From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With Wal-Mart and Home Depot among a record number of companies awaiting federal approval to open banks, legislation to block this special kind of bank is gaining momentum, a senior House lawmaker said Friday.

Thirteen companies, a record number, have joined controversy-stirring Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in the pipeline for approval from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to establish what is called an industrial loan corporation, agency records show. The Home Depot Inc., Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and the others are seeking permission to set up the industrial banks -- products of a regulatory loophole that allows commercial companies to own a bank.

"I think pressure is building for something to happen," said Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.

Frank said that he and Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, plan to propose legislation soon that would close the ILC loophole.

There is strong bipartisan support among House members for the proposal, likely sufficient for it to pass. Nearly 100 lawmakers from both parties in early June asked the FDIC to halt any new approvals of industrial banks to give Congress a chance to consider such legislation. Prospects in the Senate are clouded, however.

If the FDIC begins granting new ILC charters, "then the pressure is going to increase very significantly" for congressional action, Frank said in a telephone interview.

The FDIC has not commented on the issue. Sheila Bair, a former Treasury Department official who recently became FDIC chairman, was not asked during her Senate confirmation hearing for her views on Wal-Mart's bank application nor on the broader issue of whether commercial companies should be allowed to own banks.

There are now 61 industrial loan corporations in the country with a total of around $141 billion in assets and $98 billion in deposits. Thirty-three are based in Utah, one of only seven states that grant charters for them.

The ILCs are allowed to issue credit cards, take deposits and make loans. What they cannot do is offer standard checking accounts if their assets exceed $100 million.

Wal-Mart's bid to own one -- which has been before the FDIC for more than a year -- sparked a wave of opposition from banks, unions, lawmakers, and consumer and community organizations. The world's largest retailer insists that it has no plans to compete with community banks and has pledged to the FDIC to stay out of branch banking and consumer lending.

Rather, the newly chartered bank would be used to handle the 140 million credit, debit card and electronic check payments it processes each year, Wal-Mart says.

The 14 companies with industrial banking applications before the FDIC represent the largest number ever pending at the same time, an examination of agency records shows. The precedent was first reported Thursday by Dow Jones Newswires. Of the applicants, four have been awaiting approval for at least 11 months -- longer than any company has waited since the agency began approving ILCs in 1984.

The hopefuls also include The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, automakers Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG, and information services provider Ceridian Corp.

The ILCs are federally insured, with deposits in individual accounts guaranteed up to $100,000 if any of them failed. The FDIC insurance fund, standing at some $49.2 billion currently, is financed by premiums paid by banks.

From the Star Bulletin:

Kapolei residents showed up in full force at a neighborhood board meeting Wednesday night to criticize a proposed Wal-Mart store in the area, prompting the board to vote to oppose the store's development.

"It was quite a night," said Maeda Timson, chairwoman of the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale board. She estimated an audience of about 200 at the meeting. "It was very emotional. This meeting was originally intended to get information, not to take action."

Timson said she is drafting a letter this week to Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Honolulu councilmembers and Campbell Estate, asking the big-box store to look elsewhere.

"There were many questions," she said, "but there were at least 17 times when they said they didn't know. And these were basic questions."

Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said he could not answer many questions because the project is still in early stages of development. The developer is still in the due-diligence phase, he said, and no deal on the site at the mauka-Diamond Head corner of Makakilo Drive has been finalized yet.

"We were here more to listen," McCall said. "We believe that as more information becomes available, it will become more clear that this project is appropriate for that area."

He added that Wal-Mart is trying to be forthcoming with its plans.

"We've come forward that this is not a supercenter," he said. "We've come forward that traffic is our predominant issue of concern and it needs to be addressed."

The Wal-Mart planned for Kapolei will be similar in size to the one in Pearl City, which measures about 148,000 square feet.

A supercenter, McCall said, typically includes a grocery store and can measure up to 200,000 square feet.

Wal-Mart announced last week it plans to open only after scheduled traffic improvements are made in 2008.

"We think that the opportunity is there," McCall said. "It is zoned commercial, and we believe it is an appropriate place to be within the community after the improvements are done."

Theresia McMurdo, spokeswoman for the Campbell Estate, said she has received comments both for and against the Wal-Mart project.

When the deal is finalized, she said Wal-Mart's designs would need to be approved by the city's design review board.

But the core members of Kapolei First, which number about 50, are not about to stop their opposition to Wal-Mart, according to spokeswoman Carolyn Golojuch.

"This is not the end," said Golojuch, whose husband, Michael Golojuch, is vice chairman of the Kapolei neighborhood board. "It's not over until it's over. We need to continue to stand up for the welfare of the community."

She said the group would continue waving signs, knocking on doors and gathering signatures for its petition against Wal-Mart.

Some alternative uses for the site suggested by community members, she said, include a park, another school or parking for mass transit.

The issues brought before the neighborhood board were not apparently just over traffic and the size of the proposed Wal-Mart, but over the Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart's corporate practices, which have prompted class-action suits, critical books and a film.

Small-business owners at the meeting said the big-box store would put them out of business. Residents from Kapolei Knolls wanted a statement in writing, assuring them that the new Wal-Mart would not be a supercenter.

Neighborhood board member Brent Buckley, who made the lone dissenting vote, said he simply wanted more dialogue.

"I have concerns, as much of the community does, but I think we need to keep a door open to dialogue," he said. "By saying no, I'm afraid we already shut the door ... and I don't think we stopped Wal-Mart (Wednesday) night."

Buckley added that some community members in the audience did approach him afterward, saying they wanted to support Wal-Mart but were too intimidated to get up and speak.

Commentary went on for close to two hours, pushing other items on the agenda to next month's board meeting. No additional presentations by Wal-Mart were scheduled with the board.

Our latest TV ad:

The revolution to take back America has begun.

Until now, big corporations like Wal-Mart said or did whatever they wanted, and got away with it. Well, yesterday, you proved Wal-Mart wrong and demonstrated the power ordinary people have to change Wal-Mart and change America for the better.

Here's what happened. In October 2005, Wal-Mart said it supported raising the minimum wage. But, since then, Wal-Mart has used its industry lobbyists to oppose a minimum wage increase. And, up until yesterday, Wal-Mart's own chief lobbyist claimed the public had misinterpreted Wal-Mart's statement and that Wal-Mart never supported raising the minimum wage.

When we exposed Wal-Mart's lie and called on the company to come clean, Wal-Mart caved into public pressure and said it once again supported raising the minimum wage. We can only hope Wal-Mart will now actually do something positive to help millions of hard-working Americans who live in poverty.

Wal-Mart's reversal on the minimum wage proves the power that every American has to change this company and this country for the better. Now, if we could change Wal-Mart's position on the minimum wage with 243,600 supporters, imagine what we could with 1 million.

This July 4th, get your friends to join the next revolution to take back America.
Watch our latest TV ad:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/independence/

In the spirit of our founding fathers, America must now fight back against big corporations like Wal-Mart who are using our government to declare war on America's working people.

By contributing millions of dollars, Wal-Mart is pursuing a right-wing agenda to:

Ship American jobs overseas
Oppose expanding health care for working families
Lobby to weaken port security
Stop a living wage increase
Wal-Mart's war threatens the middle-class, undermines America's role as the leader in the world, and is a direct attack on American values and our democracy.

We must fight back. This July 4th, the next revolution to take back America begins. Be the first to see our new TV ad:

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/independence/

We desperately need change in America and America is ready for change. But, we can't have real change when big corporations like Wal-Mart stand in the way.

This July 4th, become a patriot for America's working people. Please send this TV ad to at least 10 friends and ask them to declare their independence from Wal-Mart and join the revolution to take back America.

From Guardian Unlimited:

Workers at Asda today called off a strike due to start at midnight after the supermarket giant agreed to demands for collective bargaining.

The settlement represents a climbdown by Asda, owned by the US retail giant Wal-Mart, well-known for its antipathy to unions.

A last-minute deal, thrashed out after overnight talks between the Asda chief executive, Andy Bond, and the general secretary of the GMB union, Paul Kenny, averted a walkout by drivers and warehouse workers at 20 Asda distribution depots at the weekend.

The walkout would have meant empty shelves at Asda stores over what is expected to be one of the busiest shopping periods, partly because of the World Cup.

Mr Kenny said: "This new agreement, which GMB and Asda Wal-Mart have worked very hard to achieve, heralds a new fresh approach to representation and bargaining between the company and GMB."

The deal came shortly before Asda was due to go to the high court to try to block the strike, the culmination of a campaign by GMB to secure national collective bargaining rights at all Asda distribution depots.

Asda's management and the unions have been holding talks to avert a strike since union members voted on June 21 for industrial action.

Asda said at the time of the vote: "The ballot results clearly reveal they've got thousands less members than they thought and only 1.5% of our colleagues have voted to strike. Nearly half their own members chose not to even take part in the vote."

The long-running dispute arose from Asda's unwillingness to allow unions to negotiate nationally on behalf of staff at Asda's depots.

GMB represents 25,000 of Asda's 140,000 employees, working in more than 300 stores and 20 distribution depots. The union has collective bargaining rights in nine of the 20 depots, but its members in other depots are not recognised for bargaining purposes. In Asda stores, GMB is the recognised union but collective bargaining rights were withdrawn in the 90s.

The priority for GMB members in the depots is an agreement, through the new national negotiating structures, that Asda pay the "unpaid" 2005 bonus of £300 per worker.

The union says that Asda decided that at £775m, profits were below the target of £850m that would allow the company to pay bonus to 100,000 of its UK staff.

GMB members also want an end to the "unilateral" introduction of new technology leading to higher work rates in the depots that, according to the union, poses health and safety issues.

Under today's agreement, the two sides agreed on the creation of a new distribution national joint council to deal with a range of issues of "mutual concern and interest" in relation to Asda's distribution depots.

There are also to be meetings of the company and the union at the most senior level at least twice a year jointly to review the major strategic issues facing the company.

Asda confirmed it had no principled objection to collective bargaining provided this was "subject to the free and informed choice of employees".

Today, WakeUpWalMart.com caught Wal-Mart in a lie and forced Wal-Mart to do an about-face on their about-face. This morning Wal-Mart denied it had come out in support of the minimum wage. But, after intense public pressure from our campaign, Wal-Mart came out and finally announced its support for raising the minimum wage.

The truth is Wal-Mart thinks it can have everything both ways. On one hand, the company sends its CEO out to try and generate positive headlines to salvage its declining image. But, on the other hand, Wal-Mart sends its chief lobbyist out to promote its right-wing agenda which hurts working families.

Unfortunately, Wal-Mart still thinks it plays under the old rules, where big corporations can say whatever they want with no concern for the truth. The reality is far different. Because 243,000 Americans have joined our movement to change Wal-Mart -- and we are growing every day -- we now have the power to force Wal-Mart to do the right thing.

Let's keep up the good work!

Here's the AP story about how Wal-Mart got caught in a cute scheme to deceive the American public:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. affirmed its support for an increase in the federal minimum wage after its chief lobbyist in Washington was quoted Wednesday as saying the nation's largest employer was neutral on the issue.

Chief Executive Lee Scott, who made headlines last October when he first backed an increase in the $5.15 hourly pay rate, said Wednesday he still supports a raise.

"There are a number of proposals before Congress. Though we do not intend to take a position on any single piece of legislation, we believe Congress should increase the minimum wage," Scott said in a statement.

Wal-Mart says it pays well above the minimum wage _ an average of $10.11 an hour for full-time employees in the U.S. Scott said many Wal-Mart customers are low-income families and would benefit from increased wages because they struggle from month-to-month.

Scott spoke after the publication Roll Call quoted Lee Culpepper, Wal-Mart's chief lobbyist, as saying Scott's comments were misinterpreted last fall and that Wal-Mart did not back a minimum-wage increase.

According to Roll Call, Culpepper said Scott in October was only asking Congress to look at the issue, not to raise the minimum wage.

"He said Congress should take a look at it. If reporters want to report differently from that, I can't speak to that," Culpepper was quoted as saying.

The newest ad by John DeStefano, a candidate for governor of Connecticut, calls for an end to corporate loopholes that allow Wal-Mart to avoid paying its fair share for health care.

DeStefano's new commercial:

"Connecticut taxpayers pay over $5 million per year to provide health care to Wal-Mart workers because the company won't pay for it themselves. As Governor, my universal health care plan closes corporate loopholes and uses the money to provide afforable health care for everyone. And if Wal-Mart won't cover their workers, we will. And we'll send Wal-Mart the bill. It's time to make your government work for you."

Not a resident of Connecticut? Click here to find out how much Wal-Mart costs taxpayers in your state.

From this morning's Roll Call:

Critics: Wal-Mart Flip-Flopped

By Tory Newmyer

Last October, Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott made waves by urging Congress to consider raising the federal minimum wage - something many retailers had long opposed.

He noted that the store's own customers are "struggling to get by," then added that "while it is unusual for us to take a public position on a public policy issue of this kind, we simply believe it is time for Congress to take a responsible look at the minimum wage and other legislation that may help working families."

The declaration came as part of a broader push by the low-cost retailer to put a friendlier face on its often troubled corporate image.

But now, with both chambers of Congress mulling hikes to the federal pay standard, Wal-Mart's critics are charging that the company has abandoned Scott's pledge to support a higher wage. They say that after reaping good public relations from Scott's statement last fall, Wal-Mart has cynically dumped the issue, even as major trade groups it belongs to, primarily the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, help lead the fight against a higher minimum wage.

"They did this for PR reasons, and then the true colors come out when the talk no longer meets up with that action. In this case, it's pretty obvious," said Chris Kofinis, spokesman for Wake Up Wal-Mart, a group that's critical of the company's practices.

Wal-Mart officials acknowledge, and several Congressional aides confirm, that the retail giant is sitting out the debate on the minimum wage increase. But the company disputes the notion that the move amounts to an about-face from the position Scott represented last fall.

Instead, Lee Culpepper, the company's top lobbyist in Washington, D.C., said the chief executive's statement was misinterpreted. Scott was not calling for Congress to raise the minimum wage, Culpepper said - he simply was asking lawmakers to consider the issue.

"We haven't said anything more or less," Culpepper said on Tuesday. "I think what he said was clear. He said Congress should take a look at it. If reporters want to report differently from that, I can't speak to that."

Wake Up Wal-Mart, a group primarily funded by labor groups, last week challenged the company to endorse raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, after plans put forward by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), and then to lobby in support of the change.

With any such outcome facing long odds, the company's detractors are trying to tell the story of what they call Wal-Mart's "Potomac two-step" on Capitol Hill.

"We want to hold Lee Scott to his word," said Nu Wexler, spokesman for Wal-Mart Watch, another labor-funded group targeting the company.

Tom Kiley, a spokesman for House Education and the Workforce ranking member Miller, said Democrats are disappointed with Wal-Mart's absence from the debate.

"At the time [of Scott's statement], we welcomed that," he said. "Since then, we haven't heard from them at all. That's unfortunate, obviously."

From the Contra Costa Times:

If it weren't for a luxury housing developer and the world's largest retailer, Steve Kirby might be just an energetic schoolteacher and man-about-Hercules with a million hobbies.

But today Kirby is an anti-Wal-Mart poster boy on the strength of an impassioned speech last month to the Hercules City Council, which invoked eminent domain to strip the retail giant of a lot near the waterfront.

Wal-Mart had wooed the city with promises of jobs and sales taxes. Kirby and Friends of Hercules, the grass-roots group he co-founded, warned that a big-box store would ruin the pedestrian-friendly new neighborhoods west of San Pablo Avenue.

"Wal-Mart will never, ever understand what we want," Kirby told the council. "I say, throw the bums out."

That sound bite, carried on radio, television, the Internet and in newspapers, also made the rounds at Castro Elementary School in El Cerrito, where Kirby has taught since 1983.

"A couple of first-graders came up to me when I was on recess duty and said, 'Hey, Mr. Kirby! Throw the bums out!' and we had a big laugh," he said.

He turned the episode into a writing exercise for his third-graders. "I'm trying to teach them to write certain kinds of essays, to inform and influence opinion. It became a good civics lesson."

Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff, without naming Kirby or Friends of Hercules, described Wal-Mart opponents as out of touch with mainstream Herculeans, who, he said, widely support a Wal-Mart store and are being denied a chance to evaluate the company's latest store proposal.

The Wal-Mart fight is not Kirby's first against a well-heeled applicant. In 2001, a Southern California developer announced plans to build more than 500 houses, a hotel, offices and stores on a wildland tract on the eastern edge of Hercules.

Kirby and some other residents formed the Friends of Franklin Canyon -- which later would evolve into Friends of Hercules -- to fight the development.

They canvassed neighborhoods, set up tables in front of stores, started a Web site, made phone calls and wrote to a growing e-mail tree, warning of an environmental debacle. Eventually, they sponsored a successful ballot initiative that rewrote the city's general plan for the Franklin Canyon area, restricting land use there largely to agriculture and recreation.

The Franklin Canyon area remains undeveloped.

"David brought down Goliath," Jeffra Cook, another founding member of the group, said after the November 2004 vote.

Kirby is not the leader of Friends of Hercules, he said, nor does it have any leaders.

"We're a coalition, a network, a committee," Kirby said. "We're on HOA boards, the chamber (of commerce), the NAACP, youth groups. We're an eclectic group of people.

"We receive information and disseminate information. We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're not that kind of political group."

Kathy Parsons does not know Kirby well on a personal level but, like many other Hercules residents, knows him through Friends of Hercules.

"He is certainly one of my heroes," Parsons said. "I would hate to think what Hercules would be like without him and his vigilance with issues, big and small, in our community."

In 2004, frustrated by what they perceived as waffling by the council over Franklin Canyon, Kirby and his group ran a slate of three candidates. One, Charleen Raines, won.

The slate lacked a campaign manager, so Kirby volunteered

"He just comes through," Raines said, "time after time after time."

Kirby, 56, was born in Berkeley and lived in El Cerrito until 1988. He attended Harding Elementary, Portola Middle and El Cerrito High schools and received a bachelor of arts in psychology and a master's in education administration from UC Berkeley.

He is not the kind of single-minded, single-issue activist who invites the comment, "Get a life."

"Steve is active in so many things, I don't know how he keeps so many balls in the air," Raines said."

Kirby is the past board president of Contra Costa Civic Theatre in El Cerrito, where he acted in four musicals, one of which he also produced. He has been his school's union representative for most of his career and has been a delegate to the National Education Association. He is president of his Bay Pointe Homeowners Association in Hercules and a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club's West County chapter.

He plays guitar and sings with Scouts of the Cascades, a cowboy trio. He is a scuba diver and a photographer. He plays golf. He is the announcer for the Hercules Fourth of July parade. He develops Web sites and teaches in the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education's academic talent development program. He has been a mentor teacher, master teacher and summer school principal and has a long list of academic awards.

He moved to Hercules in 1988, he said, "to be nearer to the open spaces, hills, hiking areas."

Although he helped block development in Franklin Canyon, elsewhere in the city, hills were flattened, traffic worsened and commercial areas went "south," Kirby said.

A series of city-sponsored neighborhood planning sessions in 2000 culminated in the Hercules Waterfront Plan and the Central Hercules Plan.

The plans favor pedestrian-friendly development such as live-work studios, houses with back alleys for car access, upscale boutiques and restaurants, a Capitol Corridor train station and a ferry terminal.

"I'd like to see it as a real nice destination for people to come to and meet friends, go to the restaurants, have some coffee, read the paper. Maybe an Internet cafe," Kirby said.

Wal-Mart's tract is 171/4 acres roughly midway between San Pablo Avenue and the Bay. A 2003 development agreement limits store size there to 64,000 square feet. Wal-Mart's latest scaled-down application calls for 99,000.

Wal-Mart is reviewing its legal options, Loscotoff has said. He disputed that the 64,000-square-foot figure is binding and added, "How is it fair to the residents of Hercules that they cannot see this project? The fact is residents have not been acquainted with our recent application."

Kirby said he hopes talks between the parties result in a deal in which "we'll buy the land and Wal-Mart will leave."

"We're not afraid that they (the city) are going to have legal fees. We want them to stay the course. We want them to prevail," he said.

"Meanwhile, we can be an inspiration to other cities bullied by Wal-Mart."

BIOGRAPHY

NAME: Steve Kirby

AGE: 56

RESIDENCE: Hercules

OCCUPATION: Teacher

CLAIM TO FAME: His fight against Wal-Mart's plan to build a store near the Hercules waterfront, culminating in a call to the Hercules City Council to "Throw the bums out." Those words, which made the rounds of the Internet, have become a battle cry of Wal-Mart opponents and made Kirby an anti-Wal-Mart poster boy.

Last December, attorneys representing 116,000 Wal-Mart employees in California won a $172 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart for systematically denying paid meal and rest breaks. Those attorneys are back in court today seeking an injunction that would force Wal-Mart to change its practices, according to the Bay City News Wire.

San Francisco attorney Fred Furth represents 116,000 current and former hourly workers at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in California who won their trial last Dec. 22 on their claim that Wal-Mart violated their rights under state labor laws by denying them their meal and rest breaks and by secretly deleting hours worked from their paychecks.

Following a three-month trial and two-and-a-half days of deliberations, an Alameda County Superior Court jury awarded the plaintiffs $57.3 million in compensatory damages and $115 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed in February 2001 and took more than four years to go to trial.

Furth and Wal-Mart attorneys are back before Judge Ronald Sabraw today for a non-jury hearing that's expected to take at least a week. Furth wants Sabraw to issue an injunction ordering Wal-Mart to have all its employees punch in and punch out for their paid rest breaks.

From the Hartford Courant:

On the eve of asking the AFL-CIO to endorse him for governor, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. is airing a commercial attacking one of labor's least favorite employers: Wal-Mart.

A TV ad debuting today touts DeStefano's universal health care plan and jabs at the nation's largest retailer for relying on state-subsidized insurance for hundreds of its Connecticut workers.

"Connecticut taxpayers pay over $5 million a year to provide health care to Wal-Mart workers, because the company won't pay for it themselves," DeStefano says in the 30-second commercial.

The commercial is DeStefano's second in a week to address universal health care, signaling a shift in emphasis from Connecticut's lagging performance in creating jobs under Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and her predecessor, John G. Rowland.

DeStefano and Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy, his opponent in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, are to address the AFL-CIO convention Tuesday in New Haven.

With DeStefano already endorsed by the AFL-CIO's executive board and dozens of unions, he is the favorite to win the two-thirds vote necessary for the broader convention endorsement.

In an interview Sunday, DeStefano said the timing of the new ad was coincidental. The ad was less an appeal to organized labor than a message to working families struggling to afford health care, he said.

"I am going to stand with families who don't have access to health care, whether or not they are families at Wal-Mart," DeStefano said. "I will take their side against big corporations."

His previous ad began a week ago and promoted universal health care and his working-class roots as the son of a New Haven police officer. Malloy has yet to go on television, though he has the budget for a television blitz likely to begin after the July 4th holiday, when television audiences might be larger.

"We're proud of the fact that Dan was the first candidate in the race to lay out a vision on health care, first with a plan for children," said Roy Occhiogrosso, a consultant advising Malloy.

DeStefano and Malloy each have called for universal health care, differing on how to pay for their plans. Malloy would increase the cigarette tax by 95 cents to $2.46 per pack, while DeStefano would make employers pay by closing corporate income tax loopholes.

"As governor, my universal health care plan closes corporate loopholes and uses the money to provide affordable health care for everyone," DeStefano says in the new ad. "And if Wal-Mart won't cover their workers - we will. And we'll send Wal-Mart the bill."

DeStefano would eliminate exemptions that allow many companies to pay only $250 in corporate income taxes, but he also would allow employers to avoid half of the increase by providing health benefits.

According to the Connecticut Health Policy Project, 824 Wal-Mart employees and twice as many dependents rely on the state-subsidized HUSKY program for health coverage at an annual cost in 2004 of $5.6 million.

The problem of uninsured workers is far larger: an estimated 356,000 Connecticut residents, most of whom are employed, are without health coverage.

"I see universal health care as part of any job-creation strategy, just as I see transportation policy and health policy as part of economic growth," DeStefano said. "They're all related."

But DeStefano said that his emphasis has shifted to health care.

"I've heard it from small business. I've heard it from workers and I've heard it from [health care] providers," DeStefano said. "It is across geography and interest groups, and it's creating a greater sense of urgency about the issue in my mind."

From the AP:

Wal-Mart takes new tack in fighting shoplifters

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is changing its strategy against in-store crime to increase the focus on a growing threat from organized shoplifting gangs and to put more emphasis on safety for customers and employees, the company said Friday.

Wal-Mart this year adopted what it calls a "smarter" approach to battling thievery and security risks in its roughly 4,000 U.S. stores, spokeswoman Sharon Weber said.

Weber denied allegations by union-backed critics that Wal-Mart is laying off store detectives for two reasons, to save labor costs and to reduce criticism from some local police departments about a high number of shoplifting calls.

Union-backed WakeUpWalMart.com said it has been told about the changes by disgruntled employees, or associates, in several states including Florida, Illinois and New Mexico.

"Rather than improve store security, Wal-Mart's crazy new strategy for reducing police calls is to let shoplifters simply shoplift, and fire the very workers whose job was to protect the store and customers," said WakeUpWalMart.com spokesman Chris Kofinis.

But Weber said any changes in staffing in individual stores are a result of adjustments, not job cuts. Some stores with less crime have lost staff, while others in higher-crime areas have gained some.

"We are not reducing the scope of our Asset Protection Department, and have no plans to do so. In fact, we have created a new position for our stores Asset Protection Coordinator _ to focus on safety and security in the stores," Weber said.

Asset protection staff also are getting more responsibility for overall safety and accident prevention in stores, she said.

Weber declined to go into specifics of the new anti-crime approach, saying that would give criminals too much information. She did say the retailer was installing better camera systems.

"We've made changes to increase the focus from not only shoplifting but to look at the other assets we protect. Other assets we protect include our customers and our associates and our buildings. It's a bigger picture to look at," she said.

The wider consideration of safety issues could mean not always chasing people who run out the door with stolen goods in cases where it could endanger employees or customers.

"We still have that commitment to catch shoplifters. We're still going to prosecute," she said.

New priorities also include combating organized thieves, which the national Retail Industry Leaders Association calls a growing problem that costs the industry an estimated $35 billion per year.

"These crimes are attributable to groups of well-organized thieves stealing goods to resell them into the stream of commerce, a characteristic that distinguishes ORT from petty thievery or shoplifting," the association said in a policy paper in January.

Wal-Mart is one of 14 national retailers taking part in an information-sharing program started by the association last August to collect and distribute major crime and incident data.

Wal-Mart had well over 8,000 employees in asset protection as of April out of a U.S. work force of about 1.3 million people, Weber said.

Weber did not provide a comparison figure and the company declined to quantify its annual losses to shoplifting.

From the Associated Press:

Baltimore - Wal-Mart goes to court this morning to try and block the new Maryland law requiring the retailer to spend more on employee health care.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association - of which Wal-Mart is a member - is suing over a bill approved earlier this year. It requires companies employing more than 10,000 people to spend at least eight percent of payroll on health care or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund.

Wal-Mart is the only employer that size in Maryland that does not meet that threshold.

The retail group and lawyers for the state will trade oral arguments this morning in Baltimore. The judge has no timetable for a ruling.

The retailers argue that state and local governments are not allowed to mandate levels of health care coverage by private companies. They want to prevent enforcement of Maryland's law.

From Reuters:

LONDON, June 22 (Reuters) - Thousands of workers at British supermarket chain Asda are to strike for five days later this month in a dispute over union rights, union chiefs said on Thursday.

Warehouse staff and drivers at 20 distribution depots will walk out from June 30, which could hurt supplies during the height of the busy soccer World Cup period, the GMB union said.

Asda, the UK arm of the world's biggest retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. , said about two-thirds of its depot workers were not union members and that it would do all it could to keep stores stocked.

GMB called a vote as part of a drive to secure national collective bargaining rights at all the retailer's distribution depots.

It said members voted three to one to take action and that they were determined to win greater union recognition.

"There appears to be a clear clash of cultures between the way workers do business in Britain and the way Wal-Mart does business," GMB National Secretary Phil Davies said in a statement.

Wal-Mart has long resisted attempts to unionise its 1.2 million U.S. workers.

U.S. unions have pressed Wal-Mart to offer better pay, healthcare and benefits. The company, which calls its staff "associates", says it offers excellent opportunities.

The union will consider legal action if Asda attempts to minimise the effects of the strike by hiring casual workers from employment agencies, Davies added.

The strike will take place during the World Cup quarter finals and one of the semi-finals. Retailers enjoyed a sales boost in the run-up to the tournament in what some analysts described as a "World Cup effect", which boosted demand.

Asda has offered to hold more talks to avert the strike. The retailer said it expected none-union workers to turn up for work as normal.

"As we have said all along, we will work hard to ensure they can and that our customers don't notice a thing," Asda said in a statement.

The Asda workers move 30,000 tonnes of produce from 20 distribution depots to 300 Asda Wal-Mart Stores around Britain each day, the GMB said.

Asda says nine of its depots already have local collective bargaining agreements and a process is in place that could see other depots get them.

Asda has threatened to take legal action against the union over the way the vote was handled.

From the Associated Press:

CHICAGO - Opponents of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s expansion into inner cities are scoring early success with a new tactic, enlisting support for a proposed local ordinance requiring giant retailers to significantly raise the minimum wage and help pay for health benefits.

Advocates of the so-called living wage or big-box ordinance, which advanced to a vote by the Chicago City Council next week after being passed by its finance committee Wednesday, say its approval would set the stage for similar actions in other U.S. cities.

"These proposals are really about whether it's reasonable to ask some of the largest and most successful companies in the country to balance growth and profits with paying a living wage," said Paul Sonn, deputy director of the poverty program at the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, who helped draft the ordinance.

Retailers, however, argue such ordinances would cause them to locate new stores elsewhere and force layoffs at existing outlets in the affected areas.

The Chicago initiative, mirroring one under consideration by the Washington, D.C., city council, comes with Wal-Mart preparing to open its first local store on the West Side in September after winning a heated zoning battle.

The ordinance would require operators of large stores in the city to pay their workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus another $3 in fringe benefits. That's significantly above Illinois' minimum wage of $6.50 and roughly double the federal minimum wage of $5.15.

If enacted, it would be one of the nation's first industry wage laws, following one adopted last November for large hotels in Emeryville, Calif., on San Francisco Bay. Supporters say it would raise pay for tens of thousands of local residents working for employers such as Wal-Mart, Target Corp. and Staples Inc.

"I believe it is an important step that we've taken to speak on behalf of the working people, not only of our area but generally of the United States," said Chicago Alderwoman Freddrenna Lyle, a co-sponsor of the proposed ordinance, following the 15-6 vote by the finance committee.

"We're basically saying that labor has a right to be paid a wage which allows them to not just live but to sustain themselves and improve themselves," she said.

Madeline Talbott of the grass-roots community group Chicago ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, says that once the ordinance passes, "Wal-Mart is welcome to move in."

"It's a way to allow big-box retailers like Wal-Mart to come in without threatening the level of wages and benefits that unionized stores and stores with a conscience are already paying," she said. "We believe lots of cities will pass something similar nationally."

Wal-Mart and other retailers opposed to the measure contend it is unconstitutional, suggesting a challenge is likely if it is approved.

Labor and employment law expert Jim Hendricks said the ordinance would be unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny as a "blue law," or one that singles out specific types of businesses.

"You can't say you're just going to do it for some employers," said Hendricks, based in Chicago for the firm Fisher and Phillips. "I'm sure it's going to get challenged if they're foolish enough to pass it."

Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio said the legislation is backed by special interests who are spreading disinformation about retailers. He said Wal-Mart employees in the Chicago area average $10.99 per hour, with only a relative handful making its starting wage of $7.25.

The action, he said, also would be economically harmful to communities and local residents.

"Why would any business want to invest in a marketplace where it is subject to a minimum wage that is effectively $13 an hour and meanwhile every other business, including the city itself, doesn't have to abide by that and is given a free pass?" he said. "That just doesn't make sense and probably is outright unconstitutional."

David Vite, president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said 17 other companies besides Wal-Mart would be affected by the Chicago ordinance. One, he said, told him it would cut 14 percent of its staff if the ordinance passes. He called it "the absolute killer ordinance to economic development in the city of Chicago, particularly in the neighborhoods."

The ordinance's backers dispute that argument and maintain that big-box retailers still will open stores in inner cities regardless because rural and suburban areas are saturated.

From Chicago SunTimes:

Chicagoans overwhelmingly favor wage and benefit standards for Wal-Mart and other "big-box" retailers, even if it places jobs at risk, according to a new poll commissioned by proponents to turn up the heat on the City Council.

Of the 500 registered voters surveyed last week, 84 percent want aldermen to require newly built and existing stores with at least 75,000 square feet of space owned by companies with $1 billion in annual gross revenues to pay employees who work more than five hours a week at least $10 an hour in wages and $3 an hour in benefits.

Wal-Mart said last week that Chicago could be home to as many as 20 new Wal-Mart stores over the next five years, but only if the big box ordinance is defeated. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed believe that's a chance worth taking.

The ordinance, co-signed by 33 aldermen, has 90 percent support from African Americans. Six out of 10 of those surveyed said they would view their local alderman less favorably if a City Council pay raise is approved without action on the big box ordinance.

The poll of 500 registered voters was conducted by Washington D.C.-basedLake Research Partners and was commissioned and funded by the Grassroots Collaborative, a coalition of community organizations in Chicago. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.

The 84 percent showing is identical to results of a March referendum on the issue in the 35th Ward.

"Aldermen are being given a tremendous opportunity to head into election season with a very, very popular issue under their belt," said Ed Shurna, executive director of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.

WakeUpWalMart supporters, you are amazing. Yesterday, we asked you to email members of Congress and tell them to raise the minimum wage. And, in less than one day, you've sent over 25,000 emails!

Yet, despite the fact that 84% of Americans support raising the minimum wage, corporate lobbyists and their right-wing politicians in the U.S. Senate just killed an amendment which would have raised the minimum wage to a mere $7.25 per hour. In fact, over the last ten years, Wal-Mart has given political contributions to 90% of the senators who opposed the minimum wage.

Corporate America's victory is the American people's defeat. Here's the simple truth: We can't have real change in America when big corporations, like Wal-Mart, are able to use our government to work against the best interests of the American people.

If you want real change in America, and I know you do, the only way to do it is to take our country back from the big corporate special interests like Wal-Mart. And, while we are off to an amazing start with over 241,000 supporters, we need at least 1 million people to really change America.

Help us take back America today. Click here to get 5 more friends to sign our petition to take back America.

The American people are hungry for change, but Wal-Mart and big corporations are taking America in the wrong direction.

Just look at Wal-Mart's right-wing agenda:

Ship U.S. jobs overseas
Oppose expanding health care to working families
Oppose a living wage
Endanger national security by weakening port security

We will not sit back and let Wal-Mart destroy America's jobs and health care. It's time to take back America and put people first.

Help us take back America today. Click here to get 5 more friends to sign our petition to take back America.

You might ask, why is signing up five more friends the most critical thing I can do to change America?

Here's the reason. We can't take back America alone. Everyone must join together and fight for what kind of America we want to live in. Remember, the faster we grow, the faster we change America. Eventually our 240,000 supporters will become one million, an unstoppable force for change.

Together, we have the power to change Wal-Mart, change America for the better and improve the lives of millions of people.

The Senate has failed working families across America by rejecting Senator Kennedy's amendment to raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.

The vote was 52-46, eight short of the 60 needed.

From the Center for American Progress:

The buying power of the federal minimum wage is currently at its lowest level in 51 years. Eighty-three percent of Americans favor an increase in the minimum wage (nearly half "strongly support" it). Yet, the House conservative leadership hasn't allowed a full floor vote on the minimum wage since the last increase went into effect, in 1997... In the nine years since the federal minimum wage was raised, Congress has voted itself nine pay hikes totaling nearly $35,000 a year, while a full-time minimum wage worker’s annual pay has not budged from $10,712. Just a few days ago, House lawmakers cleared the way for a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500. "It’s the height of hypocrisy," said Kennedy.

From AXcess News:

Washington - A new joint report from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that the federal minimum wage, which has not been raised since September 1997, has eroded in its purchasing power by 25 percent. The effects of inflation have effectively brought the federal minimum wage to its lowest level since 1955.

Indeed, the report observes, the lack of Congressional action on this issue is approaching an unprecedented stretch of time.

There are some indications that Congress may finally take steps to restore the wage floor. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee broke with its leadership and approved a $2.10-an-hour increase as part of a larger spending bill. Unfortunately, as a result, Speaker Hastert put the bill on hold, with the possibility of delaying further action until after the November elections. This week, however, there may be further Committee votes to restore the minimum wage in both Senate and House committees.

Please sign our petition calling on the U.S. Congress to raise the minimum wage.

From the Hometown Advantage:

Last November, the consulting firm Global Insight (GI) released a study that found that Wal-Mart saved U.S. consumers $263 billion in 2004. That works out to $2,329 for the average household—a striking degree of economic benefit.

This $2,329 figure has subsequently appeared in hundreds of news stories about Wal-Mart. It forms the backbone of the primary argument advanced by Wal-Mart supporters, who contend that the depressing effect the retailer has had on income—as a result of its low wages, impact on local businesses, and transfer of manufacturing jobs abroad—has been more than offset by its lower prices.

But a rigorous new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-profit think-tank, concludes that the GI study is "fraught with problems." EPI identified major internal inconsistencies in GI's figures and found that the firm's statistical analysis "fails the most rudimentary sensitivity checks."

"Once we addressed these weaknesses," the EPI authors conclude, "the statistical and practical significance of Wal-Mart's price effects effectively vanished."

The EPI analysis debunks the GI findings on two fronts.

First, the authors note that the GI figures are internally inconsistent. The GI study concluded that Wal-Mart's expansion between 1985 and 2004 reduced the price of goods by 4.2 percent and lowered overall prices (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) by 3.1 percent. But services (such as rent, transportation, and utilities) that Wal-Mart does not provide account for 60 percent of the CPI. Even if Wal-Mart lowered the price of goods—the other 40 percent of the CPI—by 4.2 percent, the overall savings would amount to 1.7 percent, not 3.1 percent.

Second, the EPI authors replicate GI's methodology and subject its statistical analysis to a series of tests. They conclude the GI findings fail to "survive rudimentary checks for robustness," explaining:

"By progressively adding independent variables to the model's specification, we track how the "Wal-Mart coeficient" (i.e., the impact of Wal-Mart expansion, all else equal, on consumer prices) changes. A general rule for judging the robustness of an econometric finding is that it should remain statistically and economically significant even as other independent variables are added to a regression specification. The Wal-Mart coeficient fails this test. As other independent variables are added, it invariably loses significance, shrinks in magnitude, and becomes so unstable that it often fiips from positive to negative."

The EPI authors further tested GI's findings by tracking changes in consumer prices year by year for the study period. (Global Insight only examined prices for the base year, 1985, and the final year, 2004, and excluded data from all of the years in between.) They explain:

"The pace of Wal-Mart expansion, however, has been rapid and uneven over this time, affording the possibility at looking at how "leads" and "lags" of Wal-Mart expansion condition the estimated price declines. When using these (quite standard) panel data estimating techniques, Wal-Mart expansion did not have a statistically significant impact on overall prices . . .

"Correctly measured, Wal-Mart's impact on four CPI indices (including nondurable items, the bulk of Wal-Mart's sales) was negligible throughout our panel observations. The most complete models identified greater change in food prices during years prior to growth in Wal-Mart stores, rather than the actual time of expansion and subsequent years, making the causal argument that Wal-Mart entry drives down. . . prices hard to sustain."

In addition to refuting the GI findings, the EPI authors examine two other studies of Wal-Mart's impact on consumer prices (one by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag and another by Emek Basker), concluding that, while their approaches are sound, their findings are commonly misrepresented, improperly used, and exaggerated.

They also review studies on Wal-Mart's impact on wages, noting that the company's depressing effect on income has made it harder for families to afford housing, health care, transportation, and education. These items, which have undergone substantial price increases in recent years, account for a much larger share of the average family's budget than the consumer goods sold at Wal-Mart.

Finally, the EPI analysis notes that Wal-Mart's profit margins are not as thin as many imagine and calculates that the company could provide its employees with a substantial wage increase with little or no impact on prices.

Despite being the richest country in the world, we now have 37 million Americans, including 13 million children, living in poverty. In fact, the poverty rate for full-time, year round workers has increased 50% since the late 1970’s. And, while CEO-pay soars to obscene levels, the minimum wage for America’s workers has fallen to a 50-year low.

It’s outrageous.

But, while the American public overwhelmingly supports raising the minimum wage, big corporations, like Wal-Mart, through its industry lobbyists and right-wing politicians are standing in the way.

That ends today! It’s time to take our country back from billion dollar corporations, like Wal-Mart, and fight for the American people.

Please sign our petition calling on the U.S. Congress to raise the minimum wage.

Unfortunately, under President Bush and the Republican Party, Wal-Mart and big corporations have been able to use our government to line their own pockets at the expense of the American people.

Rather than stand up for America, Wal-Mart uses its influence to ship our jobs overseas, not provide company health care to more than half of its employees, and pay poverty-level wages. We cannot allow Wal-Mart and corporate America to take our country in the wrong direction.

It’s time to stand up for America’s workers and raise the minimum wage.

Please sign our petition calling on the U.S. Congress to raise the minimum wage:

As you know, our campaign is not just a fight to change Wal-Mart; it is a fight for what kind of America we want to live in. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour will benefit 15 million Americans, including 9 million women and 6 million people of color.

Only you have the power to take back America and give America’s workers a raise.

Please take action today!

From Reuters:

FRANKFURT, June 18 - U.S. retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc is considering closing more outlets in Germany, a senior executive said in a newspaper interview published on Sunday.

Wal-Mart has closed three German shops this year and German Chief Executive David Wild told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper he could not rule out further closures.

"We have some markets that are going really well and others where we are losing a lot of money," he was quoted as saying.

"At the moment we are examining all the unprofitable locations. If we decide that in the longer term we cannot run some of these stores profitably, we will close them."

Wal-Mart entered Germany in December 1997 and employs thousands of workers at 85 stores across the country. It recorded losses for many years at its German operations but reported a positive operating cash flow for the first time in 2004.

Wild said there were no plans to pull out of Germany altogether. "Germany is the third-largest retail market in the world. As a global company, we cannot afford to ignore it," he said.

Today, for the second time in one week, there are allegations that Wal-Mart is selling fake goods in its Sam's Club stores.

Last Friday, Italian fashion group Fendi sued Wal-Mart in U.S. federal court, accusing the world's largest retailer of selling counterfeit handbags and passing them off as genuine. Today, a new law suit claims Wal-Mart is also selling fake Prada handbags in Sam's Club.

Campaign director Paul Blank had this to say in a press release:

“Although Wal-Mart is running a deceptive public relations campaign, we hope Wal-Mart is not defrauding customers as well. These two lawsuits raise serious questions about whether or not Wal-Mart is selling phony goods at its stores.

We call on Wal-Mart to immediately conduct an independent investigation of all of the designer products sold in its stores and disclose the actual origination of the disputed products.

The American people, especially Wal-Mart’s customers, deserve to know the truth about the products they buy.”

From the New York Daily News:

Activists are gearing up to oppose Wal-Mart where they believe the retail giant is now most likely to try for its city debut - the Bronx.

A union coalition is mobilizing community groups - and even a performance artist who plays the role of a preacher - though the world's largest retailer was banned last winter from the Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment project.

"We believe Wal-Mart will focus on the Bronx because it's the poorest of the five boroughs - with the excuse that 'People in the Bronx need jobs and low prices,'" said Pat Purcell, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Free NYC, the coalition.

"But Wal-Mart doesn't offer a living wage or decent health care," he asserted.

Wal-Mart spokesman Philip Serghini said the company "continues to look at store sites throughout New York City," but declined to talk specifics.

He called Wal-Mart opponents "a small minority of special interests" and said they "stand in the way of more choice, greater savings and quality job opportunities for the borough's working families."

Wal-Mart already has considered sites in other boroughs that haven't panned out - first in Rego Park, Queens, last year, and later on Staten Island, and in Harlem and Flushing, Queens.

"We have people in all five boroughs watching for signals - and the strongest signals are coming from the Bronx," said Bill Talen, aka. Reverend Billy, the theatrical persona he uses when staging protests against Wal-Mart and other corporate giants.

At a performance Wednesday night at St. Mark's Church in the East Village, the crowd cheered when he shouted, "We want to keep Wal-Mart out of the Bronx," and his choir sang a mock hymn, "Back Away from the Wal-Mart, Back Away."

Wal-Mart's opponents wonder why the retailer was allowed to join the Bronx Chamber of Commerce - whose bylaws limit membership to companies located in the five boroughs.

Chamber chief exec Lenny Caro said he wasn't in charge when Wal-Mart joined - and the Chamber board is scheduled to vote today about terminating the membership.

Also, activists contend the retailer's trying to make friends by spreading money around.

"We fear Wal-Mart is giving - and will keep giving - money to create support for itself," said Matt Lipsky of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance.

But one organization's leader vehemently denied that his group's gotten any dough.

The New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce hosted a procurement seminar for Wal-Mart last winter - but was not paid by Wal-Mart to do so, said Frank Garcia, the coalition's president. And Wal-Mart did not pay for the group's evening reception at an Albany legislative event in April, he said.

"People are spreading rumors about me," Garcia said.

From Reuters:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT.N) could significantly increase employee wages and benefits without raising prices, and still earn a healthy -- albeit smaller -- profit, research released on Thursday concluded.

The Economic Policy Institute study comes as the world's biggest retailer faces a barrage of criticism from labor unions, politicians and community activists, who say it pays poverty-level wages and drives competitors out of business.

Wal-Mart, which has taken steps to improve its health care and other benefits, argues that its low prices boost consumers' buying power and increase their standard of living. The retailer regularly cites a Global Insight study that found Wal-Mart saves U.S. families more than $2,000 per year.

"The more important question for the future isn't whether Wal-Mart is a force for good or evil in the American economy, but whether the economic benefits provided by Wal-Mart can be preserved even if their labor compensation is dramatically improved," economists Jared Bernstein and Josh Bivens wrote.

They concluded that if Wal-Mart reduced its profit margin to about 2.9 percent, where it stood in 1997, from the 3.6 percent margin it recorded last year, that would free up some $2.3 billion to pay workers without raising prices. That works out to just under $2,100 per non-managerial employee, the researchers calculated.

They noted that rival Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST.O) posted a profit margin of about 2 percent in 2005. The study did not mention Target Corp. (TGT.N), Wal-Mart's biggest competitor in the discount sector, which reported a 4.7 percent profit margin for last year.

In a telephone interview, Bivens said his research was aimed at refuting "outsized" claims that Wal-Mart saved consumers hundreds of billions of dollars and that its margins were so thin that it simply could not afford to pay employees more without forcing low-income consumers to foot the bill.

"I always thought that they had really, really tight profit margins," he said. "They're really a microcosm of the U.S. economy. They are very, very good at generating income, but it needs to be spread out more equitably."

His research refuted many of the findings from the Global Insight study released last year regarding how much money Wal-Mart saved consumers.

Jim Dorsey, a spokesman for Global Insight, said the research firm stood by the accuracy and methodology of its study, which was independently reviewed.

"Our study produced estimates of Wal-Mart's impact on prices and consumer savings that make common sense and are consistent with the findings of other rigorous, peer-reviewed studies on the subject," he said.

"In its criticism of Global Insight's findings, the Economic Policy Institute's paper does not properly account for the indirect impact of Wal-Mart on prices."

Wal-Mart said that its stores were good for U.S. working families, and noted that they created tens of thousands of jobs last year, many of them in underserved neighborhoods.

The retailer also criticized the Economic Policy Institute as "funded by big labor."

"We will treat the findings of this study with the same amount of skepticism as other statements made by labor leaders who oppose us," Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Thornton said. "We are proud of the economic impact we have on communities -- from the job opportunities we provide, to the money we save working families, to the tax revenue we generate, to the contribution we make to local charitable organizations," he added.

Thornton said Wal-Mart's average full-time wage is $10.11 per hour, and the retailer does market analysis to ensure its wages are competitive. He noted that Wal-Mart offers 18 different health care plans that cost as little as $11 per month in some areas.

Bivens and Bernstein concluded: "Wal-Mart does a lot right. It has expanded productivity by being more efficient and leaner than many other companies. Many of the benefits shoppers accrue from Wal-Mart's expansion could be preserved even if the retailer had to meet the expectations of its critics regarding fair worker compensation."

In a new study released today, "The Wal-Mart debate: A false choice between prices and wages", the Economic Policy Institute considers whether low prices make up for low wages at Wal-Mart. The answer is a definitive no, for two main reasons:

1. Wal-Mart drives down wages not just of its own workers, but for all workers in the area of a store.

Dube (2005) and Neumark (2005), in papers reviewed in Wrestling With Wal-Mart, present strong evidence that Wal-Mart's expansion has driven down earnings for workers not just in competing retailers, but across stores throughout the region of Wal-Mart expansion.

2. Wal-Mart may slightly reduce prices for food and household goods, but these items constitute an ever-shrinking share of American families' expenditures.

Wal-Mart essentially gives people the ability to buy food, apparel, household goods, and furniture at reduced prices. The share of expenditure in each of these categories has shrunk over time. By contrast, the expenditure shares on health care, housing, and transportation for families have gone up over time. These cannot be bought at Wal-Mart, yet they constitute an ever-growing share of American household expenditures. In short, the benefits from the same price effect in Wal-Mart's product areas are shrinking over time. The real pressures on family income are coming from items that can't be bought at Wal-Mart. These products and services can, however, be bought with higher wages.

The idea that encouraging Wal-Mart's expansion constitutes a progressive endeavor that will provide big benefits to poor Americans in the future is misguided; truly progressive policy should focus on the big-ticket items in most families' budget—health care, housing, and education.

Today, the Economic Policy Institute released a new study called "The Wal-Mart debate: A false choice between prices and wages."

This study examines the false dichotomy of low prices vs. high wages and concludes that Wal-Mart could dramatically improve workers' earnings without raising prices.

The research finds that:

1. A study by the consulting firm Global Insight, which concludes that Wal-Mart's expansion has saved U.S. consumers $263 billion, is deeply flawed.

2. A robust set of research findings shows that Wal-Mart's entry into local labor markets reduces the pay of workers in competing stores. This effect is largest in the South, where Wal-Mart expansion has been greatest.

3. Wal-Mart could raise wages and benefits significantly without raising prices, yet still earn a healthy profit. For example, while still maintaining a profit margin almost 50% greater than Costco, a key competitor, Wal-Mart could have raised the wages and benefits of each of its non-supervisory employees in 2005 by more than $2,000 without raising prices a penny.

Throughout the day, we will continue to update the blog with more detailed information about this important study.

Today, the U.S. Senate is likely to vote on the nomination of Sheila Bair to be the next Chair of the FDIC.

Why is this important to our campaign?

As Chairman of the FDIC, Ms. Bair will have the ability to decide on Wal-Mart’s banking application. How the FDIC handles the Wal-Mart issue is both critical to our campaign and of great importance to the future of the U.S. banking system.

Banking and commerce must remain separate. Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke agree.

Now it’s your turn. Please take action immediately. Call or email your U.S. Senator and tell them the Senate should not consider the Bair nomination until we have more information on how Ms. Bair feels about the separation of commerce and banking.

Click here to email your U.S. Senator.

Community groups across America continue to join together to keep Wal-Mart out of their neighborhood until the company changes its business model. Today, newspapers highlighted community activism in cities including Knightdale, North Carolina, Grand Haven, Michigan, and Lancaster, Michigan. These groups are educating their fellow citizens about the poverty-level wages, unaffordable health care, traffic, crime, pollution, and noise that Wal-Mart would bring into their communities.

From the News & Observer (NC):

Several residents have formed Citizens for the Cessation of the Knightdale Supercenter, a group that is trying to persuade officials to oppose the Wal-Mart. Last week, more than 30 people attended a meeting organized by the group.

The group's three founders --Sherri Schultheiss, Rita Rakestraw and Paula Gavasto --spent much of the meeting telling attendees why they believe the Supercenter would not be a good addition to the community. The meeting began with a 20-minute clip from "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices," a documentary that vilifies the retailer for its business practices.

Gavasto, who lives on Mingocrest Drive in Timber Ridge, said she objects to the Supercenter because of the store's size and proximity to homes, and because it's a Wal-Mart. Gavasto said since learning a Supercenter might be built behind her house, she's tried to find out as much as possible about the company. She said she has problems with the way Wal-Mart treats its employees and worries about the environmental impact the store will have.

"I don't shop at Wal-Mart anymore," she said.

In an article coming out in the June 19 edition of The U.S. News and World Report, the magazine will include an article about Wal-Mart's need for serious change.

Wal-Mart needed to do something. While it remains the world's largest retail chain--and private employer--its stock has languished, moving only sideways for five years while other retailers watched their share prices jump an average of 40 percent. The company's same-store sales rose only 3 percent in 2005, its worst performance ever, trailing archrival Target every month for more than two years. Labor unions and environmentalists, meanwhile, blasted Wal-Mart's business practices and encouraged shoppers to turn elsewhere.

In the article, Wal-Mart claims to be changing with store remodeling and attempts to reach upscale shoppers. But, notably missing in Wal-Mart's talk of change is any mention of improving the lives of its 1.4 million employees. In fact, the only staffing changes mentioned in the article relate to the shifting of full-time workers to part time.

Its critics are hardly satisfied and point to ongoing staffing changes as a new concern, in which U.S. stores will increasingly shift workers to peak shopping times. The result, analysts have said, is that Wal-Mart will employ a higher percentage of part-time workers. Company critics fear that will cut worker access to benefits.

"Peak" time is Wal-Mart speak for part-time workers who are being pushed from full time work; many are currently losing their benefits. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart's new U.S. stores leader, Eduardo Castro-Wright, who is featured in the article, never mentions improving the lives of Wal-Mart workers. Until that becomes part of Wal-Mart "transformation-speak," Castro-Wright will continue to have a difficult job convincing America that Wal-Mart is changing for the better.

From Reuters:

Italian fashion group Fendi S.R.L. sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in U.S. federal court on Friday, accusing the world's largest retailer of selling counterfeit handbags and passing them off as genuine at its Sam's Club warehouse stores.

Sam's Club stores in California, New York, Florida and other states sold knock off handbags, wallets and key chains that were identified as "genuine" Fendi products, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The suit by Fendi said that Wal-Mart has never purchased its products and never asked Fendi if any of the items bearing its trademark were genuine...

Fendi, a unit of French luxury goods maker LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton said in the suit that Wal-Mart has made millions of dollars selling the counterfeit goods.

Sam's Club stores, which sell everything from bulk groceries to office supplies, recently said it would ratchet up competition with rival Costco Wholesale Corp. by selling more luxury goods like fine wines and diamonds.

Last month, Wal-Mart announced plans to build a Neighborhood Market on the northeastern corner of Desert Foothills Parkway and Marketplace Way in Ahwatukee, Arizona. Like many other communities across the country, Ahwatukee citizens have organized against the proposed Wal-Mart.

The Arizona Republic discusses why:

Ahwatukee's arguments against Wal-Mart - that it pays sub-living wages, prices employees out of health insurance and attracts crime ... - echo those of nearly identical battles waged from Chandler and Gilbert to Idaho, California and Maryland...

"I don't like everything they stand for. Therefore, I will never set foot in a Wal-Mart," said Sandi Salvo, 57, at the May 30 meeting...

At the local meeting, John Chiazza, a veteran of four separate fights to keep Wal-Mart out of Gilbert, asked the question that local communities across the country are asking:

As to why Wal-Mart draws ire in a way other chain stores don't, he said, "I think it's their image. Instead of going into neighborhoods and putting out businesses . . . why not funnel your money into creating a better image? Why not pay your people?"

Yesterday, we sent an email to our 239,000 plus supporters. We urged them to contact their U.S. Senators and demand they stand up to Wal-Mart and the millionaire Walton hiers and reject taxpayer giveaways to the wealthy at the expense of working Americans.

Thousands of supporters sent letters within hours of our rapid response email.

Today, the Senate blocked the Walton's multi-million dollar lobbying efforts to repeal the estate tax.

From Reuters:

"U.S. Senate blocks permanent estate tax repeal"

The U.S. Senate on Thursday killed a bill backed by President George W. Bush that would have permanently repealed estate taxes.

On a vote of 57-41, the Senate blocked consideration of a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives...

While the bill was blocked today, Republican Senators hinted that they would try to push the measure through other bills this year. Wal-Mart and the Waltons cannot buy our democracy. If you have not already done so, tell your Senators to reject the estate tax repeal if it comes before the Senate again.

From the Arkansas Times, Arkansas Blog:

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's office announced Wednesday that The Huckster's policy adviser, former TV news announcer Joe Quinn, will be leaving state government for a job as state health care policy director for Wal-Mart. Quinn labored at Human Services before joining the governor's office. (Say: you don't think he had anything to do with the state's recent announcement that it would no longer tabulate the number of Wal-Mart employees in Arkansas on welfare rolls?)

The Walton family has no shame.

At the same time America faces a costly war, record debt and soaring gas prices, the Walton family, worth over $80 billion, has the nerve to lobby our government to repeal the estate tax.

Repealing the estate tax will not benefit 99% of Americans, and will give the wealthiest 1% of Americans a nearly $1 trillion tax giveaway over the next 10 years. In fact, the Walton family alone will get a $32 billion tax break.

Are we going to let President Bush and the right-wing Republicans in the U.S. Senate give the Walton family a $32 billion tax cut while real Americans struggle just to make ends meet?

Your action is critical. The showdown over the estate tax is tomorrow and the vote is very close.

Please write your U.S. Senator today and tell him/her to stand up for the American people and oppose repealing the estate tax for billionaires like the Waltons.

According to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy, over the last decade, the Walton family, along with 17 other wealthy families, has spent nearly $200 million to lobby Congress to repeal the estate tax.

This is not democracy. America was founded on the belief that our government should be of, by and for the people. Unfortunately, under President Bush and the Republican Party, Wal-Mart and the Walton family has been able to use our government to line its own pockets at the expense of the American people.

Rather than stand up for America, Wal-Mart uses its influence to ship our jobs overseas and not provide company health care to more than half of its employees. We cannot allow Wal-Mart, and now the Walton family, to take America in the wrong direction.

It's time to take our country back from billionaires and billion dollar corporations and fight for the American people.

Please write your U.S. Senator today (or your Congresswoman, if you live in DC) and tell him/her you oppose repealing the estate tax for billionaires like the Walton family while average Americans are struggling to get by.

Only you have the power to change Wal-Mart, fight for everyday people and change America for the better.

Today's Green Bay Press Gazette reports on a recent Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce study of local Wisconsin employers. The Chamber of Commerce lists 30 local companies employing the largest number of people and compares that data to the previous year.

The employee count is based on full-time equivalency, meaning every 40 hours equals one employee, said Cindy Gokey, chamber economic development coordinator. The rankings were based on March 31 full-time employment levels.

And, while most employers remained in the same spot they were the previous year or increased employee hours, Wal-Mart actually dropped on the list from 18 to 24, with a job loss of 155. Some local Commerce members were confused by the drop since Wal-Mart is actually building more stores locally.

"That's a surprise because they are obviously opening more stores," (Paul) Jadin (chamber president) said. "That one is a little more confusing."

That's not the only thing that makes Wal-Mart's drop a surprise: The company added Sam's Club employees to their list, considering them a part of the Wal-Mart employee family.

The loss may be because of reporting errors and inconsistencies, Jadin said.

We hardly believe Wal-Mart is incapable of accurately reporting its employee hours to the local Chamber of Commerce.

Perhaps the decline has something to do with the fact that Wal-Mart is reducing many of its full time workers to part time and pushing out many other long-time employees.

It is Wal-Mart's latest attempt to cut labor costs in order to keep profits up. Too bad it means less money and hours for many hard working Wisconsinites, unemployment for others, and a worse experience for customers.

From Reuters:

OSLO - Norway on Tuesday said its more than $240 billion oil fund would no longer invest in the world's largest retailer Wal-Mart due to what it called "serious and systematic" abuses of human and labor rights.

The Norwegian government said it had also decided to exclude shares in mining group Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold from the oil fund's for environmental reasons.

The Finance Ministry based the exclusions on the recommendations of the fund's ethical council.

"The recommendation to exclude Wal-Mart cites serious/systematic violations of human rights and labor rights," the Finance Ministry said in a statement. "The recommendation to exclude Freeport is based on serious environmental damage."

It said the council found "an extensive body of material" that indicated Wal-Mart had broken norms, including employing minors against international rules, dangerous working conditions at many of its suppliers and blocking workers' efforts to form unions.

It blamed Freeport-McMoRan for using a natural river system for disposal of tailings from a huge copper mine on the island of New Guinea in Indonesia.

"These companies are excluded because, in view of their practices, investing in them entails an unacceptable risk that the Fund may be complicit in serious, systematic or gross violations of norms," Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen, who is also the leader of the Socialist party, said in the statement.

The fund had sold its holdings in both companies by the end of May, the ministry said. It held about 2.5 billion Norwegian crowns ($415.9 million) in Wal-Mart shares at the end of the 2005 and its holdings in Freeport-McMorRan were worth about 116 million crowns, the ministry said.

The Government Pension Fund -- Global, which invests surplus oil wealth in foreign stocks and bonds, was worth 1.48 trillion Norwegian crowns ($246.2 billion) at the end of March. The fund, one of the world's biggest pension funds, is managed for the government by Norway's central bank.

The move raised the number of companies' stocks excluded from the fund for ethical reasons to 19. Most recently, in January, Norway had excluded seven defense-related stocks, including Boeing and Honeywell , because it said they were involved in producing nuclear weapons.

The exclusions were the first made independently by the Labor-led coalition government which took office in October 2005 after winning a general election. The exclusions announced in January had been decided by the previous coalition.

From the Bradenton Herald:

MANATEE - Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $315,000 in damages in response to two separate lawsuits that originated in a Manatee County store.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuits on behalf of three women who worked at the Wal-Mart Super Center located at 2911, 53rd Ave. E.

The first lawsuit was filed in August 2004 on behalf of employees Virginia Rylance and Linda Gliotti. According to the consent decree, the EEOC claimed that Wal-Mart was at fault because it subjected the women to "sexual harassment by a Wal-Mart manager which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment."

The male department manager exposed himself, grabbed and fondled the women, requested sex and other inappropriate actions. Rylance quit her job in 2003 because of the actions and the manager, who was not named in the lawsuit, resigned, the EEOC said in a press release this week.

The second lawsuit was filed in February 2005 based on a charge filed by Laura Fulton-Eddy. She alleged an assistant manager at the same store sexually harassed her. The male assistant manager allegedly sexually propositioned Fulton-Eddy, subjected her to vulgar language and touched private parts of her body. The harassment didn't stop until the manager was transferred out of the store for "unrelated reasons."

Rylance will receive $40,000 for lost wages and an additional $160,000 for compensatory and punitive damages.
A Chapter 7 trustee for Gliotti will receive $90,000 for compensatory and punitive damages. The remaining $25,000 will be paid to Fulton-Eddy.

In addition to the monetary settlement, all employees and managers at the store, which sits near the intersection of State Road 70 and U.S. 301, will have to undergo sexual harassment training and be provided copies of the company's sexual harassment policy.

"Racial and sexual discrimination are intolerable in any workplace," said EEOC's Miami District Director Federico Costales. "The settlement of these cases advances the EEOC's efforts to eradicate employment discrimination, and should remind Florida employers to heighten their awareness of job bias by taking proactive measures to prevent it."

The lawsuits were settled earlier this week in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida.

Wal-Mart reported net sales of $312.4 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, which ended Jan. 31, according to the company's annual shareholders report.

At last week's shareholders meeting, women's rights leader Martha Burk proposed an equity compensation resolution that would force Wal-Mart to provide a break down, by race and gender, of compensation.

Today, MarketWatch discusses the push for gender equity at Wal-Mart, while the company faces a lawsuit involving 1.6 million current and former Wal-Mart workers suing for inequities in pay and promotions.

MarketWatch reports that Wal-Mart is willing to talk about the issue. And, while talking about the problem is good for newspaper headlines, actions speak far louder than words. Will Wal-Mart's words be mere "window dressing," Burk asks, or will they actually commit to equity by taking action?

Chief Executive Lee Scott, Susan Chambers, executive vice president of risk management and benefits, and other executives, told women's advocates that they would be willing to discuss compensation issues.

"We want to initiate a dialog on how they can assess women's vs. men's pay in a meaningful way and if they find disparities, to get rid of them," said Martha Burk, director at the National Council on Women's Organizations.

Burk, who presented the equity compensation proposal at Wal-Mart's annual meeting Friday, met with Scott the day before in Bentonville, Ark., to put the issues on the table. Though Burk - known for leading the effort to open the Augusta National Golf Club to women - has challenged Wal-Mart on the compensation issue before, it was her first meeting with Scott.

"I told them that they have long exhibited very much of a bunker mentality and that I hoped that was changing," Burk said. "They assured me that it had." Wal-Mart executives were unavailable for comment.

...

Beyond pay, Burk is looking to see what kind of stock options and grants are given to women. "I want to see how women are paid and promoted relative to men and what is their ability to participate in the fringe-benefits package," she said.

"They are, by and large, still paid less than men," she said.

The first step, she said is to see the "nitty gritty" of what Wal-Mart is "actually doing."

...

"Is it window dressing or is it real," she said. "We'll find out soon enough."

Wal-Mart's employment policies have come under close scrutiny in recent years over issues of pay, charges of discrimination and hiring of illegal immigrants, and its health-benefits packages, among others.

The company is asking a federal court to reverse a lower court's ruling last August that would allow up to 1.6 million female workers to seek - through a class action - compensation for discrimination. The suit, called Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, was filed in 2001 by six current and former female employees who charged that Wal-Mart discriminated against them for promotions, job assignments, pay decisions and training, and that women who complained were fired.

On Thursday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wal-Mart agreed to pay $315,000 to settle two sexual harassment cases in Bradenton, Fla. Last year, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal sweep that found hundreds of illegal immigrants cleaning its stores.

Billy Myers and five other WakeUpWalMart.com supporters arrived at the University of Arkansas early this morning to pass out our letter to Wal-Mart shareholders. Billy wrote this entry about his experience:

"We got there at 7am and started handing out our letter to everyone who walked by. We were passing out the materials in front of the Bud Walton Arena, on the sidewalk, right where everyone enters the stadium. It was a steady stream of people, so there wasn’t much time for conversation, but pretty much everyone took the literature and looked it over with interest. I felt good about getting our message out.

Security was very tight. We were there 45 minutes before the police said we couldn’t hand out the literature anymore. They asked us to move to a separate protest area, far from all the people and all the action. We were shocked to hear them say we had to have a permit to peacefully hand out a letter on a sidewalk at a public university. I’ve never heard of that before!

But overall, it was a huge success, as we managed to distribute over 1,700 flyers in 45 minutes. Together, we are getting the word out and holding Wal-Mart accountable.

Our movement is growing. Our movement is unstoppable."

Our latest press release:

WAKEUPWALMART.COM RUNS A FULL-PAGE AD WITH AN OPEN LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS STATING “WAL-MART CAN DO BETTER”

CALLS ON CURRENT MANAGEMENT TO LIVE UP TO “SAM’S VALUES”

Bentonville, AR - Today, WakeUpWalMart.com, America’s campaign to change Wal-Mart, released a letter to Wal-Mart’s shareholders entitled, “Wal-Mart Can Do Better.” The letter will be handed out to shareholders at Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting and will run in a statewide, full page ad in the Arkansas Democratic Gazette.

The “Wal-Mart Can Do Better” letter reminds shareholders of Sam Walton’s 10 rules for success. Rule #2 on Sam’s list was to value your associates. The letter states, “Sadly, Wal-Mart’s current management has abandoned Sam’s vision and forgotten Sam’s rule #2 - value your associates.”

In the last few months, Wal-Mart’s current management has decided to dramatically slash workers’ hours, cut over 200,000 employees from full-time to part-time, leave 54% of Wal-Mart’s workers without company health care, not to adopt a “zero tolerance policy” on child labor or address the fact that 1.6 million female employees are suing Wal-Mart for gender discrimination.

“Rather than value Wal-Mart’s employees or reflect the best of Sam Walton’s vision, Wal-Mart’s current leadership has decided to invest in right-wing war rooms and make store changes that are destroying worker morale and putting Wal-Mart’s public image at risk,” said Paul Blank, campaign director, WakeUpWalMart.com.

The letter calls on Wal-Mart’s shareholders to join with WakeUpWalMart.com and join the movement to change Wal-Mart into a better business “on behalf of its employees, its shareholders and the American people.”

The letter states, “What we are asking for - paying 1.3 million employees a living wage, providing affordable health care, and creating a safe and just work environment - is not only the right thing to do, but will make Wal-Mart a more successful company.”

The full text of the letter is below and is available at www.WakeUpWalMart.com.

“WAL-MART CAN DO BETTER”

Share your profits with all your associates, and treat them as partners. In turn, they will treat you as a partner, and together you will all perform beyond your wildest expectations.

Rule #2, Sam Walton’s 10 Rules for Success

Dear Wal-Mart Shareholders,

One of Sam Walton’s guiding principles that made Wal-Mart a success was to value the company’s associates. Sam Walton believed Wal-Mart’s success would rise and fall based on how well, or poorly, Wal-Mart treated its workers and their families. Sadly, Wal-Mart’s current management has abandoned Sam’s vision and forgotten Sam’s rule #2 - value your associates.

The truth is the American people and their elected representatives have a hard time understanding why Wal-Mart, with $11.2 billion in annual profits, has a record which fails to reflect the best of America’s, and Sam’s, values.

We believe, and we think Sam Walton would agree, “Wal-Mart Can Do Better.”

Wal-Mart has an incredible opportunity to “seize the moment” and pursue real change on behalf of its employees, its shareholders and the American people. What we are asking for - paying 1.3 million employees a living wage, providing affordable health care, and creating a safe and just work environment - is not only the right thing to do, but will make Wal-Mart a more successful company.

Just as Sam Walton understood, large profitable corporations, like Wal-Mart, have an important social responsibility and economic interest to not only be as good and great as they can be, but to be as good and great as their size and wealth affords.

In that spirit, we’re calling on all Wal-Mart shareholders to join with us at WakeUpWalMart.com in our national movement to change Wal-Mart and change America for the better.

We hope you will join with us.

Sincerely,
WakeUpWalMart.com