«AGAINST«THE«WAL«
       Click here for the Northern California Big Box Studies

                Last Updated:  Thursday, May 27, 2010

Home
Nov 09
Oct 09
Sep 09
Aug 09
Jul 09
Jun 09
May 09
Apr 09
Mar 09
Feb 09
Jan 09
Dec 08
Nov 08
Oct 08
Sep 08
Aug 08
Jul 08
Jun 08
May 08
Apr 08
Mar 08
Feb 08
Jan 08
Dec 07
Nov 07
Oct 07
Sep 07
Aug 07
Jul 07
Jun 07
May 07
Apr 07
Mar 07
Feb 07
Jan 07
Dec 06
Nov 06
Oct 06
Sep 06
Aug 06
Jul 06
Jun 06
May 06
Apr 06
Mar 06
Jan 06-Mar 06
Oct 05-Dec 05
Jul 05-Sep 05
Apr 05-Jun 05
Jan 05-Mar 05
Oct 04-Dec 04
Jul 04-Sep 04
Apr 04-Jun 04
Jan 04-Mar 04
Oct 03-Dec 03
Jul 03-Sep 03
ARCHIVES
Reality Check
Two Tierd Morality
Studies

«
LINKS



walmart subsidy watch.org

WALMART ALERT


Wal-Mart's Healthcare Cost To Taxpayers By State


wakeupwalmart.com

 
walmartwatch.com

sprawl-busters.com

walmartworkersrights.org

warnwalmart.org

walmartwork.org

walmartsurvivors.com

indiafdiwatch.org

lawmall.com/wal-mart

livingeconomies.org

amiba.net

newrules.org

«
VIDEOS


Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices

(walmartmovie.com)

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

Big Box Mart
(jibjab.com

Garth Brooks Parody (walmartworkersrights.org)

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

The Labor Video Project Fighting Wal-Martization

«
BOOKS

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 
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
by Doubleday  specialmarkets@randomhouse.com

How Wal-Mart Is Destroying America (and the World),
By Bill Quinn,
www.tenspeed.com

The United States of
Wal-Mart,
By John Dicker,
www.penguin.com

 Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart,
By Al Norman,
www.sprawl-busters.com

Nickel and Dimed,
By Barbara Ehrenreich, 
www.henryholt.com

Death By Discount,
By Mary Vermillion, 
www.maryvermillion.com

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

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

«
STUDIES

Big Box Backlash
«
Alachua County Commission
«
Trip Generation Characteristics of Free-Standing Discount Supercenters
«
Shameless: How
Wal-Mart Bullies Its Way Into Communities Across America Study

«
What Do We Know About Wal-Mart? 
«
The Wal-Mart Game
«
The Shils Report
«
PBS Frontline Report
Is WalMart Good For America?

«
Bakersfield Ruling
«
Bakersfield Report
«
momandpopnyc.com
momandpopnyc.blogspot
«
UC Berkeley Labor Center
The Hidden Cost of WalMart Jobs

«
Northern California Big Box Studies 
«
Radio Broadcast
Past Radio Shows
«
The EEOC will hold the companies like Wal-Mart accountable for violating
the Americans With Disability Act. 

read more

«
BIG BOX
SITE FIGHTS

List Your Site Fight
send us your Link at
against_the_wal@yahoo.com
 

Vallejo
, CA
Suisun, CA
Antioch, CA
Hercules, CA
Merced, CA
Livermore, CA
Red Bluff, CA
Chelan, WA

«
Contact Us
against_the_wal@yahoo.co

 

Search for:

«JANUARY 2006 - MARCH 2006 ARTICLES

 Article Date Published Newsource
Wal-Mart critics put workers in spotlight over health care Feb 28, 2006 MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
Plans for Super Wal-Mart approved Feb 28, 2006 Fayetteville Observer
Hannaford to federal judge block Wal-Mart Supercenter Feb 27, 2006 Watertown Daily Times
Wal-Mart is at a turning point Feb 27, 2006 Business Report
Wal-Mart Urges States Not Pass Higher Health Costs Law Feb 27, 2006 Dow Jones Newswires
Ex-UN Amabssador Andrew Young To Head Pro-Wal-Mart Group Feb 27, 2006 Associated Press
Brinker Executive Simon Hired By Wal-Mart; Co. Won't Say Why Feb 27, 2006 By Richard Gibson,
Dow Jones Newswires
Andrew Young goes to bat for Wal-Mart Feb 27, 2006 By Maria Saporta
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wal-Mart tries to head off critics on benefits Feb 27, 2006 By Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
Wal-Mart CEO to governors: Help make health care better Feb 27, 2006 The Associated Press
A look inside the Wal-Mart business model Feb 26, 2006 By Cecil Johnson
Knight-Ridder
SunTrust to open branches in local Wal-Mart stores Feb 24, 2006 by Jim Freer
South Florida Business Journal
Mangieri won't shop at Wal-Mart Feb 24, 2006 By Molly Parker
Copley News Service
Wal-Mart to Offer Improved Health-Care Benefits Feb 24, 2006 By Kris Hudson
The Wall Street Journal
FDIC to mull Wal-Mart Bank application Feb 24, 2006 by Jim Freer
So Florida Business Journal
Wal-Mart unveils plans to expand health benefits Feb 24, 2006 By Kristi Arellano
and Tom McGhee
The Denver Post
Wal-Mart bank plan set for federal hearing Feb 24, 2006 by Josh Drobnyk
Baltimore Business Journal
Wal-Mart Says It Will Improve Health Benefits Feb 24, 2006 By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post
Wal-Mart at Turning Point As It Tries New Ways to Keep Growing Feb 24, 2006 By MARCUS KABEL
The Associated Press  
Update 2: Wal-Mart to Offer Improved Health Benefits Feb 23, 2006 By Marcus Kabel
Forbes.com
Associated Press
Big Box Brawl: How mild-mannered Nashuans battled Wal-Mart and won Feb 23, 2006 By John “JaQ” Andrews
HippoPress (NH)
Shocking Report Estimates Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis Cost Taxpayers Nearly $1.4B in 2005; Projects Cost of $9.1B Over Next 5 Years Feb 23, 2006 US Newswire
 
Wis. Court Denies Status to Wal-Mart Suit Feb 23, 2006

leadingthecharge.com

Wetland mysteriously filled in: 7.8-acre site is proposed home for new Wal-Mart Feb 22, 2006 Spokesman-Review
Publix tops shopper survey, again Feb 22, 2006 Florida Times-Union
Wal-Mart: 15 Countries and Counting Feb 22, 2006 by John Yunker
Wal-Mart developer appealing building permit Feb 22, 2006 New York Times
Wal-Mart outlook cautious Feb 22, 2006 By Marcus Kabel
Associated Press
Wal-Mart plans face-lift to revive business in U.S. Feb 22, 2006 By Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
Wal-Mart's results miss expectations Feb 22, 2006 Nick Gibbens
Wal-mart profit rises, but outlook dismays Feb 22, 2006 By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Bloomberg News
On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough Feb 17, 2006 By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO
The New York Times
Wal-Mart to anchor $80M shopping center in Bradley Feb 17, 2006 By H. Lee Murphy
Wal-Mart Positioned For New Round Of Growth Feb 17, 2006 Tom Van Riper
Wal-Mart CEO shoots back Feb 17, 2006 CNNMoney.com
Wal-Mart's Japan unit sees 5th year in loss in 2006 Feb 17, 2006 Reuters
Gregoire pledges to pass a "Wal-Mart bill" next year Feb 16, 2006 By Curt Woodward
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Democrat demands Wal-Mart pay fair share of health-care costs Feb 16, 2006 By R.A. Dillon
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Bottlers Sue Coca-Cola At issue: Wal-Mart Powerade delivery plans Feb 16, 2006 CSP Daily News
Wal-Mart sweetener sours Splenda Feb 16, 2006 Reuters
Debate over ‘Wal-Mart law’ hits Colorado Feb 15, 2006 By Charles Ashby
Pueblo Chieftain
House panel approves health insurance bill aimed at Wal-Mart Feb 15, 2006 By John Stamper
Lexington Herald-Leader
Bernanke expresses concern on industrial banks Feb 15, 2006 Reuters
NOW Urges Wal-Mart to Expand Emergency Contraception Access to Stores in all States Feb 15, 2006 NOW
Wal-Mart must stock emergency contraception Feb 14, 2006 Associated Press
Pro-Abortion Group 'Delighted' Wal-Mart Must Stock 'Morning-After' Pill Feb 14, 2006 By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com
States must follow Maryland's lead on Wal-Mart health benefits Feb 12, 2006 The Free-Lance Star
Wal-Mart and Li ka-Shing seen key to Mexico port expansion Feb 12, 2006 By Nick Carey
Critical documentary on Wal-Mart Feb 12, 2006 by JWSmythe
Asda found guilty of trying to blackball union employees Feb 12, 2006 By : Amy Watts 
A Wal-Mart Grows in Wyoming Feb 11, 2006 by: Chris Steins
Campus Progress via Alternet
Critical documentary on Wal-Mart stirs Berlin fest Feb 11, 2006 By Erik Kirschbaum
Wal-Mart, Realtors trying to revive new store at 53rd and Meridian Feb 10, 2006 Bill Wilson
Wichita Business Journal
Wal-Mart and Monsanto on Indo-U.S. Agriculture Initiative board Feb 10, 2006 By Gargi Parsai
City looks into land owned by Wal-Mart Feb 9, 2006 By Tom Lochner
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Residents voice Wal-Mart concerns Feb 9, 2006 By Tom Lochner
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Wal-Mart's Ambitions in India Feb 9, 2006 By Isabelle Sender
Market Views
Migden proposes `Wal-Mart' bill Feb 9, 2006 The San Jose Mercury News
Wal-Mart workers' healthcare Feb 9, 2006 By Fred Frost
The Miami-Herald (FL)
Wal-Mart, others file lawsuit against 'fair share healthcare' law Feb 8, 2006 Mike Burns
Earthtimes.org
Group Files Challenge to Wal-Mart Law Feb 8, 2006 By KRISTEN WYATT
The Associated Press
Sen. Clinton urges caution on Wal-Mart bank bid Feb 8, 2006 By Kristin Roberts
Health-Care Law Aimed at Wal-Mart Challenged in Court Feb 8, 2006 By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com
Report says Wal-Mart, others cost state millions Feb 7, 2006 By CURT WOODWARD
Associated Press
N.J. wants large employers to spend more on health care Feb 7, 2006 By Jonathan Tamari
Courier-Post (NJ)
Wal-Mart to open about 1,500 new stores Feb 7, 2006 By MARCUS KABEL
AP Business
Retail group files challenge to Wal-Mart law Feb 7, 2006 English Business News
Wal-Mart aims to corner neighborhood market Feb 6, 2006 Mark Chediak
Orlando Sentinel
Wal-Mart agrees to become tenant at Livonia redevelopment Feb 6, 2006 By Brent Snavely
Crain Communications, Inc.
Wal-Mart threatens to halt DC plans Feb 6, 2006 DCVelocity
Utahns foot insurance bill Feb 5, 2006 By Kirsten Stewart
The Salt Lake Tribune
Darwinism, Wal-Mart-style Feb 5, 2006 PETER PRUYN
Banking Wal-Mart, Texas bank roll into area Feb 3, 2006 Josh Drobnyk
Washington Business Journal
Wal-Mart pulls out of Hercules project Feb 3, 2006 East Bay Business Times
Wal-Mart should pay fair share of health benefit costs Feb 3, 2006 By Mike Murphy
The Olympian
Wal-Mart urged to stock day-after pill Feb 3, 2006 By Marcus Kabel
San Diego Union-Tribune
The Wal-Mart Effect' from Charles Fishman Feb 3, 2006 The Motley Fool
NPR
Wal-Mart succumbs to opposition Feb 3, 2006 By Tom Lochner
Contra Costa Times
Hillary Clinton Returns Wal-Mart Cash Feb 3, 2006 By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
Migden bill raises health care ante for biggest state firms Requires 8% payout for worker benefits, or Medi-Cal funding Feb 2, 2006 Greg Lucas,
SF Chronicle

NOW and Allies Support Lawsuit Calling for Emergency Contraception Access at Wal-Mart

Feb 2, 2006 National Organization for Women
WAL-MART WATCH Feb 2, 2006 by Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc
Wal-Mart Applies to Open India Office Feb 2, 2006 By CHUCK BARTELS
The Associated Press
Hesperia readies for Wal-Mart Supercenter Feb 2, 2006 Daily Press (Victorville, CA)
Next round begins in battle between Wal-Mart, its foes Feb 2, 2006 Statesman Journal
Wal-Mart managers mingle in KC while workers shop for stuff they can't afford. Feb 2, 2006 By Eric Barton 
The Pitch
State should force Wal-Mart to play fair Feb 1, 2006 Mark Fernald
Concord Monitor
Wal-Mart: Always Low, Always Feb 1, 2006 by: Admin
Infoshop.org
Wal-Mart chief faces jail for fiddling expenses Feb 1, 2006 By James Doran
The Times
Wal-Mart battles rage: Pullman, Hillyard, South Hill all on the front line Feb 1, 2006 Spokesman-Review
Suit aims to force Wal-Mart to sell pill Morning-after drug falls under Mass. law, women say Feb 1, 2006 By Bruce Mohl,
Globe
Women sue Wal-Mart over access to emergency contraception Feb 1, 2006 Associated Press
First Albuquerque Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market opens Jan 31, 2006 New Mexico Business Weekly
Wal-Mart Pearl City open for business Jan 31, 2006 Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
Wal-Mart has Texas bank waltzing across the region Jan 30, 2006 Charlotte Business Journal
Wal-Mart set to tear down Eastwood Jan 30, 2006 Kaija Wilkinson
Birmingham Business Journal
A fresh look at Wal-Mart's power Jan 29, 2006 By Russ Juskalian
USA TODAY
Containment Update Jan 29, 2006 www.quarantinewalmart.com
Wal Mart Quarantined Jan 29, 2006 Andrew Ginsberg
Newsgroups: acorn.campaign
Damariscotta Group Kicks Off Anti-Walmart Campaign Jan 28, 2006 Portland wcsh6.com
Ex-Wal-Mart exec to plead guilty to fraud Jan 28, 2006 Reuters

Worker lawsuits stack up at Wal-Mart

Jan 27, 2006 Mark Chediak
Orlando Sentinel
Wal-Mart flexes muscles in Alberta Jan 27, 2006 CBC.CA News
You won't find a new Wal-Mart Supercenter any time soon within the confines of the city of Tucson. Jan 27, 2006 Richard Ducote
Arizona Daily Star
600 jam Wal-Mart traffic session: South Hill neighbors oppose store Jan 27, 2006 Spokesman-Review
Wal-Mart turns to suburb after Chicago rejection Jan 26, 2006 By DON BABWIN
Associated Press
More than 3,100 Wal-Mart workers got state health aid Jan 26, 2006 By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times Olympia bureau
A Burden Wal-Mart Can Afford Jan 26, 2006 The Washington Post Compan
Wal-Mart bank bid faces hurdles as worries voiced Jan 26, 2006 By Kristin Roberts
Reuters
Greenspan Wants Banking Exemption Halted Jan 26, 2006 By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
Greenspan Urges Industrial Bank Exemption Review Jan 26, 2006 Reuters
Prince Charles is brilliantly placed to advise the boss of Wal-Mart - after all, they have so much in common Jan 26, 2006 Catherine Bennett
Guardian
Wal-Mart to Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit Jan 25, 2006 By MARCUS KABEL
The Associated Press
Parents Say Wal-Mart Sold Faulty Bikes Jan 25, 2006 CBS 
Right Reality: Wal-Mart's Spin Cycle Jan 25, 2006 by David Batstone
Reports show high Wal-Mart use of state-subsidized health plans Jan 24, 2006 The Associated Press.
Over 3,100 Wal-Mart Workers Got State Health Aid Jan 24, 2006 By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times
New Wal-Mart Supercenter set to open doors Jan 24, 2006 Daily News (Los Angeles) 
Wal-Mart goes after disabled ex-worker's settlement  Jan 23, 2006 By Robert Patrick
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Bill in Works To Force Wal-Mart To Give Employees Health Benefits Jan 23, 2006 By Jill Gardiner
The New York Sun
Pay up! Jan 23, 2006 Asbury Park Press (NJ)
Wal-Mart Deal Rankles Jan 23, 2006 By Chris Barge
Rocky Mountain News (CO)
Court Rules in Wal-Mart Unionizing Case Jan 20, 2006 Stephen Taub,
CFO News
FDIC To Wait On Full Board, Hearing For Wal-Mart Bank Vote Jan 20, 2006 By Campion Walsh,
Dow Jones Newswires
Planning board votes 4-3 against Wal-Mart proposal Jan 20, 2006 By Tom West
The Nashua Telegraph
WalMart takes some hits Jan 20, 2006 eRobin
phillyburbs
Maryland Passes "Wal-Mart Health Bill" Jan 20, 2006 CFO
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price Jan 20, 2006 by: Cheryl Erber
Wal-Mart Warned on Health Care Jan 19, 2006 By Karen Lincoln Michel
Green Bay Press-Gazette
Court: Case Against Wal-Mart Can Proceed Jan 19, 2006 By MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
HoustonChronicle.com
Good Riddance: Wal-Mart - Labor Dept. Sweetheart Deal Lapses Jan 19, 2006 by Jordan
PERMALINK 
Inspection Pact Ends for Wal-Mart Stores Jan 19, 2006 By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Wal-Mart considers South Hill supercenter Jan 19, 2006 Spokesman-Review
Wal-Mart Supercenter to open Jan. 27 Jan 19, 2006 Ramsey Campbell
Orlando Sentinel
Trailing in "race" with Wal-Mart Jan 19, 2006 By Danny Westneat
The Seattle Times
Wal-Mart Says 'Smile More' Jan 18, 2006 By Sandra O'Loughlin
Brandweek
Wal-Mart's move into India appears closer Jan 18, 2006 Wall Street Journal
JULIE ROEHM LEAVES CHRYSLER TO JOIN WAL-MART Jan 18, 2006 Jean Halliday
AdAge.com
Teaming Up for Reform Jan 18, 2006 Editorial
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Wal-Mart Cancels Northridge Store Plans Jan 17, 2006 By David Lott
Los Angeles Business Journal
Maryland Puts a Premium on Employer-Paid Healthcare Jan 17, 2006 By Ronald Brownstein
Los Angeles Times
Workers cheer bill requiring Wal-Mart to pay more for employee health care Jan 14, 2006 Baltimore Sun
Wal-Mart Prompts Concerns Jan 13, 2006 By Lachlan Labere
Salmon Arm Observer (BC)
Local Dems Rally Against Wal-Mart Jan 13, 2006 By Jen Marckini
Central Michigan Life
Criticism greets Wal-Mart proposal Jan 13, 2006 By Janell Ross
News Observer (NC)
Wal-Mart Dealt Legal Setbacks on U.S. Workers' Rights Jan 13, 2006 Bloomberg
Maryland measure kicks off care fight; `Fair share' law aims at Wal-Mart coverage Jan 13, 2006 By Barbara Rose
Chicago Tribune
Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law Jan 13, 2006 By TOM STUCKEY
Associated Press
Maryland OKs Wal-Mart health care bill Jan 13, 2006 Reuters
Even Without a Union, Florida Wal-Mart Workers Use Collective Action to Enforce Rights Jan 13, 2006 by Nick Robinson
Maryland Sets a Health Cost for Wal-Mart Jan 13, 2006 By MICHAEL BARBARO
Walmart Faces Another Lawsuit Jan 12, 2006 WorldNow
Walmart Coming To Upper Yoder? Jan 12, 2006 WJACTV.com
Volusia may sue Putnam over Wal-Mart Jan 12, 2006 By MARCIA LANE
St. Augustine Record (FL)
Aide: Ehrlich misspoke when he denied Wal-Mart fundraiser Jan 12, 2006 By TOM STUCKEY
Associated Press
Judge: Wal-Mart workers can sue over hours Jan 12, 2006 By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated Press
For One Clerk, Fight for Wal-Mart Bill Is Personal Jan 12, 2006 By Mary Otto
Washington Post
Despite signs of 'super' unrest, Wal-Mart committed to project Jan 12, 2006 By CHRIS G. DENINA,
Times-Herald
Not a done deal Jan 11, 2006 By CHRIS G. DENINA,
Times-Herald
Wal-Mart makes its move Jan 11, 2006 By CHRIS G. DENINA,
Times-Herald
Wal-Mart benefits furor is spreading across U.S. Jan 10, 2006 By Bill Lambrecht
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
fair share for health care Jan 9, 2006 Paul Blank
WakeUpWalMart.com
Was Wal-Mart's Anti-Union Image Used as a Shield? Jan 9, 2006 By MICHAEL BARBARO
 
Wal-Mart Sees How Fast Bad Press Spreads Online Jan 8, 2006 By Frank Ahrens
Former Wal-Mart Executive to Admit Fraud Jan 7, 2006 By Amy Joyce
and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post
Wal-Mart ends automated movie suggestions Jan 6, 2006 By Marcus Kabel
Associated Press
Unions seek to spread cost of health care Jan 6, 2006 Chicago Tribune (KRT)
Make Wal-Mart Pay a Fair Share for Health Care Jan 6, 2006 Jeremy Bird
Wake-Up Wal-Mart Campaign
Wal-Mart Web Site Makes Racial Connections Jan 6, 2006 By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post
HERCULES Wal-Mart not good fit, study says Jan 6, 2006 Patrick Hoge,
SF Chronicle
Wal-Mart in Their Sights, States Press for Health Benefits Jan 5, 2006 By MICHAEL BARBARO
The New York Times
Wal-Mart sees Q4 profit at low end of forecast Jan 5, 2006 Reuters
Wal-Mart eying Hesperia, Calif. Jan 4, 2006 San Bernardino County Sun
Wal-Mart's December Sales Barely Meet Expectations Jan 3, 2006 Yvonne Lee
All Headline News
Wal-Mart has worst holiday sales in 5 years Jan 2, 2006 Seattle Post Intelligencer
Wal-Mart critics put workers in spotlight over health care

MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
Tue, Feb. 28, 2006                
[back to top]

One of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s most vociferous critics launched a campaign Tuesday with 17 current and former Wal-Mart workers speaking out against health insurance coverage they claim is too expensive, leaving them uninsured or on taxpayer funded programs.

News conferences by the workers in eight states Tuesday and four more scheduled later this week and next are timed to help a union-backed drive for legislation that would require the world's largest retailer to pay a fixed percentage for health coverage of its 1.3 million U.S. workers.

WakeUpWalMart.com, a group backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, said 10 speakers were current Wal-Mart employees and seven more had quit or been fired.

In workers' stories collected ahead of the news conferences by the group, several current employees talk about being unable to afford premiums and deductibles even after working for Wal-Mart for several years.

Dana Razaie has been a stocker at a Wal-Mart in Fridley, Minn., for about five years. She said she depends on state-funded MinnesotaCare for health coverage for herself and three children.

According to WakeUpWalMart, Razaie's wage of $11.29 an hour at Wal-Mart and a second job at a gas station leave her with take-home pay of less than $20,000 a year. Razaie says she cannot afford Wal-Mart's health insurance plan with $300 monthly premiums and deductibles reaching over $1,000.

Wal-Mart said it is already taking steps to make insurance more affordable. It offers a new plan this year that costs $23 a month and covers three doctor visits and three prescriptions before a deductible of $1,000 kicks in.

It also launched an $11 plan in a limited number of locations but will widen that to be available to half of all employees later this year, as well as shortening the eligibility period for part-timers and adding coverage of their children.

"Our jobs give people the opportunity to move from public health programs to private health coverage," company spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.

Clark said 7 percent of new employees are on Medicaid when they join Wal-Mart, a percentage that drops to 3 percent within two years, and that Wal-Mart created 125,000 jobs last year.

Wal-Mart also offered testimonials from six current employees who praised the company's coverage, including a woman who was a divorced mother of three when she joined in 1998 in Hermiston, Ore.

"Within the first year with Wal-Mart, I no longer needed food stamps and I had medical, dental, and life insurance through Wal-Mart," wrote Heather Baumgartner, now a logistics manager in Grantsville, Utah.

Razaie was due to appear at a news conference Tuesday in Minneapolis. Other workers were to speak Tuesday in Boston; Dallas; Lansing, Mich.; Orlando, Fla.; Philadelphia; Tulsa, Okla.; and Syracuse, N.Y. The other five events over the next two weeks are to be held in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, New York and Tennessee.

The campaign comes as unions are pushing for bills in several states similar to one passed in a veto override by the Maryland legislature in January.

Maryland's "Fair Share" bill, which has been challenged in federal courts by a national retail association, requires large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll in a state for employee health coverage or pay the difference into state coffers for publicly funded programs for the uninsured.

Proponents say similar bills filed in at least 22 states would stop taxpayer subsidies for profitable companies that skimp on health coverage, leaving workers to sign up with state programs.

Opponents including Wal-Mart and many business groups say the bills are bad policy aimed at punishing Wal-Mart and will do nothing to solve the problem of the working uninsured and rising health care costs.

Labor unions are pushing the bills in about 30 states. Maryland is the only state to have passed it, and since then similar bills have been rejected, stalled or withdrawn in at least eight states, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and Wal-Mart.

© 2006 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Plans for Super Wal-Mart approved

Fayetteville Observer
02/28/2006                     
[back to top]

Feb. 28--The Fayetteville City Council has rezoned 46 acres on Ramsey Street for a new Super Wal-Mart.

The land is on the western side of Ramsey Street between Arbor and Sweetwater drives.

Keith Bates was the only council member to vote against the rezoning Monday night. He wants to have appearance standards for commercial buildings.

"I don't want Ramsey Street to look like Skibo Road," said Bates, who represents the Ramsey Street area.

Joe Riddle, who owns the property, said he did not know when construction on the store will start.

The rezoning came on a night when the council clashed between the interests of protecting neighborhoods and encouraging business development.

The naming of athletic fields at the Massey Hill Recreation Center for William "Bill" Passick was one of the few times Monday when the council was almost unanimous.

Councilwoman Juanita Gonzalez cast the lone vote against naming the fields for Passick, who coached football and baseball on the fields for almost 20 years. Among his players was Mayor Tony Chavonne. Passick gave Chavonne his first football uniform when Chavonne was in fourth grade.

The tension between neighborhoods and businesses exasperated Councilman D.J. Haire.

"If you don't want businesses on thoroughfares, and in neighborhoods, where do businesses go?" he asked.

Ten of the night's agenda items were related to land use. Under the council's new guidelines, the second meeting of the month is for public hearings, particularly those relating to rezonings.

Councilman Paul Williams successfully lobbied his colleagues to reverse their January decision not to rezone a property at 201 N. Reilly Road.

He noted that there are businesses at many of the neighborhood entrances along Reilly Road.

Gonzalez made a passionate plea for the council to protect neighborhoods in her district, which includes Reilly Road.

"I do not want Reilly Road looking like Yadkin Road, Bragg Boulevard or Hope Mills Road," she said. "I want it to have a mixture of businesses and residences."

"We campaigned on structured growth," she said. "When is it going to start?"

The council voted 6-3 to rezone the property. Voting against the rezoning were Gonzalez, Hair and Charles Evans.

Chavonne, Mayor Pro Tem Robert Massey, Bates, Williams, Curtis Worthy and Wesley Meredith voted in favor of the rezoning. Councilwoman Lois Kirby was absent.

Midway through the meeting the council members debated conditions for a mini-storage facility at 4600 Yadkin Road.

Mini-storage facilities require a special use permit. Proposed conditions for the permit called for the facility to be painted in earth tones. The council debated what that meant.

"Is there anyone on staff who can tell me what an earth tone is?" Massey asked.

Planning Director Jimmy Teal pointed to his green suit. He said earth tones are browns, greens and creams.

Riddle, who also owns the Yadkin Road property, left confused, not knowing whether he can paint the new buildings blue to match existing storage units.

Jonnie Sanderson, owner of commercial property on 4841 Murchison Road, also left frustrated. He wanted to rezone his property from residential to heavy commercial use.

The Zoning Commission recommended light commercial zoning, which would allow an office along his Murchison Road frontage, and heavy commercial on the remainder of his property.

As the council went back and forth, Sanderson finally stood up and told the members to go forward with what the Zoning Commission proposed.

[back to top]


Hannaford to federal judge block Wal-Mart Supercenter

Watertown Daily Times
02/27/2006                           
[back to top]

Feb. 25--MASSENA -- Hannaford Bros. Co. has asked a federal judge to order that the owners of St. Lawrence Centre stop all efforts to bring a Wal-Mart Supercenter to the mall.

In response to a lawsuit filed in January by the mall's owner, Carlyle St. Lawrence LLC, White Plains, Hannaford, based in Portland, Maine, has asked a U.S. District Court to enforce a restrictive covenant in its lease agreement that prohibits Carlyle from putting a grocery store in its mall, which is adjacent to a plaza where Hannaford operates a store.

Carlyle sued in state Supreme Court to have the covenant voided, indicating in court documents that Hannaford's attempts to stop construction of a Wal-Mart at the St. Lawrence Centre could cause "catastrophic and irreparable harm" to the mall.

The case was moved to District Court on Jan. 31 at Hannaford's request. In its answer to the suit filed Wednesday, Hannaford claims its lease does not allow any grocery store or store with a major food department, such as is found in a Wal-Mart supercenter, to be located in the mall or the St. Lawrence Plaza, where Hannaford's store is located.

While asking that Carlyle's suit be dismissed, Hannaford is also asking a judge to declare Carlyle in violation of the restrictive covenant in its lease and to issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Carlyle from taking any further action toward developing the supercenter, including seeking any approvals or permits needed for the project.

Carlyle has contended that, through a succession of owners of both the mall and the plaza, the covenants have become invalid. It claims the restrictions do not "run with the land" and Carlyle is not bound by the covenants, which it believes represent "an unreasonable restraint on business and economic development," according to court documents.

Hannaford's lease agreement was made May 30, 1990, with The Heritage Company of Massena, the developers of the mall and the St. Lawrence Plaza. At the time, Heritage did not own the mall or plaza property, having transferred ownership in January to the St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency in exchange for a $55 million IDA bond for the purpose of financing the development's construction. The IDA was to transfer the property back to Heritage upon repayment of the debt.

Carlyle contends the IDA did not execute the lease nor related property documents with Hannaford, including a "memorandum of lease." The IDA transferred ownership of both properties back to Heritage in October 1990.

Although Heritage was the IDA's "leasing agent" at the time it entered into a lease with Hannaford, Carlyle claims Heritage exceeded its authority by "intentionally creating an encumbrance on IDA property," an alleged violation of the terms of its sale agreement with IDA. It claims Heritage could not legally create the disputed covenants because it did not have title to the property.

Carlyle says the memorandum of lease contains no language that binds future owners of the property to the covenants between Heritage and Hannaford, and Carlyle is not bound by them because it "did not have notice" of the covenants.

Carlyle indicates in court documents that the development of the Wal-Mart supercenter represents "an excellent, if not the only, opportunity to improve meaningfully" its mall's occupancy rate, which has been about 50 percent for the past several years.

Because of the mall's struggles, the town of Massena has considered seizing mall property under eminent domain to help the Wal-Mart supercenter or possibly another retail development get built. The idea would be to pay Carlyle fair market value for the proposed Wal-Mart space and then market it for development.

The Town Council has recently cooled to the idea of using eminent domain to acquire the property, although it has not ruled out the proposal.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart is at a turning point

Business Report                [back to top]

Bentonville, Arkansas - After watching its sales momentum surge over the past four decades, Wal-Mart Stores now finds it has to work harder to grow. With 3 900 stores nearly saturating the US market, it is the company's sales strategy, not new retail outlets, that will determine Wal-Mart's future.

Analysts are optimistic that the retailer will get the job done - even if the company isn't so sure itself. Wal-Mart is offering a broader selection of high-end items and sprucing up its stores, but has set a yearly earnings target below that of people who watch the world's largest retailer.

In a world where most Americans already live near a Wal-Mart, chief executive Lee Scott is betting that trendier merchandise and a more appealing shopping environment will boost sales faster than simply opening new Supercenters.

The firm is clearly under pressure. Although Wal-Mart reported last week that fourth-quarter earnings were up 13.4 percent, its stock slipped as revenue fell short of Wall Street projections and its profit outlook disappointed the market. The stock ended the week at $45.45 (R268), near the low end of its 52-week range between $42.33 and $53.49.

Many industry analysts expect Wal-Mart to have a good year as it continues to deploy its new strategy - despite energy prices that pinch the spending power of its core lower-income customers and have driven up Wal-Mart's own costs.

"The outlook this year is the best it's been in about the last three years," says Richard Hastings, a senior retail analyst at Bernard Sands.

He notes that Wal-Mart has been stocking its stores with trendier women's fashions and higher-end home electronics since late last year. The company is also renovating 1 800 stores, widening aisles, lowering shelves, sprucing up floors and cleaning restrooms.

The aim is not so much to get new customers in the stores as to lure millions of consumers who shop for basics such as groceries and paper goods to the aisles that offer fancier clothes, electronics and home furnishings.

Analysts say the company needs these changes to help reclaim sales lost to upscale rival Target.

Scott told analysts in October that 86 percent of Americans shopped at Wal-Mart at least once a year, but the higher their income bracket, the less likely they were to leave the grocery or staples departments.

Fourth-quarter results, covering a holiday season when some new products were in place, showed that Wal-Mart seemed to be headed in a good direction.

"Change is in the air and in the results," writes Goldman Sachs analyst Adrianne Shapira. Shapira says Wal-Mart was conservative in setting a target for earnings a share this year of $2.88 to $2.95, below Wall Street expectations, and put her own estimate at $2.94, up 12.6 percent from last year.

But problems remain, not least of which is Wal-Mart's size. The chain has three times as many stores as Target and plans about 1 500 more stores. That makes it harder to keep stores looking fresh and to ensure that new displays, products and styling are in place throughout the company.

"They're paying attention to their problems. They are aware that when it comes to store-level execution there are problems and they're paying attention to it," Hastings said.

While Wal-Mart is trying to raise its profile among affluent shoppers, it also aims to improve its image with workers and the public. Union-backed critics continue to hammer at Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health benefits, and organised labour is pushing bills in about 30 states that would force Wal-Mart to spend more on health coverage. - Sapa-AP

Business Report 2006. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Urges States Not Pass Higher Health Costs Law

Dow Jones Newswires
02-27-06                          
[back to top]

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Wal-Mart Stores' (WMT) chief executive urged U.S. governors not to pass legislation that would burden the giant retailer with higher health care costs for its employees and pledged to work with the governors to move workers off state Medicaid rolls under mounting pressure to spend more on health insurance, the New York Times reported in its Monday editions.

H. Lee Scott Jr. said that state legislation aimed at improving Wal-Mart's benefits "may score short-term political points, but they won't solve America's health care challenges," the newspaper reported.

Scott said that Wal-Mart's health plans were "not perfect" but that the company was committed to improving the health care system by expanding its benefits and by opening low-cost medical clinics for workers and the public in its stores, the Times said.

The speech, given at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association here, was directed at an increasingly important constituency for Wal-Mart: state leaders who have veto power over legislation aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to spend more on health care, the Times reported.

More than 20 states have introduced such legislation this year, and even though few of the bills have a serious chance of becoming law, according to state leaders, their very existence underscores how big a political problem health care has become for Wal-Mart, the report said.

Scott's remarks on health care closely followed a set of recommendations laid out in an internal Wal-Mart memorandum last year. In the memo, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, recommended that the company try to reframe the issue as a national problem, the newspaper reported.

According to the memo, Wal-Mart's 1.3 million employees - who make, on average, $20,000 a year - spend 8% of their income on health care, nearly twice the national average. And 46% of employees' children are either uninsured or on Medicaid, the memo said.

(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[back to top]


Ex-UN Amabssador Andrew Young To Head Pro-Wal-Mart Group

Associated Press
02-27-06                    
[back to top]

BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP)--Former United Nations ambassador and Atlanta mayor Andrew Young will be the public spokesman for a group that defends Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) against attacks from organized critics.

Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group of community leaders from across the country, was set to announce Monday that Young will be the chairman of its 16- member steering committee.

Working Families for Wal-Mart was formed in December to answer attacks from two union-backed groups that are pressuring Wal-Mart to improve wages and benefits.

Wal-Mart is the group's largest financial backer.

Young says he will be a public face for Working Families for Wal-Mart and will give interviews and publish opinion articles defending Wal-Mart, which is the world's largest retailer.

Young says Wal-Mart offers some of the best entry-level jobs for poor people and makes products available to the working poor.

He says he is not being paid but said an organization that he runs, GoodWorks International, has a consulting contract from Working Families for Wal-Mart.

(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[back to top]


Brinker Executive Simon Hired By Wal-Mart; Co. Won't Say Why

By Richard Gibson,
Dow Jones Newswires
02-27-06                           
[back to top] 

DES MOINES, Iowa -(Dow Jones)- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) confirmed Monday that it had hired Bill Simon, a top executive at restaurateur Brinker International Inc. (EAT), but wouldn't disclose why.

A spokesman for the retailing giant said an announcement was pending.

A Brinker spokeswoman confirmed that Simon would be leaving the company in March.

Simon's move was first disclosed by Lehman Brothers securities analyst Jeffrey Bernstein.

Hired by Brinker a year ago, Simon was senior vice president of Global Business Development, responsible for expanding the company's casual-dining brands abroad as well as overseeing its franchising functions.

Simon previously was secretary for the Florida Department of Management Services, where he supervised the state's information technology, purchasing, facilities and human resources areas.

(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[back to top]


Andrew Young goes to bat for Wal-Mart

By Maria Saporta
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
February 27, 2006                                 
[back to top]

Former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young is rising to the defense of Wal-Mart as a company that helps the poor, but acknowledges his new efforts may be in conflict with his years of being pro-union. In an announcement to be made today, Young says he'll be chairman of the national steering committee for the new Working Families for Wal-Mart, funded by the company and its suppliers.

Wal-Mart has been criticized for allegedly not paying its workers enough, not offering decent health care benefits and for driving small-town retailers out of business. Young says the criticism is unfair and one-sided because it doesn't credit the retailer for its contributions to low-income communities.

"I like to fight poverty," Young said Sunday. "For almost 10 years, I've been using in my sermons the message that fighting poverty is good business, and I've used Wal-Mart as an example. The question is how do you fight poverty - with high wages or low prices? The answer is both."

Young also is chairman of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit that describes itself as dedicated to "progressive public policy for social and economic fairness." Once known as the Gandhi Society, Young said, it has a "New York liberal constituency that was very valuable and very important in the civil rights days." The group was founded by Harry Wachtel, lawyer and adviser to the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"The Wal-Mart people know I've been a strong advocate of the trade union movement," he said.

Last March, Drum Major Institute's "Marketplace of Ideas" round table, which took place at the Harvard Club in New York, featured Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. Stern's union is the key backer of Wal-Mart Watch.

Young says his roles with Wal-Mart and the Drum Major Institute are at apparent philosophical odds. "There's probably a conflict," Young said. "I can't step down from my past."

But he said he has "worked out these conflicts in my own mind" and that he sees opportunity for dialogue.

Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, said Young's new group "is another well-funded ploy by Wal-Mart to try and cover up its record of driving down wages, not providing affordable health care, shifting costs onto taxpayers and shipping U.S. jobs overseas."

He called on Young "to use his new position to help us change Wal-Mart for the better, rather than defend its abysmal record of child labor violations and poor health care."

The company has told Young that a family can save $2,300 a year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Company founder Sam Walton "really created a model that allowed any American to have middle-class luxuries at a low cost," Young said.

In addition to Young, the steering committee of 16 other members includes two other Georgians: the Rev. Barbara King and Ron Galloway, an Augusta filmmaker who recently made a pro-Wal-Mart documentary. Young's firm, GoodWorks International, has been hired by Wal-Mart to be a consultant. The other steering committee members are not being paid.

"His position is unique, and it's related to the specific time commitment he has made," said Kevin Sheridan, a spokesman for Working Families. "He will be the public face and the spokesman for the group."

Wal-Mart formed the group in December in response to growing criticism from two organizations supported by labor unions, Wal-Mart Watch and WakeUpWalmart, which lead grass-roots campaigns to push the company to increase wages and benefits.

Young, a civil rights leader and a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, did acknowledge that some of the criticisms may be valid.

"Nobody who hires over 1 million people is free from faults and complaints," said Young, who is also a former union organizer. "But the question is whether you have a process to address them and a management that is sensitive to those complaints."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart tries to head off critics on benefits

By Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2006                    
[back to top]

WASHINGTON With Wal-Mart Stores under mounting pressure to spend more on employee health insurance, the company's chief executive has urged U.S. state governors not to pass legislation that would burden the giant retailer, and he pledged to work with the governors to move workers off state Medicaid rolls.

The executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., said on Sunday that state bills aimed at improving Wal-Mart's benefits "may score short-term political points, but they won't solve America's health care challenges."

Scott said Wal-Mart's health plans were "not perfect" but that the company was committed to improving the health care system by expanding benefits and by opening low-cost medical clinics for employees as well as the general public in its stores.

Trying to broaden a debate over employer health care plans that has focused heavily on Wal-Mart, Scott said: "At the end of the day, this is not about me. It is not about Wal-Mart. And it is not about you. It is about all of us and what we can do to keep this country great."

The speech, at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington, was directed at an increasingly important constituency for Wal- Mart: state leaders who have veto power over legislation aimed at forcing Wal- Mart to spend more on health care for its employees.

More than 20 states have introduced such legislation this year, and even though few of the bills have a serious chance of becoming law, according to state leaders, their very existence underscores how big a political problem the company's approach to health benefits has become for Wal-Mart.

In a bit of political theater, Scott pledged to travel to any governor's office to discuss health care, offering to lend the company's legendary technology expertise to help manage the cost of benefits.

"The only thing I ask," he said, in an apparent jab at various proposed health care bills, "is that we talk about real solutions to the health care challenges facing working families."

Scott's remarks closely followed a set of recommendations laid out in an internal Wal-Mart memorandum last year.

In the memo, M. Susan Chambers, the Wal-Mart executive vice president for benefits, recommended that the company try to reframe the issue as a national problem.

According to the memo, Wal-Mart's 1.3 million employees - who make, on average, $20,000 a year - spend 8 percent of their income on health care, nearly twice the national average. And 46 percent of employees' children are either uninsured or on Medicaid, a publicly funded program for low-income people, the memo said.

Scott, referring to Wal-Mart workers on Medicaid, said: "Do we want more of our associates' kids on our health plans? Of course we do."

But Scott hinted at another reason so many of his workers were on Medicaid. "Have many states made Medicaid programs far more generous in order to cover the kids of working families? Yes, they have."

Scott said Wal-Mart was proud of the changes it could afford to make, like allowing the children of part-time workers to enroll in the company's health insurance plan, reducing the two-year waiting period before a part-time worker could quality for benefits and opening 59 health clinics in its stores.

Scott conceded that one of Wal- Mart's new efforts, the introduction of health savings accounts, had gotten off to a slow start because setting up the accounts was "too complicated." He said he found the process confusing and had not yet set up his own account.

Christine Gregoire, the governor of Washington State and a Democrat, said 20 percent of Wal-Mart workers in her state received public health care assistance. After Scott's speech, she said that this was "a problem that he has to solve."

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

[back to top]


Wal-Mart CEO to governors: Help make health care better

[back to top]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart's (WMT) chief executive told America's governors Sunday that he needs their help to make health care more affordable and accessible for the retail giant's 1.3 million U.S. employees.

Lee Scott said Wal-Mart's health care costs have risen 19% in each of the last three years and that it's only a matter of time before it, along with other businesses, cannot sustain rising costs.

"We know our benefits at Wal-Mart stores are not perfect," Scott told the National Governors Association. "Do we want more of our associates' kids on our health plans? Of course we do."

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., has been the target of harsh criticism from watchdog groups and organized labor for what they say are costly and inaccessible plans. Under mounting criticism Wal-Mart last fall offered new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its workforce on company plans.

The company announced last week it is expanding that effort.

Scott said the "Value Plan" of $11 a month, now available in some areas, will be available to half of the company's employees within the next year. He also said children of part-time Wal-Mart employees will be eligible for health coverage as soon as the parent is and that the company plans to increase to about 50 the number of in-store health clinics that serve employees and the public. (Related: Wal-Mart to upgrade benefit offerings)

He said improving the company's wellness program — encouraging employees to eat right and take care of their bodies — is its biggest challenge and the area where it has performed the poorest.

Scott also criticized bills filed in at least 22 states that would force the retailer to spend more on health care, saying they require companies to "spend an arbitrary percentage" of payroll on benefits.

"I believe what we're seeing is a little too much politics," Scott said. "I think we all know what the employer mandate bills are all about."

Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia said he was "intrigued by (Scott's) discussion about the weaknesses of the employer-based health care model in this country and sort of wondered what his thought about the alternative would be."

Republican Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina said Scott was discussing the reality of soaring health care costs and said there's work to be done so somebody "comes up with the right way of skinning the cat and then serves as a best-practice model for a lot of other companies and states."

Separately, former United Nations ambassador and Atlanta mayor Andrew Young was named the public spokesman for a group organized with backing from Wal-Mart that defends the world's largest retailer against mounting attacks from its critics.

Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group of community leaders from across the country, announced that Young will be the chairman of its 16 member steering committee formed in December to counter charges from two union-backed groups that are pressuring Wal-Mart to improve wages and benefits.

Young said he will be a public face for the group, giving interviews and publishing opinion articles defending the company. "They are some of the best entry level jobs that are available to poor people. And they also make products available to the working poor," Young said in a phone interview from Atlanta.

The ordained minister, three-term U.S. congressman and former mayor of Atlanta currently heads GoodWorks International, which pairs corporations and governments on global issues.

Young said he is not being paid but that GoodWorks has a contract from Working Families for Wal-Mart for consulting work. Wal-Mart is the largest financial backer of the group. Working Families for Wal-Mart declined to disclose how much Wal-Mart contributes or what it is paying GoodWorks.

Wal-Mart's critics, including the groups WakeUpWalMart.com and WalMartWatch.com, have attacked the company for not providing more health coverage and for other practices. Maryland's legislature overturned a governor's veto of a bill that would require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund.

Wal-Mart and other large retailers have had fights with cities over attempts to locate new stores in crowded areas. Critics say the stores compound the problems of congestion. And Wal-Mart is the target of numerous lawsuits, including a pending class action in California in which the company is accused of discrimination against women in pay and promotion.

Young, himself a former union organizer, said he decided to get involved because he believed much of the criticism levied at Wal-Mart by unions was one-sided and wrong.

"The union position is talking about the redistribution of wealth, but they're not talking about generating new wealth. Wal-Mart is generating new wealth when it comes in," he said. "The pluses outweigh the minuses. They do give benefits, they do have health insurance."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


A look inside the Wal-Mart business model

By Cecil Johnson
Knight-Ridder
February 26, 2006                 
[back to top]

In ''The Bully of Bentonville," BusinessWeek writer Anthony Bianco produces the most penetrating examination of Wal-Mart's business practices and their ripple effects in American society that has been published since Wal-Mart watching became a serious pursuit of the business press and the academy. Bianco, who coauthored Business Week's widely acclaimed cover story on Wal-Mart, does not descend to the level of blatant Wal-Mart-bashing that characterizes the commentaries of some of the company's harshest critics. ''Bully" is solid journalism, gleaned from Bianco's own research and from other authors, whom he dutifully credits. ''Today, nearly half a century since Sam Walton opened the first store in Rogers, Ark., it is far from certain that even Wal-Mart can thrive in a Wal-Mart world," writes Bianco at the end. Bianco arrives at that uncertain assessment after: Examining how Wal-Mart treats its employees and underscoring the company's extreme hostility to labor unions. Spotlighting many of the instances in which Wal-Mart has thrown its financial and political weight around to force communities to change land-use restrictions to allow it to build supercenters, despite intense community opposition. Underscoring how the connection between Wal-Mart's everyday low prices and the outsourcing they cause results in the loss of thousands of American jobs and the transfer of whole industries from the United States to China and other countries. The fate of the Huffy Corp. of Celina, Ohio, is offered as a classic case of what can happen to a Wal-Mart vendor. According to Bianco, Wal-Mart ordered 900,000 bicycles, conditioned on a sizable, reduction in price per unit. The bicycle company opened a second factory in Farmington, Mo., that was staffed with low-paid, nonunion workers to meet the demand. But at the Wal-Mart price, Huffy lost $10 million in 1995. Huffy had to negotiate a pay cut with its unionized workers in Celina. The union members readily agreed just to keep their jobs. But Wal-Mart kept up the price-cut pressure, and the union balked at another wage cut. Huffy then closed its Celina plant, laying off 935 workers. It shifted production to the Missouri plant and opened another in Southhaven, Miss. But even the nonunion workers in those plants earned more than Huffy could pay and make Wal-Mart's price. The bicycle maker then closed both those factories and subcontracted work to China, where bicycle plant workers were paid 25 cents to 41 cents an hour. But that didn't save Huffy. When it fell into bankruptcy in 2004, its top creditor was its Chinese subcontractor. Its possessions were turned over to the China Export and Credit Insurance Corp., an agency of the Chinese government. But that's not the real glaring irony of the story. A developer built a Wal-Mart supercenter on the site of the historic old Huffy plant in Celina, Ohio. Those reprises of what the Wal-Martization of the world is doing to other companies and workers drive home the point that Wal-Mart could be its own undoing if it keeps putting Americans out of work and rendering them unable to shop even at its stores.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[back to top]


SunTrust to open branches in local Wal-Mart stores

by Jim Freer
South Florida Business Journal
February 24, 2006                               
[back to top]

SunTrust Bank will open four branches in new Wal-Mart Supercenters in South Florida this year, adding the tri-county area to its growing alliance with the world's largest retailer.

SunTrust (NYSE: STI) plans to open the branches "the day the stores open" on yet-to-be-announced dates during the third quarter, said James Rasmussen, South Florida chairman and CEO for the country's seventh-largest bank.

Three sites are in Broward County and the other is in Miami-Dade County.

SunTrust anticipates Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) will provide added convenience for consumers and small business owners who use its 87 other South Florida branches, and expects numerous Wal-Mart shoppers will become SunTrust customers, Rasmussen said.

Officials of Atlanta-based SunTrust said they are not concerned with questions about the companies' demographic mix and Wal-Mart's controversial application for a bank charter.

SunTrust has a huge consumer banking network in the Southeast. But it is best known for private banking, corporate lending and guarding Coca-Cola's formula in its vault.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart has built a customer base across income brackets. However, it remains known for of its roots are with moderate-income and non-urban Americans.

Some analysts, bankers and members of Congress are wondering if SunTrust and other banks with branches in Wal-Mart will be able to keep them if Wal-Mart obtains a bank charter.

In July, Wal-Mart applied to open a Utah-chartered industrial loan company. Those ILCs can do lending and deposit business, with Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage, and open branches in about 20 states.

Wal-Mart bank won't have branches In its application, Wal-Mart said it has no plans for branches. Wal-Mart also told the FDIC it wants to use its own bank only to process its credit and debit card transactions, thus eliminating fees it pays to banks for those services.

The FDIC plans to hold public hearings on Wal-Mart's application, but has not set dates, said David Barr, spokesman for that regulator.

About 300 banks and credit unions have about 1,150 branches in Wal-Marts around the country, said Martin Heires, a spokesman for the retailer.

"We have no plans to open branches or the change our relationships with our partners," he said. "We think having a branch in our stores of a bank that people know is a great advantage for our customers."

SunTrust has "seen no indication that Wal-Mart wishes to get into banking itself," said Ray Skinner, the bank's in-store banking line of business manager.

But Richard Bove, an analyst at Punk Ziegel & Co. in Pinellas Park, said he would not be surprised if Wal-Mart opens branches in several years, if it gets a bank charter. Or, he said, Wal-Mart might require its bank partners to book some of their deposits and loans from stores at Wal-Mart's bank.

"Everyone shops at Wal-Mart," Bove said, as he dismissed concerns that SunTrust is not a good demographic mix with the retailer.

SunTrust and Wal-Mart do not disclose median income or other demographics on customers.

If labor issues or opposition from local merchants continue to create periodic controversies for Wal-Mart, Bove does not expect an impact on SunTrust.

"I have seen no indication of that keeping people from shopping at Wal-Mart," he said. "I see no reason why it would stop people from doing business with SunTrust there if they like the service."

Memphis, Tenn.-based National Commerce Bank, which SunTrust bought in 2004, had a network of Wal-Mart branches.

SunTrust and Wal-Mart would not disclose details of the agreement, under which SunTrust can open branches, or disclose terms of leases.

SunTrust is interested in Wal-Marts in areas where the bank does not have a branch and land is not readily available, said Paula Pearson, the bank's executive VP for retail and business banking for South Florida.

SunTrust open daily at Wal-Mart SunTrust branches are near the front of Wal-Mart stores. The bank usually has the branches open 54 hours a week, over seven days.

SunTrust has 83 branches in Wal-Marts in five states.

In Florida, the bank has 439 traditional branches and 34 branches in Wal-Marts.

In December, SunTrust bought 11 Wal-Mart branches from Homestead-based Community Bank of Florida.

Those branches, all outside South Florida, had about $42 million in deposits.

"We found that in-store branches did not work as well in those markets as they do in markets where they are a complement to our traditional, brick-and-mortar branches," said Robert Epling, Community Bank's president and CEO.

Community Bank kept Wal-Mart branches in Florida City, Haines City and Lakeland. The bank has traditional branches, where customers do most of their banking, in or near those cities.

A big goal with in-store banks is offering customers a chance to cash a check or make a deposit while shopping, thus giving them added reason to do most of their banking at a nearby traditional branch.

SunTrust's Florida branch network, third largest in the state, gives it the ability to offer that hub-and-spoke service, according to Epling and analyst Bove.

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved

[back to top]


Mangieri won't shop at Wal-Mart

He makes vow after foe criticizes purchases

By Molly Parker
Copley News Service
February 24, 2006             
[back to top]  

PEORIA - Paul Mangieri, a Democratic candidate for state treasurer, vowed not to spend any more campaign money at Wal-Mart following a demand by his opponent Thursday to explain the $1,300 he spent at the "anti-union company that routinely ships American jobs overseas."

At a news conference in Peoria Thursday, primary opponent Alexi Giannoulias, vice president and senior loan officer of Broadway Bank in Chicago, said the campaign money Mangieri spent at the Galesburg Wal-Mart was a "slap in the face to the working men and women of our state."

When first told of the announcement, Mangieri, currently the Knox County state's attorney, declared, "I think we're into the silly season now."

"My opponent is just jealous because I've been endorsed by the (Illinois) AFL-CIO and just about every other union and he has been endorsed by none," Mangieri said, adding, "He's the son of a millionaire. His idea of discount shopping is going to Gucci."

But when told officials at the Illinois AFL-CIO were also disappointed that he used campaign cash at Wal-Mart, Mangieri said he would be more considerate as to where he shops.

Mangieri's financial records show he spent the campaign money on supplies, promotional items, food and parade candy between 2002 and 2005.

"If it's of concern on any level, we will ensure that not only will we buy 100 percent American-made products, but we will only purchase from union stores," Mangieri said.

He also said he would consider donating the same amount of money to organizations aimed at helping Wal-Mart workers unionize, a suggestion endorsed by the Illinois AFL-CIO.

Of course we're disappointed that any dollars were spent at Wal-Mart by a candidate we endorsed, but that was a couple of years ago and we're hopeful he won't do it again," said Beth Spencer, spokeswoman for the organization.

She added that the AFL-CIO is sticking with its endorsement of Mangieri regardless, noting that members were proud of past positions he has taken as an elected official.

Giannoulias, who does not shop at Wal-Mart, said he's glad to see Mangieri has decided to do the right thing by ending his Wal-Mart shopping sprees.

He retorted, "Maybe he's jealous of me being an experienced financial manager and the only people who have endorsed him have been forced to endorse him."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart to Offer Improved Health-Care Benefits

By Kris Hudson
The Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2006                
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sketched out some impending changes to its health-care benefits for employees, including a reduction of the wait period for part-time workers to become eligible and designation of children of part-timers as eligible once their parents become so. The announcement, which was short on details, came as a union-backed activist group, WakeUpWalMart.com, released a scathing report alleging that Wal-Mart cut back on its health-care benefits last year. It also comes as Chief Executive Lee Scott prepares to address the National Governors Association's winter meeting in Washington, D.C., on Sunday. Mr. Scott is expected in the speech to "preview" the changes of Wal-Mart's benefits. The retailer didn't specify when the changes would be put into effect. The company also didn't divulge by how much it will reduce its wait period for part-time employees, currently set at 24 months.

Wal-Mart has been feeling political heat over health care for its enormous pool of workers. Lawmakers in several states are considering bills aimed at forcing large employers, namely Wal-Mart, to spend more on employee health benefits. Such a bill was passed into law by a veto override last month in Maryland, but the Retail Industry Leaders Association has challenged the law in court.

Among the changes, the Bentonville, Ark., company said it would expand the availability of a health-coverage plan with an $11 monthly premium -- its lowest-cost option -- to "at least half" of its 1.34 million U.S. employees by 2007. Availability has been limited. Wal-Mart said it intends to establish health clinics in more than 50 of its 3,900 U.S. stores. The clinics, operated by outside companies, will offer treatment to both employees and the public. It has nine such clinics in four states.

The WakeUpWalMart.com report alleged that the percentage of Wal-Mart's U.S. employees covered by its health-care plans declined by 5% last year. Wal-Mart faulted the figure as a comparison of dissimilar timeframes. Rather, from January 2005 to last month, the retailer's coverage ratio remained flat at about 46%, Wal-Mart said.

[back to top]


FDIC to mull Wal-Mart Bank application

by Jim Freer
South Florida Business Journal
February 24, 2006                           
[back to top]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Thursday said it will hold public hearings in April on Wal-Mart Stores' application for federal deposed insurance on its proposed Wal-Mart Bank. A South Florida Congresswoman has been among those calling for the FDIC to deny the retailer's request.

The FDIC said hold hearings, April 10-11, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., in the Washington, D.C., area, and April 25- 26, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., in the Kansas City, Mo., area.

In July, Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) applied for FDIC insurance for its bank, which would have a charter from Utah regulators as an industrial loan company (ILC).

Federal laws prohibit non-financial companies from owing banks and most states have similar prohibitions. Utah is one of several states that permit non-financial companies to have ILCs, which can do loan and deposit business similar to banks, but are restricted from opening branches in multiple states.

The Utah Department of Financial Institutions is reviewing an application Wal-Mart filed last year. The world's largest retailer would need approval from both Utah regulators and the FDIC to form a bank.

Even though Wal-Mart's application states it does not plan to set up a multiple-branch banking business, its application has drawn criticism from numerous elected officials, regulators, banks and consumer-oriented groups.

They say they are concerned the company might attempt to expand its banking services, taking business from small banks in many states, and use a combination of banking and retailing to take business from larger banks and rival retailers.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Pembroke Pines, are among public officials who have asked the FDIC to not approve Wal-Mart's application.

In its application to the FDIC, Wal-Mart said it would use its own bank only to process credit and debit card transactions at its stores. Wal-Mart now pays banks fees to process those transactions.

If Wal-Mart gets a bank charter, it would need to file a new application to be able to add branches beyond its original office in Salt Lake City. Currently, Wal-Mart allows other banks to have branches in its supercenters.

For example, SunTrust Bank has an agreement to open branches in four Wal-Mart supercenters scheduled to open in South Florida during the second half of the year.

Two credit unions also lease branch space in South Florida Wal-Marts.

Dade County Federal Credit Union has branches in seven Wal-Marts and Miramar-based Tropical Financial Credit Union has five of its 20 South Florida branches in Wal-Marts.

About 300 banks and credit unions have about 1,150 branches in Wal-Marts nationwide.

Those financial institutions should not fear that Wal-Mart will terminate leases and force them out if it gains approval for its own bank, Wal-Mart spokesman Martin Heires said.

"We have no plans to open branches or change our relationships with our partners," he said. "We think having a branch in our stores of a bank that people know is a great advantage for our customers."

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved

[back to top]


Wal-Mart unveils plans to expand health benefits

By Kristi Arellano and Tom McGhee
The Denver Post
February 24, 2006                                    
[back to top]

Wal-Mart on Thursday said it will expand health care coverage to more employees and reduce the time it takes for part-time workers and their children to qualify for coverage. Critics immediately branded the announcement as a publicity stunt, and employees said they were unsure what kind of impact the changes would have.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is Colorado's largest private employer. It reported 24,274 employees in the state in January.

The retailer has battled criticism over its health care polices. It made the announcement in advance of chief executive Lee Scott's scheduled Sunday speech at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington.

Scott is expected to renew Wal-Mart's criticism of bills filed in at least 22 states, including Colorado, that would force the retailer to spend more on health care. Scott said Thursday that employers cannot continue to meet the rising costs of health care and urged a government- business partnership to find an answer.

In a preview of Scott's comments, Wal-Mart officials said the company intends to expand its $11-a-month health care plan to at least half its employees by next year. That plan costs less than half the price of Wal-Mart's other coverage plans, is available only in certain stores and is the result of special deals with medical providers.

Additionally, the company said it will shorten the time it takes for part-time workers to qualify for coverage, and will expand those benefits to include their children for 30 cents more per day.

Currently, part-time workers must work two years before qualifying for benefits, and their children are not eligible.

"Wal-Mart's so-called value plan remains a raw deal for Wal- Mart employees because of its hidden fees and high deductibles," said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that opposes the company's business practices.

A company spokeswoman said Wal-Mart has not determined what the new waiting period will be.

The announcement marks the second time in six months that the world's largest retailer has moved to improve health benefits, but critics said it still isn't enough.

Wake Up Wal-Mart, another group that is critical of Wal- Mart, on Thursday released an analysis of the company's health care spending. The group said it showed that Wal-Mart failed to provide health coverage to more than 57 percent of its employees last year, compared with 52 percent the year before.

"Talk is cheap," said Dave Minshall, a spokesman for United Food and Commercial Workers Local No. 7, which unsuccessfully tried to organize workers at a Wal-Mart tire and lube center in Loveland.

"The facts speak for themselves. Wal-Mart's own documents show their health care is getting worse, not better," he said.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said 615,000 employees were enrolled in company health plans as of January, versus 568,000 a year earlier. Wal-Mart has 1.3 million U.S. employees.

"For what they pay us, it's not worth it," said four-year employee Vernita Huff of the health care coverage.

Huff, a greeter at the Wal- Mart store in Denver's Stapleton neighborhood, said she had not heard the details of Wal-Mart's proposed plan changes. She earns $10 an hour and has coverage through her previous employer, she said.

Another employee, 19-year- old Rene Ventura, said his $8.80 hourly wage doesn't go far enough to pay for the company's health plan.

"I don't know if this will help," he said.

Customers said they would support any move by the retailer to improve its health care coverage.

"If I have to pay an extra quarter for my milk, if that helps cover the cost, I would do it," said Sandy Baack, 45. "I like the fact that the stores are economical, but if they're not paying health care coverage, that concerns me."

Wal-Mart also said Thursday that it intends to open 50 more in-store health care clinics.

Maryland recently became the first state to require Wal-Mart to increase its health care spending or pay the difference to the state's Medicaid fund. The law is being challenged by the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

 [back to top]


Wal-Mart bank plan set for federal hearing

by Josh Drobnyk
Baltimore Business Journal
February 24, 2006                           
[back to top]

The much-anticipated public hearings to consider Wal-Mart's application for federal deposit insurance are set for April 10 to 11 in Washington, D.C., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. announced Thursday.

The application, which concerns the retail giant's proposal to establish an industrial loan bank in Utah, has elicited more than 1,900 comment letters since it was submitted in July. Many of them pleaded with regulators to reject the plan.

Wal-Mart officials say the bank would simply be a back-office operation aimed at saving the company millions of dollars by cutting down on fees paid along with credit and debit card transactions.

"It is really something that the customer won't see," Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires said in an interview last month. "Our proposal is to operate a small bank that will be housed in a sixth floor office suite."

But bankers throughout the country worry the retailer will move into retail and commercial banking and put smaller banks out of business.

"Wal-Mart will establish banking offices in its stores and cause competitive problems for local banks the same way it has for local retailers," Walter Ayers, the Virginia Bankers Association president, wrote in a letter to the FDIC. The letter was signed by the heads of 25 other state bankers associations.

Wal-Mart is no stranger to in-store bank branches. About 1,100 -- 35 percent -- of Wal-Marts have branches of various banks inside their stores, according to Heires.

The exact location for the hearings, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., has not been set. Another two-day hearing is scheduled to take place in Kansas City, Mo., in late April.

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Says It Will Improve Health Benefits

By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post
February 24, 2006                 
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced plans yesterday to upgrade its health care benefits during a barrage of criticism from labor unions and state legislators who say the world's largest retailer does not provide adequate coverage for its low-wage employees. One of the most significant changes is a reduction in the two-year waiting period for part-time workers to become eligible for benefits. Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said yesterday that the new waiting period has not been determined.

The company also said it would allow children of part-time workers to become eligible for coverage, and that it would extend its Value Plan, which offers health insurance for $11 per month, to half of its employees by next year.

Critics of Wal-Mart took the news as a sign that the retailing giant has begun to respond to attacks calling it stingy, but they remained skeptical of the company's intentions.

"Wal-Mart's proposed changes are clearly designed to try and salvage a faltering public image, rather than make substantive changes to improve health care benefits for its employees," said Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, a group backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. is expected to discuss the changes Sunday at a meeting in Washington of the National Governors Association. The complete package will be announced over the next several months.

"In the weeks ahead, we're going to take significant steps to make our health benefits even more affordable and accessible to the working families we employ," Scott said in a written statement yesterday.

Wal-Mart's health care plan has become a hot-button issue across the country in recent months. In January, Maryland passed legislation, often referred to as the "Wal-Mart bill," requiring companies that employ more than 10,000 people to spend 8 percent of their revenue on health care or make a contribution to the state's insurance program for the poor. Wal-Mart, which employs 17,000 Marylanders, is the only company in the state that does not meet that requirement.

Two dozen states are considering similar legislation, according to the AFL-CIO. Proponents assert that the bills are needed to prevent Wal-Mart from shifting its health care costs to states. A report released yesterday by WakeUpWalMart.com estimated that 300,000 Wal-Mart workers and their families received publicly funded health care in 2005 at a cost of $1.37 billion, through programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"I think the health care bills we are pushing around the country have had tremendous impact on Wal-Mart," said Naomi Walker, state legislative director for the AFL-CIO.

But Scott said that private businesses should not be responsible for solving the nation's health care issues. He is expected to ask government officials on Sunday to work with business leaders on a solution.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart at Turning Point As It Tries New Ways to Keep Growing

By MARCUS KABEL
The Associated Press  
             [back to top]

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - After watching its sales momentum surge over the past four decades, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now finds it has to work harder to grow with 3,900 stores nearly saturating the U.S. market, it's the company's sales strategy, not new retail outlets, that will determine Wal-Mart's future.

Analysts are optimistic the nation's largest retailer will get the job done even if the company isn't so sure itself. Wal-Mart is offering a broader selection of high-end items and sprucing up its stores to make happier customers, but has set a yearly earnings target below that of people who watch the world's largest retailer.

In a world where most Americans already live near a Wal-Mart, Chief Executive Lee Scott is betting that trendier merchandise and a more appealing shopping environment will boost sales faster than simply opening new Supercenters can accomplish.

The company is clearly under pressure: Although this past week Wal-Mart reported fourth-quarter earnings were up 13.4 percent, its stock slipped as revenue fell short of Wall Street projections and its profit outlook also disappointed the market. The stock ended the week at $45.45, near the low end of its 52-week range of $42.33 and $53.49.

Many industry analysts expect Wal-Mart to have a good year as it continues to deploy its new strategy in spite of higher energy prices that are pinching the spending power of its core lower-income customers and that have driven up Wal-Mart's own costs.

"The outlook for them this year is the best it's been in about the last three years," said Richard Hastings, senior retail analyst at Bernard Sands in New York.

Hastings noted that Wal-Mart since late last year has been stocking its stores with trendier women's fashions and higher-end home electronics. The company also is in the process of renovating 1,800 stores, widening aisles, lowering shelves, sprucing up floors and cleaning up restrooms.

The aim is not so much to get new customers in the stores but to lure millions of consumers who shop for basics like groceries and paper goods to the aisles that offer the more fancier clothes, electronics and home furnishings. The new merchandise ranges from the Metro 7 line of urban-style women's fashions to fish and shrimp certified to have been raised or caught in ways that do not harm the environment.

Analysts said the company needs these changes to help it reclaim sales lost to smaller, more upscale rival Target Corp.

"They've got to create a better shopping experience, better merchandising, and really try to sell more things to those selective shoppers in their stores," said Sandra J. Skrovan, vice president and head of Wal-Mart research at consultant Retail Forward Inc. "They're in a transitional period."

Scott told analysts in October that 86 percent of Americans shop at Wal-Mart at least once a year, but the higher their income bracket, the less likely they are to leave the grocery or staples departments.

Fourth-quarter results, covering a holiday season when some of the new products were in place, showed Wal-Mart seems to be headed in a good direction.

"While it remains early days, change is in the air and in the results at WMT," Goldman Sachs analyst Adrianne Shapira wrote in a research note. Shapira said Wal-Mart was conservative in setting a target for earnings per share this year of $2.88 to $2.95, below Wall Street expectations, and put her own estimate at $2.94, up 12.6 percent from the past year.

But problems remain, not the least of which is Wal-Mart's size. The chain has three times as many stores as Target and plans about 1,500 more stores. That makes it harder to keep stores looking fresh, and to ensure that new displays, products and styling are in place throughout the company.

"They're paying attention to their problems. They are aware that when it comes to store-level execution there are problems and they're paying attention to it," Hastings said.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, president and chief executive of Wal-Mart USA, told analysts this past week a reorganization of the retailer's regional structure last year gives more power and responsibility to district and store managers and will "close the gap that exists between strategy and performance."

While Wal-Mart is trying to raise its profile among more affluent shoppers, it's also trying to improve its image with workers and the public. Union-backed critics continue to hammer away at Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health benefits, and organized labor is pushing bills in about 30 states that would force Wal-Mart to spend more on health coverage.

Scott announced this past week that the company will expand lower-cost coverage for employees this year, the second improvement in health benefits in six months. The company said 615,000 of its 1.3 million U.S. workers were on Wal-Mart health plans as of January, versus 568,000 a year earlier.

"More consumers don't just see Wal-Mart as a business, they see it is a social and political issue. Until Wal-Mart changes substantially, those consumers they are going after, who can make a choice about where they shop, will avoid Wal-Mart," said Chris Kofinis, spokesman for WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-funded campaign group.

The fact that Wal-Mart has to find new ways to grow is an outgrowth of its own success, said Charles Fishman, author of "The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works and How It's Transforming the American Economy."

"Once you have saturated the country and soaked up enormous quantities of market share, it gets hard to grow in this country faster than the economy and general spending grow," said Fishman, a senior editor at Fast Company magazine.

Fishman's book is rich with statistics illustrating Wal-Mart's dominance. According to market research he commissioned, 53 percent of Americans live within five miles of a Wal-Mart and 90 percent live within 15 miles.

Wal-Mart accounts for 10 percent of the U.S. retail economy, 15 percent to 16 percent of all groceries sold, 25 percent of health and beauty products and a quarter of all toys, Fishman wrote.

But it is hard for Wal-Mart to grow substantially based on just those kinds of products, Fishman said. Consumers may have switched to Wal-Mart to buy paper towels or dog food, but they're not going to buy twice as much dog food just because the price is lower.

"People understand the whole low price idea, they know where to get low prices. But if they're looking for something that has a little extra quality, a little extra design, a little extra service, they're looking at places besides Wal-Mart," Fishman said.

"That's why Target has been running twice the same-store sales as Wal-Mart has for months and months," he said.

Wal-Mart's same-store sales, which measure performance at stores open at least year, were up 3.2 percent for the fiscal year that ended Jan. 31, excluding Sam's Clubs. Target posted 5.6 percent growth.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

[back to top]


Update 2: Wal-Mart to Offer Improved Health Benefits

By Marcus Kabel
Forbes.com
Associated Press
February 23, 2006               
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., under attack for its health care coverage for its employees, plans improvements that would include expanding the availability of its lowest cost plan and shortening the waiting periods to enroll part-time workers and their children. At the same time, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott said Thursday that employers cannot continue to meet the rising costs of health care and urged a government-business partnership to find an answer.

The announcement marks the second time in six months that the world's largest retailer has moved to improve health benefits and comes ahead of Scott's speech Sunday about the issue to the nation's governors, who are looking for ways to cap rising costs for taxpayer-funded health plans that cover the uninsured. Details of the new health benefit plans are expected to be unveiled in the coming months.

Scott is also expected to renew Wal-Mart's criticism of bills filed in at least 22 states that would force the retailer to spend more on health care. Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. The Retail Industry Leaders Association has challenged the law in court.

"The soaring cost of health care in America cannot be sustained over the long term by any business that offers health benefits to its employees," Scott said in a statement released ahead of the speech to the National Governors Association.

Wake Up Wal-Mart, one of Wal-Mart's harshest critics, called the retailer's attempts to improve its health care plan as "nothing more than a facade."

"Wal-Mart's proposed changes are clearly designed to try and salvage a faltering public image, rather than make substantial changes to improve health care benefits for its employees," said Paul Blank, campaign director for Wake Up Wal-Mart in a statement.

In fact, the labor-backed group released a report Thursday that showed the health care issue at Wal-Mart is getting worse - Wal-Mart failed to provide health coverage to over 57 percent of its employees last year, up from 52 percent the previous year. The group said the report is based on new analysis of Wal-Mart's reported data of its health care spending.

Under mounting criticism from organized labor and other groups, Wal-Mart last fall offered new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans.

The company said premiums of $23 a month - and as low as $11 in a select number of locations with special deals with medical providers - helped get 70,000 workers enrolled in Wal-Mart plans for the first time.

Wal-Mart had 615,000 employees enrolled in company health plans of January versus 568,000 a year earlier, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said. It has 1.3 million U.S. employees.

Scott said new steps would include expanding the $11 monthly premium to make it available to half of all U.S. employees by next year and shortening eligibility periods for part-time workers and their children from 24 months. Wal-Mart is still deciding what the new wait will be, a company spokeswoman said.

Wal-Mart will also expand a trial run of in-store clinics, which are aimed at providing lower cost non-emergency health care to the public, to more than 50 stores this year from about a dozen now. Several retailers are testing the idea as an alternative to long waits at doctor's offices for minor ailments and tests.

Wal-Mart shares rose 22 cents to close at $45.70 on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares have traded in a 52-week range of $42.33 to $53.49.

[back to top]


Big Box Brawl: How mild-mannered Nashuans battled Wal-Mart and won

By John “JaQ” Andrews
HippoPress (NH)
February 23, 2006                     
[back to top]

The Nashua Planning Board narrowly denied Wal-Mart’s site plan for a supercenter at the current site of Building #19 last month. After charging through Conservation Commission and Zoning Board challenges, Sam Walton’s retail giant looked like it was on its way into town. Many consider the company just plain evil, but Wal-Mart would tell you they’re simply a business. After all, doesn’t Magneto have perfectly good reasons for fearing non-mutants? Is Lex Luthor really a villain, or just a multimillionaire hanging out with high school farm boys?

All that stood in Wal-Mart’s way was a group of concerned citizens who didn’t want their traffic snarled and their water polluted. They banded together and, with a supporting cast numbering in the hundreds, did battle for their way of life.

This is their story.

Paul Johnson (Alan Alda) Moderator, Citizens Action for Southern New Hampshire Superpowers: leadership, research When the final vote came down on Jan. 19, rejecting Wal-Mart’s site plan, Johnson was giddy.

“I sat there in shock,” Johnson said, “only because we’d had the ball yanked away so many times.” He’d been expecting the 4-3 vote for weeks, having closely analyzed the comments of all board members to see which way they were leaning. The vote had been delayed several times, and it looked like the hearings might be extended again. There was even a sealed envelope given to each board member by city staff. According to Johnson, the envelope contained new testimony, though little new information, from the applicant. Board members never opened the envelopes prior to voting.

As head of the team, Johnson served as the voice of the organization, the client of record for their attorney and, perhaps most importantly of all, negotiator. Not with Wal-Mart — within the group of people fighting to keep Wal-Mart out.

“I spent a lot of time truly being a centrist peacemaker,” Johnson said. The groundswell of opposition to a Wal-Mart Supercenter at 420 Amherst St. inevitably brought out people with a variety of different perspectives on the matter. It was an “enormous challenge,” he said, keeping everyone on the same page as far as what strategies to pursue, what to say to the media, how to persuade Planning and Zoning Boards not to approve the store and how to recruit more supporters.

“The fact that it was Wal-Mart certainly brought more energy from some quarters,” Johnson said, but he didn’t believe there was anyone involved who cared nothing about the potential water pollution or traffic problems.

“The water is clearly what got us motivated,” Johnson said, “but it was the traffic that everybody was going to relate to.”

Jocelyn Demuth (Janeane Garofalo) CASNH coordinator Superpowers: button distribution, rabble-rousing Citizens Action served as the main organization behind the opposition effort, but many people against the project weren’t members. To get everyone on the same track and present a unified front, Jocelyn Demuth jumped into action.

“I kind of became public outreach coordinator,” Demuth said. “What that meant is maintaining and developing a large, now it’s a very long, e-mail list of people who wanted to be kept abreast of what was going on.”

Whether it was passing around clipboards, organizing a yard sale or gathering names from www.cleanwaternotwalmart.com, Demuth became the communications node that opponents relied upon for their information. When Wal-Mart’s representatives would cancel their appearance “at the last minute” — usually because a full board was not available — Demuth would be standing at the entrance to City Hall, letting people know before they climbed three flights of stairs to the auditorium. She also wrote a guide for testifying in front of a municipal board.

Demuth credits Nashua citizens for getting involved.

“If the town hadn’t cared, it would be built,” she said. “I don’t know a hundred people, a hundred fifty people that I could get to come to meetings. The town has to care or they won’t come and they won’t speak.”

Sue Newman (Stockard Channing) Activist Superpowers: letter-writing For months, Sue Newman wrote impassioned letters to local newspapers opposing the new supercenter.

“I never thought that the proposal would get as far as it did,” she said. “Between environmental issues and water issues, the traffic thing ... I guess that just kept jumping out at me. And I thought surely people would understand the traffic hoo-ha.”

As she wrote letter after letter, she encouraged others to write as well. When she finally hooked up with CASNH, she took to posting flyers and distributing lawn signs.

Barbara Pressly (Dame Judi Dench) Former state senator Superpowers: righteous indignation, legislation-fu Senator Pressly was invited to talk to CASNH about Nashua’s efforts to purchase Pennichuck Corporation. She’s been a supporter of the acquisition in order to protect the regional watershed and drinking water supply, a concern that the Wal-Mart plan brought up as well.

As a former state legislator, she saw herself as an advisor and strategist for the opposition group. She was also charter chair of the Historic District Commission here in the city, so she knew local land use laws well. So, is she a Wal-Mart shopper?

“Sure!” Pressly said. “I mean, I shop there when I need something that they have. The bottom line is, I have yet to meet a single person who believes that any merchant or any company of that intensive a use is appropriate on that site ... If they can find a place that the traffic can handle it and it doesn’t impact our water, I wouldn’t object.”

Jed Callen (Bill Pullman) Attorney with Baldwin, Callen & Ransom Superpowers: persuasion By the climax of Planning Board hearings in January, nearly 250 people were involved in the effort to prevent a supercenter’s being built at 420 Amherst St. They all had their own opinions, and many offered testimony. To summarize key points, however, and to focus their core legal arguments, they needed a point man. That man was Attorney Jed Callen.

Callen’s law firm, based in Concord, specializes in land use law around the state of New Hampshire. Callen himself has represented many groups of people who would be adversely affected by particular developments, so this wasn’t unfamiliar territory for him. There was one new challenge, though.

“This was my first Wal-Mart, which was an education in itself,” he said. His past opponents have included gravel pits, cellular communications towers and junkyards. Few have had the corporate backing Wal-Mart brought to the proceedings.

“We very studiously stayed away from things that were not relevant to the land use issues,” he said. When speaking before the Zoning and Planning Boards, Callen did not talk about Wal-Mart’s corporate policies, health care benefits, international trade relationships or anything else of interest to someone against Wal-Mart simply because it was Wal-Mart. It wouldn’t help their case of protecting this one particular piece of land.

One thing that surprised Callen was the amount of time this case spent in front of city boards. If anything, he said, he expected it to take “many months.” In similar cases in other towns, a board might schedule discussion of only one aspect of an application for a given night. Not only does this shorten meetings, it reduces cost for all those involved, by not requiring all paid consultants to be present at all meetings.

“For the most part the Planning Board was extremely civil and attentive and focused,” Callen said. But the last few meetings were marred by questions of procedure and professionalism as the applicant submitted more information to the board after the hearing was closed. “I was extremely distressed that that seemed to fall apart at the end.”

Charles Friou (Ian McKellan) Past CASNH moderator & “elder statesman” Superpowers: Citizens Action for Southern New Hampshire formed from the remnants of the Howard Dean presidential campaign in the region. It’s since welcomed activists of all political stripes, though there’s still a discernable lean to the left. Its main focus has been protecting the local environment.

Charles Friou served as moderator of Citizens Action until last year. He doesn’t shrink from the environmentalist label. His home features passive solar heating — though he said it was mainly an economic decision to buy it, and newer building techniques are even more efficient. Paul Johnson refers to him as the group’s “elder statesman,” a term which drew a hearty laugh from Friou when he heard it. The Wal-Mart fight, though, he took seriously.

“When we got involved, we were getting involved in something whose dimension we didn’t know,” Friou said.

The matter first came to his attention with the shuffling of two people off the city’s Conservation Commission in early 2005. Those two people, he learned, had been opposed to a Wal-Mart Supercenter at 420 Amherst St. He wouldn’t go so far as to say they were pushed off — one resigned and one was not reappointed at the end of her term.

Wal-Mart’s earlier site plan, which called for a much larger store, never made it past a few boards in February of 2005. When the new plan came to light, chopping off a quarter of the proposed square footage, Friou went over it with a critical eye. He found studies of existing Amherst Street traffic that were inconsistent with earlier studies — including the one referenced in the previous application.

“It was clear to me ... they’ll say almost anything to achieve their goal,” he said. Those traffic studies were questioned by the Planning Board as well, and ended up being the key point convincing four members to vote against the site plan.

Even if traffic won the day, Friou has other concerns. He doesn’t want zoning and watershed protection laws to be “chipped away” by boards granting small exceptions here and there.

“The water issue is real, and the city has to do far more than it is” to monitor and ensure the safety of the water supply, he said. “There is not the attention that should be paid to that.”

Dr. Robert Roseen (Matt Damon) UNH researcher Superpowers: stormwater modeling As a laymen group, Citizens Action needed to pull in some scientific talent to counter the expert testimony of Wal-Mart’s hired guns. Their own hired gun was Dr. Robert Roseen, a research engineer for the Environmental Research Group at the University of New Hampshire. He’s the Director of the UNH Stormwater Center — which just happens to be the premiere spot in the world for studying the effects of water runoff from parking lots.

Citizens Action first contacted Roseen in May of 2005, after the first supercenter proposal had been rejected, but another was on the way.

“The conversation began back then as, would I be interested in evaluating the stormwater management plan?” Roseen said. It was never his intention to design an equitable plan for treating and cleaning the water of oil, antifreeze, chemicals and other pollutants brought in by the sharp increase in traffic. His role was to critique Wal-Mart’s plan, and he found it lacking.

He emphasized that his analysis referenced peer-reviewed scientific studies of the equipment proposed, not manufacturer or industry claims. His “Roseen Report” became a central document in the opposition’s arsenal.

Roseen has 13 years’ experience in water resource studies, including hydrology and hydraulics evaluations, environmental systems analysis and site design for stormwater treatment devices. Stormwater management has been his primary focus for the last four years. At UNH, a one-acre research facility was built to study more than a dozen different types of management systems on an existing commuter parking lot.

His report did come into question when one calculation included figures that were off by a factor of 1,000. That error occurred on both sides of an equation, Roseen said.

“It did not change conclusions at all,” he said, “so what the Planning Board saw was correct.”

He was also asked to explain what “parts per million” meant when another testifier apparently used the term incorrectly, and felt that he had been painted as a sloppy scientist when it wasn’t even his testimony he was correcting. The fact that most board members were satisfied with Wal-Mart’s water cleansing plans, especially given the existence of an artificial treatment plant, left him further frustrated.

“I felt like what I learned from that process is that it has less to do with the quality of the study and more to do with the quantity of the study,” Roseen said. “Had we been Shell Oil, we could’ve had 12 specialists too.”

[back to top]


Shocking Report Estimates Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis Cost Taxpayers Nearly $1.4B in 2005; Projects Cost of $9.1B Over Next 5 Years

US Newswire
02/23/2006             
[back to top]

WASHINGTON, Feb 23, 2006 (U.S. Newswire via COMTEX) --Today, WakeUpWalMart.com, America's leading campaign to change Wal-Mart, released a new report detailing the "Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis." "The Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis" is the result of Wal- Mart's failure to provide affordable health care to over half of its workforce which forces, according to estimates, several hundred thousand Wal-Mart workers and their families onto taxpayer-funded public health care.

In fact, based on Wal-Mart's own documents, published on WalMartfacts.com in January 2006, the percentage of Wal-Mart workers with company health care decreased by 5 percent -- from 48 percent to 43 percent. Therefore, in 2005, Wal-Mart admits it failed to provide company health care to 57 percent of its workforce, leaving over 775,000 Wal-Mart workers and their families without company health care. The new number is far worse than has been previously reported and is contrary to recent public statements by the company.

WakeUpWalMart.com issued a new report today after conducting a full analysis of all reported data on Wal-Mart's health care spending. The report, titled "America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves: The Growing Cost of the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis," estimates that, in 2005, nearly 300,000 Wal-Mart workers and their family members depended on taxpayer-funded public health care at a total cost to American taxpayers of $1.37 billion.

The most striking finding in the report is the projected cost to American taxpayers of the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis if Wal- Mart successfully completes its publicly stated goal of building 1,500 additional stores. Based on the current cost and the future store growth, the report projects the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis will cost American taxpayers approximately $9.1 billion over the next 5 years, 2006-2010.

"The Wal-Mart health care crisis is real, it's growing, and the cost to taxpayers is enormous. Wal-Mart's dirty little secret is to force taxpayers to pay nearly $1.4 billion in their health care costs, while Wal-Mart pockets $11 billion in profits. Wal- Mart will cost American taxpayers more than $9 billion over the next five years in health care costs alone" said Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com.

Another startling finding in the report is the fact that Wal- Mart's health care spending per worker actually declined by 3.5 percent during the period of 2003-2004, according to Wal-Mart's latest filing with the Internal Revenue Service. This is notable for two reasons: 1) national health care spending per worker for the rest of America rose by 7.6 percent during this period, and 2) Wal-Mart's repeated public statements about its health care spending and health care coverage do not reflect the reality of Wal-Mart's own data submitted to the IRS. More detailed figures for Wal-Mart's health care spending will be released when Wal- Mart files its Form 5500 for 2005.

"Wal-Mart ought to be ashamed. While health care costs and the number of uninsured are rising, Wal-Mart feeds America's health care crisis by actually cutting back on its health care spending. It's outrageous and the American people and their lawmakers will not tolerate such irresponsibility in corporate America," added Paul Blank.

The report paints a disturbing picture of the scope and cost America bears because of the Wal-Mart health care crisis. Among the findings:

-- Of a total workforce in the Unites States of 1.39 million in October 2005, 57 percent or 775,000 Wal-Mart workers, had no company health care. The actual percentage of Wal-Mart workers without company health care increased by 5 percent in 2005.

-- The cost of the Wal-Mart health care crisis for 2005 is estimated at $1.37 billion. A previous study, by Professor Michael Hicks from the Air Force institute, estimated that each Wal-Mart employee increased Medicaid expenditures by $898. For Wal-Mart's 2005 work force, this would cost taxpayers $1.24 billion.

-- Wal-Mart's health care expenditures per worker actually declined by 3.5 percent during the period of 2003-2004, according to Wal-Mart's latest filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

-- Based on Wal-Mart's growth projections for 2006-2010, the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis will cost taxpayers an estimated $9.1 billion over the next five years.

-- Despite Wal-Mart claiming only 5 percent of its workforce is on public health care assistance, based on the available data, it is estimated Wal-Mart averages 13 percent of its workforce on public health care assistance. The 13 percent figure is 3.25 times higher than the national average of 4 percent for all employers and 2.6 times higher than the 5 percent average Wal- Mart states publicly.

-- Based on the data from the states who have released dependent care numbers, it is estimated that for every 12 Wal- Mart workers, one dependent of a Wal-Mart employee is on a taxpayer-funded public health care program. According to Wal- Mart's own internal health care memo, Wal-Mart believes 27 percent of its employees' children are using state Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Programs. In Georgia, for example, nearly 10,000 children of Wal-Mart workers are enrolled in the state PeachCare program - nearly 14 times more than any other employer.

-- Nationwide, it is estimated that 183,382 Wal-Mart workers and 112,768 family members of Wal-Mart workers are forced onto taxpayer-funded public health care assistance. The total number of Wal-Mart workers and family members who are part of the Wal- Mart health care crisis is 296,150.

-- For 2005, ending the Wal-Mart Health Care crisis would provide an extra $1.37 billion in additional funding for national and state health care programs. In terms of programs, the $1.37 billion in federal and state tax dollars currently going to subsidize Wal-Mart could be used to reinstate proposed funding cuts in the 2007 federal budget of over $1 billion in health care grants to states.

The complete report, "America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves" is being released as part of an upcoming national health care campaign initiative called "Stop the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis." The latest campaign initiative by WakeUpWalMart.com will officially launch nationwide with events in 12 states on February 28th. Additional state-by-state estimates of the cost of the Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis will be released on February 28th. The complete "America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves" health care memo is available for download at http://www.WakeUpWalMart.com.

WakeUpWalMart.com is America's leading campaign to change Wal- Mart. With over 182,600 supporters in all 50 states, WakeUpWalMart.com is building the largest grassroots movement to change a corporation in history.

[back to top]


Wis. Court Denies Status to Wal-Mart Suit

leadingthecharge.com
23 February, 2006                      
[back to top]

MADISON, Wis. - A state appeals court on Tuesday denied class-action status to a lawsuit brought by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees who claimed they were forced to work through breaks.

Similar cases have been filed across the country with varied success. A California jury awarded $172 million to Wal-Mart workers who were illegally denied lunch breaks last year, and Wal-Mart settled a similar case in Colorado for $50 million. Others have been denied class-action status.

"This would require not only the examination of each and every member of the proposed class, but, also, their co-workers and supervisors, and in some or many cases, their friends and family," the court wrote in upholding a circuit court judge‘s ruling.

The ruling means thousands of workers with similar claims cannot join the lawsuit filed by three Wal-Mart employees or benefit from any monetary settlement in the case.

If allowed to stand, the ruling means "Wal-Mart will not be called to account in a courtroom for not granting their employees what they promised them," he said.

"We work hard to pay hourly associates for every minute they work, and they are encouraged and obligated to report any off-the-clock work to upper management," Clark said in a statement. "A notice with instructions on how to do this is posted beside every time clock."

[back to top]


Wetland mysteriously filled in: 7.8-acre site is proposed home for new Wal-Mart

Spokesman-Review
02/22/2006                     
[back to top]

A chunk of land at 44th Avenue and Regal Street that could someday house a Wal-Mart is the site of a whodunit of sorts.

Neighbors recently pointed out that a wetland on the west end of the nearly eight-acre South Hill parcel is missing.

The small patch, which harbored reed canary grass and served as a natural filter for phosphorous, oil, antifreeze and other pollutants, was the apparent victim of human meddling.

Land owners can move up to 50 cubic yards of dirt without a grading permit, but filling a wetland requires city approval.

"We find people get themselves into trouble because they don't consult with the experts before starting the bulldozer," said Chris Merker, a wetland biologist for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

While no one is stepping up to take the blame for the work on the South Hill property, a number of theories are floating around.

Lamar Fielding, a retired educator and neighbor in the area, thinks the wetland disappeared during the city of Spokane's Regal Street upgrade last summer, when contractors piled mounds of dirt on the property.Merker said his "best guess" is that the wetland was filled in the past couple months when grading was done there. The land is owned by developer Harlan Douglass.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was quick to distance itself from the wetland quandary. "We weren't a part of that one. Whatever happened is between Harlan (Douglass) and the contractor and the contractor and the city," said Jennifer Holder, a Seattle spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, which is based in Bentonville, Ark.

Steve Haynes, a city planner for Spokane, said workers on the city's street project had nothing to do with the wetland's disappearance.

Based on ongoing reviews of the property, Haynes said his department believes the wetland was filled two or three years ago, before Douglass purchased the land. Douglass was unavailable for comment, as was former property owner Dr. Ralph Berg.

"We don't know specifically who, or why that was done. It just happened," Haynes said, adding that whoever illegally filled the wetland may have also disrupted a drainage route.

Haynes couldn't say what the penalty was for filling a wetland but said the city likely wouldn't try to track down the person responsible.

Merker inspected the property last week for the city, which is considering a request to subdivide the property. He recommended that the landowner be required to replace the filled-in wetland and that the area be inventoried because the east side of the property contains what appears to be another wetland.

"My feeling is it should be treated as a wetland unless there's compelling evidence to say that it's not," Merker said of the possible new wetland.

The slice of land at 44th and Regal has changed dramatically over the years. Today, surrounded by homes and commercial developments, its front face resembles a preconstruction site more than a habitat. Many of the trees have been cleared.

But fifteen or so years ago, said Fielding, who has lived in the area since 1964, much of the site was covered with water.

"At one time it was wetland, believe me. It was wet year-round over there," Fielding recalled.

During that time members of Park Heights Baptist Church looked at buying the property to build a new church. David Vorpahl, who chaired the building committee, said a city employee discouraged the group from buying the property because it contained a wetland.

"We thought that would be a good location for the church," said Vorpahl, who now wonders why a big retail development is being considered there.

The status of the property's wetland has, at times, stymied even the experts. In 1996, Haynes said, the Department of Ecology determined there were no wetlands on the property. About that time, the city allowed a change to commercial zoning.

It wasn't until 2001 that the front wetland -- the one that was recently filled -- was identified by a company working for another potential developer.

Merker said wetland classifications can come and go amid the area's often drought-like conditions.

"We live in almost a desert in Eastern Washington. As a result, oftentimes these wetlands don't have water in them sometimes for a couple years in a row," he said.

Soil saturation is a major factor in determining wetland status, Merker said, adding, "wetlands can exist without above-ground water ever showing."

Despite the possible presence of another wetland on the east part of the property, the Department of Ecology couldn't block Wal-Mart from going in there.

Although the agency provides a report to the city during the state environmental review process, Merker said the final decision on whether Wal-Mart can build lies with the city of Spokane.

Wetland

What: A wetland that existed on land Wal-Mart Stores is eyeing on Spokane's South Hill has been illegally filled.

Who: Various theories have been floated, including that a previous owner filled the wetland; that the city of Spokane filled it during road construction last year; and that some unknown entity filled it during grading work over the past several months.

What's a wetland: Soil saturation is a major factor in determining wetland status; there doesn't have to be visible water.

Copyright (c) 2006, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash.

[back to top]


Publix tops shopper survey, again

Florida Times-Union
02/22/2006                     
[back to top] 

Feb. 21--Many people blame Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.'s problems on Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s infiltration into the Southeastern grocery market, taking customers away from Winn-Dixie. But shoppers actually prefer Winn-Dixie over Wal-Mart. And, not surprisingly, they prefer Publix Super Markets Inc. over both of them.

That's the conclusion of an annual University of Michigan customer satisfaction survey taken on major supermarket chains, which will be released today.

Of seven supermarkets studied, Publix led the way with a customer satisfaction index of 81 in 2005. Winn-Dixie finished in the middle of the pack with a 73, and Wal-Mart was at the bottom with a 70. The average for the industry is 74.

"With Wal-Mart, people are not terribly satisfied with them, although they go there anyway," said Claes Fornell, director of the university's National Quality Research Center.

"They don't come out of that store being particularly happy," he said.

Fornell said the center asks customers their feelings about the shopping experience. But even though shoppers may not enjoy it, they will shop at Wal-Mart because of the low prices there.

"The pull is just too strong," he said.

The customer satisfaction scores in the supermarket industry have generally been stable, Fornell said. But Winn-Dixie's 2005 score of 73 is up slightly from 72 in 2004, as the company works to improve customer service after filing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization a year ago.

Winn-Dixie's satisfaction index peaked at 75 in both 1995 and 1996, according to the survey, which began in 1994.

Overall in the fourth quarter of 2005, the university's American Customer Satisfaction Index continued a slow and steady climb by rising 0.4 percent. The overall index measures companies in several retail, financial services and e-commerce industries.

"Retailers are starting to put more emphasis on the fact that it's really good business to have satisfied customers," Fornell said.

He can point to the home improvement industry, where The Home Depot Inc.'s customer satisfaction rating dropped 8.2 percent in the past year to 67. Meanwhile, competitor Lowe's Companies Inc. rose 2.6 percent to 78.

"Since 2001, Home Depot's stock has declined and Lowe's has gone up, mirroring the movement of their ACSI scores," Fornell said.

Among all industries surveyed, e-commerce retailers produced the most satisfied customers, with online book sellers Amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com posting the highest scores of any companies at 87.

In the department and discount stores category, Kohl's, which opened its first three Jacksonville area stores last October, was the highest ranked chain with a score of 80.

The overall index, based on surveys of more than 200 companies in 42 industries, is rising because of satisfaction g ains for finance and insurance and e-commerce businesses. But the index for retailers as a whole actually fell from 72.6 in 2004 to 72.4 in 2005, and is down from its high of 75.7 in 1994, the first year of the survey.

"There's still a long way to go to really do well," Fornell said.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart: 15 Countries and Counting

by John Yunker
February 22, 2006                 
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart is currently doing business in 15 countries, but that number is going to grow. The company has certainly had some ups and downs overseas -- ups in Mexico and downs most everywhere else.

Still no ecommerce site yet for any other market than the US. But when you figure that the US Wal-Mart site just surpassed a whopping $1 billion in revenues, it's just a matter of time before the company tackles new markets.

Here's an excerpt from their Q4 2005 call:

"During the fourth quarter, we also continued our international growth through acquisitions. We acquired the Sonae retail operations in Southern Brazil; we increased our ownership of Seiyu to 53%, resulting in the consolidation of Seiyu in our financial statements beginning in January of 2006. We are now in 15 countries and we expect that number to increase. We acquired 545 new international stores and 50,000 new associates in just one week through our acquisitions, and we will build or relocate another 220 international stores in fiscal 2007."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart developer appealing building permit

New York Times
February 22, 2006                  
[back to top]

BENNINGTON, Vt. --The businessman who wants to open a new Wal-Mart in town and a group that opposes the project are both appealing the local building permit to the Environmental Court.

Jonathan A. Levy, of BLS Bennington, objects to some of the conditions imposed on his plan by the Development Review Board to replace the existing Wal-Mart with a 112,000-square-foot store, more than twice as large as the existing store.

He wouldn't say which aspects of the permit he was appealing.

Last month, the board approved Levy's plan on the condition that he get support from the Transportation Agency for his plan to widen the road to the new Wal-Mart. He was also required to build a bicycle and pedestrian path behind the store.

A group that opposes the larger Wal-Mart also appealed. Citizens for a Greater Bennington argues that the local permit didn't require a state transportation study or look at the economic and social impact of the Wal-Mart project.

The project still needs a state Act 250 land-use permit. That process has not yet begun.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[back to top]


Wal-Mart outlook cautious

PROFITABLE QUARTER BELIES RISING COSTS

By Marcus Kabel
Associated Press
Wed, Feb. 22, 2006           
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores reported a 13.4 percent increase in fourth-quarter profits that beat Wall Street estimates, but the world's largest retailer also offered a cautious -- and disappointing -- profit outlook Tuesday as it struggles with higher interest expenses resulting from international acquisitions.

Wal-Mart also faces rising marketing costs as it tries to lure more upscale shoppers.

The retailer forecast first-quarter earnings per share between 58 and 62 cents and said it expected to earn $2.88 to $2.95 a share for fiscal 2007, which ends next Jan. 31. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial projected per-share earnings of 62 cents in the first quarter and $2.98 for the year.

The downbeat outlook reflects the fact Wal-Mart is finding it harder to sustain profit growth in the high teens as in previous years. Given its huge U.S. presence, much of the company's growth will now have to come from international markets, where start-up costs are higher, according to Ken Perkins, president of Retail Metrics, a research firm in Swampscott, Mass.

Meanwhile, many analysts expect Wal-Mart's upscale marketing strategy to take time to pay off as the retailer tries out merchandise including trendier women's clothes in 3,200 U.S. stores, hoping to regain sales growth momentum lost to smaller rivals such as Target. Its new strategy helped push the cost of selling in the fourth quarter up 8 percent from a year earlier, to $69 billion.

``The fact of the matter is that when you're doing what is essentially a turnaround and trying to get feet back under something, it doesn't always go that smoothly,'' said Patricia Edwards, a portfolio manager and analyst at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich in Seattle, which manages $6.6 billion in assets and holds about 63,000 Wal-Mart shares.

``They have a lot of moving parts,'' Edwards said.

The company's shares didn't take much of a beating by investors -- its stock slipped 0.8 percent, or 36 cents, to $45.74 on the New York Stock Exchange. But Wal-Mart's shares have fallen more than 10 percent over the past year amid concerns about slower growth and criticism from union-backed groups over how it treats its workers.

Wal-Mart said net income rose to $3.6 billion, or 86 cents per share, for the quarter ended Jan. 31 up from $3.2 billion, or 75 cents per share, a year earlier. Minus 2 cents per share from a one-time tax benefit, it earned just above the 83 cents per share projected by analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.

The retailer reported total fourth-quarter net sales of $89.3 billion and total revenue of $90.1 billion. Analysts expected revenue of $90.4 billion.

© 2006 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart plans face-lift to revive business in U.S.

By Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006                
[back to top]

NEW YORK For all its success in the United States - and there is plenty of it - Wal-Mart Stores is still struggling to figure out its home turf, where sales growth at individual stores has sagged, its customers routinely flirt with rivals like Target for clothing, and its advertising has often failed to inspire.

Now the retailer's plans to fix the problems have become clearer. Wal-Mart executives have pledged to remodel nearly half of the company's U.S. stores over the next 18 months, beef up the marketing division and expand a bold line of urban clothing, called Metro7, across much of the chain.

The changes, explained in Wal- Mart's fourth-quarter earnings announcement Tuesday, threw a spotlight on the increasingly important role of one man: Eduardo Castro-Wright, the new chief of Wal-Mart's U.S. stores. Castro-Wright is a popular figure in the company because of his success in transforming the retailer's Mexican division into one of its most profitable units.

Castro-Wright, 51, has proved to be an aggressive innovator, overseeing a change in regional store management that would put more supervisors in the field rather than in the company's hometown of Bentonville, Arkansas, and encouraging experimentation like a new pharmacy station that brings customers closer to pharmacists.

"Clearly, Wal-Mart's fortunes over the next 12 to 18 months hinge on the quality of the job that Eduardo Castro- Wright does," said Robert Buchanan, a retail analyst at A.G. Edwards. "He is the man on the hot seat."

Bill Dreher, a retail analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities, called Castro-Wright a rising star and a very strong candidate to succeed the chief executive, H.Lee Scott Jr., providing he could fix what analysts said was broken in the United States - a shopping experience that Wal-Mart executives concede has become inconsistent and, at times, unpleasant because of cluttered aisles and outdated decor.

Sales at Wal-Mart stores open for at least a year grew, on average, 3.6 percent a month in fiscal 2005, compared with a 5.8 percent gain for Target, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group.

In its report Tuesday, Wal-Mart said profit rose 13 percent in the quarter ended Jan. 31, but the company, the world's largest retailer, predicted that full-year earnings would fall below Wall Street's expectations.

Wal-Mart shares, which fell 36 cents Tuesday, were up 9 cents at $45.83 on Wednesday afternoon.

Wal-Mart said it was optimistic about 2006 despite the financial burdens, including higher energy prices, facing its predominantly working-class shoppers.

The company forecast full-year earnings of $2.88 to $2.95 a share, compared with analysts' estimates of $2.98.

During a conference call, Castro- Wright outlined his plan to improve the uneven shopping experience at Wal- Mart's American stores, which accounted for 67 percent of the company's $312 billion in sales last year.

Perhaps the most ambitious part of the plan is the proposed renovation of 1,800 stores over the next 18 months. The remodeling is intended to bring the chain's oldest outlets in line with newer ones, which have faux hardwood floors in the clothing department, lower display cases that make it easier to see merchandise and - as Wal-Mart likes to emphasize - better restrooms.

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune

[back to top]


Wal-Mart's results miss expectations

Nick Gibbens
22 Feb 2006                
[back to top]

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has reported a 13.4 per cent rise in fourth-quarter profit, below market expectations.

The US firm said net profit for the three months to January 31 was $3.6bn, or 86 cents per share, compared to $3.2bn, or 75 cents per share, a year earlier.

US net sales during the quarter were $89.3bn, up 8.6 per cent on the previous year.

Wall Street had expected better, but Wal-Mart was hit by higher costs and rising interest rates.

International sales at Wal-Mart, which owns UK supermarket Asda, rose by 14.1 per cent to $1.16bn.

Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott: "We're pleased our trend of year-over-year increases in sales and net income continues."For the year ending January 31, Wal-Mart made a net profit of $11.2bn, up from $10.3bn a year earlier.

Revenue for the year rose by 9 per cent to $312.4bn, while earnings per share were $2.68, up from $2.41 in fiscal 2005.

"We're pleased our trend of year-over-year increases in sales and net income continues," said Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott.

"We added more than $7bn in sales in the quarter and ended the year strong."

Mr Scott said he is "optimistic" about the year as he anticipates positive results from the company's business strategies to improve the customer experience.

"Our entire management team is dedicated to growing sales by making our stores more relevant to today's customers," he explained.

"We want our merchandise to appeal to a broad range of customers who are already shopping our stores. We want customers to shop Wal-Mart for all their needs, from consumables to electronics, home décor and apparel."

Looking ahead, Wal-Mart said it is targeting net income of 58 cents to 62 cents per share for the first quarter of fiscal 2007. For the full year, the company expects earnings of $2.88 to $2.95 per share.

Wal-Mart shares fell 45 cents to $48.40 in late-morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

[back to top]


Wal-mart profit rises, but outlook dismays

By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Bloomberg News
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006                 
[back to top]

NEW YORK Wal-Mart Stores said on Tuesday that fourth-quarter profit rose 13 percent, bolstered by holiday sales of clothing, electronics and gift cards, but the world's largest retailer forecast annual earnings below analysts' estimates.

Net income for the quarter rose from a year earlier, to $3.59 billion, or 86 cents a share, exceeding analysts' estimates and helped by a tax gain of 2 cents, the company said. Revenue rose 8.7 percent, to $90.1 billion.

Sales at stores open at least a year rose 3.1 percent for the quarter through Jan. 31, lagging behind those of Wal- Mart's main U.S. competitor, Target. Wal-Mart is upgrading stores and merchandise to challenge Target, which has outpaced it in the same category for more than a year because of the popularity of its private-label apparel.

International sales rose 9.6 percent to $18.4 billion, but were hurt by weakness at ASDA, the retailer's British supermarket unit, which failed to meet fourth- quarter profit and sales goals as market leader Tesco pulled further ahead.

ASDA has been slower than Tesco to broaden its food ranges and introduce financial services like life insurance. Wal-Mart said ASDA plans to open as many as 30 stores this year, creating about 7,000 jobs. ASDA currently has 145,000 employees.

ASDA accounts for about 50 percent of Wal-Mart's international sales, or about 10 percent of the retailer's total revenue.

Wal-Mart's chief financial officer, Tom Schoewe, said the company was satisfied with the results.

Still, the week after Christmas "was not as good as it could have been," at Wal-Mart stores, he said. "We weren't as aggressive from a merchandising standpoint as we could have been." Wal-Mart started holiday advertising as early as Nov. 1 last year, and it raised profit margins by limiting markdowns.

"The holidays seemed to work out reasonably well for them," said Amy Bonkoski, an analyst at National City based in Cleveland, Ohio. "They really did get out there earlier and presented different kinds of merchandise and a slightly more upscale image."

Besides aiding overall profit, the move helped the retailer beat Target's monthly sales gain in November for the first time in 18 months. Target reported a 2.6 percent increase in sales at stores open at least a year for November after cutting its initial forecast in half. In December, however, the situation reversed, with Wal-Mart reporting a 2.2 percent gain, its smallest December increase in five years, after traffic declined. Target's figure was 4.7 percent.

Still, some analysts say Wal-Mart may be starting to lure customers from Target. "I don't think that was an aberration," Patrick McKeever, an analyst with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, said of the figures for November. "It could be a sign of things to come in 2006."

Wal-Mart on Tuesday forecast profit for 2007 of up to $2.95 a share, less than the $2.98 consensus estimate. It also forecast first-quarter profit of 58 cents a share, compared with an average estimate by Thomson of 62 cents.

Shares of Wal-Mart fell 31 cents to $45.79 in late New York trading.

Wal-Mart, which has 3,800 U.S. stores, said it would open 555 new stores this year, including 335 in the United States. The company is also renovating stores, adding faux- wood floors and more space between racks in the clothing area. It plans to improve displays and overhaul bathrooms, executives have said.

Though these initiatives are positive, Wal-Mart's customers are generally lower-income than Target's, making them more vulnerable to higher fuel prices or a slowdown in economic growth, said Rick Rubin, an analyst with Mercantile Bankshares. "Unfortunately for Wal-Mart, we're still not seeing the trading-up effect," he said.

Acquisitions help Federated

Federated Department Stores, owner of the Macy's and Bloomingdale's chains, said on Tuesday that fourth- quarter profit rose 59 percent, helped by holiday sales at its newly acquired stores and a tax settlement.

Net income rose to $699 million, or $2.56 a share, from $440 million, or $2.61, a year earlier. Sales climbed 87 percent, to $9.57 billion, in the three months through Jan. 28, aided by its acquisition of May Department Stores, the company said.

Federated had strong sales of dresses, handbags and fragrances during the holiday season, its chief executive, Terry Lundgren, said. The retailer also benefited from its $11 billion acquisition of May, whose stores performed better than Federated expected, he said. Net income was helped by a gain of 8 cents a share from a tax benefit.

Shares of Federated fell 35 cents to $71.28 in late New York trading.

Excluding $131 million in costs to integrate the May stores and adjustments to the value of its inventories to reflect clearance sales, Federated had earnings of $2.74 a share.

On that basis, the company exceeded estimates of $2.62 a share, according to Thomson Financial.

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune

[back to top]


On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO
The New York Times Company 
February 17, 2006                                       
[back to top]

In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart's managers, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why "the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?"

Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.

The Web site, which Mr. Scott uses to communicate his tough standards to thousands of far-flung managers, gives a rare glimpse into the concerns that are roiling Wal-Mart's retailing empire, from the company's sagging stock price to how it treats its workers. Judging by the managers' questions, Mr. Scott has an internal public relations challenge that in some ways mirrors the challenge he faces from outside critics.

And while Mr. Scott's postings are usually written in a careful, even guarded manner, they can often be revealing — for example, showing a defensiveness and testiness with critics — that Mr. Scott normally keeps under wraps.

Copies of Mr. Scott's postings covering two years were made available to The New York Times by Wal-Mart Watch, a group backed by unions and foundations that is pressing Wal-Mart to improve its wages and benefits. Wal-Mart Watch said it received the postings from a disgruntled manager. While the existence of the Web site and Mr. Scott's participation in it have been known, transcripts have never been made public before.

The Web site has a folksy name — Lee's Garage, because Mr. Scott pumped gas at his father's Kansas service station while growing up.

But its tone is at times biting. In his response to the store manager who asked about retiree health benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "Quite honestly, this environment isn't for everyone. There are people who would say, 'I'm sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let's see what happens to the company.' If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things."

Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said Mr. Scott responded so sharply because of the manager's sarcastic tone. The question, she said, indicated the manager failed to understand how competitive retailing is and would not be able to convey that to his subordinates.

"At Wal-Mart, we communicate very candidly with one another," she said. She added that Mr. Scott's tone did not deter employees from asking questions, noting that 2,147 questions have been asked since last April.

Commenting on a labor union that is fighting Wal-Mart's expansion plans in New York City and elsewhere, Mr. Scott wrote in the Web site, "that way its members' employers" — meaning many Wal-Mart competitors — "can continue to charge extremely high prices for food and tolerate poor service."

Stung by the many news media reports about allegations of sex discrimination, off-the-clock work and child labor violations at Wal-Mart, Mr. Scott wrote, "The press lives on things that are negative."

The Web site shows many sides of one of the nation's most powerful executives. He denounces managers who complain about the company or their subordinates. He frets about the success of his discount rival Target. He exhorts employees to act with integrity. He mocks General Motors for problems caused by its generous benefits. He rejects a manager's suggestion that Wal-Mart has created "a culture of fear," and he hails Wal-Mart's performance in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Scott has made some of these points before in public speeches, but in these confidential e-mail messages to managers, he delivers far blunter insights in much greater detail.

In one posting, he urges managers to set an example by doing more to comply with the company's 10-foot rule, requiring employees to smile and ask "Can I help you" when a shopper is less than 10 feet away.

In his postings, Mr. Scott tries to strike a chummy, "in the trenches" tone, reminding managers how frequently he visits stores — at least once a week — and pops into meetings unannounced "to make sure there's not a filter keeping me from hearing what's really important."

But his responses often serve to remind managers of the gap between them and their chief executive, who earned more than $17 million last year, including stock options, who hops around the globe on Wal-Mart's fleet of jets and who lives in a gated community called Pinnacle.

"I recently had dinner with the prime minister of the U.K., Tony Blair, and his wife; my wife and I had a meeting with Prince Charles to talk about sustainability; and I met with Steve Case, the founder of AOL, and talked about health care," Mr. Scott wrote in a two-week-old entry describing how he represents Wal-Mart around the world.

Mr. Scott, 56, joined Wal-Mart in 1979 as its assistant trucking manager. Helped by his affable manner and his command of the company's vast distribution system, he was named chief executive in 2000.

Throughout the dozens of postings, Mr. Scott shows deep concern about the many attacks and allegations that Wal-Mart skirts environmental and labor laws. He acknowledges that Wal-Mart used to have a greater tolerance for managers who cut corners, but his postings insist that Wal-Mart's new focus is on total compliance with the law. In a posting last June, he quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "The time is always right to do what is right."

Responding to a manager's question about attacks on Wal-Mart's image, Mr. Scott wrote in an April 2004 posting: "Your value to Wal-Mart is outweighed by the damage you could do to our company when you do the wrong thing."

"If you choose to do the wrong thing: if you choose to dispose of oil the wrong way, if you choose to take a shortcut on payroll, if you choose to take a shortcut on a raise for someone — you hurt this company," he added. "And it's not unlikely in today's environment that your shortcut is going to end up on the front page of the newspaper. It's not fair to the rest of us when you do that."

Lee's Garage was set up in January 2004, at Mr. Scott's suggestion, to improve communications with managers after a wave of particularly bad publicity, including a federal raid that rounded up 250 illegal immigrants who cleaned Wal-Mart stores and a class-action lawsuit charging sex discrimination, filed on behalf of 1.6 million current and former female employees.

Ms. Williams of Wal-Mart said a public relations assistant screened the questions and Mr. Scott dictated responses to an aide. At first the site was accessible only to salaried managers. Last October, it became available to all 1.3 million employees in the United States.

The questions posted on the Web site range from the self-interested (when will managers receive a raise?) to the competitive (will the merger of Sears and Kmart hurt Wal-Mart?) to the academic (is Wal-Mart technically a monopoly that could be broken up?).

A recurring theme is the attacks on Wal-Mart's image and managers' worries that these attacks are undermining employee morale and the company's ability to grow. Asked if the negative publicity has slowed Wal-Mart's expansion, Mr. Scott responded: "I think it probably has. You can't get letters that say, 'I read where you're doing this and therefore I'll never shop with you again,' and assume everyone who writes that is just some nut. Some of those are real people who don't know us and believe what they've read."

A manager of a Wal-Mart's store in Medford, N.Y., asked about Wal-Mart's repeated failure to gain zoning variances and other government permits to open its first store in New York City. "We're going to have to be a lot more sophisticated about it than we have been," he said, saying that Wal-Mart brings good jobs and great prices. "But I think you'll see us get the stores."

Though Wal-Mart is three times larger than its next biggest retail rival, Mr. Scott appears to be preoccupied with competitors whose individual store sales are growing faster than Wal-Mart's — namely Target and Walgreens.

Asked about Wal-Mart's stock price, which has fallen 11 percent in the last five years, Mr. Scott said: "You cannot have Target or Walgreens beating you day after day after day." Mr. Scott wrote that one reason Wal-Mart's same-store sales were growing more slowly than Target's was that Wal-Mart's customers earn less and have been squeezed worse by soaring fuel prices.

"Wal-Mart's focus has been on lower income and lower-middle income consumers," he wrote. "In the last four years or so, with the price of fuel being what it is, that customer has had the most difficult time. The upper-end customer got a tremendous number of tax breaks about four years ago. They have been doing very well in this economy."

He said having to pay $50 to gas up a car did not change anything for rich customers, but did for those who didn't earn a lot. "It changes whether or not you go to the movie, whether or not you buy new sheets, whether or not you go out to eat."

At several points, Mr. Scott addressed criticisms that Wal-Mart health plan was too stingy toward its employees. He said that Wal-Mart's health plan "stacks up very, very competitively" with other retailers. In a knock at companies that provide more generous benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "One of the things said about General Motors now is that General Motors is no longer an automotive company. General Motors is a benefit company that sells cars to fund those benefits."

In one posting, Mr. Scott talked about how proud he was about Wal-Mart's response to Hurricane Katrina, when it rushed urgent supplies to the Gulf Coast. "The media coverage has been extremely positive and speaks to who we really are as individuals, and as a company."

When one manager asked how an associate — Wal-Mart's term for an employee — could become chief executive of the world's largest retailer, Mr. Scott wrote, "The first thing you can do is make sure you treat your people well, and understand that your associates are what will make you a success."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company 

[back to top]


Wal-Mart to anchor $80M shopping center in Bradley

Kohl's, PetSmart also tenants in 800,000-square-foot center

By H. Lee Murphy
Feb. 17, 2006

(Crain's) — An 800,000-square-foot shopping center, to be anchored by Kohl's, PetSmart and Wal-Mart, is planned on a 113-acre site at the intersection of Illinois Highway 50 and St. George Road in suburban Bradley.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Positioned For New Round Of Growth

Tom Van Riper
02.17.06                      
[back to top]

The sleeping giant may be ready to rise again.

Shares of Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ), which have been stuck in neutral for most of the past five years despite sales and profit growth that has consistently beaten industry benchmarks, seem poised for a fresh round of growth as Wall Street looks for the valuation to catch up to performance.

The retail giant reports fourth-quarter results on Tuesday, with Edward Jones analyst David Powers looking for 83 cents a share on $90 billion in sales, eight cents better than the year-earlier period. And he thinks earnings growth will accelerate to nearly 13% in the April quarter, thanks to some higher margin items and well-documented economies of scale that result in better-than-average returns on invested capital.

"We believe Wal-Mart's growth outlook remains favorable," Powers said in a research note.

January's 4.7% same-store sales growth represented the high end of the retail giant's forecast. That's a positive development for a company whose results had been coming in at the low end of predictions for several months. December's sales growth came in at just 2.2%. Analysts think the jump was significant, even though it was partly the result of holiday gift card sales pushing the recognition of some sales into January, when many customers redeemed the cards for purchase.

Powers, who rates the stock at "buy," thinks Wal-Mart's current risks on the legal front are manageable. Others think the biggest potential risk to future profits is whether unions succeed in expanding the recent Maryland legislature decision forcing the company to pay more for employee health care to other states.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart CEO shoots back

Head of retail behemoth defends company's practices on internal Web site.

CNNMoney.com
February 17, 2006                
[back to top]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - On an internal Web site, Wal-Mart's chief executive fires back at store managers questioning the retailer's practices, including its choice to not offer benefits for retirees.

In postings made on Lee's Garage, a confidential Web site Wal-Mart (Research) CEO Lee Scott uses to communicate with the retailer's store managers, Scott is candid about the company's decision to not offer a medical retirement plan.

"If we're not competitive, we don't exist. We have to operate in the environment we're in today. So we do not have retiree health benefits, and we will not have retiree health benefits unless the industry as a whole changes, or unless the government somehow gets involved in what is today a health-care mess in this country," he argues in a posting from April.

Wal-Mart Watch, a group that monitors the retailer and often criticizes its practices, provided CNNMoney.com with copies of Lee's responses.

The postings, which at times take on biting tone, show a defensiveness that Scott usually keeps under wraps, according to the New York Times, which first reported on the Web postings.

In response to the manager inquiring about retiree medical benefits, Scott continues: "What bothers me is that this is a store manager who's running the store meetings in the morning. If this is how he feels and how he expresses himself, I worry about him representing all of us in management to his associates.

"Quite honestly, this environment isn't for everyone. There are people who would say, 'I'm sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let's see what happens to the company.' If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things."

In the transcripts, Scott tackles other topics, including the company's stagnant share price and public attacks on its practices.

In an April 2004 posting, Scott admits he is concerned about the onslaught of negative media attention. "I don't know if I'd say I'm concerned about Wal-Mart's reputation: among the people who matter most, namely our associates and customers, we have a very fine reputation. But I am concerned about the press."

The postings on the Lee's Garage site offer a glimpse into the concerns roiling the retail empire, the Times said, ranging from the retailer's ongoing expansion to its treatment of employees.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart's Japan unit sees 5th year in loss in 2006

Fri Feb 17, 2006            [back to top]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s <WMT.N> struggling Japanese subsidiary, Seiyu Ltd. <8268.T>, said on Friday it would lose much more money than expected this year due to an asset impairment charge.

That would be a fifth straight year of net losses for the company, owned 53 percent by the U.S. retail giant.

Japanese retailers have benefited from a recovery in the country's economy, which boosted personal spending, but Seiyu is lagging the trend as it struggles to adopt its U.S. parent's sales strategy.

Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, took a controlling stake in Seiyu in December and sent one of its executives to head the company in a bid to make an inroad into Japan's crowded retail market.

Seiyu forecast a net loss of 54.5 billion yen ($461 million) in the year to December, compared with a consensus forecast of a loss of 8.5 billion yen in a poll of four analysts by Reuters Estimates.

Its group net loss totaled 17.77 billion yen in 2005 due to sluggish sales, promotional spending that squeezed margins and a one-off charge. That compared with a net loss of 12.32 billion yen in 2004.

Same-store sales fell 2.1 percent last year.

The 2005 results were expected because Seiyu warned last month that its net loss would likely widen from its previous forecast, in part because of 2.1 billion yen special charge on inventory reevaluation.

Seiyu shares rose 48 percent in 2005, but lagged a 61 percent increase on Tokyo's retail sub-index <.IRETL.T>.

Prior to the announcement, the stock closed down 12.73 percent at 240 yen, while the subindex ended down 2.49 percent. The Nikkei average <.N225> was down 2.06 percent.

($1=118.21 Yen)

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Gregoire pledges to pass a "Wal-Mart bill" next year

By Curt Woodward
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
February 16, 2006
                                [back to top]

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gov. Chris Gregoire pledged Thursday to pass a "perfected" bill next year mandating health care spending by large employers, just days after a version aimed squarely at Wal-Mart died at the Legislature. Speaking at a meeting of organized labor groups, Gregoire promised to work out details that apparently led the state House's top Democrat to block the measure this year.

"I think we ought to work to perfect the bill and make it happen next year," she said to thunderous applause from members of the Washington State Labor Council.

The bill in question was killed Tuesday evening when House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, refused to bring it up for a vote before a key legislative deadline that day.

Unions lobbied furiously for the measure, which would have required companies with 5,000 workers to devote 9 percent of their payrolls to health benefits. Those that didn't meet the standard would have to pay into taxpayer-funded health programs.

It's similar to measures being pushed in more than 30 states by organized labor, and the key target is retail behemoth Wal-Mart.

Chopp doubted the measure's effectiveness, and said he wants to study the status of employer-funded health care in the coming year. Gregoire endorsed that approach on Thursday.

[back to top]


Democrat demands Wal-Mart pay fair share of health-care costs

By R.A. Dillon
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
February 16, 2006                            
[back to top]

JUNEAU--An Anchorage Democrat is pursing legislation forcing Wal-Mart to pay more for its employee health care. The bill by Rep. Eric Croft requires employers with more than 2,000 workers to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or else pay into a fund for the uninsured.

The Fair Share Health Care Act is patterned on a Maryland law that has spawned both similar legislative attempts in more than 30 states and a court challenge.

Wal-Mart is one of four companies in Alaska with more than 2,000 employees--Providence Alaska Medical Center, Safeway and Fred Meyer are the others--but the only one known to spend less than 8 percent on medical benefits.

The Arkansas-based retailer is the state's third largest employer with 2,725 associates.

Wal-Mart employs 325 people at its Johansen Expressway store in Fairbanks, according to co-manager Brad McGinnity.

The company is forcing its workers to apply for the state-funded Medicaid program by not providing them with adequate compensation, said Croft, who is campaigning for governor in November.

Medicaid expenses, which made up 40 percent of the state Department of Health and Social Services' $607 million budget in 2005, are the fastest growing sector of state spending.

The state has not broken out the number of Medicaid recipients to see how many of those claiming benefits on the state's low-income health care program belong to the working poor, but Croft said the number is significant.

"We think large companies should provide a fair health-care plan for their employees and if they don't, they should contribute to a fund to pay back the state," Croft said.

Separate legislation by Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, would require people applying for medical assistance to provide the names of their employers to the state.

"This will allow the state to determine those employers who are not paying their fair share of health care costs," he said.

Gruenberg said he wanted to collect more information before supporting legislation mandating spending levels on health care for Wal-Mart and other large retailers.

"We're hoping to get these companies to pick up some of their own expenses, but first we want to see how big a problem it is for Alaska," he said.

Alaska is just the latest state to step up pressure on the discount retail giant to expand health care coverage for its more than 1.3 million U.S. workers. Anti-Wal-Mart groups in Fairbanks, Anchorage and Homer have protested expansion by the retail giant.

Over the past four decades, Wal-Mart has grown from a small chain to a global enterprise with 5,000 stores in 10 countries.

Wal-Mart officials complain they are being singled out because of their large size, which means they are more likely to have more employees on public health assistance.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Holber said the company is the number one employer of the disabled and welfare-to-work participants, which contributes to the 7 percent of its workforce that receive Medicaid benefits.

Wal-Mart said more than 615,000 of its 1.3 million workers are covered by company health plans, and that it has taken some 160,000 people off the uninsured rolls in 2006.

"We're very interested in sitting down and working with states to get to the root of the problem," Holber said. "We want solutions, but the fair share bills that are being introduced don't offer a systemic approach to the problem."

In Fairbanks, Wal-Mart's McGinnity said he was surprised to hear about Croft's bill, in part because he thinks the company already provides good benefits for workers.

Several of the store's applicants come to Wal-Mart hearing that the store offers great benefits, he said.

"Most of our associates are very happy with our insurance plans right now," he said, based on what they have told him. McGinnity said he did not know how many of his store's employees qualified for health insurance or how many worked full-time.

The bills have the support of labor unions who argue Wal-Mart is putting profits over the health of its workers.

"We don't think they're going to treat Alaskan workers any different that they have nationally," said Wally Stuart, director of United Food and Commercial Workers in Anchorage.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union recently launched a $100,000 national advertising campaign targeting Wal-Mart.

The measures are House Bills 449 and 468.

[back to top]


Bottlers Sue Coca-Cola At issue: Wal-Mart Powerade delivery plans

CSP Daily News
February 16, 2006                   
[back to top]

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- A group of about 50 Coca-Cola bottlers filed a suit in U.S. District Court here to prevent The Coca-Cola Co. and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (CCE) from shipping PowerAde to customer warehouses instead of delivering the product directly to individual stores, a system that has been in place for more than 100 years.

Coca- Cola bottlers will also seek a preliminary injunction to stop CCE’s PowerAde warehouse delivery plans until the legal action is resolved.

A similar suit is also expected to be filed in Circuit Court of Jefferson County in Birmingham, Ala., by an additional group of bottlers bringing the total number of bottlers involved to nearly 60.

The suits contend that an agreement negotiated in 1994 between the bottlers and the company specifically prohibits warehouse delivery of PowerAde to retailers like Wal-Mart.

“The plans for a large scale rollout of warehouse delivery of PowerAde fundamentally alters the system that has made Coca-Cola the most recognized global icon and one of the world’s most valuable brands,” said Claude B. Nielsen chairman, president and CEO of Coca-Cola United Bottling Co., Birmingham, Ala., the third largest Coca-Cola bottler in the United States and a member of the executive committee for the Coca-Cola Bottlers Association.

Nielsen said the bottlers and Coca-Cola have worked for months to come to an acceptable resolution of the issue of PowerAde warehouse delivery. “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to reach a solution with either the company or CCE and we are left with no alternative but to initiate legal action,” said Nielsen.

The bottlers are also concerned that the warehouse delivery of PowerAde violates the principles that underlie the bottlers’ perpetual contracts with Coca-Cola. Throughout their 100-year history, bottlers have served all of their customers directly, large and small, by using their own employees and trucks to deliver product to store shelves within their exclusive territories.

In the 1970s, that system was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in part because of objections that the exclusive territory system made it impossible for large customers to use their warehouse delivery systems. Congress intervened and passed the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act in 1980, concluding that the bottler system should be preserved because of its benefits to competition, consumers and local communities including smaller retailers.

“All Coca-Cola bottlers, first and foremost, seek to provide the best and most reliable service we can for our customers,” said Edwin C. Rice, chairman and CEO of Ozarks Coca-Cola Bottling, Springfield, Mo., which saw its PowerAde volume grow by 121% in Wal-Mart stores in its territory in 2005. “Regrettably, this action involves one of our most valued and largest customers. It is our commitment to provide Wal-Mart with excellent service and local promotional activity that will continue to build the PowerAde brand.”

“We believe that DSD continues to provide retailers, both large and small, with the most efficient and effective distribution of Coca-Cola products,” said Rice. “Combined with superior merchandising, local brand development and strong local relationships, DSD has had a tremendous impact on the overall success of the PowerAde brand.”

Research shows the bottling system played a key role in the doubling of PowerAde sales volume between 2000 and 2004. While PowerAde trails the market leader in isotonic drinks nationally by a wide margin, several of the plaintiff bottlers, which have more than 10,000 employees collectively, have built PowerAde into either a leadership or strong contender position in their local markets.

“The value that the bottling system brings to the Coca-Cola Co. and our customers is without question,” said Rice. “We believe the ultimate success measure for retailers is increasing PowerAde sales, which is more a matter of operational performance on the part of the bottler than warehouse delivery. Getting the product to the warehouse is not the goal. The goal is getting the product into the hands of more consumers more often.”

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola said it is “extremely disappointed” with the suits by bottlers representing about 10% of the company’s U.S. volume, attempting to block the test by CCE of a new delivery system for Powerade.

“These suits are actions against our consumers and our customers—they would prevent the Coca-Cola system from strengthening its competitive position in this category and meeting consumer demand for lower cost, more efficient access to our popular Powerade sports drinks,” said Don Knauss, president of Coca-Cola North America. “The actions by bottlers…would greatly hamper the Coca-Cola system from competing with other sports drink brands, and that does a great disservice to the system, its people and its consumers.”

He added, “We want to work with all our bottlers to create growth in all channels and with all customers. Litigation is completely inappropriate and unfounded in light of the ongoing discussions between the company and all our bottlers to respond to a major customer’s request for the benefit of everyone. We are extremely disappointed that a few individuals are attempting to hijack those discussions.”

Powerade U.S. volume growth was in double digits in 2005, reaching an 18.6 share in the sports drink category (FY 2005 Nielsen Measured Channels). Wal-Mart approached the company and its bottlers last summer, saying it wanted to increase availability of Powerade in its stores and grow the brand even faster, if the system would allow it to deliver the product to its stores through its own warehouses. In response, CCE decided to conduct a test of that proposal in some of its exclusive territories, which it is allowed to do under its contract with the company.

“When a customer comes to our system with an idea, we want to consider it as a system for the benefit of our consumers and our entire system, which is how we have handled this request,” said Knauss. “We are currently reviewing a complex and unrealistic proposal from the Coca-Cola Bottlers Association and have committed to responding to it by February 22. These lawsuits will only shut down for everyone what we believe had been a productive business dialogue.”

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola said that Warren E. Buffett and J. Pedro Reinhard have informed the company that they do not intend to stand for re-election to the board at the upcoming annual meeting of shareowners.

Buffett said that his decision was a consequence of the increased demands on his time resulting from Berkshire Hathaway’s acquisitions of new companies. He also noted that Berkshire Hathaway intends to retain its holdings of Coca-Cola stock.

Both Buffett’s and Reinhard’s terms expire on April 19, 2006, at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Shareowners. The company has no immediate plans to fill the vacated board seats.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart sweetener sours Splenda

By month's end, the retailer's supercenters will carry a store version of the popular sugar alternative.

Reuters
February 16, 2006          
[back to top]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will carry a store-brand version of the popular low-calorie sweetener Splenda in its U.S. supercenters by the end of the month, the retailer said Wednesday, a move that may revive investor concerns about Splenda maker Tate & Lyle Plc.

Wal-Mart (Research), the world's biggest retailer, tested its own version of the sweetener -- called sucralose -- under the brand name "Altern" last year, making analysts worry that the company could threaten sales and profits for Britain's Tate & Lyle.

In September, Tate & Lyle said Wal-Mart had removed Altern from its shelves. However, the company said on Tuesday that Altern was once again showing up at a handful of Wal-Mart stores, and it was trying to determine whether the product infringed on its patent.

On Wednesday, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Karen Burk confirmed that the retailer tested Altern in a few stores last fall, and said the company was now planning to roll it out nationwide.

"We're now introducing this product and it will be available in all of our supercenters by the end of February," she said in response to questions from Reuters.

Wal-Mart has nearly 2,000 U.S. supercenters, its largest stores, that include a full line of groceries alongside general merchandise goods ranging from toothpaste to televisions.

The zero-calorie Splenda sweetener was launched by Tate & Lyle and its partner, Johnson & Johnson's (Research) McNeil unit, in the United States in 1998. Tate & Lyle sells Splenda to food and drink makers, while McNeil controls sales to retailers.

Splenda accounts for a large portion of Tate & Lyle's annual profit, so analysts fear that if Wal-Mart can obtain a cut-price version, then food and drink makers would also be able to buy cheaper sucralose.

"Tate & Lyle does not expect the launch of this product, even were it to be on a national scale, to have any material effect on the results of its sucralose division and is making this statement in recognition of the high level of investor interest in sucralose," Tate & Lyle said in Tuesday's statement.

[back to top]


Debate over ‘Wal-Mart law’ hits Colorado

By Charles Ashby
Pueblo Chieftain
February 15, 2006                   
[back to top]

Retailer defends health benefits as group seeks increased spending. DENVER - More than 250 workers chanted and testified at the Colorado Legislature on Monday to try to get lawmakers to increase access to medical coverage by forcing Wal-Mart to pay more.

Though HB1316 would require large corporations that employ 3,500 or more people to provide health insurance to their workers, the workers made clear the measure was aimed at Wal-Mart.

The discount store has been the target of numerous attacks nationwide over employee pay and benefits. Maryland's Democrat-controlled state Legislature recently overturned a governor's veto in support of the law. A nation retail group subsequently filed a court challenge of the Maryland law.

"Colorado families struggling to pay for their own health care can't afford to also subsidize free-loading corporations, like Wal-Mart, that refuse to pay their fair share," said Bill Vandenberg of the Colorado Progressive Coalition. "Corporations have to pay their own way."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs said 75 percent of the company's employees have health care. She said the bill is part of a national campaign by unions to punish the company for not hiring union workers.

"Labor union's leaders have been unsuccessful forcing our workers to unionize, so they developed a multi-million dollar campaign to slow down Wal-Mart's growth," she said.

The House Business Affairs & Labor Committee took testimony on the measure, but delayed voting on it for another day.

 [back to top]


House panel approves health insurance bill aimed at Wal-Mart

By John Stamper
Lexington Herald-Leader
February 15, 2006                     
[back to top]

FRANKFORT — Lawmakers chastised retailing giant Wal-Mart today, threatening to approve legislation that would force the world’s largest company to take better care of its more than 30,000 Kentucky employees. The proposal, which would require companies with more than 25,000 employees to spend at least 10 percent of their payroll on employee health insurance, was passed by the House Banking and Insurance Committee 15-4, with three members voting “pass.”

However, many legislators who voted for the bill said they still have serious concerns and might vote differently when the measure comes before the entire House.

“It has a rough, bumpy road ahead, to say the least,” said Democratic Rep. J.R. Gray of Benton, a co-sponsor of the proposal.

Wal-Mart has faced intense criticism in the past year for its health insurance policies, which force many of its employees and their families to rely on state-sponsored health-care plans or go uninsured.

Called the Fair Share Health Care Act, the proposal appears to affect only Wal-Mart and UPS, which has a large air hub in Louisville.

Businesses with 25,000 or more workers that fail to spend 10 percent of their payroll on health insurance would be required to pay a sum equal to that amount to the state. That money would be used to support the Medicaid program.

Companies that fail to make the required payment would face a $250,000 fine.

Similar versions of the so-called Wal-Mart bill are under consideration in 33 states this year, according to Laurie Smalling, a Wal-Mart regional manager of state government relations who testified today.

Calling the provision “an unfair mandate,” Smalling said the bill would “cost jobs and slow economic growth.”

She declined to say what percentage of the company’s Kentucky payroll is spent on health insurance. She also couldn’t say how many of the company’s Kentucky workers rely on Medicaid.

The company has 38 Wal-Mart stores, two distribution centers and seven Sam’s Club stores in the state, which pay an average hourly wage of $9.94, Smalling said.

An internal company memo leaked to the media late last year indicates that 5 percent of Wal-Mart’s workers nationwide are on Medicaid, compared with an average of 4 percent for other national employers. About 27 percent of its workers’ children are on Medicaid, compared with 22 percent nationally.

In all, 46 percent of Wal-Mart workers’ children are on Medicaid or are uninsured, according to the memo.

“We have large entities that are riding on the backs of taxpayers,” said Rep. Melvin Henley, R-Murray, a co-sponsor of House Bill 493. “We need some special regulations to control the mammoths among us.”

Those who opposed the bill, and some who voted to pass the measure, said it is unfair to single out one company when businesses of all sizes are struggling to provide adequate health insurance.

“I just have a reluctance to attack one business like this,” said Rep. Sheldon Baugh, R-Russellville, who voted “pass.”

[back to top]


Bernanke expresses concern on industrial banks

Reuters
February 15, 2006                   
[back to top]

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - A bill that would make industrial banks subject to the same level of federal supervision as other banks would help alleviate the Federal Reserve's concerns about those financial institutions, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday. Responding to a question from a House panel about industrial loan companies, or banks that may be owned by corporations but are not subject to a level of federal bank regulation, Bernanke said placing those institutions under the Bank Holding Company Act would relieve the Fed's anxiety.

"In my view, the bill that you're describing would solve the problem and would relieve our anxiety considerably about this particular type of organization," Bernanke told the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in his first appearance on Capitol Hill as Fed chief.

Industrial banks are state-chartered and state-regulated, and fall under FDIC supervision. Commercial companies may own them because federal laws that bar non-financial companies from engaging in banking activities do not classify them as banks.

Recently, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said Congress should review a "loophole" in federal law that allows companies to buy industrial banks in a handful of states but avoid a level of supervision by regulators.

Wal-Mart , the world's largest retailer, has applied to open an industrial bank in Utah. That application has generated substantial opposition from some lawmakers.

[back to top]


NOW Urges Wal-Mart to Expand Emergency Contraception Access to Stores in all States

NOW
February 15, 2006                
[back to top]

Under pressure from a lawsuit and the state pharmacy board, Wal-Mart agreed yesterday to start stocking and selling emergency contraception in its Massachusetts stores. Currently Wal-Mart does not dispense emergency contraception (also known as Plan B or the "morning after pill") in any state other than Illinois, where it is required to do so by law.

"While NOW is encouraged by this development, it is clear that Wal-Mart only changes its policy when backed into a legal corner. Their concern for the rights of women customers is secondary at best," said NOW Action Vice President Melody Drnach.

NOW named Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame nearly four years ago, pointing to the retail giant's long list of alleged workplace abuses, including sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation, and its refusal to dispense emergency contraception.

To be most effective, emergency contraception should be taken as soon as possible within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. Because Wal-Mart has put so many smaller stores out of business, in a number of areas it is the only pharmacy for miles. No woman at risk for unintended pregnancy, be it the result of sexual assault or a broken condom, should be turned away by Wal-Mart and forced to find another pharmacy while the clock is ticking.

Unable to fill their Plan B prescriptions at Wal-Mart stores, three Massachusetts women filed suit against the retailer on Feb. 1. In a matter of days, the state Board of Registration in Pharmacy voted unanimously to require Wal-Mart to stock and sell emergency contraception, and the company announced that it would comply "as soon as reasonably possible."

"NOW urges Wal-Mart to take action immediately to meet the requirements of the Massachusetts pharmacy board. Unfortunately, women will continue to be denied Plan B at thousands of Wal-Mart pharmacies across the country," said Drnach.

A Wal-Mart spokesperson told the media that the company is reviewing its nationwide policy on emergency contraception and "actively thinking through the issue."

"Simply saying that they're reviewing the policy is not enough," said Drnach. "Any policy that discriminates against women is wrong and should be changed without delay."

Copyright 1995-2006, All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use. National Organization for Women

[back to top]


Wal-Mart must stock emergency contraception

[back to top]

BOSTON (AP) — The state board that oversees pharmacies voted Tuesday to require Wal-Mart (WMT) to stock emergency contraception pills at its Massachusetts pharmacies, a spokeswoman at the Department of Public Health said. The unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy comes two weeks after three women sued Wal-Mart in state court for failing to carry the so called "morning after" pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in the state.

The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The board has sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers informing them of the decision, said health department spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance with the board's decision.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said the company hadn't heard about the decision, but would comply with any order.

Wal-Mart carries the pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but declined to elaborate.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Pro-Abortion Group 'Delighted' Wal-Mart Must Stock 'Morning-After' Pill

By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com
February 14, 2006                
[back to top]

(CNSNews.com) - A pro-abortion group is praising the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy for its unanimous decision requiring all Wal-Mart stores in the state to stock the "morning-after" pill.

NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts said it is "delighted" over the state board's decision in favor of three women who challenged the store for refusing to carry the emergency contraception in its pharmacies.

"This decision reflects the values of fairness and privacy that a vast majority of Massachusetts residents support," said NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Executive Director Melissa Kogut in a statement. She said the pharmacy board did "the right thing."

Kogut called on all Wal-Mart stores throughout the nation to dispense the Plan B emergency contraception "and replace its current policy of discrimination with one that puts women's health first."

The pro-abortion group sent over 26,000 messages from all 50 states to Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., calling on the retailer to reverse its policy and carry the "morning-after pill."

"The message from Americans is clear -- the public wants pharmacies to be a resource for medical care, not a barrier," said Kogut.

The Associated Press reports that Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman, who did not hear about the pharmacy board's decision, said Tuesday that the company would comply with any order. The retailer already carries the contraceptive pill in Illinois, where it is required under state law.

"Just a few days ago, a Wal-Mart spokesperson indicated that for the first time Wal-Mart may be rethinking its policy. The plaintiffs here in Massachusetts can be proud that their voices have been heard. We will be sure that the voices of Americans all over the country will continue to be heard as well," said Kogut.

The morning-after pill "has tremendous potential to reduce unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion but only if women have access to this back-up method soon after unprotected sex, contraceptive failure or rape," Kogut concluded.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

[back to top]


States must follow Maryland's lead on Wal-Mart health benefits

The Free-Lance Star (VA)
February 12, 2006
                     [back to top]

WASHINGTON--Maryland just took a positive step toward expanding workers' rights. And the move could have larger implications around the country. The state's General Assembly passed a law called the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act that will require Wal-Mart, and other large employers, to dedicate 8 percent of its payroll costs to employee health care.

If employers fall short of this mark, they will have to pay the difference to the state's health-care program for low-income families.

Many other states may use Maryland's law as a template to introduce similar legislation this year. In the process, Maryland is helping to redefine the social compact with America's workers.

Wal-Mart executives, business leaders, and conservative politicians have criticized Maryland lawmakers for undeservedly beating up on the retail giant. But those lawmakers were responding to the demands of hard-working people across the state who are struggling with exorbitant health-care costs.

Taxpayers who don't want to give big companies a free ride, unions and other organizations that represent the interests of working families--and even some Wal-Mart consumers--also pushed for reform. An amazing 66 percent of Marylanders supported this bill.

When customers register outrage about the unfavorable practices of their favorite brands, positive changes occur.

McDonald's replaced its plastic foam packaging with more environmentally friendly paper products.

Nike was forced to address sweatshop labor conditions in its shoe-manufacturing facilities.

And Starbucks began selling "fair-trade" coffee that properly compensated coffee plantation workers and small farmers.

Wal-Mart, too, can be required to become a better corporate citizen. With $256 billion in profits last fiscal year and 1.6 million employees worldwide, Wal-Mart's labor-relations model sets far-reaching standards.

The company's willingness to suppress pay and benefits, disregard labor regulations regarding break time and other working conditions, and squash employee efforts to form unions, has a devastating social impact.

When the world's largest employer applies this model to its workforce, it has a hand in legitimizing these practices--and enabling its vendors and rivals to follow suit.

As a result, competition fueled by the violation of workers' rights creates a race to the bottom.

Maryland's "Wal-Mart" law sets a floor for employee benefits among rival businesses. By doing so, the cost of health care benefits will no longer be a variable employers can use to increase profitability.

Maryland is pointing the way. We must demand that our democratic beliefs about fair play, justice and equality be extended to workplaces.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart and Li ka-Shing seen key to Mexico port expansion

By Nick Carey
Sun Feb 12, 2006            
[back to top]

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Top retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. <WMT.N> and Hong Kong magnate Li ka-Shing are key players in a $300 million expansion of Mexico's Pacific port of Lazaro Cardenas aimed at ensuring goods reach U.S. shelves, according to the U.S. railroad that serves the port.

"Wal-Mart and other retailers are looking for backup routes so that even if some ports face stoppages they have reliable backups," Michael Haverty, chief executive of Kansas City Southern <KSU.N>, told Reuters at KCS headquarters here in a recent interview.

As part of current plans, he added, Wal-Mart may build a major distribution center in Kansas City.

When asked about the plans for Lazaro Cardenas and Kansas City, Wal-Mart declined to comment. "It is premature for us to discuss details of this project," said Marty Heires, a spokesman for the world's biggest retailer.

But stoppages in 2004 at the largest U.S. container port complex in Los Angeles-Long Beach and concerns over capacity crunches at U.S. ports have led Wal-Mart and other retailers such as Target Corp. <TGT.N> and Home Depot Inc. <HD.N>, to seek backup routes for a vast tide of imported merchandise.

With U.S. imports seeing double-digit volume growth over the past three years and set for further gains, the search for backup routes has become more urgent, Haverty said.

Analysts have questioned how much business Lazaro Cardenas can bring to KCS. But Haverty said expansion plans by Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. <0013.HK> -- the flagship of Hong Kong magnate Li ka-Shing and operator of the world's top container port in Hong Kong -- include Lazaro Cardenas.

Haverty said an initial $300 million development phase for Lazaro Cardenas planned with Wal-Mart and Hutchison participation, with more investment seen possible, has "the potential to transform our company."

In Hong Kong, Hutchison spokesman Anthony Tam said the company did not wish to disclose plans for Lazaro Cardenas.

But Haverty said most of the $200 million Kansas City Southern has earmarked for investment in Mexico in 2006-2007 will be for track from Lazaro Cardenas.

AVOIDING BOTTLENECKS

Lazaro Cardenas already annually handles 100,000 20-foot equivalent units (TEU), or containers. But Hutchison will add capacity equivalent to 700,000 TEUs a year by 2008, with the option to increase that to 2 million, Haverty told Reuters.

Long Beach handled 14.2 million TEUs in 2005, up 8 percent from 2004 -- much of that driven by shipments from China, which has seen a steadily expanding trade surplus with the United States.

Ports on both coasts of the United States are expanding to catch some of this extra business as big retailers "continue to diversify their port policies," John Lanigan, chief marketing officer at the No. 2 U.S. railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp <BNI.N>, told Reuters in a separate interview.

Prince Rupert in British Columbia, long the second Pacific gateway for Canada after Vancouver, now touts itself on its Web site as "North America's closest port to Asia."

But via its rail links, Kansas City also hopes to benefit from and promote what Chris Gutierrez of local nonprofit company Smartport describes as an "inland port."

Kansas City Southern Chief Financial Officer Arthur Shoener said a trip from Mexico to Houston or Atlanta on KCS rail lines was 300 miles shorter than for containers from Long Beach.

Lazaro Cardenas would also be cheaper and less likely to suffer labor disruptions than at unionized U.S. facilities.

Shoener said another port-building company besides Hutchison was in talks with the Mexico authorities to build a separate facility at Lazaro Cardenas. He did not name that company.

Haverty said KCS has also discussed Lazaro Cardenas with both Target and Home Depot, but only through intermediaries.

Using Lazaro Cardenas was not what KCS planned in 1995 when it bought a minority stake in Mexico's largest railroad, gaining access to Lazaro Cardenas. At that point, KCS planned to ship goods between manufacturers in Mexico, the United States and Canada in what it touted as the "NAFTA Railway."

After 2004 Long Beach delays, the strategy was reviewed.

Hutchison, encouraged by Danish shipping and oil group A.P. Moeller-Maersk <MAERSKb.CO> -- Wal-Mart's largest shipper -- studied the U.S. coast and Mexico to find additional entry points to the U.S. market, Haverty said. Hutchison has already expanded a facility at the eastern end of the Panama Canal.

"It wasn't until the major delays on the West Coast in 2004 that the potential of Lazaro Cardenas became apparent," Haverty said. "We're not looking to compete with Long Beach because we never could. But there is plenty of additional business to go round."

It makes sense for Wal-Mart to consider moving goods through Lazaro Cardenas because its Mexican unit Wal-Mart de Mexico <WALMEXV.MX> is the largest retailer in the country, Standard & Poor's analyst Andrew West said.

(Additional reporting by Emily Kaiser in Chicago)

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Critical documentary on Wal-Mart

by JWSmythe
Sunday, February 12 2006                     
[back to top]

A documentary on the perils of runaway capitalism that spotlights Wal-Mart screened at the Berlin Film Festival on Saturday, and interest among European distributors and television networks has been strong. The feature-length documentary focuses on working conditions at the U.S. retail giant and argues that the company treats its employees shabbily in pursuit of maximum profit.

"Wal-Mart is the poster child for the worst in corporate behavior," U.S. director Robert Greenwald said in an interview after his film, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", screened to a large and appreciative audience.

"But it is not only Wal-Mart, it is these issues that affect all of us all around the world."

Wal-Mart, based in Betonville, Arkansas, has criticized the film by saying it is not an accurate portrayal of the company.

"Let's be clear about Mr. Greenwald's intent: it is not to present a fair and accurate portrayal of Wal-Mart," the retailer said in a statement last year.

"It is a propaganda video -- pure and simple -- designed to advance a narrow special interest agenda."

The film, which Greenwald partly financed, portrays Wal-Mart Stores Inc as a monster that destroys the fabric of small towns by killing off small business with discount prices, and as a firm paying poverty-level wages without adequate health cover.

Greenwald, who said he tried unsuccessfully to interview Wal-Mart executives for his documentary, shows how Wal-Mart moved into two small towns in Ohio and Missouri, among other places, and how family-owned stores folded after its arrival.

"Wal-Mart is on a rampage across America but no one is doing anything about it," says hardware store worker John Faenza in the film. Greenwald reports that wages and property values fell when Wal-Mart came to town.

Read More

Editor: We have not reviewed this movie yet, but it would seem to point out the already obvious, which has been covered in numerous news stories.

WalMart, the monolythic undercutting supercenter, is well known for destroying local economies. Small stores have no way to compete with the pricing, even if they are offering the better product. WalMart, like some of it's low-price competition, get "special" products, which appear very similar to the regular retail items.

One example which was pointed out to me a few years ago are the Sony "Handycam" camcorders. We had a damaged unit, so we brought it to a Sony authorized repair center. As soon as we put it on the counter, the tech said "You bought that at WalMart, didn't you?" He was absolutely right. He told us he could tell by the model number. That series is only sold at WalMart. He wasn't surprised that it was broken either. Items built for WalMart are of a far lower quality than the ones sold at other retail stores. So much so that the Sony Handycams which WalMart sells are considered disposable.

This was upsetting to us, since the project I was on had purchased about 30 of these cameras. We found ourselves in a cycle of returning one or two units almost weekly. As WalMart began refusing to exchange the defective units, we started purchasing regular "retail" units, which didn't fail.

I still have one of these lower quality WalMart units. It's an interesting camcorder. It sometimes gets confused and ejects the tape without warning. It will sometimes turn itself on or off, and sometimes just operates normally.

Why did we buy the units from WalMart? Because they were cheaper. Just like every consumer, we look for the "better deal". That purchase of 30 units at WalMart took the purchase away from small local vendors.

Mom and Pop stores close their doors very quickly in the shadow of WalMart stores. In many documented cases, the opening of a WalMart resulted in the death of the town. Once the customer base was gone, WalMart would then shut the doors on their own store, because there was no longer a profit to be made.

WalMart has buying power that Mom and Pop stores don't have. You get better deals with the larger quantity purchases. Mom and Pop store owners cannot afford to buy 100,000 DVD players, or logo T-shirts, and even if they did, they'd never be able to sell them.

Did Mr. Greenwald have an agenda making this film? Maybe. Lets see if he documented the truth, or made a work of fiction.

I was once a WalMart employee. Yes, I was a low-income individual, who needed a job. I worked in one of the vast WalMart warehouses for several months. I saw employees virtually working themselves to death, to make the company happy. One employee broke two fingers while unloading a freight truck. Rather than report the accident and lose his job, he taped his fingers together with packing tape and endured the pain for $8 per hour.

While WalMart was not the worst place I ever worked, it seems their systematic abuse of employees applies to almost all employees. We've seen reports of this frequently. Staff being expected to work off the clock, skipping breaks and lunches. Blatent sexual and race discrimination. And finally, despite their previous "Made in the USA" campaign, they are now one of the largest trading partners with China. It's no wonder the American trade deficit is getting worse. In 2004 WalMart imported $18 billion per year, with a 20% per year growth. This story reports the figure to be between $18 billion and $20 billion for the year 2004.

According to This story, WalMart is responsible for 10% of the United States trade deficit with China.

Imagine what it could do for the U.S. Economy if WalMart started supporting the country it's destroying. Imagine trading in American made items. It's a whole lot better than another blue collar worker finding out that his job was outsourced to China.

[back to top]


Asda found guilty of trying to blackball union employees

By : Amy Watts 
Sun, 12 Feb 2006
                [back to top]

LONDON - Leading supermarket group Asda followed discriminatory policies against trade union employees in its stores, an employment tribunal has ruled. Consequently, Asda could face £850,000 in fines. It was ruled that Asda was guilty of offering inducements to GMB union members in Washington, Tyne and Wear, to negate a collective agreement that had been negotiated by the union.

Each of the 340 union workers stands to gain £2,500 from Asda. "Last year Asda offered GMB members in Washington a pay rise of 10% if they would give up their membership, but our members rejected this," said Paul Kenny, the acting general secretary of GMB union.

"Asda have been found guilty of trying to bribe their way to a union free company. They have now been directed to pay £850,000. The Asda management need to take a clear message from this, that the GMB is not going away and the union will fight on every front to protect our members' right." Meanwhile, Asda said that it was disappointed with the ruling.

The supermarket, which is owned by retailing giant Wal-Mart, said that it was considering an appeal. "When we bought the depot from Wincanton a number of years ago we protected the workers' existing terms and conditions," said Ed Watson, a spokesman for the supermarket.

"After many requests for them to be brought into line with an Asda owned and operated depot close by we gave them the opportunity by ballot whether they supported the move. They voted against any changes and were kept on the existing terms."

Asda has fallen behind supermarkets Tesco Plc and J Sainsbury Plc in the financial states last year. It failed to meet any of its profits goals and was seen to be slow to expand its food range and introduce services like life insurance at its stores.

[back to top]


A Wal-Mart Grows in Wyoming

by: Chris Steins
Campus Progress via Alternet
11 February, 2006                           
[back to top]

I don't know how long my family's printing company can survive, since Wal-Mart moved into my town and displaced most of the local businesses, writes Kat Smyth.

"Shaped by the natural resources that surround it, Rock Springs is filled with small businesses that cater to the needs of its residents. Growing up in a family that started its own business, Smyth Printing, I was raised to believe in the importance of customer service, fast turn-around, and quality products. For twenty-five years, my parents have established partnerships within the community. City Market was the local grocery store where we shopped. I got my hair cut at Lynn's beauty salon and ate cookies at Fred's bakery.

Now, all of those businesses have been wiped out and in their place stands a massive concrete box called Wal-Mart."

"...Back across the street at Smyth Printing, my parents have established a small business whose primary focus is narrowly defined by a particular trade, not five or six. While the nation's largest retailer is struggling to defend itself from public attack on their poverty wages and stingy health care plan, we are looking for ways to keep my family business afloat. While carrying boxes of envelopes into Hemphill Trucking, the owners chat with my father about the booming natural gas wells up North.

...Perhaps Wal-Mart does represent inevitable economic winds of change; nonetheless, we need to fight to protect the small businesses and independent spirit of towns like Rock Springs, Wyoming."

[back to top]


Critical documentary on Wal-Mart stirs Berlin fest

By Erik Kirschbaum
Saturday 11 February 2006            
[back to top]

BERLIN, Feb 11 (Reuters) - A documentary on the perils of runaway capitalism that spotlights Wal-Mart screened at the Berlin Film Festival on Saturday, and interest among European distributors and television networks has been strong.

The feature-length documentary focuses on working conditions at the U.S. retail giant and argues that the company treats its employees shabbily in pursuit of maximum profit.

"Wal-Mart is the poster child for the worst in corporate behaviour," U.S. director Robert Greenwald said in an interview after his film, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", screened to a large and appreciative audience.

"But it is not only Wal-Mart, it is these issues that affect all of us all around the world."

Wal-Mart, based in Betonville, Arkansas, has criticised the film by saying it is not an accurate portrayal of the company.

"Let's be clear about Mr. Greenwald's intent: it is not to present a fair and accurate portrayal of Wal-Mart," the retailer said in a statement last year.

"It is a propaganda video -- pure and simple -- designed to advance a narrow special interest agenda."

Greenwald's film, which has sold 110,000 DVDs since November and been shown in a limited theatrical release in the United States, was quickly snapped up by distributors in Britain, Germany and Australia.

The film, which Greenwald partly financed, portrays Wal-Mart Stores Inc as a monster that destroys the fabric of small towns by killing off small business with discount prices, and as a firm paying poverty-level wages without adequate health cover.

Greenwald, who said he tried unsuccessfully to interview Wal-Mart executives for his documentary, shows how Wal-Mart moved into two small towns in Ohio and Missouri, among other places, and how family-owned stores folded after its arrival.

"Wal-Mart is on a rampage across America but no one is doing anything about it," says hardware store worker John Faenza in the film. Greenwald reports that wages and property values fell when Wal-Mart came to town.

Images of boarded-up shops accompanied by haunting Bruce Springsteen songs deliver a powerful message about the excesses of capitalism, one which scares many Europeans.

"Wal-Mart is sucking down standards around the world," the narrator says. Greenwald includes interviews with ex Wal-Mart managers and employees detailing poor treatment of staff.

"Wal-Mart is abusive in ways that other corporations that are committed to profits are not," Greenwald told Reuters.

"They have a culture that says it's okay to do anything as long as it's good for profits. It's okay not to give employees health insurance. It's okay to take money away from communities to build Wal-Marts.

"I don't believe there is any other company that is as aggressively exploiting people as Wal-Mart."

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart, Realtors trying to revive new store at 53rd and Meridian

Bill Wilson
Wichita Business Journal
February 10, 2006                       
[back to top]

Rumors surrounding the demise of Wal-Mart's proposed supercenter at 53rd and Meridian might yet prove exaggerated.

Talks are under way to address traffic and noise concerns that led the Wichita City Council in December to unanimously reject a proposal to build a supercenter on the northwest corner of 53rd and Meridian.

Wichita City Council member Sharon Fearey says Wal-Mart will present "substantial changes in their plan" to the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Commission and affected district advisory councils this spring. Those changes haven't been finalized.

Then Fearey plans to convene a meeting in District 6 to gauge the public's response to the changes.

"I tend to listen to the people," she says. "Then, we'll go from there."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Angie Stoner in Bentonville, Ark., says the company is reviewing the council decision and looking for ways to move the project forward.

Mike Loveland, a Realtor with J.P. Weigand and Sons Inc. in Wichita who brokered part of the land deal with Wal-Mart, says the land remains under contract to the Arkansas retailer.

During a Dec. 13 council meeting, Fearey led the charge against the store, saying it threatened the retail character of the neighborhood.

Neighbors said the 24.7-acre store would have brought excess traffic and noise to the residential area. Plans included a department and grocery store, an express lube and tire center and drive-thru service in the pharmacy and garden center.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart and Monsanto on Indo-U.S. Agriculture Initiative board

By Gargi Parsai
Friday, February 10, 2006            
[back to top]

NEW DELHI - The United States-based multinationals, Wal-Mart and Monsanto, are on the board of the Indo-U.S. Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture Research and Education. It will set the agenda for collaborative farm research with Indian laboratories and agricultural universities.

In India, the universities on their own and through Krishi Vigyan Kendras serve as extension agencies for farmers on the field and have a wide reach.

The influence of the American private sector became obvious to Indian scientists during the first meeting of the board in Washington DC in December 2005. Representatives of the Wal-Mart food chain and the Monsanto Seed Corporation were keen on using the Initiative for retailing in agriculture and on trade aspects. Transgenic research in crops, animals and fisheries would be a substantial part of the collaboration in biotechnology, requiring India to pledge huge funds.

Issues of Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit-Sharing were also discussed. India is endowed with rich biodiversity and has a huge bank of germ plasm and genetic resource material in the public research system.

India is looking for joint ownership or joint patents, whereas in the U.S. much of the transgenic and hybrid agricultural technology is with the corporates.

Indian Council of Agriculture Research Director-General Mangala Rai is the co-chair of the Board along with Ellen Terpstra, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture Services. There will be seven members on each side.

Only private funding

According to well-placed sources, the American side clearly told the Indians that there would be no U.S. government funding.

In their university system, research is funded by the private sector, which will then hold the patent on a technology. Even technologies developed with public funds are licensed to corporates.

But India will have to pay even the "tuition fee" to scientists who visit America for "capacity building" and training. It is also expected to allocate up to Rs. 400 crores over three years towards the Initiative. Of this, about Rs. 300 crores will be for research in transgenic and biotechnology.

Sources said this came as a jolt to scientists, who were looking for a yesteryear kind of development and application-oriented collaboration and technology dissemination with substantial U.S. funding.

But for the appointment of a joint secretary on the board, the Union Agriculture Ministry has virtually no direct role. Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia is directly and closely involved in the Initiative.

Priority areas

After considering a 56-page Indian draft proposal, the board identified four major priority areas. They are: Human Resource and Institutional Capacity Building; Agri-Processing and Marketing; Emerging Technologies and Natural Resources Management. The Indian side had sought priority collaboration on Climate Change, Soil and Waste Management, IPR, Bio-safety, Food Safety, Regulatory Frameworks, Post-Harvest Management, Value Addition, Food Marketing, Product Handling, Nanotechnology, Vaccines and Diagnostics and Precision Farming.

Four areas

However, the Board agreed only on four areas in the short term: Education, learning resources, curriculum development and training; Food Processing and use of bio-products and bio-fuels; Biotechnology and Water Management.

Hectic and hush-hush preparations are on to finalise a Work Plan next week, in time for a formal announcement by U.S. President George Bush when he arrives in India in March.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu

[back to top]


City looks into land owned by Wal-Mart

By Tom Lochner
CONTRA COSTA TIMES           
[back to top]  

Hercules is exploring acquiring land owned by Wal-Mart near the city's waterfront, where the retail giant planned to build a store. Hercules City Manager Mike Sakamoto said Friday the city's appraiser wrote Wal-Mart a letter earlier this week, but the city has not received any response. Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said Friday he is aware Wal-Mart has received a letter from an appraiser but could not comment further. In December, Wal-Mart applied to build a 142,000-square-foot store at the future Bayside Marketplace, which it acquired from a developer in the fall. The 17-acre property is along John Muir Parkway about midway between San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Bay. A vocal group of opponents has opposed Wal-Mart's plan for a variety of reasons, both local and global. A city staff report earlier this month found Wal-Mart's plan inconsistent with a 2003 development agreement that called for a neighborhood shopping center with the largest store limited to 64,000 square feet. Wal-Mart withdrew its application last week but left open the possibility it would reapply. Last week, after withdrawal of the application, Loscotoff said Wal-Mart was still committed to going forward. Some Wal-Mart opponents have urged the city to invoke eminent domain to acquire the property. Sakamoto said that although eminent domain is on a city's menu of options, any talk of it now would be premature. "The City Council is reviewing its options with regards to acquiring the property" and is considering "different steps," Sakamoto said.

 [back to top]  


Residents voice Wal-Mart concerns

By Tom Lochner
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Thu, Feb. 09, 2006         
     
 [back to top]  

About 70 residents denounced Wal-Mart at a Planning Commission meeting Monday, even after the retail giant took itself off the agenda by pulling its plan for a store near the waterfront -- at least for now. Residents described Wal-Mart as an economic predator that strip mines communities for their retail dollars, leaving the carcasses of neighborhood businesses in its wake. Going global, they blasted Wal-Mart's labor practices nationwide and abroad in addition to warning of traffic and blight in their town. A former resident of Romania said Wal-Mart supports communism as a large-scale dealer of Chinese goods manufactured by "slave labor." Another speaker urged the city to invoke eminent domain to take Wal-Mart's property and market it to a friendlier retailer.

 [back to top]  


Wal-Mart's Ambitions in India

By Isabelle Sender
Market Views
FEBRUARY 9, 2006             
[back to top]  

While the retail giant continues to explore market opportunities, government restrictions may keep it out

Global retail giant Wal-Mart (WMT ; S&P investment rank 5 STARS, strong buy; recent price, $46) is still bullish on India despite bearish signals from the Indian government.

After trying for months to move into the world's second-most populous nation, the giant merchant won't be checking out of India just yet, in the opinion of Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, despite a trade policy that prohibits foreign general merchandisers to set up shop there. Wal-Mart stated on Feb. 2 that it has applied to create a separate entity in Bangalore devoted to "market research and business development in relationship to the retail industry in India."

"I think that has been no secret that we think the market opportunity in India is really outstanding," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Beth Keck told the Associated Press on Feb. 2.

DOORS OPENING? "This is just another example of Wal-Mart's efforts to expand operations in India," says Joseph Agnese, an equity analyst with Standard & Poor's. "The company already sources a significant amount of goods from India. There is plenty of room for expansion internationally, in our view. The company is looking at India as one of many opportunities." Economists expect India to increase its gross domestic product by about 7% in fiscal 2006 (ending March). That's about the same as the country's income growth rate, estimated between 7% and 7.5%.

"Total consumption expenditure is likely to grow at over 6%," Siddhartha Roy, chief economist at Tata Group, estimated during a recent economic panel discussion.

The Indian government opened the doors of its retail market to 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) two weeks ago. But this most recent economic liberalization applies strictly to companies that sell goods through single-branded stores. The partial allowance permits a direct majority ownership interest by foreign entities, which, we think, is good news for many of the world's marketers of top labels.

GROWING MARKET. In S&P's view, the widely anticipated FDI policy for limited retail investment, however, effectively slams the "Closed" sign on big-box chains and particularly Wal-Mart, feared by India's Communist party as potentially putting mom-and-pop stores out of business by sheer virtue of its size. The retail behemoth rang up slightly more in retail sales for the year ending January, 2005, than the entire Asian subcontinent sold to its population of more than 1 billion, a quarter of whom live in poverty.

Still, Agnese believes that the FDI policy is a step in the right direction toward India opening its retail industry to 100% investment one day. Currently, annual retail sales in India are estimated at between $200 billion and $280 billion. Wal-Mart has been arguing that it is a prime candidate to benefit the most from retail FDI in India, where it has been lobbying for policy change while looking for an Indian joint-venture partner.

India's booming economy, consumerism, and middle class is a key focus for the giant chain. In June, John Menzer, then-president and CEO of Wal-Mart's international operations, devoted most of a 30-minute speech to an account of his recent trip to the subcontinent. "The consuming class has grown from 35 million families in 1996 to an expected 80 million [in 2005]. That's roughly in line with the U.S.," Menzer explained to shareholders and analysts.

BUYING IN. Wal-Mart's experience in emerging markets is the crux of its battle plan. Bentonville has been down this path of limited investment in retail before. Not too long ago, it battled anti-FDI sentiment in Mexico. In S&P's view, Wal-Mart won that battle. It is now the biggest private employer in Mexico and operates more than 780 stores in that country. And even in communist China, Wal-Mart operates 56 joint-venture stores as of Jan. 31.

The new India policy, while disallowing much foreign direct investment, does not prevent institutional investors from acquiring more than 51% of any Indian retail company. Foreign institutional investors (FII) can own 100% of Indian retail companies. Some Wal-Mart watchers say it may go the FII route, now that the FDI route is blocked.

Wal-Mart, however, says that's not the plan. "Wal-Mart executives still hope to be able to open up stores in India in the future," Agnese said, after speaking with Wal-Mart management about India plans. "When I asked about the possibility of Wal-Mart entering [India's retail sector] by taking an equity interest in an existing company, the response was that it currently is not interested in any existing operations in the country."

QUICK CHANGE. Ajit Dayal, CEO and chief investment officer at Quantum Advisors, an asset management company based in Bombay, says that foreign big-box retailers would have to surmount many operational challenges in India if they were to enter India directly or through an investment partner.

"We're not sure that what is considered a prime location for a retailer today is going to be defined as a central business district tomorrow. There is so much growth that centers of gravity within the time frames of available financing shift too quickly," he says.

Dayal believes that in addition to the pace of change that redefines business districts at an exponential pace, logistics on the size and scale that Wal-Mart is accustomed to would not be plausible to implement. He thinks that the current environment does not bode well for Wal-Mart or other big-box operations, based on the stark difference between the current benchmark for a typical retail store in India and Wal-Mart's traditional footprint. So while Bentonville remains positive on the subcontinent, its passage to India may be a difficult one.

Copyright 2000- 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.

[back to top]  


Migden proposes `Wal-Mart' bill

GIANT RETAILER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TOWARD HEALTH CARE SACRAMENTO

The San Jose Mercury News
February 9, 2006                          
[back to top]  

Modeled after a controversial Maryland law, a California state senator today announced she will introduce legislation that would require Wal-Mart and other employers with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of total wages on health benefits.

``More Californians are uninsured than the populations of Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont combined,'' said Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco. ``Three-quarters of them are in working families whose employers do not offer them health insurance coverage. This bill will go a long way toclosing this gap.''

Though the bill targets all employers with more than 10,000 employees -- there are believed to be as many as 25 in the state -- most, including the State of California, already meet the threshold.

Wal-Mart, which argues that it is being unfairly targeted by such proposals, employs roughly 70,000 Californians at an average salary of nearly $15,000, according to Migden. Her bill would force the nation's largest retailer to pony up an estimated $50 million toward employee health care coverage.

The bill would not apply to fast food giants, convenience markets or other businesses that operate as individually owned franchises.

This week, a national retail industry trade association filed suit challenging the Maryland law -- primarily to discourage other states from adopting similar laws.

[back to top]  


Wal-Mart workers' healthcare

By Fred Frost
The Miami-Herald (FL)
February 9, 2006                         
[back to top]  

It's no secret that America's healthcare system is broken, and that any solution is hopelessly caught in the great legislative traffic jam we call Washington, D.C. But Floridians don't have to wait around for help from the White House to win basic healthcare rights. We have a chance to move forward and demand that major corporations doing business in our state pay their fair share of healthcare costs. It's wrong that large corporations such as Wal-Mart weasel out of their duty to provide health insurance for their employees and shift those healthcare costs onto others, much like deadbeat dads or corporate polluters who close up shop before the cleanup costs come due.

The problem is widespread. A landmark study by the Commonwealth Fund found that among companies with 500 or more employees, more than a quarter of their workers actually don't receive any health-insurance coverage whatsoever from their employers.

Paid below-poverty wages

Who pays the price?

Of course, their employees are the main victims. Most Americans understand that healthcare should be a right -- but these workers have nothing of the sort. Although they do the best they can to make ends meet, millions live in fear that they or family members will get sick because there is no way they can pay for a doctor or hospital.

A large number of those who are paid below-poverty wages, through no fault of their own, have to rely on Medicaid or other state programs when they become ill.

That means that if you're a taxpayer, you pick up the tab every time a business doesn't pay its fair share for healthcare and pushes its employees onto these public-funded programs. The tab is colossal. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that taxpayers are paying $21 billion to cover workers whose employers don't provide health insurance.

Others are also paying the price for deadbeat businesses. If you're a businessperson who does the right thing and provides health insurance for your employees, you pay dearly for the businesses that don't.

Not only are they tilting the competitive playing field, unethically cutting their costs, undercutting you and putting you at an unfair disadvantage. You and your employees also pay higher health-insurance premiums to cover care for those companies' employees. That is because healthcare providers, when serving workers with no insurance, have to raise their fees to cover their own shortfall. The bottom line is that you and your employees get hit with much higher bills.

Sensible, fair solution

According to Commonwealth Fund, businesses like yours are paying an estimated $31 billion extra every year to cover employees of those businesses who aren't pulling their own weight.

Is it unjust? Absolutely. But fortunately, there is a sensible and fair solution. Responsible businesspeople, union members, community leaders and other reformers in Florida now have a chance to join together to support a new Fair Share Health Care bill, HB 813 and SB 1618.

It would require large employers with at least 10,000 employees to pay their fair share of their employees' healthcare -- 9 percent of their payroll costs. They could either use those funds for health insurance for their employees or contribute the money to a state fund.

Not only does the idea make good sense; it has enormous popular backing. In a recent Lake Research poll, 83 percent of Americans said that they support requiring large, profitable companies either to provide health insurance for their employees or pay a percentage of their payroll into a healthcare fund.

State legislators, prepare

Still, it probably won't be easy to pass this reform. When Fair Share Health Care legislation came up in Maryland last year, Wal-Mart -- which has become notorious for illegally violating its employees' most basic rights -- flew in a platoon of lobbyists and waged a full-throttle campaign to stop the bill.

In the end, Maryland's courageous legislators defied Wal-Mart's pressure and passed Fair Share Health Care, and even overrode Maryland's right-wing Gov. Bob Ehrlich's veto.

Wal-Mart and its allies are poised to use the same tactics in Florida. Our state legislators must do the right thing and make sure that Florida workers and their children have the basic healthcare they deserve. After all, they were elected to represent our state -- not Wal-Mart.

Fred Frost is president of the South Florida AFL-CIO.

[back to top]  


Wal-Mart, others file lawsuit against 'fair share healthcare' law

Mike Burns
Earthtimes.org
Posted on : 2006-02-08                  
[back to top]  

Retailers plan to oppose any move to enforce 'fair share' healthcare legislation that requires them to spend more on their workers' healthcare. The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), of which Wal-Mart is a member, yesterday filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that was recently passed in Maryland.

The Maryland law makes it mandatory for companies with more than 10,000 employees to contribute at least 8 percent of payroll, either towards Basic Health Plan (BHP) or the state-subsidized Medicaid fund.

BHP covers mostly low-income employees and is funded entirely by the government. Medicaid makes health coverage available to families on welfare and children from low-income families.

Wal-Mart said it supported the law, even though the grocer and other members of the RILA were concerned that other state senators could follow the example and push for similar legislation in their states.

The Maryland mandate passed on January 12 is the first of its kind in the country and directly affected Wal-Mart which was the only Maryland company employing more than 10,000 people. It had support from unions like SEIU and UFCW and the unionized supermarket Giant Foods.

The RILA filed one more lawsuit challenging a similar health care law in Suffolk County, Long Island. The RILA members have reason to be concerned. Last week, a television campaign by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union urged lawmakers to pass similar bills for their states. If the campaign is effective, more than 20 states would have similar laws affecting retailers' businesses.

Companies that are certain to be affected by such laws include, Safeway, Fred Meyer and Target, besides Wal-Mart.

The RILA said all its members agreed “that access to healthcare is vital. But these spending mandates will drive away business and discourage job creation.” They would also take away the flexibility of these businesses, it said.

The retailers' group said it considered the Maryland law “bad policy” It also violates the constitutional clause of 'equal protection', a RILA spokesperson said.

[back to top]  


Group Files Challenge to Wal-Mart Law

Group Challenges Md. Law Meant to Pressure Wal-Mart to Spend More Money on Workers' Health Care

By KRISTEN WYATT
The Associated Press             
[back to top]  

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Retailers are concerned that state and local laws requiring companies to spend more on workers' health care could become a trend. Now they're seeking to send a message to elected officials around the country who are considering such bills.

A trade group filed two lawsuits Tuesday against so-called "fair share" health care laws, seeking to block state and local governments from enforcing them. But the store owners' attention is clearly on the agendas of legislatures in at least 30 states, where unions say lawmakers could consider bills similar to those passed in Maryland and Suffolk County, N.Y.

"We certainly hope that the other states ... will pause and look at what we're doing in Maryland and Suffolk County and consider that these are unwise and unlawful laws," said Sandy Kennedy, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which filed the lawsuits.

Unions and health care advocates are pushing for mandates patterned after the Maryland law, which requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in the state to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is the only company in Maryland of that size that doesn't meet the 8 percent threshold. Backers of the law said it was needed because some Wal-Mart employees rely on taxpayer-funded Medicaid health coverage.

The company supports the lawsuits because health care benefits should be mandated by the federal government, not the states, said Dan Fogleman, a Wal-Mart spokesman.

"We believe that the health care challenges facing our country are a national challenge that require national solutions," Fogleman said.

The lawsuit argues that state and local governments are not allowed to mandate levels of health care coverage by private companies. Both lawsuits ask federal judges to grant injunctions to prevent enforcement of the laws.

"States may not mandate benefits for private employers," said W. Stephen Cannon, a lawyer representing the Arlington, Va.-based retail group.

The organization represents more than 400 companies that operate a total of more than 100,000 stores with more than $1.4 trillion in annual sales, including Wal-Mart. Kennedy said Wal-Mart has a seat on RILA's board, but that other board members joined in authorizing the lawsuits.

The RILA lawsuit argues that Maryland's law "arbitrarily singles out one company for discriminatory treatment."

Several other states, including West Virginia and Washington, have begun discussing whether Wal-Mart should be required to pay more for health care. Union leaders who pushed Maryland's bill have said at least 30 states may use Maryland's law as a template.

A supporter of the Maryland law, Progressive Maryland, criticized retailers for suing over the change.

"It's desperado time for the world's biggest corporation," said Sean Dobson, head of Progressive Maryland. "The people's elected representatives imposed responsibility on Wal-Mart, and now they're trying to undo it with their squadrons of lawyers and their infinitely deep pockets."

After hearing of the lawsuit, Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich called the Wal-Mart law "ridiculous" and said he wasn't surprised by the lawsuit. Ehrlich vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto last month.

"It's yet another chapter in a negative story for Maryland," Ehrlich said.

Associated Press writer Tom Stuckey in Annapolis contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top] 


Sen. Clinton urges caution on Wal-Mart bank bid

By Kristin Roberts
Wed Feb 8, 2006              
[back to top] 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton has entered the debate over Wal-Mart's controversial bank application, telling regulators she has "serious reservations" about allowing companies to enter financial services by exploiting a "loophole" in U.S. law.

According to a February 3 letter obtained by Reuters on Wednesday, Clinton, a former Wal-Mart board member, told the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the retailer's bid to open an industrial loan company (ILC), if successful, could have a significant impact on the financial sector.

"After hearing from very concerned constituents about Wal-Mart's application for federal insurance for their ILC, I see this as a time to urge the FDIC to give serious and careful review to the relevant issues before moving forward on any application for federal insurance," Clinton wrote to the FDIC's acting chairman.

"Indeed, I believe that any action by the FDIC that would lessen or loosen the oversight for ILCs while granting it the same privileges and functions of traditional commercial banks would be a critical mistake and stand in stark contrast to the fundamental principle of the separation of banking and commerce."

Clinton's letter is the latest in a string of correspondence from Capitol Hill to the FDIC urging the regulatory agency to either oppose or move slowly and carefully on the application from the world's largest retailer to open an industrial bank in Utah.

A spokesman for the FDIC said the agency's acting chairman had received Clinton's letter but had not yet responded. He declined further comment.

Industrial banks are state-chartered and state-regulated, and fall under the supervision of the FDIC. Commercial companies may own them because federal laws that bar non-financial companies from engaging in banking activities do not classify them as banks.

Wal-Mart is trying to open a bank to handle electronic payment processing.

But some legislators have raised concerns that Wal-Mart could use its bank as a base to offer a much wider array of services. Banks also fear competing with Wal-Mart.

Others who oppose Wal-Mart's application adopt the argument used recently by Clinton and the National Association of Realtors -- that Wal-Mart's bank would violate the historic separation in the United States between banks and enterprises that do not engage primarily in finance. Still, other corporations have already set up industrial banks, such as General Electric and General Motors.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said Congress should review a "loophole" in federal law that allows companies to buy industrial banks in a handful of states but avoid a level of supervision by bank regulators.

Clinton referenced Greenspan's comments and said industrial banks may pose a greater risk to the FDIC than other insured depository institutions.

"With the dramatic expansion of ILCs over the last several decades, I am particularly concerned that these financial institutions do not have the same oversight and regulatory structure that traditional, full-service commercial banks have," she wrote.

The FDIC, under a new acting chairman, has agreed to hold a public hearing on Wal-Mart's application. That would be the agency's first formal public hearing on a bank application ever. A subcommittee in the House of Representatives also is expected to hold a hearing on industrial banks this year.

Wal-Mart has said it welcomes the hearings. It was not immediately available to comment on Clinton's letter.

© Reuters 2006.

[back to top] 


Health-Care Law Aimed at Wal-Mart Challenged in Court

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com
February 08, 2006               
[back to top] 

(CNSNews.com) - A national retail association filed lawsuits Tuesday challenging two measures that legislate the amount businesses spend on employee health care, including a Maryland law that targets Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) filed its challenges in U.S. district courts in Baltimore and Brooklyn to test laws in Maryland and Suffolk, County, N.Y., that "unlawfully mandate a specific health-care expenditure, single out the retail industry and threaten to eliminate the flexibility that businesses require to meet the needs of their diverse workforce," according to a press release.

"We all agree that access to health care is vital, but these spending mandates will drive away business and discourage job creation," said Brad Anderson, chairman of RILA and vice chairman & CEO of Best Buy Co., Inc. "They're simply unlawful and unwise."

"The health plan spending mandates that we are challenging today do nothing to fix the problem they claim to address and, in fact, divert focus and resources away from real solutions," said RILA President Sandy Kennedy.

According to the organization's website, RILA is a trade association with member companies that operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers and have facilities in all 50 states. Together, RILA members account for over $1.4 trillion in annual sales.

RILA's board of directors unanimously agreed to initiate litigation because "the health-care system cannot be fixed with a patchwork of state and local mandates that require individual industries to play by different rules," according to James Myers, CEO of PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., a RILA member. "It's a national issue that requires a national approach."

In Suffolk County, N.Y., the law specifically targets large, non-unionized food retailers, which must make health-care payments at a rate of no less than $3 per hour worked.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the state of Maryland on Jan. 12 passed the Fair Share Health Care Act, requiring large, private companies doing business in the state to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on employee health benefits.

This law is specifically aimed at RILA member Wal-Mart, and union-financed foes of the retail giant are working to introduce similar bills in at least 30 states this year, though legislatures in Wisconsin and Indiana have already voted down their versions of Fair Share statutes.

A RILA spokesman also said the laws in Maryland and New York are invalid because they violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

"Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has held repeatedly that ERISA, not state and local laws, regulates employer health plans," said Steve Cannon of the Constantine Cannon law firm, which is serving as outside general counsel to RILA.

"Now that the legislative process has played out in Maryland and Suffolk County, it is time to challenge these newly enacted health plan mandates in the courts," Cannon said. He also asserted that the statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they were written to single out specific companies for arbitrary treatment.

However, Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, dismissed the litigation filed Tuesday as "just another attempt by Wal-Mart and its allies not to pay its fair share for health care in the state of Maryland and elsewhere."

Blank, whose organization is funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, noted that "the Maryland attorney general has already said Fair Share Health Care legislation is in compliance with the law.

"Wal-Mart would be better off changing its behavior and living up to its responsibilities," Blank added "States should be applauded, not sued, for trying to address the fact that in every state where we have data, Wal-Mart is costing taxpayers millions by having more employees on taxpayer-funded health care than any other employer."

[back to top] 


Report says Wal-Mart, others cost state millions

By CURT WOODWARD
Associated Press
Feb 7                                  
[back to top] 

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other large retailers are pushing tens of millions of dollars per year in health costs onto taxpayers, a new report produced for Democratic state senators says.

Supporters of a bill that would force large companies to pay a minimum amount for health benefits plan to use the new data to press lawmakers for a vote on the measure.

Wal-Mart officials and business groups have railed against the proposal, saying it is meant to punish certain businesses and will have no real effect for workers who need help paying their hospital bills.

The report estimates that in 2004, Wal-Mart workers received more than $22.7 million in taxpayer-funded health benefits. More than $12.1 million of that total came from Washington state's coffers.

Democratic lawmakers and union activists discussed the findings at a Tuesday news conference. An early copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request.

"This is a serious public policy discussion. We need to have an analysis of why this shift is occurring," said Rep. Steve Conway D-Tacoma, a co-sponsor of House legislation aimed at Wal-Mart's health care spending.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Holder questioned the report's accuracy and said company officials have been denied access to key state data on the subject.

In any case, employment numbers used to generate the cost figures are from 2004, and Wal-Mart has vastly improved its health care benefits since then, Holder said.

"It's an apples and oranges comparison from Wal-Mart in 2004 to Wal-Mart today," she said.

The bills being considered in Washington this year are part of a push by organized labor in more than 30 states to force minimum health care spending by employers.

On Tuesday, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group, sued to challenge a Maryland law designed to pressure Wal-Mart and other large companies to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund.

Washington state's version would require companies with at least 5,000 workers to contribute an amount equal to 9 percent of their payroll to health benefits.

State Senate staffers based estimates in the report on figures from two earlier confidential reports detailing which employers in Washington had the most workers receiving government health benefits in 2004.

In those reports, Wal-Mart was the leader in workers receiving government health assistance. The world's largest retailer has about 16,000 employees in Washington.

Using the earlier reports as a base, Senate staff members figured that Wal-Mart had an average of 3,180 employees on the state-federal Medicaid program and 456 on the state-funded Basic Health Plan in 2004.

The report includes public-health cost estimates for three other large retail or grocery outlets: Safeway, with more than $10.8 million spent on its workers; Fred Meyer, with more than $7 million; and Target, with more than $5.8 million.

Don Brunell, president of the Washington Association of Business, said targeting certain employers with spending mandates will not solve the underlying problems with expensive health care.

"A lot of folks are realizing ... the issue is much more complicated," he said. "It's not going to be solved with a Wal-Mart bill or anything else."

But Democrats said the measure would help stop what they see as an erosion in employer support for health care.

Other companies mentioned in the report - particularly Safeway and Fred Meyer - have been effectively forced to cut benefits as they try to compete with Wal-Mart, said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle.

"I don't know that we can blame them," said Kohl-Welles, a primary sponsor of the measure. "If corporations all did the responsible thing - and most do - we wouldn't need this legislation."

Officials computed an average monthly cost to the state of $182 for workers on Washington's Basic Health Plan. Each worker who received Medicaid benefits was assumed to cost the state an average of $291 per month. The report also calculates the federal share for Medicaid clients.

The reports do not attempt to calculate the additional cost of taxpayer health benefits for dependent children of those workers. But the report said costs would increase by 20 percent for each Medicaid-eligible child supported by a worker.

Adding covered children would greatly increase the figures in Tuesday's report, bill supporters said. "We're looking at huge numbers here," said Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent.

Wal-Mart, however, says more than 615,000 of its 1.3 million workers are covered by company health plans. The company also says it has taken some 160,000 people off the uninsured rolls.

---

The health insurance bills are SB6356 and HB2517.

[back to top] 


N.J. wants large employers to spend more on health care

By Jonathan Tamari
Courier-Post (NJ)
February 7, 2006                   
[back to top] 

TRENTON -- Saying some large companies such as Wal-Mart are shirking their responsibilities to provide health care to employees, state senators took up proposals Monday aimed at forcing employers to pay more for coverage. One measure would force companies with more than 1,000 employees to spend at least $4.17 per hour for their workers' health care. Companies that fall short would have to pay into a state fund that provides health coverage for the poor.

Another bill would require the state to track companies whose workers use FamilyCare, a state health insurance plan meant for the poor. Democrats and employee union leaders said big companies are forcing workers into the taxpayer-funded program by offering health insurance that is either limited or too expensive.

"The taxpayers of the state of New Jersey should no longer bear the burden of funding health care for corporations that are making hundreds of millions of dollars in the state," said Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, D-West Deptford.

Business advocates, however, said forcing health-care costs up is effectively a new tax that will hurt business.

"This bill sends an anti-business message to companies across the country," said Jeanette Issenman of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey.

The bill requiring health-care spending is similar to measures that unions have pushed in more than 30 other states. It was discussed by a Senate committee Monday, but no formal action was taken.

"Every one of our state residents deserves equal access to the finest health-care available," said Sen. Joseph F. Vitale, D-Woodbridge, one of the bill's sponsors.

There are 340 companies in New Jersey with 1,000 or more employees, according to the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Wal-Mart, with about 12,274 workers, according to the latest state figures, is one of the state's largest employers.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs called the bill "an arbitrary mandate on large employers," adding that many people, not just Wal-Mart workers, are uninsured.

Several business advocates pointed to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study that said the average health-care plan for one person costs companies about $4,000 a year. Those companies would have to pay more than $7,500 a year for employees who work 35 hours a week, however, under the health-care bill.

"This legislation, in effect, would create a new tax," said Christine Stearns, vice president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association.

A recent study by liberal think-tank New Jersey Policy Perspective said many workers at large companies rely on FamilyCare for health insurance. A bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Metuchen, would require the state to list those companies. That measure advanced out of the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee.

"(FamilyCare) was never intended to be exploited by some of the largest and most profitable retailers," Buono said.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart to open about 1,500 new stores

By MARCUS KABEL
AP Business
FEB. 7                       
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to open more than 1,500 stores in the United States in the coming years, on top of nearly 3,200 it already operates, the world's largest retailer said Tuesday. John Menzer, the company's vice chairman and head of its domestic Wal-Mart stores division, said Wal-Mart was on schedule to meet an announced target of between 335 and 370 new U.S. store openings this year after 341 last year. That number includes Wal-Mart discount stores, Supercenters that also have a full grocery section, smaller Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club membership warehouses. Supercenters are the largest single group with 1,980 locations in the U.S. and the focus of future growth plans.

Menzer did not specify a timeline for the new stores. He also did not refer to zoning and permit fights that have erupted in some places where Wal-Mart wants to expand, including big markets such as California where the company has fewer locations than in its traditional bases in the South and Midwest. "We are really focused on opening new stores right now. We see so many opportunities to open new stores that that's where our capital is going first," Menzer said during a Web cast from a financial conference hosted by Citigroup in Miami. Wal-Mart opened 69 new stores and Sam's Clubs in January, a company record for one month, it announced last week. Menzer said 1,800 of its existing Supercenters would be remodeled over the next 18 months to make them more inviting, adding touches such as faux wood floors, wider aisles and digital television display walls. The remodeling program, which Menzer said would not require a large capital outlay, is part of a broader strategy to interest consumers who are already in the store for basics to buy more fashions, electronics, home furnishings and fancier foods. Wal-Mart began working on the remodeling program last year, and formally unveiled it in October at its annual meeting with analysts. As part of its growth plans, Wal-Mart also is experimenting with new formats for Supercenters to fit the big box structures into tighter urban neighborhoods. New styles will include multilevel stores and underground or above-store parking rather than a huge lot out front

[back to top] 


Retail group files challenge to Wal-Mart law

English Business News
02/07/2006                          
[back to top] 

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland_A national retail industry trade association filed suit Tuesday challenging a Maryland law designed to pressure Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more money on health care for its employees.

The law, the first of its kind in the U.S., was enacted Jan. 12 when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto. The law requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund.

State officials said Wal-Mart is the only company of that size that does not meet the 8 percent threshold.

The suit was announced in Arlington, Virginia, by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents companies that operate more than 100,000 stores with more than $1.4 trillion (euro1.17 trillion) in annual sales.

The association, which also filed a lawsuit challenging a health care law passed in Suffolk County, New York, said the two laws illegally mandate specific health care expenditures and threaten to take away flexibility businesses need to deal with their employees.

The association also said the two laws are invalid because they violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

"Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court of the United State has held repeatedly that ERISA, not state and local laws, regulates employer health plans," said Steve Cannon, outside general counsel to the association.

Chris Kofinis, communications director for union-backed Wake Up Wal-Mart, which lobbied for the bill in Maryland, predicted it will withstand a court challenge.

Lawmakers in Suffolk County, New York, approved a law last fall that would require large grocery retailers to give workers a health care benefit worth at least $3 (euro2.51) an hour. The law applies to companies with at least $1 billion (euro0.84 billion) in annual revenue and at least 25,000 square feet (2,250 square meters) of sales space for groceries. Companies are exempt from the rule if they have a collective bargaining agreement, which Wal-Mart does not.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart aims to corner neighborhood market

The mega retailer is opening smaller Neighborhood Markets, challenging grocers in the region

Mark Chediak
Orlando Sentinel
02/06/2006                       
[back to top] 

Feb. 6--Every week, stay-at-home mom Migdalia Estrada has a choice when she ventures out to buy groceries for her family of five. She can go to her old east Orlando neighborhood standby -- the Publix on South Chickasaw Trail -- or step inside the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, the new grocery store on the block.

These days, Estrada, 44, said she finds herself making more trips to the nearby Wal-Mart.

"Some stuff is cheaper at Publix, but they sometimes have more specials here," she said on a recent shopping trip to the Neighborhood Market, where she had filled her cart with staples including orange juice, instant soup, rice and canned black beans.

2 more stores planned

Aiming directly at consumers like Estrada, discounter Wal-Mart Stores has tagged the fast-growing Orlando market as a ripe spot for its more consumer-friendly Neighborhood Markets.

Last month, the retail giant celebrated the grand opening of its fourth location in Central Florida on South Alafaya Trail and plans to open another two stores with one in east Orange County slated to launch in March.

Much smaller than a Wal-Mart Supercenter -- more than four Neighborhood Markets could fit into one of the gigantic grocery/discount stores -- the Markets sell traditional grocery fare such as fresh produce and meats. They also offer amenities including a staffed deli, drive-through pharmacy and liquor department with a separate entrance.

Taking on 7-Eleven

The 24-hour stores also feature a "grab-and-go" section with prepared sandwiches, and some locations sell gas, pitting the company against convenience stores like 7-Eleven. The smaller format of the stores makes them easier to place in dense urban cities where the company is now trying to gain a foothold -- Dallas/Fort Worth, Phoenix and Las Vegas.

"A Neighborhood Market is really geared to someone who will shop more often and buy less," said Wal-Mart spokesman Eric Brewer. "It's for people who want to go in and get out quickly, like singles or couples who don't have kids."

The other convenient thing about the grocery-market format for Wal-Mart is that the stores tend not to incite the same kind of community backlash as the company's massive Supercenters, which are scattered throughout Central Florida.

Grocers should be worried

For example, neighborhood protests have fended off proposed Wal-Mart Supercenters in east Orange County, Oviedo and New Smyrna Beach; however, planned Neighborhood Markets have met little resistance here.

"Frankly, among all of the concepts, only the Supercenters will have such a high level of concern" from neighbors, Brewer said.

Grocers, however, should be a bit worried. Wal-Mart, the nation's leading grocer, has been making inroads in the Orlando grocery market, trailing only Lakeland-based Publix Super Markets in market share, according to TradeDimensions International, a research firm.

With last month's sale of Albertsons to a private investment group and Winn-Dixie still in bankruptcy, Wal-Mart is poised to gain even more ground. Its $109 billion in U.S. food and drug sales in 2004 makes it the largest grocer in the country.

"Wal-Mart has a cost advantage," noted Mitchell Corwin, a supermarket analyst for Morningstar. "Through its distribution and lower labor costs, it operates at a lower cost base, so it can offer groceries at lower prices."

Budget shoppers

But the price difference is not always great. Last week, a dozen Grade A large eggs cost 88 cents at the Neighborhood Market on Chickasaw and 89 cents -- on sale -- at the nearby Publix. A gallon of low-fat store-brand milk cost $3.14 at the Market and $3.49 at Publix.

It's the low prices that draw budget shopper Estrada, who makes frequent trips to her Neighborhood Market for her three children and husband, a carpet salesman.

"My kids, they're teenagers and they eat a lot," Estrada said as she scanned the canned-foods aisle for sales.

For grocers to compete with Wal-Mart, they'll have to offer services that you can't find at a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market store, such as an on-site butcher, Corwin said.

That's exactly the tactic Publix is taking. "We offer superior customer service, treating our customers and associates like kings and queens," said Publix spokesman Dwaine Stevens.

'The competition is there'

Publix, for example, makes sure to staff its stores with plenty of employees who can help direct customers and assist with grocery bagging and other needs.

"We realize the competition is there," Stevens said, "but we firmly believe we offer a product that is more appealing." As evidence, Stevens pointed to the grocery store's growth in the Central Florida market with the company now operating 120 stores.

Enice Orozco of Orlando, who shops at the Publix and Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market on South Chickasaw Trail, said she goes to both stores for different reasons.

On a recent shopping trip, Orozco stopped at Publix for shrimp but said her husband likes the Neighborhood Market across the street for some items. "He's in the restaurant industry and prefers the meat over there," she said.

Copyright (c) 2006, The Orlando Sentinel, Fla.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart agrees to become tenant at Livonia redevelopment

By Brent Snavely
Crain Communications, Inc.
February 06, 2006                            
[back to top] 

Schostak Bros. & Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Monday that Wal-Mart has agreed to become an anchor tenant of an $80 million to $100 million redevelopment of Wonderland Mall in Livonia.

After a long and contentious battle, the Livonia City Council approved Southfield-based Schostak’s plans to raze the aging mall and replace it with a 500,000-square-foot shopping center called Wonderland Village.

However, to appease residents opposed to the project, the council restricted Wal-Mart’s ability to operate to 18 hours a day instead of the requested 24 hours.

Until Monday, Wal-Mart and Schostak had declined to comment on whether the hour restrictions would cause Wal-Mart to back out of the development.

“Wal-Mart is pleased to announce that we will build a supercenter in Livonia at the former Wonderland Mall location,” Roderick Scott, Wal-Mart’s senior manager of public affairs, said in a statement Monday.

The new shopping center also is expected to have a Target store, a third yet-to-be named anchor store and about 40 additional shops and restaurants.

“When completed, Wonderland Village will be approximately half the square footage of the former Wonderland Mall and will create a synergy of retail experiences, a mix of uses, brought together with landscaping, water features, clock tower and harmonious facades — not just the traditional strip of stores,” Schostak said in a statement.

While Schostak will manage Wonderland Village, Wal-Mart plans to purchase the land for its 204,000-square-foot supercenter, said Linda Busse, Schostak’s director of corporate communications and marketing.

The deal has not closed.

Entire contents © 2005 Crain Communications, Inc.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart threatens to halt DC plans

DCVelocity                     [back to top] 

Stung by the Maryland legislature's passage of the so-called "Wal-Mart bill," the mega-retailer is now threatening to suspend plans to build a giant distribution center in that state. The retailer had planned to construct a new DC in Somerset County on Maryland's Eastern Shore—a move that would create as many as 800 jobs in that region.

The threat comes in reaction to passage of Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, a controversial health care measure that would require the retailer and other large companies to spend 8 percent of their payrolls in the state on health care or face a hefty tax. The act was nicknamed the "Wal-Mart bill" because the retailer, which reportedly employs nearly 17,000 people in Maryland, is the only big employer in the state that falls short of that threshold.

The bill traveled a bumpy road to passage. First adopted by the state legislature in April 2005, it was vetoed by Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. in May. But on Jan. 12, state legislators overrode his veto. Many Maryland politicians argue that taxpayers indirectly subsidize Wal-Mart's health care costs through government programs and hospital fees.

Wal-Mart was quick to protest the override. "This legislation does nothing to accomplish that goal [of assuring everyone access to affordable health insurance]," says Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark. "This vote was never about health care. This was about partisan politics ...."

What undoubtedly has Wal-Mart worried is the prospect that Maryland's action could boost similar efforts in other states. More than 30 states are considering comparable health care measures.

[back to top] 


Utahns foot insurance bill

By Kirsten Stewart
The Salt Lake Tribune
February 5, 2006                    
[back to top] 

Looking to hold down spending on health care, employers have made unpopular choices, scaling back workers' health coverage or eliminating it altogether. But there's another way: get Medicaid to pick up the tab.

An analysis by The Salt Lake Tribune of Utah Department of Health data shows taxpayers footed the health insurance bill for 7,220 working Wasatch Front Utahns and their children in 2004. That's an estimated $42 million subsidy for low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart, Convergys Corp. and McDonalds. Also benefitting: public schools, universities and the LDS Church.

There are 250,000 Medicaid consumers in Utah. The Tribune's findings reflect those who work - and most don't - and live in Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah counties.

The subsidies have broad implications for the country's health insurance crisis. This year, Utah will spend more than $1.5 billion on Medicaid, with Uncle Sam paying more than $1 billion of that total.

Last month, Maryland became the first state to mandate that large employers, those with 10,000 workers or more, spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health care or contribute to a state fund. Other states have ordered the public disclosure of large employers whose workers receive government-paid healthcare.

Who is on Utah's List? Topping Utah's roster is Wal-Mart, which has 234 workers getting Medicaid or related assistance through the Primary Care Network and Children's Health Insurance Program.

Convergys Corp., with 8,000 workers at Utah call centers, had the second-highest total, at 181 employees. Other large Utah employers benefitting from state-funded insurance include Intermountain Health Care (IHC), the University of Utah and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Household names like McDonalds, Burger King and the Delta Center, home of the Utah Jazz, also are on the list. Businesses with high totals were concentrated mostly in retailers, fast-food chains, call centers and temporary employment agencies. "I'm tired of seeing businesses getting state, county and municipal tax breaks and then telling their workers, 'You can go here and get Medicaid, food stamps and free child care,'" remarked Sen. Ed Mayne on the findings. "They're not meeting their corporate and civic responsibilities. And they're taking advantage of the taxpayers and businesses that are doing their fair share." A minimum solution? Mayne, a West Valley City Democrat, is sponsoring legislation he says would make private insurance more affordable - hiking the state's minimum wage from the current federal $5.15 to $7 an hour.

Wages at many large businesses, including Wal-Mart, already start above minimum wage. But Mayne said the change would be a "first step" toward a living wage, which might help the uninsured afford private coverage. As the pool of insured grows, costs for everyone drop, he said.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. have agreed not to debate a minimum wage measure this election year. Huntsman instead appointed long-time advocate for the homeless Pamela Atkinson to investigate.

Utah's enrollment in Medicaid, a health safety net for the disabled, low-income children and their parents, pregnant mothers and seniors, is flattening out as the economy improves. But from 2001 to 2005, it grew 52 percent, faster than any other state program. The average annual cost per Utahn on Medicaid: $5,838.

Atkinson plans a comprehensive analysis of workers on Medicaid, food stamps and other aid. Among the issues: Is the expansion of Medicaid to cover the working poor an outcome of welfare reform, which had moved them off cash assistance and into low-paying jobs? Or are employers exploiting workers to reap bigger profits? The Wal-Mart controversy. Wal-Mart has no shortage of critics unhappy with the big-box retailer's methods for reining in benefit costs, such as hiring more part-time workers and, as disclosed in an internal memo published by The New York Times last fall, discouraging unhealthy people from working at its stores. Company spokesman Dan Fogleman did not dispute the authenticity of the memo but said Wal-Mart is unfairly targeted. Wal-Mart has the most workers on Medicaid in Utah and in other states because of its sheer size, he said. "It's a numbers game. This isn't about just one company. This is about a health care crisis in America. We're doing what we can to try and make coverage affordable," said Fogleman.

Combatting negative publicity because less than 45 percent of its 1.33 million U.S. workforce receive company insurance, Wal-Mart announced a new plan this fall: allowing some employees to buy insurance for $11 a month.

Fogleman said in Utah, full-and part-time employees have access to plans that charge $23 a month. Family coverage starts at $65. Wal-Mart's ranks of company-insured now stand at 47 percent, Fogleman said.

Wal-Mart Watch, a nonprofit group allied with labor unions in Washington D.C., is unimpressed. "It's unacceptable that a company with $10.3 billion in profits has a health plan that covers less than half of its employees," said the group's president, Nu Wexler.

Utah's large employers split: Two of Utah's Top 10 employers, Hill Air Force Base and Skywest Airlines, have zero Wasatch Front workers on state-funded insurance, according to Health Department records.

The state's largest, IHC, has 26,000 employees - nearly double Wal-Mart's Utah workforce - but only 48 workers on Medicaid.

Also, 85 percent of the hospital chain's workforce are "benefits eligible," with 81 percent of those taking advantage of company plans, said Jeff Lowder, assistant vice president for human resources. "We're in the healthcare business, but we still have to pay for it," said Lowder. IHC is unique in that what it doesn't pay now it will pay later in the form of charity care for the uninsured. Also, only a third of its staff are part-time, whereas Wal-Mart and call centers Convergys and Teleperformance USA hire many part-time senior citizens, college students and second wage-earners.

Few of Convergys's part-timers opt for company insurance, though it is offered to all employees. Bare bones coverage is available for as low as $9.16 a month. "We're doing every bit as much as we can, and then some, other than to say it's free; and that's not going to happen," said Convergys benefits director Lynn Peterson. Schools' health problems . The AFL-CIO plans to push legislation similar to Maryland's new mandate in more than 30 states. No large private employers contacted by The Tribune would disclose what percentage of their payroll is spent on health benefits.

But University of Utah officials say the public research university spends 7 percent, and Alpine School District spends 21 percent. In a Catch-22 cycle, schools also contribute to Medicaid spending. Alpine (with 59), Granite (24), Jordan (25) and Nebo (25) school districts have workers drawing on Medicaid. So do the U. (38), Weber State University (14), Utah Valley State College (16), and other public entities, including state government (29) and Internal Revenue Service center in Ogden (30). "That tells you what people are earning," said Utah Board of Education attorney Carol Lear.

Asked whether government should take the lead in insuring its workforce, Lear said, "Yes. But this is Utah and we're talking schools. They pay what they can afford." Schools and colleges offer rich health plans with low or no premiums, which they leverage against low wages to retain teachers. But the schools can't afford to also cover their bus drivers, custodial staff and lunchroom workers. Alpine, for example, only offers paid insurance to full-time staff, about 3,561 of its 6,054 employees.

Alpine School District Accountant Jim Hansen said, "This year we spent $35.5 million on healthcare benefits." Part-timers can buy insurance through the district. But last year, only 15 did, probably because the Cadillac plan costs $345 a month for one person or $1,094 for a family.

Also on the list: BYU, small businesses: LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University has 51 workers on Medicaid, mostly between the ages of 19 and 26. BYU officials say they place upwards of 10,000 students in campus jobs each year. Its chain of thrift stores, Deseret Industries, employs large numbers of disabled Utahns and has 74 workers on Medicaid.

The vast majority of Utah workers on Medicaid - 4,563 - have jobs at small businesses, which struggle to afford coverage. Huntsman's advisers had explored allowing small businesses to buy insurance from Utah's Public Employee Health Plan, but the idea was recently shelved under intense lobbying by the insurance industry.

Utah healthcare reformist and advocate for the poor Judi Hilman backed the proposal. She said, "We're at a crossroads. Are we going to build on an employer-based system or go toward a single-payer route? If we build on the employer-based system, as unsustainable as that is, then we have to level the playing field."

[back to top] 


Darwinism, Wal-Mart-style

PETER PRUYN
February 5, 2006                 
[back to top] 

READER TED Sares is wise to be wary of government intervention to address concerns regarding Wal-Mart's business practices (''Wal-Mart is penalized for being successful," letter, Jan. 29). However, he is unwise to dismiss the legitimacy of government controls in capitalism out of hand. Without a minimum wage, the Federal Reserve adjusting interest rates, and hundreds of other controls, a fair marketplace would not exist.

Like an organism in nature, the success of any organization, or society, is proportional to its ability to adapt or learn. Wal-Mart has successfully learned how to leverage a global economy faster than society's ability to create conditions for a fair marketplace, including fair labor practices.

Wal-Mart is capitalism with cancer. What's the best treatment?

PETER PRUYN Cambridge

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[back to top] 


Banking Wal-Mart, Texas bank roll into area

Josh Drobnyk
Washington Business Journal
February 3, 2006                             
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart's biggest banking partner plans to open its first in-store branch in Greater Washington this summer.

Houston-based Woodforest National Bank, now in more than 100 Wal-Mart stores in Texas and North Carolina, filed an application with the Virginia State Corporate Commission Jan. 25 to set up a branch in a Manassas Wal-Mart.

The Manassas branch is scheduled to open by this summer, according to Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires.

About 1,100 stores, 35 percent of Wal-Mart's total, have bank branches now, and there are agreements for another 300, Heires says.

Woodforest, with $1.8 billion in assets, plans to open 22 in-store branches in Virginia this year, nearly all in the southern and central parts of the state, says Cindi Stewart, Woodforest's vice president of marketing.

The Houston bank is entering a market familiar with grocery-store branches. Chevy Chase Bank, for example, has had a long-standing relationship with Giant Food.

"Banks have been playing around with in-store branching for over 30 years," says bank consultant Bert Ely of Alexandria-based Ely & Co.

No one was playing around when Wal-Mart filed an application to form its own bank last year. The proposal, separate from the Woodforest venture, sparked heated debate.

In July, the world's largest retailer applied with Utah banking regulators and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to start an industrial bank to help cut down on fees for credit and debit card transactions.

"It is really something that the customer won't see," Heires says.

Bankers nationwide, however, noticed the application and sent in fervent letters of opposition. "Wal-Mart will establish banking offices in its stores and cause competitive problems for local banks the same way it has for local retailers," wrote Walter Ayers, the Virginia Bankers Association president, in a letter to the FDIC signed by the heads of 25 other state bankers associations.

The FDIC won't act on the application until it fills a vacancy on its five-member board and holds a hearing.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart pulls out of Hercules project

East Bay Business Times
February 3, 2006                       
[back to top] 

After a report from the city staff of Hercules recommended that city officials disapprove a proposed Wal-Mart store, the world's largest retailer announced Thursday it has temporarily ended plans to build in the Contra Costa County city.

Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) said it had withdrawn an application that was to be heard by the Hercules Planning Commission to build a 142,000-square-foot store in the Bayside Marketplace development so it can "reevaluate its options in light of the (staff report)."

That staff report said the proposed Wal-Mart was not "in substantial compliance" with initial development plans negotiated by city and Wal-Mart officials, so recommended a rejection by Planning Commission members.

"Wal-Mart is obviously disappointed by staff's recommendation, and while we might not agree with their conclusions it seems prudent to withdraw the application in order to reevaluate our options," said Kevin Loscotoff, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart, in a statement.

Wal-Mart still owns the site where the proposed store was to be built, located at Alfred Nobel Drive and John Muir Parkway, so is likely to come up with another proposal.

"...We are 100 percent committed to this site and want to take whatever time necessary to assess the city's comments," Loscotoff said in his statement.

Though, as in many other communities, the proposed Wal-Mart generated opposition from some residents, the company contends Hercules residents are anxious to have greater retail options in their city.

Bayside Marketplace is part of the larger Bayside Project that encompasses a 105-acre site on the Hercules waterfront. A combination of retail, residential and commercial development, along with some open space preservation, is proposed for the land.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

 [back to top] 


Wal-Mart should pay fair share of health benefit costs

By Mike Murphy
The Olympian
February 3, 2006                       
[back to top] 

I was pleased to see The Olympian comment on an important issue before the Legislature — what to do about large employers shifting health care costs to the rest of us. The most obvious example is Wal-Mart, one of our nation's largest and most profitable employers. Wal-Mart is big and wealthy, but it does not provide decent health care benefits for its employees.

Should we be concerned about how Wal-Mart treats its employees? Wal-Mart and its allies say this topic should be no concern to the public or the Legislature.

I see it differently.

Wal-Mart follows a business model of providing minimal health care, which it knows will shift costs to taxpayers and other employers. A recent news article said more than 3,100 of Wal-Mart's employees in Washington are on taxpayer-funded health care plans.

This practice by Wal-Mart and some other large employers has a direct impact on the entire state. The cost to taxpayers is estimated at tens of millions of dollars a year.

This is unfair to our state treasury, to communities across Washington, to business and to families. Our Legislature must step in. That's why I decided to support the “Fair Share” bill.

The bill sets a minimum for the state's largest employers and targets the worst corporate abusers. For companies with 5,000 or more employees, the bill requires them to spend at least 9 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference into the state's health care fund. That's a reasonable minimum. The vast majority of companies that size already meet the standard.

The bill is supported by businesses, working families, elected officials, health care professionals, and community and civic leaders. This bill can help address the growing number of uninsured children and adults in Washington, now estimated at more than 600,000 people.

Health care is a national crisis, and we do need comprehensive change. But as we work to bring change nationwide, we can't ignore growing abuses of the present system by Wal-Mart and other large employers. We must stop the “race to the bottom” by unfair employers.

This legislation will have two important benefits. First, employees at Wal-Mart and other companies would get improved health care for themselves and their children. Second, and perhaps more important, taxpayers would no longer provide an unintended subsidy to corporations whose employees are on the taxpayer-funded Washington Basic Health Plan.

Wal-Mart and its allies have tried to characterize this bill as anti-business. This is the same argument that failed in Maryland, where similar legislation was passed into law.

Many small and larger businesses support the “Fair Share” bill because it levels the playing field. Fair-minded employers shouldn't be paying higher premiums to offset the irresponsible few. Fair-minded employers should not be penalized for doing the right thing.

Wal-Mart has a well-documented history of questionable treatment of its employees. It's time to pass this legislation and help put a stop to abuses of our health care system.

Mike Murphy is treasurer of the state of Washington.

 [back to top]   


Wal-Mart urged to stock day-after pill

By Marcus Kabel
San Diego Union-Tribune (CA)
February 3, 2006                       
[back to top]   

A coalition of women's groups and family planning organizations on Friday urged Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to change its policy and start stocking emergency contraceptive pills in its pharmacies. The groups, claiming a total membership of 10 million women, called on Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott to stop blocking access to a legal medication. Their joint statement came in the same week that three Boston women filed a suit against Wal-Mart, contending that the retail giant violated Massachusetts state law by failing to stock emergency contraceptives, also known as “morning-after” pills, in its pharmacies.

“Wal-Mart's actions are clearly an outrageous intrusion into the health and privacy of all U.S. women. When a doctor prescribes emergency contraception for a woman, Wal-Mart does not have the right to overrule that decision,” the joint statement said.

Signatories were the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and the National Council of Women's Organizations, together with a union-funded anti-Wal-Mart campaign group, WakeUpWalmart.com.

Wal-Mart has said it does not stock the drug for business reasons because it is not commonly prescribed. But Wal-Mart indicated for the first time Friday it may be rethinking that policy.

Company spokeswoman Mona Williams said the Bentonville, Ark.-based company had not stocked the pills in the past, except where required by law, because there seemed to be less customer demand than for other medication.

“However, women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart, so clearly there are broader considerations and we are giving this a lot of thought,” Williams told The Associated Press.

Williams declined to elaborate when asked if that meant Wal-Mart was considering stocking the medication nationally.

Wal-Mart has said that when it doesn't stock a particular drug, its pharmacies refer customers to other stores.

But the joint statement by the women's groups said that was a hollow gesture in communities where Wal-Mart may be the only pharmacy for miles around.

“To be most effective, emergency contraception should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure,” the groups said. “No woman at risk for unintended pregnancy, be it the result of a broken condom or sexual assault, should be turned away by Wal-Mart and forced to find another pharmacy while the clock is ticking.”

[back to top]   


'The Wal-Mart Effect' from Charles Fishman

The Motley Fool
NPR
February 3, 2006                 
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart is a business with 1.6 million employees in the United States alone. It does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined. And more than half of all Americans live within 5 miles of a Wal-Mart store. David Gardner talks about the big, big business of Wal-Mart with Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works - and How It's Transforming the American Economy.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart succumbs to opposition

By Tom Lochner
Contra Costa Times
February 3, 2006                   
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart on Thursday withdrew an application to build a store in Hercules, but left open the possibility it could come back with an amended plan. An opponents' group, meanwhile, vowed to continue to fight to keep the world's largest retailer out of Hercules.

In a news release, Wal-Mart said it would "re-evaluate our options" in light of a city staff report finding that its proposed project is "not in substantial compliance" with an initial development plan and a 2003 development agreement.

City Manager Mike Sakamoto cautioned against reading too much into Thursday's Wal-Mart action.

"It's a real vanilla kind of withdrawal," he said, "It doesn't go into any depth at all. It would be inappropriate to draw any conclusion at this time about the permanency or non-permanency of the withdrawal."

The staff report recommended the Planning Commission deny approval. Wal-Mart's proposal has been dropped from the agenda of Monday's Planning Commission meeting.

In December, Wal-Mart applied to build a 142,000-square-foot store as the anchor tenant of Bayside Marketplace, a 17-acre tract off John Muir Parkway. That application echoed one filed last March on Wal-Mart's behalf by the Lewis Group of Sacramento, the former owner of the property. Lewis withdrew its application in September and sold the tract to Wal-Mart in November.

A 2003 development agreement between the city and Lewis calls for a retail center with a 64,000-square-foot store and other stores.

The staff report, by Community Development Director Steve Lawton, Planning Manager Dennis Tagashira and consulting planner Charlie Knox, finds Wal-Mart's project "materially different" from the plan described in the 2003 development agreement between Lewis and the city.

Moreover, the report says, the initial development plan envisioned a "neighborhood-serving shopping center that includes a grocery store and drug store in discrete retail units distributed across the site."

The report predicts Wal-Mart's plan would "adversely influence the types of tenants" that would locate nearby.

Wal-Mart has said its stores help nearby businesses thrive. In its news release, it claimed broad local support.

But ever since Lewis' original proposal, the idea of a Wal-Mart in Hercules has drawn passionate and broad opposition. Some say a big-box store would not fit with the New Urbanism, pedestrian-oriented concept of the nearby waterfront and fear it would draw many out-of-town trucks and cars.

Others say the retailer is anti-union, underpays employees and provides inadequate benefits, thus overburdening social and medical services.

Wal-Mart has rejected those notions, countering that it pays good salaries and benefits and provides good jobs with advancement opportunities.

"We don't want a Wal-Mart because of its bad reputation in the city and the state and the country and the world," said Steve Kirby of the group Friends of Hercules. "We'll take it all the way to a referendum, if they ever get something through the planning commission."

[back to top] 


Hillary Clinton Returns Wal-Mart Cash

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
February 3, 2006                         
[back to top] 

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered checks from Hollywood friends, John Kerry's wife and even a former Republican congressman, but records filed Friday show she returned cash from an even older ally -- Wal-Mart.

Senate records made public Friday detail how Clinton, D-N.Y., raised a whopping $6 million in the last three months of 2005, bringing her campaign cash to $17 million going into her re-election run, in which she has yet to face organized opposition.

Some $1,500 of that money came from Amo Houghton Jr., the former Republican congressman who retired in 2004. Houghton, an heir to the Corning glass company in upstate New York, did not immediately return a call for comment.

The junior senator from New York is also a potential presidential candidate in 2008. She took in plenty of donations from box office stars and political heavyweights, according to paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., gave Clinton $2,100. John Kerry, who lost the 2004 presidential race, is also considered a presidential prospect in 2008.

Clinton returned $5,000 to the political action committee of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company with long ties to the Clintons dating back to their days in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer.

But the senator signaled a new stance on the company's business practices in a speech last week, when she told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the company should provide better worker benefits.

"Cities and states are saying we can't keep holding the bag here," Clinton told the conference, citing a new Maryland law requiring Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of payroll in health benefits or contribute to insurance plans.

Other donors to Clinton include former Sept. 11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who gave her $1,000 in November. Actress Reese Witherspoon contributed $1,000, and talk show host Jerry Springer donated $4,200.

Actor Danny DeVito gave $1,000, and actress Morgan Fairchild gave $1,500. Edie Falco of "The Sopranos" gave $1,000, and Jessica Seinfeld -- comedian Jerry Seinfeld's wife -- gave $4,200.

The papers also showed what it costs a candidate to raise $6 million in three months. One company alone was paid more than $461,000 to conduct direct mail appeals for Clinton.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[back to top] 


Migden bill raises health care ante for biggest state firms Requires 8% payout for worker benefits, or Medi-Cal funding

Greg Lucas,
SFO Chronicle
Thursday, February 2, 2006                 
[back to top] 

Sacramento -- California's largest employers would be required to prop up the state's medical insurance program for the poor if they don't offer their workers generous enough health benefits under a bill set for introduction in the Senate.

Modeled after a law passed earlier this month in Maryland that only affected mega-retailer Wal-Mart, the California legislation would require employers of more than 10,000 to spend at least 8 percent of total wages on health benefits.

If they don't, the company would contribute the difference between what it does pay and the 8 percent threshold to Medi-Cal, the state's health care provider of last resort.

"Government and entitlement programs are a safety net. They are not supposed to be a place employees from a major corporation are compelled to get their health care because their employer shirks that responsibility," said Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, who is introducing the bill.

"Why should the taxes paid by the domestic worker or the car mechanic or the school nurse be used to cover costs that should rightly be borne by another worker's employer?"

Wal-Mart characterizes the bill as just the latest assault by unions who have orchestrated legislative attacks in dozens of states against the giant retailer, whose nonunion workforce totals 1.3 million nationwide with more than 70,000 employees in California.

"Union leaders have been unsuccessful in forcing our associates (employees) to unionize, so they've devised a multimillion-dollar campaign to slow down Wal-Mart's growth,'' said Kelly Hobbs, a spokeswoman for the retailer in Washington, D.C.

"These bills are nothing more than a political ploy," said Hobbs, noting that three-fourths of Wal-Mart's employees have health coverage. Roughly 45 percent of the retailer's employees are insured by the company, while another 30 percent are insured either through a spouse's plan or Medicare.

Counting Migden's bill -- expected to be in print within the next few days -- 22 state legislatures have introduced bills to impose some kind of health care mandate on employers.

The number of businesses affected varies from state to state. Florida, Kentucky and Michigan have 10,000-employee thresholds, as Maryland's law does, but a bill in Massachusetts affects businesses with more than 10 employees. New Hampshire's mandate begins at 1,500 employees; Oklahoma's at 3,000.

The rash of bills has attracted the opposition of the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation, which are helping bankroll a coalition to oppose the measures.

Restaurateurs were instrumental in repealing a California law signed in 2003 mandating larger employers provide health care for their workers.

"These bills are a major threat to business in general and the restaurant industry in particular," said Tom Foulkes, vice president of state relations for the National Restaurant Association in Washington, D.C.

"They do nothing to help the case of the uninsured or fix the health care system in America, which is really the root of the problem. All these bills do is find someone else to pay for it," Foulkes said.

The Maryland law was vetoed last year by the state's Republican governor. The heavily Democratic-majority Legislature overrode his veto in January.

Only three employers in that state have more than 10,000 employees. Of the three, only Wal-Mart was not unionized.

"Wal-Mart was not the target of the bill," said Maryland state Sen. Gloria Lawlah, a Prince George's County Democrat who carried the legislation. "The real culprit is the high cost of health care."

Support for Migden's measure will come from groups like Health Access, an advocacy group that strongly supported the 2003 mandate on employers to provide health coverage.

"Larger employers should pay their fair share and not burden taxpayers and emergency rooms," said Beth Capell, a lobbyist for Sacramento-based Health Access. "People who get up every day and go to work ought to get health insurance on the job. It's as simple as that."

The number of California companies that would be affected by Migden's bill is small.

There are 22 companies with more than 20,000 employees in California, 15 with between 15,000 and 19,999 employees and 32 companies with between 10,000 and 14,999 employees, according to the state Department of Economic Development.

Among companies with more than 10,000 employees is Levi Strauss, which has 12,300 employees, according to Forbes magazine. Foster Farms employs 11,000. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. employs nearly 12,000.

Stanford University also has more than 10,000 employees.

Among the state's largest employers is Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente, which has 33,000 employees. Bechtel has 42,000 employees.

Migden said she doubts that any of those employers would be affected by the bill because they spend more than the 8 percent threshold in her bill on health benefits for employees.

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

[back to top] 


NOW and Allies Support Lawsuit Calling for Emergency Contraception Access at Wal-Mart

February 2, 2006                 [back to top] 

At the same time Wal-Mart faces the largest gender discrimination class action lawsuit in U.S. history, affecting 1.6 million women, three Massachusetts women are now suing Wal-Mart over its failure to provide access to emergency contraceptive pills.

Wal-Mart's decision not to stock or sell emergency contraception -- also known as Plan B or the "morning-after pill" -- unnecessarily denies women everywhere their right to access a legally-approved drug. The lawsuit charges that Wal-Mart is violating a Massachusetts policy requiring pharmacies in the state to dispense all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott should not decide what medicines women may or may not take. Wal-Mart's actions are clearly an outrageous intrusion into the health and privacy of all U.S. women. When a doctor prescribes emergency contraception for a woman, Wal-Mart does not have the right to overrule that decision.

To be most effective, emergency contraception should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure. Because Wal-Mart has put so many smaller stores out of business, in a number of areas it is the only pharmacy for miles. No woman at risk for unintended pregnancy, be it the result of a broken condom or sexual assault, should be turned away by Wal-Mart and forced to find another pharmacy while the clock is ticking.

Wal-Mart's statement that they choose "not to carry many products for business reasons," rings hollow and dismisses the heartfelt concerns of many women in this country.

We strongly support the lawsuit brought in Massachusetts and will fight to make sure all women who work at Wal-Mart or choose to shop there are treated fairly and equally and have access to all legally-approved medications.

We call on Wal-Mart to stop discriminating against women, reverse their policy on blocking access to emergency contraception pills, and to ensure, in the future, all legal medicines are provided to women at Wal-Mart pharmacies across the U.S.

Kim Gandy President National Organization for Women

Paul Blank Campaign Director WakeUpWalMart.com

Dr. Martha Burk Director, Corporate Accountability Project National Council of Women's Organizations

Nancy Keenan President NARAL Pro-Choice America

Karen Pearl Interim President Planned Parenthood Federation of America

[back to top] 


WAL-MART WATCH

by Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc
02/02/2006                              
[back to top] 

The nation's largest retailer remains a massive target from multiple fronts. In one of the most damaging shots to the company to date, the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring firms with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on health benefits or else make a contribution to the state's health-care programs for low-income families. The bill was a response to the fact that fewer than half of Wal-Mart's employees nationwide get insurance through the company, with many more forced to get health care through spouses or through state-subsidized programs. Since the passage of Maryland's bill, more than 20 other states have introduced similar bills.

Wal-Mart's nascent attempts to start a banking operation received opposition from an unexpected front: outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Fed chair sent a 12-page letter to Congress opposing a regulatory loophole that opens the doors for corporations to own banks. Wal-Mart has been trying to obtain a state banking charter in Utah.

Wal-Mart recently launched an online music video and audio service called “Wal-Mart Soundcheck” that will promote exclusive studio performances and interviews. The first bands featured: rock group Switchfoot and punk group Yellowcard.

Both Wal-Mart and Costco are exploring using biometric checkout systems. The technology would allow consumers to pay via a finger scan. Customers would register at in-store kiosks, scan their fingerprint into the system and their credit information would be pulled up. Already, some grocers are experimenting with the system including Albertson's and Piggly Wiggly.

Copyright 2006 by Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc.. All rights reserved

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart Applies to Open India Office

By CHUCK BARTELS
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 2, 2006              
[back to top] 

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has applied to the government of India to open an office to explore a possible entry into the retail market there, the company acknowledged Thursday.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, already has a presence in India, where it is buying an increasing number of the goods for its store shelves. India prohibits foreign direct investment in general merchandise stores, but Wal-Mart is hoping for a rule change.

The office proposed for Bangalore would be a separate entity, devoted to "market research and business development in relationship to the retail industry in India," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Beth Keck said Thursday.

Keck said Wal-Mart is optimistic that the rules will be changed, particularly in light of a move last week by the Indian government to let foreign brands open their own stores. That move would allow stores that sell Nike or other single brands open outlets but not companies that sell broader ranges of goods.

Wal-Mart has about 80 employees already in India to oversee purchasing. Keck said Wal-Mart bought $600 million worth of goods from India in the last year.

India has a growing middle class and that is driving a greater demand for goods. But there is opposition within the government to opening India to foreign direct investment in retailers, particularly because the limited step taken last week could open the door to Wal-Mart. Critics say Wal-Mart and other big merchandisers would drive small retailers out of business.

Wal-Mart filed its application for the office last year. The Bangalore office would have one person, who would move from the Bentonville headquarters, Keck said.

© 2006 The Associated Press

[back to top] 


Hesperia readies for Wal-Mart Supercenter

Daily Press (Victorville, CA)
02/02/2006                                     
[back to top] 

Feb. 2--HESPERIA -- The City Council took the first step in bringing a Wal-Mart Supercenter to Hesperia on Wednesday after approving a contract with Applied Planning to do an environmental impact report on the construction site.

The EIR will address the environmental effects of the project, including studies on traffic, noise and air quality.

Wal-Mart will pay the estimated $190,000 to do the report.

City Manager Mike Podegracz said though the city has completed the first step, it will still be awhile before construction begins.

"The report could take six to eight months," he said. "They are not expected to start until the fall of this year."

The Wal-Mart Supercenter is not expected to open until 2007.

The Supercenter will be the anchor of a 48-acre shopping center on the corner of Escondido and Main streets and will also include a Home Depot store.

Before the 45-minute council meeting came to an end, Podegracz said the city will also be holding a second public workshop to explain the expansion of the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain authority.

The meeting will take place tonight at 6:30 p.m. in council chambers.

The Redevelopment Agency is required by law to expand its eminent domain authority for 12 years.

Additional public workshops will be held on Feb. 7 and Feb. 8 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.

Copyright (c) 2006, Daily Press, Victorville, Ca

[back to top] 


Next round begins in battle between Wal-Mart, its foes

Statesman Journal
February 2, 2006                        
[back to top] 

BEND -- Wal-Mart and its local opponents are getting ready for the next round after the initial decision went against the retail giant's proposal for a store in fast-growing Bend. Hearing Officer Karen Green has decided that Wal-Mart failed to prove that it could accommodate the 12,000 extra car trips per day that the store was estimated to generate.

Wal-Mart announced plans almost a year ago to build one of its Supercenters on 20 acres in northeast Bend, generating opposition from Bend residents who held rallies, showed movies and placed signs in their front lawns in protest.

The group said that Wal-Mart's traffic study contained serious errors and that the proposed mitigation plan did not meet state standards.

The hearing officer said that the street improvements Wal-Mart agreed to wouldn't be sufficient and that a road-widening project at a set of railroad tracks might not be feasible.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Holder said an appeal was an option.

An appeal would go to the Bend City Council, which could hear it or send it on to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. If the council hears it, an appeal could continue to the state board.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart managers mingle in KC while workers shop for stuff they can't afford.

By Eric Barton 
The Pitch
Published Feb 2, 2006               
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart obviously knew how to make its managers feel at home this past weekend when they gathered for their annual meeting in Kansas City. The second floor of Bartle Hall had been transformed to look like the inside of a Wal-Mart, complete with yellow smiley-face signs. Aisles held everything from toiletries to TVs. On gym-style bleachers in the center of the massive exhibition hall, lieutenants of the Wal-Mart army listened to spiels from their corporate bosses. "Always low prices," signs reminded them from every angle. "Always."

Meanwhile, across town, two women walked through the automatic doors of a Wal-Mart in Overland Park and headed for the women's clothing section, looking for reminders of home.

[back to top] 


State should force Wal-Mart to play fair

Mark Fernald
Concord Monitor
February 1, 2006                      
[back to top] 

Your editorial against the Wal-Mart bill was so full of errors and illogic that I scarcely know where to start. Rep. Mary Beth Walz has proposed House Bill 1704, which would require large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care for their employees. Employers who didn't meet the threshold would have to pay the difference into a state fund established to pay for Medicaid, the health-care plan for the poor.

The Monitor complains that if the bill passes here and in other states, "the nation would wind up with a de facto employer-based health-care system." We already have an employer-based health-care system. The vast majority of Americans of working age with health insurance have it because their employers provide it. Most Americans without health insurance are working, but their employers offer no plan, or they cannot afford the plan offered.

Wal-Mart is undermining our employer-based health-care system. Wal-Mart is able to undercut other retailers, in part, because it skimps on health care. As the largest retailer and employer in America, Wal-Mart has the market clout to present its competitors with a stark choice: reduce benefits or go out of business.

"The real problem," you wrote, "is the seemingly unstoppable double-digit annual increases in health-care costs."

But let's look at causes. We know that much of the increase in health costs is due to cost-shifting - the costs of the uninsured are passed on to those with insurance. When Wal-Mart fails to provide decent health-care benefits to employees, and when it forces its competitors to cut benefits to their employees to remain competitive, the ranks of the uninsured grow, and the cost-shifting and the spiral in health insurance premiums gets worse.

"Picking on Wal-Mart may feel good,"according to the Monitor, "but won't help much." This is a weak argument. We know that the health-care system is complex. There is no magic bullet that will solve all the problems. But if forcing Wal-Mart to play on a level playing field with Costco and others will help a little, shouldn't we do it? Isn't it better than doing nothing?

The Monitor says the bill targets a "moderate number of companies (and) meddles with the marketplace." All government regulation affects the free market. That's why we have regulation - to prevent the free market from exploiting child labor, allowing unsafe working conditions and polluting our environment, among other things. We should add to that list employers who threaten to destroy our employer-based health-care system.

I salute Rep. Walz for sponsoring House Bill 1704 and wish her well in her work in the Legislature.

(Mark Fernald, a former state senator and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate, lives in Sharon.)

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart: Always Low, Always

by: Admin
Infoshop.org
Wednesday, February 01 2006                       
[back to top] 

Kansas City is a likely place for an anti-Wal-Mart confab. Every year, the corner of downtown between Bartle Hall and the Marriott crawls with about 6,100 casually dressed managers wearing Wal-Mart name tags. According to the Kansas City Convention & Visitors Association, the conference contributes an estimated $5.9 million to the local economy. Wal-Mart pays the city about $800,000 for use of Bartle Hall, internal city documents show. But nobody outside the company knows exactly what happens inside Bartle Hall. Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Thornton declined to comment on event activities.

Always Low, Always

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart chief faces jail for fiddling expenses

By James Doran
The Times
February 01, 2006                   
[back to top] 

THOMAS COUGHLIN, the former vice-chairman of Wal-Mart, faces a maximum sentence of 28 years in jail and a $1.35 million (£757,000) fine after pleading guilty to fiddling his expenses to buy items as diverse as a 12-bore shotgun, a Celine Dion CD and a large Polish sausage.

The guilty plea brings to an end the bizarre case in which Coughlin, a former close friend of the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, claimed to have been involved in a covert anti-union spying operation designed by the giant retailer.

Coughlin resigned as the No 2 executive at the world’s biggest retailer last March after it was revealed that he had used about $500,000- worth of company gift cards to buy items for himself, while claiming that the cards were to be given to employees as bonuses.

It was also alleged that Coughlin had claimed thousands of dollars’ worth of expenses for other personal items, such as three 12-bore shotguns that cost $1,000, a rifle case for more than $100 and a bottle of vodka.

Coughlin said last year that the expenses claims had been allowed by Wal-Mart to pay him in kind for running the spying operation. The plot was hatched, he alleged, to head off any plans by Wal-Mart employees to organise under a trade union. Unions are not encouraged at Wal-Mart, but many workers’ organisations and public advocacy groups have criticised the company and made claims that it enforces an illegal union ban. Wal-Mart denies such claims.

The claims that the company had authorised an anti-union spying policy were also strenuously denied by Wal-Mart and it seems were abandoned by Coughlin during months of plea-bargain talks with authorities.

Coughlin, 56, arrived at court in Fort Smith, Arkansas, yesterday with his wife, Cynthia, to enter his guilty pleas. Each wire fraud count that he faces carries a possible sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The tax evasion charge facing him carries a possible sentence of three years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Sentencing is expected to take place in about three months’ time. However, federal sentencing guidelines suggest that Coughlin should serve no more than two years in jail for the crimes he committed.

It is also believed that prosecutors have recommended a more lenient sentence after Coughlin agreed to co-operate with them and plead guilty.

The former Wal-Mart executive, who has a library named after him in the company’s hometown of Bentonville, Arkansas, expressed his regret last night.

“Today I accepted responsibility for serious personal mistakes in judgment,” he said. “This was not an easy decision. I regret the embarrassment this matter has caused my family and friends and I thank them for their support, love and friendship. I am glad to put this matter to an end.”

SHOPPING LIST

All-terrain vehicle $10,000 Luxury dog kennel $2,590 Handmade alligator boots $1,359 Three 12-bore shotguns $1,000 Celine Dion compact disc $9.72 Bottle of Stolichnaya Vodka $24.99 Fishing licence $10.50 Rifle case $119.19 Large Polish sausage $3.54

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.

 [back to top] 


Wal-Mart battles rage: Pullman, Hillyard, South Hill all on the front line

Spokesman-Review
02/01/2006                         
[back to top] 

Feb. 1--Laura McAloon has heard a lot about Wal-Mart. As the attorney for the city of Pullman, she sat through three days of testimony for and against a proposed supercenter there. At the end of the public hearings, McAloon drove home to attend a contentious traffic meeting for a proposed 186,000-square-foot Wal-Mart in her own south Spokane neighborhood.

"The same emotion and the same feelings were expressed in both proceedings," McAloon said, adding, "Wal-Mart triggers a lot of emotion."

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. hopes to build supercenters in south Spokane, Pullman and Hayden, along with a Sam's Club in north Spokane. While some shoppers hail the bargain-hunting opportunities, others oppose the projects, citing concerns ranging from heavy traffic to the destruction of decent-paying jobs.

Jennifer Holder, a Seattle-based Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the two proposed Spokane stores would create a total of about 400 jobs. Another benefit, she said, is that each store would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes and several hundred thousand more in annual sales taxes.

But Brad Read, a South Hill resident and Rogers High School teacher, spoke out at a recent meeting, encouraging people to band together against both proposed stores in Spokane.

He said Wal-Mart stores lower a community's standard of living by driving better-paying companies out of business. That, Read said, is particularly hard on a neighborhood like Hillyard, which is near the planned Sam's Club.

"It's a matter of decreasing living-wage jobs, which Wal-Mart never provides," Read said.

Spokane developer Harlan Douglass owns land at Lincoln Road and Nevada Street, where the 153,000-square-foot Sam's Club is planned. He also owns the 44th Avenue and Regal property being considered for an elevated supercenter with parking on the roof and under the store.

Lois Strand, who lives near the planned Sam's Club, plans to attend an upcoming traffic impact meeting on Feb. 7 at 6 p.m. at Garry Middle School, but fears the store will go in anyway. "We knew something was going to happen (there) but I never imagined it was going to be a Sam's Club," Strand said.

The city of Spokane has received a building permit application for the Sam's Club and a request to subdivide the Douglass property on Regal.

Leroy Eadie, of the city's planning services department, said permit applications and store plans are scrutinized by engineers and specialists in a half-dozen departments, which can take weeks to months.

"The part of this that will most likely come into play is SEPA," Eadie said, referring to the State Environmental Policy Act checklist.

A Department of Ecology spokeswoman said the agency will also examine what appears to be a wetland on the South Hill property.

The land is thought to contain a shallow flood plain, which could also present development challenges.

In Pullman, a citizen group called Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development appealed a 223,000-square-foot store. Wal-Mart announced plans to build the store, which would be Pullman's first Wal-Mart and largest retailer, last March."We received a huge volume of written comments during the 14-day SEPA process," said McAloon, the city attorney. The hearing examiner is expected to rule on the project within two weeks.

The scale of the project took the community --which isn't accustomed to big-box retailers -- by surprise, McAloon said.

The community reaction to the project has prompted her to recommend changes to city laws to allow citizens to testify at public hearings earlier in the planning process.

Plans for a Wal-Mart superstore in Hayden, Idaho, surfaced in fall of 2002. Initially, Wal-Mart wanted the city to amend its comprehensive plan, which governs land-use decisions, to allow it to build on land that was zoned for both commercial use and housing. The city council refused after hearing from hundreds of citizens who opposed the change.

So Wal-Mart found an adjacent property, but balked when asked to subdivide the property. In the end, Wal-Mart attorneys threatened to sue the town of 13,000.

Lisa Key, director of planning and community development for Hayden, said the developer's engineers, CLC Associates, have sought feedback from the city on recommendations for the congested roadways near Wal-Mart's proposed construction site, Honeysuckle Avenue and U.S. Highway 95. Recommendations include adding lanes and street lights and widening intersections. The company is also asked to move a nearby sewer lift station at an estimated cost of $500,000.

"My interpretation is they're evaluating whether or not they want to move forward with this," Key said.

Copyright (c) 2006, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash.

[back to top] 


Suit aims to force Wal-Mart to sell pill Morning-after drug falls under Mass. law, women say

By Bruce Mohl,
Globe
February 1, 2006                     
[back to top] 

Three Massachusetts women are planning to file a lawsuit today against Wal-Mart for failing to stock and sell a prescription emergency contraception pill called Plan B.

Details of the lawsuit and the names of the plaintiffs were not available in advance of a press conference today, but an attorney representing the three women said the case is based on longstanding pharmacy regulations in Massachusetts.

The emergency contraception pill is a high dose of hormones that women can take three to five days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. The pill, because it is viewed by abortion opponents as a way of terminating a pregnancy, has stirred controversy both nationally and locally.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company doesn't carry a number of products, including Plan B, ''for business reasons." The spokeswoman, Sarah Clark, declined to discuss the specific ''business reasons" associated with Plan B.

Clark said it is company policy to refer customers seeking a product that Wal-Mart doesn't carry to a competitor who does stock the item. She also said Wal-Mart pharmacies in Massachusetts will stock the Plan B pill if the retailer receives a directive to do so either from the Massachusetts Pharmacy Board or the state attorney general.

''At this time, we know of no such requirement," Clark said.

Until now, Wal-Mart's decision not to carry the Plan B pill has attracted little attention in Massachusetts, partly because the retailer has a relatively small presence here and there are so many other pharmacies where consumers can fill their prescriptions. Wal-Mart operates 44 pharmacies in Massachusetts and 3,700 nationwide.

But the three women, backed by abortion-rights advocates Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and Jane Doe Inc., are planning to argue that Wal-Mart is violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by refusing to fill a legal prescription for Plan B.

Aside from Wal-Mart, all of the major pharmacy chains operating in Massachusetts carry Plan B. But there is no specific state law requiring a pharmacy to fill Plan B prescriptions and several pharmacies contacted yesterday said they are not aware of any requirement that they stock emergency contraceptives.

A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Pharmacy Board said it has received no complaints about lack of access to emergency contraceptives.

''Because there is no complaint before it, the board is not in a position to comment or to render a legal opinion on a matter that may be the subject of litigation between private parties," the spokeswoman, Jessica Cates, said.

Cates supplied a copy of the board's regulations, which state that pharmacies ''shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community."

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly declined to comment.

The Plan B medication, sometimes called the morning-after pill, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1999 as a prescription drug. But since delays in getting a doctor's prescription could reduce the effectiveness of the drug, its maker, Barr Laboratories, asked the FDA to approve over-the-counter sales.

The FDA rejected the initial over-the-counter application, despite recommendations from an independent advisory committee and the agency's own scientific staff to do so. A subsequent request from Barr hasn't been acted on by the agency.

In Massachusetts, the drug also has prompted debate. The Legislature last year overwhelmingly overrode a veto by Governor Mitt Romney of a bill that allowed pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription if they underwent special training and consulted regularly with a physician. The measure also required hospital emergency rooms to make emergency contraceptives available to rape victims.

The Romney administration subsequently exempted privately run hospitals from dispensing Plan B to rape victims if a hospital objects on moral or religious grounds. A week later Romney changed course and said all hospitals would be required to offer the morning-after pill to rape victims.

A spokesman for CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, said the company stocks Plan B at all of its pharmacies and is putting together a program for some of its pharmacists to dispense the medication without a prescription.

Steven Grossman, owner of J. E. Pierce Apothecary in Brookline, said his pharmacy also is developing an over-the-counter option for customers. Grossman said he is not aware of any law requiring pharmacies to carry Plan B but he believes any pharmacy that receives a prescription for the drug should fill it.

''Your moral responsibility as a pharmacist is to make medicines available to patients," he said.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[back to top] 


Women sue Wal-Mart over access to emergency contraception

Associated Press
February 1, 2006
                     [back to top]
 

BOSTON -- Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion rights groups sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, saying the retail giant violated state law by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies. The suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court seeks a court order compelling Wal-Mart to stock the so-called "morning after pill," in its 44 Massachusetts pharmacies.

"Wal-Mart apparently thinks it is above the law," said Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three plaintiffs.

A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate on Beacon Hill requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

Instead, the suit, backed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a provision of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.

A spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart did not immediately a call from The Associated Press on Wednesday.

A company spokeswoman, Sarah Clark, told The Boston Globe that Wal-Mart doesn't stock the morning-after pill for "business reasons," but she declined to elaborate.

The plaintiffs are Katrina McCarty of Somerville, Julie Battel of Boston, and Rebekah Gee, of Boston. All three were turned away when they tried to buy emergency contraception pills at area Wal-Marts.

Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

[back to top] 


First Albuquerque Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market opens

New Mexico Business Weekly
January 31, 2006                                
[back to top] 

The first Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market in New Mexico and the 100th in the country has officially opened its doors for business.

Located at 8511 Golf Course Road NW, where Paseo del Norte currently ends on Albuquerque's west side, the Neighborhood Market brand combines the services of a grocery, drug and general merchandise store in a smaller space. The new Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) grocery store will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Neighborhood Markets range in size from 39,000 to 52,000 square feet, compared to the average size of a Wal-Mart Supercenter at 186,077 square feet. While Neighborhood Markets are always located in the same general vicinity as a Supercenter, the idea behind the brand is to position the markets closer in to residential areas.

The new Albuquerque store will employ approximately 83 associates, 56 of them new positions. More than 400 applied for employment at the new store, says a company news release, with full-time hourly associate jobs paying about $10.11 per hour.

In addition to meat, produce, packaged and canned goods, cosmetic and hardware items, the Duke City's Neighborhood Market will feature a 30-minute photo processing lab, a new "Grab-It -And-Go" section, allowing customers to pay for pastries and coffee through an "honor-system" box, and a floral section with plants and fresh flowers.

A grand opening ceremony took place on Tuesday morning and $33,000 in donations were made to local organizations through Wal-Mart's "Good Works" community involvement program.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart Pearl City open for business

Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
January 31, 2006                                   
[back to top] 

Wal-Mart Inc. opened its fourth store on Oahu and eighth in Hawaii with its new Pearl City location on Tuesday morning.

Some 750 to 1,000 customers waited in line for the 9 a.m. opening preceded by a half-hour grand opening ceremony. The first customer was in line at about 5 a.m.

The 147,979-square-foot store at 1131 Kuala St. is designed to look like a sugar mill.

Like other Wal-Mart stores, it will offer 36 departments, in addition to a McDonald's restaurant, American Savings Bank branch, one-hour photo lab and pharmacy.

It is estimated to have created 620 new jobs, with average wages of $10.58 per hour for full-time associates. Glen Schneider is the new store manager.

At the opening, Wal-Mart announced $35,000 in donations that will go to Hawaii groups including the Aiea Community Association, Aiea High School, Aloha United Way, Hale Kipa Inc., Empower Oahu and Leeward Community College.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart has Texas bank waltzing across the region

Charlotte Business Journal
January 30, 2006                                 
[back to top] 

Woodforest eyes steady expansion as discounter keeps growing in N.C. Will Boye Staff Writer Woodforest National Bank, a $1.8 billion Houston-based bank, entered North Carolina last year through a partnership with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., opening 25 branches throughout the state.

Bank officials say that was just the beginning -- they plan to open at least 20 more in North Carolina in 2006, and roughly the same number in 2007.

At least a few of those new branches will be in the Charlotte area, including locations in Indian Trail, Belmont and Concord, according to applications filed with banking regulators. The bank opened branches in three Wal-Mart stores in Charlotte last year, the latest in a new Wilkinson Boulevard store.

The bank's entry into the state has gone well so far, says vice chairman Michael Richmond. The retail customers the bank has been able to do business with have resulted in strong growth in checking accounts and total deposits.

"It is at our expectations or in some cases exceeding them" on an individual branch basis, Richmond says. "We know that businesses don't traditionally bank at in-store branches, but people do."

About 160 of the bank's 192 branches in Texas and North Carolina are in Wal-Mart stores.

The bank began opening branches in April, and as of June 30, when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. conducted its most recent deposit survey, Woodforest was averaging nearly $200,000 in deposits per branch. The first two Charlotte branches, which opened in late May, collected a combined $319,000 in one month.

The branch opened by Woodforest at a Wal-Mart store in Hickory had accumulated the most deposits by far at the time of the FDIC survey -- $667,000, or more than $200,000 per month after opening in early April.

Woodforest has focused largely on account growth to this point, Richmond says, and has not begun offering mortgages and other loan products, though it plans to do so in the future.

The bank is also expanding its Wal-Mart branch network into Virginia this year and plans to open at least 15 branches in that state.

At the same time, Wal-Mart has applied with banking regulators in Utah to start an industrial bank of its own and has applied for deposit insurance with the FDIC. Community banks and associations such as the N.C. Bankers Association have voiced opposition, urging the FDIC to deny the application.

But Wal-Mart says it will not operate bank branches and will use the bank primarily to process debit card, credit card and electronic check transactions. "We're not going to do any banking," says Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires. "We've already made that pledge to Congress."

The discount chain has agreements with 300 banks and credit unions, including SunTrust Banks Inc., to lease space in 1,100 of its stores, and Woodforest is one of its largest bank tenants. Wal-Mart is aggressively recruiting new regional and community banks to lease space in its stores. "We'd like to have a bank in every supercenter and every discount store that will accommodate them," Heires says. Wal-Mart has nearly 3,200 U.S. stores and plans to add 335 this year.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top] 


Wal-Mart set to tear down Eastwood

Kaija Wilkinson
Birmingham Business Journal
January 30, 2006                             
[back to top] 

A Wal-Mart Supercenter and other stores covering 375,000 square feet are set to take shape on the Eastwood Mall site starting in May 2006, with the Supercenter slated to open in the second quarter of 2007, Matt Carlson of Map Development LLC, a local retail developer and broker, said during a recent presentation for Commercial Real Estate Women at the McWane Center downtown.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is working with Birmingham-based Map on the project.

The largely vacant mall covers 2 million square feet between Crestwood Boulevard and Montclair Road in eastern Birmingham near Irondale.

The mall, which opened in 1960, was one of the first enclosed malls in the Southeast and was the "center of retail" in the Birmingham metro area until competition, such as Brookwood Mall and The Summit emerged in the 1980s, Carlson says. Shoppers gradually abandoned the mall, and for the past several years it has sat mostly dormant with only a handful of tenants - Books-A-Million, Fred's and Joe Muggs - clustered together at the rear of the mall facing Montclair.

But those leases will run out soon, and those involved in the massive redevelopment, which Wal-Mart declines to put a price tag on, say Birmingham can expect to see changes this year.

Carlson says an aquifer under the site complicates demolition somewhat, but all involved are determined to move forward.

"It's a tough project, but it's a great thing for this part of town and it takes just this kind of effort to bring the area back," Carlson says.

Real estate watchers have said the project promises to spur further development, and create some retail casualties in the surrounding area that includes Century Plaza Mall on the other side of Crestwood.

Facing Montclair Changes will be big, with the new center facing Montclair rather than Crestwood, a new boulevard linking the two thoroughfares, and many new stores and restaurants.

Griffin Lassiter, economic development liaison to Mayor Bernard Kincaid, says the city's economic development team "is in the final throes of putting numbers together" that they will present to the mayor and City Council in February.

Since the presentation has not yet been made, Lassiter declines to give specific figures but does say "we never do a project like this that is not a good deal for the city, and this one is no exception. We are anticipating tax revenues from the project that will pay the city back in less than five years, and that's kind of the standard we go by."

As a result of Wal-Mart's Eastwood plan, the retailer will be closing its Irondale store, which reportedly generates $1 million in annual tax revenue for the city. Irondale's Sam's Club, however, is being expanded.

The city of Birmingham funds will go toward infrastructure and design, Lassiter says.

"It's going to be a very nice development" that infuses new life into the ailing corridor, introducing additional retailing, he says.

Women's fashions During his presentation Carlson said that Map is in lease negotiations with adjacent tenants, including "three major women's apparel stores" that would be new to the area.

Speaking of new, the Eastwood Wal-Mart is likely to incorporate some elements that don't echo the typical big, blue box. Pictures and descriptions from Krumdieck A+I Design Inc. reflected a historic warehouse theme for the new center, incorporating awnings. It's a nod to the area's past as a warehouse district, Carlson said.

Although offering few details, Wal-Mart's senior manager of public affairs for the region, Eric Brewer, says with new Supercenters, "usually the goal is to have an architecture that blends in with the architecture of an area."

Brewer says Wal-Mart plans to break ground sometime in the spring, and that a typical Supercenter opens about 11 to 12 months after that.

© 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

[back to top] 


A fresh look at Wal-Mart's power

By Russ Juskalian
USA TODAY                     
[back to top] 

Picture the 3,811 Wal-Mart stores in the USA alone. They sit there, writes Charles Fishman in The Wal-Mart Effect, "on vast aprons of asphalt parking, usually at a slightly different grade from nearby roads, so they look dug into the ground or popped out of it."

The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works — and How It's Transforming the American Economy, by Charles Fishman; The Penguin Press, 294 pages, $25.95.

"Wal-Mart stores aren't just big inside; they present big."

Imagine an economy of scale immense enough that it can bring fresh salmon from Chile for $4.84 per pound — less than it would take to ship a 1-pound package back to Chile. Envision one business so huge that the basic rules of supply and demand no longer apply.

Welcome to Wal-Mart.

Fishman attempts to get to the bottom of the corporate monolith at the center of our love-hate relationship with consumerism.

In discussing a company of such size, one would expect an analysis to be choked by numbers and statistics. Fishman, however, makes effective use of anecdotes to lend meaning to the barrage of sound bites we hear about Wal-Mart.

And while considering a company that constantly strives to lower prices brings to mind images of tough working conditions, outsourcing and cheaply made products, that, Fishman says, is an oversimplification.

Take, for instance, what Wal-Mart did to deodorant. Until the early 1990s, "Nearly every brand and style of deodorant — roll-on and solid, powder-fresh and unscented — came in a paperboard box. You opened the box, pulled out the container of deodorant, and pitched the box in the garbage."

Wal-Mart decided the box was an unnecessary cost and used its clout to push suppliers to ship deodorants sans boxes. The folks at Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., were probably focused on the costs of shipping, shelf space and raw materials.

But as Fishman puts it, "It's a perfect Wal-Mart moment — the company used its insight, and its muscle, to help change the world. Millions of trees were not cut down, acres of cardboard were not manufactured only to be discarded, 1 billion deodorant boxes didn't end up in landfills each year. It's all unseen, all unnoticed, and all good."

Such a story is just the kind of public relations gold mine that some large companies use to veil darker aspects of their impact — the type of impact Fishman seems to believe predominates at Wal-Mart.

In one of the most compelling sections of the book, Fishman discusses how "salmon is the fish that has conquered America," and how Wal-Mart and Chile are driving the effort to turn salmon into a factory product — with dire consequences for the environment and the people who work in the salmon factories.

Salmon is now so popular that Americans eat three times as much, per capita, as in 1990.

The solution: Raise salmon like pigs, off the coast of Chile, where labor is cheap and regulations are lax, according to Fishman. The result is that Wal-Mart can sell fresh salmon at under $5 a pound, a price "that inspires not happiness but wariness," Fishman says. Wal-Mart isn't the only buyer of Chilean farm-raised salmon, but Fishman argues that Wal-Mart is in the unique position of being able to use its might to ensure that safe labor and sustainable harvesting practices are used by its suppliers.

Wal-Mart isn't doing nearly enough in this regard, he argues. According to data that Fishman provides, Wal-Mart did 12,500 factory inspections in 2004. Of those, 11,500 times the management of the factory was told in advance that an inspection was going to take place. There were 9,900 serious violations as reported by Wal-Mart.

The question Fishman asks is: What would we find if all of those inspections had been surprises?

The list of human rights violations and lack of environmental concern at Wal-Mart and its suppliers is long, Fishman says, with many stories behind it.

There's Robina Akther, who claims she was beaten with the pants she was sewing if she couldn't complete enough work in an hour. There's the $2.97 gallon of pickles that nearly put pickle-maker Vlasic out of business. There are the Wal-Mart workers who can't afford health insurance.

The Wal-Mart Effect is an interesting look at how big corporations affect our planet in positive and negative ways. The strength of Fishman's work is in the stories about the lives that Wal-Mart has touched, set against the backdrop of an astounding array of data.

Those who do not shop at Wal-Mart should know — even if your only connection to the company is seeing its large stores pass by the window of your car — that its impact probably reaches your life in ways you never imagined.

[back to top] 


Containment Update

www.quarantinewalmart.com
29 January 2006                                  
[back to top] 

Hundreds of concerned Kansas City citizens in hazmat suits, face shields and rubber gloves successfully quarantined the 6,100 Wal-Mart managers and executives meeting at Wal-Mart's annual megaconvention in Kansas City, MO.

The "Bureau of Workers Health", organized by Kansas City ACORN and the Ruckus Society, secured the contamination center with yellow caution tape, health hazard signs, and "Notices of Quarantine." Operatives of the Bureau served the notices to the Wal-Mart managers as they came in and out of the center, directly confronting them about their store's policies.

Crowds of Wal-Mart managers, after being notified of the quarantine, attempted to seep like germs through the various pores of the Contamination Center, but the Bureau's fast-acting emergency response teams were able to blockade all exits to the building. Those bold enough to challenge the perimeter of the quarantine were quickly and loudly inoculated by shouting Bureau operatives.

Wal-Mart's failure to provide health care to over half of its million U.S. employees, its dangerously low pay, and its toxicity to local communities have made it a national public health hazard. And with 1300 incidences around the world, Wal-Martitis is quickly becoming a global epidemic with devastating consequences.

In response to this health crisis, Americans have begun quarantining themselves against Wal-Martitis. Two weeks ago, Maryland passed a law compelling Wal-Mart to improve its health care benefits, and several other states are moving forward with similar legislation.

 [back to top]


Wal Mart Quarantined

From: "Andrew Ginsberg"
Newsgroups: acorn.campaign,acorn.news,acorn.field,acorn.headorg
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: Wal Mart Quarantined                         
[back to top]

Today we had over 100 people demonstrate at Wal-Mart's annual  manager's meeting. We teamed with the Ruckus Society to form the  Bureau of Worker Health and Quarantine the manager's meeting. One of our members, Pat Williams, walked around with a bullhorn chanting "Attention Wal-Mart managers: Please report to the Bureau of Worker Health for decontamination" and other similar sentiments. Everybody wore Hazmat suits with Bureau of Worker Health Stickers on the chest and ACORN stickers on the arms. We posted yellow caution tape around the perimeter of the convention center to contain the outbreak of WalMartitis. It was a lot of fun.

Good work by all of the staff to put this together in four days, working pretty much non-stop.

One of the Wal-Mart managers said that this was the biggest and  loudest of the many protests he had seen against his company.

We had 3TV, community radio and a photographer from the KC Star. We are working on the post release as we speak to try to get more press.

see www.quarantinewalmart.com for more details and the post release.

Andrew

[back to top]


Damariscotta Group Kicks Off Anti-Walmart Campaign

Portland wcsh6.com                     [back to top]

People who don't want Walmart in Damariscotta are kicking off their campaign Saturday with lots of red signs and hats.

The group Our Town Damariscotta handed out about 100 red baseball caps to supporters that represent the size cap the group wants to place on Damariscotta's businesses, 35,000 square feet. Supporters also put signs up on Main Street businesses to encourage more people to vote for the cap. Walmart wants to build a 186,000 square foot store just off Route 1, north of downtown. People who support the size cap argue a big store like that would ruin the Damariscotta's small town character. Others believe there's nothing wrong with bringing jobs and low priced goods to the area. The town will vote on the issue March 21. Two other towns, Newcastle and Nobleboro, also have organized efforts against Walmart.

[back to top]


Ex-Wal-Mart exec to plead guilty to fraud

Reuters
Sat Jan 28, 2006                       
[back to top]

Former Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s vice chairman Tom Coughlin is expected to plead guilty to fraud and failure to pay federal taxes in a court appearance on Tuesday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on Friday.

The newspaper, quoting unnamed sources, said a proposed plea agreement with prosecutors called for him to plead guilty to five counts of wire fraud and one count of tax evasion.

Coughlin, 56, has been accused of misappropriating $500,000 in company funds to buy personal items, but has previously denied any wrongdoing.

He resigned from the Wal-Mart board of directors in March 2005 following an internal investigation into improper use of gift cards and other expenses.

The Democrat-Gazette said Coughlin would appear in court on Tuesday morning in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Neither a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Arkansas nor a lawyer for Coughlin could be reached for comment. Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Thornton said the company had no comment.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Worker lawsuits stack up at Wal-Mart

Mark Chediak
Orlando Sentinel
January 27, 2006                          
[back to top]

Latest legal move lands in Orlando court A Wal-Mart attorney appeared Thursday in a federal court in Orlando to deal with an issue that has dogged the retail giant for the past several years: overtime pay disputes.

Lawyers for former and current Wal-Mart employees asked a panel of federal judges to consolidate class-action suits from across the country that accuse the company of cheating workers out of regular and overtime payments.

Wal-Mart opposes the consolidation. Company attorney Brian Duffy argued that the six cases raise different legal issues in each state, while plaintiffs' attorney Robert Bonsignore said moving the lawsuits to one court in Nevada would ease litigation procedures.

After the hearing, Bonsignore said of Wal-Mart's strategy: "They want to divide and conquer." Duffy said he couldn't comment on pending litigation.

The panel -- whose chairman is from the Middle District of Florida, which includes Orlando -- is expected to issue a ruling within a month.

Over the past few years, worker claims against Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, have been piling up. The company is now facing more than 50 lawsuits in state and federal courts, alleging that Wal-Mart failed to pay employees for all time worked, according to a court filing.

Bonsignore estimates he represents more than 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart employees in 10 lawsuits filed in states from Hawaii to Maine. The six considered Thursday are from Nevada, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Hawaii.

Employees allege that Wal-Mart managers cheated workers out of overtime hours or docked time cards for breaks not taken. Wal-Mart says company rules don't allow for hours to be cut from employees' time cards.

"It is Wal-Mart's policy to pay associates for every minute that they work," said company spokesman Kevin Thornton.

"Any manager who requires or permits off-the-clock work or who fails to comply with applicable laws or policies regarding hourly associates' meal and rest breaks will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination," he said, adding that the company offers a number of ways for workers to address any concerns about time cards.

Wal-Mart has beefed up its efforts to rebut criticism of its labor practices from advocacy groups such as Wake-Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch. The company hired Edelman Public Relations and Washington lobbyist Lee Culpepper last year to polish up its image.

Still, some analysts say employee class-action suits will continue to be a thorn in the company's side.

"It's one burden the company faces over the longer term," said Robert Buchanan, retailing industry group leader for A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.

"The concern that I have as an analyst is that the suits could have a material impact on the company if the settlements were unfavorable to Wal-Mart," Buchanan said.

Already, employee claims have taken a bite. In December, a California jury awarded $172.3 million to workers who said they were denied meal breaks. Wal-Mart is appealing the case. Workers in Florida and Maine sued this month, alleging the company didn't fully pay them.

Wal-Mart defenders say the retailer's massive size has made it an easy target. Buchanan said Wal-Mart's pay scale isn't significantly different from other retailers such as Target.

"But because Wal-Mart is the big kahuna," he said, "they're the ones that get picked on."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart flexes muscles in Alberta

CBC.CA News
Jan 27 2006                   
[back to top] 

The simultaneous opening of four Wal-Mart stores in southern Alberta has some long-time local retailers worried about their future in business.

On Thursday, Wal-Mart launched in Airdrie, Drumheller, Taber and Strathmore.

Phyllis Groves, a Strathmore resident, says some people are happy about the store's presence, others are concerned it'll put pre-existing shops under.

"Well, we're becoming a bigger place but to me I feel badly because we will lose some stores, no doubt."

Kevin Groh, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart, says such fears are unfounded. He says a study by Ryerson University found that local residents are less likely to go the bigger centres when big box retailers move in.

"There were two impacts they saw: one was higher customer counts and one was higher sales figures. So when you look at the impact of a Wal-Mart, often it means a revitalization of the area that we are building in."

Parry Banadyga, owner of the Home Hardware in Strathmore, says he's just trying to meet Wal-Mart on its own terms.

"Most retailers know they can't compete directly against Wal-Mart, so we'll do the things that we do well and try to do them better; plumbing, electrical, heating, home decor that sort of thing," said Banadyga.

"Things that we're not so good at, that they're better in, we'll just stay away from. Our number one trump card is service. We provide the service that larger big boxes, Wal-Marts are others just can't and never will be able to."

Wal-Mart won't be without its challenges, said Groh.

He says Alberta's tight labour market has made it difficult to find and retain employees willing to work for just over minimum wage.

Copyright © 2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

[back to top]


You won't find a new Wal-Mart Supercenter any time soon within the confines of the city of Tucson.

Richard Ducote
Arizona Daily Star
01/27/2006                 
[back to top]

Jan. 27--You won't find a new Wal-Mart Supercenter any time soon within the confines of the city of Tucson.

The big city is too sophisticated and, well, choosy to permit such a crass "big-box" establishment along its sunny boulevards.

Oh, you could go out to the West Valencia Road Wal-Mart Supercenter off I-19 and take a gander, if you're willing to brave the crowds. It's one of the busiest stores in the region for the world's largest retailer. It was built before Tucson's governing class came to the rescue and prohibited such establishments offering groceries on a grand scale.

For an up-close look at a new, state-of-the art consumer coliseum, drive down the road to the booming town of Sahuarita.

A new 188,000-square-foot example of retail efficiency opens today.

It's a lot of store for a town of 14,000 residents. But the town has grown by more than 300 percent in five years, and its population is projected to double in the next five years. Plus, the huge new store will draw people from nearby Green Valley, population 25,000, and lots of other settlements.

Thousands of new houses are planned for the area in the coming years.

The new store sits along Nogales Highway, which is the extension of Duval Mine Road east of Interstate 19.

It's just east of a now-closed Wal-Mart store, circa 1990, that was less than half the size of the new Supercenter.

The new store will double Wal-Mart's employee roster in the town to more than 400 workers.

It's the third Wal-Mart store opening for Juanita Juarez, co-manager of the new Supercenter. Her first job out of high school in Nogales, Ariz., was stocking the Wal-Mart that was opening in that city in 1989. She and some friends applied for jobs and were hired. "I didn't know what Wal-Mart was." Through a progression of jobs at several Southern Arizona stores, she rose to her current position, one of three top managers at the new store with 430 employees.

Some of the workers are 15-year veterans of the old store next door, she says.

The store's exterior features more style and detail compared with the big, er, boxes of the past. It has more color and architectural appeal.

A large grocery section is a big part of the expansion, taking up about 45,000 square feet. Tucson's big-box ordinance would not allow even half that much grocery space in the gargantuan new store.

Inside, the store exhibits some respect for its location. Baffles under the huge skylights throughout the building will close at night. Natural light streams into the store during the day, helping to conserve energy. But closing the baffles at night prevents the interior lighting of the 24-hour store from bouncing into the night sky through the roof.

Sahuarita, about 10 miles from the telescopes on Mount Hopkins, has a strict "dark sky" ordinance governing lighting in the area.

To the town's leaders, the store is a big plus. "A large store offers more choice," says Jim Stahle, town manager. "It's a bigger employer and will bring more sales tax." The store will pull shoppers, and revenues, into the town from miles around.

Town officials are hesitant about estimating the sales taxes that will be generated by the store, but a similar store in Marana that opened in 2003 was estimated to bring $1 million a year to the town.

That would have a big impact on Sahuarita, with an annual town operating budget of $15 million.

Fear not. Tucson will not have to contend with finding a place to spend an extra million or so from sales taxes generated by such a garish establishment.

The millions in future sales taxes from such a store would have little impact in the big city. We can afford to be choosy, I guess.

Talk of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter at Rita Ranch on Tucson's burgeoning Southeast Side has died down as of late. Tucson's big-box ordinance would make it nearly impossible for such a store to be built.

Some Tucson residents may choose to go to Sahuarita's newest retailer, thus taking their dollars out of town to support somebody else's services.

To experience the newest example of big-scale shopping, you're going to have to leave the big city.

[back to top]


600 jam Wal-Mart traffic session: South Hill neighbors oppose store

Spokesman-Review
01/27/2006                        
[back to top]

Jan. 27--A tough crowd of more than 600 men, women and children protested a Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed on the South Hill in a raucous meeting Thursday night at Ferris High School.

While many took a "not-in-my-backyard" stance, others looked at the bigger picture: Not in anybody's backyard.

Brad Read called for people to unite against both Wal-Mart and the Sam's Club the corporation is proposing on the North Side.

The audience, who squeezed into the school cafeteria, struggled to hear details from a local firm conducting a traffic study on the project over an inadequate PA system that cracked and cut out as people spoke.

"It's absolutely insulting that a multi-billion dollar corporation cannot have a decent microphone," one man commented as several people in the audience chanted, "They probably bought it at Wal-Mart."

Within an hour it became clear that no city officials or Wal-Mart Stores Inc. corporate executives were visibly present. Landowner Harlan Douglass, who is selling the parcel to Wal-Mart, seemed a no-show as well.

Architectural drawings showed an attractive two-fronted, 186,000- square foot facility adorned with trees. Wal-Mart would front 44th Street, literally transforming it into an arterial, and segue into a store front on Regal Street. The Regal Street storefront would have suites for independent retailers. Parking would be on street level, but underneath an elevated store, on top of the store and nearly invisible from the street.

Seattle-based attorney John McCullough said the design is new for the northwest. But the unique aesthetics garnered few points with most residents. Many stood in long lines waiting for a chance to rally the crowd at take potshots at the world's largest retailer.

A Seattle-based attorney contracted to represent Wal-Mart and representatives from CLC Associates, a local engineering company, lacked crucial details about the store -- which further angered some residents.

There were traces of contention before the meeting started as 54-year-old neighbor Tim McHenry told the attorney, "We're going to fight you here. We don't want any part of you here."

When asked whether the store would be open 24-hours a day, as rumored, Wal-Mart's representatives declined to give a firm answer. The men also couldn't comment on whether RVers would be allowed to sleep overnight in the parking lot -- which is several blocks from Adams Elementary and Ferris High schools. The company attorney declined to answer questions about the average traffic impact for a store of that size.

"Why are we commenting on traffic impact if you can't answer how many cars are going to be here?" one woman shouted.

Kevin Picanco a traffic engineer for CLC Associates, gave preliminary estimates of additional trips on the roads and quoted figures ranging from as low as 150 added trips during weekday mornings to as many as 500 and hour on busy weekends. But the crowd didn't buy those numbers either. A young man citied a study saying the impact on a busy Saturday is 8,500 to 9,000 cars, a figure the men didn't dispute.

Some made references to recent documentaries, blasting the company for exploiting foreign workers and paying "poverty wages."

Others criticized Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for trying to move into an already congested neighborhood that has nearby schools and an outdoor sports complex.

Janet Schaffer, 45, was among a vocal minority who wanted a store nearby so she doesn't have to drive across town to shop.

"We have a family of six and it's difficult to find all the things you need for your family," Schaffer said before the meeting.

But most of the people who stepped up to the microphone were adamantly opposed to the project, stating concerns about added traffic, including semis, on arterials that run by a half dozen schools on the lower and upper South Hill and by Spokane Youth Sports Association's outdoor soccer complex.

"The South Hill was not designed to handle such an amount of traffic," said Ricardo Lopez, 29.

Ann Morlin, a 42-year-old who lives near the proposed store, spent last Saturday handing out about 130 fliers opposing the project to neighbors and local businesses. At the meeting, her kids, Maggie Henley, 9, and Alex Henley, 7, donned neon sandwich board protesting Wal-Mart.

Shelly Farmer, a 41-year-old mother of two, said she sat through most of the meeting in disbelief. Having moved to the area from San Diego, two years ago, Shelly Farmer, 41, about the impact of added traffic on her family's everyday life.

"We left for quality of life issues," Farmer said. "I'm sitting here scared to death I'm going to be right back where I started before."

However, she said, the size and passion of the crowd gives her hope.

""I'm very impressed with the citizens here.'

Copyright (c) 2006, The Spokesman-Review

[back to top]


Wal-Mart turns to suburb after Chicago rejection

By DON BABWIN
Associated Press
Jan. 26, 2006                            
[back to top]

EVERGREEN PARK, ILL. - After Chicago rejected Wal-Mart's proposal to open a store on the city's South Side, the retailer will open one today just outside city limits — leaving city officials shaking their heads at the prospect of hundreds of workers and countless shoppers flocking to this tiny suburb.

"It makes you go ballistic," said Alderman Howard Brookins Jr., who pushed unsuccessfully for a Wal-Mart in his ward. "When you look at the revenue stream that we're losing and the property taxes and sales taxes there and you look at the opportunity, we're not going to stop these people from going to shop at Wal-Mart."

Brookins lamented the news from Wal-Mart that of the 25,000 applicants — a record number, the retailer said — for about 350 jobs, all but 500 were Chicago residents. Further, he said he has no doubt that when the store opens, most shoppers will be Chicagoans, too.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio was careful about gloating over the number of job applicants for the store that's just a few miles from the proposed store on Chicago's South Side. He stressed that plans to build in Evergreen Park were in the works before Brookins' proposal stalled 18 months ago because other aldermen would not support a zoning change.

"In a way, what is Evergreen Park's gain, to some extent is Chicago's loss," Bisio said.

For starters, Bisio said it is clear from more than four dozen outlets the company has in the Chicago area that city residents will drive to Evergreen Park. Wal-Mart's first Chicago location is scheduled to open later this year on the city's economically depressed West Side.

In Evergreen Park, Mayor James Sexton said the village is expected to collect $1 million in sales and property taxes the first year the 141,000-square-foot facility is open. And, he said, two local school districts are to each receive an additional $200,000 from property taxes.

[back to top]


More than 3,100 Wal-Mart workers got state health aid

By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times Olympia bureau              
[back to top]

OLYMPIA — More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.

That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.

The reports are sure to fuel the debate over a labor-backed push in the Legislature to require companies such as Wal-Mart to pay more for health care. Democrats in the House and Senate say the reports show that Wal-Mart and some other big companies are shifting millions of dollars in health-care costs to the state.

"I think taxpayers should be outraged," Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said Monday. "They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world."

Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said the company has no information that would confirm or refute the state's findings. But she said the data are more than a year old and might no longer be accurate.

"We implemented a lot of new plans last fall that we believe may appeal to people who had chosen to not take our coverage," Hill said.

Citing state and federal confidentiality rules, the state last month provided the new reports to only a handful of legislators and legislative staff members. But copies were leaked to The Seattle Times.

Medicaid is a state-federal program that provides health coverage to families on welfare and children in low-income families. The Basic Health Plan (BHP), funded entirely by the state, mostly covers low-income adults.

Both programs are aimed primarily at people in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. That would mean a family of four with an income of about $38,000 would be eligible.

The new reports lists companies that in 2004 had the most employees receiving benefits under the programs.

Wal-Mart came out on top of both lists, by wide margins.

One report shows that, throughout 2004, an average 3,180 Wal-Mart employees were receiving state-funded medical assistance, including Medicaid, for themselves or for a dependent. The other report shows that 456 Wal-Mart employees were on the state's Basic Health Plan that year. Some employees may be counted on both of the lists.

McDonald's restaurants had the second-highest total, with an average 1,824 employees receiving Medicaid benefits in 2004.

Safeway was next, with 1,539 employees on Medicaid and 173 employees on the BHP.

With about 16,000 employees each, Wal-Mart and Safeway are among the state's largest employers. McDonald's has about 12,000 employees in Washington, but they work for 45 separately owned franchises or at one of 62 outlets the corporation owns.

The companies with the highest totals of employees on Medicaid and the BHP were concentrated mostly in a few industries, including general-merchandise stores, groceries and fast-food chains. Several companies that recruit and hire out temporary workers or day laborers — such as Express Personnel Services and Labor Ready Northwest — also ranked high on both lists.

Lawmakers said one of the most startling findings in the new reports is that more than half of the Wal-Mart employees who received Medicaid benefits — nearly 1,800 — were full-time workers.

For nearly all of the other companies listed, the vast majority of employees on Medicaid were part-time workers.

"It shows Wal-Mart isn't even taking care of its full-time employees," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle.

But Cody and Conway said the reports shine a light on other companies as well.

"It's not just Wal-Mart," Conway said. "A lot of low-cost employers are shifting their health-care costs to the state."

Neither of the reports makes any attempt to calculate how much it cost the state to cover the employees and their families. But it's clearly in the tens of millions of dollars.

Wal-Mart defends its employee health benefits as competitive and affordable.

Hill, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the company recently put in place a new "value" health plan for its employees. Under that plan, employees get 100 percent coverage for their first three doctor visits each year and after that must pay a $1,000 deductible. She said the plan's employee premiums average $23 per month.

Still, Wal-Mart's latest estimates show that only about half of its employees are on one of the company health plans. And, in an internal company memo leaked last fall, Wal-Mart acknowledged that, nationwide, nearly half of its employees' children were either on Medicaid or were uninsured.

More than a dozen other states have conducted studies to identify companies with the most employees on government-subsidized health care. In nearly every case, Wal-Mart came out on top.

Democratic lawmakers in Olympia hope to pass legislation that would require companies with 5,000 or more employees to put at least 9 percent of their payroll costs toward health-care benefits. Similar legislation was approved earlier this month in Maryland.

It's all part of an effort by a coalition of labor unions and health-care groups to push for so-called Wal-Mart bills in more than 30 states.

Wal-Mart says the legislation is "purely political" and would do nothing about the soaring cost of health care.

Hill told lawmakers in Olympia last week that the company didn't know what percentage of payroll it spends on health benefits.

To help lawmakers here prepare for the debate, Gov. Christine Gregoire last year requested the two new reports even though she knew her agencies would not be allowed to release the results to the public.

Copies stamped "confidential" were sent last month to about a half-dozen legislators, several legislative staff members and the governor's health-policy adviser. To produce the reports, the state matched its Medicaid and BHP recipient lists with employee data compiled by the state Employment Security Department. But Employment Security officials say they are barred from publicly releasing any data that reveal company names. The rankings in the new reports are similar to what lawmakers saw three years ago in a report that the state now says was improperly released to the public.

But the totals in the new reports — especially for numbers of employees on Medicaid — are much higher than before. The old report, for instance, indicated only 450 Wal-Mart employees were receiving Medicaid benefits, compared to more than 3,100 now.

It's unclear why the new numbers are so much higher, but lawmakers speculated the state did a more thorough job of gathering data this time. Officials at the Employment Security Department declined to comment.

[back to top]


A Burden Wal-Mart Can Afford

The Washington Post Company
Thursday, January 26, 2006           
[back to top]

The Post's position on Wal-Mart is inexplicable ["Beating Up on Wal-Mart," editorial, Jan. 12]. The Maryland General Assembly didn't victimize Wal-Mart; it simply legislated a fair deal for 15,000 of its workers. Wal-Mart was not singled out; it was being called to account. Even putting aside the humanitarian and corporate citizenship aspects, isn't it a better deal for Marylanders to pay a bit more at Wal-Mart and elsewhere than to "subsidize" the health care costs of large numbers of their neighbors?

While "entry-level and part-time jobs" have their value, thousands of them with poor benefits and little opportunity for advancement do not spell economic salvation for Maryland or its residents, particularly if those jobs come without access to health care coverage.

It doesn't matter if some of the 15,000 opt out of health care plans; what matters is that many finally will have access to insurance. Wal-Mart denied that access. Who was beating up on whom here?

JONATHAN MILLER

Bethesda

·

George F. Will says that the new Maryland law requiring companies with more than 10,000 employees to contribute to the health care of their employees is a form of theft ["Shoplifting as Governance," op-ed, Jan. 19]. Maryland has four such employers, and all but Wal-Mart already make enough of a payment to comply with the law.

The top 10 of the 400 richest Americans on Forbes magazine's list includes five members of the Walton family, founders of Wal-Mart, with a combined wealth of about $90 billion. The Waltons don't need help, but working folks do.

What is wrong or unethical about asking employers to pay for the health care of their employees?

HERMAN REINHOLD

Springfield

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[back to top]


Wal-Mart bank bid faces hurdles as worries voiced

By Kristin Roberts
Thu Jan 26, 2006                        
[back to top]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart faces new hurdles in its bid to open a bank as resistance mounts among members of Congress and the Federal Reserve to allowing the world's biggest retailer to start even limited financial operations.

In recent days, the U.S. regulator reviewing Wal-Mart's <WMT.N> application said it would likely call a public hearing on the company bid -- the agency's first formal hearing ever on a new bank application.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also chimed in, according to a letter seen by Reuters, urging Congress to close what he called a loophole in U.S. law that allows corporations to own banks but avoid a level of federal supervision.

This comes as Wal-Mart's application generates heightened attention on Capitol Hill, where some congressmen asked bank regulators to delay action on the application. Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus plans a hearing in the House of Representatives on industrial banks, and some lawmakers are expected to propose legislation that may limit nonfinancial companies' ability to get into banking activities.

"I think Wal-Mart might have problems," said one bank lobbyist, noting more aggressive opposition from the financial industry and a shift in tone at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the regulator reviewing the retailer's application.

But other lobbyists and analysts said the opposition to Wal-Mart is coming from the same old quarters: banks, labor unions and some consumer groups. They say if the FDIC follows statute, there is little reason why Wal-Mart's application should be denied when rival Target Corp. <TGT.N> succeeded.

"If you think there's a public policy argument that these entities should not exist, fine; but they do exist and Congress has failed to eliminate them," said one analyst.

Industrial banks are state-chartered and state-regulated, and fall under the supervision of the FDIC. Commercial companies may own them because federal laws that bar non-financial companies from engaging in banking activities do not classify them as banks.

Wal-Mart applied to open an industrial bank in Utah to handle electronic payment processing.

Some legislators have raised concerns that Wal-Mart could use its bank as a base to offer a much wider array of services. Banks also fear competing with Wal-Mart.

Others argue that the retailer's industrial bank would violate the historic separation in the United States between banks and enterprises that do not engage primarily in finance. But other global corporations already have set up industrial banks, such as General Electric <GE.N> and General Motors

<GM.N>.

Still, that is part of the problem, according to Greenspan, who said in a recent letter to Iowa Republican Rep. Jim Leach that Congress should review the statute that allows companies to own banks.

The Fed chief said the character, powers and ownership of industrial banks have changed "materially" since Congress first enacted the exemption from U.S. law that allows unregulated companies to buy insured banks for limited purposes.

"Importantly, these changes also threaten to remove Congress' ability to determine the direction of our nation's financial system with regard to the mixing of banking and commerce and the appropriate framework for prudential supervision," Greenspan wrote in the letter.

Wal-Mart on Thursday said Greenspan's letter was about the broader issue of industrial banks, and not its bank application.

The company's application generated a record 1,500 written public comments, and the FDIC's former chairman said they were consistent in theme and gave the regulator sufficient information about the public's and bankers' concerns.

He also said the FDIC would not treat Wal-Mart's application any differently from those of other corporations trying to open industrial banks.

However, last week, the new acting director of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, who took the job in August after working for the Senate Banking Committee's top Democrat since 1995, said a public hearing was likely.

A date has not been set.

"We have already stated our willingness to participate should congressional hearings be held on ILCs, and we look forward to the FDIC public hearing on our application to operate an industrial bank in Utah," Wal-Mart said Thursday in a prepared statement.

© Reuters 2006.

[back to top]


Greenspan Wants Banking Exemption Halted

By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
Jan 26                                       
[back to top]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is urging Congress to close a regulatory loophole that lets companies own a certain breed of banks, including a bank Wal-Mart Stores Inc. wants to operate in Utah.

The Fed chief's remarks take direct aim at an exemption in federal law that allows any type of company - commercial firm, foreign bank or other - to own so-called industrial loan companies in a handful of states, principally Utah, California and Nevada.

When the exemption was adopted in 1987, industrial loan companies, or ILCs, were mostly small, locally owned institutions that had only limited deposit-taking and lending powers, Greenspan said. Since then, however, these loan companies have grown considerably, the Fed chief pointed out in a letter to Rep Jim Leach, R-Iowa, a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees banking matters.

Total assets held by industrial loan companies have grown by more than 3,500 percent between 1987 and 2004 - from $3.8 billion to $140 billion, Greenspan said.

General Motors, General Electric, Pitney Bowes and BMW are among the companies that now own industrial loan companies under the exemption, Greenspan said. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, has filed an application to operate an industrial loan company in Utah, he said.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is seeking to establish such a bank in Utah so that it could process credit card, debt card and electronic check transactions from its retail locations.

Wal-Mart did not immediately respond to a request for a comment on Greenspan's letter.

Greenspan's comments didn't make a specific attack on Wal-Mart's efforts but rather were a broader shot at the exemption itself.

The exemption allows the corporate owners of these industrial loan companies to avoid the regulatory requirements that apply to corporate owners of other types of insured banks overseen by the Federal Reserve, said Greenspan. He found this troubling.

"The character, powers and ownership of ILCs have changed materially since Congress first enacted the ILC exemption. These changes are undermining the prudential framework that Congress has carefully crafted and developed for the corporate owners of other full-service banks," Greenspan wrote.

"Importantly, these changes also threaten to remove Congress' ability to determine the direction of our nation's financial system with regard to the mixing of banking and commerce and the appropriate framework of prudential supervision," he added.

These crucial decisions should be made after careful deliberations in Congress, Greenspan said. "They should not be made through the expansion and exploitation of a loophole that is available to only one type of institution chartered in a handful of states," he wrote.

Some legislative proposals in Congress would change the exemption to give industrial loan companies more leeway in their business activities. Leach, however, has offered legislation that would subject owners of industrial loan companies to the same regulations that now apply to big financial holding companies.

"We as a Congress cannot afford to do anything except promote prudential financial oversight," Leach said. The issue is not Wal-Mart's application but whether Congress has opened the way to a complicated web of financial and commercial cross-ownerships, Leach said.

Anti Wal-Mart groups, though, seized on the Greenspan letter.

"Federal regulators need to heed Chairman Greenspan's warning and realize that a Wal-Mart bank would pose serious and grave threat to consumers, community banks and the economic health of this nation," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for WakeUpWalmart.com, a group funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

The letter to Leach was dated Jan. 20 and released to The Associated Press on Thursday.

It may be one of the last pieces of correspondence to Congress that Greenspan will write as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan, 79, retires on Jan. 31 after 18-plus years at the helm. Ben Bernanke has been tapped to succeed him.

AP writer Marcus Kabel in Springfield, Mo., contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

[back to top]


Greenspan Urges Industrial Bank Exemption Review

Reuters
January 26, 2006                   
[back to top]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress should review a loophole in federal law that allows companies to buy industrial banks in a handful of states but avoid a level of supervision by bank regulators, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote in a recent letter to a Republican lawmaker. Greenspan, in the January 20 letter seen by Reuters, said the special exemption under federal law for industrial banks, or industrial loan companies, could undermine the policies Congress has established to govern the U.S. banking system.

It may also create an uneven playing field for banks supervised by federal regulators under national banking law.

His comments come as regulators review a controversial application by Wal-Mart to open an industrial bank primarily to handle electronic payment processing. That bid has drawn concern from some in Congress, and from some financial institutions, that the world's largest retailer could use its bank as a base to offer a much wider array of services.

The Fed chief said the character, powers and ownership of industrial banks have changed ``materially'' since Congress first enacted the exemption from U.S. law that allows unregulated companies to buy insured banks for limited purposes.

For example, while industrial banks were at first small, locally owned institutions with limited powers, larger corporations with global operations are now seeking to open such banks. Assets and insured deposits at industrial banks have ballooned as well, Greenspan noted.

``Importantly, these changes also threaten to remove Congress' ability to determine the direction of our nation's financial system with regard to the mixing of banking and commerce and the appropriate framework for prudential supervision,'' Greenspan wrote in a letter to Iowa Republican Rep. Jim Leach.

``These are crucial decisions that should be made in the public interest after full deliberation by the Congress; they should not be made through the expansion and exploitation of a loophole that is available to only one type of institution chartered in a handful of states,'' Greenspan said.

Greenspan referenced Wal-Mart as among the companies that have sought to open industrial banks. Others include General Electric and General Motors, according to his letter.

Industrial banks are state-chartered and state-regulated, and fall under the supervision of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Commercial companies may own them because federal laws that bar non-financial companies from engaging in banking activities do not classify them as banks.

But under federal statute, the corporate owners of industrial banks are not subject to the ``consolidated supervision'' framework that allows bank regulators to review the activities of an entire company, including its nonbank subsidiaries.

Regulators' ability to examine affiliates of industrial banks, however, is more limited, Greenspan said.

Wal-Mart's application has generated significant interest. A record 1,500 public comments were submitted on the application and the FDIC's acting chairman recently told lawmakers the regulatory agency would likely hold a public hearing on the bid.

That would be the first formal public hearing by the FDIC on a new bank application.

[back to top]


Prince Charles is brilliantly placed to advise the boss of Wal-Mart - after all, they have so much in common

Catherine Bennett
Guardian
Thursday January 26, 2006                     
[back to top]

After creating the popular Per Una range for Marks & Spencer, and his widely acknowledged success in repositioning Sainsbury's to tackle the threat from Morrisons, it was only a matter of time, surely, before Prince Charles was approached by Lee Scott, chief executive of Wal-Mart, and asked if this unlovely discount chain could also benefit from his PR advice. Although retail expertise has not, until now, been an attribute commonly associated with the prince, one gathers that he has, for some time, been developing his skills in this respect, in line with his aim (announced on his website), to "do all he can to use his unique position to make a difference for the better in the United Kingdom and internationally". And what better candidate for his attention could there be than massive, ruthless, Wal-Mart, whose image is widely agreed - internationally, as well as in the UK - to be in dire need of transformation?

The only difficulty for the prince, given his two hours with Scott, will have been in focusing on Wal-Mart's areas of greatest need. Should he address the abysmal pay and conditions, which recently led to an award of $172m (£99m) to thousands of US employees who had been denied lunch breaks? Or its proposals for discouraging unhealthy job applicants? Or, the effect of its rock-bottom price guarantee on struggling suppliers? Or should he concentrate, instead, on the way the company's out-of-town stores have despoiled the environment?

In the last respect, the prince speaks, of course, from a position of experience. Like so many Wal-Mart stores, the prince's Poundbury development has been identified as a blot on the landscape. Similarly, his eccentric employment practices - which included throwing a book at his butler, the same individual he later accused of theft - have not always made him popular. A further court case, reportedly involving another disaffected former employee, is imminent. Only a few years ago, Charles, no less than Wal-Mart, knew what it was to be seen as a negative force in the community in which he operated. Perhaps Wal-Mart's transformation, too, could be achieved by means of herbaceous borders, a new line of tasty organic sausages and, ideally, the acquisition of something resembling Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles.

It is less clear, however, what the prince is likely to gain from his unpaid, but well-publicised PR work for this country's second biggest retailer. A lifetime's supply of discounted gherkins? A solemn promise, extracted from a shamefaced Scott, that he will never again leave Asda's lights on? While it's easy to understand the attraction that one put-upon and misunderstood plutocrat might have for another, you can't but think the Prince of Wales, like many businesses before him, may come to regret the day he became a Wal-Mart supplier.

· What lies behind the front door of the Swiss flat where people go to be helped to die? Not the least appalling aspect of the story of Dr Anne Turner leaving her comfortable-looking home to catch the flight that will take her to a dose of barbiturates in Zurich - an expedition she described as "an awful hassle" - is the consideration that this brave, carefully choreographed suicide will occur in that flat. A place which one imagines, perhaps unfairly, is furnished only slightly better than a Holiday Inn double room, and ornamented, ecumenically and uncontroversially, with artificial flowers, or with a reproduction of a picture of some grazing horses, or of fruit, or maybe a calming, natural ruddy-coloured sunset, rendered by a local artist. Or maybe, the whole place is blank and pale, designedly free of anything, even a view of the lake, which might inspire difficult emotions, or futile regrets, in the person looking her last upon it. Maybe, if the suicide trade continues to thrive, some enterprising Zurich clinician will set about finding a nice mansion, offering deathbed experiences in more gracious surroundings.

Which is more unsettling: the one-way tickets to Zurich, or the possibility of a similar practice starting up here? If a change in the law allowed incurably ill patients (intent, like the extraordinary Dr Turner, on not becoming incapacitated) the chance to die peacefully at home instead of dislocated, and with the timing dictated by the need to journey to a foreign country, it becomes difficult to think of it as anything other than merciful.

· Since Simon Hughes is heterosexual but believed, by quite a number of people, to be gay, it is understandable that he should want to emphasise (if only to encourage any eligible women who might otherwise be deterred by this fallacy from encouraging his attentions) the true target of his sexual interests. And we sympathise with his misfortune in having had marriage proposals rejected by, he says - in an act of ostentatious stud-reversal that is almost as alarming as the old Julio Iglesias/George Simenon formula - "several" women.

But if Hughes's personal revelations were designed to enhance his potential as a party leader, one wonders if he has done the right thing. Even in the doggedly wholesome, post-Oaten context, it is debatable whether a serially-rejected heterosexual bachelor of 54, whose hinterland resembles the Rub' Al Khali, cuts a more appealing figure than the kind of single person who might, for all we know, be happily and quietly gay.

Indeed, for some of the country's remaining liberal democrats, the possibility that Hughes is not as dreary as he seems is the closest that benighted party has come to any prospect of renewal. And now that, too, is gone.

· Breaking off from a baby shower at Amazon World Zoo, Mrs Kyala Penguin, the mother of kidnapped Toga, yesterday confirmed newspaper reports about her joy over a new pregnancy, which described her, and her husband, Oscar, as "very happy penguins ... this is a ray of hope for them". Since she has already been signed up to write an intimate pregnancy diary for a rival paper, Mrs Penguin was reluctant to go into many details about her plans, only confirming that the arrival of this "very special" chick will leave nothing to chance. "We're going for a natural home birth, in a specially designed birthing pool," she confirmed, adding, "but I feel so bad celebrating, after the terrible news about that poor whale. Can you imagine how its mother must be feeling?"

· This week Catherine saw A Cock and Bull Story: "Prodigiously witty and clever - but with one, substantial blemish. Isn't it time they repealed the law that stipulates an appearance by Stephen Fry in every British film?" She also watched: "Fry advertising green tea." She listened to (involuntarily): "Fry reading all 7,000 tapes of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[back to top]


Wal-Mart to Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit

By MARCUS KABEL
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 25, 2006               
[back to top]

-- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will appeal an Arkansas judge's dismissal of its latest lawsuit against former vice chairman Tom Coughlin, the world's largest retailer said Wednesday.

Circuit Judge Jay Finch in Wal-Mart's hometown of Bentonville, Ark., said Monday the lawsuit, which Wal-Mart amended in November after Finch dismissed an earlier lawsuit, added nothing to the original complaint filed last summer.

"We will appeal the decision and the required papers will be filed next week," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said. She declined to elaborate.

Wal-Mart referred a company investigation to federal prosecutors last year, and claims that Coughlin conspired with others to defraud the company of money and property. The company alleges Coughlin funneled company funds into everything from alcohol to personal vehicles and gifts for his family.

Besides giving the case to federal prosecutors, Wal-Mart sued Coughlin last year to end Coughlin's retirement agreement and also get back money that Coughlin is accused of misusing.

Wal-Mart argued that Coughlin had a legal responsibility to tell the company that he had embezzled money. The giant retailer wanted the court to void a retirement agreement with Coughlin, which Coughlin's lawyers have said is worth between $12 million and $15 million.

Coughlin, a protege of late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, has denied any wrongdoing. The 28-year Wal-Mart veteran retired a year ago and gave up his seat on Wal-Mart's board of directors in March.

Wal-Mart was trying to get back $262,497 that Coughlin is accused of misusing, and was seeking $400,492 that the retailer claims it mistakenly paid to Coughlin.

© 2006 The Associated Press

[back to top]


Parents Say Wal-Mart Sold Faulty Bikes

CBS 
Jan. 26, 2006                                
[back to top]

Nine families are suing Wal-Mart and bicycle maker Dynacraft. The lawsuit claims Dynacraft bicycles sold by the retail giant were defective, causing the front wheels to pop off, which sent kids face-first into the pavement.

As The Early Show consumer correspondent Susan Koeppen reported Thursday, the families want the bikes recalled.

According to Koeppen, Wal-Mart is the No. 1 seller of bicycles in this country. Nearly 500,000 of the bikes in question were sold at Wal-Mart stores across the country. The families who are suing say they don't want other children to be injured.

Cathy and Darrell Belyeu are among the families that are suing. They say they never imagined the bike they bought their son at Wal-Mart would lead to a terrible accident. But it did, they say, when the front wheel suddenly popped off.

They say Colton flew over the handlebars and hit the pavement head-first.

"All I could see was his face, just bloody, all the skin torn off all the way down to his neck, and he's just sitting there in a state of shock, and all I could think of was to just scoop him up and hold him," recalled Darrell Belyeu.

Colton suffered second and third degree burns on his face, a broken nose, and a concussion.

His case isn't isolated. According to Koeppen, other children have been in similar accidents on these bikes, all of which came with a quick-release lever for the front wheel.

The Belyeus and the other families in the lawsuit claim the quick-release levers were defective, causing the front wheels to come off without warning.

"All of these incidents are so similar, the way these wheels pop off," said Cathy Belyeu. "I mean, this is a child's bike, it's bought in a toy store area of the store."

In deposition testimony, a former Wal-Mart claims adjuster says she saw a pattern of these accidents. She blamed them on improper use and maintenance of the quick-release levers by the kids and their families. She reported this pattern to her superiors and to Dynacraft.

Both Wal-Mart and Dynacraft deny that the bikes are defective and blame the accidents on parents and kids tampering with the quick-release levers.

But Mark Webb, an attorney for the families, says this is a conspiracy of silence.

"They had a duty to let people know that there is a danger out there and that children could get very badly hurt, and instead of doing that, they did nothing," he said.

Wal-Mart stopped selling these bikes in 2001, but parents of injured children want to warn others who may still have them in their garages.

These are the models involved in the suit:

NEXT Shock Zone, Model #8536-33WAL NEXT Shock Zone, Model #8536-33 NEXT Ultra Shock, Model #8524-14WAL NEXT Ultra Shock, Model #8524-14 Mongoose XR 100

For more information, visit the Web site of a group called Stop Hurting Our Kids.

MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Right Reality: Wal-Mart's Spin Cycle

by David Batstone                          [back to top]

Wal-Mart has come to terms with the fact that its public image is taking a nose dive. According to The New York Times, Wal-Mart hired a top-notch polling group to gauge the consumer impact of its reputation. The results reportedly show that anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent of Wal-Mart shoppers have stopped visiting its retail stores due to "negative press they have heard."

Wal-Mart is trying hard to change that public sentiment, of course. The retailer harvested bushels of good will with its aid to victims of Katrina. While government agencies floundered, Wal-Mart effectively delivered emergency goods to those in most need. Late in 2005 Wal-Mart also announced a campaign that it trumpeted as the beginning of a new era for the company. Among the noteworthy initiatives: reducing greenhouse gases at its stores around the world by 20 percent in the next seven years; offering health-care coverage to all workers for around $25 a month; and calling on Congress to raise the nation's minimum wage above the current $5.15 per hour.

All good steps. Nonetheless, I can't help but feel cynical about Wal-Mart's efforts. The company seems more concerned about public relations than an actual reform of its business operations. Wal-Mart now has a rapid-response "war room" that handles criticism like a political operative. In actual fact, former advisers from the Reagan, Clinton, and Kerry electoral campaigns coordinate the image campaign. For that reason, it is hard to separate fact from spin at Wal-Mart.

To its credit, the company did host a public forum on its business practices last November. Advertised as "An In-Depth Look at Wal-Mart and Society," the retailer invited nine economists to assess its effects on the economy. Overall, the news was not good for the host. The majority of the economists put forward research demonstrating that Wal-Mart makes total payroll wages per person fall in towns where it does business and increases Medicaid costs significantly among its own workers.

On the other side of the ledger, Jerry Hausman, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, showed that Wal-Mart's entry into a local market lowers food prices at all retailers about 25 percent, with the biggest benefits going to poor and minority households. "I'm actually quite disturbed at some of my liberal friends who want to keep Wal-Mart out," said Hausman.

No one disputes that Wal-Mart delivers lower prices, nor the fact that Wal-Mart employs 1.33 million working-class Americans. But what are the trade-offs for these benefits? Will Wal-Mart continue to squeeze its labor costs to sharpen its competitive edge?

A troubling answer to those questions came in a leaked memo sent in 2005 by a senior Wal-Mart executive to the company's board of directors. The memo may be the best indicator of Wal-Mart's intentions.

Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for worker benefits, recommended in the memo that the company hire more part-time workers in order to keep down health-care costs and screen out unhealthy people from the Wal-Mart labor force. The Chambers memo acknowledged that 46 percent of Wal-Mart's employees already were uninsured or on Medicaid. Nonetheless, the primary purpose of the memo was to offer strategies for slicing benefits even further.

The Chambers memo also clearly expressed her anxiety about how Wal-Mart's battered reputation might suffer further if these actions were taken. Consumers and activists alike need to ensure that her concerns are justified. Even the strongest company brand is vulnerable to a soiled reputation.

*An original version of this column appears in the Jan/Feb edition of Sojourners magazine

 [back to top]


Reports show high Wal-Mart use of state-subsidized health plans

The Associated Press.
Jan 24
                                         [back to top]

SEATTLE (AP) -- Two state studies show more than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were enrolled in state-subsidized health coverage as of 2004, nearly twice as many as for any other company, The Seattle Times reported Tuesday.

Those figures indicate that as many as one-fifth of the retail chain's workers in Washington state obtained taxpayer-supported health care for themselves or their dependents under Medicaid and the state's Basic Health Plan, The Times reported.

The reports were provided to about half a dozen legislators and a few legislative aides. The studies were supposed to be kept under wraps because of state and federal confidentiality rules but were leaked to reporters, according to the newspaper.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Amy Hill, said she could not confirm or dispute the figures but noted they are a year old and may no longer be valid.

"We implemented a lot of new plans last fall that we believe may appeal to people who had chosen to not take our coverage," Hill said.

She cited one employee health plan that costs an average of $23 per month and provides workers with 100 percent coverage for first three doctor visits each year, after which workers must pay a $1,000 deductible.

Medicaid is a state-federal health program for families on welfare and children in low-income families. The Basic Health Plan, funded entirely by the state, mostly covers low-income adults. Both are intended chiefly for members of families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level - about $38,000 for a family of four.

According to one report, an average 3,180 Wal-Mart employees were receiving state-funded medical assistance, including Medicaid, for themselves or for a dependent, throughout 2004, while the other found 456 Wal-Mart employees were on the Basic Health Plan that year. Some employees may have been counted on both of the lists.

"I think taxpayers should be outraged," Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, told The Times. "They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world."

Neither report included an estimate of costs to the state for covering the affected employees and their families.

McDonald's ranked second with an average 1,824 employees on Medicaid, followed by Safeway with 1,539 workers on Medicaid and 173 on the Basic Health Plan.

The Legislature is considering a bill pushed by Democrats to force companies with more than 5,000 workers to spend the equivalent of 9 percent of their payroll on health insurance programs. Those falling below that level would pay the difference to help cover workers relying on taxpayer-funded programs.

Maryland lawmakers have adopted a similar measure, and labor unions are pushing such legislation in 30 other states.

Wal-Mart and Safeway have about 16,000 employees each in Washington. The 12,000 McDonald's workers are divided among 62 corporate-owned outlets and 45 separately owned franchises in the state.

Among Wal-Mart workers, nearly 1,800 of those receiving Medicaid - more than half - were full-time workers. For nearly all of the other businesses listed in the reports, the vast majority of employees on Medicaid were part-timers.

"It shows Wal-Mart isn't even taking care of its full-time employees," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle.

Businesses with the most employees on Medicaid and the Basic Health Plan were concentrated largely in general merchandise retailing, supermarkets, fast-food chains and temporary employment agencies.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

[back to top]


Over 3,100 Wal-Mart Workers Got State Health Aid

By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times
January 24, 2006                            
[back to top]

OLYMPIA — More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports. That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.

The reports are sure to fuel the debate over a labor-backed push in the Legislature to require companies such as Wal-Mart to pay more for health care. Democrats in the House and Senate say the reports show that Wal-Mart and some other big companies are shifting millions of dollars in health-care costs to the state.

"I think taxpayers should be outraged," Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said Monday. "They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world."

Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said the company has no information that would confirm or refute the state's findings. But she said the data are more than a year old and might no longer be accurate.

"We implemented a lot of new plans last fall that we believe may appeal to people who had chosen to not take our coverage," Hill said.

Citing state and federal confidentiality rules, the state last month provided the new reports to only a handful of legislators and legislative staff members. But copies were leaked to The Seattle Times.

Medicaid is a state-federal program that provides health coverage to families on welfare and children in low-income families. The Basic Health Plan (BHP), funded entirely by the state, mostly covers low-income adults.

Both programs are aimed primarily at people in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. That would mean a family of four with an income of about $38,000 would be eligible.

The new reports lists companies that in 2004 had the most employees receiving benefits under the programs.

Wal-Mart came out on top of both lists, by wide margins.

One report shows that, throughout 2004, an average 3,180 Wal-Mart employees were receiving state-funded medical assistance, including Medicaid, for themselves or for a dependent. The other report shows that 456 Wal-Mart employees were on the state's Basic Health Plan that year. Some employees may be counted on both of the lists.

McDonald's restaurants had the second-highest total, with an average 1,824 employees receiving Medicaid benefits in 2004.

Safeway was next, with 1,539 employees on Medicaid and 173 employees on the BHP.

With about 16,000 employees each, Wal-Mart and Safeway are among the state's largest employers. McDonald's has about 12,000 employees in Washington, but they work for 45 separately owned franchises or at one of 62 outlets the corporation owns.

The companies with the highest totals of employees on Medicaid and the BHP were concentrated mostly in a few industries, including general-merchandise stores, groceries and fast-food chains. Several companies that recruit and hire out temporary workers or day laborers — such as Express Personnel Services and Labor Ready Northwest — also ranked high on both lists.

Lawmakers said one of the most startling findings in the new reports is that more than half of the Wal-Mart employees who received Medicaid benefits — nearly 1,800 — were full-time workers.

For nearly all of the other companies listed, the vast majority of employees on Medicaid were part-time workers.

"It shows Wal-Mart isn't even taking care of its full-time employees," said Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle.

But Cody and Conway said the reports shine a light on other companies as well.

"It's not just Wal-Mart," Conway said. "A lot of low-cost employers are shifting their health-care costs to the state."

Neither of the reports makes any attempt to calculate how much it cost the state to cover the employees and their families. But it's clearly in the tens of millions of dollars.

Wal-Mart defends its employee health benefits as competitive and affordable.

Hill, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the company recently put in place a new "value" health plan for its employees. Under that plan, employees get 100 percent coverage for their first three doctor visits each year and after that must pay a $1,000 deductible. She said the plan's employee premiums average $23 per month.

Still, Wal-Mart's latest estimates show that only about half of its employees are on one of the company health plans. And, in an internal company memo leaked last fall, Wal-Mart acknowledged that, nationwide, nearly half of its employees' children were either on Medicaid or were uninsured.

More than a dozen other states have conducted studies to identify companies with the most employees on government-subsidized health care. In nearly every case, Wal-Mart came out on top.

Democratic lawmakers in Olympia hope to pass legislation that would require companies with 5,000 or more employees to put at least 9 percent of their payroll costs toward health-care benefits. Similar legislation was approved earlier this month in Maryland.

It's all part of an effort by a coalition of labor unions and health-care groups to push for so-called Wal-Mart bills in more than 30 states.

Wal-Mart says the legislation is "purely political" and would do nothing about the soaring cost of health care.

Hill told lawmakers in Olympia last week that the company didn't know what percentage of payroll it spends on health benefits.

To help lawmakers here prepare for the debate, Gov. Christine Gregoire last year requested the two new reports even though she knew her agencies would not be allowed to release the results to the public.

Copies stamped "confidential" were sent last month to about a half-dozen legislators, several legislative staff members and the governor's health-policy adviser. To produce the reports, the state matched its Medicaid and BHP recipient lists with employee data compiled by the state Employment Security Department. But Employment Security officials say they are barred from publicly releasing any data that reveal company names. The rankings in the new reports are similar to what lawmakers saw three years ago in a report that the state now says was improperly released to the public.

But the totals in the new reports — especially for numbers of employees on Medicaid — are much higher than before. The old report, for instance, indicated only 450 Wal-Mart employees were receiving Medicaid benefits, compared to more than 3,100 now.

It's unclear why the new numbers are so much higher, but lawmakers speculated the state did a more thorough job of gathering data this time. Officials at the Employment Security Department declined to comment.

[back to top]


New Wal-Mart Supercenter set to open doors

Daily News (Los Angeles) 
01/24/2006                                      
[back to top]

Jan. 24--SANTA CLARITA -- Among the first words out of Sandi Shoemaker, a 35-year customer service veteran training checkout clerks in the region's latest retail center: "Welcome to Wal-Mart."

The new Wal-Mart "Supercenter" -- a mammoth 216,000-square-foot store with a built-in grocery store, nail and hair salons and general merchandise -- will open for around-the-clock business Friday at 26471 Carl Boyer Drive. It will employ about 525 -- a majority from the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys. Average associate wages in California are about $10.50 an hour.

The spotless 50,000-square-foot grocery will offer fresh meat, produce and assorted dry goods, each section identified by signs in both English and Spanish. It sits next to the clothes, toys, appliances and other dry goods usually associated with the massive retailer.

"Customers really enjoy the convenience (of a Supercenter)," Daniel Goff, the new store's manager, said Monday. "And it's the same Wal-Mart philosophy -- pass the savings on to the customers."

It's the third new store for the Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant in the Santa Clarita Valley to open within a year in this region of 230,000. The valley's second Wal-Mart store opened in Valencia last summer, followed by the company's Sam's Club membership warehouse store located next to the new location.

Jack Kyser, chief economist at the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp., said the retailer has been very aggressive in Southern California.

"It's almost like they're following the Starbucks strategy -- a Starbucks on every block," he said. "They're going for the gold, and it is going to take a toll on retailers and small chains who don't have a very good strategy."

The Santa Clarita Valley proves an irresistible market, with the proposed 21,000-home Newhall Ranch subdivision on the west side, acres of undeveloped land and strong consumer spending. According to 2004 LAEDC figures, per capita taxable retail spending here is $11,701, compared to $6,450 in the city of Los Angeles and $7,858 countywide.

"There is always opportunity in the market, and the growth of Santa Clarita is a piece of that," said Kevin McCall, a Wal-Mart community affairs officer.

Los Angeles County's first Supercenter opened in August about 30 miles east in the city of Palmdale to little fervor, and the new Santa Clarita store -- the retailer's 27th Wal-Mart-brand store in the county -- has invited little controversy.

"With municipal governments, they view it in a very equitable fashion, and they look at it in terms of sales tax revenue," Kyser said. "You have to look at the long-term financial health (of the city)... you need every cent of it."

Advances are not always welcomed. Wal-Mart last week withdrew plans for a Northridge location, citing a city of Los Angeles request for a full environmental and economic impact study would have delayed the project more than a year.

In 2004, voters in Inglewood defeated a proposed Supercenter there. Another proposed store has led to political turmoil in the city of Rosemead as opponents sued to stall construction and attempted to recall Wal-Mart supporters including Mayor Jay Imperial and Councilman Gary Taylor, which was defeated on a technicality.

This has driven the retailer to build in places like Santa Clarita, Kyser said.

"In L.A., there is a line drawn in the sand," he said. "If you are close to the center of the county, there is a high level of opposition.

"The further out you go, there is a better attitude for Wal-Mart, and there is land available. You don't have the concentration of union jobs."

The Supercenters -- with their full-service groceries -- were a sore point during the landmark 139-day Southern California grocery store strike/lockout in 2003. Labor feared the non-union new arrival would drive down wages while management pushed for pay and benefits concessions in order to stay competitive.

The unrest cost an estimated $2 billion, and established chains Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons lost market share. On Monday, Minneapolis-based Supervalu and the drugstore chain CVS Corp. said they're leading an investment group to buy Albertsons for $9.7 billion.

"They're slowly coming into the regions with the Supercenters -- not nearly as fast as they have hoped to because so many people are saying we don't want it," Kyser said.

"If you talk to unions and a lot of elected officials, Wal-Mart is the devil incarnate. If you talk to consumers, they love it. They might not agree with everything it does, but when it opens, they're there busting down the door."

McCall said the company is serving an identified need in the region, and is committed to be a responsible citizen -- as part of the opening, it's donating classroom supplies to four local elementary schools.

"That's what our customers are wanting," he said. "The feeling was there was a need within the community for groceries. The opportunity to come in -- we believe that we have some of the most competitive prices and some of the best services from our associates."

Shoemaker, 50, of Canyon Country, agreed.

"The difference is the service the place is going to give you," she said. "I think we're going on eight cylinders."

(c) 2006, Daily News, Los Angeles

[back to top]


Wal-Mart goes after disabled ex-worker's settlement 

By Robert Patrick
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
                      [back to top]

When Wal-Mart sued a disabled former employee in June to recover what it spent on her medical care, the retailing giant said it was just  meeting a filing deadline and had not necessarily decided to ask a  judge for the money.

Now the company is asking for the money.

If the suit prevails in federal court in St. Louis, it would force Debbie Shank, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., to repay the more than $417,000 she won in a suit over a car wreck unrelated to work - plus the $51,000 her lawyer got. Her husband and lawyer said it would drain the trust fund set up for her care and burden the taxpayers with a larger share of her nursing home expenses.

Wal-Mart's reason

Self-financed company or union health insurance plans are permitted to demand repayment for medical expenses if the insured collects damages in a lawsuit or settlement, and they commonly do. Wal-Mart says good stewardship of its health plan provides no other choice.

"This is a very sad case, and I think many people naturally have an  emotional and sympathetic reaction," said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "But the reality is that we are required to protect the assets of our health plan so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members.

"Unfortunately, it's just not feasible to start making individual exceptions. Not everyone will understand this, and I'm sure that we  will get a fair amount of criticism."

Shank's lawyer, Maurice Graham, said: "If somebody got some money from a lawsuit and used it to buy a new home they didn't need or a European vacation ... that's one thing. But that's not the situation were dealing with here."

He added, "In view of the unfavorable publicity that Wal-Mart is  getting around the country ..., I'm surprised they're pursuing this  against their former employee, particularly since she remains so  devastated and so in need of these funds."

Critics across the country have accused the company of scrimping on  health benefits and forcing employees to rely on Medicaid, thereby  shifting costs to taxpayers. Last week, Maryland lawmakers overrode a governor's veto to implement a law, clearly aimed at Wal-Mart,  requiring large employers to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll  on employee health care.

Shank worked nights stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart in Cape Girardeau, leaving days free to spend with her three sons. Her husband, Jim  Shank, said that now she cannot always tell which son is which. She  has brain stem damage, must use a wheelchair and cannot move move more than one arm and two fingers.

The settlement

She and her husband sued a trucking company and driver over a  collision involving her minivan in 2000. The Shanks settled in 2002 for $900,000. After legal fees and expenses, an irrevocable trust for  Shank's medical bills got $417,477, and her husband got $119,280,  according to court documents. 

Graham and his client's husband, Jim Shank, said a victory by the  Administrative Committee of the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Associates'  Health and Welfare Plan would mean a lower quality of medical care for Shank, and maybe shorten her life.

On Jan. 10, a federal judge threatened to dismiss the suit. Jim Shank  learned this week that Wal-Mart would go after the money.

He said his wife stands to lose her private room, wheelchair-accessible van and daytime caretaker, whom he described as like a "sister" to her.

That would be "really chaotic" for her, Jim Shank said. "She doesn't get along well with others right now."

His health insurance pays for some of his wife's care, he said, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Jim Shank does maintenance and risk  management work at Southeast Missouri State University and has  part-time jobs in real estate sales and at a department store.

All content copyright (c) 2004, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[back to top]


Bill in Works To Force Wal-Mart To Give Employees Health Benefits

By Jill Gardiner
The New York Sun
January 23, 2006             
[back to top] 

New York State is about to become involved in the effort to force Wal-Mart and other big box stores to contribute to their employees' health care tab. Less than two weeks after Maryland made history by passing a law with the same mission - and on the heels of a similar bill approved by the New York City Council - Democrats in the state Senate plan to introduce a version of such legislation. Democrats passed the Maryland and council measures over Republican vetoes.

The latest proposal is part of an employer-paid health care effort that is just beginning to heat up. Labor leaders have aggressively lobbied elected officials across the country to take on the cause and many are expecting more states to sign on with their own versions.

The New York State proposal would require Wal-Mart and other stores with 500 or more employees and at least 10,000 square feet of space to pay $3 an hour for each employee. With Republicans in control of the state Senate, however, passing the measure could be an uphill battle.

During a news conference at City Hall yesterday, state Senator Diane Savino, a former union leader who will be the main sponsor of the bill, said it is unfair for Wal-Mart to exploit taxpayer dollars by denying many of its employees health insurance and driving them to Medicaid.

"No employee of a multibillion dollar company should be forced to go without medical care nor should they be forced to resort to Medicaid," she said. "Providing health benefits is not going to make a dent in Wal-Mart's fortunes."

Opponents have a different take. They paint the legislation as anti-business and the product of special interest groups like unions.

The director of legislative affairs at the Employment Policies Institute, Michael Flynn, called the legislation a "shot gun approach" that would fail to significantly increase the number of people with medical coverage and would saddle businesses with financial burdens, making it more difficult for them to operate and provide low cost products.

"When you mandate coverage, you're driving up labor costs, which leads to reduced wages, reduced hours, or loss of jobs," Mr. Flynn said during a telephone interview late last week.

The Washington, D.C.-based institute is releasing a series of studies that show that requiring employers to pay for health insurance is an ineffective approach to closing the insurance gap. Wal-Mart officials could not be reached yesterday, but in the past have denied that they encourage employees to sign up for Medicaid and said that they do provide many of their employees with insurance.

When Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the City Council's legislation late last year, he said he wanted to increase the number of people with health insurance but that mandating it in this fashion violates federal law and is the wrong approach.

Yesterday, state Senator Eric Schneiderman said the Senate bill was designed to withstand legal challenges regarding the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which Mr. Bloomberg was referring to.

"We are confident that beginning today this movement will grow," Mr. Schneiderman said.

The elected officials and labor leaders at yesterday's event took a few cues from Maryland politicians, who depicted the issue as an abuse of taxpayer money. The president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, Stuart Applebaum, a top leader at the United Food and Commercial Workers, Patrick Purcell, and the executive director of the Working Families Party, Dan Cantor, said Wal-Mart needs to change its ways.

With both sides gearing up their campaigns to tackle the issue, New York State could be the next stage for a national debate.

[back to top]


Pay up!

Asbury Park Press (NJ)
01/23/2006                             
[back to top]

Jan. 22--A new law in Maryland requiring Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pay more for its workers' health care has sparked a flurry of activity among New Jersey lawmakers and union leaders hoping to follow the same path.

They want to reverse a trend in which employers are placing more of the financial burden of health care on their workers -- and on taxpayers who step in when workers aren't covered.

The growing debate, however, is raising concerns among businesses and their advocates, who warn that a mandate such as that would hurt the economy and do little to solve what they say is a broken health care system.

At its heart are issues that seemingly are confounding the public and private sector alike: How do you cover the 1.2 million uninsured residents in New Jersey and the 163,000 working adults and their children who are covered by NJ FamilyCare, the state's $381 million program that insures many low-income residents? And whose responsibility is it, anyway?

"I think everybody is frustrated by the inability of the current system to insure more people in the United States, and I think states are under incredible fiscal pressure to lower their (health care) costs in whatever way they can," said Jeffrey Rubin, an economics professor at Rutgers University.

The frustration is evident at the Shore.

Heather Gordon, 30, a dental hygienist from Aberdeen, said she supports a national health care system. Short of that, she said employers should at least make sure their workers see a doctor and dentist for basic check-ups.

"We see a lot of people who . . . don't have dental insurance and (only) go when something goes wrong," Gordon said. "And it costs them a lot more."

Michael Egan, 44, of Long Branch, works for a privately owned armored car company and pays for half of his health insurance -- a basic managed-care plan that costs him about $250 a month.

He said a law requiring employers to pay more for health care could force small companies out of business.

But what if the law was geared toward large companies such as Wal-Mart?

"Oh, they should pay it all," Egan said. "Huge conglomerates should pay it all."

The spotlight for now is on Wal-Mart. The Maryland legislature two weeks ago voted to override the governor's veto and require employers with more than 10,000 workers in the state to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health insurance.

Only one employer, Wal-Mart, fits that bill.

New Jersey lawmakers last year filed a bill modeled after the Maryland plan. They called for retailers with 10,000 or more employees to pay $2.45 an hour per worker on health care. That's the average amount an employer spends on health care in New Jersey, Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein, D-Middlesex and one of the bill's sponsors, said.

As an alternative, they could pay the state the difference between $2.45 an hour and what they do spend. That money would be used to reimburse hospitals for charity care.

There are 13 employers in New Jersey with more than 10,000 employees, according to a 2003 report by the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. But only two -- Wal-Mart with 11,000 employees and Home Depot with 12,000 employees -- might be affected by the legislation since it specifically mentions "retailers."

The bill, also sponsored by Assemblyman Louis D. Greenwald, D-Camden, and Assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, hasn't been reintroduced this session.

But Van Drew and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, introduced a bill requiring the Commissioner of Human Services to submit an annual list of employers with 50 or more workers whose workers don't have access to company-sponsored health insurance and instead receive NJ FamilyCare. Sen. Barbara Buono, D- Middlesex, and Sen. Joseph Coniglio, D-Bergen, introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

The idea: to increase public pressure on those companies.

And New Jersey union officials met last week to draft a bill they would like a lawmaker to sponsor. While nothing is settled, the group discussed lowering the employment threshold to 5,000 workers and increasing their health care expenditure to 10 percent of payroll, said John Niccollai, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 464A, which has 18,000 members, mostly in supermarkets.

In New Jersey, 19 companies have between 5,000 and 10,000 workers, including two retailers, Federated Department Stores Inc. and Sears, Roebuck & Co., according to the Business and Industry Association.

"I really think we have a problem here because of the ways these companies are developing," said Greenstein, who is considering introducing a bill again this session. "They provide jobs with such low benefits and such low pay. It's an interesting system. They make the profits and put the responsibilities companies have traditionally met onto the taxpayer."

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the nation's largest retailer and has six stores in Monmouth and Ocean counties. Labor groups long have accused it of short-changing its workers in exchange for higher profits.

Moreover, they have said, the company is so large that it sets the standard for pay and benefits industrywide -- a trend some call a "race to the bottom."

But Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said its work force has a different demographic than companies that might offer a wider range of fringe benefits. It includes part-time workers, students, workers with two jobs and retirees.

Nonetheless, Fogleman said the company offers health insurance. The company pays for about two-thirds of the premium, and workers pay for one-third. Deductibles range from $350 to $1,000 a year. After that, the plan pays for 80 percent, while employees pay for 20 percent.

Wal-Mart offers the plan to full-time employees after they work six months and part-time employees after two years. About 43 percent of its employees are enrolled in the company's plan, Fogleman said.

"If you look at who offers insurance, it's fairly uncommon to offer benefits to part-time employees," Fogleman said.

Other retailers said they, too, offer health insurance, with some company plans more generous than others.

Costco, which has three stores in Monmouth and Ocean counties, offers health benefits to full-time employees after they've worked for three months and part-time employees after six months. The company pays for 90 percent of the premium, said Richard Galanti, chief financial officer.

"Our philosophy from our inception was that not only is it a good business decision, but it's the right thing to do to provide a living wage and affordable, quality health care," Galanti said.

Home Depot, which has nine stores in Monmouth and Ocean counties, offers health insurance to full-time workers immediately after they are hired and to part-time workers after they've worked for three months, spokesman Yancey Casey said. Casey wouldn't discuss specifics of the company's health insurance plan.

As for a law that would require it to increase spending, Casey said some employees might choose to get health insurance elsewhere.

"This is an individual choice," he said. "Whether or not one of our associates elects coverage through Home Depot is not something we can force on them."

John Holub, president of the New Jersey Retail Merchants Association, said virtually all employers are struggling with the cost of health care, and it would be unfair to single retailers out.

"Every employer wants to provide the best benefits possible," Holub said. "It's good for employees. It's good for business. It helps attract and retain good employees. So the notion that folks don't want to offer it is just absurd."

Employers' best intentions, however, haven't been enough to cover everybody.

To wit: A study released last year by the liberal group, New Jersey Policy Perspective, found 51 employers from 10 different sectors had 100 or more workers and their children enrolled in NJ FamilyCare.

Wal-Mart had 589 workers and their children in the program, which represented less than 1 percent of the total.

A bill targeting large retailers "misses the point," said Christine Stearns, vice president of health and legal affairs for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. She noted health care costs for employers have risen 55 percent during the past four years.

"The point is," she said, "we need to work to make health insurance more affordable, the system as efficient as possible and ensure we are providing high quality care."

Any meaningful change, however, is sure to cause pain. If Wal-Mart has to pay more for health insurance, consumers might have to pay higher prices, workers might be paid less and Wal-Mart's profits might decline, meaning shareholders' investments would dwindle, Rubin, the Rutgers professor said.

A national health care system operated by the federal government could dismantle insurance companies. A system making individuals responsible for their own health insurance could leave only the wealthy with coverage, Rubin said.

"If there was an easy solution that was politically and financially viable, they'd have done it by now," Rubin said.

(c) 2006, Asbury Park Press, N.J.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Deal Rankles

By Chris Barge
Rocky Mountain News (CO)
January 23, 2006                                  
[back to top]

Westminster critics question openness of city on project WESTMINSTER - Michael Melio was furious. Wal-Mart wanted to build a third 200,000-square-foot Supercenter in his hometown and the Westminster City Council had welcomed the retail giant with open arms.

Melio was among more than 1,000 city residents who protested the project during meetings last summer. Far fewer showed up at City Hall to support the plans.

To Melio and others, it seemed as if their local government had pledged its allegiance to Wal-Mart and its bundle of promised sales tax revenue, rather than to residents of the city.

Melio said he realized that at no point during the summer's hearings had the city gone on record as to whether or not officials already had made a deal with Wal-Mart that would pre-empt the ongoing public process.

On Aug. 29, Melio decided to try to change that.

By then, those opposed to Wal-Mart's plans had gathered almost enough signatures to put a referendum on the Wal-Mart plan on the November ballot. In response, the City Council called a special meeting, ostensibly to decide whether to put the decision to approve the project on the ballot itself.

Mayor Nancy McNally gaveled the meeting to order inside City Hall and opened the floor to public comment.

Melio was first to approach the podium. He had his question ready:

"Has City Council promised to or contracted with Wal-Mart any subsidies, property tax abatements, income tax credits, sales or excise tax exemptions, tax-increment financing, low-interest loans or loan guarantees, free land or land write-downs, training grants, infrastructure aid or just plain cash?"

He waited for a response. His neighbors listened from the edges of their seats. They hoped the city's response would reveal a too-cozy relationship between the city and Wal-Mart and help their campaign to overturn the council's decision.

"This is time for you to speak to us, so please continue," Mayor Nancy McNally replied.

"Is there an answer from the City Council?" Melio pressed.

"Not at this time," the mayor answered. "Please continue."

Melio had another question ready: "Has any member of City Council received or come into agreement to receive any funds, remunerations, benefits or gifts of any kind from the Wal-Mart Corp. or one of its representatives?"

"Thank you," McNally replied. "Next person that would like to speak?"

Melio was about to sit down with his questions unanswered, when Westminster City Manager Brent McFall motioned from behind the dais.

In Westminster, where there is a city manager form of government, McFall is the city's top executive and wields the most power. If anyone knew about any undisclosed deals between the city and Wal- Mart, it was him.

"Mr. McFall?" Mayor McNally said.

"First, mayor, I would encourage you to encourage the crowd to behave themselves," he said. "Secondly, there is no arrangement with Wal-Mart for any funding, and the council individually or as a group has not received any funding from Wal-Mart."

McFall maintains that was a true statement.

But internal city documents obtained by a citizens group through a Colorado Open Records Act request suggest otherwise.

More than a year before McFall uttered those words, the city had brokered a deal in which it promised what amounted to a $5 million tax break for Wal-Mart to build a Supercenter on the southwest corner of 72nd Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard, the records show.

Deal uses middleman

Wal-Mart protester Karen Sawicki found internal city documents in November that she and others say proves that fact.

She found the documents after she hauled a photocopier to City Hall and spent three days poring over thousands of pages made available to her after the Oct. 27 public information request.

The revelations outraged Sawicki, Melio and other Wal-Mart protesters. They say McFall and the city misled them to keep secret information that might have changed voters' minds on the ballot question.

The anti-Wal-Mart referendum was narrowly defeated, thanks in part to an active campaign by the mayor and City Council members, funded by a $150,000 contribution from Wal-Mart.

Tonight, the City Council, meeting as the board of the Westminster Economic Development Authority, is expected to officially approve the redevelopment agreement they promised Wal-Mart's developer in 2004.

Melio said he feels robbed.

"This is not the way a democracy is run," Melio said. "Why hide all this information when there was major concern on the part of many citizens to find out what's going on?"

During an interview at City Hall last week, McFall said he kept no secrets from the public. He said he stands behind his statement to Melio that "there is no arrangement with Wal-Mart for any funding."

He said the arrangement for funding $5 million of the Wal-Mart project was between the city and Jordon Perlmutter, the owner and developer of the 72nd and Sheridan property, not Wal-Mart.

The memorandum of understanding stipulates that Westminster will pay Perlmutter $5 million in sales tax rebates, once the Wal-Mart Supercenter is up and running.

But the city also agreed that Wal-Mart would "front" Perlmutter that $5 million to demolish the existing shopping center at the site, purchase about 17 acres of adjacent land, and buy an existing home and relocate the property's tenants, documents show.

McFall conceded that Perlmutter would pay Wal-Mart back once he got paid by the city, effectively becoming a middleman between the city and Wal-Mart.

"If Wal-Mart is going to front the cash, then obviously Perlmutter is going to reimburse them," McFall said.

Melio said this proves that the city agreed a year before the public approval process began to give Wal-Mart $5 million by way of a third-party developer to build the Supercenter.

"They should in clear language say, 'We are working a deal with Wal-Mart to give them $5 million of your tax dollars and this is what we expect in return,' " Melio said. "Why can't they speak plainly to us?"

Said McFall: "I answered Melio's question. If he'd asked a different question, it might have been a different answer. But I answered his question."

Behind closed doors

Westminster staff began talking with Wal-Mart representatives about building the 72nd at Sheridan Supercenter in May 2003, documents show.

Wal-Mart Supercenters can bring a city $3 million a year in sales tax revenue. But in some locales, the centers have become magnets for citizen protest.

Westminster city staffers apparently took pains to keep the negotiations out of the public eye.

In an April 2004 e-mail, Becky Johnson, then the city's economic development director, wrote to city staffers that Perlmutter wanted a letter stating that the current shopping center at 72nd and Sheridan was blighted and "under threat of condemnation."

"We've done this before and a letter is lower profile than a (Westminster Economic Development Authority) resolution," Johnson wrote. "I told him we could do this, but would rather leave it out of the redevelopment agreement, which will become public. A city manager letter is also a public document, but it is unlikely that anyone would ask for it."

Westminster spokesman Joe Reid said that letter was never drafted.

McFall said negotiations with developers often begin behind closed doors.

"When we're working with developers, there's always a lot of behind-the-scenes work that takes place before a project becomes public," McFall said. "Developers want to work out the details of the projects confidentially until such time as the matter is to be acted upon publicly."

Still, McFall insists the funding deal with Wal-Mart's developer "was not a secret."

While the details of the memorandum of understanding, including the dollar amounts involved, were not discussed publicly, he said he revealed to citizens when questioned at other public meetings that the city had formed the basis of a redevelopment agreement with Perlmutter.

The Rocky Mountain News requested from Reid minutes of any public meetings in which the agreement was discussed, but had not received them by late Friday.

As for the retail giant's role in the negotiations, Wal-Mart spokesman Keith Morris said it was up to the city to decide how to relate with its citizens.

"If things are done in an executive session, if they're done in a public hearing, that's beyond our control," Morris said. "I hate to sound callous, but it sounds like a fishing expedition by a group that's already lost twice.

"If there was something illegally done or circumvented," Morris added, "I know they would have filed a lawsuit."

Melio acknowledges that the deal may well have been done legally.

"We need some laws that mandate complete openness on city finances and how they're doling out taxpayers' dollars," he said. "This should highlight how they're pulling the wool over the citizens' eyes and getting away with it."

 [back to top]


Court Rules in Wal-Mart Unionizing Case

The case turns on a "union exclusion clause" in which the retailing giant declared that unionized workers weren't eligible for profit-sharing, health, and retirement plans.

Stephen Taub,
CFO News
January 20, 2006                     
[back to top]

A U.S. appeals court has ruled that a district court can decide a lawsuit brought by Wal-Mart workers charging that the company unfairly threatened to deny benefits to employees who unionize, according to the Associated Press.

Central to the case is a "union exclusion clause" that Wal-Mart had in its benefits booklets for employees. The clause declared that unionized employees were ineligible for profit-sharing, 401(k), and health plans, the wire service noted.

Although Wal-Mart later changed the wording in the benefits publications, the case still must be decided, the appeals court reportedly ruled. That's because the plaintiffs still have outstanding claims for damages and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuit was filed by some employees of a Kingman, Arizona, Wal-Mart who sought a vote to unionize in October 2000. The appeals court stated that the vote never took place because the workers filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and in court charging that Wal-Mart had thwarted their effort by threatening to withhold benefits, according to the AP.

The district court had ruled that the dispute fell under the sole authority of the labor relations board. The NLRB reportedly brought Wal-Mart before an administrative law court, which in 2003 ordered the company to drop the exclusion clause after finding that it was meant ''to ensure, to the extent [Wal-Mart] could, that its employees were fearful of losing their benefits, and thus continued to reject union representation," according to the wire service.

Wal-Mart appealed the administrative law court decision and was still in settlement talks with the NLRB as of yesterday, according to the AP. The appeals court, however, ruled that the district court has jurisdiction over the case even though there is a workers' complaint pending with the NLRB.

[back to top]


FDIC To Wait On Full Board, Hearing For Wal-Mart Bank Vote

By Campion Walsh,
Dow Jones Newswires
01-20-06                                  
[back to top]

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will wait for its board to be fully staffed before deciding on Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s (WMT) controversial request to provide federally insured banking services, the FDIC's acting chairman said this week.

"I believe that the board of directors will be fully constituted before a final decision is rendered on this application," acting FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said in a letter Thursday to U.S. lawmakers. The agency's board currently has four of five seats filled.

In the letter, released Friday by the lawmakers, Gruenberg says he also expects the FDIC to wait for a public hearing before deciding on the application, noting Wal-Mart's request has drawn more than 1,500 public comments and more than 90 requests for hearings.

Wal-Mart's status as the world's largest retailer has drawn intense interest in its application for federal insurance of back-office banking services by a subsidiary firm known as an industrial loan company, or ILC.

Wal-Mart says the ILC charter will help process electronic checks and credit- and debit-card transactions. But critics say Wal-Mart could use an initially limited charter to expand in the future into general banking services, using its size and influence to shut out competitors.

Gruenberg was responding to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, two signatories of a letter 23 House lawmakers sent the acting FDIC chairman last month. The letter requested full staffing of the agency's board before a decision on Wal-Mart's request.

Frank and Gillmor have also asked the FDIC whether any approval of the Wal- Mart application could permanently restrict the ILC subsidiary to activities cited in its original application.

(c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[back to top]


Planning board votes 4-3 against Wal-Mart proposal

By Tom West
The Nashua Telegraph (NH)
January 20, 2006                          
[back to top]

NASHUA – Bye-bye, Wal-Mart. After 90 minutes of what one observer called “political theater,’’ the planning board voted 4-3 Thursday to reject a proposal by Wal-Mart to build a 140,000-square-foot superstore on Amherst Street to replace the Building 19 store.

Member George Torosian cast the swing vote to deny the project after the board had deadlocked 3-3 on the plan last week.

After the vote, the crowd of about 100 people sat in stunned silence for several seconds before beginning to applaud.

The vote ends months upon months of debate and haggling over the project, which would have been the city’s first Wal-Mart. The fight might not be over, as the retail giant could challenge the board’s decision in court.

Ward 2 Alderman Richard LaRose, city engineer Steve Dookran, and Hugh Moran joined Torosian in opposing the proposal. Chairwoman Bette Lasky, Vice-Chairman Ken Dufour and Steve Farkas supported it.The meeting included several attempts by Andrew Prolman, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, to delay the vote until February or March. In the end, the same four members who voted to reject the plan also voted against the retailer’s request for an extension.

Prolman was standing in for his partner, Gerald Prunier, who was out of town on business. He argued that an extension would allow Wal-Mart to address concerns about traffic raised by Dookran last week.

“This has been a long road to get here,’’ Prolman said, “and we don’t see any reason to rush this issue.’’But Jed Callen, a lawyer for Citizens Action of Southern New Hampshire, a group that has been fighting the project for about a year, said the board closed the public hearing on the plan Dec. 12 and it should stay closed. “The process can go on literally indefinitely,’’ Callen said, “and that is not fair to the public who has to attend meeting after meeting. It is a travesty to prolong this.”

Prolman said immediately after the vote that he couldn’t comment on whether Wal-Mart would appeal the ruling to Hillsborough County Superior Court. Callen, however, said he fully expects an appeal and is confident the board’s decision will be upheld by the court.

“I’m not worried about it,’’ Callen said. “The board’s decision was based on facts.’’

Wal-Mart’s proposal, which first surfaced more than three years ago, generated what many consider an unprecedented uproar among residents. At previous meetings, throngs of opponents showed up at City Hall to voice concerns about traffic, pollution, crime and other disputed effects of “everyday low prices.”

In the final analysis, traffic concerns did the proposal in. Last week, Dookran surprised many when he said Wal-Mart’s $2 million plan to widen Amherst Street was not consistent with a master plan for the road and needed to be redone.

At one point, Dookran and Dufour exchanged barbs. Dufour equated the traffic concerns “bombs.”

The city engineer was clearly offended and said the remarks could be construed as “professional character assassination.’’

The meeting even featured a so called “secret envelope’’ that purportedly contained information related to Dookran’s concerns, but the envelope was never opened because the board had already agreed to stop taking testimony.

Alderman LaRose, who represents the Amherst Street area, made the motion to kill the plan, saying traffic generated by the superstore would be intolerable.

 [back to top]


WalMart takes some hits

eRobin
phillyburbs
1.20.2006                      
[back to top]

WalMart’s taken some big hits in a short time. Everyone knows about Maryland’s Fairshare Healthcare bill which overcame WalMart-pal and Maryland governor, Robert Ehrlich’s veto to become law. But this week also marked the quiet end of the ridiculous sweetheart deal WalMart and the Department of Labor put together to allow WalMart 15 days lead time before the DoL even began any wage-and-hour audit or investigation. That particular arrangement has been allowed to lapse. Of course since it was secret before it was leaked, we don’t know what other deals have been cut to take its place. Calling all whistleblowers …

Also yesterday the Enemy of the People got some bad news on appeal:

A federal appeals court told a lower court Thursday to go ahead and rule on a lawsuit by Wal-Mart workers alleging that the world’s largest retailer unfairly threatened to withhold benefits from employees who unionize.

The case involves the union exclusion clause that appeared in WalMart’s benefit books:

The National Labor Relations Board brought Wal-Mart before an administrative law court that ordered the company in 2003 to drop the exclusion clause after finding the exclusion was meant “to ensure, to the extent it (Wal-Mart) could, that its employees were fearful of losing their benefits, and thus continued to reject union representation".

Quel surpise. That’s going to be a good case to watch since it cuts the legs out from under WalMart’s claim that what’s keeping unions out of WalMart are WalMart employees.

And last, my favorite story of the week. File it under salt in the wounds. News from non-union Target, useful only as a thorn in WalMart’s side: (from Forbes)

Piper Jaffray analyst Jeffrey P. Klinefelter said Target (nyse: TGT - news - people ) is poised to take larger “wallet share” of its core customers thanks to the proliferation of brands in its many discretionary categories.

The research analyst singled out Target’s expanded assortment of food products that will likely generate higher foot traffic.

Klinefelter said he believes potential real-estate acquisitions could accelerate Target’s square-footage growth.

Food has been what’s been keeping WalMart stock afloat. Even seeing the words “expanded assortment of food products” in a story about Target has to be giving WalMart execs fits. Combine that idea with expanded retail space - maybe grocery space - and it’s the perfect ending to a very bad week in Bentonville.

Posted by eRobin at 11:04 am

8 Comments »

1. I thinck that Walmart is Bab for people and the stors should closs Comment by Anonymous — 1.20.2006 @ 12:13 pm

2. Unskilled labor is LUCKY to find a job at a major corp. which offers advancement ops for those with enuff brains and enterprise to take advantage of this situation. Sitting on ur duff in a world economy just doesnt cut it any more. Comment by JC “JACK” STANHILL — 1.20.2006 @ 12:58 pm

3. We must force Walmart to adopt unions immediately to avoid a national crisis.We must also take away China most favored nations status and replace it with India which a democracy.How are americans supposed to compete with slave labor in China?They do not deserve any tax breaks either.everytime you buy something at Walmart another american loses a job! Comment by Buck Hunter — 1.20.2006 @ 2:04 pm

4. I'm not in favor of closing WalMart, they're too big a part of the economy. We need those jobs - we just need them to be better jobs. I'm in favor of WalMart doing the right thing by their workers instead of dragging the rest of the world down to third world and slave labor standards. There are many ways for WalMart to do that without raising prices. A good first step would be to follow CostCo's policy of keeping the disparity among salaries low. CostCo's CEO, Jim Sinegal, makes around $350K and year and a comparable bonus. WalMart execs rake in millions in salaries and bonuses and WalMart, on average, pays its hourly employees %39 worse than CostCo. When WalMart starts addressing basic issues of fairness in their business model, I'll feel like we're making progress. Related: Nathan Newman has0 a great post up today about innovative ways workers are getting around WalMart's union-busting tactics. Comment by eRobin — 1.20.2006 @ 4:55 pm

5. Are people being forced to work at Wal Mart against their will? Comment by Anonymous J — 1.20.2006 @ 10:21 pm

6. The slaves that make some of the stuff from China are. Comment by eRobin — 1.20.2006 @ 10:59 pm

7. After the passage of OSHA, Title 7, and other gains, unions are relevant only in the context of hiring unskilled and uneducated laborers who are willing to strike to coerce customers/taxpayers into paying artificially high wages to the undeserving. With an average savings of $2000 per family per year, the economies of all American families are more important than the personal economies of those who refuse to learn skills or improve themselves. As the son of a poor immigrant, I acheived and don't need a union to subsidize my laziness. I expect the US Supreme Court will eventually set aside these moronic, unconstitutional, and activist rulings... I have more important things to do than support socialists. Comment by Clark — 1.21.2006 @ 12:23 am

8. BIG AMEN!!! CLARK; socialists NEVER learn. (or earn!!) Comment by JC JACK STANHILL — 1.22.2006 @ 3:47 pm

[back to top]


Maryland Passes "Wal-Mart Health Bill"

CFO
01/20/2006                      
[back to top]

The law could serve as a blueprint for other states.

Maryland law now requires Wal-Mart Stores to provide health-insurance benefits to all of its employees.

The law -- which was approved after the governor's veto was overridden -- could have wide ramifications, as 30 states are mulling similar legislation, according to The Washington Post.

Legislators in 12 other states have proposed similar bills in the past year, noted The Wall Street Journal, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures. However, just 6 remain under consideration.

Under the new law, private companies in Maryland with more than 10,000 employees are required to shell out at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits, or contribute to the state's insurance program for the poor.

Wal-Mart, which employs about 17,000 Marylanders, is the only company that is expected to be affected by the requirement since it is the only one of its size that does not meet the 8 percent spending threshold, said the Post.

The only other companies that are large enough to be covered by the legislation are Northrop Grumman Corp., Giant Food LLC, and Johns Hopkins University, reported the Journal.

Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst told the paper that the votes were driven by "partisan politics" and were "never about health care." Hurst continued: "In allowing a bad bill to become a bad law, the General Assembly took a giant step backward and placed the special interests of Washington, D.C., union leaders ahead of the well-being of the people they serve. And that's wrong."

Maryland's Democrat-led General Assembly voted largely along party lines for the measure, noted the Post. "We don't want to kill this giant. We want this giant to behave itself," said Delegate Anne Healey (D-Prince George's County), the lead sponsor in the House. "We want this giant not to be a bully."

Democratic lawmakers have asserted that the bill was meant to address the fact that some of Wal-Mart's workers are on Medicaid, driving up costs for the state's insurance program for the poor.

Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, told the paper that roughly 25 million of the more than 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance work for companies with 10 or fewer employees.

Wal-Mart's Hurst added that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of the 786,000 uninsured people in Maryland work for Wal-Mart.

SOURCE: CFO.com

[back to top]


Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

by: Cheryl Erber
Friday, January 20 2006
                     [back to top]

The title of this just released DVD says it all: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. The world's largest corporation is known for its low prices. Without those, all the ludicrous propaganda (and they are sure laying it on thick now) in the world could not build a retail company to that size. People shop there, in the billions, to save money. But what is the cost? The cost is countless towns across this country that have either no downtown or no town at all, wiped out, left with an empty box store and empty promises. The cost is countless Chinese women and girls working twenty hours at a time at a sewing machine. The cost is making widow Walton and the four kids five of the richest people on the planet.

Wal-Mart uses harassment and intimidation to prevent unions from forming at its sites. There is no unionization at any Wal-Mart, except in Germany, because its government actually protects its citizens from corporate exploitation. There is an atmosphere of secrecy, lying and paranoia pervasive throughout the company. Ex-managers told about the techniques they were forced to use to cheat the workers. But, no current Wal-Mart employees would talk.

Workers are systematically demeaned and demoted. Discrimination runs rampant and blatantly. Women and minorities have barely scraped the lowest rungs of management. Workers are typically forced to work off the clock, for free. They refuse to pay overtime. They keep the weekly hours so low that workers must stay on public assistance.

Wal-Mart externalizes its costs not only through making the state pick up the cost of its health care, but from the enormous amount of direct subsidy it has received from states and innocent towns that welcomed it with open arms. Wal-Mart comes in like stealth and cuts incredibly favorable deals based on glossy promises with town councils before the Chamber of Commerce even knows what's happening. Rarely do they even find out the subsidies Walmart got.

There are problems in its parking lots, which seem to attract crime since they are large, dim and not monitored. Wal-Mart spends its money protecting the merchandise. Once you pay for the stuff, you're on your own. Again, this costs a town in police time that the taxpayers have to pay for.

I commend Robert Greenwald for making this film, which is part of a movement to stop Wal-Mart. He's doing a thankless job and could be making lots more money doing other types of films. He is shining a bright light on a huge social problem.

I wish he made it easier to glean the facts. I think filmmakers, who usually focus on entertaining, often underestimate the statistics and facts that are so important to educating people about social issues. While involved in the anti-nuke movement in the '80s, facts were a huge part of the dissemination and education. I really wanted to have a place on this DVD I could go to and find out exactly how much the Waltons have and how the revenues flow into the company. Greenwald said he went to great pains to make sure every statement was supported by research, but they came in two-second bursts between lots and lots of personal whining, and frankly, as sympathetic as I am, it was too much.

I think he should have done a bit more than mock the company and tug our heartstrings with idyllic visions of small town life. He does a disservice by appearing too biased and should have taken a more intelligent approach, offering real argument to points that Walmart could legitimately make in its own defense, such as the fact that it takes those on the lowest rungs of society and gives them at least some minimal leg up. Had he made the facts more central, I would have mentioned them here and they would become much more a part of the conversation.

I haven't been to a McDonalds since watching Super-Size Me and this film isn't exactly making me want to run to my nearest Wal-Mart, which, fortunately, is not in my town. That's OK, Wal-Mart probably wasn't that upset about losing Palo Alto. It prefers to exploit the poor. Whether they buy there, which they do, or work there or sweat their life away making the crap we all need so desperately... the poor are at Wal-Mart... and are paying a very high price.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Warned on Health Care

By Karen Lincoln Michel
Green Bay Press-Gazette
January 19, 2006                    
[back to top]

Doyle says retailer relies on state aid MADISON — Wal-Mart was on the defensive Wednesday after Gov. Jim Doyle warned the mega retail chain to stop relying on state aid to pay its employees' health-care costs.

In his annual State of the State address Tuesday night, Doyle targeted the largest private employer in America when he said, "I want to make this very clear to Wal-Mart and any other company that might be thinking of shifting its health-care responsibility to taxpayers: BadgerCare is intended to help working families, not multibillion dollar corporations."

Wal-Mart fired back in a statement released Wednesday, saying, "If the governor's proposal becomes law, he will be sending a clear message to employers, investors and companies everywhere: Wisconsin is closed for business."

Meanwhile, at the state Capitol on Wednesday, the Assembly Labor Committee held a hearing on Assembly Bill 860, which would require major companies — with more than 10,000 full- and part-time employees — to reimburse the state for health-care costs incurred by their employees enrolled in programs such as BadgerCare and Medical Assistance.

Supporters of the measure say that in a time when Wisconsin families are struggling to pay their heating bills and make ends meet, Wal-Mart reported $10.3 billion in profits in fiscal year 2005.

"It's a real desperate time for these (Wal-Mart) employees, and for a lot of people," said Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, a co-sponsor of the bill. "Maybe providing affordable health care is cutting a little into their (Wal-Mart's) profit margin. But if there's that kind of profit to be had, maybe they should share that with their workers and treat them well."

Hansen, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the health-care problem goes beyond Wal-Mart and said the corporation cannot be blamed for increasing health-care costs nationwide. But they should do their part, he said.

"We're not trying to push them out of the state," said Hansen. "But should the state be in the business of rewarding a company in providing corporate welfare for their employees when the company can afford to do better?"

At Wednesday's labor hearing, the committee heard mixed views on the bill — which is considered to have little chance of passing the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The measure drew support at the hearing from labor unions, small-business owners and the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund, an organization that released a study last fall that estimated 3,673 of Wisconsin Wal-Mart employees had no health coverage at all. The report also said 4,722 Wal-Mart employees in Wisconsin and their 1,906 dependents are enrolled in public health programs at an estimated cost of $14 million annually.

Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Ashwaubenon, said he is concerned about singling out Wal-Mart and fears that the Democrats might also target ShopKo, which is based in his district.

"Who is he going to go after next?" Montgomery said of Doyle.

Jennifer Ross, a working mother in Green Bay who qualifies for BadgerCare, said she sees the merits in the bill, but says the health-care crisis is so widespread she doubts whether the measure will bring meaningful change.

"Jim Doyle can say all he wants and he can make all these promises, but I don't see a lot of things changing or happening," she said.

As for Wal-Mart, which said in November that it would offer lower health-insurance premiums to its employees this month, the company says it's "exploring ideas and working hard to find solutions to America's health-care challenge."

Wal-Mart, Wisconsin's largest employer with more than 26,000 workers, says AB 860 will cause more harm than good.

"This bill will effectively impose a new tax on doing business in Wisconsin, which will cost jobs, slow economic growth and hurt the competitiveness of the state's business climate," the company said in its news release.

[back to top]


Court: Case Against Wal-Mart Can Proceed

By MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
HoustonChronicle.com
Jan. 19, 2006                                        
[back to top]

A federal appeals court told a lower court Thursday to go ahead and rule on a lawsuit by Wal-Mart workers alleging that the world's largest retailer unfairly threatened to withhold benefits from employees who unionize.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Robert T. Dawson of Fort Smith, Ark., who said the court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because it fell under the sole authority of the National Labor Relations Board.

The original lawsuit was filed by several employees of a Wal-Mart tire and lube service center in Kingman, Ariz., who had sought a vote on unionizing in October 2000.

The appeals court said the vote was never held because the employees filed complaints with the labor relations board and in court was charging that Wal-Mart had undermined their efforts by threatening to withhold profit sharing, retirement and health benefits.

At issue is a so-called union exclusion clause that Wal-Mart at the time had in its benefits booklets for employees. The clause said unionized employees were not eligible for profit sharing, 401K and health plans.

The National Labor Relations Board brought Wal-Mart before an administrative law court that ordered the company in 2003 to drop the exclusion clause after finding the exclusion was meant "to ensure, to the extent it (Wal-Mart) could, that its employees were fearful of losing their benefits, and thus continued to reject union representation".

Wal-Mart appealed that decision and remains in settlement discussions with the labor relations board to this day, the appeals court said.

Wal-Mart has since changed the wording in its benefits booklets but the case should still be decided because the plaintiffs have outstanding claims for damages and attorneys' fees, the appeals court ruled.

The appeals court also rejected the district judge's argument that it did not have jurisdiction because the workers' complaint was pending with the National Labor Relations Board.

The appeals court said the precedent cited by the district court for that decision was meant to keep state courts from giving conflicting opinions on federal matters. But this was a case of two federal institutions, the courts and the labor board, being asked to act, the appeals panel noted.

"Because the court does have jurisdiction and the plaintiff's claims are not moot, the district court's order to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings with respect to those claims," the appeals court wrote.

HoustonChronicle.com

[back to top]


Good Riddance: Wal-Mart - Labor Dept. Sweetheart Deal Lapses

by Jordan
PERMALINK 
Thursday, January 19, 2006                          
[back to top]

Remember the sweetheart deal between the Bush Administration and Wal-Mart Stores?

After Wal-Mart was found to have violated child labor laws in Connecticut, Arkansas and New Hampshire, a secret agreeement between the giant retailer and the Labor Department agreed "to give Wal-Mart 15 days' notice before the Labor Department investigates any other 'wage and hour' accusations, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime." The agreement was later criticized by the Labor Department's Inspector General report which concluded that the Labor Department had entered “into an agreement that gave significant concessions to Wal-Mart…in exchange for little commitment from the employer beyond what it was already doing or required to do by law.”

Well, the agreement has been allowed to lapse.

According to Miller: “The Bush Administration made a sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart that put workers’ lives and livelihoods at risk,” said Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. “Because of the public scrutiny and controversy surrounding this agreement, the Bush Administration had no choice but to let it expire last week. That’s welcome news for Wal-Mart workers, who never should have had to put up with this in the first place.”

[back to top]


Inspection Pact Ends for Wal-Mart Stores

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 19, 2006
                               [back to top]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - Labor Department officials said on Wednesday that a much-criticized agreement that they had signed with Wal-Mart Stores regarding workplace inspections was allowed to expire last week. In October, the department's inspector general, Gordon S. Heddell, issued a scathing report on the agreement, in which the department's Wage and Hour Division gave Wal-Mart 15 days notice before inspecting its stores. The inspector general said the agreement gave Wal-Mart preferential treatment, while many Congressional Democrats and labor groups attacked the agreement, saying it gave Wal-Mart an opportunity to hide child labor and wage violations. The inspector general said the notice violated the division's handbook. The agreement let Wal-Mart avoid fines if it brought stores into compliance within 10 days of being notified of violations.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[back to top]


Wal-Mart considers South Hill supercenter

Traffic a likely concern in area fraught with development fights

Spokesman-Review
Jan. 19                           
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. wants to build a 186,000-square-foot supercenter with underground parking on Spokane's South Hill. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company is eyeing 7.8 acres at 44th Avenue and Regal Street for the new store.

Wal-Mart spokesman Eric Berger said the store would be a new concept for the company.

"This would be a unique design apart from our existing stores in that it will have underground parking," he said.

The store would employ about 300 people and include several smaller retail spaces that would be offered for lease, he said, adding the company is very early in the planning process. Last week the company also announced it is planning to build a 153,000-square-foot Sam's Club on Spokane's north side, at the northeast corner of Nevada Street and Lincoln Road.

Steve Haynes, a planner for the city of Spokane, said landowner Harlan Douglass submitted an application to subdivide the 7.8-acre property last week. However, Haynes said Wal-Mart was nothing more than an unconfirmed rumor until today.

Haynes doesn't know yet if the proposed Wal-Mart store fits with current zoning for the property, which may carry limits on the size of any commercial structures. But he said the project would be subject to environmental review and a traffic study before it could move ahead.

If Wal-Mart's development scenario plays out like past projects in that area, the locals will be up in arms.

In 1990, when ShopKo Stores Inc. announced plans to build a 116,000-square-foot store on land directly south of the proposed Wal-Mart site, neighbors organized. They launched a two-year battle and sued to reverse a zoning change and block construction of the project. The store was finally built in 1993.

In 1997, the 7.8-acre parcel currently slated for the Wal-Mart was owned by Dr. Ralph Berg and his family.

The Bergs wanted a zoning change to build a 70,000-foot-grocery store and two smaller commercial buildings. The Moran Prairie Neighborhood Association protested, citing already congested roads and storm water issues on the property. Haynes said the land is a shallow flood plain. In the end, the buildings never materialized.

News of the proposed Wal-Mart is generating strong responses from residents.

Kaye Aucutt, an elementary school principal who lives nearby in Berkeley Woods, worries that increased traffic could endanger children crossing Regal to reach Adams Elementary and Ferris High schools. Farther down the road, the Spokane Youth Sports Association operates a large youth soccer field complex.

Traffic on the street worsened significantly when Adirondack Village was built directly across Regal from the proposed Wal-Mart site, Aucutt said. Adirondack includes 228 apartments and 69 family homes.

Besides ShopKo, the area also is the location of Ace Hardware, Rite-Aid and various small businesses. A retail strip is being built on the northwest corner.

"Try to turn onto a street out of Ace or ShopKo. The turns are horrible," Aucutt said, adding, "Why are they coming up to a congested area that's already supporting small businesses?"

Wal-Mart's Berger, who is based in Seattle, hasn't seen the parcel of land, but he said the company is committed to working with Spokane planners to resolve traffic issues.

"Right now we're looking to move forward with that site," Berger said. "There are things we can do to mitigate traffic impacts."

Copyright (c) 2006, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Supercenter to open Jan. 27

Hiring has begun -- store expected to generate up to 500 jobs

Ramsey Campbell
Orlando Sentinel
Jan. 19                    
[back to top]

CLERMONT -- The new Wal-Mart Supercenter will open for business Jan. 27.

"It will bring new convenience to shoppers in Clermont," said Ray San Fratello, executive director of the South Lake County Chamber of Commerce.

He said a formal grand opening will be a few days later, with a ribbon-cutting ceremony planned for 7:30 a.m. Jan. 31.

Store officials had hoped to open as early as Jan. 25, but San Fratello said there was uncertainty about whether all the store's suppliers could make that date.

"So they decided on a soft opening on the 27th and a formal grand opening on the 31st," he said.

Although the store will be open to the public Jan. 27, a big advertising promotion will be aimed at the grand-opening date, San Fratello said.

The store is on U.S. Highway 27 at Johns Lake Road by the Lost Lake development near Kings Ridge. It joins another south Lake County Wal-Mart Supercenter that is 12 miles to the south on U.S. 27 and Cagan Crossings. That store opened last year.

San Fratello said hiring has begun for the 204,000-square-foot store.

"It's a huge store and will mean a lot for the area," he said.

Wal-Mart has advertised for cashiers, maintenance workers, stock workers, cake decorators, garden-center associates, and oil-and-lube technicians.

The store is expected to provide 475 to 500 jobs, San Fratello said.

The Clermont store is across the highway from a planned Kohl's department store, and San Fratello said a Bob Evans restaurant and a Whataburger are expected shortly.

Target, Home Depot and Belk have opened new stores in the fast-growing Clermont area.

"We've seen the home development; now we're getting the retail businesses," San Fratello said.

The city approved plans for the store by the world's largest retailer almost two years ago.

[back to top]


Trailing in "race" with Wal-Mart

By Danny Westneat
The Seattle Times
January 19, 2006                     
[back to top]

The pernicious thing about Wal-Mart, says Craig Cole, is if we don't change it, it'll change us. He should know. Cole runs Brown & Cole, a business founded by his grandfather in Lynden 97 years ago that consists of 29 groceries in this state. Cole, 55, can feel this family legacy slipping away. Last year he closed seven stores. The reason, he insists, is simple: He buys health insurance for his workers, and Wal-Mart largely does not.

"I was raised with American values, that good companies take care of workers," Cole says. "Wal-Mart is changing the rules. We're at a crucial point where society needs to decide whether we're going to follow them on this race to the bottom, or not."

At a hearing Thursday in Olympia, Cole will urge state legislators to require that Wal-Mart buy more health coverage for its workers. A similar measure just passed in Maryland.

Wal-Mart says government shouldn't meddle so directly in business. And that the retailer is nowhere near as stingy as critics suggest.

Maybe so, but comparisons with Cole's Bellingham-based business sure aren't flattering.

Cole buys health insurance for 95 percent of his 1,500 workers, including any who work 20 hours per week. He also insures their families.

Wal-Mart, Cole's direct competitor, insures 45 percent of its workers. A Wal-Mart memo leaked in October revealed that half of the children of its employees are either uninsured or on the government's Medicaid program for the poor.

Who pays when these children go to the doctor? We do, says Cole.

"That's the real problem here — the public is picking up the tab for what should be Wal-Mart's responsibility," he says.

It's the impetus for a union-backed bill that would require companies with more than 5,000 employees to pay at least 9 percent of payroll costs toward health care. Almost all larger companies pay much more than that already. Brown & Cole pays 27 percent.

Not all agree Wal-Mart is responsible to pay a dime for health care. The Wall Street Journal called the bill "an attempt to pass the runaway burdens of the welfare state onto private American employers."

That's the crux of the issue. Whose job is it to insure American workers, anyway? We can't make up our minds. We don't trust government to do it. And we don't want to force businesses to do it, even huge ones with multibillion-dollar profits.

I'm leery of this law. I don't like government telling businesses how to spend money.

But consider Cole's predicament. His company does right by its workers. The way he can see to compete now with Wal-Mart is to do wrong by his employees. To mimic Wal-Mart.

In the end, won't that cost us more?

"Wal-Mart is like a form of social pollution," Cole says. "If we let an oil company dump waste into Puget Sound, it could make cheaper gas. But we don't let them, because it degrades the environment.

"Well, what Wal-Mart is doing degrades American workers. And not just their own."

[back to top]


JULIE ROEHM LEAVES CHRYSLER TO JOIN WAL-MART

Becomes Senior VP for Global Marketing Communications

Jean Halliday
AdAge.com
Jan. 18, 2006                        
[back to top]

DETROIT -- Julie Roehm, 35, the risk-taking, honored and sometimes controversial director of marketing communications at Chrysler Group since 2001, is leaving the automaker to join Wal-Mart, she told Advertising Age. Ms. Roehm, known for her candid comments during marketing and auto industry panels, will join the retail giant in the new position of senior VP-global marketing communications.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Says 'Smile More'

By Sandra O'Loughlin
Brandweek
January 18, 2006                         
[back to top]

Wal-Mart spends nearly $600 million annually on ads.

NEW YORK Wal-Mart this week will launch a new ad campaign via Bernstein-Rein around the theme, "Save More, Smile More."

The 30-second television spots by the Kansas City, Mo., agency will run on network and national cable stations.

Separately, Wal-Mart today named Julie Roehm senior vice president of marketing communications, responsible for the overall development of advertising strategies, creative services and special events. The position is new to the company. Roehm reports to Wal-Mart CMO John Fleming. She most recently served as director of marketing communications for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brands.

The ads feature a series of lifestyle vignettes that show people using Wal-Mart merchandise, including food, home decor, fitness equipment, and health and beauty products in their everyday activities. Wal-Mart's iconic smile appears in each scene.

"The smiles aren't all easy to spot in these ads, but if you look closely, you'll find every one of them," said Wal-Mart CMO John Fleming in a statement. "Similarly, we know that our customers will find the value they want at Wal-Mart in every one of our categories, even where they least expect it, if they cross the aisle to take a closer look. Our goal is to make that trip across the aisle a pleasant surprise for our customers every time."

Wal-Mart's longtime tagline has been "Always low prices," which the company continues to use on its Web site, though the slogan does not appear in the new ads.

The company spent close to $580 million in measured media in 2004 and more than $400 million in the first 10 months of last year, per Nielsen Monitor-Plus.

Wal-Mart is frequently embroiled in controversy, and its latest image snafu is taking place in Maryland, where the state legislature last week passed a law over the governor's veto requiring any company with more than 10,000 in-state employees to spend 8 percent of its payroll on employee health insurance or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. In Maryland, only Wal-Mart meets those parameters. A similar measure will be debated by the Wisconsin state legislature.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart's move into India appears closer

Wall Street Journal
(1/18)

Wal-Mart Stores may have an opportunity to open its first retail outlet in India, following recent comments by the country's prime minister that seem to support opening up more retail access there. The company has been aggressive in its courting of Indian officials. Some people believe India could be the next China, a Wal-Mart official says.

[back to top]


Teaming Up for Reform

Editorial - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 18, 2006                                    
[back to top]

3 St. Louis's big three supermarket chains have joined with their biggest union in a legislative push for sensible health care reform in Missouri. Schnucks, Dierbergs and Shop 'n Save provide good health insurance for their employees. They want to level the playing field -- and reduce their own health care costs -- by requiring companies that don't provide employee health insurance to pick up some slack.

A recent study by Families USA, a nonpartisan group that studies health care issues, found that the average company with good health insurance paid an extra $955 per family last year to absorb the cost of health care for the uninsured. The hospitals and clinics that cared for those uninsured patients simply passed the costs along as higher fees to insurance companies, who passed them along to employers.

Although the details are in flux, the supermarket coalition plans to push for a law requiring large employers to provide a minimum amount toward their workers' health care.

For a role model, the Missouri Legislature can look to Maryland. Last week, Maryland lawmakers overrode their governor's veto to require that employers with more than 10,000 workers spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health coverage.

Only one employer fell short of that bar: Wal-Mart.

The giant retailer is much on the minds of St. Louis grocery chains. In 2003, the grocers and the United Food & Commercial Workers Union fought a strike over the arrival of Wal-Mart as a competitor. The companies with union employees feared that they couldn't compete with a national giant that paid lower wages and skimped on health coverage.

Wal-Mart has more than 1.7 million workers nationwide, less than half of whom have company-paid health insurance. In a now-infamous internal memo, Wal-Mart disclosed that about 5 percent of its workers get Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. About 46 percent of its workers' children are uninsured or rely on state-subsidized programs for health care.

The strike was settled, but the threat lingers. The grocers and the UFCW see that they're in the same boat, and that health care costs could sink it.

America's employer-based health insurance system is an artifact of World War II. No rational private health care system would link health care costs to jobs in a way that discourages hiring. No rational public health care system would be as inefficient and noncompetitive. America needs a national health insurance system that covers everyone, with the cost shared equitably across the board. But first, good employers who provide health care for their workers must recognize that they're subsidizing the cheapskates, and that the entire system is out of whack. When business demands change, change will happen.

In a now-infamous internal memo, Wal-Mart disclosed that about 5 percent of its workers get Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. About 46 percent of its workers' children are uninsured or rely on state-subsidized programs for health care.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Cancels Northridge Store Plans

By David Lott
Los Angeles Business Journal
January 17, 2006                           
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has canceled plans to build astore in Northridge, citing concerns over risingdevelopment costs, community opposition and demandsfor an environmental impact report. Wal-Mart decided not to move forward with building a 150,000 square-foot store in Northridge after LosAngeles City Councilman Greig Smith demanded it conduct a full environmental impact report to analyze the economic impact to other local businesses. The report also would have allowed more community input on the process. Wal-Mart initially agreed to the report but then said on Sunday that it would be too costly to perform for the location.

The company also cited rising land prices, increased costs of construction and the city of L.A.’s lengthy entitlement process. “We hadn’t expected such a lengthy process for a site that was already zoned for commercial property; there are some things you can’t anticipate,” said Kevin McCall, Wal-Mart’s local community affairs representative.

Wal-Mart approached the city nearly eight months ago saying it wanted to build a store on Nordhoff Street at Tampa Avenue, a retail-heavy area with another Wal-Mart location a few miles away in Porter Ranch. Since the location for the proposed store has long been zoned as a commercial development, the City Council didn’t have any authority or jurisdiction to stop Wal-Mart from building a store there. A Best Buy and a Levitz store had already been at the location in the past.

However, after Wal-Mart had submitted a required traffic study, Smith negotiated a package that added more parking spaces, decreased the store’s hours ofoperation from 24 hours per day, disallowed the sale of alcohol and firearms and created plans to cut downon car traffic in the area. Meetings with local residents, the Chamber of Commerceand neighborhood council members ultimately led Smith to ask Wal-Mart to conduct a full environmental impact report, prompting the store’s decision to quit, Smith said.

“This is a tremendous victory for the community. I’ve said from the beginning that the traffic in this area, particularly adjacent to the Northridge Mall, is already grid-locked and this was never the right location for a Wal-Mart,” Smith said in a statement.

The proposal was not affected by the city’s big box ordinance, which forces major retailers to demonstrate the economic benefits of opening a store of at least 100,000 square feet with more than 10 percent of their floor space dedicated to groceries since the Northridge location would not have sold any groceries.

McCall would not say if Wal-Mart would pursue another Valley location.

[back to top]


Maryland Puts a Premium on Employer-Paid Healthcare

By Ronald Brownstein
Los Angeles Times
January 17, 2006                           
[back to top]

With a dramatic vote to approve a path-breaking bill late last week, the Maryland Legislature may have provided the jolt that could revive the comatose national debate over expanding access to healthcare. The Maryland legislation, which requires large employers to contribute to healthcare for their employees, apparently would affect only a single company: Wal-Mart.

But the bill could have a powerful ripple effect because it brings back to the surface an issue that has been submerged for too long: the role of employers in maintaining access to health insurance.

And that debate could ultimately pressure business to join with other key interests to craft solutions to the debilitating spiral of rising costs and declining access.

Business hasn't been a target in the healthcare debate since the 1994 collapse of President Clinton's blueprint for universal coverage. Clinton proposed a "play or pay" plan that would have required all employers to insure their workers or pay into a federal fund for the uninsured.

Some large employers that provide insurance initially welcomed the proposal as a way to level the playing field with companies that saved money by refusing coverage. But small-business groups, many of whose members said they could not afford to provide insurance, fiercely opposed the idea. And after those groups played a central role in sinking Clinton's overall package, healthcare reformers over the next decade looked to government, not business, to fund expansions of coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program that passed in Clinton's second term used state and federal tax dollars to cover children of the working poor.

In the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, Democratic presidential nominees Al Gore and John F. Kerry avoided employer mandates and instead proposed to cover more of the uninsured entirely through public dollars. Kerry, in fact, offered to subsidize employers now providing coverage through an innovative proposal for Washington to absorb part of the cost for workers who generated the biggest healthcare bills.

President Bush has proposed much more limited measures to expand coverage, but his ideas — mostly tax credits for the uninsured — also rely on public, not private, dollars.

While business avoided the political spotlight, the structure of employer-provided healthcare eroded. With fewer employers offering insurance and more workers refusing it when offered because of high costs, the percentage of Americans receiving coverage at work has dropped every year since 2000, the Census Bureau reports. Today, 60% of Americans receive healthcare through their employer, down from 64% in 2000.

"What we've witnessed over the first half of this decade is the melting of the polar ice cap of employer-provided coverage," says John McDonough, executive director of the Massachusetts advocacy group Health Care for All.

That ominous trend attracted little attention in Washington. But in the states, it prompted a trickle of activism now widening into a flood.

Among the first states to act was California — former Gov. Gray Davis, just before his 2003 recall, signed legislation requiring all firms with 50 or more employees to insure their workers. In 2004, the state business community sponsored a ballot measure that repealed the law, but the unexpectedly close result (49.2% of voters backed the mandate) signaled that the issue's politics might be shifting.

Thursday's action in Maryland sent the same message. Overriding a veto by Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., the Democratic-controlled state House and Senate voted to require all private employers in Maryland with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least 8% of their payroll on healthcare or contribute to the state's Medicaid program. Four Maryland companies employ that many workers; only Wal-Mart is believed to fall short of the 8% threshold.

Bills imposing similar mandates on large employers, promoted by a coalition of unions, are scheduled to be introduced in as many as 30 states this year. Jonathan Parker, national director of Americans for Health Care, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, says the legislation has good prospects in states as diverse as Colorado, New Hampshire and Washington.

An initiative in Massachusetts aims higher. The state's House of Representatives last fall passed "play or pay" legislation requiring all firms with more than 10 employees to insure their workers or pay into a state fund for the uninsured. If the plan doesn't become law — the state Senate is resisting it in a conference committee — McDonough says his group may put it on the ballot in November as an initiative.

This focus on employers draws resistance from some on the left and many on the right. Some liberals consider employer mandates a band-aid; they'd prefer to let the employer-based system collapse to build momentum for a single-payer national healthcare plan.

But that's not coming anytime soon. And the unraveling of the employer-based system is the main reason that the number of uninsured Americans, which last year neared 46 million, is soaring.

Conservatives say employer mandates will kill jobs. But the existing system already kills jobs. Firms that provide insurance pay higher premiums to offset the cost of uncompensated care for all those uninsured patients. That leaves those companies with less money to hire new workers.

Employer mandates don't make sense without subsidies for small businesses; requirements for healthy, younger employees to accept coverage when offered (which would spread risk); and a Kerry-like plan to free businesses from the most expensive cases.

But by asking employers to reach into their pockets, these state initiatives may encourage business to come back to the table — and help craft a comprehensive solution that would equitably divide the burden of providing reliable healthcare to all Americans.

[back to top]


Workers cheer bill requiring Wal-Mart to pay more for employee health care

Baltimore Sun
Jan. 14                               
[back to top]

While workers' rights groups yesterday claimed victory in the Maryland legislation that would require Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pay more for employee health care, they don't anticipate widespread changes in the retailer's labor practices.

But as more states consider legislation similar to Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, labor activists hope the law will force the retailer to improve benefits for employees.

Wal-Mart has been a major target of organized labor because its stores aren't unionized and it is the largest employer in the country. Last year, the company closed a rare unionized store in Canada, raising the ire of labor leaders.

The Maryland bill requires private companies in the state with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on worker health care or pay the difference to a state medical assistance fund. Wal-Mart, which employees 17,000 Marylanders, is the only company that size that will be affected.

"We urge Wal-Mart to improve its benefits on its own, but we endorse legislative remedy until they embrace change for itself," said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch. The non-profit group, backed by labor and environmental groups, aims to press the retailer to change its business practices.

At least 30 other states are expected to consider similar legislation in the coming months.

"I'm sure it will take some time to see major change," said Jill Cashen, a spokeswoman for the United Food and Commercial Workers. "Our union and local unions will take on more legislation. Maryland is just the beginning really."

A Wal-Mart spokesman didn't return calls yesterday. The company said in a statement Thursday that the legislation doesn't do anything to promote affordable health care. The company said that of the 176,000 uninsured people in Maryland, less than half of 1 percent work for Wal-Mart in Maryland.

"This vote was never about health care," the statement said. "This was about partisan politics in the Maryland gubernatorial race."

Others who follow Wal-Mart don't expect this week's development in Maryland will cause any transformation -- for the company or Big Labor's relationship with it.

"No business wants to spend more than it has to," said Bill Adams, president of a management and labor relations consultant in Kentucky. "If Wal-Mart is able to attract people to work in their stores for what they pay and the benefits they provide, it's the free enterprise system at work. Nobody forces them to work there."

If other states follow Maryland, the company is likely to reduce its workforce or cut costs in other ways rather than absorb increased health costs, labor experts said. It's unlikely to close stores in response because that could cut too deeply into revenue, experts said.

Some in Maryland are worried that Wal-Mart will back out of plans to open a distribution center on the Eastern Shore that would bring 1,000 jobs. The retailer, or a group on its behalf, could challenge the legislation in court, drawing out the decision.

"They'll carry on doing what they do," said Brenda Cochrane, director of the labor studies program at San Francisco State University. "I'm not under the illusion that Wal-Mart without a lot of pressure and unless it's hurting their bottom line seriously will change their ways."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Prompts Concerns

By Lachlan Labere
Salmon Arm Observer (BC)
January 13, 2006                          
[back to top]

Educating Salmon Arm residents on the benefits of shopping locally may be the only course of action left for those opposed to the coming of Wal-Mart. This was one resolve discussed by a small group of somewhat discouraged yet vigilant city residents outside council chambers Monday night after they learned from council there was nothing the city could do to stop the big-box retailer from building on land belonging to the Adams Lake Band.

Though he’s known for two years that a deal had been signed between the city, the band and the Canadian retail developer First Pro Shopping Centres for the city to provide water services to the planned Wal-Mart store, it was the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, recently screened at Okanagan College’s Salmon Arm campus, that inspired local architect Bernd Hermanski to approach council during its Jan. 9 meeting, and express his fears for the future of Salmon Arm.

“I am a firm believer … that big-box retailers like Wal-Mart, and perhaps particularly Wal-Mart, can be very detrimental to the health of a community, especially a smaller community like ours, where we struggle daily to keep our downtown businesses open,” said Hermanski. “I guess the argument that underlies the beliefs that I have, I think the globalization and homogenization of communities across the continent and the planet, in fact, is an unfortunate thing.”

Following Hermanski, former Okanagan University College instructor Don Sawyer told council he had spoken that day with a representative of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which is also involved in negotiating the lease between the Adams Lake Band and First Pro. Sawyer said he’d learned the lease had not yet been finalized.

Sawyer also understood the Ministry of Transportation is in discussion with First Pro for the development of two new stop-light intersections improving access into the future shopping facility, including one at the Hwy. 97B intersection.

“We would like to have an update as to where the situation lies,” requested Sawyer of council. “Is there any interest in revisiting this? Is there any interest in some kind of community forum where all the stakeholders at the very least could actually come forward and talk about their concerns and their hopes?”

The city’s director of operations, Charlie Ward, addressed Sawyer’s concern about the possible new intersections.

“The Ministry of Transportation of the province is responsible for the highways and for Hwy. 97B through the municipality, so they are the ones that approve or don’t approve,” said Ward.

“There may not be a signed agreement between the developer and the province yet, but I assure you there was lots of discussion between the province, the ministry, the city and the developer relevant to traffic issues. So I believe there is consensus. Whether there is an agreement in place or not, I don’t really know.”

Coun. Alan Harrison later solemnly expressed his understanding of where the city rests on the matter.

“My impression is that we’re too late,” said Harrison. “In the agreement of 2004 we signed regarding storm drainage, that was kind of the last opportunity the city had for those who wanted to prevent development on that piece of property from happening.” Hermanski then asked if council might support lobbying INAC on the matter. Councillor Kevin Flynn noted there would be huge legal implications with the city already having signed the agreement. Bannister confirmed this.

After the meeting, outside council chambers, Sawyer commented on his conversation with INAC, and discussed with others in the group how to proceed.

“He said there should have been an opportunity for the two communities to come together and talk about a common vision for the area, and that wasn’t done,” said Sawyer. “I still think there’s an opportunity to raise awareness in the community.”

[back to top]


Local Dems Rally Against Wal-Mart

By Jen Marckini
Central Michigan Life
January 13, 2006                          
[back to top]

Granholm will visit Mount Pleasant Democrats Jan. 20 Gov. Jennifer Granholm won't be doing anything about local Democrats complaining about the new Wal-Mart Supercenter when she visits Mount Pleasant.

The Isabella County Democratic Party will be meeting with Granholm for an informal meet-and-greet Jan. 20, following a meeting with the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Conference at Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, 6800 Soaring Eagle Blvd.

Heidi Watson, Granholm's spokeswoman, said the democratic governor doesn't have any formal position about local Democrats lobbying for more jobs, but not building a Wal-Mart Supercenter in town.

She said the economy and jobs are the governor's priority, but when those issues arise she takes into account the communities' concerns.

"I'm sure if they voice their concerns she'll (Granholm) take that into consideration," Watson said. "But in the long run, and in the end, it's what's going to be best for the community; how many jobs is it going to bring to Michigan. Because she's focused on the economy and jobs."

Though it may be counteractive for local Democrats to be against the $18 billion retail store, Watson said, Granholm is supportive of improving the state's economic decline and creating more jobs.

"It does raise a little bit of concern since it is Wal-Mart," Watson said. But the governor does not have a say as to what local governments can do.

Isabella County's unemployment rate is at 3 percent. Food stamp applications are up 40 percent.

Local democrats met last Thursday in the Isabella County Building, 200 N. Main St., where about 20 people were present to discuss the construction of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter and a Sam's Club in Union Township this year.

Bulldozers are expected to be out within the next couple of weeks and the stores could be completed as early as fall. The shopping site, off of Bluegrass Road, is expected to bring in about 23,000 vehicles and more than 500 jobs.

"The Union Township Board, which is predominately Republican, has a very pro-development attitude," said ICDP Vice Chair John Barker.

Charles Novitski, associate biology professor, said taxpayers will have to pay a lot of money because Wal-Mart's wages are too low to provide health benefits for employees.

"Wal-Mart often asks the community to pay a lot of money up front in order to encourage them to come to a community," he said. Because then Wal-Mart runs them out of business.

Novitski, organizer of the Democracy Film Series about the damage Wal-Mart has on local communities, said the close relationship the retail store has with China is another concern.

The total development, which includes Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Menards, Kohls and a shopping center, stretches 166 acres, which makes up 43,400 square feet.

"This just baffles me to no end," said Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt. Here you have companies that want to bring in good jobs into this community. "I've had other communities in the area that have been devastated and here there's an opportunity to bring in new jobs."

David Ling, Isabella County Board of Commissioners Chairman and speech, communications and dramatic arts professor, said if Wal-Mart builds its distribution center, it'll be twice the size and employ about 700 people.

"It can't reasonably be stopped at this point," he said.

Cropsey said it's ironic the local Democratic party would put a union issue before a job issue.

"It's one of these things where the Democratic Party is supposed to be for the working men and women, but yet they are opposed to jobs," he said. "It shows why Michigan is in such dire economic problems when you have a party running this state that's opposed to jobs."

Union Township Supervisor Jim Collin said he estimates the Wal-Mart project exceeding $75 million. He said the cost isn't coming out of taxpayers' pockets.

"Certainly you couldn't argue the benefit of having jobs created," he said. "People can't spend money, pay bills or anything if they don't have jobs."

Collin said growth is essential for a community to prosper, as is the case for Union Township, which is mostly made up of agriculture and student-residential apartment complexes. He said growth keeps the tax rate down.

According to ICDP's blog, it questioned why local businesses that may lose more business to Wal-Mart be forced to subsidize their own demise. The blog said local merchants will not get any tax breaks or any other perks Wal-Mart does.

University President Michael Rao said it's not the role of CMU to get involved with the local Wal-Mart issue. He said students, though, would probably benefit from the jobs.

"The university is in a town that we think needs more economic development," he said. "Whether it's Wal-Mart or any other entity really isn't university business."

Rao, who was recently appointed to Granholm's economic board, said the university should try to support open discussion that will lead to economic development on a state and local level.

[back to top]


Criticism greets Wal-Mart proposal

By Janell Ross
News Observer (NC)
January 13, 2006                   
[back to top]

Initial excitement about a second Wal-Mart in Southeast Raleigh has been tempered by concerns that the scale of the proposed development could harm nearby residents and small businesses. Nearly 80 people crowded into a South Citizens Advisory Council meeting this week to raise questions and express concerns about the big-box store that may be built near Rock Quarry and Sunnybrook roads.

Already, the city has asked Raleigh-based Granite Development, which has pitched the project, to scale it back and adjust the traffic plan. Granite unveiled new plans Monday calling for a smaller store that includes 35,000 square feet of adjacent retail space for a variety of other businesses.

Instead, residents wanted to talk about traffic, rising property values that might push them out of the tidy ramblers and split levels they have occupied for years, and the impact that the store may have on Southeast Raleigh's fragile business environment. Several wanted to know what the developer and Wal-Mart were willing to do to ensure that minority-owned local businesses have a presence in the proposed shopping center."This is just the wrong place and time for something so huge," said Lorenzo A. Smith, operations director for F7, short for Faith to the Seventh Power. The group is a commercial development firm founded and staffed by Southeast Raleigh residents. F7 owns a small commercial strip near the proposed Wal-Mart site.

"We are really concerned because it seems like the wrong time to have yet another big box come in here and destroy the little progress Southeast Raleigh's locally owned businesses have managed to make," Smith said.

But the man who owns the property at Rock Quarry and Sunnybrook roads is himself a small businessman and black. Property owner George Leech said at least six attempts to develop the land have fallen through because of the lack of interest from major retail chains.

Wal-Mart and other shopping center tenants now may be drawn to the area by a 2,405-home golf-course community slated for a site less than two miles from the shopping center site. C. Grady Matthews, a principal with Granite, said Monday he would work to lease the center's other retail space to existing local businesses and national chains, but agreed to no set-asides or particular recruiting efforts.

It is not yet clear when the project would be sent to the Raleigh Planning Commission for review. The developers have indicated they will submit a new set of plans to the city by the end of the month.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Dealt Legal Setbacks on U.S. Workers' Rights

Bloomberg
January 13, 2006                   
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, suffered defeats in two U.S. states that may add pressure to the company to change its employment practices. The shares had their biggest decline in a month. In Maryland, the Senate today voted to override a veto of the ``Wal-Mart bill'' requiring companies with more than 10,000 employees to pay for some health-care benefits. A Pennsylvania judge last month granted class-action status to a lawsuit claiming Wal-Mart employees were pressured to work through breaks and after hours.

The latest actions add to legal and legislative setbacks for Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart that may affect how much Wal-Mart provides in pay and benefits to its 1.3 million U.S. employees. The company is already appealing a California jury decision last month that awarded Wal-Mart workers $172.3 million in another off-the-clock case. The company also settled a similar case in Colorado for $50 million.

``They have very slim margins already and I find it hard to believe that they're not going to have to step up and do more in terms of health care and that's going to affect their margins, and therefore their earnings,'' said Patricia Edwards, who helps manage about $6.4 billion at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich in Seattle, including Wal-Mart shares.

Shares of Wal-Mart fell 83 cents to $45.74 at 4:01 pm in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Shares declined 11 percent last year.

Veto Override

The Maryland Senate today voted 30-17 to override Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich's May veto of a bill requiring companies with more than 10,000 employees in the state to pay a set amount of money for health-care benefits.

The state's House of Delegates plans to cast its vote later today. An override of a veto requires a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the state legislature.

The legislation, called the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, requires large companies to devote at least 8 percent of their payroll to health care and would become the first U.S. state law of its kind. Wal-Mart employs almost 17,000 people in Maryland and is the only company there known not to meet the bill's requirements.

More than 30 other states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, are considering similar measures.

``This is a great moment for working families of Maryland and for businesses that do the right thing,'' said Vincent DeMarco, head of Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, an advocacy group in Baltimore that supports the bill. ``After the House votes, this measure will sweep the country.''

An override could prompt Wal-Mart to rethink its plan of opening a distribution center in the state that would provide 800 jobs, company spokesman Nate Hurst said yesterday.

Jobs At Stake

``Maryland legislators shouldn't be putting these jobs at risk by making laws that attack Wal-Mart,'' he said.

More than 600,000 workers receive health care coverage from Wal-Mart, making it one of the largest insurers in the U.S., Wal- Mart spokesman Kevin Thornton said. It's also one of the few retailers to offer health insurance to part-time employees, he said.

In state court in Philadelphia, Judge Mark Bernstein last month granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that claims workers were pressured to work off the clock.

The suit could include as many as 150,000 former or current employees in the state who have worked at a Wal-Mart store or the company's Sam's Club warehouse chain since March 1998, Michael Donovan, the lead plaintiff's lawyer, said in an interview today The suit was approved for class certification last month.

Going To Trial

Wal-Mart has given ``every indication'' that it will go to trial rather than settle, said Donovan, from the firm Donovan Searles LLC in Philadelphia. He said he expected the trial to start in Philadelphia in early September.

Wal-Mart will discipline managers who allow off-the-clock work, Wal-Mart's Thornton.

``We strongly deny the allegations in this lawsuit,'' he said. ``Wal-Mart's policy is to pay associates for every minute they work. Certifying this as a class does not mean that the company has done anything wrong or improper. There has been no ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.''

[back to top]


Maryland measure kicks off care fight; `Fair share' law aims at Wal-Mart coverage

By Barbara Rose
Chicago Tribune
January 13, 2006                      
[back to top]

In a boost to organized labor's campaign to force big companies to pick up more health-care costs, Maryland legislators voted Thursday to enact a "fair share" law aimed at the nation's biggest employer, Wal-Mart Stores. The bill, the first of its kind in the nation, is a prelude to legislative battles in other states, including Illinois, where unions are preparing to introduce similar initiatives.

Maryland's law requires companies with more than 10,000 employees working in the state to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health-care benefits or to contribute the difference to a state fund toward health insurance for Maryland workers.

While several other companies are large enough to be covered, only Wal-Mart, with 17,000 Maryland employees, is believed to fall short of the minimum spending.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mia Masten said Thursday that the bill "could be the beginning of a slippery slope."

"We believe everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, although this legislation does nothing to accomplish that," Masten said.

She said Wal-Mart was unfairly singled out because of "partisan politics" and that Medicaid's problems go beyond the behavior of one company.

Maryland's action comes amid renewed interest in many states in curbing the ballooning costs of public health programs that must pick up the tab when working families can't afford health care.

"The eyes of the nation were on Annapolis today, and the override votes will generate important momentum in many other state legislatures that are considering similar health-care bills," said Andrew Grossman, executive director of Washington-based Wal-Mart Watch, a labor-backed coalition.

Maryland's Democratic-controlled Senate and House each voted Thursday to override last year's veto of the measure by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

Todd Maisch, vice president of governmental affairs for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, which opposes such measures, called the vote a "real victory for organized labor" and "cause for great concern."

"For Illinois, business really needs to wake up and be ready for this type of effort," he said. "It will be well organized and if this [business] community isn't well prepared, we could be under some threat."

He called the legislation a form of payroll tax and a "proverbial nose under the tent" that, while aimed initially at the largest employers, could ratchet down to smaller businesses.

Such initiatives are not new. A similar law known as "pay to play" was voted down two years ago in California. In the early 1980s, there were successful legal challenges to payroll taxes.

In Illinois, where Local 881 of the United Food and Commercial Workers is expected to lead a campaign for a "fair share" bill, legislators in 2004 enacted a law requiring the state to develop a plan for a full range of health-care options by July 1, 2007. That bill does not set requirements for business but aims for universal coverage.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law

By TOM STUCKEY
Associated Press
Jan 13                                       
[back to top]

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.

Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.

"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.

The law was enacted Thursday when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill it passed last April. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into the state Medicaid fund to help pay for health care for low-income Marylanders.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the only company in the state that currently would be affected by the law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2007. It has about 17,000 employees at 53 stores and two distribution centers in Maryland and was planning on building a distribution center on the Eastern Shore, which the governor said may now be in jeopardy.

Supporters say the law is needed because Maryland is underwriting the cost of health care for many Wal-Mart employees who can't afford to pay their share of insurance premiums. Democratic leaders, who pushed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act through the legislature, said they did not know how many people were involved or what the cost was to the state.

Wal-Mart has not provided specific information on its Maryland employees, but Clark said earlier this month that more than three-quarters of the retailer's total 1.3 million employees have health coverage through the company, their family or Medicare. The retailer also announced in October that it was launching a plan to lower insurance premiums for workers.

Supporters and opponents produced conflicting legal advice on the validity of the law in the days leading up to the veto override.

Henry A. Smith, a Baltimore lawyer who reviewed the law for the state Chamber of Commerce, said it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate employee benefits.

"Any state attempt to regulate an employee benefit plan is pre-empted by the federal employee benefit law because of the Congress' belief that a single federal regulatory scheme for employee benefits is preferable to 51 separate, varying state schemes," Smith said.

Smith said there have not been any court cases dealing with a law identical to the Maryland statute. But he cited "a very close case" from the District of Columbia in which a federal court struck down a law mandating employee benefit levels because it was pre-empted under federal law.

Ronald Wineholt, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, said the business group probably does not have legal standing to challenge the law, but he hopes a lawsuit will be filed.

"This law is ripe for a legal challenge," he said.

But the state attorney general's office advised the governor and the legislature before the veto override votes that the law does not violate the federal statute.

"The Fair Share Act does not specifically refer to employee welfare benefit plans," said a letter signed by Democratic Attorney General J. Joseph W. Curran.

Wal-Mart could avoid paying the assessment by such methods as reducing payroll or cutting employees below the 10,000 threshold.

Kenneth Stanton, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Baltimore, who is a critic of the law, said Wal-Mart might be able to avoid paying into the Medicaid fund by creating a second Maryland company and dividing employees between the two companies.

Wal-Mart had little else to say Friday about the bill. "We are pausing and evaluating the situation thoroughly at this point," Dan Fogleman, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the Maryland bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

[back to top]


Maryland OKs Wal-Mart health care bill

Reuters
January 13, 2006                
[back to top]

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Reuters) - A bill that would force Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care in Maryland won approval from state lawmakers Thursday, overriding Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto. The House of Delegates voted 88-50, with one abstention, in favor of the bill after the Senate voted its approval 30-17. Both margins were large enough to override Ehrlich's veto issued in May of 2005.

The bill takes effect in 30 days, the Baltimore Sun reported in its Friday editions.

"I hope personally all 49 (other) states will do this. The states are backed up to the wall on this one," said Democratic Sen. Gloria Lawlah, chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

The measure would require companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits, or pay the balance into a state low-income health insurance fund.

Both votes came down largely along party lines, with a handful of Democrats crossing over to vote against the bill in each chamber.

Business groups who opposed the Maryland bill, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have said the state law could violate federal laws that govern health insurance benefits.

Wal-Mart (Research) spokeswoman Sarah Clark said the company was evaluating its options. She said lawmakers had "placed the special interests of Washington, D.C. union leaders ahead of the well-being of the people they serve."

A spokesman for Gov. Ehrlich expressed disappointment with the votes. He said lawmakers had put politics in front of policy.

"It's unfortunate, but we've come to expect it," said spokesman Henry Fawell.

Labor group support

U.S. labor groups are promoting the Maryland bill and it is being viewed as a model for similar laws other state legislatures are considering.

Labor leaders have said nationwide more than a quarter of workers in large companies do not get employer-based health insurance coverage. They say a growing number of uninsured workers have been forced to turn to government programs such as Medicaid for coverage.

The votes drew applause from Wal-Mart Watch, one of several groups that have been pushing the company to improve wages and benefits.

"The eyes of the nation were on Annapolis today, and the override votes will generate important momentum in many other state legislatures that are considering similar health care bills," the group said in a statement.

Lawmakers supporting the measure in the Senate argued that they had to act because Wal-Mart was forcing the state to subsidize its employees' health care.

But opponents countered that the bill was bad for business. "This isn't the perfect storm. It's the Bermuda Triangle. Jobs go in, but they don't come out," said Republican Sen. E.J. Pipkin.

Some opponents of the bill said it could even cause Wal-Mart to drop plans to build a large distribution center on Maryland's Eastern Shore, which would bring an additional 800 to 1,000 jobs to the state.

Wal-Mart's Clark said in her statement that the bill would do nothing to make affordable health insurance available to more Marylanders. She said the vote was about "partisan politics" rather than health care.

Clark said more than three-fourths of its 1.3 million U.S. employees had health insurance coverage, either through the company, a spouse or a government program.

Wal-Mart closed lower 83 cents, or 1.78 percent, to $45.74 a share Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange.

 [back to top]


Even Without a Union, Florida Wal-Mart Workers Use Collective Action to Enforce Rights

by Nick Robinson
January 2006
                  [back to top]

Workers at Wal-Mart and other big-box retail chains—like workers in any mostly nonunion industry with low pay and tense, dreary working conditions—are generally a disgruntled lot. In central Florida, Wal-Mart workers are fighting and sometimes winning campaigns using collective action to solve both shop floor and larger industry-wide problems.

In one rural Florida town, over 20 percent of workers in the local Wal-Mart had their hours cut. In response, workers went into their community with a petition to reinstate the workers’ lost hours, and collected 390 signatures in three days. Their hours were returned.

In South St. Petersburg, a popular third-shift employee was accused of theft and fired. The next day, half the day shift quit in protest. In another store, 20 workers marched on management after a 70-year-old workplace leader had her schedule changed. Her schedule was returned within days.

Several workers rode their bikes to work even though Wal-Mart didn’t provide a bike rack. With some co-workers, they demanded management buy a bike rack. When management refused, they bought a rack with their own money and demanded that management install it. Management gave in, and donated the cost of the rack to a local charity.

BUILDING RESISTANCE

These actions were initiated and led by members of the Wal-Mart Workers Association (WWA), a growing group of 300 current and former Wal-Mart workers in over 40 stores.

“This is a protest movement of Wal-Mart workers uniting to make their lives better at work and in their communities,” said Rick Smith, WWA organizer and Florida director of the Wal-Mart Association for Reform Now (WARN), a coalition of labor, community, homeowner, and anti-poverty groups. “It’s about Wal-Mart workers sticking together, honoring their work, arranging carpools, and providing child care for each other.”

Non-majority unions such as the WWA don’t wait for a court to license workers’ use of collective action. They harness that anger and ingenuity to both win day-to-day victories and launch longer-term pressure campaigns. The strategy has roots in industries in which union recognition is rare: retail chain workers, state workers, and computer programmers and manufacturers.

“We have the right to organization, regardless of what the boss or the state do,” said Smith.

The WWA began in April with seed money from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the Service Employees (SEIU), the AFL-CIO, and ACORN (a community advocacy group). WWA members pay $5 in dues monthly.

Starting from scratch in mostly rural areas with low union density, WWA organizers knocked on doors in local communities to see if residents worked at Wal-Mart or knew anyone who did.

The WWA and WARN have a strategic focus on central Florida. Wal-Mart is projected to saturate that area with as many as one store in every two miles, and double its supercenters there by 2010, according to WARN’s research.

Rather than rejecting Wal-Mart completely, however, WARN and the WWA welcome the chain’s low prices and access to goods–especially in inner cities–but demand that Wal-Mart meet standards set by the community.

WARN acts as the community pressure arm of the WWA and has already stopped five new Wal-Mart stores that don’t meet its standards at the developmental review level, through its extensive research and mapping, strong coalition-building with diverse allies, and well-organized base in the community.

UNEMPLOYMENT CAMPAIGN

With 1.4 million employees worldwide, Wal-Mart is a driving force behind the push towards a part-time, on-call, at-will workforce. Seventy-four percent of employees work Wal-Mart’s redefined “full-time” 34-hour work week, making it even harder to pay for Wal-Mart’s health care, and often forcing associates to find another job on top of unpredictable scheduling and family obligations.

Some Wal-Mart stores have enforced an “open availability” policy, where supervisors ask employees to sign a document stating that they will be available for any shift at any time. Those who refuse, out of family obligations or self-respect, have been retaliated against with a cut in hours or firing.

To counter the widespread problems of inconsistent and under-scheduling, the WWA launched a campaign to encourage Wal-Mart workers to file for unemployment compensation.

Smith estimates that “hundreds, if not thousands” of Wal-Mart workers have filed for unemployment as part of the WWA’s campaign. They usually win, according to Smith, costing Wal-Mart tens of thousands of dollars, and when they lose, they force Wal-Mart into a lengthy and revealing appeal process.

As a result, a number of Wal-Mart stores with higher levels of WWA member activity have changed their scheduling policy.

The WWA now has growing in-store organizing committees with leaders who have won grievances with management and still have their jobs and are partially compensated for their cut hours. No WWA member has, at press time, been fired for organizing.

The WWA has plans to expand and become the American Workers Association, a nationwide non-majority union for retail and other chain workers. A second chapter of the WWA recently began in Dallas, Texas.

Nick Robinson has worked at Wal-Mart and acted as a steward in the Montpelier Downtown Workers Union, a citywide non-majority union for retail and service workers. He works in a grocery store in Burlington, Vermont.

[back to top]


Maryland Sets a Health Cost for Wal-Mart

By MICHAEL BARBARO
January 13, 2006
                     [back to top]

ANNAPOLIS, Md., Jan. 12 - The Maryland legislature passed a law Thursday that would require Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, a measure that is expected to be a model for other states. The legislature's move, which overrode a veto by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, was a response to growing criticism that Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has skimped on benefits and shifted health costs to state governments. The vote came after a furious lobbying battle by Wal-Mart and by labor and liberal groups, and is likely to encourage lawmakers in dozens of other states who are considering similar legislation. Many state legislatures have looked to Maryland as a test case, as they face fast-rising Medicaid costs, and Wal-Mart's critics say that too many of its employees have been forced to turn to Medicaid. Under the Maryland law, employers with 10,000 or more workers in the state must spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on health insurance, or else pay the difference into a state Medicaid fund. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company was "weighing its options," including a lawsuit to challenge the law because it is close to that 8 percent threshold already. It is unclear how much the new law will cost Wal-Mart in Maryland - or around the country, if similar laws are adopted, because Wal-Mart has not publicly divulged what it spends on health care. But it was concerned enough about the bill to hire four firms to lobby the legislature intensely over the last two months, and contributed at least $4,000 to the re-election campaign of Governor Ehrlich. A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, Mia Masten, said that "everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, but this legislation does nothing to accomplish this goal." "This is about partisan politics," she said, "and this is poor public policy driven by special-interest groups." There are four employers in Maryland with more than 10,000 workers - among them, Johns Hopkins University, the grocery chain Giant Food and the military contractor Northrop Grumman, but only Wal-Mart falls below the 8 percent threshold on health care spending. A Democratic lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, State Senator Gloria G. Lawlah , maintained: "This is not a Wal-Mart bill, it's a Medicaid bill." This bill says to the conglomerates, 'Don't dump the employees that you refuse to insure into our Medicaid systems.' " Opponents said the law would open the door for broader state regulation of health care spending by private companies and would send the message that Maryland is antibusiness. "The message is, 'Don't come here,' " said Senator E. J. Pipkin, a Republican. "This is an anti-jobs bill." Several lawmakers said that in the end, the law would require Wal-Mart to spend only slightly more than it does now on health insurance. But with Wal-Mart refusing to disclose what it pays for health costs, it was unclear how much more it would be required to pay. This is the second time that the Maryland legislature, which is dominated by Democrats, has passed the Wal-Mart bill. Governor Ehrlich vetoed it late last year, inviting a senior Wal-Mart executive to sit by his side as he did so. Indeed, the bill is shaping up as an issue in the fall campaign, with Republicans and their business allies lining up against it, and Democrats and their labor union supporters backing it. Wal-Mart has 53 stores and employs about 17,000 people in Maryland. Debate was particularly emotional among representatives from Maryland's Eastern Shore, where Wal-Mart recently announced plans to build a distribution center that would employ up to 1,000. Wal-Mart executives have strongly suggested that they might build the center elsewhere if lawmakers passed the health care bill. In a passionate speech in the State Senate, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, a Republican, warned that the bill "jeopardizes good employment for my people." "It's going to hurt us very bad," he added, The bill's passage underscored the success of the union campaign to turn Wal-Mart into a symbol of what is wrong in the American health care system. Wal-Mart has come under severe criticism because it insures less than half its United States work force and because its employees routinely show up, in larger numbers than employees of other retailers, on state Medicaid rolls. In response to the complaints, the company introduced a new health care plan late last year, with premiums as low as $11 a month. Consumer advocates specializing in health care are hoping that the Maryland law will be the first of many. "You're going to see similar legislation being introduced," said Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, "and debated in at least three dozen more states, and at least some of those states will end up also requiring large employers to provide health care coverage." Mr. Pollack suggested that he did not expect any groundswell of opposition from corporate America. Most companies, he said, provide insurance and know that the costs of medical treatment for uninsured people are reflected in their insurance premiums. Mr. Pollack said that, by his organization's calculations, the cost of such treatment drove up employer premiums by $922 a family last year. In 2006, he said, the added cost could reach $1,000 a family. "Those employers should welcome the fact that the companies that do not offer coverage now will be forced to step up to the plate," he said. State lawmakers here in Annapolis took repeated swipes at Wal-Mart during debate over the bill on Thursday. It appeared that the company's intensive lobbying campaign in Maryland, including advertisements arguing that the requirement would hurt small businesses, might have soured some lawmakers. Senator Lawlah called the lobbying "horrendous" and adding, "I have never seen anything like it." Frank D. Boston III, the chief lobbyist for Wal-Mart on the health care bill, stood in the main corridor of the Capitol building on Thursday wearing a look of resignation. Referring to unions in the state, he said, "They have a power we can't match, and we worked this bill extremely hard." Class-Action Case in Pennsylvania By Bloomberg News A Pennsylvania judge granted class-action status yesterday to a lawsuit contending that Wal-Mart employees had been pressed to work through breaks and after hours. The suit could include as many as 150,000 current or former employees in Pennsylvania who have worked at a Wal-Mart store or at the company's Sam's Club warehouse chain since March 1998, Michael Donovan, the lead plaintiff's lawyer, said. The latest class-action filing against Wal-Mart came after a California jury last month awarded workers $172.3 million in another off-the-clock case. Wal-Mart is appealing. The company settled a similar case in Colorado for $50 million. Wal-Mart has given "every indication" that it will go to trial rather than settle, Mr. Donovan said. A Wal-Mart spokesman, Kevin Thornton, said the company was considering appealing the decision.

Claudia H. Deutsch contributed reporting from New York for this article.

[back to top]


Walmart Faces Another Lawsuit

WorldNow
Jan 12, 2006                           
[back to top]

Wal-mart is facing a class-action lawsuit by workers in Pennsylvania who say they were pressured into working off the clock. Similar claims have been made in lawsuits filed across the country. A California jury last month awarded wal-mart workers 172-million dollars for illegally denying lunch breaks. The giant retailer also settled a similar Colorado case for 50-million dollars.

All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and WLNS. All Rights Reserved.

[back to top]


Walmart Coming To Upper Yoder?

WJACTV.com
January 12, 2006                     
[back to top]

Cambria County -- Could the Berkley Hills Golf Course soon be replaced with a parking lot and Super Walmart? Well that's exactly what some sources close to Channel 6 News are saying. And, if that's the case, do people really want it?

"The West Hills area could use another shopping area. We miss Am's since it left, before that Hess's. Something to take their place would be welcome I think," says golfer Joe Anderson.

While some feel a Walmart would be a great addition to this area, many avid golfers we spoke with say it would be a travesty.

"You don't have enough recreation places here. I have played here for 40 years and it would be sad to see it go," says Al Garffious.

"There's a lot of memories involved in this golf course and it would be a shame to put a super market in here," says Rich Horvath.

But, will it really happen? Both the zoning office in Upper Yoder and the Johnstown city manager tell Channel 6 News they have not yet been contacted by Walmart and neither has Berkley Hills. We called Walmart's headquarters, but so far, have not heard back. Walmart has also shown interest in Westmont Plaza in Lower Yoder and those we spoke with say they would much rather see it go there.

"If it goes anywhere, it should go over there. I'd hate to see this place go," says Garffious.

Copyright 2006 by WJACTV.com. All rights reserved.

[back to top]


Volusia may sue Putnam over Wal-Mart

By MARCIA LANE
St. Augustine Record (FL)
January 12, 2006                                      
[back to top]

PALATKA -- Putnam County commissioners could find themselves in court over their decision to let a Wal-Mart distribution center be built near Crescent City. The Volusia County Council has voted to challenge the industrial Planned Unit Development (PUD) that the Putnam commissioners approved in December.

Volusia officials have said it is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and will affect their county as well, but they have not had any chance to have a say.

Volusia is seeking a meeting with Putnam to discuss the decision.

Asked how often one county sues another, Putnam County Manager Rick Leary said it's unusual.

"I'd venture to say it's an extremely rare occurrence," Leary said Wednesday .

Leary said he has not seen the official documents nor has he talked with officials from Volusia. He said he'd been handed a telephone message that a Volusia County representative had called seeking a meeting Jan. 26.

"I haven't spoken to anyone personally," he said.

Myers said she knew "nothing other than media reports. We've only had other reporters calling."

In December, the Putnam Planning Board approved rezoning of 235 acres of farmland on the Putnam-Volusia border. Two weeks later the Putnam commission gave its OK. Both were long meetings with dozens of people speaking out against the 850,000-square-foot facility to be built on two-lane Clifton Road.

Volusia Councilman Dwight Lewis was among those speaking out at the commission meeting, urging Putnam officials to reject the proposal. He said he had been on their side of table and had learned decisions made in haste often led to regrets.

Wal-Mart representatives have said 60 percent of the estimated 1,100 daily truck traffic would travel into Volusia. No one from Wal-Mart returned calls Wednesday.

Lewis said the PUD was very much a Development of Regional Impact and Volusia should have been contacted. As it was, he said, he learned about the plan only a couple of weeks beforehand.

That was a complaint from many of those speaking against the project. The windows of a downtown Palatka building are still filled with signs telling people about the meeting and questioning why the public wasn't notified sooner.

Putnam County Chamber of Commerce President Wes Larson said plans for the development had been presented to his group "in confidentiality not secrecy" and no mention could be made until the Wal-Mart board voted on the site. He said the push was in order to take advantage of certain legislation that made it easier for rural counties seeking to put in such development. The legislation went out of existence with the new year.

Larson said the food warehouse and distribution center would bring jobs and taxes to the county. Wal-Mart officials estimated about 600 jobs would be created at the $40 million facility.

Residents were more concerned about environmental concerns, traffic issues and an expected industrial sprawl that would occur on the road that now has about 50 houses on it.

[back to top]


Aide: Ehrlich misspoke when he denied Wal-Mart fundraiser

By TOM STUCKEY
Associated Press
January 12, 2006                         
[back to top] 

Gov. Robert Ehrlich said during a national television interview Wednesday that Wal-Mart did not sponsor a fundraiser for him even though the retail chain sent out invitations more than a year ago soliciting $1,000 donations for a fundraiser for his gubernatorial campaign. "He was not aware" of the Wal-Mart involvement in the fundraiser on Dec. 15, 2004, Greg Massoni, Ehrlich's press secretary, said Wednesday.

Ehrlich's comments came during an interview on a CNBC cable television show, "Street Signs."

The governor was discussing a bill he vetoed that would require any company with 10,000 or more Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care for its workers or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund. Wal-Mart is the only company that currently meets that definition.

According to a transcript of the interview provided by Wal-Mart Watch, a national organization critical of Wal-Mart's employee practices, Ehrlich said it was absolutely incorrect that Wal-Mart had sponsored a fundraiser for him.

But the nation's largest retailer sent out an invitation in 2004 saying that "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. cordially invites you to a reception honoring Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., governor of Maryland."

The invitation solicited donations of $1,000 per person for an event at an Annapolis hotel on Dec. 15, 2004.

"The governor misspoke," Massoni said when asked about Ehrlich's denial that the world's largest retailer had sponsored a fundraiser for him.

But he said Wal-Mart was just one of the sponsors of the event.

"They did not throw the fundraiser," he said. "They, along with other entities, sent out invitations."

Massoni also said the fundraiser took place before the health care bill was introduced in the General Assembly.

The bill vetoed by the governor was passed by the legislature last April. It has become a national model, with bills introduced in at least 30 other states proposing similar laws.

The veto has become the object of a fierce lobbying campaign in Maryland, with Wal-Mart and state business organizations on one side and labor unions and liberal lobbying groups on the other.

Democratic legislative leaders are pressing for a veto override, with the Senate expected to approve the bill over the governor's objections on Thursday. A vote in the House of Delegates, where both sides say the outcome is in doubt, likely will not take place before Friday

[back to top]


Judge: Wal-Mart workers can sue over hours

By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated Press
January 12, 2006                                        
[back to top]

A judge approved a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. by employees in Pennsylvania who say the company pressured them to work off the clock, claims that mirror those in suits filed around the country. A California jury last month awarded Wal-Mart workers $172 million for illegally denied lunch breaks, while Wal-Mart settled a similar Colorado case for $50 million.

In Pennsylvania, the lead plaintiff's suit alleges she worked through breaks and after quitting time -- eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average -- to meet work demands.

"One of Wal-Mart's undisclosed secrets for its profitability is its creation and implementation of a system that encourages off-the-clock work for its hourly employees, ..." Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002, charged in her suit.

The suit was approved for class certification late last month by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Mark I. Bernstein. The class could include nearly 150,000 current or former employees who worked at a Wal-Mart or Sam's Club in the state since March 19, 1998.

"We strongly deny the allegations in this lawsuit. Wal-Mart's policy is to pay associates for every minute they work," the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said in a statement.

Wal-Mart earned $10 billion in 2004.

The class-certification decision followed days of hearings that examined Wal-Mart's pay records, break policies and even electronic systems that show when employees are signed on to cash registers or other machines, said plaintiff's lawyer Michael Donovan.

"There's a lot of electronic evidence, that when you examine it shows that these people aren't getting breaks, but they're continuing to run the cash register or do inventory or whatever," Donovan said.

Wal-Mart, which is appealing the California verdict, may also pursue an appeal of the class-action certification in Philadelphia, according to lawyer Martin D'Urso.

The certification alone does not prove any wrongdoing, the company's statement noted.

The suit was initially filed in 2002. At the time, Wal-Mart employed more than 31,600 people in 123 stores in Pennsylvania, the suit said.

Hummel had to work off the books to meet quotas on cakes she made in the bakery, Donovan said. She was eventually dismissed over her productivity level, he said.

The California jury award -- which includes $115 million in punitive damages -- covers about 115,000 class members. That suit involved unpaid lunch breaks.

Hummel's suit cites a Wal-Mart corporate policy that gives hourly employees one paid 15-minute break during a shift of at least 3 hours and two such breaks, plus an unpaid 30-minute meal break, on a shift of at least 6 hours.

The company's break policies can vary according to state law, spokesman Kevin Thornton said.

According to Donovan, similar suits against Wal-Mart have been granted class certification in states including Massachusetts and Minnesota, but denied in New Jersey.

Shares of Wal-Mart rose 24 cents, or 2.4 percent, to close at $10.41in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

[back to top]


For One Clerk, Fight for Wal-Mart Bill Is Personal

By Mary Otto
Washington Post
January 12, 2006                                    
[back to top]

At lunchtime, in the break room of the Wal-Mart store in Laurel, the television delivered the news from the opening day of the General Assembly: Maryland lawmakers would attempt this week to override the governor's veto of a bill aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to offer more affordable health care coverage to its 17,000 workers in the state.

"You better listen," Cynthia Murray told her co-workers gathered there. When her shift ended at 3 p.m., she turned her back on the store and headed through the rain to Annapolis.

There, the 49-year-old sales associate was embraced by lawmakers and union leaders. Still wearing her blue apron, with its "How May I Help You?" slogan, Murray offered a rare statement in this debate that has drawn national attention and spurred an advertising and lobbying frenzy.

Hers was the voice of someone who might actually be affected.

"I've worked at Wal-Mart for more than five years, and I still can't afford their health care. I know many of my co-workers can't afford it either."

Murray said the $200-a-month plan she was offered to cover her and her husband would cost about a quarter of her monthly pay. So she goes without coverage and prays that she and her family will stay well. She said she might face repercussions for speaking out, but that is beyond her control.

"God puts us in the right place for the right reasons. That is why I am here."

Wal-Mart officials countered that the company recently expanded its range of heath care plans -- including one that provides benefits for as little as $23 a month to a single worker.

"We provide insurance to over 1 million Americans," said Nate Hurst, a spokesman for the giant retailer. "Clearly this bill is about politics -- bad politics."

The debate over the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, commonly known as the Wal-Mart bill, has dominated politics in the run-up to the General Assembly, with the retailer arguing that Democrats have unfairly singled out one company and union leaders arguing that workers deserve better treatment.

Murray's words were a rallying cry to the bill's supporters, who could vote as early as today on whether to overturn last year's veto by Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

The legislation, versions of which are being considered by more than 30 states, would require private employers with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health benefits or make a contribution to the state's Medicaid program. Wal-Mart, with 53 stores and nearly 17,000 workers in Maryland, is the only large employer that does not meet that requirement.

Union activists and some lawmakers contend that the range of benefits offered by Wal-Mart is so expensive relative to workers' salaries, and eligibility is so restrictive, that many turn to Medicaid, the publicly funded health care program for the poor, for their coverage, and to a state health insurance program for children.

That leaves the state to pick up the costs, said House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel).

Busch could not provide figures for how many of Maryland's Wal-Mart workers are on Medicaid, and the AFL-CIO sued unsuccessfully to get that information, said Naomi Walker, the labor organization's director of state legislative programs.

But in 18 states that have released the information, Wal-Mart was among the top three employers that shifted workers into Medicaid, the children's insurance program and other state aid, Walker said.

A survey by Georgia officials found that more than 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's health insurance program for children at a cost of nearly $10 million annually.

Some of Maryland's Wal-Mart workers make so little that they qualify for such poverty programs.

The average wage for full-time sales associates in Maryland is $9.97 an hour, and full-time workers at Wal-Mart put in from 34 to 40 hours a week, Hurst said. At that rate, an employee working 40 hours a week earns $19,142 a year, an income below the $19,350 federal poverty level for a family of four.

Wal-Mart officials have said their company is living up to its responsibilities to provide adequate health care coverage to workers.

Under recently expanded benefits, Maryland workers now have a choice of several plans, including a "value plan" that costs $23 a month for a single worker, $37 a month for a parent and children, and $65 a month for two parents and children, said corporate spokesman Dan Fogleman.

That gives each family member three doctors' visits and three generic prescriptions before being subject to an annual deductible of $1,000. Full-time workers are eligible for enrollment after 180 days. Part-timers can enroll after two years.

"This plan would have been available" to Murray, Fogleman said. He said the company does not steer workers to Medicaid or other state programs.

For her part, Murray said Wal-Mart did not offer her any health insurance option other than the one she could not afford. She said she did not want to turn to Medicaid for help. "I probably do qualify, but that is not the way to go."

[back to top]


Despite signs of 'super' unrest, Wal-Mart committed to project

By CHRIS G. DENINA,
Times-Herald                                     
[back to top]

Despite initial resistance, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will push forward with its proposal to build a Supercenter in Vallejo, a company representative said Wednesday. At this point, three Vallejo City Council members say they are either opposed to or leaning against the discount retailer's plans for a superstore with a footprint nearly triple a football field's. Two other members are taking a wait-and-see approach; the balance of the council could not be reached Wednesday. The outlet, which would sell groceries as well as the merchandise found in a normal-size Wal-Mart, would be built at Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street, the site of a former Kmart store. The superstore will help revitalize the area, Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said. "And it's a great project," he added. "It's going to bring hundreds of new job opportunities and new sales tax to the area." Loscotoff said a Supercenter along the boulevard would generate even more revenue for the city than the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars that flow from the current store at Meadows Plaza. The larger store would employ 550 workers, nearly double the 300 at the Meadows Plaza site, he said. "We've been committed to Vallejo for more than 10 years with our existing site," Los-cotoff said. "We want to continue to be in Vallejo for as long as possible. That's why we brought this Supercenter project forward." Months before the discount retailer submitted its permit application Dec. 27, critics began taking stabs at the proposal. In September, the City Council approved a more stringent process for considering such super-size stores, partly in response to Wal-Mart's plans. One council member this week called the superstore a mismatch for Vallejo's plans to renew the Sonoma Boulevard. Other companies are interested in developing the site with a vision more in tune with the city's, Councilmember Gary Cloutier said. Cloutier, who slammed the Wal-Mart project as a poor fit, noted that Brooks Street LLC of Benicia has indicated interest in building such mixed uses as housing over retail outlets on the site. He declined to name the other company, saying the firm had yet to publicly announce its interest. Wal-Mart's proposal is only delaying that alternative development, Cloutier said. "That's been the holdup," he said. "Once they abandon the site, then it becomes available for other types of development." Wal-Mart has a development leasehold on the property, Cloutier said. Even as city coffers are poised to take a hit when Toys "R" Us closes its Vallejo store, city officials apparently aren't jumping at the chance for the increased tax revenue a Supercenter would be expected to bring. Councilmember Gerald Davis said he first wants to see an economic study of how the project will impact local businesses. Until then, he's not making any judgments, he said. "I think Wal-Mart, certainly you know, serves a lot of our population, and I'd like to see them stay in town," Davis said. "I'm not saying I'm for or against the new one until I see the proposal." Wal-Mart's current Vallejo store, at about 120,000 square feet, is three-quarters the size of the proposed Supercenter. The Meadows Plaza store is slated to close when a new superstore is scheduled to open in American Canyon later this year. "I'm not particularly concerned," Davis said of the planned closure of the existing Vallejo store. "I think the economic health in Vallejo is pretty good." Wal-Mart should stay in Meadows Plaza, Councilmember Tom Bartee believes. "There's concern a large store in the wrong location could have a negative impact on existing business," he said. "I think we need to be sensitive to that." Wal-Mart should stay in Meadows Plaza, he added. Councilmember Stephanie Gomes has shared Cloutier's view that the proposed Sonoma Boulevard location is wrong for the area. Councilmember Hermie Sunga said he'll wait to see an economic study before passing judgment. -

[back to top]


Not a done deal

City official says Wal-Mart proposal incompatible for area

By CHRIS G. DENINA
Times-Herald                                    
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. picked the wrong spot for building a Supercenter in Vallejo, a city councilmember said Tuesday. The retail giant's plan to build a 24-hour-a-day mega store at Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street is incompatible with the city's plans for renewing the area, Councilmember Gary Cloutier said. "As far I'm concerned they're just wasting everyone's time," Cloutier said, calling the proposal "dead on arrival." The city's plans to revamp the Sonoma Boulevard corridor call for developing high-density housing like condominiums above shops to make the area more pedestrian-friendly, he said. "The building doesn't fit on that site," Cloutier said. "It's like a no-brainer." In light of Wal-Mart's plans, the Vallejo City Council last year passed an ordinance requiring such super-sized stores to pay for a study on how they could impact local businesses - especially grocery stores. The proposed supercenter site overlooks White Slough. Under the city's plans for the White Slough area, new development must face the water, acting Development Services Director Brian Dolan said Tuesday. "That's not orientation to the water," Dolan said, pointing at design plans at City Hall showing the Supercenter's entrances facing Sonoma Boulevard. Wal-Mart requested a change to the White Slough specific plan to allow the supercenter project to move forward, Dolan said. If the council says no, the proposal can't continue the way it's now presented, he said. If the project moves forward, Wal-Mart must pay for a study on the Supercenter's effects on the local economy. That includes examining such issues as the tax benefits to the city and the savings to shoppers over local stores. A Wal-Mart spokesman couldn't immediately be reached for comment Tuesday. But in a letter to the city dated Dec. 27, a consulting firm hired by Wal-Mart said requiring buildings to face White Slough would make the site "undevelopable for commercial uses." The store should face Sonoma Boulevard, a major thoroughfare in the city, said Laurie Loaiza, a principal of the development services consulting firm PacLand in Roseville. In making a case for the project, she noted that the site has sat unused for a decade after Kmart closed shop, and the building was demolished in 2004. "Moreover, redevelopment of the site after such an extensive vacancy would serve as a catalyst for revitalizing the area, and the entire Sonoma Boulevard corridor," Loaiza said in the letter. Shoppers like Margaret Woody of Vallejo are looking forward to a Wal-Mart Supercenter in town. "I like Wal-Mart," Woody said. "They have a variety of things. You can just go there and pick up just about anything you want to, you know." The area along Sonoma Boulevard was once home to stores including Kmart and Sears, so Wal-Mart is a natural choice. "It would fit that area," Woody said. Some, however, say they don't want to see a Wal-Mart Supercenter in town. "It's going to kill business in Vallejo," resident Marc Bush said. Such a large store at the site also may displace or impact wildlife in White Slough, he said. "I am totally opposed to putting something up right there," Bush said. Wal-Mart already operates a store in Vallejo. The company plans to close its Meadows Plaza store if a new supercenter is built in Vallejo. Meanwhile, construction is ongoing on a new supercenter at American Canyon's Napa Junction, though opponents are continuing to fight the project in court. -

[back to top]


Wal-Mart makes its move

Retail giant applies to build Supercenter in Vallejo

By CHRIS G. DENINA,
Times-Herald                                       
[back to top] 

The superstore battle is about to heat up in Vallejo. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has applied to build a Supercenter at Sonoma Boulevard and Redwood Street in Vallejo, a city official said Monday. Vallejo now joins a list of Solano and Napa county cities where the retail giant has started the process to build one of its 24-hour-a-day mega shops. In American Canyon, Wal-Mart was hampered by locals taking legal action in trying to stop the Napa Junction project on Hwy. 29, as Sonoma Boulevard is known in Napa County. On Monday, Vallejo opponents say they too will take action. "I'm going to have everybody mobilized within the next week," said Joe Feller of a grassroots group called Vallejoans for Responsible Growth. "We'll oppose them at every step of this process." It could take months for Wal-Mart's application to wind its way through City Hall. As part of the approval process, it would have to first undergo an economic study that would weigh such factors as competition and tax benefits. Both the Planning Commission and later the City Council would consider the proposal. Wal-Mart officials couldn't immediately be reached for comment Monday. But in September, a company representative said moments after the Vallejo City Council approved a more stringent permitting process for super-sized stores that his firm would move forward with its plans. "Regardless, we're going to go forward with our application for a Supercenter on Sonoma Boulevard," spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said at the time. The site was home to a K-Mart store, that was demolished in 2004, many years after it was closed. Unlike the department store chain's other outlets, Wal-Mart Supercenters offer groceries. Opponents say that would threaten smaller supermarkets unable to compete with the discount chain's prices. Officials say the city ordinance wasn't specifically aimed at Wal-Mart, but the retailer may be the first applicant held to the new standards. Superstores have been a hotly debated issue in Vallejo since last year when Wal-Mart's plans riled residents in American Canyon. Some Vallejoans protested against the company, though it had yet to formalize its intentions to build here. Now that the company has turned in a permit application, opponents are likely to intensify their fight. But the project shouldn't he judged yet, Vallejo City Councilmember Hermie Sunga said. "We have to see how the study goes," Sunga said. "I won't make conclusions on that until I see the whole thing. New business is good for one thing, as long as it doesn't affect local businesses." Superstores are about one-and-a-half times the size of a football field. They are defined under the ordinance as devoting as much as a tenth of their space to items, like groceries. The economic analysis would seek answers to questions like: What's the savings for shoppers at a Supercenter vs. another local store? How much would Vallejo benefit in tax dollars? And how do superstore wages stack up against those of similar businesses? Wal-Mart's past announcement that it was eyeing Vallejo for a superstore already has affected the decisions of another grocery chain. Nugget Markets, which operates a Food 4 Less next door to Vallejo's current Wal-Mart, has postponed its plans to build a new Nugget store in Vallejo. Wal-Mart Supercenters could lure customers from other markets by offering groceries including fruits and vegetables, baked goods and meats, in addition to its regular stock of clothing, household goods, auto parts, electronics and sporting goods. If Wal-Mart builds a Vallejo Supercenter, the company will close its Meadows Plaza store, about a mile down Sonoma Boulevard from the proposed site, officials have said. The Vallejo superstore would still be a short drive from its pending American Canyon store. Officials for home improvement chain Home Depot said they want to take over the Meadows Plaza site. It's unclear whether Home Depot would then close its Vallejo store in the city's Northgate area. Last July, Wal-Mart only had four Supercenters statewide - the first was only opened last year in California - but quickly plans to add more throughout the region. The retailer aims to dot Solano and Napa counties with super-sized stores in Vallejo, American Canyon, Suisun City, Fairfield and Dixon. Feller, who's launching a campaign against Wal-Mart, said the company should have learned it's not wanted from the reception it already has gotten. "It's awful," Feller said. "You would have thought they had gotten the hint that we didn't want them."

[back to top]


Wal-Mart benefits furor is spreading across U.S.

By Bill Lambrecht
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 10, 2006                                  
[back to top]

Maryland House Speaker Michael Busch is a beefy ex-football coach who understands that politics, like sports, can turn brutal. But Busch says he hasn't witnessed a lobbying crush such as Maryland is experiencing during the climax of legislation that would force Wal-Mart to provide better health care benefits for its workers.

"In my 20 years here, there has never been this much lobbying on any single issue," said Busch, a Democrat.

In a public policy battle with national implications, Wal-Mart is fighting to uphold Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of legislation requiring companies with more than 10,000 employees to devote 8 percent of their payroll to health care benefits.

Labor unions have vowed to sponsor similar legislation in 31 states this year, Missouri and Illinois among them, in a display of growing activism targeting the retail giant.

In the Maryland Legislature, where Democrats hold strong majorities, the issue is likely to be decided by a vote or two either way. The Senate plans to take up the override by Ehrlich, a Republican, on Thursday and the House as soon as Friday.

Separate polls released on Tuesday show that a solid majority of Maryland residents - 66 percent in one poll and 55 percent in another - support the so-called Fair Share Health Care Act.

Wary of the precedent the measure would set, as well as its growing public appeal, Wal-Mart is working vigorously to kill it. The company, based in Bentonville, Ark., hired at least eight Maryland lobbyists who, like the bill's proponents, are pressuring wavering legislators.

Indeed, Annapolis, a historic town on the Chesapeake Bay that is home to the U.S. Naval Academy, has the air of a political campaign with dueling rallies, news conferences and broadcast ads in the run-up to the vote.

On Tuesday, labor unions and other proponents allied in a campaign called Wake-Up Wal-Mart began airing television ads asserting that nearly half of the children of Wal-Mart workers have no health care or rely on taxpayer programs.

Wal-Mart has its own heavy buy of radio ads in which an announcer accuses "party bosses and special interests" of pressing their own agenda.

"This isn't about insuring the three-quarters of a million Marylanders who are uninsured. It's about playing politics with a single company," a woman in a Wal-Mart ad asserts.

Wal-Mart threatens in another ad to cancel construction of a distribution center that will provide 800 jobs in one of Maryland's depressed areas. Wal-Mart already has 17,000 Maryland employees.

Besieged by both sides

Nate Hurst, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in an interview that "we have to factor into our equation whether Maryland is a state in which we want to grow."

A now infamous internal Wal-Mart memo further inflamed the Maryland debate. The memo, written in October by the company's executive vice president for benefits to its board of directors, asserted that Wal-Mart critics "are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance."

Hurst said, "The most important thing about that memo is that, like a lot of businesses across the country, we are struggling with health care and trying to find sensible solutions." He added that the company recently made coverage more affordable and accessible for its workers.

Hurst asserted that two of the labor unions involved in the Maryland legislation, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Service Employees International Union, were upset because of their failure to organize Wal-Mart workers.

"It's really just part of a larger political agenda," he said.

The company faces a tough battle in Maryland, largely because of the formidable clout of Busch, who single-handedly frustrated lobbyists seeking to legalize gambling in Maryland. He's given no indication of giving into Wal-Mart.

"This is a debate about providing benefits like a good corporate citizen. And when a large employer like Wal-Mart doesn't do that, it puts a burden on the entire system," he said Tuesday outside Maryland's Statehouse.

Busch called Wal-Mart " a predatory company that puts small companies out of business."

But House delegate Anthony O'Donnell, a Republican whip, referred to the legislation as "the first step in government dictating what health care costs businesses have to pay."

House delegate Sue Kullen, a Maryland Democrat, was besieged by lobbying on both sides since declaring that she was undecided.

She said that a Wal-Mart lobbyist had just left her office and that her desk was piled with polls and paper on the issue.

After listening for weeks to the pros and cons, Kullen declared a few days ago that she intended to vote for the override even though she doubted that the bill would have a big impact on health care.

"This is a kick in the pants for Wal-Mart," she said.

Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Act

Requires for-profit companies with more than 10,000 employees to devote at least 8 percent of their payroll to health care benefits or contribute an equivalent amount to the state's health program for low-income residents.

In Maryland, six companies employ more than 10,000, but only one - Wal-Mart - spends less than 8 percent on health care for its employees.

Labor unions and activists plan to introduce versions of the legislation in 31 states where they think the issue has broad support, Missouri and Illinois among them. Company size and requirements will vary by state.

Labor unions and other backers say the legislation will force Wal-Mart to provide better benefits, thereby reducing taxpayer burden for Wal-Mart workers on public assistance.

Wal-Mart and other opponents say such bills amount to a tax and would lead to further government efforts to regulate health care.

[back to top]


fair share for health care

Dear Kenneth,

[back to top]

Last spring, Maryland's State Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill called Fair Share Health Care. This landmark legislation makes sure large, profitable corporations, like Wal-Mart, pay their fair share for health care. And, while Wal-Mart does everything it can to try and stop this important health care bill from becoming law in Maryland, we are going to introduce Fair Share Health Care in every state in the country. We have the power to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable for their behavior and it starts with making sure Wal-Mart pays its fair share for health care. Because when they don't, the results are disastrous. For example, 600,000 Wal-Mart workers have no company health care and nearly 1 out of every 2 children of Wal-Mart workers has no health care or is forced onto a taxpayer program at a cost of $1.2 billion every year. Please sign up now to be a citizen co-sponsor of Fair Share Health Care legislation in your state:

 http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html

We are building the largest grassroots movement to change a corporation in history. We are now a powerful force for change with more than 165,000 supporters in every state in the country. And, while we are building a positive force for social change, Wal-Mart is building a "war room" to defend the indefensible. Filled with high-priced image consultants, special interest lobbyists and a mass of cash, Wal-Mart is sparing no expense to defend their race-to-the-bottom business model. But, no corporation can defeat the American people. You have the power to change Wal-Mart and it begins with health care. We need your help to introduce Fair Share Health Care in every state in the America. Its time to level the playing field, and make Wal-Mart pay its fair share for health care. Please sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor of Fair Share Health Care legislation in your state:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html

Our campaign to change Wal-Mart has unprecedented momentum. Wal-Mart is stumbling. In the first two weeks of this year, Wal-Mart reported its worst December sales in 5 years, apologized for making racist DVD recommendations and saw its former vice-chairman plead guilty to fraud. Now is the time to keep building public pressure for Wal-Mart to change. Please help us introduce Fair Share Health Care legislation in every state and join with us in growing our movement by signing up your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to the fastest growing social movement in America.

Thank you for all that you do.

Sincerely,

Paul Blank
WakeUpWalMart.com

P.S. We will begin running a television advertisement in support of the Fair Share Health Care Act. Please visit the following link to see our new ad and send it to a friend:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/fair-share.html

[back to top]


Was Wal-Mart's Anti-Union Image Used as a Shield?

By MICHAEL BARBARO
January 9, 2006                      
[back to top]

In December 2004, shortly before Thomas M. Coughlin left his job as the second-ranking executive at Wal-Mart Stores, he instructed a subordinate to order him a $1,700 laptop computer, which he later charged to Wal-Mart. "This," he wrote to the aide, in an e-mail message later disclosed by the company, "is to be used on the union project." The union project, according to Mr. Coughlin, was a secret scheme, approved by senior Wal-Mart executives, to pay union members for information about which stores they planned to organize. A year later, when Mr. Coughlin was accused of misusing more than $500,000 in company funds through fraudulent reimbursements, the union project became the heart of his defense, and it immediately transformed the case into a symbol of anti-unionism on the part of Wal-Mart. Reporters seized on it, labor groups issued a flurry of angry press releases about it and the National Labor Relations Board began an investigation into it. But Mr. Coughlin's agreement to plead guilty to federal wire fraud and tax evasion charges, which two people close to the negotiations disclosed on Friday, and the lack of evidence that he used the missing money to spy on unions raise doubts as to whether such a project even existed. A nearly yearlong investigation, in which prosecutors reviewed records of Mr. Coughlin's travel, phone calls and e-mail messages, produced no evidence that he or any other executive at Wal-Mart ever paid a union member for information, according to one person briefed on the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr. Coughlin is not scheduled to officially enter the plea until later this month. Lacking evidence of the scheme, the Coughlin case follows a far more familiar track - a highflying executive, paid millions of dollars a year, who stole from his company. Wal-Mart, in a separate legal complaint with a former Coughlin subordinate, called the union project a "complete fabrication." But what made Mr. Coughlin's defense so powerful - and, in a way, so convenient - was that it seemed so plausible to longtime observers of the company. Such a scheme "certainly would not be out of character," said Harley Shaiken, a professor on labor issues at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied Wal-Mart for years. "Given Wal-Mart's antipathy for unions and its aggressiveness in fighting them, what Coughlin fabricated appeared to be real." Wal-Mart has long been known for its bare-knuckled approach to fighting unions. When employees at an outlet in Canada voted last year to unionize, the retailer shut the store down, arguing it was unprofitable. In 2000, shortly after 11 Wal-Mart meat cutters in Texas voted to form a union, the company eliminated meat-cutter jobs companywide and announced it would use prepackaged meat instead. The National Labor Relations Board has filed dozens of complaints accusing Wal-Mart of using hardball tactics to fight unions, such as improperly firing union supporters and threatening to deny bonuses to management if workers unionized. In one case, Mr. Coughlin - at the time, he was chief of Wal-Mart Stores in the United States - was accused by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union of personally trying to improperly influence a union vote at a Wal-Mart auto center in Arizona by showing up at the store and speaking with employees about their working conditions. Indeed, when word of the union project first emerged a year ago, the food and commercial workers union, which is trying to unionize Wal-Mart's 1.3 million workers in the United States, believed it enough to file an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint touched off an agency investigation that is continuing. It was Mr. Coughlin who worked hardest to keep the union project - or at least the idea of it - alive, according to corporate records from Wal-Mart. Over a period of several years, when he headed the United States operations of Wal-Mart and was vice chairman of the company and a board member, he mentioned it frequently to his underlings, almost always to explain why he needed large sums of company money. In 2002, for example, Mr. Coughlin told one of his aides to prepare two fake invoices, each for $5,000, that "the union people in Vegas needed," according to a lawsuit Wal-Mart filed to strip Mr. Coughlin of his retirement benefits. The aide sent the money, which was used to purchase a $10,810 custom-built hunting vehicle for Mr. Coughlin, according to Wal-Mart. In 1997, Mr. Coughlin told the same aide to obtain a corporate calling card number so he could make long-distance calls to "the union people," Wal-Mart said. For five years, the company alleges, Mr. Coughlin used the card number to make lengthy telephone calls to and from cities where his children were attending college. Neither Mr. Coughlin nor a representative for Wal-Mart returned phone messages yesterday. Mr. Coughlin's employees appeared to have doubts about the union project. According to the company, one of Mr. Coughlin's top deputies disclosed in interviews with company investigators that he "always suspected there was no union project. " After reviewing expense account statements and e-mail messages, he concluded instead that it was a "cover for his fraud." But if Wal-Mart employees had doubts about the project, and the validity of Mr. Coughlin's expenses, they kept them private. Mr. Coughlin, a 6-foot-4 former football player and hunting buddy of Wal-Mart's founder, Sam Walton, was among the most powerful executives at the company. By 2003, as vice chairman, he oversaw Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and walmart.com. For much of that time, he was responsible for Wal-Mart's loss prevention department, which investigated alleged theft and fraud by employees. Indeed, Mr. Coughlin's supposed use of misappropriated gift cards and false invoices to pay for personal purchases like CD's, beer and hunting gear was not disclosed by the people he worked with but by a low-level store employee. The worker called Wal-Mart's headquarters to inquire about Mr. Coughlin's use of a gift card - originally designated for store employees to improve morale - to buy a pair of contact lenses. People briefed on the matter said Mr. Coughlin might still advance the union project defense before a judge later this month in Fort Smith, Ark., not far from the company's headquarters in Bentonville. It is unclear why he would pursue such a defense, because his lawyers apparently presented no firm evidence to support it and prosecutors found no evidence to back it up, according to people involved in the case. If the plea deal holds, Mr. Coughlin may serve more than two years in jail and pay restitution of at least $350,000, according to people briefed on the matter. "This is probably his last choice," said Mr. Shaiken, the professor of labor studies. "It represents few options and a pretty grim reality for him." "He wanted to bargain with" the union project, Mr. Shaiken said, "but it did not prove possible."

 [back to top]


Wal-Mart Sees How Fast Bad Press Spreads Online

By Frank Ahrens
Sunday, January 8, 2006             
[back to top]

Used to be, when you were angry with a corporation or a government or even a person, you had to stand outside the building and hold a sign, or at least yell a lot. Your distribution -- and potential impact -- was limited to the range of your voice or the size of the letters on your sign. If you hoped for a wider audience, you had to hector the local television news to show up. If you got really lucky, its feed was picked up by the networks, and you'd get 30 seconds at the end of the evening news. But now, you can go from zero to global in a matter of minutes, as Wal-Mart painfully found out last week. Early Thursday afternoon, some bloggers discovered a horrifying sight: Wal-Mart's retail Web site was telling potential buyers of "Planet of the Apes" DVDs that they might also like to buy DVDs featuring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., black boxing legend Jack Johnson and black actress Dorothy Dandridge. In another nasty linkage, those titles were also recommended to buyers of a "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" DVD. Zowie. Perceived racism is like anthrax to a company: potentially deadly and hard to clean off. The graveness of the situation was reflected in Wal-Mart's quick public apology, in which it said it was "heartsick" over the incident. As of late Friday, the Bentonville, Ark., retail giant insisted its site was not hacked. Instead it called the unfortunate product linkage a problem involving its "mapping" technology. On a retail site, mapping takes product titles -- books, CDs, DVDs, etc. -- and thematically links them to other products. It has turned out to be a powerful consumer theory, made popular by Amazon.com, based on the assumption that consumers will buy other stuff if it's similar to the stuff they just bought. The first time I noticed this practice was nearly a decade ago on one of the early versions of http://www.allmusic.com/ . I'd look up a signer, say, Joe Jackson, and the site listed "similar artists," such as Elvis Costello and Graham Parker. I thought, "How'd they know I liked those guys, too?" Turns out, like most of us, I'm pretty predictable. Only rabidly self-conscious and eclectic hipsters can outsmart The Map. Wal-Mart's mapping technology is based on the same cross-referenced affinity-link assumptions as Allmusic's. But as mega-corps such as Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target profit from the Web, they are discovering it has drawbacks, as well. Indeed, Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, has found a bull's-eye on its back bigger than Target's. Anti-Wal-Mart sites, such as http://www.againstthewal.com/ and http://www.walmartwatch.com/ , blast the company for what they consider poor practices and all manner of evils, from driving local retailers out of business to paying its employees low wages. As happened with the supposed Air National Guard service records of President Bush and countless lesser stories, the Web -- bloggers, alt-news sites and so forth -- can now drive mainstream news coverage. Folks who never read a blog but read papers and watch the news now know that significant anti-Wal-Mart sentiment exists. Thursday was a bad day for critical thought. It was amazing, frankly, how quickly some bloggers were ready to believe that Wal-Mart linked its "Planet of the Apes" DVDs to black-themed DVD titles on purpose. Aside from kiddie porn and e-mail scams, this is perhaps the most troubling trait of the Internet: Rather than opening minds, it can close them, thanks to echo-chamber Web sites and blogs. Which, coincidentally, works on the same premise as retail-site mapping. We like to read Web sites and blogs that we agree with and that reinforce our opinions. Aside from the few of you who practice "know your enemy" browsing, how many of you liberals read http://www.nationalreview.com/ ? How many of you conservatives frequent http://www.thenation.com/ ? People who hate Wal-Mart are going to flock to anti-Wal-Mart sites and blogs. And they did in droves on Thursday, writing sentiments along the lines of, "Well, what do you expect from a company that has non-progressive labor rules?" In other words: "Well, of course Wal-Mart is racist. Look at how they engage in various practices we don't agree with." Kind of makes me nostalgic for the old days, when the only damage a kook with a sign and a bullhorn could do was annoy people on the sidewalk.

[back to top]


Former Wal-Mart Executive to Admit Fraud

By Amy Joyce and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post
Saturday, January 7, 2006                 
[back to top]

Former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vice chairman Thomas M. Coughlin has agreed to plead guilty to five counts of wire fraud and one count of tax evasion later this month, according to a source familiar with the case. Government and defense lawyers have agreed that Coughlin would serve 27 months in prison, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plea is still pending. The judge could give him a different sentence. The plea, which came after several months of discussions, will be handled in Fort Smith, Ark. It is unclear whether the plea deal requires Coughlin to cooperate with investigators who might be probing other conduct within Wal-Mart. Coughlin, who was the No. 2 executive at the company until January 2005, was ousted from the board last March over allegations of financial improprieties estimated to have cost up to $500,000. A six-week investigation prompted the company to fire three other employees. Jared Bowen, a former vice president who was fired, is suing the company, claiming he was fired illegally in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Coughlin. The company responded that Bowen participated in the same acts he challenged. Wal-Mart's investigation focused on the alleged unauthorized use of corporate gift cards and suspect expense reports. The company said it reported the matter to the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas based on the findings of the investigation. Robert Hey, a former Wal-Mart vice president who had reported to Coughlin, pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud in November, admitting that he manipulated invoices to embezzle money that was funneled "to a senior Wal-Mart executive." According to a company report released in July, Coughlin, whose compensation topped $4 million in 2004, used company money to pay for CDs; beer; an all-terrain vehicle; a customized dog kennel; and a computer, a graduation gift for his son, explaining that they were routine business expenses. Until this point, Coughlin maintained that the money was spent on anti-union activities, such as paying people to identify stores where union leaders planned to organize. Wal-Mart executives had said there was no evidence to support that claim. The company opposes union organization of its workers, arguing that unions would create inefficient labor rules and create more costs for the workers in the form of union dues. The company maintains that it has an "open-door policy" that encourages employees to come forward with concerns. The plea agreement was reported by the Wall Street Journal yesterday afternoon on its Web site. "We are not commenting on this at all," a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said in an e-mail. An assistant to William W. Taylor III, Coughlin's attorney, said he would not comment on the matter.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart ends automated movie suggestions

By Marcus Kabel
Associated Press
January 6, 2006                  
[back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores is shutting down the automated system that creates movie recommendations on its shopping website after the system randomly linked a Planet of the Apes DVD to films about African-Americans including Martin Luther King Jr., the company said Thursday. Wal-Mart said it had fixed the immediate problem by removing what it called the "offensive combinations" from a Web page on www.walmart.com advertising a boxed DVD set, Planet Of The Apes: The Complete TV Series.

Under "Similar Items," the page linked shoppers to four movies about the lives of the slain civil-rights leader, actress Dorothy Dandridge, boxer Jack Johnson and singer Tina Turner. It was manually changed by 5:30 p.m. CT to link shoppers instead to DVD sets of Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Wars.

But the world's largest retailer said the automated system that generates links for shoppers from one movie to others of similar interest was malfunctioning and was in the process of being shut down. All cross references would be removed as soon as technically possible until the system can be fixed, Wal-Mart said.

"We are heartsick that this happened and are currently doing everything possible to correct the problem," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said in a statement.

Wal-Mart moved swiftly after a link to the page for Planet of the Apes began circulating by e-mail on the Internet.

"Walmart.com's item mapping process does not work correctly and at this point is mapping seemingly random combinations of titles. We were horrified to discover that some hurtful and offensive combinations are being mapped together," Williams said.

"We are deeply sorry that this happened," she added.

Williams said the malfunctioning system had to be shut down because it could potentially create an almost endless number of possible combinations between the thousands of movies available on the website.

"To further illustrate the bizarre nature of this technical issue, the site is also mapping movies such as Home Alone and Power Puff Girls to African-American themed DVDs," Williams said.

A non-African American themed documentary about surfers, Riding Giants, links to the same list of seemingly unrelated fantasy films that the King biopic does, including Polar Express and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Wal-Mart's organized critics slammed the error.

"Wal-Mart must not only explain how this could possibly happen, but owes all of America, especially African-Americans, an apology for what was either a racist joke or just incredibly bad judgment," said Chris Kofinis, spokesman for Wake Up Wal-Mart, a campaign group run by the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

[back to top]


Unions seek to spread cost of health care

Chicago Tribune (KRT)
01/06/2006
                      [back to top]

Jan. 6--Labor unions announced a campaign Thursday to enact laws in 29 states including Illinois to ensure that big employers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contribute more to their employees' health-care costs.

Proposed "fair share health care" laws, modeled after a controversial initiative in Maryland, would require large corporations to spend a certain percentage of their payrolls on health care or contribute to a fund for uninsured workers. Percentages would vary from state to state depending on the average outlay by big employers in each locale.

The union campaign, announced by the AFL-CIO, a 53-union coalition representing 9 million workers, comes amid renewed interest in solutions to the rising number of uninsured and the ballooning costs of public programs that must pick up the tab when working families can't afford health care.

"The issue is back on the table," said Jack Meyer, president of nonprofit Economic and Social Research Institute, a health-care research group in Washington. "There's a lot of interest in doing something limited (affecting) the large employers out of concern that some of their employees are going on Medicaid. A lot of states are looking at it."

In Maryland, lawmakers are expected to vote next week on whether to override Gov. Bob Ehrlich's veto of a bill that would require companies with more than 10,000 workers to spend 8 percent of payroll on health care. The measure is known as the "Wal-Mart bill" because the retail giant is the only corporation that would be affected.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney cited a study tallying $21 billion in annual health-care costs that fall on taxpayers when companies fail to provide affordable insurance for workers.

"Our health-care system is broken, but it didn't just split apart," he said. "Big companies such as Wal-Mart are pulling it apart and profiting at taxpayers' expense."

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said employees can choose from among a number of health plans that cost as little as $11 a month.

"These bills will do nothing to address the enormous number of uninsured or control the soaring cost of health care in America," she told Bloomberg News. "(Union leaders) should focus on solving our nation's health-care challenges, not attacking a company that's providing working families with access to affordable health insurance."

In Illinois, unions backed a bill enacted in 2004 that requires the state to develop a plan for a full range of health-care options by July 1, 2007. The bill does not set requirements for business but aims for universal coverage.

As part of the new "fair share" campaign, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881 will take the lead in getting legislation introduced in Illinois, said Naomi Walker, AFL-CIO director of state legislative programs.

Employers' health insurance costs are expected to go up 9.9 percent this year to a national average per employee of about $8,046, according to benefits consultant Hewitt Associates.

Workers on average will pay more than $134 per month for health insurance, more than double what they paid five years ago.

Copyright (c) 2006, Chicago Tribune

[back to top]


Make Wal-Mart Pay a Fair Share for Health Care

[back to top]

Dear ACORN members and supporters,

All across America, citizens, newspaper editorials and elected leaders are calling on large corporations, like Wal-Mart, to pay their fair share for health care. The first Fair Share Health Care bill in the country started in Maryland and passed the state legislature only to be vetoed by Wal-Mart with Maryland's Governor standing by the company's side. On January 11th, 2006, Maryland legislators will vote on whether or not to override Republican Governor Erlich's veto of the first Fair Share Health Care bill in America.

Tell your Governor it's time for large corporations, like Wal-Mart, to pay their fair share for health care in your state! For too long, the legislative process has begun with high-priced lobbyists paid for by big business. That stops now! You have the power to hold large corporations accountable. You have the power to be the first to co-sponsor legislation called "Fair Share for Health Care" in your state.

Please sign up to be a Citizen Co-Sponsor today: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html?va_refer=acorn

ACORN has been working with WakeUpWalMart.com in various cities across the country, flyering customers on Black Friday, canvassing neighborhoods, hosting movie screenings, organizing faith-based candlelight vigils, among other actions. Wal-Mart has called our coordinated organizing the "most organized, sophisticated" campaign to change a corporation in history.

But, we need your help today. It is morally wrong for Wal-Mart to make over $10 billion in profit and leave more than half of its employees without company-provided health insurance. Yet, instead of taking responsibility for their greed, Wal-Mart would rather spend millions of dollars defending it.

Please help us send Wal-Mart a wake-up call. Co-sponsor legislation requiring Wal-Mart to pay its fair share for health care: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html?va_refer=acorn

By becoming a Citizen Co-Sponsor you are taking the power out of the big, corporate special interests and putting it into the hands of everyday citizens wanting a better America. In the coming months, citizens - starting in Maryland - will have a chance to pressure their elected officials to make real change and help bring health care to many workers and their children.

Wal-Mart's power is its profits. Our power is the American people. The American people shouldn't have to pay up to $2.5 billion a year to subsidize the largest corporation in the world. The American people shouldn't have to subsidize Wal-Mart's health care.

On behalf of the American people, with your help, we will change Wal-Mart and change America.

Thank you for all you continue to do,

Jeremy Bird
Wake-Up Wal-Mart Campaign Field Director
202-728-1827
jbird@ufcw.org
www.wakeupwalmart.com

[back to top]


Wal-Mart Web Site Makes Racial Connections

DVD Shoppers Get Offensive Referrals

By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post
Friday, January 6, 2006      
[back to top]

Wal-Mart apologized yesterday after its retail Web site directed potential buyers of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Planet of the Apes" DVDs to also consider purchasing DVDs with African American themes. The world's largest retailer said in a statement that it was "heartsick" over the racially offensive grouping and that the site was linking "seemingly random combinations of titles." "It's just simply not working correctly," said Mona Williams, vice president of corporate communications for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The company said it was alerted to the problem early yesterday afternoon after word began spreading among bloggers. When visitors to Walmart.com requested "Planet of the Apes: The Complete TV Series" on DVD, four other movies were recommended under the heading "Similar Items." Those films included "Martin Luther King: I Have A Dream/Assassination of MLK" and "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson." Williams said similar titles were called up when the DVD of the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was requested. There were three such combinations involving those two movies and African Americans films, she said. Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart said in a written statement that it removed the combinations at 6:30 p.m. Eastern time. By last evening, "Planet of the Apes" was linked to DVDs of the fifth season of the CBS comedy "Everybody Loves Raymond" and the 10th season of the NBC hit "Friends." The company said it planned to shut down its entire cross-selling system overnight. Like most other major retail sites, including Amazon.com, Wal-Mart's site directs users searching for movies to other titles that might interest them; Wal-Mart calls the process "mapping." Wal-Mart said last night that the system was malfunctioning but did not explain why or how. Williams said the company has "absolutely no evidence" that the problem was intentional. A company statement said that the site had also linked African American films to the movies "Home Alone" and "The Powerpuff Girls." Marty Hires, a spokesman, said the company is investigating. Williams said news of the problem was first posted on a blog. The company then learned about the offensive combinations when a reporter called to ask about it. The blog Firedoglake, run by Jane Hamsher in Oregon, posted news of the combination yesterday afternoon under the heading "So Wrong." The incident illustrated how quickly a firestorm can build on the Internet. Two minutes after the post appeared on Hamsher's blog, it was up on the Crooks and Liars site. Within hours, more than 100 comments were posted to that site, questioning such things as Wal-Mart's agenda and the technicalities of mapping. Wal-Mart has been in a public relations battle over the past year. In May, the company apologized for a newspaper advertisement in Arizona that equated a proposed state zoning ordinance with Nazi book-burning. Then came the Robert Greenwald documentary "The High Cost of Low Price," which criticized Wal-Mart's treatment of employees. The company fought back by hiring former political operatives to polish its image and has joined in founding a group called "Working Families for Wal-Mart" that helps promote positive stories. Yesterday, Wal-Mart repeatedly apologized for the offensive material on its Web site. "We are deeply sorry that this happened," it said in a written statement.

[back to top]


HERCULES Wal-Mart not good fit, study says

Conclusion differs from report cited by retail giant

Patrick Hoge,
SF Chronicle
Friday, January 6, 2006            
[back to top]

Wal-Mart wants to build a store in the booming East Bay town of Hercules, but critics there say the giant discount retailer would be too lowbrow for upscale locals. On Thursday, opponents publicized an economic impact analysis that said Wal-Mart serves shoppers with a typical annual income of less than $50,000 -- far less than the nearly $90,000 average in Hercules. "They (the stores) don't have to be totally upscale, but we need some better things," said opponent Tom Petersen, a psychologist who lives in an area of million-dollar plus homes called Victoria by the Bay. In May, Wal-Mart proposed building a 17-acre shopping center anchored by one of its general merchandise stores at the intersection of John Muir Parkway and Alfred Nobel Drive, where another developer previously received approval for a neighborhood-serving shopping center. In support of its plan, the company gave the city a report by CB Richard Ellis, a global real estate services firm that said a Wal-Mart would fit well in Hercules and would capture a significant amount of money that city residents now spend elsewhere. Petersen and other members of the group Friends of Hercules held a news conference Thursday to publicize a peer review of the Wal-Mart study commissioned by the city that came to dramatically different conclusions. Attending were Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia and Frank Zisman, president of the city's Chamber of Commerce. Produced by Strategic Economics of Berkeley, the peer review predicted that a Wal-Mart would not serve the needs of local residents, as the city's general plan requires, but would instead draw from surrounding cities, which have lower incomes. It also said the types of shops that typically come with a Wal-Mart would negatively affect other retail developments planned nearby along the city's undeveloped waterfront. "The disparity between those retailers seeking co-tenancy with Wal-Mart and retailers complementary to a quality neighborhood and community shopping center is vast," the report states. "The presence of a Wal-Mart could serve as a 'barrier' to those customers seeking a higher-end, more specialized type of retail that would be offered in the Waterfront District." Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said Thursday that he had not seen the Strategic Economics report and could not comment on it. "What we have here is competing reports," he said. Hundreds of people have expressed support for the Wal-Mart plan since it was unveiled, he said. "They want to be able choose where they spend their hard-earned dollars," he said. The proposed store would be on the edge of several new upscale neighborhoods that have received widespread recognition as examples of "new urbanism," an approach to city planning that emphasizes density and use by pedestrians. Strategic Economics noted that the nearby Bayside and Promenade residential communities feature "New England village" style homes and suggested that surrounding retail development should have a compatible "themed identity." The City Council already approved a shopping center on the site in 2003 that was supposed to be a "neighborhood" commercial and retail shopping center with uses such as a grocery store, drugstore and other commercial space including two restaurant pads. But in 2004, the Lewis Group of Sacramento, which owned the land, wanted to change the project so that a Wal-Mart would take up most of the space. Then last fall, around the time Strategic Economics was finishing its report, the Lewis Group withdrew its development application and sold the land to Wal-Mart. The city Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a hearing on Wal-Mart's proposal on Feb. 6. City officials have indicated that they will recommend the commission certify that the project will not have a negative environmental impact, including economically.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart in Their Sights, States Press for Health Benefits

By MICHAEL BARBARO
The New York Times
January 5, 2006                   
[back to top]

In a national campaign aimed squarely at Wal-Mart Stores, lawmakers in 30 states are preparing to introduce legislation that would require large corporations to increase spending on employee health insurance, according to the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which planned to announce the initiative this morning. The legislative push underscores state lawmakers' growing frustration with the progress of federal health care reform and the success of a union effort to turn Wal-Mart into a symbol of everything that is wrong with the system.

In Maryland this year, legislators passed a bill forcing large employers like Wal-Mart to insure more of their workers. The governor vetoed the bill but there appeared to be enough votes for an override in the next few weeks, which would hand unions and their supporters a major victory.

Seizing on momentum from the Maryland bill, lawmakers plan to introduce similar legislation in Connecticut, Kansas, Florida, Colorado and Tennessee, among other states, according to A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders.

''We know that Congress is not going to take action any time soon,'' said Naomi Walker, director of state legislative programs at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. ''So states are finding their own way to get at this problem.''

The measures are also backed by the Service Employees International and the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and two union-backed groups: Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart.

The bills, some of which are still being drafted, vary but generally stipulate that a state's largest private employers devote 8 percent to 11 percent of their payroll to health insurance or contribute a fee to a state fund. Some require nonprofit organizations to devote slightly less.

None of the bills are explicitly directed at Wal-Mart, but because of its size -- Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in many states -- nearly all of them would require the retailer to pay more for employee health care. The Maryland bill, for example, is expected to affect only Wal-Mart.

Lawmakers complain that health insurance remains out of reach for many of Wal-Mart's 1.2 million workers, forcing thousands of them to turn to state-sponsored programs or forgo coverage altogether.

''It is real easy to use Wal-Mart as an example and motivator on this issue,'' said Representative Terese L. Berceau, a Democratic from Wisconsin, who is sponsoring a health insurance bill there.

Wisconsin has found that 4,700 Wal-Mart employees rely on state-sponsored health insurance, the most of any company in the state. But Ms. Berceau conceded that the bill was unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled legislature.

Wal-Mart denounced the campaign yesterday, saying it already provides health insurance to nearly half of its employees. This fall, after years of criticism, the company introduced what it said was more affordable benefits, including a plan with $11 monthly premiums. As a result, Wal-Mart said, 70,000 new employees signed up for insurance for 2006, bringing the number covered by the company's plan to 638,000.

''This is just the latest negative attack from Washington union leaders,'' said Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. ''These bills will do nothing to address the enormous number of uninsured or control the soaring costs of health care.''

Business leaders also criticized the union-backed legislation, arguing that it would brand any state that passed it as unfriendly to corporations. ''It creates a real disincentive for business to locate in that state,'' said Randy Johnson of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Representative Marcia G. Moody of New Hampshire, a Democrat, said the legislation she was sponsoring would ultimately help businesses. Her bill, which would require companies with more than 1,500 employees to devote 8 percent of payroll to health insurance, should increase employee productivity, she said.

''They will not be out sick all the time,'' she said. ''A person that has health insurance has stability.''

[back to top]


Wal-Mart sees Q4 profit at low end of forecast

Reuters
Thu Jan 5           
[back to top]  

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news) on Thursday said fourth-quarter profit would likely reach only the low end of its forecast after a disappointing December.

The world's biggest retailer, which confirmed that December sales rose just 2.2 percent at its U.S. stores open at least a year, said it expects profit near the low end of its forecast of 82 cents to 86 cents per share.

Analysts, on average, expected 83 cents per share, according to Reuters Estimates.

"Wal-Mart dropped a bomb on the market with earnings guidance at the low end of its 82-86 cents range, as they clearly saw some margin pressure and most likely increased advertising and promotional expenses," said Ken Perkins, president of research firm Retail Metrics.

Wal-Mart got off to a fast start to the holiday season with aggressive advertising and discounts that helped drive strong November sales. But demand dropped early in December as shoppers waited until the last minute for deeper discounts.

As a result, Wal-Mart said the Friday before Christmas was the busiest shopping day of the year.

Demand for gift cards was particularly strong, which bodes well for January, and Wal-Mart forecast 3 percent to 5 percent same-store sales growth for that month. Retailers record revenue from gift cards when they are redeemed, not when they are sold, so that tends to deflate December sales.

Total sales for the five-week period ended December 30 rose 6.3 percent to $40.8 billion.

Shares of Wal-Mart dropped 19 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $46.13 in late-morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. 

[back to top]


Wal-Mart eying Hesperia, Calif.

San Bernardino County Sun (CA) (KRT)
01/04/2006
                                        [back to top]

Jan. 4--HESPERIA -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to build a supercenter store here that will employ more than 500, the company announced recently.

The store, planned to be more than 200,000 square feet, is the second announced for the High Desert, said spokesman Kevin McCall.

Previously, Wal-Mart announced it was building a supercenter in Apple Valley.

A supercenter offers all the products of a Wal-Mart store plus a full line of groceries, including bakery goods, deli foods, frozen foods, meat, dairy products and fresh produce.

Wal-Mart has opened supercenters in La Quinta, Hemet and Palm Springs.

The company plans to open one in Beaumont this year and has announced supercenters for Fontana, Redlands, Chino and Moreno Valley.

The Hesperia supercenter will be built on the southeast corner of Escondido Avenue and Main Street, just east of Interstate 15.

Mayor Tad Honeycutt said the proposed supercenter likely will "receive a lot of support from the City Council."

"This will be the first Wal-Mart in Hesperia. It's unusual for a city of almost 80,000 not to have a Wal-Mart," he said.

Because plans have not even been filed for the new store, Honeycutt said the first quarter of 2007 would be the earliest the store could open.

Wal-Mart has not announced a proposed opening date, McCall said.

The new supercenter would contribute more than $500,000 in annual revenue to the city, according to a prepared statement from Wal-Mart.

Copyright (c) 2006, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif.

[back to top]


Wal-Mart's December Sales Barely Meet Expectations

Yvonne Lee
All Headline News
January 3, 2006                 
[back to top]

New York, NY (AHN) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Saturday that December sales met its forecast sales, but at the low end of the spectrum.

The world's largest retailer said same-store sales are expected to climb 2.2 percent in December. According to the Associated Press, the company had forecast a 2 to 4 percent increase.

Wal-Mart had started its holiday push two weeks earlier than in 2003. However, the stores struggled with shoppers who made their purchases later than usual.

The company is expecting higher sales in January as customers redeem gift cards.

Wal-Mart will likely announce its final December results on Thursday

[back to top]


Wal-Mart has worst holiday sales in 5 years

Seattle Post Intelligencer
January 2, 2006
                     [back to top]

Wal-Mart Stores, which mounted an unprecedented holiday marketing campaign featuring $400 laptops and celebrity-laden television commercials, is on track to post its weakest December sales growth in five years. The discount giant estimated that sales at stores open for at least a year rose 2.2 percent. The results barely landed within the company's forecast of a 2 percent to 4 percent sales increase for the month and indicated that Wal-Mart had its worst December since 2000, when sales rose 0.3 percent.

Wal-Mart cautioned that strong gift card sales -- which are not counted in the monthly sales figure -- would shift a number of purchases into January, which might explain some of the lackluster performance in December. For accounting purposes, gift card revenues are not recognized until the card is used.

Marshal Cohen, chief analyst at the market research firm NPD Group, predicted that Wal-Mart's decision to sell more expensive merchandise this season, such as $1,000 plasma televisions and $100 cashmere scarves, would result in higher profit margins than last year, even if sales look disappointing.

[back to top]