Walmart Shareholder Meeting 2012

June 1, 2012

It was another excellent Walmart shareholder meeting this year.  The musical acts were not exactly to my taste, but it’s just impressive to see Celine Dion, Lionel Ritchie, Taylor Swift, Zac Brown, and Juanes perform.  And Justin Timberlake did an excellent job as MC.

There wasn’t really much exciting news to report during the meeting.  It was another year of steady growth in profits.  It was another year of Walmart emphasizing how they provide people with opportunities and keep the cost of goods low so that people — especially poor people — can live better.  But I’ve already written about this in the past (see for example this).

As I’ve said before, if Walmart were a government program designed to help poor people by providing them with low cost, basic goods and job opportunities, academics would be holding conferences to identify just how it was so successful, the New York Times would write editorials to laud its accomplishments (like they do for the ineffective Head Start program), and politicians would be tripping over each other to take credit for it.  But because they help provide people, especially poor people, really low cost basic goods and make a profit at it, they are demonized.  Little do these haters realize that Walmart’s success at innovating to keep costs down is entirely made possible by the profit motive.  These folks fail to understand the lesson of Al Copeland — entrepreneurs are often among the greatest humanitarians.

There was some excitement at this year’s shareholder meeting surrounding the Mexican bribery allegations.  But the only people I heard mention it were the Walmart officials, who several times directly addressed the topic by pledging to conduct a full investigation and emphasizing Walmart’s commitment to do what is right and uphold integrity, and the reporters covering those comments.  None of the associates or shareholders seemed to care much.  And I saw no protesters of any sort.

A reporter for the Huffington Post, Alice Hines,  tried to manufacture some news by claiming to detect signs of rebellion among Walmart associates.  She even alleged that she was manhandled by a cop at a Walmart event the other night because she was mistaken for a protester.  Ms. Hines may have an active imagination because I did not see the same things she alleged.  She tweeted “Walmart secretary booed by a few in the audience after shareholder proposal on exec incentive report.”  I didn’t hear any booing.  She tweeted “Lots of applause from UK & Canada section for shareholder proposal on political transparency; scattered claps elsewhere.”  I didn’t hear that either.  She was accurate in tweeting “Presenting exec incentive proposal, Jackie Goebel says Walmart stores are understaffed. gets big applause.”  And her claim to have been mistaken for a protester and threatened with arrest by a police officer at an earlier Walmart event sounds fishy given that there were virtually no protesters for whom she could have been mistaken.

The anti-Walmart folks may love retweeting these reports suggesting discord and strife at the Walmart shareholder meeting, but the image her “reporting” conveys is completely misleading.  The Walmart shareholder meeting is basically a giant cheer-leading event that went perfectly smoothly this year just as it has in the past.  You can criticize the meeting for feeling like a Disney show, as some did, but you can’t suggest that it was Chicago in the summer of ’68.  It was just another well-choreographed event and the associates, many of whom were visiting the US for the first time or had just flown on an airplane for the first time in their life, just seemed thrilled to be there.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

The People’s Front of Judea Merges with the Judean People’s Front

July 31, 2009

This item just in from the AP:

 Anti-Wal-Mart groups merge

Two union-backed groups that have spent years criticizing Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s wages and benefits say they’re going to merge.

 Wal-Mart Watch, backed by the Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union’s WakeUpWalmart.com announced Friday they’ll combine efforts to pressure the world’s largest retailer.

The new group will be called Watch Wal-Mart Wake Up, or something like that.  If only they could work on helping Reggie become a woman.

UPDATE:  I sit corrected.  It was Stan, not Reggie, who wanted to become Loretta and have babies.  Thanks to The Minnesota Kid for pointing out my error.

3 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Walmart Shareholder Meeting 2009

June 5, 2009

I just returned from another excellent Walmart shareholder meeting.  Ben Stiller was the mc.  Michael Jordan gave some inspirational words.  Miley Cyrus, Kris Allen,  and Smokey Robinson performed.  And earlier in the week I saw Sugarland, Brad Paisley, Foreigner, and Daughtry perform at free events leading up to the meeting.  It’s been another great week of entertainment in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

And of course, the meeting discussed Walmart’s business, including its financial results and values as an organization.  On that topic I’ll just repeat what I wrote after last year’s meeting: “They presented impressive evidence and compelling anecdotes of how Walmart saves money for families of modest means and, in doing so, improves people’s lives….  It struck me that if Walmart were a government program, designed to provide basic goods to low-income families at reduced prices, it would be lauded as a great success on the order of the New Deal or the Marshall Plan.  Books would be written about how it worked so well.  Conferences would be organized to sing its praises.  But because someone is actually making a profit while serving low-income families, somehow the whole thing is ruined.  It’s as if social progress can only be made if taxpayers lose money.”  If you want to see more along these lines, check this out.

At this year’s meeting my puzzlement about why people vilify Walmart only continues to grow.  This made me think about how the enemies one chooses says a lot about who one is.  Why do some people choose to focus their energies attacking Walmart while ignoring or even embracing others who more clearly violate their principles?

Let’s take as an example President Obama.  He has clearly chosen Walmart as an enemy.  Obama declared that he “won’t shop” at Walmart.  And during the campaign he participated in a conference call organized by the anti-Walmart advocates, WakeUpWalMart.  According to USA Today Obama said: “‘I think the battle to engage Wal-Mart and force them to examine their own corporate values and what their policies and approaches are to their workers and how they are going to be good corporate citizens, I think, is absolutely vital,’ Obama said, adding he was proud of WakeUpWalMart’s work.”

So how does Obama feel about Iran, whose values and policies must be much more objectionable to Obama than Walmart’s?  In his speech yesterday Obama said about Iran: “There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”  And earlier in the week Obama said: “what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations.”  During the campaign, Obama stressed that he would “be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader.”

Let’s see if I have this right.  Obama wouldn’t go to a Walmart and thinks the “battle” against Walmart is “vital.”  But he’s willing to meet with holocaust-denying Iranian leader,  Ahmadinejad, without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect keeping in mind their legitimate aspirations.

I fully believe that Obama strenuously opposes Iran’s illiberal policies.  The problem is not that he is ignorant of how Iran more clearly threatens his own principles than does Walmart.  The problem is that he approaches Walmart like an enemy while approaching Iran like a friend. 

Who you choose as an enemy says a lot about your own values and priorities.

(edited to add Kris Allen)

2 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Union Busting — Good for the NYT, Bad for Everyone Else

May 4, 2009

The NYT has threatened to shutter its Boston Globe subsidiary in 60 days if its unions don’t agree to various cuts.  According to the Times’ own coverage:

“The company has said since early April that unless the unions make wide-ranging concessions, it will close The Globe…”

Hmmm….  What would the New York Times say if someone else, like let’s say Walmart, threatened to close down its units because unions would drive costs too high.  Oh, wait, they did write an editorial about that on August 16, 2008.  It begins:

“It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers.”

I guess it is hardly news that the New York Times would engage in the same practices that they find deplorable if allegedly done by others.

And who could forget this gem of an editorial by the Times on December 28, 2008?  Just a few months ago the Times seemed to think that expanding union power was great because it would raise wages, which was necessary for economic recovery:

“Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.”

  Come on NYT!  Can’t you follow your own advice?  Do your part for the economy and raise those Boston Globe wages higher rather than slashing them.

(edited for typos)

5 Comments | economics, politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Walmart Shareholder Meeting

June 6, 2008

This morning I went to the Walmart shareholder meeting held in the University of Arkansas basketball stadium.  The theme was the new marketing slogan, “Save money.  Live better.”  They presented impressive evidence and compelling anecdotes of how Walmart saves money for families of modest means and, in doing so, improves people’s lives. 

The best example they provided was their $4 prescription drug program.  Lee Scott, the CEO, emphasized that policymakers have been trying to get more people to switch to cheaper generics for years.  But Walmart has been able to succeed where the government has failed, by bringing the price down.  How did they do that when the government hasn’t?  Walmart was able to squeeze the pharmaceutical companies in a way that the government won’t.  Just think of the Medicare Drug Benefit program that has been a near-total flop, failing to make drugs more available while costing taxpayers dearly. 

It struck me that if Walmart were a government program, designed to provide basic goods to low-income families at reduced prices, it would be lauded as a great success on the order of the New Deal or the Marshall Plan.  Books would be written about how it worked so well.  Conferences would be organized to sing its praises.  But because someone is actually making a profit while serving low-income families, somehow the whole thing is ruined.  It’s as if social progress can only be made if taxpayers lose money.

It’s not accurate to say that Walmart is only able to provide low prices because it underpays its workers, who are themselves often low-income.  In fact, Walmart pays its workers above the industry average and offers health benefits rarely found in retail.  The reality is that Walmart primarily reduces prices by squeezing its suppliers.  Remember the prescription drug companies?  Ironically, anti-Walmart activists are really pro-Procter & Gamble.  Their chant should be “Charge poor people more for shampoo so that Procter & Gamble thrives!”  I guess that wouldn’t be a very good chant at a rally (I’d make a bad activist), but you get my point. 

Of course, the other groups that get squeezed are the unions.  But even if you believed that unions provided significant benefits to workers, we should all recognize that it would have to come at the expense of low-income consumers.  There is no free lunch.  And keep in mind that Walmart workers already receive above-industry-average wages and health benefits, so the additional benefits of unionization are more dubious.  Furthermore, outside of North America Walmart workers are mostly unionized (as are the workers of all of their major competitors in those markets) and the company still thrives. 

I know.  People will hold this post up as an example of how I’m somehow in the employ of Walmart.  Just to set the facts straight — I’m an employee of the University of Arkansas and am primarily paid by the taxpayers of Arkansas.  I’ve never heard anyone suggest that my (or anyone else’s)  receipt of money from the government presents a conflict of interest that disqualifies them from evaluating government programs.  I’m as free to criticize Arkansas policies as to criticize Walmart.  (And I do have criticisms of Walmart.  For example, the produce is lousy and the stores in Florida, when I lived there, looked dingy.)

It’s true that my department received a $20 million gift from which I draw some income.  But that $20 million endowment was initiated by an anonymous foundation (not connected to the Waltons) with a $10 million gift that was then matched by the University’s matching grant program, which applied to all gifts that met certain criteria.  It’s true that the matching grant money originally came from the estate of Sam Walton, but he passed away in 1992 and neither the Waltons nor Walmart control those dollars.  So, my connection to Walmart exists, but it is tenuous.  They certainly have no ability to control what I say or do.

But even if I were a corporate executive at Walmart, the issue is whether my argument is true, not with whom do I have a financial connection.  Walmart executives could make an argument and be right.  The intellectually honest way to exchange ideas is to address the merits of other people’s ideas, not analyze their motives for articulating those ideas. 

My assessment of the evidence is that Walmart really does help people save money and live better.  If you disagree, rebut the evidence.

11 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene