I don't know a Walmart executive who couldn't use more pieces of flair.

Luckily, MomsRising.org is on the case. They are calling on Walmart to amend its unfair sick day policy through a new online petition, and there is a creative twist. Sign the petition on their site and your letter will be given to Walmart HQ, along with real demerit badges for Walmart's executives.

Don't let your favorite Walmart executive go without: send them a badge of shame today!

One of the best ways to stop the spread of the flu (like H1N1) is for sick people to stay home. But Wal-Mart gives employees "demerits" that can lead to termination if they call in sick!

We think the real demerits should go to Wal-Mart for their bad sick days policy, which risks making the public sick and their employees sicker.

Give Wal-Mart a "Demerit Badge" by signing the petition today! We'll deliver your signatures, along with real demerit badges, to Walmart executives to call them out for their terrible sick days policies.

Sign the petition:

Wal-Mart: Stop your policy of giving employees demerits for taking sick days. It's bad for your employees, your customers, and for public health.

Last month, Walmart Senior VP Ken Senser issued a company-wide memo on flu season 'preparedness.' His memo claims "the wellbeing of our associates... is a top priority," and offers guidance on how to "plan ahead" in case the flu virus strikes.

Be prepared for illness: know the company's sick day policy, the memo advises.

Of course, there is a catch-22 here. Walmart's sick leave policy boils down to a simple formula: if you get sick, you find trouble. Each sick day taken by a Walmart employee results in a "point" (demerit), enough of which will get you fired.

Walmart's sick policy results, as this week's NLC report shows, in a culture that pressures employees to work while ill. This isn't just grossly unfair, it's unbelievably stupid. Given the rapidly expanding H1N1 pandemic, steering sick workers out of bed and into the aisles is a catalyst for spreading sickness among employees and customers alike.

Which genius in Walmart management could possibly think this is a good idea? Ken Senser.

Here's a little background on Walmart's spymaster turned health "advocate." Before Mr. Senser was concerned with influenza, he was spying on employees and activists alike as Walmart's security chief. His crowning acheivement came when company operatives planted a long-haired employee in an "Up Against the Wal" activist meeting. The bugged employee transmitted audio from the meeting to a surveillance van circling eerily outside.

Senser's department also spies on employees who are suspected of violating company policy. His investigators have tailed executives across Central America, for example, to out them publicly for extramarital affairs. This is the guy entrusted with safeguarding the wellbeing of Walmart's 1.4 million U.S. employees. Bizarre.

His de facto role, it would seem, is safeguarding Walmart's $13 billion in yearly profits. By any means necessary.

Senser is known for bare-knuckle enforcement of policy. Unfortunately, Walmart's rigid attendance rules are not productive for anyone. Not even Walmart's top shareholders. It's simply a recipe for spreading disease among employees and members of their communities.

At least some government officials are looking out for Walmart's employees. HR 3991 could cause Walmart to reconsider its policy by requiring large employers to give 5 days paid leave to sick employees.

It might well be called the "Walmart Swine Flu Bill"--with policy enforcers like Ken Senser, Walmart is unlikely to make productive changes to its sick policies until regulations force it to.

When you get sick, do you take the day off? You should, especially if you have the flu or other viruses that are easily spreadable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agree, but Walmart, through its corporate policies, are not heeding that advice. In fact, a new mini report from the National Labor Committee shows that Walmart employees regularly come to work sick because they can't afford the loss in wages or because they are afraid of being fired for taking 'too many' sick days. The whole report is worth a read, but here are a few key pieces:

But it is Wal-Marts policies on sick leave that are the problem. Wal-Mart has a punitive point (demerit) system that punishes workers who cannot come to work because they are ill or their children need care. Associates who miss a day due to sickness (or for any other reason) will receive a one point demerit, along with the loss of eight hours wages. Moreover, employees who “have more than three absence occurrences in a rolling six-month period…will be disciplined.” (“Attendance/Punctuality Policy (PD-52) New York,” January 2008.) Workers with four absences in any six-month period—no matter what the reason—will be disciplined. A fifth occurrence—like a sick day—will result in “active coaching” by management, and a sixth occurrence” will activate a “Decision Day,” when an “associate” can either be terminated or put on a year-long trial period, during which a worker can be fired for any infraction, no matter how insignificant. During this year-long probation the worker cannot receive a promotion.

Wal-Mart must immediately end its punitive point system, which gives workers demerits that can lead to firing for taking a sick day, while also docking their wages. More than any other Wal-Mart policy, it is the point system and loss of wages which routinely drives employees to work no matter how sick they are, including if they are suffering flu-like symptoms...

...The vast majority of current Wal-Mart employees are too terrified to speak openly and on the record, or even to name their stores for fear of retaliation. "Everyone knows you have to be quiet," as one associate put it, "We cannot talk. Everyone is afraid and will never say anything critical" of Wal-Mart. A senior Wal-Mart employee agreed: "Fear and need will keep things as they are."

It's not a huge surprise, really. We hear from workers every day who can't take sick time. But as flu season rolls around, and as H1N1 adds an additional level of concern, it's time to take a look at Walmart's policy again. Not only is this bad policy in general, bad for the workers and bad for the customers, it is potentially bad financially for Walmart. If, instead of going to work when they have the flu and getting seriously ill, Walmart allowed their workers to take a few days off and get better, perhaps Walmart's work force would be more efficient and they wouldn't have to pay so much in health care costs.

A judge has just approved yet another legal settlement for Walmart as part of the 63 cases they vowed to settle back in December of '08. It is not clear how many people will be effected in this particular class action suit, but it is clear that, once again, Walmart is coughing up a small bit of money for systematically cheating its workers out of money and time. Because Walmart is settling, they are paying only a small percentage of what they should be paying based on back pay and punitive fines for breaking the law literally millions of times across the country.

Here's the article from The Dickinson Press:

Several hundred former and present North Dakota Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees may see some money flow their way.

A Nevada federal court judge gave final approval Wednesday to an $85 million class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. amid a wage and hour dispute.

Involving 30 states and more than 3 million hourly employees, the suit claimed Wal-Mart employees were asked to work off the clock and breaks were cut short or not given consistently.

“The policy was a little off and didn’t really go with the law,” said Kevin McMillan, assistant to Robert Bonsignore, national lead counsel for the employees. “It’s anything but an isolated occurrence.”

Hourly employees who worked for Wal-Mart in the year 2000 and beyond may file a claim.

“They were requested to take shorter breaks,” said Mike Miller, a Fargo-based attorney and North Dakota counsel for the suit.“That’s the primary focus of the overall settlement — is those cases.”

Rose Kostelecky, a 19-year-veteran employee of Dickinson’s Wal-Mart Supercenter, said she has never been asked to work off the clock.

“I have never, myself, never ever worked off the clock,” Kostelecky said. “They’re very strict about that. I know that nobody here does.”

While it is nearly impossible to know if the incidents occurred at every Wal-Mart store, there is enough evidence to show that it happened, Miller said.

“Wal-Mart is not admitting they did anything wrong,” Miller said. “But litigation is litigation. We feel it’s better to settle it at this point than go forward with it any further.”

The last day for eligible North Dakota Wal-Mart employees to submit a request for a portion of the settlement is Nov. 9, according to a press release.

Employees have 30 days after the entry of judgment to file an appeal, Miller said.

“The people that are part of it can protest it if they’re not in agreement with it,” Miller said. “If in fact somebody objects, it could definitely delay payment for quite some time.”

Management at Dickinson’s Supercenter Wal-Mart declined comment.

Michelle Bradford, senior manager of corporate communications at Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., said the company has no further comment beyond a December 2008 press release.

“Resolving this litigation is in the best interest of our company, our shareholders and our associates,” said Tom Mars, executive vice president and general counsel, in the release. “Many of these lawsuits were filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today.”

Walmart has no store locations in the afterlife, but that won't keep the company from making a few final dollars off their customers even after their lives are spent.

Perhaps crossing the boundaries of good taste, Walmart has gone public with a new, rather morbid product line: funeral supplies. The company now offers an array of urns and caskets at various price points. Finally, Walmart customers can take "comfort" in the fact that Bentonville caters to them from the cradle to the grave.

Retailers offering funeral supplies is nothing new. Costco has long had an eerie "Funeral" tab displayed prominently on its website, but no one kicked up any dust about it. Conversely, Walmart's line of caskets has fueled hundreds of pithy news articles. Interesting.

Of course there is nothing wrong with selling funeral supplies. Even so, I still agree with the media consensus here: caskets are a bad move for Walmart. Why? Because Walmart's reputation is simply too tarnished for Americans to imagine (willingly) resorting to Walmart for such solemn purchases. We grow up reading about the elaborate tombs sculpted by Michelangelo. We can't help but notice the silent, stately rows of headstones when passing a cemetary. There is a certain beauty in that. What possible appeal lies in a "Walmart brand" resting place?

Then again, perhaps this is more a timing issue.

Who thought rolling out a line of caskets right before Halloween was a good idea?

Is every day Halloween at Walmart headquarters?

It seems like it, because Walmart has been dressed up as a health care champion for months: trumpeting support for the employer mandate and running ads about how "proud" it is of its health care record.

We aren't buying the spin. All of Walmart's talk simply masks the reality of its health care failures. So, in response, we came up with up with a coordinated Halloween field/internet action campaign to "take the mask off Walmart."

Our supporters are signing an open letter to Walmart CEO Mike Duke and attending events in their areas. Consider this your invite to join us. Here is what you can do:

• Sign on to our open letter to Walmart CEO Mike Duke, calling for Walmart to live up to its health care rhetoric.

• Get Local: find out if there are events in your area.

• Call your Members of Congress: use HCAN's click-to-call system to lobby your legislators and let them know you support substantive health care reform.
  

Walmart claims it offers quality plans. Yet, an average full-time Wal-Mart employee on the least expensive family coverage plan must spend over 20% of their yearly income before the health insurance provides any reimbursement.

When it comes to health care, Walmart is still part of the problem. You can help us make it part of the solution. Take action today!

Our friends over at American Rights at Work just sent out this email and we're asking you, our supporters, to help them out. Here's their email, check it out and then go send Mike Duke a letter.

Low wages and unionbusting have been par for the course at Walmart.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Walmart has a new CEO, Mike Duke, who has a chance to take Walmart on a better path.

Tell Mike Duke to do the right thing for workers and bring respect to Walmart.

As Walmart's new CEO, Mike Duke has the power to stop intimidating and firing workers who want a union, to provide fair wages and better working conditions, and to stop fighting against the Employee Free Choice Act – a bill that would level the playing field for workers who want to form a union and improve their lives.

At his first annual meeting as CEO, Duke reiterated the company’s stated commitment to "... helping our customers to save money and live better."

But don’t both customers AND workers deserve to "live better?"

Take Eugene Hart, a 33-year-old Walmart associate whose work helps support the company’s bottom line. "I can’t eat, I can’t pay my bills, I can’t do the things I want to do," he said. "The insurance is garbage. Before they kick in, you’ve got to pay a $350 deductible."

Walmart posted a record $400 billion in sales last year, and over $13 billion in earnings. The company can afford to do better for workers.

Tell Mike Duke it’s time to start a new legacy at Walmart – one that ensures workers like Eugene have fair wages and a voice at work.

Thanks for all that you do.

Sincerely,

Liz, Manny, Elizabeth B. and the American Rights at Work team

P.S. For a quick rundown on Walmart's anti-union record, watch this video and pass it on to your friends!

Apparently Walmart is VERY in to going green...unless it inconveniences them or their customers a little...or cuts in to sales. At least that seems to be the message in Walmart's latest announcement that they won't cut plastic bags from two stores until after the holidays, or later. Just a few days after the company announced they would test removing plastic bags in three stores, two of those stores back peddled.

The excuse Walmart gave is that, "The goal of this test is to gauge customer reaction. We think we'll get a more accurate reaction by offering these bags after the holidays." But we can't imagine why the reaction would be any different. The real reason, it would seem, is that Walmart does a huge portion of their business during the holiday season and they don't want to do anything to cut in to their sales.

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to maximize your sales during the busiest shopping time of the year, the issue is with Walmart portraying itself as a super green, environmentally friendly force of good. Walmart's main concern is profit, and this belies their true motives.

Here's the article from The Sacramento Bee:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Wednesday said it will not be removing free plastic bags from two of its locations in the region until at least January.

Signs in Walmart stores in Folsom and Citrus Heights had announced that shoppers would soon have to either bring their own bags or buy reusable ones – for 15 cents.

The two stores, along with a third in Ukiah, make up a small test program. Going plastic bag-free is one of a variety of strategies being tried at stores around the world as Walmart evaluates ways to meet its goal of cutting plastic bag waste 33 percent by 2013.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amelia Neufeld said the company decided that launching the reusable bag-only program just before the holiday shopping season would skew the test results.
"The goal of this test is to gauge customer reaction. We think we'll get a more accurate reaction by offering these bags after the holidays," she said.

Neufeld would not comment on whether recent customer reactions had driven the decision to postpone the test.

At the Folsom store earlier this week, customers interviewed by The Bee were roughly split on the plan.

Matthew Oliver, a Folsom resident who complained in writing at his local store after learning of the plan, said a Wal-Mart representative called him Wednesday to say the Sunday launch of the test program had been called off.

Oliver said he resented the reusable bag program because he felt it was a cost-cutting measure with a green veneer that deprived him of the right to choose how he'd like to carry his purchases.

"I just want to buy my milk from you," he said. "I don't want you to tell me what my political views ought to be."

Wal-Mart is also evaluating other strategies for reducing plastic waste that don't involve removing free plastic bags from stores altogether. It is retraining some checkers to put more items in each sack, for instance, and is considering switching to thinner bags that contain less plastic.

The company's 15-cent reusable bags will continue to be offered at the checkout counters in Folsom and Citrus Heights, Neufeld said. They are royal blue and made of a lightweight, recyclable polypropylene fabric.

Our good friend Al Norman has a new post up over at The Huffington Post:

The words "small" and "Wal-Mart" don't fit well together. Yet the dominant retailer on the globe has been telling Wall Street analysts for several years running that small is beautiful. Last year this time, at an analyst's meeting, Tom Shoewe, Wal-Mart's Executive Vice President, summarized his company's strategy on new store growth: "A moderation in new stores, migrating to a smaller footprint for the stores that we're adding, more efficient smaller stores."

This week, at their annual analyst's gathering, there was more talk of less. Small was still on the agenda. Wal-Mart reversed its decision from June of 2007 to slow down new store growth, and told Wall Street to expect an acceleration in the number of new stores being proposed. Wal-Mart has been aggressively remodeling hundreds of existing stores---its so-called 'Impact Store' project---but the retailer also sounded like the annual speaker at the E.F. Schumacher Society.

One Wall Street analyst reported that although Wal-Mart would open more stores in 2010, the stores themselves would be smaller. The Associated Press quoted this analyst as predicting that Wal-Mart will be "scaling back the size of its supercenters." In fact, the analyst said in recent sit-downs with management at Wal-Mart, the company "even expressed some confidence in developing supercenters as small at 70,000 square feet."

A store that size---1.6 acres just for the building--- is far larger than the typical grocery store in most small communities. Add in a parking lot that is usually at least twice the size of the building, and you're no longer talking about a 'small' project.
But this is small for Wal-Mart, and these pronouncements by the company are important to local communities---where activists for more than a decade have packed town hall hearings, demanding smaller, less intrusive stores.

Last year, a Wal-Mart real estate planner told Women's Wear Daily that his company was concentrating heavily on smaller stores. He said that Wal-Mart was far more likely these days to consider a 90,000 s.f. store for a supercenter. "We can generate as much sales, as much profit from a smaller store," the Wal-Mart official admitted.
Talk of smaller footprints goes back at least to 2004, when Merrill Lynch Global Securities said that Wal-Mart could build 850 of its smaller supercenters over the next decade. The smaller stores could go into urban areas where land isn't available for a traditional supercenter.

The reality is: land is not available anywhere for the classic Wal-Mart supercenter, weighing in at over 200,000 s.f. These retail dinosaurs will---in the not too distant future---sit empty by our roadways. They are cheaply made, energy guzzling eyesores, and the sooner their Ice Age comes, the better for our communities.

Wal-Mart has learned that it can take an existing store around 120,000 s.f. and convert it into a supercenter---without altering its size. This format is called an "in-box conversion," and its been done in Milwaukee and other U.S. cities. The advantage here is that the existing discount store doesn't get abandoned--as the company has done to more than 1,000 of its stores since 1995---and the company doesn't have to go through extensive zoning hearings.

It is doubtful that Wal-Mart will ever learn to think small. But the company is clearly grasping that consumers don't want to shop in endless concrete caverns, and that shoppers are increasingly aware of the environment in which they are shopping as much as what they are shopping for. It also helps that competitors like Aldi and Tesco are focusing on smaller formats. Huge superstores are obviously land-consumptive and inefficient. They clash with Wal-Mart's claims to be a sustainable, green company.

The fact that Wal-Mart is stepping up its new store growth just means that more local citizen's groups will step-up their opposition. But smaller stores will be welcomed everywhere.
Small is not yet beautiful at Wal-Mart---but it's still an improvement over the wasteful land use monstrosities they've built over the past 15 years.

When we saw this story today, we were pretty interested. It seems a Walmart loss prevention officer (read security guard) was fired for chasing a man who he had witnessed steal some merchandise. It is not clear if he was fired for running after the man or because the man had a knife. We were interested because in the past, there have been several incidents where shop lifters have been injured and have even died because of rather brutal tactics by Walmart's loss prevention. But, as far as we know, no one was fired over these incidents.

Here's the story from the local paper in Florida:

Josh Rutner said he was just doing his job as a Wal-Mart "asset protection officer" earlier this month when he chased a knife-wielding theft suspect across the store parking lot.

The man, later identified as Marc Ash, was arrested by Ocala police and the merchandise was recovered.

The next day, Wal-Mart fired Rutner.

Rutner said it boiled down to doing what was right or following policy. For him, it was an easy choice.

"I couldn't let him get away," Rutner said. "That's wrong."

But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear.

"We take the safety and security of our customers and associates very seriously," she said. "There are specific instructions as to what an associate can and can't do during a shoplifting episode."

According to Ocala police reports and Rutner's account, the trouble happened at the Wal-Mart on Southwest 19th Avenue Road near the Paddock Mall. Ash picked up a pack of golf balls, valued at $42.98, and put them in his pants.

Ash then took the golf balls to another section, left them, and ate deli chicken without paying, Rutner said.

Rutner said he watched Ash put the golf balls back in his pants and head out the front of the store.

After radioing for assistance, Rutner and two other employees tackled the man outside the food center doors.

Rutner worked for Wal-Mart for nearly four months, he said. He'd done plenty of stops before.

He wasn't expecting Ash to pull a knife, slash at his face and take off running, Rutner said.

"I felt now that he was a danger to the public and the city," he said. "If he'd pull a knife on two security guards, he'd pull a knife on anyone."

Rutner attempted to hit the man with a shopping cart, he said.

Customer Franchesca J. Marie told authorities she followed Ash into the parking lot from inside her car. She told him to stop and to put down the knife, which officials say she then picked up and threw in the middle of the road.

Police arrested Ash, who was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault.

Rutner returned to work the next day.

"I was doing my normal routine," he said. "Nobody said anything."

Around lunch time, he was called into a manager's office. A corporate representative from Arkansas was waiting.

"They said this is a non-rehirable offense," he said. "At the age of 65, I can't even come back and become a greeter."

Bradford, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, declined to comment on Rutner's potential for rehiring.

Rutner said he knew Wal-Mart policy prohibits employees from going after suspects armed with a weapon, but there was no time to think about the consequences.

Rutner turned in his keys, security codes and badge.

"I didn't get hurt. They got their merchandise," he said. "And yet I got fired."

Rutner said he was required to give a deposition Tuesday in Ash's court case.

Ash remains in the Marion County Jail in lieu of $57,000 bail.

We're not sure about you, but it seems a pretty odd situation when an employee can literally kill someone on the job and not get fired, but an employee who does his job and gets the merchandise back gets the boot. Perhaps its time Walmart take a look at their loss prevention strategy so that folks aren't getting brutalized and employees aren't getting fired.