Name (required):

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:
>When people hear & read what Walmart will supposedly >do, they should consider these: 1 – How much money >will it cost? 2 – Who will pay the cost? 3 – How long >will the expenses last? & 4 – Based on Walmart’s >record/reputation for only doing what brings a profit, >will Walmart really do it? > >Being compliant isn’t (shouldn’t be) a temporary or >1-time issue. A supplier may be compliant for an >inspection, then go back to the old ways later. > >Just as a “factory” can be a showcase to show workers’ >conditions, it can be in a beautiful, pollution free >location. Meanwhile, most products could be produced >in a sweatshop in a toxic waste dump. Then the >products could be stored in a clean warehouse near the >beautiful showcase “factory”. It would imply all of >the products were produced in the nearby factory. > >Employees in the showcases would probably be treated >well & know nothing about the sweatshops. > >If products were manufactured in 1st world countries, >abuses would be possible, but unlikely. I realize 3rd >world citizens need income, but they shouldn’t be >abused just because they need money. I know too many >1st world citizens are greedy & expect more money for >doing the same level or less work than before. But >workers’ greed isn’t the only reason for moving >production off shore. > >The main reason for offshoring is probably—3rd world >citizens have no political power. > >True reality & Walmart’s reality are often different. >I’d like to believe we’ll all live happily ever after. >So, for a few seconds, I thought Lee Scott just talked >without taking time to consider the ramifications of >what he proposed. When I reread it, I knew all of it >was planned. > >The message was planned to get the effect Scott & >other executives are hoping for. If words could >manifest results, I’d cheer what Walmart proposes. > >If Scott misspoke, his statement shouldn’t be in the >press release. Plus, Mike Duke, the next CEO was at >the event & added comments. "Achieving the goals that >we lay out today is going to require a common >commitment. It’s going to take even stronger and >deeper relationships. And it is going to take all of >us working together." said Duke. "We are expecting >more of ourselves at Wal-Mart, and we will also expect >more of our suppliers." > >My experience in Wal-Mart is “working together" means >an executive or manager telling an underling, “Work >smarter, not harder.” Reality in Walmart now may >include instructions about how to work smarter, but >somebody else (not Walmart) will pay the expenses. > >It’s logical to some degree. Suppliers are responsible >for their actions & inactions, but an irresponsible >supplier won’t take responsibility just because >Walmart dictates it. > >(NOTE- Despite what my next statement means, it >doesn’t mean I’d ever excuse suppliers for what they >do wrong.) Plus, Walmart squeezes suppliers so much; >suppliers aren’t apt to have any money for compliance >practices & getting the certification. Even if >suppliers opt to forego profits for a year, they’d >have to go into debt, which they can’t afford. > >Walmart’s policy (whether it’s official or unofficial) >has been to buy no more than a 3rd of a supplier’s >production. If it’s still the same, some suppliers may >end up dropping Walmart & live off of the other 2/3 of >their revenue. > >Walmart supposedly drops unethical suppliers, but >could Walmart afford to lose a major portion of its >suppliers at the same time? How could it make up for a >big lack of products while it waits for new suppliers >to scale up their production? It probably couldn’t! It >probably wouldn’t! > >Plus, according to Walmart’s policy, the new suppliers >would have to be compliant. Compliance checks would >take a while (read the press release & extrapolate the >extent of the work). Walmart would lose millions of >dollars of sales to competitors while it waits for >results of compliance checks. After a supplier passes, >the merchandise would be produced & shipped to its >stores. > >Freight ships don’t cross an ocean (especially the >Pacific) in a day. When the ships get to the docks, >Customs Department checks (especially with risks of >terrorism), unloading freight & putting it into trucks >takes time. > >I’ve crossed oceans when I was in the US Navy. I’ve >been involved in moving freight between docks & ships. >I won’t try estimating the numbers of days because I >didn’t travel directly between California & Communist >China. (Plus, we spent some time in Hawaii en route. >It delayed the crossing. On the way back, we came from >The Philippines.) > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lessons >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Be careful about what you say & write. I'm not >explicitly accusing anybody of anything in my posts. >Even if somebody digs into what I’ve written, there’s >no libel or slander. I'm speculating & extrapolating. >I'm giving Walmart a chance to amend its press >releases. > >Don’t just say something to placate people & think >they’ll be comforted & forget the issue. Somebody is >apt to know or suspect the truth & its ramifications. >Somebody will check the facts & your future actions. >How much do you know about your suppliers’ business >practices? >What are you willing to do if a supplier violates laws >&/or your moral standards? > >Lee Scott is apt to feel defensive when his Walmart is >verbally attacked, especially when the facts are >painful. > >When you feel defensive, you may need a lot of >willpower to avoid saying anything. You’d be better >off asking for time to get more details & taking time >to investigate before responding. Some reporters enjoy >spouting (true or false) things just to get reactions. >Don’t just accept what an accuser says as the truth. >Verify before you "testify”. > >Even after you think about what you’ll say/write, >don’t immediately say or send it. Think about the >consequences: >Can you afford to change the situation? Can you afford >to not change the situation? >What will happen when your situation changes? >What are your plans & contingency plans? >Will you be able to do what you promised? >Might it require more time, energy & money than you >anticipate? >Will you need more help? >Will the extra resources be available? >Will you be able to afford the extra resources? > >It’s Basic C.Y.A. (Cover Your Ah…Butt) >This is almost like telling employees, “If somebody >gets injured in our store, DO NOT promise anything. No >matter how bad the injury is, unless you have every >possible medical & personal fact, you won’t know what >the solution will be. Don’t promise a solution that >won’t work. A broken promise can be the basis for a >lawsuit even if the promise isn’t valid. Some scum >bags act as if they were just injured or injure >themselves on purpose just to get money. If you >promise a scum bag something, you’ll be responsible >for what you promise.” > >Too often, people want to impress or comfort others & >they promise something without realizing what they’re >promising to do. A promise like “We’ll get you all the >help you need” can be misinterpreted in many ways. >Implicit promises can—in effect—change what a person >meant. It could seem like an injured person only needs >a crutch, but if his/her spine is injured, a crutch >won’t be enough. The injured person will probably >interpret the promise to mean you’ll pay for physical >therapy & surgery. > >As cruel as it may seem, you can’t afford to take >responsibility for some things. You might not be >liable for the injury. If you’re not, but you or an >employee made a promise, your insurance coverage may >not cover your promise. > >You may need legal guidance from a lawyer. > >If your problem doesn’t have legal consequences, but >you promised things you can’t provide, carefully write >a no excuses apology. Be truthful & ask for >forgiveness. Don’t keep trying to avoid it. The >problem & resentment will get worse, not better. If >others forget about your promise, they may be >impressed by your candor. Show you take promises >seriously, even after you discover you can’t do what >you promised. > >A jewelry store radio commercial expressed this: (It’s >not verbatim, but it’s essentially accurate. OK, I >admit it— I embellished it. I'm a marketing consultant >& copywriter—Deal With It.) >Remember when you proposed to her? You said her ring >was all you could afford at the time, but you’ll buy >her a better ring when you can afford something >better. You’re financially better off now. It’s time >to do what you promised. She may not remind you about >your promise, but she remembers. Let her know you >remember her & your commitment. Let her know you love >her just as much or more now & you’d propose again. >Show her by doing it again. Buy her the ring & propose >again. What you’ll give & get in return is far more >precious than the ring. Get her the ring today. If you >wait for a special occasion you’d just be delaying >your promise even longer. > >You should have that level of commitment in each >promise you make or don’t make a promise. The other >person may not kiss you afterward. You may not want >that result anyway. But you should want the trust & >personal integrity. > >NOTE: A message like that about buying a better ring >IS self-serving for a jeweler. But it’s also a >service. The benefit goes beyond the ring. Imagine the >response a guy would get in a situation like that. >It’s almost like a MasterCard commercial. ‘Engagement >ring: $XYZ. Effect on the love of your life: >Priceless.’ > >How much does an engagement ring cost anyway? Oh well, >she won’t read this...will she? > >Dennis S. Vogel >Giant retailers step anywhere they want. You need to >be sure they don’t step on you. >http://www.voy.com/31049/ >http://www.lakefield.net/~thrivingbusiness/

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.