Critique of Walmart: The high cost of low price

¶ … Wal-mart: The high cost of low price directed by Robert Greenwald. Specifically it will contain a critique and discussion of the film and the public reaction to it. Wal-Mart: The High Cost of low price is an eye-opening account of the Wal-Mart legacy - one of exploitation, lies, deceit, and snuffing out competition, all in the name of low prices for consumers. Director Greenwald creates a documentary based on former employees, in person accounts, and research to illustrate how Wal-Mart takes over retail in communities, exploits its workers both in the United States and abroad, and gleefully watches small retailers go belly-up when they move into town. It is a mesmerizing look into the world of big business in America, and it will make any viewer stop and think about what, where, and how they purchase the commodities they use every day. Wal-Mart uses the system to gain profits, exploit their workers and the American taxpayer, and yet, their business practices are allowed, even welcomed by cities and towns. Why do so many people ignore the inequities of the company and shop at Wal-Mart? Are low prices more important than ethics? Apparently, to many consumers, they are indeed.

There are so many main points to this film it is hard to narrow them down, but ultimately, the theme is that Wal-Mart is a deceptive, unethical, and disreputable corporation. They use illegal and highly questionable business practices for the sole reason of making a huge profit, and ensuring the happiness of their shareholders. They exploit their workers both in the United States and around the world, they cost taxpayers billions of dollars in welfare and health benefits, and they gleefully run small business owners out of their long held, family-owned enterprises. And yet, they are one of the most successful retailers in history, and the largest retailer in the world.

The film begins with an emotional portrayal of the Hunter family of Middlefield Ohio. Jon Hunter's father began H & H. Hardware in 1962, and Hunter planned to hand it on to his own sons. However, Wal-Mart expanded to the area, and when it did, the property values of existing businesses devalued, because appraisers knew what to expect. When Wal-Mart came to town, small businesses went under and their buildings stood empty. Hunter and his sons had built the building for their business, and wanted funds to expand. However, Hunter says, "When I went to secure the loan, the appraiser devalued the building at a drastically lower price than I expected - this was directly related to Wal-Mart coming into town" (Editors). The loans did not come through, and the business closed as a direct result of the Wal-Mart being built two miles away. A viable business of 43 years disappeared, and so did the livelihood of the entire Hunter family. In the documentary, one former Wal-Mart manager gives an account of Wal-Mart executives who would pass through a new town, and gleefully project when each small business would fold after the store opened (Wal-mart: The high cost of low price, 2005). That is only one minute aspect of the points in the film, they go on to show labor violations, exploitation, taxpayer costs, and much, much more.

Wal-Mart's wages are so low that most of their employees, even full-time (Wal-Mart considers 28 hours a week "full-time"), are so underpaid they and their dependents qualify for a variety of public assistance, including welfare, Medicaid, and even low-income utility assistance. This is such an accepted fact that Human Resource managers are encouraged to hand out information on these government programs to any and all employees. This means that the taxpayers of states and cities where these stores are located are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees simply so Wal-Mart's bottom line can appear more rosy. It is wrong, and it needs to stop.

Wal-Mart important a large measure of its products from third-world countries, and the workers in those countries are so abused and exploited it is shocking. The film follows several Chinese workers and shows their living and working conditions, which are deplorable. When a dedicated employee who was charged with inspecting these plants blew the whistle, he was fired, after nearly a decade of working for the company. The truth is, Wal-Mart is aware of the conditions and condone them, and anything else they say on the subject is simply "blowing smoke."

In addition, Wal-Mart has a lengthy history of oppression when it comes to women and minorities. One film subject who had worked at Wal-Mart for six years finally quit because of racial abuse and slurs, and another black woman was told "There's no place for people like you in management..., (Wal-mart: The high cost of low price, 2005), meaning she was black and a woman, and would never move up. If these were isolated incidents, they might be a little more palatable, but they are not. The documentaries' main points go on and on, with many different subjects who confirm the facts. The bottom line is Wal-Mart is corrupt, greedy, and only concerned with making money. Ethics, morality, and just plain common decency are not part of the Wal-Mart equation, and that point is driven home repeatedly.

The director's purpose was to expose the business practices of Wal-Mart, and he succeeded in his purpose. The film is at once shocking and profoundly disturbing, due to the many points of unethical practices the director uncovers. It is extremely significant because it shows that corporations can lie, cheat, and steal, and unless they affect Americans in a negative way, they simply will not care. Low price and convenience is far more important to most Americans, and that is a sad thing to admit. Many Americans might not want to work for this vicious company, but they will hand over their hard earned dollars to them just the same, and that is wrong on many levels.

A did question the facts and numbers represented throughout the documentary, such as how Wal-Mart costs $1,557,000,000 to American taxpayers in the form of welfare, public health benefits, and low-income energy assistance ("Facts," 2005). The film's Web site actually breaks down each of the facts and numbers used throughout the film, indicating where the information came from for each statement, and indicating all the facts were dissected and researched efficiently. Was the documentary fair? Certainly, the director had a purpose in mind - to expose the business practices of this retailer, and he succeeded. Did Wal-Mart get to tell its side of the story? Yes, CEO Lee Scott did conduct interviews that were used in the documentary, that totally countermanded the finding of the film, and made him look as if he was running a totally different company than the one pictured in the film. Who do you believe? I believe the facts presented in the film, and commend the director for his research and diligence.

One critic says, "The saddest part of this documentary is a series of shots of abandoned Main Streets, empty store after empty store, with Bruce Springsteen's plaintive version of 'This Land Is Your Land' as accompaniment" (Gates, 2005). However, that is not the saddest aspect of this film to me, although it certainly is moving. The saddest aspect to me is twofold. First are the families who have given their lives to the "American dream" of owning their own businesses for decades, only to have them ripped away simply by corporate greed. The Hunter family and the Esry family both had their businesses ripped away from them as Wal-Mart came to town (after receiving massive incentives from the cities involved), leaving little business for these small, family-owned operations. Certainly, customer loyalty was involved here - but low prices and the business of Wal-Mart won out. It made me wonder just why people support Wal-Mart so heavily, and if they would alter their behavior if they really knew what went on in the corporate boardroom. The cynic in me says no, and that seems to be the case.

Wal-Mart continues to prosper, despite controversies such as these. It seems that low price is the only consideration most people have, and they will continue to support this corrupt and unethical business that makes Enron look like a poster child for ethics and morality. Stockholders and 401K pensioners where touched by Enron, in a bad way, but Wal-Mart touches their portfolios and makes them brighter, and so, the practices continue. Personally, my refrain is "Mama, don't let your children grow up to work at Wal-Mart." I will urge friends and relatives not to shop at Wal-Mart, and I will share this documentary with anyone I can. I believe Wal-Mart is evil - the "evil empire," and allowing these practices to continue simply condones their unethical and debasing business practices. I agree with the director for bringing this film into the public view, and wish it had much more of a difference in consumer reaction to the retailing giant.