Would probably be a good idea to make sure that the second week of offers on "all Blu-Ray players" definitely does include PS3's (and the MGS4 bundle).

Logically it should, of course, but generally logic is not a tactic often employed by mega-corporations.

Hey Guys - I was so excited about the 80GB release with the $100 gc, but I just called 2 different Walmarts today and was told that the new 80gb bundle does NOT include the $100 gc deal!!! I protested but got nowhere, has anyone else heard this??? Thanks

Nah I'm pretty sure you get the 100 dollar gift card with the MGS bundle which I'll be purchasing.

Read the entire first paragraph.

I already have a ps3 but if i buy it and then use the $100 gift card then return the ps3 whats gonna happen?

I dunno, but if it works do it 3 1/2 times and get a 360 too.

Worst Shill Ever

Worst Serpiente Ever

Booya:

If you keep your receipt, they'll give you the money back for the PS3 minus $100. The receipt will be stamped showing you picked up the gift card.

If you try it without the receipt, it's up to the management. The serial number will show when the PS3 is purchased. Depending on the store, they might not take back the PS3 at all without a receipt.

Return it! Quick!

You need that hundred bucks and so do I. This is what I've been holding out for.

Disgusting?

Grow up kid. My goodness. There is nothing wrong at all with Wal-mart, just because you live in some fantasy world where for some reason capitalism = bad doesn't mean its true. Wal-marts a rather good company and they're not the huge evil thing people make them out to be.

Great way in opening up a reply with an ad hominem.
More to the point, you obviously have NO idea about Wal-Mart's policies.

Aside from being the largest foreign import store in the US, they're one of the strongest opponents of labor rights. Instead of allowing a Canadian store's employees to unionize, a right guaranteed by Canadian law, they closed the entire outlet.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971115.htm

They fought a former employee for eight years after an accident left her brain damaged and lacking all short term memory, refusing to pay her medical bills simply because she won a lawsuit against the driver who cased the accident, and actually SUING the victim for the $400,000 paid for her care. Only after this story was aired on CNN and a petition was signed by over a million people to ban the store did they reverse their stance.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/

Of course, I can't forget to mention the half-decade long suits dealing with Sexism and discrimination through the entire corporation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3138188.stm

I think capitalism can be a wonderful thing; Henry Ford proved this. Encouraging competition should improve quality and lower price simultaneously, giving the consumer the benefits. Wal-Mart's, the world's largest retailer, stance is the absolute antithesis of his methods.

You forgot to mention the part where Wal-Mart is routinely listed high on "Best places for minorities to work" lists, for pretty much every minority out there. That goes for women as well.

You could've thrown in the part where they give away billions in charity each year, and each store gives away tens of thousands of dollars to local charities, (like schools, fire departments, hospitals), even if that store *loses* money.

Oh, I got a good one! This will really get 'em! How about the time the freakin' United States government commended them for their response during Hurricane Katrina because Wal-Mart trucks were showing up filled with water, food, and clothing days before the government had any form of relief effort going?

Then there's the time they rolled out the hundreds of $4 prescriptions that potentially offers huge savings to the demographic that might just need it the most; elderly folks on fixed income.

You can keep listing, I can keep listing, everyone can list! Wal-Mart does bad, Wal-Mart does good. Wal-Mart is a huge corporation, so they are evil by default. But they might just be a little less evil than a lot of the other ones. The very first month any retailer took them over in the top spot you'd see the exact same things popping up in the media. It's lonely at the top.

By the way, in a corporation that employs well over 1 million employees, does a discrimination lawsuit surprise you?

CNN's "100 Best Companies to Work For 2007: Minorities" list doesn't even mention Wal-Mart. When employing over 1.4 million though, having a large quantitative figure of minority employment is not exactly notable. That is, until you look at the qualitative stats, where less than half of its employees are offered health care, paid half of a "living wage", its Critical Needs Funds help less than 1% of its employees, and labor organization is vehemently fought.

As for their charitable contributions, it's far under "billions of dollars each year," and more inline with less than 1% of their overall yearly income, with 2007 being the highest at $267M, as opposed to "Bill Gates has given 58% of his net worth to charity. Oprah has given 13% of her net worth. Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza: 90% of his net worth. Ruth Lilly: 250% of her net worth." Their contributions are better than nothing, though.

A single discrimination lawsuit might not be surprising, but the Largest Class Action Lawsuit in History, as well as countless others, do qualify... as does their repeated environmental pollution.

I'm sure there are a ...number of beneficial practices, but their primary goal is to resell low-quality items from overseas sweatshops, pay the minimum to their employees, and refuse any form of labor organization. I don't support them.
All the power to you if you do; that's your choice.

No, I wouldn't expect them to be on any good lists from a television station.

Don't confuse "Best" places for minorities to work with having the *most* minorities working there. Two different things.

You're right on the "billions", that was my mistake. Could they give more? Sure they could. But $267 million is a lot of moolah.

Just as I was off on the "billions", you're completely off on the health care coverage. As of this year's open enrollment, 92.7% of associates have health care coverage. (Not all necessarily through Wal-Mart.) As of 2005, 73% of all associates were eligible for health care through Wal-Mart.

As for wages, their average is well above the federal minimum wage. Could they pay more? Of course. But let's say they paid just $1 more per hour, which wouldn't stop any of the criticism. The majority of employees are full time, but we'll put the average work week at 30 hours. That's over a $30 million a week increase in wages. Quite the increase. Unskilled labor equates to lower wages, that's the way it works.

As for the environmental stuff.. no doubt they haven't always had the best practices. But they're trying to turn it around, ever since they found out it could save them money. I believe Britain's version, ASDA, is making the most progress in the environmental field. And when a company like Wal-Mart makes just a small change, it has a huge effect. Just forcing suppliers to make their laundry detergents concentrated is saving tons of water. (Too late to look up the stat..)

And sweat shops? I'd recommend some research on how often Wal-Mart inspects their suppliers' overseas factories. If Kathy Lee Gifford was all over the news for it, don't you think it'd be front page on every newspaper if Wal-Mart did it? Easy way to make a name for yourself, "exposing" Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart will start buying more American products when more American products are made of quality at a decent price. One look at the automotive industry will show why they aren't buying more American products, and how little most consumers actually care.

And as far as unions.. they served their purpose, once. Now like any other business, their purpose is to make money. I can tell you how my next door neighbor feels about unions - after he just got laid off for a month because two of the GM plants his company makes parts for went on strike - not very well. Or my cousin working at Pick 'N Save (grocery store), getting paid absolute minimum wage and paying $40 a paycheck in union dues.. It's the employees that decide whether or not a union comes in. They're the ones voting. True, Wal-Mart may shut down a store once a union gets in, if it ceases to be profitable. Anyone who shops there regularly has heard "All available cashiers to the front", and other such pages. If associates can't do jobs outside of their "requirements", a store will shut down quick. Of course, that depends on the union. Some good, some bad.

But bottom line, you are correct. I choose to support them, you don't. I like to save money, and that's the biggest factor for me. I'm just waiting for them to take on gas prices like they did prescription drugs. *crosses fingers*

Don't worry, I wasn't confusing "best" with "most" and Wal-Mart was clearly the latter.

For a company that makes hundreds of billions of dollars profit each year, paying its employees a wage that meets a standard of living does not seem extreme.

I was thrown off by your statement, "Wal-Mart will start buying more American products when more American products are made of quality at a decent price." When its products are being produced by workers with salaries of ~$100 per month (under $.50/hour), the price of the items are inherently going to be cheaper. There is still no disclosure on their exact contractors, and no uninvited inspections are allowed; only Wal-Mart vouches for Wal-Mart's working conditions. The quality of the work conditions are debatable, but ultimately light years below American standards. In the meantime, America's industry is leaving the country.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/etc/synopsis.html
(A very interesting read)

Hey Atremis,

I'll put out a little bit of info for you that you probably wont' be able to wrap your brain around, because I can tell from your posts that you thing people are "owed" something:

Not one person in the history of the world has gone into business with the thought of "I can give X number of people jobs, and pay them real well"

People go into business to make money, if they can fill positions for minimum wage and people still line up to work there, then why the fuck should they pay more?

Don't like it? go to school and get a better job.

If all else fails, I hear that Army place always is hiring and they offer free health care.

Hello John,

There was such a person, and he is credited as being one of the most widely admired people of the 20th century. His name was Henry Ford, and his methods and goals were to provide customers with the highest quality product at the lowest price tag, while paying his workers high wages. He pioneered "Welfare Capitalism", with welfare meaning high wages and strong employee benefits.
Apparently business ethics might not mean anything to the majority of generation, but that doesn't mean business practices are now ethical.

When people are lining up to get these jobs, they must not be as horrible as you people think.

If the American worker wasn't a greedy, demanding asshole, jobs wouldn't go overseas.

And Mr Ford's company is in much worse financial standing than Mr Walton's, so we can see how that plan worked out.

Unionizing destroyed the American auto industry, unions time has gone, like the poster above said, it's bullshit when you got damn near minimum wage job and have to pay the union to do nothing for you.

I never stated or intended to imply that unions solve all problems; they can be equally as aggressive and corrupt as companies. There has to be a balance, though, in power between workers' rights and company policy, and in many countries, it's integrated into law.

Also, I was unaware that asking for more than $100/month salary was greedy, because that's the wage of the Chinese labor force, against which American workers have to compete.
I also don't think it's "greedy" for a full-time employee to ask an employer for a wage that meets the nation's standard of living. Keep in mind, without workers' rights, those jobs (and potentially the entire position) could be eliminated just for asking.

Finally, Ford's strategy in competing with higher selling, higher gas-mileage cars resulting into a major loss in market share is not a result of the century old company's founder's policies.

Ok, I'll tell you what, I'll come to your house and cut your lawn for $45 an hour.

According to the democrats, people making 80k a year need free health care. $45 an hour will put me out of that income bracket.

The value of the job being done should determine the wage paid, not the "living wage". That is the beauty of capitalism, if people won't work for you for what you're paying, then the MARKET decides that you raise wages, not the government.

Okay John,

I'll oblige and respond to your hyperbole.
Considering how the landscaping at my immediate apartment complex doesn't cover that much area, and it's already cut bi-weekly, it should take you far less than an hour to finish.
Now, I'm assuming you brought up what I believe is the S-chip program (which deals with families with children) and party affiliations for a reason. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and I was specifically avoiding it.

Full-time employees of Wal-Mart aren't asking for a 700% increase to $45/hour, but merely enough to raise them above the poverty line. This also would relieve up to ~2.5B dollars of federal aid to those impoverished families.
Considering Wal-Mart ears hundreds of billions of dollars profit each year, that doesn't seem extreme.

If they are in such dire straits, then they can take a second job.

...it's just the design printed on the card. Nothing more, nothing less.

Every time I read "stimulus check" for some reason I have this image of a hot nurse....

Then use the gift card and buy Ninja Gaiden 2. And still have 40 bucks left over for another game.

You can even use the card online and never have to step foot in evil Wal-Mart.

Two more idiots ahoy!

Its as good as cash to those of us who shop at walmart for groceries (which is by far the cheapest place if you dont live near a Sams/Costco). Take $60 of that for GTA or MGS4, put $40 into groceries. Win/Win.

Quite obviously, you're supposed to use a time machine to go the 12th, take the MGS bundle, and go back a week. Then sell your time machine so you can afford the PS3 (that's right, they have expensive PS3 jokes in the future too).

Or you could just read the article:

"The interesting part is that the following week, June 8 - 15, many Blu-ray players will offer the $100 gift card, and this apparently also includes the PS3."

Can someone please link the webpage shown in the 2nd picture of this article? It shows what looks like the qualifying purchases for the bonus card, and among them is the 80GB MGS4 PS3 bundle...
Where'd you find that page, Alexander Sliwinski?

I definitely will purchase it from them if it qualifies for the $100 gift card.

Arttemis:

There's no link to be had. That's a page printed off of Wal-Mart's intranet service, hence why there's no credit given to the person that sent it in.

Or Wal-Mart negotiated for lower prices on blu-ray across the board in advance of a nationwide price drop. Happens all the time, when something is about to drop permanently in price you first try to get people with rebates and gifts.

We'll see come July/August if the PS3 starts shifting down again.