Union to target Wal-Mart

By Kimberly Morrison,
The Morning News
August 30th, 2008                     [back to top] 

The company that practically invented one-stop shopping is getting serious about adding physicals, vaccinations and virus treatment to the list.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced in February - just after closing 23 of its walk-in clinics - that it planned to open 400 clinics in its retail stores by 2010. Don't call it a Wal-Mart clinic, it's The Clinic at Wal-Mart. They are located inside the stores and co-branded, but operated by local medical outfits.

RediClinic operates the two in Northwest Arkansas, and St. Vincent Health Systems, a part of the Catholic Healthcare Initiatives system, has partnered with Wal-Mart to open four co-branded clinics in Little Rock stores.

Thus far, the retailer has opened 39 clinics nationwide.

The clinics are designed to serve basic care needs - health screenings and routine ailments - for about $60. Clients don't have to make an appointment and can see a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner as quickly as 15 minutes after walking in.

"I hear really positive feedback," said Kellie Robertson, a nurse practitioner who works at the Fayetteville Clinic at Wal-Mart at the store on Mall Avenue. "Patients appreciate that we are convenient and available."

There's an appeal for Wal-Mart as well. Like its low-cost prescription drug program, customers can come in for discount health care and end up shopping around.

"From a business perspective, it makes sense," said Scott Alaniz, an analyst with Rogers-based Boston Mountain Money Management Inc. "You are generating traffic into the stores, and that is always good."

Wal-Mart isn't the only retailer looking to capitalize on the retail clinic. Target, Kroger and drugstore chains CVS, Walgreens and Rite Aid have also opened retail clinics in recent years. CVS in 2006 acquired MinuteClinic, and the clinics inside its drugstores account for the majority of MinuteClinic's 500-plus locations.

Wal-Mart's model is slightly different. The retailer hopes that partnering locally with clinic operators and going the co-brand route will build trust through brand recognition, said Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman.

Gallagher said the clinics play a critical role in health care by being more accessible and affordable, particularly to the uninsured and those without a primary care physician.

"It really does go back to two of our fundamental models that, No. 1, the clinics are providing a one-stop shopping experience and also to have a store of the community where customers see a clinic that they are familiar with," Gallagher said.

Not everyone is sold on the retail environment as the right place to get treatment for contagious ailments like pink eye or respiratory infections, which are among the conditions treated in the retail clinics.

"Selling tires alongside food won't contaminate the food," said Dan Raftery, president of Raftery Resources Network, a corporate consultant agency based in Antioch, Ill. "Inviting flu victims into the same space as otherwise healthy folks is another story."

A recent MSNBC article on in-store health clinics called this the "yuck" factor and said retail clinics battle a perception issue.

Gallagher said Wal-Mart is focused on those who want and need the services provided by in-store clinics, and she said that for the Wal-Mart shopper, the clinics make sense.

"I think Wal-Mart customers are used to one-stop shopping and convenience, and the more things they can mark off and do in once place, the better," Gallagher said.

Growth in the industry of "convenience care" - the catch-all term for clinics operated in retail, supermarket and drugstores - supports Gallagher's perspective.

There are more than 1,000 convenience care clinics operating in 34 states, according to Merchant Market, an industry consulting and research group. In 2006, there were just around 200 nationwide, and those were mostly MinuteClinics.

With Wal-Mart's plan to add 400 to the national tally within just a year and a half, the in-store clinic may be on a path to becoming a relatively common sight.

By Patricia Callahan
and Sam Roe,
Chicago Tribune
August 29th, 2008                      [back to top] 

Federal regulators on Thursday night directed retailers across the country to stop selling and to recall nearly 900,000 dangerous bassinets, one of the largest child product safety actions in years.

The move followed a day of confusion for consumers, retailers and even regulators who were unclear about which bassinets contained a design problem similar to one that resulted in the deaths of two babies.

In fact, a Tribune reporter on Thursday bought two bassinets at Baby Depot at Burlington Coat Factory on the West Side. Before the reporter left the store, an employee checked the model numbers to see whether those versions contained the deadly flaw. She told the reporter they did not.

But she was wrong. Both had the dangerous design.

Much of the confusion stems from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's issuing a consumer alert late Wednesday about the bassinets but not stating which model numbers were affected. The alert was issued after Tribune inquiries.

Then, Thursday evening, the agency released 66 model numbers affected and announced that six major retailers voluntarily agreed to recall the products in question: convertible "close-sleeper/bedside sleeper" bassinets manufactured by the now-defunct Simplicity Inc. of Reading, Pa.

The retailers recalling the bassinets were Wal-Mart, Toys "R" Us, Kmart, Big Lots, Target and J.C. Penney. It remained unclear Thursday night how many other retailers sell the items.

At Baby Depot, where the Tribune bought flawed bassinets, a store manager referred calls to corporate headquarters but no one could be reached. The model numbers on both bassinets were among those cited Thursday by the safety commission.

Because of the holiday weekend, Baby Depot and other Illinois stores have until the end of Tuesday to cease sales of the bassinets.

In its consumer warning, the commission urged people not to use Simplicity bassinets with drop-down sides that allow a parent easy access to a baby but create a gap where a baby can slide through and hang to death. Two babies have died that way. The commission's alert came 11 months after the first baby's death. A second child died a week ago.

"Due to the serious hazard these bassinets pose to babies, CPSC urges all consumers to share this safety warning with day-care centers, consignment stores, family and friends to ensure that no child is placed to sleep in a Simplicity convertible bassinet covered by this warning," the alert said.

The commission said it issued the alert because SFCA Inc., a former Simplicity creditor that purchased Simplicity's assets in May "has refused to cooperate with the government and recall the products."

SFCA countered by saying Simplicity products are not its responsibility. "The products in question were manufactured and distributed by Simplicity Inc., a company that is no longer in business," SFCA said in a written statement. "SFCA purchased Simplicity's assets at auction after Simplicity Inc. went out of business and has no legal liability for any products distributed previously by Simplicity."

But one of the deadly bassinets the Tribune purchased Thursday carried a shipping label with the name "SFCA Inc." This seemed to contradict the written statement SFCA issued Thursday: "The CPSC product alert does not involve any product manufactured and distributed by SFCA Inc."

Asked to explain this discrepancy, SFCA spokesman Paul Nathanson would not comment directly. Instead, he wrote in an e-mail: "As far as I know none of these model numbers were manufactured and distributed by SFCA."

Julie Vallese, a spokeswoman for the safety commission, would not comment on its dispute with SFCA. She said the agency decided not to pursue a forced recall because such an action could end up in court and take years to resolve.

Instead, the agency is directing the nation's retailers to stop selling the bassinets. Vallese said she hoped all stores would comply. If not, the agency would have to study whether it could use its authorities under the recently enacted Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to compel stores to cease sales.

In Illinois, the rules are tougher. Once the commission has issued a consumer warning, retailers have three business days to remove the item from shelves, said Cara Smith, deputy chief of staff for state Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan.

Smith said the state plans to subpoena information from SFCA to determine which firm is responsible for the flawed cribs. "Consumers were left high and dry because of the acquisition of Simplicity by SFCA," she said.

She said it was alarming that the safety commission did not take action on the bassinets after a baby died last year. "It's unspeakable," she said. "It's another massive problem."

Even the newest versions of the bassinets -- allegedly fixed to prevent future deaths -- allow parents to assemble the product in a way that still contains a potentially deadly gap. Though a baby is less likely to wriggle through that gap if parents follow the age recommendations, it's still possible, said Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids In Danger, an advocacy group based in Chicago.

By law, that gap would not be allowed in a crib. But because the product is a bassinet, it's not illegal.

Cowles and others criticized the safety commission for failing to recall the bassinets last fall, when the first baby died. A recall might have prevented the second death, she said.

"For the CPSC to say, 'We're acting quickly' when there was a death ... a year ago is obviously not true," Cowles said. "Whether they were stymied by the company or their own slow-moving bureaucracy, this child is dead because of it."

[back to top]

Shawnee infant's death spurs warning on bassinet

By JIM SULLINGER
and BRAD COOPER,
Kansas City Star
August 29th, 2008        .           [back to top]

Federal officials on Thursday urged retailers to stop selling Simplicity bassinets connected to two infant deaths, including one last week in Shawnee.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission secured agreements with Wal-Mart, Toys "R" Us, Kmart, Big Lots, Target and J.C. Penney to voluntarily stop selling the nearly 900,000 bassinets.

The commission action stops short of an official recall because the government found itself in a legal no man's land as it worked to get the bassinets away from unsuspecting parents Thursday.

Kennedy Renee Brotherton The Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets have metal bars spaced farther apart than 2 3/8 inches, which is the maximum distance allowed under federal safety standards.

The commission's order was prompted by the Aug. 21 death of 5-month-old Kennedy Renee Brotherton at the home of her aunt and uncle in Shawnee.

A year ago, 4-month-old Katelyn Marie Simon of Noel, Mo., was found dead, hanging partially out of her bassinet. McDonald County officials blamed the bassinet and ruled the death an accident.

Thursday's action was complicated by the fact that Simplicity Inc. of Reading, Pa., is no longer in business. Its assets were purchased in April by another Reading company, which said it would not issue a recall because it didn't make the bassinets.

"These retailers stepped up to the plate because of the situation with Simplicity going bankrupt," said Julie Vallese, a commission spokeswoman.

The confusion extended to the bassinet model numbers, which commission officials were unable to pin down until late Thursday.

"Clearly in this case we see a loophole in the law," said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. "You cannot have a consumer safety products system that works effectively if companies are allowed to escape responsibility by going out of business."

The commission said the Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets had metal bars spaced farther apart than 2 3/8 inches, which is the maximum distance allowed under federal safety standards.

It noted that the metal bars were covered by a fabric flap attached to Velcro.

"If the Velcro is not properly re-secured when the flap is adjusted, an infant can slip through the opening and become entrapped in the metal bars and suffocate," the commission said in a statement.

After Simplicity filed bankruptcy, its assets were acquired in April at an auction by SFCA Inc., also in Reading, Pa.

Amanda Lahan, an SFCA spokeswoman, said the company wasn't issuing a recall because it didn't manufacture or distribute the defective bassinets.

Lahan said the company, which also makes children's products, has no legal liability for any products distributed previously by Simplicity. Company officials said they did not sell or distribute the Simplicity bassinets after acquiring the assets.

David Arkush, an official with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said that under a new law the commission can order a recall on its own but only if it files a lawsuit against the manufacturer.

"In this particular case, I don't know who the commission could sue," he said.

Vallese, the product safety commission spokeswoman, said this isn't the first time the agency has had to sort product responsibility when a company went out of business. The agency had a similar problem with space heaters, but some retailers stepped in to compensate consumers.

"We've been through this before," she said. "It doesn't happen often."

Despite the commission's warning Wednesday, a Simplicity 3-in-1 close-sleeping bassinet was on Wal-Mart's Web site Thursday morning for purchase.

A Wal-Mart spokesman, Bill Wertz, released a statement several hours later saying the company was taking the products off its shelves.

"We are working with the supplier and (the commission) and are directing store managers to remove product identified in the commission's press release from store shelves and initiating a register block to prevent sale," he said. "In addition, we are in the process of removing this product from sale at Walmart.com."

Dan Blegen, a Kansas City corporate lawyer, said retailers should take the product off their shelves voluntarily because they could be liable in a lawsuit if the product injures or kills someone.

"The retailer is taking on a great deal of potential liability by continuing to sell a product that there is a (commission) warning about danger and there's a known risk of injury," he said.

In the situation where the manufacturer doesn't exist any more, sale of a dangerous product can put the retailer in the middle of a legal bull's-eye, Blegen said.

"You protect yourself by pulling it off the market," he said.

Jeff Slaton, a Springdale, Ark., lawyer, filed a lawsuit recently against Simplicity and Wal-Mart on behalf of Katelyn Simon's mother.

"Simplicity failed to warn of the danger of an infant becoming stuck," the lawsuit stated. "Simplicity Inc. and its engineers should have known the defective condition would lead to the death of infants and continued the design and sale of the product willfully, wantonly and with conscious indifference to its consequences."

Slaton thinks the product safety commission didn't act fast enough.

"The sad thing about this is that this (bassinet) should have been recalled right after Katelyn's death," he said.

From 2000 to 2004, the commission reported 97 babies and children under 5 died from crib-related deaths. Another 11,300 children were hurt from cribs and crib mattresses in 2006.

Arkush said the commission has a history of acting slowly to recall dangerous products.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 makes it easier for the commission to order a recall, Arkush said. Under the previous law, the commission had to hold what amounted to a trial before issuing a recall - a process that could take months.

"It's really a new day," Vallese said. "We are using those new authorities very aggressively."

Bassinet safety Consumer Reports recommends babies sleep in full-size cribs, not bassinets. But if you use a bassinet, follow these safety guidelines: Buy a bassinet or cradle with a wide, stable base and a sturdy bottom. Look for a JPMA (Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association) sticker. Buy a cradle that barely rocks. Rocking can cause the baby to press against the sides of the cradle. Make sure there are no splinters, no sharp points or edges, and no small choking hazards. Do not use a co-sleeper (an infant bed that attaches to an adult bed). There are no safety standards for co-sleepers. Move your baby to a crib as soon as she pushes up on her hands and knees or reaches the maximum weight for the bassinet or cradle. Source: Consumerreports.org

[back to top]

Keep Wal-Mart out of Lodi

Dear johnny,

Right now, Wal-Mart is trying to build a new supercenter in Lodi -- whether residents like it or not.

The retail giant wants to build a 226,441-square-foot store in downtown Lodi, but this is not the kind of sustainable growth the city wants or needs.

That's why it's already taken six years of hearings, reports, lawsuits, and environmental studies for Wal-Mart to proceed with its plans. Clearly the people of Lodi don't want a huge new big-box store coming to town.

But Wal-Mart is pushing ahead anyway -- and it's up to us to stop them.

Make sure Lodi's city leaders hear from you as they decide whether to allow Wal-Mart to go through with its plans. Click here to use our simple tool to email the Mayor, City Council, and Planning officials and tell them to end it once and for all and say no to Wal-Mart:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/Lodi

As the Stockton Record reported this week, Wal-Mart already has at least 20 stores within 44 miles of downtown Lodi. Does the city really need another one?

What's more, while Wal-Mart may claim to benefit the communities it moves into, the truth is that the retail giant is an irresponsible corporate citizen and a bad neighbor.

One of the primary reasons why residents have opposed the Wal-Mart project is environmental. With a new supercenter always comes increased noise, traffic and air pollution, as well as runoff pollution from its parking lots.

The Lodi planning commission plans to review its final environmental report and make a decision next month, but it hasn't released the report yet. Write the planning commission and tell them that if they have a draft of the report, they should release it so that citizens can review it and voice their opinions before the final decision is made:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/Lodi

Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton once wrote, "If a community does not want us there, we will go somewhere else."

In communities across the country, residents have stood up to Wal-Mart and won.

Now it's Lodi's turn. Tell the City to say no to Wal-Mart in your community:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/Lodi

Sincerely,

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch

[back to top]

Wal-Mart goes purple with Marketside

By Jonathan Birchall
The Financial Times
August 26 2008                           [back to top]

The design of Wal-Mart’s new small format Marketside stores, which will open in the Phoenix, Arizona area in coming weeks, marks a dramatic break with the branding of the rest of Wal-Mart’s more than 3,400 low-cost US stores.

Pictures of one of the first four new 15,000 sq ft stores, which Wal-Mart says are part of a pilot, have appeared on the website of the city of Mesa, southeast of Phoenix.

The design includes a natural wood finish around the entrance, and deep-purple awnings - the same colour that will be used on the aprons of the staff, and on its website, www.marketplace.com. The Marketside name appears in lower case green lettering, with no reference to its parent company.

The first four stores have been built in former drugstore sites. Wal-Mart has indicated that the pilot will involve up to ten stores. It has acquired at least two other sites in the Phoenix area where it is planning to build new stores from scratch.

The new Wal-Mart stores will be competing directly with Tesco’s new Fresh & Easy small format stores. Tesco has opened 20 stores in the Phoenix area in less than a year, with another 16 sites announced so far.

Both retailers say their formats are aimed at providing fresh and prepared foods in a convenient neighbourhood location.

Unlike Fresh & Easy’s minimalist hard-discount stores, planning documents indicate that the Marketside stores will have some foods heated and prepared on the premises, including rotisserie meats and breads.

Marketside is the first new format to be launched by Wal-Mart since it started its supermarket-sized Wal-Mart Neigborhood Market stores in 1998. It is also the first format not to use the Wal-Mart name since it created the Sam’s Club warehouse store in 1983.

Wal-Mart has projected that the pilot, if successful, could evolve to between 1,000 and 1,500 stores with over $10bn annual sales.

A number of other leading US supermarket chains are also now testing new small format grocery stores, including Safeway and Supervalu.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2008.

[back to top]

As costs climb in China, manufacturers look elsewhere

By RICK MONTGOMERY,
Kansas City Star
August 26th, 2008                     [back to top]

If Americans watching the Beijing Games were stunned by China’s changing economy, wait until they see price tags on Chinese-made goods this Christmas and beyond.

What’s bad news for consumers may be good news, experts say, for humanity: China is losing its distinction as the world champion of cheap manufacturing.

With pressures building against sweatshops and pollution in China, however, “Indonesia and Vietnam are just waiting to take their turns,” said Chris Kuehl of the Kansas City business consultant Armada Corporate Intelligence.

Consider the portable, 1,500-watt SteamMax Cleaner sold by a local outfit, Top Innovations, though made in China.

A tangled Bird’s Nest of factors — from labor reforms to shipping costs to the slashing of subsidies for exporters — has driven up the cost of making the $159 SteamMax and Top’s other household products by nearly 30 percent in two years.

“Until this year we’ve been able to absorb a lot of the increases” and kept pricing competitive, said company executive Benny Lee. “But you can’t absorb 30 percent.”

Costs have climbed so dramatically that about one in five multinational manufacturers in China has decided to move operations to other developing nations, according to a recent survey by Booz Allen Hamilton consultants.

Countries most cited in the study as alternatives were India, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Brazil, in that order.

“Generally, it’s a positive development,” said Jeff Willis of China Leads, a Kansas-based provider of Internet tools for U.S. companies seeking business in China. “What you’re seeing is the onward-forward march of China’s economy and inexorable rise of a middle class.”

Over the last quarter century, hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens crawled out of peasantry to work in low-wage factories, making “Made in China” a Wal-Mart staple. But eventually those workers developed skills that enabled many to seek higher wages from other manufacturers.

Just as predictably, government reforms to protect employees would arrive in the form of collective bargaining laws, overtime pay and limits on consecutive hours worked.

Also hurting manufacturers are China’s failings in keeping its air healthy and its products safe.

Dozens of factories that were forced to close for the Olympics will reopen in time to meet Christmas orders. But the least efficient plants are shuttered for good, part of the government’s five-year plan to build up renewable energy sources.

The U.S. toy market, reeling from last year’s reports of lead paint in China-made toys, is demanding stricter quality control and laboratory testing.

The testing has cut deeply into the profits of smaller manufacturers such as Phoenix-based Adorable Originals, maker of dolls and children’s clothing sold in boutiques. Chief executive officer Melanie Corpstein said the company will not raise prices anytime soon.

“I don’t think this is the right time to be asking for more from our customers, many of whom are struggling on their own,” said Corpstein. “But we are absolutely looking at factories in other countries. I feel it’s time for that.”

Last month, world-famous German teddy bear maker Steiff announced it was pulling out of China after only four years.

A Steiff executive told the Stuttgarter Nachrichten newspaper that it took six months to train workers on the bears’ intricate stitching, and “by then you might have already lost them to an automobile factory next door.”

“The workers there are actually protesting. We see walkouts. We see strikes,” said John Kennedy, a University of Kansas political scientist who just returned from rural Shaanxi province.

“You could see companies leaving China for the reasons they left America: Workers’ rights were strengthened and local governments began enforcing environmental laws.”

Such things should delight Americans who want greater accountability from the communist leadership, he said: “But will Americans say, ‘OK, I’m willing to pay double at Wal-Mart to make it happen’?”

Top Innovations has produced its small steam appliances in Chinese factories for about a decade. In recent months a confluence of pressure points has recast the low-cost calculus:

•Scaled-back subsidies. Last summer Beijing, under global pressure to curb its trade surplus, notified Top and other houseware exporters that key tax rebates of 13 percent or more would be sliced to 5 percent.

“And then they tell you it takes effect in just 10 days,” said Lee, a Taiwanese American who moved to Kansas City in 1995. “You’re not even given time to prepare for an 8 percent loss.”

China first dangled the export tax breaks in 1985 to lure billions of dollars in manufacturing.

•Overtime pay. A Chinese labor law that took effect Jan. 1 required employers to pay higher wages for overtime, to eliminate 12-hour shifts for temporary workers and to offer employment contracts and a social security program.

•High transportation costs. Fuel prices have jacked up the bill for shipping Top merchandise from a Shenzhen factory to a Kansas City distribution site.

It costs about $4,000 for one container to make that trip today, compared with about $2,500 two or three years ago.

The rising value of the Chinese currency versus the U.S. dollar — up 21 percent since 2005 — adds to the struggles of U.S. companies forking out yuan to pay for workers, parts and energy bills, said Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

If firms such as Top Innovations are considering moving some operations out of coastal China — once the epicenter of low-cost manufacturing — is the end of globalization in sight?

La-Z-Boy is opening a production line this month in North Carolina, signaling a desire to produce closer to a reliable U.S. customer base. But few forecasters go as far as economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal, who argued in a report last spring that “globalization is reversible.”

Lee can envision his steam vacuums being assembled in Vietnam or inland China — perhaps the next frontiers for a peasantry to climb the income ladder with factory jobs.

Chinese leaders “have learned from the Western world how to help the worker, and that’s good news for the worker,” he said.

“But it can become very difficult for the industries” to sustain profits at the box-store prices U.S. consumers have come to expect.

 [back to top]

U.S. Inspectors To Monitor Safety of Chinese Exports

By Sarah Rubenstein,
The Wall Street Journal
August 25th, 2008                        [back to top]

Recent problems with tainted products from China, including the blood-thinner heparin and toys with lead paint on them, have meant increased pressure on the FDA to keep an eye on products before they leave that country and head for the U.S. Lawmakers recently pushed to get the agency more money for foreign inspections.

Now, the U.S. will station a bunch of inspectors in China. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who has oversight over the FDA, told Bloomberg that as many as 15 inspectors will be assigned to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou in October. HHS has also said the FDA would open a China office.

Leavitt told Bloomberg that China’s government has already been working to improve the safety of the country’s exports. “I don’t think they’ve got the problem completely solved, but it was clear to them that the made-in-China brand was affected by product-quality problems and they moved aggressively to begin making progress,” he said.

Leavitt added: “Will there be problems in the future? Yes. Will there be as many of them? I don’t think so.”

 [back to top]

No big push to unionize stores in U.S. - yet

'Won't do anything until Obama bill approved'

ALLISON LAMPERT
The Gazette
Friday, August 22, 2008              [back to top]

A collective agreement imposed last week at a Quebec garage won't generate new efforts to unionize Wal-Mart's U.S. stores, UFCW delegates say.

But the first contract won by Wal-Mart workers in North America will help galvanize union support for new labour legislation advocated by presidential candidate Barack Obama, said David Cook, a delegate from St. Louis, Missouri.

"In terms of unionizing Wal-Mart stores in the U.S., we won't do anything until the Obama bill is approved," Cook said.

Obama has co-sponsored a bill that would bring U.S. labour laws more in line with Quebec's legislation governing the workplace. It would allow U.S. unions to run accreditation drives without holding a vote and give arbitrators the ability to impose collective agreements.

Cook said the union intends to use the new Quebec contract to generate support for the bill among members.

"It's because of the (labour rules in) the Obama bill - which Quebec already has - that the workers got this agreement."

Wal-Mart fiercely opposes card-based certification, arguing it doesn't reflect the will of workers and goes against the democratic principle of holding a vote, company spokesperson Andrew Pelletier said recently.

But union officials have accused Wal-Mart of sabotaging union votes, either by offering workers short-term raises or by threatening to close down store departments.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart to air economy-focused ads

By Kimberly Morrison,
The Morning News
August 22nd, 2008                       [back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Friday it is launching a series of economy-focused TV ads during the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

The 15-second ads highlight some of the company's top initiatives, including its $4 prescription drug program, and communicate how supercenter shopping saves on gas.

The ads will run on cable news networks including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News during the Democratic convention in Denver and the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn.

The campaign is part of a larger effort by Wal-Mart to communicate price savings, the company said.

The ads, stylized like campaign ads, cast Wal-Mart as a consumer advocate in a challenging economy.

Wal-Mart declined to say how much the company is spending on the ad campaign, but reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it spent $540 million in advertising last year. Wal-Mart is the fifth largest spender on retail advertising behind Macy's, Nextag.com, Target and Sears, Roebuck and Co., which owns Kmart.

Data collected by The Nielsen Co. shows the retailer last year spent 25 percent of its advertising budget on network TV, 20 percent on cable TV and another 18 percent on other TV broadcasts, including Spanish-language channels.

Wal-Mart U.S. Chief Executive Eduardo Castro-Wright said in a release that the new ad campaign reinforces for its customers that the company is "there for them" through economic hardship.

Analysts had months ago predicted that Wal-Mart would fare well as consumers became increasingly strained by inflation, as well as housing and credit woes. Many continue to be encouraged by its strong quarterly sales compared to the retail industry overall.

"While we still think it is too soon to say that Wal-Mart is back on top of its game, the company is posting its strongest sales numbers in recent memory despite, or potentially because of, the weakening economy," Joseph Beaulieu, analyst with Chicago-based Morningstar, said in an Aug. 7 note.

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart looks to political convention ads to lure shoppers

By Nicole Maestri,
Reuters
August 22nd, 2008                       [back to top]

TV viewers may be undecided about how they will vote in the upcoming presidential election, but if Wal-Mart has its way, they should not be undecided about where to shop.

As the Democratic and Republican National Conventions get underway, Wal-Mart is preparing to launch a series of TV ads that will highlight how consumers, worried about the economic climate, can save money by shopping at the discount retailer.

The ads will run on cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, and the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The ads will start on Aug. 25 and run through Sept. 7.

In rolling out the ads, Wal-Mart cited a survey by Voter/Consumer Research of Washington, DC according to which more than half of all Americans surveyed – including three quarters of African-Americans and about two thirds of Hispanics — said they are more likely to shop at Walmart discount stores now compared with six months ago. It also said that nearly half of registered voters who are currently undecided between presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain say they are more likely to shop at Walmart today than they were six months ago.

“Americans are facing unprecedented financial challenges and we see them in our stores every day — working men and women living paycheck to paycheck and faced with difficult decisions,” said Walmart U.S. CEO Eduardo Castro-Wright in a statement. “… This new advertising campaign reinforces that we will continue to be there for them.”

The ads will highlight Wal-Mart’s $4 generic prescription drug program, which it says has saved Americans an estimated $1 billion. It will also tout how consumers can save money and gas by taking a one-stop shopping trip to its stores.

It is an interesting time for Wal-Mart to link itself with the presidential election.

Labor groups have asked federal regulators to look into whether Wal-Mart broke the law during company meetings with store managers where it warned about the consequences of a proposed labor law backed by Democrats. At issue is whether Wal-Mart’s discussion of the law, which would make it easier for workers to unionize, amounted to an effort to dissuade employees from voting for Obama.

Wal-Mart denies that it tried to influence voting.

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart Said to Close 42 Fuel Stations

Progressive Grocer
Aug 21, 2008                         [back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores and Tesoro Corp. have reportedly agreed to cease operations of 42 Mirastar fueling stations at Wal-Mart locations across the western United States.

Tesoro will continue operations at 32 remaining fueling stations at Wal-Mart centers, according to Tesoro spokeswoman Sarah Simpson, who was quoted in an online report by the San Antonio Business Journal. Simpson declined to say why Tesoro is closing the stations, stating only that it was a "business decision" for the company.

Wal-Mart and San Antonio-based Tesoro had been developing fueling facilities on Wal-Mart properties since 2000.

Tesoro operates more than 800 retail locations throughout the United States with the exception of Texas. The company saw its net earnings plummet from $443 million during second quarter 2007 to $4 million in second quarter 2008 as unfavorable market conditions continued to afflict the refining industry.

Tesoro is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products. The company operates seven refineries in the western United States.

2008 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved.

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart to Give Coughlin $6.75 Million

By Robin Mero,
The Morning News
August 21st, 2008                   [back to top]

BENTONVILLE - Tom Coughlin settled with Wal-Mart for $6.75 million Thursday, minutes before jury selection was to begin in a lawsuit the retailer filed to void a 2005 retirement agreement worth more than $17 million to the former executive.

Terms of the settlement won't be released for 20 days, by court order, but the retailer filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday afternoon disclosing the payout amount.

"Mr. Coughlin will forego all outstanding rights and claims under the Retirement Agreement, as well as any additional unpaid or withheld benefits ... estimated at a value of approximately $17 million, not including health benefits," the filing stated.

Coughlin is satisfied with the outcome, although he was looking forward to his day in court, attorney Tim Brooks said shortly after the mid-day settlement announcement.

Wal-Mart attorneys wouldn't speak to reporters, but a spokeswoman issued a brief comment Thursday afternoon. "We are satisfied the settlement is fair to both parties and we are ready to put this one behind us," said Daphne Moore.

Carl Tobias, a civil litigation specialist at the Richmond School of Law, said Thursday he wasn't surprised the case settled, as neither side would gain from trial publicity. He called the payout amount reasonable.

"When you go to trial, it's always risky. I'm sure the Wal-Mart lawyers would have been good, and aggressive, and may have new information," Tobias said. "That sounds like a lot of money in the abstract but, if I were he, I'd feel pretty fortunate - given that he pled to the criminal charges."

Questions that remain include whether Coughlin will receive health benefits, and who will pay two years' worth of attorney fees. Coughlin's reported poor health led a federal judge to sentence him to home confinement, rather than prison.

Wal-Mart filed the fraud, misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit in 2005 in Benton County Circuit Court, attempting to void the retirement agreement made with Coughlin, now 59, when he ended his 28-year employment in January 2005.

An internal investigation uncovered years of fake invoices and expense accounts for items ranging from all-terrain vehicles and hunting club memberships to a taxidermy bill for stuffing a wild boar for Coughlin.

Results of that internal investigation were forwarded to federal authorities and led to a criminal conviction in U.S. District Court.

Coughlin is serving a 27-month sentence of home confinement and was ordered to pay $411,218 in restitution to the company and a $50,000 fine.

As executive vice president, Coughlin was earning more than $4 million annually in salary and bonuses. He was vice chairman of the board of directors and reported to Lee Scott, president and chief executive officer.

The retirement deal promised medical care until age 65, millions of dollars in transition payments, and 186,407 shares of restricted stock Coughlin otherwise would have forfeited, according to the suit.

Coughlin maintained rights to the retirement deal, which was drafted by Wal-Mart attorneys and released both parties from liability for claims related to Coughlin's employment, "whether known or unknown."

Jury selection in the civil trial was to begin at 1 p.m. Thursday. The settlement was announced minutes before, and prospective jurors were turned away from the courthouse steps.

For three hours Thursday morning, Coughlin sat at a courtroom conference table with attorneys Steve Vowell and Tim Brooks. Coughlin's wife, Cynthia, and daughter were also in the courtroom, which was otherwise empty. His other two attorneys, Bill Putman and W.H. Taylor, went in and out of the courtroom throughout the morning.

Coughlin and his family left the courthouse about 12:30 p.m. He moved slowly, which Taylor attributed to recent surgery to have both knees replaced.

 [back to top]

Union to target Wal-Mart

The Gazette
August 21st, 2008                       [back to top]

Union leaders are preparing to use the history-making collective agreement won by a Wal-Mart garage in Quebec to organize more of the retailer's Canadian stores. The United Food and Commercial Workers, which negotiated the contract, is especially interested in Wal-Mart Canada Corp.'s Supercentres, which have undercut rivals and forced wages down in Ontario, the UFCW's Canadian president told The Gazette. "There's a reson why we get calls in our office from Wal-Mart employees," president Wayne Hanley said during a gathering of UFCW Canadian and U.S. delegates in Montreal this week. "The delegates that I talk to are hoping it will be a spring board for other unionizing efforts across the country."

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart may not enter Vietnam

VietNamNet Bridge                         [back to top]

Randy Guttery, General Director of Metro Cash & Carry Vietnam, has given some predictions about the domestic distribution market.

He said that in general, the opening of the distribution market will benefit customers, the market and local production as well, as producers will have more opportunities to bring their products to customers.

However, he said that Vietnam should think carefully about the roadmap on the opening of the market to make it suitable to the country’s infrastructure development and the demand of the national economy.

Vietnam needs to consider the possible impacts of the opening of some hypermarts on traffic, traffic jams and other issues, he said.

Once an employee of the world’s well-known Wal-Mart, he believes that it is not very likely that Wal-Mart will arrive in Vietnam, though many Vietnamese people think that the giant distributor will enter Vietnam as soon as it is allowed. The hypermart chain will only make investment in a market if it believes that it can gain the turnover of $700mil after two years of investment, while Vietnam’s market is not developing as rapidly as that.

Talking about the operational supermart system, he said that some big supermarts want to follow the wholesale model like Metro’s. However, they cannot do that, because there is a difference between wholesale and retail, and retailers should focus on the work of retailers.

Regarding competition in the distribution market, he said that supermarts and distribution points will have to face two redoubtable rivals, Tesco and Dairy Farm.

Both have origins, more or less relating to China, where the retail skills are very good, he said.

He also said that when more foreign supermart investors arrive in Vietnam to do business, domestic consumers will realise where they need to go, to wholesale points to buy retail, or to retail points to buy retail.

(Source: TBKTSG)

@ VietNamNet

 [back to top]

Trial in Wal-Mart v. Coughlin to start Thursday

Associated Press
08.19.08                      [back to top]

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. hopes to avoid paying millions of dollars in a retirement package to former executive Tom Coughlin in a trial of a civil lawsuit set to start Thursday.

Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) sued its former vice chairman in 2005 in Benton County Circuit Court, claiming it should not have to pay Coughlin because he embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company. The retirement benefits were estimated at between $12 million and $16 million.

Coughlin pleaded guilty in January 2006 to federal charges of wire fraud and tax evasion, and was sentenced to 27-months home detention plus five years probation. He also was ordered to complete 1,500 hours of community service and pay $400,000 in restitution.

Coughlin has filed a countersuit against Wal-Mart, but dropped one of the three claims on Monday. A lawyer for Coughlin said the breach of contract claim would be redundant if Coughlin wins.

Coughlin's counterclaim seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress.

In 2006, Circuit Judge Jay Finch dismissed Wal-Mart's lawsuit, but the Arkansas Supreme Court last year agreed with Wal-Mart that Coughlin was obligated to disclose during retirement negotiations that he was stealing from the retailer.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

New AC/DC album to be sold only in Wal-Mart

Associated Press
08.18.08                                [back to top]

NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Monday that a new AC/DC album, "Black Ice," will be sold exclusively in Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores starting Oct. 20.

The deal is part of a wider strategy for the world's biggest retailer to get exclusive deals to sell CDs. It is the latest album to be sold under such an arrangement, as Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) got exclusive rights to sell albums by the Eagles and Journey in recent months.

The AC/DC deal was made in conjunction with Columbia Records.

The album is the band's first containing all-new material in eight years. It will cost $11.88. The CD will also be available online at the Sam's Club and AC/DC Web sites.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top]

Mixing Politics and Wal-Mart

The New York Times
August 17th, 2008                     [back to top]

It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers. The National Labor Relations Board has already ruled several times that Wal-Mart has violated the law by retaliating against workers for supporting a union.

Facing the prospect that union-friendly Democrats could win both the White House and Congress, the retail giant is now turning its attention to this year’s election.

Last week, several labor groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Wal-Mart of violating election rules. They acted after The Wall Street Journal reported that thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads had been called to mandatory meetings and told that if Democrats won in November they would likely pass a law to make it easier to unionize companies. According to The Journal, Wal-Mart executives warned that could force the company to cut jobs, while workers would be forced to pay union dues and might have to go on strike.

Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Wal-Mart acknowledges that it summoned employees around the country to warn them about the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize companies if more than half the workers signed cards agreeing to join, dispensing with the need for a secret ballot. But in a memo to managers, Bill Simon, the chief operating officer, said that any executive who might have appeared to be suggesting how to vote was “acting without approval.” Employees, a spokesman said, were merely told which members of Congress supported the legislation.

The vast majority on that list are Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the bill.

The Federal Election Commission should investigate the allegations swiftly and aggressively. The “rogue executive” defense is a well-trodden excuse that should fool no one. Providing workers with a list of members of Congress who, in Wal-Mart’s view, support bad legislation that would worsen workers lives seems indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.

Even if the F.E.C. eventually rules against Wal-Mart, the case underscores what a paltry deterrent election law provides. According to legal experts, the rules call for fines of only a few thousand dollars per violation. Even if thousands of violations were committed, the fine would amount to pocket change for Wal-Mart.

The F.E.C. needs to tighten its rules. Companies like Wal-Mart need to respect those rules and their workers.

[back to top]

Wal-Mart Canada workers obtain rare union contract

By Louise Egan,
Reuters
August 15th, 2008               [back to top]

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Employees at a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT.N. outlet in Canada won an arbitrator-imposed contract on Friday, becoming the giant retailer's only location in North America with a collective agreement in place.

The contract, imposed after binding arbitration ended in June, affects only eight employees at Wal-Mart's tire and lube garage in Gatineau, Quebec, across the river from Ottawa.

"There has been a decision. There is a first collective agreement for Gatineau, for the garage," Guy Chenier, president of the Gatineau local of the United Food and Commercial Workers of Canada, told Reuters.

Chenier said he was still studying the agreement and would provide more details later on Friday. There is also a regular Wal-Mart store in Gatineau with a staff of 200.

An official at the Canadian subsidiary of Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, would not comment on whether the company would shut down the small unit, saying its priority was to maintain an "efficient" operation.

Labor groups have long criticized Wal-Mart for keeping unions out of its U.S. stores. In 2005 it closed a store in Jonquiere, Quebec, that had been the first in North America to obtain union certification.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed on August 7 to hear a challenge from former employees at the Jonquiere store, who charge they unfairly lost their jobs because of their union activism.

Wal-Mart Canada insisted they had lost their jobs for the "good and sufficient reason" of the closure of the store.

The Gatineau store was one of several in Canada that had union certification but, until now, no collective agreement in place.

[back to top]

Groups file elections complaint against Wal-Mart

Associated Press
08.15.08                                    [back to top]

WASHINGTON - The AFL-CIO and three other labor-rights groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. unlawfully pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because their party would help workers to unionize.

The groups - which include Change to Win, American Rights at Work and WakeUpWalMart.com - say in a complaint processed on Friday with the FEC that "there is reason to believe" Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) broke federal election rules by advocating against Democratic candidate Barack Obama in meetings with employees.

The labor organizations based their complaint on a report earlier this month from The Wall Street Journal. The report said Wal-Mart held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors to warn that if Democrats prevail this fall, they would likely push through a bill that the company says would hurt workers.

The legislation, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, employs 1.4 million workers. It has rigorously resisted being unionized and opposes the bill.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based discounter has said it did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact. It also said it has not advocated that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said on Thursday that if anyone representing the company "gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval."

"We believe that if the FEC looks into this, they will find what we've known all along, that we did nothing wrong," Tovar said in an e-mailed statement.

Federal election rules allow businesses to push for specific political candidates to shareholders, executives and salaried managers, but they prohibit such actions for hourly workers, which typically include department supervisors.

In its Aug. 1 report, The Wall Street Journal cited about a dozen unidentified Wal-Mart employees who had attended such meetings in seven states as saying they were told that employees at unionized shops would have to pay big union dues while not receiving any benefits in return.

The report said the Wal-Mart human resource managers who held the meetings didn't specifically tell the employees how to vote but made it clear that an Obama victory would mean unionization.

The labor rights groups filed their claim with the FEC on Thursday.

Mary Beth Maxwell, executive director of American Rights at Work, criticized Wal-Mart for trying to influence the federal election system.

"Wal-Mart seems to be willing to break federal election law in order to stop their employees and all of America's workers from having a fair shot at the American dream," she said.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top]

Tell the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart

http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/campaign/FEC_WalMart

From American Rights At Work:                             [back to top]

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal , Wal-Mart has been threatening employees that if they vote for pro-worker candidates like Barack Obama in November, the Employee Free Choice Act will pass, making it easier to form unions in Wal-Mart stores.

Telling employees how to vote in a U.S. election is not only morally reprehensible, it's potentially illegal.

Sign a petition to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking for an investigation into Wal-Mart’s electioneering to see if any laws were violated.

[back to top]

Unions seek Wal-Mart probe over election law: report

Reuters
August 14th, 2008                      [back to top]

Labor groups are requesting an investigation into whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) violated federal election laws by telling employees that electing Democrats would lead to passage of legislation making it easier to unionize companies, The Wall Street Journal said citing a letter.

The groups are asking the Federal Election Commission to determine whether the company "made prohibited corporate expenditures" by organizing meetings across the country to warn employees that a Democratic president would back legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company opposes, the paper said.

American Rights at Work, a worker advocacy group, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations and WakeUpWalMart.com, a labor-backed group, are filing the complaint and are likely to deliver the letter as early as Thursday, the paper said.

The complaint cites as its source an Aug 1. article in the Journal that reported the company held meetings with thousands of store managers and department supervisors across the country to discuss the legislation.

The groups believe the retail giant's statements amount to advocating the defeat of Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in the November election, the paper said.

Wal-Mart "adapted their unionbusting tactics to influence our federal election system," Mary Beth Maxwell, executive director of American Rights at Work, was quoted as saying by the Journal.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar told the paper that the company's policies are clear and that anyone representing the company and telling associates how to vote were "wrong and acting without approval."

"We welcome the FEC looking into this, because we are confident they will find what we have known all along, that we did nothing wrong," Tovar was quoted by the paper as saying.

A Wal-Mart spokesman told Reuters that Tovar's comments were accurate but did not comment further.

[back to top]

Did Wal-Mart Violate Federal Election Laws? Labor Groups Want to Know

By Dan Slater,
Wall Street Journal
Law Blog
August 14th, 2008                         [back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart. — from The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2008.

Two weeks ago, the above sentence led a Page One WSJ story by Ann Zimmerman and Kris Maher. Now that article is being cited by labor groups in a letter — to be released as soon as today — seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart violated federal election law by telling employees that electing Democrats would lead to passage of legislation making it easier to unionize companies. Here’s today’s WSJ story.

The labor groups — including American Rights at Work, the AFL-CIO and WakeUpWalMart.com — are filing the letter with the FEC, asking the Commission to determine whether the company “made prohibited corporate expenditures” by organizing meetings across the country to warn employees that a Democratic president would back legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company opposes. Both labor and business agree the legislation would make it easier for the labor movement to organize more workers.

Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as “card check,” and has said he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, voted against the legislation last year. Companies aren’t permitted under federal election law to expressly advocate to hourly employees the election or defeat of specific candidates.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said the company’s policies are clear and that anyone representing the company and telling associates how to vote were “wrong and acting without approval.” He said: “We welcome the FEC looking into this, because we are confident they will find what we have known all along, that we did nothing wrong.”

According to a digital recording of a Wal-Mart meeting made by a Wal-Mart employee and reviewed by the WSJ, the meeting leader told employees that their wages may be reduced to minimum wage for up to three months before a contract is negotiated, that union authorization cards violate workers’ right to privacy by including their Social Security numbers on them and that if a small unit within a store votes to unionize, the entire store will be unionized.

“The statements are not correct representations of what the law would require even under the current law,” said Jeffrey Hirsch, a labor lawyer in Boston. “It would be a violation of the national labor relations act to say those things.”

Wal-Mart said that the three comments don’t reflect Wal-Mart’s understanding of the law and weren’t included in its training.

LB’ers: When it comes to Labor v. Capital, we can’t help but think of Sally Field in her Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous Norma Rae. (”Forget it! I’m stayin’ put! Right where I am! It’s gonna take you. And the police department. And the fire department. And the National Guard to get me outta here!”) We’d love to hear your thoughts on the Wal-Mart situation, but also your recommendations for other good labor v. capital movies

[back to top]

Groups to File Complaint Against Wal-Mart

By Steven Greenhouse,
The Caucus: New York
Times Political Blog
August 14th, 2008                         [back to top]

The A.F.L.-C.I.O and three other pro-labor groups will urge the Federal Election Commission on Thursday to rule that Wal-Mart acted illegally by warning many store managers and department heads that a Democratic victory in November would hurt the company by helping workers unionize.

The pro-labor groups plan to file a complaint with the commission on Thursday asserting that Wal-Mart warned so vigorously that the Democrats would enact pro-union legislation that the company had engaged in illegal express advocacy.

The pro-labor organizations — including the Change to Win Federation, American Rights at Work and WakeUpWalMart.com — argue that federal regulations make it legal for companies to engage in such political advocacy with high-level managers, but not with low-level managers like Wal-Mart’s department heads, who are often hourly employees.

The complaint, which is scheduled to be filed at 11 a.m. Thursday, states, “There is reason to believe that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has made prohibited corporate expenditures by expressly advocating against Senator Obama’s election to employees” who were not high-level managers or professionals.

In their complaint, the four groups cite an article in The Wall Street Journal, which said that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, was mobilizing its store managers and department heads around the country to warn that if the Democrats win, they are likely to enact a law that makes it easier for workers to unionize Wal-Mart and other companies.

At those meetings, Wal-Mart officials warned that the Democrats would enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which is expected to make it far easier for workers to unionize by requiring companies to recognize a union as soon as a majority of employees at a worksite sign cards saying they want a union. Under current law, companies have the right to insist on a secret-ballot election to determine whether employees favor a union, but labor leaders say that such elections are often unfair because many companies intimidate workers and fire union supporters during election campaigns.

After the article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, responded that the company in no way broke federal election laws in holding those meetings with its managers and department heads.

In an interview on National Public Radio, Mr. Tovar said: “We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do. If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval.”

The Wall Street Journal article quoted an unnamed customer service supervisor from Missouri who said: “The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union.’ ”

“I am not a stupid person” the supervisor continued. “They were telling me how to vote.”

Wal-Mart, like many other companies, argues that the Employee Free Choice Act would be undemocratic because many workers would be denied the option of casting a secret ballot on whether they want to unionize.

Wal-Mart, which has 1.4 million employees nationwide, has a reputation for fighting fiercely against unionization efforts. Wal-Mart officials say that store managers are told to comply with the law when they battle against unionization drives, although labor leaders cite numerous National Labor Relations Board decisions finding concluding that Wal-Mart had improperly fired union supporters or engaged in other illegal anti-union tactics.

“For years, Wal-Mart has been intimidating and harassing its workers who want to form unions,” said Mary Beth Maxwell, executive director of American Rights at Work, a union-financed advocacy group. “Now they’ve adapted their union-busting tactics to influence our federal election system.”

Change to Win is a federation of seven unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers, that broke away from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. WakeUpWalMart.com is a pro-union group financed by the food and commercial workers that has repeatedly accused Wal-Mart of providing inadequate wages and benefits

[back to top]

Labor Groups File Complaint Against Wal-Mart

By Matthew Mosk,
The Trail
August 14th, 2008                  [back to top]

The political action committee run by Wal-Mart has split its $1 million in donations roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans during this year's campaign cycle, a marked shift from four years ago when more than $3 of every $4 dollars the PAC gave went to Republicans.

But claims that the massive retailer is using more discrete methods to champion Republican candidates this year have led to a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

WakeUpWalMart.com, American Rights at Work, Change to Win, and the AFL-CIO jointly filed a complaint with the FEC this morning alleging that Wal-Mart engaged in unlawful federal election activity by using mandatory meetings to discuss political issues and candidates.

"Wal-Mart may be the world's largest retailer, and America's number one private employer, but it is not above the law," said Meghan Scott, spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com. "Wal-Mart has intimidated its workers and attempted to scare them into voting against a particular party and candidate, and from what workers tell us, these meetings haven't stopped. This behavior proves that Wal-Mart is willing to go to any lengths to put profits ahead of its workers."

Scott said in a prepared release that the meetings, which were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, left many Wal-Mart workers feeling bullied and intimidated.

Wal-Mart officials did not immediately return a call to its corporate offices seeking comment. Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar told the Journal that the company's policies are clear and that if anyone representing the company told associates how to vote, they were "wrong and acting without approval."

"We welcome the FEC looking into this, because we are confident they will find what we have known all along, that we did nothing wrong," Mr. Tovar said.

[back to top]

Unions strike back at Wal-Mart

By Jonathan Berr,
BloggingStocks
August 14th, 2008                     [back to top]

The cold war between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and the unions is heating up again.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the world's largest retailer had warned employees that a Democratic president would back the Employee Free Choice Act a law which would make it easier for unions to organize workers which the company opposes. The paper now is saying that the union groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the matter, which they claim violates federal law.

Of course, this is a brilliant public relations move by the unions. First of all, the FEC is as toothless as some Wal-Mart greeters. Even if the FEC finds that Wal-Mart broke the law, the worst that the company will get is a slap -- make that a tickle -- on the wrist. That may not even happen until well into an Obama administration, which brings up my next point.

Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don't the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today's results won't last.

[back to top]

Wal-Mart says 2Q profit up 17 pct, raises outlook

By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO
Associated Press
08.14.08                            [back to top]

NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. posted a 17 percent increase in second-quarter profit Thursday and raised its full-year earnings forecast, helped by cost cuts and a renewed focus on low prices that is attracting financially squeezed shoppers around the world.

But the world's largest retailer predicted slower sales growth at its established stores for the current quarter, saying it is seeing some volatility as customers find it difficult to stretch their paycheck to the next payday.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said it earned $3.45 billion, or 87 cents per share, in the quarter ended July 31, up from $2.95 billion, or 72 cents per share, a year earlier.

Profit from continuing operations came to $3.39 billion, up 9.3 percent from $3.09 billion last year. That year's second quarter included a benefit of 4 cents per share from several one-time items.

Net sales rose 10 percent to $101.6 billion in the second quarter from $92 billion in the year-ago period. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected $101.9 billion.

For the quarter, the discounter posted a solid same-store sales gain of 4.5 percent, compared to a 1.9 percent increase a year earlier. The results exclude fuel sales. Same-store sales, or sales at stores opened at least a year, are considered a key indicator of a retailer's health.

"We have improved customer traffic and ticket and overall sales growth in our markets," President and Chief Executive Lee Scott said in a statement. "While inflation and higher fuel costs are pressuring suppliers, retailers and customers worldwide, we're confident that Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) is well positioned for this economy."

The company boosted its full-year forecast Thursday to a range of $3.43 to $3.50 per share, citing strict inventory controls and other cost-cutting measures. That's up from a full-year forecast issued in February of $3.30 to $3.43.

Second-quarter sales were driven particularly by the international business, which is seeing more customers as the U.S. economic woes spread to other areas of the world. Its international sales rose 19.3 percent to $25.3 billion, helped by such countries as Canada, China, and Brazil. Scott told investors during a pre-recorded call Thursday that executives in international divisions say they're noticing more financial stress on their customers. In Puerto Rico, for example, shoppers are eating more sandwiches.

At Wal-Mart's U.S. stores, sales rose almost 8 percent to $64.1 billion, while the Sam's Club warehouse store division posted a 7.8 percent sales gain to $12.28 billion.

The report shows that Wal-Mart's multiyear campaign to overhaul its strategy - refocusing on low prices, improving the mix of merchandise offered, cleaning up its stores and providing friendlier and faster customer service - is paying off.

With such changes, Wal-Mart reiterated Thursday that it is taking market share away from its competitors. The company has said that it expects to keep its new customers even when the economy improves.

Its shares have responded as well, now trading about $57 each - near the high end of its 52-week range of $42.09 to $61.00, while shares of rivals like Target Corp. (nyse: TGT - news - people ) are in the doldrums.

But Wal-Mart reemphasized Thursday that the economy remains challenging, noting that shoppers are increasingly unable to stretch their paycheck to the next payday.

"We still see sales volatility around paycheck cycles," said Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe. He was referring to the pullback in spending in the days before the paycheck arrives and the spike after payday when shoppers have the cash to buy.

Wal-Mart predicts same-store sales growth to slow to 1 percent to 2 percent for the third quarter, a sharp decline from the 4.5 percent it saw in the second quarter.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

[back to top]

Wal-Mart to make $1 billion expansion in Brazil

By MARCO SIBAJA
Associated Press
08.14.08                             [back to top]

BRASILIA, Brazil - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced on Wednesday that it will invest the equivalent of at least $1 billion in Brazil to expand its operations in Latin America's biggest country.

The announcement was made in a statement issued shortly after Craig Herkert, president and CEO of Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people )'s America's division, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva met in the capital city, Brasilia.

"The retailer will make its largest investment yet in the country since it started operating in Brazil fourteen years ago," the statement said, adding that Wal-Mart Brazil plans to invest from 1.6 billion reals to 1.8 billion reals ($1 billion to $1.12 billion) and open 80 to 90 new stores.

The investment and store openings, scheduled for 2009, are expected to generate 9,000 new jobs, the statement said.

Wal-Mart opened its first store in Brazil in 1995 and today has 318 outlets in 17 states and in Brasilia, employing 70,000 people. The company has become one of Brazil's largest retailers after acquiring several local chains including Big and Bom Preco.

Over the past four years, Wal-Mart has invested more than 3 billion reals ($1.9 billion) in Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, which has been growing steadily for years as a soaring currency has made imports cheaper and expanding consumer credit has driven a spending boom.

This year alone, it is investing 1.2 billion reals ($750,000) to build 36 new stores and generate more than 7,000 new jobs.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company opened its first-ever non-U.S. store in Mexico, and has maintained that focus on Latin America, with operations in eight Latin American countries and Puerto Rico. Two-thirds of the 12 foreign countries in which Wal-Mart operates are in Latin America.

"Brazil is a highly strategic country for Wal-Mart and we are going to continue growing in the country," said Hector Nunez, the company's president in Brazil. "This is a country with high growth, with much economic, political and social stability ... and a growing middle-class."

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

[back to top]

Shoppers Flock To Wal-Mart

Maurna Desmond,
Market Scan
08.14.08                                [back to top]

Rising prices and a tough economy have U.S. consumers hitting the Wall. Wal-mart, that is.

Wholesale retailer Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) reported better-than-expected third-quarter earnings Thursday and slightly raised its third-quarter outlook. It said that store traffic is up and it's well positioned to profit in the current economic environment.

But investors were put off by the implications for next quarter's results. The Bentonville, Ark.-based firm fell by 12 cents to $58.00 during morning trading in New York. Costco (nyse: COST - news - people ), which recently disappointed Wall Street, added 42 cents to $67.37 and slightly upmarket retailer Target (nyse: TGT - news - people ) gained 2.5%, or $1.19, to $49.23.

Beleaguered American consumers have been curbing their spending habits as high gas and food prices, a declining housing market and sluggish economic growth grind them down. Higher-end retailers and ones that provide nonessential goods, such as the hard-hit Tween category, have especially seen sales suffer. Wal-Mart has been using its size and clout, and its ability to shoulder slimming margins, to keep prices down. (See "Wal-Mart to The Rescue.")

Third-quarter earnings jumped to $3.5 billion or 87 cents per share, from $2.95 billion, or 72 cents per share, a year earlier. Sales grew 10.4% to $101.6 billion, from $92.0 billion.

Wal-Mart now expects to earn $3.43 to $3.50 per share in 2008 up from its conservative February 19 outlook of $3.30 to $3.43 per share (see "Wal-Mart's Wary of Second Quarter"). There was only a slight uptick in its third-quarter earnings estimates to 73 cents to 76 cents from the 76 cents expected by analysts.

Government stimulus checks gave sales a boost in the beginning of the period, but the impact waned toward the end.

[back to top]

Ask the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch                          [back to top]

Dear Friend,

Earlier this month, I told you about the The Wall Street Journal's front-page story, which revealed some of the stories we were hearing from employees and exposed the mandatory meetings Wal-Mart has been holding to urge its employees not to vote for pro-worker candidates like Senator Barack Obama in November.

Not only is this behavior morally reprehensible, it's potentially illegal -- and now you can help hold Wal-Mart accountable.

American Rights at Work has created a petition asking the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to investigate Wal-Mart's potential voter intimidation of its workers. We want to get as many people as possible to sign on so we can hand deliver the petition on your behalf to the FEC office later this week.

Show Wal-Mart that the American people won't let it tell its workers how to vote -- add your name to the petition:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/fec

Wal-Mart has a long history of anti-worker practices, and the company has been fined again and again for violations of many different worker protection laws.

But so far the retail giant has refused to change its ways. These latest allegations of possible electioneering by urging hourly employees not to vote for Democratic candidates show that Wal-Mart will continue to abuse workers' rights unless someone steps up to stop it.

That's exactly what our petition to the FEC will do. Wal-Mart may be a big, influential company, but even the world's largest retailer can't hide from the FEC.

Help us make sure there is a full investigation into Wal-Mart's actions -- sign the petition today:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/fec

Together we can send a message that its workers' precious right to vote is none of Wal-Mart's business.

Thank you for doing your part.

Sincerely,

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch

[back to top]

The Wal-Mart Weekly: Warning of a Democratic win this November?

By Brian White,
BloggingStocks
August 11th, 2008                          [back to top]   

Welcome to the 71st installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions, and just a bit of everything else when it comes to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

This week, I'll be taking a peek at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and a recent meeting the retailer held with its managers and department heads from across the U.S. The gist is this: If a Democrat (Barack Obama) is elected this November, federal law will most likely be changed to make it easier to unionize companies. This will, of course, include Wal-Mart.

Are unions better or worse for American workers? That question has been central in debate for decades on end. Wal-Mart management was heard stating to its store managers that if its stores become unionized, Wal-Mart workers will have to pay hefty dues while receiving nothing in return. Agree or disagree? Read on.

What unions mean for Wal-Mart in the U.S.

Wal-Mart is facing scrutiny more than ever about allowing unions inside its locations in the U.S., and the heat will become even more intense as China becomes an important cog in Wal-Mart's wheel. A few weeks ago, in a surprise move, Wal-Mart was seen bowing to unions in its China locations (owned jointly with Trust-Mart).

Would Wal-Mart see job cuts if it were to unionize its retail locations? That is what several managers who attended mandatory meetings claim. Wal-Mart management clearly does not want the trend of declining union membership seen in the U.S. to reverse. Higher payroll costs and health costs would be a result. Although the U.S. is in the tank at the moment with fuel and commodity costs rising, it's still doing quite well since it is a haven for those wanting to save every penny. So, what's the beef Wal-Mart has with unions? Plain and simple: money. That's it.

One of the meeting leaders observed from a recent Wal-Mart department head meeting was quoted as saying, "I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union." The Wal-Mart Supervisor who heard this exact quote was pretty adamant about it. As in, "they're telling me how to vote."

Is it about workers or money?

To those employees who believe a union will "save the day" when it comes to being represented fairly while paying a good chunk of money, more power to you. To those that believe a union will force retailers to cut employees or change its employment practices, more power to you as well. There is a never-ending range of opinions on this one, and there are two business organizations -- including the well-funded Employee Freedom Action Committee -- who have some deep pockets to ensuring some current U.S. Congress legislation aimed at making more unions accessible does not come to pass.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is even getting in on the act, as it's been organizing a national effort to lobby members of Congress to ensure no new union legislation makes it through the process. Of course, the AFL-CIO and the UFCW both have stated that passage of existing union legislation is their top priority after the U.S. presidential election in November.

Since union membership has slipped from 15% of privately employed workers 25 years ago to only 7.5% today, national labor unions have been on the warpath to try and stop the bleeding. But then again, have U.S. workers really been hurt in the last few decades not having union representation? Is the U.S. labor market really in that bad of shape compared to the early 1980s? That is an open-ended question of course, and both sides with have their "facts" to support any answer.

Wal-Mart has the freedom here

Although Wal-Mart may be seen as walking a very fine legal line in bringing in managers and store supervisors from all over the country to "educate" them on what may happen with a Democrat in the White House this fall, it is free to do what it wants as long as their is no direct implication of "how to vote." So far, that doesn't look to be the case. The retailer is playing a preamble to some of its managers on the front lines of what their environment could look like if a Democratic president is indeed elected and unions have way more push into new areas unlike they have today.

If union representations use the "card check" method to get into stores and have at least 50% of its workers simply sign a card indicating a willingness to join a union, that would most likely be all that is needed to gain a foothold into that location. This is what Wal-Mart store managers fear most. No "secret ballot" needed -- the card check is much more stealth in its approach.

When a small group of meat cutters unionized in some Texas Wal-Mart locations back in 2000, the retailer responded by completely jettisoning butchers in all its stores in the U.S. and replacing them with pre-packaged meat product trucked in. That's quite a swift statement about unions, yes? It's quite apparent that Wal-Mart wants no part of any union in any of its stores. But, that doesn't mean that efforts to revitalize those efforts won't come back early next year if President Obama happens three months from now.

So, just like all of us this autumn, Wal-Mart will be watching the U.S. presidential elections with very interested eyes come November. After such an interesting run, this will truly be one of the most unique presidential showdowns in a generation, that much is for sure.

Join me right here next week for another edition of the Wal-Mart Weekly. Until then, have a great week!

 [back to top]   

Wal-Mart's closed shop

National Post
Monday, August 11, 2008                    [back to top]    

It would be foolhardy to read too much into Thursday's Supreme Court panel decision to hear the plea of Wal-Mart workers laid off in the middle of collective bargaining when the retail behemoth suddenly closed its store in Jonquiere, Que., in 2005.

Appellants who get hold of the court's ear often find that it merely wished to clarify a slightly murky area of the law without intending to give them victory. But in this case, the continuation of the legal fight must be a bit of an unpleasant surprise for Wal-Mart, which is not shy about its opposition to the unionization of its workforce. Although commentators have emphasized the social and legal strength that unions enjoy in Quebec, Wal-Mart's actions were upheld by the provincial labour relations commission in 2006 on the basis of what seem like clear precedents, and both the Superior Court and the provincial Court of Appeal balked at overturning the commission's ruling.

Businesses in Quebec are forbidden under the province's Labour Code from firing particular employees for exercising their right to organize a union and commence collective bargaining; moreover, the code requires an employer who fires any such worker to show "good and sufficient reason" for doing so. But Wal-Mart didn't take targeted action against employees who had signed union cards. It closed the Jonquiere store outright, presumably because it was no longer profitable, or profitable enough. The labour relations commission found that the extinction of the workplace was obviously a "good and sufficient reason" to stop employing the workers.

What else, one wonders, could it have done? If it is fair for workers to strike, surely it is fair for a retail company to close a store altogether -- and how on earth could Wal-Mart be forced, or even in any reasonable sense morally obligated, to keep it open? Things might conceivably be different if the corporation had closed a particular department that had been organized, as it has sometimes done, though even in such a case, the idea of a court imposing a positive obligation on a retail store to sell some particular good, like meat or tires, is pretty senseless. But for a court to insist on the continued existence of a whole store that has closed, or to fine a company for ceasing to operate a particular store, would border on the fantastic.

Or, perhaps more accurately, on the nightmarish. If the Supreme Court finds for the Jonquiere workers, it will drive up the implied costs of opening a business in Quebec; all corporations will naturally be more reluctant to expand there if they know they may be trapped into extra liabilities when a branch must close. The workers in the Wal-Mart lawsuits are implicitly holding the entire province hostage to their desire to justify their disastrously failed bargaining.

And, indeed, one wonders how the people of the Jonquiere region regard their neighbours' quixotic legal battle. (Seventynine workers filed complaints against Wal-Mart when it boarded up the doors; the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two representative cases, which will effectively determine the fate of all.) If having a Wal-Mart is a bad thing for the community, then they must believe that the company did them a favour by leaving. If, on the other hand, they wish they still had a Wal-Mart, they are probably none too pleased with the labour organizers for having cost the community jobs and competitively-priced goods by going head-to-head with the company on a matter of old-fashioned red-diaper principle.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

 [back to top]   

Wal-Mart faces chill of sales slowdown

Bloomberg
08/09/2008                    [back to top]   

New York: Wal-Mart Stores' run as this year's best-performing Dow Jones Industrial Average company may end after the world's largest retailer said sales growth will slow this month.

Wal-Mart declined 6.3 per cent on Thursday, the steepest drop since 2002, after it said sales in stores open at least a year may rise as little as 1 per cent, which would be the smallest gain in five months.

The company said most shoppers had spent the US tax rebates that spurred sales.

"The stock has risen a lot, and the probability is pretty low that it keeps growing at that rate," Don Yacktman, who oversees $900 million at Yacktman Asset Management, said. The Austin, Texas-based firm sold 80,000 Wal-Mart shares, or half of its holding in that stock, since April.

Wal-Mart had climbed 28 per cent this year before yesterday, compared with the 30-company Dow's 14 per cent drop. After yesterday's decline, Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart had a gain of 20 per cent, just ahead of International Business Machines Corp.'s 19 per cent increase.

Chief Executive H. Lee Scott and Eduardo Castro- Wright, the US stores chief, weren't available for interviews before quarterly earnings August 14, Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said yesterday.

Spending of tax rebate cheques, part of the government's attempt to rejuvenate the economy, helped produce Wal-Mart's biggest same-store sales gains of the year in May, with a 3.9 per cent increase, and June, with a 5.8 per cent jump.

The company lured shoppers battered by soaring gasoline and food costs with $4 prescriptions and discounts on groceries and flat-screen televisions as steep as 30 per cent.

Total sales in the first half of the fiscal year that started on February 1 climbed 9.6 per cent. Total sales in July increased 9.4 per cent.

"We are seeing the end of a catalyst," Lauri Brunner, a Minneapolis-based analyst for Thrivent Asset Management, said. Thrivent manages $73.2 billion in assets, with 1.5 million Wal-Mart shares through June.

"August represents even further deceleration," Mark Miller, an analyst with William Blair & Co, wrote in a note to clients. Wal-Mart's forecast of same-store sales growth of 1 per cent to 2 per cent this month trails his third- quarter estimate of 2.5 per cent.

Miller cut Wal-Mart to "market perform" from "outperform" Thursday on the view that the retailer's sales and profit growth will slow.

Investors had put the shares on course for their biggest annual gain in nine years. The stock, still headed for its best performance since 1999, is unlikely to duplicate its first-half gains, said Jeffrey Malcom, a portfolio manager at Horan Capital Management.

Scepticism

Reflecting the scepticism about the shares, more stock had been sold short last month than at any time this decade. Short sellers borrow stock to sell in the hopes of buying the shares back later at a cheaper price.

Wal-Mart may advance 12 per cent in 12 months, based on the average of analyst target prices compiled by Bloomberg. That compares with the 20 per cent average share-price gain predicted for the companies traded on the Standard & Poor's 500 Retailing Index.

"As they get bigger in the US, they're going to have to look elsewhere for growth, which is no easy feat," Yacktman said in the Aug-ust 6 interview.

Wal-Mart generates 24 per cent of sales overseas, leaving it reliant on the US while it slows construction of super centres that sell groceries and general merchandise. The retailer said in June it plans to increase square footage of stores by 5 per cent to 6 per cent this fiscal year, down from 7.7 per cent growth last year.

 [back to top]   

William Blair analyst downgrades Wal-Mart shares

Associated Press
08.08.08                            [back to top]    

NEW YORK - A William Blair & Co. analyst downgraded shares of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, based on expectations for slower sales and profit growth in the second half of the year.

Analyst Mark Miller cut his rating to "Market Perform" from "Outperform" on Thursday after the discounter reported a 3 percent increase in same-store sales, lower than the 3.4 percent gain that Wall Street predicted. The discounter also projected a slower same-store sales pace of 1 to 2 percent in August and noted that consumers are increasingly unable to stretch their paychecks to the next payday.

On Thursday, Wal-Mart, along with other major retailers, reported July same-store sales, or sales at stores opened at least a year, that showed that the benefits of the stimulus checks are drying up. Same-store sales are a key indicator of a retailer's health. Still, Wal-Mart's gain was better than the industry average gain of 2.6 percent, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers-UBS tally, as consumers are shopping at lower-price alternatives in a tough economy.

Shares of Wal-Mart rose almost 2 percent, or $1.00, to $57.96 in morning trading.

In a note to investors, Miller wrote that Wal-Mart has been "among the strongest performers in the market thus far in 2008, with the shares up 28 percent year-to-date," but July's sales performance marks a "material deceleration" from the previous two months.

Wal-Mart's same-store sales rose 5.8 percent in June and 3.9 percent in May. The results exclude gasoline sales. Miller noted that in 2001 when the last stimulus checks were distributed - which totaled less than half the dollar amount of the 2008 distribution - there was a lingering effect for a six-month period.

Miller also noted that he was concerned about what Wal-Mart calls a "pronounced paycheck cycle" - a dramatic pullback in the days before consumers receive their paycheck and a spike right after payday. Still he believes the Bentonville, Ark., company is on track to meet or exceed the current Wall Street expectations of 84 cents per share for the second-quarter when it reports earnings results on Thursday.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

 [back to top]   

Inside a Wal-Mart focus group

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch                     [back to top]   

Dear Friend,

Wal-Mart's great re-branding effort continues.

A few weeks back we told you about the retail giant's new softer, friendlier logo.

Now Wal-Mart is getting ready to launch a new ad campaign that uses our current economic crisis for its own advantage.

But this time, we're one step ahead of them. Wal-Mart Watch actually had an inside source at a recent Wal-Mart focus group that tested messages for the upcoming ad campaign. Our source told us the five ideas being considered, and it should be no surprise that they're all full of baloney.

So we're running our own focus group, and we want you to be part of it. Click here to see possible ads Wal-Mart is considering, and tell us which one you think is the most dishonest:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/focusgroup

Soon, one of these messages will be featured in ads which will air on TV stations across the country. We don't know which one, but we do know whichever ad they choose will attempt to take advantage of people's economic fears and convince them that Wal-Mart is their friend in these tough times.

You and I know that's simply not true. In fact, companies like Wal-Mart -- which get the vast majority of their goods from overseas manufacturers and suppliers -- are a big part of the problem. Their cutthroat business practices lead American companies to lay off workers, hurting our economy.

And then there's Wal-Mart's treatment of its own workers. The low wages and poor benefits offered by the retail giant make their struggles even worse, contributing to our country's overall economic woes.

If Wal-Mart won't even take care of its own employees, why should anyone believe the company is good for everyone else?

It's going to be up to activists like you to make sure people don't get suckered in by Wal-Mart's disingenuous new ads. Get started by checking out their proposed messages and voting for the one you think is most bogus:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/focusgroup

These messages are just the latest example of Wal-Mart's obsession with improving its image, not its practices.

Whether it's a new logo, slogan, store design, or ad campaign, Wal-Mart spends incredible amounts of time and money on the superficial aspects of its business.

Help make sure Wal-Mart doesn't get away with it again. Get the truth behind its upcoming ad campaign and tell us which one contains the biggest lies:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/focusgroup

Sincerely,

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch

 [back to top]  

Wal-Mart Whoas Hit Wall Street

Ruthie Ackerman,
Market Scan
08.07.08                           [back to top]  

The problem with artificial stimulus is that it's artificial. As soon as the benefit of the U.S. government's $600-per-person spending bribes began to wear off, American consumers cut back on their shopping, sending a chill through Wall Street on Thursday as the major retailer store chains announced their July sales numbers.

Rising weekly unemployment data added to the pressure on stocks.

In early trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 107.72 points, or 0.9%, to 11,548.35; the Standard & Poor's 500 lost 10.58 points, or 0.8%, to 1,278.61; and the Nasdaq slipped 7.25 points, or 0.3%, to 2,371.12.

Thursday got off on the wrong foot after Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people ) reported U.S. same-store sales rose 3.0% and would continue to slow. Analysts had expected a 3.4% rise.

Wal-Mart shares slid 5.0%, or $3.01, to $57.75.

Wal-Mart wasn’t alone. Other retailers also reported sagging sales – bad news since the back-to-school shopping season is just around the corner. Meanwhile, Limited Brands (nyse: LTD - news - people ) and Gap (nyse: GPS - news - people ), along with higher-end retailers like Saks (nyse: SKS - news - people ), which operates Saks Fifth Avenue, also reported sales declines.

Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Labor Department reported that the number of American workers filing new jobless claims increased by a seasonally adjusted 7,000, to 455,000 last week, the highest level since late March 2002, and significantly higher than Wall Street’s expectations of around 430,000.

The combination of the increasing number of new claims for unemployment benefits mixed with the decline in consumer spending signals that the outlook for the U.S. economy going forward looks grim.

One bright spot came from The National Association of Realtors, which released data showing that home sales contracts signed in June rose across the country to its highest level since October, although sales were still significantly below year-earlier levels. The association’s Pending Home Sales Index, which is based on contracts for previously owned homes, was up 5.3% in June, to 89.0, from a downwardly revised 84.5 in May. Economists expected home sales contracts to fall 1.0%.

American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ) rocked the boat when it reported late Wednesday that its losses on its portfolio of credit default swaps linked to mortgage debt could soar as high as $8.5 billion. The world’s largest insurance company had previously said that its losses would be no higher than $2.4 billion. AIG shares plunged 17.2%, or $5.00, to $24.09.

 [back to top]  

Canada top court to rule on Wal-Mart union fight

By Randall Palmer
Reuters
Thu Aug 7                          [back to top]  

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Inc. suffered a defeat on Thursday when Canada's Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge of the company's 2005 decision to close a Quebec store that had been the first in North America to obtain union certification.

Former employees charged they had unfairly lost their jobs because of their union activities. Wal-Mart's Canadian subsidiary insisted that they had lost their jobs for the "good and sufficient reason" of the closure of the store.

The Supreme Court gave no hint of which way it was leaning on the issue, but its decision to hear the case keeps the workers' hopes alive.

No Wal-Mart outlets in the United States or Canada have collective agreements in place, though several in Canada have received union certification since the closure of the store in question in this case, which was in Jonquiere, Quebec.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will likely affect union activity and Wal-Mart's response in other stores.

Wal-Mart Canada said it saw hopeful signs in the legal history of the case as it wound its way through Quebec's courts.

"Every previous court decision on this matter -- decisions from the Quebec Superior Court as well as the Quebec Court of Appeal -- have found in favor of Wal-Mart Canada against the union and have found that closure of the Jonquiere store was lawful," spokesman Andrew Pelletier said.

United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, the union involved, said it would not comment until Friday.

Pelletier said Wal-Mart did not expect the case to be heard until next year. The court often takes months to write its decision as well.

He insisted that Wal-Mart had bargained in good faith over a collective agreement at Jonquiere but said the store had been losing money and the union nonetheless demanded the hiring of 30 additional workers.

 [back to top]  

Wal-Mart's Anti-Union Threats Lead to Backlash, Call for Federal Probe

By Art Levine,
Huffington Post
August 7th, 2008                           [back to top]  

Wal-Mart may have inadvertently done workers a big favor with its threats that a Democratic victory in November could lead to passage of a new law making organizing unions easier. Now progressive media and cable shows are giving the right to unionize greater attention, and a petition drive has been launched by pro-union groups asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate Wal-Mart for illegal electioneering ( a charge the company denies.)

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the company held mandatory meetings for supervisors and store managers warning that a Democratic and Obama victory could lead to passage of an Employee Free Choice Act; the company claimed the law could cost workers their jobs and lead to heavy union dues.

In fact, Wal-Mart is the poster child for union-busting and its own abuses perfectly illustrate why the law is so desperately needed. Wal-Mart's behavior reflects a broader corporate hostility to unions that's helping to drag down workers' earnings and health care benefits, as I discovered when I wrote last year about going undercover to a union-busting seminar. And As Michael Whitney of American Rights at Work observed on Firedog Lake:

Unfortunately for Wal-Mart workers, this kind of intimidation is nothing new. It's actually part and parcel for Wal-Mart's business plan. When Wal-Mart employees stand up for themselves and try to form a union, they face threats, propaganda, discrimination, intimidation, and even firings in retaliation. What Wal-Mart is doing for November's political elections is what it, and hundreds of other anti-union companies, do all the time when workers say they want a union: initimidating them to go against their own self-interests.

Wal-Mart's concerns about a pro-union Democratic victory are echoed by other companies seeking to oppose any legislation or initiative that might conceivably help workers. The Hill reported this week:

Business leaders say a Democratic sweep of the presidency and key Senate contests this fall could lead to major changes in U.S. labor law.

Business has viewed the Senate as a bulwark to bills backed by the AFL-CIO and other labor groups since Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Measures making it easier to form unions and strengthening the rights of workers to sue for discriminatory pay practices have passed the House. But they have not been able to win the votes necessary to move forward in the Senate.

Even if they had, a final bastion remained: President Bush's veto pen.

Next year, however, the dynamics could change dramatically if Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wins the presidency and Democrats edge closer to the 60 votes necessary to break a Senate filibuster.

"This is one of the most important elections the business community faces," said Bill Miller, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"If the Republicans lose four or five seats [in the Senate] some of the labor measures probably will succeed over the minority's wishes," said Jade West, senior vice president of government relations at the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors...

But the issue business leaders most often mention in worried tones is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to form unions by eliminating a requirement that unions be launched via a secret ballot vote.

A business coalition is already running ads in Maine and Minnesota, where it touts Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-Minn.) opposition to the bill. Coleman is in a tough contest with Democrat Al Franken, who, like most Democratic Senate candidates, is supporting EFCA.

On top of all that, major business lobbying groups are launching a multi-billion-dollar TV and propaganda effort to convince the public and workers that the proposed law would somehow deny workers the right to a fair election. In truth, as the American Rights at Work organization points out, these groups are peddling myths in order to squelch workers' rights:

Business special interest groups have launched a $160 million campaign to derail reform of the nation's broken labor law system by lying about the Employee Free Choice Act. Their only line of attack - that the bill somehow takes away so-called "secret ballot" elections for joining a union - is blatantly false. The Employee Free Choice Act not only strengthens the current process for workers forming unions, but also provides for a more fair and democratic method for men and women to join unions. Here are the facts to refute the opposition's fiction about the Employee Free Choice Act:

Fiction: The "legislation would end the rights of employees to secret ballot elections."- Center for Union Facts

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots."

Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose the union formation process--elections or majority sign-up. Under current law, the choice to recognize a union rests only with employers. What the Employee Free Choice Act does prevent is an employer manipulating the flawed system to influence the election outcome. When faced with organizing campaigns: 25 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers; 51 percent of employers illegally threaten to close down worksites if the union prevails; and, 34 percent of employers coerce workers into opposing the union with bribes and favoritism.

Fiction: "Legal recognition of a union has traditionally been achieved through secret ballot elections...just like how a person votes for a senator or congressman." - Center for Union Facts

FACT: Current union elections involving "secret ballots" bear no resemblance to political elections.

Workers' free speech rights are squelched, employers practice various forms of economic coercion, and labor law allows employers to indefinitely delay recognition through drawn-out appeals. Says University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer: "The presence of secret ballots can't overcome the corrupt nature of NLRB elections ."

Fiction: NLRB elections are "the only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation."- Coalition for a Democratic Workplace

FACT: Workers are more susceptible to coercion in NLRB elections than majority sign-up. Workers in NLRB elections are twice as likely (46 percent vs. 23 percent) as those in majority sign-up campaigns to report that management coerced them to oppose the union. Further, less than one in 20 workers (4.6 percent) who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card.

Now, thanks to Wal-Mart over-the-top intimidation, there's greater awareness of the pernicious impact of such lies, and how fair treatment of workers in a troubled economy could be helped by the law Wal-Mart so vigorously opposes. And that's why there's a petition drive underway to gather a million signatures to get the next Congress to finally pass this long-overdue law.

It's small wonder that Wal-Mart is working so hard against the bill. As Andy Stern, the president of SEIU, observed:

"Wal-Mart's decision to use valuable resources to discourage its workers from joining a union should surprise no one. What is astonishing is that while Wal-Mart pays its employees dismal wages, the Walton family has made nearly $20 billion since last November on the rise in Wal-Mart's stock alone and Lee Scott was ranked as the highest paid CEO in consumer retail.

"Rather than adjusting the company's behavior to improve conditions for its employees, Wal-Mart has chosen to intimidate its workers to maintain the status quo. This time the company may have crossed the line."

 [back to top]  

Stock falls on weak jobs report, Wal-Mart sales

By TIM PARADIS
Associated Press
08.07.08                          [back to top]  

NEW YORK - Wall Street retreated Thursday after weekly unemployment claims jumped to a six-year high and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other retailers reported disappointing sales, touching off renewed fears that a pullback in consumer spending will damage the economy. The Dow Jones industrials fell about 120 points.

The Labor Department said the number of newly laid off people seeking jobless benefits increased by a seasonally adjusted 7,000 to 455,000 last week, the highest level since late March 2002. Wall Street had expected new claims to rise to around 430,000.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said same-store sales, or stores open at least one year, rose 3 percent in July as consumers began using up their government stimulus checks. Analysts who follow the important measure of a retailer's health had expected a 3.4 percent rise, on average.

Financial stocks also lost ground after insurer American International Group Inc. reported that it lost more than $5 billion in the second quarter. The stock was by far the steepest decliner among the 30 that make up the Dow industrials.

In midfternoon trading, the Dow fell 123.02, or 1.06 percent, to 11,533.05. The pullback follows a two-day rally in the Dow of more than 370 points.

Broader indicators also slid. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 11.73, or 0.91 percent, to 1,277.46, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 5.77, or 0.24 percent, to 2,372.60.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

[back to top]  

Wal-Mart job postings in Eureka not valid

By Ryan Burns,
Times-Standard
August 7th, 2008                      [back to top]  

An online employment advertisement for Wal-Mart sales associates in Eureka sparked confusion and concern Wednesday afternoon, but Wal-Mart officials say the ad, which was posted on www.workinretail.com, is not valid.

”I can tell you flat-out that we don't have any plans for a store in Eureka right now,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff. He added that he didn't know why Eureka was listed on the ad, which includes company background and detailed job descriptions.

A button marked “Apply” on the site links to an invalid Web address.

City and county planning officials started receiving phone calls from concerned citizens Wednesday after the job posting was revealed on a local blog. Before learning it was false, officials dug through files looking for use permits or other paperwork that would suggest the arrival of the big box retailer.

Eureka voters soundly defeated a 1999 measure that would have changed the city's general plan to rezone the Balloon Track property from “public” to “commercial” and thereby allow Wal-Mart to move in.

Loscotoff said company officials were unaware of the ad and would try to determine how the mistake was made.

Ryan Burns can be reached at 441-0563 or rburns@times-standard.com.

[back to top]  

Why Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart?

By Jonathan Tasini ,
Black Agenda Report
August 6th, 2008                            [back to top]  

Hordes of congressional Democrats from the Left to the Right wings of the party accept contributions from Wal-Mart - the political equivalent of dealing with The Devil. "There may be no corporation in America that has attacked the rights of workers and undercut the living standards of Americans more than Wal-Mart." Nearly half the Congressional Black Caucus takes money from a company that has "fired workers repeatedly for trying to organize." The author advocates that Big Labor "write to every member of Congress declaring that any Democrat receiving or keeping Wal-Mart money can kiss any labor donations or labor support good-bye."

Why Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart?

by Jonathan Tasini

This article originally appeared in Working Life, published by the Labor Research Association.

"Wal-Mart put on a big push to woo Democratic lawmakers, in particular, African-American and Hispanic representatives."

Where does a politician, or a political party, draw the line in the willingness to sacrifice principles for a few bucks? When we talk about the need to "change" the political environment and the culture of money and politics, isn't there some place where you can say, "right here, this is the perfect example and we aren't going to let this go on anymore"? I would argue that the place to draw the line is the relationship between the Democratic Party and Wal-Mart. And the time to draw the line is now.

I outline the facts in a moment. But, the premise for the need to draw the line now is this: There may be no corporation in American today that has been a more persistent, regular violator of the law than Wal-Mart. There may be no corporation in America that has been as virulently anti-union as Wal-Mart, firing workers repeatedly for trying to organize. There may be no corporation in America that has attacked the rights of workers and undercut the living standards of Americans more than Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart has at least 80 class-action lawsuitsin 41 states pending against it.

Wal-Mart illegally denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws--a violation that may cost the company $2 billion.

Wal-Mart abuses women, and is the defendants in the biggest sex discrimination case in history.

Wal-Mart is a habitual tax-dodger.

Wal-Mart's heirs buy expensive paintings but won't give their workers decent health care.

Wal-Mart sued a disabled women, demanding she give back money she won in a settlement.

Wal-Mart exploits children in Mexico.

Wal-Mart lead a global corporate lobbying campaign to block a very modest improvement in Chinese labor laws--because Wal-Mart's business model depends on exploiting cheap labor, here and abroad.

And that's just a sample. Why would any political leader, who represents him or herself to be a defender of the working person, want to be affiliated with such a company?

The answer is clear: money. The Democratic Party is almost even with the Republican Party in the money it receives from Wal-Mart, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Center's data, published in an article in [last Friday's] Wall Street Journal (I'll come back to that article in a moment), shows that 12 years ago, Wal-Mart's PAC gave 98 percent of its money to Republicans. In the current cycle, Democrats have received 48 percent of Wal-Mart's PAC expenditures.

Here is the list just for the 2008 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the House, the list is breath-taking in its scope:

[BAR editors note: We have bolded the names of the 21 Black congresspersons listed - fully half the Congressional Black Caucus in the U.S. House.]

Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $12,000

Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $10,000

Baird, Brian (D-WA) $2,500

Barrow, John (D-GA) $10,000

Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $6,000 Berry, Marion (D-AR) $6,000 Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA)$5,000 Boren, Dan (D-OK) $7,500 Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)$5,000 Boucher, Rick (D-VA) $6,000 Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $6,500 Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $3,500 Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $2,500 Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $2,500 Christian-Green, Donna (D-VI) $1,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) $1,000 Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $1,000 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $6,000 Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN)$2,000 Cooper, Jim (D-TN) $5,000 Cramer, Bud (D-AL) $2,500 Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $7,000 Davis, Artur (D-AL) $7,500 Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $5,000 Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000 Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $10,000 Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $12,500 Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) $2,000 Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX)$6,000 Gordon, Bart (D-TN) $5,000 Green, Gene (D-TX) $3,500 Hill, Baron (D-IN) $10,000 Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) $5,000 Holden, Tim (D-PA) $2,500 Hooley, Darlene (D-OR) $1,000 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $6,000 Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $2,500 Johnson, Hank (D-GA) $1,000 Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI)$4,000 Kind, Ron (D-WI) $7,000 Klein, Ron (D-FL) $10,000 Larsen, Rick (D-WA) $2,500 Larson, John B (D-CT) $3,500 Lewis, John (D-GA) $2,500 Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) $2,000 Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY)$1,000 Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $5,000 McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $1,000 McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $1,000 Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) $7,500 Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) $7,500 Melancon, Charles J (D-LA)$6,500 Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $3,500 Moran, Jim (D-VA) $2,500 Neal, Richard E (D-MA) $2,000 Oberstar, James L (D-MN)$1,000 Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $3,000 Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $5,000 Payne, Donald M (D-NJ) $1,000 Peterson, Collin C (D-MN)$5,500 Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $5,000 Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)$5,500 Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) $5,500 Richardson, Laura (D-CA)$2,000 Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX)$10,000 Ross, Mike (D-AR) $5,000 Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD)$4,500 Salazar, John (D-CO) $7,000 Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $5,500 Scott, David (D-GA) $5,000 Scott, Robert C (D-VA) $2,000 Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $10,000 Sires, Albio (D-NJ) $2,000 Skelton, Ike (D-MO) $3,000 Snyder, Vic (D-AR) $2,000 Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC)$1,000 Tanner, John (D-TN) $9,000 Tauscher, Ellen (D-CA) $5,000 Taylor, Gene (D-MS) $5,000 Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS)$7,500 Thompson, Mike (D-CA) $4,500 Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH)$2,500 Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) $3,000 Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $3,500 Waxman, Henry A (D-CA) $2,500 Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $5,000 *Wynn, Albert R (D-MD) $5,000

[*BAR editors note: Rep. Wynn was defeated by Donna Edwards (D)]

In the Senate:

Baucus, Max (D-MT) $7,000

Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $5,000

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $2,000

McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)$5,000

Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $3,000

Salazar, Ken (D-CO) $2,000

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In November 2005, I asked why Democrats were doing Wal-Mart's bidding, including helping block an important piece of labor legislation. Two years later, as the 2006 election drew near, Wal-Mart put on a big push to woo Democratic lawmakers, in particular, African-American and Hispanic representatives.

In one sense, this was inevitable in the culture of Washington politics: money flows to power. And, since 2006, Democrats are an equal power in the political power landscape.

Here is why the line must be drawn now and why this trend is particularly worrisome. The Wall Street Journal article reveals the background in a piece about Wal-Mart's internal political drive to organize its managers to vote Republican in the coming election as a strategy to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, the single-most important legislative priority for organized labor:

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

"In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized."

And...

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said."

And...

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.

"The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

"First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

"The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Putting aside the important point about whether Wal-Mart's internal political electioneering is illegal under federal election law, the far bigger issue is that Wal-Mart is making it quite clear that it will spare no effort to defeat EFCA. Wal-Mart and the business community believe that the passage of EFCA will allow millions of workers who want to be in a union to be able to exercise their rights without intimidation and fear of losing their jobs.

"There may be no corporation in American today that has been a more persistent, regular violator of the law than Wal-Mart."

To cut to the chase, Wal-Mart's PAC spending is aimed at one thing: to make sure EFCA does not pass and, if it does pass, to make sure that the bill that reaches the president's desk will be weakened (which, by the way, is what happened to labor law reform in the 1970s). Let's look at the possible scenarios, assuming Barack Obama is president in 2009:

1. A 2008 election brings Democrats a large majority in the House and even 60 seats in the Senate. EFCA comes to the House floor and passes largely intact. EFCA arrives to the Senate and, lo and behold, one or more Democratic Senators block the bill, not to kill it but to exact changes that gut the effectiveness of EFCA.

2. A 2008 election brings Democrats a large majority in the House and even 60 seats in the Senate. EFCA comes to the House floor and a large number of Democrats from the list above introduce a series of amendments that seriously weaken EFCA.

3. A 2008 election keeps Democrats in control of the House and Senate with larger numbers. In both chambers, EFCA will face significant attempts to change its basic thrust.

I have always been a bit skeptical about using the large numbers of legislators who have signed as co-sponsors of EFCA as a barometer of the chances for the legislation to pass--and pass in a form that changes the playing field for union organizing from one grossly tilted towards employers to one that gives workers the real right to choose a union.

The Wal-Mart contribution list above remind me of that scene in "The Untouchables" where Eliot Ness, sure of the evidence against Al Capone, finds out that the entire jury has been bought off. Of course, the movie ends with a happy resolution but we aren't in Hollywood when it comes to EFCA.

So, what should be done:

The Change To Win Coalition and the AFL-CIO should jointly send a letter to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer (head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Chris Hollen (head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) demanding that party members return every dime to Wal-Mart.

Both Federations should also write to every member of Congress declaring that any Democrat receiving or keeping Wal-Mart money can kiss any labor donations or labor support good-bye.

Both Federations should, then, send a letter to every supposed Democratic campaign consultant and make it clear: you work for us OR you work for Wal-Mart. You can't do both.

Jonathan Tasini is executive director of the New York-based Labor Research Association.

 [back to top]  

Decision looms for Wal-Mart

By ALLISON LAMPERT,
The Gazette
August 6th, 2008                           [back to top]  

Union leaders say they expect Wal-Mart Canada Corp. to shut down a garage it operates in Gatineau after workers are presented with their first collective agreement.

Guy Chénier, president of the union local representing garage workers, said Wal-Mart has already hinted it will close the shop. In 2005, Wal-Mart came under fire for closing a store in Jonquière after workers won union accreditation.

In Gatineau, across the river from Ottawa, Wal-Mart garage workers have been unionized since 2005, and are now waiting for their first collective agreement following binding arbitration that ended in June.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly Font:****It's not clear when the contract will be imposed, but the union says it expects it to be soon.

The contract will be a first in North America and is expected to have an impact on Wal-Mart unionization efforts across Canada.

"I have the impression that they will want to close the garage," said Chénier, president of local 486 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. "But if they do this, we will help the workers find other places right away."

A Wal-Mart executive has already said the retailer might be forced to close the garage, depending on what's in the agreement, said Louis Bolduc, a UFCW spokesperson in Quebec.

"We are eager to see how Wal-Mart behaves," Bolduc said.

"We hope they will act like good corporate citizens."

Yanik Deschênes, spokes-person for Wal-Mart in Quebec, said the retailer could only comment on the arbitrator's decision when it's announced.

"The arbitrator is now working on the file, so we cannot speculate on the outcome," Deschênes said. "We respect the process and we want to wait for the decision."

Arbitrator Alain Corriveau's decision will have implications not only for the 10 garage employees in Gatineau, but potentially for Wal-Mart employees elsewhere in Canada and around the world.

Corriveau is also overseeing the arbitration process for Wal-Mart workers in St. Hyacinthe, who are waiting for their first collective agreement.

While Wal-Mart workers in China belong to a state union - as is required by law - the world's largest retailer is opposed to its employees unionizing.

"If this happens in Quebec, this will be a big shot in the arm for Wal-Mart workers everywhere," said Andy Neufeld, a spokesperson for UFCW local 1518 in British Columbia.

"If this had been a regular file, we would have had a collective agreement in 2005," Chénier said. "A few years later, we wouldn't even be talking about it any more."

At stake are wages and benefits. On average, workers at the Wal-Mart garage in Gatineau earn $9.25 an hour.

 [back to top]  

Retail Politics: Wal-Mart's campaign to influence the election

By Daniel Gross,
Newsweek
August 5th, 2008                         [back to top]  

Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that retailing giant Wal-Mart, concerned about a potential Democratic sweep this fall, has been not-so-subtly indoctrinating managers and department heads about the perils of an Obama presidency. The operating assumption in Bentonville seems to be that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress would pass laws such the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize at Wal-Mart, thus hurting the company, its workers, and its shareholders. And while the executives running the meetings were careful not to instruct workers which lever to pull, the upshot was clear. "I am not a stupid person," a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor told the Journal. "They were telling me how to vote."

Wal-Mart denied that it was engaging in partisan politics. But, even so, these meetings are the latest in a series of clumsy political moves. Wal-Mart may be a master of many domains: global supply chains and logistics, local politics and zoning, anti-union warfare and branding. But on the stage of national politics, it has proved to be strikingly inept. Its executives seem to have a cartoonish understanding of the way Washington works, ascribing mythic powers to the nation's continually weakening private sector unions and misunderstanding the linkages between party control in Washington and its impact on the performance of the economy and individual companies.

For starters, Wal-Mart has pursued what would appear to be a self-contradictory political strategy. Clearly, Wal-Mart fears the prospect of unionization more than any other factor. Low wages, low benefits, and a generally supine workforce have been fundamental to its business model for decades. Wal-Mart clearly believes Democrats are more sympathetic to unions than Republicans. So one might think that the company would be doing everything in its power to help Republicans and hurt Democrats. That's certainly what it used to do. In the 2000 campaign cycle, its political action committee devoted 85 percent of its donations to candidates for federal office to Republicans; in 2004, the split was 78 percent to 22 percent. But with Democrats having resumed control of Congress, Wal-Mart has increasingly deployed corporate resources to help Democrats stay in power. So far in this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart has basically split its $884,700 in donations equally between the two parties (52 percent to 48 percent in favor of the Republicans). The list of recipients includes long-standing friends of organized labor such as Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Wal-Mart seems to be trying to help Democrats in retail politics, too. In the fall of 2006, Wal-Mart, seeking to bolster its public image, kicked off a campaign to help its 1.3 million employees—whoops, I mean "associates"—register to vote. The company hasn't published results of this campaign. But given the demographic makeup of Wal-Mart's workforce, any such efforts would seem to help Democrats. As Wal-Mart's 2006 EEOC data shows, 61 percent of employees are women, including 75 percent of sales workers, while 17.5 percent of workers are African-Americans and 11.4 percent are Hispanic. So it has spent money and effort helping to register voters who are quite likely to vote for Democrats.

As it tries to scare managers and workers about the inevitable triumph of unions should the Democrats sweep this fall, Wal-Mart also seriously misreads recent political history. The company behaves as if private-sector unions are juggernauts gaining strength, enjoying enormous support in Washington, and bending the Democratic Party to their will. In reality, private sector unions are very weak and getting weaker. Data from the statistical abstract of the United States show that in 2006, just 8.1 percent of private-sector workers (7.4 million) were covered by unions, down from 9.8 percent in 2000 and 15.9 percent in 1985. Given the massive job reductions in the auto industry, the figures are almost certainly lower now. Yes, big unions such as SEIU and AFL-CIO spend money on (mostly Democratic) campaigns and help get out the (mostly Democratic) vote. But the long-term trend is against unions and has been so under all partisan combinations in Washington. While Washington Republicans are almost uniformly hostile to organized labor, Washington Democrats aren't exactly the second coming of Samuel Gompers. Remember that NAFTA, a piece of legislation that organized labor vociferously opposed, was passed in 1993, when a Democrat was in the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In today's enlarged Democratic tent—with its upscale constituencies on the coasts and newly flipped districts in places like Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas—unions just don't matter as much. (While this shift could explain Wal-Mart's increased willingness to fund Democratic candidates, it strikes me as too subtle a change to register with Wal-Mart's Manichean strategists.)

Finally, consider this. Wal-Mart's brass plainly believes—no, know—that a Republican president would be good for Wal-Mart, while a Democrat would be bad. Despite Clinton's Arkansas roots, most Wal-Mart executives probably opposed Clinton in both his successful campaigns. But during his presidency, Wal-Mart's stock more than tripled. By contrast, Wal-Mart executives polled in 2000 would have been exultant at the prospect of two George W. Bush terms, especially if they were to be coupled with mostly Republican control of the House and Senate. And yet this decade has been a lost one for Wal-Mart shareholders: In the Bush years, the stock hasn't budged at all.

Yes, politics matters. But in the end, the macroeconomic climate matters a lot more. Wal-Mart's success ultimately depends on whether the lower-income and middle-income customers on whom it depends are doing well or getting eaten up by stagnant incomes and rising costs for health care and gas. Here, again, the last two decades offer a pretty good contrast. In the 1990s, when a Democrat was in the White House, the rising economic tide lifted all boats (though not all boats equally), and Wal-Mart benefited. In this decade, the rising tide lifted only the yachts. The Bush years have been something of an economic disaster for people on the lower rungs of the income ladders. Census data show that household income in 2006 was below its 1999 peak and that the uninsured rate has steadily risen throughout the decade. Layer on soaring energy prices in the past couple of years, and you've got trouble. It's not all the fault of Bush or congressional Republicans, of course. But it's pretty clear that the dominant fiscal and economic policies of the past eight years—massive tax cuts for the wealthy, economic royalism, hostility to labor, and neglect on health care—haven't made things better for Wal-Mart customers.

Instead of asking whether a particular candidate or political party will be favorable to Wal-Mart's labor-relations policies, the executives in Bentonville, Ark., should be asking whether the candidate or party will be good for Wal-Mart's customers.

 [back to top]  

Economics professor says Soledad population not enough to support Wal-Mart Supercenter

By CLAUDIA MELÉNDEZ SALINAS ,
Monterey County Herald
August 5th, 2008                                        [back to top]  

Soledad does not have enough population to sustain a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a national expert on the economic impacts of the largest discount retailer in the nation said Monday. Kenneth Stone, professor emeritus of economics at Iowa State University, is touring the Salinas Valley to speak about his research on Wal-Mart and its effects in rural communities. Stone has been studying the retailer since 1988, back when the chain was mostly located in the South and the Midwest, and now is frequently called on to talk about his findings.

He's scheduled to speak at 7 p.m. today at the Soledad YMCA, 560 N. Walker Drive, and Wednesday at the meeting of the Salinas Steinbeck Rotary Club.

Soledad officials are in the process of reviewing a proposed 425,000 square-foot shopping center in the northern edge of town. In addition to the Supercenter, its anchor tenant, the shopping center would have 30 stores.

The proposal has been controversial. According to a survey conducted by Wal-Mart, many residents in the low-income, agricultural community want a Wal-Mart in Soledad. Small and large business owners, meanwhile, are afraid of what the retail giant could do to the town.

Stone said that since Soledad has just 16,000 residents (according to the latest census ), the Supercenter would have to draw shoppers from other towns to sustain itself.

"With Supercenters, a quarter of floor space is dedicated to groceries, and that has a tremendously negative impact on local

grocers," Stone said. The most recent study Stone conducted in California showed that, after a period of increased sales tax in towns where Wal-Mart sets up shop, the sales tax actually goes down, contrary to the presumption that a Supercenter will translate into more revenue.

"Most towns look at the situation with rose-colored glasses, people have to shop and there will be more revenue," Stone said. "But the revenues go down when (Wal-Mart) puts a new store 10 miles down the road."

There's no indication that Wal-Mart would open another store in the Salinas Valley, although officials have indicated they would move their proposal to Greenfield if the Soledad project was not approved. Also, Wal-Mart officials are in discussions with Salinas to either expand their existing store or take over a vacant building.

Soledad residents seem attracted by the idea of a retail giant because they want to save a 30-mile trip to Salinas, where they frequently shop at Wal-Mart and other big stores.

But Stone said the idea of Wal-Mart being cheaper is a myth.

"A lot of it is image," he said. "In recent years, they've been under increased pressure from Wall Street to increase prices. They're not as vigilant of the competition as they used to be."

Developer Bill Shaw, who owns a shopping center at the opposite end of town where the proposed Supercenter would be, has campaigned against the retail giant and co-sponsored Stone's visit to the Salinas Valley.

On Monday, he said it's not the low prices, but the low wages that make a difference.

"If you have 100 employees making $20 an hour and Wal-Mart pays $10 an hour, it's difficult for any store to compete," he said.

 [back to top]  

Rock'n'roll damnation - Wal-Mart style

By Ian Winwood,
The Guardian
August 5th, 2008                 [back to top]  

AC/DC are the latest band to sell their album exclusively in Wal-Mart. Are they helping to sell rock down the river?

Back in 1979, AC/DC managed to shock America's religious right with a song so delicious that no normal person could possibly resist it. Highway To Hell still makes the shortlist for both the world's greatest riff and most irresistible chorus. The album that spawned it displayed "schoolboy" guitarist Angus Young sporting horns and a tail. Not amused, the barmy armies of the Bible Belt burned the LP in the streets.

Twenty-nine years later, AC/DC might actually be on their way to Hell. The group have revealed that their forthcoming album will be available in the US only at branches of Wal-Mart. No independent record shop will carry the CD - in fact, no shop at all will sell it. The only place the thing will be available is at an outlet that is the very enemy of music itself.

If you don't know, Wal-Mart is a chain of stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap megastores, often found on the outskirts of US towns and cities. The company has a litany of employment-right lawsuits stacked against it, and their stores are usually surrounded by high streets, deserted by businesses that could no longer afford to compete with the chain's cheap prices.

You could say that this is just business, but if you do plan to defend Wal-Mart, you need to first wrestle with their music policy. The company refuses to carry any album that features a parental advisory sticker denoting explicit content. The chain will stock "clean" versions of albums, which means either bleeping or fading out "offensive" words. If you find "censorship" to be an offensive word, tough shit luck.

It's disgraceful that a company neck-deep in questionable business practices dares to take a stance on artistic morality. But what's really amazing is that AC/DC should choose to be party to it. They don't need the money - with 22 million copies sold, Back in Black is the fifth best selling album in US chart history - and they don't need the exposure.

That a band who once sang For Those About To Rock (We Salute You) should now sell their fellow artists down the river denotes a very cold day on the highway to hell.

 [back to top]  

The Wal-Mart Dictatorship: Vote McCain or Else?

By Andy Ostroy,
Huffington Post
August 5th, 2008                    [back to top]  

It's got Karl Rove written all over it. It smacks of the lowest form yet of sleazy Republican intimidation tactics to disenfranchise voters and influence the outcome of the November election. And it's got right-wing spinmeisters whipped into a mouth-foaming frenzy. We're talking about the behemoth retailer Wal-Mart's alleged threats against its employees if they vote for the Democratic presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama. It's all about jobs. So is the world's largest retailer really trying to scare the bejesus out of its 1.4 million workers? "Vote for Obama and you could be fired." Is this what it's all coming to?

What apparently has Wal-Mart executives' panties in a snit is the belief that if Obama becomes president it's more likely that its employees will unionize, which is something the notoriously stingy employer fears. Wal-Mart's reputation as a lousy employer is legendary. Charges of low wages, poor benefits and overall workplace mistreatment have plagued the company for years.

At issue now is a bill, co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, that could force the retail giant's hand and serve to appreciably lighten its pocketbook. The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow unions to organize workplaces without secret ballot elections, thus making it much easier to turn companies from non-union to union. Should this happen at Wal-Mart, it would cost the company bazillions, eating into its sizable earnings. Wal-Mart recently reported first quarter 2008 profits of over $3-billion, a 6.9% increase over last year. Our collective hearts bleed for them, huh?

So what exactly is Wal-Mart up to? The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the company has been holding mandatory Chicken Little meetings with store managers and department supervisors warning that the bill would likely pass in an Obama administration and that that would negatively impact its workers. To what degree the warnings were issued is not confirmed, but many Wal-Mart employees anonymously have said that the company's message is quite clear: "a vote for Obama could mean a loss of jobs." And while the company may not have specifically instructed any of its employees -- be they management or rank-and-file -- to vote specifically for McCain, the intention is obvious: "We don't like Obama. We don't like Unions. Obama will unionize us. That will hurt business and result in massive layoffs. We do not want Obama to be president." They don't need to finish this with, "and if you vote for Obama you will lose your job." The perceived threat is already there. Of course, Wal-Mart denies that it's threatened or intimidated its workers.

As expected, right-wing spinheads are rushing to Wal-Mart's defense. On his national Sirius Satellite Radio program Friday, The Wilkow Majority, Andrew Wilkow emphatically and repeatedly asserted that Wal-Mart, or any company for that matter, not only has the right to maintain whatever size workforce it so desires, but that it would be well within their right to warn employees outright that "If you vote for Obama you will be fired."

In an email exchange, I pointed out to Wilkow that not only is his suggestion unconscionable in terms of voter intimidation, but that it was convoluted in its enforceability. How would Wal-Mart know who their employees voted for? And how, therefore, could they fire only those who voted for Obama? It's moronic no matter how you slice it.

Wilkow replied:

"What I said was that a company has the right to inform the workers of the stark reality of the effect the election may have on their business. I wasn't endorsing voter intimidation. A company doesn't have any obligation to maintain a particular number of employees or production output. If a company feels that the political climate is going to add weight or cost to doing business a company is free to cut staff or production. If that is not the case then who is going to force a company to maintain said levels of production and staff or stay in business at all for that matter?"

Nice try, Andy, but the words "If you vote for Obama you will be fired" came out of your mouth, not mine. But let's give Wilkow some credit. Maybe after seeing his outlandish rant thrown back at him, he at least had the smarts to realize how irresponsible it was and he immediately backpedaled. I informed him that while a company indeed has the right to maintain whatever staff levels it so chooses, it does not have the right to attempt to control the outcome of an election by threatening its employees with dismissal if they vote for a specific candidate, which is exactly what he was urging.

This sort of tyrannical ploy is taking sleazy Republican politics to a new low, but it's surely not surprising. Republicans are desperate and scared and, like always, will do or say anything to retain power. And its corporate pals like Wal-Mart seem all too willing to help the cause at the continued expense of the little guy. So, when exactly will the little guy learn and stop voting Republican? Perhaps this is the year we finally see an end to that unexplained phenomenon called "Reagan Democrats".

[back to top]  

Wal-Mart’s Attempt to Kill Employee Choice Backfires

By James Parks,
AFL-CIO NOW BLOG
August 5th, 2008                      [back to top]   

When Wal-Mart tried to squelch the Employee Free Choice Act by requiring its employees to sit through mandatory meetings that stress the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized, it didn’t expect the idea would backfire.

But after the Wall Street Journal broke the story Friday, folks who had never heard of or discussed the Employee Free Choice Act began talking about it and learning why it’s needed. (You can take action now and tell Wal-Mart to stop intimidating its employees. Sign a petition here.)

Check out Keith Olbermann, for example. On his show “Countdown,” he interviews Chris Hayes, Washington editor for Nation magazine (see video). Hayes says:

It’s delicious that they [Wal-Mart] show exactly why the Employee Free Choice Act is so needed. The mechanism of intimidation an employer has over an employee is so powerful that running a union election has become incredibly difficult, almost impossible.

When your employer can have a mandatory meeting and sit you down in a room for hours on end showing anti-union propaganda or telling you who they think you should vote for. And you have to listen to them because you can’t walk out of that room and not get fired. Those are precisely the conditions the Employee Free Choice Act is designed to remedy.

Or Rachel Maddow, who delivered a detailed discussion on why we need the Employee Free Choice Act on her show last Friday on Air America.

Michael Whitney, from American Rights at Work, points out that this kind of intimidation is nothing new for Wal-Mart.

The bill does what its name says: It gives employees a free choice if they want to join a union. For decades, that choice has rested only with employers like Wal-Mart. Guess what their answer usually is?

Unfortunately for Wal-Mart workers, this kind of intimidation is nothing new. It’s actually part and parcel for Wal-Mart’s business plan. When Wal-Mart employees stand up for themselves and try to form a union, they face threats, propaganda, discrimination, intimidation and even firings in retaliation.

American Rights at Work has an action here in which you can ask the Federal Election Commission to investigate Wal-Mart’s electioneering.

Writing at cbsnews.com, Kevin Drum agrees that Wal-Mart’s intimidation is “par for the course.”

Few companies are as rabidly anti-union as Wal-Mart, and there was never any doubt where their sympathies lie on this issue. They have a habit of firing workers who try to organize their stores, closing down stores that vote to organize anyway, and outsourcing entire departments when multiple stores vote to organize.

Even pro-business groups are talking about the Employee Free Choice Act. Investment adviser Peter Cohan says Wal-Mart should rethink its opposition to the bill. Writing on bloggingstocks.com, he says:

It clearly fears the Employee Free Choice Act, which “companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members,” according to the Journal. If [the Employee Free Choice Act] should pass under an Obama administration, would all Wal-Mart stores suddenly become unionized? And if some of them did, would that really be so bad for Wal-Mart’s business? Its workers would then have higher incomes, meaning they could buy more at its stores.

With its latest anti-Obama warnings, Wal-Mart’s executives seem to be at war with its customers. And that’s not good for its business or its shareholders.

And Fox Business.com—yes that Fox—ran a press release from a union group that condemned Wal-Mart’s action and pointed out:

It should be no surprise that Wal-Mart would stretch the limits of the law in an attempt to deny their workers’ rights and kill the Employee Free Choice Act. The company knows what all union workers know: Workers in unions earn 29 percent higher wages on average, are 62 percent more likely to have employer health coverage, and four times more likely to have a pension.

Shame on Wal-Mart. The industry leader’s attempts to skirt the law and use scare tactics to alter the outcome of the election is nothing less than disgraceful.

Wal-Mart’s actions coincide with a broader effort by corporate groups to stop the Employee Free Choice Act. In state after state, deep-pocket front groups, such as the Center for Union Facts and the Employee Freedom Action Committee, are running ads that assail candidates for their support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ensure the freedom of workers to form unions without employer harassment.

 [back to top]  

Wal-Mart and The Election - Demand An Investigation

By Liz Cattaneo,
News Blaze
August 3rd, 2008                   [back to top]  

We couldn't believe the front page of today's Wall Street Journal. Have you seen it?

Wal-Mart has been threatening employees to not vote for pro-worker candidates like Barack Obama in November because they support the Employee Free Choice Act. If passed, the bill would make it easier to form unions in stores like Wal-Mart.

Telling employees how to vote in a U.S. election is not only morally reprehensible, it's potentially illegal.

So we're starting a petition to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking for an investigation into Wal-Mart's electioneering. Can you sign on?

Ask the Federal Election Committee to investigate Wal-Mart's potentially illegal intimidation.

Wal-Mart is stretching the bounds of legality with these outrageous tactics - it's illegal for companies to advocate for political candidates to hourly employees. Here's how one Wal-Mart worker described the meeting:

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Unfortunately for Wal-Mart workers, intimidation is par for the course at the world's largest employer.

Wal-Mart threatens workers who try to form a union, flying in a unionbusting team any time there's a whiff of union activity. Workers at Wal-Mart face threats, propaganda, discrimination, intimidation, and even firings in retaliation for trying to improve their lives and working conditions.

But this is a new low - one that goes to the very core principles of our democracy.

We need to show Wal-Mart - and other anti-union companies - that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Ask the FEC to immediately investigate if Wal-Mart broke any laws.

All of America's workers have the right to freely decide whom to vote for independent of employer pressure and intimidation. And all of America's workers should have ability to form a union free of employer pressure and intimidation.

 [back to top] 

Wal-Mart impacts topic of two talks

By JOSE SAN MATEO
The Salinas Californian
August 2, 2008                            [back to top]  

An economist who for 20 years has been giving speeches about Wal-Mart's impacts on communities will make two presentations next week in Monterey County.

The economist, Kenneth Stone, comes to the Salinas area amid brewing controversy over whether a 215,000-square-foot Super Wal-Mart should be built in Soledad.

Stone, a professor emeritus at Iowa State, will speak at 7 p.m. Monday at the National Steinbeck Center in Salinas and at 7 p.m.Tuesday at the YMCA in Soledad.

He has been featured in numerous documentaries about Wal-Mart's company practices, including the CNBC documentary "The Age of Wal-Mart."

"Selling the same products as Wal-Mart usually means a decrease in sales," Stone said Friday, referring to potential impacts on nearby businesses. "Restaurants and specialty stores are the most likely to succeed if a Wal-Mart is brought into town."

Salinas-based Shaw Development and the California Healthy Community Network, a coalition of grass roots community advocacy groups, paid for Stone's travel expenses, as well as his speaking fee.

Stone said he accepted a modest sum for coming to California. Last month, Wal -Mart said a survey it conducted showed overwhelming support among Soledad residents for bringing a Wal-Mart to the community. Wal-Mart also has said the store would create about 400 jobs and bring tax revenue to the city.

Bill Shaw, owner of Shaw Development, opposes bringing a Super Wal-Mart to town.

Shaw owns the 134,000 square-foot Mission Shopping Center, including a Ralphs supermarket, on the southern end of Soledad. Adjacent to it, he's spearheading development of the Soledad Village Center, which is slated to include a 10-screen movie theater, 84-room hotel, restaurants, shops and office space on a 15-acre property at the southeast corner of Nestle Road and Los Coches Drive.

"I'm not against Wal-Mart - just the size of it," Shaw said Friday.

He said a regular Wal -Mart, which would not include a supermarket, would be more appropriate.

"That way, it would not destroy grocery stores downtown," he said.

The Super Wal-Mart could be included in the Soledad Plaza Center, a shopping center proposed for Front Street and San Vicente Road in the northern part of the city.

The developer, Bob Bikle, owner of Salinas-based CreekBridge, said Shaw is leading a very focused effort to prevent his proposal from succeeding.

Bikle said that he believes the Super Wal-Mart would be a boon to Soledad, providing about $1.2 million in annual tax revenue. He also said he's surprised at the opposition to the proposal.

"It is foreign for us to fight misinformation about the intrinsic values of our project," Bikle said.

 [back to top] 

Man Sues Wal-Mart Over Tainted Peppers

By Ylan Q. Mui,
Washington Post
August 2nd, 2008                    [back to top] 

A Colorado man is suing Wal-Mart and an unnamed supplier, saying that he fell ill after eating jalapeño peppers bought from the company tainted with the same strain of salmonella that has infected more than 1,300 people over the past three months.

Brian Grubbs' wife purchased the peppers at a Wal-Mart store in Cortez, Colo., on June 26, according to the lawsuit. Grubbs eats them raw on sandwiches and said in the suit that within a few days he began experiencing diarrhea, vomiting and nausea, among other symptoms. He also claimed that he was severely dehydrated and could not walk without assistance.

Tests of his stool and the peppers were positive for Salmonella saintpaul, according to the lawsuit. Federal health officials on Wednesday identified jalapeño and serrano peppers from a Mexican farm as the source of the outbreak, which initially was linked to tomatoes.

The suit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Colorado, alleges that Wal-Mart and its supplier were negligent in distributing and selling tainted peppers and liable for the quality of its merchandise, among other claims.

"Hopefully, this lawsuit will send Wal-Mart a bit of a message that they are just as responsible as the farmer in Mexico for providing healthful food," attorney William Marler said.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Davis Moore said the retailer had not yet reviewed the suit and would not comment on Grubbs' claims. She said the company destroyed all Mexico-grown jalapeños following a U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning on July 25.

"Obviously, food safety is very important to us. It's a matter we take very seriously," she said. "We'll take a very close look at it."

[back to top]

Fighting Wal-Mart

By CASSIE MACDUFF,
The Press Enterprise
August 2nd, 2008                              [back to top]

Without a trace of irony, Wal-Mart spokesman John Mendez asked me if there was a small, locally owned coffeehouse in Redlands where we could meet for our interview last week.

That ruled out Starbucks and Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, corporate giants that already killed a small, locally owned coffeehouse downtown.

He wanted a place with unique flavor, where the money spent would support local owners, not a giant corporation.

So we met at Stell on Barton Road, a college hangout where the baristas wear street clothes and their patter is humor-laced.

Stell is to Starbucks what local shops are to Wal-Mart, little fish that must swim ever faster to survive the big shark.

The disappearance of locally owned, uniquely flavored mom-and-pop shops is one of the specters raised by opponents of Wal-Mart Supercenters across the Inland area, including the one proposed for Redlands.

Wal-Mart's reputation for cutthroat business practices is also a target of opponents such as the Redlands Good Neighbor Coalition.

But Wal-Mart is reshaping its image as a corporate good-guy.

Mendez -- a soft-spoken man only a year into his job as Wal-Mart's Southern California flack -- was eager to tell me about its green initiatives.

From shrunken-down business cards, to a fleet of Priuses, to freezer sections where the lights come on only when a customer approaches -- Wal-Mart's focus today is environmental sustainability, Mendez wanted me to know.

The corporate giant is buying produce from local growers, not just to improve its image but to reduce the number of miles the fruits and vegetables have to be trucked, thereby lowering fuel consumption, he said.

Some Wal-Mart stores will be solar-powered, and customers are being urged to switch to compact fluorescent lights.

Wal-Mart also has been a leader of reducing waste by asking suppliers to reduce packaging, for example introducing concentrated liquid laundry detergent, Mendez said; now every manufacturer makes a concentrated version.

Those green initiatives are commendable, but they don't outweigh the damage big-box stores do to the quality of life in towns like Redlands, said John Walsh, chaplain at the University of Redlands, who opposes the superstore.

"Wal-Mart will clearly impact local businesses, many of which are family-owned by people who have contributed to the (area's) quality of life ... for decades," Walsh said.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said small, locally owned businesses coexist with Wal-Marts everywhere, and thrive as long as they carve out unique niches and don't try to compete head-to-head with Wal-Mart.

Coalition member Corla Coles said she worries about the danger to students at the nearby high school under construction in north Redlands, from heavy trucks bringing in goods to the 24-hour superstore.

Mendez said Wal-Marts operate safely near schools across the country.

Wal-Mart will apply soon for permits to build the Redlands superstore. The city has received more than a dozen letters, including a few in favor.

But opponents hope Redlands will reject Wal-Mart's superstore, as Inglewood did, or that Wal-Mart will withdraw, as it did in Highland and Fontana.

[back to top]

Wal-Mart greeters like Dems: Obama, McCaskill, Waxman

By Dan Morain,
Los Angeles Times
August 2nd, 2008                      [back to top]

Evidently, some Wal-Mart employees didn’t get the word about the McCain-TBA ticket.

They’re still giving their cash to Democrats, even though, as the Wall Street Journal disclosed, the retailing behemoth from Bentonville, Ark., is trying to persuade its store managers and department supervisors to vote Republican.

The low-price leader has waged running battles with unions, and fears that a Democratic administration and Congress could impose laws opening the way for the greeters, clerks and others at the global empire Sam Walton built to organize unions. Of course, official Wal-Mart spokespeople deny any such push.

But a cursory review of donations at the Federal Election Commission shows that Wal-Mart and its employees show a significant amount going to Democratic candidates and political action committees.

Donors identifying their employer as Wal-Mart gave $33,877 to Democratic candidates -- including $7,337 to Barack Obama. They gave $55,761 to Republicans, including $7,250 to John McCain.

The company clearly is playing both sides, unlike in the past. Data compiled by Congressional Quarterly show that Wal-Mart’s political action committee gave 52% of its money, or $460,500, to Republicans and 48%, or $425,200, to Democrats in 2007-2008 election cycle.

A decade ago, more than 90% of its money went to Republicans.

Prominent recipients include some mentioned as Obama’s potential running mates: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Evan Bayh, and, of course, former Wal-Mart board member Hillary Clinton.

California’s Democratic congressional caucus also collects Wal-Mart bucks: Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, Laura Richardon, Loretta Sanchez, Ellen Tauscher, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Thompson and Dennis Cardoza.

[back to top]

Wal-Mart mobilizes against Democrats

By Purwa Naveen Raman ,
Reuters
August 1st, 2008                                   [back to top]

(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is mobilizing U.S. store managers to lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said.

About a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives stressed employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and might have to go on strike without compensation, and warned that unionization could force the company to cut jobs as labor costs rise, the Journal reported.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who have run the meetings didn't tell those attending how to vote in the November elections, but made it clear that voting for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, would be tantamount to inviting unions in, the Journals said.

Wal-Mart could not be reached immediately for a comment.

  [back to top]

Wal-Mart denies that it told employees how to vote

By CHUCK BARTELS
AND ANNE D'INNOCENZIO
Associated Press
08.01.08                                    [back to top]

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

A report in The Wall Street Journal said the Bentonville, Ark.-based discounter - which has rigorously resisted being unionized - had held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors in recent weeks to warn that if Democrats take power in November, they would likely push through the bill, which the company says would hurt workers.

Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company's stand on the legislation is no secret.

"We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it," he said.

But he said the company wasn't advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression... they are wrong and acting without approval," said Tovar. In fact, he said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats.

"Half of our (political action committee) contributions are to members of each party," Tovar said. "We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that."

The Wall Street Journal cited about a dozen unidentified Wal-Mart employees who had attended such meetings in seven states as saying they were told that employees at unionized shops would have to pay big union dues while not receiving any benefits in return.

Furthermore, workers said they were told that unionization would mean job losses as costs rise, according to the report. The report said the Wal-Mart human resource managers who held the meetings didn't specifically tell the employees how to vote, but made it clear that a Obama victory would mean unionization.

Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that has criticized the company for what it calls skimpy pay and benefits and poor treatment of its workers, said in a statement that the article "demonstrates once again that Wal-Mart intimidates its workers." The group, which supplied some of the sources to The Wall Street Journal, said the stories cited in the article are "consistent" with numerous reports it has received in the past week.

The development deals a blow to Wal-Mart's reputation just as the company has started seeing its image improve and criticism diminish as it works to improve benefits and push through its "Save money, live better" campaign.

In a session with reporters after the company's annual shareholders meeting in June, Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott said Wal-Mart was comfortable working with either presidential candidate. In the past, Wal-Mart had lined up with the Republicans. But the company's message of environmental sustainability, its program to offer $4 prescription drugs and improved benefits for workers helped move the company to the political center.

"We stand ready to work with the new Congress and whoever is elected (president)," Tovar said Friday.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win

By ANN ZIMMERMAN
and KRIS MAHER,
The Wall Street Journal
August 1st, 2008                                     [back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," said David Tovar, Wal-Mart spokesman. Mr. Tovar acknowledged that the meetings were taking place for store managers and supervisors nationwide.

Wal-Mart's worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Mr. Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."

Other companies and groups are also making a case against the legislation to workers. Laundry company Cintas Corp., which has been fighting a multiyear organizing campaign by Unite Here, relaunched a Web site July 14 called CintasVotes. The site instructs visitors to take action by telling members of Congress to oppose the legislation.

"We feel it's important that our employee partners fully understand the implications that the Employee Free Choice Act could have on their work environment and benefits," said Heather Trainer, a Cintas spokeswoman.

Business-backed organizations are also running ads aimed at building opposition to the bill, including the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which counts several hundred industry associations as members. Another group, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, is run by former tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman. The groups, which aren't affiliated with each other, say they have a total of $50 million in funding. Neither will disclose which companies or individuals have provided funding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart's labor-relations meetings are led by human-resources managers who received training from Wal-Mart on the implications of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fine Legal Line

Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers.

However, employers have fairly broad leeway to disseminate information about candidates' voting records and positions on issues, according to Jan Baran, a Washington attorney and expert on election law.

Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support.

Employers argue that the card system could lead to workers being pressured to sign by pro-union colleagues and organizers. Unions counter that it shields workers from pressure from their employers.

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.

"We've always maintained the termination was not related to the union and that there was nothing unlawful about an answer provided an associate about merit pay," said Mr. Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman. "Following the decision, we were considering offering reinstatement, but that is on hold, since the [union] appealed the decision."

Unions consider the Employee Free Choice Act as vital to the survival of the labor movement, which currently represents 7.5% of private-sector workers, half the percentage it did 25 years ago. The Service Employees International Union said the legislation would enable it to organize a million workers a year, up from its current pace of 100,000 workers a year.

The Underdogs

The business-backed lobbying groups are running ads in states where a win by a Democratic Senate candidate would boost support for the legislation in the Senate, saying the loss of secret ballots exposes workers to bullying labor bosses. In one, they use an actor from the "Sopranos" TV series about mob life to hammer home their point.

Business groups say they're the underdogs since they will be outspent by unions by a wide margin. Labor has pledged to spend $300 million on the election and securing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, compared with under $100 million by business groups, according to Steven Law, chief legal officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's strategy is to focus on the Senate, where labor needs eight more supporters of the legislation to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"This is a David-and-Goliath confrontation, but we believe we'll have enough stones in the sling to knock this out," said Mr. Law.

Wal-Mart is a powerful ally. Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union activity was building. The United Food and Commercial Workers was successful in organizing only one group of Wal-Mart workers -- a small number of butchers in East Texas in early 2000. Several weeks later, the company phased out butchers in all of its stores and began stocking prepackaged meat. When a store in Canada voted to unionize several years ago, the company closed the store, saying it had been unprofitable for years.

Labor has fought back with a campaign to portray Wal-Mart as treating its workers poorly. The UFCW helped employees file a series of complaints about the company's overtime, health-care and other policies with the National Labor Relations Board. Dozens of class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of workers, many of which are still winding their way through the courts.

Wal-Mart has been trying to burnish its reputation by improving its worker benefits and touting its commitment to the environment. On the political front, it's hedging its bets, spreading its financial contributions on both sides of the political divide.

Twelve years ago, 98% of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now, as the Democrats seem poised to gain control in Washington, 48% of its $2.2 million in political contributions go to Democrats and 52% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political giving.

 [back to top]

Wal-Mart warning managers of labor bill

By Nicole Maestri,
Reuters
August 1st, 2008                            [back to top]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Friday it has held meetings with U.S. store managers warning them of issues that could arise if Democrats win power and pass a law that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but stressed it was not telling workers how to vote.

Wal-Mart opposes proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize by signing a card rather than holding a vote.

"We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."

The Wall Street Journal reported that about a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives told them employees would be required to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and warned that unionization could force Wal-Mart to cut jobs as labor costs rise.

The Journal report said Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings do not specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's presidential election, but they make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," Tovar said.

Wal-Mart, which does not have a unionized U.S. workforce, has been the target of union-backed groups that criticize the retailer for everything from its pay practices to its health care benefits.

[back to top]

BATTLEGROUND ISSUES: WAL-MART POLITICS

By Mark Murray,
MSNBC First Read
August 1st, 2008                          [back to top]

UNIONS: Wow, the Wal-Mart story in the Wall Street Journal today is going to get the unions all fired up. Wow... this should be one LONG press release day for those who have labor union press shops regularly sending them releases. “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart."

“In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized. According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.”

[back to top]

Wal-Mart (WMT): If Obama Wins, We're Screwed

By Corey Lorinsky,
Clusterstock
August 1st, 2008                             [back to top]

Wal-Mart (WMT), the recession's countercyclical darling, is wading into controversial territory. According to the Wall Street Journal, WMT is not so subtly warning its store managers and department supervisors that an Obama win in November is bad news for all parties involved. Specifically, the retailing behemoth is worried that a Democratic win means more unions.

The piece of Democratically supported but stalled legislation that WMT specifically is shaking in their boots about is called the Employee Free Choice Act. The EFCA would allow a union to form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card (over an extended period of time) saying they want to join. Currently unions have one shot to form with a secret ballot vote.

WMT is not new to labor controversy, but as the nation's largest private employer, it is walking into a minefield. WMT can advocate specific political candidates/positions to salaried employees, but not to hourly wage earners. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are not.

But one thing's clear, WMT isn't betting on actually bullying through a McCain win. In 1996, 98% of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now 48% of its over $2 million in political contributions go to Democrats.

[back to top]

VIDEOS

[back to top]

Fighting Wal-Martization 25min. (2005)

A new video by The Labor Video Project 25 min. (2005)

Wal-Mart is now the largest private employer in the United States and has the same impact that General Motors had nearly 50 years ago. This 26-minute video shows why working people and trade unionists are fighting back and what Wal-Mart has in store for the communities it is seeking to build stores in. "Fighting Wal-Martization" is a hard hitting documentary that looks at how the constant price cutting not only drives local small businesses out of the community but how this ends up driving down the living conditions of the very people who shop at Wal-Mart. The video also looks at the healthcare crisis and how Wal-Mart increases its profits by sending it¹s employees to public hospitals to get treatment thereby shifting costs back onto the taxpayer. This video can be used at union meetings, community meetings and on cable TV to get the message out about the Wal-Martization of America and what it means to every working person.

Please mail your check of $20.00 and order form to

Labor Video Project
P. O. Box 720027,
San Francisco, CA 94172

For more info: lvpsf@labornet.org, (415) 282-1908

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices (www.walmartmovie.com)

Independent America: The Two Lane Search for Mom & Pop (www.independentamerica.net)

Big Box Mart (www.jibjab.com)

Garth Brooks Parody (www.walmartworkersrights.org)

"Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" Frontline, PBS Video, (www.pbs.org)
 

[back to top]

BOOKS

[back to top]

NON-FICTION

The Case Against Wal-Mart By Al Norman Raphel Marketing ruth@raphael.com

Wal-Mart: The Face Of Twenty-First Century Capitalism Edited By Nelson Lichtenstein The New Press www.thenewpress.com

The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care and Retirement By Jacob S. Hacker Oxford University Press www.oup.com

War On The Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back By Lou Dobbs Viking, a member of Penguin Group www.penguin.com

Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age By Allison H. Fine Jossey-Bass www.joseybass.com

Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses, By Stacy Mitchell, www.beacon.org www.newrules.org

Wal-Mart: The Face Of the Twenty-First-Century Capitalism, Edited by Nelson Lichtenstein, Published by The New Press www.thenewpress.com

 The Bully Of Bentonville - How the high cost of Wal-Mart's Everyday Low Prices is Hurting America, By Anthony Bianco, Published by Doubleday
Email: specialmarkets@randomhouse.com

 How Wal-Mart is Destroying America (and the world), By Bill Quinn, Published By Ten Speed Press, Box 7123, Berkeley, CA 94707, www.tenspeed.com (pp. 163)

Slam Dunking Wal-Mart, By Al Norman, Published By Raphel Marketing, 12 S. Virginia Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08410, www.sprawl-busters.com (pp. 237)

The Great American JobsScam, By Greg LeRoy, Published By Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94104-2916, www.bkconnection.com (pp. 257)

Nickel and Dimed, By Barbara Ehrenreich, Published By Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 115 West 18^th Street, New York, NY 10011, www.henryholt.com (pp.221)

United States of Wal-Mart, By John Dicker, Published By Jeremy P. Tarcher (Penguin Group usa), www.us.penguingroup.com (pp.257)

The Wal-Mart Effect, By Charles Fishman www.penguin.com

Megamall On The Hudson, By David Porter and Chester L. Mirsky www.trafford.com

FICTION

Death By Discount, By Mary Vermillion, Published By Alyson Publications, P.O. Box 4371, Los Angeles, CA 90078-4371, www.maryvermillion.com (pp. 275)