* For the latest disaster relief news from Wal-Mart, click here *
Wal-Mart has set up a national online system that allows people affected by the disaster to be able contact one another. Using the Community Crisis System, you may post comments stating your whereabouts, or your concern for someone specific, and search the database by first and last name.
*9/7 -- In the WSJ, Alan Murray writes about the epiphany of big business in the wake of Katrina, but also about the limits to charity because of its corporate structure:
As for the obligation to shareholders, Mr. Odland says that if his charity efforts help New Orleans recover, it will help his company as well. Mr. Scott calls it a balancing act. "We can't send three trailer loads of merchandise to every group that asks for it," he says. He tells of being in Houston on Monday, and talking to someone who wanted Wal-Mart to donate 2,000 blankets to help refugees. Mr. Scott turned down the request. "We have to, at the end of this, have a viable business," he explains.
*9/9 -- 15 stores still closed.
*9/6 -- Wal-Mart associates provide stories from the front.
*9/6 -- Wal-Mart's Mini-Stores are operational in the Cajun Dome, Monroe Civic Center.
*9/6 -- In addition to Wal-Mart's corporate donations, The Walton Family Foundation has donated $15M:
Separately, the Walton Family Foundation is providing $8 million to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. The Walton Family Foundation has already donated an additional $7 million to organizations such as The Salvation Army, America’s Second Harvest and Foundation for the Mid-South.
*9/6 -- On page D1 of the WaPo, Wal-Mart is at the forefront of hurricaine relief:
At 8 a.m. on Wednesday, as New Orleans filled with water, Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. called an emergency meeting of his top lieutenants and warned them he did not want a "measured response" to the hurricane.This does indeed set a new standard for corporate response to disaster; whether done out of sincere motives or not, with $20M in cash and in-kind, Wal-Mart has finally received extremely positive news coverage."I want us to respond in a way appropriate to our size and the impact we can have," he said, according to an executive who attended the meeting. At the time, Wal-Mart had pledged $2 million to the relief efforts. "Should it be $10 million?" Scott asked.
Over the next few days, Wal-Mart's response to Katrina -- an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers -- has turned the chain into an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling to burnish its image.
*9/6 -- Meanwhile, there are many examples of Wal-Mart asssociates being given temporary work outside the disaster area.
*9/6 -- To boost morale, WM store managers are showing a video to associates of all that WM is doing in response to Katrina.
1. 123 Wal-Mart stores closed, mostly due to loss of power (with 70 reopened as of 9/1/05, and only 18 closed as of 9/6/05. More details about damage here.)
2. Ball joints to haul trailers most popular item before the storm.
3. Families sought refuge in Wal-Mart parking lots??? A commenter on Wal-Mart Watch claims a Target store collapsed.
4. Wal-Mart donates $1M to the Salvation Army and another $1M to the Red Cross. Target donates $1.5 million to the Red Cross. Later, H. Lee Scott announced a donation of $15M to flood victims and the opening of mini-Wal-Mart stores to give away supplies:As part of Wal-Mart's commitment it will establish mini-Wal-Mart stores in areas impacted by the hurricane. The stores will give away essential items, including clothing, diapers, baby wipes, food, formula toothbrushes, bedding, and water.
5. The looting of Wal-Mart is now a local pastime:
Why stop at everyday low prices?The strangely peaceful looting of the wrecked store (people selecting goods off the shelves, and placing them gently in shopping carts) was caught on camera:Giant discount retailer Wal-Mart Stores became a major target for looters rummaging in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina on Wednesday, with thieves hitting the store's gun racks while also ransacking for food and clothing.
The Wal-Mart store in the Lower Garden District in New Orleans was missing its entire stock of guns, according to the local Times-Picayune newspaper, which also said looting for guns and other goods was prevalent in other stores....
Wal-Mart has reopened about 70 of the 123 stores that were shut down in the immediate aftermath of Katrina's strike on Monday...
Residents are seen looting a Wal-Mart and a Walgreens in full view of camera crews and security guards.Even theIn one scene, several people dressed in security guard uniforms join the looters in stripping the Wal-Mart store.
Then other people dressed as security guards arrived and detain some looters.
Reportedly, troops armed with M-16 rifles arrived at the Wal-Mart to disburse the crowd.
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco told NBC's Matt Lauer that while officials were deeply concerned about the looting, the government was focused on repairing huge holes in the city's levee system and saving people trapped by floods.
Also, Crooks and Liars has MSNBC video of Countdown reporter Martin Savidge confronting the police and other looters.
6. I should also note Wal-Mart will pay associates whose stores have closed three days of pay, even if they were not even scheduled for work:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. initially closed 156 stores in the affected areas. As of yesterday afternoon, 46 were closed. Before the hurricane hit, workers were given a toll-free number to call for assistance or to find out if their store had reopened.Wal-Mart employees whose stores were shut received pay for the first three days the store was closed, whether they were scheduled to work or not. Employees who need money for food or clothes can ask store managers for $250 in cash assistance. Employees whose stores do not reopen in three days will be provided temporary work at other Wal-Mart or Sam's Club stores if they can get there, according to a Wal-Mart spokeswoman.
The company's "associate disaster relief fund" provides financial help to employees for lodging and food. "We've not had to do this to this degree" before, said Sarah Clark, a spokeswoman. She could not estimate how much money Wal-Mart might spend helping employees.
Store 5079, Pass Christian, MI
There is 1/2 of 1 wall left. The only items that were found were an item from the cash office, and 1 camera from the roof.Store 1088, Biloxi, MI
The roof had 30+ holes in it. The whole backwall is gone, which means that receiving is gone and all of the offices.Store 1195, Waveland, MI
Had 19 feet of water. Of course most, if not all the merchandise is destroyed and everything has been moved around, i.e. the meat freezers, etc.
Posted by Kevin on September, 9 2005 at 09:29 AM
Kevin Mitchell wrote:WalMart relief efforts for Katrina damage!
While it's commendable for anyone to donate to the relief efforts, it's pathetic that a company the size of Walmart, who's owners (the Waltons with $15 Billion each) has only pledged $1 Million to Salvation Army and $1 Million to Red Cross for the poor people of LA that have bought at their stores for years. WalMart spent MUCH more than this on their national ad campaign to try to bolster their image! If they truly want to bolster their image in the eyes of the American public, then come to the rescue of these people in LA NOW! Quit giving token donations and then acting like the great savior asking other poor Americans to donate! WalMart’s relief effort for this disaster should be on the magnitude of $100 Million dollars! Then maybe your image wouldn't be so tarnished and maybe you'd have some loyal buyers! But then that might anger your wealthy shareholders, and you wouldn’t want that now would you Lee Scott!-- August 31, 2005 09:14 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:$2M in corporate donations is pathetic? I guess there's no pleasing some people.
-- September 1, 2005 09:11 AM ∞
Amber wrote:This $2 million probably does not include all of the donations made by local stores (each store has a budget for making donations in the community) or the value of supplies such as water, food, batteries, flashlights, etc. that Wal-Mart typically donates during natural disasters.
-- September 1, 2005 11:39 AM ∞
Xavier wrote:The moron who wrote that story should be fired immediately. It says "Reportedly, troops armed with M-16 rifles arrived at the Wal-Mart to disburse the crowd." It should be "disperse the crowd."
It's probably wrong to have a stronger emotional reaction to a typo than to the story about looting, but it really irks me that a professional journalist (and editors) couldn't get that right.
-- September 1, 2005 02:12 PM ∞
Steve Lee wrote:WAM has logistics capability and a distribution system, with it's own fleet of trucks and trailers that surpasses the US military's, and could be a major factor in the LA-Mississippi relief effort.
-- September 1, 2005 02:16 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>Kevin Brancato wrote:
>$2M in corporate donations is pathetic? I guess >there's no pleasing some people.
It is indeed pathetic. $2 million is nothing compared to the wealth they generate for themselves.In 2004, Wal-Mart generated 10,516 million in net profit. So $2 mil is 1.9% of their 2004 NET PROFIT that they donated to this effort. Whoop de freakin' doo!
In case you Wal-Mart cheerleaders doubt that figure because it wasn't posted by Sam Walton himself, it's pretty much posted all over the place, but start here:
http://www.hoovers.com/wal-mart/--ID__11600,period__A--/free-co-fin-income.xhtml
-- September 1, 2005 07:16 PM ∞
barry diederich wrote:Actually, Wal-Mart's donation is only 0.019% of net profit. It's a token gesture, and if other corporations give proportional amounts, then the total corporate contribution will amount to far less than one ten-thousandths of what's needed for relief. The taxpayers pick up the other 99.99%. Of course corporate tax liability is at an all-time low, so lets call a spade a spade. Wal-Mart is doing as close to nothing as their PR department would allow.
-- September 1, 2005 07:47 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>So $2 mil is 1.9% of their 2004 NET PROFIT
Whoops! My bad.
The actual figure is .019%. That's ZERO POINT ONE NINE PERCENT of WM's net profit for an area that has over 120 stores.
Generous? Hmmm....
-- September 1, 2005 07:50 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:Excuse me, Brandon?
The Red Cross doesn't think this is chump change, and neither does the Salvation Army. And, more importantly, neither will Wal-Mart's shareholders, whose money is actually being spent -- generously or otherwise.
I think that comparing the donations to profits of a legal fiction like WM (instead of the owners of the legal fiction) is pointless, really. Corporate gifts ARE marketing expenses. It's not the function of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to give away its shareholders retained earnings, no matter how much progressives might like it to do so; and if I recall correctly, up until the progressive arguments of the 1930's it was utterly forbidden for corporations to give away their shareholder's money, and after that corporations still had to get something in return for their shareholder's money.
I think that if WM tried to donate $100M, shareholders would sue it under Delaware law as giving "unreasonable" charity, even if the amount didn't hit the 10% pretax profit ceiling under IRS law.
If I'm willing to grant that most "corporate charity" (like most "consumer advocacy" and "grassroots activism"), is just PR charade. Then why should anyone bother labelling such "charity" as generous or pathetic, when it's just payment for advertising?
I fail to see how it is morally possible for Wal-Mart's executives -- or politicians -- to be "generous" or "stingy" with other people's money, whether shareholders' money or taxpayers' money, especially when they have a fiduciary duty to do so.
If you want Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to donate more, then you want shareholders to have less say over the best use of their money.
-- September 1, 2005 10:31 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:Kevin, let me remind you, we're talking about .019%. POINT ZERO ONE NINE PERCENT. Get off your Wal-Mart bandwagon long enough to realize it's insulting, not a contribution. It's like a rich man throwing a starving family one thin dime.
The citizens of New Orleans should be pissed off about this. And Wal-Mart gets huge PR for it - - disgusting at best.
-- September 1, 2005 11:37 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:I remind you, we're not talking about a man giving his own money, but some people giving other people's money. How much have WM shareholders given to relief? Neither you nor I know this.
-- September 2, 2005 08:38 AM ∞
Drew wrote:Since when is it the job of corporations to engage in disaster relief? Corporations exist to produce goods/services for society and to make profits for shareholders. They should not be engaging in charitable giving.
Private individuals are the ones who can feel the greatest personal satisfaction from charitable giving and they should be the ones doing it.
-- September 2, 2005 08:14 PM ∞
Brandon Weber wrote:You're right, corporations have no social obligations whatsoever. They shouldn't pay taxes, and they have no reponsibility to the communities that make them profitable.
In fact, they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no consideration to anyone but shareholders.
What fugged up world do you live in?
-- September 2, 2005 11:26 PM ∞
Drew wrote:Sounds like Brandon lives in the "fugged up" world where Wal-Mart supposedly just takes money from the starving masses and gives nothing back in return. In the real world, Wal-Mart delivers goods (and some services) to individual consumers (who make up these supposedly victimized communities) who in turn deliver money back to Wal-Mart. To claim that Wal-Mart has some additional responsibility to these individuals beyond these commercial transactions is to claim that the prices that consumers pay for Wal-Mart's goods are too high in some objective sense (those who buy the goods must not think so, otherwise they'd keep their money), or that Wal-Mart is the only entity benefiting from this exchange of money and goods.
-- September 6, 2005 01:58 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>Wal-Mart supposedly just takes money from the >starving masses and gives nothing back in >return. In the real world, Wal-Mart delivers >goods (and some services) to individual >consumers (who make up these supposedly >victimized communities) who in turn deliver
>money back to Wal-Mart.It does? Where? When? If you are STILL referring to the mere $2 mil, then you have nothing to base this assertion on.
-- September 10, 2005 10:46 PM ∞
Drew wrote:> It does? Where? When?
Do I have to say it again? Every time a consumer decides to trade his money for something Wal-Mart is selling, he's getting something he values more than he values the money he's spending. Wal-Mart isn't the only party that benefits from these commercial transactions.
-- September 12, 2005 01:03 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>Every time a consumer decides to trade his >money for something Wal-Mart is selling, he's >getting something he values more than he values >the money he's spending. Wal-Mart isn't the >only party that benefits from these commercial >transactions.
Let's apply that to the drug trade. Every time a a few rocks of crack are sold on the street, the consumer is trading his money for something he values more than he values the money he's spending. The consumer isn't the only one benefitting here - - the dealer, his supplier, and on up that food cahin benefit from these commercial transactions.
Does that mean the sale of crack cocaine helps the communities in which it is sold extensively?
Should we support those sales because both the consumer and the supplier benefit, even though the community suffers very much?
-- September 12, 2005 09:26 PM ∞
Drew wrote:I'm sure you'd complain that Wal-Mart is putting local street-corner pushers out of business if they started selling low-cost crack in their pharmacies. But all levity aside, please demonstrate how you think "the community" suffers due to access to lower priced goods that they wouldn't otherwise have without Wal-Mart's presence.
Certainly some individuals, namely some other businesses and their employees, will suffer some financial loss if they can't compete with Wal-Mart. Other businesses that aren't directly competing with Wal-Mart on price may see their sales increase due to consumers being able to spend fewer dollars at Wal-Mart to get the same amount of goods and thus having more disposable income. This only looks at individuals as producers. Some benefit and some suffer from Wal-Mart's entry into a market. If you look at individuals as consumers, they all benefit from having access to lower priced goods.
-- September 12, 2005 10:34 PM ∞
Roy W. Wright wrote:Someone once said, "Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out."
I'm speaking to Drew and others who apparently haven't been around long enough to understand Brandon. You're not going to sway him with logic or moral truths; just look at his arguments.
-- September 13, 2005 03:10 AM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>You're not going to sway him with logic or >moral truths; just look at his arguments.
Roy, you and the other Wal-Mart cheerleaders are full of your own prejudices. Don't throw stones...
And if I am presented with logic or "moral truths" then I might be able to respond. I've seen none of that from you lot.
-- September 13, 2005 01:03 PM ∞
Drew wrote:I jumped in right after Brandon mentioned corporations having "social obligations/responsibility" to "the community". I'm curious about these supposed obligations: their nature, their magnitude, from whence he thinks they arise, etc.
Does the act of selling [let's define selling as exchanging a less marketable good (stuff) for a more marketable good (money)] something to another individual at a profit create some sort of obligation on the part of the seller to that buyer?
If so, why is this social obligation only recognized when a retailer sells goods/services to a consumer of those goods and services? Should this obligation not also arise when a laborer (an employee) sells his labor to a buyer of labor (the retailer) at a profit?
Does buying [defined as exchanging a more marketable good (money) for a less marketable good (stuff)] create an obligation to the seller? It would appear to, according to Brandon type arguments, only when labor is bought, but not when goods and services are bought.
A double standard seems to be in play: the buyer of labor, it has been argued, incurs a social responsibility of some nature to the seller of labor while at the same time, when acting as the seller of goods and services, incuring some sort of social responsibility to the buyers of goods and services.
Restated:
1. goods/services flow from laborer to retailer to final consumer.
2. Money flows from final consumer to retailer to laborer
3. Supposed social responsibility only flows from retailer to both laborer AND final consumerThe question restated: Do you believe the last statement, and if so why?
-- September 13, 2005 02:06 PM ∞
brandon weber wrote:>1. goods/services flow from laborer to retailer to final consumer.
OK.
>2. Money flows from final consumer to retailer to laborer
Well, a small amount flows to laborer. A much larger chunk of that pie flows from final consumer to OWNER, and then gets trickled down to the laborer.
>3. Supposed social responsibility only flows from retailer to both laborer AND final consumer.
Again, since the retailer is by far the biggest financial winner in this equation, the vast majority of the social responsibility does indeed flow from the retailer.
-- September 15, 2005 11:25 PM ∞
Lies/Reality wrote:Hey, came across your website. I am interested in helping get out the word of your website. I also have a Wal-Mart/Sam's Club website that i would greatly appreciate it, if you would post on your links page or somewhere on your site. The website i run has a legal page from the UFCW legal dept. on it as well for those who are attacked for posting thier opinions freely.
Website: WWAssociates (Wally World Chat Room)---
http://groups.msn.com/W-WAssociates/welcome.msnw-- September 18, 2005 12:30 PM ∞
Drew wrote:>> 2. Money flows from final consumer to retailer
>> to laborer> Well, a small amount flows to laborer. A much
> larger chunk of that pie flows from final
> consumer to OWNER, and then gets trickled down
> to the laborer.Retail isn't a high profit margin business. I believe the statement that the owners (or shareholders) of the retail business (Wal-Mart for instance) keep a large fraction of the retail price paid by consumers is mistaken. But that doesn't change the fact that money basically flows from final consumer to laborer through the retailer who does the work of setting up the system that allows the goods and services to flow in the opposite direction.
>> 3. Supposed social responsibility only flows
>> from retailer to both laborer AND final
>> consumer.> Again, since the retailer is by far the biggest
> financial winner in this equation, the vast
> majority of the social responsibility does
> indeed flow from the retailer.You need to expand on your argument and explain why enjoying a profit implies a social responsibility on the part of the profitter. Also, could you define "social responsiblity"?
How does one calculate how much the final consumer profits from the exchange? Ask a consumer who paid $10 for a widget what the most he would have paid is. Maybe he says $11, in which case he considers himself ahead by $1. Or maybe he would say that widget was worth $100 to him, in which case he counts himself ahead $90 and his very thankful to have found such a bargain. That latter consumer, by your reasoning, would seem to have a large, nebulous, "social responsibility" to Wal-Mart and its army of employees and suppliers.
-- September 19, 2005 09:08 AM ∞
