered illegal. Some might conclude this might be because of their political connections; whether this is true or not it is highly inappropriate to ask tax payers to spend an enormous amount of money to intimidate their workers while the executives are reaping enormous profits without providing customers with nearly as good a quality product as they attempt to convince people they do. Most if not all corporations now rely on merchandise that is produced in sweat shops half way around the world, they add on the same bureaucratic expenses and the products fall apart much faster than they used to. An enormous amount of evidence from many reliable sources, unlike the commercial media which has a financial incentive to withhold information about the people that provide advertising money, is available to back this up and indicate that there are many more problems. In some cases they have become so extreme that even the commercial media has found it needs to report on it to maintain what they seem to consider a minimal amount of credibility.
Please redirect the money now being used for political purposes, whether it is through the American Legislative Exchange Council or other sources, back to manufacturing and services that actually benefit the customer that ultimately pays for corporate speech which is, justifiably or not, protected. If customers have to pay, indirectly, as a cost of business that is passed on to consumers, for corporate speech they should be entitled to influence on that speech whether that speech is in the form of advertising or political activities. The customer should also have equal rights to their own free speech, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that many activities are being conducted that result in fraudulent activities that cost the customer money. There are already many calls to boycott Wal-Mart and there will be more which I will almost certainly join soon unless Wal-Mart dramatically changes their practices and improves their ethical activities and quality of their merchandise.
The workers that I hand these to aren't the ones that have been involved in the scandals that Wal-Mart has been involved in so I try to keep it polite. On one occasion when I said it was customer feed back asking them not to press charges against Penny Winters for eating an Oreo cookie the cashier had told me that she couldn't accept it and to go to the service counter; this seemed to make her a little nervous although that wasn't my intention and I tried to state this politely. At the service counter when I said it was for the management they told me that she was right there and quickly handed me off to a supervisor, which enabled them to avoid addressing the subject, not that I asked them to, previously, I just handed them the papers with a brief statement and left. Even the supervisor is low level management and almost certainly not involved in the scandals either and they probably aren't paid much more than the regular employees; however I explained a little more to her about what it was about and informed her that I thought it was outrageous that they were using tax payer money for this purpose. This made her a little nervous and she thanked me for my suggestion and I didn't push it any further. Perhaps I should have made more of an effort to inform her that I understood that this wasn't her decision and that she shouldn't take offense. The people that make all these decisions don't make themselves available to the public which is part of the reason why there is no accountability at these oligarchies at all.
This would be bound to make them a little nervous if it happened on a regular basis; they're not accustomed to having people give them much if any feedback about anything that isn't trivial except from protesters or critics that communicate through different means. My intention isn't to make the workers nervous, and most of them aren't, but I suspect that if they continue business as usual indefinitely they will find something else to be nervous about. If on the other hand boycotts, customer feedback and other forms of non-violent protests bring about real reform and businesses like Wal-Mart rapidly lose their market share to more responsible companies then they would have less to be nervous about and they might have an easier time getting jobs at companies that treat them better, at least that is the objective.
Ideally it would be better to just boycott Wal-Mart, of course; and that is what I will be doing. But unfortunately they still have an enormous market share and even though it is becoming increasingly obvious that it will continue to shrink there are still many locations where customers have few if any choice but to do at least some of their shopping at Wal-Mart; especially the complacent that don't even try. It would be helpful to shop more at stores that are much more responsible or at least don't have such a dominant impact on the market that they can single-handedly drive down the quality of a large segment of merchandise on the market or drive down worker and consumer protection. As indicated in author tag “A small success against planned obsolescence” there is at least one national store that has responded to customer feedback much better. One thing that I didn't mention previously is that when I first bought the pair of sneakers that I made them replace because the quality was so bad, when I went to the register there was a woman with a complaint at the register and she obviously had a return. The cashier was very young and had an amused look on her face. I couldn't hear every thing they said but it appeared as if this woman was taking her time instead of going straight back to the returns department as the young cashier was trying to direct her. Instead she was politely explaining to the cashier that the quality of merchandise was much better before she was born, and that it was gradually being reduced. Clearly I wasn't the first or only one that was complaining about shoddy merchandise and the people I dealt with previously at Wal-Mart openly admitted that they were also getting an enormous amount of complaints but unlike this other national store they are slower to even partially address the problem.
There are many other smaller outlets for both department store items or groceries which Wal-Mart is now also dominating. Being as out spoken as I have on some occasions is not the way I, or many other people, would prefer to address the excessive deterioration of the quality of merchandise while they cut manufacturing expenses and services while simultaneously sending advertising expenses, lobbying, campaign contributions, and shipping expenses to send things half way around the world; but with centralized corporate control of the economic system it is difficult if not impossible to get them to pay attention otherwise.
This is why I have decided that on occasion that I would try to provide more positive feedback to them to let them know they might receive a benefit from addressing the concerns of their customers. The following is just one sample of a feedback letter I might hand to a grocery store; others could just as easily be presented to other types of outlets and if anyone think this is a good idea and would prefer their own comments that would probably be just as well; although anyone is welcome to use these if it is easier. In this case there would be no reason for the recipient to express concern since ideally it wouldn't be intended to be too critical although it does include requests to boycott Koch Bothers and Monsanto's which I have no doubt that most grocery stores won't rush to do; although a few small outlets might do so. If those get business then it could reduce the dominance of these two companies as well and it could lead those that don't completely abandon these oligarchies to at least cut abck on how much shelf space they provide for starters.
To whom it may concern
It is becoming increasingly obvious that when doing business by purchasing products, especially at larger corporations, the average consumer is also conducting political activity that they may not always intend. This has been indicated by the growing amount of money many corporations have been donating to political campaigns. These campaign contributions and lobbying expenses are also a business expense and many large oligarchies like Wal-Mart are using their market power to pass these expenses on to customers without passing on the influence and they often lobby against the best interest of their own customers. Additional corporations that do this include the oil companies, Koch Industries, and Monsanto. This has led to many responsible people to boycott these companies and companies that don't adopt these practices may benefit from this.
Many of the activities of these socially irresponsible companies are also devastating the environment and even though the commercial media isn't covering this adequately environmental destruction is mounting at a much faster pace than many people realize. Many of the people protesting against this are routinely arrested while those that destroy the environment benefit from their political connections. This type of activity can't last indefinitely but if more companies provide better alternatives then even without political reform well informed people can reduce the amount of damage being done by shopping wisely.
One of the reasons I and many other shoppers may be shopping at your store might be because we have found that, as far as we can tell, your store hasn't been involved in this type of activity. If you would like to take advantage of the growing number of people boycotting these socially irresponsibly companies, and in in many cases, perhaps save money on shipping and distribution I hope you will consider buying more of your products locally. This will reduce the amount of energy used to ship merchandise and provide a factory or farm direct advantage; and in the case of produce it may mean that you would be providing fresher products and there would be much less waste. Large oligarchies like Wal-Mart don't take advantage of local suppliers. Contrary to their propaganda it isn't more efficient to ship large amounts of goods half way around the world when they could often just as easily ship them much shorter distances.
If possible please try to minimize the amount of products that you carry from Koch Industries, and Monsanto's. They have both been involved in activities that are dangerous to the health of our democracy as well as the environment and the food supply. Koch Industries has openly lobbied to make it harder to vote and privatize schools even though it has been overwhelmingly proven by reliable sources, including "The National Education Policy Center" that the privatization of schools has had a negative impact on the quality of education and it has created biases that involve suppressing education about corporate corruption and environmental damage. Monsanto's has also conducted a lot of inappropriate political activities and there products have been shown to increase the health problems in rats according to a study done by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleague; this is just one of many studies that have raised questions about Monsanto's and although they have been quick to refute many of them, a close look at the details in most cases often indicates that their rebuttals may not be as well researched and they may be based partly on a financial motive.
If you can't completely boycott Koch Brothers and Monsanto's products please don't give them the most prominent spots in the store for marketing purposes and if these are chosen as a result of slotting fees collected from manufacturers please provide disclosure of these fees and how they might effect how you chose what products to carry and which ones to display most prominently. In a free market system the customer is supposed to have a wide variety of choices from a large selection of suppliers that compete for their business by providing the customer with the information they need to make important decisions. When practices like slotting fees are used to prevent small businesses from getting into the market it clearly prevents fair competition and this should be disclosed so the consumer has the information they need to make decisions.
Excuse me if this seems a bit intrusive but by providing business for these corporations that are supporting voter suppression laws and corrupting the food supply smaller businesses and consumers indirectly and unintentionally contribute to the corruption of our own government and wind up with inferior merchandise in return, often for higher prices while those with political connections profit from them at the expense of the rest of the public.
The current practice of ignoring the escalating amount of environmental destruction and other economic and social problems which aren't being addressed properly by either the commercial media, the most dominant corporations or the two leading political parties which both collect an enormous amount of money from the oligarchies that dominate the economy cannot be continued indefinitely without paying a high price. Fortunately there are a growing number of alternative media outlets exposing this and sorting through the good ones can indicate a better alternative. It is also beginning to appear that at least Wal-Mart is almost certainly declining much more than currently being acknowledged and smaller companies that act more reasonably can pick up the business that they are rapidly losing. There latest public relations campaign to convince the public that they're donating to the needy isn't going to fool a growing number of people that have already recognized that all their past public relation campaigns have been based on lies that can be easily exposed. The more money they spend telling people they're donating to the poor the less money they have to actually donate to the poor and any rational person can recognize this simple fact. Such a campaign would be much more credible if they used in expensive tactics like the web or small in store ads to promote it and by now it is clear that it would no longer be a credible claim if it were coming from Wal-Mart anyway.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that when doing business by purchasing products, especially at larger corporations, the average consumer is also conducting political activity that they may not always intend. This has been indicated by the growing amount of money many corporations have been donating to political campaigns. These campaign contributions and lobbying expenses are also a business expense and many large oligarchies like Wal-Mart are using their market power to pass these expenses on to customers without passing on the influence and they often lobby against the best interest of their own customers. Additional corporations that do this include the oil companies, Koch Industries, and Monsanto. This has led to many responsible people to boycott these companies and companies that don't adopt these practices may benefit from this.
Many of the activities of these socially irresponsible companies are also devastating the environment and even though the commercial media isn't covering this adequately environmental destruction is mounting at a much faster pace than many people realize. Many of the people protesting against this are routinely arrested while those that destroy the environment benefit from their political connections. This type of activity can't last indefinitely but if more companies provide better alternatives then even without political reform well informed people can reduce the amount of damage being done by shopping wisely.
One of the reasons I and many other shoppers may be shopping at your store might be because we have found that, as far as we can tell, your store hasn't been involved in this type of activity. If you would like to take advantage of the growing number of people boycotting these socially irresponsibly companies, and in in many cases, perhaps save money on shipping and distribution I hope you will consider buying more of your products locally. This will reduce the amount of energy used to ship merchandise and provide a factory or farm direct advantage; and in the case of produce it may mean that you would be providing fresher products and there would be much less waste. Large oligarchies like Wal-Mart don't take advantage of local suppliers. Contrary to their propaganda it isn't more efficient to ship large amounts of goods half way around the world when they could often just as easily ship them much shorter distances.
If possible please try to minimize the amount of products that you carry from Koch Industries, and Monsanto's. They have both been involved in activities that are dangerous to the health of our democracy as well as the environment and the food supply. Koch Industries has openly lobbied to make it harder to vote and privatize schools even though it has been overwhelmingly proven by reliable sources, including "The National Education Policy Center" that the privatization of schools has had a negative impact on the quality of education and it has created biases that involve suppressing education about corporate corruption and environmental damage. Monsanto's has also conducted a lot of inappropriate political activities and there products have been shown to increase the health problems in rats according to a study done by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleague; this is just one of many studies that have raised questions about Monsanto's and although they have been quick to refute many of them, a close look at the details in most cases often indicates that their rebuttals may not be as well researched and they may be based partly on a financial motive.
If you can't completely boycott Koch Brothers and Monsanto's products please don't give them the most prominent spots in the store for marketing purposes and if these are chosen as a result of slotting fees collected from manufacturers please provide disclosure of these fees and how they might effect how you chose what products to carry and which ones to display most prominently. In a free market system the customer is supposed to have a wide variety of choices from a large selection of suppliers that compete for their business by providing the customer with the information they need to make important decisions. When practices like slotting fees are used to prevent small businesses from getting into the market it clearly prevents fair competition and this should be disclosed so the consumer has the information they need to make decisions.
Excuse me if this seems a bit intrusive but by providing business for these corporations that are supporting voter suppression laws and corrupting the food supply smaller businesses and consumers indirectly and unintentionally contribute to the corruption of our own government and wind up with inferior merchandise in return, often for higher prices while those with political connections profit from them at the expense of the rest of the public.
The current practice of ignoring the escalating amount of environmental destruction and other economic and social problems which aren't being addressed properly by either the commercial media, the most dominant corporations or the two leading political parties which both collect an enormous amount of money from the oligarchies that dominate the economy cannot be continued indefinitely without paying a high price. Fortunately there are a growing number of alternative media outlets exposing this and sorting through the good ones can indicate a better alternative. It is also beginning to appear that at least Wal-Mart is almost certainly declining much more than currently being acknowledged and smaller companies that act more reasonably can pick up the business that they are rapidly losing. There latest public relations campaign to convince the public that they're donating to the needy isn't going to fool a growing number of people that have already recognized that all their past public relation campaigns have been based on lies that can be easily exposed. The more money they spend telling people they're donating to the poor the less money they have to actually donate to the poor and any rational person can recognize this simple fact. Such a campaign would be much more credible if they used in expensive tactics like the web or small in store ads to promote it and by now it is clear that it would no longer be a credible claim if it were coming from Wal-Mart anyway.
Clearly if I am the only one that does something like this it won't make much if any difference at all but there are already many other people that are doing similar things; in fact this idea partially came from many of them although I can't give credit to all the individuals and organizations that have expressed similar ideas. It could have an even greater impact if more people did similar things. If it became common place for people to make a few statements while making a purchase that supports political causes indirectly it is bound to draw some attention and it would be highly unreasonable for those that collect this money and use some of it for political purposes to complain if the people that provide their business want their own influence in the political system that they're indirectly financing.
Consider how it would sound if they had their cashiers say "Thank you for doing business with us; a portion of the money you gave us will be used for political purposes which you might disagree with and we would appreciate it if you ignore this inconvenient fact and settle for much fewer rights to free speech than the corporate CEOs routinely have."
Of course they would never say anything like that but if they did they would be accurately describing the business practices that they routinely use.
Another way to make this more effective might be if multiple people from the same area did the same thing and after handing over a few of these customer feedback statements, or more likely a variety of them that the individuals wrote themselves, if they continued to see Koch Bothers products that were in the most prominent spots in the store, for one reason or another, they could do their shopping together, without buying Koch products of course, and before leaving the store ask to see the manager and request that they consider changing their displays and hand them a request in writing before leaving. This feedback statement might be one that they all agreed on while the ones that were written by individuals could be more extensive. An immediate response to the might be unlikely but the management would almost certainly have to at least consider this request. If they continued to display Koch products prominently while another store that faced the same situation responded by changing their displays then the entire group might abandon those that continue to support the Koch Bothers and their voter suppression and environmental denial policies.
This method of boycotting could make it more effective by drawing more attention. Then if it worked in one store and word got around more people might try it across the country. This could lead to Koch and Monsanto's free towns and attract much more attention at least from the alternative media outlets and eventually the commercial media will have to cover it to present a token amount of credibility. Then the Koch Brothers and Monsanto's could lose more sales as Wal-Mart already seems to be. Boycotting Wal-Mart is much simpler since it is clear what they sell and where but Monsanto's and the Koch Bothers will require more awareness and planning.
Koch Brothers Exposed
photo source
The claim that the customer received a benefit from these sweat shops have always been false with the possible exception of when they have the sweat shops locally and even then I doubt if there is much benefit for the customer and most customers wouldn't want to obtain that benefit that way. Any savings that are obtained from using sweat shops half way around the world are for the most part lost due to the higher cost of shipping and handling to get them here or they're kept in the form of higher profits. When the products are made under these conditions they tend to be much lower quality and have to be replaced two or three times as often or in the case of Wal-Mart merchandise perhaps four or five times as often; which enables them to take a cut more often but doesn't benefit the customer. Furthermore there are many more negative externalities like the dramatic increase in pollution that is involved in shipping low quality merchandise half way around the world that has to be replaced much more often.
When they report another fire that kills more people half way around the world this should be an reminder that the customer is also paying the price in the form of lower quality merchandise and still footing the bill for the bureaucracy getting the merchandise half way around the world or worse when they don't report it as well as they could or should. The fire in Bangladesh was reported widely for a little while but it has for the most part been forgotten by the commercial media and there is little more mention of it. Even when they were reporting it the commercial media only covered it as an isolated incident in many cases while some of the alternative outlets have reported more extensively including Common Dreams which reports that there have been over 300 deaths in Bangladesh alone since 2006. The following article which I didn't spot until more than two months after the fact also reports even more deaths, presumably not limited to Bangladesh, in garment factories. This was from ABC news but it wasn't repeated nearly as often as they repeat the material that they want people to take notice of so it is much easier for many people like me to miss it when not watching too closely.
Another Factory Fire Kills More Garment Workers
Another garment factory has burned in Bangladesh and killed seven more workers sewing clothes for Western customers, according to groups that monitor working conditions there.
It is the latest in a rash of deadly fires in the high-rise factories that have made Bangladesh the second largest exporter of clothing to the United States behind China. More than 700 workers have died in factory fires in the past five years. Two months ago, a ferocious blaze at a factory making clothes for major U.S. retailers killed an estimated 112 workers there.
This latest deadly fire occurred in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka at a factory called Smart Export Garments Ltd., which was believed to be manufacturing clothes for the Spanish parent company of the American retailer Zara, as well as several European brands, worker rights groups told ABC News overnight.
"After more than two decades of the apparel industry knowing about the risks to these workers, nothing substantial has changed," said Judy Gearhart, executive director of the International Labor Rights Forum, one of several groups advocating for a fire safety overhaul in the country. Complete article
Another garment factory has burned in Bangladesh and killed seven more workers sewing clothes for Western customers, according to groups that monitor working conditions there.
It is the latest in a rash of deadly fires in the high-rise factories that have made Bangladesh the second largest exporter of clothing to the United States behind China. More than 700 workers have died in factory fires in the past five years. Two months ago, a ferocious blaze at a factory making clothes for major U.S. retailers killed an estimated 112 workers there.
This latest deadly fire occurred in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka at a factory called Smart Export Garments Ltd., which was believed to be manufacturing clothes for the Spanish parent company of the American retailer Zara, as well as several European brands, worker rights groups told ABC News overnight.
"After more than two decades of the apparel industry knowing about the risks to these workers, nothing substantial has changed," said Judy Gearhart, executive director of the International Labor Rights Forum, one of several groups advocating for a fire safety overhaul in the country. Complete article
The following are a few more articles about related material that you might be interested in.
Wal-Mart to pay $2.1M for overcharging customers
"Wal-Mart Executives Sweat Slow February Start in E-Mails" Bloomberg News
"WalMart's Mexican Bribery Scandal Will Sink It Like an Iceberg Sank the Titanic" Forbes
"Wal-Mart Protests Pit Workers Against Shoppers" Rick Newman This may not be entirely accurate; first of all it may be the management that is trying to "Pit Workers Against Shoppers." Second of all they're scamming both the customers and the workers with deceptive business practices and if this is considered carefully it won't work and many customers may realize that they have more common ground with the workers than with the management that is involved in fraudulent business practices.
"Putting Wal-Mart's Green Moves in Context" Stacy Mitchell
"Why Walmart’s Death Grip on Our Food System Is Intensifying Poverty" Stacy Mitchell
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
"Here are many MORE things NOT to buy from Koch…" Mark Crispin Miller
"Debunking the GMO Talking Points with Ease" Nick Brannigan
"STUDY: Agriculture Giant Monsanto’s Products Cause Tumors, Organ Damage In Rats" Aviva Shen based on study by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues
Monsanto products to avoid and alternatives to buy at food freedom group
Monsanto products to avoid and alternatives to buy at ethical investing
More Monsanto products to avoid at natural femina
"Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America from Monsanto to Wal-Mart" Democracy Now
"Walmart Falling Flat with Not-so-Fresh Foods" The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
No comments:
Post a Comment