|
Wal-Mart Adds Checkup To
Checkout
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.
[back to top]
900,000 bassinets targeted
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
David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch
[back to top]
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.
[back to top]
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]
[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 18th 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)
[back to top |