By Al Norman,
Huffington Post
July 31st, 2008                                     [back to top]      

Move over, Abe. Step aside, George W.

Wal-Mart Realty has chosen a number of bizarre locations upon which to build their sprawling, featureless boxes. The retailer seems to have a fetish for historically significant properties -- like the Hyde Park, New York parcel abutting the estate of F.D.R. Or Ferry Farm, the boyhood home of George Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Wal-Mart was bought out of Ferry Farm by a private foundation. But none of these sites is stranger than the address at 211 Water Country Parkway in Williamsburg, Virginia. It's not the water park that Wal-Mart wants -- that's across the road. It's a unique, quirky piece of Americana known as Presidents Park.

This unusual tourist attraction features larger than life white concrete busts of some of America's most powerful men. According to the Virginia Gazette, Wal-Mart has its eye on Presidents Park, which describes itself as a "patriotic, educational, and inspiring experience." The Park features 16-18 foot high busts of all 43 American Presidents. Each bust includes handy narrative information on these White House denizens, including their height and weight. The full collection is the creation of artist/sculptor David Adickes, who once fabricated an eight foot tall bronze statue of George H.W. Bush, which today graces Bush International Airport in Houston. Adickes is less well-known for his 76 foot high statue of Sam Houston, which is a landmark in Huntsville, Texas. Perhaps the least known of his creations are the 43 Heads of State in Presidents Park, across Route 199 from the water park. One tourist called this collection of Famous Men "a strange American version of Easter Island."

But Presidents Park caught Wal-Mart's fancy, and if the retailer filibusters long enough, the presidents assembled may have to find new digs. The owner of Presidents Park, Harley Newman, doesn't want to sell the land, but one of his partners has passed away, and the heirs don't want anything to do with the 43 Presidents. Newman has not taken the big step yet of selling to Wal-Mart, but if the smell of money is stronger than the Park's mission of "encouraging civic responsibility and involvement," none of the Presidents are safe.

"We don't have a contract with anyone yet," Newman told the Gazette. If Wal-Mart buys the land, it will sit directly across from a huge "lifestyle center" that is under development, called the Marquis Shopping Center. A developer already has approval to build an 800,000 square foot retail complex. One York County, Virginia Commissioner has called the Marquis center "a new dimension, a lifestyle shopping center that we don't have in York County." The center is expected to attract retailers like JC Penney, Best Buy and Dick's Sporting Goods. None of this is particularly compatible with 43 large heads.

But one local commercial real estate broker is fighting to protect Presidents Park, and reject Wal-Mart. Chris Henderson, a member of the James City County Planning Commission, told the Gazette that Presidents Park adds value to the region. "I think it would be a shame to lose it for the sake of another big-box store," Henderson argues. He's trying to attract investors who would set up a non-profit to run the Park. "Then it would have an educational mission." But Wal-Mart has an educational mission too. It wants to improve the math score of its stock.

Parcel owner Newman says he doesn't want to sell out the Presidents either. "My loyalty is to Presidents Park," he told the newspaper. After all, business at the park seems to be good. Newman said attendance rose 20% last year. "It hasn't been the immediate success that I'd hoped for, and the investors had hoped for, when we opened," he admits. Newman says that one developer has approached him to build a presidential-themed hotel near the park. Instead of shopping in the house wares aisle of Wal-Mart, visitors would have the rare opportunity to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom -- just like a major campaign donor. Newman wants $4 million for the land underneath Presidents Park.

You don't have to be a fan of the current occupant of the Oval Office to appreciate the unique destination value of Presidents Park. Henderson says that Presidents Park has never received its proper respect as a piece of economic development. But this much is certain: Presidents Park will never steal sales away from existing merchants, never outsource jobs to China, and never worsen our foreign trade deficit. Unlike Wal-Mart, its 100% Made in America. And it's a much better use of concrete than any purpose Wal-Mart has found.

The future of Presidents Park could rest in the hands of the York County Supervisors. Tom Shepperd, Chairman of the Supervisors, could lead an effort to rezone the land "tourist/commercial," or limit the size of any retail use of the land. Wal-Mart's interest in this particular property raises the question: Does everything quirky and unique about America have to be displaced to make way for yet another big box store? There are already Wal-Mart supercenters near this site in Gloucester, Newport News, and Yorktown, Virginia. There's a Wal-Mart discount store in Williamsburg just minutes away. It would be a shame to move Presidents Park just to pave over another piece of colorful Virginia character.

It was insult enough when Wal-Mart tried to build on Ferry Farm, the boyhood home of our First President. Now the giant retailer is taking on all 43 Presidents at once. George Bush, as a final Executive Act, should declare this site culturally significant to the American people, and divert $4 million from the war in Iraq to purchase it on behalf of the American people. Wal-Mart should not be allowed to leave our presidents homeless. As one tourist said in 2004, after visiting Presidents Park: "I'm not sure why the creator felt this is a necessary project, but I enjoyed my visit, and would recommend it to anyone traveling through the area... There's a snack bar and picnic tables, so you can eat/drink and bask in Presidential history."

Isn't that worth more than a cheap pair of underwear?

Wal-Mart employees in Shenzhen unsatisfied with lower growth in salary

By Jian Wen,
ChinaRealNews
July 30th, 2008                                 [back to top]      

A collective contract involving over 8,500 employees of Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) in Shenzhen was recently finalized after one and a half years of negotiation, with wages highlighted. However, only 66 per cent of these employees voted in favor of the contract. The collective contract includes employment contract, wage, work time, vacation, benefits and employee training. Under the contract, average employee pay will grow 9 per cent annually in 2008 and 2009. Comparatively, average hourly pay for the company's employees in the US has grown 12 per cent since January 2005.

 [back to top]     

Is there a new Wal-Mart going in near you?

By Chris Kromm ,
Facing South
July 30th, 2008                            [back to top]      

Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has more than 4,000 stores and distribution centers across the United States -- and the group Wal-Mart Watch is trying to map every single one of them.

The watchdog group's interactive map aims to provide reliable, up-to-date information on store size, type of development nearby, and other useful information for both existing and proposed operations.

The map not only gives a useful snapshot of the "enormous amount of real estate" Wal-Mart holds; the group hopes it is valuable for community groups assessing the value of a Wal-Mart store in their area.

In related news, Arkansas Business reports that Wal-Mart leaders have known since 2000 that stores were illegally denying employees breaks and meals but ignored their own internal audits. The company faces a slew of lawsuits over the issue, which must be troubling given Wal-Mart's recent losing streak in court:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now faces more than 70 lawsuits across the country accusing the Bentonville retailer of failing to award rest or meal breaks to its employees or forcing employees to work off the clock without pay.

Since December 2005, Wal-Mart has lost all three of the wage and class-action lawsuits it has faced in courtrooms, with damages now totaling nearly $400 million. And the third case, which hasn't concluded, has the potential to reach $2 billion in damages.

 [back to top]     

Plan to replace Kmart with Wal-Mart causing controversy

By Tom Callan,
KSL TV
July 29th, 2008                    [back to top]     

It could be the hottest issue before the Salt Lake City Council this fall: whether to approve Wal-Mart's plans for a superstore near Parley's Way and Foothill Drive.

The city council must approve a zoning change so Wal-Mart can replace the Kmart at 2705 E. Parleys Way with at 140,000-square-foot superstore.

"We want to make the right decisions, not only for the city, but for Wal-Mart and for the citizens who live there," said city councilman J.T. Martin.

Martin says residents don't want Wal-Mart as their new neighbor. "More traffic; I don't particularly care for Wal-Mart," one woman said.

Another woman says Wal-Mart is not the issue. She doesn't want a superstore. "I've been to everything that has been held, yes, and I have voiced my opposition," she said.

You can expect more council meetings before the showdown vote.

 [back to top]     

Downtown Wal-Mart draws residents' ire
 

By MICHAEL VASQUEZ,
Miami Herald
July 29th, 2008                        [back to top]     
 

Got a hankering for opera -- and $29 patio furniture? Miami may soon have just the place for you.

It's the future downtown, where a new Wal-Mart big-box store may rise next to the Adrienne Arsht Center. Yet whether ''new'' translates into ''improved'' is being debated.

If Wal-Mart's plans go forward, it would mark the second time in recent years a big-name, warehouse-style retailer has chosen Miami's urban core. Target opened its Midtown Miami location in 2006.

While Target's arrival was hailed as a redevelopment catalyst, Wal-Mart doesn't boast the same trendiness factor.

And Wal-Mart would occupy a higher-profile location -- one where city leaders have longed to attract sophisticated restaurants and upscale shops. Looking to meld into the community, Wal-Mart is considering a decidedly different look for this store.

The deal isn't final -- Wal-Mart is not yet a committed tenant, and the property in question is still technically owned by The Miami Herald's parent, The McClatchy Co. McClatchy expects its sale of the land, near Biscayne Boulevard and North Bayshore Drive. to close by the end of the year.

Nevertheless, Wal-Mart's interest is serious enough to have sent some residents and government officials into mini-uproar.

''Horrors!!'' resident Sharon Dodge recently wrote to City Hall.

Another resident chimed in: ``There goes the neighborhood!''

And this, from a City Commission aide: ``Visualize a Wal-Mart customer in his pick-up truck, and family of four, driving past tuxedo-clad PAC center guests arriving simultaneously.''

The views may be extreme, but they reflect the bubbling concern over the big company's plans.

Lost in this sense of dread is the fact that downtown's Wal-Mart, if it happens, would not resemble the chain's other South Florida stores.

The retail development Wal-Mart would help anchor, City Square, is designed by Miami's world-renowned Arquitectonica firm. Though it's meant to attract big-box retail tenants, City Square also aims to be elegant and pedestrian-friendly.

''People coming to the performing arts center will have the opportunity to shop and eat and make their evening event something that's enjoyable,'' said City Square developer Mark Siffin, who described the project's design as having a ``timeless quality.''

Siffin declined comment on which retailers would occupy his project.

Michelle Azel Belaire, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, called the downtown corridor ``a predominantly underserved market.''

''At this time, however, we do not have any agreements,'' she added in a statement.

``We continue to explore all of our options.''

It's unclear what type of store format Wal-Mart would pursue downtown -- whether it would go with its traditional discount department store offerings or its smaller, ''neighborhood market'' concept that focuses on groceries but also includes general merchandise.

Either way, Wal-Mart could be occupying pricey real estate, with City Square set to rise only a block from the bay.

Miami City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who represents much of downtown, cringes at the thought of a ``Wal-Mart on the waterfront.''

Though it was Sarnoff's aide, Peter Ehrlich, who decribed the chain's customers as ''pickup truck'' drivers, Sarnoff denies cultural elitism is motivating his opposition.

''I've seen a lot of BMWs and Mercedes in the parking lot of Wal-Mart,'' Sarnoff said.

What you won't see, according to the commissioner, are a lot of people walking to the store -- making Wal-Mart a bad fit for the city's goal of building foot traffic downtown.

Sarnoff also cites Wal-Mart's heavy reliance on foreign-made products as another reason he won't be shopping there if the downtown location is indeed built.

''If we don't want to outsource our jobs, we should do a better job of buying American,'' Sarnoff said.

There have been other criticisms of Wal-Mart over the years. Among them: allegations the company underpays its workers, and the characterization of Wal-Mart as a retail bully.

The opening of a Wal-Mart, conventional wisdom goes, inevitably leads local, beloved mom-and-pop businesses to go under.

Wal-Mart has argued that it treats its workers better than other retailers. The company also launched small business outreach in some urban areas.

And a funny thing happened in recent months.

As the U.S. economy continued to tank, Wal-Mart's sales figures steadily rose.

The numbers provided a reminder of the increased buying power Wal-Mart gives the working class -- in hard times, a trip to Wal-Mart can be the only way for some to pay for life's basic necessities.

Drive inland from downtown's proposed Wal-Mart, just a mile or two, and it's easy to find Miamians living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Closer to the Wal-Mart site, though, are the condo dwellers, some of whom paid top dollar for their penthouse views.

Fred Joseph, who lives in The Grand condo tower down the block, has mixed feelings about Wal-Mart. He's fearful it will hurt property values, and so he doesn't want it to come.

Yet Joseph readily admits he'd shop there.

''I love Wal-Mart,'' Joseph said.

At minimum, Joseph says he hopes the developers find a way to make Wal-Mart attractive.

Ben Fernandez, an attorney with the development team, said he believes this store is ``going to be different''

''All of these big-box retailers are morphing in big cities, and catering to all walks of society,'' Fernandez said. ``You have Home Depot in Manhattan with a doorman.''

 [back to top]     

Wal-Mart Knew of Labor Violations, Documents Show

By Mark Friedman,
Arkansas Business
July 28th, 2008                            [back to top]     

Wal-Mart managers were told in 2000 that employees were not taking breaks required under company policy and state laws, but ignored the findings of the company's own internal audit, court documents show.

"Stores were not in compliance with company and state regulations concerning the allotment of breaks and meals," said the report, referred to as the Shipley Audit. A judge said Wal-Mart's management, instead of responding to the audit's findings, "put their heads in the sand."

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now faces more than 70 lawsuits across the country accusing the Bentonville retailer of failing to award rest or meal breaks to its employees or forcing employees to work off the clock without pay.

Since December 2005, Wal-Mart has lost all three of the wage and class-action lawsuits it has faced in courtrooms, with damages now totaling nearly $400 million. And the third case, which hasn't concluded, has the potential to reach $2 billion in damages.

In April 2009, three more wage and class-action lawsuits are scheduled to go to trial in courts in Missouri, South Carolina and Washington.

A review by Arkansas Business of court records from several of the lawsuits shows Wal-Mart had received complaints from employees and knew of managers' concerns that hourly employees weren't getting required breaks.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have used the Shipley Audit as a key piece of evidence against Wal-Mart. The attorneys argue that Wal-Mart regularly understaffed its stores and, to compensate for the labor shortage, made its employees work through their earned rest and lunch breaks to complete the assigned tasks.

Wal-Mart has denied the allegations of wrongdoing. Wal-Mart said in court filings that employees didn't miss breaks or meals, or if employees did miss breaks, they did so voluntarily for reasons unrelated to the demands of work.

"Our policy is to pay every associate for every hour worked and to make rest and meal breaks available for our associates," Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said last week. "And any manager who violates either of these policies is subject to discipline - up to and including termination."

Moore didn't want to comment specifically about the facts in the cases because they are pending or on appeal.

In a class-action case in Minnesota, District Court Judge Robert King Jr., in a 151-page order released June 30, found that Wal-Mart breached its contract and violated state labor laws by not giving its employees breaks. He awarded the class of about 56,000 workers $6.5 million. (King's order is available here (5 MB).)

The next phase of that trial is scheduled to start Oct. 20. Wal-Mart faces a penalty of up to $1,000 on each of the 2 million state labor violations. Under Minnesota law, money assessed for the labor violation penalties goes to the state, not the class members. But punitive damages, or those imposed to punish the wrongdoer, will be decided during the trial and will go to the class if awarded.

"I don't know if it's going to be $2 billion," said Bill Sieben, a Minneapolis attorney who represented the employees in the Minnesota case. But, he said, even if the jury fines Wal-Mart only $100 per violation, "then it's a $200 million exposure. They've got a very serious risk of a huge verdict against them."

If Wal-Mart receives the maximum $2 billion in penalties, it would be almost 16 percent of its net income for the year ending Jan. 31. Wal-Mart reported record revenue of $378.8 billion and net income of $12.7 billion for its year ending Jan. 31.

"Payroll Pressure" Wal-Mart's managers throughout the country were under pressure to keep labor costs down.

Between September 1998 and January 2004, Wal-Mart attempted to control payroll costs by having managers stay at or below the previous year's wages as a percentage of sales in each of its stores, according to King's order.

"The importance of this wage percentage goal was communicated from the very highest levels of the company," King wrote in the order.

Regional, district and store-level managers who failed to meet Wal-Mart's expectations on payroll could be disciplined, King said.

King said that Wal-Mart should have known "this constant payroll pressure" could lead to understaffing a store, "which might in turn have made meal and rest break compliance more difficult."

Also, managers would receive bonuses based on profits of the store, said Justin Pearl, a Minnesota attorney who helped handle the case for the plaintiffs.

"But they wouldn't get paid or wouldn't get rewarded in any way, shape or form for making sure people were getting their breaks and meals," Pearl said. "That was just given very, very low priority. So what gets measured is what gets done."

Wal-Mart would survey its employees during what it called Grass Roots meetings. After such a meeting, store managers were supposed to talk about the results of the meeting and create an action plan.

"A major issue from Grass Roots was that our associates are not receiving scheduled breaks and lunches," said an Aug. 3, 1998, memo from Kendall Schwindt, a senior executive, to Wal-Mart's senior managers. "Not only is this against Company policy, it is also a violation of Federal law."

Wal-Mart then started studying the issue more closely in 1999 and 2000. A number of individual store audits showed that employees were being "denied large numbers of breaks," according to the brief by attorneys seeking class-action status in a Massachusetts court.

The Shipley Audit In 1999, a judge in Las Animas County District Court in Colorado approved class certification for Colorado Wal-Mart workers who charged they weren't getting paid for rest and meal breaks.

To see if employees were missing breaks, managers commissioned an audit, which would come to be called the Shipley Audit and which was conducted by Wal-Mart auditor Bret Shipley.

In June 2000, 128 Wal-Mart stores across the country were audited. Part of the audit called for a review of time clock records to determine if the stores were in compliance with company policy and government regulation.

On July 17, 2000, Wal-Mart's auditors issued its findings:

"Wal-Mart may face several adverse consequences as a result of staffing and scheduling not being prepared appropriately," the report said.

Wal-Mart's policy was to provide for two 15-minute paid rest breaks for every six hours worked. Wal-Mart's contract provided for an unpaid 30-minute meal break for every six hours worked.

Labor laws on work break time vary in each state, but most states require employees to receive a lunch break if they work more than seven hours a day.

Auditors found violations in 127 out of 128 stores studied during a one-week period, listing 15,705 "too few meals" and 60,767 "too few breaks."

The Shipley Audit also found extensive violations of child-labor laws. The allegations of child labor violations aren't a part of the class-action lawsuits. (The Shipley Audit is available here.)

More than 50 members of Wal-Mart's senior management team in Bentonville received the report, including Wal-Mart's then-president, Tom Coughlin, and Charlyn Jarrells Porter, a senior member of Wal-Mart's Human Resources Department and Policy Committee. (In an unrelated matter, Coughlin would later plead guilty in 2006 to wire fraud and tax evasion. He was sentenced to 27 months of home detention and ordered to pay $461,000 in fines and restitution.)

"Rather than addressing the audit methodology or the results, Wal-Mart executives chose to ignore the results, based, at least partially, on the rationale that exception reports were not accurate, and therefore the audits must be flawed," King said.

If an employee didn't clock out for a meal or rest break, the missed time would show up in an exception report. The discrepancies are supposed to be investigated before payroll is finalized, but weren't, plaintiffs' attorneys argue.

Wal-Mart downplayed the importance of the Shipley Audit and said the auditors failed to interview employees to find out the reasons for the missed breaks.

Wal-Mart argued that there were many exceptions contained in the reports and the exceptions were not necessarily policy violations. For example, Wal-Mart said, the employee could have voluntarily failed to take a break to leave early to care for a sick child.

"Piece of Evidence" Wal-Mart's management, however, decided to make a policy change regarding breaks.

On Sept. 29, 2000 - a little over two months after the Shipley Audit was released - Wal-Mart began discussing eliminating the policy of clocking in and out for breaks.

One note from the discussions about clocking in and out said: "Breaks - Piece of Evidence."

"No Wal-Mart witness took responsibility for writing these comments or shed any light on why they were written," King said. "Accordingly, the Court reads them at face value."

On Feb. 10, 2001, Wal-Mart changed its break and meal policy and stopped employees from recording their breaks by clocking in and out, leaving Wal-Mart without "a systematic method for determining whether employees were receiving their rest breaks," King said.

More Troubles In 2001, staffing problems continued at Wal-Mart stores, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

The plaintiffs argued in the cases that the environment of chronic understaffing led to missed breaks.

Starting in 2002, Wal-Mart asked employees to agree or disagree with this statement: "Where I work, we have enough associates to get the work done."

In 2002 and 2003, more than half of all employees who responded said there weren't enough employees to get the work done.

The plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the high negative responses indicate a "serious and chronic staffing shortage that Wal-Mart's managers allowed to persist."

King found, though, that it is "typical human behavior to complain about the amount of work one has to do, and that one does not have enough help."

Still, "the Court does find that the high rate of negative responses should have alerted Wal-Mart of a potential problem," King said.

By 2003, lawsuits against Wal-Mart were starting to pile up.

In 2004, the Colorado wage-and-hour lawsuit settled for $50 million, published reports said.

Other class-action cases across the country were making their way toward juries. The first verdict against Wal-Mart came in December 2005. A California jury awarded Wal-Mart employees $172 million in damages because they weren't provided breaks required under California law. The judgment was the 10th-largest verdict in 2005 according to The National Law Journal. The judge in the case later tacked on another $26 million to cover costs and attorneys' fees.

In 2006, Wal-Mart faced another jury in Philadelphia, where Wal-Mart employees also said they weren't paid for their breaks.

While the jury found in favor of Wal-Mart on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims, the jury found the employees worked off the clock and missed rest breaks. The jury awarded the workers $78 million for back pay. The judge increased the judgment to $188 million to cover the costs of other damages and court costs and attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart has appealed both rulings.

Wal-Mart "believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue," the company said in its 2008 annual report.

Violations "Pretty Obvious" One law professor who has been following the Wal-Mart cases said the chances of winning on appeal are possible, but not probable.

"My sense is the violations alleged seem to be pretty obvious to the jury," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia. "I think it's unlikely that they would be overturned on appeal, but it could happen."

Still, it could take years before the cases play themselves out, he said.

Most states have two levels of appeals, a state court of appeals and then a state Supreme Court, which the cases could go through.

"At some point, maybe Wal-Mart will decide not to fight them, but settle," Tobias said. "Even that would be a lot of money. And then you've got to be willing to do it."

  [back to top]     

Voters to get initiative against Wal-Mart

By Kevin Clerici,
Ventura County Star
July 28th, 2008                            [back to top]     

Backers of an initiative aimed at blocking Wal-Mart or a large grocery store from opening in Ventura say they have collected enough signatures to put it before voters, and they have instructed supporters to stop gathering more to avoid a costly special election.

"We were told a special election could be as much as $400,000 and we thought, Whoa, that's not good government,'" said Ed Lacey, a local attorney and spokesman for Livable Ventura, one of half a dozen citizen and union groups backing the measure. "We don't want to put the city and taxpayers in that spot."

The initiative would keep the world's largest retailer from opening in Ventura by banning any new store selling groceries that is larger than 90,000 square feet.

Big grocers could face special conditions if they decided to move into an existing but vacant store.

Proponents, who filed initiative papers in January, initially set their sights on the Nov. 4 election, hoping to strike before Wal-Mart tries to replace a shuttered Kmart on Victoria Avenue with a store of its own.

But a tight timeline — they needed 8,903 verified signatures by May — proved too demanding.

Relying on volunteers and paid gatherers, proponents say they now have collected more than 10,000 signatures, although some likely will be disqualified because they do not belong to registered voters in Ventura.

Supporters, however, are confident that they have more than the 5,936 signatures, or 10 percent of Ventura registered voters, needed to qualify for the next regular city election in November 2009.

That ballot will feature races for four seats on the City Council, among other items, at an estimated cost of $125,000 because expenses are shared with the county, City Clerk Mabi Plisky said.

If supporters collected and submitted signatures from 15 percent of registered voters, the city could be required to hold a special election.

That could cost $300,000, not counting necessary staff time, Plisky said.

A Wal-Mart spokesman called the effort disappointing and said the company's three other stores in the county — a Wal-Mart and Sam's Club in Oxnard and a Wal-Mart in Simi Valley — had more than 4 million visitors last year and generated some $1.8 million in sales tax revenues for those communities.

Time to raise more money

The initiative's authors cast Wal-Mart as a "behemoth" with "predatory practices," and worry that it would hurt local businesses, add low-wage jobs in a community without affordable housing, worsen traffic and alter Ventura's reputation as a quaint beach town.

Proponents have instructed volunteers to stop all signature gathering this week. They plan to submit the signatures next week.

Waiting until next year's election allows supporters to raise more money, add to their army of volunteers and expand their education efforts, including more door-to-door campaigning, supporters said.

Forcing taxpayers to spend $300,000 for a special election also could embolden their critics, who point to the potential windfall of sales tax revenue from a Wal-Mart store and the potential chilling effect that the measure could have on attracting other businesses.

"We don't want Ventura to have less (city) services because we forced a special election," supporter Das Williams said.

Coalition support

The initiative specifically targets large grocery stores but not all big-box outlets. Lacey said it would not ban a large electronics store like Fry's or Best Buy, or a department store.

The coalition supporting the measure includes the Tri-Counties Labor Foundation, United Food and Commercial Workers, the Stop Ventura Wal-Mart Coalition, Livable Ventura, Ventura County Working People's Alliance and the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy.

The Ventura City Council voted in January to limit the size of multistory stores at the Kmart site and along Victoria Avenue to 100,000 square feet, despite pleas by the coalition to lower the number to 90,000 square feet.

Nontaxable grocery items

The proposed initiative would prohibit any new "super store" greater than 90,000 square feet that devotes more than 3 percent of its sales floor to nontaxable grocery items.

Companies wanting to use existing stores such as the Kmart site also could face greater scrutiny and possible conditions if it's proven that the new store would pay low wages, increase demand for affordable housing, add traffic and negatively affect other businesses.

Wal-Mart has not filed a formal application to replace the Kmart building, which it controls, but presented a conceptual plan to build a 150,000-square-foot store with groceries when it last met with city leaders.

 [back to top]     

Wal-Mart's ripple effects felt

By HANK DANISZEWSKI ,
London Free Press
July 26th, 2008                            [back to top]     

David Heap reaches into the murky water with a stick and retrieves a plastic shopping bag.

"There it is -- Wal-Mart," holding up the distinctive logo of the retail giant.

It's just some of junk that folks from the London Coalition for Sustainable Cities have pulled out of a drainage pond behind a huge big box complex at Hyde Park and Fanshawe Park Roads operated by Toronto-based SmartCentres.

Heap said it's proof the developer shouldn't be trusted to build a similar retail complex at Highbury Avenue and Commissioners Road near the environmentally sensitive Meadowlily Woods. He said the proximity to the woods and the Thames River makes that project even more risky.

"If this is the job they are doing here, why would anyone trust them to do anything go there?" said Heap.

A spokesperson for SmartCentres couldn't be reached for comment.

At a community meeting earlier this month, Heap said a SmartCentres representative touted the Fanshawe Park and Hyde Park retail area as an environmentally responsible project. A drainage pond was created to handle the run off from hectares of parking lot surrounding stores

When Sustainable Cities Coalition checked the stagnant pond, they found the perimeter was choked with algae and a variety of junk including half a dozen old tires, a shopping cart, plastic bags, bottles, oil containers, and fast food wrappers.

The biggest object was a large plastic shipping pallet bearing the Wal-Mart name.

"SmartCentres said they are a responsible landlord and they make sure their business tenants take care of the environment, but the fact is there is a lot of trash and contamination here," said Heap.

Coalition member Cory Morningstar said some of the garbage may have dropped out of the bins at the rear of the property and been blown into the pond.

She said wildlife is trying to move into the drainage pond. Families of ducks and cranes have been spotted. But they might not be doing well because some dead fish have turned up with the garbage.

The next community meeting is scheduled for Tuesday at 7 p.m. at Summerside Community Church.

Nursery and Wal-Mart in salty dispute

By David W. Jones ,
Panama City News-Herald
July 26th, 2008                                   [back to top]    

Roemer Nursery is seeing so many of its plants dying that the Madison Township business might have to close.

And it's blaming nearby Wal-Mart for the predicament.

In a statement, Roemer's owners say snow-melting salt sold at the store is destroying its plants, a claim that Wal-Mart and some Lake County officials dispute.

"We believe it is Wal-Mart's contamination of the groundwater with salt that has rendered our main watering pond unusable," nursery Vice President Lisa Ungers said.

"This could close an icon of a nursery in Lake County that has been operating here for 50 years." Agreeing with her are Randy Zondag, who is Ohio State University's commercial horticulture extension director for Lake County, and Philip H. DeGroot, a nursery-hired hydrologist and environmental consultant.

The two experts cited high levels of salt in a nearby water-supply pond.

"This (plant) loss is 50 percent or higher in the last two years while plant materials less sensitive to salt have not shown the same injury," Zondag wrote. The supermarket is not at fault, said Ron Mosby, Wal-Mart's Ohio senior manager of public affairs, who also received a letter from Roemer.

"Information I have received indicates that the causes or cause of conditions stated in property owner's letter could have come from a variety of sources - none of which are directly related to Wal-Mart."

Kleenco Maintenance/Construction, working for Wal-Mart, said it sampled groundwater in February and found a chemical of more concern than salt.

"Arsenic was detected above the established maximum cleanup level," Kleenco wrote.

The county Storm and Water Conservation District said arsenic should be checked in any new analysis. The district said it anticipated no flow from Wal-Mart toward the nursery.

"Therefore, no impact at Roemer Nursery is anticipated," the district wrote.

In 2005, the Madison Township Zoning Commission raised initial questions about checking salt flow because of the large parking areas.

However, county Commissioner Raymond E. Sines and county Administrator Kenneth R. Gauntner said any saline pollution also could have come from road salt from the recently developed area of U.S. Route 20 and Green Road near Wal-Mart.

Troy, Gauntner, county Engineer James R. Gills and the county Health Department's Laura Kramer Kuns believe high salt levels are a normal occurrence each spring, according to a report by Nursery Growers of Lake County Ohio Inc. In a memo, Nursery Growers' Mark Gilson wondered if pond pollution could affect many eastern Lake County nurseries.

"This type of problem weakens owner commitment," he wrote. "We're looking at 'nursery survival' and 'nursery preservation.' "

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report says pond pollution is a major result of snowplowing and using salt in roadwork in newly developed areas.

But at Roemer, a wholesale business that sells to garden centers and landscapers, Ungers said she still has some doubts. "Route 20 and Green Road have always been salted. But we've never had salt problems until Wal-Mart opened last year," she said.

"And, in particular, we at first lost 2,200 rhododendrons, which was a $52,800 loss. Next, we're afraid it will be our holly, boxwood, junipers, weeping cherries and everything."

She said the nursery's annual sales are between $800,000 and $1 million in a business employing nine full-time, year-round employees and 20 full-time employees in season. Many have worked there 25 years.

County officials have suggested getting more study results from a state agency like the EPA and tapping into county water. Ungers said that could cost almost $2,000 a week for the 400,000 gallons of water needed to irrigate nursery grounds. Or it could cost $160,000 for a new "drip irrigation."

Kuns, who is the Health Department's liquor, solid waste and water supply supervisor, said "additional data" is needed to see what might be done next.

In a written report, Kuns recommended the nursery consult with a plant pathologist to determine if there are other materials in the water affecting the plants.

Kuns also suggested that the nursery get its irrigation pond water analyzed by a laboratory.

 [back to top]    

Wal-Mart signs pay deals with unions in China

By Tom Mitchell ,
Financial Times
July 25th, 2008                         [back to top]    

Wal-Mart, the US retail group known for fending off organised labour in its home market, has completed collective bargaining agreements with unions in two Chinese cities.

The agreements reached with government-approved unions in Shenyang and Quanzhou come less than two years after the official All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) launched a high-profile campaign to organise workers, and mark a new chapter in the development of China's labour movement.

The agreement in Shenyang locks in an 8 per cent pay rise both this year and next for Wal-Mart employees, the company and the unions said yesterday. By comparison, the average hourly wage in Wal-Mart's US stores, which are not unionised, has risen 12 per cent since January 2005, from $9.68 to $10.86.

Employees in Quanzhou, who formed the first Wal-Mart union in August 2006, secured a similar increase in an agreement signed on Wednesday. More than 48,500 people work at 105 Wal-Mart stores across China. All have been unionised over the past two years and their representatives are negotiating collective contracts with management.

"Shenyang was the first and Quanzhou was signed [on Wednesday]," Wal-Mart said. "By law [collective bargaining] is required and we respect the law wherever we operate."

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, for years successfully resisted the ACFTU's attempts to unionise its China operations. With that battle finally won by the ACFTU two years ago in Quanzhou, the union's focus is turning to collective bargaining with management as required by a new labour contract law introduced in January.

Fu Furong, chairman of the ACFTU's Quanzhou branch, said Wal-Mart employees first approached company management to negotiate a collective contract in April 2007.

"Negotiations went slowly because everything had to be approved by Wal-Mart headquarters," Mr Fu said. "But the process was quite smooth. It does not compare to the effort involved in establishing the first Wal-Mart union two years ago."

Activists view official endorsement of collective bargaining as astep forward in the development of the country's labour movement. The government still frowns on strikes and the establishment of unions independent of the ACFTU remains illegal.

"Bargaining doesn't make sense without the right to strike," said Han Dongfang, Hong Kong-based director of the China Labour Bulletin. "The development of any country's labour movement never happens all at once. The movement needs to push the legal system to develop." Mr Han was jailed and later exiled for his attempts to form an independent union in China during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

[back to top]   

City Council to consider "super store" ban

By Jesse B. Gill,
Contra Costa Times
July 24th, 2008                             [back to top]   

The proposal for a flat-out ban on having Kmart, Wal-Mart or other so-called "Super Stores" in Alameda now is set to go before the City Council after bouncing from the Planning Board to the Economic Development Commission.

The idea behind the ban would be to protect local merchants while sending a message to large retailers which have come under fire for offering workers low wages and few benefits that the city wants to promote good jobs.

"We don't have any real prospect of dealing with a Wal-Mart or something like that," Mayor Beverly Johnson said Thursday. "But I do think it's good that we have something in place that will set out our policy."

The proposal calls for amending the Alameda Municipal Code so that a retail store more than 90,000 square feet in size and with more than 10 percent of its floor dedicated to the sale of non-taxable items could not open here.

Oakland, Dublin, Martinez and other cities have similar bans.

The council is expected to consider the issue Aug. 19.

The Planning Board rejected the amendment when it looked at the proposal in June, maintaining the ban could send a message that the city frowns on business and saying officials should instead consider stores on a case-by-case basis.

The board voted unanimously to affirm a current policy that allows the city to nix any store larger than 30,000 square feet if officials think it would hurt the community.

The Economic Development Commission also rejected the ban earlier this month.

The proposal to prohibit "Super Stores" comes as the city wrestles with budget woes the council approved more than $4 million in cuts in February, plus the city faces a projected $5 million shortfall during fiscal 2008-2009.

But the idea that the city could get a financial boost from the jobs and sales tax money generated by large retailers is not a reason to back away from considering the ban, City Councilmember Doug deHaan said.

"Big box stores are not locally owned," deHaan said. "We're basically sending our money off to Arkansas or some place else. That's not something we necessarily want to do."

Along with sometimes undercutting local merchants, large retailers can carry hidden costs to a city, such as for road maintenance through increased traffic, deHaan said.

"You want to have a diverse tax base," he said, adding that city leaders need to look at how big box stores would affect merchants on Park Street or the revitalization of Webster Street.

Ironically, the ban would not apply to Alameda Landing the former U.S. Navy property where a developer is now negotiating to bring in a Target store or to Harbor Bay Isle because both sites are protected by a development agreement that limits the city's ability to impose zoning regulations.

A developer of the former Del Monte warehouse on Buena Vista Avenue also could sidestep the ban because multiple tenants could occupy the 250,000-square-foot building, with none exceeding 90,000 square feet, but with each still offering more than 10 percent of merchandise that's non-taxable, according to a report from Andrew Thomas, city planning services manager.

Johnson said she supports the amendment. But she also says the council must secure a retail balance within the city.

"Some 'Mom and Pop' stores are good, but many do not offer medical coverage to their employees, or paid vacations or even sick leave," she said. "We need to have a mix of businesses."

[back to top]   

Judge hears Tumwater Wal-Mart appeal

By Keri Brenner ,
The Olympian
July 23rd, 2008                              [back to top]   

The 4-year legal fight over Wal-Mart's plans to build a 187,000-square-foot store in Tumwater arrived at a Thurston County courtroom Tuesday.

Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy heard arguments for and against building the store at a 20.7-acre tract at 5900 Littlerock Road S.W. Pomeroy said she would issue a decision later.

The hearing was on an appeal from the citizens group Tumwater Liveable Community and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367. The two groups are appealing a Feb. 5 Tumwater City Council decision that upholds a Dec. 19 ruling by a city hearing examiner. The examiner, after three days of testimony last year, upheld the city's approval of the Wal-Mart site plan and its environmental review.

On Tuesday, Seattle attorney Claudia Newman, representing Tumwater Liveable Community and the union, said one of the key arguments was that the city erred in granting Wal-Mart a waiver for its tree retention law. The ordinance requires developers to retain 20 percent of trees, or 12 trees per acre, whichever is greater.

The Wal-Mart project would require more than 240 trees to be saved under those guidelines, but the city is allowing the store to save less than 100, Newman said.

She said the city failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to grant the waiver.

Olympia attorney Jeff Myers, representing Tumwater, and Seattle attorney Charles Maduell, representing Wal-Mart, said the store already has reduced its proposed size by more than 20,000 square feet and had eliminated plans for a fuel station. Wal-Mart also is complying with the city's directive to replant the removed trees at a rate of three new trees for each one taken out.

Wal-Mart submitted its application Dec. 7, 2004, just hours before the City Council adopted a moratorium banning big-box stores in the city. The moratorium was lifted in 2006, but Newman said the original application was incomplete and thus not vested before the moratorium took effect.

[back to top]   

As Mayor, Anthony Weiner Won't Open NYC to Wal-Mart

By John Del Signore,
The Gothamist
July 22nd, 2008                              [back to top]   

At a breakfast forum this morning, Representative Anthony Weiner – a likely mayoral candidate – handed out a 5,000 word manifesto about how he would keep the city affordable for the middle class. The Sun has it that Weiner also used his half-hour speech to criticize the proliferation of big-box chains in New York, wondering, “What is the value of having a Wal-Mart on Queens Boulevard that wipes out economic development on the rest of Queens Boulevard. What is the value of saving 15 or 20% on that pair of jeans, in terms of creating jobs for the rest of Queens?” But the congressman also stressed that he's a "middle-class New Yorker.” And later: “I’m cheap.”

 [back to top]  

Wal-Mart's Reputation Problems Continue

By Wal-Mart Watch,
PR Newswire
July 21st, 2008                            [back to top]  

Wal-Mart's sales are improving, but different measures of public opinion indicate that the company's reputation continues to decline -primarily because of the company's poor business practices. Wal-Mart's reputation remains the biggest obstacle to the company's long-term growth potential.

Wal-Mart is already the largest corporation in the world, with more than two million employees. In order to further increase sales the company must either sell more products to existing customers or identify new ones. Wal-Mart's reputation affects both its ability to reach new shoppers and to build new stores.

"There's no doubt that Wal-Mart is profiting from the economic downturn and cash-strapped consumers," said David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director. "But, recent public opinion surveys indicate that although people are shopping there, they aren't happy about it because they are still concerned about Wal-Mart's poor business practices."

In the past two weeks alone, Wal-Mart received failing marks on two different scales of corporate trustworthiness and likeability. The two surveys - from Harris Interactive and the Reputation Institute - indicate shoppers don't trust Wal-Mart, in spite of the retailer's massive marketing overhaul. These results support Wal-Mart Watch's fall 2007 public opinion poll findings.

The Harris Interactive survey found that shoppers consider a company's labor practices above all other social responsibility issues. Considering that Wal-Mart has done little to improve working conditions in its U.S. stores, refuses to raise wages and continues to provide a substandard health care plan for its employees, it is not surprising the retailer ranked so low on Harris' list.

Meanwhi