From The Center for American Progress:

This interview with author Charles Fishman (The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works — and How It's Transforming the American Economy) reveals that Wal-Mart’s effect on the global economy is enormous – and enormously destructive:

I'm surprised about the extent to which Wal-Mart does in fact touch our lives and shape the economy. I am surprised at how broad and deep and varied the Wal-Mart effect is. Wal-Mart changes the quality of merchandise. Wal-Mart changes the selection of what's on the shelves. Wal-Mart gets inside our brains and changes how we think about what things should cost and what their value is, and it changes our perception of quality… 54 percent of Americans live within five miles of a Wal-Mart, less than a ten-minute ride away. Ninety percent of the population lives within 15 miles. But Wal-Mart reaches all the way into China and Bangladesh. Wal-Mart's operations shape the lives of people who live halfway around the world and will never see a Wal-Mart store.

When a factory that makes kitchen appliances or bicycles or textiles moves from Minnesota or Michigan or Ohio to China or to India, the products that come back to the store shelves look exactly the same. They've got the same brand name and the same packaging and it's the same product. It may be cheaper. The price certainly doesn't go up. But the factories that those products are made in operate in a way that would be illegal in this country. Part of the reason the stuff is cheap is that it's manufactured in a way that leaves behind 100 years of social progress--on pollution, on how people should be treated in the workplace, on safety and hours and all those kinds of things. The factories are illegal but the products remain legal…

Wal-Mart is among the most powerful economic institutions in America today that's not in the hands of the federal government… Wal-Mart has certain obligations given the level of its impact, and I think those obligations go well beyond what we require of Wal-Mart now…

Read the whole interview here.

From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

When Gregg Wells became violently ill at work, he thought it was a flu bug an ex-Marine like himself could shake.

Wells, 27, works the night shift at a London, Ky., Wal-Mart distribution center, moving groceries in what he calls a “freezer the size of a football field.” Welders were working on freezer racks Dec. 2 when Wells said nausea and migraines struck about a dozen workers.

Wells got home and collapsed on the bathroom floor, where he stayed for two hours. His wife took him to the emergency room when he could stand.

His co-workers told Wal-Mart Stores Inc. managers they were concerned that the welding created toxic fumes. Wells said managers responded with disciplinary action against workers who used sick leave during the two-week welding project.

Most of the workers had never heard of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But one had visited the Web site of Wake-Up Wal-Mart, an online Washington, group and thorn in Bentonville-based Wal-Mart’s side.

What happened after Wells e-mailed Wake-Up illustrates how the Internet and Web logs — journals constantly updated online — can shape public opinion and political reaction.

Click here for the full article.

Wal-mart has faced considerable legal trouble of late. The retail behemoth, still reeling from a $172.3 million lawsuit won by cheated California workers, now faces more than 50 class-action lawsuits filed across the country.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

Over the past few years, worker claims against Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, have been piling up. The company is now facing more than 50 lawsuits in state and federal courts, alleging that Wal-Mart failed to pay employees for all time worked, according to a court filing.

Bonsignore estimates he represents more than 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart employees in 10 lawsuits filed in states from Hawaii to Maine. The six considered Thursday are from Nevada, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Hawaii.

Click here for the full article.

Wal-Mart is #34 on Business 2.0's list of "101 Dumbest Moments in Business -- 2005's shenanigans, skulduggery and just plain stupidity":

34. Bummer. But we're still going ahead with the "Schindler's Shopping List" campaign, right?

Fighting a proposal that would limit superstores in Flagstaff, Ariz., Wal-Mart signs off on an ad in the Arizona Daily Sun that asks, "Should we let government tell us what we can read? Of course not ... So why should we allow local government to limit where we shop?" The ad is illustrated with a vintage photo of Nazi supporters throwing books into a bonfire. Wal-Mart later apologizes, saying it had not appreciated the photo's "historical context."

Click here to read the full article.

The Wall Street Journal reported today on Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's opposition to Wal-Mart's banking plans.

"Greenspan Throws Wrench into Wal-Mart Bank Plan"

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent a 12-page letter to Congress opposing a regulatory loophole that would allow corporations to own banks.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is trying to obtain a state banking charter in Utah that would be a back-office processing center, handling debit-card, credit-card, and electronic check-transfer payments by customers, the company said. Wal-Mart is looking to establish the bank through the same exemption in banking laws that Greenspan has publicly opposed.

Noting that corporations escape the regulatory scrutiny of bank holding companies, which are managed by the Fed. Greenspan urged Congress to close the loophole because it provides the corporate bank owners with a competitive advantage over other financial institutions.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. must rule on the superstore's application for the proposed bank. It has received more than 1,500 comments in the past six months on the issue. The FDIC has said it will wait for a full board, including a new chairman, before voting.

Click here to read the Reuters article, "Greenspan Urges Industrial Bank Exemption Review".

Wal-Mart costs tax payers up to $2.5 billion in the form of federal assistance programs each year. In failing to provide its workers with affordable health care, Wal-Mart has already cost American taxpayers $210 million. It's time for Wal-Mart to offer reasonably priced health coverage to all of its workers.

From The Philadelphia Inquirer. Click for larger image

From the Seattle Times:

More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.

That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.

The reports are sure to fuel the debate over a labor-backed push in the Legislature to require companies such as Wal-Mart to pay more for health care. Democrats in the House and Senate say the reports show that Wal-Mart and some other big companies are shifting millions of dollars in health-care costs to the state.

"I think taxpayers should be outraged," Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said Monday. "They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world."

On the January 19 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and director of economic policy studies Kevin A. Hassett explained the lack of unionization at Wal-Mart by falsely claiming that "workers at Wal-Mart haven't voted to be unionized." In fact, meat cutters at a Wal-Mart store in Texas voted for union representation only to see Wal-Mart eliminate their department less than two weeks later. Moreover, Hassett's claim ignores the aggressive -- and often illegal -- campaign that Wal-Mart has used to discourage unionization. According to The New York Times, from 1998 to 2002, Wal-Mart racked up 10 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings against its anti-union tactics, while NLRB attorneys filed dozens of complaints against Wal-Mart alleging anti-union practices.

It is true that Wal-Mart has successfully hindered the work of labor organizers, who have had little success unionizing Wal-Mart. In some instances, Wal-Mart employees have indeed voted to reject union representation. But Hassett's assertion that "workers at Wal-Mart haven't voted to be unionized" is false.

Click here to read the whole story from Media Matters

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

"Wal-Mart goes after disabled ex-worker's settlement"

When Wal-Mart sued a disabled former employee in June to recover what it spent on her medical care, the retailing giant said it was just meeting a filing deadline and had not necessarily decided to ask a judge for the money.

Now the company is asking for the money.

If the suit prevails in federal court in St. Louis, it would force Debbie Shank, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., to repay the more than $417,000 she won in a suit over a car wreck unrelated to work - plus the $51,000 her lawyer got. Her husband and lawyer said it would drain the trust fund set up for her care and burden the taxpayers with a larger share of her nursing home expenses.

Wal-Mart's reason

Self-financed company or union health insurance plans are permitted to demand repayment for medical expenses if the insured collects damages in a lawsuit or settlement, and they commonly do. Wal-Mart says good stewardship of its health plan provides no other choice.

"This is a very sad case, and I think many people naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction," said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "But the reality is that we are required to protect the assets of our health plan so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members.

"Unfortunately, it's just not feasible to start making individual exceptions. Not everyone will understand this, and I'm sure that we will get a fair amount of criticism."

Shank's lawyer, Maurice Graham, said: "If somebody got some money from a lawsuit and used it to buy a new home they didn't need or a European vacation ... that's one thing. But that's not the situation were dealing with here."

He added, "In view of the unfavorable publicity that Wal-Mart is getting around the country ..., I'm surprised they're pursuing this against their former employee, particularly since she remains so devastated and so in need of these funds."

Critics across the country have accused the company of scrimping on health benefits and forcing employees to rely on Medicaid, thereby shifting costs to taxpayers. Last week, Maryland lawmakers overrode a governor's veto to implement a law, clearly aimed at Wal-Mart, requiring large employers to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care.

Shank worked nights stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart in Cape Girardeau, leaving days free to spend with her three sons. Her husband, Jim Shank, said that now she cannot always tell which son is which. She has brain stem damage, must use a wheelchair and cannot move move more than one arm and two fingers.

The settlement

She and her husband sued a trucking company and driver over a collision involving her minivan in 2000. The Shanks settled in 2002 for $900,000. After legal fees and expenses, an irrevocable trust for Shank's medical bills got $417,477, and her husband got $119,280, according to court documents.

Graham and his client's husband, Jim Shank, said a victory by the Administrative Committee of the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Associates' Health and Welfare Plan would mean a lower quality of medical care for Shank, and maybe shorten her life.

On Jan. 10, a federal judge threatened to dismiss the suit. Jim Shank learned this week that Wal-Mart would go after the money.

He said his wife stands to lose her private room, wheelchair-accessible van and daytime caretaker, whom he described as like a "sister" to her.

That would be "really chaotic" for her, Jim Shank said. "She doesn't get along well with others right now."

His health insurance pays for some of his wife's care, he said, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Jim Shank does maintenance and risk management work at Southeast Missouri State University and has part-time jobs in real estate sales and at a department store.

Citizens in Nashua, New Hampshire, led by the community group Citizen’s Action of Southern New Hampshire, won a victory last night when the town planning board voted to reject the building of a new Wal-Mart. Nashua, New Hampshire is just one town among many continuing to say no to Wal-Mart expansion until it becomes a responsible and moral employer.

"Wal-Mart Plan Defeated" from the Nashua Telegraph:

NASHUA - Bye-bye Wal-Mart.

After 90 minutes of what one observer called “political theater,’’ the planning board voted 4-3 Thursday to reject a proposal by Wal-Mart to build a 140,000-square-foot superstore on Amherst Street to replace the Building 19 store.

Member George Torosian cast the swing vote to deny the project after the board had deadlocked 3-3 on the plan last week.

After the vote, the crowd, which totaled about 100 people, sat in stunned silence for several seconds before beginning to applaud...

...Wal-Mart’s proposal, which first surfaced more than three years ago, generated what many consider an unprecedented uproar among residents. At previous meetings, throngs of opponents showed up at City Hall to voice concerns about traffic, pollution, crime and other disputed effects of “everyday low prices.”

Rush Limbaugh's take on the Maryland Fair Share Health Care Bill from Media Matters:

Limbaugh: Maryland employee health care law is "government-sanctioned rape"

Summary: Rush Limbaugh described a Maryland bill requiring for-profit companies with 10,000 or more employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on employee health care as the "government-sanctioned rape of an American business."

During the January 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh described a Maryland bill requiring for-profit companies with 10,000 or more employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on employee health care as the "government-sanctioned rape of an American business."

Limbaugh speculated that the bill, vetoed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), with the veto overridden by the General Assembly, was designed "to snare Wal-Mart but not many other[] [corporations]," given the bill's applicability to only companies with 10,000 or more employees. As The Washington Post noted on April 6, 2005, three employers besides Wal-Mart meet the bill's employee threshold -- Johns Hopkins University, Giant Food, and Northrop Grumman Corp. -- but they already meet the bill's requirements for 8 percent (corporations) or 6 percent (nonprofit institutions) of payroll to be spent on employee healthcare.

From the January 13 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I think this -- we've talked about this at great length on this program. This is nothing else -- it's nothing other than a government-sanctioned rape. This is a government sanctioned-rape of an American business.

[...]

This -- you -- yeah, we just had hearings in an all-powerful Supreme Court. You going to take away a woman's right to choose? Are you going to do that? Are you going to do this? What the hell is going on in the state of Maryland?

[...]

Probably, the only such company in this size, in the -- in the state. I mean, there's a reason they went after companies with 10,000 or more employees. It was -- it was a way to snare Wal-Mart but not many others.

The latest from the Associated Press:

"Court: Case Against Wal-Mart Can Proceed"

A federal appeals court told a lower court Thursday to go ahead and rule on a lawsuit by Wal-Mart workers alleging that the world's largest retailer unfairly threatened to withhold benefits from employees who unionize.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Robert T. Dawson of Fort Smith, Ark., who said the court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because it fell under the sole authority of the National Labor Relations Board.

The original lawsuit was filed by several employees of a Wal-Mart tire and lube service center in Kingman, Ariz., who had sought a vote on unionizing in October 2000.

The appeals court said the vote was never held because the employees filed complaints with the labor relations board and in court was charging that Wal-Mart had undermined their efforts by threatening to withhold profit sharing, retirement and health benefits.

At issue is a so-called union exclusion clause that Wal-Mart at the time had in its benefits booklets for employees. The clause said unionized employees were not eligible for profit sharing, 401K and health plans.

The National Labor Relations Board brought Wal-Mart before an administrative law court that ordered the company in 2003 to drop the exclusion clause after finding the exclusion was meant "to ensure, to the extent it (Wal-Mart) could, that its employees were fearful of losing their benefits, and thus continued to reject union representation".

Wal-Mart appealed that decision and remains in settlement discussions with the labor relations board to this day, the appeals court said.

Wal-Mart has since changed the wording in its benefits booklets but the case should still be decided because the plaintiffs have outstanding claims for damages and attorneys' fees, the appeals court ruled.

The appeals court also rejected the district judge's argument that it did not have jurisdiction because the workers' complaint was pending with the National Labor Relations Board.

The appeals court said the precedent cited by the district court for that decision was meant to keep state courts from giving conflicting opinions on federal matters. But this was a case of two federal institutions, the courts and the labor board, being asked to act, the appeals panel noted.

"Because the court does have jurisdiction and the plaintiff's claims are not moot, the district court's order to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings with respect to those claims," the appeals court wrote.

Today, WakeUpWalMart.com supporters are participating in a Fair Share Health Care lobby day in Washington state. Our grassroots supporters will be telling their state legislators it's time to make large, profitable companies, like Wal-Mart, pay their fair share for health care.

Our supporters will be speaking on behalf of taxpayers, workers and small businesses. Small business owner Craig Cole knows firsthand what is at stake with the Fair Share Health Care battle in Washington.

From yesterday's Seattle Times article "Trailing in 'race' with Wal-Mart:"

The pernicious thing about Wal-Mart, says Craig Cole, is if we don't change it, it'll change us.

He should know. Cole runs Brown & Cole, a business founded by his grandfather in Lynden 97 years ago that consists of 29 groceries in this state. Cole, 55, can feel this family legacy slipping away. Last year he closed seven stores. The reason, he insists, is simple: He buys health insurance for his workers, and Wal-Mart largely does not.

"I was raised with American values, that good companies take care of workers," Cole says. "Wal-Mart is changing the rules. We're at a crucial point where society needs to decide whether we're going to follow them on this race to the bottom, or not."

At a hearing Thursday in Olympia, Cole will urge state legislators to require that Wal-Mart buy more health coverage for its workers. A similar measure just passed in Maryland.

Wal-Mart says government shouldn't meddle so directly in business. And that the retailer is nowhere near as stingy as critics suggest.

Maybe so, but comparisons with Cole's Bellingham-based business sure aren't flattering.

Cole buys health insurance for 95 percent of his 1,500 workers, including any who work 20 hours per week. He also insures their families.

Wal-Mart, Cole's direct competitor, insures 45 percent of its workers. A Wal-Mart memo leaked in October revealed that half of the children of its employees are either uninsured or on the government's Medicaid program for the poor.

Who pays when these children go to the doctor? We do, says Cole.

"That's the real problem here - the public is picking up the tab for what should be Wal-Mart's responsibility," he says.

Entire article below the fold

It's the impetus for a union-backed bill that would require companies with more than 5,000 employees to pay at least 9 percent of payroll costs toward health care. Almost all larger companies pay much more than that already. Brown & Cole pays 27 percent.

Not all agree Wal-Mart is responsible to pay a dime for health care. The Wall Street Journal called the bill "an attempt to pass the runaway burdens of the welfare state onto private American employers."

That's the crux of the issue. Whose job is it to insure American workers, anyway? We can't make up our minds. We don't trust government to do it. And we don't want to force businesses to do it, even huge ones with multibillion-dollar profits.

I'm leery of this law. I don't like government telling businesses how to spend money.

But consider Cole's predicament. His company does right by its workers. The way he can see to compete now with Wal-Mart is to do wrong by his employees. To mimic Wal-Mart.

In the end, won't that cost us more?

"Wal-Mart is like a form of social pollution," Cole says. "If we let an oil company dump waste into Puget Sound, it could make cheaper gas. But we don't let them, because it degrades the environment.

"Well, what Wal-Mart is doing degrades American workers. And not just their own."

From TPMCafe.com:

As you may know, last year the Department of Labor struck an agreement with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., whereby the Department would give the retailer 15 days advance notice before starting an investigation of alleged wage-and-hour law violations (for example, forcing employees to work overtime without pay). The agreement also gave Wal-Mart a 10-day grace period to fix any violations that Department investigators might find without incurring any penalty for the violations. I am happy to report that, after much public scrutiny and controversy, DOL notified me today that it has allowed the agreement to expire. Hopefully this shameful episode will stop the Department from making other sweetheart deals in the future.

Here's the background. Details of the arrangement were made public last February, and prompted justified outrage. Why should Wal-Mart, a notorious violator of labor laws and basic labor standards, get 15 days to clean up evidence of a violation?

Wal-Mart and DOL made the deal after DOL investigators found that Wal-Mart had violated child labor laws in dozens of cases across three states. The violations were the worst type imaginable: Wal-Mart had allowed children to operate dangerous machinery, leading to at least one injury. The settlement agreement ostensibly was meant to lay out the steps that Wal-Mart would take to prevent these violations from happening again, but instead it became what I've called a 'sweetheart deal' between the government and the nation's largest private sector employer.

I asked the Inspector General at the Department of Labor to investigate the sweetheart deal, and in October of 2005 the IG concluded that it was the product of "serious breakdowns" in the normal process for making an agreement; these breakdowns led the Department of Labor to give significant concessions to Wal-Mart. The IG noted that Wal-Mart lawyers actually wrote key portions of the agreement, while DOL lawyers never reviewed it.

All Wal-Mart had to do was pay a $135,000 fine, an amount that Wal-Mart rings up in mere seconds worth of sales.

The settlement agreement was set to expire on January 11, though it could have been extended. I urged the Department of Labor not to extend it, and I learned today that - thankfully -the agreement had been allowed to die.

The Bush Administration has done a lot of favors for powerful corporations, special interests, and campaign contributors at the expense of workers. The Republican Congress is in the same racket, so it will never hold the Administration accountable. But we can hold it accountable, and when we do, we can get results. For Wal-Mart workers, it could mean getting justice when their employer breaks the law.

From the NYTimes magazine:

For a few weeks in the summer of 1995, Jen Kern spent her days at a table in the Library of Congress in Washington, poring over the fine print of state constitutions from around the country. This was, at the time, a somewhat-eccentric strategy to fight poverty in America. Kern was not a high-powered lawyer or politician; she was 25 and held a low-paying, policy-related job at Acorn, the national community organization. Yet to understand why living-wage campaigns matter - where they began, what they mean, and why they inspire such passion and hope - it helps to consider what Kern was doing years ago in the library, reading obscure legislation from states like Missouri and New Mexico.

A few months earlier, she and her colleagues at Acorn witnessed an energetic grass-roots campaign in Baltimore, led by a coalition of church groups and labor unions. Workers in some of Baltimore's homeless shelters and soup kitchens had noticed something new and troubling about many of the visitors coming in for meals and shelter: they happened to have full-time jobs. In response, local religious leaders successfully persuaded the City Council to raise the base pay for city contract workers to $6.10 an hour from $4.25, the federal minimum at the time. The Baltimore campaign was ostensibly about money. But to those who thought about it more deeply, it was about the force of particular moral propositions: first, that work should be rewarded, and second, that no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.

So Kern and another colleague were dispatched to find out if what happened in Baltimore could be tried - and expanded - elsewhere. As she plowed through documents, Kern was unsure whether to look for a particular law or the absence of one. Really, what she was trying to do was compile a list of places in the U.S. where citizens or officials could legally mount campaigns to raise the minimum wage above the federal standard. In other words, she needed to know if anything stood in the way, like a state regulation or court decision. What she discovered was that in many states a law more ambitious than Baltimore's - one that didn't apply to only city contractors but to all local businesses - seemed permissible.

Whether a wage campaign was winnable turned out to be a more complicated matter. In the late 1990's, Kern helped Acorn in a series of attempts to raise the minimum wage in Denver, Houston and Missouri. They all failed. "It wasn't even close," she says. In the past few years, though, as the federal minimum wage has remained fixed at $5.15 and the cost of living (specifically housing) has risen drastically in many regions, similar campaigns have produced so many victories (currently, 134) that Kern speaks collectively of "a widespread living-wage movement."

Santa Fe has been one of the movement's crowning achievements. This month the city's minimum wage rose to $9.50 an hour, the highest rate in the United States. But other recent victories include San Francisco in 2003 and Nevada in 2004. And if a pending bill in Chicago is any indication, the battles over wage laws will soon evolve into campaigns to force large, private-sector businesses like Wal-Mart to provide not only higher wages but also more money for employee health care.

It is a common sentiment that economic fairness - or economic justice, as living-wage advocates phrase it - should, or must, come in a sweeping and righteous gesture from the top. From Washington, that is. But most wage campaigns arise from the bottom, from residents and low-level officials and from cities and states - from everywhere except the federal government. "I think what the living-wage movement has done in the past 11 years is incredible," David Neumark, a frequent critic of the phenomenon who is a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, told me recently. "How many other issues are there where progressives have been this successful? I can't think of one."

Americans across the country are discussing the implications of last week's historic vote in the Maryland legislature. Maryland's decision is only a first in our battle to make Wal-Mart a more-responsible corporate citizen through Fair Share Health Care legislation. This is by no means close to ending.

Right now, over 30 states are looking into similar measures to stop the shifting of health care costs onto state taxpayers. What can you do to help push for similar legislation in your state?

Sign up to be a "Citizen Co-Sponsor" of Fair Share Health Care in your state here.

We will be working together with supporters who have signed on as co-sponsors through a grassroots state-by-state campaign.

This just in. Fair Share Health Care is now law in the state of Maryland.

The Maryland House voted 88-50 in favor of overriding the Governor's veto just minutes ago. Below is a statement from Paul Blank on the historic vote for working families across this country:

Statement by WakeUpWalMart.com Campaign Director Paul Blank on Maryland State Legislature’s Override of Gov. Ehrlich’s Veto on Fair Share Health Care Legislation

“This is a great day for workers, families and children in the state of Maryland and sends an inspiring message across America that billion dollar corporations, like Wal-Mart, will have to pay their fair share for health care.

This vote makes sure Maryland will stay immune from the Wal-Mart health care crisis. The vote expands health care for workers, stops large, profitable companies from shifting their health care costs onto taxpayers, and makes sure all large, profitable employers pay their fair share for health care.

Maryland state legislators have set a trailblazing example that other states will follow. Already, WakeUpWalMart.com is building on the momentum in Maryland and will introduce Fair Share Health Care legislation in at least 30 states this year.

Unfortunately, even on the eve of the vote, Wal-Mart still doesn’t get it. They lost this vote because the American people are tired of big corporations taking advantage of them. Fair Share Health Care helps expand health care for Wal-Mart’s workers and all working families. How Wal-Mart can hire high-priced lobbyists to defeat this bill, and still look their workers in the face and tell America they support working families, is beyond comprehension.

Hopefully, one day soon, Wal-Mart will hear the message loud and clear - you should not profit by exploiting your workers. This vote proves, if Wal-Mart won’t choose to do the right thing on its own, the American people and their lawmakers will hold them accountable."

From WJZ-13 News in MD:

The Maryland Senate has voted to override Governor Ehrlich's veto of a bill that would require Wal-Mart to spend a set amount on employee health care.

The measure now heads to the House, where its prospects are less certain.

The Maryland General Assembly passed the legislation last year, but Ehrlich vetoed it.

The Senate voted 30-to-17 today to override the veto.

The legislation would require companies with at least ten-thousand Maryland employees to spend at least eight percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Currently in Maryland, only Wal-Mart would be affected. WJZ'S Pat Warren spoke to one of the voters. "Those people that need health care don't do it because they can't afford it and they get sicker, and when they fall to a certain poverty line, guess what we the taxpayers are going to pay for it, or they end up at the emergency room and that drives up the cost of everybody on healthcare." said Thomas Middleton (D) from Charles County.

From the Washington Post:

At lunchtime, in the break room of the Wal-Mart store in Laurel, the television delivered the news from the opening day of the General Assembly:

Maryland lawmakers would attempt this week to override the governor's veto of a bill aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to offer more affordable health care coverage to its 17,000 workers in the state.

"You better listen," Cynthia Murray told her co-workers gathered there. When her shift ended at 3 p.m., she turned her back on the store and headed through the rain to Annapolis.

There, the 49-year-old sales associate was embraced by lawmakers and union leaders. Still wearing her blue apron, with its "How May I Help You?" slogan, Murray offered a rare statement in this debate that has drawn national attention and spurred an advertising and lobbying frenzy.

Hers was the voice of someone who might actually be affected.

"I've worked at Wal-Mart for more than five years, and I still can't afford their health care. I know many of my co-workers can't afford it either."

Murray said the $200-a-month plan she was offered to cover her and her husband would cost about a quarter of her monthly pay. So she goes without coverage and prays that she and her family will stay well. She said she might face repercussions for speaking out, but that is beyond her control.

"God puts us in the right place for the right reasons. That is why I am here."

January 11, 2006

Dear Maryland State Legislator,

My name is Cynthia Murray and I am a Wal-Mart associate in the Laurel, Maryland store. I am coming forward today, because the issue of health care is extremely important to me and something has to be done.

I've worked at Wal-Mart for more than 5 years, and I still can't afford their health care. I know many of my co-workers can't afford it either. I think it’s fair to say a majority of the workers in my Wal-Mart store don't have Wal-Mart's health care because they can’t afford it.

The sad truth is many of these associates are scared to speak out, but I felt this bill is too important to stay silent. That is why I am taking a public stance to ask every legislator to listen to the hardship of workers who can't afford health care and personally ask Maryland lawmakers to help improve life for me and my co-workers by making sure corporations do the right thing and provide us health care.

I cannot tell you why Wal-Mart has treated me or other workers this way. I have a disability, and Wal-Mart still ignores my health care needs. It is wrong and shows Wal-Mart is more interested in squeezing out extra profits than in doing the right thing for its workers.

Big business and special interests want to kill Fair Share Health Care, but I can tell you, personally, workers like me need this bill. We can't afford health care and this bill would go a long way to make Wal-Mart spend a minimum amount of money to provide health care for its workers.

Please, on behalf of all the Wal-Mart associates in Maryland and every worker who works for a large, profitable company and doesn't have health care, override Gov. Ehrlich's veto and make Fair Share Health Care the law in our state.

I hope you do what is right for workers and Maryland.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Murray
Wal-Mart Associate

Adequate health care coverage is a basic right for all Americans, but that right is under attack. In the very near future, Maryland legislators will be deciding whether or not to override Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich's veto on Fair Share Health Care, an initiative to make our largest and most profitable corporations, such as Wal-Mart, pay a fair share of their employee’s health care. Fair share health care is good for Maryland, and I strongly support the legislature’s effort to override this bill.

Fair share health care requires our state’s largest employers to spend 8% of their payroll on health care for their workers. There are only four companies in our State with over 10,000 workers and three of them already pay above and beyond the 8% threshold for employee health care – only Wal-Mart does not.

If someone cannot pay for their health care services, a situation that occurs far too often, the cost of their care is covered by everyone who pays into our health care system – including and especially overwhelming majority of small, medium and large-sized businesses who provide health coverage, and all individuals with private health insurance.

We need Fair Share Health Care so we can save businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars every year and protect our workers at the same time. It's a tremendous win-win for the state of Maryland, and an opportunity for Maryland to be a national model for smart, sound and fair public policy.

We must override Governor Ehrlich's veto. It’s the right thing to do for Maryland families and for Maryland businesses.

Sincerely,

Terry Lierman
Chair, Maryland Democratic Party
www.MdDems.org

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

In the Maryland Legislature, where Democrats hold strong majorities, the issue is likely to be decided by a vote or two either way. The Senate plans to take up the override by Ehrlich, a Republican, on Thursday and the House as soon as Friday.

Separate polls released on Tuesday show that a solid majority of Maryland residents - 66 percent in one poll and 55 percent in another - support the so-called Fair Share Health Care Act.

Wary of the precedent the measure would set, as well as its growing public appeal, Wal-Mart is working vigorously to kill it. The company, based in Bentonville, Ark., hired at least eight Maryland lobbyists who, like the bill's proponents, are pressuring wavering legislators.

Indeed, Annapolis, a historic town on the Chesapeake Bay that is home to the U.S. Naval Academy, has the air of a political campaign with dueling rallies, news conferences and broadcast ads in the run-up to the vote.

On Tuesday, labor unions and other proponents allied in a campaign called Wake-Up Wal-Mart began airing television ads asserting that nearly half of the children of Wal-Mart workers have no health care or rely on taxpayer programs.

Today, WakeUpWalMart.com, America’s campaign to change Wal-Mart, launched a TV advertising campaign as part of a statewide grassroots mobilization effort calling on state legislators to override Governor Robert Ehrlich’s veto of Fair Share Health Care legislation. As part of the campaign, WakeUpWalmart.com also released results from a new Zogby Poll confirming a clear majority of Marylanders believe Fair Share Health Care legislation should become law.

“There is no plausible reason why Wal-Mart and Governor Ehrlich would oppose expanding health care for working families and their children. Maryland taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill because Wal-Mart, a company with $10 billion in profits, fails to pay its fair share for health care,” said Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com.

The ad, titled “Fair Share” calls on all concerned Maryland citizens to contact their state legislators and ask them to support making Fair Share law by overriding Gov. Ehrlich’s veto. The ad states, “If Wal-Mart and Governor Ehrlich win, children, families and Maryland taxpayers lose.”

The 30-second TV spot will begin airing throughout the state of Maryland on Tuesday, January 10, 2006. A copy of the ad is available for immediate viewing on the WakeUpWalMart.com website. A transcript of the ad is attached below.

As part of this week’s initiative, WakeUpWalMart.com also released results from the first Zogby Poll on the Fair Share Health Care debate. The Zogby poll shows a clear majority of Marylanders support Fair Share Health Care legislation and believe it was wrong for Gov. Ehrlich to veto the legislation in the first place.

According to the Zogby Poll, 66% of Maryland adults agreed with the statement that “The veto should be overridden by the state legislature. Fair Share Health Care legislation is good for Maryland and should become state law.”

The Zogby poll also found Maryland voters believe Gov. Ehrlich was wrong to veto Fair Share Health Care legislation by more than a 2 to 1 margin. 45 percent thought vetoing was the wrong decision, while only 19 percent felt it was the right decision.

Most striking, 74 percent of voters, when asked to look ahead to the 2006 statewide elections believe that an elected official’s decision to vote against Fair Share Health Care legislation will have either “a great deal” or “some” influence on whether they choose to support that candidate for reelection.

Zogby International conducted the telephone poll on 12/26-27/05 with a sample of 700 respondents. The margin of error was +/- 3.8 percentage points. The poll was commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com. The poll was conducted on December 26-27, 2005.

“Wal-Mart has spared no expense to try and kill this landmark health care legislation. Why would Wal-Mart oppose paying its workers their fair share for health care? How can Lee Scott, Wal-Mart’s CEO, look any Wal-Mart associate in the eye and explain this outrageous stance?” asked Blank.

A new, statewide Zogby poll confirms widespread public support among Maryland voters for making large corporations, like Wal-Mart, live up to their health care responsibilities. The poll shows there is specific and strong support for overriding Gov. Ehrlich’s veto of Fair Share Health Care legislation:

•Overall, health care issues are extremely important to Maryland voters. Health care ranks second overall, just behind education.

•66 percent of Maryland voters agreed with the statement - “The veto should be overridden by the state legislature. Fair Share Health Care legislation is good for Maryland and should become state law.”

•60 percent of Maryland voters think it is “important” for Fair Share Health Care legislation to become law.

•74 percent of voters, when asked to look ahead to the 2006 statewide elections, believe an elected official’s decision to vote against Fair Share Health Care legislation will have either “a great deal” or “some” influence on whether they choose to support that candidate for re-election.

WAL-MART’S HEALTH CARE CRISIS

America, and now Maryland, faces a growing “Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis.” Because Wal-Mart fails to provide affordable company health care, Wal-Mart workers and their families are increasingly left uninsured or are forced onto tax-payer funded public health programs. The facts about the “Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis” are disturbing:

•Over half of Wal-Mart’s 1.3 million workers (over 600,000 Wal-Mart workers) are left uninsured by the company, significantly below the average for large employers (68%).

•In 12 of the 13 states where data is available, Wal-Mart leads all others employers with workers on public health care assistance. In Georgia, Wal-Mart has 13 times the number of worker’s children on public health care than any other employer.

•According to Wal-Mart’s own “Internal Health Care Memo,” nearly 1 out of every 2 children of Wal-Mart workers are either uninsured or on public health care assistance, at an estimated cost to Medicaid of $1.2 billion every year.

WE NEED FAIR SHARE HEALTH CARE

Wal-Mart’s own internal, secret health care memo, authored for their November 2005 board meeting, proves Wal-Mart is actually looking to make further cuts to employees’ health benefits, completely undermining and in direct contrast to the statements by their high priced lobbyists.

•Fair Share Health Care would require large employers, like Wal-Mart, to pay a minimum percentage (8%) for health care, far below what most responsible employers are already paying, but an important first step to expand health care and level the playing field.

•Maryland would lead the way nationally – just last week 30 states announced they would introduce Fair Share Health Care to fight the Wal-Mart health care crisis in their state.

Last spring, Maryland’s State Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill called Fair Share Health Care. This landmark legislation makes sure large, profitable corporations, like Wal-Mart, pay their fair share for health care.

We have the power to hold multi-billion dollar corporations accountable for their behavior and it starts with making sure Wal-Mart pays its fair share for health care. Because when they don’t, the results are disastrous. For example, 600,000 Wal-Mart workers have no company health care and nearly 1 out of every 2 children of Wal-Mart workers has no health care or is forced onto a taxpayer program at a cost of $1.2 billion every year.

Please sign up now to be a citizen co-sponsor of Fair Share Health Care legislation in your state:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html

We are building the largest grassroots movement to change a corporation in history. We are now a powerful force for change with more than 165,000 supporters in every state in the country.

And, while we are building a positive force for social change, Wal-Mart is building a “war room” to defend the indefensible. Filled with high-priced image consultants, special interest lobbyists and a mass of cash, Wal-Mart is sparing no expense to defend their race-to-the-bottom business model.

But, no corporation can defeat the American people. You have the power to change Wal-Mart and it begins with health care. We need your help to introduce Fair Share Health Care in every state in the America. Its time to level the playing field, and make Wal-Mart pay its fair share for health care.

Please sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor of Fair Share Health Care legislation in your state:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/health-legislative.html

Our campaign to change Wal-Mart has unprecedented momentum. Wal-Mart is stumbling. In the first two weeks of this year, Wal-Mart reported its worst December sales in 5 years, apologized for making racist DVD recommendations and saw its former vice-chairman plead guilty to fraud.

Now is the time to keep building public pressure for Wal-Mart to change. Please help us introduce Fair Share Health Care legislation in every state and join with us in growing our movement by signing up your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to the fastest growing social movement in America.

Statement by Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, on racist recommendations made on Wal-Mart website:

“Once again, Wal-Mart faces a critical moral test of whether it will do the right thing or ignore the concerns of the American people.

For Wal-Mart’s website to associate movies about prominent African American leaders with “Planet of the Apes: The TV Series” is offensive and insensitive.

CEO Lee Scott and Wal-Mart owe all of America, and especially every African American, not only an apology, but a detailed explanation of how and why Wal-mart’s DVD “mapping system” would ever make such racist recommendations.

Was the software programmed to do this or was this just some racist joke? In light of recent accusations of racism at a Wal-Mart store in Florida, as well as Wal-Mart’s history of using a Nazi image in its advertising last year, Wal-Mart owes America a more detailed explanation of how and why this could ever happen.

We call on Lee Scott to launch an immediate and independent investigation to find out how this racist and insensitive incident could happen at Wal-Mart. The American people deserve a real explanation as to how this terrible incident transpired and what steps Wal-Mart has taken to prevent future problems.

We can only hope that Wal-Mart will step up and do what is right for the American people."

The following comments can be attributed to Mona Williams, Vice President Corporate Communications:

Bentonville, Ark. - January 5, 2006 - We are heartsick that this happened and are currently doing everything possible to correct the problem. The offensive combinations that have been identified will be removed from the site by 5:30 CT today. However, with thousands of movie items available, there is an almost endless number of possible combinations. Because of that, we will be shutting down our entire movie cross-selling system until the problem is resolved.

Our system, like those of most other on-line buying sites, refers buyers interested in a particular movie to other movies through a technical process known as "mapping."

Walmart.com's item mapping process does not work correctly and at this point is mapping seemingly random combinations of titles. We were horrified to discover that some hurtful and offensive combinations are being mapped together.

To further illustrate the bizarre nature of this technical issue, the site is also mapping movies such as Home Alone and Power Puff Girls to African American-themed DVDs.

We are deeply sorry that this happened.

Is someone at Wal-Mart playing some racist joke or is this just a glitch? Check out what some of our supporters emailed us about today. You won’t believe it. When you type in “Planet of the Apes: The Complete TV series,” Wal-Mart actually recommends a movie about ‘Martin Luther King: I Have a Dream’ and 'Introducing Dorothy Dandridge.’

Remember Wal-Mart’s recent past. Last year, Wal-Mart used a Nazi image in an ad, called the police on an African-American executive who wanted to purchase gift cards, and was sued by an African-American truck driver for racial discrimination.

And, now, we just found out, after several press inquiries about this situation, Wal-Mart has suddenly switched its web page.

Does Wal-Mart have a racial problem?

CLICK "CONTINUE READING..." TO SEE THE BEFORE AND AFTER SCREENSHOTS

Before:

After:

From Bloomberg:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, said the smallest December sales gain in five years may crimp fourth-quarter profit. Retailers including Federated Department Stores Inc. beat analysts' sales estimates for December.

Wal-Mart's net income will rise to the low end of its forecast range of 82 cents to 86 cents a share, the company said today in a statement. Last year it had net income of 75 cents in the quarter. The company said December same-store rose 2.2 percent and forecast a gain of 3 percent to 5 percent for January.

Wal-Mart's strategy of cutting prices hurt December sales and wasn't successful in luring shoppers away from competitors who advertised late in the season. The company debuted its earliest-ever holiday marketing campaign on Nov. 1 to avoid last year's mistakes, when it was slow to discount popular items and had to offer last-minute markdowns.

``They were willing to cut the throats of themselves and anyone who got in the way of them,'' said Seattle-based Patricia Edwards, who helps manage $6.4 billion, including Wal-Mart shares, for Wentworth Hauser & Violich.

From the New York Times:

Seizing on momentum from the Maryland bill, lawmakers plan to introduce similar legislation in Connecticut, Kansas, Florida, Colorado and Tennessee, among other states, according to A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders.

"We know that Congress is not going to take action any time soon," said Naomi Walker, director of state legislative programs at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. "So states are finding their own way to get at this problem."

The measures are also backed by the Service Employees International and the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and two union-backed groups: Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart.

The bills, some of which are still being drafted, vary but generally stipulate that a state's largest private employers devote 8 percent to 11 percent of their payroll to health insurance or contribute a fee to a state fund. Some require nonprofit organizations to devote slightly less.

None of the bills are explicitly directed at Wal-Mart, but because of its size - Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in many states - nearly all of them would require the retailer to pay more for employee health care. The Maryland bill, for example, is expected to affect only Wal-Mart.

Lawmakers complain that health insurance remains out of reach for many of Wal-Mart's 1.2 million workers, forcing thousands of them to turn to state-sponsored programs or forgo coverage altogether.

Statement by Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, on the new poll released by Wal-Mart backed right-wing front group

“Frustrated by their worst holiday season in five years and a faltering public image, Wal-Mart has now resorted to releasing a biased poll by their own personal right-wing attack group.

The fact is Wal-Mart is the single biggest destructive force for working families in America. Wal-Mart's race-to-the-bottom business model threatens working families by lowering wages, lowering health care and shipping U.S. jobs overseas.

Wal-Mart's claim of adding 100,000 new jobs to the economy is completely false. In fact, general merchandise industry employment (the category which Wal-Mart is in) has actually fallen by 1,000 jobs over the last three years from 2,628,000 to 2,627,000.

The only way to protect America's working families is to change Wal-Mart's destructive business practices.

Wal-Mart is responsible for the loss of many of the manufacturing jobs it now so disgustingly cites. The American people will not be deceived and Wal-Mart will pay a high moral price for trying to hide behind the very job losses they helped to create.

At the end of the day, the American people deserve better than Wal-Mart's embarrassing and desperate spin that is bought and paid for. The American people expect more from Wal-Mart when real people, real jobs, and real health care for workers and families is at stake.

The fact is both the recent Wal-Mart Zogby Poll and Pew poll show Wal-Mart's public image is in severe decline. The first national survey of public attitudes and opinions about Wal-Mart by Zogby International found American adults hold an increasingly negative view of Wal-Mart. The poll found 38 percent, or nearly 4 in 10 Americans, hold an unfavorable opinion of Wal-Mart, and 46 percent of Americans believe Wal-Mart’s public image is worse than it was 1 year ago.

The poll also found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement - "Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost." In contrast, only 39 percent of American adults agreed with the opposing statement - "I believe Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day."

In the Pew poll, American adults were also clearly aware of the negative effects Wal-Mart’s business practices are having on its workers and the community. In fact, in an open-ended question, adults were 5 times more likely to say something negative about Wal-Mart the company than to say something positive about Wal-Mart as a company - the chief negatives cited by adults was Wal-Mart’s mistreatment of its workers.

Pew also found that Wal-Mart's overall favorabilities were among the lowest among all corporations surveyed. In fact, Wal-Mart’s favorables rank among the lowest one-third, and are only higher than Pfizer, Exxon/Mobil, and Halliburton.

Given Wal-Mart's poor performance during the holiday season, Wal-Mart should realize that a faltering public image has a real cost and that the American people expect better from Wal-Mart.

The truth is Wal-Mart is choosing to ignore the millions of Americans who are waking up to the fact that Wal-Mart must change for the better. It is this fundamental truth that explains why Wal-Mart sales lagged this holiday season; it is why more than 163,000 Americans have joined our campaign to change Wal-Mart; and it is why Wal-Mart's public image will continue its steep decline.

Our sincere hope for the New Year is for Wal-Mart and Lee Scott to realize now is the time for real positive change not more right-wing, baseless attacks.

From SocialFunds.com:

Characterizing Wal-Mart as "a company in need of reform" Sister Patricia Wolf, executive director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) today announced the filing of five shareholder-sponsored resolutions aimed at reforming Wal-Mart's policies and practices. The ICCR investor coalition is a major force in bringing about advances in corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and economic justice through organized shareowner advocacy.

"There are fundamental socially responsible investing issues on which ICCR focuses each year in challenging corporations to reform their policies and practices.", stated ICCR Executive Director Sister Patricia Wolf. "Collectively, we have numerous concerns with the Wal-Mart business model. Given the decline in Wal-Mart's share price, we believe our concerns will be of interest to other shareholders."

The five resolutions are:

1. "Compensation Disparity," [...]investors request the Wal-Mart Board undertake a study of the total compensation packages provided to company top executives in comparison to the lowest paid worker and to justify the disparity that is estimated at 1,000 – to - 1 (as compared to other large companies which average 431-1).

2. The "Public Health Impact" Wal-Mart has on Medicaid and State Child Health Insurance Programs in areas where it operates [...] The resolution states that "Several recent studies by governments and academics allege that Wal-Mart employees account for a disproportionate share of government services, especially health care." It further notes that "...a confidential memo to our Board leaked to the media in October, found almost half of [Wal-Mart] Associates' [employees'] children are on public assistance or uninsured." The Board is requested to prepare a detailed report and deal with this public policy issues on the Board level.

3. "Equal Employment Opportunity," [...] The resolution focuses on encouraging a more diverse workforce and an end to workplace discrimination. It requests the company prepare a report including "...a chart identifying employees according to their sex and race in each of the ...major EEOC defined job categories...a summary...of any affirmative action policies and programs…programs oriented…toward increasing the number of mangers who are…females or minorities...how the company publicizes its affirmative action policies...to merchandise suppliers and service providers." The resolution states, "public disclosure of diversity data - specifically data on the most senior positions - is an effective incentive to develop and maintain innovative, effective programs to break the glass ceiling barriers."

4. "Sustainability," [...] The resolution focuses on the lack of commitment of Wal-Mart in "...developing a public sustainability report that addresses its strategies concerning economic, social, and environmental issues and developments..." The resolution requests the Board to prepare a Sustainability Report and make a summary available to shareholders by December 2006.

5. "Product Safety," [...] The resolution "Product Safety" requests "…the Board publish a report evaluating Company policies and procedures for systematically minimizing customers' exposure to toxic substances in products, including, at a minimum, hormone disrupting chemicals, persistent bioaccumulative toxicants, carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants. The report should summarize the criteria used to evaluate such chemicals, and include options for systematically identifying toxic chemicals in stocked products, encouraging suppliers to reduce or eliminate such chemicals and develop safer alternatives, and routinely reporting on progress..." It further states "Wal-Mart is uniquely positioned to dramatically shift global supply chains towards use of safer chemicals in common consumer products..."

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Wal-Mart Stores, which mounted an unprecedented holiday marketing campaign featuring $400 laptops and celebrity-laden television commercials, is on track to post its weakest December sales growth in five years.

The discount giant estimated that sales at stores open for at least a year rose 2.2 percent. The results barely landed within the company's forecast of a 2 percent to 4 percent sales increase for the month and indicated that Wal-Mart had its worst December since 2000, when sales rose 0.3 percent.

Wal-Mart cautioned that strong gift card sales -- which are not counted in the monthly sales figure -- would shift a number of purchases into January, which might explain some of the lackluster performance in December. For accounting purposes, gift card revenues are not recognized until the card is used.

Marshal Cohen, chief analyst at the market research firm NPD Group, predicted that Wal-Mart's decision to sell more expensive merchandise this season, such as $1,000 plasma televisions and $100 cashmere scarves, would result in higher profit margins than last year, even if sales look disappointing.