A teenager in Florida was infected with E coli after she at a frozen hamburger from Wal-Mart, suffering permanent Kidney damage. Her parents are suing the company. For more, check out this article from The South Florida Business Journal

The parents of a Pembroke Pines teenager are suing Wal-Mart after they calm their daughter became severely ill after contracting an E. coli infection last month from frozen hamburger patties purchased at a local store.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Broward Circuit Court, seeks financial damages from Wal-Mart for allegedly selling the beef.

The teen's mother, Anna Safranek, bought a box of 12 Topps quarter-pound patties from the Wal-Mart at 151 S.W. 184th Ave., in Pembroke Pines, on Aug. 15, lawsuit said. Two days later, 15-year-old Samantha cooked and ate one of the hamburgers.

Shortly after, Samantha began suffering from intense pain, cramping, diarrhea, fatigue and dehydration, the suit says. She was taken to the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital in Hollywood, where doctors discovered she was infected with E. coli 0157:H7. She spent three weeks in the hospital and underwent six days of dialysis. The suit claims she sustained permanent kidney damage and will have to be monitored for the rest of her life.

Wal-Mart, which said it has not yet been served with the suit, said it pulled the patties from the shelves on Aug. 30 after a single customer complaint in "an abundance of caution." Spokesman Kory Lundburg said he was unsure whether the Safraneks filed the customer complaint.

Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that Topps was voluntarily recalling about 331,582 pounds of frozen products.

Clean Water Action found that many retailers, notably Wal-Mart, are still selling toys with dangerous lead levels. From CNNMoney:

Tests conducted on some toys and other children's products sold recently at Wal-Mart, Target and Toys "R" Us stores were found to contain dangerously high levels of lead, consumer interest groups said Thursday.

The CWA said 11 of those toys - some of which were made out of vinyl - contained lead, including two that contained "extremely high levels of lead."

Sadly, testing for lead content is not rocket science. It's no more complicated than a simple point and click. With all the warnings and recalls, what excuse can there be for leaving these dangerous products on the shelves?

Connor said she used the NITON XRF analyzers handheld lead detector for the toy tests. Thermo Fisher Scientific, which manufactures the device, says Panasonic is among some big manufacturers that have used it to test for hazardous substances in product components.

Yesterday, Wal-Mart pulled 331,582 pounds of unsafe hamburger patties from its shelves. That's a lot of bad beef. Unfortunately, the recall came too late for an 18-year-old girl from Florida, who was allegedly sicked with E. Coli by the recalled meat.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc faces a lawsuit filed on behalf of an 18-year-old Fort Lauderdale, Fla., girl after she contracted an E. coli infection, allegedly caused by eating hamburger patties purchased from a Wal-Mart store, attorneys with the law firm of Shelden J. Schlesinger PA said Wednesday.

Wal-Mart representatives didn't have any immediate comment.

According to the suit, which says damages exceed $15,000, Samantha Safranek was allegedly hospitalized for three weeks and suffered kidney failure after eating a meat from a package of beef patties manufactured by Topps Meat C. LLC of Elizabeth, N.J., and purchased at a Wal-Mart store, attorneys said.

The plaintiff's lawyers said Topps Meat announced a recall Tuesday of 331,582 pounds of frozen beef patties.

Also, Wal-Mart announced it would remove the Topps burger products from its stores, the law firm said.

You can learn more about Wal-Mart's product safety record by reading our new report, Wal-Mart and China: How America’s #1 Company is Putting America’s Safety Second

In what has become an increasingly common occurrence, Court proceedings have begun in yet another multi-million dollar suit against Wal-Mart, alleging it forced employees to work off the clock and skip breaks.

Wal-Mart has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle similar suits in the past. Yet another reason why it would make good business sense for Wal-Mart to act like a responsible employer.

From Bloomberg:

Managers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, forced hourly workers in Minnesota to work through breaks and improperly inserted untaken meal and rest periods into time cards, a lawyer for the employees said.

A nonjury trial began today in a Minnesota state court over a lawsuit brought by four workers on behalf of 56,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club hourly employees. The suit alleges the company forced employees to work off the clock and through breaks.

"Wal-Mart is breaking the rules, violating the law and squeezing these employees as much as they can," attorney Justin Perl said today in his opening statement in Hastings. "That's the Wal-Mart way."

The suit is one of more than 70 accusing Wal-Mart of wage law violations. The Minnesota workers are seeking back pay to 1998 and as much as $1,000 each for millions of missed breaks.

The suit was granted class-action status, allowing the workers to sue as a group. Judge Robert King Jr. will rule on liability, damages and willfulness. If he finds against Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, a jury will decide on damages.

The company has denied responsibility for missed breaks or working off the clock. Wal-Mart also argues that such claims aren't suited for class-action treatment because each employee's experience is unique.

Plaintiffs' claims

The plaintiffs are Nancy Braun, who worked at a Wal-Mart store in Apple Valley; Debbie Simonson and Cindy Severson, who worked in Brooklyn Park; and Pamela Reinert, who worked at stores in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

All said they worked off the clock and were denied meal and rest breaks. The workers claim that Wal-Mart managers forced hourly employees to work without pay to keep down labor costs.

Wal-Mart knew as early as 1998 that its scheduling system created employee shortages at stores and resulted in missed meal and rest breaks, Perl said.

An internal audit of 127 stores in July 2000 showed the violations were a "massive" problem companywide, said Perl, of the Minneapolis law firm Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand. The company's solution was to eliminate time clocks for breaks, he said.

"Wal-Mart knew what they were doing. They knew why they were doing it and they were hiding the evidence to avoid liability," Perl said.

Workers missed about 8 million meal and rest breaks from 1998 through 2004, he said. Managers in Minnesota added 450,000 rest and meal breaks not taken to employee records, shortchanging hourly workers $2.5 million, Perl said.

Pennsylvania, California cases

Wal-Mart lost a $78 million jury verdict in Pennsylvania last October over rest breaks and unpaid work and a $172 million verdict in California in 2005 over meal breaks. The California verdict has been appealed.

The company, which also faces class-action suits in New Jersey, South Carolina and Missouri, fought off class certification this year in states including New York, Illinois and Maryland. Denial of class-action status means individuals must spend more to sue the company on their own.

"The exposure is gigantic," said law professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond, who specializes in civil litigation and follows Wal-Mart suits. "But maybe the worst part is the bad publicity. Every time one of these proceeds to trial and they lose, it's not helpful to their reputation."

Wal-Mart shares fell 92 cents to $43.05 as of noon Central time in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They have fallen 6.8 percent this year, compared with an 8.3 percent gain at Target Corp., the second-largest U.S. discount chain.

Wal-Mart's disregard for customer safety results in a fractured elbow and a $1.2 million lawsuit for negligence. Read more in this article from The Wilson Times

A Wilson woman was awarded $1.2 million in Wilson County Superior Court in a lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

A 12-member jury Wednesday found Wal-Mart Stores East LP was negligent in a personal injury case involving Jackie E. Corbett, who fell while shopping at the store.

The suit was filed last year, after Corbett fell March 18, 2006, while at the store on Forest Hills Road. Her attorney, Earl Taylor, said Corbett fractured her elbow, resulting in two surgeries and permanent injury.

"She was leaving the sales floor and headed back toward checkout when she tripped over a pallet and fell," Taylor said.

The empty pallet had been left on the store's floor near some merchandise, which was a violation of Wal-Mart's own policy, Taylor said. The company has a safety policy of "picking up all empty pallets and not leaving any empty pallets unattended," he said.
Part of Corbett's success with the suit may be attributed to an eyewitness who saw the woman fall, Taylor said. The observer testified during trial that the pallet was partially hidden by merchandise.

"It was real important that a member of the community thought enough to stop and get involved," Taylor said.

Corbett has been able to return to work since the injury, her attorney said.

Wal-Mart has 30 days to appeal the jury's verdict. The company hasn't decided whether it will appeal, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
"We respect the jury system, but disagree with the verdict. We are studying the verdict ... and have not yet determined how we might proceed," said company spokeswoman Sharon Weber.

From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

China’s checkered reputation in product quality is fodder for a new television commercial a Wal-Mart critic group began airing Thursday.

With the Christmas shopping season approaching, the 30-second spots raise the issue of whether toys at Wal-Mart are safe for children. Chinese manufacturers are a major source of consumer goods sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and many other retailers.

“When huge retailers like Wal-Mart pressure Chinese suppliers to cut costs, they cut corners. Now we’re paying the price,” the commercial says, in part.

The ad is airing in 32 markets across the South and Midwest, including Little Rock and Fort Smith, said Meghan Scott, spokesman for WakeUp-WalMart. com, which paid for the commercial. The group is funded primarily by the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

A spokesman for Bentonville-based Wal-Mart rejected the premise that cost trumps safety for the world’s largest retailer.

“Our commitment to low prices is never at the cost of safety. Product safety has always been and will continue to be a top priority at Wal-Mart,” spokesman Dave Tovar said in an e-mailed statement. Among Chinese products pulled from retailers’ shelves this year were children’s bibs and toy jewelry that contained lead and pet treats that contained melamine, an industrial chemical used in making plastics and other industrial products.

Terry Hemeyer, a crisismanagement and public-rela- tions professor, said the commercial is likely to have little influence on Wal-Mart shoppers. Still, he said, Wal-Mart must handle the criticism effectively.

“If it says ‘made in China’ now, it’s not good,” Hemeyer said. “They need to be very strong in their messages about what they’re doing about it.”

The company’s response must be in-store, providing someone who can personally address shoppers’ concerns, as well as through the media, said Hemeyer, who teaches communication management at the University of Texas at Austin and crisis management at Rice University in Houston.

Hemeyer worked for a year at Edelman Worldwide, about a decade before Wal-Mart hired the huge public-relations firm to assist with its image efforts.

Tovar said Wal-Mart has implemented a five-point toy-safety plan that includes reviewing test documentation for all toys on shelves now and planned for Christmas; additional testing by third-party laboratories; working with industry groups and other retailers to identify new standards for testing and safety; offering help to suppliers and government officials in China on new safety steps; and seeking new sources for toys, including Europe and North America.

WakeUpWalMart. com paid to air another China-related commercial earlier this year, focused on moving jobs overseas, with the tag line, “Wal-Mart, it’s just not American anymore.”

Our latest press release:

New WakeUpWalMart.com TV Ad & Report Spotlight "The Ultimate Joint Venture"
- Wal-Mart and China

Washington, DC - WakeUpWalMart.com, America's campaign to change Wal-Mart, today released a report titled "Wal-Mart and China: How America's #1 Company is Putting America's Safety Second." The report, which is accompanied by a new television ad, highlights what has been called the "ultimate joint venture" -- the long-standing, and increasingly risky relationship between China and Wal-Mart.

The report is released amid increased scrutiny and heightened fears of American consumers in the wake of recent recalls of goods ranging from lead-laced toys to tainted snacks to poisonous pet food.

Wal-Mart is China's number one importer and sixth largest trading partner, surpassing even Germany and Britain. More than 70 percent of goods on Wal-Mart's shelves come from China.

"In the world economy, Wal-Mart is a superpower," said Meghan Scott, spokeswoman for WakeUpWalMart.com. "As the world's largest retailer, with more than 12 billion dollars in profits, Wal-Mart has long had the power and responsibility to demand safer products from its suppliers, but instead, it has demanded lower prices and tried to cover up the consequences."

In conjunction with today's report, WakeUpWalMart.com launched the first in a series of television ads that begin running in 32 markets across the country today. The 30-second spot, titled "Cut Corners" opens on a black-and-white image of a mother and daughter and a headline that reads "Huge Toy Recall Scares Parents." A series of headlines about other recalls appear on screen, illustrating that "when huge retailers like Wal-Mart pressure Chinese suppliers to cut costs, they cut corners. Now we're paying the price."

Click here to read the full report. Click here to watch the ad.

Script of "Cut Corners"

"They're the toys our children play with...and much more.

Many products made in China...sold at Wal-Mart...so dangerous they've
been pulled off the shelves.

Wal-Mart and China. Called "the ultimate joint venture."

Seventy percent of Wal-Mart's goods come from China.

When huge retailers like Wal-Mart pressure Chinese suppliers to cut
costs, they cut corners.

Now we're paying the price.

Go to WakeUpWalMart.com to learn more about Wal-Mart and China."

###

Wal-Mart Stores Inc's Japanese unit, Seiyu Ltd, boosted its annual loss forecast by 76 percent due to a charge to cut about 7 percent of its work force as it battles sluggish sales.

The world's largest retailer has invested more than $1 billion in the 393-store Japanese supermarket chain since 2002, but has yet to see anything more than temporary upswings in sales amid tough competition with rivals such as Aeon Co.

Seiyu is headed for its sixth straight annual loss in 2007, giving rise to speculation that Wal-Mart may consider withdrawing from Japan, the world's second-largest retail market, as it did from South Korea and Germany last year.

Seiyu, 53.6 percent owned by Wal-Mart, said it would offer early retirement for 450 employees out of a group work force of about 6,500. The program mainly targets headquarters staff and there are currently no plans for shop closures, Seiyu said.

It will book a charge of 4.5 billion yen ($39.15 million) for the program, and accordingly widened its 2007 group net loss forecast by that amount to 10.4 billion yen. The retailer kept its forecasts for operating profit and sales unchanged.

Seiyu, which eliminated about 1,600 jobs in 2004, said this would be the last time it needed to carry out big job cuts.

"I don't think we will need this kind of restructuring (in the future)," Seiyu Chief Operating Officer Toru Noda told a news conference, adding that he also did not expect the retailer would need to close stores.

Prior to the earnings announcement, shares of Seiyu ended down 7.5 percent at 86 yen. The stock has shed about 38 percent since the start of 2007, underperforming a 22 percent fall in Japan's retail sector subindex during the same period.

It has lost four-fifths of its value since Wal-Mart first took a small stake in May 2002.

Wal-Mart fired a woman in Chesapeake, Virginia, with a "mandatory no rehire" finding, for making funny pictures of management on her computer. For more on this ludicrous story, check out this entry from huffingtonpost.com

At Wal-Mart, one of the key personnel mantras is "respect for the individual." One Wal-Mart worker once told me, "I'm sure Wal-Mart respects the individual -- I just never met that individual." Any manager will tell you that you can judge a company by how it treats its front line workers. Here is the story of one Wal-Mart worker who got no respect.

Christine Knowels was a loyal Wal-Mart worker who lost her job, and wanted it back. She was hired by Wal-Mart in August of 2000, and worked for roughly seven years---all at the Wal-Mart supercenter #1841 in Chesapeake, Virginia. She was abruptly fired for "gross misconduct", with a "mandatory no rehire" finding. According to her store manager, "Christine displayed 13 potentially offensive pictures of the management team in the back hallway while on the clock. Christine used/took company resources (digital media/or photo copies off of company property without permission."

When Knowels went to file for unemployment compensation, the Virginia Employment Commission wrote up her case as follows: "Christine was discharged from her position with Wal-Mart for displaying photos of the management team that were considered to be potentially offensive. Christine reported that she had been told by the employee who was taking down the photos that she could have them. Christine used a program on her computer to make funny pictures and brought the altered pictures back to work the following day. Christine said she had done such pictures in the past and co-workers thought it was good for morale. Christine said no one had complained about them in the past and while she was putting up the pictures on the board a co-manager saw them and laughed. When Christine was let go she was asked if she had permission to take the pictures and told [the store manager] who was removing the pictures had told her it was ok to do with them what she wanted.

Christine did not feel the pictures were offensive, and did not mean for them to be taken that way. Christine said she signed off on Wal-Mart's separation form as she was very upset and needed to get out of the office as she was sick when she heard the news of her discharge. Wal-Mart has said that Christine was discharged for putting up potentially offensive pictures of the management team on company time and for taking company property without permission. Wal-Mart has not provided any copy of the policy the claimant allegedly violated, or given any explanation on how the pictures were thought to be offensive.

Regarding claims of Christine taking the pictures without permission, she states that she had permission. The burden of proof lies with the employer to show evidence of misconduct. In this case, Wal-Mart has provided only a statement of why Christine was dischared. However, there is no documentation to show her actions were willful or deliberate, or amounted to the level of misconduct. The charge of misconduct in connection with employment is a matter to be taken very seriously in the instant case. While Christine may have shown poor judgment in what she did...such action cannot, in the opinion of the Deputy, be deemed misconduct. Accordingly, the claimant is Qualified for Benefits."

For her part, Knowels says her co-workers thought the pictures she created were a big hit. "I have done pictures of an associate, who works as ICS Lead and Truck Unload Leader. I have put lime green, bright yellow, hot pink, blue and purple different styled wigs on him in the pictures, they hung in grocery receiving for a few weeks. I also made him into Shrek by turning his skin all green, bulging out his eyes and elongating his ears. This picture hung at the time clock for at least a week. He wanted to take the pictures home for his kids."

On the day she was fired, Knowels says, "When I was called into the office, Mr. [E] was sitting there. He had already had the green sheet filled out and a copy of the surveillance CD, which was placed on top of his computer. Even after speaking with me about the pictures Mr.[E] just took the green sheet down off his computer top and asked me to sign it. He did not add any information I told him, or change anything to what I told him. He didn't correct what he wrote either. He had me fired before I got in the office."

Knowels says "the pictures in question were made to boost the moral of the store, make people laugh and have a good time, because several associates have been saying we are not allowed to have any fun anymore and the morale is gone. Let me just say that I have been making these type of pictures...for as long as I have been working for Wal-Mart and no one told me I couldn't do it or that it was harassment, nor did I think it to be as such. I have had several people ask me to make their pictures or their kids picture, which I have done also. If I felt it would of hurt anyone's feelings or was even considered harassment I never would of made the pictures. I would of taken the pictures down if anyone told me to, and I would have apologized."

Knowels admits she signed a "green sheet" on separation, stating that she did not have permission to have the photos, but she adds, "the moment [they] said I was fired my stomach turned and I felt I was going to regurgitate any minute and I just scribbled my name and got out of the office to get to the bathroom."

Looking back on her termination, Knowels says that her store manager lied about the photos, because she did have permission to use them. "So many associates have called me and emailed me saying how they thought it was wrong to fire me because they know I was just trying to raise the morale and have a good time."

Knowels says her loss is not just emotional, but economic as well. "To lose the Health Insurance on my husband and myself, my Accidental Death Insurance, Dental Insurance, Part of my 401k & Profit sharing (as I had 3 weeks to go before being fully invested) Life Insurance and Stock options, over something I have been doing for years and always got great response is just horrible."

Christine L. Knowels, loyal seven-year employee at Wal-Mart, had to turn in her badge and her discount card. But she also left something much more important on the table in that back office in supercenter #1841 in Chesapeake, Virginia: her pride and self-respect. And she's prepared to fight the world's largest retailer to get them back.
Alongside of Knowels' photos of employees wearing lime-colored wigs, is a grim snapshot of life inside the Wal-Mart corporation itself.

Wal-Mart workers in Essex County, NY are "living better" after a recent court decision. Wal-Mart has been ordered by a U.S. District Court to provide health care for workers' stepchildren. The decision comes after one woman on Wal-Mart's health care plan was refused coverage for her stepson.

Sadly, Wal-Mart requires a court order before acting like a responsible employer.

In an Aug. 22 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must extend health insurance benefits to the stepson of a Wal-Mart employee living in Essex County. The Essex County Department of Social Services sought to obtain medical support from a Wal-Mart employee on behalf of her stepson.

Essex County had obtained a Family Court order establishing the employee’s obligation to provide available health insurance for her non-custodial stepson, who had been receiving coverage through Medicaid. The Essex Department of Social Services’ Child Support Collection Unit issued a notice to Wal-Mart, the stepmother’s employer, but the company refused to enroll the boy in its health plan.

The case was moved to federal court, which ordered Wal-Mart to comply with the Family Court order and provide coverage for the stepchild, even though such coverage was beyond the coverage ordinarily provided by the company’s plan.

The entire press release is here.

Bay Area residents have successfully kept Wal-Mart out of their communities. For more, check out this article from Bloggingstocks.com

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. may not ever get any love in the San Francisco area. The world's largest retailer had its hopes for more store frontage in the San Francisco Bay Area dashed this week when the retailer's primary construction vendor pulled out from its prior application to build the big-box location. The vendor was controlled by a family that was apparently sympathetic to the plight of chasing off new Wal-Mart stores in the Bay Area, so it pulled its application for building a new Wal-Mart Supercenter as a result.

The new Wal-Mart location, which was to be built in the North Concord area, now has no firm to build it. North Concord residents and the City Council there had cited the Wal-Mart proposal as inadequate in addressing issues such as traffic, public safety, urban decay, water control, energy and parking. In other words, the usual suspects when a municipality wants to fend off a proposed Wal-Mart location.

Of course, Wal-Mart has a history of trying again and again to get locations built in areas that have significant shopper traffic and good demographics, and surely the retailer won't put its tail between its legs and leave town like Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott indicated would happen in New York City recently. With only three Wal-Mart Supercenters approved in the Bay Area in the last four years, Wal-Mart has been beaten up pretty well in that area, although it continues the fight.

From The Huffington Post, an opinion piece by Robert Elisberg:

A successful freelancer once explained to me that he regularly tells companies who balk at paying his price, "If you think I'm expensive, wait until you work with amateurs." Lower-quality work will invariably cause big problems and much more money spent correcting them.

But this isn't just a reality for all business. It's the way of all life.

This is far more basic than Economics 101. It's nothing more than a wise saying everyone learned in grade school.

You Get What You Pay For.

Usually, that's said with a shrug and a wistful smile. But then, we generally don't expect the payment to be made with people's lives.

Save money by not doing required repairs on a bridge. It collapses, causing devastation and death. The original price to fix the bridge was $3 million. The financial cost only of replacement and economic upheaval is an estimated $500 million.

Save money by cutting $65 million from required maintenance on levees. They're breached, wiping out a major American city and killing 1,577 people.. The cost of rebuilding the levees is $10 billion. Rebuilding the city is an additional $53 billion.

Save money by having your toys made cheaply overseas. Toxic paint is found in 21 million products for children, in three separate recalls.

Save money by importing on pet food more cheaply from overseas. Contaminated food kills over 17,000 pets.

Save money on toothpaste by importing it more cheaply from overseas. Products with a poisonous chemical is distributed to hotels.

Save money on automobile tires by importing them more cheaply from overseas. Over 450,000 faulty tires that can fall apart were recalled.

These aren't isolated incidents. This is a pattern.

You do get what you pay for. Wal-Mart might love to advertise with that little smiley-face knocking the prices down, but when they had to remove those toys with toxic paint from their shelves, remember: a frown is just a smile upside-down.

The manufacturing problem for all those recalls was caused elsewhere, in China. But someone had to hire them. And someone had to cut government costs for inspecting them.

There are many dirty fingers. When Wal-Mart strong-arms its suppliers to under-price everyone else, those suppliers are forced or choose to go overseas where there is cheap labor and cheaper consumer protection. And other retailers are pressured to follow, or do so happily.

Companies can insist they're just giving the public what it wants, low prices. And that's a wonderful argument until reality kicks in and you stock your stores with toxic toys, toxic pet food, toxic toothpaste and exploding tires. Surveys show that customers tend to not want those things.

Everyone likes low prices. Spending less. Saving money.

But you get what you pay for.

It's not Economics 101. It's Life 101. Here's another basic, wise saying: pennywise and pound foolish. But this is pennywise and pound insane.

And it holds true in everything. Including the crass political tactic that anyone who wants to raise taxes is just a "Tax and Spend Liberal" and irresponsible and evil and smells bad. Well, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) played that card and vetoed a transportation bill because it would have raised taxes. His way collapsed a bridge.

There are apparently 79,427 bridges considered inadequate in the U.S., and the cost to repair them all is estimated at $9.4 billion every year, for 20 years. That's $188 billion. Think that's a lot? Nah, it's peanuts. Chump change. If the cost to the economy of this one Minnesota bridge is $500 million, then the potential damages for all those inadequate bridges is $40,000,000,000,000,000. (That's "$40 quadrillion" but it's a word so large to be meaningless. It's so large it sounds like you're an eight-year-old making up words.)

Fun with Math: to pay that scary $188 billion national bridge repair, you'd only have to shut down the Iraq War 2-1/2 years early. Or just have taken 2-1/2 years looking carefully for those pesky WMDs before shock-and-awing. The bridges would be paid for by now. Not suggesting a plan, of course, but merely putting things in perspective.

If something is important to you, you find the money.

That is, unless you're too cheap and don't mind the risk of flooding a city, killing pets or poisoning the nation's children. Is that a cheap shot to take? Perhaps. But it's less cheap than not minding the risk of flooding a city, killing pets or poisoning the nation's children.

But then, you get what you pay for.

Wal-Mart chooses profits over consumer safety once again. For more, read this excerpt from WKYT News:

Wal-mart stores across the country are pulling flip-flops made in china after customers complained of rashes or burns developed on their feet.

A Texas woman says her feet started showing signs of a rash about three weeks after she started wearing the sandals in July.

As the scarring worsened into the exact pattern of the flip flop straps, she filed a complaint with Wal-mart.

Wal-mart says it will now do more testing on the flip flops.

Today, amid heightened fears and numerous recalls of tainted food and dangerous products, Wal-Mart revealed a new advertising campaign claiming the retail giant is saving Americans money. The campaign is Wal-Mart’s latest attempt to boost its faltering sales and save its declining public image.

Along with the new advertising campaign, Wal-Mart issued an updated report on the company’s supposed savings to the American consumer. The non-profit think tank Economic Policy Institute found the methodology of the initial 2005 report to be “fraught with problems.”

WakeUpWalMart.com Spokeswoman Meghan Scott issued the following statement:

“As America’s largest private employer, Wal-Mart’s stubborn refusal to change its irresponsible business practices hurts its workers, their families, our nation… and Wal-Mart’s own profits.

With over $12 billion in annual profits, Wal-Mart has long had the power to make better the lives of its workers and the American people by providing affordable healthcare, paying a living wage, adopting a zero-tolerance policy on unlawful child labor, and making a meaningful commitment to safe, American-made products.

Instead, Wal-Mart pressures its Chinese suppliers to cut corners on product and food safety, drives American manufacturing jobs overseas, and prices health insurance out of workers’ reach. Wal-Mart’s failure to provide affordable health care cost taxpayers an estimated $1.3 billion in government health care programs in 2005, and is projected to cost taxpayers an estimated $9 billion by 2011.

Wal-Mart can truly salvage its dismal public image only by becoming a responsible business and a model employer. But, time and again, Wal-Mart has refused to do the right thing.

Now, Wal-Mart seems to think a catchy new ad slogan will do the trick. The American people are smarter than that.”

From the AP:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reduced its reported second-quarter profit by $153 million due to expenses from selling its German retail operations, the world's largest retailer reported Monday.

In a regulatory filing, Wal-Mart said the added cost reduced its earnings per share for the quarter that ended July 31 to 72 cents from the 76 cents it originally reported Aug. 14. That compares with 50 cents per share in the year-ago quarter.

Wal-Mart said the late charge came after "recent nonbinding discussions with Metro at the end of August 2007." Germany's Metro AG agreed last year to buy Wal-Mart's German operations.

Wal-Mart called the new charge a "post-closing adjustment."

Metro bought Wal-Mart's 85 sites in Germany last year for an undisclosed sum as Wal-Mart quit Germany and South Korea after losses in both markets.

Wal-Mart fails in its effort to stifle dissent in Southern Oregon. The state has ruled that the city of Medford must allow a local citizens group opposed to the construction of a Wal-Mart in their community to speak before the city council. To learn more, read this article from The Mail Tribune

A state land use appeals decision issued Friday is a big win for a group opposing a new Wal-Mart Supercenter in south Medford.

Medford's City Council will hear debate over a Wal-Mart Supercenter traffic study at least once more before a final decision on whether the massive store can be built.

The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruled Friday that the city was incorrect in denying a local citizens group the right to participate in proceedings about the store in November 2005. The city attorney denied the group the right to speak during one of the hearings, saying it had lost standing when it failed to file a brief in a 2004 LUBA appeal.

But the board ruled Friday the city must conduct additional proceedings to let the petitioner talk.

A citizens group called Medford Citizens for Responsible Development, led by Talent City Councilwoman Wendy Siporen, has argued the developers of the 207,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter project should have been required to conduct a comprehensive traffic study for the site, which would have made the giant retailer responsible for building any street improvements made necessary by traffic the store would produce. The project is proposed for the former Miles Field site.

Siporen said the ruling is a victory for the citizens group and a victory for the process.

"Obviously we're happy and we're looking forward to presenting our case that a traffic study is necessary," she said.

City Attorney John Huttl said in an e-mail that "some of the comments in the decision are inappropriate and not supported by the record" and he would evaluate the decision and give city officials his analysis of the options available. The city has 21 days to appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart representatives have argued that the city cannot legally require them to do a comprehensive study at this time. A traffic study for the property was completed in 1991 at the time of a zoning change. The City Council approved the project after numerous hearings.

"The city presumably will be required to adopt new or supplemental findings at the conclusion of those proceedings," Friday's ruling reads.

Debra Frye, LUBA representative, said the city's ultimate decision can again be appealed.

A recent study by Strategic Name Development paints a bleak picture for consumers' perception of Wal-Mart. Read the article below, from Brandweek, for the details.

Only 40% of respondents felt that they could trust Wal-Mart to protect them from products made in China. The study further showed that 39% of respondents said they were more fearful of buying products from Wal-Mart, versus 22% for Target.

As far as public image, 56% said they felt Wal-Mart was "more interested in profits than people," compared to 41% who felt that way about Target.

Because the low-cost retailer is associated with regularly providing products from China, responders offered that Wal-Mart "sold out the American consumer just to make a buck" and "It's been my policy to avoid all things associated with China, including Wal-Mart . . . I haven't been [there] in three months and I used to go weekly."

Despite the recalls, Wal-Mart asserted its business is fine. "We haven't seen evidence of such findings at our registers," said Melissa O'Brien, a Wal-Mart rep. "Wal-Mart has been the only retailer to date to publicly announce a new safety-net check and test program for toys—which we know parents have reacted favorably to—as an effort to step above and beyond."

She added that the company's own research has shown that, in cases of product safety, consumers laid responsibility at the feet of manufacturers and government before blaming retailers.

Still, the damage has been done, according to some analysts, despite Wal-Mart's efforts and Beijing's announcement last week that it will implement a new food and toy recall system to crack down on poor quality products and unlicensed manufacturers.

"It's a gigantic problem for both China and Wal-Mart," said Jack Trout, president of Trout & Partners, a marketing strategy firm based in Old Greenwich, Conn. "Wal-Mart is known for everyday low prices and China is known for making products cheaply, so they're both hoisted by their own petard. It's going to take a long time to turn this [negative perception] around."

The survey also shows that in the wake of the recalls, many consumers would now rather buy products manufactured in India than those produced in China. In key affected categories, such as pet food, 78% of respondents preferred that product be produced in India, compared to 74% citing prescription drugs and 73% for toys.

In only four of 25 categories did consumers prefer Chinese products: automobiles, cell phones, computers and flat screen televisions.

"This is a seismic shift in terms of marketing goods made in China," said William Lozito, president of Strategic Name Development.

Despite building a reputation for higher-quality products, the recalls have sent China back to its 1980s reputation for poorly made, cheap goods.

"It's a problem for brands that are inextricably linked with the 'Made in China' label," said Lozito. "The safety of products coming from China is a genuine, deeply embedded concern for consumers."

Trout added: "This isn't going away."

Poetic Justice. Amidst all the hype about Wal-Mart's "sustainability" efforts, the company is being fined by the state of Maine for destroying wetlands in Ellsworth. See the quote below, from WCSH Portland.

ELLSWORTH (NEWS CENTER) -- The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is fining the developer of a new Wal-Mart store in Ellsworth.

According to published reports, the fine comes after the MDEP discovered developers had destroyed a couple small wetlands while clearing land.

MDEP officials found out about three weeks ago. They say there was miscommunication between the land clearing contractor and the general contractor.

"The code officer called me and said that they had cleared the wetlands and I went to the project manager, Robin Clukey, and asked her to do a compliance inspection and she did and she found they had in fact cleared the wetlands," said Jon Cullen from the Maine DEP.

MDEP officials say the developers will need to restore the wetlands and will be fined. They're not sure how big the fine will be.

From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Wal-Mart’s low-cost, low-price business model leads to environmental damage, sweatshop conditions at suppliers’ factories and loss of jobs in communities, a coalition of labor, environment and community groups says in a report scheduled for release today.

The Big Box Collaborative, an umbrella organization encompassing two dozen groups, singles out the world’s largest retailer for business practices it says result in more harm than good.

“They’re the biggest so obviously they have the most impact,” Trina Tocco, the group’s coordinator, said in a telephone interview.

“If Wal-Mart is serious about being sustainable, they need to be serious about what sustainability really is,” said Tocco, who works for the Washington-based International Labor Rights Forum.

“Sustainability” has been a buzzword at Bentonville-based Wal-Mart since 2005, when company President and Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott outlined plans to reduce packaging and energy use in its operations and to promote such environmentally friendly products as compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Dave Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the company is seriously striving to achieve its environmental goals and is working with suppliers to con- serve resources.

“Judge us by our actions. We feel like we’re making progress. We’re just beginning to scratch the surface of what we’re capable of,” he said.

Wal-Mart has no intention of changing its low-cost business model, Tovar said.

“We know it’s tough right now and Americans are looking for us to provide the best value,” he said.

Among the groups in the 2-year-old Big Box Collaborative are environmental groups Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club; Cornucopia Institute, which promotes small-scale organic farming; the business subsidy watch group Good Jobs First; and organized labor-focused groups American Rights at Work and WakeUpWalMart. com.

On its Web site, Big Box Collaborative says that “while Wal-Mart is the initial primary focus of this campaign, members of the collaborative also include organizations that focus on Target, Costco, Home Depot and Tesco.” All of those companies are large retailers. Tesco PLC is the United Kingdom’s largest retailer and is preparing to enter the U. S. market. Among the report’s other points: The company’s supply chain creates more than 40 times the emissions the firm says it is aiming to eliminate. Wal-Mart relies on a shrimp industry-financed group to verify that its suppliers are using the best aquaculture practices. The company sells cypress mulch, which is leading to destruction of some Gulf cypress forests that provide protection against storm surge. Wal-Mart uses its clout with overseas factories to force price concessions and thus brings about worse working conditions for people already working long hours for low pay.

Since our campaign started, Wal-Mart has continuously generated headlines with its overseas acquisitions. Now, for the first time in 25 years, Wal-Mart is seeking acquisitions in the United States. What does this bode for Wal-Mart?

Most analysts assume the move is a response to Tesco's US expansion plans, or a last-ditch effort to jump start its stagnant growth. In any case, things aren't looking rosy for Wal-Mart. Read BloggingStocks.com take on the issue to learn why:

More often than not, acquisitions destroy rather than create value. And yet, in one of those unexplainable mysteries of Wall Street, they continue unabated.

Now Wal-Mart is joining the pack, but hopefully with more discipline and success than typically characterizes these forays. The company is hoping to use acquisitions to create more store-formats that can be better-tailored to different markets.

That Wal-Mart has stayed away from buying other companies for so long shows that its executives and directors realize that it's preferable to grow without them. The realization that perhaps the company no longer can is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

With sales flagging, Wal-Mart has made several recent attempts to appeal to a broader, more affluent customer base. The chain has replaced much of its clothing stock with newer, trendier fashions, eliminated layaway, and has made cutbacks in some traditional departments, like fabrics and crafts. Have these changes estranged traditional Wal-Mart shoppers?

Check out the article from MSNBC and discuss.

Even though most parents are still focused on shopping for their kids' back-to-school items, Carrie Munns is already thinking about Christmas.

That in itself is not unusual. What is unusual is that, instead of pondering what toys she should buy at her local Wal-Mart, the 43-year-old mother of two is wondering how she's going to play Santa Claus this year without the layaway option she had relied on.

"It'll be less, let me put it that way," she said. "They won't get as much."

Long after most mainstream department stores eliminated layaway plans, Wal-Mart continued to offer the old-fashioned service, which appeals mainly to consumers who either don't have credit cards or already are carrying high credit card debt. But that ended last year when Wal-Mart eliminated the layaway program, leaving many customers seething about the change -- and fretting about what to do this holiday season.

The move is especially jarring to some families because it has come amid other changes Wal-Mart has made, including cutting back on fabric departments and stocking more trendy clothes, as the discounting titan tries to appeal to a broader swath of shoppers, including more upscale consumers. Those changes, some longtime shoppers say, has made them feel like the store is less interested in catering to its traditional and loyal market of family shoppers on tight budgets.

"I always believed that they're always trying to give us the lowest prices and they're not for the rich man, you know?" said Jennifer Reynolds, a 28-year-old mother of four who used to depend on layaway for her children's school uniforms and holiday gifts. "I just can't believe that they would get rid of layaway and say, "Here, well, here's a credit card.' "

Reynolds was, in fact, so angered by the decision that she started an online petition aimed at restoring the service, and sent two e-mails to Wal-Mart. She said the company never responded, although she continues to hear from other Wal-Mart shoppers disappointed by the change.

Layaway programs allow people to make a down payment on an item and then pay off the rest over a set period of time before taking it home. The system is still offered by rival Kmart, although most large retailers have long since gone exclusively to more modern payment forms including credit and debit cards, citing the cost and hassle of managing layaway programs.

Linda Brown Blakley, a spokeswoman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company decided to stop offering layaway because fewer people were using it and it was costing the company more.

Blakley also said more people now have access to other financing options, such as credit cards, than when layaway first started. For customers without credit cards, she said the company simply tries to offer the best value.

Patricia Edwards, an analyst with investment firm Wentworth, Hauser and Violich who owns shares in Wal-Mart, remembers visiting a Wal-Mart on the day after Thanksgiving a couple years ago and being surprised to see that the longest line in the store was for the layaway department.

From a financial perspective, she said, allowing shoppers to put items on layaway instead of buying them outright is a big risk because some people will never pay them off. That leaves Wal-Mart stuck with merchandise it could have sold during peak demand times but instead has to offer at clearance prices.

On the other hand, Edwards noted, the decision to end layaway was a blow to many loyal Wal-Mart customers.

"It hasn't helped reputationally, and it hasn't helped especially with their core (low-income) customers," she said.

Reynolds, who lives on the military base in Fort Hood, Texas, said she still shops at Wal-Mart about once a week, but she's stopped doing her grocery shopping there and also has noticed that some other items are now cheaper elsewhere.

Wal-Mart has recently acknowledged that many of its most loyal customers are being pressured by high gas prices and other costs, and it has lowered prices on some items.

Reynolds bought some school uniforms at Wal-Mart this year, although she said she also scoured garage sales and secondhand stores. For the coming holidays, she's thinking of putting items on layaway at her local Kmart instead of shopping at Wal-Mart.

Munns doesn't have that option, because there isn't a Kmart in her community of Horn Lake, Miss., and the other big department and toy stores there don't offer layaway, either. She said she and her husband have been trying to put money away in a savings account for the holidays, but she worries it won't be enough for the pricier items her 6-year-old and 13-year-old will want for Christmas.

Munns goes to Wal-Mart for her groceries, and she likes the convenience of also being able to pick up other items at the Supercenter. But she said she's been disappointed by changes she's seen at the store over the past few years, including poor customer service and boxes in the aisles.

She also has cut back on buying clothes at Wal-Mart, because the store has started stocking trendier clothes that don't appeal to her.

"I'm 43 years old. I can't wear pants that (hang) off your hips and shirts that show your belly button," she said.

Wal-Mart has conceded that it has had problems with its push toward trendier items, and it has blamed apparel difficulties for contributing to weakness in some store sales.

As part of its push to broaden its appeal, Wal-Mart also recently finished remodeling many of its stores. While shoppers have welcomed the cleaner stores and better signage, some remodels and new store openings have angered longtime customers because they included replacing fabric departments with areas featuring party supplies.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Tara Raddohl said that she didn't know exactly how many stores no longer have fabric departments and that the company is still evaluating the project. But in general, she said, fabric has been a declining business for the company, and officials have been happy with sales in stores where it has replaced those items with party supplies.

Edwards, the analyst, said adding party supplies was probably a smart decision in the more urban areas where sewing has become less common. But in rural communities, where sewing is more popular and Wal-Mart may have been the only place to buy fabric, such a change doesn't necessarily make as much sense.

In Joan Jennings' retirement community of Bullhead City, Ariz., Wal-Mart was the only store where the many older women could buy quilting, sewing and craft supplies. Now, she said, the only options are to drive nearly two hours to Las Vegas -- a trek that's difficult for many retirees or to ask someone in another part of the country to send supplies by mail.

Jennings, who is 70, has started asking her daughter in California to buy fabrics she uses to make clothes for her grandchildren, doll's outfits and other items. With the added cost of shipping, she said her projects have become more expensive.

She scoffs at the idea of ordering fabric over the Internet instead.

"Most of these older women don't even have computers," she said. "I have a computer, but I probably wouldn't it order online, either. I'd want to look at it."