In the wake of the Debbie Shank affair, it appears that Wal-Mart is once again failing to do right by military personnel and their families. According to CNNmoney.com the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). This act was passed in order to prohibit any employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of their military service. The USERRA also ensures that former service members are allowed to reclaim their previous civilian jobs after they have been discharged from the military.

The government alleges the Bentonville, Ark., retail chain violated USERRA by failing and refusing to reinstate Air Force airman Sean Thornton to his position of cashier at a Florida outlet after he was discharged by the Air Force.

It's amazing that after countless lawsuits Wal-Mart has still refused to change its ways.

A new piece by Al Norman over at the Huffington Post reveals that Wal-Mart has canceled 45 supercenters and community groups have blocked another 19 in the last 10 months. This huge number is in part due to Wal-Mart's new growth plan, which attempts to limit the number of new stores, and in part due to local anti-Wal-mart sentiment. Check out the article below, and notice in particular how Wal-Mart treated the towns it left.

According to a list released this week, Wal-Mart Stores has abandoned a record-shattering 45 proposed projects over the past 10 months -- often leaving local officials dejected and confused. Another 19 Wal-Mart projects have been killed by local citizen's groups. In total, the world's largest retailer has suffered an historic loss of 64 projects.

The list of store cancellations was compiled by Sprawl-Busters, which has maintained a database on Wal-Mart battles for more than a decade. Since June, 2007, the Arkansas-based retailer has delayed or killed its own stores in the following communities:

Aledo, IL; Arlington, WA; Belfast, ME; Bonita Springs, FL; Brooksville, FL; Chico, CA; Concord, CA; Crowley, TX; Derry, NH; Elyria, OH; Fircrest, WA; Garden Grove, CA; Gilbert, AZ; Glen Carbon, IL; Hadley, MA; Hemet, CA; Hilo, HI; Isle of Wight, VA; Knightdale, NC; Lake County, FL; Lakeland, FL; Lawrence, NJ; Lewiston, ME; Liberty, OH; Pennfield, MI; Hillsborough, NH; Kilbuck, PA; La Puenta, CA; Marietta, GA; Marysville, WA; Memphis, TN; Morganton, NC; Neptune Beach, FL; Oakley, CA; Oxford, NC; Portland, OR; Raleigh, NC; Ravalli County, MT; Rutland Charter, MI; Spooner, WI; St. Peters, MO; Sioux Falls, SD; Stoughton, WI; Sunrise, FL; Waukesha, WI.

These store withdrawals usually come with little advance notice, and even less explanation. In September, 2007, for example, when Wal-Mart suddenly folded its tent in Lancaster, Massachusetts -- 3 miles from the construction site of another Wal-Mart superstore -- the company issued a terse, four paragraph press release which stated, "The decision is related to Wal-Mart's recently announced plans to moderate growth of U.S. supercenters as part of leveraging capital resources through a strategy designed to improve returns and sales within U.S. stores." Such dense statements left local officials scratching their heads in disbelief -- sometimes following months, even years, of lobbying by the retailer to get a project approved.

Up until 10 months ago, Wal-Mart was planning to open a new store in America every 26.5 hours. But all of that changed on the morning of June 1, 2007. On that Friday morning, Wal-Mart stunned 18,000 stockholders assembled in the Bud Walton Arena on the campus of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The retailer announced its growth plan for 2008 -- in what the New York Times described the next day as a "turning point" for the company.

In their laps, stockholders held Wal-Mart's 2007 Annual report, which said, under the heading "Future Expansion," that the company's "planned expenditures will include the construction of...265 to 270 new supercenters..." But in the weeks between sending their Annual Report to the printer, and their stockholder's meeting -- Wal-Mart popped its own growth bubble.

For several years, Wall Street's reaction to the retailer's overly-aggressive U.S. construction forecast had been less than encouraging. In 2005, for example, Bernstein Research Call issued a 13-page report warning stockholders of the downside of Wal-Mart's superstore plans. The analysts noted that Wal-Mart's growth "is under siege in several regions of the country from growing opposition by local communities...Local opposition has successfully squashed numerous plans among big box players in different parts of the country." Bernstein noted that "heightened resistance could negatively impact these retailers by slowing their square footage growth rates." Even modestly slower long-term square footage growth could have both an earnings per share and valuation impact, researchers said.

Because of grassroots anti-Wal-Mart groups, Bernstein warned, "it is clear that (discount retailers) will need to pursue a substantially larger number of permits going forward to hit their internal square footage targets given the likelihood of many opportunities failing."

Not only had Wal-Mart suddenly slammed on the brakes for 2008, but the company said it would open "only" 170 superstores per year for the next three years, and 80 supercenter would be deferred into 2009. In its 2007 Annual Report, the company explained, "We are focused on prioritizing capital spending to the projects that produce the highest returns. We want to improve our Company's return on investment, or ROI, improve our comparable store sales and improve our working capital productivity. The outcome is a focus on the most capital efficient opportunities."

In part due to the company's pale 1.9% growth in same store sales in 2007, John Menzer, Wal-Mart's Chief Administrative Officer, admitted, "We also have been focused this year on reducing cannibalization of existing stores via our more strategic selection of U.S. real estate projects." Same store sales indicates the performance of existing stores by measuring the growth in sales for such stores during a particular period, over the corresponding period in the prior year. Wal-Mart's same store sales have been dropping for 20 years, but this past year was the worst. The 1.9% growth rate in 2007 compares to 5% in 1997, and 13% in 1987.

Every store site that Wal-Mart proposes is reviewed by its executive-level Real Estate Committee, which looks at a number of benchmarks to see if each unit meets the retailer's Growth Model: the state of the economy, the local trade area, competition in the area, local demographics, real estate and construction costs, and: "potential impacts on neighboring Wal-Mart stores." This last metric -- the cannibalization factor -- has had a major impact on the deep-sixing of many superstore projects this year.

"As we continue to add new stores in the United States," the company told shareholders, "we do so with an understanding that additional stores may take sales away from existing units. We estimate that comparable store sales in fiscal 2007, 2006 and 2005 were negatively impacted by the opening of new stores by approximately 1% in fiscal years 2007, 2006 and 2005. We expect that this effect of opening new stores on comparable store sales will continue during fiscal 2008 at a similar rate."

To measure Wal-Mart's retrenchment another way, the corporation added 42,000,000 square feet of store space in 2007, compared to 39,000,000 square feet in 2006. It's current growth plan cuts new square footage to 20,000,000 for 2008. As projects get cancelled, square footage growth drops, sales growth slows, all of which can impact earnings and company valuation. The last thing Wal-Mart wants is for investors to see the company for what it really is: a middle-aged corporation choking on its own domestic appetite for growth. If it weren't for China and India, Wal-Mart's growth prospects would be problematic. Yet Wal-Mart's future as a colonial retail empire is far from certain, if places like Indonesia, Germany and Japan are the yardstick.

Sam Walton explained that his growth strategy was "to saturate a market area by spreading out, then filling in...We became our own competition." He once boasted that Springfield, Missouri, for example, had 40 Wal-Marts within 100 miles. But Wal-Mart has paid a price for competing with itself. Today, the saturation card has been overplayed, and the retailer has been forced to go on a superstore crash diet. While hundreds of sling-shot coalitions have been hurling rocks at this retail Goliath for years, ironically, it is now the giant itself which is reeling from its own self-inflicted excesses.

This has created a wonderful 10 months for anti-Wal-Mart groups in 21 states, who have woken up in their small towns to read that another proposed Wal-Mart superstore has dissolved, as suddenly as the morning mist.

Wal-Mart is environmentally friendly; or at least that is what they want you to think. A year or so ago, Wal-Mart pledged to go green. They wanted to sell better products, reduce their own waste, reduce the packaging of their suppliers, Lee Scott even suggested that Wal-Mart could have windmills in their parking lots in the future.

Of course, recently we've seen just how thin this green veil is. Their own sustainability report showed that they had not reduced carbon emissions on their way to their stated goal of zero, but instead that they went up. CEO Lee Scott admitted that Wal-Mart isn't green, that the company is still focused on growth, and that the true rationale behind their green initiatives is saving money. Now, another failure to produce real results on the environmental front: Wal-Mart's deadline for their suppliers to submit a packaging scorecards came and went, and two months later, only about half have filled them out.

The idea is that all of Wal-Mart's suppliers fill out scorecards based on how much waste their product produces, how far they have to ship it, and the like. Wal-Mart could then give preference to environmentally friendly products. It seems, though, that not only was the year they gave suppliers to do this unreasonable, but the suppliers also didn't seem to think Wal-Mart had any teeth. It seems even Wal-Mart's suppliers doubt their commitment to the environment.

here's the article from The Morning News:

There was a time when a deadline was a line drawn around a prison beyond which straying prisoners could be shot.

These days, it's generally considered the latest time by which something should be completed.

In the case of Wal-Mart's deadline for suppliers to complete a packaging scorecard, it's a little of both. Or neither.

Half of the retailer's suppliers have ignored the Feb. 1 deadline, risking the business equivalent to being shot - having their products eliminated from the shelves of the world's biggest retailer.

The retailer expected suppliers to be fully compliant by the deadline. But despite failure to reach that goal, Wal-Mart is encouraged by its success thus far.

"While we're not at 100 percent yet, we feel that we've made great progress," Wal-Mart said in an e-mail statement.

It's a different story than what packaging officials outside the public relations department say about the retailer's progress in getting suppliers compliant, and what may be hindering greater progress.

PACKAGING PROBLEMS

An official with MARS Packaging Knowledge Group, a division of Southfield, Mich.-based Mars Advertising, which hosts scorecard training sessions for suppliers, said the retailer is "not even close" to getting products from 60,000 global suppliers entered into the system.

"I really can't believe Wal-Mart thought everyone would be on board by February," said Larry Dull, a packaging consultant with MARSpkg, who instructs some of the scorecard courses.

On the eve of the Feb. 1 deadline, 97,000 products had been entered into the scorecard by 6,371 vendors. Almost two months after the deadline, the total lingers around 100,000 - about half of Wal-Mart products and 20 percent of those from Sam's Club, said Chet Rutledge, packaging business and production senior manager for Wal-Mart's private labels.

"There's still a lot of work to be done," Rutledge said.

Rutledge and many others are enthusiastic about the scorecard, which promises to be the first step to reduced packaging, and ultimately, waste that ends up in landfills. It evaluates nine metrics including package-to-product ratio, recycled content and transportation requirements.

Wal-Mart has vowed to achieve a 5 percent reduction in packaging by 2013 as it strives to meet its own ambitious goals to become more eco-friendly.

"Packaging is like Wal-Mart - it has taken a huge amount of grief over the years for being a problem," Dull joked.

SCORECARD CRITICISM

But as Wal-Mart seeks to clean up its act, some say the retailer's pressure on suppliers to help it meet those objectives is unfair to smaller companies lacking financial resources and know-how. It also oversimplifies packaging issues amid ongoing debates of what's sustainable.

And under the threat that scores influence buying decisions, working to improvement is an expected follow-up to entering packaging data into the digital scorecard within Wal-Mart's Retail Link database.

"Everyone is supposed to follow suit like they are the only company out there," said JoAnn Hines, a Kennesaw, Ga.-based packaging consultant.

Sources close to suppliers suspect they may be holding out to see if Wal-Mart is serious about the scorecard initiative when other supplier-dependent efforts have failed to score with them.

The scorecard initiative is often compared to RFID (radio frequency identification tags) systems Wal-Mart wanted its suppliers to tag products with so the retailer could improve its inventory controls. Suppliers resisted the initiative, which also carried an unmet deadline for compliance, because the high cost of tagging merchandise came with little financial return for vendors.

But sources close to the retailer say that, unlike RFID, the scorecard and other sustainability initiatives aren't going away, and Wal-Mart is serious about implementing the movement throughout the supply chain.

"The movement is directionally correct, is the right thing to do and is a good thing," said Bill Williamson, sales director and team leader for CHEP, a global supplier that provides reused pallets and containers to Wal-Mart and suppliers. "When we explore innovation, you are always going to find pros and cons. The exciting thing is there's certainly more positive things that are happening."

MONEY SAVINGS

Wal-Mart intends to increase its capital efficiency as it reduces waste, which will mean more competition for shelf space. Merchandisers with bulky packaging risk losing out to those that internalize the "less is more" mantra from Wal-Mart.

The retailer has vowed to reward its most innovative suppliers with favorable product placement.

An early indication of that promise came last year when Wal-Mart gave compact fluorescent light bulbs a big push. As it sought to sell 100 million of the smaller, energy-saving bulbs, it re-arranged shelves to give favorable placement to CFLs.

On the losing end of that reward system is detergent - the first major casualty to be whisked from the shelves. In May, Wal-Mart will eliminate traditional laundry detergent from its stores in favor of liquid concentrates.

Wal-Mart said the transition to concentrates will eliminate 95 million pounds of plastic resin, conserve more than 400 million gallons of water, reduce consumption of more than 520,000 gallons of diesel fuel and save 125 millions pounds of cardboard.

"Make no doubt about it: There is money to be saved," Dull told suppliers in a scorecard training session.

And money to be made.

The market for green products is gaining speed, according to research from Leo J. Shapiro & Associates. The company's recent research found that consumer demand for environmentally responsible products continues to increase, sparking the rush for manufacturers and retailers to jump on the green bandwagon. Two thirds of consumers surveyed had purchased a product in the last year designed to conserve energy or protect the environment.

Wal-Mart plans more events to heighten consumer awareness of eco-friendly products during a month long "Earth Month" promotion in April.

COSTLY COMPLEXITIES

A lack of packaging expertise has stalled some supplier's efforts to go green, while others worry the retailer expects improvements and innovations without enough consideration given to the time and cost involved.

"It's very complex when you look at the side ramifications of changes to packaging," Williamson said.

The scorecard asks a series of questions and assigns scores based on the environmental impact.

For example, a product made of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and transported by air from outside the U.S. would give a worse score than an item using a material with a lesser environmental impact traveling fewer miles.

Making an error in the scorecard comes at a cost. Wal-Mart may, at any time, request a third party audit of a product's score - at the expense of the supplier.

Playing with "what if" scenarios also comes at a cost. For those with enough cash on hand, a supplemental program to the scorecard software can run scenarios on potential changes and show how those changes are reflected in the score.

A rush to improve a score can cause a supplier to overlook other issues, such as life-cycle analysis or how changes in amounts or types of packaging can produce more waste from damaged products.

In terms of implementing changes, a supplier faces expenses in re-engineering, testing and producing newly-packaged products.

"You just can't change a corporate culture like that in a year, especially at these smaller companies. They just don't have the resources," said Hines. "It's an extraordinarily expensive process."

And some errors are to be expected in the learning process.

"Any time you introduce change, you are going to run into trial and error," Williamson said. "When you alter packaging, you are changing something else."

Companies scoring big on sustainability might fail to score with consumers.

Biota Water, made from corn-based bioplastic, was a great idea. But reviewers said the water tasted like corn. Last year, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court.

"If you give them everything they want, they will choose sustainability, but they will not accept a tradeoff," Len Sauers, P&G's new vice president of global sustainability told Fortune Magazine in a recent interview.

The retailer is making an effort to bridge the gap between suppliers and sustainable packaging pros at an upcoming sustainable packaging fair April 15-16.

TEST RUN

The retailer had given suppliers notice of the deadline a year in advance, and said it was "disappointed" to not have full compliance by the deadline "because we did give them a year," Matt Kistler, Wal-Mart's senior vice president of sustainability, told Reuters in February.

"Truth is, there's still a lot of folks completing that scorecard," said Charles Walsh, who oversees the scorecard software for Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing, which created it.

And there are kinks being worked out within the scorecard itself.

Compact detergent, for example, should have scored high, but didn't. That's because the scorecard had measured the amount of liquid, not uses. From that was born a new measure, called the "consumer meaningful unit of measure."

The retailer said that throughout 2008 it will continue to work with its Packaging Sustainable Value Network - a brain trust of suppliers, government agencies, academics, trade associations and non-governmental organizations - to verify the methodology behind scorecard calculations. Once the scorecard gets a test run in the U.S., it will then be implemented in Canada and Mexico.

Debate continues about the definition of sustainable packaging.

"It's a work in progress. (Wal-Mart) is diligently striving for the facts because, I don't want to say the scorecard is in its infancy, but it's not matured yet. There is still very vibrant dialogue on both sides of the fence on what's sustainable," Williamson said.

In addition to being a heartbreaking story, and a testimonial of Wal-Mart corporate greed, the Deborah Shank case has become a PR nightmare for Wal-Mart. While many would see this as reason enough for Wal-Mart to step up and do the right thing, instead, they've left their PR firm, Edelman with the huge task of spinning this story. Perhaps that explains why they've just hired a prominent republican communications professional, Katie Levinson. Of course, we don't know if that's why, but the timing, and the huge task of making Wal-Mart look good after suing a brain damaged former employee whose son died in Iraq makes a strong argument that it is.

Here's what PRNewser has to say:

Former Giuliani Comm. Manager Joins Edelman

With Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign behind her, former communications manager Katie Levinson has moved on. From Potomac Flacks (via Politico):

...the well-known and highly-regarded Katie Levinson has joined Edelman Public Relations as senior vice president and political director in its New York Public Affairs practice. Her background includes serving as communications director and spokeswoman for the RNC, Bush-Cheney '04, President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger's reelection and Mayor Giuliani's presidential campaign.

PRNewser wonders if she'll be bringing any former clients to her new agency.

Here's a little video we put together of Wal-Mart CEOs and execs talking about Wal-Mart doing the right thing, and the importance of the individual and the associate. We totally agree with these statements, and it would be great if Wal-Mart acted the way it was talking. But instead of doing the right thing, and caring for its associates, Wal-Mart sued Debbie Shank for nearly half a million dollars. I guess to Wal-Mart suing a former employee who is permanently brain damaged for the money she was going to use for long term care is 'doing the right thing.'

Via Wal-Mart Watch's blog, here's a letter from Christopher Shank, Debbie Shank's son. You can see how profoundly this ordeal has affected this family's life, and how different it would have been if Wal-Mart had done the right thing.

First of all, let it be known that I’m Debbie Shank’s son, and not some random dude putting in his two cents. That being said, here’s the skinny…

When we sued the trucking company, our lawyer told us that the only amount we could get off of the trucking company was what the truck was insured for...namely, a million dollars. As they were a small trucking company, they had no real net worth, and the amount we could sue them for was just for their insurance.

When we received the settlement of 1 million, a third of that was paid out to the lawyers. After that, my dad was given a portion of that to make up for lost wages. We told Wal-Mart about all of this, and they basically said “Okay.” and did nothing. We set up the rest, 417K, to take care of mom. We took care of her for three years on that, but when the statute of limitations was set to expire on Wal-Mart suing us, they literally had days left, they filed to sue us. Our lawyer told us at the time that they were only doing this to keep their options open, but Wal-Mart decided that they wanted to go after the settlement, as they say time and time again, “out of fairness for everyone in the medical plan”.

And so it went. The first ruling came August 31, 2006. At the time it was the worst thing that had happened. Six days later, my brother was killed. Dad said “Fine. Whatever. They won.” We were without any will to keep going. Our lawyers said “We’ll appeal. You just don’t worry about things. We’ll take care of all of it.”

Appeal after appeal, Wal-Mart won them all. We finally appealed to the Supreme Court. Last week, they said they weren’t going to take our case. We lost. Now, Wal-Mart can’t take any more money than we had in the trust fund, so they get that. But, we still have 150K in outstanding medical bills. We have a fund set up that has accepted donations, but it quickly depletes due to bills. Even with government assistance, we still must pay anywhere from 500-1000 per month to keep mom in the nursing home, and that’s not counting bills she has from trips to the hospital (a couple weeks ago she was bleeding internally) . The outstanding bills we have, they can sue my father directly, so it’s looking like he may have to sell his home at least. My youngest brother, if he wants to have the money to go to college, will himself either have to take out thousands in loans or join the military.

Dad has worked all his life, was set to retire in 5 years, but now it’s looking as if he’ll have to work longer and longer. Plus he has cancer to worry about.

So, that’s the story. I have a feeling that somewhere along the lines, be it by Wal-Mart, the courts, the lawyers, the trucking company, or a combination of all, we’ve been taken advantage of. We could only sue for so much, we had to pay the lawyers, the courts decided to maintain the status quo, and Wal-Mart sold it’s soul.

Whoever’s fault it is, we’re screwed. Plain and simple.

A Wal-Mart associate is suing Wal-Mart because she was sexually harassed by the manager at her store. She was eventually fired, but nothing has happened to the manager, despite her filing a complaint and Wal-Mart promising to investigate. It seems that there is a history of Wal-Mart failing to respond to serious misconduct, and firing or disciplining the victim (here's another example where a man was facing racism in the store and was fired when management did not respond). It is sad that Wal-Mart has kept racists and those who would sexually harass their subordinates on staff while firing those who have done nothing wrong.

Here's the story from the West Virginia Record:

CHARLESTON - A Mingo County woman has filed a suit against a national retail giant, claiming her supervisor sexually harassed her while she was working at the Logan County store.

Farrah Farley filed the suit Feb. 19 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Wal-Mart, her supervisor Calvin Stapleton and the assistant store manager, Gwendolyn McFallon.

According to the suit, Farley was hired in June 2007, as a sales associate in the toy department at the Logan Wal-Mart. She claims Stapleton started expressing "an inappropriate sexual interest" toward her.

Farley claims Stapleton made inappropriate comments that ranged from "those pants look good on you," to asking to compare his fiancee's and Farley's breast augmentation surgeries and feel her breasts.

According to the suit, Stapleton continued to touch her and make inappropriate comments, but she did not report it for fear of retribution and because she needed income to provide support for her sister's child, who was in her custody.

Fa

rley claims she became a member of the Personal Sustainability Program, which required that she report to Stapleton's office after every conference call or meeting.

"Over the next several weeks, Stapleton's behavior rapidly escalated into harassing and threatening comments and finally additional and more severe unwanted sexual contact and fondling," the suit says.

Farley claims that on at least two occasions, Stapleton grabbed her breasts and on one other occasion, grabbed her buttocks.

According to the suit, Stapleton told Farley he chose his office because it did not have cameras.

In mid-to-late October 2007, Farley claims Stapleton grabbed her hand and put it on his erect penis and asked her to perform sexual favors. Farley walked out of his office.

According to the suit, Stapleton told Farley that if she did not have sex with him, she would be fired.

The suit says that over the next few days Stapleton continued to harass and intimidate Farley.

Farley claims Stapleton asked her over to his apartment and, out of fear of losing her job, complied. Upon arriving, Stapleton told Farley she "looked tense" and handed her a marijuana cigarette, the suit says.

After initially refusing to smoke it, Farley agreed to do it because Stapleton became very angry, the suit says. Farley was then forced into a sexually compromising situation because she feared she would lose her job and also feared for her physical safety.

"After the encounter, Stapleton told Farley that if she 'reported him he would know' and he would have her 'punished,'" the suit said.

Stapleton then asked Farley to come to his apartment a second time, but she did not show, which "infuriated" Stapleton, the suit says.

According to the suit, Stapleton continued his pattern of intimidating behavior and demands for sexual favors. On one occasion, Stapleton asked for a sexual favor in his office, which Farley refused.

Farley claims short after she refused, McFallon ordered her to submit a drug test based upon a "reasonable suspicion" of drug use. Farley was informed by an unknown person on a phone in McFallon's office that a manager had made a complaint about her, based on slurred speech and glassy eyes, the suit says.

"The man on the phone refused to identify the manager that had made the complaint, but it is believed that Stapleton made this complaint in retaliation for Farley's refusal to acquiesce to his ongoing illegal and unwanted sexual misconduct, and with the knowledge that he had forced Farley to smoke a marijuana cigarette," the suit says.

Farley claims she realized she would fail the drug test, and tried to quit and walk out of McFallon's office, but McFallon shut the door with her foot, which illegally detained Farley, the suit says.

Farley was told she could not quit without first providing a blood screen and saliva screen. After refusing the tests, Farley was fired and escorted out of Wal-Mart.

After she was fired, Farley claims she met with someone regarding Stapleton's conduct and signed a statement against him. Farley claims she was promised a full investigation, but was not contacted after the investigation to be offered reemployment. The suit says Stapleton was suspended and eventually fired based on his conduct with Wal-Mart employees.

Farley claims Stapleton's actions constitute unwelcome sexual advances by someone who had the authority to influence vital job decisions.

In the 10-count suit, Farley claims she suffered severe emotional and mental distress, humiliation, anxiety, embarrassment, aggravation, annoyance and inconvenience.

Farley seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries.

Attorney Mark L. French is representing Farley. The case has been assigned to Judge Charles King.

Once again Wal-Mart made Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment. Olbermann promised to keep them in the honorable position until they made amends for what they've done. Right on Keith, Wal-Mart deserves all the bad press it can get for this one.

As if dangerous toys, lead in everything from Christmas lights to dinner plates, and tainted pet food wasn't enough, now Wal-Mart is selling meat with buck shot in it. The family who bought the ribs nearly all got food poisoning. Perhaps it was a mistake for Wal-Mart to get rid of their entire meat department, just to avoid unions.

Here's the story from Wpxi in Pittsburgh:

A local family said it found something suspicious inside a pack of ribs.

Saturday night the family ate ribs that Shawn McFarland had bought at a Wal-Mart in West Mifflin.

On Sunday morning, everyone who had eaten the meat developed stomach cramps, nausea and diarrhea.

They claim they found small pieces of metal in the meat. Police later confirmed that the metal was buckshot embedded in the meat and bone.

Patricia Hinson said, "We came over my daughter's house to have a nice family dinner. I didn't know we'd all wake up Sunday morning sick. You worry about eating out and having food poisoning. Who'd think you'd bring your food home and it's not safe."

The family said that doctors at UPMC South Side Hospital later diagnosed nine of them with food poisoning.

Wal-Mart refused to return Channel 11’s calls. Smithfield Foods, the distributor of the meat, stated that further questions would have to go through their legal department.

Wal-Mart won the top spot on Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment last night, and rightfully so. Here's the segment; it's a little long, but worth the watch:

In it Olbermann says:

…You know why people think of Wal-Mart and evil in the same sentence? Because of the crap you guys do like this. Instead of letting this one go, and maybe even putting out a press release saying “we take care of our own” - maybe you get $470,000 worth of good publicity – NO. Now you get this. Wal-Mart’s profit last year was over $11 billion – including $470,000 it got back from Mrs. Shank, who is, between the truck that hit her, and what you amoral Wal-Mart trolls did to her, she is so confused that she doesn’t really understand that six days after you beat her in court, her 18-year-old son was killed fighting for this country in Iraq.

Wal-Mart: may your stores melt in the hot sun. Today’s worst persons in the world.

We have all heard the stories of Wal-Mart ruining local businesses when they come to town, but in Burkburnett, TX, the opposite has happened: Wal-Mart left, and their local stores picked up. It is an encouraging story, and it shows that folks can live without Wal-Mart! Here's the story from the Times Record News

Burkburnett stores are reporting an uptick in business since Wal-Mart closed its location just off I-44 in October.

The local Dollar Store has extended its hours, and other stores are reporting a 10 to 15 percent increase in sales, said Burkburnett Development Corporation Executive Director Kelly Bolen.

“Everyone is doing their shopping locally,” she said. “Local businesses are stepping up to meet the need.”

Bolen heard that for the month of December, for instance, the city had only experienced a 4 percent drop in sales tax receipts.

“If you think in the grand scheme of things, four percent is not bad after losing Wal-Mart,” she said.

The cause for the increase in local sales may be a backlash against the retail giant.

Local resident Debra Pugliesi said she was mad at Wal-Mart for first coming into town and taking money away from local businesses. And now, she said, the store had abandoned the town altogether.

“We’re boycotting Wal-Mart after what they did to us,” Pugliesi said.

As she browsed the racks at Hayes General Store in downtown Burkburnett recently, Pugliesi said she was traveling around to Burkburnett stores to take a look at what retailers had to offer.

“We’re trying to figure out where to go. We came in here to see what all he’s got. We just came from the Dollar Store,” she said.

The high cost of fuel might also be contributing to more people shopping in Burkburnett, she said.

“Gas is too high to be running around looking for stuff,” she said. “Three dollars a gallon? That’s six bucks to go to Wichita Falls and back.”

Becky Linker, manager at Hometown Hardware, said she’s noticed more foot traffic over the past few months in the store. That’s translated into more sales.

“We’re really busy,” she said. “People just keep saying that they’re glad we’re here. They’re glad they don’t have to go to Wichita.”

Jerry Hayes with Hayes General Store said he’s also seen a noticeable increase in both traffic and sales.

“We’ve seen more faces in the store. We’ve seen an increase in sales,” he said. “The traffic inside the store, there’s definitely been more.”

Hayes said he and other business owners are working together to make sure that customers are able to find what they want in Burkburnett.

Stores regularly call each other searching for items. If he doesn’t have what a customer is looking for, maybe another business does, Hayes said.

The end result is a strong local economy with local businesses ready to fill the void left by Wal-Mart, he said.

“We were here before Wal-Mart and we plan on being here a long time after Wal-Mart,” he said. “As long as our customers continue to come in, we’ll continue to serve them. That’s our plan.”

Here's the video footage from CNN. It is incredibly humanizing to see this family on tape, and incredibly sad too.

CNN has more coverage of the incredibly sad healthcare case today. Here's the article:

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses, but in 2005, Wal-Mart's health plan sued the Shanks for the same amount.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

An ex-associate is suing Wal-Mart because he was mistreated and eventually fired because of discrimination and racial intolerance. While working at Wal-Mart, Majid Hamade was the constant target of taunting and ridicule because his fellow employees thought he was from the Middle East (he's not, but that shouldn't matter). He had cups of coffee thrown at them, and had a paint bucket thrown at him. Instead of firm discipline for these clearly racist actions, Wal-Mart instead disciplined Hamade, eventually firing him because of his response to racist actions against him. This is just another example of the pervasive and intolerant culture of Wal-Mart.

Read the full story from The Enterprise:

A Brockton man claims that he was harassed and bullied because of anti-foreigner sentiments at Wal-Mart stores in Abington and Avon.

Eventually, Majid Hamade was fired from his job at the Avon store after he tapped one of his alleged tormentors on the forehead with his finger, according to a lawsuit he filed against Wal-Mart Stores.

Hamade, who is of Lebanese and Greek descent, sued the nation’s largest retailer in Plymouth Superior Court in Brockton last month, claiming he was unfairly disciplined while the people who taunted him were not punished.

His lawsuit, which was transferred earlier this month to Boston federal court at Wal-Mart’s request, also alleges he was subjected to racial harassment because he was forced to do additional work that other employees were not required to perform.

Sharon Weber, a spokeswoman for the Bentonville, Ark.-based company, declined to comment about the specifics of the case because the company doesn’t typically discuss pending litigation or personnel issues.

Doug Surprenant, a Holbrook lawyer who represents Hamade, said the case was originally handled by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

The state agency eventually supported one of Hamade’s claims, Surprenant said, but he figured it would be more advantageous for Hamade to pursue the case in the court system.

Hamade, in his lawsuit, claims that the harassment began not long after he started working at the Wal-Mart store in Abington in September 2002. Hamade claims that he was insulted and ridiculed on an almost daily basis by employees who believed he was from the Middle East.

After an argument with one of his alleged tormentors in September 2003, the company sided with his opponent and forced Hamade to take a week off, according to the suit.

Hamade was later granted his request to transfer to the Avon store in an effort to avoid harassment.

At one point, one of the co-workers threw a cup of coffee on him, and at another time, a co-worker threw a paint can and hit Hamade in the shoulder, according the suit.

Corporate Accountability International is running their annual Corporate Hall of Shame contest, and voting is open now. Wal-Mart is once again one of the nominees for this notorious post, and we think they'll win hands-down. Check out the info page they have on Wal-Mart and cast your vote today!

In a recent article entitled "What Wal-Mart and Kermit Have in Common: It's Not Easy Being Green," triplepundit examines Wal-Mart's claim of being green, the recent reversal of that claim by CEO Lee Scott, and the reality of Wal-Mart's environmental impact. This article seems to hit the nail on the head; Wal-Mart is taking some steps in the right direction, and there are a lot of environmentally friendly things Wal-Mart can do that will also save them money. However, as the article points out, "They have one of the largest commercial truck fleets on the planet and consume more electricity than any other private user. Wal-Mart is the big (really big) elephant in the room we call “retail commerce” and the footprint they leave throughout the world is a large one – to put it mildly." In addition to a massive carbon footprint (the article fails to mention the huge fleet of ships Wal-Mart uses to import tons of Chinese goods) Wal-Mart has been destructive in other ways as well. Take this recent example from Pennsylvania, where Wal-Mart submitted a proposal to fix a massive landslide they caused. Here's an excerpt from the story from thePittsburgh Business Times

A western Pennsylvania site where Wal-Mart planned to build a store before a massive landslide thwarted the project will take up to two years to stabilize and cost millions of dollars, the retail giant told the Department of Environmental Protection...

...The landslide, in September 2006, dumped 500,000 cubic yards of dirt and debris onto Route 65 and three Norfolk Southern railroad tracks during excavation work for a Wal-Mart Supercenter and a shopping center.

We agree with triplepundit, it's great that Wal-Mart is taking steps to be more environmentally friendly, but the big box model isn't sustainable, and Wal-Mart's primary concern is money, not the environment. Like Kermit, Wal-Mart is finding that it's not easy being green; just ask Lee Scott, who denies that they are.

Here is a rather unbelievable story, or perhaps not considering how easy it is to get fired from Wal-Mart. It is disgraceful that Tom Hampton was fired for his disability. Wal-Mart should be ashamed at making such a poor choice, both ethically and from a business standpoint (after all, it sounds like Tom was a great employee, and could perform his job just as well, if not better in his wheelchair). Wal-Mart is apparently looking to rehire Tom once they find a suitable position for him. I'm not sure what is wrong with his old position, which he clearly enjoyed. What is most disturbing about this story, however, is not Tom's individual case but the trend of intolerance and the speed at which an associate can be fired.

Here's the full story from The Mansfield News Journal:

Tom Hampton wants to go back to work. A Wal-Mart official said the company wants to find him work.

But Hampton continues to sit at home.

The 48-year-old Lexington man, paralyzed on his left side since a 1986 motorcycle accident, said problems began in October when he filed a request to use his wheelchair at the Possum Run Road store.

"I knew the Christmas rush was coming and I was running out of energy in my left leg, so I asked if I could bring my wheelchair into work," he said. "They have a form you fill out, which is a request for a reasonable accommodation. I gave it to my store manager, but then I heard nothing back about it for a long time. For three months, they just kept saying that they hadn't heard anything. So one day I just showed up in my wheelchair."

Hampton said he worked 30 minutes before he was called into the office.

"They told me I either had to get up out of the chair or go home," he said. "It really surprised me. After working there for two years, I thought I'd proven myself. I never missed a day of work and I thought I was a pretty valued employee and they'd want to keep me -- but they didn't seem like they wanted to."

Hampton went home.

Nearly four months have passed, but Wal-Mart spokesperson Sharon Weber said the company is working to find Hampton a position.

"He's gotten a letter from us," Weber said. "We don't discuss personnel issues dealing with associates, but we always try to work closely with our associates to help them perform their jobs.

"We certainly want to help this individual. Each department has minimum job requirements that employees have to meet. We do allow people with wheelchairs to work, but right now we're working to help him find a position."

Hampton said he hasn't received a letter from Wal-Mart.

"When I went in for an interview, I went through the same hiring process like everyone else did. My disabilities were visible -- I had a cane and my left arm was in a sling. They did not question me at all on my condition."

Until recently, he was pleased with his experience at the store. That's a point of pride for the company, Weber said.

"We value all our associates and work so hard to be an employer of choice," Weber said. "We've received awards for our work with associates with disabilities."

Hampton said he worked as a sales associate in the electronics department, where he helped run the cash register and general customer service responsibilities.

"I was impressed that they'd given me a chance as a disabled person," he said. "They treated me really well until this past winter."

Hampton said he was asked to provide a doctor's release to add to his request for the wheelchair. Three weeks later he was told his request had been denied.

"I don't have any use of my left arm. I can walk fairly well, but it's not very smooth with my left leg," Hampton said.

Hampton said he experienced no problems in his chair.

"I didn't have any trouble maneuvering through the aisles," he said. "Actually, I could move faster in the wheelchair than I could walking. A lot of my customers know me by name and they didn't mind me in the chair, just the management did."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken Hampton's statement, but he said they haven't gotten back to him yet.

"They said it could take six months to a year to get me on their list," he said. "I'm holding my own for now, but it's not great. I was working for a reason. I needed the money."

Bill Hiser, of the Independent Living Center, said Hampton has been with the Mansfield agency for more than 12 years.

"He was on the board, he was treasurer and a friend, so he's been part of the Independent Living Center family for a long time," Hiser said. "We were just amazed that the whole thing happened -- amazed and a little horrified. He's had good reviews, he's very knowledgeable in the world of electronics and computers and worked there two years, so I don't think his disability is an issue. Tom has always strived to be as independent as he can, where most people in his situation would want to roll over and not work. He wants to work."

Hampton said he's amenable to shifting to a new position if necessary.

"I would be willing to work in another department, hopefully it would be one in which I could still use my knowledge and expertise," he said. "I just would really like to get back to work."

The Ventura County Reporter, a local paper in California has backed an effort by citizens to block Wal-Mart and other large stores from setting up shop in Ventura. Recently there have been tons of great stories about local communities rejecting the poor jobs, tax evasion, discrimination, poor treatment of workers, and environmental problems that come with new Wal-Mart Supercenters. This newspaper joins a growing group that refuses to let Wal-Mart take over their community. Here's the editorial:

In today’s age of paid political signature gatherers, we are leery about ballot initiatives. However, the campaign to stop Wal-Mart and other large retailers with non-taxable inventory from setting up shop in Ventura is an effort we can put our support behind.

That effort, which would prevent any retailer larger than 90,000 square feet with 3 percent or more of its space devoted to selling non-taxable items (groceries, etc. — meaning an Ikea or large electronics store wouldn’t be stopped by the measure) from opening within the city of Ventura, is a far better researched and reasoned measure than other recent initiative efforts. By addressing very serious worries, such as concerns about eminent domain or the impact concerns about Wal-Mart could have on other large retailers that may offer a major sales tax boon to the city, initiative organizers have blunted some of the major concerns of their potential opponents.

The best argument for supporting this initiative is that doing so would bolster other efforts to strengthen Ventura’s own identity and local business offerings, followed closely by the fact that resisting a Wal-Mart at the Kmart plaza means resisting the massive outlay of municipal resources that would be necessary to support it.

A retailer known for leveraging its worldwide clout to undercut competitors, Wal-Mart’s interest in building a Superstore offering groceries at the Kmart site is worrisome. It would threaten the ability of Trader Joe’s, Ralphs, Vons and other major grocery chains to do business. A common argument to this line of thinking is that those stores do not appeal to the same customers that would shop at Wal-Mart, and opposing the store on those grounds is simply arrogant hypocrisy. In reality, though, the major supermarket chains still employ a unionized (although weakening) workforce and Trader Joe’s offers very affordable quality groceries without scrimping on support for its employees.

Ventura is also dotted with smaller independent food retailers already straining from the presence of major grocery stores. They include Midtown’s Green Market (itself a replacement of the historic Jue’s Market), Sam’s Central Market and the Red Barn on the Avenue and specialty retailer’s such as Shamsi’s Deli and the La Mantia Italian grocery. Such establishments strengthen neighborhood identity.

All of these retailers have something to be concerned about in Wal-Mart’s shadow. So does the city. Whatever reservations one has about a Vons or a Ralphs or an Albertsons, the additional strain of a Wal-Mart could mean added pressure at their locations in Ventura.

A key argument in support of Wal-Mart is the blight of the Wal-Mart site, the idea that anything is better there than nothing. However, a Wal-Mart meeting the 3 percent grocery threshold could mean the closure of other grocery stores throughout the city, in turn increasing the possibility of blighted properties throughout town.

Of course, that threat doesn’t stop with grocery stores. It could mean more empty storefronts throughout town, rather down the street at the iconic Salzer’s complex, itself already facing the challenges of an increasingly digital marketplace, or across the 101 in Downtown and Midtown, where small, locally owned retailers still struggle with high rent and increased competition from large retailers.

Yes, it is already worrisome that Target has just opened its second store so close to its first in Ventura. It would have been nice to see a unique retailer at the Pacific View Mall. Target, at least, has opened through cooperation with the city and its neighbors and at a site capable of supporting its impact. With mostly taxable merchandise, it remains a contributor to our local economy.

Overall, the lesson remains that this community must both support its local businesses and look deeper at the impact of those wishing to set up shop in our city.

Susan Slattery's story is encouraging. She got in to public life as an opponent to a Wal-Mart Supercenter, helping found Friends of the Anclote River to block a store from being built in town. She then ran for City Commissioner of her hometown, Tarpon Springs, FL, and won! We here at Wake Up Wal-Mart think it's great that a community activist who took it upon herself to fight for her city gained such respect as to win a pubic office. Congratulations to Susan Slattery and Tarpon Springs!

Here's an exerpt from the St. Petersburg Times about Susan Slattery:

Susan Slattery wears her red and white campaign button everywhere.

Whether checking out at the grocery store or in line at the bank, the first-time City Commission candidate says her political accessory is a great way to get the word out about her campaign...

The Tarpon High School graduate and longtime resident says much of the city's infrastructure is in disrepair. Roads are crumbling and about 30 percent of residents use septic systems, she said.

Revitalizing the city and trying to attract some big name stores downtown could boost the city's economy, she said. Slattery would not, however, want one of those stores to be the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on the Anclote River. She was a founding member of Friends of the Anclote, the group opposing the project.

"Putting a Wal-Mart Supercenter on our river is not going to improve the quality of life," she said.

I found this letter from a Mayor to his town about some allegations Wal-Mart has lobbed at him as they try to strong-arm their way in to his town. It is an interesting look in to how Wal-Mart deals with cities and towns that we don't normally see. It was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

So I read in a recent newspaper article that I refused to meet with representatives of Wal-Mart to discuss the Promenade project in Fontana. I'm a pretty unreasonable person. Pigheaded, some might even say. But what John Mendez, the latest spokesperson for Wal-Mart, failed to share was that I informed him I don't meet with companies threatening litigation against the city. And, if I'm not mistaken, Mendez has been quoted in local newspapers as saying the company will enforce its property rights.

Your company's representative at all City Council meetings was not an architect or a professional planner, it was your attorney. So forgive me if my litigation detector isn't pegged with Wal-Mart not getting its way in the Promenade.

What you also failed to mention in the newspaper article (or to any of the paid employees who attended our City Council meeting) was that I have met with Wal-Mart or its representatives no fewer than five times over the past several years, imploring your company to work with our community and council to develop where it makes sense to our community and to Wal-Mart. You purchased the Promenade property after we had already initiated the Specific Plan process and after we had already begun talking about a walkable, mixed-use development. Come to think of it, you also purchased your site in south Fontana against the advice and opinions of city officials, after a Specific Plan for the area had already been completed.

Am I seeing a trend here? Does the $200 billion gorilla simply march into every jungle and get its way?

But I digress

When your company asked for a continuance two months ago, you stated that you had a dramatic proposal that would fit in with the vision of the City Council that would fit the mold of a pedestrian friendly shopping, theater, and restaurant experience at the gateway to Fontana off the 210 Freeway. An experience that wasn't going to be a sea of parking, that would promote the lifestyle center development trends that have proven so successful in many communities. And after granting the continuance, you bring forth a proposal that is twice the size of the maximum building size allowed in the specific plan, with a sea of 1,200-plus parking spaces in front of your "downsized" super-duper, almost-larger-than-a-middle-school Super Wal-Mart. You then have the audacity to "present" 5,000 signed cards from residents stating that they want to save $2,500 on their groceries duh! I want to save $2,500 on my groceries. But I'm not willing to sell the vision of this community down the road simply because Wal-Mart isn't willing to move to another viable site.

But here's where it gets really offensive: There are representatives of Wal-Mart implying that if the city accepts the store in the south Fontana location, then the company will move the store in the north.

Sounds a lot like extortion to me, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of my residents in the southern end of town to realize the vision in the north.

So here's my advice: You want to know what I want? Read the Specific Plans for the Promenade and the Empire Center projects.

Take a gorilla-size Q-tip from aisle 55, clean out your ears, and re-watch the numerous council meetings and State of the City addresses where the vision for Fontana has been presented.

And please stop the push-polling and threatening of political activism. Clearly, you didn't do your homework when you decided to land in this jungle. We've dealt with beasts far more menacing than you in the past.

Mark Nuaimi is the mayor of Fontana.

Wal-Mart announced today that it would combine an abandoned Sam's Club with an existing Supercenter to make the biggest U.S. Wal-Mart Supercenter ever opened. This new monstrosity in upstate New York will be 260,000 square feet, roughly 25% larger than the average Wal-Mart Supercenter. This comes amid news of new energy efficient Wal-Mart stores, and stores with new fangled light bulbs, and Wal-Mart stores that will suddenly be good for the earth because they sell mulch made of recycled plastic. It sounds a little suspicions then, that at the same time they'd open this mega-supercenter. Apparently when Lee Scott said Wal-Mart wasn't green, and that the environment wouldn't stand in the way of growth, he meant it!

Here's the article from the AP via CNBC:

ALBANY, N.Y. - Upstate New York will soon be home to the nation's largest Wal-Mart store.

Workers are combining a standard-sized Wal-Mart store with space left vacant by a failed Sam's Club warehouse outlet on the outskirts of Albany to create a 260,000-square-foot, two-story "supercenter" selling department store merchandise as well as groceries, liquor and automotive and other services.

That's more than 25 percent bigger than the average Wal-Mart supercenter, which typically measures around 205,000 square feet, said Phil Serghini, a Wal-Mart spokesman in New York.

Real estate planners at the Bentonville, Ark.-based company _ the world's largest retailer with more than 4,100 stores in the United States and 3,100 more overseas _ never set out to build their biggest store in New York's Capital Region. In fact, the larger stores tend to be built in rural areas, Serghini said.

In the 1990s, Wal-Mart co-located a Sam's Club _ its members-only warehouse store _ with a Wal-Mart department store in a dual-level shopping center, with the Sam's Club on the lower floor.

The company closed the Sam's Club in 2006 because of low membership and decided to use that space to turn the department store into a supercenter.

"It's the largest one really only because of the situation involving the former Sam's Club," Serghini said. "But it is unique, and the customers are going to be very pleased with the layout."

The company had kept the project relatively quiet, not formally announcing it to the news media or to customers. Construction started about a year ago, but the transformation only recently became visible when workers opened up the newly renovated bottom floor and installed escalators.

"I didn't even realize anything was happening over here until I came back from winter break and all of a sudden there was a big hole in the floor," said Susannah Coon, a student at a nearby university who has shopped there since she started classes three years ago.

Denise Clow, who lives in suburban Albany and said she has shopped at the store since it opened, was particularly impressed by the escalators, which move both people and shopping carts. A hook grabs the bottom of the cart, which is then pulled along a track in the center of the escalator alongside the shopper riding the moving stairs.

"That's so cool," she said.

Aside from the newfangled escalators and wider aisles, the nation's biggest Wal-Mart won't be all that different from the rest. It will have the same kind of merchandise and services that are available at other supercenters, Serghini said.

The store plans to celebrate its grand opening in May.

Wal-Mart announced it will buy the remaining four percent of Seiyu, the Japanese chain it now operates despite major losses. Seiyu's failure has been blamed on a number of issues, including cultural intolerance. The major issue with its Japanese subsidiary, however, seems to be a failure of the low price model that has made Wal-Mart so famous here. Wal-Mart claims the purchase is to increase the 'flexibility' it needs to improve the store. It seems owning 96% of the company wasn't enough to control the company.

Here's the story from the AP:

Wal-Mart Stores will buy the rest of Japanese chain Seiyu as the U.S. retail giant seeks the flexibility it says it needs to turn around the money-losing supermarket operator.

Seiyu, Japan's fifth-biggest retailer by sales, said shareholders approved the move at a meeting earlier Tuesday.The vote allows Wal-Mart to buy the remaining 4 percent of Seiyu it doesn't already own.

Since entering the Japanese market in 2002, Wal-Mart has been gradually raising its stake in Seiyu, which has about 400 stores nationwide. But Wal-Mart has also struggled to make money in Japan. Although mall-style shopping is increasingly popular here, for everyday food and other needs, shoppers tend to go to smaller neighborhood stores.

In February, Seiyu reported a net loss of 20.93 billion yen (US$216 million; €137 million) for last year, underscoring the tough time Wal-Mart is having in returning the Japanese company to the black.

Weak sales of clothing and other seasonal goods led to a 0.9 percent fall in revenue to 952.30 billion yen (US$9.82 billion; €6.23 billion) for the year, down from 960.86 billion yen a year earlier. The poor performance suggests Wal-Mart's «Everyday Low Price» strategy has backfired in Japan, where consumers tend to equate low prices with low quality. Wal-Mart's track record at its international operations has been uneven. While its business has flourished in Mexico and Latin America, shopping cultures in other countries and regions have failed to respond to the sales format that proved successful in its home territory.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company sold its German operations to rival German retailer Metro AG in 2006 and earlier sold 16 stores it owned in South Korea.
Wal-Mart has more than 4,000 domestic stores and about 3,000 stores outside the United States.

The U.S Supreme Court has refused to review the case of Debbie Shank, who worked for Wal-Mart as a stocker and was severely brain damaged in a car accident. The refusal means that the Shank family now owes Wal-Mart $470,000. Wal-Mart sued the family after paying their medical bills because the Shanks won a lawsuit against the trucking company that hit Debbie's car.

Wal-Mart says they sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the insurance plan, except, it seems, to the Shanks. The money they won from the trucking company was set aside to use for long term care because Debbie needs full time care. Instead, Wal-Mart will put this money back in to their insurance plan.

Here's the story from the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

WASHINGTON — The family of a Missouri woman must reimburse Wal-Mart for nearly a half-million dollars in medical expenses now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review her case.

The court on Monday let stand a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis requiring Debbie Shank of Cape Girardeau County to pay nearly $470,000 to Wal-Mart.

The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.

"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said Monday when told about the court's decision.

Nathan Shank said that with her case in limbo, his mother already had lost a private caregiver and might be moved out of her private room in the nursing home.

According to legal documents, Shank's medical bills — totaling $469,216 — were covered by a health insurance program at Wal-Mart, where Shank worked nights stocking shelves.

Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.

As is common for employer-sponsored health plans, Shank's insurance required full repayment of medical expenses if she received money from a lawsuit.

Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the company sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the plan.

"This is a tragic situation," Moore said. "The reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay future claims for other associates and their family members."

The Supreme Court gave no explanation for its decision.

In a long string of community victories recently, Lawrence Township, New Jersey won a three and a half year battle with Wal-Mart. Let's Stop Wal-Mart lead a valiant fight against the retail giant, and with community members out in force, prevented the store from being built. Here's the story from The Times:

Reading the newspaper recently, one might conclude that Wal-Mart walked away from building a store on Spruce Street in Lawrence Township due to a change in strategy following the economic downturn (The Times, "Wal-Mart drops store plan -- Retail giant says Lawrence site no longer fits marketing strategy," Feb. 14). The Wal-Mart spin machine has indeed peddled this interpretation. The truth lies elsewhere.

After a protracted 3 1/2-year battle to prevent the construction of a Wal-Mart on Spruce Street, the public triumphed. Goliath was run out of town. How was Let's Stop Wal-Mart, a volunteer group of regular citizens, able to succeed against the largest corporation in the world? Many people in the community got involved in ral lies and hearings. They leafleted, petitioned and held meetings. Young people, college students, trade unionists, environmentalists and senior citizens let their voices be heard and helped in many capacities, such as by writing letters to the editor of newspapers, contacting other organizations, calling friends, making signs and calling the press.

In battling one skirmish after another, we discovered that for all its paid experts, Wal-Mart came up short on adequate answers to seri ous problems.

The Spruce Street site is contiguous to the Shabakunk Creek, an area prone to recurrent flooding. The creek is part of the Delaware River watershed and eventually becomes part of the river from which we take our drinking water. Non- point source pollution from thou sands of cars and toxic chemicals from store products would have further compromised the Shaba kunk.

Hoping to gain a big tax ratable, our elected township officials and planning board missed the fact that deteriorating property values caused by the presence of a Wal- Mart store in the area could result in a net loss of tax dollars while raising the cost of municipal services.

Local residents repeatedly expressed legitimate fears about traffic and cited the numerous acci dents that already occur in that busy corridor, yet Lawrence officials let Wal-Mart's interest trump public safety.

One must also call into question the legal advice paid for by Lawrence taxpayers. According to the planning board attorney's professional website, he "concentrates in the areas of real estate acquisition and development" as well as "representing planning and zoning boards." His company's big client is the New Jersey Builders Association. Lawrence Township's planning consultant's company has profited from megabuck projects at taxpayer expense such as Waterfront Park, the Roebling Complex, the $40 million Capitol Center Redevelopment Project, and the $1.2 billion Asbury Park Waterfront Redevelopment pork barrel.

Do such "experts" represent the public interest or the corporate interest? Why do so many municipalities pay them handsomely for their less-than-balanced viewpoint? Is it possible that so much overdevelopment has occurred despite the public's disapproval because local government experts are so often the same people representing developer interests? The attorney general should launch a statewide investigation into potential conflicts of interest among attorneys, planners and traffic consultants hired by municipalities and the developers.

As our fight to stop Wal-Mart continued, residents launched a "Living Wage" initiative to prevent "big box" stores from paying substandard wages without health benefits. The response to the "Living Wage" campaign was overwhelmingly positive. Approximately 1,200 signatures of registered Lawrence voters, more than the 10 percent required to put the initiative on the ballot for the November 2006 election, were col lected and certified by the township clerk. In a rather blatant case of the public interest being usurped by corporate interests, Lawrence rushed its attorney into court to prevent the referendum from appearing on the ballot. He then turned the case over to the Retail Merchants Association lawyer to argue. Lawrence voters were never able to vote on the ballot initiative.

The people repeatedly raised concerns about improper zoning for Wal-Mart. The area along Spruce street is zoned highway commercial (HC), not regional commercial (RC). Clearly, Wal- Mart is a destination regional one- stop shopping outlet and as such should be located only in an RC zone. The only such zone in Lawrence is out by the Quaker Bridge Mall. Even the stores located there do not rival Wal-Mart as a one-stop shopping destination. Why was this ignored by our township's professional advisors? Were they acting on behalf of the public's interest? Wal-Mart should have been in front of the zoning board, not the planning board.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our local government that it took a suit filed by Lawrence residents against Wal-Mart and the planning board to frighten away the "Beast of Bentonville." Clearly, Wal-Mart understood that Lawrence residents had a strong case. The counts against the Wal-Mart plan listed in the lawsuit drew on the very arguments made repeatedly to the planning board and town council to no avail. These included improper zoning, inadequate stormwater management, inadequate traffic studies, and the unwarranted granting of variances. Once the suit was filed in Superior Court, Wal-Mart realized that if it did not pull out, it would face more years of delay, with huge legal and consultant expenditures, and probably not succeed, as indeed a desti nation store is not permitted in an HC zone.

We now have a unique opportunity. With Wal-Mart gone, we must press our local and county governments to take appropriate measures to clean up the site, rip up the asphalt, revegetate the area around the creek and its flood plain and improve the watershed. If necessary, the government can use eminent domain to take control of the area around the creek, as it is important for the health and safety of the public to prevent future flooding and contamination. Just imagine a park-like setting around the Shabakunk with recreational facilities, perhaps a neighborhood movie house/arts center, a coffeehouse or restaurant, and a refurbished Farmer's Market.

We stopped Wal-Mart, and together we can create a plan to en hance the quality of life in south Lawrence and improve the watershed.

A recent legal decision reminds us just how anti-Union Wal-Mart is. Back in 2000, the meat department of a local Wal-Mart store voted to have the United Food and Commercial Workers Union represent them. A few weeks later, in a 'totally unrelated' move, Wal-Mart shut down its meat departments and moved to prepackaged meats. Like the closing of the Canadian store, this highlights just how far Wal-Mart is willing go to avoid unions.

Al Norman, over at the Huffington Post has some great commentary:

"I have always believed," Sam Walton wrote, "that we don't need unions at Wal-Mart." His company has gone on to demonstrate that preventing workers from having an organized voice is worth shutting down a department, worth shutting down an entire store, worth paying eight years of legal bills. Wal-Mart reportedly called the axing of the meat cutters "the ultimate union avoidance strategy."

Over the years, Wal-Mart workers who have taken the time to communicate outside their corporate world, have described a bureaucracy that thrives on fear and intimidation, in which workers who speak out are eliminated---much like fat is cut from meat. To help Americans "save money, live better," Wal-Mart has made the strategic decision that the company must save money on its employees---so that others may live better. The workers at Jacksonville were the sacrificial meat that had to be cut as an example for the rest of Wal-Mart's "associates" of what happens to union sympathizers.

The Texas meat cutters are a reminder that Wal-Mart's 1.6 million workers are, in fact, all part of one giant meat department.

The full article is below

The "Meat Wars" between Wal-Mart and the United Food and Commercial Workers was on the front burner this week, as a court ruling gave both sides some fat to chew on.

In February, 2000, workers in the meat department of a Wal-Mart supercenter in Jacksonville, Texas, voted 7 to 3 to join Local 540 of the UFCW, becoming the first U.S. workers to vote in a union at Wal-Mart. "This victory could open the floodgates of pent up worker frustration at the abusive treatment, low pay, and lousy benefits at Wal-Mart," said then-UFCW President Doug Dority. Dority called the Jacksonville election "the vote heard round the world." The UFCW charged that Wal-Mart went to great lengths to try to cut the vote their way, including "stacking" the meat department with anti-union workers. Rather than stew over what the vote meant, Wal-Mart decided to do a little cutting of its own.

In a move that they said had "absolutely nothing" to do with retaliation against the union, Wal-Mart announced several weeks later that it was closing down its meat-cutting operations in 180 stores across six states, and switching to "prepackaged" meat. Wal-Mart claimed it would find jobs for the meat-cutters. The company explained its move to prepackaged meat was in the works for months, and would take effect by June, 2000. The UFCW petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for an injunction to prevent Wal-Mart from cutting the meat cutters. "Changing the way all of its store sells meat shows the extent to which Wal-Mart will go to keep the union out of its stores," the UFCW told reporters. "Any time management concocts a scheme to ratchet down people's livelihoods, it says a lot about the real nature of the company."

Three years went by, before an NLRB judge ordered Wal-Mart to restore the meat department, and the meat cutters, and to recognize and bargain with the union over the effects of any change caused by the switch to prepackaged meat. "The elimination of work requiring their special skills greatly affected both job satisfaction and future earning potential," Administrative Law Judge Keltner Locke wrote in his ruling. "The absence of future wage increases, coupled with the effects of inflation, constitute a very demonstrable and adverse effect," the judge concluded. (Wal-Mart must have been stung by this ruling, because Judge Locke was the same judge who ruled in the company's favor in two other cases, including a vote in Palestine, Texas, that defeated UFCW representation.) "This is a historic decision," the UFCW said of Locke's ruling, "the first bargaining order issued against Wal-Mart in the United States. It is a victory for all Wal-Mart workers who are fighting for a voice at work."

But Locke's decision only led to more slicing and dicing. Both parties in the case appealed. The UFCW was unhappy that the court's ruling said the meat cutter's bargaining unit was non-existent as of July, 2000, when Wal-Mart moved to prepacked meat. The union argued that there was a continuing "community of interest" that set the meat cutters apart from other workers at the store. The Judge did find that the former meat cutters had separate supervision, distinct required skills, higher pay, and were hired specifically for the meat department. Wal-Mart also appealed Locke's decision, displeased with the requirement that the retailer re-establish the meat-cutting division in the department. "Wal-Mart has consistently contended that the union should never have been certified in Jacksonville because the election result was improperly influenced by union misconduct and because the bargaining unit requested was improperly narrow," the company said in a press release. "This portion of the ruling will be appealed."

In the meantime, Wal-Mart informally settled with at least four of the fired meat cutters, giving them back pay.

On March 14, 2008 -- more than eight years after the "Meatcutter's 10" vote in Texas -- a 3 judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld both of the NLRB's 2003 decisions. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that the Jacksonville unit did not meet the test for a bargaining unit, because the workers do no specialized cutting. The NLRB's precedent is that when a store closes, the employer must to bargain over the effects of that closing, and the NLRB ruled that the Jacksonville department's conversion was like a closing because the bargaining unit was eliminated. The Appeals judges agreed with the NLRB that Wal-Mart had engaged in an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain with UFCW over the effects of the closure. So neither the UFCW nor Wal-Mart got the relief it wanted.

"I have always believed," Sam Walton wrote, "that we don't need unions at Wal-Mart." His company has gone on to demonstrate that preventing workers from having an organized voice is worth shutting down a department, worth shutting down an entire store, worth paying eight years of legal bills. Wal-Mart reportedly called the axing of the meat cutters "the ultimate union avoidance strategy."

Over the years, Wal-Mart workers who have taken the time to communicate outside their corporate world, have described a bureaucracy that thrives on fear and intimidation, in which workers who speak out are eliminated---much like fat is cut from meat. To help Americans "save money, live better," Wal-Mart has made the strategic decision that the company must save money on its employees---so that others may live better. The workers at Jacksonville were the sacrificial meat that had to be cut as an example for the rest of Wal-Mart's "associates" of what happens to union sympathizers.

The Texas meat cutters are a reminder that Wal-Mart's 1.6 million workers are, in fact, all part of one giant meat department.

Lee Scott's comments at the ECOnomics conference were quite enlightening. He admitted that Wal-Mart wasn't green and that Wal-Mart's supposed Green initiatives were more about making money than saving the environment. In the following video from the Wall Stree Journal's Environmental Capital Blog Lee Scott discusses bottled water. The themes of saving money, making money, and making profit are evident, but any real commitment to the environment is missing.

At a recent annual prayer breakfast in St. Louis, Wake Up Wal-Mart activists showed up to protest the headline speaker: Wal-Mart Senior Vice President of International Operations John Aden. More and more people of faith are upset over Wal-Mart's business practices, and it isn't hard to see why. Wal-Mart needs to step up and take responsibility for those who make their company successful. Here's some of the local coverage we got:

Wal-Mart is looking to expand its May Landing store in New Jersey and make it a supercenter. But local residents and union activists who showed up at the hearing won't let that happen without their say so. It is truly encouraging to see folks take control of their own communities. Here's the full article from the Press of Atlantic City:

Facing a pro-union audience of about 100 people, Wal-Mart presented plans to expand its Mays Landing store into a supercenter during a Planning Board meeting Thursday. The board had not decided whether to grant Wal-Mart final site-plan approval before The Press' deadline and was likely to continue the hearing to a future meeting.

Member Patrick Childs said they aren't necessarily against expansion of the store.

"What we support is for the Wal-Mart to hire local workers," he said. "Union workers."
The expansion would increase Wal-Mart's 129,670 square-foot store on the Black Horse Pike by more than 66,600 square feet.

The addition is needed to build out the food aisles and create a full-service supermarket with fresh produce and meats, said Jennifer Hoehn, senior manager of public affairs for the company's New Jersey unit. The store would also feature new signs and parking.

The expanded supermarket "offers another level of convenience to our customers," Hoehn said.

The store currently employs about 325 people, and could see as many as 125 new hires because of the expansion, Hoehn added.

The UFCW says that while Wal-Mart is one of the state's largest employers, almost half of its workers receive health care that is subsidized by the state - a drain on taxpayers.

"It's a drag on the economy," Chudoff said, adding that organizing Wal-Mart employees doesn't make sense since "the average worker stays less than a year."

Hoehn said that more than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees are full-time with benefits. The average full-time Wal-Mart employee in New Jersey makes $11.44 per hour.

"We have over a million employees (nationwide), and that sort of speaks for itself," Hoehn said.

Wal-Mart announced this week that it will open 80 supercenters in the first quarter of 2008. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company opened 195 supercenters last fiscal year and plans to open about 170 this year, including one on Landis Avenue in Vineland.

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital Blog reports today that at a conference on the environment and business, Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott said, "We are not green" and revealed that, despite all their publicity, their 'green' initiatives are more about saving money than helping the environment. He also had no answer on when Wal-Mart might reach zero carbon emissions- one of their stated goals- nor why Wal-Mart's current emissions are rising, not falling. His public statements proves what we here at Wake Up Wal-Mart have been saying all along: Wal-Mart's environmental work is about revamping Wal-Mart's public image, getting people to buy more stuff, and about improving their bottom line. If doing that also helps the environment, then kudos, but it's clearly not. In fact, we are pretty sure that Wal-Mart's big box model, leaving abandoned shells of old stores, and shipping tons of goods from China is patently bad for the environment. Here's the post from the Wall Street Journal Blog:

Lee Scott Jr. has earned a reputation as something of an environmental guru for actions he has taken over the past few years in getting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to green up its act.

But this morning at the ECO:nomics conference in California, the president and CEO of the retail giant took some attendees aback by flatly declaring: “We are not green.”

Mr. Scott was actually being candid when a questioner asked how he could reconcile why Wal-Mart’s carbon emissions were continuing to grow despite its much-publicized efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. He said Wal-Mart is trying, but it also needs to grow at the same time. In fact, Mr. Scott said, “I haven’t a clue,” when asked when he expected the company to meet his stated goal of having zero waste and 100% renewable energy over time.

He did say Wal-Mart is making great strides. Among other steps, he said the company is working with its thousands of suppliers to reduce the amount of cardboard and other plastic packaging in its products. The company is also looking into ways to reduce the amount of plastic in bottled water, he said. The impetus for the company in doing all this isn’t just to please environmentalists, he said, but more to save money.

“It really is about how you take cost out, which is waste,” he said.

The savings by taking out wasted material helps keep prices low for Wal-Mart’s customers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. Indeed, Mr. Scott – in remarks to reporters after his talk – said the current economic slump is prodding Wal-Mart even more to undertake its waste-reduction program. “When is a better time?,” he said.

Here's some local news coverage about how Hadley, Mass beat Wal-Mart. Personally, I think the fact that this new Wal-Mart was going in across the street from another was reason enough to block the store.

Imagine your spouse dying and their employer collecting thousands of dollars because of it. Wouldn't you be angry?