Editorial Board: Wal-Mart is unethical
Editorial Board: Wal-Mart is unethical
By Malinda Osborne (Contact)
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Watching the protracted battle between the city and Wal-Mart was like witnessing David take on Goliath, but this time Goliath got his way.
The unfortunate reality is that while the city fought hard, it wasn’t enough. The city was armed with little more than a claim that Wal-Mart was a department store, not a variety store, and therefore did not fit the zoning laws for the site at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. Wal-Mart, the largest owner and manager of retail space in the country, had inexhaustible funds to use for legal battles and a precedent of building whenever and wherever it pleased.
After thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent by the city to stave off the corporation’s seven law suits, the city had no choice but to reach a settlement with Wal-Mart. No one knows the exact amount, but by the end of 2003, the city already had spent $35,000. In the end, an agreement was made stating that in the next six months plans for a smaller-scale, aesthetically-pleasing store will be submitted and, upon approval, the law suits will be dismissed and a court trial avoided.
And what has anyone gained from the whole experience? Having the ability to drive to the store five minutes faster for a $3 gallon of pickles. Those who argue in favor of the store say competition is the basis of capitalism and that Wal-Mart simply has a successful business model. But this argument neglects issues such as ethical business practices.
We may not personally know the employees of Wal-Mart’s suppliers who get laid off because the company can’t handle the prices they are forced to sell their goods. We may not hear about the Wal-Mart employees who can’t afford a doctor’s visit because they don’t receive health care. But it does happen all the time. So the next time you buy that cheap pack of Oreos from Wal-Mart, ask yourself, is it really worth it?
As the city knows, it’s not easy to do what’s right, but it’s worth fighting for.
By Malinda Osborne (Contact)
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Watching the protracted battle between the city and Wal-Mart was like witnessing David take on Goliath, but this time Goliath got his way.
The unfortunate reality is that while the city fought hard, it wasn’t enough. The city was armed with little more than a claim that Wal-Mart was a department store, not a variety store, and therefore did not fit the zoning laws for the site at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. Wal-Mart, the largest owner and manager of retail space in the country, had inexhaustible funds to use for legal battles and a precedent of building whenever and wherever it pleased.
After thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent by the city to stave off the corporation’s seven law suits, the city had no choice but to reach a settlement with Wal-Mart. No one knows the exact amount, but by the end of 2003, the city already had spent $35,000. In the end, an agreement was made stating that in the next six months plans for a smaller-scale, aesthetically-pleasing store will be submitted and, upon approval, the law suits will be dismissed and a court trial avoided.
And what has anyone gained from the whole experience? Having the ability to drive to the store five minutes faster for a $3 gallon of pickles. Those who argue in favor of the store say competition is the basis of capitalism and that Wal-Mart simply has a successful business model. But this argument neglects issues such as ethical business practices.
We may not personally know the employees of Wal-Mart’s suppliers who get laid off because the company can’t handle the prices they are forced to sell their goods. We may not hear about the Wal-Mart employees who can’t afford a doctor’s visit because they don’t receive health care. But it does happen all the time. So the next time you buy that cheap pack of Oreos from Wal-Mart, ask yourself, is it really worth it?
As the city knows, it’s not easy to do what’s right, but it’s worth fighting for.
posted by Walking Contradiction at 3:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home