Check out this story from the Arizona Republic about Wal-Mart ignoring a letter from a woman whose husband died in a Wal-Mart store. She isn't suing, or asking for anything, except for Wal-Mart to understand her pain, and be a little more responsible if something like this happens in the future. Here's the article:

Early on a Tuesday morning in August, 41-year-old Steve Turner drove to the Wal-Mart at 83rd Avenue and Union Hills in order to get an oil change for his car. What happened after that was explained most succinctly by his wife, Karen.

"It took them about 20 minutes to service the car," she said. "It took nine hours before we found my husband's body in a bathroom stall."

Earlier this week, Karen talked about that terrible day. It's not something she wanted to do. She'd waited a long time to contact me because she had been hoping that someone affiliated with the corporate giant would have replied to a letter about the tragedy that had been sent to Wal-Mart officials on her behalf.

"But I've received nothing," she said. "I don't blame them for my husband's death. It's tragic, and my son and I will have to deal with it. But it's not their fault. However, what happened after Steve died was a horror and should happen to no one ever again. What if the next person, unlike my husband, could have been helped if they were found sooner?"

Steve Turner was an airline mechanic. The day that he went to the Wal-Mart he was scheduled to work a shift beginning at about noon. He got to the store shortly before 8 a.m. and called Karen to ask if there was anything that she wanted him to pick up while he was there.

"We said that we loved each other and that was it," she said. "Then, when I didn't hear from him by noon, I knew something was wrong. He was never late."

Karen went to the store and asked employees to help her search for her husband. One of the first places they checked was the bathroom. She said that a custodian had the door blocked for cleaning and told her the room was empty. She would learn later that her husband had died in one of the stalls of an aortic dissection, a weakened blood vessel that ruptured. It's the same condition that killed actor John Ritter.

"Steve showed no signs of anything being wrong," she said. "I was told that he probably died suddenly at 8:30 that morning."

Karen called the police. She roamed the store for hours. But it wasn't until 5 p.m., when another janitor mentioned that a customer seemed to be spending the afternoon in the bathroom that she rushed in and found Steve's body.

Attorney Douglas Belknap later wrote a letter for her to Wal-Mart officials. It reads in part:

"I do not 'represent' Karen in the usual sense and I do not intend to file a lawsuit. Karen simply wants to make sure that someone at Wal-Mart's corporate level understand the excruciating mental anguish she suffered as a result of almost unbelievable set of circumstances that she hopes Wal-Mart will prevent from recurring."

That was in September. When she didn't hear back, she contacted me.

"What if the next person has a stroke or a heart attack and no one thoroughly checks every place in the store?" she said. "Or worse, what if something bad was happening to a child?"

I contacted Wal-Mart's corporate offices and e-mailed them another copy of Karen's letter. I haven't heard back. Maybe company lawyers are wary of Karen when she says that she's not filing a lawsuit. Maybe they're uncomfortable saying that they're sorry for her loss or that they will put procedures in place to assure more thorough store searches. Who knows? Maybe it just takes a long time for anything to get done in a corporation as large as Wal-Mart. Even a letter.

Karen's son is 5. She was hoping to show him correspondence from Wal-Mart when he's older as a way of explaining what happened. It's still possible a note of some kind will arrive.

In the meantime, I'm hoping this will do.

More trouble on Wal-Mart's clothing front.

The company's apparel division has been struggling for quite some time--even before the monumental flop of its "cheap chic" Metro 7 clothing line. Now, Wal-Mart is poised for a bit of corporate nip and tuck by trimming down its clothing staff and eliminating two divisions from its Bentonville headquarters.

The New York Times reports:

In a major revamping of its sluggish clothing business, Wal-Mart Stores will shut two divisions at its headquarters in Arkansas, eliminate dozens of positions and move dozens more to New York City.

This will be the first time in years that Wal-Mart, a company renowned for growth, has laid off a significant number of workers at its headquarters.

The overhaul, which has not been made public, is intended to revive one of the weakest departments in Wal-Mart’s 5,000 stores: men’s, women’s and children’s apparel, a $30 billion business for the retailer.

Over the last several years, under the direction of Claire Watts, the top clothing executive, the company experimented with somewhat more upscale collections. Wal-Mart created new divisions to spot trends and to design apparel.

But customers largely rejected the new looks — and, in July, Wal-Mart pushed out Ms. Watts. Today, it is emphasizing what executives call “key items,” like basic, brightly colored T-shirts, over outfits from clothing collections.

Read more here.

With its dreams of breaking into the banking industry foiled in the united states, Wal-Mart has turned to another, more cash-strapped market: Mexico. "Banco Wal-Mart" is targeting low-income consumers with savings accounts that offer a miserly 1 percent interest rate. The new bank is also attempting to tap into the short-term lending sector by offering consumer loans at a whopping 75 percent APR.

From CNN Money:

Wal-Mart's mission is to lure newcomers with easy instructions and entry points, like minimum balances of less than $5 and no commissions, compared with $100 minimums at competing banks. (But interest rates are only 1 percent, half what most banks pay, and Wal-Mart's annual rate for consumer loans is 75 percent.) The retailer, which opened three branches in Toluca, plans to have as many as 80 by the end of the year, before an even bigger push in 2009.

Mexico's biggest retailer, with 668 stores, wants to crack the low-income market in a country where just 24 percent of households have savings accounts, compared with 55 percent in Chile.

With options like Banco Wal-Mart, Mexican consumers are probably better off tucking their savings under their mattresses.

When The Consumerist heard that there were shirts at Wal-Mart with a design that was an exact replica of a Nazi symbol, they started 'Wal-Mart Nazi T-Shirt Watch' and we're not on week 62. The design itself is certainly appalling, but the consumerist has a point: why can't Wal-Mart seem to get rid of these things? What else can't they get rid of? Here's the article:

Walmart Nazi Tshirt Watch: Week 62

When you thought all of the Walmart tshirts bearing the exact replica of an infamous Nazi symbol were recalled, or sold to a discount store and burned, a Walmart in Palmdale, California has them on sale for $3.00 a pop. 62 weeks after Walmart pledged to remove the shirts from its shelves, and 50 weeks after getting a letter from Congress demanding the shirts removal, they're still out there. If they can't get rid of a simple tshirt, how good are they at recalling toys, defective merchandise, and dangerous food?

Statement from WakeUpWalMart.com on Retail Giant's Healthcare "Announcement"

On a day that Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott got a $4.28 million dollar bonus, Wal-Mart called a conference call to discuss a survey it conducted on its healthcare plan. On the call, it was announced that Scott has the same healthcare plan as a part-time Wal-Mart cashier.

"It's no surprise Lee Scott is on the Wal-Mart health care plan - it's a plan only a well-compensated CEO could love," said Meghan Scott, spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com. "With a new five million dollar bonus, Lee Scott doesn't have to worry about the high deductibles or premiums that come along with so many of the retail giant's healthcare plans, but average workers do. The fact is nearly twenty percent of Wal-Mart workers have no coverage at all, or rely on state funded programs for their care. That means taxpayers across the country continue to pay too high a price for Wal-Mart's refusal to put forth a plan all of its workers can afford."

The press had a bit of a field day when the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis released a new report suggesting that Wal-Mart might not be bad for county economies afterall. But this article from the Huffington Post takes a closer look at the report, and finds that it didn't really conclude much of anything. Here's the article:

When two employees at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis released a study in the January issue of the fedgazette called "The Wal-Mart Effect," its findings -- if you can call them that -- created a predictable effect in the media. But what the media said had little to do with what the Fed study said. The mainstream media, especially the business media, is always looking for openings to praise Sam Walton, not to bury him. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has given them just what they wanted: a study that appears superficially to vindicate Wal-Mart's economic impact on communities. The only problem is -- the actual content of the study doesn't support that conclusion at all. In fact, it doesn't support much of anything. But the pro-Wal-Mart media ran with the Happytalk Headlines anyway.

Forbes magazine ran a story titled "Wal-Mart Is Good For You," which began: "It may surprise--or even infuriate--critics, but a new study finds Wal-Mart benefits rather than harms the American economy." The Fed Bank study didn't conclude anything of the sort. Papers across the country ran the Reuter's story headline: "Minneapolis Fed study: Wal-Mart demonization off-base." Reuter's lead to the story said: "Much of the conventional wisdom about Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s negative effects on local communities is off-base, according to a study...by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis." Typical was the headline in the Winona (MN) Daily News: "Maybe Wal-Mart Isn't So Terrible."

Some in the media were more restrained in their praise. Bloomberg News, for example, said the new report illustrated that Wal-Mart "has a negligible economic influence on the small counties where it is located," but then fabricated the rest: "and doesn't destroy local businesses." The more unabashed Wal-Mart sycophants let it all pour out. "Wow,' whistled a columnist for the Elmira, (NY) Star-Gazette. "Someone actually spoke the unspeakable -- the late Sam Walton's company isn't that bad after all -- and backed the statements up with solid facts."

I read the entire Fed Bank study, and realized halfway through the piece that the"solid facts" in this study were built on some very fragile assumptions. The authors repeatedly footnote their narrative to caution readers about interpreting the results. They use the euphemism "host of caveats" to temper their findings.

The Fed Bank authors apparently went into the study expecting black and white results. The subtitle of their report was, "Poison or antidote for local communities?" But they went diving into a sock drawer looking for underwear. They examined 40 small counties across six states in the bank's Ninth District (MI, ND,SD,WI, MT, MN) that had a Wal-Mart come to town between 1986 and 2003, and compared them with 49 similarly sized counties in the same geographic area that didn't have a Wal-Mart. Researchers chose counties as the economic unit to study, because "various socioeconomic effects from Wal-Mart likely spill over a much larger territory than the home municipality. Though county borders are imperfect at best, they offer a broader and more realistic territory to gauge change." In fact, county borders are a blunt instrument, and not very useful in searching for the impact of one giant store on one or two small town---which is where most of the damage occurs. In a county--even a small one--the impact is dispersed across many players, and the loss of a couple of key local retailers will not be revealed. In addition, market trade areas and counties have little or nothing to do with one another. A huge store on the edge of one county, may draw shoppers away from another county, but it will never show up in a study that runs along county lines. The former is economic, the latter is political. The Fed Bank further weaken its case by noting that their selection of 49 non-Wal-Mart Counties was "not a truly scientific control group and, as such, cannot be said to represent county outcomes where Wal-Mart is absent."

The Fed Bank study is similar to one done at the University of Massachusetts at Darmouth in the early 1900s, which received no attention because there was no media interest in the Wal-Mart Effect at the time. The U. Mass study also used counties as its base, and produced similarly unremarkable results. The late economist Tom Muller also used counties to study Wal-Mart, but his work in Iowa for the National Trust For Historic Preservation, came up with much more pronounced results. Muller determined that as much as 80% or more of Wal-Mart's sales came from existing businesses.

The reason the Fed chose counties as their microscope, is because that's where the data is. The U.S. Economic Census data on counties is an easier level to use in studies, because at the micro town level, many communities have data suppressed because there are only one or two hardware stores, and their sales figures are proprietary. So the Feds used "familiar benchmarks" of jobs, firms, population, income and poverty---all at the county level. But the authors knew the limitations of their work. "County economies--even small ones--are dynamic entities," the report notes, "constantly changing and extending well beyond their retail borders. Firms, jobs and people come and go with regularity, and for lots of different reasons."

The Fed Bank concluded that Wal-Mart can be helpful or harmful, "though which it is depends on the circumstances." If a community has a rapidly growing population base, it can more easily absorb a giant supercenter. But if the population is stagnant, the retail pie is not growing. In such circumstances, "Wal-Mart is no different from any new business--large or small--coming to town and competing with incumbent businesses for finite spending in a community. Wal-Mart just competes for a larger share of it, and within a bigger geographic area." The larger the lens you use to study Wal-Mart, the more diffuse the local impacts appear. It's like gazing at the night sky through sunglasses. The Fed Bank has perceived something, but dimly.

The study concludes that "Firm growth, employment and total earnings were somewhat stronger in Wal-Mart counties and, in some cases, even in the retail sector." But Wal-Mart has little, or no impact, on decisions made by employers outside the retail sector. In the aggregate, studies have shown that the U.S has lost millions of manufacturing jobs because of outsourcing to China--but such exported jobs will not appear in a county-level study of Minnesota or Montana.

Looking at the growth of retail establishments ("firm growth") shows just how slippery such analysis can be. In Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, there were 1,059 retail establishments in 1985, compared to 1,395 in 2005. The number of retail firms grew overall by 31.7%. But inside of that growth number, the number of small businesses with 4 or fewer workers increased from 620 establishments in 1985 to 731 in 2005, a jump of 18%. Large establishments with 100+ workers rose from 14 in 1985 to 27 in 2005, a 92.9% jump. The percentage increases here are not the issue: it's the number and size of firms that matter. The 111 new small businesses generated at best a total of 404 new jobs, while the 13 large firms with 100+ employees generated at least 1,300 additional jobs. Large companies added three times as many jobs as the smallest companies. The Fed Bank would say that retail establishments grew in Kandiyohi County -- but inside that number the big companies were dominating growth in the retail sector. The Fed study found that Wal-Mart had no effect on growth in population and income per person. Why should it? People do not move to live near a Wal-Mart, and if anything, the company has a downward impact on wages. The Fed Bank learned that counties without a Wal-Mart fared better in total compensation--wages plus benefits like health care and retirement contributions--for wage and salary workers. This "fits with the long-term trend of firms offering workers more (and more expensive) benefits over time, while Wal-Mart has been chastised for its employee benefits."

The Fed Bank found other dark statistics: poverty rates declined in most counties, but poverty rates didn't improve as much in Wal-Mart counties. Some counties with a Wal-Mart had strong growth, and other Wal-Mart counties had slow growth -- but Wal-Mart's presence explained little of the disparity.

The researchers' main finding is that "Wal-Mart has a slightly positive effect on counties where the retailer decides to set up shop. But the effects are small; one could call the results mostly a wash. As a result, maybe the most concrete--and surprising--conclusion is that Wal-Mart's presence (or lack thereof) has little or no predictive power regarding the economic success or failure of a county."

The Fed expected to find much higher levels of business closures to show up in Wal-Mart counties, "but the data don't bear that out." Yet they admit "several limitations prevent any strong conclusions regarding general merchandise stores," because the number of firms in this category is comparatively small at the county level." The fact remains, general merchandise stores declined in non-Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart counties, because the giant retailer does not impact, say, car dealerships, but it slams any retailers that sell what it sells--and the impacts don't fall neatly into county borders.

The "take away" from this new report is that Wal-Mart is, economically speaking, a wash. Tell that to the local officials across America who have memorized the Wal-Mart script which promises new jobs and revenues inside every supercenter, even as they watch the "old" store two miles away being abandoned, or the existing supercenter down the road losing sales to its own parent company. As the authors explain, "The presence or absence of Wal-Mart is neither an obvious anchor nor a hot air balloon for business growth in a county."

If the media had the patience to read beyond the "hot air balloon" section of this new report, they would have found this statement: "None of these fedgazette findings can be considered the last word on the Wal-Mart effect because they are not 'causal' in nature; that is, we cannot say that Wal-Mart is directly responsible for any particular outcome--positive or negative--in the counties investigated." That stunning disclaimer should have been the opening line of the report. But it gets worse: "This analysis merely offers correlated facts. Proving a causal relationship between Wal-Mart and local economic trends is rife with complications. Indeed, such complexity is one of the reasons controversy continues to swirl around the company."

Although some in the media were delighted to report that its now safe to go back into Wal-Mart waters (the "Wal-Mart Is Good For You" syndrome), the Fed Bank study amounts to little more than a caveat against such exuberance. As the Fed Bank explains, "Given some positive and some negative outcomes, it's probably safest to say that Wal-Mart's net imprint on a county's health appears to be smaller than most perceive." The authors admit that other factors---such as education levels, infrastructure investments, local business mix, geographic good fortune--"play a larger role in determining the long-run growth prospects for the 89 counties studied here than whether the bogyman dressed as Wal-Mart showed up at the community door."

When you cut away the many "confounding factors" in this study, the authors confess that they can't pin any particular outcome on Wal-Mart. This is one of the more useful non-conclusions of the report: "the findings don't tell us whether Wal-Mart's presence (or lack thereof) is responsible for either positive or negative outcomes over the period studied. Proving a causal relationship between Wal-Mart and local economic trends is beyond the scope of this analysis."

So the Fed Bank has produced a study that delivers no punchline. If you want to see a causal relationship between Wal-Mart and its impact at the micro level, there was another, less noted, bank study released last month by CIBC World Markets, an investment bank in Canada. "Wal-Mart's Canadian Supercenters: Trade Area Damage" looks exclusively at the retail trade area in Scarborough, Ontario one year after a Wal-Mart supercenter opened there. The purpose of the study was to examine what impact the supercenter had on the seven grocery chain stores and the 17 small independent grocers in the area. According to CIBC, almost all of Wal-Mart's 10% market share came from existing merchants. Wal-Mart's $18.2 million in sales came mostly from two sources: $5.2 million from a Wal-Mart discount store that the company shut down when its supercenter opened, and $10.4 million when a Price Chopper grocery store closed. The smaller independent grocers and other local chains all lost sales as well. As the report states, "most of [Wal-Mart] sales come from local chain competitors." In fact, 94% of the Wal-Mart supercenter sales came from either its own closed Wal-Mart (29%) or other grocery competitors (65%). Wal-Mart's opening of the supercenter created only 6% new sales for the trade area. $17.1 million in Wal-Mart grocery sales came from other cash registers. "It's no secret that Wal-Mart will have a huge impact on the Canadian grocery business," the authors concluded.

As for the Fed Bank study, the pro-Wal-Mart media left the starting gate without a saddle on this one. The Bank had its own warning buried in its statistics. "Hoping for some easy answers to the Wal-Mart effect?" they wrote. "Better shop elsewhere." The best this new study can produce is the following economic aphorism: Wal-Mart is the absence of good.

After recent news about a class action suit against Wal-Mart, claiming gender discrimination, comes another discrimination suit. This time, Wal-Mart is being sued by a former manager for having a relationship with a subordinate employee. Wal-Mart says she was fired for lying about the relationship. The former manager says she told Wal-Mart everything, and that male managers who have affairs with their employees aren't punished. Here's the article from The Altoona Mirror:

A former department manager at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in Clearfield County, who had an affair with an employee, is claiming gender discrimination against the company.

Helen Masonis of Falls Creek said she was fired for having a relationship with a male employee while several male managers who had affairs with employees were not fired.

Masonis is requesting a federal judge order back pay and employment benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as pay her attorney fees and issue injunctions that would reinstate her and bar further discrimination against her.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. court in Johnstown lists the names of other males and females who had affairs at Wal-Mart. She charges that the males never were disciplined.

Masonis said Wal-Mart’s stated reason for punishing her was that she did not relate details of her affair truthfully, but Masonis said her exit interview with the company demonstrated that she told the truth.

“Wal-Mart treats a situation where a male manager interacts with a female employee differently than when a female manager interacts with a male employee,” she charged.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Shannon Weber said Monday that Wal-Mart had not been served with the civil charges and, therefore, she could not comment.

“We can’t comment on what we haven’t seen, or on an associate’s [employee’s] departure,” Weber said.

Masonis, who is divorced, stated that Wal-Mart has a nonfraternization policy, barring affairs between workers, but she contended that her affair with another worker did not violate the company’s policy.

The lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart violated the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in its dealings with her.

Masonis stated that while she was manager of the Case Lot Area at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center, 100 Wal-Mart Drive, Woodland, she struck up a relationship with a supervisor in another department.

The ensuing investigation into her affair included “two highly embarrassing and offensive closed-door interviews conducted by senior management personnel,” her lawsuit states.

“The claim that [Masonis] was fired for not being truthful was merely a pretext,” according to the lawsuit filed by Pittsburgh attorney John Newborg.

She listed names of male managers who had affairs at the facility, which included two department managers with hourly employees, the general manager with a department manager, a personnel manager with a female under his supervision and a general manager with a woman under his supervision.

None of the males was dismissed or disciplined, she stated.

The case is before U.S. District Judge Kim Gibson.

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal reports that Norway's Government Pension Fund is looking into expanding their ethical investments. They may exclude tobacco companies, pornographers, and companies from countries with human rights abuses. But what was first to go from this fund? That's right, Wal-Mart. Here's the article from the Wall Street Journal:

Norway's Government Pension Fund, one of the world's biggest sovereign-wealth funds, is considering broadening its ethical-investment program after shedding holdings in arms makers, mining companies and U.S. retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Norges Bank Investment Management, the Norwegian central bank that oversees the two trillion kroner ($369 billion) Norwegian Government Pension Fund, has begun a year-long review of the fund's ethical guidelines and is inviting comment from nongovernmental organizations and academia.

Investments in tobacco companies, pornographers and the gambling industry are likely to be considered for exclusion, as well as companies from countries that abuse human rights.
"We are global investors," Norwegian Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said. "We believe social and environmental responsibility creates the best conditions for high, sustainable long-term returns. That is our business."

Ms. Halvorsen also claimed success for the fund's policy of dialogue with companies, saying Norges Bank had been negotiating with a "major global agricultural group" over its efforts to stamp out child labor, and she said the possibility of exclusion had strengthened the fund's negotiating position.

The fund divested itself fully from Wal-Mart in June 2006 over human-rights and labor-rights concerns. Wal-Mart couldn't be reached for comment late Thursday. At the same time, the fund divested its holdings in mining group Freeport-Mc Mo Ran? Copper & Gold Inc. on environmental grounds.

Last week, the fund divested its holdings in three weapons makers. Hanwha Corp., a South Korean group, was excluded because it produces cluster munitions, while U.K. company Serco and U.S.-based Gen Corp? Inc. were targeted because of their involvement with nuclear-weapons production. The Government Pension Fund was established 11 years ago to diversify the country's oil revenue into stocks, bonds and other investments to preserve it for future generations.

Just a few days after the American Banker wrote an article about the run away sucess of Wal-Mart's pre-paid debit card, the Consumerist took a closer look. What they found was that this card, targeted at lower income and underbanked families, is a huge ripoff. Riddled with hidden fees no one with a bank account would expect or accept, this seems to be just another way Wal-Mart is making a profit off the backs of the poor. Here's what the Consumerist has to say:

El banco del Walmart is issuing pre-paid debit cards, and like everything else at Walmart, they suck. Here's some of the hidden fees:

Card issue fee: $8.94
Reload the card with more money: $4.64
ATM transaction fee: $1.95
ATM balance inquiry: $0.75
Monthly maintenance fee: $4.94
Statement fee: $2.00

Great idea, tap into the "unbanked," and then rip them off. Here's an even better idea for potential Walmart Debit Card users: cash! No fees!

Citizens of Canfield, Ohio recently made their case against a newly proposed Wal-Mart Super Center, citing concerns about Wal-Mart crowding out local businesses, and increasing traffic to unsafe levels. According to WYTV 33, Wal-Mart officials would not allow cameras in the meeting. We're not surprised, since the town of 7,500 turned out over two hundred people who "defiantly rejected the idea of a Wal-Mart coming into their community."

Still, Wal-Mart presses on, making us wonder what happened to the ideals of Wal-Mart Founder Sam Walton, who opposed building stores in communities that did not want them. As Wal-Mart real-estate manager Jeff Doss admitted, "Were that the case, we'd never build a store anywhere."

Here is the article from Channel 33 News, WYTV.

Wal-Mart officials made their way into Canfield, to make their case for a one hundred and seventy-six thousand square foot Wal-Mart Super center. The store would go right off route 224 next to route 11. But, so far, Wal-Mart has a lot of convincing to do.

In fact, Wal-Mart officials would not let us go inside the meeting with our camera, and it's no wonder, because the more than two hundred people inside defiantly rejecting the idea of a Wal-Mart coming to their community.

Residents like their "Mom and Pop" stores, and many are concerned about potential traffic and safety hazards.

"Those safety issue arise from an increase in traffic, currently we have twenty-nine thousand cars a day on Rt. 224 between Rt. 11 and Market street. They're going to add thirteen thousand more cars to that. I don't understand how that's going to work, your kids are on a bus, safety forces have to get to our house in a fire truck.", says concerned citizen, Tim Smith.

Still though, Wal-Mart isn't giving up.

"The reason you have law and the reason you have a process like this, is so that everyone gets treated or dealt with fairly, in the same way. So, therefore, this is a zone change request. We will present it to the county, as well as to the township, and we will let them

Wal-Mart's next step is to try to get the land it wants re-zoned for commercial use. Then the company will make an official presentation to Township Trustees.

Wal-Mart has long been known for its low prices and its willingness to do whatever it takes to keep those prices low. But recently we've been seeing the costs of keeping prices low. Unsafe prodcuts due to cutting corners, lead in everything from dinner plates to bibs to toys, and recalled products galore. In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, we see yet another cost, this time to the workers that keep our products cheap. Chinese workers in factories that produce cheap batteries for Wal-Mart and other major companies are bearing the cost for Wal-Mart's corporate greed. Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say:

Over the holidays, millions of American children received Chinese-made toys powered by cadmium batteries.

Cadmium batteries are safe to use. They are also cheap, saving American parents about $1.50 on the average toy, compared with pricier batteries.

But cadmium batteries can be hazardous to make. In southern China, Wang Fengping worked for years in plants that produced cadmium batteries for the likes of Mattel Inc., Toys "R" Us Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Like hundreds of her colleagues, Ms. Wang regularly inhaled the toxic red cadmium dust that filled the air in the plant.

Now, at 45, Ms. Wang is often too weak to walk. Her kidneys have failed, and her doctors have identified cadmium poisoning as the likely culprit. About 400 other workers at her former employer, Hong Kong-based GP Batteries International Ltd., have been found to harbor unsafe levels of cadmium, a toxic metal like mercury and lead that can cause kidney failure, lung cancer and bone disease.

In recent months, Americans have discovered the dark side of their reliance on cheap Chinese goods. From lead-tainted toys to contaminated pet food, the safety of Chinese products is suddenly an American obsession.

But in China, workers making goods for American consumers have long borne the brunt of a global manufacturing system that puts cost cutting ahead of safety. The search for cheaper production means dirty industries are migrating to countries with few worker protections and lenient regulatory environments.

The nickel-cadmium battery illustrates this trend. Once widely manufactured in the West, the batteries are now largely made in China, where the industry is sickening workers and poisoning the soil and water.

Now, some regulators and companies are taking action. This year, the European Union is banning the sale of nearly all cadmium batteries. A few companies, including Hasbro Inc., are eschewing the battery.

Yet cadmium batteries, a technology dating back to 1899, continue to represent 3% of total battery sales, and are still widely used in toys, power tools, cordless phones and other gadgets sold in the U.S. Besides being inexpensive, they can provide a quick surge of power.

The near-disappearance of the American cadmium-battery industry can be understood from a visit to an overgrown field in Cold Spring, N.Y. Here, the Marathon Battery factory churned out nickel-cadmium batteries for the U.S. military for three decades. After the plant was shuttered in 1979, the cadmium-laden ground became one of the nation's highest-profile superfund sites, sparking a $130 million clean-up and a class-action lawsuit by nearby residents that was settled for millions of dollars in 1998.

As the U.S. and other Western nations tightened their regulation of cadmium, production of nickel-cadmium batteries moved to less-developed countries, most of it eventually winding up in China. "Everything was transferred to China because no one wanted to deal with the waste from cadmium," says Josef Daniel-Ivad, vice president for research and development at Pure Energy Visions, an Ontario battery company.

Today, only two American companies still make cadmium batteries, and they specialize in high-end batteries for use in equipment such as aircraft engines. U.S. laws require them to follow strict guidelines on worker safety and environmental protection.

In China, government standards on cadmium exposure are in line with those endorsed by the World Health Organization. And without question, there are safe cadmium plants in China.

But having rules and enforcing them are two different things. China has dozens of so-called "hot spots" where the cadmium contamination is similar to levels at U.S. superfund sites. More that 10% of China's arable land is contaminated with heavy metals such as cadmium, according to the State Environmental Protection Agency, and the metals are entering China's food supply. At least a dozen academic studies in the past two years have found unsafe levels of cadmium in fruit and vegetables grown in Chinese soil. In a study published last year, researchers at the Guangdong Institute of Ecology found excessive levels of cadmium in Chinese cabbage grown in Foshan. The battery industry isn't the only source of environmental cadmium contamination in China, but it is a major contributor.

Often, these risks extend to workers. Last year, at least 20 workers at a Panasonic Corp. cadmium-battery plant in Wuxi were found to have elevated levels of the toxin, and two were diagnosed as poisoned. In 2005, 1,000 workers at Huanyu Power Source Co., based in Xinxiang, Henan, were also found with cadmium exposure. Both Panasonic and Huanyu say they have taken care of the affected workers, providing health care and compensation exceeding the requirements of Chinese law.

Yet these findings didn't necessarily result from corporate or government vigilance. The Panasonic-plant contamination, for instance, came to light after some workers watched a television show about cadmium poisoning -- and got themselves tested.

Protest about contamination at the GP plants has persisted in part because of the determination of Ms. Wang, a GP engineer, to publicize the matter.

Born into a relatively well-off family, Ms. Wang attended university and obtained an engineering degree before hiring on at a newly opened GP factory in the southern Chinese city of Huizhou, a fast-growing center of China's electronics industry. The year was 1995, and GP Batteries, a Singapore-listed unit of Hong Kong-listed Gold Peak Industries (Holdings) Ltd. Huizhou, was a prestigious employer, eventually becoming one of the largest makers of nickel-cadmium batteries in China.

As a machine designer, Ms. Wang worked in the management offices of a walled compound of pink-tiled buildings where some 1,500 women in matching blue smocks worked 12-hour days assembling nickel-cadmium battery packs for toys and other products. GP's clients eventually came to include dozens of U.S. companies including Energizer Battery Co., Proctor & Gamble Co.'s Duracell, Spectrum Brands Inc.'s Ray-O-Vac, Hasbro, Mattel, Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us.

For years, factory workers complained about illnesses -- nausea, hair loss and exhaustion, for instance. But GP management says it wasn't aware of the extent of the cadmium danger. "We knew it was dangerous, but we thought that if it was handled in a reasonable manner you should be OK," says Henry Leung, chief operating officer of GP Batteries. "This is all new for China."

At the factory, Ms. Wang spent the bulk of her time in an office, quietly sketching machine designs. But between 2002 and 2004, she spent long hours in production areas, inhaling cadmium dust, according to a lawsuit filed by Ms. Wang against the factory.

In 2003, some sick workers paid for their own tests at an occupational-disease hospital and learned they had elevated cadmium levels. The news touched off panic on the factory floor, and workers demanded the company pay for cadmium tests. Hundreds of workers eventually went on strike.

GP says it began paying for cadmium checkups in mid-2004, as soon as the region set up facilities that could handle large volumes of cadmium testing. In the initial tests, 177 workers showed levels of cadmium above China's safe-exposure limit, and two qualified as poisoned. Dozens were immediately hospitalized.

Cadmium affects people in radically different ways, so many GP workers with elevated levels aren't sick, but may become so in the years ahead.

Roughly 900 workers quit their jobs, and GP offered cadmium-affected workers one-time exit compensation starting at about $500. GP says the average package was $2,100. Many workers say the compensation failed to cover their medical bills.

GP says it has paid out more than $1 million in compensation and medical care for affected workers and has exceeded the legal requirements. "We want to take care of workers," says GP's Mr. Leung, but he says some workers are feigning sickness to obtain money. "They want to be recorded as poisoned, so people will keep giving them compensation," he says.

Ms. Wang watched on the sidelines as the bitter saga unfolded at her factory. During her nine years at the factory, she rarely had contact with rank-and-file workers, and her $540 weekly salary was nearly triple what they earned. While other workers ate in a cafeteria, Ms. Wang sat in a manager's dining room with table cloths and porcelain dishes.

But in October of 2004, when GP first paid for companywide cadmium tests, Ms. Wang's result came back showing cadmium levels above the safe-exposure limit set by the Chinese government. However, to qualify for continuing monitoring, China's occupational-disease laws require two consecutive positive tests. A second test showed Ms. Wang's cadmium level in the normal range, disqualifying her for assistance.

Three occupational-medicine doctors -- in London, Sweden and the U.S. -- who reviewed Ms. Wang's medical records for The Wall Street Journal say her initial test showed clear indications of kidney damage, a marker of possible cadmium poisoning.

"There's no doubt that in 2004, she had smoking-gun-type indicators of kidney damage, and in a person who works with cadmium, that should not be ignored," says Dr. Arch Carson, an expert in occupational medicine and environmental sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

GP says it relies on medical experts at government-run occupational-disease hospitals in the nearby city of Guangzhou to determine if workers required monitoring.

Having no symptoms, Ms. Wang continued playing badminton and jogging. But in early 2006, she began to feel extremely weak, and suffered headaches. Her skin began to age rapidly, and her eyes became sunken hollows. In November 2006, Ms. Wang was diagnosed at a local hospital with chronic renal failure that doctors said would likely shorten her life.

On Dec. 25, 2006, Ms. Wang approached GP management with news of her diagnosis. She requested that GP send her to the occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou, which has facilities for treating cadmium exposure.

A stalemate ensued. The company says it was willing to help, but that Ms. Wang refused to follow local legal procedures. Local laws required that Ms. Wang visit a local hospital first, in order to be referred to the main occupational-disease hospital in Guangzhou. The company says Ms. Wang demanded they send her directly to the Guangzhou hospital, in violation of regulations.

In May, Ms. Wang sued the factory for $400,000 in compensation and medical care. To build her case, Ms. Wang used her access to company computers to download files that showed other workers in her department were exposed to cadmium. GP says there is no evidence that Ms. Wang's illness is related to cadmium, and doctors at the Guangzhou Occupational Disease Hospital say her kidney failure doesn't meet the criteria for occupational disease.

By last summer, Ms. Wang's health was failing. According to medical records from a hospital in Nanjing, she was admitted with a fever and a respiratory infection. Doctors there treated her for chronic renal failure, and listed "long-term exposure to cadmium-containing substances" as a possible cause, according to her medical records.

As workers, including Ms. Wang, sought to bring attention to the issue, a public-relations battle erupted. In 2005, GP filed a lawsuit against labor-rights groups representing the workers, charging libel. The case is moving through Hong Kong courts.

On their way to an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter in August, Ms. Wang and several colleagues were pulled over by police and detained for nearly 13 hours in a Huizhou police station, according to several sources familiar with the incident. A person present at the Huizhou police station says the workers were told they would be charged with treason if they spoke to the media again. The Huizhou government says its police detained no battery workers.

Ms. Wang stopped answering her cellphone after the incident with the Huizhou police. But she began writing a blog to advise victims of cadmium poisoning. A recent post, in Chinese, said, "Basically, occupational disease could be prevented but it costs money. Money is the gold of bosses. And for them, the lives of workers are worthless."

After revelations of its cadmium-battery problems arose, GP quit making them at its plants, and now outsources that production to independent factories in China.

In America, five years after Hasbro stopped using nickel-cadmium batteries,

Today the financial gurus at The Motley Fool gave their prediction for what they expect to be this year's worst common stock: Wal-Mart. There are a lot of reasons to agree with their analysis, but the following quote made the biggest impression on us.

When many people protest a company, there might be reasons to think twice before investing in it. Wal-Mart has been criticized for not being generous enough with its employees, for example -- and there are 1.9 million of them, including 1.3 million in the U.S

This is just what we've been saying all along. Americans don't want to buy from a corporation that takes their country in the wrong direction.

You can read the rest of The Motley Fool's article here.

According to the Iris New Digest, Wal-Mart is looking to send more than a billion dollars overseas. The article mentions Wal-Mart's inhouse IT system, which begs the question, how many American jobs will be lost in this deal?

Here's the full article:

IT major Infosys Technologies (Q, N,C,F)* and Cognizant Technology are in fray for a mega outsourcing deal from the world`s largest retailer Wal-Mart, reports Economic Times.

Wal-Mart is likely to place an outsourcing order in the range of a billion dollar plus.

Meanwhile, it is also been said that Wal-Mart is setting up its own captive center, as part of its IT expansion plan in India.

Wal-Mart also has its own inhouse IT system with proprietary technology on the large scale.

Shares of the company declined Rs 22.1, or 1.38%, to close at Rs 1,580.10. The total volume of shares traded was 724,429 at the BSE. (Friday)

Amid several class action suits in other states, a suit in Massachusetts is moving up to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. The suit claims that Wal-Mart systematically changed scheduleing records, and denied workers pay for overtime work and breaks. Here's an exerpt from the story in the Boston Herald:

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court will hear an appeal of a massive class-action lawsuit that alleges Wal-Mart Stores Inc. systematically deprived its hourly Bay State employees of their earned wages and rest and meal breaks.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2001 in Middlesex Superior Court, alleges the mega-retailer illegally altered timecards to decrease reported payroll expenses, including by clocking out employees one minute after they clocked in.

...Using Wal-Mart’s paper and electronic payroll records, Bonsignore’s expert witness found that the Wal-Mart employees allegedly were deprived of wages for 10.1 million missed rest breaks from 1995 to 2005.

He also found 21,383 alleged incidents of one-minute clock-outs where employees went uncompensated and that Wal-Mart allegedly realized $423,010 in free labor from employees whose work was not recorded by the system.

Wal-Mart also allegedly inserted 13,572 unpaid meal periods into employees’ records from 2001 to 2005, court documents state. A separate, earlier Superior Court ruling prevented employees from suing for missed meal breaks.

“As a result of its willful misconduct, Wal-Mart’s ill-gotten gains exceeded $25,000,000,” court documents state.

Wal-Mart has decided to keep several of its American and Canadian stores open for 24 hours after expanding hours for the Holidays. Canadian labor leaders are concerned, however, that this shift will be bad for employees.

Check out the story from cbc.ca

Retail giant Wal-Mart's decision to expand into round-the-clock shopping does not bode well for workers and their families, a labour leader says.

Marie St. Aubin, a national representative with the Canadian Auto Workers union, which represents workers at Dominion supermarkets in Newfoundland and Labrador, said Wal-Mart's move may force other major retailers to follow suit.

"It's really difficult to get retail workers in this province now and the ones that they are retaining are worked to death. They have no family life to speak of," she said.

"Now, to add insult to injury, if they're going to look at staying open 24 hours, I don't know where that's going to put families in the future."

Wal-Mart Canada announced Thursday it will offer 24-hour shopping, seven days a week, at 25 locations in five provinces.

The move marks a major expansion in operating hours for Wal-Mart Canada, which in 2006 introduced round-the-clock shopping in the weeks leading up to Christmas.

That offering, which involved almost 300 stores this holiday season, proved to be a hit with consumers, the company said.

"We have a lot of people that do shift work and [enjoy] the convenience of shopping, so it was mainly on customer request," said Wendy Parsons, who manages one of three Wal-Mart stores in the St. John's area that is participating in the new offer.

The 25 stores are in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Wal-Mart pioneered all-hours shopping at a store in Winnipeg last fall.

Shopper Sandy Collins, who was in a St. John's lineup on Friday to return a Christmas gift, said she had mixed thoughts about the extra hours.

"I guess if you're a shift-work employee, it's probably a great idea," she said. "Personally, I wouldn't want to be here at three in the morning."

Shopper George Lucas, though, was intrigued.

"I work an overnight shift, so it works out good for me, on my lunch," he said.

Wal-Mart Canada says it will abide by local labour laws.

As well, the retailer said it may scale back its hours, if consumer demand does not prove strong enough at individual locations.

Some Consumerist readers recently went on a trip and stopped at a Wal-Mart to get some supplies for their baby. They quickly realized that the bibs they just bought were recalled months earlier for containing high amounts of lead. It begs the question: how serious is Wal-Mart about our safety?

Here's what The Consumerist has to say:

Walmart is still selling lead-tainted Baby Connection bibs that were recalled last May. Reader Jeff made the discovery after his wife accidentally purchased two packs of recalled bibs for their 4-month-old daughter while vacationing in the Poconos.

He writes:

"so my wife and i and our 4 month old baby girl took a trip to the Poconos for a vacation back in December. we stopped at the Super Wal-Mart there (East Stroudsburg, PA) to get some supplies. my wife wanted to get some bibs for our baby.

she bought 2 packs of bibs with a vinyl backing so they wouldn't soak through onto her clothes because she always has her bib in her mouth... as it turns out these bibs have already been recalled in Illinois back in May of last year and later supposedly expanded nationwide for having high levels of lead. there were lots of news reports about this from back in May. after further research we found out the UPC numbers of the bibs and sure enough we had them. they were: Baby Connection 7-Pack Feeder Bibs UPC No. 01468151077. other upc numbers are: 01468152705 and 01468102732

so basically, it just makes us sick to our stomach that these companies will sell products to consumers that they know have high amounts of lead in them. why were'nt these bibs taken off the shelves in ALL of their stores. why does a child in Illinois have better protection than my child in New Jersey (although we bought the bibs in Pennsylvania)?

thanks guys, keep up the good work,

jeff"

Children in Illinois are safer because the state bans the sale of products containing more than 600 ppm of lead. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has warned all parents that vinyl bibs may be tainted with lead, but refuses to issue a nationwide recall.

Walmart voluntarily agreed to pull the lead-ridden bibs back in May to avoid the fine-wielding ire of Illinois' Attorney General.

Mia Masten, a Chicago-based spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said the vinyl portion of the bibs exceeded the lead levels set by Illinois for children's products. She said the company had worked with the Illinois attorney general's office to pull the items and later decided to expand the recall nationwide.

"We at Wal-Mart are committed to working ... to develop industry standards for the elimination of vinyl in children's products," Masten said.

Maybe those industry standards should have include a directive to pull recalled products from the shelf? Just a suggestion.

Wal-Mart has been paying itself rent and writing off the expense to lessen its tax burden. Wal-Mart also had the gall to sue North Carolina for a refund when the state discovered what Wal-Mart was doing and charged them for back taxes. Today a judge dismissed the law suit. Here is the latest from the Wall Street Journal about the Wal-Mart tax shelter case:

A North Carolina state-court judge ruled against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a closely watched tax-shelter case involving an arrangement in which the retailer essentially paid rent to itself and then deducted the amount from its taxes.

In an attachment to an order filed Friday, but signed on Dec. 31, Emergency Special Judge of Superior Court Clarence E. Horton Jr. wrote that Wal-Mart's structure had no "real economic substance" other than cutting taxes. The judge dismissed Wal-Mart's suit, in which it sought a refund of $33.5 million in taxes, interest and penalties that it paid after state tax authorities determined it had underpaid by that amount.

The ruling is the latest setback for the tax maneuver. At least three other states are challenging Wal-Mart's use of the tax strategy. Since a Wall Street Journal article on the topic last February, at least six states have passed laws seeking to prohibit the tax maneuver. In North Carolina, the judge's order didn't come after a trial but was based on motions for summary judgment by both sides.
Wal-Mart said it is studying the order and hadn't decided whether to appeal. But the company said, "We believe that all taxpayers should have the right to rely on clearly defined tax laws that are reasonably and fairly enforced."

The dispute arose from Wal-Mart's use of a real-estate investment trust. A decade ago, the company transferred ownership of its stores to two REI Ts?, of which Wal-Mart owned 99%, then paid tax-deductible rent to the REI Ts? to use the stores.

REI Ts? pay no corporate income tax as long as they pay at least 90% of their income to shareholders as dividends. However, those REI Ts? were owned by Wal-Mart subsidiaries based in Delaware and therefore owed no tax on the receipt of those dividends. The result: Wal-Mart turned rental payments to itself into state-deductible expenses, even though the money never left the company.

For a four-year period, the setup saved the retailer an estimated $230 million on its tax bill in dozens of states.
In 2005, North Carolina tax authorities challenged the REIT tax benefits. Wal-Mart paid the bill sought by the state, and in March 2006 sued for a refund. The company argued the state didn't have authority to combine the results of the subsidiary that did business in North Carolina with those of the Delaware-based unit and the REIT.
"Plaintiffs do not deny the facts demonstrating the circular journey taken by the "rents" paid by these plaintiffs, but contend that on each leg of the journey plaintiffs were only taking advantage of a lawful deduction afforded them by then-existing tax law," wrote Judge Horton. "Such a piecemeal approach exalts form over substance, however ..."

"There is no evidence that the rent transaction, taken as a whole, has any real economic substance apart from its beneficial effect on plaintiffs' North Carolina tax liability," he added. "It is particularly difficult for the court to conclude that rents were actually 'paid,' when they are subsequently returned to the payor corporation."

Worried about Wal-Mart's affect on jobs and agriculture, Indian farmers and politicians have come up with a solution: tons of huge farmers markets where growers will sell direct to consumers. The plans are already underway for these massive markets and they hope to compete with Wal-Mart and curb their impact. It will certainly be interesting to see if this works! Read more about India and Wal-Mart in this article from Reuters UK:

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Indian farmers and traders, opposed to the entry of private retail giants such as Wal-Mart, are building a chain of superstores as part of efforts to sell their produce directly and stop prices being set by a few big players.

The effort is being backed by authorities in the western state of Maharashtra, which says infrastructure costs for the project could be subsidized.

"It's a viable idea to counter private players, and if everything goes to plan the first of the superstores can come up in a few months," Sunil Pawar, general-manager of Maharashtra's agriculture marketing board, told Reuters.

"We are talking to the farmers' cooperatives and traders and the government is very supportive of the idea."

Fearing the loss of livelihood, traders, farmers and small shopkeepers oppose plans by foreign and local companies to introduce western-style supermarts into India's fragmented $350 billion market, expected to double in size by 2015.

Farmers worry the influx will lead to prices being dictated by a handful of large retailers.

Their protests reflect wider social tensions in the fast-growing Asian giant, where private investment is frequently opposed by traders scared of new retail competition and villagers worried their land will be taken for factories.

Maharashtra's farmers are hoping they can take the fight to the private giants with their superstores and chain of outlets that can sell vegetables, fruits and a range of farm products.

"The idea is to gather scattered sales into a single sales channel through these farmers' malls," said Sopan Kanchan of the Grape Growers' Federation of India. "Unitedly, we can take on the Wal-Marts and Reliances."

UNCERTAINTY FOR GIANTS

With the blueprint ready, farming leaders are getting ready to apply for a 25 percent subsidy on infrastructure costs they are eligible for under a government plan.

Already, building sites are being identified in some of the cities in Maharashtra for the farmers' superstores. "There are about 350 farmers' cooperatives in the state and they have lots of land," Pawar said.

So far, the retail protests have been sporadic but they have forced Reliance Industries (RELI.BO: Quote, Profile, Research), India's biggest listed company, to lay off 1,000 staff and close stores in the north and east.

Foreign retail giants Carrefour (CARR.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Tesco (TSCO.L: Quote, Profile, Research) have also shelved investment plans due to the uncertainty.

India does not allow foreign multibrand retail stores, but Wal-Mart (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) has agreed to a wholesale venture with India's Bharti Enterprises. They expect to open their first cash-and-carry store this year.

Large companies still account for only 3 percent of India's retail market. Retailers fear protests could snowball in India as politicians feel it could win them votes ahead of general election due next year.

Those against private retail say 40 million jobs will be lost, against the 2 million that modern retail promises to create.

Apparently not wanting to dress up as jolly old saint nick can get you fired from Wal-Mart. Check out this article from the Morning Sentinel:

A Lebanon man alleges he was fired last month by the local Wal-Mart because he refused to dress up as the store's Santa Claus.
A spokesman for the retail giant denied the claim, which was filed this week with the Maine Human Rights Commission on behalf of 27-year-old Christopher Nolan.

In his complaint, Nolan said he thought it was a joke when he was asked on Dec. 8 to fill in as the store Santa Claus at the Wal-Mart on Main Street. He said his co-workers were laughing.

Nolan, who described himself as an atheist who does not believe in Christmas, said he laughed as well and then declined. "I said, 'Uh, no way,'" he said in an interview last month.

Nolan said he was surprised when his supervisor called him later to say he had an hour to change his mind. When Nolan again refused to don the Santa suit, he said, his boss brought him into his office and told him he was fired.

"He said, 'We have to do an exit interview,'" said Nolan, who said he worked at the store for three years, most recently as a bicycle assembler.

Nolan provided Blethen Maine Newspapers a copy of his exit interview form that was signed by the store manager and includes the following statement of termination from his supervisor: "Asked Chris several times to dress up as Santa Claus. Repeatly (sic) told me no and then said he would look for another job. Didn't listen to me at all. Told him I would take him out of the system."

Mandi Cotter, manager of the Sanford Wal-Mart, declined to comment on Nolan's allegation. John Simley, a spokesman at Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters, said the company "can't comment on the circumstances of an associate's termination." He added that the "facts as they're described are not true."

Nolan's lawyer, Chad Hansen, of the firm Peter Thompson & Associates of Portland, said he sent the complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission on Monday.

Under Maine law, people alleging discrimination must file a complaint with the commission before filing a lawsuit.

The commission will assign an investigator to look into Nolan's allegation. The investigator will then issue a report for the full commission, which will then vote whether there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Nolan was discriminated against. It can take up to two years for the commission to decide whether Nolan's rights were violated.

After six months Nolan could also ask the commission for a "right-to-sue letter," allowing him to take his case to a Maine superior court. At that point the commission would stop its investigation.

A recent AP article highlights just how much money Wal-Mart is spending on lobbying our government. While their presence in DC isn't new, they've started spending a huge amount in the last year or two. Here are a few exerpts from the article:

Wal-Mart's message to America is "Save money. Live better." Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.

The world's largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.

...Wal-Mart, long criticized for having skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.

Here's the full article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wal-Mart's message to America is "Save money. Live better." Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.

The world's largest retailer spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 and is on pace to break the nearly $2.5 million it spent for all of 2006.

While overall spending on lobbying appears to be slowing a bit, some industries, such as private equity, and companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are bucking the trend.

A relative newcomer to lobbying, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company is making sure Capitol Hill knows it doesn't take a discount approach to getting its message out about everything from immigration to financial-services licensing.

Wal-Mart spent more than $4 million lobbying in the past 18 months compared with the $6.6 million it collectively spent in the prior seven years, according to federal lobbying reports.

The retail sector as a whole isn't a lobbying juggernaut in Washington, where defense, energy and pharmaceutical industries write the big checks. For example, Target Corp. spent $100,000 in lobbying expenses in the first six months this year, Sears Holding Corp. spent about $141,000, while defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. spent $4.8 million in the same period.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar would not comment on specific legislation or issues. He said the company's spending depends on the congressional agenda.

This year, that agenda included immigration reform legislation that failed and a minimum wage-hike bill that passed. The company has said higher wages will push up the cost of goods for customers.

For their part, Wal-Mart lobbyists pushed for tougher tactics against organized retail crime and for legislation promoting electronic health records and other technology aimed at reducing health-care costs.

But, Wal-Mart, long criticized for having skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.

In the financial services arena, Wal-Mart dropped a bid for a bank license earlier this year after it was strongly opposed by banks, unions and other critics. It continues to push for the ability to offer other financial services, such as prepaid Visa debit cards for millions of low-income shoppers who don't have bank accounts.

Other issues listed on the disclosure form included legislation tied to international trade matters, currency, taxes and banking.

Brian Dodge, spokesman for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which counts Wal-Mart, Costco Wholesale Corp. and Target among its 60 retail members, said in the last few years his group's lobbying efforts have increased involving various issues, including product safety, the environment, organized retail crime, health insurance and jobs.

While he couldn't speak specifically about Wal-Mart, Dodge said the retail industry must deal with more complex matters, such as imported products involving increased government oversight by several agencies.

Wal-Mart, which established a Washington shop about 10 years ago, spent just $140,000 in 1999. It spent about a $1 million annually for the next several years, before increasing its lobbying representation and funds in 2005 amid increased criticism of labor practices and benefits.

"For a long time, Sam Walton really didn't think that Wal-Mart should be involved in politics," said Lee Drutman, a University of California at Berkeley doctoral student who is writing his dissertation on lobbying. "That was part of his actual belief so Wal-Mart was late to the game."