|
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]
|