Wal-Mart Essay Example for Free

Wal-Mart Essay At the same time, it continued to look for retailing opportunities elsewhere, particularly in developing nations where it lacked strong local competitors, where it could gradually alter the shopping culture to its advantage, and where its low price strategy was appealing. Recently, the centerpiece of its international expansion efforts has been China. Wal-Mart opened its first store in China in 1996, but initially expanded very slowly, and by 2006 had only 66 stores. What Wal-Mart discovered, however, was that the Chinese were bargain hunters, and open to the low price strategy and wide selection offered at Wal-Mart stores. Indeed, in terms of their shopping habits, the emerging Chinese middle class seemed more like Americans than Europeans. But to succeed in China, Wal-Mart also found it had to adapt its merchandising and operations strategy to mesh with Chinese culture. One of the things that Wal-Mart has learned is that Chinese consumers insist that food must be freshly harvested, or even killed in front of them. Wal-Mart initially offended Chinese consumers by trying to sell them dead fish, as well as meat packed in Styrofoam and cellophane. Shoppers turned their noses up at what they saw as old merchandise. So Wal-Mart began to display the meat uncovered, installed fish tanks into which shoppers could plunge fishing nets to pull out their evening meal, and began selling live turtles for turtle soup. Sales soared. Wal-Mart has also learned that in China, success requires it to embrace unions. Whereas in the United States Wal-Mart has vigorously resisted unionization, it came to the realization that in China unions don’t bargain for labor contracts. Instead, they are an arm of the state, providing funding for the Communist Party and (in the government’s view) securing social order. In mid- 2006 Wal-Mart broke with its long standing antagonism to unions and agreed to allow unions in its Chinese stores. Many believe this set the stage for Wal-Mart’s most recent move, the purchase in December 2006 of a 35 percent stake in the Trust-Mart chain, which has 101 hypermarkets in 34 cities across China. Now Wal-Mart has proclaimed that China lies at the center of its growth strategy. By early 2009 Wal-Mart had some 243 stores in the country, and despite the global economic slowdown, the company insists that it will continue to open new stores in China at a â€Å"double digit rate. †66 3. Why do you think Wal-Mart failed in South Korea and Germany? What are the differences between these countries and Mexico? 4. What must Wal-Mart do to succeed in China? Is it on track?

Essay --

Jessica's paper rough draft (Into) Some pain can't always be seen, what if a patient complains of sharp stabbing pains and describes it as being stung by a thousand bees all at once, and at the same time feels like their foot is on fire. Maybe the foot is swollen or discolored. Pain is not always visable. Sounds like classic nerve pain and we would be sypathic and prescribe pain control medications. Would you be less sympathetic and unwilling to give pain medications if you knew this patient had a history of substance abuse? Its time to break the stigma that patients with a history of substance abuse will abuse perscription opioids for pain control or are Dr. shopping. All patients should be treated equaly and have the oppertunity to live a pain free life. Often nurses are on the front lines helping these patients manage pain. This paper will show that non Judgmental attitudes together with problem solving approaches and routine drug screenings a patient with prior abuse can be treated for chronic pain successfully. (Relevance and applicability) Most patients do take their medications as directed, but there has been more attention in the media of the abuse of perscription medications. This is in part of the ageing population and opioids being widely accepted and used more often these days for the chronic non cancer pain paitent (1pg1) Although Studies show that the rate abuse of opioid patients with chronic pain is only 3% to 17% which is fairly low compared to the population. (Art1 pg32) The reason some paitents abuse opioids or turn to the illicit use of street drugs is t... ... vigilance in monitoring and may need to be treated for opioid abuse and or pshycatric help. (Conclusion) As opioids are becoming more acceptable as an on going treatment for chronic pain patients, the risks also rises for abuse of prescription drugs. For these reasons it's not only just limited to those patients with substance abuse issues, but also to patients without prior abuse histories. A cancer patient who has no prior substance abuse history should not be treated any more humanly or shown more compassion then a cancer patient with a prior substance abuse issue. It's important to achieve a therapeutic balance with all patients and specially those who live with chronic pain. With all the readily available studies, tests and assessments no one should have to live a half life with chronic pain Regardless of their history.

Paper Analysis Twenty Hubs and No Hq

This article tries to propose advantages of an alternative strategy of global business management for MNCs. According to the authors the previous strategies of management from the Head Quarters (centralized) or Head Quarters for most functions with regional offices and country managers (decentralized) are not as efficient as management without any Head Quarters and twenty strategically placed hubs. There are compelling reasons to follow this strategy. Firstly developing countries account for a much larger chunk of the net revenue. Secondly there are untapped markets in the form of economically weaker sections in these countries and the full potential of these can not be exploited with the prevalent management strategies. Thirdly there is a huge cost saving advantage with manufacturing in low cost countries and outsourcing is just one way to realize it. The basic concept of this strategy as given by the authors is to have 20 hubs in 20 different countries – 10 developing and 10 developed which account for 70% of the population of the two worlds in each case and on the whole and much of the economic activity. According to the authors having hubs in these 20 countries MNCs can serve all the markets in the whole world more efficiently than using any of the previous strategies. These hubs will serve as a gateway for these MNCs in these regions. As such all management and manufacturing functions required by the region can be shifted to these gateway countries. This will allow the MNCs to serve customers on every level of the income pyramid. Also it will reduce the sourcing cost by 20% and corporate overhead cost by 2/3rd. The gateway hub structure can be flexible with new countries becoming hubs as and when they reach the requisite level of development and each hub sourcing goods manufactured in other hubs. According to the authors in the gateway hub model risk can be spread over 10 or more locations with manufacturing and R&D in multiple locations. This article augments the learning by teaching to challenge any concept even the concept that look as basic as the centralized management and Head Quarters. INNOVATIVE INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES The article tries to find the most relevant dimensions to use to cluster innovative international strategies to arrive at typologies that can be interpreted and used further. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL DEV IN THE PAST†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦YEARS INTERNATIONAL DEV IN THE NEXT†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. YEARS INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY OF THE COMPETITOR IN THE INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY OF YOUR FIRM In this study they find out the most relevant dimensions and cluster cases according to these dimensions and identify some empirical types. The authors found the four main dimensions as Process of internationalization Segment scope Level of coordination across borders Fragments of narratives where an Innovative International Strategy WAS DESCRIBED by respondents were collected Content of fragments in the transcripts related to a firm was analysed to find the concepts used to characterize its strategy Cases that were similar to each other were clustered and formed an empirical type of IIs Major influences Footwear Competitive action :-relocation and innovative international strategy Cables and wires Struct forces:-technological intensity; new high growth markets; government intervention;comparative advantages(in cases) Paint Structural forces:- technological and marketing intensity Chocolate sugar and confectionary Structural Forces :- Marketing intensity and diff in consumption pattern across industries Competitive action:- MAA; Innovative International Strategy The authors arrived at six innovative international strategy typologies across these four industries. The main value addition from this article is how a study can be carried out to scientifically figure out the main innovative strategies and to gauge the scope of innovation and strategic management in the industry. It also helps find out the relation between strategy and the constraints under which it is developed.

New York Times Co. v. US Supreme Court Case

New York Times Company v. United States (1971) pitted First Amendment freedoms against national security interests. The case dealt with whether or not the executive branch of the United States government could request an injunction against the publication of classified material. The Supreme Court found that  prior restraint carries a heavy presumption against constitutional validity. Fast Facts: New York Times Co. v. United States Case Argued: June 26, 1971Decision Issued: June 30, 1971Petitioner: New York Times CompanyRespondent: Eric Griswold, Solicitor General for the United StatesKey Questions: Did the Nixon Administration violate freedom of the press under the First Amendment when they attempted to block publication of the Pentagon Papers?Majority: Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, MarshallDissenting: Justices Burger, Harlan, BlackmunRuling: Government should not have restricted publication. There is a â€Å"heavy presumption† against prior restraint and the Nixon Administration could not overcome that presumption. Facts of the Case On October 1, 1969, Daniel Ellsberg unlocked a safe in his office at Rand Corporation, a prominent military contractor. He pulled out a portion of a 7,000-page study and brought it to a nearby advertising agency above a flower shop. It was there that he and a friend, Anthony Russo Jr., copied the first pages of what would later become known as the Pentagon Papers.   Ellsberg eventually made a total of two copies of History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy,† which was labeled â€Å"Top Secret - Sensitive.† Ellsberg leaked the first copy to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan in 1971, after a year of trying to get lawmakers to publicize the study.   The study proved that former President Lyndon B. Johnson had lied to the American people about the severity of the Vietnam War. It exposed that the government knew the war would cost more lives and more money than previously projected. By the spring of 1971, the U.S. had been officially involved in the Vietnam War for six years. Anti-war sentiment was growing, though President Richard Nixon’s administration seemed eager to continue the war effort.   The New York Times began printing portions of the report on June 13, 1971. Legal matters escalated quickly. The government sought an injunction in the Southern District of New York. The court denied the injunction but issued a temporary restraining order to allow the government to prepare for an appeal. Circuit Judge Irving R. Kaufman continued the temporary restraining order as hearings in the U.S. Court of Appeals proceeded.   On June 18, The Washington Post began printing portions of the Pentagon Papers. On June 22, 1971, eight circuit court judges heard the government’s case. The following day they issued a finding: The U.S. Court of Appeals declined the injunction. The government turned to the highest court for review, filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorneys for both parties appeared before the Court for oral arguments on June 26, only a week and a half after the government pursued its initial injunction. Constitutional Question Did the Nixon administration violate the First Amendment when it sought to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from printing excerpts of a classified government report? Arguments Alexander M. Bickel argued the case for the New York Times. Freedom of the press protects the publications from government censorship and, historically speaking, any form of prior restraint has been scrutinized, Bickel argued. The government violated the First Amendment when it sought to restrain two newspapers from publishing articles in advance. The U.S. Solicitor General, Erwin N. Griswold, argued the case for the government. Publishing the papers would cause irreparable harm to the government, Griswold argued. The papers, once made public, could hinder the administration’s relations with foreign powers or jeopardize current military endeavors. The Court should grant an injunction, allowing the government to exercise prior restraint, in order to protect national security, Griswold told the Court. Griswold noted that the papers were classified top secret. If given 45 days, he offered, the Nixon administration could appoint a joint task force to review and declassify the study. If allowed to do so, the government would no longer seek an injunction, he said. Per Curiam Opinion The Supreme Court issued a three-paragraph per curiam decision with a six-judge majority. Per curiam means by the court. A per curiam decision is written and issued by the court as a whole, rather a single justice. The Court found in favor of the New York Times and denied any act of prior restraint. The government, â€Å"carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint,† a majority of justices agreed. The government could not meet this burden, making a restraint on publication unconstitutional. The Court vacated all temporary restraining orders issued by lower courts. This was all that Justices could agree on. Justice Hugo Black, in concurrence with Justice Douglas, argued that any form of prior restraint was against what the Founding Fathers intended in enacting the First Amendment. Justice Black commended the New York Times and the Washington Post for publishing the Pentagon Papers.   Justice Black wrote: â€Å"Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.† To ask for an injunction, Justice Black wrote, was to ask for the Supreme Court to agree that the Executive Branch and Congress could violate the First Amendment in the interest of â€Å"national security.† The concept of â€Å"security† was far too broad, Justice Black opined, to allow for such a ruling. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. authored a concurrence that suggested prior restraint could be used in the interest of national security, but that the government would have to show inevitable, direct, and immediate negative consequences. The government could not meet this burden in terms of the Pentagon Papers, he found. Attorneys for the government had not offered the court specific examples of how releasing the Pentagon Papers could imminently harm national security. Dissent Justices Harry Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, and John Marshall Harlan dissented. In independent dissents, they argued that the Court should defer to the executive branch when national security is questioned. Only government officials could know the ways in which information could harm military interests. The case had been rushed, both justices argued, and the Court had not been given enough time to fully evaluate the legal complexities at play. Impact New York Times Co. v. U.S. was a victory for newspapers and free press advocates. The ruling set a high bar government censorship. However, the legacy of New York Times Co. v. U.S. remains uncertain. The Court presented a fractured front, producing a per curiam decision that makes it difficult for prior restraint to occur, but does not outlaw the practice entirely. The ambiguity of the Supreme Courts ruling as a whole leaves the door open to future instances of prior restraint. Sources New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).Martin, Douglas. â€Å"Anthony J. Russo, 71, Pentagon Papers Figure, Dies.†Ã‚  The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Aug. 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/politics/09russo.html.Chokshi, Niraj. â€Å"Behind the Race to Publish the Top-Secret Pentagon Papers.†Ã‚  The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Dec. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/pentagon-papers-post.html.