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? Especially if you hadn't known their employer might benefit from their death? For many spouses of Wal-Mart employees, this happened. Recently a lawsuit against the company was thrown out of court because of a technicality, but Wal-Mart paid nearly $15 million because of the 350,000 secret claims they had.

Here's the story from the St. Petersburg Times:

A federal judge has dismissed a Hillsborough County man's lawsuit against Wal-Mart over a life insurance claim the company received when the man's wife died.

Friday, U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. dismissed the suit filed by Richard Armatrout, because it failed to reach the $75,000 threshold for a civil complaint to go before a federal judge.

When Karen Armatrout, 50, died of cancer in 1997, Wal-Mart collected $72,820.30 from an insurance policy the retail giant had in her name. Armatrout's husband sued, saying the couple never knew about the policy and he received none of the payout.

Armatrout's attorney argued the lawsuit exceeded the $75,000 limit if punitive damages were included.

Karen Armatrout worked at a Wal-Mart pharmacy on Waters Avenue in Tampa and took a leave of absence when doctors diagnosed her with cancer.

Michael D. Myers, a Texas attorney representing Richard Armatrout, said Monday he anticipated the case would be thrown out because of the technicality. Before Moody's ruling, Myers filed Armatrout's lawsuit in Pasco County, along with a similar case for Pasco resident Wayne Atkinson. Myers said Wal-Mart also collected on a policy when Atkinson's wife, Rita, died.

Myers estimates Wal-Mart secretly insured about 350,000 employees for two years beginning in 1993. Wal-Mart officials said they dropped the policies by the start of 2000.

He has won settlements against Wal-Mart in Texas and Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, a judge approved a $5.1-million class-action settlement in a case brought by the estates of deceased Wal-Mart employees. A $10-million settlement was reached in Texas.

Myers is waiting to see if a Pasco County judge will grant his motion to give Armatrout's case class-action status for similar estate claims in Florida.

It is hardly the type of town you might expect to win a fight against Wal-Mart. There were no "liberal activists" (the stereotype of those involved in Anti Wal-Mart campaigns), but there were a lot of concerned citizens in Ramapo. A small, traditional community, made up primarily of orthodox Jewish citizens, fought to keep Wal-Mart out of their town, and they won. It just goes to show that there are a lot of communities out there who don't want a Wal-Mart. Here's the story from the New York Times:

It was Friday afternoon when the developer who had been intent on building a 215,000-square-foot Wal-Mart in this hamlet sent word to the town offices in Ramapo. The fax was terse, but its message clear: “We will not continue to proceed with the development.”

The news that the developer, and potentially Wal-Mart, had scrapped plans it had so diligently worked on gave observant Jews, who make up the bulk of the population here, reason to rejoice.

They had waged a modest yet unyielding campaign against the proposed store, which they feared would force too many outside influences into their insular world of Orthodox Judaism.

It also represented a political vindication of sorts for Christopher P. St. Lawrence, town supervisor of Ramapo, which encompasses Monsey, in the heart of Rockland County. He hung much of his re-election on a promise to keep the Wal-Mart out of Monsey. During his campaign, he mailed a flier to every home in Monsey, saying, “Supervisor St. Lawrence opposes the Monsey Wal-Mart.” Mr. St. Lawrence was elected to a fourth term in November.

“Wal-Mart doesn’t vote for the supervisor,” said Rabbi Jacob Horowitz, one of Monsey’s most respected religious leaders. “The people vote for the supervisor.

“We work very hard to raise our families the right way,” Rabbi Horowitz said. “And the supervisor understood that preserving our lifestyle is something that’s very important to us.”

There were other issues that Mr. St. Lawrence said had prompted him to stand up against putting a Wal-Mart on Route 59, like the flood of traffic such a big store could bring to a two-lane highway that is already clogged much of the time, and its impact on the revitalized downtown section of Spring Valley, a village northeast of Monsey.

“We’re very pro-business here,” Mr. St. Lawrence said. “But it has to be the right business.”

Wal-Mart says it has not yet formally given up on the project.

Philip H. Serghini, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, said that the company had placed the plan “under review,” weighing the costs of pushing it forward against its potential benefits.

To build here, Wal-Mart would have to overcome at least two obstacles: finding another developer and preparing a new environmental impact study. The town Planning Board rejected the one it received last June on the ground that the proposal to ease traffic on Route 59 with a combination of turning lanes and more traffic lights was inadequate.

Jerrold Bermingham, managing director of the National Realty and Development Corporation, which was to have built the store, did not respond to e-mail messages or phone calls left with him and his lawyer.

With about 28,000 residents and almost 200 synagogues squeezed into 2.2 square miles, Monsey feels at once crowded and neighborly, the type of place that seems immune to the modernity that surrounds it.

Many of the women do not drive, and their children attend the dozens of yeshivas, or private religious schools here. Among the most observant families, home computers are strictly forbidden.

“These are not people who were schooled in the tactics of public protesting, or who even felt comfortable doing it,” said Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a coalition of small-business groups that helped residents here wage their battle against Wal-Mart. “They never imagined they could beat a giant like Wal-Mart.”

The retailer made numerous attempts to woo the Jewish community. Company representatives met with rabbis and agreed to conceal the covers of celebrity magazines featuring photographs of scantly clad movie and television stars to avoid offending Jewish patrons. Wal-Mart also hired a firm to send mailings in Yiddish to local homes, asking residents to suggest ways the company could improve the area.

“A lot of us sent the mailing back to them with the words, ‘No, thanks,’ written at the top,” said a 36-year-old Hasidic man who has lived here for 18 years and who requested anonymity to keep with his religious tradition of modesty.

Then, the community hit back. Residents joined union workers for a rally in December 2006, and circulated petitions and ran ads in Yiddish and English every week for 32 weeks in a local newsletter, Community Connections. The ads warned of the additional traffic the store would attract and how it would expose their children to such unwelcome sights as bikinis and lingerie.

“Very little money was collected or spent” in the effort, said Jacob Guttman, 33, who is Hasidic. “It was just a well-organized and carefully planned grass-roots campaign.”

The rabbis, for their part, encouraged the faithful to speak up. When Wal-Mart offered to repair Monsey’s heavily used sidewalks and build others, the rabbis asked residents to write to local officials, saying they did not need new sidewalks.

“We were determined to make Wal-Mart uncomfortable because by making them uncomfortable, we thought they would eventually leave,” said Rabbi Horowitz, who is also the executive director of a social services agency here, the Community Outreach Center.

“We’re very strong believers that everything comes from the Almighty,” he added. “I think the Almighty realized that for our children to grow up in a beautiful community, for our traditions to be preserved, we couldn’t have a Wal-Mart.”

Wal-Mart seems to be doing poorly with computers these days. First it was Dell and now it is the Linux based computer that generated a lot of buzz when it first came out. It was a $199 stripped down computer running a lot of its components through Google. Now Wal-Mart isn't selling it anymore. They say the “gPC” didn't sell well, but that seems odd. With such buzz, and an all time low price, one would think this would be a hugely successful product for Wal-Mart. Maybe they're just losing their edge in computer sales. Here's the AP report:

Computers that run the Linux operating system instead of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows didn't attract enough attention from Wal-Mart customers, and the chain has stopped selling them in stores, a spokeswoman said Monday.

"This really wasn't what our customers were looking for," said Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien.

To test demand for systems with the open-source operating system, Wal-Mart stocked the $199 "Green gPC," made by Everex of Taiwan, in about 600 stores starting late in October.

Walmart.com, the chain's e-commerce site, had sold Linux-based computers before and will continue selling the gPC.

This was the first time they appeared on retail shelves.

Paul Kim, brand manager for Everex, said selling the gPC online was "significantly more effective" than selling it in stores.

Wal-Mart sold out the in-store gPC inventory but decided not to restock, O'Brien said. The company does not reveal sales figures for individual items.

Walmart.com now carries an updated version, the gPC2, also for $199, without a monitor. The site also sells a tiny Linux-driven laptop, the Everex CloudBook, for $399.

Linux software is maintained and developed by individuals and companies around the world on an "open source" basis, meaning that everyone has access to the software's blueprints and can modify them.

There is no licensing fee for Linux, which helps keeps the cost of the Everex PC low. Manufacturers have to pay Microsoft to sell computers with Windows preloaded.

Linux is in widespread use in server computers, but it hasn't made a dent in the desktop market. Surveys usually put its share of that market around 1 percent, far behind Windows and Apple Inc.'s OS X.

Smaller laptops like the CloudBook could provide an entree for Linux, since it runs well on systems with modest memory and hard drive capacity.

The initial voting is done, and the consumerist has put all the worst companies are competing. We are rooting for Wal-Mart, and in our predictions, it goes all the way to the finals. We're not sure who it might compete against, but we're pretty sure it has the right stuff to win! Don't miss the exciting action!

A Massachusetts community stopped a Wal-Mart Supercenter after a battle that centered around environmental standards, and a rail-to-trail path. Congratulations to Hadley Neighbors for Sensible Development, the main group fighting this battle, on their win! You can read about their victory on the group's blog. Here's the press release from the group:

WAL-MART DROPS HADLEY SUPERCENTER PLANS; DEVELOPER VOWS TO FIND NEW TENANTS

Wal-Mart has dropped its plans to build a supercenter in Hadley, Massachusetts.

The company’s decision ends three years of efforts to build a 212,000-square foot store at the Hampshire Mall.

Representatives for the Pyramid Companies, which is developing the site on which the supercenter was to be built, have notified residents and local officials that Wal-Mart is no longer a prospective tenant. However, Pyramid says it will continue to develop the site and seek new tenants to take Wal-Mart’s place. Wal-Mart continues to operate a regular-sized discount store at the Mountain Farms Mall less than 300 yards away.

Wal-Mart’s decision to abandon the supercenter plan means that a smaller scale development could be built that protects the nearby Norwottuck Rail Trail and surrounding wetlands. The supercenter would have been the largest single structure in Hadley, with loading docks within 250-300 feet of the Rail Trail.

In 2007, Wal-Mart announced it was cutting back by about one-third the number of some 270 new supercenter openings nationwide this year. Pyramid representatives said the current economic downturn was a factor in Wal-Mart’s decision, as well as the fact that the Hadley location had become a “difficult” site on which to build a supercenter.

Wal-Mart and its developer first filed plans to build the supercenter and 13-acre parking lot in March 2005. As planned, the supercenter would have wiped out several acres of wetlands. In November 2005, Hadley residents presented a 91-page report that detailed the wetlands impacts that Wal-Mart refused to admit. In early 2006, the Hadley Conservation Commission and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ruled that indeed Wal-Mart had not reported all the wetlands and required that new plans be filed if the project was to move ahead. However, for the past two years, the developer
has refused to produce plans that comply with wetlands laws and has instead continued to Hadley Neighbors for Sensible Development appeal these rulings through the state Division of Administrative Law Appeals process.

These appeals remain active and a ruling is expected in the coming weeks.

In April 2007, Wal-Mart’s environmental impact report was rejected by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs for failing to show all wetlands and stormwater impacts, as well as for failing to provide adequate traffic management. The rejection came after some 380 area residents, agency officials and business owners wrote
comments to the state expressing concerns about the supercenter project. But in May 2007, Wal-Mart held an “open house” at the Hadley American Legion Hall to assure residents and local officials that the supercenter would be built.

The new store would have drawn more than 6,500 new vehicle trips per day, adding to the 22,000 trips already on Route 9. The supercenter would have increased traffic nearly five-fold where the Rail Trail crosses South Maple Street. The Planning Board and Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a bridge or tunnel crossing to protect bicyclists and pedestrians, but Wal-Mart would only agree to a yellow flashing light. The supercenter would have been the third major “big box” project in Hadley in recent years. Construction is under way on a 230,000-square foot mall at Route 9 and North Maple Street that will include a Home Depot and five other stores; and the state recently approved a 180,000-square foot development for a Lowe’s home improvement store at the Long Hollow Bison Farm one-half mile to the west near Mill Valley Road.

Many residents were frustrated that Wal-Mart refused to discuss compensation for the loss of more than 20 acres of farmland. In contrast, residents negotiated an agreement with the developer of the Lowe’s store to pay the Town of Hadley $410,000 to mitigate the loss of 13 acres farmland. Similarly, the Home Depot project includes approximately $125,000 in payments to help protect some 60 acres of Hadley farmland.

It is not clear how large another store on the site could be. In May 2006, Hadley Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly to restrict the size of future retail stores in town to 75,000 square feet or less. Wal-Mart’s developer, Pyramid, filed subdivision plans just prior to that vote to lock in a temporary “grandfathering” exemption from the retail size-limit for most of the site, but the subdivision approval process for the entire site is not yet complete.

Members of Hadley Neighbors have asked the Planning Board to deny the subdivision because it violates several zoning and subdivision regulations and the Board is therefore under no obligation to grant the variances necessary for approval. By not voting on the pending application, the Planning Board is unnecessarily extending Pyramid’s ability to evade the 75,000-square foot retail store size limit. The size limit was enacted as one of the first steps in Hadley’s new Master Plan, adopted unanimously by Town Meeting in October 2005.

England has not been Wal-Mart's best turf. They had a lot of trouble getting in to the country, and once they finally got Asda, it didn't do nearly as well as their other branches worldwide. But the news today is that Wal-Mart considered selling off Asda as it floundered. It wouldn't have been Wal-Mart's first international failure (Germany and South Korea are on the list) and it probably won't be the last, with India's Bharti considering dropping the Wal-Mart name from their stores when they open. Maybe the rest of the world has found a way to stop Wal-Mart that we should be paying attention to; like stricter labor laws, or in India's case, just not caring for big retailers. Here's the story from the Telegraph:

When Wal-Mart swooped to buy Asda in 1999 for £6.7bn analysts predicted that the arrival of the world's largest retailer would change the UK high street forever - sparking a savage price war and a wave of mega mergers.

But the doom-laden predictions of 1999 have proved wide of the mark. The combination of intense competition and planning restrictions have frustrated Wal-Mart's ambitious plans for Asda and the UK.

In fact, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that Wal-Mart president Lee Scott became so dismayed at the failure to crack the UK market and the constraints on future growth that last year he ordered a strategic review that could have seen Wal-Mart float a minority stake in Asda or even pull out of the UK entirely.

According to sources the strategic review has - for now - been shelved. Asda refused to comment.

But the revelation that Wal-Mart even considered pulling out of the UK will stun retail-watchers on both sides of the Atlantic and raise renewed questions about whether the UK is becoming less attractive to overseas investors.

It will also stir up the debate about over-regulation. The decision by the Competition Commission to bar Asda from buying Safeway particularly infuriated Wal-Mart and is thought to have originally sparked the debate about the future of its investment in Asda.

Asda has often been held up as an example of a successful overseas venture for Wal-Mart - which has had mixed results outside its home market. The American company pulled out of Germany in 2006 after an unsuccessful foray.

But despite the success, executives say Scott has become increasingly loath to invest large amounts of capital in the mature and competitive UK market - when potentially much greater returns can be generated in China, India and South America.

The flotation of a significant stake in Asda on the London Stock Exchange would have provided the UK business with well-needed capital to invest in opening new stores and developing new formats such as Asda Living, its non-food format or acquiring a convenience chain such as Somerfield. A separate float would also have helped to incentivise senior management.

An IPO would also put a price tag on Asda - helping Wall Street analysts put a value on Wal-Mart's wider international businesses, which the retailer believes are undervalued.

The move would not be unprecedented. Wal-Mart owns a 62 per cent stake in its Mexico business - with the remainder of the shares traded on the Mexico Stock Exchange.

Alongside the flotation of a stake, Wal-Mart is also believed to have looked at an outright sale - a move which would have freed up senior executives, and capital, to focus on growth markets such as China and India.

News of Wal-Mart's plans will send shockwaves through the Government. Wal-Mart was courted by Prime Minister Tony Blair prior to its acquisition of Asda. But Scott has made little secret of his dismay with UK planning and competition regulators - and in particular the decision to block Asda from buying Safeway in 2004.

Nine years after Wal-Mart bought Asda it is still number three in the UK, having failed to overtake J Sainsbury.

Since the acquisition there have been three separate Competition Commission inquiries into the grocery sector.

The latest investigation is due to be completed in May. In a recent submission Asda called for the "needs test" - which requires retailers to demonstrate demand for a new store - to be scrapped and for planning rules to be suspended in so-called "Tesco towns", a move that would allow it to build giant out-of-town superstores on greenfield sites

Should Scott return to his plans and decide to once again look at pulling out of the UK, it would not be the first time Wal-Mart has performed a dramatic U?turn on its plans to grow overseas.

Wal-Mart has expanded rapidly, and since opening its first store in Arkansas, nearly 30 years ago, it has become the world's biggest retailer, boosting its international business from 5 per cent of group sales in 1997 to almost a quarter today.

It has nearly 1,000 stores in Mexico and operates more than 3,000 retail units in 13 markets outside the continental US including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Japan, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, and the UK.

However, its overseas investments have not always gone according to plan. In December the retail giant increased its ownership of Seiyu, the leading supermarket and convenience stores operator in Japan from 50.9 per cent to 95.1 per cent.

Since Wal-Mart first started building a stake in Seiyu in 2002, the group has been unprofitable. It recently cut 450 management jobs there - equivalent to 7 per cent of Seiyu's work-force - and discounts offered in its store have failed to boost sales. Last month, Seiyu said last year's net loss would be double forecasts, at Y20.9bn (£101m).

Wal-Mart seems to be committed to Japan for now, having said a few months ago it was "proceeding with additional steps" to buy the remaining stake in Seiyu.

But although the world's most powerful retailer rarely admits defeat, it will withdraw from unprofitable markets, as it did with Germany and South Korea. It exited both of those loss-making markets in 2006, marking its first significant withdrawals since launching its international strategy in the 1990s as those two markets had caused Wal-Mart to post its first quarterly fall in profits for 10 years.

In Germany, Wal-Mart bought the 20,000 sq m megastores of the Verkauf chain but struggled in the competitive food markets against discounters such as Aldi and Lidl. Wal-Mart then went on to sell its stores to local partner Metro. In South Korea its hypermarket formula failed to appeal to local tastes.

After highlighting the huge increase in Wal-Mart's lobbying efforts in January, the AP now has official numbers for how much Wal-Mart spent in 2007. At nearly 4 million dollars, Wal-Mart's lobbying budget increased 60% last year. This huge increase fits right in with Wal-Mart's new corporate-as-government style. I guess there's really just one question to ask: do you want Wal-Mart making governmental policy?

Here's the article from the AP:

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, jacked up its lobbying budget by 60 percent in 2007, spending $4 million to influence the government on issues ranging from energy efficiency to retail crime.

While its lobbying budget is still pocket change compared with other major trade groups and corporations, Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people )'s increased spending marks a growing recognition that the bottom line in Bentonville, Ark. is subject to the ways of Washington.

In 2006, the company spent about $2.5 million in lobbying dollars, up from $1.6 million in 2005. But less than a decade ago, Wal-Mart barely broke the six-figure mark thanks largely to Sam Walton's distaste for it. It spent $140,000 in 1999, after establishing a Washington shop about 10 years ago. It spent about a $1 million annually for the next several years, before increasing its lobbying representation and funds in 2005 amid increased criticism of labor practices and benefits.

A spokeswoman in company's Washington office said Wal-Mart decided around 2004 that it needed to focus more on federal relations and better educate policy makers on the many issues affecting the global retailer and employer. The company has 12 registered lobbyists now, up from two in 1999, said E.R. Anderson, who is part of the office's D.C. staff.

The company also has worked with a stable of outside lobbying firms, including Patton Boggs LLP, the Podesta Group Inc., Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc. and 10 others for the last few years.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. easily ringed up more than its major rivals. Target Corp. (nyse: TGT - news - people ) spent $200,000 lobbying in 2007, while Costco Wholesale Corp. (nasdaq: COST - news - people ) and Macy's Inc. (nyse: M - news - people ) aren't even registered to lobby. Wal-Mart also outdistanced the top retail trade group, the National Retail Federation, which spent about $1.7 million last year.

Wal-Mart didn't nudge its way into the K Street stratosphere of major trade groups and veteran corporate lobbyists.

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, spent $22 million in 2007, while Exxon Mobil Corp. (nyse: XOM - news - people ), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, spent $17 million.

Wal-Mart lobbied on numerous issues, including a food stamp program, free trade, consumer product safety legislation, energy efficiency and standards. It also pushed for tougher enforcement of organized retail crime.

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

Long criticized for its skimpy employee health-insurance benefits, the company has also lobbied against legislation that would allow employees to form, join or help labor organizations. Its employees are not unionized.

The company - which lobbied Congress, the White House, Consumer Products Safety Commission and Commerce and Labor departments, among other agencies - spent more than $2.2 million in the second half of 2007 to lobby the federal government, according to a disclosure form posted online Feb. 15 by the Senate's public records office. It spent nearly $1.8 million in the first six months of 2007 to lobby on similar matters.

Breana Teubner, a former legislative assistant to Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., was among those lobbying on behalf of Wal-Mart.

Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.

A baby rattle, made in China and sold at Wal-Mart and other retailers, has been recalled today. It is just one more example of dangerous chinese products on the shelves of Wal-Mart. Here's the report from Consumer Affiars:

Infantino LLC is recalling about 2,000 'Lamb Grabby' rattles. The tail piece on the rattles can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

Infantino has received eight reports of the tail piece on the rattle detaching. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Infantino Lamb Grabby Rattles™ are shaped like a lamb with an Infantino elliptical-shaped logo stamped on the front right foot of the lamb. Only rattles with date code 0907 printed on the back of the left ear of the lamb are included in the recall. The production batch code is printed in a dial format with the year in the middle of a circle and an arrow pointing to the number on the circle that indicates the month. Rattles that do not have a date code are not included in the recall.

The rattles were sold at Wal-Mart, Babies 'R' Us and other specialty stores nationwide from September 2007 through February 2008 for between $3 and $4. They were made in China.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from young children and contact Infantino for a replacement rattle or a product of equal value.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Infantino toll-free at (888) 808-3111 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT or visit the firm's Web site at service.infantino.com.

The recall is being conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

A recent Wall Street Journal article raises questions about the relationship between Wal-Mart and supposedly 'independent' testing labs. Many of these labs depend on retailers for business, and find it in their best interest to find products safe. Here's what the article has to say:

Some critics worry the thoroughness of testing can be compromised because labs are dependent on retailers and manufacturers for business. John W. de Gravelles, a Baton Rouge, La., attorney who represents consumers injured by faulty products, cites what he calls a “cozy arrangement” between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its primary testing lab, Consumer Testing Laboratories Inc. “How rigorous the testing is, I’m sure, is less determined by CTL than it is Wal-Mart,” he said.

Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, describes CTL on its Web site as both “independent” and “a joint effort.” Former CTL executive Ron Caviness says 85% of the lab’s business derives from Wal-Mart. The retailer has provided CTL with customer referrals, computer networking and equipment and, at one time, even office facilities, according to former CTL employees. In a 1991 Wal-Mart newsletter, CTL’s current president described the arrangement as “independent in-house testing.”

Despite a nearly 20-year relationship that has included testing clothing, furniture and food, CTL until recently didn’t have any of the laboratory accreditations that are common at large test labs. Last year, Wal-Mart stopped selling children’s toys that were found to contain lead. At that time, CTL was testing all Wal-Mart’s toys. But it was only last week that CTL was granted a Chemical Testing certificate by the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation to test for lead in nonmetals and metals.

Wal-Mart recently began shifting testing of most children’s products to two large laboratories used by its retail competitors, according to a spokeswoman. “We’re not using [CTL] as we had in the past,” said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien. She said Wal-Mart continues to use CTL on many other products, adding that the retailer has been satisfied with CTL’s test work.

Here's a great piece from the Huffington Post about how Wal-Mart's new health care initiative is mostly a PR ploy to shut its rivals up. It seems to me that everything Wal-Mart is doing recently is a PR move. Their blog is a PR stunt. Their green initiatives are a PR stunt. It raises serious issues about how much Wal-Mart is really trying to do, and how much they do is really about profits. Here's the article:

In January, on a conference call with reporters, Wal-Mart proudly announced that it convinced less than three percent more of its workforce to join the company health plan during the last three years. When asked why more people did not take advantage of the benefits, Linda Dillman, executive vice president of benefits and risk management for Wal-Mart, expressed surprise that every employee wouldn't at least jump at the cheapest plans. Well, she shouldn't be surprised.

Wal-Mart's recent announcement is a continuation of the company's efforts to implement a health care policy that favors the multi-billion dollar corporation, rather than its employees. Susan Chambers, executive vice president for benefits back in 2005, laid out a strategy to provide low-cost, high-deductible health care plans. In a memo leaked by Wal-Mart Watch to the New York Times in November, 2005, Chambers explained how she was sure such plans would drive up enrollment and drive down costs by shifting more costs to employees. Chambers' strategy fits nicely into Wal-Mart's business model, which relies on low prices to sell high volumes of poor quality products. Since the strategy worked for company sales, executives thought it would work with health care, too.

But, the recent enrollment numbers show Wal-Mart's employees aren't buying it - the plans or the spin. Despite the company's efforts to market the new plans, employees realize Wal-Mart has not improved the quality or affordability of its health plans. Today, only half of Wal-Mart's employees use the health care package the company offers.

Perhaps this stems from the fact that Wal-Mart's health care efforts are intended to pacify critics rather than actually help employees. In January's press call, Dillman refused to release the amount Wal-Mart spends on health care per employee or the percentages of employees using the very different plans. Both pieces of information are critical to determine whether or not Wal-Mart employees are enrolled in higher-priced plans that provide quality coverage or the company's cheap plans, which would bankrupt employees should they ever need medical care. If the company really believes its rhetoric, surely it would be forthcoming with this information.

In another key public relations tactic lifted from the Chambers memo, Wal-Mart tried to claim credit for the number of employees insured by other plans, including state plans. In fact, the percentages of employees who are uninsured, covered by Medicaid, and other coverage options are based merely on company surveys rather than actual data, so it is uncertain whether the numbers Wal-Mart provides accurately reflect the insured status of the company's employees. These statistics also leave out the thousands of employees not even eligible for company health care due to comparatively longer waiting periods.

Despite Wal-Mart's attempts to quell this public relations disaster by discrediting the Chambers memo two years ago, January's announcement reinforced CEO Lee Scott and the company's embrace of its implementation. Wal-Mart's refusal to provide additional information once again shows the company cannot be trusted to do the right thing for its employees. No amount of Wal-Mart spin will change the facts.

Wal-Mart hasn't exactly been well received in the Blogosphere. That's probably because their first two attempts, Wal-Marting Across America, and Working Families For Wal-Mart were thinly veiled PR stunts, and lies (check out the BusinessWeek exposé on Wal-Marting Across America). Their most recent attempt at a blog, The Check Out is only a little better. Wal-Mart learned its lesson about authenticity, and so, is allowing the perception that these 'mid-level buyers' who blog can say whatever they want. This image was boosted by a recent New York Times piece, but others think the New York Times was hoodwinked, and we agree. The piece starts by suggesting the bloggers are free to say whatever they want about the products Wal-Mart sells:

Microsoft is one of Wal-Mart’s biggest suppliers. But that did not stop the Wal-Mart employee in charge of buying computers from panning Microsoft’s newest operating system, Vista.

Shortly after the blog panned Vista, however, the company as a whole panned Vista too. So how free and open is this new blog? Is it just another attempt at a PR move? The Dirt Diggers Digest thinks so:

The New York Times gave a boost today to Wal-Mart’s effort to raise its coolness quotient. Its account of a new blog that the giant retailer is allowing some of its merchandise buyers to produce was filled with references to “candor,” “speak[ing] frankly,” and “uncensored rambling.” Much is made of the fact that the posters have made unflattering comments about some of the offerings of Wal-Mart’s suppliers. Wal-Mart is said to have learned its lesson from earlier disasters with blogs created in the name of bogus front groups. This new initiative, the Times assures us, is the real thing.

It is indeed the case that the site allows reader comments that are critical of certain company practices. For example, a posting by an “associate” named Alex saying he might use spend his federal economic stimulus check to purchase a TV or a laptop was followed by comments on how that would do more to help the foreign economies where such products are made. One person asked: “what happened to the campaign WalMart used to run advertising its committment to support American manufacturers?”

Yet, it appears that the Times was hoodwinked by Wal-Mart. The appearance of authenticity and candor is just another technique used by advertising agencies and public relations consultants to win over skeptical audiences.

As for those critical comments, it’s significant that “Alex” thanked all those who had corrected a spelling error in his post but had nothing to say about the company’s sourcing practices. In fact, that the only real topic covered in the posts apart from product assessments is “sustainability.”

Those items are posted in the name of Rand Waddoups, who is no lowly buyer but rather the company’s senior director of business strategy and sustainability. His part of the blog, at least, fits in neatly with the company’s dubious campaign to depict itself as the environmental leader of the corporate world.

As I have previously noted, Wal-Mart’s green crusade places all the burdens on its suppliers, while the moves taken by the retailer itself (improving energy efficiency, etc.) are in fact nothing more than cost-cutting measures that boost its bottom line. Until Wal-Mart makes some hard choices itself—such as paying all its workers a living wage—nothing it does in the blogosphere or elsewhere is going to be very authentic.

A North Carolina community has been fighting against a Wal-Mart supercenter, and their efforts have paid off. Here's a press release from the community group C.A.R.E. (Citizens Against Residential Encroachment) who lead the fight against the new supercenter.

On March 3, 2008, the Knightdale Town Council announced the cancelation of the Village Park Commons development (including a new Super Wal-Mart), citing economic downturn as the reason. C.A.R.E. (Citizens Against Residential Encroachment) is very pleased with this decision and the victory it represents for so many town citizens. There are many reasons people from all over objected to the development. Some citizens were concerned with traffic, some with crime, some with the environmental impact, and some with the sheer size so near residential homes. Many people could not understand why a new Wal-Mart was needed with one 3.2 miles down the road, and a new one nearly finished in Zebulon—let alone the fact we already have a very successful Wal-Mart in Knightdale. The Town’s own LURB (Land Use Review Board) cited many of these very things before rejecting the proposal.

Some on the Town Council have already begun to blame us for revenue losses and other problems, but we strongly reject that notion. The Town’s flagrant disregard for so many concerned citizens’ wishes is what led us down this road. The people did not cause any loss in revenue, the Town did. It was their unwillingness to negotiate or compromise that forced this into the courts. No effort, in nearly two years, was made by the town or by the developer (Rick Rowe) to come to any kind of win-win type solution. With no good options ahead of us, town residents continued to fight in the only way they could. This effort was made to protect our property, our children, and our way of life—things every American would strongly fight for, just as we have.

We hope that, in the future, the Town will show a stronger willingness to hear the voice of its constituency without the need for legal action. We know the developer thought a few (hundreds, actually) angry voices would go quiet, but they did not.

Al Norman, over at the Huffington Post recently wrote a great piece on what you might do with your tax rebate check instead of spending it at Wal-Mart like the government (and Wal-Mart) wants you to. He makes some great suggestions, and sheds some light on why the retailer praised the tax rebate. It is certainly funny that Wal-Mart felt the need to make a public statement about the government rebate. It is also entertaining that Wal-Mart came up with their own 'stimulus package,' complete with cheap Doritos and Coca-Cola. It is sobering, however, to realize just how much Wal-Mart stands to benefit from each of our $600 checks. Here's the full article:

Wal-Mart is waiting for your check.

The world's largest retailer, which made $819,976 in sales every minute during the fourth quarter of its 2007 fiscal year, is expecting to see you walk through its doors with an IRS rebate check in your hands. But there is a more patriotic thing you can do.

Beginning this May, the U.S. Treasury will start sending "economic stimulus payments" to more than 130 million Americans. The vast majority of individuals who qualify for a stimulus payment will not have to do anything other than file their 2007 individual income tax return to receive their rebate. In most cases, the payment will equal the amount of tax liability on the return up to a maximum amount of $600 for individuals ($1,200 on a joint return) and a minimum of $300 for individuals ($600 on a joint return). The government made the same deal with taxpayers back in 2001, when the Treasury sent "advanced payment" checks of $300 to single tax filers and $600 for joint filers.

When you spend your rebate check at America's signature retailer, you are responding to the government's stimulus like a true patriot. In a speech five days before Christmas of 2006, President George W. Bush said, "A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more."

The White House/Congressional economic stimulus package should be labeled for what it is: the Wal-Mart/Beijing Welfare Subsidy of 2008. The "stimulus" plan is an income transfer program from the U.S. Treasury, to Wal-Mart, and from there to its chief trading partner, China.

Wal-Mart issued a press release shortly after the tax rebate passed applauding "the President and Congress for recognizing the economic struggles of everyday Americans and moving quickly to provide much needed tax relief." But the real relief is going to Wal-Mart.

Here's how it's supposed to work: The American taxpayer takes this windfall of discretionary income, drives to Wal-Mart, and buys another MP3 player made in China. Much of the Treasury's investment passes to the Walton family, and to their sweatshop vendors in Guangdong Province.

In an interview with Reuter's, Wal-Mart acknowledged that the tax rebate will trigger a "rapid response" at their check out line. "I would like to think that, as in the past, we have gotten at or more than our fair share of our checks," Wal-Mart's Chief Financial Officer Thomas Schoewe told Reuters. This Treasury infusion is a downpayment on Wal-Mart's estimated $9 billion worth of direct imports from China this year, not counting its indirect imports. The American consumer is just a pass-through.

One of the groups that lobbied the hardest for this "stimulus," the National Retail Federation, estimated that 41% of the checks being mailed this May will be spent. This cash injection is supposed to jump-start the economy. But when spent at stores like Wal-Mart or Home Depot, it won't create more jobs, or higher wages, or even more American production. It will simply rise to the top management, or be exported overseas, where inventory procurement occurs.

A 2005 study by the Economic Policy Institute, U.S.-China Trade, 1989-2003, found that America's growing trade deficit with China has had an increasingly negative impact on the U.S. economy, triggering job losses in the manufacturing sector in every state in the nation. The EPI study found that 1.5 million jobs were lost to lower-wage Chinese competition in the 14-year period between 1989 and 2003. During this period, the U.S. trade deficit exploded twenty-fold, like Chinese fireworks, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion. In the month of January 2007, the U.S. trade deficit with China stood at -$21.27 billion, or -$255 billion annualized.

The EPI study noted that the pace of job loss has more than doubled since China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. China's exports to America of sophisticated electronics and communications equipment requiring skilled labor are growing much more quickly than its exports of low-value, labor-intensive products. "Everyone knew we would lose jobs in labor-intensive industries like textiles and apparel," one EPI researcher said, "but we thought we could hold our own in the capital-intensive, high-tech arena. The numbers we're seeing now put the lie to that hope -- as China expands its share even in core industries such as autos and aerospace."

"Right now," says Mike Duke, Vice Chairman of Wal-Mart's International Division, "in many markets of the world, particularly mature markets, the consumer is under a lot of pressure. We are perfectly positioned for this time."

But what if Americans don't take their Treasury check to Wal-Mart? Here are 4 better alternatives:

1. Put It Towards Your Credit Card Debt: According to the Federal Reserve's most recent Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), about 76% of U.S. families carried some form of debt in 2004. The first thing Americans should do with their rebate is pay off their plastic debt. Outstanding debt on bank-type credit cards rose from $181 billion in 1991, to $645 billion in 2004. This debt is a drag on our economy, and every patriotic American family should first strive to wipe out its own red ink.

2. Save it: A survey conducted at the University of Michigan, found that only 22% of households in 2001 said they would spend their Treasury rebate. Other consumers said they would either save the money or use it to pay off debt. Personal saving jumped in 2001 by precisely the amount suggested by the survey results. The Michigan study said that since they were mainly saved, the 2001 advanced payments provided little stimulus to the economy. The personal savings rate in America hovered just around 0% in 2007---the lowest level in the last twenty years. According to the University of Michigan report, "Direct evidence on consumption and investment spending in response to the (2001) tax changes suggests that these policies provided only modest stimulus."

3. Spend it locally: Money spent on local merchants recycles 7 or 8 times more productively than money spent at national chains. Your dollar recirculates only if its stays local. When it gets wired overnight to corporate headquarters, it has been extracted from the local economy as if it had been strip-mined.

4. Donate it to a local charity: You can help needy people in your hometown, and claim your donation as an itemized deduction to lower your taxable income to the IRS. This is at least a more honestly-earned tax break, instead of the retailer-inspired plan developed by the White House and Congress.

President Bush wants you to "go shopping more," and Wal-Mart has more than 4,000 U.S. locations to take your check. But it would be more patriotic to reduce your own personal debt, or boost your own personal savings, rather than let a multi-national corporation spend it for you in China.

After the Consumerist published their story about a customer being held in a Wal-Mart because he didn't show his receipt, letters poured in of others who had similar experiences. Here's one they published that's particularly interesting. Perhaps this is why Wal-Mart ranks last in consumer satisfaction. Here's the letter from a customer who wasn't allowed to leave the store, even though a manager was there with him, holding his purchase:

Here's a basic run down of my WalMart experience from this past Saturday in Memphis, TN. I went there to buy 1)firearm, 2)ammunition for firearm, and 3)groceries. I knew the firearm would take the longest so I went to the sporting goods counter first with the intent of buying the firearm and ammunition back there and groceries up front ( I had produce). I was going to have my initial purchase in its own basket and flow through the self check out with my groceries. While waiting for the government approval to buy the firearm, I gathered my groceries and the ammunition. The cashier, who really was nice and pleasant, kept telling me it would be just another five minutes and to wait instead of going up front and buying my groceries. After an hour the approval came through so a manager was called to complete the sale. We waited 15 minutes for Assistant Manager Ladarrel to show up. He checks the paperwork then tells me he can't ring the ammunition up with the firearm. I would have to take them to the car and come back. Since I had already spent an hour waiting so far and no one in sporting goods bothered to point out that store policy, I decided I would just buy the ammunition at another time. I already had to wait in 2 separate lines. I didn't want to make it 3. Ladarrel sells me the firearm. I give him cash. He gives me a receipt. He then says it is store policy that he escorts the firearm out of the store. So he, holding the box with the firearm, follows me and my shopping cart to the front of the store. When I walk to a check out line he tells me he has to escort the firearm out of the store immediately and I would have to take the firearm to my car and come back to buy the groceries. I explained I could not secure or even hide the firearm in my car so once I put the box in my car I was leaving. He insisted I could not buy my groceries at that time. So, we abandoned the cart and went to the door. When he reaches the door checker, he, still holding my purchased firearm, stops and tells me to show them my receipt. I say that I don't do that. He says it's store policy. I explain that it's my policy not to show my receipts unless absolutely necessary. Soon another man who apparently is in charge of the front joins in and insists that unless I show my receipt I can't have my firearm. I try to explain that not only did I give cash to Assistant Manager Ladarrel AND he gave me a receipt of sale AND he has been in complete possession of the firearm since the sale; he escorted me from the back of the store to where we were standing. At no time had I been in possession of my merchandise. He knew he had sold me the merchandise and he knew I was the owner at that time. It was useless. We argued for about 10 minutes. It all came down to their saying that unless I showed proof of ownership the merchandise was not mine. I insisted that not only did Ladarrel know I owned the merchandise so he was illegally in retaining possession of it; the proof was located in the records they are required to keep for a firearm sale; records that Ladarrel had personally verified for accuracy. Finally, I said I wanted to return the item. They insisted that without a receipt I could only get store credit. I told them that I paid cash and I would get cash. We walked to the sporting goods counter and they easily printed a copy of the receipt from the register. I received my cash back and they kept the firearm. I left and went to a grocery store and a sporting goods store. All in all, I would have spent over $450 at WalMart but other companies received my business. Patrick

According to the Westchester News, a recent inspection at Wal-Mart revealed that 64% of the products at a local store were not item priced. The store was fined $27,500 for the violation. Now maybe this was a case of a lazy store, or maybe the associates need to be retrained like the article says. Based on comments and reports from customers, however, Wal-Mart seems to have a habit of price gougeing (listing an item as one price, but charging another at the register), and this would certainly make that easier. Read the full article and tell us what you think Wal-Mart is trying to pull:

White Plains, NY - Westchester County has announced that retail giant Wal-Mart has been fined $27,500 for violating Westchester’s item pricing law.

Inspectors from the Department of Consumer Protection found that 64 percent of merchandise on display at the Wal-Mart store in Mohegan Lake was not item priced. Unmarked items included kitchen utensils, packaged foods, vitamins, over-the-counter drugs and sporting goods.

A prior inspection at Wal-Mart’s White Plains store in August 2006 found an 81 percent error rate. Wal-Mart was fined $2,500 at that time.

In resolving the latest infraction, Wal-Mart has also agreed to adopt a “Pricing Action Plan” that will include additional training for employees, adjustment of staffing levels to ensure that adequate resources are devoted to item pricing and internal self-audits.

“We are pleased that Wal-Mart has agreed to act to improve its level of compliance with our item pricing law,” said Gary Brown, director of Consumer Protection. “Retailers that fail to individually price their merchandise are violating our law and hindering the ability of consumers to comparison shop. We will continue to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with our law.”

Consumers with complaints about a store’s failure to item price should contact the Department of Consumer Protection by calling (914) 995-2155 or logging onto www.westchestergov.com/consumer

The Consumerist just published a letter from a Wal-Mart shopper who was detained in the store after refusing to show a receipt for his purchase. This story is similar to several e-mails we've gotten here at Wake Up Wal-Mart. This is either corporate policy that needs to be changed, or poorly informed associates. Either way, Wal-Mart shouldn't be detaining and harassing customers. Here's the story:

Reader J was detained and harassed by some Walmart employees on his way out of the store the other day. J had already put his receipt inside his wallet after purchasing a $25 shower rack when a Walmart employee demanded to see his receipt. J declined and continued exiting the store. That's when things got weird. First, he was grabbed by a Walmart employee, then another customer started pushing him back inside the store.

Yesterday (2-28-08) late afternoon I bought a $25 shower rack at the Wal-mart in [redacted] New Hampshire, and then tucked the receipt safely inside my wallet so I wouldn't lose it in case I had to return the item. The cashier did not bag the shower rack, so after I was done at the register I picked up my item and headed for the door. As I was approaching the door, the receipt checker Bob said, "Do you have your receipt?" To which I responded, "Yes, it's in my wallet" and I kept walking towards the door. Behind me, I could hear him yell "Sir! Sir! I need to see your receipt!", but being an avid Consumerist reader, I knew I didn't need to stop, so I kept walking. [reacted] ran up in front of me and stood between the slider doors, blocking my exit and budging me back inside. Appalled that the Wal-mart employee had just touched me, I said "excuse me", but Bob refused to budge, demanding again to see my receipt. I attempted to walk around him, but he kept stepping in front of me, and I would bounce off of him. Now, I was bigger than Bob, but I didn't wish to get physical and blow the situation out of proportion.

At this point however, a random male customer came to Bob's assistance blocking the exit and pushing me back inside. The customer, who was bigger than me, told me to show Bob my receipt. When I refused, the customer responded with "Maybe I'm a cop". So now I have Wal-mart employee Bob and a customer impersonating a police officer physically blocking my exit and budging me back inside when I try to press by them. I was scared. I repeatedly asked the two of them if I was free to go, to which Bob said, "No, you need to show me your receipt." At this point a female employee shows up (I think her name was Cindy) and joins in telling me that I need to show my receipt. The police officer-impersonating customer disappears at this point, but Bob is still physically rebuffing my attempts to exit. I argue with the female employee for a while, getting nowhere, but for some reason Bob FINALLY stops pushing me back when I try to walk past him, and at this point I consider my illegal detainment to have ended. As I am outside the store and about to walk away, the female employee says something to the extent of "Fine, we'll just write down your license plate number and tell the police you were shoplifting!"

Now, due to the nature of my work, I cannot get in trouble with the police, and any arrest, regardless of my guilt, could cost me my job. So at this point, I responded to her with "Are you kidding!!?? You're going to lie to the police?" She shrugged, and walked back inside. I followed her, demanding to know what her name was, and although she didn't tell me, I think her nametag said "Cindy".

Currently standing back inside Wal-mart near the exit, I whipped out my cell phone and called 1-800-Walmart, and reported what just happened to someone at corporate. At this point there was a lot of onlookers because of the commotion, and I was extremely embarrassed. Anyways, I pulled out my receipt in order to read the person at corporate the store number, and I could see the look of surprise on the other employees' faces. The corporate phone jockey took my name, number, and said someone would get back to me. After I hung up, I switched my phone to camera mode, looked at Bob who was still standing a few feet away from me, said "Smile, Bob", and snapped his picture (attached).

At this point, General Manager David arrived on the scene, and told me that I can't take pictures of his employees, that it's a violation of their privacy (Hah!). I explained to David what just went down, and how it was not acceptable for his employees to lay their hands on me and to threaten me with making a false police report. I was actually surprised with the following discussion I had with David, who was nothing but professional and sympathetic. He understood how completely wrong his employees were, claimed that he'd review the security cameras (yeah right), and that his employees definitely needed some "retraining". I thanked David for understanding, shook his hand, and went home.

I'm still waiting for the call from corporate. Wal-mart needs to understand just how much is at stake when their employees illegally detain customers. Their employees are literally putting their lives on the line. What happens when a customer is carrying for self-defense and fears for his life when a Wal-mart employee illegally detains him? Is it really worth it, Wal-mart?

I'm considering making a police report about the situation, but I'm not sure I want Bob arrested. Sure, I think that what he did was criminal, but he was just a below-average-intelligence, under-paid, and under-trained employee trying to do his job. Should I make the report?

Yikes! All that for a shower rack? Why didn't the employee put one of those "sold" stickers on the stupid thing so that they wouldn't have to launch a criminal investigation as you walked to your car? We don't pretend to know the mind of Walmart, but we're pretty sure their policy isn't to attack their customers and file false police reports about them over a $25 shower rack.

Bob probably will not be arrested if you file a police report about the incident. If you were thinking of filing a lawsuit against Walmart for their behavior, you'd need to file one to use as evidence, but you didn't mention that in your letter.

A formal complaint to Walmart is appropriate. If you file a police report, include it with your complaint. These employees obviously had no idea that what they were doing was wrong and are in need of some guidance. We're surprised to hear a story like this from New Hampshire. Aren't you guys supposed to be all "Live Free or Die?" Did the Walmart employees not get that memo?

Faced with the possibility of being only the country's second largest music vendor Wal-Mart is rolling out a new pricing scheme for music. One Wal-Mart manager commented on the price cuts, saying, "When you look at sales declines with physical product, and you have a category declining like it is, you have to make decisions about what the future looks like," he said. "If you have a business that is declining and you want to turn it around, it really takes looking at it from all angles." But it seems that Wal-Mart is looking at this from the same angle they've always viewed products from. Their plan is to use their massive size to force major record labels to take a cut in profits so they, Wal-Mart, can sell more CDs at a cheaper price and remain number one. It's the same strategy they've used on countless products and companies. It sounds like a bad deal for the record labels to me. Here's the article from Reuters:

The major music companies have been resistant to lowering their price on CDs, but now they may be dragged to that point: Wal-Mart, the largest retailer of music with an estimated 22 percent market share, has proposed a five-tiered pricing scheme that would allow the discounter to sell albums at even lower prices and require the labels to bear more of the costs.

According to sources, the Wal-Mart proposal would allow for a promotional program that could comprise the top 15 to 20 hottest titles, each at $10. The rest of the pricing structure, according to several music executives who spoke with Billboard, would have hits and current titles retailing for $12, top catalog at $9, midline catalog at $7 and budget product at $5. The move would also shift the store's pricing from its $9.88 and $13.88 model to rounder sales prices.

Executives at the Bentonville, Arkansas-based discounting giant wouldn't comment on the specifics of their promotion, but Wal-Mart divisional merchandise manager for home entertainment Jeff Maas acknowledged the proposal. "When you look at sales declines with physical product, and you have a category declining like it is, you have to make decisions about what the future looks like," he said. "If you have a business that is declining and you want to turn it around, it really takes looking at it from all angles."

Maas referenced the DVD business as a model for tiered pricing. "(It) has been around for years and has worked very well," he said.

While Wal-Mart's negotiations with the labels have yet to take place, the proposal is already causing agita at the majors. Some consider the proposal a non-starter, others say further negotiations might eventually yield a workable solution, and a few see it as appropriate, given the big picture.

"I don't think this is a Wal-Mart discussion," one top executive at a major label said. "I think this is a future-of-the-business discussion. Right now everyone is paralyzed."

"I don't think this is a Wal-Mart discussion," one top executive at a major label said. "I think this is a future-of-the-business discussion. Right now everyone is paralyzed."

Some executives raised the question of whether the Federal Trade Commission would take issue with such a program were it rolled out only to Wal-Mart. But one executive said, "Making it legal is not the difficult part. The difficult part is coming to terms with it."

Another top executive said, "The decision might come down to: Do we give up 20 percent of our business (i.e., Wal-Mart) in order to not lose the entire business?"
That question assumes that Wal-Mart would either penalize or stop doing business with a major that decides not to participate in the pricing program. Moreover, if all majors take a pass, some speculate that Wal-Mart could pull music entirely from the store.

This type of speculation abounds, although the Wal-Mart proposal was presented only as a starting point. One label executive said, "This sounds like the Hail Mary pass, and if it doesn't work, they could be out of the music business; or maybe they reduce music down to a couple of racks" from the 4,000 titles carried by Wal-Marts with larger selections.

Maas declined to rule out those possibilities, but said he'd rather look at how Wal-Mart can help a declining category. "The customer votes every single day in our stores, and based on what they want is how we merchandise our stores."