Black Friday Ads Target 

Why Wal-Mart Set Up Shop in Italy

By Dan Richman,
Seattle Post Intelligencer
November 30th, 2007                                  [back to top]  

Letters were set be mailed Friday telling 75,000 current or former Wal-Mart workers in Washington that they are plaintiffs in a statewide class action against the retail giant.

The mailing is the latest development in the suit, which was filed nearly six years ago in King County Superior Court.

Set for trial in the spring of 2009, the suit is "the largest wage-and-hour class action ever certified in Washington state," class counsel Beth Terrell of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC in Seattle said Friday at a news conference.

"The workers will prove that Wal-Mart failed to pay workers for some of the time they worked and deprived them of legally required meal and rest breaks," Terrell said. "Wal-Mart's drive for profits has come at the expense of its low-wage employees."

She estimated that damages against Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will total tens of millions of dollars in wages wrongly withheld from workers.

In Washington, the company operates 46 Wal-Mart stores and three Sam's Club stores, employing 12,000 to 15,000 workers, Terrell said. Any worker employed at a Wal-Mart or a Sam's Club between Sept. 10, 1997, and the present is automatically a member of the class, sharing in any benefits resulting from a verdict or settlement.

Workers may opt out of the suit if they choose, and Terrell said she expects many current employees to do so, fearing retaliation.

Lead plaintiff Georgie Hartwig Knoles said she worked for more than seven years at the Wal-Mart in Colville, where the store is the Eastern Washington city's largest employer.

"I put in two to five hours a week every week without getting paid, just to get my job done," Knoles said Friday.

"Once I clocked a few minutes over 40 hours per week. I got called into the store manager's office, him and an assistant manager. They flat-out told me, 'If it happens again, you'll be terminated.' "

She said she'd like to be compensated for the hours she worked.

"I'd also like to see Wal-Mart go back to treating the little people who are doing the work the way (founder) Sam Walton wanted them treated -- like they were human beings," she said.

Terrell said nothing has changed since Knoles was laid off from Wal-Mart in October 2001.

"We continue to hear the pressure is the same on the employees to get their work done, and every year, the store manager is expected to reduce their payroll by 0.2 percent while sales go up," she said. "We think the amount of off-the-clock working has gone up."

Wal-Mart has acknowledged in some cases giving one minute of compensation for an entire day's work and otherwise manipulating workers' time records, Terrell said.

"What's unique is the shamelessness," Terrell said. "The documents we've seen are stunning."

Similar class actions against Wal-Mart have been filed in more than 35 other states. Four have gone to trial and been resolved, all in favor of the plaintiffs, Terrell said.

In California, plaintiffs won a judgment of about $167 million. A Pennsylvania suit delivered a judgment of $151 million, and a suit is currently being tried in Minnesota.

"We're hoping that with five or six more (judgments) against them, even Wal-Mart can't afford this cost of doing business," Terrell said.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley on Friday called the adverse decisions "deeply flawed" and said the company "obviously" intends to appeal them. He said courts in 18 states have refused to certify the class in these suits.

"Wal-Mart is committed to treating its associates fairly and in accordance with the law," he said. "The company has very clear policies on meal and rest breaks, and in most cases, those policies do more than is required by the law."

The Washington suit was filed in 2001, but an unappealable ruling certifying the class was just won in May.

[back to top]  

China lists substandard Wal-Mart, Carrefour goods

Reuters
Thu Nov 29, 2007                 [back to top]  

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has published a blacklist of substandard toy jugs and children's shoes sold at Wal-Mart stores and drawing pens from French retailer Carrefour in a quality sweep on children's goods sold at Beijing supermarkets.

China has been buffeted by food, drug and other product safety scares in past months. More than 20 million toys made there have been recalled worldwide over the past four months.

In response, Beijing has promised to crack down on faulty manufacturers and suppliers, but also said much responsibility lies with foreign regulators and buyers. It has also made a point of naming foreign companies it claims also have problem products.

A Wal-Mart Stores Inc spokesman, Jonathan Dong, said the blacklist -- which appeared on an official Web site on Thursday -- was more than two months old and the products, made in China, had long been cleared from the shelves.

Inspectors had also blacklisted children's toys at Wal-Mart stores in Beijing for problems regarding parts that could come off and cause harm if swallowed, the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce said on its Web site (www.hd315.gov.cn).

The 54-item blacklist also included substandard children's glasses, toothbrushes, building blocks and bikes with shoddy brakes and handlebars, at a number of Chinese retailers.

"If consumers have bought the substandard goods, with proof of purchase they can request the vendor to recall the goods," the notice said.

Six children's products stocked at Wal-Mart branches in Beijing had failed to meet standards, the notice said.

Wal-Mart's "Bo bo" brand of "water jugs" had failed plastic integrity standards, according to the notice.

"Over a long period of use, toxins could accumulate in the body and cause harm," the notice said.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dong confirmed the blacklist and said the retailer had been notified of the quality results. He said he was not sure why the notice had appeared on the Web site on Thursday.

"I guess they just wanted to be transparent about it," he said.

Dong said any versions of the products now on sale had been deemed safe, but customers with doubts could nonetheless return them.

Last week, Wal-Mart was one of 20 companies sued by the California attorney general and Los Angeles city attorney for manufacturing or selling toys with unlawfully high levels of lead.

Chinese-made Carrefour drawing pens were found with excessive levels of lead and chromium. A Carrefour spokesman contacted by phone was unable to provide immediate comment and requested an e-mail of questions.

The Chinese producer of the bead toys that caused recalls in the United States and Australia has apologized for using a toxic "date-rape" drug and damaging the reputation of the made-in-China label, state media said on Thursday.

Vice Premier Wu Yi arrived in Guangdong on Wednesday for "secret" spot checks on food safety, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported.

She heads one of 12 inspection teams that were checking hundreds of outlets on Thursday, officials were quoted as saying.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

[back to top]

Bitter Fruit: Wal-Mart pressures farmers, drives down wages

By Tom Philpott ,
Grist.com
November 29th, 2007                        [back to top]

As most Grist readers know by now, a few giant corporations essentially control the meat industry -- they lock up the bulk of the profits and impose harsh terms on farmers, workers, livestock, and the environment. The meat they produce evidently damages those who eat it as well.

Things aren't much different in the fresh fruit and vegetable world.

In Florida, the ever-excellent Eric Schlosser shows in a New York Times op-ed piece, the migrant farmworkers who harvest the bulk of the nation's winter tomatoes are about to see their already-poverty-level wages slashed this holiday season. Out west, the Delta Farm Press reports, farmers are losing money selling peaches for 40 cents a pound wholesale -- which big-box chains and supermarkets then turn around and sell for $3.00/pound.

In both cases, huge corporations are flexing their might, using their power as dominant buyers to suck the bulk of the profit out of the food chain. They leave behind crumbs for farmers -- and even less for farmworkers.

Why are tomato growers in Florida plotting to slash wages? Schlosser puts it well:

Florida's tomato growers have long faced pressure to reduce operating costs; one way to do that is to keep migrant wages as low as possible. Although some of the pressure has come from increased competition with Mexican growers, most of it has been forcefully applied by the largest purchaser of Florida tomatoes: American fast food chains that want millions of pounds of cheap tomatoes as a garnish for their hamburgers, tacos and salads.

In 2005, as Schlosser reports, tomato pickers got their first raise in more than a generation after a protracted battle waged by a Florida farm-workers' union called the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. The raise amounted to a penny for every pound the laborers managed to pick -- a significant boost to worker income.

In order to squeeze that penny out of the farmowners, the union knew it had to target the fast-food chains who buy most of the tomatoes. If the price farmers received for their tomatoes didn't rise, they literally couldn't afford to pay the workers more. So the Coalition of Immokalee Workers opened negotiations with Taco Bell, which (after a long boycott) finally agreed to pay the extra penny. In 2007, McDonald's fell into line.

But Burger King has steadfastly refused to pay up -- and now Florida's largest tomato growers group, the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, has used Burger King's intransigence as an excuse to scuttle the deal with the other fast-food giants. Thus the workers will no longer get the extra penny per pound -- leading to pay cuts of 40 percent. Ceding the raise would cost Burger King $250,000 per year -- a rounding error in its annual profits.

Schlosser, in his expert muckraking way, traces Burger King ownership to the august Manhattan offices of Goldman Sachs, whose CEO last year earned the biggest bonus in Wall Street history and will likely do even better this year.

Burger King's refusal amounts to a massive and seemingly nihilistic show of force -- it singlehandedly wields enough buying power in the tomato market that it can on a whim nearly halve the wages of thousands of poverty-level workers. Meanwhile, the situation out in California with peach growers is all about Wal-Mart and big supermarkets throwing their weight around.

At a recent conference, the Delta Farm Press reports, a stone-fruit farmers group official had this to say:

One-third of the industry is still losing money, and one-third is breaking even, and one third is making money.

That means two-thirds of farmers are losing money or just breaking even. Why do the big retailers impose such ruinous prices on farmers? Because they can.

The large retailers need to make high profit margins on fresh produce to offset the low margins they earn by selling processed foods. The processed-food industry is itself highly consolidated, dominated by a few giants like Kraft. It's easier for Wal-Mart and its ilk to low-ball a bunch of peach farmers than is to squeeze the likes of Kraft. So Wal-Mart drives a hard bargain on produce. Or, as the stone-fruit grower put it, "The margins for produce continue to carry the load for the rest of the items in the supermarket."

If peaches go for 40 cents a pound on the wholesale market, I wonder what peach pickers make out in California. As always, farmers try to make up for low prices by producing more, hoping to make up on volume what they're losing on price. I wonder what sort of environmental compromises they're making in order to boost yields in those tomato fields and peach orchards.

Addendum: It should be noted that Burger King recently rolled out a $1 double cheeseburger.

[back to top]

New film highlights labor abuses at Canadian Wal-Marts

By Tyler Wolfe ,
Gauntlet News
November 29th, 2007                     [back to top]

When thinking of a road trip, one usually envisions a concert, party, or vacation and perhaps even a little debauchery. There are those, however, who prefer to spend their adventure in Wal-Mart parking lots.

Wal-Town is a film that follows a group of Concordia University students activists as they travel across Canada in an effort to inform consumers of what they consider to be the less-than-ideal practices of Wal-Mart.

The film was presented by the Arusha Centre's Action Film Series in conjunction with the Fair Trade Week and was played at the Plaza theatre on Wed., Nov. 21.

The Arusha Centre is a Calgary-based, collectively-run, member-supported, non-profit organization that provides resources and programming on local and global social justice issues. Their Action Film Series was created with the mandate of showing and discussing films that have important social messages. Arusha info-active coordinator, Sharon Stevens explained it is important to have an environment where the message behind the film can be analyzed as well.

"Often when you watch a documentary, the information is pretty overwhelming and people often feel that it is so huge that they cannot do anything about it," said Stevens. "We like to have access to resources before, during and after each film. We try and liven up the experience."

The Wal-Town showing featured a live band playing before the film and a number of speakers to address any questions afterward.

In Wal-Town, the activists tended to take a non-confrontational approach to begin with; handing out pamphlets and information on what they deemed to be the negative aspects of Wal-Mart without being overly aggressive. They changed their tactics when it became apparent that their message was not sinking in to the degree they had hoped. Stevens noted this change of tactics paid off.

"At first [the Wal-Town activists] were just handing out pamphlets and boring people to death at the doorway [of Wal-Marts], but then they got more lively and painted themselves yellow and it really seemed to work [at engaging the shoppers]," said Stevens.

Ezra Winton, one of the leaders of the activist group and co-founder of the non-profit Ãœberculture Collective explained the change of tactics also had another dimension.

"If you want to get on television news you have to be visually intriguing," he said. "If [the TV crew] shows up at a Wal-Mart and there are six people handing out pamphlets, it's not really breaking news."

The attempt to engage people through the use of theatrics paid off for the Wal-Town activists. Stevens explained how the Arusha organization had used similar tactics to get the public's attention.

"We taught people to stand on stilts," said Stevens. "[The public] will stop and listen to somebody who is twelve feet high. If you stand out like that with a bright costume, people will tend to stop and pay attention to what you have to say."

Winton got the idea to do the two-part, cross-Canada tour when the introduction of a Wal-Mart in his home town of Courtney, B.C., brought about far-reaching changes.

"I remember how the landscape of the town change dramatically due to Wal-Mart being built there and thought it would be cool to do a road-trip across Canada and see if it was having the same effect on other towns, and to talk to the Canadian public," said Winton.

Though critical of many of Wal-Mart's practices, Winton was not arguing for a boycott of the retailer.

"It's not about preaching to people or telling them what they should and shouldn't do--it's about having dialogue and discussing all the things that we think are important issues," he said.

One of the largest complaints the Wal-Town activists had of Wal-Mart was their anti-union stance. The retail giant closed its only unionized North American store in Jonquière, Quebec, in 2005. Although Wal-Mart claimed they closed the location because it was not profitable, the Quebec Labour Relation Board subsequently found Wal-Mart guilty of closing the location to avoid the union.

Winton felt this closure is indicative of a wider anti-union bias throughout Canada.

"There is a real anti-organized labour climate right now in Canada that is utterly disgusting and the ignorance that runs across the cultural landscape, from teenagers to people in their fifties about unions and organized labour is mind-boggling," said Winton.

The experience was not all doom and gloom, though. Winton noted the film is unrepresentative in that it does not show the magnitude of support that his group received. All across Canada there were people who took them in and fed them or gave them a place to sleep--something the film fails to portray.

"I'm optimistic that there are small steps being taken all the time and activists from all different areas are achieving goals that will lead to a better world," said Winton. "The film kind of leaves you feeling that it's an impossible uphill battle with the public but it's not. The problem is curbing habitual consumption. That's the battle."

[back to top]

Wal-Mart sets record with HRC ratings plunge

By JOEY DiGUGLIELMO,
Washington Blade
November 28th, 2007                        [back to top] 

The world’s largest retailer set a record this month but not one its managers are likely to be proud of.

Wal-Mart has the ignominious distinction of having the biggest drop ever from one year to the next on Human Rights Campaign’s annual “Buying for Equality” guide, which ranks companies and identifies their most popular brands. The companies are rated on a scale of zero to 100 with 100 being perfect.

Wal-Mart saw its 2006 rating of 65 plummet to 40 this year. That’s low enough to land in HRC’s red zone (companies that rank zero to 45) which means gays and their supporters are encouraged to “strongly consider other options,” according to Daryl Herrschaft, HRC’s director of the Workplace Project which each year oversees the shopping guide, the Corporate Equality Index and the Best Places to Work guide. HRC doesn’t encourage boycotts.

Wal-Mart’s 2006 65 rating was enough to stay in the yellow HRC zone (46 to 70). Green is best (80 to 100) according to HRC’s criteria.

Wal-Mart’s drop resulted from losses in two key areas, Herrschaft said. This summer the company opted not to renew its membership in the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (it joined in 2006) resulting in a loss of 15 HRC points. A discrepancy from last year's study that was discovered in this year's answers resulted in another 10-point loss.

Because HRC added four criteria to its scoring this year (previously there were seven), two questions of which pertained to transgender sensitivity issues, scoring 100 got tougher. Wal-Mart had scored 57 the four years before 2006. This year’s score puts it behind competitors Target, which just made green with an 80, and Kmart which got a 100.

Unlike Bed, Bath & Beyond, CVS or Lowe’s, Wal-Mart did cooperate with the survey by responding, yet its anti-gay decisions from the past year kept it in the HRC ranking basement with other companies like Toys “R” Us and Radio Shack. Best Buy, Borders, Sears and others were among the retailers earning perfect scores.

Wal-Mart responded to request for comment only with a canned e-mail response from Dan Fogleman, a spokesperson for the company.

“At Wal-Mart, our focus is always on our customers and associates — and that means all of them,” the e-mail said. “As an employer, diversity is truly one of our strengths. Since the very beginning of our company, we have emphasized respect for the individual. To us, that means every associate is valued and a partner in our company’s success.”

Fogleman ignored requests for a phone interview and answers to follow-up questions via e-mail.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar was only slightly more forthcoming with USA Today which quoted him as saying Wal-Mart is “proud of our diversity initiative and we think we are taking the right steps.” He wouldn’t comment on whether the rating might hurt Wal-Mart’s holiday sales season.

The rating comes at an uncertain time for the company. According to the Associated Press, Wal-Mart’s 2006 shopping season was its worst ever, though net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008 were up nearly 9 percent over the same period for fiscal year 2007, according to a CNN report.

Wal-Mart’s Black Friday figures weren’t available as of press time but the company told RTT News, a financial newswire service, that it expects its November numbers for this year to fall somewhere between last year’s number and 2 percent higher.

But how much influence does the HRC guide wield and, financially speaking, should Wal-Mart fear its plunging score?

That’s tough to determine as the influence of the shopping guide hasn’t been studied. A researcher at the University of Vermont is working on a study to determine if HRC’s Corporate Equality Index affects stock prices but its results haven’t been published.

Last December, Witeck-Combs Communications/Harris Interactive polled gay consumers about HRC’s shopping guide and asked how likely the guide would be to influence their shopping choices: 72 percent said they’d be influenced by it.

But the guide has an inverse effect in some arenas as conservative groups, often religious, have been known to encourage their supporters to support companies in HRC’s red zone and avoid green zone companies. Herrschaft says HRC’s polling criteria, which assigns point values in key areas, hasn’t been challenged either by companies or conservatives.

Donald Wildmon, founder and chair of American Family Association, sent an action alert to his supporters soon after the shopping guide was published. Its main subject: Wal-Mart.

The group is encouraging its members to stage a “buycott” at Wal-Mart in opposition to HRC’s findings. Wildmon predicts if conservatives support Wal-Mart this holiday shopping season while gays go to Target, observers should “look at Wal-Mart’s sales at the end of December to see who won.”

The Association didn’t respond to a Blade interview request but Wildmon said in his alert that the shopping battle is really about marriage.

“Homosexuals have challenged traditional marriage supporters to do battle,” he wrote. “We will now see if traditional marriage supporters accept the challenge.”

It’s unclear how many shoppers in either ideological camp are aware of Wildmon’s challenge. And because there are many other factors at play — Target has about 1,350 U.S. stores compared to Wal-Mart’s 3,400, for instance — making the holiday shopping season a gay or anti-gay numbers game may be too tricky to calculate fairly.

Herrschaft said the trend in corporate America is to support gay employees and conservatives who avoid such companies will find their shopping options severely curtailed.

“It’s next to impossible today to buy only from a company that doesn’t support gays,” he said. “Any extremely conservative person, if they’re using a computer, they’re probably using a Microsoft computer and they got a 100 percent. If they drive a Ford, GM or Chrysler automobile, they all have perfect HRC scores. If you use a computer, drive a car or wear clothes, chances are you’re supporting a gay-friendly company.”

But ideology aside, isn’t it easy to sympathize with large companies that are constantly being pulled in two directions? Wal-Mart faced enormous criticism from conservatives, Tony Perkins and Family Research Council chief among them, when it joined the gay chamber. Though stopping short of calling for a boycott, Perkins urged supporters to “express their disappointment to Wal-Mart.”

Wal-Mart, then, is stuck in a “damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don’t” pinch, unable to please any group completely.

“That’s a good question,” Herrschaft said. “But the vast majority of heterosexual consumers don’t make shopping decisions on these kinds of issues and the company needs to be sensitive to the needs of all its employees. By keeping (gay) employees out, they’re really moving behind the times.”

Wal-Mart has been shifting on gay-related matters for the last few years. Joining the gay chamber, stocking DVDs of “Brokeback Mountain” and exploring the implementation of DP benefits have variously been praised and criticized leading the company, in June, to enact a policy to avoid “highly controversial matters.” That’s when talks on gay benefits ended, Herrschaft said. HRC executives had been involved in those discussions.

Although no large company has publicly attributed weak sales to strong HRC ratings (or vice versa), groups like American Family Association claim to wield influence. The group says its Ford boycott that started in March 2006 resulted in a 9.5 percent drop when the months of October 2006 and 2007 were compared. Ford sales dropped 18 of the last 20 months since the boycott began, the group said. The Association bills itself as a “pro-family advocacy organization” with more than 2 million online supporters.

Meghan Scott, a spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com, an advocacy group that has a litany of objections to the way Wal-Mart operates, said the HRC score wasn’t a surprise to her.

“It’s somewhat indicative of the way Wal-Mart treats all its employees,” she said. “If they chose to, they could really lead the way in a variety of areas, with wages, benefits and so on, but time and again, they’ve put the bottom line ahead of everything else.”

[back to top]

Injured Wal-Mart Employee Case Sparks Outrage, Donation Fund

By Kimberly Morrison,
The Morning News
November 28th, 2007                                [back to top] 

The case of a former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employee left brain damaged and wheelchair-bound after a collision with a semi-trailer truck, then forced to return the damages awarded for her future medical care back to Wal-Mart, has stirred national outrage over a case seen as an insurance nightmare where Wal-Mart is the bogeyman.

Debbie Shank, 52, was a stocker for Wal-Mart in Cape Girardieu, Mo., when the accident happened. Years of court battles ensued while Wal-Mart footed a $470,000 bill for her care. Her husband sued the trucking company and won. However, only $417,500 remained from the judgment after lawyers and expenses were paid. That money was placed in a Medicaid trust fund.

Three years later, Wal-Mart sued the Shanks for return of the funds paid toward her care. The Shanks lost their last appeal in August, and now their attorney is asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

But news of the case was largely regional, and even that had quieted until last week, when reports by The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times sparked a wave of media attention that surprised even Shank's attorney.

"NBC is sitting in my waiting room," said Maurice Graham, Shank's attorney, in a phone interview with The Morning News from his St. Louis office.

Graham said the attention was deserving because this case was "among the most dramatic of inequities."

This coming from a man who specializes in business litigation involving catastrophic injury cases.

"It's a terrible tragedy," Graham said. "In this case, a big part of the damages were for her future care. Wal-Mart has not and will not pay any part of that, so they shouldn't be able to recover out of that.

"We're not saying Wal-Mart is not entitled to recovery -- they are entitled to a portion of expenses, but it has to be on a pro rata and equitable basis, not that they get it all."

National exposure of the case has in recent days caught the attention of health care and legal associations, incited venomous commentary in the blogging world, and played out on TV.

Wal-Mart Watch took action, establishing on Tuesday a donation fund for the family through its Web site, amid ongoing debates of legal and moral questions raised by the case.

At the heart of the issue is an increasingly common subrogation clause in employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart. The clause says that if the injured party receives damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

"This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction," Wal-Mart said in a statement. "When our associates, or their family members, suffer injuries or medical conditions which are the responsibility of others, our plan steps in to pay covered medical expenses so the associate and their families don't have to worry about their bills or have large out-of-pocket expenses. It is only after the associate or their family member receives a monetary payment from the responsible party that our health plan becomes entitled to reimbursement."

Wal-Mart added in its statement that money recovered is returned to the health plan, not the company, and it is done out of "fairness to everyone who contributes and benefits from the plan."

"While the Shank care involves a tragic situation, 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," Wal-Mart said.

Jon Coppelman, senior vice president of Wellesley, Mass.-based Lynch, Ryan & Associates, a management-consulting firm specializing in workers' compensation, said the clause is unfortunate, but legal.

"The courts may feel some sympathy for Deborah Shank and her long-suffering husband, but the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous. The settlement dollars -- and then some -- belong to Wal-Mart," Coppelman said. "There is, of course, nothing wrong with this story. The language of an insurance policy has been enforced. The fiduciary obligation of Wal-Mart's health plan administrator has been fulfilled."

The tragedy for the Shank family continued well beyond the loss of their case. A week after losing their appeal, the Shanks also lost a son. Their 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq while serving in the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division.

The Shank's attorney said Debbie is "totally and permanently disabled," only minimally aware of her surroundings in an assisted-care facility and having "only the shortest of memory."

Donations may be made to the family at http://action.walmartwatch.com/deborahshank.

[back to top]

Asda store opposed by officials

BBC NEWS                           [back to top]

Asda's plans to open its first supermarket in Inverness have been recommended for refusal. Highland Council planners said the proposal for a 45,000 sq ft (4,180 sq m) store at Slackbuie Farm went against planning policies.

A petrol station and five small retail units are also proposed for the site on the Southern Distributor Road.

The planning application will go before next Tuesday's Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey committee.

Asda, which does not have a store in the Highlands, said it was committed to the Inverness project.

A spokesman said government agency Transport Scotland had dropped its initial objection after the supermarket giant provided more details on potential traffic impacts.

He said the plans also had the backing of local business.

© BBC MMVII

[back to top]

HELP DEBORAH SHANK

Dear johnny,                                     [back to top]

Seven years ago, a semi-trailer plowed into the driver's side of Deborah Shank's minivan. The 52-year-old Missouri Wal-Mart employee and devoted mother of three suffered permanent brain damage. Today she lives in a nursing home for round-the clock care, unable to walk, feed or dress herself. As the Wall Street Journal reported on November 20, it's a tragic story - but it gets worse: "Wal-Mart started out as one of the good guys in this story, paying almost $470,000 of Shank's initial medical bills. But three years after Shank's husband sued and settled with the semi driver's employer, the retail giant changed hats. It demanded every penny back, plus interest and legal fees -- more, in fact, than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special trust fund specifically for Shank's future health care expenses." Wal-Mart sued a permanently brain-damaged woman out of her medical care funds. Thanks to her former employer - the world's largest retailer - Deborah's family is sinking deeper into debt and Deborah will be completely dependent on Medicaid and Social Security for a lifetime of medical care. Wal-Mart Watch is collecting funds to help Deborah Shank's family with her medical bills. Will you make a donation? http://action.walmartwatch.com/deborahshank Wal-Mart's actions are horribly unethical and morally bankrupt, but the company says it's legal - and it's right about that. As the Wall Street Journal explains: The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart's reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit. In cases like the Shanks', where injuries and medical costs are catastrophic, accident victims sometimes can be left with little or none of the money they fight for in court. Company health plans are increasingly adopting language such as Wal-Mart's, which dictates that it is to be paid first out of any settlement, regardless of what remains for the injured person. Moreover, the victim is responsible for all legal costs in pursuing the suit. Last year the U.S. District Court sided with Wal-Mart over the Shank family - making its ruling just six days before Deborah Shank's 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed while serving in Iraq. The decision has forced Deborah's family to take drastic measures. Earlier this year, her husband divorced her because of advice from a health care administrator, who said that she would qualify for more public assistance as a single woman. The Shanks aren't gold-diggers. They are an honest, hard-working American family trying to deal with a catastrophic event, and now they're doing it with an empty wallet - thanks to Wal-Mart. Please do your part to help the Shank family by making a donation now: http://action.walmartwatch.com/deborahshank This holiday season, Wal-Mart rolled out a new slogan: "Save money. Live better." But who lives better with Wal-Mart's low prices? Clearly, it isn't Wal-Mart employees like Deborah Shank.

Sincerely, David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch Paid for
by WalmartWatch.com,
a campaign of Five Stones
and The Center for Community
and Corporate Ethics

[back to top]

Governor opposes Wal-Mart deal for O’Keeffe art

By Erik Schelzig,
Arkansas Democrat Gazette
November 27th, 2007                                   [back to top]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen thinks Fisk University has entered into a bad deal by agreeing to sell half its ownership of an art collection donated by Georgia O’Keeffe for $ 30 million.

The cash-strapped, historically black university has asked a Nashville judge to approve the arrangement to sell a 50 percent stake in the 101-piece collection to an Arkansas museum founded by Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton. The collection would be shared on an equal-time basis.

“As a businessperson, I would be very concerned at the deal Fisk has cut with the museum in Arkansas,” said Bredesen, who founded a publicly traded healthcare company before entering politics.

A trial is scheduled for February to decide whether Fisk’s agreement to share the collection with the Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville is close enough to O’Keeffe’s wishes to be approved. O’Keeffe died in 1986.

Bredesen, a Democrat, said estimates from art experts and insurers indicate the collection “could easily be worth $ 150 million.” “And $ 30 million for half of it is not a very good deal,” he said.

A spokesman for the Crystal Bridges Museum didn’t immediately have a comment on Bredesen’s remarks, and a Fisk spokesman didn’t return a phone message.

As a former Nashville mayor, Bredesen also said he would like to see the collection stay in the city and state.

The artworks given to Fisk in 1949 include O’Keeffe’s own 1927 oil painting, Radiator Building — Night, New York, and works by Pablo Picasso, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Marsden Hartley, Charles Demuth and Alfred Maurer.