Here are all three parts of KMOV's investigative report that found Wal-Mart dumping tons of edible food instead of donating it to local soup kitchend and pantries. They also found that dumping all this good food was official Wal-Mart corporate policy. I guess if Wal-Mart can't make money on it, it doesn't matter if it is socially responsible.

Throwing your lot in with Wal-Mart these days seems to be a risky business. Just take a look at what happened to Wal-Mart's brand name soda producer Cott Corporation. Recently there's yet another example of a company that isn't looking too great because of it's close ties to Wal-Mart. Dell Computers is strugling and their move to sell computers at retail giants like Wal-Mart and Best Buy doesn't seem to be helping. Here's the story from Bloomberg:

Michael Dell gave himself until August to prove he can rescue his personal-computer company by selling machines through retailers. Shoppers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. aren't buying it.

Hewlett-Packard Co. and Sony Corp. are crowding out Dell Inc. computers at chains including Wal-Mart and Staples Inc., said Cowen & Co. analyst Louis Miscioscia in New York, who has had a ``neutral'' recommendation on the shares and an ``outperform'' assessment of Hewlett-Packard since August 2006.

One year after Dell's return as chief executive officer, the turnaround he promised remains elusive. Dell, down 14 percent since January 2007, costs 13 times estimated profit, almost as much as Hewlett-Packard, which became the biggest PC maker in 2006. Dell will fall further behind with sales growth of 6.7 percent this year, compared with Hewlett-Packard's 10 percent, according to analysts' average estimates.

``

Dell is competing with one arm behind its back,'' said Walter Price, a portfolio manager who helps oversee $3 billion at RCM Capital Management in San Francisco and has been buying Hewlett-Packard. ``Dell doesn't have the broad product lineup of H-P. Dell doesn't have the deep relationships with their partners that H-P has, and Dell's effort in retail is unsophisticated.''

While two-thirds of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg suggest buying Dell, 85 percent of those following Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard recommend purchasing the stock.

Market Share

Dell has captured a 5 percent share at Best Buy Co. and Staples stores since October, said spokesman David Frink, citing data from market researcher NPD Group Inc.

``Moving from zero to 5 percent market share in three months reflects the company's focus and commitment to the retail market,'' Frink said in a telephone interview.

The second-largest PC maker, whose stock had fallen 15 percent on the Nasdaq Stock Market this year before today, may post 12 percent sales growth when it reports earnings after U.S. markets close. The shares rose 6 cents to $20.83 at 2:13 p.m. New York time.

Analysts, on average, predict $16.2 billion in revenue for the fourth quarter ended Feb. 1. Profit probably rose 8.1 percent to $784.9 million, according to a Bloomberg survey.

Dell, 43, has remodeled his Round Rock, Texas-based company's direct-only sales strategy, attempting to fight Hewlett-Packard in retail outlets worldwide. Starting with Wal- Mart in June, he put Dell machines in 10,000 stores in the world's 10 largest markets in six months.

``I think 18 months is a good timeline to think about,'' Dell told Business Week in February 2007 when asked how long it would take to revive the company.

`Under Glass'

It's been a struggle since then. Hewlett-Packard, the top seller of PCs for six straight quarters, is in 110,000 stores. Dell doesn't have enough models on display to satisfy shoppers looking to weigh their options, Miscioscia said.

He said Dell had only three models at Best Buy stores he visited and Wal-Mart displayed Dell's computers ``under glass in a cage, locked down tight.''

Dell is building momentum as its partnerships expand, spokesman Bob Kaufman said in an e-mail. The company tailors offerings at Best Buy, Staples and Wal-Mart to customer needs. ``Our goal is to deliver the right technology solution in specific retail environments rather than having products and technology get stale on store shelves.''

`Too Flashy'

Brent Bracelin, an analyst with Pacific Crest Securities in San Francisco, estimates that Dell's retail effort could add $1 billion in sales next year.

``Dell is poised for the best growth in two years,'' Bracelin wrote in a Feb. 26 note. He advises investors to buy the stock and doesn't own it.

At a Staples in Vauxhall, New Jersey, two Dell laptops were on display while the store had five Hewlett-Packard models.

Efforts to court consumers with colors including Ruby Red, Espresso and Flamingo Pink may not be working.

Marie Thibault chose a black Fujitsu Siemens laptop over Dell at Tesco Plc outside London in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. ``I don't like the aggressive silver color of the Dell,'' the 20-year-old au pair said. ``It looks a bit too flashy.''

`Better Price'

Among Dell's repeat customers, Eric Rauch, a 29-year-old New York lawyer, got used to the lower prices Dell offered online. He owns two of the company's PCs and browsed a Best Buy in Manhattan before deciding not to shop in the store. ``I can usually weasel a better price out of them on the phone.''

Hewlett-Packard remained the top-selling notebook among resellers last month, said Bill Fearnley Jr., an analyst with FTN Midwest Securities in Boston whose team surveyed almost 70 outlets that sell Dell PCs.

Since January, Dell has made inroads against Acer Inc. and its Gateway brand, said Fearnley. He advises investors to hold Dell and buy Hewlett-Packard, and owns neither.

``We are expecting Dell to make some traction,'' Fearnley said. ``For all that effort and investment though, how many sales are beyond what they would have had through direct-only?''

Globally, Dell's market share fell to 14.9 percent in 2007 from 16.6 percent, while Hewlett-Packard, Acer, Toshiba Corp. and Lenovo Group Ltd. gained, according to researcher IDC in Framingham, Massachusetts. Dell's shipments grew 2.3 percent, while competitors advanced 27.5 percent combined.

Analyst Meeting

Some shareholders haven't given up. Baltimore-based T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. added 16.7 million Dell shares last quarter, increasing its stake 36 percent to 63.3 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

``We are making the bet that a couple of years out, Dell can return to industry-level growth and industry-level profitability,'' T. Rowe analyst Chirag Vasavada said.

Michael Dell may face questions about his strategy in April, when the company holds its first analyst meeting in three years in Round Rock.

``Retail is very complicated,'' portfolio manager Price said. ``It may be easy for a name brand like Dell to get shelf space, but it's still hard to make money.''

In January, an investigative reporter from St. Louis station KMOV went undercover and found that Wal-Mart was throwing away a huge amount of food that had reached its sell-by date, but was still perfectly safe to eat. The station recently learned that this is official Wal-Mart corporate policy. Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri and Representative Jo Ann Emerson have written letters to Lee Scott telling him to donate the food to pantries and soup kitchens. Check out the report!

So in the consumerist's "Worst Company in America" Poll here are the results thus far:

Comcast: 21%
Best Buy: 8%
Bank of America: 5%
Fox News: 5%
Walmart: 5%
Countrywide: 4%
Verizon: 3%
AT&T: 3%

We are pretty sure that Wal-Mart's business practices make it a worst company that Bank of America and Best Buy, so get out there and vote!

A very interesting pieces about the corporateization of organic food in the Corporate Watch Newsletter suggests Wal-Mart had a hand in the trend, and indicates that Wal-Mart cares less about the environment and more about it's image. Here are a couple of excerpts from the article:

Multinational food corporations have developed organic versions of their best selling brands, some have been pushed into it by WalMart; which has put pressure on the big food corporations to produce organic versions of their big brands. The big food companies with organic ranges include: Heinz, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Groupe Danone, Nestle, Unilever Bestfoods, RHM, Mars/Masterfoods, Kraft, Premier Foods, Northern Foods and Pepsi-Co. You can now get all your favourite processed foods in organic versions: ketchup, baked beans, rice crispies, creamed rice,custard, ready meals and, for a brief while, an organic version of Pot Noodle (though that’s now been discontinued) What started out as a method of producing healthy and nutritious food is now turning out highly-industrialised multi-ingredient (but organic) products.

The large food manufacturers are careful not to make their non-organic foods look unhealthy. Organic foods are instead being ‘niche’ marketed along with vitamin-enriched products and functional foods, in the eyes of General Mills [a US food corporation], ‘organic is not a revolution so much as a market niche’...

...The dairy set up by Rachel Rowland’s grandmother was the first certified organic dairy farm in the UK, and has always promoted itself as a family firm based in rural Wales. To maintain this image there is no mention on product labels or on Rachel’s website that the company is now owned by Dean Foods, the largest dairy corporation in the US. Dean Foods operates more than 120 processing plants and employs 28,000 people. Dean Foods’ main shareholders include some of the biggest corporations in the world: Microsoft, General Electric, Philip Morris, Citigroup, Pfizer, Exxon/Mobil, Coca Cola, WalMart and PepsiCo. Dean is busy increasing its share of the organic dairy market with their brand - Horizon, dubbed the ‘Microsoft of organic milk’, already controlling over 55% of the US retail organic milk market. To increase this further, it has teamed up with WalMart to sell Horizon products in large volumes at low prices, pushing smaller cooperative and family-owned organic dairies out of business.

Our friends over at the Consumerist have their election for Americas Worst Company in 2008, so go vote!

In Wal-Mart's latest move towards becoming a government unto itself, it was recently announced that Wal-Mart "environmental experts" would audit state capitals as part of their new partnership with the National Governors Association. Now Wal-Mart trying to help state capitals go green isn't a problem, but shouldn't an environmental organization be doing the auditing? Isn't it a problem that Wal-Mart may very well suggest new lightbulbs (that they are selling) and new thermostats (that they are selling) and new window shades (that they are selling)?

Here's the article from the Environmental News Service:

WASHINGTON, DC, February 25, 2008 (ENS) - As part of their focus this year on clean energy, the nation's governors Saturday announced a partnership between the National Governors Association and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that is intended to reduce the overall energy consumption of state capitol complexes.

Under the Greening the Capitols partnership, a team of Wal-Mart energy experts will conduct a clean energy audit of up to 20 state capitol complexes during 2008 and 2009. They will identify energy efficiency improvements that could provide a return on investment within five years.

In addition, the Wal-Mart team will demonstrate the anticipated cost savings and greenhouse gas reductions each state could experience by implementing the recommended improvements in the state capitols, many of which are more than 100 years old.

In 2005, Wal-Mart announced its sustainability policy which the company says incldues, "Aggressively pursuing regulatory and policy changes that will create incentives for utilities to invest in energy efficiency, to use low or no greenhouse gas sources of electricity, and to reduce barriers to integrating these sources into the power grid."

The company will work with states to survey their state capitol facilities and suggest energy efficiency improvements based on technologies Wal-Mart has deployed in thousands of its buildings around the world.

The audited areas will include lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, refrigeration, programmable thermostats, and building structure, insulation and windows.

There will be no up-front costs to the states for the audits. In addition to recommending efficiency improvements, Wal-Mart will provide estimates of the carbon dioxide emissions reductions that could result from increasing the energy efficiency of the state buildings.

The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices will help identify states for participation in the Greening the Capitols partnership and then will catalog the successes each participating state experiences.

The partnership with Wal-Mart was announced during the National Governors Association, NGA, winter meeting that wound up today in Washington, DC.

"From the discussions we've had these past three days, it's clear that governors are leading the way to Americanize this country's energy future," said NGA Chair Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Each incoming NGA chair chooses an issue to work with during his or her term of office - Pawlenty's is the Securing a Clean Energy Future Initiative.

"This Initiative is not just about improving the way we produce energy in this country," Pawlenty said, "it's about improving our national security, our economic well-being and our overall quality of life."

All governors are asked to help make the United States a global leader in energy efficiency, clean energy technology, energy research and the use of alternative fuels.

The governors are receptive. In their 2007 State of the State Addresses, 45 out of the 50 governors discussed initiatives to develop alternative sources of energy or promote conservation.

"We're on the verge of an energy revolution in this country," said NGA Vice Chair Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell. "And it's clear that charting our own energy future will require every available resource at America's disposal, from clean coal and nuclear to biofuels and renewables."

Today, the NGA officially released "Greener Fuels, Greener Vehicles: A State Resource Guide," a new report from the Securing a Clean Energy Future Initiative.

The report provides an overview of the economic and environmental implications of an oil-dependent transportation sector and looks at state policy tools that can encourage greener transportation.

It describes the core barriers preventing wider consumption of alternative fuels and production of alternative vehicles, as well as examples of promising state policies designed to overcome these specific barriers.

Governor Pawlenty also shared with his colleagues the recently released Securing a Clean Energy Future Initiative publication, "A Call to Action," a report declaring America's current energy path unacceptable because of escalating economic risk and serious environmental consequences.

R. James Woolsey, venture partner with Vantage Pont and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, addressed the governors about the "critical need to develop alternatives to imported petroleum," the prospects for current and near-term technologies to reduce America's oil demand and how states can serve as catalysts to advancing these technologies in the marketplace.

John Doerr, partner with Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, articulated how the investment community views the market for clean energy technologies, identified some of the most promising clean energy technologies and offered suggestions on what role states should play in spurring clean energy innovation.

"We know there is no silver bullet to solve this crisis," said Governor Rendell, "but when we add up all the steps states and individuals are taking across the country, we can begin to see the start of our energy revolution."

The nation's governors next convene for the National Governors Association Centennial Meeting July 11-14, in in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Wal-Mart announced it would be cutting shelf space of its branded soda. It is a major blow to soft drink supplier Cott's that makes Sam's Choice Soda. Wal-Mart is it's biggest customer, and while nothing is final, the cut to shelf space could mean drastic cuts into their profits. It is unclear why Wal-Mart is puling back, but it is a clear example of what Wal-Mart can do to a business. Here's the story from Reporton Business:

Soft-drink maker Cott Corp. [BCB-T] , which is already battling to turn back a tide of red ink, saw its shares plunge by more than one-third Tuesday as it confirmed it is losing some of its vital Wal-Mart Stores Inc. business.

By midday, the shares had plummeted by $1.40 (U.S.) or 34.5 per cent to a new 52-week low of $2.65 on the New York Stock Exchange, having fallen 91 cents or 18 per cent Monday.

The Toronto company issued a brief statement before the market opened saying it has received a notice from Wal-Mart, its largest customer, that the giant retailer is reducing the amount of shelf space and merchandising support it provides for the private-label carbonated soft drinks, including Sam's Choice, that it buys from Cott.

Cott said the reduction would be “significant” to its business plans but also said it is still “actively negotiating” with Wal-Mart and the program for 2008 has not been determined.

“We do know that there will be a reduction but I don't believe anything is finalized,” a Cott spokeswoman said.

The company also said Wal-Mart's notice did not indicate the reduction in shelf-space and support also applies to Sam's Choice water.

Cott, which bills itself as the largest producer of retailer-brand soft drinks in the world, said it was responding to recent reports of shelf re-allocation by the Bentonville, Ark., retailer. In a report Friday, Beverage Digest suggested Cadbury Schweppes may be gaining space on Wal-Mart's shelves for its Royal Crown and Diet Rite sot drinks at Cott's expense.

The reports triggered the sharp fall Monday for Cott's already battered shares.

The Canadian company is banking on its U.S. bottled-water and energy drink businesses – including a new line of fortified water for dogs, no less – to get back into the black, as declining consumer demand for soda pop and rising costs have taken the fizz out of its financial results.

The bad news about Wal-Mart comes just under three weeks after Cott reported a loss of $76.8-million or $1.07 a share, for the fourth quarter of 2007, compared with $29.6-million or 41 cents a year earlier. The most recent loss a $55.8-million goodwill writedown, as well as a $9.7-million asset impairment charge.

Revenue was $412.4-million, compared with $400.1-million.

Analysts estimate that Cott has an average of about 16 feet of shelf space for its soft-drinks in Wal-Mart stores in the United States.

Analyst Kaumil Gajarwala at UBS Securities in New York said Tuesday Cott's loss of shelf space at its top customer is “a cause for concern.” As a result, he told clients in a note, he has reduced his rating on the company's shares to “neutral” from “buy” and slashed his target price to $4.50 (U.S.) from $8.

Wal-Mart currently accounts for 38 per cent or $700-million of Cott's total revenue, he said. “We believe,” he added, “the revenue loss from losing four feet of shelf space could represent up to 10 per cent of Cott's current Wal-Mart revenues, or $70-million.”

Mr. Gajarwala said his new price target for Cott's shares is based on a new, lower multiple of 6 times the company's estimated annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $125-million. This, he said, is “below average bottler multiples of 7 to 8 times.”

Another analyst, who spoke on condition he not be named, said the development at Wal-Mart is “potentially very serious” for Cott, because it suggests the retailer is finding it more profitable to sell other brands in that shelf-space rather than the retailer-brand product from the Canadian company.

“So this may just be the beginning, and not just in Wal-Mart,” the analyst said. “It also may be a signal to other retailers to start doing the same thing.”

Still, he noted that the Safeway Inc. supermarket chain in the United States has said publicly it wants to boost its private label soft-drinks up to 50 per cent of sales.

As well, he said, private-label brands can be a “good tool” for retailers when they are negotiating with major brands.

The analyst also said the problem Cott is having with Wal-Mart on this front is another illustration of one of the fundamental difficulties it has always faced in the private-label business. “The biggest risk for Cott has always been that it didn't control its own destiny,” he said.

Not surprisingly, people don't seem to like that Wal-Mart is getting away with skirting their taxes. They don't stand to benefit, no matter how much Wal-Mart claims they are passing the saving on to you. People are smart enough to realize that the money Wal-Mart is stealing from state taxes are going to thier monumental profits, not to the consumer. Here's a good opinion piece about the tax loop hole in Virginia from The Daily Press

Thanks to Del. Timothy Hugo (R-Centerville) and his Republican-dominated subcommittee for helping Wal-Mart remain profitable. Because of the inaction of the subcommittee that he chairs, the Wal-Mart conglomerate retains the opportunity to pay rent to itself and write it off as an expense, thus avoiding a large tax payment to the state of Virginia. As noted in the article, Wal-Mart and other large companies have been astute enough to legally take advantage of this flaw in Virginia's and most other states' laws.

Unfortunately, as an infrequent shopper at Wal-Mart, I am unable to reap the benefits of the resulting lower prices passed along to the consumers, as touted by the Wal-Mart lobbyist, Kelly Hobbs.

I do have one question for Hobbs: Is it true that Wal-Mart has increased prices in stores in Vermont, New York and West Virginia to compensate for the additional corporate state tax it has to pay to those states since they have closed the loophole? Or, are they sharing in the $6 million cost-savings that Wal-Mart realizes in Virginia, thus helping keep everybody's prices low? If so, residents of those states owe us Virginians a hearty "thank you."

Six more states either have closed, or are in the process of closing, this tax loophole — six more states that can thank Virginia for the cost-savings their consumers reap along with the added corporate tax revenue in their state coffers.

A recent ruling in a Quebec court found that Wal-Mart did not violate labor laws when it closed down it's store and fired all the workers there. The court ruled that it was perfectly fine to fire the employees because the store was closing and the company did not need their services any more. While that is perfectly true, when you look closer at the case, this sets a troubling precedent. This particular store was not simply shut down, it was shut down after it became the first unionized Wal-Mart. This ensures that there will be no legal ramifications for the massive corporation for its most recent dirty trick in fighting unionization. Here's the article from The Lawyers Weekly:

Quebec’s well-deserved reputation as having the most progressive labour laws on the continent has taken a hit after a recent Quebec Court of Appeal ruling determined that Wal-Mart Canada Corp. did not transgress the province’s Labour Code when it closed down a store shortly after employees became the first to earn union accreditation in North America.

In a unanimous ruling that overturned a decision by the Quebec Labour Relations Board, a provincial judicial body that oversees labour legislation, the appeal court stated that it is well established that an employer’s decision to close down its enterprise, “even if its motives behind its actions are socially debatable,” constitutes a just and sufficient cause to lay off its employees.

On February 2005, Wal-Mart closed down its store in the remote town of Jonquière on the day that an arbitrator was given a mandate to impose its first collective agreement. Nearly 80 complaints were then lodged by the laid-off employees before the board against the Wal-Mart, arguing that s. 15 of the Quebec’s Labour Code should come into effect, namely that the employer took reprisals against them because they exercised a right arising from the Labour Code .

On September 2005, after examining four of the complaints, the board concluded that three of the four complainants established a “presumption in their favour,” that is, that the sanction imposed upon them was taken because they exercised their rights, as per s. 17 of the Labour Code. Under s. 17 an employee must demonstrate that he was a salaried employee, that he was the object of a sanction and that he exercised a right under the Labour Code. If the employee passes the test, then the burden of proof is upon the employer to demonstrate that it resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for “good and sufficient reason.”

The commissioner ruled that Wal-Mart did not provide “good and sufficient reason” because it kept its options open to re-open store No. 3643, given the absence of an explanation over the future of the locale it rented for a period of 20 years.

“Wal-Mart did not satisfy the burden of proof to convince the Board that the closing of the establishment was definitive that can be considered as good and sufficient cause as required as per s. 17 of the Labour Code,” said the board. The board had still reserved its judgment regarding a remedy when its decision was appealed.

The ruling was upheld by Quebec Superior Court after it determined that the board did not commit a manifestly unreasonable error in the appreciation of the evidence given the criteria developed by jurisprudence.

But in a ruling that was applauded by business while denounced by labour, the Court of Appeal determined that the board erred in its interpretation of s. 17 of the Labour Code by imposing a burden of proof on the employer that the law does not demand.

While under s. 17 an employer must demonstrate, if it intends to “definitely close down its establishment,” that it has good and sufficient reason for its actions against employees, it does not have “the obligation to prove that the decision is not a subterfuge,” said Justice Paul-Arthur Gendreau in the eight-page ruling.

He added that it would be “unreasonable to oblige employers to demonstrate the absence” of a ruse that disguises its intentions of an eventual re-opening of its enterprise. On the contrary, it is up to employees to provide evidence that demonstrates that the employer’s contentions are false and hide ulterior motives, said Judge Gendreau.

As a result, the Quebec Court of Appeal granted Wal-Mart’s motion for a request for judicial review of the Commissioner’s ruling.

According to lawyers representing both parties, the ruling not only quashes the Commissioner’s judgment but also puts an end to the case – something that does not sit well with Bernard Philion, a Montreal lawyer who pled the case for Wal-Mart’s former employees.

“The court, from my understanding, is saying that employers will now have to only demonstrate that when they close down an establishment that it is definitive. They are under no obligation to prove that it is a subterfuge,” said Philion of the Montreal law firm Philion, Leblanc, Beaudry.

Philion is currently examining the possibility of requesting leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. He argues that the case also deals with an issue that the Court of Appeal did not examine, namely the right to freedom of association – an argument he plead before the board.

“The board, given that it came to the conclusion that the company did not prove that the closing of its store was definitive, felt it did not have to render judgment over the Charter of Rights argument,” said Philion. “It was therefore something that was not debated before Quebec Superior Court. It is our contention that since the Court of Appeal granted the motion for judicial review, the case should have been sent back to the board so that it can rule over the Charter of Rights argument.”

According to Richard Gaudreault, a partner with Heenan, Blaikie that successfully pleaded the case, the ruling thwarts a “canny argument” by labour that attempted to shift the burden of proof onto employers who close down their establishments to demonstrate that it is not a ploy.

“We maintained that when an employer definitively closes down his establishment, the good and sufficient reason for laying off the employees is that they no longer need their services,” said Gaudreault. “To compel an employer to provide evidence indicating the absence of subterfuge is almost impossible. It becomes an extremely onerous burden.”

For those of you not on our mailing list, here's our most recent action e-mail:

Last year, we won an important victory when Wal-Mart withdrew its application for an ILC (Industrial Loan Corporation) bank, which is a way for a non-banking company such as a retailer to operate a bank. Then, the mere idea of a Wal-Mart Bank provoked an unprecedented backlash. When the dust settled, the chances of a Wal-Mart Bank seemed like a remote possibility. Unfortunately, it isn't. The FDIC moratorium on corporate industrial bank charters has expired. Today, there is nothing keeping Wal-Mart from pursuing a special ILC bank that would operate with little government oversight and dangerously blur the line between commerce and banking. Commercially owned banks will have an incentive to steer credit away from competitors and towards favored clients. Additionally, if a commercial company that owns a bank fails, it may put the bank and FDIC insurance funds at risk.

Until the loophole allowing for ILCs is closed for good, corporations like Wal-Mart will continue to pose a threat to America's banking industry. Senator Chris Dodd has proposed a piece of legislation that will patch the defect in our banking policy, but the bill is bogged down in a partisan debate. Unless we all act now, the bill may not even make it to the floor for a vote.

We need your help in getting this vital legislation through the Senate. Write your Senators today and tell them to take a stand for sound banking policy. Together, we can keep Wal-Mart out of the American banking industry.

Stop the Wal-Mart Bank: Write a letter to your Senators today

Wal-Mart already has a history of unfair financial dealings. Last November, Wal-Mart de Mexico opened the first of a string of in-store Wal-Mart banks. Today, those branches prey on poor and under-served customers, offering predatory loans with outrageous 75% interest rates.

In America, Wal-Mart pushes credit cards that downplay absurd 25% APRs and pre-paid Visas chock-full of hidden fees. In 2006, while Wal-Mart pursued an American ILC, it went so far as to lie under oath while giving testimony to FDIC regulators.

Clearly, the facts speak for themselves. We can't allow an irresponsible corporation like Wal-Mart to threaten our nation's banking industry. Please, take action today—tell your Senators to take a stand for consumers and for responsible banking.

Write your Senators in support of Senator Dodd's bill

Don't forget to forward this message on to your friends and family. With your help, we can end Wal-Mart's banking ambitions for good.

Thanks for all that you do,

The Team
WakeUpWalMart.com

Despite the worst inflation in 11 years, Wal-Mart is sticking with its Chinese suppliers. Though production costs are rising, Wal-Mart will continue to buy billions of dollars worth of goods from the country, and rely on "productivity improvements" in their stores to off set the cost. One wonders if any of these "productivity improvements" will come in the form of cutting hours or laying off associates to keep profits up.

Here's an exerpt from the Reuters article:

Wal-Mart buys $9 billion in directly sourced products from China, but executives declined to give estimates for indirectly sourced products.

Duke, who oversees Wal-Mart's international operations, told reporters in Beijing that productivity improvements would help to counter inflation, which is running at the highest levels in 11 years.

"Some (product lines) might move to another country, but another thing moves to China," Duke said, adding that China was becoming an increasingly sophisticated manufacturer of high-tech goods.

Here's a story about Wal-Mart suing people on the lighter side:

According to the Iceland Review, an Icelandic artist named one of his pieces "Wa1m-ART" and after it came down started a web site, www.Wa1mart.com. Now Wal-Mart is taking the artist to court. Perhaps they are worried about the similarity of their website, www.Wal-Mart.com to his site, as they claim, or maybe they just didn't like his art, or the fact that he used their name to make a comment on consumerism. What ever the reason, it certainly is humorous.

In yet another example of Wal-Mart using shady tactics to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, the retailer has sued a town over the value of its assessment. Now let’s ignore for a moment that this is clearly just a ploy by Wal-Mart to get out of paying taxes, and that it could cost the city $40,000 it has to pay back to Wal-Mart. Let’s ignore the court costs to the city, and the harm that could be done from the reduced tax rate it might receive. Lastly, let’s ignore the fact that Wal-Mart made $100 Billion in the last quarter alone (more than any other retailer) and has the money to pay a bit extra in city taxes. Even ignoring all that, there is still something fishy in this deal. Why does Wal-Mart get to set their own assessment? Can a home owner, say to the city "No, my house isn't worth that, its worth vastly less"?

This is almost as crooked as if Wal-Mart were trying to pay itself rent and deduct the amount from it's taxes...hold on a second, they're doing that too!

Here's the article detailing Wal-Mart's law suit from the Watertown Daily Times:

The town of LeRay is facing a lawsuit by Wal-Mart contesting its assessment of the company's supercenter on Route 11.

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and Wal-Mart Stores East LP is challenging its $13 million assessment in state Supreme Court, saying the actual assessment should be less than half that amount, about $5.7 million. The company filed the lawsuit in July.

However, town Assessor Terry L. Buckley argues that his assessment is fair and that the company is trying to get out of paying its share of taxes.

"They're just trying to get by and pay nothing," he said.

Wal-Mart's store, which opened in February 2006, and the lot in front of it are assessed at a combined $13,180,800 on the town's 2007-08 tax rolls.

The company argues that assessments on other properties within the town are calculated at a rate not exceeding 75 percent of true value. Wal-Mart said that while its properties are assessed at $13.2 million, the true total value of the properties does not exceed $7.2 million, meaning the assessment, based on a 75 percent equalization rate, should be $5.7 million, or $7,480,800 less than the town claims.

According to Mr. Buckley, he used the values of other Wal-Mart stores in the area to complete his assessment. He said the LeRay store is assessed at less per square foot than some other stores.

Mr. Buckley said the LeRay Wal-Mart is valued at $63 per square foot, while stores in Malone and Lowville are each assessed at about $70 per square foot.

"I think I've got a very good assessment," he said.

Town attorney Eugene J. Langone said he is in preliminary talks with Wal-Mart's attorneys, Kavinoky Cook LLP, Buffalo, over the lawsuit. He said it is too soon to speculate what the outcome of the lawsuit will be. Mr. Langone said he hopes it can be settled without going to court.

However, Mr. Buckley said he is not interested in negotiating with the company.

"We're going to trial," he said.

According to court documents, the earliest trial date for the lawsuit would be this summer.

While there is no indication at this point who will win the lawsuit, Indian River Central School District already is preparing for a Wal-Mart victory.

According to district business manager James R. Koch, if Wal-Mart wins the challenge, the district will have to pay back up to $40,000 in excess taxes. He said district officials are planning to vote on creating a reserve fund in that amount within the next few weeks.

Mr. Koch said the district wants to put the fund in place so that money would not have to be cut from any programs in the school's budget if it has to pay back taxes.

"That's what we're trying to avoid," he said.

If the district approves the fund, the next step would be determining where in the budget the money should come from. Mr. Koch said residents would then have their say on it as part of the overall 2008-09 budget vote in May.

Neither the town nor the county has made any budget adjustments because of the lawsuit and has no plans to at this time. LeRay Supervisor Ronald C. Taylor said he was not concerned about its effect on town funds.

"I don't think this is that serious of a challenge," he said.

Here's a chart fom the Consumerist showing the results of Michiagan State University's consumer satisfaction survey:

With everyone worrying about the economy, you would think the world's largest retailer might be concerned about future profits. Several new news pieces, however, suggest that Wal-Mart is poised to do quite well in the upcoming "volatile economy". Here's an article from the Economist :

"WE know the economy will be a critical factor this year," said Lee Scott, the boss of Wal-Mart, as the world's biggest retailer released its quarterly results on February 19th. Wal-Mart's prospects do indeed reflect those of the economy at large—but not in the way you might expect. With America tipping towards recession, Wal-Mart is doing much better than in the past couple of years when the economy was booming. Sales increased by 8.3% compared with the same period last year, to a record $106.3 billion. Mr Scott concluded that in a volatile economy Wal-Mart was "well positioned to succeed".

And this recent opinion piece from the Washington Post suggests a more sinister side of Wal-Mart profiting from poverty:

If 19th-century England was a nation of shopkeepers, the United States today is a nation of shoppers, and our role in the world economy is to buy what other countries -- or U.S.-based corporations with factories in other countries -- make. It was not ever thus. In the four decades following World War II, our largest employer was General Motors; for the past decade, it's been Wal-Mart. GM followed in the footsteps of Henry Ford, who by 1913 had concluded that he needed to pay his workers enough that they could afford to buy a new Ford. Wal-Mart, by contrast, pays its workers so little that they are compelled to shop at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is planning on opening its first stores in India soon, but the stores may not carry Wal-Mart's name. While it is unclear why Bharti Retail, Wal-Mart's Indian subsidiary, might drop the name, recent stories of protest and organized resistance to the massive retail stores may be a clue. It is quite possible that the Wal-Mart name is so tainted that the company decided to drop it in India. Here's the full story from the Financial Express:

The Wal-Mart brand may not come to India anytime soon. Bharti Retail, with which the US retail giant has tied up for its India entry, may not use the Walmart name for its front-end retail stores. Mike T Duke, vice chairman, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, dropped enough hints about it when he said: “three-fourths of our international business earnings are under 52 local brands across the globe. We want to be seen as local retailers serving the needs of the local people in an area.”

However, Rajan Bharti Mittal, managing director, Bharti Enterprises, said the final rollout plans of the retail and cash and carry stores would be made in April, and brand names for the retail and cash and carry stores would be announced then. Mittal did not confirm whether the stores would sport the Wal-Mart name.

Sources say the forced closure of Reliance Retail in UP might have prompted Bharti to rework its branding strategy, and drop the Wal-Mart name to avoid any negative brand perception.

Duke said the international business division (catering to non-US Markets) of Wal-Mart clocked a turnover of $90 billion in the fiscal year ended January 31.

Duke also said Wal-Mart was expanding its staffing with the help of India’s leading IT firms.

After yesterday's news that Wal-Mart ranked dead last in a consumer satisfaction survey, the company released a statement, saying

Certainly, with about 140 million Americans visiting our stores every week, Wal-Mart remains the most popular shopping destination in the country, and our attention to customer service is one of the reasons why.

But clearly thier attention to customer service was lacking when a Muslim woman was mocked by Wal-Mart employees. The company issued an appology, as reported in this Wall Street Journal Aticle:

RIVERDALE, Utah (AP)--Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) apologized to a Muslim woman who said she was mocked because of her face veil.

"Please don't stick me up," a cashier told the shopper on Feb. 2, according to The Council on American-Islamic Relations.

It is no secret that there is a growing feeling of distaste when it comes to Wal-Mart. It turns out that Wal-Mart customers aren't particularly satisfied with the chain either. Wal-Mart ranked last in consumer safisfaction among discount and department stores in a new survey by Michiagan State University. Not only was the giant retailer last, but it's score fell 4 points in the last year. Here's the full story from Bloomberg.com:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. ranked lowest among U.S. discounters and department store chains in an annual survey of customer satisfaction as shoppers said they found less value in the world's largest retailer's prices.

Wal-Mart fell to 68 from 72 last year on a scale of 1 to 100, according to the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, released today. Minneapolis-based Target Corp., the second-largest discounter, held steady at 77. The average score for department and discount stores was 73, the lowest since 2001.

Customers may be increasingly dissatisfied with the goods Wal-Mart is carrying, said Claes Fornell, the professor who led the study. Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott has turned the company's focus back to groceries and household items after an ill-fated attempt to boost sales by luring fashion-conscious shoppers with silk camisoles and distressed jeans.

``It's perceived by the customers that quality is declining but price is not coming down correspondingly,'' Fornell said. Wal-Mart's score for customer service was also the lowest among discounters and department stores, Fornell said.

Scott discounted more items earlier in the holiday season to drum up revenue last year. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer's sales at stores open at least a year rose 1.7 percent during the fourth quarter, outpacing Target for the first time in 3 1/2 years.

``We survey more than 2 million customers every quarter, and they're indicating new highs in all five of the areas we measure, including faster, friendlier and cleaner stores,'' spokesman John Simley said.

`Customer Service'

``Certainly with about 140 million Americans shopping at our stores every week, Wal-Mart remains the most popular shopping destination in the country, and our attention to customer service is an important reason why.''

Fourth-quarter profit rose 4 percent to $4.1 billion, or $1.02 a share, compared with $3.94 billion, or 95 cents a share, a year earlier, the retailer said today. Revenue climbed to $107.4 billion.

Wal-Mart rose 30 cents to $49.74 at 10:45 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares gained 2.9 percent in New York trading in 2007 for the first increase in three years. The Standard & Poor's 500 Retailing Index fell 18 percent during that time.

Target said Feb. 7 that fourth-quarter same-store sales rose 0.2 percent.

Bargains Vs. Service

Growing customer dissatisfaction probably will have less impact at Wal-Mart than other retailers because shoppers visit its stores for bargains, not service, said George Whalin, president of Retail Management Consultants in Carlsbad, California. Consumers have trimmed spending in the face of falling U.S. home values and rising food and energy prices.

``The customer just doesn't stop at Wal-Mart because they know they're going to get this great Neiman-Marcus experience,'' Whalin said. ``They're going to get a big selection and low prices and they're going to get in and out of there.'' Whalin isn't affiliated with the University of Michigan survey.

Consumers in the survey gave Nordstrom Inc. a score of 80, placing it first in customer satisfaction among discount and department stores. Wal-Mart's grocery business tied with Winn- Dixie Stores Inc. for last place among supermarkets, with a score of 71, up from 69 a year earlier.

Wal-Mart has been at the bottom of the supermarket category in all of the four years that the university began tracking it. In the year ended Jan. 31, 2007, groceries comprised 31 percent of the discounter's sales, according to its annual report.

The survey analyzes data from interviews with at least 250 customers at each of about 200 companies studied. The University of Michigan surveys about 65,000 shoppers every year, according to its Web site.

As in many other states, Wal-Mart skirts paying taxes to the State of Virginia by paying itself rent and writing it off. Today comes news that Virginia may have to lay off workers and cut educational and other spending. So while Wal-Mart is getting rich, Virginia citizens may suffer. Here's more about Wal-Mart's tax evasion and Virginia's budget crisis from the Daily Press:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced this week that the cash-strapped state would need to cut education and other spending, and possibly start laying off state workers amid a $1.4 billion shortfall through 2010.

Kaine's original budget had included $6 million the state could reap annually by closing a loophole that allows Wal-Mart and some other large corporations to avoid taxes. The loophole remains open after a bill to close it died.

The loophole was closed in other states the last couple of years and brings no obvious benefits to Virginia, but a subcommittee quietly killed the bill. Wal-Mart lobbyist Kelly Hobbs said Wal-Mart passes all savings to its customers, so Virginians benefit.

"We'll do anything we can to lawfully reduce our costs and pass those savings on to our customers in the form of lower costs," said Hobbs.

So why would a state looking for cash not pursue a chance to end an unintentional tax break at a time when the budget is getting cut? The answer may lie in a subcommittee headed by Del. Timothy Hugo, R-Centreville, who didn't return a call for comment.

The bill, carried by Del. Steve Shannon, D-Vienna, would have followed at least nine other states that have made the move. Shannon couldn't be reached for comment. Hobbs said legislators indicated they had been lobbied by other retailers and banks on the issue.

The estimate that ending the loophole would have recaptured a minimum of $6.3 million annually in corporate taxes came from the Virginia Tax Department looking at a few retailers known to use the strategy. The savings could have been larger once state auditors looked into more firms.

Unlike in some tax debates, no company has claimed any benefit accrues to Virginia in terms of taxes, jobs or investment as a result of the loophole.

"It was a bill that the government supported, so it's a disappointment that it didn't pass," said Gordon Hickey, spokesman for Kaine.

Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and other large companies own their Virginia properties in what is called a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT. Wal-Mart essentially pays rent to itself, and the money washes through a variety of entities in a way that substantially reduces corporate income taxes in some states.

The process is legal and takes advantage of differences between Virginia and federal laws. The bill from Shannon, who specializes in some of these obscure tax issues, would have closed the loophole.

Hobbs said Wal-Mart also uses REITs to more easily manage its real estate, and does it in states that don't allow the loophole.

The subcommittee that killed the bill without a vote included eight Republicans and four Democrats.

The bill was based on recommendations from the Multistate Tax Commission, which has been very active in making sure that states address the captive REIT issue in a similar way to keep states' tax systems uniform.

The bill was also supported by the trade group for REITs, which wanted to make sure the legitimate system of REIT investment and taxation was not affected.

Wal-Mart has been trying to break in to the banking business recently, but they suffered a blow yesterday. They have been trying to take advantage of a loophole in the law, called an Industrial Loan Corporation (ILC), which allows retailers and other nonbanking businesses to operate their own banks with very little oversight. Yesterday new legislation passed through the Senate Banking Committee that would close the ILC loophole. You can read more about the new legislation here.

Before the vote on the legislation, Wake Up Wal-Mart sent the following letter to the Senators on the Banking Committee, and we hope that the full Senate will close the ILC loophole.

On behalf of WakeUpWalMart.com and its 410,000 members across the country, I write today to encourage you and your colleagues to consider and adopt Senator Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) legislation to close the Industrial Loan Corporations (ILC) loophole.

As you know, the ILC loophole permits commercial entities to own and operate industrial bank companies with very little oversight. The mixing of banking and commerce and inadequate oversight threatens the banking system and the federal deposit insurance fund.

The intersection of banking and commerce is dangerous because when banks are owned by commercial entities, conflicts of interest can skew loan decisions, unfairly restricting access to capital.

The business practices of Wal-Mart are just those that give rise to concerns about conflicts of interest and unfair use of capital. At every turn, we have seen Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, with more than $12 billion in profits in the past year, continually put its bottom line ahead of the safety and well-being of its customers.

In 2005, Wal-Mart applied to start an ILC. After significant controversy, Wal-Mart withdrew that application in March 2007, and has since moved into banking in Mexico. Until this loophole is closed, there is nothing to prevent Wal-Mart from applying again.

Wal-Mart’s history of putting profits ahead of American workers and consumers is not the type of corporation that has a place in the American banking industry.

Last week, Wal-Mart put out a press release touting its “economic stimulus plan for shoppers,” offering discounts on things “shoppers need” like Tostitos and big-screen televisions. To sweeten the deal, the retail giant enticed consumers to spend more than $250 on their Wal-Mart credit cards and get zero percent financing for 18 months – when the APR skyrockets to anywhere from 12 to 25 percent.

Chairman Dodd’s bill greatly reduces the threat posed by commercially-owned ILCs, places critical limitations on certain existing commercial ILCs, and will prohibit the creation of most new commercially-owned banks. We strongly encourage you to support Chairman Dodd’s legislation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Meghan H. Scott
WakeUpWalMart.com

Recently workers at Sam's Club in Mexico held a strike. They were upset because they weren't being paid for overtime hours, were being poorly treated, and because of gender discrimination. The morning after the strike, Wal-Mart signed a contract and the strike was over. But some find the quick resolution suspiscious to say the least. Here's an article from the New West explaining why the workers might have gotten the short end of the stick:

Quick Settlement of Mexican Wal-Mart Worker Strike is Suspicious

Every winter since my retirement I spend a month in Mexico at a timeshare in Cabo San Lucas. Over the years, I’ve seen many changes, and the most noticeable one is the Big Box stores going up along the 25-mile freeway between San Jose del Cabo and Cabo San Lucas.

Walmart, CostCo, Sam’s Club, and Home Depot stand as monuments to the new global marketplace. Both tourists and locals load up their cars with groceries and other items as the mom and pop markets struggle to make ends meet.

On February 7, workers at the Los Cabos Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and the VIPs Restaurant decided to call a strike. The workers complained that they had to work more than 8 hours a day; they were not paid over-time; they were forced to take arbitrary days off; their wages were sub-standard; and women suffered discrimination and sexual abuse.

At noon about 300 workers gathered outside the stores flying black and red strike flags. Their actions were swiftly rewarded. At 9 o’clock the next morning a contract was signed between Wal-Mart executives and union leaders in Mexico City.

Leading up to the strike, Wal-Mart had been telling the workers that they had already made a deal with their own labor association. The employees were both puzzled and insulted by this information. They had never heard about this organization, and a group of them told Wal-Mart that they wanted to be represented by the Workers and Peasants Revolutionary Confederacy, with the wonderful acronym of CROC.

Because of a steep decline in union membership in the U.S., precipitated by Ronald Reagan firing striking air controllers and Republican presidents stacking the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union appointments, American employers have taken advantage of the suppression of unions and the sad lack of labor literacy and awareness in the working population.

When he came into office, Bush appointed a former Wal-Mart attorney as head of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, but he has now left for much better pay at Jackson Lewis, the most effective union busting law firm in the nation.

As a part of employee orientation, Wal-Mart shows anti-union films that are as lurid and biased as the reefer madness films. No union representatives are ever allowed on the premises.

In countries where unions are strong, Wal-Mart has tried to make sweetheart deals with phony labor associations, such as this one that Wal-Mart lined up Mexico. Alternatively, they decide, as they have done in Canada, to close a brand new store rather giving their employees democracy in the workplace.

In China Wal-Mart has been quite content with signing cozy contracts with government- controlled unions rather than those organized by the workers themselves. That has led workers at one Chinese Wal-Mart to call their very first strike.

The Wal-Mart workers in Mexico may find that a politically controlled union is almost as bad as a government controlled one. CROC is firmly in the pocket of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which won every single national election from 1929 to 2000, and has, over the years, become corrupt and fossilized; in a word, institutionalized. The new leftist Party for the Democratic Revolution was only 300,000 votes short of winning the 2006 presidential election. The PRI was a distant third.

Normally, a local labor election is held at the workplace, and the workers would vote on the final contract. In this case there was no election and no vote on the contract.

The real reason for the quick strike settlement was most likely that Wal-Mart would rather negotiate with CROC’s national leaders rather than an independent union. CROC is well known for signing “protection contracts,” and that means more protection for the employers than the employees.

Since 1997, the independent Authentic Labor Front, aided by the American AFL-CIO and the pro-labor provisions of NAFTA, has been winning more and more elections, even though its members are thwarted by government labor boards and intimidated by the political unions.

Recently, a union affiliated with the Authentic Labor Front and composed mostly of indigenous women actually voted out CROC at a blue jeans factory in Tehuacan. Out of the 450 voting, only three workers chose to retain CROC.

When people criticize unions, one must remember that they can be voted out as well as in. It also reminds us that human institutions are only as good as the people that make them up, and that it is imperative to keep these organizations as democratic as possible.

Mexican Wal-Mart workers may find that their CROC union is just that: a “crock.”

It seems that Wal-Mart's negative impact on local economies is not limited to the United States. Many have watched as their local Main Street stores shut down, failing to compete with the low prices of big box stores. Now many will watch as the same thing happens in China. Here's an article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

When Tang Qiliang began selling handmade toys in the 1970s, children rushed to buy the fur-covered rabbits and tiny clay mice his family made.

But this year, in advance of last week's Lunar New Year holiday, parents mostly bypassed his family's store on a quiet Beijing back street.

They headed instead for Wal-Mart and other large retailers to buy the season's hot gifts: Transformers action figures and remote-controlled cars.

The failing fortunes of the store, a business the Tang family has run for five generations, is just one example of how traditional culture is fading in the face of globalization.

Most of the change has been driven by China's economic reforms: As China has become richer — growing its economy 11-fold since 1980 — the world's largest retailers have poured into the market to tap surging consumer spending.

Wal-Mart, which built its first store in China in 1996, now runs 101 stores, including 30 opened last year. Carrefour, the French retailer, operates 109 stores, including one in Beijing so crowded with holiday shoppers last week that many people couldn't find shopping carts and jostled in long lines.

At the same time, increasing numbers of foreign television programs and movies have stoked demand for foreign-designed products. The best-selling toy at the New China Children's Store, a large toy store on one of Beijing's most popular shopping streets, has been Transformers action figures, said Wang Yu, a manager at the store.

"Mostly, kids just want whatever they've seen on television," she said.

In a nation whose very name is synonymous with a world-famous handicraft — china — the shift has pushed most artisans out of business.

In the 1980s, it was common to see craftspeople selling their goods door-to-door, especially during the Chinese New Year, when Chinese families decorate their homes with auspicious paintings and paper cuttings.

Today few artisans can compete against stores selling cheaper factory-made goods and most have gone out of business, said Xie Wendong, owner of a small Beijing store that sells some handicrafts, though mostly to foreigners.

The economic pressures on China's toy makers have been particularly strong.

Sitting in the Bannerman Tang's Toy Shop, Tang Yujie, who manages the business that her great-great-grandfather started, estimated that only 20 toy makers continue to work in the city and said her family keeps the shop open "more as a hobby than for profit."

"Kids today want toys that are flashy and make sounds," she said. The demand has almost disappeared for the playthings on display at the shop — colorful paper kites, lifelike puppets and dollhouses modeled on traditional Chinese courtyard homes.

Tang worries that China has lost one of a few remaining links with its traditional culture. Holding up a small sculpture of a clay rabbit at her shop, she explained that few younger Chinese today understand the story of Lord Hare, a Chinese deity believed to have saved Beijing from a plague in ancient times.

Another toy in the shop, a gold-colored horse with a fur mane, traditionally sold in Buddhist temples on the second day of each lunar year as a talisman thought to bring wealth. But few Chinese now learn about traditional symbols, she said.

Globalization, however, has not been all bad for the Tang family. One of Tang Yujie's nephews works as a business manager at a foreign-run company, while another earns $1,500 a month as a computer technician, a high salary in Beijing.

None of the youngest Tangs chose to learn the craft of toy making, and Tang Yujie admitted that when she grows too old to make toys, their family tradition probably will die out.

"Globalization has been good for China, but we should also remember that there is value in our traditional culture," she said.

The most recent in a long list of dangerous products one can purchase from Wal-Mart is a plastic baby bottle. According to recent studies, these bottles can leach dangerous hormones when heated that may cause cancer, obesity and early onset puberty. Here's the full report from the Dow Jones Newswires:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Popular plastic baby bottles leach a hormone-disrupting chemical when heated, possibly posing a danger to infants, according to a study released Thursday by a consortium of consumer groups.

The study, which focused on six major brands of baby bottles sold in the United States and Canada, found that bisphenol A, used to make polycarbonate plastic, was given off by heated bottles in amounts that were within the range shown to cause harm in animal studies. Obesity, cancer, early-onset puberty and other conditions have been linked to BPA in animal experiments.

The report called for tighter government regulation, the phase-out of sales of BPA-containing baby bottles and further testing. It was produced by the Work Group for Safe Markets, a coalition of 17 public-health and environmental groups.

"Consumer pressure and market response is important, but we cannot shop our way out of this toxic problem," the report said. "Alternatives to products made with BPA are not available for all consumers in all markets, and it is often difficult or impossible to know if some items, like canned goods, contain bisphenol A. Government and the private sector must be part of the solution."

For the U.S., when bottles were heated from brands Avent, Disney/The First Years, Dr. Brown's and Evenflo, BPA was found to have leached at various levels. The Dr. Brown's bottles had the overall highest average BPA leaching, according to the report, while the Avent brand bottles had the lowest. A spokesman for Dr. Brown's declined to comment due to pending litigation against baby-bottle manufacturers.
For U.S. testing, 10 bottles in total were used, purchased in nine states from stores such as Target, Wal-Mart and Babies 'R' Us. The bottles were heated to 80 degrees Celsius to simulate multiple washings, and the effect of detergent.

"The test results of our study indicate that the United States' current lack of regulation of bisphenol A exposes infants and children to potentially dangerous levels of this unnecessary toxic chemical," according to the report.

Plastic baby bottles comprise 90% of the U.S. baby-bottle market, according to an industry group.

Some retailers have already responded to concerns. Whole Foods has ceased sales of baby bottles and child drinking cups made from polycarbonate plastic, according to the report. A handful of states are considering legislation to phase out or ban BPA, according to the report.

Also, the House energy and commerce's oversight and investigations subcommittee is investigating the use of BPA in products intended for infants and children, while the Ontario provincial government in Canada has started a process to review the chemicals for safety, according to the report.

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association Inc., a national trade group, said risk assessments performed by U.S. federal agencies "supports the safety of consumer products made with these plastics." However, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates consumer products, has been squeezed for years, and its oversight of products, especially those for children, has been criticized by lawmakers and consumer advocates.

JPMA said "a ban as is being proposed in some states" is not supported by science.

"Proponents of these bills base their support on an unsubstantiated hypothesized threat to child health," according to JPMA. "Banning reasonably produced and established safe products could force consumers to use less tested, less safe, alternative materials. In the process, such a ban actually deprives consumers of the ability to choose which products they want to buy for the care and enjoyment of their children."

How to protect yourself

The report recommends taking these steps to reduce exposure to BPA:

Use glass or polypropylene bottles (the #5 plastic) instead of polycarbonate, which is hard, shiny, clear or tinted plastic.

Do not use harsh detergents on polycarbonate bottles, or put bottles in the dishwasher. Use warm soapy water and a sponge.

Avoid heating foods in polycarbonate containers as BPA tends to leach faster at higher temperatures. Instead, use glass or ceramic containers.

Cut consumption of canned foods and beverages to reduce exposure to BPA from the interior coating of the container.

Wal-Mare is being sued once again. This time, it's not for gender discrimination or forcing employees to work off the clock. This time it's for refusing to help a customer when his three year old daughter was molested in a Wal-Mart! Following is the full story from the OC Register:

A Stanton father is suing Wal-Mart alleging that store managers in the Westminster outlet failed to protect or help his then 3-year-old daughter when she was being inappropriately touched by another man.

Tom Flood said in his civil complaint that he had to follow John Anderson, whom police later arrested on suspicion of a lewd act with a minor in connection with the incident.

Anderson reportedly touched and rubbed the girl's lower back and caressed her hair even as her father was standing a few feet away picking out Cinderella towels for her bathroom, Flood said in the suit.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said Thursday that he could not comment about pending litigation.

"But we try very hard to ensure a safe and secure environment for our customers and associates,'' he said.

Flood filed the complaint in Orange County Superior Court last month. Wal-Mart has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

Flood claims in the suit that during the May 19 incident he asked the store's manager to call the police, but the manager refused. The manager also told Flood that Anderson was the brother of an employee, the lawsuit states. Flood was forced to follow Anderson around the store with his daughter seated in the shopping cart, crying, until police arrived and arrested Anderson, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart among other things, failed to: contact authorities; help a distraught customer; supervise Anderson despite knowledge of his conduct with Flood's daughter; and maintain a safe environment for its customers.

Anderson is awaiting trial and has also been named as a defendant in Flood's lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages in excess of $25,000.

Flood, a single father, said that his daughter has suffered emotionally because of this incident.

"She is scared every time we drive by Wal-Mart or go in there," he said. "She is afraid to hug other kids in pre-school. I just feel like she's lost her innocence because of what happened to her."
When his daughter gets scared, he tries to assure her that he would be there to protect her.

"But she tells me, 'But you didn't, daddy,'" he said. "And that's been really hard for me."

Flood's attorney, Philip Putman, said he has seen an increase in civil molestation cases over the last 20 years.

"There just seem to be more and more predators and it happens way too often," he said. "Parents and guardians must completely avoid contact with strangers and be very careful when they are in a public place."

In late January Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott spoke to store managers and laid out Wal-Mart's ever-expanding goals. Among them were tackling climate change, becoming a "company of the future", and, rather explicitly, taking those pesky problems out of the hands of politicians and solving them. What got a lot of press was the 'green' goals of Wal-Mart, but the trend towards Wal-Mart as government seems more important...and scary. Here's a recent piece that highlights this theme from the Berkshire Eagle:

Wal-Mart poised for presidency

I'll admit it: Until only very recently, anytime I'd pass a Wal-Mart I'd fire my imaginary laser gun that's mounted on my hood. The laser beam makes big box stores disappear. A comforting, low-grade hum is all you hear, like sending a fax to Kingdom Come. All gone. Then, this giant, tree-covered green toupee falls to the earth and takes its place.

I'd usually toss in a few cows to hold it all down like paperweights, and then my work would be done. All in all, a clean operation. No one got hurt.

What can I say: A fella has to dream.

Last week, I had a different kind of dream -- a sleep dream. I had dozed off listening to the State of the Union. In my dream, my car broke down along a barren stretch of highway. And who pulls up, but the ghost of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. He was so kind, actually. And handy. And he had tools!

"Where are you heading?" he asked, lifting my hood.

"Just down the road apiece to laser beam a Wal-Mart," I said, realizing at once my faux pas. He fiddled with some wires, tightened the fuel line and wire brushed the spark plug. And sure enough, the engine fired. "How can I thank you?" I asked. "Son, follow me." So I did. In the next town, we located the Wal-Mart.

I was preparing the laser when I noticed Mr. Walton waving me inside. I followed him in. (Wow, did you realize Wal-Mart sells Prince Lionhart Ultimate Baby Wipe Warmers for only $19.99 each? Holy cow!) Amidst the agglomerate, I found myself in electronics. A bulwark of Magnavox T Vs? were tuned to the State of the Union. Only, it wasn't President Bush. It was Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott delivering his annual State of the Wal-Mart speech. In the place of the presidential seal was a yellow smiley face.

"There are a number of issues facing the world that will profoundly affect our lives and our company," Scott was saying. "I'm talking to you about issues like international trade, climate change, water shortages, social and economic inequalities, infrastructure and foreign oil."

"Whoa," I thought. "Who the heck slipped Skittles into Wal-Mart's oatmeal?"

"Don't you understand?" the ghost of Sam Walton told me. "In the last few years, while the White House was ignoring anti-war activists, Wal-Mart was listening to consumer activists. While the United States was squandering its power abroad, Wal-Mart was marshaling its powers for the greater good. Unlike the world's only superpower, the world's largest retailer is focusing on issues people actually care about."

"Like affordable meds?" I asked.

"Yes," he said.

"Like reducing energy consumption?"

"We have no choice," he said.

"This is all diabolical," I said.

"Listen. There is only one boss," he said. "The customer."

"You mean, the citizen," I said.

"Right."

Everything started to make sense. Wal-Mart's end run began during Hurricane Katrina. While FEMA officials were picking tiramisu from their teeth, Wal-Mart became the hero, delivering emergency supplies to the afflicted.

Now, with Lee Scott looking presidential, the plan was nearly complete. Wal-Mart was taking over! For years, it has been financing the campaigns of the most inept politicians who then take office to showcase how inept government is. So then shoppers (er, citizens) are practically lighting tiki torches ($8.99 each) and calling for rolled-back government the same way they call for rolled-back prices.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart becomes the model of efficiency, the default superpower, the one American entity left with leverage in the world.

While I was thinking of all this and eyeing the baby wipe warmers, the ghost of Sam Walton had managed to slip a red vest on me.

Funny thing: It looked kinda stylish. Especially under all the compact florescent bulbs that now light Wal-Mart. While greeting shoppers at the entrance, I yelled back to Mr. Walton, "Hey, I'm willing to completely mistrust the government and begin trusting Wal-Mart, but what if you let me down?"

"Then you can file a complaint with -- "

He must have said, "Human resources," but I swear he said, "My defense minister."

After a six year battle over a proposed Wal-Mart, the giant retailer decided not to build. Wal-Mart says it was part of a national pull back of growth, but the residents of Union County say it was their opposition. Its another victory for folks who want to choose the future of their neighborhoods, and not let huge corporations take over that role. Here's the article from the Charlotte Observer:

We're not victims here in Union County. We don't just sit back and wait to see what form growth around us will take.

We can, and should, have a say.

Wal-Mart's decision last week to walk away from its plan to build a Supercenter in the Marvin area proves your voice can be heard.

Residents in that area didn't want the center. They made that point clear to everyone involved during the six-year legal battle.

Wal-Mart believed the fight was worth it because the site is between Weddington and Marvin, a good market with median household incomes of more than $97,000, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

There's bound to be a few shoppers there.

But last week a Wal-Mart spokesman said the company won't build on the 28-acre site at Rea and Tom Short roads. They're trying to sell the property for $8 million. It's all part of a nationwide pullback, the spokesman said.

The people who lived in nearby subdivisions such as Somerset and Hunter Oaks were willing to persevere because they had a vision of what they wanted their neighborhood to look like.

About a year ago I applauded, and wrote about, a similar battle involving the people of Waxhaw.

They fought and held off a proposal for a 200,000-square-foot, 24-hour Supercenter at Jackson Station in Waxhaw. They also had a vision: maintain small-town charm with a safe place to walk, not threatened by dense shopper traffic.

These fights aren't easy to win. You've got to be willing to fight for a long time and spend money. Still, battles like these serve a purpose in this county. They show developers and elected officials that, if no one else is willing to say no, some homeowners will.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone is wrong.

This county should work to bring in commercial development to keep the tax burden reasonable for homeowners. Business owners are simply being smart in our current economic climate when they try to build in areas where people have money to shop. Homeowners have every right to take action that protects their property values and ensures a safe environment.

Conflicts are inevitable. Still, this is how Union County will grow into whatever its future will be.

And there's plenty on the horizon to fuel more conflicts. Homes are still going up, roads and other infrastructure still must be built, new businesses will still come here. You've already heard about everything on this list.

So maybe it's time to stop framing these conflicts in terms of winners and losers. It's actually about finding the solution that works best for the most people involved.

The emphasis is on involvement -- speaking up.

We've all heard the cliche: "NIMBY (not in my back yard)." When you decide to take that position, you know it won't be easy. You also should know, you're being an involved citizen.

Involved citizens may not always win, but they do make better government, and ultimately a better county.

We recently came across this blog post about Wal-Mart's sick day policy at the OSHA Underground Blog and thought it was interesting:

A reader from Walmart told us about her first day orientation....

She watched a video saying "Wal-Mart is the coolest, best place on earth and forget what everyone else says, they're just jealous."

"A sick day, any sick day short of hospitalization is considered an UN-authorized absence at Walmart"

Another video proclaimed "Wal-Mart is better because there are no unions and nobody joins a union anymore and union reps are stupid and how dare they try to recruit you and joining a union is stupid and only stupid people still belong to unions."

WE can imagine the panflu starting at Walmart due to the sick leave policy.

Amid law suits and continuing news of Wal-Mart ducking state and local income taxes, a recent article found that Wal-Mart was doing the same in Massachusettes. In addition to paying itself rent to reduce its tax burden, Wal-Mart is also paying a huge sum to lobbyists in the state to fight against laws that would prevent them from running their tax evasion scam. Here's the article from the Huffington Post:

Forget everyday low prices. Wal-Mart has been paying high-priced lobbyists to keep the company from having to pay its fair share of income tax to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Wal-Mart paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars last year to a small army of 8 lobbyists to push its agenda with Beacon Hill lawmakers in 2007. The retailer's 'high-priced' lobbying tab for 2007 came to $208,678---five times what the company spent the previous year.

According to research conducted by Sprawl-Busters, a Greenfield, MA-based anti-Wal-Mart clearinghouse, Wal-Mart hired three separate lobbying firms, plus its own Public Affairs Manager, as lobbyists:

· Bay State Strategies Group, LLC of Natick was paid $53,200 by Wal-Mart, which went to 3 of its lobbyists: David Shapiro, Frank Shea, and Robert Bernstein.
· Holland & Knight, LLP of Boston, also had Wal-Mart as a client in 2007. The firm was paid $26,600 by Wal-Mart for the services of the same 3 lobbyists.
· Johnson Haley, LLP of Boston, was the big winner of Wal-Mart payments, receiving a total of $128,503 for the services of 4 lobbyists: Stephanie D. Neal-Johnson, Pierce J. Haley, Andrea Serlin, and Martin Fisher.

In addition, Wal-Mart registered its own New England public affairs manager, Christopher Buchanan, of Plymouth, as a lobbyist.

In 2005, Wal-Mart spent only $40,800 on lobbying, and in 2006, only $43,220. But in 2007, the retailer unlocked the corporate treasury. According to Sprawl-Busters, 2008 will again be a record-setting year because of the company's efforts to block legislation that would force it to pay its fair share in state income tax.

Wal-Mart retained at least 8 lobbyists to ply its issues on Beacon Hill, which ranged from legislation regulating the retailer's credit cards, to preventing big box stores from selling gasoline below cost. Wal-Mart weighed in on bills related to electronic identity theft, the use of radio frequency identification devices, and private check cashing services.

But the retailer also paid Bay State Strategies and Holland & Knight to lobby against H. 3756, Governor Deval Patrick's "Act Improving the Fairness of the Tax Laws." The Governor's bill contains a provision that would require Wal-Mart to pay millions of dollars in state income taxes that the retailer has dodged by creating "sham transactions" that it pays to itself.

H. 3756 would close this tax loophole, forcing Wal-Mart to pay at much as $5 million in state taxes that it has previously dodged. Patrick refiled his legislation in January, 2008, saying, "Under the current system, small businesses are at a disadvantage, while larger corporations avoid paying their fair share." One of the main larger corporations not paying its fair share is Wal-Mart. And the corporation is paying big bucks to lobbyists to keep it that way. According to the Governor's office, closing this one loophole would generate another $271 million in revenues for the Commonwealth in FY 2008.

On December 28, 2007, the Commonwealth's Study Commission On Corporate Taxation, reported that multi-state corporations like Wal-Mart were allowed to "shift income out of corporations engaged in business in the Commonwealth to affiliates in low-tax jurisdictions, thus reducing Massachusetts taxes paid." The legislation opposed by Wal-Mart eliminates this shifting of income by adopting "combined reporting," under which affiliated corporations engaged in unitary business activities combine their incomes and apportionment factors and file as one entity."

The Study Commission concluded that "combined reporting would modernize the corporate tax structure in the Commonwealth and would reduce opportunities for tax avoidance through transactions among affiliated corporations."

Twenty other states have adopted combined reporting. States that have recently adopted combination include Vermont, New York, and West Virginia, and its adoption has been proposed in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. North Carolina recently won a combined reporting tax verdict in state courts that will cost Wal-Mart $33 million. The retailer has appealed that decision.

In Massachusetts, according to Sprawl-Busters estimates, the retailer says it paid nearly $19 million in state and local taxes in 2006. Assuming roughly $11 million of that was state income tax, the retailer also avoided $5.4 million by deducting rent it paid to its Delaware-based REIT as a business expense, lowering its taxable income. The company also cost taxpayers $7.2 million in health care costs for 6,000 Wal-Mart workers and dependents on Medicaid.

Based on a scheme developed by its accounting firm, Ernst & Young, for a "local tax reduction strategy," Wal-Mart's financial self-dealing allows it to pay rent to itself through a maze of eight corporate subsidiaries created in November of 1996, including Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). The rent appears as an expense on state tax forms, and is thus deducted from its taxable revenues.

Under the agreement with itself, Wal-Mart pays 2.5% of gross sales monthly as rent to its own REIT, which then wires the money quarterly to Wal-Mart Property Company in the form of a dividend, which is then paid to Wal-Mart Stores as a tax-exempt "dividends received." All of these transactions are handled through a "cash management agreement" between all the parties. Neither the REIT nor the Property Company ever had any employees.

The REITs don't pay taxes, as long as they pay 90% of their income out in dividends to shareholders. In Wal-Mart's case, the REITs are owned by Wal-Mart subsidiaries which are registered in Delaware, a state that has no corporate income tax. Wal-Mart gets the benefit of the rent expense, but also gets the benefit of the non-taxed dividend, on the same monies. The dividends escape taxation, and the original rent that created the dividends is deducted from taxable income in the states where the "expense" is incurred. The rent, in essence, goes from one Wal-Mart pocket, into another.

This is a major loophole that Wal-Mart doesn't want closed. It's more cost-effective for the company to shell out a couple hundred thousand in lobbying fees to protection several million in tax avoidance. But the rest of Massachusetts taxpayers are the ones who pay for Wal-Mart's slack. Because Governor Patrick has included his corporate combined reporting bill as part of his fiscal year 2008 budget, now before the General Court, Wal-Mart is expected to spend a record amount in 2008 to keep its tax loophole open. That's good news for Wal-Mart's lobbyists.

Here is an interesting story where Wal-Mart had a unique negative impact on a community. The town has lost several bus drivers who are seeking employment at the new store in town, and may lose more. I guess Wal-Mart doesn't just pull business from other stores in town. Here's the article from The Mountain View Telegraph:

A rush on jobs at Wal-Mart in Edgewood is affecting bus routes in the Moriarty-Edgewood School District.
As of Jan. 22, three bus drivers had already gone to Wal-Mart for employment, according to district transportation supervisor Ernie Sandoval. Up to five more drivers may be looking for jobs there as well, he said.
"Even before we started losing (bus drivers) to Wal-Mart, we were in trouble here," Sandoval said. "We're hurting right now, and if we lose any more (drivers) then we're really in trouble."
According to Wal-Mart officials, the store will open in early March. In preparation, Wal-Mart is taking applications for 400 or more positions. Construction is scheduled to be completed Monday, and that is when employees and management will begin to stock the 214,000-square-foot building.
Although Wal-Mart is going to be among the East Mountains and Estancia Valley areas' largest employers, the area's largest employer is still the Moriarty-Edgewood School District, according to Superintendent Karen Couch. That's why the district is seeing a change, Couch said.

"Any new employer in the area will affect us," Couch said. "Any loss to us is worthy of consideration and review." The recent loss of bus drivers to Wal-Mart has drivers hauling two loads of kids a day, according to Sandoval. For students, that means long hours traveling to school, and some wait 30 to 45 minutes after school for a bus. "When you consolidate (bus routes), somebody's got to get on earlier and somebody's got to get on later," he said. "We're looking at all of our (bus schedules) and saying, 'What the heck are we going to do?' '' He added that he doesn't fault people for doing what is best for them and their families, even if that means he is left with positions to fill. It isn't just district bus drivers who have made a move to Wal-Mart, according to district director of personnel Cindy Sims. "In nutritional services we've lost three employees so far," she said. She pointed out that the district was already trying to fill positions in that area. There are now a total of six open positions, according to Sims. Despite having open positions, the work still has to be done, Sims said. "It just means fewer hands trying to accomplish the same task," she said. "I've had to go and help serve meals ... principals help ... it's whatever you have to do to make sure that meals are prepared for the kiddos." There are a number of benefits of working at the school that both Couch and Sims pointed out. Medical dental and vision insurance come at reduced rates for lower-income employees, and most employees are eligible for health benefits, according to Sims. Employees also get summers off and working parents will likely have the same schedule as their children. "It's a very family-friendly schedule when you have young children," she said. "You're off when they're off." Sims added that starting wages at Wal-Mart and in nutritional service positions in the school district are similar, but take-home pay at Wal-Mart is greater. There are two big reasons for that. First, school district employees have a mandatory retirement contribution, and second, employees' pay is distributed evenly throughout the year; in other words, each year they get a portion of each paycheck later, during the 12 weeks when they aren't working during the summer.