|
Wal-Mart CEO: Profitability Driving
Supercenter Growth
By JAMES COVERT Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
[back to top]
September
30, 2003
NEW YORK -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s
(WMT) store growth next year will continue to be driven by its
supercenter format - simply because that is the company's most
profitable format, the top executive said.
Wal-Mart said late Monday it plans
to open 220 to 230 supercenters in 2004. Relocations and expansions
of existing discount stores will account for about 140 of the new supercenters, with the remainder built at new locations. Those
openings will dwarf the numbers of new discount stores, slated at 50
to 55. Sam's Clubs will open 35 to 40 locations, including about 20
relocations. Wal-Mart's developing Neighborhood Market format will
see only 25 to 30 openings.
"We are satisfied with the returns
on the Neighborhood Markets," Wal-Mart President and Chief Executive
H. Lee Scott said at the company's annual meeting with analysts at
its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. "But we have a higher - much
higher - return on the supercenters, and we are going to spend our
efforts in that area."
By the end of this year,
supercenters will outnumber Wal-Mart's regular discount stores for
the first time, Scott said. Next year, they will outnumber discount
stores by at least 100, with more than 1,700 stores.
Wal-Mart executives in the past had
forecast limits on the growth of the supercenter format, figuring a
given area could support only a limited number of the giant stores,
which add full-line grocery stores to the general merchandise
offerings of regular discount stores.
Supercenter cannibalization, or
competition between stores of a single company, has hurt the
company's recent comparable sales by more than a percentage point,
and that figure will continue to creep higher as the number of
supercenters grows. But Wal-Mart is growing more skilled at locating
its stores to reduce customer overlap, for example by using
point-of-sale data to determine where a store's customers live.
What's more, "cannibalization
improves the customer experience," increasing the convenience of
locations, and resulting in shelves that are better stocked at both
stores, Scott said. He added that as stores mature, the effect of
cannibalization tends to wane.
"We can put more supercenters
closer together than we had ever dreamed of in our life," Scott
said.
As of August 31, Wal-Mart operated
1,494 discount stores, 1,386 supercenters, 532 Sam's Clubs and 56
Neighborhood Markets in the U.S.
-By James Covert, Dow Jones
Newswire
[back to top]
Playboy Focuses on Wal-Mart, Which
Doesn't Sell the Magazine
By CONSTANCE L. HAYS
[back to top]
The New York Times Late Edition - Final 2 English
29 September
2003
The November issue of Playboy takes
on Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer. But no one
who shops for magazines exclusively at Wal-Mart is likely to see the
article, because Playboy is among the titles it does not sell.
The article, ''God and Satan in
Bentonville,'' in the November issue of Playboy, on newsstands
Monday, addresses the conservative, no-frills culture at Wal-Mart
after a tour of Bentonville, Ark., where it is based.
''Wal-Mart has never been able to
square its professed Main Street values -- the greeters at the store
doors, the flag-waving patriotism -- with the uncomfortable fact
that it's bad news for Main Street wherever it goes,'' Dan Baum
writes in the article. Mr. Baum reports that an independent
bookstore in town on the verge of shutting down is owned by a
daughter-in-law of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart.
Its ability to filter content for
its customers is among the points the article addresses, with such
observations as, ''The First Amendment prevents censorship by the
government, but Wal-Mart is now so huge that its perfectly legal
corporate policies can hinder freedom of choice.''
One evangelist interviewed said he
moved to Bentonville ''to fight Satan,'' and explained: ''Satan is a
mimicker. God is here, so Satan is here. Wal-Mart started out good,
selling things cheap to people who didn't have a lot of money. But
that's how Satan works.'' He added, ''The reason the religious right
is here in Bentonville is that it's holding off Wal-Mart.''
The retailer cooperated with Mr.
Baum by answering his questions and questions from his editors, a
spokesman, Tom Williams, said. ''We try to respond to all queries
that come to us,'' Mr. Williams said.
Playboy's Web site, Playboy.com, is
inviting women who work for Wal-Mart to pose nude for a feature
called ''Women of Wal-Mart.''
At Wal-Mart, ''we don't care for it
at all,'' Mr. Williams said. ''We think Playboy is exploiting our
name to sell the magazine.'' Has anyone signed up yet? Mr. Williams
said he did not know. But he added, ''We are confident a lot of the
associates are going to see right through it.''
[back to top]
Should Denver
subsidize Wal-Mart?
Susan Barnes-Gelt
[back to top]
Denver Post
Wednesday,
September 24, 2003
The world's biggest corporation
wants at least $12 million from Denver taxpayers to replace 20 small
shops with a Super Wal-Mart. And tomorrow the Denver Urb! an Renewal
Authority will approve the use of its most powerful tool - eminent
domain - to evict two Asian supermarkets, Denver's best dim sum
restaurant, a barber shop, beauty school, martial arts center and
several other small, locally owned businesses.
This co-called "friendly"
condemnation means DURA will relieve Wal-Mart and one of the current
landowners of the cost and aggravation of negotiating with a
collection of immigrant business owners. The threat of condemnation
also means all three property owners will get federal income-tax
breaks when it's time to pay taxes on their gains.
The multimillion-dollar tax subsidy
will close the gap between what the owners are asking for their
20-acre parcel of "slum and blight" and what Wal-Mart is willing to
pay. Ordinarily, the negotiation between a willing buyer and seller
reflects market value. But Wal-Mart says it won't pay the asking
price. The landowners are holding out for top dollar, and DURA is
willing to inflate the market.
A dozen years ago, DURA identified
this property as "slum and blight" and created an urban renewal
district. A few years later, immigrant business owners saw something
else: the opportunity to start a business, work hard and achieve the
American dream. It's urban renewal without capital letters or a
government handout.
Prodded by neighbors anxious for a
supermarket and tired of slow revitalization, DURA and the city are
ready to meet Wal-Mart's demand for aid.
Mayor John Hickenlooper's campaign
message was persuasive: Denver is open for business, especially
small business. Though his admini- stration inherited this dilemma,
the welfare-for-Wal-Mart scheme raises questions he must answer.
How many jobs will be lost?
University of California at Irvine economist Dr. Marlon Boarnet
found that for every 100 jobs a Wal-Mart creates, 150 existing jobs
in the community are destroyed.
What will the promised 400 jobs
pay? Will compensation exceed the $11,900 to $16,202 annual salary
the typical Wal-Mart worker earns?
Company spokesman Tom Williams says
fewer than half of Wal-Mart's employees are covered by the company's
health-care plan. This lack of coverage is further explained by
another company spokeswoman, Christi Gallagher: "Our plan is a
catastrophic plan. ... There's no cap on major illness or major
medical expanses."
Sounds catastrophic all right -
both for the employees and Denver Health's emergency room.
Right now, nearly 500 abandoned
Wal-Marts litter the landscape nationwide. Like all big-box
retailers, Wal-Mart remodels, expands and moves frequently. What
happens when the subsidy is paid off and Wal-Mart wants a bigger
store? Will the company sign an agreement guaranteeing its
participation in the redevelopment of the store? Or will Denver have
another decade of blight on West Alameda Avenue and Zuni Street?
The company hasn't submitted a site
plan to the city. However, the last plan the neighbors saw places
the store at the rear of the property, violating every rule and
regulation in Denver's urban design playbook. In return for a
handsome handout and shielding the company from existing tenants,
shouldn't Wal-Mart abide by the rules and regulations the city
requires of developers?
Condemnation and tax subsidy are
potent tools demanding substantial public benefit. Their use should
translate to long-term, quality revitalization, good jobs with good
pay, synergy for neighboring businesses and increased city revenue.
When the heavy club of government is used to transfer property from
one private owner to another, the public benefits must be
transparent and compelling.
A final question for Denver: Are
400 low-paying jobs, cheap goods and a grocery store worth evicting
20 shop owners, undermining local businesses and absorbing the
hidden costs of public health and social services? And, 12 or 15
years from now, what will we do with a big vacant box in the middle
of a parking lot?
The sales receipts from Wal-Mart go
to Bentonville, Ark. The Siu family, owners of the best dim sum
restaurant in Denver, banks up the street.
Denver native and civic activist
Susan Barnes-Gelt (bs13@qwest.net) served eight years on the Denver
City Council and was an aide to former Denver Mayor Federico Pena.
Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.
[back to top]
Class action no
bargain for Wal-Mart
1.5 million could be added to bias
suit by women
By Greg Burns Tribune senior correspondent
[back to top]
Chicago Tribune
September
24, 2003
As sex discrimination cases go, the
pending lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is nothing unusual
except in one respect: Size.
At a pivotal hearing in San
Francisco Wednesday, a federal judge will consider arguments about
whether the case, brought by a half-dozen individuals, should expand
to encompass a staggering 1.5 million of the retail giant's current
and former employees.
If U.S. District Judge Martin
Jenkins certifies the case as a class action, all the women who
worked for the nation's largest employer between the end of 1998 and
the end of 2002 could be eligible for back wages. That would make it
the biggest-ever class-action litigation involving civil rights,
attorneys in the case say.
At issue is whether Wal-Mart, the
world's largest private employer, systematically discriminated
against women in its pay and promotion policies.
But the sheer scale of the
litigation has become the overarching factor. Class-action status
for such a large case would break new ground in a controversial
arena of the law that critics consider out of control and proponents
view as a vital check on corporate power.
Wal-Mart's status as a respected
model for other large employers raises the stakes as well,
especially with the rise of megacompanies whose practices directly
affect hundreds of thousands at a time.
Among its defenses, Wal-Mart has
said its adversaries are trying to hold it responsible for a
long-established phenomenon in the American workplace: "The
undisputed fact, present in virtually every major corporation, that
the percentage of women at the lower level is higher than the
percentage at the upper level," according to documents in the case.
In the hearing Wednesday, attorneys
for the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer are expected to argue that
because its operations are so large and varied, the experiences of a
few employees never could be entirely representative. The lawsuit
would create conflicts by lumping together in a single class the
company's bottom-rung cashiers, for instance, with its 544 women
store managers who supervised them.
Since Wal-Mart has so many
different departments under one roof, taking action against the
entire company is akin to suing "all the shops" on main streets from
Alaska to Florida, the company said.
But by pursuing a "too-big-to-sue"
defense, "Wal-Mart is seeking a large-company exemption from civil
rights law," countered Joseph Sellers, one of several attorneys
bringing the discrimination case. "If Wal-Mart can get away with it
because of its size and deep pockets, it's going to speak volumes."
The issue of class certification is
the most significant hurdle, observers maintain.
Given the "astronomical" resources
of Wal-Mart, its low-wage women employees have no practical means
besides class-action litigation to enforce their rights, the
plaintiffs said in court documents. Wal-Mart "knows that if it can
defeat class certification, it will not be held accountable for its
conduct."
Logistical nightmare
Yet proceeding with a vast class
action would be unfair to Wal-Mart as well as a logistical nightmare
for the legal system, countered corporate spokeswoman Sarah Clark.
"No court has ever certified a class like this before," she said.
"It's simply not possible for the experiences of so few to represent
so many."
In practice, certification almost
surely would compel Wal-Mart to settle, no matter the merits of its
arguments, said Lester Brickman, a law professor at Yeshiva
University and a critic of class-action practices.
Even if the company believed it had
a strong case, the consequences of losing such massive litigation
would be too great a risk to run, he said. The decision on whether
to certify the class is "the whole ball game," he said. "There is
either a home run or an out."
The case turns on a dispute over
the statistical analysis of Wal-Mart's workforce, as defined by
dueling expert witnesses. That, attorneys say, is a fairly common
approach to sex-discrimination cases.
On the plaintiff's side, the
numbers show that Wal-Mart pays women less than men in every part of
the country where it operates and in nearly every job, from sales
associate to district manager. And although women account for
two-thirds of lower-paid hourly workers, they receive only one-third
of all promotions into management.
The pay disparity generally rises
in more senior posts, with the earnings of male regional vice
presidents averaging $419,435 a year as of 2001, or 50 percent more
than the $279,772 average for the relatively few women in those
high-ranking jobs.
Even among cashiers, male employees
earned $14,525 to $13,831 for women, who generally received higher
performance ratings.
Until recently, Wal-Mart selected
management trainees entirely through a "tap on the shoulder" system,
allowing store managers discretion over who was considered, that
plaintiffs brand as arbitrary and overly subjective.
As a result, the plaintiffs say,
Wal-Mart has maintained a pervasive male-oriented culture typified
by an annual retreat for senior management that revolves around a
quail hunt.
Wal-Mart flatly disputes the
allegation that it discriminates. "Wal-Mart is a great place for
women," said spokeswoman Clark. "The plaintiffs have a huge burden
of proof to meet."
Statistical analysis
Among the challenges is a competing
statistical analysis by a Wal-Mart expert that focuses on how many
women who apply for higher positions actually get the promotions.
While the plaintiffs say the application process is flawed, "Women
at Wal-Mart are more successful than men at securing the positions
they seek," the expert concluded.
Of 41,000 applicants to the
position of support manager, 46.1 percent were women, and 47.2
percent of those getting the promotions in the period covered by the
lawsuit were women, according to Wal-Mart.
Similarly, promotions of women to
higher-salaried positions such as store managers exceeded the rate
at which women applied. And differences in pay become statistically
insignificant when adjusted for factors such as the size and type of
store, the company said in court documents.
Judge Jenkins is expected to hear
several hours of argument Wednesday, but his ruling could be weeks
or months away.
Some advocates for using
class-action litigation to bring about change in the workplace see
great potential in the case.
"Litigation is so difficult for
individuals. In groups, they have more power," said Sheribel
Rothenberg, a Chicago attorney who focuses on employment issues.
"It's like this generation's unionization. Class actions serve some
of the same functions."
But others say that partly because
of its size, the case is unlikely to move ahead.
"The policies and data probably do
vary by store," said John Beisner, a Washington attorney who
specializes in defending against class actions. "It's probably
fairly difficult to certify."
Copyright (c) 2003, Chicago Tribune
[back to top]
'Big box'
ordinance is OK'd by judge
By Eric Swedlund
[back to top]
24 September 2003
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
A Pima County judge Friday upheld
Tucson's "big box" ordinance, rejecting Wal-Mart's claims that the
ordinance was unconstitutional, violated open meeting laws and
harmed the retailer.
Superior Court Judge Charles S.
Sabalos ruled that "Wal-Mart does not have standing to complain
about the legality or constitutionality" of the ordinance the City
Council passed Sept. 27, 1999. It limits the size of grocery
sections in stores larger than 100,000 square feet and requires such
stores to get special approval of plans for dealing with noise,
lights and traffic.
Wal-Mart filed suit in October
2000, arguing that new city regulations violated the state's Open
Meeting Law because amendments the council made immediately before
approving the ordinance were not publicized ahead of time, exceeded
the city's power to set zoning regulations and did not serve a
"legitimate governmental purpose." The suit said it was designed to
protect grocery stores from competition.
In the ruling, Sabalos wrote that
the ordinance serves government purpose in mitigating the effects of
"economic and aesthetic blighting of residential areas when
conveniently located grocery stores within the neighborhood shopping
centers, often anchor stores, close their operations due to
competition from Big Box establishments."
The judge agreed with all of the
city's points, specifically that since Wal-Mart never applied for an
exception to the regulations it could not prove harm or challenge
the constitutionality of the ordinance, said City Attorney Michael
House.
[back to top]
Wal-Mart stole his ideas and
employees, businessman says in lawsuit
BY D.E. LEGER
[back to top]
16 September 2003
The
Miami Herald
A Vero Beach businessman announced
a $1 billion lawsuit against Wal-Mart Tuesday, charging the retail
giant of a conspiracy to steal his business.
Jeffrey Saull, owner and manager of
Tijid and Palm Beach Home Accents, which manufactures, imports and
sells office chairs and candles, among other products, said a former
partner collaborated with Wal-Mart to steal his design ideas and
talented employees since 2002, according in a lawsuit filed in
Indian River County. When he confronted Wal-Mart executives about
this, they said they would do something about it, but they did not,
he alleged.
Two weeks ago Wal-Mart stopped
stopped buying products from his firm.
''Why do I want to be David going
up against Goliath?'' said Saull, who said he had to lay-off
two-thirds of his 50-person staff this month after losing the
Wal-Mart account. ``I wonder if Wal-Mart could do this to me, a
longtime partner, what they would do to others. This is one mom and
pop company Wal-Mart won't be running out of town.''
Suzanne Haney, a Wal-Mart
spokesperson, said the company would have no comment until later
today.
Willie E. Gary, Saull's attorney,
said he expected to win the case. ''We don't come seeking charity,''
he said. ``We want a clean fight. We're prepared for war.''
[back to top]
Wal-Mart's Standard of Living
ANNE ARMSTRONG
[back to
top]
15
September 2003
The Washington Post
In his Sept. 10
letter defending Wal-Mart, Jay Allen said the chain's full- and
part-time workers were "eligible" for benefits. But that does not
mean that these workers can afford the benefits because their
"competitive" salaries may not allow for buying into insurance in
addition to paying living expenses. Many of the families that the
Wal-Mart senior vice president mentioned as living "paycheck to
paycheck" include people working at Wal-Mart.
Further, the fact
that these families live hand to mouth does not justify the chain's
buying clothing and toys from nations that exploit their workers.
Wal-Mart could slash its profit margins and buy from responsible
nations while still offering good prices.
Mr. Allen said
Wal-Mart "[raises] the standard of living for millions of U.S.
families every day," but charging someone $2 less for a bag of chips
does not raise one's standard of living. However, paying the
employee who rings up that bag of chips $2 more an hour just might.
Is Wal-Mart the
devil incarnate? No.
But is it a savior,
sent down from on high to save the poor and hungry as Mr. Allen
would have readers believe? Definitely not.
[back to top]
Wal-Mart set to pay ex-worker $150,000 to settle EEOC suit
BY ALEX DANIELS
[back to
top]
13 September 2003
The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 41
Wal-Mart Stores and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday settled a
year-long suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas charging the company retaliated against a worker at a
Texarkana store after she filed a sexual harassment complaint in
1999.
The Bentonville
company agreed to pay $150,000 to former employee Marcia Mitchell.
In addition, Wal-Mart said it would monitor Miller's former boss,
Deshun White, the store's bakery manager.
In the suit,
Mitchell accused White of subjecting her to a hostile work
environment and barraging her with unwelcome comments and touches.
When she complained, she was transferred out of the bakery to a job
in the hardware department, according to the suit. That job, the
suit said, involved heavy lifting.
The EEOC claimed
that the transfer was retaliatory, made without proper investigation
into Mitchell's complaint and effectively led to her discharge from
the company.
Wal-Mart also
agreed to post information throughout the store informing employees
about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects
workers from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. Wal-Mart also will provide training for its
managers at the Texarkana store.
"We are pleased the
company has taken this proactive step to ensure that harassment
doesn't happen again, and if it does, they'll act accordingly," said
Devika S. Dubey, senior trial attorney for the EEOC in Dallas.
Wal-Mart did not
admit guilt in the case. Instead, the company opted to settle,
calling the move, a "business decision," said Sarah Clark, a
Wal-Mart spokesman.
"We found no
evidence supporting allegations that Wal-Mart or any of its
associates engaged in any wrongdoing," Clark said.
Clark declined to
further describe the decision, saying it was in the best interests
of the company's employees, customers and shareholders to settle the
case.
She added that
Mitchell was transferred out of the bakery department to accommodate
her request to work only three days a week. Such a shift was
available in the hardware department, Clark said.
Starting this year,
Wal-Mart managers must take a two-hour training seminar on sexual
harassment law, Clark said. All employees receive information on
appropriate workplace behavior in handbooks, Clark said. In
addition, all workers receive computer training that focuses on
sexual harassment.
"They are required
to take it," she said of the computer class.
Wal-Mart has more
than 1.3 million employees internationally. The company would not
comment on the number of EEOC complaints that have been filed
against it. The EEOC does not release information on the number of
charges made against a particular company.
In the retail
sector nationwide, the commission received 8,272 charge filings in
fiscal 2003, which ends Sept. 30. The filings reflect all charges
filed by retail industry employees, not just sexual-discrimination
complaints. In fiscal 2002, the commission received 9,737 charges.
In Arkansas, the EEOC received 230 charges from retail employees so
far this fiscal year, down from 310 last year.
In all sectors
nationwide, the EEOC received 61,459 Title VII charges in 2002. Of
those, 21.2 percent received "Merit Resolutions," a term the EEOC
defines as having outcomes favorable to the charging parties or
charges with meritorious allegations.
As a last resort,
the EEOC said, charges result in litigation against a company. The
company currently has two Title VII cases - one in Alabama and one
in Kentucky - pending versus Wal-Mart.
[back to top]
San Marcos Wal-Mart story
By John Berhman UNION-TRIBUNE
STAFF WRITER
[back to top]
September 12, 2003
SAN MARCOS – In a
stunning reversal, Councilman Lee Thibadeau says he will probably
change his vote on a controversial Wal-Mart store approved for
southwest San Marcos.
That would mean a
3-2 vote for the project – which residents who live near the site
have been fighting for months – would almost certainly become a 3-2
vote rejecting it.
"I don't want to
put the city through what I think will be a very nasty campaign,"
Thibadeau said yesterday.
Thibadeau was
referring to a well-organized initiative drive by a group called
Citizens for
Responsible Growth in San Marcos, which opposes the store. It
submitted petitions Monday with about 4,400 signatures asking that
the council rescind its approval of the project. If the council
doesn't do that, it will have to put the issue on the March 2
ballot.
"I'd be thrilled if Mr. Thibadeau
changed his vote," Laura Meyers, one of the group's leaders, said
yesterday. "It has been our goal all along. The people don't want
this (store)."
Peter Kanelos, a spokesman for
Wal-Mart, said he would not speculate on what the council might do
when presented with the referendum – which the Registrar of Voters
has not yet verified has the required 2,421 valid signatures – or
what action Wal-Mart would take.
"What I would like to know is who
paid for the collection of the signatures," Kanelos said, suggesting
the Teamsters Union and the grocery clerks union may have done so.
Wal-Mart has consistently opposed
unionization of its stores.
Meyers said most of the money came
from contributions from residents and about 50 signature gatherers
were volunteers, while a dozen were paid. Leonard Miller, also a
member of the group, said the manner in which the signature drive
was financed would be disclosed in financial statements required by
the state.
The store would be built on 20
acres at the northeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and a future
alignment of Melrose Drive, in the University Commons development.
University Commons had no plans for the store until city officials
asked that a 300-unit condominium project be eliminated to make room
for one. Wal-Mart had approached the city seeking a site for a
second store in San Marcos.
The council approved the store in
August after a 5-2 vote against it by the city Planning Commission.
Yesterday, Thibadeau said he was
impressed with the opponents' efforts and always had concerns about
traffic and noise from the store.
"I give the Wal-Mart opponents
credit," he said. "They exhausted the legislative process, going to
the city Planning Commission and the council. And then going the
referendum route.
"I want to do what is best for the
whole community. But why put these people and the city through this
whole campaign process?"
But Thibadeau has another motive
for not having the potentially divisive Wal-Mart question on the
March ballot.
The same ballot will also contain a
measure, financed by San Diego Gas & Electric, intended to slow or
block the city's effort to find another company to provide gas and
electricity in new developments in San Marcos. The city is planning
on placing a competing measure regarding the energy question on the
March 2 ballot.
For more than two years, Thibadeau
has been the most vocal supporter of the city's dumping SDG&E for
another company, along with Mayor Corky Smith and Councilman Mike
Preston. They are the same three who approved the Wal-Mart.
"I think there is a more important
battle that will be on that ballot," Thibadeau said yesterday,
referring to the dueling city and SDG&E measures.
Smith and Preston said though they
will reconsider their Wal-Mart vote, as the referendum would
require, they remain supportive.
"I haven't made up my mind yet, but
there are still some things that bother me about this," Smith said.
"I still feel that a lot of the people who are against this don't
even live in the city, and they want to come in and tell us what to
do."
Wal-Mart opponents, many of whom
live in Carlsbad and unincorporated areas, counter that getting an
issue on the ballot required that they collect signatures only in
San Marcos and that the signatures came from all over the city.
"I also don't like the idea that
their two referendums put the entire University Commons project in
jeopardy," Smith added.
Wal-Mart opponents collected
signatures for two measures. One would prohibit a store on the
proposed 20-acre site, the second would prohibit one on any of
University Commons' 416-acre property. Smith said the way the second
referendum is written, the entire 1,224-unit University Commons
project will be put on hold if it passes.
Preston said it "was pretty
impressive" that store opponents collected so many signatures in
only 10 days, "but I also don't know if people knew what they were
signing. It was a couple of pretty lengthy documents. I will rethink
the issue though."
City Clerk Susie Vasquez said
yesterday she probably will send the signatures to the county
Registrar of Voters next week. That office will have 30 working days
to verify signatures.
[back to top]
Wal-Mart union drive heats up;
charges filed
Grace Leong THE DAILY HERALD
[back to top]
Saturday, September 13
A union organizing drive at the
Wal-Mart Supercenter at 1355 S. Sandhill Road in Orem is
intensifying with the filing of unfair labor practice charges
against the nation's largest retailer.
The Orem store is the first
Wal-Mart in Utah that's accused of federal labor law violations by
the United Food and Commercial Workers International in Washington,
D.C., said officials with the National Labor Relations Board.
The UFCW International filed
charges with the National Labor Relations Board on Sept. 5, accusing
Wal-Mart of violating federal labor laws in its efforts to
discourage its Orem workers from supporting a petition for an
election for union representation.
The NLRB, a federal agency charged
with investigating unfair labor practices, said it is now
investigating the union's charges. If the charges have merit, the
NLRB will issue a complaint against Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart officials declined to
comment on the union's charges about unfair labor practices.
In Las Vegas, where the UFCW's
national organizing drive of the giant retailer originated, an
administrative law judge, acting on an NLRB complaint, had ruled in
January 2002 that Wal-Mart was to post notices at three Las
Vegas-area stores pledging, among other things, to obey the law and
stop preventing its employees from distributing union materials.
In recent months, organized labor
has escalated efforts to unionize Wal-Mart stores after several
years of failing to organize a single store.
The Orem store workers now are in
the process of gathering the required number of signatures to force
a vote. Once 30 percent of the Orem store's 500 workers have signed
in support of an NLRB-held election, federal law requires the store
to allow a vote on a union.
UFCW alleged in the charges that
Wal-Mart violated federal labor laws by surveilling and
interrogating workers about their union activities and implementing
work policies "intended to interfere with the employees' rights to
organize."
Wal-Mart also was accused of
"soliciting grievances from employees and granting benefits to
employees" who whistle-blew about union-friendly workers, the union
said.
The union said Wal-Mart violated
federal labor laws by failing to have a union representative or
co-worker present during investigatory meetings with its worker,
Bret Pope.
Pope, a Wal-Mart worker for more
than nine years, said the company allegedly failed to take steps to
resolve sexual harassment complaints he had filed with Wal-Mart
management against a supervisor and failed to allow a co-worker to
be present during meetings he had with Wal-Mart management about his
complaints and concerns about being watched.
"They also installed several
surveillance cameras at my service desk and asked other workers
about my union activities," he said.
Shawn Mansell, a sales clerk at the
Orem store for more than three years, alleged Wal-Mart forced
workers to attend mandatory anti-union meetings and hired union
busters to discourage union support since the organizing drive began
in June at the Orem store.
Fueling the organizing drive in
Orem is a growing disenfranchisement of many Wal-Mart workers with
the company's wage policies and working conditions, the union said.
UFCW officials said they fear Wal-Mart would drag down hourly wage
standards, charging the average wage for Wal-Mart workers is
$7.50-$8.50 an hour, while unionized workers with two or more years
of experience earn about $12.51 an hour with an hourly increase of
25 cents annually thereafter.
UFCW Local 711 represents workers
in Utah and Nevada, including Smith's and Albertson's grocery store
employees in Utah County.
But Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart
spokeswoman, disputed the union's allegations about wages and
benefits.
"Before we go into a market, we do
a competitive wage analysis to make sure we're competitive with all
retailers, both union and non-union," she said. "We don't start at
minimum wage at any of our stores in the country. Our benefits
include profit sharing plan, 401(k), stock purchase plans and
medical benefits."
Grace Leong can be reached at
344-2910 or gleong@heraldextra.com.
[back to top]
Wal-Mart sued for labor abuses
BY JULIE FORSTER Pioneer Press
[back to
top]
11 September 2003
Debbie Simonson was asked to
straighten up her area of the Wal-Mart store in Brooklyn Park at the
beginning and end of her shifts when she worked there in 2000 and
2001. She followed her supervisor's requests to work "off the
clock," passing out promotional items to customers, assembling candy
bags and clearing carts from the parking lot.
Most often, she didn't get meal or
rest breaks, and after she was promoted to supervise cashiers, the
store was so understaffed that there was never anyone to relieve
them for breaks.
She complained to higher-ups but
nothing changed. "They didn't care," she said. "It wasn't a
priority."
Now Simonson is fighting back by
suing her former employer, the nation's largest retailer. On Friday,
she and three other women will ask a Dakota County District Court to
give them class-action status on behalf of 63,000 current and former
workers in Minnesota. Their lawyers estimate that Wal-Mart workers
across the state lost tens of millions of dollars in wages and
500,000 hours of breaks per year since 1998.
Complaints such as these are at
issue in similar lawsuits filed across the country against Wal-Mart
by its employees. Wal-Mart says there are 37 separate off-the-clock
cases seeking class-action status in 29 states.
Wal-Mart is opposing the Minnesota
motion for class certification.
"This lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiffs deviated from company policy for many highly
individualized and personal reasons, which make this case unsuitable
to be pursued as a class action," said Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart
spokeswoman in Bentonville, Ark.
Simonson, Nancy Braun, Cindy
Severson and Pamela Reinert contend that employees were forced to
work without getting paid in order to meet Wal-Mart's profit and
productivity goals.
"It's important to speak up and
hold our ground," Simonson said Wednesday. "They have to comply with
the law."
In five cases elsewhere, courts
have denied the class certification that the Minnesota women are
seeking. A court in Indiana recently certified one class action. Two
years ago, a class action was certified in Colorado and then settled
for a reported $50 million. In late December, a Portland, Ore., jury
found Wal-Mart guilty of violating federal and state wage-and-hour
laws in requiring employees to work "off the clock."
Gallagher points to Wal-Mart's
policy outlined in a handbook that reminds employees to clock in at
the beginning of the workday. "Remember that working off the clock
is not only against Wal-Mart policy -- it's against the law," it
says.
Wal-Mart's policy allows employees
a paid rest break for every three hours worked and an unpaid meal
period of at least 30 minutes for every six hours worked.
"Wal-Mart's policy is to pay its
associates for every minute that they work," Gallagher said.
Individual managers who deviate from Wal-Mart policy are subject to
disciplinary action, including termination, she said.
Minnesota labor law says workers
are entitled to time to use the nearest restroom within each four
consecutive hours of work and mealtime for every eight or more
consecutive hours worked.
According to the women's lawsuit,
Wal-Mart's violations stem from a deeply ingrained corporate culture
of maximizing profits as the one and only objective.
Managers feel so pressured to meet
ambitious financial goals, the suit says, that they keep down labor
costs by altering time cards or getting employees to work off the
clock before and after their shifts.
One time clock report from the
Apple Valley store shows that one of the sales associates worked
8.28 hours of overtime. On the same report, a handwritten note
states: "needs 8.28 hours taken off," according to court records.
Simonson's time records in one case
were edited to insert a punch-out time of 6:58 a.m., one minute
after she started her day. Braun's store manager at the Apple Valley
Wal-Mart asked her to place frozen food deliveries in the freezer
before clocking in at the beginning of her shift, the suit says. She
also was asked after clocking out in the afternoon to stay for an
extra 15 or 30 minutes to help out at the in-store eatery.
Reinert says she frequently was
asked to work for 15 to 30 minutes after clocking out at four
different Twin Cities Sam's Clubs, where she had jobs in personnel,
payroll and as an assistant manager.
Severson said when she went
shopping with her kids one day at the Brooklyn Park Wal-Mart where
she worked, her store manager asked her to help in the customer
service area. She says she ended up working 11/2 hours without being
scheduled or clocking in.
The women earned between $5.46 and
$10 per hour and worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores from 1997
through 2001.
"These were the lowest-paid of our
working poor," said Jonathan Parritz, one of the plaintiff's
attorneys arguing the case. "They were slightly above minimum wage
but not much."
Between 15 and 25 Wal-Mart workers
a week call Al Zack, an official with the United Food & Commercial
Workers union in Washington, D.C. Zack, who is leading the effort to
organize Wal-Mart workers nationwide, says one of the top complaints
is the "off-the-clock" work.
"Wal-Mart is a different kettle of
fish simply because of its size," Zack said, adding that Wal-Mart is
extraordinary among retailers in its intense focus on minimizing
costs. Managers will do anything, he said, including chiseling 15
minutes off of a time card, to get in line with the numbers.
In the Oregon case, 400 current and
former employees joined the litigation. What convinced the jury?
"Hearing similar stories from
workers from around the state, who didn't know each other, hadn't
met each other but had described the same experiences while working
at different Wal-Marts," said James Piotrowski, the plaintiff's
attorney in the case. A damages trial is set for Jan. 6.
Attorneys representing the
Minnesota plaintiffs said they plan to use statistical evidence as
well as an internal audit by Wal-Mart to make their case. They also
will use Wal-Mart's own employee handbook and policies to prove that
Wal-Mart breached promises to its employees when it failed to pay
them for hours worked and to give them rest and meal breaks.
The women in Minnesota also are
relying on an important precedent in their case. The Minnesota
Supreme Court has recognized that an employer's published policies
can create a contractual obligation to its employees.
[back to top]
Wal-Mart exports anti-union stance
to China
By Richard McGregor in Shanghai
[back to
top]
Published: September 10 2003 14:46
Wal-Mart has long battled to keep
unions out of its stores in the US. Now, the world's largest
retailer has picked the same fight in China.
The All-China Federation of Trade
Unions, which oversees all workers' organisations in the country,
said it has been repeatedly rebuffed in an effort to establish
unions in Wal-Mart outlets.
The federation says all companies,
foreign and local, are required to establish a union under its
supervision, using funds from a 2 per cent levy on wages.
"Many times we have tried to talk
to Wal-Mart about this, but they knock us back with excuses, like
the boss is not in, and so on," said an official at the federation
in Beijing.
"We want to tell them that unions
in China are not troublemakers - they help the company "develop". As
sceptical as Wal-Mart might be about such claims, Chinese unions
have traditionally been an instrument for the Communist party to
control workers, not a vehicle for agitation and strikes, which are
almost never allowed.
The federation said that about 90
per cent of foreign companies had co-operated with it in one form or
another, and it would continue to press Wal-Mart.
Yuan Jizhong, another federation
official, said the "Beijing party committee had paid great attention
to this issue and had held special meetings about it."
"The task is very difficult, but we
will carry on," Mr Yuan said.
Wal-Mart has 27 stores in China and
sources about $10bn worth of goods from the mainland every year,
according to US government estimates, or about a tenth of all
Chinese exports to the US.
A spokesman for Wal-Mart could not
be reached, but a company official in Shenzhen, Zeng Qiang, told
Reuters: "We're not prepared to make a statement at this time."
[back to top]
Here Comes the Neighborhood
by John Unrein, Baking Buyer
[back to top]
September 1, 2003
When Sam Walton ran for student
body president at the University of Missouri in the 1930s, he
learned a crucial lesson called the 10-foot rule: Greet anyone
within 10 feet with a smile and speak to them directly, preferably
by name.
This neighborly attitude made
Walton billions.
Now, as Wal-Mart gains familiarity
and clout in the food business, the world's largest retailer is
ready to cozy up to even more bakery customers through its
Neighborhood Markets. These stores are roughly one-quarter the size
of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and carry dozens of bakery items such as
donuts for 50 cents apiece, loaf cakes for $1.49 and hot French
bread for less than a buck. Yet little baking is done at store
level.
Most baked goods are shipped from a
nearby Supercenter, and analysts say Wal-Mart is wise to recognize
these two concepts fit well together. Both are supported by regional
distribution centers that keep Wal-Mart stores efficiently stocked.
"Wal-Mart is a stellar brand, and
they have proven through the test of time that most everything they
do turns to gold," says Ira Blumenthal, a retail analyst and
president of Co-opportunities Inc. in Atlanta, GA. "It's only a
matter of time until they build strong credibility in food
categories, as well."
There are now 53 Neighborhood
Markets in eight states. Wal-Mart plans to add 20 to 25 locations
during its current fiscal year.
By comparison, Wal-Mart operates
1,356 Supercenters. This discount store-supermarket hybrid was
introduced in 1988, and within a decade Wal-Mart had emerged as one
of the nation's largest grocers. Today, it's No. 1.
Analysts predict Neighborhood
Markets will solidify Wal-Mart's dominant position in the
supermarket sector by grabbing new customers in urban areas. New
locations are going up in fast-growing markets such as Dallas-Fort
Worth, TX, Orlando, FL, and Salt Lake City, UT.
"To get into metros, this is their
answer," says Dick Spezzano, a retail analyst and a former
perishables executive at Vons supermarkets in Southern California.
"You can't get 15-acre blocks in big cities. But there are
opportunities in metros to put down 30,000- to 40,000-square-foot
stores. The challenge is the Krogers and the Safeways of the world
are looking for the same spots, and they'll pay more for location."
Neighborhood Markets, which debuted
in 1998, range in size from 42,000 to 55,000 square feet and carry
fresh perishables, general merchandise and dry grocery items.
Neighborhood Markets typically employ 80 to 100 and offer about
28,000 items.
"Neighborhood Markets are generally
opened in areas with existing Supercenters," says Karen Burk, a
Wal-Mart spokesperson. "This allows shoppers who want to make a
quick trip to the grocery store a convenient, more intimate format.
For longer grocery trips, customers can enjoy the nearby
Supercenter. Both formats offer a different kind of convenience for
our customers."
What Neighborhood Markets lack in
production at store level, they more than make up for in
merchandising. Bakery departments feature a sparkling clean, upscale
look with wooden tables-with extras like mobile heating display
units for stocking French bread on the sales floor. Customers just
open the door and select what they need.
"The more square feet you have with
stuff to sell, the better off you are," Blumenthal says. "The more
space you have devoted to baking and production, that's not selling
feet."
Another unique feature of the
Neighborhood is the "Grab-n-Go" section, where shoppers can buy a
donut or cinnamon roll on the honor system by dropping two quarters
in the box. Or they can pour their own coffee or soft drinks and
pick up a newspaper here. The self-serve price is noted above each
product. Not all Neighborhood Markets offer the Grab-n-Go section.
Most new locations offer this feature.
"It has been popular in those
communities where it is available," Burk says. "Whether it's
one-stop shopping at our Supercenters or the Grab-n-Go at our
Neighborhood Markets, convenience is definitely a focus for serving
our customers."
Some analysts say Wal-Mart has
tweaked the merchandising of Neighborhood Markets so much in five
years that they've rubbed the original paint off the shelves. One
challenge has been to open more aisle space.
"From the stores I've seen, they've
got perishables squeezed. You've got to have 6- and 8-foot aisles,
so people feel comfortable shopping," Spezzano says. "You want to
slow down the shoppin | 
