 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 30, 2008 at 11:19:47
Wal Mart Stampede: Where's Woody Guthrie? by 2kiwipress Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
1
Condolences to the family of Jdimytai Damour. It is very sad that he was trampled while trying to make a living as a worker at a Wal-Mart store. Now, what can we learn from this? And, who is to blame? I am horrified to see some mainstream news coverage vilify the shoppers who went through the doors. And, an AP headline that threatens to hunt the shoppers down. The AP/Yahoo News headline is: "Sought: Wal-Mart shoppers who trampled NY worker". And, it states: Police were reviewing video from surveillance cameras in an attempt to identify who trampled to death a Wal-Mart worker after a crowd of post-Thanksgiving shoppers burst through the doors at a suburban store and knocked him down.Criminal charges were possible...
If we were to turn to philosophers or folk musicians, we might get the proper answer. An artist like Woody Guthrie might be inclined to point out that the situation was more of the usual games between the rich and the poor. The rich Wal Mart owners set the stage for the working class bargain hunters to trample the working class temporary worker. And, now, some in the corporate media are willing to side with the corporation, of course.
It is very clear from the story, and the obvious facts, that Wal-Mart is at least equally, but perhaps more to blame than the shoppers. Who profited from the chaos being created? --the shoppers who believed they were getting a discount on goods which are already marked up for retail? or, the company who would make a profit, nonetheless from every customer they could get to the door, the ones who got the sale, and even the ones who would feel the need to buy something else when the sale item got sold out? (What is the term in retail? Bait and switch? Evidently these shoppers had experienced it before, or they would not have started lining up before 3 am in the morning.)
The AP/Yahoo News story is amazing in its distraction on the shopper, instead of the corporation. It quotes someone as saying that the shoppers acted like "savages". It paints a portrait of them being uncaring by continuing to shop (instead of noting that the shoppers could have been confused or in shock by having been in such a large crowd and experienced a tragedy, when they were only going somewhere to shop.) It assigns no blame to Wal-Mart, and even publishes the official line from the spokesperson/Vice President from Wal-Mart, which will help to bolster the company image and get their spin on the story out in public before the inevitable civil or criminal lawsuit against them.
The VP says, "Despite all of our precautions..." What precautions did Wal-Mart take?
Wal Mart didn't have enough staff. Didn't have staff trained properly to know to do their job, or understand when things were out of control and they should give up. Wal Mart doesn't allow unions, where the workers might have had a system to advocate for themselves and give feedback about job assignments such as holding back the door on Black Friday. Didn't have a strong enough door to keep out the amount of shoppers you lured to the store. Didn't have enough trust with the community and the shoppers to make them believe they could get the sale items they advertised if they showed up at regular business hours.
In addition, Wal Mart allowed people on their property and encouraged people on their property since the night before. But, did they provide them water on the line? Chairs on the line? (In some cultures, there are strict codes for hosts and hostesses. In this country, it is still appalling to invite someone onto your property who is going to be your customer, and have them stand in the cold with no water for up to 8 hours like some of those people had been.) Wal Mart opened at obscenely early hours, so that some people who would usually have been asleep had interrupted their sleep schedule. (Do you remember the good old days, when retail stores did not open on Sunday? That was an acknowledgment that business should step aside for the cycles of family and human rest and activity.)
The AP/Yahoo story even ends with a pitch for some Wal-Mart products and prices. What could possibly be the meaning of this? Couldn't the AP/Yahoo abstractly refer to the fact that the shoppers believed they would get bargains? The last lines of the AP/Yahoo New story are: "Items on sale at the Valley Stream Wal-Mart included a Samsung xxx for $xxx, a Bissel xxx for $xx, a Samsung xxx for xxx and DVDs such as xxx for $xxx."
Don't the reporters or editors realize that listing items a store carries might make people go back to the store? Was it listed in that way so the reader would be encouraged to believe that Wal-Mart really does have good bargains that makes lining up at 3am a good idea? And, why does the AP and Yahoo News want to leave us with that last impression, specific items and prices as Wal-Mart, as we study the death of a fellow human being?
And, who is going to study all the psychological games involved of Wal-Mart and other retailers trying to create a sense of urgency in people, knowing that urgency is the best way to make a sale? Wal-Mart's advertisements, and its gimmick of "The Blitz" whipped those people into a buying frenzy in the way Wal-Mart wanted. Wal-Mart didn't plan enough on what hundreds of strangers do when whipped up into a frenzy and left to stand out in the cold, outside their store, until Wal-Mart decided they should open the doors.
Also, with the AP/Yahoo quote above, suggesting that police are going to hunt down the shoppers for possible criminal prosecution, wouldn't that discourage witnesses to a tragedy/possible crime from coming forward? If we as a society need to study what led to this incident so it doesn't happen again, and if the District Attorney of Nassau needs to investigate who is at fault, wouldn't it be better if the hundreds of people who witnessed what happened were encouraged, and not discouraged to come forward?
I was gratified that the New York Times had a much better story about this incident. The New York Times focused much more on what Wal-Mart could have done and should have done to prevent this incident. The New York Times allowed a speaker on behalf of workers--and not just the capitalist corporate owners--to make a statement for the press.
The New York Times wrote:
Wal-Mart has successfully resisted unionization of its employees. New York State’s largest grocery union, Local 1500 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, called the death of Mr. Damour “avoidable” and demanded investigations.
1 | 2
www.onthewilderside.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 9 comments |
|
the Labor View
thanks for presenting more in depth coverage on this matter: “Where were the safety barriers?” said Bruce Both, the union president. “Where was security? How did store management not see dangerous numbers of customers barreling down on the store in such an unsafe manner? This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart.” Those are the questions mainstream media is not asking. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:21:27 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks
Thanks for the positive comment. This story is posted at my blog as well, and there have been some nasty anti-union comments. So, your comment is a breath of fresh air. On our blog comments, a lot of people want to defend Wal Mart (or, there is some Wal Mart p.r. person lurking at my blog!) Also, a lot of people want to blame the shoppers and say horrible things, instead of realizing how Wal Mart seduced the shoppers into a buying frenzy, and made them wait outside in the cold for hours, behind a locked door. (Though, I understand that there is some blame to be shared all around.) In New York City (where the victim was from) and Long Island, the governments are starting to plan some laws to make the stores be more responsible during big sales. So, someone is getting the message. -KW by 2kiwipress (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Wal Mart does not stand alone with blame
This whole black Friday thing is insane on the face of it. And Wal-Mart is not alone in their culpability. While they happened to be the one that took the shot, try going to Best Buy, Circuit City, Target or any of a number of other places and be prepared to encounter the same thing. Anyone in their right mind knows that those whoop-dee-doo bargains will be gone to crazy people that hung out at the store for 2-3 days (they choose to do so) to get that one thing, the loss leader that most people will miss out on. Wal-Mart is not alone in the blame. Yes, they need to share responsiblity. But don't single them out just becuase the lightening bolt hit them. Best solution: Sleep in Friday morning. Those "bargains" aren't worth your time (or life). by Starbuck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:28:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Wal-Mart Stampede
The entity against which criminal charges should be filed is Wal-Mart, and also against the management of the local store where this occurred. When will these merchants learn that it is not worth people's lives to get that certain something by encouraging the worst of me first attitudes? The shocking thing about this story aside from the death and injuries was that those who had gotten into the store and were asked to leave, resisted even though they were told about the incident. No sales were registered in that first period - everyone had to come back later - which turned out to be some eight hours later. I haven't seen anywhere as to whether the mob scene was repeated then. Wal-Mart and the other merchants (Best-Buy, Circuit City, et. al., need to provide for security on the lines and not let crowds press up against the doors. If it costs them too much to do this, then let's stop the rable rousing of the "door-buster" ads. by Fred Bush (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for the comments - and another thing...
Thanks for the comments. Yes, many stores have bad practices. And, a lot of this can be blamed on our government giving too much power to corporations, being lax on regulation, and not supporting unions. That allows stores to continue bad practices until a tragedy happens. I also thought of another background reason that the death of the worker occured. Most department stores at busy malls have inside entrances, even multiple entrances. It has been a new strategy of Wal-Mart to place itself in busy malls, but have only one outside entrance (which I believe was the case, here.) That made it so people who wanted to get in had no other choice but to crowd that one entrance, standing in the cold, instead of the shelter of the mall. (In investigating this situation, or in the inevitable lawsuit, someone should perhaps find memos and marketing papers that might allude to the reason for having one entrance only and/or an outside entrance as opposed to an inside entrance.) When a store is inviting the public onto their property, they have a reponsibility to create a safe environment for human beings. Wal Mart invited the public to its property, but failed to have adequate entrances, a place for throngs to wait in shelter before they would open that door, or an aduate plan for crowd control. Basic, logical systems such as "safety first" employee training; "hospitality rules"; "Feng Shui"; and "crowd flow" all seem to have been violated. And, if Wal Mart cared enough about the human beings coming to their store to have implemented any of those strategies, this situation might not have happened. by 2kiwipress (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:09:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Good article
Back in 1979 11 people were killed in the crush getting into a concert by The Who in Cincinnati. The link below is to a 1999 edition of The Enquirer headlined "Concert Industry Learns from Who Tragedy". I hope it gives food for thought in getting Wal Mart. by sliphoch (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 110 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:06:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Wow. Great article on learning from mistakes
Many thanks for the article. I am going to link to it at my blog http://www.onthewilderside.com tonight or tomorrow. Great research. Thanks for sharing! by 2kiwipress (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:49:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Blind to the consequences
Woody, or Bob Dylan: "The Lonesome Death of Jdimytai Damour?" I agree with you that Walmart must share a part of the blame here. There is a history of events like this happening when businesses and organizations do not consider the predictable consequences of big promotions, thinking only of their bottom line (I think back to baseball -- Ten Cent Beer Night and the "Disco Demolition Night" in Chicago in the late 70s, both of which resulted in on-field riots). By offering a very limited number of highly desirable items at big markdowns to a customer base especially eager for bargains, Walmart ensured that a large number of people would show up ahead of time to jostle for prime positions. Now, it seems the crowd was especially violent and aggressive, beyond what Walmart might have reasonably expected, but would it have been too much trouble to have set up a line outside the store, or even to have called police when the situation was growing out of hand? It appears that this store just let them pile up right around the entrance, when even the simplest of steps would have averted trouble. Having employees form a line to "slow down" onrushing customers was a disastrous idea. Damour's death is a tragedy, and I am confident Walmart will answer to his family in damages great enough to make them take a hard look at their managerial policies. by Dave C (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:02:35 PM (0+)
|
|
attractive nuisance
If you have a swimming pool on your property, it is considered an 'attractive nuisance' and you must fence it to prevent people from falling in and drowning. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to consider a sale of this type to also be an attractive nuisance, which puts the onus on Wal-Mart to prevent people from being hurt by it. Best way would be to avoid having sales of this kind. If there are only a few TVs or whatever available, you could have shoppers come to the store and fill in a lottery ticket. I'd also like to know what the local fire marshals think of things like this. As far as people not wanting to leave the store, that reminds me of an episode a few decades back that happened in British Columbia. A new Save-On Foods grocery store had just opened, but the rooftop parking had not been built property and the roof was literally starting to fall in while people shopped. Staff had a terrible time getting people to leave thier carts and bargains behind. by lwarman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
