Big Brother Mart

It seems to me that I just wrote this saying recently, but it bears repeating, "Buy the premise, buy the package". No one is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart. People, especially on the managerial and executive levels, have many opportunities for employment.

I would expect, that when the person was offered his job, he was apprised of the rules and regulations. If so, and he accepted the job, he is obliged to follow those rules. If he found the regulations obnoxious, he never should have accepted the position in the first place.

I had a dissimilar but related situation when I was working. There were some regulations that went against my grain, and I seriously considered leaving, on account of them. I thought it all through, decided that the pluses outweighed the minuses, and I stayed.

I live in a deed restricted community. Again, it is a matter of choice. If I could not live with the rules, I would have moved elsewhere.

I really scratch my head when people become angry with a situation, and blame others, when the initial choice was theirs.

The Walmart in my area has a terrible time keeping employees, but retail people (including managers) have many choices. My area has far more retail jobs than people who can fill them. However, that's not always the case. If you live out in East Jesus, Nebraska - Walmart might be the only game in town. Maybe your spouse owns the farm and you work outside to help support the family. Should people who have very limited choices have to put up with this?

Years ago I was desperate to get some experience in my chosen field and I worked for a man that made very personal comments about employees personal lives (upon meeting my boyfriend the boss asked him if I was any good in bed), he often made comments about what we wore to work and listened in on all our phone calls. Another woman in the business thought it was his right as the boss and owner to get away with it and said if I didn't like to I should leave. I stayed for a year because I wanted the job experience on my resume, but I never thought a boss should be given such carte blanche. I think WalMart is just being the bigger version of this guy I worked for.

(I might have to depart from this discussion as my workers arrive. In this case I'm the boss and I don't care who they slept with last night, but I do want them to get started when they get here and they need me to do that.)

It would seem from the article you quoted that Walmart is being the exact opposite of your former boss.

People will complain if Walmart investigates and holds people to the corporate policy (as well as labor laws). They'll also scream and cry about how awful Walmart is for allowing supervisors to abuse their postions of authority if they don't investigate and allow people to get away with it.

Either way, the people that hate Walmart will find something to complain about.

I think my former boss was acting exactly like Walmart by questioning my personal life and basically spying on me.I have no problem with a company enforcing labor laws, but it seems to me that WalMart has created a situation that goes beyond the office and into a person's personal life. I'm fine with a company making sure no employee violates the rights of another employee, but what about consenting adults not on company time? Where does personal life begin and end? Where does company life begin and end? How much should a company be able to get away with. I'm wondering where the line should be drawn.

I'm aware Walmart is not the only one with such a policy, but they are a big force in this country and cannot be ignored (love 'em or hate 'em). It also seems they are taking this control thing to incredible extremes.

I can see the business entertainment/gifts policy although I think it's exceptionally harsh. When I was auditing, we could not accept gifts but it was understood that if someone gave you a cup of coffee, you could be courteous and accept it without fearing for your job.

As for the affair, if any of it was on company time or money or site, then yeah, I can kinda see their point in that, too. E. g. if one person was on a business trip and then the company was hit for double occupancy charges in the hotel or two sets of meals on the food allowance or whatever.

It does, though, make me wonder what sort of contracts have been signed here. Are there morals clauses? If so, then the employees knew that their actions would be suspect although I'm sure they didn't think they'd be followed around, etc. But if not, it's absurd. Even if the company is trying to cultivate some sort of family values deal, or if they are trying to pin it on sexual harrassment or the like, it does give you pause when they are that tsk-tsk-y about two consenting adults.

Furthermore, it also makes you wonder about how such high quality surveillance is paid for. Is it any wonder they keep unions out? Then they'd have to actually pay a decent wage, and heavy-handed surveillance would, perhaps, not be such an easy budget line item to approve.

Every company I worked for (and my own company) has ethics policies. In my market, we use services of many engineering subcontractors and other service companies(labs, geophysics etc). If theres a job out there that can bring them millions on a contract, we as individuals get targeted by their "sales staffers" who learn and develop large data bases on the "decision makers" Consequently Im not surprised that Wal Mart has set stiff reprisals for "baksheesh",or for accepting gratuities before a sale decision is made. This translates to "NO ACCEPTING ANYTHING OVER X BUCKS FROM A CONTRACTOR". Also, the fraternization rule can disassemble a team very quickly unless there are strict rules. If the parties are married, it can mean termination after a reasonable warning and reassignment of one of the parties.
The dude who violated a reporters privacy is almost a criminal act and he should also suffer.

This is all pretty much common sense. For the record, I dont shop Wal Mart, I dont like their policy of beating up their subs with threats of contract non-renewals. I also dont like the policy that theyve established that allowsthem to sell an inferior grade of , say, an appliance (specially made for Wal Mart) and they make it look lik youre getting a deal.
Wal Mart is also a town killing hydra with a corporate model that enhances town killing while eating up prime rural lands. (Theyve only recently begun an "inner city" business model, probably to throw the heat off.

However , having said all that, I still have to agree with their ethics policy for all employees, even the corner office boys.

I've a friend who worked for a hospital corporation which would not allow employees to fraternize with equipment purveyors, for obvious reasons.
Heh, they've been married thirty or so years now, and, for cause not related to that question, both moved to other, better, jobs.

I see the point on both sides.

Having been around where sales pitches were routine at "lunch time" - meaning they brought us what they ascribed as a feast and we didn't get our own break time to go out, run, shop, eat our choice of meal... that got annoying, but we never felt beholden.

It is a little infantilizing, that one is assumed to lose judgement with a cup of coffee or lunch, or ... gasp, some fooling around; people are more compllcated than that, or some are. On the other hand, corruption makes the world go round, and/or the appearance of it makes the earth swivel. I can see it's important for a firm to toe the "gift line". Am a bit recalcitrant on the romance thing - which I know is a rule, at least within layers of hierarchy - at many workplaces. (I just don't personally care what people do unless it affects job performance, I always look at (er) performance. I too was stunned by the level of spy expertise thrown at this at Walmart business.

On that with a side look at WalMart's general practices, I see GreenWitch's problemo.

. In the cases where 1 or both are married, or if one is a supervisor, or both work on similar roles, it WILL affect performance. As an employer, I dont buy "free time" fraternization that could end inaffaairs, broken affairs, broken families, =shitcans their performance. Most companies nip it in the bud with ethics rules. If you sign them, youre bound. No one is irreplaceable, especially the EO's .

In the article you quoted there is no mention of consensual affairs that don't involve people that are both employees of Walmart and any time there is a supervior/subordinate affair there is an immediate question of consent as well as questions about conhersion and unfair treatment. The article gives no indication of whether Walmart looks into affairs betwen an employee and someone who has no involvement with the comany or how far they might look if they do. Maybe they do look into it, maybe they drop it.

I'm not fond of their "no gifts at all" policy going as far as a cup of coffee but every company I've ever worked for had some sort of limit on gifts employees could accept. In most places there was a nominal limit set at $25-$35 which seems to me to be much more reasonable. Accepting vacation trips and cases of alcohol from someone seeking to do business with my employer hasn't been tolerated at any place I've worked for and I suspect it is the norm in the business world.