Good Company (pat pat)
As citizens, we care (or at least have a responsibility to care) about whether our governments are doing well or badly. That responsibility is the flipside of our right to fix government organizations when we don't agree with what they're doing, or how.
We've been citizens for hundreds of years, so we're getting used to this process, to these rights and responsibilities, sorta. But we've only been consumers for a few decades, so it's understandably still catching on that, hey! That means we have a responsibility to know and care what companies are doing and how; and also a right to support the good ones and kill the bad ones!
A few for your consideration, then:
GOOD:
EZTakes.com is a movie-seller specializing in the "stuff you used to find only at the corner family video-store, before they went out of business", and they certainly do have a fascinating stock of odds, ends and weird stuff. Even better, though, they have a clean, simply-designed website without a lot of privacy-violating crap on it, and they refuse to DRM their files, so the movies you buy from them (at great prices; many are even free) are guaranteed to work with whatever hardware, etc. you want to use them with.
What *really* impressed me is their terms of service, which states, "we will not restrict your rights as a Consumer, including fair use…and if we ever try to, this statement takes precedence."
Now that's commitment — contractually limiting your future activities to ensure that you mean what you say.
What if Facebook had done that with their initial promise to "keep your personal information private"?
BAD:
Speaking of terms of service, check out this doozy I ran into the other day:
Due to manufacturer policies, all packaged items with plastic clamshells, shrink wrap, special seals, or other types of packaging that sustains damage when opened are NON-RETURNABLE if the packaging has been OPENED or TAMPERED.
…Yes, that's right, this company (an online electronics seller called SuperBiiz) has a 30-day return policy, but it doesn't apply to anything that comes in packaging that you have to open. Er, which as far as I can tell, includes everything they sell.
Sheesh.
Of course, it doesn't end there. There are a veritable plethora of companies engaging in bad practices now — practices that limit, undermine or destroy your rights as a consumer (fair use, first sale, and the right not to be gouged or price-fixed against); or damage or deteriorate your rights as a citizen (i.e. your 4th-amendment right not to be searched without cause, or your freedom to criticize them in public forums). There are also companies who openly do damage to our country or society, say by hiring workers overseas for sweatshop wages to avoid paying locals, or by allowing oil-spills and mining-accidents when it's cheaper than adhering to the regulations (and it is, believe me).
I don't have to say that there's no excuse for what these companies are doing. Capitalism and the free market is not an excuse; the marketplace has rules, like everything else, and breaking or bending them is cheating, and removes your right to earn a profit or to continue to do business.
The problem is that regulatory agencies aren't the best, or strongest, ways to enforce good behavior from companies: Consumers are.
And I DO have to say, I think, that there's no excuse for consumers who shirk their responsibility to be knowledgeable and shop carefully — no more than there's an excuse for citizens who ignore what their government does, don't vote, or carelessly pollute their environment. In both cases, citizens and consumers, we have rights, and the responsibility to be aware of and protect them.
Don't worry, it's not that hard.
I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart in fifteen years and look! I'm still alive!
(Yes, that was snarky. But seriously, sometimes I feel like I have to say that to my fellow Michiganders, who seem to think that something like "not shopping at Wal-Mart" is just a huge hardship; like it's way too much to ask them to not save $0.03 on toilet-paper this week so that manufacturing can stay in the U.S. a little and people can stop being underpaid and discriminated against. CRY ME A RIVER, yo. You have a bumper-sticker that says 'out of a job yet? keep buying foreign!' but you claim it only applies to cars? PUH-LEEZE. ;)
7 comments
Good stuff, I wasn't aware you were also anti-walmart, I came from CA where there were none in the areas I lived, then moved to the pacific northwest where people seem to think they're the best thing that's happened to them. I try to avoid them like the plague, however due to being a smaller town, there are certain things I can't get anywhere but there without a 15 minute drive to a now-closed office supply store. Sad huh?
So I take it you don't have facebook then? :P
Also, I think that returns policy thing doesn't necessarily cover everything that comes in packaging. It's basically saying that if you damage the packaging, they won't take it back. You can get lots of things that don't come in packaging that you don't have to destroy to get the thing inside.
Having said that, it's still a bit too strict. At the electronics store I work at, we have a pretty generous policy. You can return the product within 2 weeks of buying it, so long as the packaging is in reasonable condition. Even if you had to cut it open, we'll usually still accept it. The term "reasonable" is a bit iffy though. Basically, it needs to be good enough to sell again, cos that's what we do. Obviously we have to put a big fat 'returned' sticker on the front of it :P.
In defense of Wal-Mart, from a resident of a small town in middle America:
1) Wal-Mart is the only store that stays open 24 hours a day. They are the only place that is open after 9 pm at night, and after 6 pm on Sundays.
2) Wal-Mart provides a decent place to shop, when previously there was none. My town was actually featured in a documentary that claimed that Wal-Mart killed the local businesses here. Unlike the documentary-makers and many of the younger people and transplants here, I remember what existed before Wal-Mart was ever around: abysmal, run-down shops with little to offer and almost zero customer service. If you like those because they're "homey" or "main street" or such, good for you. However, I prefer having a selection to choose from and having efficient customer service. I know that Wal-Mart doesn't win gold stars for its service, but at least they have people around who mostly do their jobs. The ol' general store that used to be here had all of two employees around on most days, and one chatted on the phone while the other one practiced holding up the wall. I'm sure this arrangement made them happy as employees, but it did not make me happy as a customer. I know there are probably better mom 'n pop businesses in other towns, but there was never such in my town.
3) Wal-Mart, because it is a big company, can afford to put a store in my little town, where other, smaller chains fear to tread. It would be difficult for them to get started in this town, because they might face the prospect of not turning a profit for a few years. This has never been a problem for Wal-Mart, because they have sufficient capital to get a store started almost anywhere, and hang on until it becomes profitable.
4) When Wal-Mart built a supercenter here several years ago, they provided a lot of employment at a time when it was difficult to find it and most other businesses (like another small department store and two of our grocery stores) were leaving. They also employ a lot of people who would not otherwise have jobs in this town. I know it's not white-collar work, but it is better than the previous alternative of nothing.
I know the perspective of people in cities is different, but I am glad that Wal-Mart came here and gave me a clean, decent place to go buy a variety of groceries at the end of the day. Would there be some other place like that without Wal-Mart? Maybe someone else would fill the niche if they weren't there, but I doubt their business practices (which I agree are not perfect) would be different. Based on my memories of there being no good alternatives before Wal-Mart, I would have to say that no local stores could have filled the gap. So, yes, I like Wal-Mart, and if they weren't here, I would probably be driving an hour to the next city to shop at one of their other big-box competitors, which are not so different or so much better.
Marzzbar — I read an article a few years ago, I wish I could find it now, that showed that the entire reason companies use those crazy plastic “clamshell” packages is to discourage people from returning products, and stores from accepting returns. They don’t prevent theft, they’re massively expensive, and an environmental disaster…but if everything came in simple boxes or sleeves, it would just be too easy to make a return, darnit.
I think stores that don’t like having to re-sell items with opened packaging had better look to the manufacturer to quit using it, rather than shifting the burden onto consumers to not make returns!
Anonymous — I’m sympathetic that Wal-Mart fills a need in some places, though as you say yourself, if Wal-Mart wasn’t there, something else — very likely something better — would probably fill it. I don’t very much think “well their service IS shitty and their products ARE sub-standard and the jobs they create ARE some of the worst around, but at least there isn’t nothing” is much of a compelling argument. One could also say that substandard medical care is “better than nothing”, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be trying to replace it with something better.
I also want to address one other point that you make (though for the most part, what you say is an accurate statement of the positive sides of having a Wal-Mart around): Wal-Mart is not powerful and capable of serving more rural areas “because it is a big company”. It has that power because ever since the original owner of the chain (a pretty stand-up guy as I understand it) passed away, the company has been leveraging its power to save money in the following ways: By forcing (contractually forcing, not just encouraging) U.S. companies to move their manufacturing operations overseas; by contracting with overseas companies that do not meet U.S. (or even often local) labor or environmental standards; by paying its employees sub-standard wages with such poor benefits that most of them still qualify for Medicaid; and by mandating that companies produce shoddier, cheaper versions of their products for sale at Wal-Mart.
I don’t think any of those are fair business practices, or that they mean that Wal-Mart deserves the competitive advantage it has. In fact, by using those shady methods to “get ahead” in the marketplace, and now exerting control over every company that *doesn’t* play their way, Wal-Mart has done appreciable damage to U.S. commerce and our economy as a whole, while reducing the quality of products, service and employment across the board. It’s not that they’re just playing the game by the rules and managed to get ahead; they’re cheating, and they’re hurting everyone doing it, and if they weren’t cheating then they wouldn’t have nearly the advantage that they do. So no, in spite of the upsides of their presence to some communities, I still think Wal-Mart is a corrupt corporation and I still refuse to set foot in one. ;)
Thanks!
Aximilation — Yes indeed, I hear you. I’m fortunate that I CAN avoid them, with a little work (though obviously I can’t avoid *all* big-box stores, at least not yet), but there are many places in Michigan where people have no choice but to get all their FOOD from a Wal-Mart! Gah, I think I got cancer just thinking about that. >,<
n7Rm24 You’ve hit the ball out the park! Indcrebile!