One of the more unusual news events last week had the nation’s largest retailer fighting back against criticism on a number of fronts, including how much it pays its workers.
The high-profile media campaign by Wal-Mart, which bought big ads in many of the nation’s largest newspapers, also included rare on-camera interviews by president H. Lee Scott Jr., with ABC, CNN, Fox and CNBC.
Wal-Mart is the store loved and hated by many people.
It’s loved by shoppers looking for bargains because whatever you say about Wal-Mart, you have to admit it has low prices. It’s hated by many because it’s the top dog of retailers and because some people believe it doesn’t treat its employees correctly, it kills local retailers and also embodies a number of other ills.
“For too long, others have had free rein to say things about our company that just aren’t true,” Scott said in statement posted on a new Web site. “Our associates are tired of it, and we’ve decided it’s time to draw our own line in the sand.”
For more information, you can visit the site at www.walmart facts.com.
I found Scott’s efforts interesting because companies usually don’t go after their critics. They typically don’t say anything at all and wait for the comments to blow over. The efforts were also interesting because of their timing. The Wal-Mart offensive came forward a week after two other interesting stories relating to the company moved on the Associated Press wires.
Here’s one of them:
“MUSCATINE, Iowa – A Wal-Mart greeter was sacked for apparently showing too much of his friendly side to customers.
“Dean Wooten, 65, was accused of greeting customers with a computer-generated photo of himself in which he appeared to be naked – except for a strategically placed Wal-Mart bag – and of telling customers that Wal-Mart was cutting costs and the sack was the company’s new uniform.
“A supervisor at the Muscatine store where Wooten had worked for seven years told him to knock it off after customers complained. He was fired five days later, in September, after he displayed the photo again.
“Wooten’s application for unemployment compensation was rejected by an administrative law judge, who said ‘a reasonable person would know the act of showing a naked body wearing a Wal-Mart sack would not be good for the employer’s business.’ “
On a more serious note, here’s another story that moved the same week:
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $14.5 million in fines and other costs to settle a state lawsuit over thousands of gun sales violations at California stores between 2000 and 2003.
“The world’s largest retailer will pay $5 million in fines and $3 million to conduct a public service campaign and develop an age-verification system for gun purchasers. It also will pay at least $6.5 million on company and state efforts to ensure Wal-Mart is complying with gun laws.
“Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed in April 2003 to suspend gun sales at its more than 110 California stores that sold guns after the state documented hundreds of violations at six of the stores. A subsequent investigation by the California Department of Justice found 2,891 more violations between 2000 and 2003.
“State agents said the stores sold guns to 23 people who were not allowed to possess them and delivered 36 more to customers who bought them for people not allowed to own guns.
“Other offenses included gun sales without background checks and failing to identify buyers through thumbprints and drivers license scans.”
I don’t know whether Wal-Mart is paying its workers appropriately, but from the looks of things, it sure isn’t spending enough on training.
Mike Benbow: 425-339-3459; benbow@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.