[Vision2020] Walmart vs. IKEA

[g. crabtree]

"On-line IKEA customers are obviously not very happy giving an overall rating of 1.5 out of five, but Wal-Mart on-line gets only 3 out of five, with quite a few "horrible service" comments."

Any way you look at it that's twice the customer satisfaction. Point one

To assign brownie points to Ikea for taking advantage of a state run health care system as though that were a feather that was singularly in their cap is just plain silly. We might as well give Wal-Mart major kudos for providing such great retirement because they pay into the social security system. Also we have the little matter of the canuks and euros who have to haul their sorry selves over to the states to receive their health care in a timely fashion. I guess we should give Ikea credit for that as well. Perhaps the blurb could read "When the health care we don't provide you lets you down we provide first rate backup in the USA! (on your own dime, of course) Point two


Your assertion that Ikea is union friendly? Only as friendly as they are forced to be.

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2007/08/striking-teamster-pickets-shut-ikea.html

http://www.union-network.org/Unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Ikea_Australian_collective_agreement.htm

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/03/inbrief/fr0203104n.html    Point three

I guess that just leaves the environmental angle that you vainly tried to exploit. Wal-Marts distribution system is very efficient at delivering far more goods to far more destinations for a lower cost per unit than Ikea could ever dream of. Also many of their new stores are being built with award winning energy efficiency standards in place. Please see:

http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2005/07/20/walmart-retail-environment-cx_cn_0720autofacescan03.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/05/24/notes052406.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902204.html   Point four

The argument you seem to be trying, unsuccessfully, to make is that Ikea just has to be wonderful because they stink just the tiniest bit less than Wal- Mart and are from europe seems just plain silly to say nothing of being incorrect. The biggest difference I can see is Wal-Mart's profits come back to Wal-Mart shareholders, many of them in the U.S. Whereas Ikea's profits, they go to a single owner and he lives in Sweden. Point five.

I believe that covers the "points" you seem to think you earned in your heavily slanted editorial and your reply. I hope you enjoy your trip to the lands of the raising tax rate and complete government oversight. I'm sure you will feel as thought you were back in your loving mothers arms.

 Adjö´ så lä´nge!
g



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nickgier at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart vs. IKEA


> Greetings:
> 
> Crabtree actually read more than two paragraphs!  With regard to the customer service URL, Crabtree neglected to tell us that these are comments about IKEA's internet catalogue orders, not customers at IKEA stores.  Many of the dissatisfied on-line customers love the products and their store experience, but disliked the service they received on-line.  
> 
> On-line IKEA customers are obviously not very happy giving an overall rating of 1.5 out of five, but Walmart on-line gets only 3 out of five, with quite a few "horrible service" comments.
> 
> Crabtree somehow wants to make a virtue out of Walmart providing minimal health coverage but a vice out of universal health care in Europe and Canada, which provides high quality care far more efficiently than America's private insurance mess.
> 
> Recently Toyota chose to build a new factory in Canada rather than in Louisiana for two reasons: (1) the workforce was better educated; and (2) they would not have to provide health care for their workers.  Many, many U.S. companies now regret the post-War policy of having employers provide health care that should have been provided by the government at a far less cost per capita.
> 
> I made several more points in my article.  Your score is zero, Crabtree, so do you want to continue the dialouge?
> 
> Nick Gier
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070906/211d9d15/attachment.html