From the Wall Street Journal:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. next year will curtail options it offers newly hired workers for health-care coverage, promoting a low-premium, high-deductible plan.

The retailer anticipates its "Value Plan" will let employees with few health-care needs save money through low premiums. Critics, however, argue the shift allows Wal-Mart to cut its costs for health-care benefits and discourage unhealthy people from seeking work at its stores.

[...]

In the U.S., Wal-Mart employs more than 1.3 million store-level workers, of which roughly 46% are enrolled in its health-care plans. The Bentonville, Ark., company has been dogged for years by critics' allegations that it provides inadequate health-care benefits.

Documents outlining the impending health-benefit changes were obtained and distributed to the media by anti-Wal-Mart group WakeUpWalMart.com. The group pointed out additional price increases in Wal-Mart's health-care coverage for next year: In addition to the Value Plan's $1,000 deductible, the new plan establishes separate deductibles of $1,000 for inpatient hospital stays, $500 for each outpatient surgical visit and $300 for pharmacy purchases.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Plans by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to increase its offerings of organic foods could create a competitive threat to smaller organic farms and food producers, according to a briefing paper released Wednesday by a Wisconsin-based group.

Wal-Mart already is buying milk and other organic products from large-scale dairies and other large, conventional food producers that have little experience with organic production, creating what the Cornucopia Institute calls "corporate organics." The non-profit group is an advocate for what it calls "family-scale farms."

"This competitive challenge has the potential to destroy healthy markets for other retailers, distributors, manufacturers/processors, and family-scale domestic farmers," the paper says.

Click here for the Cornucopia Institute's media release and report.

Continue reading below the fold for the rest of the article.

Wal-Mart, which is Wisconsin's largest private employer, is the world's largest retailer, with annual sales of $312 billion. Its continued development of Supercenters - combined discount stores and supermarkets - has made it the nation's largest supermarket chain. Wal-Mart operates dozens of supercenters throughout Wisconsin, and last week disclosed plans for its first Milwaukee Supercenter.

Wisconsin has a large presence in organic farming, including the Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, headquartered in La Farge. The co-op, which sells milk, cheese, meat and other products under the Organic Valley brand, represents more than 800 farmers in 24 states, and in 2005 posted sales of $245 million.

The Cornucopia Institute, in its briefing paper, says Wal-Mart is already the nation's largest retailer of organic milk through its relationship with Dean Foods Co., which owns Horizon organic milk. The paper says Wal-Mart's business strategy of buying large amounts of products at low prices from conventional food producers like Dean will shut out small- and medium-sized organic food producers "who cannot compete on price with these industrial behemoths."

The group also questions whether large-scale conventional food producers such as Dean truly reflect what the paper calls the "organic movement." It said Dean and another Wal-Mart organic milk supplier, Aurora Organic Dairy, have confined their cattle in feedlots with little access to pasture, as required by federal organic standards.

Wal-Mart responds

In a statement, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Karen Burk said the company believes organic standards must not be compromised.

But the statement did not address the specific allegations made against Dean and Aurora, which are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"We believe that both organic and conventional agriculture provide safe, healthy and sustainable products for customers," Wal-Mart's statement says. "It is up to our customers to choose which type of product they want to buy, and we want to give them the choice."

That freedom to choose will determine whether Wal-Mart's organic strategy will succeed, said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia Institute co-founder.

That's why the group is publicizing what it considers Wal-Mart's practice of "cutting corners" when it buys organic products from companies like Dean and Aurora, Kastel said.

Armed with that information, Kastel said, consumers can better "partner with companies that share their values."

Today, Business Week writes about Wal-Mart's growing political contributions. After years of staying on the political sidelines as founder Sam Walton desired, Wal-Mart is now the largest corporate political contributor in the country. As the article below illustrates, Wal-Mart is seeking to use its money to buy political votes.

In California, for example, Wal-Mart has given the maximum political contribution to Arnold Schwarzenegger -- hundreds of thousands of dollars to his initiatives and $300,000 to the California Republican party. In exchange? The Governor Arnold has vetoed key legislation that would have prohibited employers from locking workers into stores while they work and another bill which would force the disclosure of corporations that have employees who rely on taxpayer-funded health care.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has legions of close friends, collected over decades as a Hollywood box office draw and rising political star. Yet few may consider him as dear as Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ), which gave the Republican governor $22,300 on May 15, and earlier contributed $200,000 for initiatives Schwarzenegger had supported. In addition, the company has given $300,000 to the state GOP and additional funds to local politicians, making California the biggest recipient of Wal-Mart's political largesse.

Read the entire article below the fold.

California is just one of the places where local politicians are benefiting from Wal-Mart's growing interest in state affairs. Over the past four election cycles, the giant retailer has been steadily boosting its contributions to state and local politicians, just as such politicians have been taking on bigger roles in deciding key issues concerning the company's operations, from the local minimum wage and required health-care benefits to zoning for big-box retailers. Money has gone to everyone from Schwarzenegger and New York gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer to Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich and Illinois state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.

RAMPING UP. Wal-Mart gave a total of $326,875 in the 2000 election cycle, $431,017 in 2002, and $857,179 in 2004, according to research by The Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization based in Helena, Mont. For the 2006 election cycle, the company has given $644,655 so far and seems to be on track to hit a record for political contributions.

"They've gone from zero to warp speed in political giving all across the board," says Bruce Freed, co-director of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that tracks corporate political spending. The totals include only direct contributions to politicians and political parties. Adding in money for ballot initiatives and other local issues brings the total of Wal-Mart state giving so far this cycle to $1.25 million.

Wal-Mart says it's become necessary to step up its contributions. For two decades it largely shunned politics because company founder Sam Walton didn't believe such activities benefited his customers. In fact, Wal-Mart didn't hire any lobbyists or establish any political action committees until 1998.

NO LONGER ON SIDELINES. But that reticence, the company now says, has allowed critics to launch unilateral attacks and set the agenda on a number of issues. "For years we didn't participate—to our detriment," says company spokesman John Simley. "Now we're participating in the same political process as any citizen, in this case a corporate citizen."

Simley says contributions are now a carefully considered component of Wal-Mart's business strategy. "The process that we use to choose to whom we contribute has to do with the voting record and position of each official," he says. "We look at their records on anything that's relevant to our business, like trade, taxes, legislation related to pharmacy and grocery, and we also consider the magnitude of our presence in the districts they represent."

Today, Wal-Mart has become one of the most active corporations in the U.S. At the federal level, Wal-Mart is already the No. 1 corporate political contributor, giving $943,455 in the 2006 election cycle, followed by General Electric's (GE ) $788,711 and Anheuser Busch's (BUD ) $671,644, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, another nonpartisan watchdog.

BATTLEGROUND STATES—FOR WAL-MART. As for the states, Wal-Mart has become one of the most active givers, though it still ranks well behind telecom companies such as AT&T (T) and tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds (RAI).

Wal-Mart's contributions vary greatly by state, in part because the rules governing such donations are widely divergent. Twenty-one states prohibit corporate contributions altogether, and two dozen other states impose limits. For example, a corporation can give a maximum of $22,300 to a gubernatorial candidate in California, while New York limits corporate contributions to $5,000 per year. Five states—Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia—have no giving limits.

The states have become an increasingly crucial battleground for Wal-Mart, as the federal government has declined to get involved in initiatives to boost the minimum wage or mandate higher health-care benefits. Politicians in at least 20 states have sponsored pieces of legislation (many of them dubbed "Wal-Mart bills") that aim to force the Bentonville (Ark.)-based company to pay higher wages and offer workers more generous health benefits. Many cities—from Belfast, Me., and Bennington, Vt., to Ashland, Ore., and Bozeman, Mont.—have passed ordinances banning large stores like Wal-Mart's behemoth supercenters, and others have enacted ordinances to force Wal-Mart to pay higher wages.

GOLDEN STATE FOCUS. As state and local politicians consider legislation on everything from pay and health packages to expansion plans, the financial implications for Wal-Mart can be huge. When Maryland passed a law that would have required the company to boost health-care coverage for its workers in the state, the costs would have run into the millions. In July, a federal judge overturned the law (see BusinessWeek.com, 7/19/06, "Rollback Ruling Favors Wal-Mart").

In New York, Spitzer broke with top Democratic lawmakers and several powerful unions over similar legislation. Three months after receiving a Wal-Mart contribution, he came out against a measure that would tax businesses such as Wal-Mart that don't provide health benefits to all employees. A Spitzer campaign spokeswoman said the retailer's contribution had no bearing in his decision, but rather "the bill was about complex issues that would be better addressed through comprehensive health-care reform."

California may be the most contentious state for Wal-Mart. Many locals oppose the retailer, for a variety of reasons. And several towns and districts such as Oakland, Antioch, Inglewood, and Turlock have passed rules that don't allow Wal-Mart's supercenter stores, which typically are 100,000 square feet or greater in size and include a grocery, pharmacy, salon, and bank all under one roof. Wal-Mart is trying to make up lost ground and has an aggressive goal to expand its number of California supercenters, from just seven at the beginning of 2006 to 40 by next year. The company gave the state Republican Party $300,000 in the first six months of 2006, according to data from California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

LOCK-IN LOCATIONS. Governor Schwarzenegger has been a huge beneficiary. This year's $22,300 contribution came on top of last year's $100,000 to Citizens to Save California, a committee created by Schwarzenegger's business supporters. And Wal-Mart contributed another $100,000 to Proposition 77, a redistricting attempt that was the governor's pet measure, which was defeated. In the past two years, Schwarzenegger has vetoed bills that Wal-Mart opposed. Schwarzenegger campaign press secretary Julie Soderlund denies any link with the company's donations and says the governor "always makes decisions based upon what's best for the people of California."

One of the California bills the governor vetoed would have prohibited employers from locking workers into stores while they work. The other bill would've forced the disclosure of corporations that have employees who rely on taxpayer-funded health care. The bills arose out of a huge furor over Wal-Mart's practice of locking in janitors in some of its stores at night and information that many Wal-Mart employees and their children were receiving state-funded health care. Wal-Mart says it opposed the latter bill because it had several flaws, one of which was that it didn't require data from public sector employees.

Wal-Mart still locks in employees at night despite incidents reported in Texas and Colorado where medical attention for injured or sick employees was delayed due to the policy. Says spokesman Simley: "It is only in some locations that we lock in associates at night and it is done for the protection of the associates, the safety of the store, and to guard against internal theft that may occur, and managers who have the key will let them out in case of an emergency."

NEW CHALLENGES. Today, Schwarzenegger has at least two more bills sitting on his desk that are targeted at Wal-Mart. One of the bills would require big-box retailers to conduct an economic impact report before opening large stores. Another would force large retailers to pay the legal fees of communities that win cases challenging zoning ordinances in court. Wal-Mart has sued towns with such ordinances in the past—Fresno and Turlock have won their cases and other towns have lost. But the huge legal bills that piled up during the court fights have scared other municipalities.

"The question now is: Will the governor succumb to the financial influence that Wal-Mart and the Walton family are trying to exert over his administration with their multimillion-dollar donations, and neglect a cry for help from small cities, small businesses, and workers?" asks California state Senator Richard Alarcon, who authored the latest bills.

From the Associated Press:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. found a higher rate of severe violations at foreign factories last year as it stepped up inspections for labor and environmental standards in more than 60 countries where it buys clothes, toys, shoes and other products, it said in a report.

Only 23 factories were cut off from Wal-Mart's business for repeated violations, a sharp decline from 1,200 in 2004. But the retailer said that was in part because of a change in its auditing rules. It expects the number to increase again this year.

Wal-Mart posted its "2005 Report on Ethical Sourcing" on a section of its Web site last week but did not make any public announcement, spokeswoman Beth Keck said.

"In 2005, we audited more factories than any other company in the world, performing more than 13,600 initial and follow-up audits of 7,200 supplier factories," the report said.

Last year, as Wal-Mart came under mounting criticism led by union-backed campaign groups, Chief Executive Lee Scott said Wal-Mart would step up enforcement of workplace and environmental standards. It does not own factories but instead buys from others who do.

Wal-Mart says it uses the findings to encourage factory owners to improve conditions. If violations are found, inspectors give a list to the owners and return for a re-audit. Repeated violations, as well as some grave problems such as using underage or prison labor, can lead to being barred from selling to Wal-Mart for up to one year.

The company is also the target of a U.S. lawsuit seeking class-action status for factory workers in Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland.

In 2005, Wal-Mart's inspectors reported what it calls "high-risk" violations at 52 percent of those factories, compared with 36 percent in 2004.

Medium-risk violations were reported at 37 percent of plants, down from 43 percent the year before.

Only 10 percent of factories were found to have no violations or only minor ones, compared with 21 percent in 2004.

"Several consistently found serious violations at the factory level include problems with payment of overtime compensation, coaching of workers for worker interviews, and the use of double-books to hide the true numbers of hours worked or wages/benefits paid," the report said.

Wal-Mart said the increase in high risk violations and decline in plants without problems was due to more vigorous inspections and stricter standards.

The number of surprise inspections increased to about 20 percent last year from 8 percent in 2004, the report said, a rate that Wal-Mart intends to boost to about 30 percent this year.

Wal-Mart said violations were reclassified to strengthen and reinforce their severity. Violations such as false record keeping were reclassified from medium to high-risk.

"Our auditors became more familiar with the factories and the factory workers. And as the workers became more accustomed to the interview process, they more openly shared their experiences," the report said.

Wal-Mart's standards cover health and safety issues, environment, compensation, working hours, forced labor, underage labor, discrimination, compliance with applicable national laws and regulation, freedom of association and collective bargaining, rights concerning foreign contract workers, and the right of audit by Wal-Mart.

From the Washington Post:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is scaling back the health-care plans available to new employees, sparking fresh criticism over whether the giant retailer is providing adequate coverage to its workers.

As of Jan. 1, the company will offer new hires only two health benefits packages in which the monthly premium can be as low as $11 but the deductible can reach $6,000, according to documents provided to The Washington Post by Wake-Up Wal-Mart, a union-backed group.

The company's two other benefit plans, which have lower deductibles, will no longer be offered to new employees. However, the plans will remain available to current employees who choose to renew their coverage.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said yesterday that he expected the change to save most employees money. He said a review of the company's health-benefits plans showed most had opted for a package with a monthly premiums between $70 and $100, and a $350 deductible, but that more than half never paid that much.

That drove the decision to require new hires to sign up for Wal-Mart's new plans that have lower monthly payments but higher deductibles. The option known as the "value plan" starts at $11 per month for employee coverage in some markets and has a $1,000 deductible. The "freedom plan" starts at about $17 per month for employee coverage but has a deductible of $3,000 and the option to create a health savings account. The cheapest monthly cost for an
employee and his or her spouse is $38 with a deductible of $6,000.

"We've done the math on this, and we have a pretty good understanding of what this is going to mean," Fogleman said. "Most associates are going to come out better on this."

Wake-Up Wal-Mart disagrees. It has accused the company of depressing wages and benefits, forcing many of its workers to seek public health care.

"Wal-Mart is cruelly hurting its employees, cutting health-care options and shifting costs on to the American taxpayer," said Paul Blank, campaign director for Wake-Up Wal-Mart.

Paul Fronstin, director of health research and education at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said the new Wal-Mart changes look "pretty standard." But he noted that a biweekly increase in a surcharge from $50 to $75 for spouses who have access to other medical coverage seemed high.

"There is always shifting going on, and it tends to be modest at best. It might be that way here as well," he said.

Fogleman said that about 615,000 employees are covered by the company, about 47 percent of its workforce, and Wal-Mart is working to expand that number.

Our latest press release:

WAL-MART SHIFTS MORE HEALTH CARE COSTS ON TO WORKERS BY ELIMINATING LOW-DEDUCTIBLE PLANS, INCREASING PREMIUMS, AND INCREASING THE “SPOUSAL SURCHARGE” TO PUSH WORKERS OFF OF COMPANY HEALTH CARE PLAN

Washington DC – Today, WakeUpWalMart.com revealed new, internal Wal-Mart health care documents proving that Wal-Mart’s health care benefits are actually getting worse, not better as the company would have the American public and elected leaders believe.

The 2007 Wal-Mart Medical Benefits Booklet, which will be distributed to employees prior to the upcoming enrollment period, details Wal-Mart’s plans to eliminate a number of health care options, increase medical premiums, increase surcharges, and will, in total, place an even greater financial burden on Wal-Mart’s 1.39 million employees and their families.

In 2006, as documented in the report ‘America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves,’ available on WakeUpWalMart.com’s website, Wal-Mart failed to provide company health care to over 750,000 hard-working families, or 54 percent of Wal-Mart employees and their families, at a cost to American taxpayers of at least $1.39 billion annually.

According to the new documents, as of January 1st, 2007, Wal-Mart will only offer two health care options for new hires – catastrophic health care with multiple high deductibles (which Wal-Mart calls the “Value Plan”) and Health Savings Accounts, which new employees will not be immediately eligible for (which Wal-Mart has renamed the “Freedom Plan”). By making this change, Wal-Mart is eliminating the Network Saver plans and the Standard plans for new hires. The Network and Standard plans had health care plans with much lower deductibles for employees and their families.

In addition to eliminating all “low deductible” health care options for new hires, Wal-Mart is increasing premium costs by 8.3 percent for the Network Saver Plan, 7.6 percent for the Standard Plan, and 6.9 percent for the Freedom Plan (formerly the Health Savings Account Plan) and charging a whopping $1800 a year “spousal surcharge” to deter spouses from being insured by Wal-Mart. Despite Wal-Mart calling it a ‘Value’ plan, the plan includes multiple, expensive deductibles like a $300 pharmacy deductible and a $1,000 in-patient deductible on top of the $1,000 deductible the plan already has.

“By eliminating most of its health care plans and replacing them with a high-deductible, catastrophic plan, Wal-Mart is effectively out of the health care business. Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans calling on profitable companies like Wal-Mart to provide real health care coverage to their employees, Wal-Mart is cruelly hurting its employees, cutting health care options, and shifting costs on to the American taxpayer. This sends a terrible message to every responsible corporation that is trying to do the right thing for their employees,” said Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com.

Despite the damage to Wal-Mart’s reputation caused by the Wal-Mart health care crisis, Wal-Mart remains unwilling to address its responsibility to lessen the burden on taxpayers, as well as provide affordable, comprehensive health care to its employees. In addition to Wal-Mart failing to provide company health care to 54% of its employees, in 18 out of 19 states where data is publicly available, Wal-Mart leads all employers with the greatest number of employees or dependents on taxpayer-funded public health care assistance. According to Wal-Mart’s own internal memo, 46 percent, or nearly 1 out of every 2 children of Wal-Mart workers is either uninsured or on public health care assistance. As a result, American taxpayers paid an estimated $1.39 billion in 2005 and will pay as much as $9.1 billion over the next 5 years to subsidize the health care costs of a company with over $11 billion in annual profit.

“These documents reveal the truth about Wal-Mart’s public relations game with the American people and its employees. Last week Wal-Mart touted a low cost generic drug plan in 1 city that includes 124 drugs that represent just 1 percent of all the generic drugs offered in America, while this week Wal-Mart eliminates health care plans for its workers and shifts billions of dollars of health care costs onto its employees and American taxpayers. As one of the richest companies in the world, Wal-Mart should be ashamed,” added Blank.

Among the most striking findings outlined in Wal-Mart’s 2007 benefits booklet is the substantial health care cost a low-paid Wal-Mart worker would be forced to pay under the so-called ‘Value’ plan. A typical individual Wal-Mart worker who enrolls in the Value Plan will face high upfront costs because of a series of high deductibles, including a minimum $1,000 deductible for individual coverage, a $1,000 in-patient deductible per visit, a $500 out-patient surgical deductible per visit, a $300 pharmacy deductible, and a maximum out of pocket expense of $5,000 for an individual per year.

In total, when factoring the maximum out-of-pocket expense and the cost of the yearly premium ($5,274 a year for an individual under the Value Plan), a typical full-time worker (defined by Wal-Mart as 34 hours) who earns 10.11 an hour or $17,874 a year, would have pay nearly 30 percent of their total income for health care costs alone.

Incredibly, the health care cost burden actually worsens should an uninsured Wal-Mart worker enroll their family under the Value Plan. Again, because of multiple deductibles for each family member, and when factoring in the cost of the medical premium ($780) and maximum out-of-pocket expense ($10,000), a Wal-Mart worker whose family is insured under the “Value Plan” could pay as much as 60 percent of their total income towards health care costs under Wal-Mart’s most “affordable “health care” plan.

####

Today, WakeUpWalMart.com officially welcomes over 7,000 new supporters!

The majority of these new supporters signed up during the “Change Wal-Mart, Change America” bus tour, in which a total of 25,397 people joined this movement. We met them at rallies, press conferences, town halls, and state fairs - or at diners, restaurants, and gas stations. Then, they talked with their families, friends, and neighbors about why Wal-Mart needs to change.

Wal-Mart’s PR machine is no match for the American people. WakeUpWalMart.com supporters are concerned about their communities, and they want Wal-Mart to live up to its responsibilities as our nation's largest employer. They are knocking on doors, calling their fellow citizens, gathering people together, and spreading the truth.

Every day, more people join the 273,931 supporters of WakeUpWalMart.com, and our movement grows larger and more powerful.

We want real change at Wal-Mart, and we want real change in America. We won’t stop until we get it.

Let’s keep up the momentum. Click here to invite a friend to join WakeUpWalMart.com today!

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The problem was always worse at the holidays, said Delores Killingsworth Barber, 25, of North Philadelphia.

That's when she and other Wal-Mart workers say they missed many meal and rest breaks and that's when they'd sometimes have to work off the clock to get shelves restocked before the overnight crew came in.

Workers were told to "do whatever it takes to get it done; and if that meant missing your break, that's what had to be done," Barber testified in a Philadelphia courtroom yesterday. She is one of several former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees to take the stand in a class-action lawsuit involving 186,000 current and former employees of Wal-Mart, the state's largest private employer.

The case in Common Pleas Court is the third class-action lawsuit over wage and hour issues to go to trial. In December, California jurors ordered the big-box retailer to pay $172.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages to 115,919 current and former workers at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in California who missed meal breaks. Wal-Mart said it would appeal.

In Oregon, 90 Wal-Mart workers got about $2,000 each, and a case was settled in Colorado for $50 million.

Pennsylvania's case is bigger than California's because it involves more plaintiffs and three issues - off-the-clock work, missed rest breaks, and missed meal breaks. At least 40 similar suits have been filed, according to Bloomberg News.

Wal-Mart has been under attack from unions and activists over its employment policies, health benefits and business practices. The discount retailer has responded by improving its benefits, embarking on public relations campaigns, and donating money to community causes.

Yesterday, Wal-Mart executives, who testified by video, said it was up to store managers to make sure that employees got their breaks.

"If they are getting tired and they don't get their meals and their rest, their productivity comes down," testified Joseph Campbell, Pennsylvania's regional personnel manager in 2004 and 2005.

He said that Wal-Mart had an "open-door" policy for workers' complaints, but he received few about missed breaks. When he did receive them, he said, he investigated them.

Barber, who worked at the Wal-Mart on Roosevelt Boulevard from July 2003 to May 2005, said that when the stores closed, cashiers working the 3 p.m. to midnight shift would "zone" the store, returning carts of discarded merchandise to the shelves.

If they did not finish, they could not leave. Sometimes they would have clocked out, but then were called back to the floors. Sometimes they would fill out forms to get paid. Other times, "you just wanted to get out of the door," she said.

When she worked the overnight shift as a stock clerk, she would have 40 to 50 pallets of merchandise to unload during the holiday season - work she said should have been handled by at least two people.

Sometimes, to make sure she finished, she would take her meal and rest breaks at the end of the shift. The company fired her for that, she said, accusing her of stealing time.

Under questioning by Wal-Mart's attorney, she said that she often got paid overtime. The attorney said that time clock records showed she only missed 24 lunch breaks, but she said she missed more than that.

The case, which opened Sept. 8, is being heard by Common Court Pleas judge Mark I. Bernstein, who handles complex class-action cases.

While most of the attorneys are from out of town and traveling around the nation on these cases, local attorneys are Michael Donovan, of Donovan Searles in Center City, for the employees, and Brian P. Flaherty of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen for Wal-Mart.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Cities like Boston might be the best hope for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to grow in the U.S. For the retail giant, that's a problem.

Last year, Wal-Mart's discussions about opening its first store here, in retail space that was soon to be vacated, spurred public outcry. The retailer eventually dropped its pursuit of the property. "Wal-Mart does not suit the clientele we have in the city of Boston," says Mayor Thomas Menino, explaining his opposition. "They don't pay wages that are sufficient. Their benefit structure is poor. I don't need employers like that in our city."

Mayor Menino has no such qualms about trendier rival Target Corp., which he has been actively recruiting. "It's a different image they have in how they market their product and the appearance of their stores," he says. "That's a lot to do with it, the image of the store."

For years, Wal-Mart, of Bentonville, Ark., thrived in rural and suburban America where land was cheap and local governments didn't interfere. Now Wal-Mart is trying to break into the last areas of the country where it isn't dominant, and the going is tough.

Wal-Mart is used to opposition, but these antagonists are tougher and better organized than earlier breeds. In the Northeast and America's big urban centers, they've augmented a traditional anti-Wal-Mart message with something more potent: an appeal to urban cultural values. Here, Wal-Mart is a metaphor for the worst of middlebrow America.

After missing out in Boston, the company lost a two-year fight to open in Leominster, in central Massachusetts. Some of the same antagonists are now organizing to block Wal-Mart in adjacent Lancaster.

Officials in Miami prevented Wal-Mart from locating a store amid a 55-acre midtown redevelopment project, on the grounds that its sprawling, suburban aesthetics and low-end appeal didn't conform to the city's architectural and social vision for the project.

"I feel bad for Wal-Mart, but that's their image," says Johnny Winton, the former Miami commissioner who helped plan the project.

Wal-Mart, which responded in writing for this article, says it's committed to starting stores in urban markets and that many towns welcome the resulting jobs and tax revenue. "We know that customers want what we have to offer," the company says in a written statement. "In the end, the customer should have the opportunity to decide where to shop."

Behind Wal-Mart's push into this inhospitable terrain is the onset of middle-age. The company reported a 9.5% increase in annual sales last year, falling short of the double-digit pace it set in nearly all of its 34-year history as a public company. Sales growth at stores open at least a year slowed to a 3.4% gain, far from their 10-year high of 9%, a record reached in 1999.

It faces this challenge both in the U.S. and abroad. Wal-Mart grew into the world's largest retailer by relentlessly cutting prices, putting local retailers out of business while passing on savings to consumers. The company is a powerhouse in Mexico -- where it's the top retailer -- and it's surging in South America, Central America and Canada. Yet Wal-Mart's international operations account for just 22% of its overall sales, and the retailer has found itself hindered in some countries.

Hit by stiff competition from cut-rate retailers, strong unions and labor restrictions, Wal-Mart recently withdrew from Germany after eight rough years, taking a $1 billion charge in the process. In China, Wal-Mart has only 64 stores, or one for every 20 million Chinese. Its expansion, which includes plans for another 18 to 20 stores this year, is subject to the whims of China's Communist Party.

Last year, Wal-Mart applied to open a specialized bank in Utah, pledging to use it for credit-card transactions and accepting deposits from charities, not to open branch banks. That didn't forestall an outcry from critics, bankers and politicians, and in July the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. imposed a six-month moratorium on such applications.

To jump-start sales in the U.S., the company has begun revamping the merchandise and layouts of existing stores to appeal to specific groups, such as African-Americans and Hispanics. It is stocking trendier items such as organic food and designer décor. The move represents a risky departure from the company's successful one-size-fits-all strategy.

Investors are skeptical whether Wal-Mart can continue to rely on U.S. expansion to sustain its growth. Wal-Mart's shares trade at 16.6 times projected earnings, below the ratios notched by rivals Target Corp. and Sears Holdings Corp.

Some on Wall Street would prefer the company tap the brakes on its building plans. New urban stores cost a lot to build and operate, and might not be as successful as other areas, at least initially. Due mostly to local resistance, Wal-Mart says it sometimes takes twice as long to plan, construct and open stores in markets such as California compared with a typical time frame of 18 to 24 months.

Wal-Mart dominates rural America, with 45% of its stores located in rural and semi-rural counties, according to market researcher ACNielsen. The retailer is acting to correct the imbalance: In the 12 months since July 2005, two-thirds of the stores opened by Wal-Mart have been in urban or semi-urban areas, ACNielsen says. Wal-Mart won't provide information about future store openings.

Yet sales gains at new stores, located mostly in urban areas, are lower this year than last, indicating that urban shoppers might be turning up their noses. Joanne Dudevoir, 53, a computer specialist for the Defense Department in Boston, dismisses the company with a wave of her hand. "I don't do Wal-Mart. There's nothing there I need to shop for."

Wal-Mart says it will prosper even in challenging markets if it serves customers well. The company adds that it has a "very disciplined approach" to building new stores. Wal-Mart is on track to expand its square footage in the U.S. this year by 8%, its average over the past six years, adding the equivalent of nearly 40 regional malls. Wal-Mart executives said in June that the retailer has plans for at least another 1,400 U.S. stores, but it has not announced a time frame in which all will be built.

"With more than 3,900 stores and clubs in the U.S., we represent a small number of retail outlets in the United States and a much smaller percentage internationally," the company says. "We see continued opportunity for growth and we are committed to that growth."

Community opposition to Wal-Marts dates back to the early 1970s, when Vermont passed a law requiring regional planning commissions to consider the environmental and economic impact of large developments.

Opposition has grown more organized in recent years as nonunion Wal-Mart advanced on union strongholds. In California, Wal-Mart's pledge to open 40 supercenters -- massive stores offering general merchandise and groceries -- precipitated a four-month strike of grocery unions in 2003 as rival chains sought to cut labor costs to compete. A year later, Wal-Mart suffered a setback when voters in the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood decided by a three-to-two margin to reject a proposed Wal-Mart store.

Wal-Mart officials characterize Inglewood as an anomaly, noting that they have won 32 of 39 such public votes during the past two years. The majority of new Wal-Marts face little or no opposition, they say.

Today, politicians and residents use a variety of snares and roadblocks to slow the giant's advance. Recently, the Institute for Self-Reliance, a community activist group based in Washington, D.C., launched a Web site -- www.bigboxtoolkit.com -- where Wal-Mart opponents can gather data to use in public speeches and letters. The organization has helped 30 towns adopt ordinances to block big retailers and advised about 100 others.

The institute supports what it calls "sustainable communities," or those that grow using their own environmental and economic resources. It opposes big retailers, contending they take more from communities than they contribute.

In New York City, which has no Wal-Mart, the company's opponents helped kill proposed stores in Queens and Staten Island. In February, the city council approved plans for a retail center near Yankee Stadium with a proviso that only retailers already operating in the city could locate there. Translation: Wal-Mart need not apply.

Wal-Mart has won some victories on the urban battlefield. In 2004, it won approval to open its first store in Chicago, in a depressed neighborhood on the West Side, which is set to open later this month. The city's alderman responded by passing a law mandating that big retailers pay employees an hourly wage of at least $10 and health-care benefits equivalent to at least $3 an hour.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley vetoed the law earlier this month and persuaded the council to not override his decision. In Maryland, a federal judge recently struck down a law mandating how much money large employers -- effectively meaning Wal-Mart -- should spend on workers' health-care coverage.

The retailer has had no such luck in Massachusetts, a state that is urbanized, educated and liberal. Wal-Mart operates 47 stores there, as opposed to 106 in Oklahoma, a state with roughly half the population of Massachusetts. In the Bay State, films such as the anti-Wal-Mart documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," are regularly shown in college halls and independent theaters.

Anthony Citrano, a 36-year-old tech entrepreneur who lives in South Boston, describes the company as a "weed" that "drains the life out of other plants" and as a symbol of America's "unsustainable way of living." Mr. Citrano argues that Wal-Mart is a business that grew in an era of cheap oil, which he says is coming to an end.

After Boston Mayor Menino last year pronounced Wal-Mart persona non grata, five Maine towns and the neighboring city of Cambridge put store-size restrictions in place that effectively barred Wal-Mart. Several of the moves were triggered by a mere rumor of Wal-Mart interest.

In central Massachusetts, Wal-Mart's nemesis is businessman Arthur P. DiGeronimo Jr., known as Jay. Mr. DiGeronimo, 54, is a native of Leominster, a city of 41,000 in the rolling hills of central Massachusetts. Business-savvy and well-spoken, he is a community fixture, having run a grocery-store chain started by his Italian immigrant family until its sale in 2004. He now owns a sound and video equipment company.

Mr. DiGeronimo says Wal-Mart's arrival will hurt the area's nine grocery stores and half-dozen department stores. Driving through the city in his pickup truck, he argues that Wal-Mart won't improve residents' well-being. "It is a question of the quality of life that's become important for a lot of communities," he says.

Mr. DiGeronimo developed his anti-Wal-Mart fervor while running his family's grocery store chain. "He has difficulty with Wal-Mart's method of operation and how they treat their help," says Robert Capobianco, an attorney who has worked for DiGeronimo companies since 1968.

In 2003, Mr. DiGeronimo tapped Mr. Capobianco to represent residents in their fight to stop a proposed 24-hour Wal-Mart in Leominster. They filed a suit against the developer and the city alleging, among other things, that the city didn't adhere to its own application procedures. After two years of wrangling, the defendants agreed to restrictions that in effect shut out Wal-Mart.

During that fight, Mr. DiGeronimo hired anti-Wal-Mart activist Al Norman as a consultant. He had heard about Mr. Norman from a DiGeronimo company manager, who had attended a seminar about how to fight Wal-Mart that was sponsored by one of its wholesaler competitors.

Mr. Norman, a health-care worker, turned a 1993 campaign against a Wal-Mart in his Greenfield, Mass. home into a second career. He recently traveled to Japan to advise a group there. "My fifth international gig," he says.

Wal-Mart's push into communities like Leominster has spawned a tenacious opposition, Mr. Norman says. "What used to be a two or three month turnaround [to get a store approved] can turn into a two-year turnaround and sometimes longer," he says.

Messrs. Norman and DiGeronimo rejoined forces this year after Wal-Mart returned from its Leominster defeat with a 200,000-square-foot store proposal in Lancaster, a neighboring town of 7,400. Patrice Harvey, a mother of two small children, called Mr. DiGeronimo for advice.

Ms. Harvey and her husband John, both 35, didn't actively oppose the Leominster store plan, even though their house is technically within city limits. The second site, by contrast, is directly across from their home. Ms. Harvey says she used to shop at Wal-Mart when her children were small but stopped after encountering Wal-Mart critiques, such as the documentary, "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" Wal-Mart "doesn't fit the character of the town," Ms. Harvey says.

Wal-Mart says the type of opposition it faces in Massachusetts isn't affecting its plans. "We believe that the customers want to decide for themselves where they work and shop, as opposed to having those decisions made for them by special interest groups with ulterior motives," the company says.

Under Mr. DiGeronimo's guidance, Ms. Harvey put together a group of about a dozen residents who meet at a different member's house each week. The group includes a university computer manager, a software-company office manager and two local businessmen.

Mr. DiGeronimo has been attending the group's meetings where he offers advice. Whenever the discussion veers into Wal-Mart's environmental record or health care practices, he steers it back to local issues: "water, sewer, wetlands and traffic. Those are the only pressure points that can be brought" to bear on town officials, he says he tells them.

He adds: "That seemed to work in Leominster and is working here."

Immediate Release

Contact: Chris Kofinis 202-486-6422

WakeUpWalMart.com Statement on Wal-Mart’s Misstatements and Exaggerations on Scope of New Drug Plan as reported by today’s New York Times and USA Today

As reported today in the New York Times and USA Today, Wal-Mart needlessly exaggerated the scope and benefits of its low cost drug plan that will begin today with a one-city pilot program at 65 stores in Florida. While Wal-Mart stated yesterday that “nearly 300 generic drugs” are included, in truth, there are only 124 separate medicines on the list. In fact, Wal-Mart overstated the scope of its drug plan by nearly two-thirds. As the New York Times states, “The plan, which is said to cover 300 drugs, includes only about 124 separate medicines in various dosages, like 12 versions of the popular antibiotic Amoxicillin. It leaves out some popular drugs altogether, like the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering treatment Zocor.”

Read more about Zocor

To the millions of uninsured Americans, including the 775,000 hard-working families of Wal-Mart workers who have no company healthcare, this is a cruel attempt to overstate the benefits of a program that, at second glance, has far fewer benefits than expected. More disturbingly, the emerging facts about Wal-Mart’s new drug initiative reflect a consistent public relations strategy, employed throughout the year, to paint a happy face on the more negative effects and initiatives happening at Wal-Mart stores. For example, weeks ago Wal-Mart announced a “mystery” increase in starting wage rates at 1,200 stores, but in fact, the company imposed salary caps on all 1.39 million employees.

The following statement is attributable to Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com:

"America must be deeply disappointed to learn today that Wal-Mart has been playing public relations games with the hopes and concerns of many Americans, including the majority of Wal-Mart workers who do not have company health care. As we said yesterday, lowering prices on drugs is a good thing, but intentionally misstating and exaggerating the scope of the plan’s effect by nearly two-thirds is needless and cruel.

We call on Wal-Mart to immediately keep its word to the American people and cover the 291 generic medicines it promised, not just the 124 it turned out to be. The American people and our elected leaders have the right to expect real actions and real promises from Wal-Mart, not more empty publicity stunts meant to repair the company’s faltering public image."

From Forbes:

Most of the drugs on Wal-Mart's list are older generics that are relatively inexpensive already, Stephen Schondelmeyer, professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota, told the Chicago Tribune.

[...]

"This isn't addressing what is the source of people's frustrations with drug prices," Schondelmeyer told the Tribune. "This is a very limited set of drugs. It's a lot of hype and will create a lot of traffic going into Wal-Mart stores. But I think people are going to be disappointed when they go into the stores and find out their drug isn't there."

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health-care watchdog group, called Wal-Mart's announcement part of the company's public-relations campaign to bolster its image. The company has been a target of criticism for the health benefits it offers employees, with some contending the benefits cost too much.

"I think what Wal-Mart is doing is a limited good thing," Pollack said. "Clearly, this limited, positive initiative is as much a part of Wal-Mart's public-relations efforts to blunt the deserved criticism of its poor health coverage for its workers as it is a substantive improvement."

From the New York Times

And while uninsured people should benefit from the program, those with insurance may save only a dollar or so, making a trip to Wal-Mart not worth their while, analysts said. In Florida, where the program will have its debut, most people on Medicaid pay nothing and may have little incentive to shop around for cheaper prescription drugs.

It is not as significant as it first seems, in our opinion, said Joseph Agnese, an analyst at Standard & Poors, who expressed surprise at investors reaction to the Wal-Mart announcement, which sent shares of its competitors CVS and Walgreen down sharply yesterday.

Immediate Release Contact: Chris Kofinis 202-486-6422

WakeUpWalMart.com Statement on Wal-Mart's Announcement of A Pilot Generic Drug Program

The following statement is attributable to Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com:

"While lowering prescription drug costs is a good thing, Wal-Mart cruelly ignores the fact that it fails to provide company health care to over half (775,000) of its employees which leaves 46 percent of its workers children uninsured or on public health care.

Even worse, the Wal-Mart health care crisis will continue to cost American taxpayers over $1.2 billion every year and is projected to cost taxpayers $9.1 billion over the next five years. Tragically, Wal-Mart wants the American people to ignore the fact its so-called low prices come at a high cost to its workers, children, and their families.

Wal-Mart needs to answer one very simple, but serious question - why not just improve the health care coverage of its employees?

The truth is that the Wal-Mart health care crisis grows everyday, and sadly this prescription drug initiative will not insure one additional Wal-Mart employee, one uninsured child, or reduce the billions of cost for taxpayers."

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

Empty Wal-Mart buildings plague communities across the nation. At any given time, about 350 former Wal-Marts lie vacant in America, according to Al Norman of Sprawl-Busters, an organization that opposes big-box stores. At least nine empty former Wal-Mart spaces -- the equivalent of 12 football fields in size -- occupied North Carolina as of February, Norman said.

The retailer's shift to massive supercenters, though, means more empty Wal-Marts in towns such as Hillsborough.

"It's just a giant hole in the community that can last for years," said Julia Christensen, a former university lecturer now writing a book on how communities reuse empty big box stores.

Read the full article.

An interesting article from The Associated Press on a study released today from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

LINCOLN, Neb. — Counties with a Wal-Mart store experience slower growth in their standard of living than those without the world's largest retailer, according to a preliminary study released Tuesday.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln study compared growth in household income from 1979 to 2002 in 19 Nebraska counties with Wal-Marts to 74 without, after controlling for other economic variables that determine household income.

Critics of the retailer say Wal-Mart often comes into small towns and drives main street stores out of business. Company supporters counter that Wal-Mart provides millions of jobs and helps keep product prices low.

Azzeddine Azzam, the UNL agricultural economist who led the study, cautioned against drawing overly simplistic conclusions about Wal-Mart.

"There is a Wal-Mart effect, but we don't completely understand it," Azzam said. "Wal-Mart didn't create the economic conditions that have led to its success, but it has learned to take advantage of them."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Azzam said several studies in recent years have looked at Wal-Mart's impact on local economies, but with mixed findings.

Azzam said his study also sought to account for the effects other economic variables would have on household income.

"Most of the studies attribute all changes in sales, tax revenues or other measures of economic activity to the presence of Wal-Mart, which could potentially bias conclusions in favor of or against the store," Azzam said.

After accounting for the other variables, the UNL study found that the average annual growth in median household income, adjusted for inflation, in the 19 counties with a Wal-Mart was $142.62 below the average annual growth in the 74 counties without a Wal-Mart.

More below the fold.

The study found that the impact of a Wal-Mart depended on factors such as whether counties are urban or rural; how dependent their economies are on agriculture; and whether they are located along Interstate 80, the state's main east-west highway.

The counties whose standards of living seem to benefit most from Wal-Mart, according to the study, are those along I-80 that do not have a store themselves, but are adjacent to counties that do.

On the other hand, the counties that seemed to see the biggest negative impact in their standard of living are urban counties that have Wal-Marts. The study defined urban counties as those with at least 2,500 people living in a city.

For example, urban counties along I-80 in which Wal-Marts have opened since 1985 have seen annual drops in inflation-adjusted household income of $89, compared to $143 for those not along the interstate.

The declines were $65 and $118 for urban counties in which Wal-Marts opened since 1995.

"This isn't necessarily cause and effect," Azzam said. "Wal-Mart is a manifestation of the restructuring going on in the U.S. economy ... It's a symptom of the economy, not necessarily a cause."

Azzam said he's compiling statistics about Wal-Mart's effect on employment and wages, which will be the subject of another study.

Until Wal-Mart changes into a responsible and moral employer, communities will continue to join together to keep the company out.

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle recently reported on another citizen group's success, this time in Lima, New York:

LIMA — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, is withdrawing its application for a proposed supercenter on Route 15A.

But the company apparently will still look for other sites in the area.

Wal-Mart's proposal for the 165,000-square-foot store on a 53-acre site had generated controversy in this rural community and active opposition from an organized group of residents.

[...]

The two co-chairpersons of Lima Citizens for Responsible Development, were rejoicing.

"We're thrilled," said Catharine Corby Gardner. "We're gratified that the efforts of a small group coming together to protect the community were successful."

A new Wall-Street Journal/NBC poll released today highlights what we learned on our recent national bus tour - a majority of Americans want Wal-Mart to change into a responsible employer.

Here are a few key points from the poll:

1. The WSJ/NBC poll shows that Wal-Mart’s public image and favorability are in an absolute free-fall.

- Less than half (45 percent) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Wal-Mart, and 31 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Wal-Mart.

- As a comparison, only 10 percent of the American public has an unfavorable opinion of Target.

2. A majority of Americans (52 percent) believe Wal-Mart’s employment practices “should be reviewed and regulated more because they fail to offer adequate health and pension benefits, which means that the government ends up paying for these workers’ health care.”

We've released a press statement you can read in its entirety below the fold. We'll update you over the weekend with more information about this new poll.

WakeUpWalMart.com Statement on Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll Regarding Wal-Mart

Washington, D.C. - 9/15/06 - Today’s WSJ/NBC poll highlights what we learned on the 2006 Change Wal-Mart, Change America national bus tour - a majority of Americans want Wal-Mart to change into a responsible employer that provides affordable health care, pays a living wage, and lessens the burden on taxpayers.

In addition, the WSJ/NBC poll shows that Wal-Mart’s public image and favorability are in an absolute free-fall. Less than half, only 45 percent, of Americans have a favorable opinion of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer and 31 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Wal-Mart. As a comparison, only 10 percent of the American public has an unfavorable opinion of Target.

Even more striking, is that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, believe Wal-Mart’s employment practices “should be reviewed and regulated more because they fail to offer adequate health and pension benefits, which means that the government ends up paying for these workers’ health care.”

The following statement is attributable to Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com:

“Over the last few months, national leaders like Senator Harry Reid, Senator John Edwards, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Evan Bayh, Senator John Kerry, Senator Byron Dorgan and so many other national, state, and local leaders have stood together, spoken out, and called on Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, to be a better company and to change into a responsible employer.

This poll clearly shows that the American people are listening to our campaign’s positive message that Wal-Mart can and must balance its enormous wealth with the responsibility it has to be a good employer and good corporate citizen.

Hopefully, Wal-Mart will read this poll, and other public opinion polls, and finally understand the enormous price it will pay for failing to listen to the American public’s demands. Until then, our movement, with over 265,800 Americans, will continue to grow every single day.”

Everyday Low Wages

Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago wielded the first veto of his 17-year tenure this week - and the City Council supported him - striking down Chicago’s short-lived plan to force behemoth retailers like Wal-Mart to pay higher wages and benefits.

In this round, Mr. Daley, the retailers and local Wal-Mart suppliers argued that mandating higher compensation would do more harm than good by driving business and employment opportunities away from low-income neighborhoods.

But the choice - between no jobs or low-wage jobs - is probably a false one. Wal-Mart and other mega-retailers, like Target and Home Depot, need market share. With suburban areas saturated, cities are the logical places to grow. Wal-Mart especially needs more American consumers, having recently pulled the plug on unsuccessful attempts to expand in Germany and South Korea. It is currently planning to expand in Santa Fe, N.M., where local laws require higher wages than the company normally pays.

Another argument propounded by Wal-Mart is that paying higher wages would compel the company to raise its prices, hurting low-income consumers. Wage gains do not automatically lead to higher prices. They could be absorbed by higher productivity or by a narrowing of profit margins. Given Wal-Mart’s profits, the company could improve its wage structure and still beat the competition.

The Chicago ordinance raised legal and technical questions. If Mr. Daley had not wielded the veto, it would surely have faced a court challenge. But proponents of living wages have the moral high ground, and are increasingly finding a political voice. Chicago hasn’t heard the last of them, and Washington hasn’t either.

The Boston Globe reports on some troubling information coming out of a court case in Pennsylvania with "Personnel consultant hits Wal-Mart."

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. paid bonuses to store managers that encouraged them to limit employee meal and rest breaks, a human resources consultant testified at a trial over claims the company cheated workers in Pennsylvania.

The bonuses sometimes exceeded managers' salaries, Frank Landy, a Colorado-based psychologist, said in a third day of testimony in Philadelphia. The bonuses averaged $85,000 last year, with a quarter of store managers receiving more than $140,000, he said.

``If we have a manager who is able to capture one minute a week, 52 minutes a year, from 300 associates in his or her store, he would add to his bonus something around $1,300," Landy told jurors in state court. ``If he was able to capture one hour a week, his bonus would be enhanced by $82,000 for the average manager."

Landy testified on behalf of two former Wal-Mart workers who claim the world's largest retailer forced hourly employees to skip breaks and work off the clock . Michelle Braun and Dolores Hummel seek as much as $300 million in damages in their suit, one of more than 70 filed in federal and state courts that claim Bentonville, Ark. - based Wal-Mart failed to pay wages for all time worked.

Wal-Mart's bonus policy was one of several factors that led to the company's wage-hour violations, Landy said today. Number one on the list is the company's preferred scheduling system, which uses sales to determine store staffing levels, he said. The system pressures managers to limit employee hours and doesn't hold them accountable for missed breaks and lunches, Landy said.

``There's a lot of money sitting out there for a store manager if he or she can reduce payroll costs as a ratio to sales," he said. ``The more they can reduce costs, the more they get at the end of the year."

That focus on curbing payroll led hourly workers at Pennsylvania stores to skip more than 33 million breaks and 2 million meal periods between 1998 and 2001, attorney Michael Donovan said during opening arguments on Sept. 8...

Today, the Chicago City Council failed to override Mayor Richard Daley's first veto in 17 years. In response, the campaign issued the following statement attributable to Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com:

"It is a sad day in America when multi-billion dollar corporations like Wal-Mart celebrate the defeat of living wages for the poorest Americans. While Wal-Mart may have successfully rolled back living wages for workers today, Wal-Mart's victory will be temporary at best.

"Wal-Mart, corporate special interests and corporate America's political servants severely underestimate the growing anger amongst the American public towards companies that are taking our country in the wrong direction. That is why our movement to take our country back from big powerful corporations, like Wal-Mart, grows every single day. The American people overwhelmingly want living wages, economic security and health care for all. Any corporation or politician who does not wake up and respond to the American public's desire for change will face a serious public backlash."

Last year, Wal-Mart made $11 billion in profits but pushed $1.37 billion in health care costs onto American taxpayers. Now the company is trying to get out of paying property taxes, this time in a small town in New York state. But the community is demanding that Wal-Mart pay its fair share.

From the Star-Gazette (Elmira/Corning, NY):

WATKINS GLEN -- Schuyler County legislators have agreed to join the town of Dix, the village of Watkins Glen and the Watkins Glen school district in defense against Wal-Mart's legal attempt to have the store's property taxes lowered.

The four taxing bodies will hire the Davidson and O'Mara firm of Elmira.

The resolution passed unanimously Monday by lawmakers states that a reduction in the assessment of the Wal-Mart property on state Route 414 on the eastern edge of the village would have an adverse affect on the taxing jurisdictions.

The property is assessed at $12.5 million, and Wal-Mart has started the legal action in state Supreme Court to ask for an assessment reduction. It previously had asked for a reduction to $5.4 million, which was denied by the town.

The property is assessed at $12.5 million, and Wal-Mart has started the legal action in state Supreme Court to ask for an assessment reduction. It previously had asked for a reduction to $5.4 million, which was denied by the town.

Assessing also came up during the meeting when legislators approved an intermunicipal agreement that can be used with towns interested in having their property values set under the guidance of the county Real Property Tax Services Department.

With the agreement, towns would continue to appoint their own part-time assessors, who would become county employees. Fees for the services would be based on the number of parcels involved.

County Administrator Timothy O'Hearn said the town of Orange has already voted to join the program.

He said last week that he does not expect all towns to participate, but "the assessors, without exception, support this initiative," he said Monday.

An op-ed by Rick Bender published in The Columbian (WA):

A friend recently asked me why unions hate Wal-Mart so much. He said that, while he wishes Wal-Mart employees made more money, he shops there occasionally and he doesn't like being made to feel like he is doing something evil.

Here's what I told him.

Wal-Mart isn't evil. People who work there aren't bad people; they're just struggling to get by like the rest of us. People who shop there aren't bad people either; in many cases they are lower-income folks on tight budgets who are just hoping to find bargains.

But we, as a society, have to recognize that Wal-Mart, like any other corporation that shares its business model, is destructive. That business model kills middle-class jobs, promotes a race to the bottom on wages and benefits, and costs taxpayers millions of dollars every year. And we, as a society, have the right -- and the responsibility -- to say, "enough is enough."

If an oil corporation could beat its competition by polluting more and dumping more toxics into the air and water, we wouldn't allow it, would we? Well, organized labor and many others believe that what Wal-Mart is doing is economic pollution, and it's time to hold this giant corporation accountable for the damage it's doing to our communities.

Wal-Mart's business model is to sell products cheaper by keeping its labor costs low. Despite all of its "happy associates" public relations campaigns, it's clear that Wal-Mart keeps labor costs low by paying workers less, providing fewer benefits, and aggressively opposing unionization.

There are costs to this strategy, like class-action settlements in wage-and-hour and discrimination lawsuits, expensive we're-not-so-bad public relations campaigns, and legal bills for fighting against the cities and towns that don't want its stores in their neighborhoods. But despite this, its business model has succeeded and helped revolutionize the retail and grocery industries.

Revolution for the worse

Revolutions usually happen when the people rise up, but in this case it happened when the people in power clamped down.

Because the grocery industry has been almost completely unionized on the West Coast, people who work in supermarkets have led middle-class lives for decades. Most could own a home, keep their families healthy, save to help send kids to college and, eventually, retire.

All of the stores provided good union wages and benefits, so they competed on a level playing field, based on the quality of their products and services. They still managed to sell stuff at prices consumers could afford, and they still made profits.

Then along came Wal-Mart and its low-road strategy, and that changed.

Now we have a race-to-the-bottom competition among the stores that have survived. Tens of thousands of unionized grocery workers in Washington either lost their jobs or are giving up their wages and health benefits so their employers can try to compete with Wal-Mart.

Love Wal-Mart or hate it, you, too, are a victim.

In 2004, about 3,200 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were on taxpayer-funded health plans because their company -- the richest one on Planet Earth -- chooses not to offer affordable health benefits. That subsidy cost state taxpayers $12 million that year, by the legislature's estimate. Twice that, if you include costs to federal taxpayers.

The good news is Americans are starting to figure all this out. People are starting to see the link between companies like Wal-Mart and their tax bills, their rising health care costs, and the economic destruction of their communities.

A national bus tour called "Change Wal-Mart, Change America," which stopped in Vancouver on Labor Day, has visited 27 cities in 20 states to educate Americans about affordable health care, living wages, outsourcing and corporate accountability.

Led by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, this campaign is fighting so that working families can again have affordable health care and economic security.

Care to join us? Visit www.WakeUpWalMart.com.

Rick Bender is President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, the largest labor organization in the state.

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., offered the following statement on Mayor Richard M. Daley’s veto of the Big-Box ordinance:

"Mayor Daley stands with President Bush and the Republican-led Congress against incrementally raising the minimum wage. I support a living wage on principle and as a human right.

I also believe that it is impossible to support a living wage and say that the richest corporations in the world can’t pay it. After 17 years of no jobs for the urban core of our city, Mayor Daley vetoed a livable wage ordinance. In other words, he has joined the corporations’ exploitation of the most desperate by offering them either low-wages or no-wages, offering them a big-box or no-box.

I suggest that the Mayor give up his $200,000+ job for six months and try living on the salary that the Chicago City Council passed. Richard M. Daley is the mayor of the ‘city that works,’ and now the mayor of the city that works for lower wages."

The following statement is attributable to Chris Kofinis, Communications Director, WakeUpWalMart.com:

“It is an incredibly sad day when an elected official would veto Chicago’s working families and taxpayers in favor of rich, powerful corporations like Wal-Mart. Rather than require wealthy companies to be responsible, Mayor Daley evidently thinks its okay that big corporations make obscene profits while their workers get paid poverty-level wages and cannot afford health insurance.

We cannot allow politicians to sacrifice the best of our values to big, corporate special interests who are intent on destroying the American dream for millions of working families. On behalf of the residents of Chicago and the American people, who enthusiastically support this landmark legislation, we applaud the city council and hope they will stand together in their fight for a better Chicago and a better America by overriding Mayor Daley’s veto.”

Last Thursday, another community group -- this one in Cedar Mill, Oregon -- succeeded in keeping Wal-Mart out until the company becomes a moral and responsible business.

Today, Jerry Boone's column in the Oregonian discusses how the members of Save Cedar Mill voiced serious concerns about traffic and other problems Wal-Mart would bring to their community:

Wal-Mart's plans for the Cedar Mill store received the green light through a process that included multiple levels of government bureaucracy. It wasn't until the proposal -- on appeal by Save Cedar Mill -- landed on the collective desks of the Beaverton City Council that anyone found a reason to slam on the brakes.

Council members questioned whether the store would fit the concept of a transit-oriented business, if street improvements would be adequate to protect pedestrians and if the store would be a good fit for the neighborhood...

The key questions in considering any development -- and it is the same for a Target, Fred Meyer, Les Schwab or any large retailer -- are will the benefit be worth what it takes to make it compatible, and what impact will those changes have on the area?

Sweden, following the Norway's example, has excised millions of dollars worth of Wal-Mart stock from its state-sponsored pension fund, citing Wal-Mart's exploitative labor practices.

From Marketwatch:

Carl Rosen, head of ownership issues at the fund, told Dow Jones Newswires that the decision was based on alleged abuses of workers' rights at Wal-Mart's various businesses.

"Since there are so many accusations from so many parties, in so many countries, it's impossible to say that there have been no systemic abuses," he said.

Norway's Oil fund divested its interests in Wal-Mart earlier this year.

Reuters reports:

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.

Together, we met the goal of 25,000 new WakeUpWalMart.com supporters by Labor Day. Amazing!

While traveling across this country and talking with thousands of people about Wal-Mart, we saw firsthand, over and over again, that the American people support affordable health care and fair compensation for hard work. Democrat or Republican, city or country dweller, Easterner or Westerner, Americans believe large corporations like Wal-Mart must live up to their responsibility to workers and communities.

Whether it was a weekday in downtown Philadelphia, the state fair in Iowa, or the Bumbershoot Festival in Seattle, people were eager to learn about WakeUpWalMart.com – and eager to sign up!

The total number of supporters, as shown on the website, does not yet reflect all these new supporters. That total will increase as the new sign-ups are entered into the database.

Thanks again for all your hard work recruiting your friends, family and neighbors to help reach this goal... and congratulations!

After 35 days, 19 states, more than 35 cities, 840 hours, 54 events, about 8000 miles, over 25,000 new supporters, and one exhausted, but inspired, team, this amazing journey, the “2006 Change Wal-Mart, Change America” bus tour ends today in Seattle. We have to say it has been one incredible ride from coast-to-coast.

In just five weeks, the American people and so many of our nation’s great leaders have stood up, spoken out, and called on Wal-Mart to change into a responsible employer.

We have been moved by our elected officials and their powerful words, but also by the countless people across the country who waved us over to their pick-up trucks, started conversations at gas stations, approached us in coffeeshops, diners, and on the street to ask about this tour and this movement... and to sign up!

So today, in Seattle, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Congressman Jim McDermott will host our final town hall at the Town Hall (no, we are not kidding, our last town hall is at the Town hall – how fitting is that). It will be a fantastic event and we invite you to come and enjoy the last tour stop, and join with us as we begin the next phase in this movement and America’s campaign to change Wal-Mart for the better.

And, we couldn’t imagine a better place to end the tour than Seattle.

How wonderful a city is Seattle? In just the last two days, folks in Seattle have signed up to this campaign in droves. In just a few hours, on Saturday and Sunday, over 2000 new supporters joined the movement! People just kept walking right up to us, grabbing clipboards, and signing their names. Yesterday, one new supporter asked if there was a space on the petition where he could write a message to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to let him know he must immediately raise Wal-Mart workers’ wages. We told him that once he joined the movement, he would have infinite opportunities to tell Wal-Mart how and why the company must change.

And, with our supporters out in full force again today, all across the country at Labor Day festivals, rallies, and picnics, we know it will be an incredible day in the growth in the national movement to change Wal-Mart and change America for the better.

But today is also the last ride we will have on our beloved bus, “Smiley,” that has weathered the ins-and-outs of our tour (we’ll spare you the details of how dirty a bus gets after 35 days, but we will say that Paul and Chris wore bio-level 4 hazard suits just to clean it out.) While we have experienced our share of bumps and bruises that come from being bounced around in a big bus (next time we will wear padded suits to minimize the pain), there was probably no better way to meet thousands of Americans than in a big patriotic, colorful wrapped bus.

Our bus was a head-turning event all across this nation, and from restaurants to truck stops, from public squares to parking lots, it has helped build our movement in ways we could never imagine – so thanks, Smiley.

And now, as we prepare for our last Town Hall event in Seattle, we are as excited as ever about the future of this movement. From New York City on August 1st to today in Seattle, the American people, the ones that count, have supported this tour in amazing ways, and while we are little sad that this is the end of the tour, we are ready to have one more extraordinary event this evening.

So, if you’re in Seattle, see you tonight.

After two amazing events in Oregon, we have made it to Washington – the 19th and last state of the tour!

Yesterday we had another huge success at the Oregon state fair in Salem. As people noticed us with our WakeUpWalMart.com petitions demanding good health care for all Wal-Mart workers, they walked right up and said, “I want to sign that!”

In a few short hours, we signed up several hundred Oregonians from all over the state. In the words of one new supporter, “Who wouldn’t sign this?”

The fair was a blast. We couldn’t find any fried Twinkies or cupcakes at this one, but there was an unbelievable 395 pound pumpkin. I’m not kidding.

Before leaving Salem, we stopped for a quick photo shoot with the bus in front of the state capitol. (Smiley did great.)

Today, an enthusiastic crowd gathered for our picnic in Portland at Overlook Park. Portland Commissioner Sam Adams and State Representative Elect Tina Kotek spoke powerfully about the local and national fight to change Wal-Mart.

Then, on the way up to Seattle, we stopped for a brief visit in Vancouver, Washington, with local groups that are working hard to keep Wal-Mart out of their communities until the company changes its business practices. Bridget Schwarz, one of the leaders of Wal-Mart Watchdogs, and others signed the “Better America” pledge.

We’re excited to join dozens of WakeUpWalMart.com canvassers tomorrow at the Bumbershoot Festival in Seattle… and then finish off with a town hall with Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray on Labor Day. And we’re eager to get back to DC so we can finish entering all those new sign-ups. By the time they’re all added to the database, it will be well over 25,000 from the tour.

-LT

From the AP:

An employee in Wal-Mart's Labor Relations Department has sued the retailer, saying she was harassed and given poor evaluation scores because she refused to shred documents relating to the investigation of a former vice chairman convicted of fraud.

Rita Miles, an administrative assistant to Wal-Mart's vice president of labor relations, filed suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville. Her suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. claims that the Bentonville-based retail giant violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by Congress in 2002 after corporate scandals at Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other companies.

The suit says that Miles was told to destroy hard copies of documents relating to the investigation of former No. 2 Wal-Mart executive Thomas Coughlin, who was sentenced last month to 27 months in home detention after pleading guilty to stealing money, merchandise and gift cards from the retailer.

Miles and others in her department were told to shred the documents after scanning them in an electronic database, according to the lawsuit. Miles objected, and later told the U.S. attorney's office about the shredding, the complaint said.

Read the rest of the article here