OKaaaaaaaay. Here’s Wal-Mart as white knight riding forth to save the masses and bring relief to the environment and health care crisis.Wal-Mart is positioning itself as a do-the-right-thing leader. In a speech yesterday “…president and CEO Lee Scott today said the company would continue to demonstrate leadership and work for change on major issues important to Wal-Mart’s customers, communities, associates and suppliers worldwide. …working to lead an effort by major global retailers to create common social and environmental standards for suppliers. The company will also require all of its suppliers to meet specific environmental, social and quality standards and it will make compliance with those standards part of its contracts… “What if we extended our mission of saving people money so they can live better…“”

Isn’t that great? Have you seen the ads for $4 dollar prescriptions? Terrific, right? Gee, maybe a leopard really can change its spots.

But before you get too excited take a look at another article in Business Week called The Ugly Side of Microlending.

And remember that CEO Lee Scott is at the top of the approval chain for this move.

Wal-Mart Stores, which obtained a Mexican banking license a year ago, began offering loans for purchases at 16 of its 997 Mexican outlets in November. In the U.S., the retailer markets itself as a friend to the budget-conscious. In Mexico, it charges interest rates that might set off popular and political revolts back home, although Wal-Mart describes its terms as appropriate to the Mexican market. At one store west of Mexico City, a 32-inch LG plasma TV with a price tag of $957 can ultimately cost as much as $1,474, thanks to a 52-week payment plan that carries an annual percentage rate (APR) of 86%.

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart? Wring your profits out of the poorest of the poor while positioning yourself as the leader in “saving people money so they can live better.”

What do you think?
Is hypocrisy and social irresponsibility alive and well at Wal-Mart or have they truly turned over a new leaf?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Scott Allen, The Guide for the Entrepreneurs section of About.com responded to a reader’s question about benefits for part time workers, explaining that in the US benefits aren’t required by law for any worker, full or part-time.

So why should companies have benefits? Just think about how much better their bottom line would be without them. Wow!

Then think about how demotivated, unproductive and disinterested their employees would be. Double wow!

The smartest employers offer all the benefits they’re able to offer to the people who work for them, even part-timers. Sure, they’re limited by financial consideration, but they do as much as they can.

• A startup CEO told me that he had insisted on good insurance coverage in spite of his investors’ gripes. Why? Because, he said, his people were more willing to put in 80 hour weeks when they didn’t have to worry about their families. Interestingly enough, his company also offered slightly below market pay and far more modest stock options and still filled their openings with top talent (this was during a boom period, too).
• Another small biz owner I know offers Aflac, exceptional working flexibility and just added a 401K, although many similar-sized companies just moan about how they can’t afford anything.
• My friend, who owns a tiny, neighborhood restaurant, gives her waiters their birthday off with pay—and has almost no turnover.

Part of the problem in large companies is that Wall Street penalizes companies that do take care of their people (Costco) and lauds those that use every trick to avoid spending that money (Wal-Mart).

But make no mistake—taking the best care possible of your people will yield a high return in the form of lower turnover and higher productivity.

Bashing Wal-Mart has been the sport du jour for quite awhile, and, although I can’t stand the company for may reasons and won’t shop there, I haven’t bothered to join the fray, since it was all being said so well by others. However, since I preach and push for really open, honest management communications I just couldn’t let the most recent example of callous-demotivation-given-positive-spin go by without commenting.

First, the demotivation. How would you like to work your tail off for 10, 15 or more years only to find that your next promotion or lateral move would require a cut in pay?

That, in a nutshell, is the effect of Wal-Mart’s loudly proclaimed pay increases with caps. And if you happen to be at the top of your category you won’t have to worry about a raise, there won’t be one—ever again—in that position. But, gee, you might have a shot at a $400 bonus at year-end. (Being the cynic that I am, I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

Bless the Associated Press for obtaining an internal Wal-Mart memo written by then executive VP of benefits Susan Chambers, who now heads personnel (watch out Wal-Mart workers), that said, “Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an Associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an Associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity.”

Wow! That is the absolutely first time I have ever heard it claimed that a new hire’s productivity equaled that of someone with years of experience who knows all the ins and outs of the job. Yes, there are ins and outs to every job and I’d like to see a new hire who can handle inventory control as well as someone with experience. But then I’m sure that Susan knows far more than Frederick Reichheld about the true value of workers and loyalty (AKA, retention).

Now for spin. Try and wrap your mind around this: Wal-Mart claims that there is absolutely no link between the memo quoted above and the pay caps. If you can swallow that one, the rest should be easy. Wal-Mart claims that their new policy brings them in with other big retailers. Well, I’m no expert, but I know that Costco and Lowe’s don’t work that way, but, then again, maybe they aren’t considered “big.”

Finally, and this is purely my own thought, you can rest assured that this policy will have no effect on the company’s executives (I’m sure Susan’s pay isn’t capped) and that Wal-Mart will continue getting help from Congress if it needs to upgrade the private road leading to it’s headquarters again.