Will Labor Take the Wal-Mart Challenge? 

April 5, 2004

April 1, 2004

April 1, 2004

Bye Bye Big Box

This admonition comes from a handbook Wal-Mart distributes to managers, and gives an idea of the passion and vision behind Wal-Mart's unionbusting project. The $259 billion retail behemoth that has become a defining feature of the American landscape has also profoundly altered labor politics, deploying ever more creative and ruthless tactics to suppress the right to organize, while driving down wages and benefits in the retail industry and beyond.

The company is providing a business model widely imitated by other corporations, especially its competitors. To take one recent example, after striking for months, grocery workers in Southern California were forced to accept a vastly reduced health plan early this year, as supermarkets, anticipating competition from new Wal-Mart Supercenters throughout the state, refused to compromise with the union--probably the first time in history that a potential competitor who had not even entered the market yet was such a key player in a labor dispute. But the California grocers are not alone. Supermarkets all over the country have been lowering wages and decimating workers' health plans. Management claims these cutbacks are necessary to compete with Wal-Mart, but another explanation makes at least as much sense: "Greed," says Linda Gruen, a former Wal-Mart worker now organizing supermarket chains for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). "Management sees what Wal-Mart gets away with," she says, and realizes that the way to increase profits is to do the same.

Wal-Mart, which topped the Fortune 500 this year, for the third year in a row, is not just an industry leader: It is an economy leader, the nation's largest private employer by far, with over 1.2 million employees. That number is growing all the time, as Wal-Mart opens new stores just about every week. The average wage is around $8 an hour--and the health plan so expensive and so stingy in its coverage that many workers go without, or depend on the government to pay their medical bills. Says Susan Phillips, vice president of the UFCW and head of its working women's department, for any private-sector union in the United States today, "anytime you go into negotiations...it's like there's this invisible 800-pound gorilla sitting in the room at the bargaining table." This is reflected particularly by employers' ebbing generosity on healthcare, but also on wages, pensions and other benefits. Journalist Bob Ortega observed in his 2000 book, In Sam We Trust, that Wal-Mart's "way of thinking," its relentless focus on giving the customer the lowest price, "has become the norm," not just in retail but in all businesses. This can't be done without crushing labor.

That's why a consensus among labor leaders is emerging that organizing Wal-Mart workers is an urgent priority--perhaps the most urgent facing a labor movement that is losing density and influence. Asked what it will take to organize Wal-Mart, Al Zack, outgoing assistant director of strategic programs for the UFCW, points to Wal-Mart's stated commitment to remaining "union free." Says Zack, "When the labor movement...matches that commitment, then it will be successful."

It would be difficult to exaggerate the magnitude of this challenge. Wal-Mart's rhetoric is supported by diligent practice. The company screens out potential union supporters through its hiring process: In addition to excluding those with union histories, the company also administers personality tests to weed out those likely to be sympathetic to unions, and offers managers tips on how to spot such people.

The same handbook, which was given to management in a Wal-Mart distribution center in Greencastle, Indiana, urged managers to be wary of certain union-friendly types, including "the Cause-Oriented Associate," who in high school "led demonstrations against everything from 'red dye' to 'ban the bomb.' He once took a trip to India to visit his personal 'guru.'" Managers are also encouraged to avoid the "Overly-Qualified Associate...a Ph.D operating a grinding machine or a former accountant sweeping the floor.... This type of associate includes the associate who has formerly made substantially more money with other employers."

During the hiring process, many workers say they have had to sign forms agreeing that they would not support any effort to unionize the store, a clear violation of federal law. Lorraine Hill, who worked for Wal-Mart in Rock Springs, Wyoming, and in Oxford, Maine, says all her co-workers did this. "If you don't sign that paper you are not employed," she says. "It's not legal. It's not ethical. But if you are low income and you need the job, you abide by the rules."

Of course, these preventive measures do sometimes fail, and workers begin to organize. Wal-Mart is prepared for that, too. At any sign of union activity in a store, managers call the company's Bentonville, Arkansas, headquarters, which sends a "labor relations team" by private plane (Air Walton) to the offending store to crush the organizing effort, often the very day the call comes in.

In the United States, only one group of Wal-Mart employees has successfully organized. In February 2000 ten meatcutters in Jacksonville, Texas, voted 7 to 3 to unionize their tiny bargaining unit. Two weeks later, Wal-Mart abruptly eliminated their jobs by switching to prepackaged meat and assigning the butchers to other departments, effectively abolishing the only union shop on its North American premises. After more than three years, in June 2003, a federal labor judge ruled this move illegal and ordered Wal-Mart to restore the department and recognize the butchers' bargaining unit. Wal-Mart has appealed that decision.

Because the consequences are so minimal, Wal-Mart does not hesitate to break the law in order to stay union-free. Indeed, as the Greencastle handbook to managers notes frankly, during a union drive, "You...are expected to support the company's position.... This may mean walking a tightrope between legitimate campaigning and improper conduct." Wal-Mart has been found guilty of many violations of workers' right to organize, even firing union sympathizers. But paying fines--or in some cases, merely hanging a sign in the break room that states that the company violated workers' rights--is for Wal-Mart simply part of the cost of doing business, a small price to pay for keeping unions out. Until labor laws are reformed to make violating workers' rights a criminal offense--punishable by sending managers and CEOs to prison--running Wal-Mart campaigns based on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) challenges may be fruitless.

Recently Wal-Mart decided that remaining union-free is a political issue, becoming 2003's number one corporate contributor to candidates, 85 percent of them Republicans. Most corporations, realizing that both Democrats and Republicans respond to business interests, give almost equally to the two parties. But Wal-Mart operates on the premise that while Democrats owe something to labor, Republicans don't--and therefore, if its donations can purchase GOP dominance, they are well spent. Wal-Mart, especially as it moves into urban areas and into union-friendly regions like California, is strategically trying to buy as many politicians and NLRB appointments as it can.

Yet despite Wal-Mart's clear focus on fighting unions, the labor movement has been slow to respond. In the late 1980s the UFCW began to realize that Wal-Mart's rapid growth and competitiveness--and rapid incursion into the grocery industry, which had been mostly unionized--posed an urgent threat to members' jobs. The first Supercenter--a twenty-four-hour Wal-Mart selling groceries in addition to the company's traditional range of goods, from ladies' underwear to lawn mowers--opened in 1988; by the end of 2003, Wal-Mart had opened 1,430 of them. Wal-Mart had historically been concentrated in "right-to-work" states in the South, but as it grew, the company encroached upon more unionized Western and Northeastern regions. Still, the union effort was halfhearted until the late 1990s, when supermarkets began losing market share to Wal-Mart and it became painfully obvious that the company threatened the UFCW's very survival--and its members' hard-won comfortable lives.

As the UFCW's humbling defeat in the California grocery strike showed, the union, after years of friendly relations with so many regional grocery stores, does not know how to conduct an antagonistic national campaign, or how to make use of nationwide publicity and public sympathy for workers. Many labor organizers, pointing to such failings, blame the UFCW for its failure to organize Wal-Mart.

But the mistakes of this particular union may almost be beside the point. While it is true--and sobering--that the UFCW devotes only 2 percent of its national budget to the Wal-Mart campaign, it is also true, as many in the labor movement are beginning to recognize, that there is no way any single union could tackle an opponent of this size and genius. As Mike Leonard, just-retired director of strategic programs for the UFCW, observes, if his union spent all its resources on organizing Wal-Mart workers, it would have to neglect the pressing needs of current members. As big as the UFCW is--at 1.4 million members, it is the nation's largest private-sector union--Wal-Mart will soon have more US employees than the UFCW has members. "It's not a fair fight," says Wade Rathke, founder and chief organizer of ACORN and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 100, in New Orleans. No union has ever organized an entity the size of Wal-Mart, let alone one as creative and coordinated in its anti-unionism. "You have to admire this company," says Rathke. "They are very disciplined, and they've got a program." Labor doesn't, at least not yet.

Increasingly, labor leaders recognize this, and are taking the first step: admitting they have a problem. "This problem [Wal-Mart] is on the short list of any serious labor leader in the country," says Rathke. Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, has opened a dialogue on the subject on his weblog, soliciting ideas about strategy. (The SEIU is not attempting to organize Wal-Mart, nor is any union other than the UFCW, at this point.) Stern, who began the blog conversation with a picture of himself standing in front of one of Wal-Mart's thirty-nine Chinese stores, said in an interview that he sees the blog as an opportunity "to do what Howard Dean did," to stimulate interest, and then as a campaign evolves, mobilize people into action.

As the growing engagement of other unions in this discussion suggests, the UFCW cannot "stop" or change Wal-Mart alone. The task will demand the close cooperation and resources of other labor organizations. Asked what it will take to organize Wal-Mart, Ginny Coughlin of the textile union UNITE, which has recently begun organizing retail workers--but has no immediate plans to take on Wal-Mart--says, "I was just talking about this with a colleague the other day. We figured 3,000 organizers at a minimum. And all the resources, political will and leadership of probably four or five major unions." It is not inconceivable that this could happen: Labor leaders' recent rhetoric about greater cooperation between unions is more than talk. Several large unions are launching joint campaigns to organize low-wage workers. UNITE and HERE (the hotel and restaurant workers' union), for example, which are now in the process of merging, are working with the SEIU to organize employees at Sodexho, the nation's largest dining-services provider--which will involve more serious cooperation between labor organizations than we've seen in years. On May 12 prominent labor leaders held a meeting at SEIU headquarters to discuss the Wal-Mart problem, but partly because most people in the labor movement are preoccupied with defeating Bush, such dialogue is proceeding slowly.

Leonard, who ran the UFCW's Wal-Mart campaign for the past four years, thinks the "entire labor movement" should devote resources to helping Wal-Mart workers build a new, AFL-CIO-affiliated union "from the ground up." If other unions simply run a joint campaign against Wal-Mart, he argues, they are just going to drop out "as soon as they have their next big problem" affecting their own members' immediate interests.

International cooperation could be key to any Wal-Mart organizing strategy. As Andy Stern, just back from China, points out, "Wal-Mart is second only to our current President in unpopularity around the world" [see Carl Goldstein, "Wal-Mart in China," December 8, 2003]. Since Wal-Mart is an increasingly global company, fighting it invites potential for cross-border solidarity, especially in Germany, where many Wal-Mart workers are unionized and the company abides by a sectorwide agreement with a large retail union, and has been the target of pickets and warning strikes. In Britain some ASDA (British Wal-Mart) stores have shop stewards, but none of the workers are recognized as union members, or are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement. In Brazil Wal-Mart has had to reach agreement with unions on some workers' rights issues, while in Japan all of the company's workers are unionized, and Wal-Mart abides by an agreement reached with the stores' previous owner.

Many in the US labor movement believe that Wal-Mart requires a new organizing strategy. "There is no existing organizing model that unions have effectively employed to date that would organize this company," says Wade Rathke, who believes workers need a way to build their own institutions that is "not based on the permission of the employer."

Joel Rogers, a longtime social-justice activist and University of Wisconsin political scientist, agrees that the traditional model of organizing--by industry, with a focus on getting a majority vote in each shop, which under the law makes all the workers in that shop part of the union--cannot work for Wal-Mart. Rogers advocates an approach he calls "open-source unionism," in which workers could join unions even if the majority of their co-workers had not yet chosen to do so [see Richard B. Freeman and Joel Rogers, "A Proposal to American Labor," June 24, 2002]. Membership would focus on the individual, not the firm or job; a member could still belong to the union if and when she changed jobs. "It would be a kind of 'Wal-Mart Workers Association,'" says Rathke. This feature makes particular sense at a company like Wal-Mart, where turnover is so high. Under this model, employers could not insure that by defeating unions in elections, their workplaces would remain union-free. While these unions would lack collective-bargaining rights, members would receive advice from the union on how to protect their rights during disputes, and help in improving pay and working conditions through collective action. They would also benefit from alliances with community groups and other unions in putting pressure on their employer. Open-source unionism certainly needs re-branding, since only technologically knowledgeable geeks--most of whom are middle class--would understand that phrase, which derives from a term referring to the free exchange of software on the Internet. But it could provide a structure enabling workers' political activism, making it much easier for workers at companies like Wal-Mart to agitate to improve their situation, in cooperation with other workers.

This model isn't just a wonky abstraction. Though they may use different language to describe it, women and immigrants--including sweatshop workers in the United States and Latin America, and New York City taxi drivers--have been at the forefront of similar new organizational strategies. In her 2001 book Sweatshop Warriors: Immigrant Women Workers Take On the Global Factory, Miriam Ching Yoon Louie describes how garment workers have developed worker centers both to agitate for rights on the job and to develop political consciousness and become part of a larger social movement. These are, of course, much smaller-scale than a Wal-Mart Workers Association would be, but the principles--organizing without permission from employer or government, and affiliating with workers who are not in the same shop--are the same.

"It is essential that Wal-Mart workers have something like that," says Jane Collins, a professor of rural sociology and women's studies at the University of Wisconsin who has studied women's labor organizations in Latin American free-trade zones. Most Wal-Mart workers are women, and women--whether in Latin America or in immigrant communities in the United States--have been at the forefront of these new forms of organizing because, says Collins, they have been excluded, or poorly served, by the traditional unions. Similarly, Wal-Mart women find themselves in their current dismal position both as a result of mainstream labor's failure to recognize, early on, the importance of organizing low-wage retail workers and because of working-class women's historic--and ongoing--exclusion from unionized skilled trades.

"This might not work either," admits Rathke, of the Wal-Mart Workers Association idea. But it should be tried, he argues, because "we need a new strategy."

Most people agree that any serious approach to forcing Wal-Mart to the bargaining table must eventually threaten the company's profits. Labor organizers used to think they could do this by asking the public not to shop at Wal-Mart, but now most concede that's impossible, given the retailer's low prices. Their own members shop at Wal-Mart, making at least 30 percent of union credit-card purchases at the retail giant. Even activists thinking seriously about how to oppose the retailer keep finding themselves in its parking lots. "I love that damn store," says Rathke, who recalls being a loyal customer when he lived in Arkansas and needed the discounts. "They had me. I wasn't making 2 cents to put together." Now he lives in New Orleans, and admits, "Damned if I don't go down to Sam's for a new tire! They do have something that works. You can't just convince people they're evil." Indeed, many rural and working-class women view Wal-Mart as an ally, an oasis of low prices in an unfriendly world. In her chart-topping paean to country pride, "Redneck Woman," Gretchen Wilson sums it up irresistibly: "Victoria's Secret, well their stuff's real nice/But I can buy the same damn thing on a Wal-Mart shelf half price/And still look sexy, just as sexy as those models on TV/No, I don't need no designer tag to make my man want me." The question of how to threaten profits, given such intense consumer loyalty, is one of many that the labor movement's current dialogue must engage.

While simply telling people not to shop at Wal-Mart may be a losing battle, fighting Wal-Mart and companies like it will require convincing the public that discounts are no substitute for economic justice. Says Beth Shulman, author of The Betrayal of Work: How Low-Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans and Their Families, "We need to talk about cost in a larger way. It is not just about saving $25, but the cost to the lives of workers and their families, and to society." That conversation has already begun in Georgia, Washington State and elsewhere, where studies have shown that Wal-Mart employees depend on public assistance far more than do workers employed by other large companies. April Hotchkiss, who makes $8.33 an hour as a clerk in a Pueblo, Colorado, Supercenter, has had her healthcare costs paid for by the state's program for the indigent. She dreams of the day she will no longer have to shop or work at Wal-Mart. "Whenever I'm able to quit this place, and find something better, I'm never going to set foot in another [Wal-Mart] again," she says. "I don't care how low the prices are--of course the prices are low, because they don't pay anybody worth crap!"

Ultimately, for this campaign to succeed, the entire progressive movement--not just labor--will have to make the unionization of Wal-Mart a priority. Pointing to the recent victory in Inglewood (a Los Angeles suburb where voters rejected a move by Wal-Mart to exempt itself from local zoning rules and erect a massive Supercenter) and the momentum of similar battles in Chicago and elsewhere, Rathke says that when it comes to fighting Wal-Mart, "there is more traction in the community than on the labor side." Andy Stern agrees, envisioning his blog conversation as the beginning of a movement-wide campaign by progressives to bring pressure on Wal-Mart. "The campaign needs to begin not as a labor campaign," says Stern, pointing out that community organizations "are more used to sustaining people around issues for long periods." Similarly, while Stern thinks there is "clearly an opportunity to create a Wal-Mart Workers Association," given that so many employees are unhappy with their working conditions, he thinks it might be a job for ACORN and other community organizations, since "it is not a traditional union model."

But Stern believes the labor movement should put resources behind a central organization that could serve as a resource for--and help coordinate--the many constituencies (workers, environmentalists, feminists, anti-sprawl advocates, churches, small-business owners) opposing Wal-Mart. At present, these groups work largely in isolation. Says Rathke, "There's no place to call and ask, 'How do you bring the ghostbusters in?'"

Labor activists talk a lot about involving the "community," which all agree is an important component in the struggle to unionize Wal-Mart. Yet one advantage Wal-Mart has in this regard is that with 70 percent of its stores located outside of metropolitan areas, and "Main Street" dying everywhere, it's doing business in many places where there isn't much of a community. In urban areas like Inglewood, and in some small towns, black churches, small-business associations and other institutions have been able to facilitate a discussion about whether Wal-Mart serves or thwarts the common good. But in many of the rural and exurban counties and townships where the retailer has traditionally operated, there has been no basis for such a debate: only isolated families struggling to get by, grateful to be able to load up their cars with cheap groceries from Wal-Mart. As is often the case, rhetoric about "community" can blind us to the crucial problem of its absence. On the other hand, wherever there is a thriving civic culture, that culture is an essential ally in the fight against Wal-Mart. In Vermont, for example, controversy over proposed superstores recently inspired the National Trust for Historic Preservation to declare the entire state "endangered" by the retailer.

It's encouraging that labor leaders are talking about this problem and entertaining so many new approaches. Yet as Mike Leonard cautions, in the labor movement, "it's a pretty rare day when we go beyond talking about a new idea, and that's part of the problem." And many workers are not optimistic now. Linda Gruen, who tried for several years to organize her Wal-Mart co-workers, is "not sure we will ever unionize Wal-Mart." April Hotchkiss, who still works at Wal-Mart and is trying to organize her co-workers, shares Gruen's view at times. "It is like parting the Red Sea," she says. "Sometimes I think it ain't going to happen. It is one of the hardest things I've ever tried to accomplish. I'd probably be better off trying to run the New York City Marathon."

This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=featherstone Visit The Nation http://www.thenation.com/ Subscribe to The Nation:

[back to top]

Good Jobs First

A new report from the non-profit Good Jobs First uncovers $1 billion in tax subsidies to Wal-Mart. Click here to read the report. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf
 

[back to top]

Judge Approves Wal-Mart Class-Action Case

By DAVID KRAVETS, AP                             [back to top]

SAN FRANCISCO (June 23) - Creating the largest private civil rights case in U.S. history, a federal judge approved a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. representing as many as 1.6 million current and former women workers.

The suit alleges that the retail giant set up a system that frequently pays its female workers less than their male counterparts for comparable jobs and bypasses them for key promotions.

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, sought to limit the scope of the lawsuit filed in San Francisco three years ago on behalf of six women.

Nine months after the case was argued, U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins ruled Tuesday to expand the lawsuit to include virtually all women who have worked at Wal-Mart's 3,500 stores nationwide since December 1998.

The decision that the case merits class action was pivotal because it gives lawyers for the women tremendous leverage as they pursue punitive damages, as well as back pay and other compensation.

''I think it's a terrific victory for the women who work at Wal-Mart who have labored for years under working conditions where they have been told repeatedly they have been unsuitable for management and not suitable to make as much as men,'' said Joseph Sellers, one of the attorneys representing the women.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart downplayed the significance of the ruling and promised an appeal.

The decision ''has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case,'' spokeswoman Mona Williams said. ''Judge Jenkins is simply saying he thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward as a class action.''

In a daylong hearing in September, company attorneys urged Jenkins to allow so-called mini-class action lawsuits targeting each outlet. Wal-Mart contends its stores, including Sam's Club warehouse outlets, operate with so much autonomy that they are like independent businesses with different management styles that affect the way women are paid and promoted.

Pursuing the allegations as a single class action ''is absolutely unmanageable on a nationwide basis,'' Wal-Mart lawyer Paul Grossman told Jenkins. ''It would require a mind-boggling number of individual determinations.''

Jenkins ruled that a congressional act passed during the civil rights movement in 1964 prohibits sex discrimination and that corporations are not immune.

The judge decided that the ''plaintiffs present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women.''

Jenkins found that the evidence so far ''raises an inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices'' against women.

Wal-Mart contends the suit ignores the thousands of women who earn more than their male counterparts. The retailer also says the lawsuit's allegations are flawed because they don't consider the factors that cause one job to pay more than another. For instance, some sales jobs require a gun license, while others pay a premium for workers skilled in handling live crickets sold for fishing, Grossman said.

Williams added that Wal-Mart is evaluating its employment practices.

''Earlier this month Wal-Mart announced a new job classification and pay structure for hourly associates,'' Williams said, adding the plan was to ''ensure internal equity and external competitiveness.''

The trial is expected to play out in at least two phases. It would start with the women trying to demonstrate that Wal-Mart has a pattern of paying women lower wages and passing them over for promotions. Wal-Mart would then get a chance to dismantle that theory.

The next phase, if a judge or jury found Wal-Mart did have a pattern of discrimination, would let the plaintiffs seek damages. With so many women in the case, the plaintiffs attorneys have developed a mathematical model to help them determine how much each plaintiff was owed - whether for wages or because they were passed over for promotion.

John C. Fox, a California labor attorney, said women could be entitled to recover wages if a statistical analysis shows similarly situated male employees earned more. But if women are seeking compensation for being glossed over for promotions, each plaintiff would have to prove that, which Fox said could be virtually impossible because of the number of women involved.

''It strikes me this case is crying to be settled,'' he said.

[back to top]

Reform at Wal-Mart?

by Nico Pitney - CommonDreams.org                    [back to top]
June 8, 2004

It was a vast and shameless annual meeting worthy of the vast and shameless corporation that hosted it.

With blue and white concert lights flickering and Patti LaBelle belting out "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," more than 15,000 store employees, shareholders, and executives filled up the University of Arkansas' basketball arena last Friday to "cheer and wave flags" and celebrate the worker-exploiting, taxpayer-gouging, sprawl-inducing, sweatshop-abusing behemoth known as Wal-Mart.

The corporate culture of America's New Gilded Age was on full display. Store employees, many of whom make near-poverty wages, were urged by one wealthy executive to go out and tell "our" story because "we're under scrutiny like we never have been before." Later, Reuters reported, "Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe danced in the aisle and former CEO David Glass -- flanked by [Halle] Berry and actress Susan Lucci -- did the twist."

"Any criticism of the company," Reuters added, "seemed a million miles away."

Except that it wasn't -- in fact, it was just down the road. A coalition of Arkansas social justice activists called Against the Wal organized a convergence in Fayetteville to protest the shareholders' meeting, and will be leading a roadshow with musical performances and Wal-Mart teach-ins through the mid-south next month. The embedded Reuters reporter just didn't bother to look.

Still, the meeting's jovial atmosphere was understandable. Wal-Mart's profits soared 18 percent this quarter, and the company has announced plans to litter "big box" warehouses and superstores around the globe, from rural America to Europe, Japan, and China (the site, notably, of this year's Wal-Mart board meeting).

Moreover, the Bush administration is firmly backing Wal-Mart's favorite Congressional legislation that would force class action lawsuits out of state courts and into "defendant-friendly federal courts" -- great news for a company that is "sued more often than any American entity except the U.S. government."

The big story from this weekend's meeting, though, was a pledge by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to cut bonuses to top executives by a measly 7.5 percent -- that's bonuses, not salaries -- if the store failed to meet diversity goals. Additionally, Scott said, the company will soon be reorganizing its pay structure. No details were announced, other than this one magnanimous promise sure to make workers salivate in anticipation of forthcoming riches: many employees will not receive a pay increase, but no one will actually see their wages drop.

CEO Scott, it should be mentioned, makes 897 times the pay of the average Wal-Mart worker. I've had a good time daydreaming about that enlightening fact suddenly flashing up on the arena megatron behind Scott while he's announcing these sham pay tweaks.

Explanations for the reforms ran the cynical gambit. One 14-year Wal-Mart veteran "alluded to the bad publicity over Wal-Mart's pay and negative comments from politicians," Business Week reported. Others suggested "a response to the massive sex-discrimination case filed three years ago against Wal-Mart." Retail analyst Robert F. Buchanan guessed that Wal-Mart "may be hoping to use [them] as 'shark repellent against the unions,'" by goading employees into thinking that they don't need to organize to receive wage hikes.

What's clear, of course, is that change is necessary, though the debate over tactics is still being waged. Within the electoral sphere, anti-Wal-Mart activists face many of the same difficulties as progressives more generally when it comes to this year's presidential race.

A vote for Bush/Cheney is out of the question. In March, Vice President Dick Cheney actually toured a Wal-Mart distribution center in Arkansas, where he cited Wal-Mart "as 'one of our nation's best companies'" and, naturally, "marvelled at its efficiency."

John Kerry would surely be somewhat of an improvement. The presumptive Democratic nominee walked the picket line with striking UFCW workers last year and has railed against Wal-Mart in various campaign speeches. Yet other evidence suggests that activists will have to remain vigilant even if Kerry wins. For example, Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, frequently used the same rhetoric as her husband until it was reported in February that she owned more than $1,000,000 in Wal-Mart stock, much of it purchased as recently as 2002.

Some suggest that the impetus to mitigate Wal-Mart's harm in communities will need to come primarily from independent, bottom-up activist campaigns. University of Deleware historian Susan Strasser has pointed to the grassroots resistance movements that other large, low-wage retailers faced in the past. "Woolworth openly boasted of its high turnover and low pay. Sears was so concerned about an anti-mail-order campaign in 1906 that it started shipping its packages in plain-brown wrappers, [...] and A&P fought a massive antitrust case." Even today, Strasser remarked, Wal-Mart's "success is stimulating countervailing forces."

And to those who doubt whether the goliath can ever be stopped, she noted that "Sears and A&P are now shadows of their former selves, while the Woolworth stores have vanished." Indeed.

So although Wal-Mart is the only major retailer to refuse to sell the popular anti-war flick, "Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War," you can still probably nab a copy of an old Propellerheads album with that hit track, "History Repeating." Turn it on at your next local anti-Wal-Mart meeting -- I hear it's great when you're doing the twist.

Nico Pitney is an activist in southern California and the author of PriorityWire.org, updated around-the-clock with interesting news and tidbits about globalization, trade, corporate power, and development issues. He can be reached at prioritywire@yahoo.com

[back to top]

Medford Council says 'no' officially to Wal-Mart

The deadline for Wal-Mart to file a supercenter appeal is around June 24

By MEG LANDERS - Mail Tribune                                [back to top]
June 4, 2004

Saying it's too big and doesn't fit in the neighborhood, the Medford City Council on Thursday gave its final and official "no" to a Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed for Miles Field.

It's too early to say whether Wal-Mart will appeal the decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, according to Wal-Mart spokesperson Eric Berger.

Greg Hathaway, a Portland attorney representing Wal-Mart, said the deadline to file a LUBA appeal would be around June 24.

"I will speak with the Wal-Mart people next week," Hathaway said. "I would think the decision probably would come before that (June 24)."

Medford's Site Plan and Architectural Commission approved the application in April after Wal-Mart had made several recommended revisions to the original plan.

After considering three appeals filed against the commission's vote, the City Council voted against the proposed store on May 20. Thursday's vote finalized the council's position.

Meanwhile, no hearing date has been set for a LUBA appeal filed by Wal-Mart regarding a proposed Central Point store.

"That's definitely moving forward," said Hathaway.

Similar to what happened in Medford, the Central Point City Council on April 15 reversed a planning commission decision that OK'd a 207,000-square-foot store proposed for the corner of East Pine and Hamrick roads.

Wal-Mart appealed the Central Point council's decision on May 6.

The council argued that the project was not in line with city planning goals and would be better suited in a different area.

[back to top]

Retailers Face Overtime Suits

Ann Zimmerman - Wall Street Journal                              [back to top]
May 26, 2004

Some of the nation's biggest and most cost-sensitive retailers, including Wal- Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), RadioShack Corp. (RSH) and Dollar General Corp. (DG), are battling a raft of lawsuits accusing them of using low-level managers to do the work of regular employees, in order to avoid paying overtime, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported.

Wal-Mart, a retailing giant with about 3,500 stores and 1.2 million workers in the U.S., and a well-known focus on lean margins, already faces 30 overtime- related suits on behalf of hourly workers in 28 states. Assistant managers who filed suit in Michigan and California, seeking back pay and damages say they spend much of their days on the same tasks assigned to hourly employees entitled to overtime.

The suits claim there is very little difference between the job duties of the hourly workers and assistant managers, especially the nighttime assistant managers, who, "in most cases, are simply glorified stockers who unload trucks, move products into the store and stock shelves," according to legal documents.

Such practices could be illegal, although the retailers deny wrongdoing. Under federal law, managers may be entitled to overtime pay if more than 40% of their time isn't spent supervising or if their jobs don't include decision making.

Wal-Mart disputes the assistant managers' claims, saying that its managers' time is taken up largely with interviewing job candidates, making out schedules and handling other supervisory duties.

[back to top]

Medford council rejects Wal-Mart

By MEG LANDERS - Mail Tribune                                [back to top]
May 21, 2004

Citing incompatible size and design with adjacent properties, the Medford City Council late Thursday said no to the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal for the Miles Field site.

The Council voted 5-1 to reverse the Site Plan and Architectural Commission's April 2 decision to approve the Wal-Mart application.

"I don't know what art is, but I know what ugly is," said Councilman John Michaels, admitting he was quoting Councilman Skip Knight.

Council members cited the architectural features, overall design and one-story footprint of the proposed 206,000-square-foot store as reasons for overturning the commission's approval.

It was unclear what the next step of the process will be - Wal-Mart representatives said they were undecided over what course of action to take.

The council heard a third appeal of the commission's decision Thursday from the South Gateway Center Partners, made up of South Gateway developers Bob Kaczor of Medford and Bob Barks of Seattle.

On May 6, the council heard the first two appeals, filed by former Medford City Councilman Bill Mansfield and by Wendy Siporen, a member of the Talent City Council.

The April 2 SPAC decision approved the application for the 206,533-square-foot supercenter, to be built along Highway 99 at Center Drive, where Miles Field is located.

Even though the appeal and public testimony Thursday was about traffic concerns, council members said the decision had nothing to do with traffic.

Portland attorney Dana Krawczuk, representing South Gateway Center Partners, presented an argument that a comprehensive traffic study was needed for the proposed superstore.

Chris Koback, a Portland-based attorney representing Wal-Mart, said the South Gateway Center Partners were contorting the language of the city code, and that Wal-Mart is in full compliance with the city's requirements.

The council had the choice of upholding the SPAC decision, reversing, modifying or sending it back until the Wal-Mart representatives decided Thursday they would not waive the 120-day application period deadline date.

The application period expires May 29, so not waiving it took away the council's ability to remand the decision back to the site plan commission.

Following public testimony, which saw six area residents oppose the project and two speak in support, the council began discussion. Several members voiced concern that Wal-Mart was not more willing to work with the community.

"It is not compatible with the surrounding area," said Councilwoman Claudette Moore. "I shop at Wal-Mart. I have no problem with Wal-Mart," she said, explaining she was concerned with how the superstore would fit in the neighborhood.

Councilman Jim Key said he did not support reversing the commission's decision.

He said even though he has struggled with the notion of a Wal-Mart Supercenter coming to town since he first heard about it, he thought the council could do things such as limit the size of the building.

"I believe we can condition the approval," he said.

But Councilman Jim Kuntz said he supported reversing the decision.

"I believe the burden of proof for compatibility has not been met," he said.

Mayor Lindsay Berryman said the nearest buildings, including the Rogue Federal Credit Union, the Armory and Harry and David, have the height of two-stories. She would like to see Wal-Mart decrease the size of their footprint and build a second story.

"Comfort Inn is a four-story building," she said.

Following the meeting, Koback declined comment because the decision pertained to previous hearings which he had not been present for, but Chuck Martinez of Medford, who secures sites for Wal-Mart in Oregon and Southern Washington, said he was a little bit surprised by the council decision.

"We did work with the city," he said, adding that they had satisfied many requests the Site Plan and Architectural Commission had made.

"It seems very inconsistent with past applications," he said, adding that others, like Fred Meyer, had not been required to do a second story or to screen their storage containers.

He said they will regroup and consider options, one of which is an appeal to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

"We're not going to go away," he said.

[back to top]

WAL-MART AGREES TO HILLTOP SITE

By James Temple - Contra Costa Times                          [back to top]
May 14, 2004

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is one step from the 'top.

After five years of negotiations, the world's largest company has reached a "formal agreement" with the owner of Hilltop mall in Richmond to move into the long-vacant Macy's site.

Before it can sign a final lease, however, Wal-Mart must complete negotiations with the mall's other large tenants. J.C. Penny Co. Inc., Macy's and Sears, Roebuck and Co. possess refusal rights concerning other mall tenants, said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Hill, who could not elaborate on the specifics.

Representatives of Hilltop's owner, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based retail developer Taubman Centers Inc., did not return calls before press time.

Wal-Mart hopes to finalize the deal by this summer, Hill said. The store would open around nine months after the lease is signed, suggesting a possible opening date as early as next spring.

The former Macy's site is a three-story, 150,000 square foot building that has been closed since the Federated Department Store subsidiary moved into the Emporium-Capwell space in 1998.

Though it's not the first time Wal-Mart has occupied a multi-tiered building in a mall, it is unusual for the low-priced retail giant, whose brand is synonymous with its solitary, single-story blue boxes.

"It is definitely an adjustment for somebody used to shopping in the typical one-story store, but I think most customers are finding it pretty acceptable," Hill said. "And our experience has been that it has helped us revitalize malls in need of some new life."

In addition to Macy's sitting dormant for a half dozen years, the Gap, Limited and Eddie Bauer have quietly closed there over the years, replaced, in the first case, by a Fashion $5.

But plugging a Wal-Mart into a gaping mall hole is as much retail experiment as proven panacea, but it's one that struggling malls are increasingly willing to try.

"The retail environment is such that retailers are trying new venues ... the blurring of those clean lines will continue," said Michael Niemira, chief economist and director of research for the International Council of Shopping Centers.

Whether a Wal-Mart can bring a distressed mall back to life depends on any number of factors, including the mix of existing retailers and regional demographics, he said.

But the logic is sound: "To the extent that it's a place where there is more repeat business, you end up bringing traffic to the mall," Niemira said.

The city of Richmond is equally interested in this traffic.

"We're anxious to see the (deal) come to 100 percent fruition," said Steve Duran, director of Richmond's community and economic development department.

He said the store would generate significant new jobs and sales tax revenue for Richmond, the latter being no small issue for a city grappling with a $35 million budget deficit this year.

Still, the deal could yet fall apart: Wal-Mart and Taubman were close to finalizing a deal in 2002, when discussions broke off unexpectedly.

[back to top]

WAL-MART SETTLES WATER CASE FOR $3.1M

Company agrees to settle a violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act at 24 sites in nine states.

May 12, 2004                                            [back to top]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, has agreed to pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to settle charges of violations of the federal Clean Water Act at store construction sites across the country, the U.S. government said Wednesday.

Wal-Mart also agreed to institute better control measures to reduce storm water runoff at construction sites, the U.S. Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement.

Shares of Wal-Mart (WMT: down $0.81 to $53.72, Research, Estimates) traded slightly lower in a broad-based sell-off on Wall Street in mid-afternoon trading Wednesday.

The complaint filed against Wal-Mart alleged violations at 24 sites in nine states. It included charges it failed to get a permit before beginning construction and did not develop a plan to control polluted runoff water.

"Runoff from construction sites is a primary contributor to the impairment of water quality in the nation," said Thomas Skinner, acting assistant administrator of the EPA's office of enforcement and compliance.

A spokesman for Wal-Mart, which posted a $9 billion profit in the last fiscal year, was not immediately available for comment.

[back to top]

WAL-MART'S BIG-CITY PLANS STALL AGAIN

By STEPHEN KINZER - New York Times                                   [back to top]
May 6, 2004

CHICAGO, Less than a month after voters in Inglewood Calif., rejected Wal-Mart's effort to build a store there, Wal-Mart was dealt another blow on Wednesday when the Chicago City Council postponed a vote on zoning changes that would have allowed it to open its first two stores here.

The setbacks in Chicago and Inglewood reflect the increasing difficulty Wal-Mart is facing as it tries to push in to more urban markets.

Most of Wal-Mart's more than 3,500 stores in the United States are in rural and suburban areas. Chicago may be a major test of whether organized labor, which is relatively strong here, can block or obstruct the company's plans to continue expanding in big cities.

"It would be nice to have seen the proposal go through and be voted on today," said John Bisio, a Wal-Mart spokesman, "but this just gives us the opportunity to engage people and go back and dispel a lot of the misinformation that's out there."

The dispute has pitted some of the city's most prominent politicians, clergymen and civic leaders against each other. Both sides brought busloads of people to City Hall for the council meeting, and there were boisterous demonstrations in the corridors and on nearby streets.

Supporters of Wal-Mart's expansion plans here say the company offers both badly needed jobs and rock-bottom prices. They said they were disappointed by the council vote, but still expected it to approve the zoning changes at its next meeting on May 26. Individual aldermen are able to block a vote on such changes once, but under council rules a roll-call vote must be taken at the next meeting.

Opponents vowed, however, to intensify their campaign against the giant retailer, which they say crushes small businesses and lowers labor standards by paying low wages, offering minimal benefits and opposing efforts by its employees to unionize.

Aldermen who represent the poor and mainly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago where Wal-Mart wants to build the stores support the company. They say the neighborhoods, on the South Side and West Side, are desperate for the estimated total of 600 jobs Wal-Mart will bring. The City Council usually defers to the wishes of local aldermen on zoning matters, but the Wal-Mart proposal has stirred such controversy that the Council set aside that tradition on Wednesday.

"This is certainly not a local issue for one ward or for Chicago," said William J. P. Banks, an alderman who voted against the plan. "It's a nationwide issue, and it's not going to go away anytime soon. People are looking for a quick fix in areas where economic development is very poor, but down the line they'll see that along with that quick fix come a lot of problems."

A leading opponent of Wal-Mart, Jamie Daniel, who heads a coalition of labor, religious and civic groups called the Chicago Workers' Rights Board, said she thought opponents had "a good shot" at blocking the company's plan.

"This vote shows that aldermen still have a lot of questions and concerns about Wal-Mart," Ms. Daniel said. "We've been organizing like maniacs, and now it's going to be even more intense."

The most vocal supporter of Wal-Mart on the Council, Emma Mitts, who represents the neighborhood where the West Side store would be built, said she was "a little upset" by the Council's decision.

"Let them try to organize in my community," Ms. Mitts said of the opponents. "We've been organizing for a year. How are they going to organize in a month?"

Labor unions are stronger and more combative in Chicago than in most places where Wal-Mart has opened outlets. Seeking to counter their influence, Wal-Mart has hired a formidable team of local public relations and legal consultants, including the law firm of Michael Daley, brother of Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Mr. Bisio, the Wal-Mart spokesman, said his company was "a very good corporate citizen" and had contributed tens of thousands of dollars to community projects in cities and towns near Chicago where it has stores.

"Our average hourly wage is $10.70 an hour, which compares favorably to other Chicago retailers like Target and Home Depot," Mr. Bisio said. "As far as having an impact on the overall economy, if you talk to the Chambers of Commerce in any town where we're present, they'll tell you that we not only create jobs, but we also help attract sales revenues for ourselves and neighboring retailers, which generates taxes that pay for law enforcement jobs and roads and everything else."

Mr. Bisio said that Wal-Mart was not anti-union, and that "the reason our associates haven't wanted third-party representation is because they have faith in the company, and it provides them with tremendous opportunity."

In recent days, both supporters and opponents of Wal-Mart's entry into Chicago have held public meetings to rally support.

Opponents gathered at a South Side church on Saturday and heard a succession of labor leaders and economists denounce Wal-Mart. Oneeconomist, Chirag Mehta of the University of Illinois at Chicago, presented a report by the university's Center for Economic Development that predicted that the West Side Wal-Mart would drain customers from 763 nearby stores and "displace more jobs and income than it creates."

On Tuesday afternoon, about 200 West Side residents who support the retail chain gathered at the site of the proposed Wal-Mart for a rally that had the fervor of a revival meeting. The Rev. Pearlie Freeman opened it with a prayer that concluded, "We need Wal-Mart to come here, God, and make a difference for our people."

The final speaker was Alderwoman Mitts, who whipped the crowd into a shouting fervor. She promised that she and her constituents would transform Wal-Mart once it opened here.

"We want to take the worst retailer in the world, the worst, as they say, and make it the best," she said. "But you know something? To make them the best, you've got to have them inside."

Some retail experts doubt, however, that Wal-Mart would make concessions in Chicago that it has refused to make elsewhere.

"Wal-Mart has a lot of power," said Kenneth Thompson, a professor of management at DePaul University. "It would be very hard for a few aldermen or community figures to negotiate with a company that's this tough. And what do they do if Wal-Mart says no? Once the store is open, they can hardly close it down."

The proposed South Side Wal-Mart would be part of a large new mall, while the one on the West Side would be a free-standing store with 150,000-square-feet of shopping space. There is a Walgreen's a block away from the site, and a mall across the street has a large grocery store, a beauty supply store, two shoe stores and chain outlets including Old Navy, Radio Shack and Marshall's.

Wal-Mart's uniquely powerful role in the American retail economy and its reputation for vigorously fighting unions, has attracted increasing attention from labor leaders. One of them, John Wilhelm, a member of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council, said on a visit to Chicago this week that he had asked John Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, to make Wal-Mart the central focus of the American labor movement.

"After the 2004 elections are over, we should make this our main project," Mr. Wilhelm said. "No one union can organize Wal-Mart. We need to face this in a comprehensive way."

[back to top]

Aldermen open door a bit for Wal-Mart - West Side store backed by panel

By Dan Mihalopoulos - Chicago Tribune staff reporter                             [back to top]
April 21, 2004

Plans for Chicago's first Wal-Mart store in a largely black neighborhood on the West Side received a boost Tuesday from the same City Council committee that delayed the proposal last month amid criticism of the retail giant's labor record.

The Zoning Committee cited the city's strong pro-union tradition in stalling the plan for a former industrial site at Kilpatrick and Grand Avenues. The sole vote against the project Tuesday was cast by the panel's chairman, Ald. William J.P. Banks (36th).

Banks later said he would very likely clear the way for the full council to vote May 5 on the proposal in the 37th Ward and on a plan for another Wal-Mart on the South Side.

Wal-Mart's push to open a store in predominantly black neighborhoods of Chicago and in other large cities has fueled tension, as evidenced in Tuesday's emotional two-hour debate at City Hall.

In putting off decisions on the Wal-Mart stores, organized labor's council allies bucked a long tradition of letting aldermen dictate zoning matters in their own wards. Some African-American aldermen responded by threatening to block projects in other parts of the city until colleagues respected the aldermanic privilege of black council members.

The issue also has created an unusual situation in which Rev. Jesse Jackson, a vocal Wal-Mart critic, finds himself at odds with black aldermen who want to welcome the world's largest retailer into their economically struggling communities.

Ald. Emma Mitts (37th) said her constituents are eager to shop at a new West Side Wal-Mart store and no longer want to drive to the discount chain's suburban stores.

As for criticisms that the company's business practices hurt workers, Mitts said, "I don't know about them because I go in there and shop. I'm not trying to get into their business."

Unions and other Wal-Mart foes told aldermen that the retailer provides low wages and poor health benefits. They recounted widely reported complaints from Wal-Mart workers, including immigrants and employees who have tried to organize unions.

The opponents called on city officials to withhold support for the project pending written assurances from Wal-Mart that it would pay good wages to employees at Chicago stores.

"You all have the reputation of being the baddest politicians in the country," said Toni Foulkes, an activist with the ACORN community organization. "When you go down to negotiate with [Wal-Mart], remember who you are, a Chicago politician."

But dozens of West Side residents appeared at the meeting at City Hall to cheer for the plan. Black religious leaders organized the show of support for Wal-Mart. Some said unions have not done enough for minorities and should not impede economic development in poor areas.

"Any job is better than no job," said Rev. Ronald Wilks of Soul Saving Missionary Baptist Church on the West Side.

Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon acknowledged that the project would bring jobs and sales-tax revenue to the city, but he quickly added, "What kind of jobs are we talking about?"

Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio said that the Bentonville, Ark.-based company has no plans to open supercenter stores, which sell groceries, in the city. But Bisio said Wal-Mart would not put that promise in writing, as its critics have demanded.

Unions are being unfair to Wal-Mart by asking it to do more than other non-union "big box" retail chains already in business in Chicago, said Ald. Carrie Austin (34th).

When Gannon asked why Wal-Mart would not provide written assurances, Austin shot back: "And how many other people have you asked to put it in writing? Did we ask Target? Did we ask Home Depot? Did we ask Menards?"

The West Side Wal-Mart would have about 300 full-time and part-time workers at the 11-acre site of a former Helene Curtis plant.

The South Side Wal-Mart being considered by Chicago officials would form part of a larger retail development at 83rd Street and Stewart Avenue in the 21st Ward.

Wal-Mart traditionally has focused on doing business in rural and suburban areas. As suburbs become saturated with stores, retailers have tried to expand into big cities, where Wal-Mart has encountered heated protests.

Voters in Inglewood, Calif., a mostly black and Hispanic community near Los Angeles, rejected a plan for a Wal-Mart store in a referendum two weeks ago. Jackson traveled there to speak against Wal-Mart, and he promised Monday to organize opposition in Chicago.

Ald. Howard Brookins (21st) said he prefers that his constituents shop at a Wal-Mart in their ward instead of suburban Wal-Marts.

"People have free will," he said. "They don't have to shop at Wal-Mart if they don't want to. They don't have to work at Wal-Mart."

[back to top]

State Supreme Court clears way for Wal-Mart class-action suit

The dispute over wages could involve 230,000 current and former employees.

By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer              [back to top]
Thursday, April 15, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for a trial in one of the largest labor suits pending against Wal-Mart, a statewide claim that managers forced employees to work without rest and meal breaks.

Without dissent or explanation, the justices refused to review an Alameda County judge's certification of the case as a class action.

Frederick Furth, the plaintiff's lawyer, said the class could be as large as 230,000 current and former workers, making the case the largest of its kind against the retail giant and its Sam's Club subsidiary.

Trial has been set for September in Oakland.

About 20 such wage-and-hour cases are pending against Wal-Mart in courts across the nation, but few so far have been awarded class-action status, according to Brad Seligman, executive director of the Impact Fund.

Seligman is the lead counsel in a nationwide sex-discrimination suit, awaiting a judge's ruling on class certification, involving potentially 1.5 million female Wal-Mart workers who say they were denied raises and promotions.

Other major cases allege Wal-Mart employees have been required to work off the clock or that employees have been illegally exempted from overtime-pay regulations. None of the class actions has gone to trial.

Furth said, "We are very much looking forward to the trial and to finally getting this class a fair hearing before a jury of its peers."

Christi Gallagher, speakin