The Holidays are here! Around the country, people are beginning to decorate their homes and trim the Christmas Tree. Many Americans have fond memories of trimming the tree with their families. No one would ever think this time-honored tradition could threaten their health.

Neither did Juanita Hargas, a Texas woman who recently purchased a Christmas Tree from Wal-Mart. While setting it up, she was shocked to find a warning label which stated that the product contains dangerous amounts of lead, which can cause cancer. Understandably, she was outraged and so are we. For more, check out this story from WJBF News

Open the box...and a Christmas surprise...a Texas woman finds a warning about cancer!

Juanita Hargas, "I was just angry, just angry, because cancer is an ugly thing."

Juanita Hirgas bought this pre-lit tree at Wal-Mart...she was putting it together...when she came across a tag she thought was just an electrical warning.

Hirgas, "But then I saw the word cancer...I thought, 'I better read this.'"

The warning reads: Caution...Cancer...lead...wash hands..."

The warning lets consumers know about hazardous chemicals...but businesses aren't required to put it on their labels.

We contacted Wal-Mart twice...and as of our deadline...we heard no response.

Hirgas, "I took it back, I did not want that tree in my house, and risk exposing my family and myself to lead."

Juanita, herself, is in remission from cancer. What's worse, she was putting up this tree with her 2-year-old granddaughter.

Hirgas, "To me, it's like putting a snake in the same room with you and saying, 'well, it may bite you, it may not.'"

The product is made in China...and with the several recent recalls of Chinese-made products containing lead...Juanita has made up her mind.

Hirgas, "I'm not going to buy anything made from China."

Far from being an exclusively American problem, Wal-Mart is facing more criticism for selling dangerous products, this time from the Chinese government! A new list of dangerous recalled products, mainly toys, that Wal-Mart had been selling was released by the Chinese government, I guess Wal-Mart has some work to do on product safety abroad too! Here's the Reuter's article about China's list:

China lists substandard Wal-Mart, Carrefour goods

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has published a blacklist of substandard toy jugs and children's shoes sold at Wal-Mart stores and drawing pens from French retailer Carrefour in a quality sweep on children's goods sold at Beijing supermarkets.

China has been buffeted by food, drug and other product safety scares in past months. More than 20 million toys made there have been recalled worldwide over the past four months.

In response, Beijing has promised to crack down on faulty manufacturers and suppliers, but also said much responsibility lies with foreign regulators and buyers. It has also made a point of naming foreign companies it claims also have problem products.

A Wal-Mart Stores Inc spokesman, Jonathan Dong, said the blacklist -- which appeared on an official Web site on Thursday -- was more than two months old and the products, made in China, had long been cleared from the shelves.

Inspectors had also blacklisted children's toys at Wal-Mart stores in Beijing for problems regarding parts that could come off and cause harm if swallowed, the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce said on its Web site (www.hd315.gov.cn).

The 54-item blacklist also included substandard children's glasses, toothbrushes, building blocks and bikes with shoddy brakes and handlebars, at a number of Chinese retailers.

"If consumers have bought the substandard goods, with proof of purchase they can request the vendor to recall the goods," the notice said.

Six children's products stocked at Wal-Mart branches in Beijing had failed to meet standards, the notice said.

Wal-Mart's "Bo bo" brand of "water jugs" had failed plastic integrity standards, according to the notice.

"Over a long period of use, toxins could accumulate in the body and cause harm," the notice said.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dong confirmed the blacklist and said the retailer had been notified of the quality results. He said he was not sure why the notice had appeared on the Web site on Thursday.

"I guess they just wanted to be transparent about it," he said.

Dong said any versions of the products now on sale had been deemed safe, but customers with doubts could nonetheless return them.

Last week, Wal-Mart was one of 20 companies sued by the California attorney general and Los Angeles city attorney for manufacturing or selling toys with unlawfully high levels of lead.

Chinese-made Carrefour drawing pens were found with excessive levels of lead and chromium. A Carrefour spokesman contacted by phone was unable to provide immediate comment and requested an e-mail of questions.

The Chinese producer of the bead toys that caused recalls in the United States and Australia has apologized for using a toxic "date-rape" drug and damaging the reputation of the made-in-China label, state media said on Thursday.

Vice Premier Wu Yi arrived in Guangdong on Wednesday for "secret" spot checks on food safety, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported.

She heads one of 12 inspection teams that were checking hundreds of outlets on Thursday, officials were quoted as saying.

Wal-Mart tried to build a third store in Mill Creek, Washington, but local activists fought them. Check out this opinion piece from the Seatle Times about the proposed new store, and the devastating impact that Wal-Mart could have on their community:

A high price to pay for low-cost shopping

By Karen Lowe and Selma Bonham

Special to The Times

IF you believe their TV ads, Wal-Mart is as American as apple pie. Lower costs mean a better life, as their tagline contends, right? But, here in Mill Creek, we're taking a hard look at the high costs of absorbing another "low-price" Wal-Mart.

On many levels, from international trade to the personal economics of family life in a small town, we've seen America's No. 1 company act very un-American. Whether it's driving local homegrown stores out of business, environmental degradation or workers forced to join state health-care rolls, Wal-Mart has a seriously negative impact on American life. Within a five-mile radius of Mill Creek, there are two Wal-Mart stores bringing almost 300,000 square feet of 24/7 big-box shopping. And, evidently, that isn't enough. Developers here think we need three Wal-Marts within a short drive, so they're proposing to add another 136,000-square-foot Wal-Mart on Highway 96 in a newly annexed area of Mill Creek.

Enough is enough. A third Wal-Mart will clearly not make our lives better. Citizens for a Better Mill Creek scored a temporary victory by winning an appeal for an environmental-impact statement and delaying the groundbreaking of the newest Wal-Mart store last summer. We called attention to the potential traffic congestion (adding as many as 8,500 trips per day) and to the parking lot paving over of 17 acres of farmland just east of wetlands draining into the North Creek watershed, a spawning ground for chinook salmon. As traffic, noise, pollution and crime increase, residential property values nearby are expected to decline.

More than 5,700 local residents have signed a petition opposing the construction of this third Wal-Mart. We're fighting it because we believe Wal-Mart is un-American and here's why.

While some claim Wal-Mart could bring a windfall of sales-tax revenues, across the nation it's squeezing local governments for subsidies.

It's also breaking environmental laws nationwide. In 2004, Wal-Mart faced fines for violations in nine states. That same year, the company agreed to pay $400,000 to settle claims that Wal-Mart's Sam's Club flouted federal air-pollution regulations in 11 states. In 2005, Wal-Mart again was forced to pay $1.5 million in penalties for stormwater violations occurring over seven years at 20 stores.

You may have read recent news reports of imported Wal-Mart Christmas toys for small children being recalled because of choking hazards and high lead content. Frankly, the company's record on providing substandard wages is equally alarming to us — and a wake-up call for any community concerned about children and the American family.

Did you know that a substantial number of Wal-Mart "associates" earn far below the federal poverty line and that the company provides health-care coverage to less than half its employees?

Wal-Mart's business strategy to open a third store where two stores already exist is simply to ensure that wherever people are, they're always near a Wal-Mart. But what happens in such an oversaturated market when the economy takes a dip? The rapid expansion of Supercenters and Sam's Clubs has contributed to hundreds of vacant stores across the country. Sales are currently sagging at Wal-Mart nationwide and the company has hundreds of developed properties up for lease or sale — that's over 25 million square feet of empty big-box stores! What would we do with a big-box empty shell near Mill Creek?

This holiday season, like all Americans, we are giving thanks for what we value most: family, community, our health and the beauty of our environment. We also value ethical business principles and practices that support families and communities. Wal-Mart has demonstrated nationwide that it values profits over the safety of our children, the health of our families, the life of our communities and the future of our environment.

Our fight against Wal-Mart is as American as apple pie. We're saying "no" to the high cost of Wal-Mart's low prices. Another Wal-Mart here would simply cost our community too much and it certainly won't bring better lives for the people of Mill Creek.

Karen Lowe, left, and Selma Bonham are members of Citizens for a Better Mill Creek.

On Forbes' list of the 400 Richest Americans, Walton family members rank number 12 through 15. Each of these family members has about 16 billion dollars. Together, the family's fortune is worth $65 billion, making the Waltons the richest family in America. As individuals, the Waltons make up more than a quarter of the top 15 richest Americans.

Just like Lee Scott's astronomical salary, the Walton's immense wealth begs the question: when Wal-Mart is making so much money, can't they spare just a little to provide fair wages and benefits for the workers who make the company so successful?

It's unavoidable. At some point in our lives, we will all have a bad neighbor. You know, the kind that blasts heavy metal at 4 AM or throws raucous parties on Sunday nights.

Typically, you have options: You can walk next door to have a few words, talk to your landlord, or just resort to calling the police. It seems impossible that it would take hundreds of complaints to city officials before your neighbor gets the boot... unless your neighbor happens to be America's largest employer.

That's the situation in Carson City, where, instead of hosting all-night parties, Wal-Mart is operating heavy machinery at odd hours and keeping the surrounding community awake. After hundreds of complaints, and a brief period of rest, Wal-Mart is back to its old ways and citizens of Carson City want action. From the Nevada Appeal:

Wal-Mart says it's tried to keep quiet but residents near the Carson City store say it is too loud too early and the city should do something about it.

The city planning commission will look at the issue that has come out of complaints officials have received since January about noise from trucks and machines. The city has hosted four meetings between the store and residents during that time.

"Time after time the Wal-Mart delivery activities would function within the requirements, but then would fail due to one reason or another," according to a division report.

The division has received over 100 complaints about the noise, said Planning Director Walt Sullivan. He said he's looking to the commission to recommend what to do.

The store has a special city permit to operate, but that permit also limits what the store can do. Delivery and receiving hours at the loading dock, for instance, are restricted to 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Trucks can't idle at the back of the building. Machines such as trash compactors can only run between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Trucks have to wait on the west side of the building for their shipments.

The commission could recommend several things, Sullivan said, such as modifying the store's special permit or holding a special hearing to look at the issue.

There has to be "give and take" between the store and residents, but "it would help a lot if they (Wal-Mart) just followed the guidelines."

As in Carson City, Wal-Mart has drawn fire from communities and neighbors all across the country. David McCartney, Wal-Mart's neighbor in Lebanon KY, complained that Wal-Mart cracked the foundation of his house by using explosives within a few feet of his yard. Across the nation, hundreds of communities have formed "site fight" groups, taking issue with Wal-Mart's affect on traffic, property values, wages, product safety, crime, and so on.

It just goes to show that you can't invite an irresponsible company like Wal-Mart into a community and maintain the quality of life Americans have come to expect.

Wal-Mart used to be happy without the government; content to ignore Washington as long as there wasn't any interference. All that changed when Wal-Mart saw their sales slipping and their stores being blocked because of negative press from campaigns like ours. In response Wal-Mart started lobbying Washington, and last year their lobbying operation grew in leaps and bounds. Here's an exerpt from the Washington Post about Wal-Mart's Lobbying efforts and their attempt to use "going green" to get good press:

...The overarching goal is to improve the company's image so it can operate unhindered by the automatic opposition its reputation has inspired. It also had a specific legislative agenda spanning issues such as normal trade relations with China and the number of hours truck drivers are allowed to work. In its attempt to make its desires known, it has transformed its lobbying force from a humble two-man shop to a $2.5 million operation that employs some of K Street's heaviest hitters.

Campaign donations from Wal-Mart's political action committee to federal candidates jumped from $135,750 during the 1998 election cycle to $1.3 million in 2006 -- the biggest increase and largest amount of any retailer or retail trade organization, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It has added consultants ranging from a whitewater guide to a former presidential adviser to court the activist groups that have been Wal-Mart's most vocal opponents.

Read the full Washington Post Article

Check out this piece from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A North Carolina state judge rejected an attempt by Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to block public access to certain court documents in a tax dispute with state authorities, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday in its online edition.

Earlier this month, the world's largest retailer filed a motion requesting to have a host of future filings in the case sealed.

North Carolina's attorney general -- opposing Wal-Mart's effort -- argued there was a public interest in maintaining public access to the documents at issue, the newspaper said.

North Carolina's attorney general is challenging a Wal-Mart tax-cutting structure involving real-estate investment trusts (REIT), the Journal said.

The retailer transferred ownership of its stores to various in-house REITs and then cut its tax bill by taking deductions for rental payments which never left the company, the Journal said, adding that Wal-Mart defended the strategy as proper.

Wal-Mart declined to comment.

An L.A. Times editorial argues that while Wal-Mart may have a legal right to sue the Shanks family to recoup medical costs, but that doesn't mean they should. Like nearly everyone who read this story, the L.A. Times found the story sad, even without Wal-Mart adding law suit to injury. Here's the full article from the L.A. Times:

Wal-mart's lawsuit: legal, but wrong

The retail giant's pursuit of funds paid to a severely injured former employee puts hardship on a family.

Deborah Shank's story would have been sad enough, considering the devastating injuries she suffered in a traffic accident seven years ago. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart found a way to add a brutal coda.

As chronicled in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Shank, a former overnight shelf-stocker for Wal-Mart in southeastern Missouri, was driving her minivan when she was broadsided by a semi and suffered permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help, she lost the ability to care for herself or interact meaningfully with her family. Now 52, she lives in a nursing home.

Wal-Mart started out as one of the good guys in this story, paying almost $470,000 of her initial medical bills. But three years after Shank's husband sued and settled with the semi driver's employer, the retail giant changed hats. It demanded every penny back, plus interest and legal fees -- more, in fact, than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank's future healthcare expenses.

The company persuaded a federal district court judge and the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to award it the full amount, even though Shank's family had paid for the lawsuit. Nor did it matter that the settlement covered a fraction of her expenses and losses. Wal-Mart's healthcare plan clearly states that it gets first dibs on any money recovered by injured employees. Such provisions aren't uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn't the first to enforce one.

Doing what the law allows isn't the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank's death.

Wal-Mart argues that it's just trying to be fair to those still paying into the company's healthcare plan. Big payouts to insured workers can drive up the plan's premiums. The half-million dollars it spent on Shank's care, however, translates into less than 40 cents per Wal-Mart employee. In its most recent quarter, its stores generated that much in operating income every eight minutes.

Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut healthcare reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who've argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can't restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.

Unlike 269 other Fortune 500 companies, Wal-Mart does not offer domestic partner benefits, and the Human Rights Campaign isn't happy about it. Read the USA Today article about HRC's consumer guide:

Gay rights group raises red flag on Wal-Mart policies

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, is giving Wal-Mart (WMT) a red "do not buy" rating in its new consumer guide, bestowing a lump of coal on the retail giant just in time for the holiday shopping season.
Citing Wal-Mart's refusal to offer domestic partner benefits to its gay and lesbian workers, the HRC said Tuesday that the USA's biggest private employer has "more work to do in furthering equality." It advised gays and their supporters to shop elsewhere.

Wal-Mart rated a red 40 on a scale of 100, down from a yellow 65 in 2006. It was among 54 companies that scored 45 or lower in HRC's 2008 Corporate Equality index, which assigns ratings to 519 large companies. Also in the red: Toys R Us, RadioShack (RSH) and AutoZone (AZO).

Wal-Mart rival Target (TGT) rated a "green" 80, meaning that "consumers should make every effort to support these businesses."

Wal-Mart has bucked a corporate trend of expanding benefits for gay employees, says Daryl Herrschaft, director of HRC's workplace project. He says two Fortune 500 companies offered domestic partner benefits, comparable to spouse benefits, in 1990. Today, 269 do.

"We're proud of our diversity initiatives and we think we are taking the right steps," Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar says.

HRC's low rating comes as Wal-Mart has been enjoying positive publicity about its move this fall to offer better health coverage to more of its 1.4 million U.S. workers.

The company had been pummeled by unions and some state legislators who said it was offering unaffordable health insurance plans.

Herrschaft says Wal-Mart had been moving toward more gay-friendly practices. In 2003, the company added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy.

In December 2005, HRC executives were invited to the first of two meetings at the company's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. On the agenda: the intricacies of implementing domestic partner benefits.

Conservative groups angered by Wal-Mart contributions to gay organizations threatened a boycott, and in June, the company announced a policy to avoid "highly controversial issues." Talks on gay benefits ended, Herrschaft says.

Wal-Mart is "moving in reverse on equal treatment of their employees and their gay and lesbian consumers," Herrschaft says.

Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman, says he will not "speculate" on whether the rating would hurt holiday sales.

Last year's guide was downloaded from the group's website (www.hrc.org/buyersguide) more than 250,000 times.

In perhaps the saddest example of Wal-Mart's corporate greed and atrocious treatment of workers, Wal-Mart is sueing a former employee to recoup the money they spent on her healthcare. Here's the story from the Wall Street Journal:

A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.

Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home, between shifts as a maintenance worker and running a tanning salon. "This girl needs the money more than they do." Mrs. Shank, who needs help with eating and other basic tasks, spends more time alone since Mr. Shank had to let her private caregiver go. At some point, he says, she may have to be moved from a private to a semi-private room in the nursing home where she lives.

...In August last year, U.S. district judge Lewis Blanton sided with Wal-Mart, ruling that when Mrs. Shank signed on to Wal-Mart's health plan she was obligated to abide by its terms.

The ruling came six days before the Shanks' 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in September last year in Iraq shortly after he arrived in the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division.

"I wanted to give up at that point, tell Wal-Mart they won," Mr. Shank says, but his lawyer, Mr. Graham, said he'd continue with appeals.

Mrs. Shank went to Jeremy's funeral. But because of memory problems due to her injuries, she gets confused about what happened. On a recent morning, she cried several times and asked what had happened to her middle son. Mr. Shank says that he obtained a divorce from Mrs. Shank this year, partly because of advice from a health-care administrator that she might be more eligible for public aid as a single woman. Mrs. Shank, who has been declared incompetent by a court, hasn't been informed of the divorce by her family.

The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart's reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.

Until recently, many employers didn't vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn't think the claim held water. But as the cost of covering workers continues to escalate, employers and health plans are getting more aggressive about going after the money. A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning.

In insurance circles, the recovery practice is called "subrogation." Employers and insurers say it's necessary to ensure that medical expenses aren't paid twice. By recovering those costs from someone who's been compensated elsewhere, they argue, they're saving money for everyone on the plan.

Sharon Weber, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, declined to discuss the details of the Shanks' case, but said the company was obliged to act in the interest of the health benefits of its employees as a whole. "While the case involves a tragic situation, our responsibility is to follow the provisions of the [company health] plan which governs the health benefits of our associates," she said.

"Employers are trying to make sure these plans run as efficiently as possible," says Jay Kirschbaum, a senior vice president at global insurance broker Willis Group Holdings. "They also have a fiduciary duty to the plan and the entire group of employees that are covered by it."

The Recovery Practice

Already, the recovery practice is one of the variables that plaintiffs lawyers are considering as they decide whether it's in their clients' interests to participate in the $5 billion offered by Merck & Co. to settle lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx. Health plans recovered sizable amounts for medical expenses from other big product-liability settlements, such as for the "fen-phen" diet-drug combination and Sulzer Orthopedics' hip implants. Many insurers and the employer plans they administer are expected to pursue a piece of the Vioxx settlement.

In cases like the Shanks', where injuries and medical costs are catastrophic, accident victims sometimes can be left with little or none of the money they fought for in court. Health plans are increasingly adopting language such as Wal-Mart's, which dictates that it is to be paid first out of any settlement, regardless of what remains for the injured person. Moreover, the victim is responsible for all legal costs in pursuing the suit.

"It's especially in the catastrophic cases that people are almost never fully compensated," says Roger Baron, a professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a specialist in health-plan law. "And then their health plan, that's been collecting premiums from them all this time, wants to take it away?"

Tempting Savings

Such recoveries represent a tempting savings for insurers, employers and union-administered plans. The American Benefits Council and America's Health Insurance Plans, the health-insurer lobby, estimate health plans recoup some $1 billion a year in medical claims from accident settlements and other third parties. A cottage industry of auditing firms, benefit-recovery specialists and subrogation lawyers help them. They estimate that between 1% and 3% of health-care spending is potentially recoverable from such claims.

"In the past, employers used to think of this as an afterthought," says Tom Lawrence, chief executive of Memphis-based Benefit Recovery Inc., whose clients include Southwest Airlines Co. and hospital chain HCA Inc. HCA says it saw annual savings from recouped claims rise to $1.8 million in 2006 from just under $800,000 in 2000 after hiring the firm.

Benefit Recovery contracts directly with employers. It says it's able to recover between $12 and $15 per health-plan member a year -- up to $1.5 million for a big plan with 100,000 members -- by recovering medical expenses from injury-suit settlements.

Until recently, employers and insurers generally didn't go after small claims. But more-sophisticated claims tracking has made it easier. Recovery companies systematically search claims for certain medical codes -- say, a sprained ankle or head trauma -- that flag a potential accident. Claims examiners then mail a questionnaire and often follow up with calls. If the injured person confirms it was an accident, the firm tracks whether the patient files an injury suit.

If there is a lawsuit settlement, employers may seek to recoup money they paid for medical expenses. In many cases, it's relatively cut and dried: Often medical expenses are just a portion of the overall damages award, or the accident victim's attorney reaches a compromise with the health plan ahead of any settlement.

Some plans are taking a further step, refusing to pay claims in the first place, unless the person filing the claim signs an additional form promising to reimburse the plan from settlement proceeds.

Don Burgett, an engineer on an offshore oil-drilling ship, from Texas, has been waiting for his health plan to pay $89,000 in medical claims since his daughter's accident two years ago. Magan Burgett, then 18, was thrown from the back of an all-terrain vehicle in October 2005, tearing her liver, breaking her jaw and fracturing her back.

Soon after Magan's parents submitted the bills for her two-week stay in an intensive-care unit, her father's health plan -- the Maryland-based MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan -- mailed him a reimbursement agreement that restated the plan's rights to a potential settlement.

"To consider claims related to your accident," it said, Mr. Burgett had to sign it first. When he didn't, MEBA stopped paying claims after reimbursing several hundred dollars in Magan's medical expenses.

Neal Korval, MEBA's outside counsel, says that asking a plan member to sign a reimbursement agreement in such cases is standard procedure and a policy outlined in its health plan rules. It helps prevent accident victims and their attorneys from trying to "freeze out" the plan from a potential settlement, he says, and also reminds or advises the plan member of his or her obligations.

In September, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sided with the Burgetts, ruling that MEBA's health plan summary, which it considered the prevailing document, didn't stipulate such conditions to pay a claim. The Burgetts' attorney says they secured a $75,000 accident settlement -- a net of $50,000 after legal expenses -- though that isn't enough to cover Magan's medical expenses. Mr. Korval says MEBA has recently reached a settlement with the family over the unpaid medical claims, but declined to disclose terms.

How much power health plans have to enforce subrogation is based on a hodgepodge of federal and state law still being tackled in the courts. A pivotal Supreme Court ruling last year gave health plans a leg up. In that case, a Maryland couple, Joel and Marlene Sereboff, were injured in an accident while returning a rental car to an airport in 2000; they required $75,000 in medical care. The couple later received a settlement of $750,000, from various parties, related to the accident.

Mid Atlantic Medical Services, now owned by UnitedHealth Group Inc., administered the health plan of Mrs. Sereboff's employer and sued the couple when they refused to pay the company out of their settlement.

Money Set Aside

In a unanimous decision, the court upheld that Mid Atlantic had the right to enforce its claim, in large part because it could point to the settlement money set aside in an easily identifiable fund. The couple had placed the money in a separate account when the issue went to court. The decision has made it easier for plans to go after settlements, legal experts say.

Few such cases have attracted as much attention in legal circles as the Shanks'. Mrs. Shank took a job in 1999 stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart store in Cape Girardieu, Mo. She jumped at the shift from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. so that she could spend days at home with her three sons, Mr. Shank says. After a probation period, she qualified for benefits under the Wal-Mart health plan in February 2000.

One day about three months later, as she and a girlfriend were touring local yard sales, a semi-trailer truck plowed into the driver's side of her minivan. Her friend's injuries were minor, but Mrs. Shank suffered major brain trauma and spent the next several weeks in intensive care. She drifted in and out of a coma, and the hospital, for months.

"One doctor didn't give her any chance," says Mr. Shank, a maintenance worker at Southeast Missouri State University. Her medical bills climbed past $460,000. The health plan paid them promptly. "They were terrific in that respect," he says.

It also sent Mr. Shank several notices that he was to inform Wal-Mart's health plan before he settled any suit. In 2002, the Shanks did sue and won a settlement from G.E.M. Transportation Inc., owner of the truck. The firm had only $1 million in liability coverage, though. For his own losses, Mr. Shank received $200,000, of which $119,000 remained after legal expenses. He says he spent most of it toward a one-story house fitted with ramps and wider doors, which is more accessible than the family's previous three-level home.

Mrs. Shank's own settlement was $700,000. After legal expenses and attorney fees, the remaining $417,477 was placed in a court-created special trust designed specifically for Mrs. Shank's future care. The Shanks' lawyer, Maurice Graham, wrote the Wal-Mart health plan informing them. Mrs. Shank had received no funds directly, he said, and therefore had nothing to pay Wal-Mart back.

Nearly three years went by, Mr. Shank says, before they heard again from Wal-Mart. Mrs. Shank struggled a year rotating in and out of the hospital and rehabilitation programs. She could no longer use her right arm or three fingers on her left hand because of neurological damage. She couldn't feed or dress herself and conversations with her family were limited to all but simple questions. Eventually, her husband moved her to a nursing home for around-the-clock care. Medicare and Medicaid pay for the nursing home. Mr. Shank used some of the trust's proceeds to continue paying a private aide to care for her there.

'A Decent Quality of Life'

"We wanted her to have a decent quality of life, and we still had the money," he says. He hoped he could also use it to pay the roughly $130,000 in bills for Mrs. Shank's rehabilitation and a return hospital visit after her coverage expired.

But in August 2005, Wal-Mart re-emerged with a lawsuit against the Shanks demanding repayment for $469,216 in medical costs out of their settlement. It charged that the Shanks had violated the terms of the health plan by not reimbursing it. The company also demanded payment of legal fees and interest for the cost of suing the Shanks for the money.

Mr. Graham, the Shanks' attorney, says he approached Wal-Mart's attorneys about negotiating a compromise, but was told the health plan wanted to proceed with the lawsuit. "We're not contending that Wal-Mart isn't entitled to a payment. We're saying they're entitled to one based on equity," he says. Since Mrs. Shank wasn't fully compensated for her damages in the first place, he argues, Wal-Mart should also expect only partial reimbursement.

Administrators of employer-financed health plans "have an obligation to participants to be impartial," the Wal-Mart spokeswoman says. "Virtually all health plans include subrogation provisions as a way to control health plan costs."

In August last year, U.S. district judge Lewis Blanton sided with Wal-Mart, ruling that when Mrs. Shank signed on to Wal-Mart's health plan she was obligated to abide by its terms.

The ruling came six days before the Shanks' 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in September last year in Iraq shortly after he arrived in the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division.

"I wanted to give up at that point, tell Wal-Mart they won," Mr. Shank says, but his lawyer, Mr. Graham, said he'd continue with appeals.

Mrs. Shank went to Jeremy's funeral. But because of memory problems due to her injuries, she gets confused about what happened. On a recent morning, she cried several times and asked what had happened to her middle son. Mr. Shank says that he obtained a divorce from Mrs. Shank this year, partly because of advice from a health-care administrator that she might be more eligible for public aid as a single woman. Mrs. Shank, who has been declared incompetent by a court, hasn't been informed of the divorce by her family.

The Shanks lost an appeal before a three-judge panel in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in August and last month were denied a request for a hearing before the entire court. They plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though only a small percentage of cases are chosen to be heard.

"Sometimes I want to tell Wal-Mart, 'Ok, you won on the principle. But just let us keep the money," Mr. Shank says.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Critics of Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) plan to start their largest ad campaign in a bid to criticize the company during the holiday shopping season, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday in its online edition.

The campaign, which starts on Monday with radio spots in 40 markets, is an attempt to tap into negative publicity surrounding Chinese imports to Wal-Mart, the Journal said.

The ads note that Wal-Mart gets 70 percent of its merchandise from China, a figure the retailer disputes, the Journal said.

According to the Journal, the ads are the product of WakeUpWalMart.com, which is funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The newspaper also said the radio spots will run through this Friday, which is traditionally one of the busiest shopping days of the year. The ads will run mostly in the South and Midwest where Wal-Mart has a strong presence, the Journal said, adding that television ads will appear in December.

Wal-Mart objected to the notion it was selling unsafe items, the Journal said.

"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, spokeswoman Sharon Weber said, according to the Journal.

(Reporting by Justin Grant)

What does the public think about Wal-Mart's dubious claim that it saves the average family $2500 a year? Not much, apparently. According to the poll by our allies at Wal-Mart Watch, 96% of consumers don't believe Wal-Mart's "Save Money, Live Better" hype.

Consumers instinctively know they're being fed spin, and the facts are stacked against Wal-Mart as well. Zenith Management Consulting found 80% to 85% of the items Wal-Mart sells are more expensive than they are at other retailers.

Not only that, Wal-Mart actually reduces the buying power of the average consumer by driving down wages. The National Bureau of Economic Research showed that Wal-Mart's presence in a community reduced the residents' wages by 5%. That's in addition to the all the unpleasant externalities that follow Wal-Mart into town, like gender discrimination, unsafe Chinese products, traffic, pollution, child labor violations, and so on.

Considering the facts, I'm surprised Wal-Mart could convince even 4% of Americans to buy its spin.

In a long line of Chinese made products found to contain lead, here's the latest from The Consumerist. It makes you wonder what else Wal-Mart is selling that could be leaching poison into our bodies.

Dinner Plates On Walmart Shelves Contain Lead

What are you feeding your children tonight? How about a hearty helping of lead? KUTV did a followup on their report yesterday about lead in dinner plates. Their investigative reporter bought more plates from Walmart. After heating them to 85 degrees, the plates leached out lead at .381 parts per million. The plates were made in China. The government says that anything below 2.0 is acceptable. But unlike a toy where you're mainly just coming in skin contact with the toy, with a plate, the lead is actually seeping into the food and you're eating it.

When Wal-Mart does business in Illinois, they ought to pay taxes in Illinois, right? In reality, through a convoluted arrangement, Wal-Marts in Illinois are actually owned by an Italian real estate company and thus pay no income tax in the state. The arrangement has slashed its Illinois tax bill by millions of dollars. Now the state is fighting back. For more, check out this article from The Wall Street Journal:

More than 4,500 miles separate a small Wal-Mart Stores Inc. office in Florence, Italy, from the company's dozens of Illinois retail outlets. But thanks to a convoluted tax arrangement, court records show, Wal-Mart's Italian operation has helped the giant retailer cut its state tax bill in Illinois by millions of dollars a year.

Wal-Mart set its affairs so that its Italian outpost is the only operating unit of a real-estate subsidiary that controls billions of dollars of the retailer's property in Illinois and other states. Because technically its only employees are based in Italy, the real-estate unit claims its operations are foreign, exempt from Illinois corporate income taxes.

Earlier this year, the Illinois Department of Revenue objected to the Italian tax maneuver, demanding $26.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties. Wal-Mart paid the amount in dispute and then sued the state for a refund, according to a complaint filed in May in Illinois Circuit Court in Springfield, Ill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman declined to comment beyond a prepared statement: "We have a disagreement with the state of Illinois over our tax liability last year, and we've asked a judge to resolve that for us." He declined to explain why Italy was chosen as the home of this particular foreign operation or whether Wal-Mart has other such arrangements.

The dispute with Wal-Mart is part of a wider effort by some states to crack down on what they believe is abusive use of so-called 80/20 companies. These companies are domestic subsidiaries that conduct at least 80% of their business overseas. States typically don't tax income from outside the U.S., and many companies have used 80/20 subsidiaries to legitimately shield foreign operations from state taxation.

But authorities in several states have challenged a number of companies over the 80/20 units, claiming the structure was improperly used to shift income away from the purview of state taxing authorities.

The misuse of 80/20 companies is "shocking to the conscience," said Brian Hamer, director of the Illinois Department of Revenue. "These kinds of manipulations clearly were never contemplated by the state legislatures," added Mr. Hamer, who wouldn't comment on any single company or legal case. "It ought to have been clear to businesses that this was highly questionable conduct."

Illinois tax authorities are in a dispute with Mc Donald?'s Corp. over nearly $11 million stemming from its use of an 80/20 subsidiary. Details are sketchy, but Mc Donald?'s, based in Oak Brook, Ill., says in court papers that a Delaware financing unit that owns restaurants in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, conducts 80% or more of its business activity outside the U.S., exempting its operations from being included in Illinois tax calculations.

Minnesota, BNSF Wrangle

Meanwhile, Minnesota tax authorities are taking issue with interest payments made by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. to a pair of Delaware subsidiaries doing business in Canada. The railway company deducted the interest associated with the payments but didn't pay taxes on most of the income received by the subsidiaries. The state's revenue department says in an audit report that this was "done purely for tax avoidance purposes." The Fort Worth, Texas, company paid a disputed $4 million in back taxes and interest and sued the state in May for a refund.

A Mc Donald?'s spokeswoman said: "We believe the results of our business have been properly reported to the state of Illinois." A Burlington Northern spokesman declined to comment.
At the prodding of the Illinois revenue department, that state's legislature in 2004 passed a law essentially shutting down the abusive use of 80/20 units. The Minnesota state legislature enacted one change in 2005 and has considered several other bills since then to shut down alleged abuse of the structure.
States Crack Down

Wal-Mart's Italian tax-planning maneuver is the latest disclosure of a strategy by the firm to cut state taxes. A page-one article in The Wall Street Journal in February focused on how the Bentonville, Ark., retailer cut taxes in some states by paying rent to a real-estate investment trust it owned, even though the money never left the firm.
That REIT strategy has been challenged by tax authorities in several sates; some have enacted laws to close the REIT structure since the Journal article.

However, the REIT tax structure saved money only in some states -- those that tax income solely from operations within their borders. This taxation system, known as "separate reporting," can make it simpler for companies to shift income out of state to tax-friendly jurisdictions such as Delaware or Nevada.

But "combined reporting" states such as Illinois are much tougher. They add together all profits of a company's domestic operations, regardless of what state they are in, and then allocate a portion of those profits to their state. Theoretically, combined reporting makes it harder for companies to shift income to more advantageous locales.

Because Illinois rules apply only to domestic profits -- not world-wide income -- companies can get around the rules by figuring out ways to effectively shift income overseas.

Wal-Mart's 80/20 structure worked like this: The company first transferred its Illinois stores to its in-house REI Ts?, paid rent to the REI Ts? and then deducted those payments from its taxes. The REI Ts?, in turn, paid that money to their 99% owner, a Wal-Mart unit based in Delaware.

Ordinarily, Illinois's combined-reporting rules wouldn't permit a company to cut its taxes by shifting income to a Delaware unit. But in late 2001, Wal-Mart formed a Delaware subsidiary called WMGS Services LLC, records show. WMGS, with offices in Florence, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart Property Co., which also was 99% owner of Wal-Mart's main REIT.

In its filing, Wal-Mart contends that Property Co.'s ownership of the Italian unit converted Property Co. into an 80/20 company. In other words, at least 80% of its employees and its property were overseas, exempting its income from taxes.

Though Property Co. is the 99% owner of the REIT -- which owns dozens of stores in Illinois -- Wal-Mart says Property Co. owns no real estate itself. And although Wal-Mart has more than 48,000 employees in Illinois, the firm contends Property Co. has no employees in the state, either.

The only employees of Property Co. were in Italy, the company says. Property Co. was set up to own the majority of the shares of Wal-Mart's main REIT and has no employees anywhere, Wal-Mart has said in court records elsewhere. (In its court filing in Illinois, Wal-Mart says that WMGS's employees and property were in Turin, Italy; an official with the company in Florence and a Wal-Mart spokesman in the U.S. say the company doesn't have an office in Turin.)

WMGS employs 22 people at its office in central Florence, according to a company official who answered the door there on a recent weekday morning. The office is responsible for procuring merchandise from around Europe, he said. Wal-Mart has no stores in Italy.

Justice for Wal-Mart Workers who were forced to work during breaks and overtime. Check out the story on CNN Money:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) Stores Inc. has been ordered to pay $36.4 million in fees and expenses to attorneys representing Pennsylvania employees who won a class-action award for working off the clock.

The award entered in favor of the plaintiffs including fees and interest now totals $187.6 million, Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein wrote in an opinion issued Wednesday.

The suit involved 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March 1998 through May 2006.

A city jury last year rejected Wal-Mart's claim that some people chose to work through breaks or that a few minutes of extra work here and there was insignificant.

The plaintiffs initially won a $78.5 million class-action award for lost wages. Most of the group qualified for a share of another $62.3 million in damages under a state law invoked when a company withholds pay without cause for more than 30 days.

Similar lawsuits charging that Wal-Mart violated state wage laws are in play across the country.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Recently released documents show that four Wal-Mart executives are among the highest paid in Arkansas. If they can find the money for astronomical executive salaries, can't they find money to pay their worker's a living wage? It makes the old argument "Wal-Mart can't afford to pay their employees more" sound absurd. Here's more from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Officers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Alltel Corp. led the list of the highest-paid executives in the state last year.

Four Wal-Mart employees were among the 10 highest-paid executives — H. Lee Scott at $23 million, John Menzer at $ 12. 2 million, Michael Duke at $ 10. 8 million and Eduardo Castro-Wright at $ 6. 5 million.

The $ 23 million paid to Scott, Wal-Mart’s chief executive officer, was more than any other Arkansas public company executive received. It was the third straight year a Wal-Mart executive’s income was the highest in the state.

Scott also earned the most money in 2005 at $ 10. 6 million. Tom Coughlin, Wal-Mart’s former vice chairman who was fired in 2005 and later convicted in federal court for misspending company money, was the highest-paid executive in 2004 at $ 19 million.

This super high salary is nothing terribly new, however. Based on 2004 salaries, Lee Scott was making 871 times the average full time American Wal-mart employee, and 51,118 times more than the average chinese workers making Wal-Mart products. Based on a 40 hour work week, Lee Scott made just a little more than $11,000 an hour this year.

Read more about Wal-Mart's Pay Gap in this report from the Institute for Policy Studies.

According to the state of North Carolina, Wal-Mart is using tax shelters to cheat the state government out of much-needed tax revenue. Wal-Mart is fighting the charge, forcing North Carolina to use public money on a long and costly trial. Wal-Mart even tried to to conceal its tax records from the public. Yesterday, however, the state ruled that Wal-Mart's secrecy violates the First Amendment right of public access.

Check out the full story from the Charlotte News-Observer:

Wal-Mart's efforts to bar the public from seeing court documents filed in its tax battle with the Department of Revenue don't pass the First Amendment test, the state contends.

In court documents filed Wednesday, attorneys for the state argue that the First Amendment right of public access to documents filed in court can be overruled "only in unusual circumstances." And Wal-Mart, the state asserts, has failed to make its case that an exception should be made in this instance.

Wal-Mart sued the state last year, seeking a $30.2 million income tax refund and arguing that it was overcharged by the state. The state counters that the retailer used tax shelters to obscure its "true earnings" in North Carolina.

Last week, after The Wall Street Journal posted files from the court dispute online, Wal-Mart filed a motion in Wake County Superior Court that sought to seal future filings, shielding them from public view. Documents already filed wouldn't be affected.

Posting the documents on the Web creates "unreasonable and undue annoyance" to Wal-Mart in the midst of its legal battle with the state, Wal-Mart argued in seeking to have future files sealed. The company maintained that the outcome of the case shouldn't be swayed by "outside forces."

Those reasons aren't good enough, the state contends.

The state also contends that a federal appeals court has ruled that plaintiffs must show that sealing documents would serve an important government interest, which Wal-Mart failed to show.

The public's right to review the court file in a serious dispute that involves the world's largest retailer "is obvious," the state argues.

A hearing date for the issue has not been scheduled.

Even though the Roehm affair has closed with a whimper, and Ms. Roehm buckled under the weight of Wal-Mart's massive legal team, her presence in the headlines just serves as a reminder of all the damning Wal-Mart scandals that have irreparably tarnished the company's reputation.

With that in mind, we decided to put together a quick rundown of some the most outrageous of recent Wal-Mart scandals. Fake blogs and grassroots movements, surveillance vans, wired "agents" recording opposition groups... we couldn't make this stuff up. Seriously, who needs John Grisham when we have Lee Scott?

So, check out the rundown, read the articles, and when you're done, tell us your "favorite" Wal-Mart scandal.

The Spy Scandal

Remember Bruce Gabbard and Kenneth Senser? The two members of WMTs ominously titled "Threat Research, and Analysis" dept. were involved in intercepting text messages and/or phone calls from NYT reporter Michael Barbaro, part of a bid to discover the source of documents given to groups like us.

This was just part of a disturbing, broad-based effort to monitor not only Wal-Mart employees, but Wal-Mart opposition groups. At one point, Wal-Mart actually infiltrated an "Up Against the Wal" meeting using a surveillance van and a man posing as an activist while wearing a wire. Frankly, I can't believe that kind of behavior is legal.

The Flog

Last year, the blog "Wal-Marting Across America" made its debut, painting a suspiciously upbeat picture of Wal-Mart and its employee morale. It purported to be the travelogue of "Jim and Laura," a couple traveling the country by day, and parking at Wal-Mart by night. According to BusinessWeek, the first blog post "features a black-and-white photograph and humbly says: 'We are not bloggers, but since our lives have always been more journey than destination we are explorers at heart…. We figured we'd give it a go.'"

Perhaps "entrepreneurs at heart" would be more accurate. It was revealed later that their vehicle and expenses were paid for by Wal-Mart.

Nazi Advertisements

In 2005, a full-page ad appeared in an Arizona newspaper with a black & white image of Nazis burning books. The ad, placed on behalf of a group fighting proposed restrictions on supercenters, was funded, and apparently approved by Wal-Mart. Bloomberg reports:

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company helped fund the ad by giving between $280,000 and $300,000 to five-month-old Protect Flagstaff's Future, said Chuck Coughlin, a consultant to the group and the designer of the ad.

Wal-Mart "reviewed all the ads before they ran," said Coughlin, president of public affairs firm Highground Inc. in Phoenix. "They did not raise an objection."

Later, Wal-Mart was blasted by the media and Congress for selling t-shirts with Nazi emblems on the front

Rolling Back Taxes

Wal-Mart has been called "America's Tax Deadbeat", and with good reason. Shortly after Good Jobs First released its report on Wal-Mart's aggressive property tax reassessment tactics, The WSJ reported that Wal-Mart could owe up to $2.5 billion in unpaid taxes.

Wal-Mart paid financial giant Ernst & Young over $2 million to draft a state tax minimization strategy which the consultants described as "very aggressive," and "with considerable risk," as the WSJ reports.

Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of transactions pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North Carolina case indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose: cutting its state income taxes

Ironically, Wal-Mart has consistently used the promise of tax revenues as a selling point in reluctant host communities.

What's your take?

Our latest press release:

Washington, DC - Wal-Mart, the #1 importer of Chinese products, today was forced to remove from its shelves a toy, Aqua Dots, that it had previously listed as one of its "Top 12 Toys of Christmas." Like 70 percent of products on Wal-Mart shelves, Aqua Dots were made in a Chinese factory. These toys were recalled because they contain a chemical that converts into the date rape drug GHB when ingested.

In an October 1, 2007 Wal-Mart press release touting Aqua Dots as a top buy for Christmas, a Wal-Mart spokesman said, "You really cant go wrong with any of these toys... Mom wants price, convenience and safety, and with our Toy Safety Net program underway, we feel confident delivering on all three this upcoming holiday season."

The Aqua Dots recall is just the latest in a series of more than 20 Chinese-made products, ranging from lead-laced toy cars to poisonous pet food - that were so dangerous they had to be pulled from Wal-Marts shelves. Of the other 11 toys on Wal-Marts Top Toys for Christmas list, all were made in communist China - a country that exploits workers, violates human rights, and fills American shelves with dangerous and deadly products.

"Today's recall reveals the huge holes in Wal-Mart's 'safety net' testing program. It also raises real concerns about the safety of the other 11 Chinese-made toys Wal-Mart is promoting this Christmas," said WakeUpWalMart.com spokeswoman Meghan Scott. "That one of Wal-Mart's top 12 toys slipped through the company's cracks is shocking. It suggests that Wal-Mart is still more concerned with public relations than public safety. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart must do better. It has the economic power and duty to protect American consumers and demand higher quality from its Chinese suppliers."

Wake Up Wal-Mart held Haloween protests at Wal-Mart stores across the country. Check out this article about our White Plain's action from the White Plains Times:

Protesters Claim Wal-Mart Relies Too Much On China By: Rock Stamberg Published: November 01, 2007

Members of WakeUpWalMart outside the store on Tuesdays.
Photo credit: Rock Stamberg

About 20 protestors gathered in front of White Plains’ Wal-Mart store on Tuesday afternoon to call attention to hazards emanating from what attendees call the retailing giant’s unique business relationship with China. Specifically at issue are the products sold by Wal-Mart that are manufactured in China as well as that country’s history of child-labor abuses, forced labor and unfair work practices. As Halloween was the following day, the loosely banded group of protesters, most of whom are part of a grassroots movement called WakeUpWalMart, used the approaching holiday as its theme, handing out flyers to passersby that read, “Nothing’s scarier than Wal-Mart and China.”

On hand was Councilman Glen Hockley, who said, “Wal-Mart is the largest user of Chinese products in the United States. Seventy percent of Wal-Mart’s products are made in China. As a parent and the owner of a pet, I am aware that many of Wal-Mart’s products have been recalled. I am a supporter of American-made products and I knew [Wal-Mart founder] Sam Walton personally. He’d be spinning in his grave — he wanted American-made products [in his stores].”

WakeUpWalMart coordinator Christina Clausen said, “The objective of our campaign is to change Wal-Mart so we can change America because Wal-Mart is the largest employer and sets standards for other companies.” Also on hand to show support for the protestors were two representatives of The United Food and Commercial Workers’ union Local 1500 who, according to Hockley, “are wholesale and supermarket unions who are involved in this kind of work,” ie, stocking shelves for retailers.

While Wal-Mart’s local management declined to speak on the issue, White Plains Times received an e-mail statement from Wal-Mart’s Steven V. Restivo, Director Corporate Affairs, Northeast Region, who wrote: “In White Plains, and at all our Wal-Mart stores, 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. Recently, we voluntarily enhanced our product safety efforts, specifically focused on toys, to give parents additional reassurance as the holidays approach.”

Wal-Mart implemented a five-point toy safety plan that will:
•Require and review recent testing documentation for all toy products on shelves now and planned for the holidays;
•Institute new testing by third-party labs;
•Engage in more dialogue with industry organizations and other retailers to identify new standards for testing and safety;
•Offer help and counsel to suppliers and government officials in China on new safety steps; and
•Work to provide a selection of toys from a wider variety of sources in the future, including more products from Europe and North America.

From the AP via wbay.com:

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Wal-Mart has agreed to pay the state of Wisconsin almost $90,000 for overcharging customers for bulk coffee and vegetables.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection settled with Wal-Mart after weights and measures inspectors found 280 violations at nine Wal-Mart stores canvassed a year ago.

The department says the stores were charging customers for the weight of packaging when they bought bulk items such as coffee, broccoli and sweet potatoes. State law requires stores to subtract the weight of packaging material when weighing food.

DATCP administrator Janet Jenkins says customers paid as much as 21 cents extra for a bag of grind-it-yourself coffee.

Inspectors found violations at Wal-Mart stores in West Bend, Appleton, Oshkosh, Eau Claire, Chippewa Falls, Manitowoc, Prairie Du Chien, Platteville and Rice Lake.

Amid recent news that Wal-Mart is quadrupling the size of a major Chinese distribution center comes the seemingly contrasting news that they are also firing workers in China. Why would they expand their operations and fire workers at the same time? It may be because China has new labor laws going into affect on January 1st of 2008, and by "down sizing" their staff, they can avoid following the laws by using part time workers.

Here's what Global Labor Strategies has to say:

In a recent post we reported that some firms in China are firing workers in the run-up to the implementation of China’s new labor contract law which grants more rights to workers. Now it appears the problems are widespread and that foreign corporations--including Walmart--may be complicit.

At a meeting here in the US last week a visiting Chinese scholar called the current situation “a-symmetrical”. Citing the example of one firm that has laid off workers to avoid provisions of the new law he asked, “Who is looking out for the interests of the employees?” Who indeed! Against the power of the employers, workers have been left to their own devices.

Check out China View for news on Wal-Mart expanding their distribution center.

Read more about Wal-Mart laying off Chinese workers in the International Herald Tribune

Once again, Wal-Mart puts profits before consumer safety.

The Senate passed new legislation yesterday, which provides for higher fines for safety violations and strengthens the ability of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate dangerous imports. Wal-Mart is opposed, fearing that it will be bad for business.

If you're as disgusted as we are by this, check out this article from Arkansasnews.com:

Out of concern over the safety of imported toys, Senate Democrats on Wednesday heralded legislation that toughens penalties for safety violations and revamps a federal oversight agency.

Legislation to add employees and money to the Consumer Product Safety Commission passed a committee this week and could be considered by the Senate before the end of the year, said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Pryor sponsored the bill that would boost the agency's budget, as well as increase from $1 million to more than $100 million the civil penalties that could be levied on manufacturers, importers and sellers of unsafe goods.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a news conference that the bill gives the agency "the tools and resources necessary to deal with the flood of dangerous products before the situation gets worse."

Prospects for the bill are uncertain, since the Bush administration and Nancy Nord, chairwoman of the agency, oppose it.

Nord said in a letter to lawmakers that the bill would shift the focus of the agency from public safety to litigation.

Pryor said his office had a "constructive dialogue" with Bentonville-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc., over the legislation but the nation's largest retailer was concerned about the bill's consequences.

"I can't say that Wal-Mart is 100 percent happy with the bill because this does give the CPSC many more teeth," Pryor said.

The legislation authorizes penalties for retailers who sell recalled products.

"We do support aspects of Pryor's bill on the development of new safety standards," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien. "We'll also continue to work closely on improvements to the bill to ensure the CPSC's authority doesn't risk being undermined or misdirects resources away from the work to keep products safe."

The same time the lawmakers touted the bill, the agency issued several more toy recalls Wednesday. They included a set of fake teeth used for Halloween costumes. The teeth contained 100 times the legal amount of lead.

Pryor and other Democrats criticized Nord for her opposition, but unlike House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Pryor refused to call for Nord's resignation.

"How is it as an agency that they're overwhelmed, they need help, they're drowning, but they don't want us to pass this bill?" Pryor said.

Nord's resignation would effectively shut down the commission, which needs two members to conduct business. Her departure would leave only one member.

"There's only one thing worse than Chairwoman Nord continuing and that is her leaving," Durbin said.

This year more than 20 million Chinese-made toys have been recalled because they contain lead paint or because of other safety problems.

Meanwhile, the agency employs only one scientist to test toys.

The agency polices more than 15,000 kinds of products. And even as imports have skyrocketed over the past three decades, the CPSC's staff dwindled from just over 900 employees to 420 today.

Pryor's legislation puts the number of employees to 500.

"They are just totally incapable of protecting us from unsafe products," he said.
Nord maintains that new mandates required in the bill would necessitate many more.

In Bentonville, Christmas apparently starts in October.

Yesterday, without a shred of irony, Wal-Mart announced the official commencement of the "Christmas season." Yes, on Halloween... the holiday with the least possible amount of Christmas spirit. I'm not sure Santa would approve of that.

Of course, Wal-Mart is desperate to get holiday shoppers into their stores a little early this year. But savvy consumers will want to think twice before shopping at a company that imports 70% of its merchandise from China. Check out this bit of news from our friends at the Consumerist:

Consumerist's ongoing lead recall tally has reached 14,431,550 products recalled just for lead in the first 10 months of 2007.

That's right, almost 14.5 million products have been recalled this year for lead alone, and you can expect more to come. When you think of lead poisoning and dangerous products, you may well think of Wal-Mart. Many of the recalled items are cheap, Chinese-made toys from Wal-Mart's shelves, like the recently recalled "sets of realistic-looking farm animals, jungle animals and dinosaurs."

So, there's a bit of food for thought for holiday shoppers. Unsafe products are never a good deal.