A few months ago, we discussed how Wal-Mart profits from the general poverty of America. Well yesterday morning, Eduardo Castro-Wright, Wal-Mart America's CEO, acknowledged that we were precisely right, if in veiled terms. From The Morning News:

Wal-Mart's perfect storm paying off

Wal-Mart was hesitant to credit a tough economy and penny-pinching consumers with its solid performance in recent months, but said it plans to capitalize on cash-strapped shoppers by continuing to focus on low prices.

"I feel like we are well positioned to take advantage of the current market," Eduardo Castro-Wright, executive vice president and CEO of the Wal-Mart Stores division for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said during a Tuesday morning Lehman Brothers retailing conference broadcast online.

The retailer announced the same morning plans to cash economic stimulus checks for free, enhance rollbacks through July and offer money-saving tips to consumers.

Castro-Wright downplayed the role of the economy in better-than-expected comparable store sales and increased earnings guidance in February and March, instead crediting improvements in merchandise assortment, management changes and a better store experience.

"I'm not going to say that (the economy) has not played a factor, but I'd like to think fundamentally the business is a lot stronger than it was six months ago," Castro-Wright said.

The economy is also considerably weaker.

Gas prices have increased almost 25 percent in the first quarter, reaching $3.59 this week. That's pushing squeamish consumers also facing increased food prices, job worries and plummeting home values to trade down, said Patricia Edwards, fund manager with Seattle-based Wentworth, Hauser and Violich.

"They couldn't have known this was coming, but they got to the right place at the right time, and the economy decided to help them out with that," Edwards said.

Castro-Wright said the retailer continues to see declines in its shoppers using credit for payment at U.S. stores, and that's clamping down on discretionary purchases.

"People don't have as much credit as they used to, and clearly this is having an impact on how they behave," Castro-Wright said. "Price matters today more than ever before."

New York-based Citigroup said 72 percent of consumers it surveyed gave Wal-Mart credit for the lowest grocery prices, a perception that will pay off for the retailer, according to a purchasing behavior study the company released last month.

"We believe Wal-Mart's business will benefit from the challenging consumer environment due to its strong value proposition," Deborah Weinswig, Citi analyst, said in the report.

Analysts are also confident the retailer's improved merchandising and inventory management is paying off, making it easier for Wal-Mart to attract affluent shoppers.

Castro-Wright reported that traffic at affluent-traited Wal-Mart stores outpaced the rest of the chain.

"We are very well-positioned, because first of all, we have credibility in price leadership, and you don't build that overnight," Castro-Wright said.

The retailing executive outlined Wal-Mart's growth strategy, a plan that is the brainchild of merchandising head John Fleming, who the company hired in 2005 as part of a management shake-up to turnaround lagging categories like apparel.

The company will focus on growth categories including entertainment, apparel, pets, and seasonal. Castro-Wright said the company's site-to-store program, a concept introduced in 2007 that allows consumers to circumvent shipping costs by sending online purchases to the store, has been "incredibly successful" with doubled online sales in one year.

"I know you've been hearing about how bad apparel is for us, and that is starting to turn around," Castro-Wright said.

So much for Wal-Mart's "always low prices" and their dedication to the environment. This little clip from CSR Asia explains that Wal-Mart is selling their reusable bags for 19.90 yuan (about $2.84) while other companies are selling bags for 8 or 9 yuan (about $1.14). The article goes on to state that, "an investigation by reporters showed that consumers are unlikely to swap to non-plastic bags if they costs this much." I guess Wal-Mart can benefit from Chinese sweatshops, and pollute the water and air of China, but if you want to buy a reuable bag there, it's going to cost you twice as much. I want to know how much it costs Wal-Mart to produce and stock those reusable bags?

We've discussed Wal-Mart's connection to sweatshops quite a bit recently. There was a tour where factory workers spoke about their experiences, and a report about shrimp processing, not to mention reports of labor abuses at a factory that makes Christmas ornaments. The list goes on.

An article in the Washington Monthly today, written by a former factory inspector, reveals that it's a systematic problem stemming from a corporate culture. He argues that factory inspections and codes of conduct can be incredibly effective, if the company takes them seriously. Wal-Mart, however, is far more interested in cheap labor, and the associated cheap goods.

Here are a few excerpts from the article, titled Is There Any Way to Stop Wal-Mart & Co. from Sweatshop Profiteering?

I remember one particularly bad factory in China. It produced outdoor tables, parasols, and gazebos, and the place was a mess. Work floors were so crowded with production materials that I could barely make my way from one end to the other. In one area, where metals were being chemically treated, workers squatted at the edge of steaming pools as if contemplating a sudden, final swim. The dormitories were filthy: the hallways were strewn with garbage—orange peels, tea leaves—and the only way for anyone to bathe was to fill a bucket with cold water. In a country where workers normally suppress their complaints for fear of getting fired, employees at this factory couldn't resist telling us the truth. "We work so hard for so little pay," said one middle-aged woman with undisguised anger. We could only guess how hard—the place kept no time cards. Painted in large characters on the factory walls was a slogan: "If you don't work hard today, look hard for work tomorrow." Inspirational, in a way.

But let's not be confined to praise. You may get the sense that I'm not Wal-Mart's biggest fan. You'd be right. I betray no confidence here, since Wal-Mart wasn't a client of ours while I was at my company. Nevertheless, I still got to visit plenty of its supplier factories. That's because any given factory usually has more than one customer, and during an audit we would always ask the bosses to name their other customers. Wal-Mart was often one of them. And its suppliers were among the worst I saw—dangerous, nasty, and poorly paid even by local (usually Chinese) measures. I noticed that Wal-Mart claimed to require factories to maintain decent labor standards—but why did it seem to think it could find them among the lowest bidders?

Now, I know about good and bad actors mostly because I saw them directly. But ordinary consumers searching on company Web sites—Walmart.com, Nike.com, etc.—can find out almost everything they need to know just sitting at their desks. For instance, just now I learned from Wal-Mart's latest report on sourcing that only 26 percent of its audits are unannounced. By contrast, of the inspections Target conducts, 100 percent are unannounced. That's a revealing difference. And companies that do what Nike does—prescreen, build long-term relationships, disclose producers—make a point of emphasizing that fact, and are relatively transparent. Companies that don't are more guarded. (When in doubt, doubt.)

If you hadn't figured it out already, Wal-Mart desperately wants your rebate check. And if you were skeptical about how much the retail giant wants that government money, you have new proof! Wal-Mart announced today that they will be cashing rebate checks for free and cutting prices on everyday goods. Wal-Mart's free cash checking also reveals that they are targeting the under banked population, the same group they were looking at with their new pre-paid store credit card. No wonder Wal-Mart praised the Bush Administration for the tax rebate plan, they knew they'd be getting a healthy chunk of the money.

Instead of taking your check to Wal-Mart, here some other ideas for spending your rebate money:

-Don't spend it, save it. Adding your money to a savings account means you can earn interest on it.

-Spend it locally. Take your money to a farmer's market, locally owned store, or restaurant. Money spend at these places will stay in your community instead of going to Bentonville or corporate headquarters.

-Pay down your credit card debt. With high interest rates on credit card debt, the less you have, the more money you get to keep.

The New York Times has a really interesting story about the environmental costs associated with the way we eat. It's easy to think of food as coming from the grocery store, but that tomato had to be grown somewhere, processed somewhere, and then sold to you. What the New York times reveals, is that often times the way we get the food from where it is grown to where it is eaten doesn't make much sense. In addition to being mind numbingly illogical, this system of eating is terrible for the environment because of the intense shipping needs. The article also suggests that Wal-Mart had a big part in creating this system. What is very clear from this article is what we've always said: it's great that Wal-Mart is selling environmentally friendly stuff instead of traditional, not environmentally friendly stuff, but Wal-Mart's model is itself unsustainable.

Here's the article from the New York Times:

Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World

Cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to be turned into filets, then shipped back to Norway for sale. Argentine lemons fill supermarket shelves on the Citrus Coast of Spain, as local lemons rot on the ground. Half of Europe’s peas are grown and packaged in Kenya.
In the United States, FreshDirect proclaims kiwi season has expanded to “All year!” now that Italy has become the world’s leading supplier of New Zealand’s national fruit, taking over in the Southern Hemisphere’s winter.

Food has moved around the world since Europeans brought tea from China, but never at the speed or in the amounts it has over the last few years. Consumers in not only the richest nations but, increasingly, the developing world expect food whenever they crave it, with no concession to season or geography.

Increasingly efficient global transport networks make it practical to bring food before it spoils from distant places where labor costs are lower. And the penetration of mega-markets in nations from China to Mexico with supply and distribution chains that gird the globe — like Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco — has accelerated the trend.

But the movable feast comes at a cost: pollution — especially carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas — from transporting the food.

Under longstanding trade agreements, fuel for international freight carried by sea and air is not taxed. Now, many economists, environmental advocates and politicians say it is time to make shippers and shoppers pay for the pollution, through taxes or other measures.

“We’re shifting goods around the world in a way that looks really bizarre,” said Paul Watkiss, an Oxford University economist who wrote a recent European Union report on food imports.

He noted that Britain, for example, imports — and exports — 15,000 tons of waffles a year, and similarly exchanges 20 tons of bottled water with Australia. More important, Mr. Watkiss said, “we are not paying the environmental cost of all that travel.”

Europe is poised to change that. This year the European Commission in Brussels announced that all freight-carrying flights into and out of the European Union would be included in the trading bloc’s emissions-trading program by 2012, meaning permits will have to be purchased for the pollution they generate.

The commission is negotiating with the global shipping organization, the International Maritime Organization, over various alternatives to reduce greenhouse gases. If there is no solution by year’s end, sea freight will also be included in Europe’s emissions-trading program, said Barbara Helferrich, a spokeswoman for the European Commission’s Environment Directorate. “We’re really ready to have everyone reduce — or pay in some way,” she said.

The European Union, the world’s leading food importer, has increased imports 20 percent in the last five years. The value of fresh fruit and vegetables imported by the United States, in second place, nearly doubled from 2000 to 2006.

Under a little-known international treaty called the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago in 1944 to help the fledgling airline industry, fuel for international travel and transport of goods, including food, is exempt from taxes, unlike trucks, cars and buses. There is also no tax on fuel used by ocean freighters.

Proponents say ending these breaks could help ensure that producers and consumers pay the environmental cost of increasingly well-traveled food.

The food and transport industries say the issue is more complicated. The debate has put some companies on the defensive, including Tesco, Britain’s largest supermarket chain, known as a vocal promoter of green initiatives.

Some of those companies say that they are working to limit greenhouse gases produced by their businesses but that the question is how to do it. They oppose regulation and new taxes and, partly in an effort to head them off, are advocating consumer education instead.

Tesco, for instance, is introducing a labeling system that will let consumers assess a product’s carbon footprint.

Some foods that travel long distances may actually have an environmental advantage over local products, like flowers grown in the tropics instead of in energy-hungry European greenhouses.

“This may be as radical for environmental consuming as putting a calorie count on the side of packages to help people who want to lose weight,” a spokesman for Tesco, Trevor Datson, said.

Better transportation networks have sharply reduced the time required to ship food abroad. For instance, improved roads in Africa have helped cut the time it takes for goods to go from farms on that continent to stores in Europe to 4 days, compared with 10 days not too many years ago.

And with far cheaper labor costs in African nations, Morocco and Egypt have displaced Spain in just a few seasons as important suppliers of tomatoes and salad greens to central Europe.

“If there’s an opportunity for cheaper production in terms of logistics or supply it will be taken,” said Ed Moorehouse, a consultant to the food industry in London, adding that some of these shifts also create valuable jobs in the developing world.

The economics are compelling. For example, Norwegian cod costs a manufacturer $1.36 a pound to process in Europe, but only 23 cents a pound in Asia.

The ability to transport food cheaply has given rise to new and booming businesses.

“In the past few years there have been new plantations all over the center of Italy,” said Antonio Baglioni, export manager of Apofruit, one of Italy’s largest kiwi exporters.

Kiwis from Sanifrutta, another Italian exporter, travel by sea in refrigerated containers: 18 days to the United States, 28 to South Africa and more than a month to reach New Zealand.

Some studies have calculated that as little as 3 percent of emissions from the food sector are caused by transportation. But Mr. Watkiss, the Oxford economist, said the percentage was growing rapidly. Moreover, imported foods generate more emissions than generally acknowledged because they require layers of packaging and, in the case of perishable food, refrigeration.

Britain, with its short growing season and powerful supermarket chains, imports 95 percent of its fruit and more than half of its vegetables. Food accounts for 25 percent of truck shipments in Britain, according to the British environmental agency, DEFRA.

Mr. Datson of Tesco acknowledged that there were environmental consequences to the increased distances food travels, but he said his company was merely responding to consumer appetites. “The offer and range has been growing because our customers want things like snap peas year round,” Mr. Datson said. “We don’t see our job as consumer choice editing.”

Global supermarket chains like Tesco and Carrefour, spreading throughout Eastern Europe and Asia, cater to a market for convenience foods, like washed lettuce and cut vegetables. They also help expand the reach of global brands.

Pringles potato chips, for example, are now sold in more than 180 countries, though they are manufactured in only a handful of places, said Kay Puryear, a spokeswoman for Procter & Gamble, which makes Pringles.

Proponents of taxing transportation fuel say it would end such distortions by changing the economic calculus.

“Food is traveling because transport has become so cheap in a world of globalization,” said Frederic Hauge, head of Norway’s environmental group Bellona. “If it was just a matter of processing fish cheaper in China, I’d be happy with it traveling there. The problem is pollution.”

The European Union has led the world in proposals to incorporate environmental costs into the price consumers pay for food.

Switzerland, which does not belong to the E.U., already taxes trucks that cross its borders.

In addition to bringing airlines under its emission-trading program, Brussels is also considering a freight charge specifically tied to the environmental toll from food shipping to shift the current calculus that “transporting freight is cheaper than producing goods locally,” the commission said.

The problem is measuring the emissions. The fact that food travels farther does not necessarily mean more energy is used. Some studies have shown that shipping fresh apples, onions and lamb from New Zealand might produce lower emissions than producing the goods in Europe, where — for example — storing apples for months would require refrigeration.

But those studies were done in New Zealand, and the food travel debate is inevitably intertwined with economic interests.

Last month, Tony Burke, the Australian minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, said that carbon footprinting and labeling food miles — the distance food has traveled — was “nothing more than protectionism.”

Shippers have vigorously fought the idea of levying a transportation fuel tax, noting that if some countries repealed those provisions of the Chicago Convention, it would wreak havoc with global trade, creating an uneven patchwork of fuel taxes.

It would also give countries that kept the exemption a huge trade advantage.

Some European retailers hope voluntary green measures like Tesco’s labeling — set to begin later this year — will slow the momentum for new taxes and regulations.

The company will begin testing the labeling system, starting with products like orange juice and laundry detergent.

Customers may be surprised by what they discover.

Box Fresh Organics, a popular British brand, advertises that 85 percent of its vegetables come from the British Midlands. But in winter, in its standard basket, only the potatoes and carrots are from Britain. The grapes are South African, the fennel is from Spain and the squash is Italian.

Today’s retailers could not survive if they failed to offer such variety, Mr. Moorehouse, the British food consultant, said.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “we’ve educated our customers to expect cheap food, that they can go to the market to get whatever they want, whenever they want it. All year. 24/7.”

Okay, so the title is a little Melodramatic, but in light of a recent article on CNNMoney, we can't quite figure out what's going on with Sam's Club and rice. Wal-Mart recently announced that they would limit sales of certain types of rice, presumably because there have been shortages reported around the world, and the price has, of late, exploded. Costco followed suit shortly after Sam's Club announced the 4 bag limit. But as of yet, no other grocery stores have limited rice sales. It raises a few questions. Was there really a reason to ration rice if, as this new article states, there is no real rice shortage? What prompted the ration; were people buying cart and carts of huge bags of rice? We don't quite get it, and we think Wal-Mart should explain.

Here's the full article from CNNMoney:

Most Grocery Chains Not Jumping On Buying-Limit Bandwagon

CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- The move by some wholesale food outlets to restrict purchases of certain food staples caught the public's attention, but major supermarket chains aren't following suit, and food industry analysts say U.S. consumers shouldn't be worried about shortages.

Food prices have risen sharply this year, driven by increased global demand, drought and biofuel production. The March consumer price index reported food prices up 4.5% versus a year ago.

On Wednesday, Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) indicated it had decided to limit bulk rice purchases in some stores. Likewise, Sam's Club, a division of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), said it was limiting customers to four bags at a time of some types of rice.

However, the purchasing restrictions on staples like rice are limited to wholesale outlets, as several retail grocery store chains said Friday they weren't taking similar action.

Publix Super Markets Inc. (PUSH) has no plans to limit purchases of rice or any other items, said Dwaine Stevens, spokesman for the Florida-based grocery chain. Stevens called the possibility that the company would ever have to consider limits "not very likely at all."

Likewise, Food Lion LLC stores are "not limiting sales whatsoever," said spokeswoman Karen Peterson.

The Salisbury, N.C.-based grocery chain, which is a subsidiary of the Delhaize Group (DEG), maintains continuous contact with suppliers and hasn't heard anything from them to indicate rice purchase limits are necessary, she said.

While limits were placed on rice purchases at Sam's Club stores, spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said Wal-Mart's retail stores were not affected.

Safeway Inc. (SWY) and Kroger Co. (KR) were not immediately available for comment.

The Food Situation Is Not Dire - Industry

Ron Sterk, an editor at trade publication Milling and Baking News, said the food supply situation is not as dire as some have portrayed it. For instance, he rejected any comparison between the present situation and World War II.

"That's not a fair characterization," he said. "In World War II, there actually were food shortages."

That's not the case now, he said. Despite the actions of wholesale stores, there's no rice shortage "certainly not" in the U.S., Sterk said.

Sufficient supplies of other commodities such as wheat and rye are available, and prices for both are well off their peaks from earlier this year, he noted. For instance, Minneapolis Grain Exchange wheat prices hit $25 a bushel earlier this year, but forecasts for bigger crops this spring have pushed prices to around $11.20 a bushel.

"There's no doubt that wheat supplies are tight," Sterk said. "But no one's saying we're going to run out of wheat. It's just tight."

Bakers can also find the flour they need, "they just don't like paying what the price has shot up to," he said.

Tight Supply Doesn't Equal Shortage

There's no doubt grain supplies are tight. Wheat and rice supplies in the U.S and globally are at multi-decade lows and soybean supplies are also down sharply. Last year corn production was expanded to devote more acreage to ethanol production.

But it's not just biofuel usage that is lifting corn demand. Growing economies in China and India mean more sophisticated palates and demand for food there has grown. Livestock production continues to be the No. 1 user of corn in the U.S. Grain trade is dollar-based, and a weak dollar means greater buying power for foreign buyers, which has lifted U.S. agriculture exports.

Further, two years of bad weather in wheat-producing countries hammered output across the globe as demand rose. Poor rice harvests in Vietnam and other rice- producing countries combined with little advancement on acreage has limited global production.

Worldwide, demand for rice has outstripped demand for several years, said Bob Cummings, senior vice president of the USA Rice Federation, an industry group.

The U.S. rice industry is "confident there's enough rice in the U.S. to meet domestic demand as well the demand of our traditional export customers," Cummings said. But, he added, due to tight global supplies and higher production costs "it's fair to say that we don't see any slackening of cost pressure side." Cummings also said his group had not seen any across-the-board change in demand.

A significant factor in food costs is transportation. Crude oil prices are hovering just under $120 a barrel and the high energy costs reflected in manufacturing and transportation of packaged food items -- will sustain some level of inflation.

Consumers paid about $1.78 for a 20-ounce loaf of white bread in the first quarter of 2008, about 20% more than a year earlier, according to American Farm Bureau's market basket survey. During the same period, the farm-gate wheat cost reflected in that loaf's price increased to 7%, or 14 cents, from 4%, or 6 cents, a year earlier.

Consumers who are stocking up at wholesale outlets simply might be seeing a bargain.

"Most Americans have never really experienced absolute hunger; it's more likely a case of basic level arbitrage -- buy it while it's still cheap," said Michael Swanson, an agricultural economist at Wells Fargo. "Don't confuse disappearance (of supplies) with demand."

It's easy, here in America, to buy things without thinking about where they came from, how they were made, and what it took to get them to you. Every once in a while, though, we get a glimpse into a supply chain, and the glimpse we get can be disturbing.

A new report by the Solidarity Center found that Wal-Mart and other major retailers are selling shrimp processed in facilities with brutal, slave like conditions. Here's an excerpt from the CNN story:

The center's 40-page report found sexual and physical abuse, debt bondage, child labor and unsafe working conditions are common in Thailand and Bangladesh's shrimp processing factories, and that Thai plants often use trafficked workers.

"There's so much slime on the floor you can hardly stand up, and that just keeping your bearing and footing while you are trying to do work that involves using sharp knives," Ellie Larson, the executive director of the Solidarity Center, told CNN.

"They are treated in ways I'm sure most American people think went by in the days of slavery. In fact that's the kind of conditions these workers are engaged in -- slave conditions," Larson said.

CNN reports that Wal-Mart was the only company to respond to the story, and their response leaves a lot to be desired. In it, the Wal-Mart spokesperson writes "Although we have not seen the Solidarity Center's report, we are working with our suppliers to investigate the allegations shared by CNN. We're not aware of any issues in our supply chain,"

With all the negative press Wal-Mart has been getting lately, wouldn't you think they'd try as hard as they could not to have their name linked with slave labor? Of course, they'd have to do more than fix the issues with their Shrimp supply. Many of the factories Wal-Mart uses around the world have similar issues that Wal-Mart has not addressed. No, Wal-Mart is too interested in the low costs associated with using children and trafficked slaves to make the goods they sell to fix the massive problem.

Read the full CNN article here, and check out the Solidarity Center's Web Site where you can download the full report.

There has been quite a stir since the front page story in the Wall Street Journal about Flagler Production, Wal-Mart's former production company that taped nearly 30 years of private meetings and events. A few nights ago Dan Rather Reports used footage from Flagler for an inside look at Wal-Mart's relationship to Washington. Check out the video:

You know there's something not quite right when Wal-Mart begins to ration things. There were a few stories today that caught my eye, and one was about Wal-Mart rationing rice. Here's an excerpt from The Blue Marble Blog, Mother Jones Magazine's blog:

Because of rising rice prices around the globe and worries about shortages, the biggest big box has announced that it will ration long grain, jasmine, and basmati rice, allowing customers to purchase only four bags per visit.

Since the beginning of 2008, rice prices have risen 68 percent worldwide. This is one of the main reasons that food riots have broken out recently all over the developing world.

Another Blogger, this one at the Houston Chronicle noted that,

Last night, I noticed that the shelves in Walmart have not been re-supplied from the weekend madness...I asked a couple of employees what was going on. As near as they could figure, fewer supply trucks are coming to the store. When they do come, they are filled to the brim. They are stuffed in order to make fewer trips to the store and save money because of the high diesel costs. In other words, Walmart is trying to make the supply chain as efficient as possible to save money.

It's not totally clear why Wal-Mart is rationing rice, and cutting back on stocking their shelves. One contributing factor is almost certainly Ethanol, which Wal-Mart has started advertising. Likely, rising fuel costs are also to blame, and since Wal-Mart's 7,200 semi tractor-trailers used 6.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel last year, that's no small cost. Once can only hope that Wal-Mart's obsession with the bottom line won't lead to hardship for the poor and hungry.

Today we learn that in 2007 Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott made a whooping $29.7 million including his salary ($1.4 million), stocks (valued at $19 million) and $8.4 million in other compensation. His total compensation is up 27% from 2006. Now assuming Lee Scott works a full time schedule, he made roughly $14,279 an hour. Considering that an average Wal-Mart worker's hourly wage is $10.84, Lee Scott is making roughly 1,317 times more than the average associate. So the next time you hear that Wal-Mart 'can't afford' to give their workers a raise, or better benefits, or to pay a few cents more for safe goods, think about the 14 thousand dollars an hour they are paying Lee Scott.

Here's the article from the Associated Press via CNN Money:

Wal-Mart CEO gets $29.7 million for 2007, up 27 percent

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Chief Executive Lee Scott received compensation valued at $29.7 million in 2007, up 27 percent in a year when company profits rose 12 percent, according to a regulatory filing Tuesday by the world's largest retailer.

Scott was paid a salary of $1.4 million, up from $1.3 million in 2006. The bulk of his compensation came in options and restricted stock that the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer valued at $19 million when they were granted.

The CEO also received $8.4 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation and $431,446 in other compensation, including $101,208 for corporate air travel and $64,874 in a deferred compensation plan.

Wal-Mart reported net income of $12.73 billion for the past fiscal year, which ended January 31. Net sales totaled $374.5 billion, up 8.6 percent from the year before.

The Associated Press calculations of total pay include executives salary, bonus, incentives, perks, above-market returns on deferred compensation and the estimated value of stock options and awards granted during the year.

The calculations don't include changes in the present value of pension benefits, and they often differ from the totals companies list in the summary compensation table of proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Wal-Mart listed Scott's total compensation as $31.6 million.

For those of you who are not on our e-mail list, we sent out an Earth Day message:

"We are not green." --Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott

Today is Earth Day. As you know, on April 22nd we typically focus on environmental stewardship, reducing our ecological impact, and preserving our planet for future generations.

Then again, if you happen to be Wal-Mart, you might just use Earth Day as a pretext for a national "merchandising and marketing campaign."

It's true--three weeks ago, Wal-Mart gleefully reported its intention to print nearly one third of a billion pages of "green" advertising this month, all inviting shoppers to splurge during it's "Earth Month" marketing blitz. Wasting a mountain of wood pulp in the name of sustainability is a surprisingly cynical move, even for Wal-Mart, but it is just a symptom of a broader problem--Wal-Mart is greenwashing, and it's getting away with it.

In spite of all the "green" hype, Wal-Mart's business model is linked to serious environmental problems. The long-anticipated Wal-Mart sustainability report cited a significant global increase in CO2 emissions in 2006, after the company's green campaign began. Worse still, at a recent conference, Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott flatly declared "we are not green," taking his audience aback. Still, despite the facts, some national and local news outlets continue to buy Wal-Mart's sustainability spin.

Let's set the record straight. Today, on Earth Day, let's ensure that America understands the truth about Wal-Mart's "green" hype.

Write your local newspaper about Wal-Mart's sustainability swindle

Frankly, we would rather have Wal-Mart hyping environmental sustainability than fighting food safety regulations or port security measures. At the same time, we can not sit idly while Wal-Mart uses slick, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns to mislead the American people.

Lee Scott agrees: Wal-Mart is not the "green" corporation depicted in Wal-Mart's advertising. This time, let's give Lee a hand. Help us debunk the myth of Wal-Mart's sustainability.

Set the record straight on Wal-Mart and the environment

Do it for the Earth!

Thanks for taking action,

The Team,
WakeUpWalMart.com

When the story broke about Flagler Productions, the small company that taped Wal-Mart meetings and events for nearly 30 years, it created quite a stir. Newpapers, blogs, networks and cable news all picked up the story of Wal-Mart firing Flagler for no reason. Wal-Mart then attempted to buy the tapes, but offered so little money that Flagler decided to start selling the tapes to anyone who wanted them. Now, according to HDNet, Dan Rather will air some of the Flagler video tonight on Dan Rather Reports. The segment will show how Wal-Mart bought meetings with influential lawmakers in order to weigh in on issues that might affect their business. Tune in at 8 to get an inside look at Wal-Mart's executives.

Here's the Press Release from HDNet:

DALLAS, April 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world, and this Tuesday's episode of "Dan Rather Reports" on HDNet will present recently obtained videos of corporate executives soliciting money for their Political Action Committee.

For the first time on television, "Dan Rather Reports: Wal-Mart Goes to Washington" will feature segments of these videotapes recently acquired from Flagler Productions. The production company was hired by Wal-Mart to film internal meetings for more than twenty years. They were suddenly dismissed in 2006.

What the tapes reveal is how Wal-Mart used money to influence politicians in the company's favor on pending legislation, like the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a stunning look inside a large company using money, lobbyists and Political Action Committees to gain valuable access to politicians in Washington.

"How many times have we heard lawmakers deny that money given to my campaign [gets] you a meeting with me," said Bill Hogan of the Center for Public Integrity in an interview with Rather about the tapes. "What we find in the videos, at least from Wal-Mart's perspective, that's exactly what the money does. It gets them a 90-minute meeting with a U.S. Senator."

Tuesday's episode also presents a report from India, where 167 million people -- the equivalent of half the population of the United States -- are routinely being raped, abused even murdered.

They are called the Dalits -- or the "broken people" -- and all across India they are born into a centuries old caste system that even today still assures a lifetime of poverty and discrimination.

Dalit women especially experience oppression and brutality on an unimaginable scale.

"Dan Rather Reports: Wal-Mart Goes To Washington" premieres on HDNet, Tuesday, April 22 at 8:00 p.m. ET with a re-air at 11:00 p.m. ET to accommodate West Coast Prime Time.

It wasn't too long ago that Finland decided to drop Wal-Mart from their Government Pension Fund because of ethical concerns. Now it seems that Sweden has put Wal-Mart on a 'watch list' over ethical problems, along with Chevron and Ferrovial.

Here's the article from Thomson Investment Management News:

LONDON (Thomson IM) - Sweden's four buffer pension funds with 900 billion kroner in assets announced on Monday that Wal-Mart, Chevron and Ferrovial have been placed on their watch list over ethical, corporate governance and social (ESG) issues.

The combined Ethical Council of the AP1, AP2, AP3 and AP4 funds has also sold out of Singapore Technology Engineering over its manufacture of anti-personnel land mines.

The AP funds are all signatories of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), through the Ethical Council. Set up at the beginning of last year, the council met eight times in 2007 to screen the funds' 3,500 holdings and selected 14 companies for their violation of ESG standards.

Once the council becomes aware of an infringement, it intensifies its scrutiny and starts engaging with the company, filing suggestions and voting at AGMs. If these measures do not lead to the desired result each fund decides whether to sell the holding in question.

The 2007 vetting process has resulted in the exclusion of Singapore Technology Engineering, although the council said it will keep in touch with the company once a year. The AP funds want the company to stop manufacturing anti-personnel mines.

Sharolyn Choy, spokeswoman for the Singaporean company said its primary client is the Singapore defence force. 'Beyond Singapore, we not only observe all UN sanctions, but also abide by any treaty obligations to which Singapore is a signatory,' she said.

The council said it has removed from its watch list energy company Halliburton Corporation after the company, once run by US vice president Dick Cheney, sold Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary at the centre of a bribery investigation in Iraq and Algeria.

Energy company Chevron is still on the watch list for allegations of human rights violations in Nigeria and environment degradation in Ecuador. The council is waiting for the company's report on its voluntary framework on security and human rights and is lobbying for an environmental conscious extraction in the South American country.

On Grupo Ferrovial, which includes airport operator BAA, the joint Ethical Council has requested the company preserve a protected area as part of a road construction project in Poland and strengthen its risk analysis for the assessment of environmental risks on similar projects.

PetroChina, which the Dutch pension scheme for healthcare Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzij excluded from its investments earlier this year, is also on the watch list for pollution through discharges of chemicals in the river Songhua.

To tackle workers' rights issues at retailer Wal-Mart, the council presented a resolution at the company's 2007 annual general meeting to request a comparison of Wal-Mart's guidelines with international standards.

The resolution was supported by 4 percent of the votes, qualifying for presentation at the next general meeting.

AP2 on its own has already attempted a lengthy engagement with Wal-Mart before exasperation prompted it to sell down its entire stake in September 2006. The fund's Head of Corporate Governance Carl Rosen said at the time that the volume of accusations against the company had led him to believe it was 'impossible to say that there have been no systemic abuses'.

AP1, AP3 and AP4 still hold Wal-Mart stock.

For companies on the watch list, disinvestment is considered to be a last resort, when discussion has failed.

In 2007, the council also said it had visited China to address workers rights and pollution issues more broadly. 'It is quite clear that foreign customers and investors play an important role in accelerating China's development in these areas,' it said.

It is easy to forget that Wal-Mart's famous "low prices" are in fact a product of the company exploiting the workers who make the products they sell. We have heard about Wal-Mart paying next to nothing for labor, demanding 6 or 7 day work weeks and 12 hour shifts, and blatant abuses of labor laws and workers. It's not huge news that Wal-Mart uses such oppressive and draconian tactics to make their goods, but it isn't everyday you get to hear about sweatshops first hand from a worker.

A recent article from Press & Guide Newspapers highlights a speaking tour where 2 laborers talk about their experience in such conditions. Savin Phal was paid $1.08 to $2.16 per day working at a Wal-Mart clothing factory. She made that much until she got fired for trying to start a union. It is a humanizing example of a monstrous system, and a reminder of the costs others pay for the low prices Wal-Mart offers.

Here's an excerpt from the story:

Groups discuss alleged ills of Wal-Mart purchasing

DEARBORN - Giant purchasers like Wal-Mart should implement policies that protect the rights of workers, rather than abuse them, two sweatshop workers told several people Monday night at a town hall meeting at Dearborn's Ford Community & Performing Arts Center....

Savin Phal, from Cambodia, told the crowd she is paid $1.08 to $2.16 per day for the clothing she makes. She said she was fired, along with 18 other women, from her job sewing clothing for Wal-Mart because she tried to form a union at her factory.

"I would like to ask Wal-Mart and people in the U.S. to put pressure on the owner of this factory, King's Land, to negotiate with our union and respect Cambodian labor laws and our rights," Phal said as she described being forced to work overtime, and earning wages too low to cover basic living expenses.

Wal-Mart has, for quite some time now, been making a lot of noise about the environment. Between putting out a 'sustainability' report showing that their carbon emissions have actually increased and CEO Lee Scott admitting that the company is not green, Wal-Mart has found time to put out several ads. The ads seem, at least to me, a pretty obvious appeal for people to buy more stuff from Wal-Mart, (albeit environmentally friendly stuff) which is the theme to Wal-Mart's greenwash. AdFreak also points out that it is simply not a good ad. Here's what they have to say:

Shop at Wal-Mart, or the Earth bites it

I've heard people complaining about these new "green" ads for Wal-Mart, but you really have to see them yourself for the full effect. Sure, Wal-Mart’s been talking about cutting down on its planet-raping for a few years now, but is this how you sell it? With each preachy TV spot, the call to action is, “If every Wal-Mart shopper, all 200 million of us, bought one of these, then the Earth would cease its inexorable descent into a strip-mined wasteland.” So, instead of showing that it’s following through on serious, long-term corporate commitments to eco-friendly practices, the company is just tossing the job back in the consumer’s lap. The ads get extra demerits for smug delivery, forced natural backdrops and a blatant rip-off of Israel Kamakawiwo’ole’s beautiful “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” Check out the other two spots after the jump. Via Ads of the World.

News about Wal-Mart's dangerous products may have been quieter recently, but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away. Far from it! Today the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Wal-Mart was recalling their "Hip Charm" key chains. The key chains are made in China and contains high levels of lead. This is just one more product on the long list of dangerous, Chinese made goods that Wal-Mart sells. The list includes Christmas tree lights, dinner plates, toys, baby bottles, rattles, and much more. The recall highlights the dangerous relationship between Wal-Mart and China. Not only are there dangerous products getting in to American homes that Wal-Mart seems not to care about, but we are also losing thousands of jobs. There are also the workers in China to consider. They are probably working in sweatshop conditions and dealing with lead to boot. If it's dangerous just to buy it and put it in your pocket, imagine how dangerous it must be to make these key chains and handle thousands everyday.

Click here for the official recall announcement.

The WakeUpWalMart.com team decided to go on an adventure yesterday. We all hopped in a car and drove up to make our presence known at the Democratic Debate in Philly last night! We decided this would be a great place to show everyone that Wal-Mart is an issue that affects everyone.

As the 2008 Presidential Primary is still going on and seemingly everyone is volunteering their time to knock on doors or work their way down call lists, our VERY dedicated WakeUpWalMart.com supporters came out after a long day of canvassing. And maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that we were just as loud as the Obama and Hillary supporters!

Over fifty people turned out in their cherry red t-shirts that reminded people of Wal-Mart’s cozy relationship with China and that Wal-Mart gets 70 percent of their goods from China. Check out the picture, though it doesn’t do our supporters justice (mostly because I’m short, but also because there were too many of us to fit in the picture). We are a good looking bunch, even after hours of canvassing and reminding people to vote for a candidate that will insist that Wal-Mart becomes a more responsible corporate citizen.

According to 660 News from Alberta, Wal-Mart is pulling BPA plastic from stores in Canada. This is a dangerous toxic chemical found in, of all things, baby bottles, pacifiers, children's cups and the like. Now one might think that Wal-Mart would pull these dangerous products off of the shelves in America too, especially with the recent recall of baby bottles that contain BPA. Instead, Wal-Mart has done nothing here in the US. They only pulled the stuff from Canadian shelves because of a potential law declaring the plastic toxic. Yet another example of Wal-Mart's disregard for the safety of its customers. If they know what products contain this chemical, and they know its dangerous, they should pull them from all their stores everywhere!

Wal-Mart latest to yank BPA plastics

The biggest player in the retail market is moving to pull dozens of products that contain Bisphenol A.

Wal-Mart says it's immediately stopping the sale of select baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers, food containers and water bottles containing BPA.

The Forzani Group, HBC and Canadian Tire have already started to pull water bottles from their shelves.

The lining inside tin cans and water bottles are the most common places to find BPA.

Mae Burrows, with the Labour Alliance Environmental Society, tells 660News there is an easy way to tell if your water bottle should be tossed out or not. Suspect items should have a number seven in the recycling triangle at the bottom of the bottle.

If the number is two, four or five, you should be okay. But, just the same, Burrows says you shouldn't microwave plastics, or put them in the dishwasher.

If the federal government does declare BPA a dangerous chemical, Canada would become the first country to do so.

There was speculation awhile ago that Bharti stores, Wal-Mart's partner in India, would drop the Wal-Mart name because of protests against the retail giant, and organized resistance to the international company. It seems the Indian people, much like folks in Japan (where Wal-Mart isn't doing well), feel it is important to shop locally. Today, several Bharti stores did open, and the Wal-Mart name was nowhere to be seen. We'll see how big of a role Wal-Mart will play in the future of Bharti, but right now, it looks like the people have them running a bit scared. Good for the Indian people!

Here's article from Daily News and Analysis:

No Wal-Mart seen in low-key Bharti launch

NEW DELHI: You may not get to shop at Wal-Mart, after all.
The Bharti Group made a rather low-key entry in the retail sector on Wednesday by opening three neighbourhood format stores in Ludhiana.

Spread over 2500-4000 square feet and stocked with most daily use items, they do not refer to ‘Wal-Mart’ anywhere. Instead, they are called ‘Easy Day’.

So for now, the partnership between Bharti and Wal-Mart appears to be restricted to wholesale cash & carry format, which means selling to other retailers and providing back end support to Bharti’s front-end stores.

Wal-Mart’s cash & carry stores are slated for launch only by the end of the year but the retailer has provided most of the retail expertise - such as information technology back-up, retail practices and training guidelines - for Easy Day stores. Then, Bharti’s low-key retail entry prompted some experts to ask whether this was a deliberate strategy to deflect any protests.

Many big corporate houses, Reliance Industries prominent among them, have faced the music after launching front end retail stores with much fanfare.

Perhaps taking a cue from these incidents, Bharti was careful to announce that Easy Day stores would employ people from the local communities in Ludhiana and would be trained at the Bharti Academy of Retail set up specifically for the purpose.

A company spokesperson brushed aside any suggestions of protest apprehensions, saying this was a “soft launch” and the consumer response was “phenomenal” on the first day itself.

Easy Day stores stock personal care products, stationery, household articles, hosiery items, daily-need groceries including staples, processed foods, bakery and dairy products, meat and poultry and fresh produce.

Though there was no word on how Bharti has priced its wares at Easy Day, Wal-Mart’s reputation of driving down prices is well-known and the Giant of Bentonville always works on “Every Day Low Prices” concept.

It remains to be seen whether Bharti is as successful as its partner at offering products at the lowest possible price points.

Al Norman wrote this article in response to the news today that Wal-Mart will be partnering with Michael Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which he founded. Apparently, Wal-Mart will now be taping and storing video transactions gun purchases, and denying the sale of a second gun to people who committed a crime with the first gun they bought at Wal-Mart. Al Norman suspects the motive for this move is to gain favor with Bloomberg on its way to breaking in to New York City. It is also possible that Wal-Mart has a new found desire to suck up to the government, what with their audits of State Capitols, and Lee Scott's political rhetoric not to mention officially praising President Bush's economic stimulus plan and announcing their own'stimulus package'

Here's the full story from the Huffington Post:

Wal-Mart has often found itself on the wrong end of a gun.

The company sells more firearms than any retailer on the planet, but this week Wal-Mart took aim at its own lax guns sales policies---and hit the target with some powerful potential political allies.

Wal-Mart told the media that it has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in an initiative called The Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership. Wal-Mart pledged to implement new gun sale rules at less than one-third of its American stores. The retailer said it will create a new record and taping system for guns that are subsequently used to commit a crime. If the gun purchaser returns to Wal-Mart to buy another firearm, the system would warn the clerk not to make the sale. The system would also allow the police to view the tapes as part of a crime investigation. Wal-Mart said it would also institute tougher background checks for its "associates" who work in the firearms department. Wal-Mart admitted that the new policies would cost the company money. "The costs are, we think, part of what it takes to be responsible. Everything is not pain-free," the company's spokesman told the Associated Press.

Wal-Mart has had its own troubled history with guns. For example, in January of 2005, an investigation by the California Attorney General's office revealed that Wal-Mart allegedly violated the state's gun laws 2,891 times over a three year period. Wal-Mart illegally sold a gun to someone in California 2.6 times everyday from 2000 to 2003. The violations included selling to 23 people prohibited from owning guns, selling guns before waiting for a criminal background check, failing to identify the buyer's identity, and allowing people to make "straw purchases" on behalf of another person prohibited from owning guns. Wal-Mart violations of gun laws were so bad, the state--at taxpayer expense--set up a special training program for Wal-Mart workers to get them to follow state law. Apparently that training misfired. State agents found so many violations at numerous stores, that Wal-Mart eventually decided to stop selling guns in California. There are only two other states where Wal-Mart doesn't sell guns--New Jersey and Hawaii. Under the terms of the settlement with the California Attorney General, Wal-Mart paid $14.5 million to the state, and spent at least $4.5 million to comply with state and federal regulations, plus $3 million for a public relations campaign promoting firearm safety and to encourage other gun dealers to do what Wal-Mart failed to do: check the ages of people buying guns. The California AG said that compliance with the laws was necessary to keep "ex-felons, mentally ill and other prohibited people" from getting weapons.

If this California lawsuit is any indicator, similar violations could be happening all across the nation at thousands of Wal-Mart stores, and people who are not supposed to be buying guns, are walking out of superstores armed with Wal-Mart guns.

The National Rifle Association took immediate aim at the new Wal-Mart policy. The group's CEO called Wal-Mart's move "a public relations stunt". "I honestly think it's a corporation trying to curry favor with politicians as opposed to doing anything meaningful about stopping crime," said Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.
And he's probably right. Wal-Mart, after all, needs Michael Bloomberg strongly on their side if they are to have any hope of breaking into the Manhattan market. The retailer's efforts to site a store in Manhattan have been shot down.

"We didn't pressure them," Mayor Bloomberg told the media, " they're doing it because they think it's the responsible thing to do." No, they did it to declare a cease fire with the Founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns---Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino---the latter an outspoken critic of Wal-Mart who kept them out of Downtown Crossing.

Wal-Mart assured the NRA that it is not getting out of the lucrative business of selling guns. That includes selling guns to people who should not own them. Like every decision at Wal-Mart, the only behavior that is responsible is behavior that swells the bottom line. On that subject, Wal-Mart has deadly aim.

Shortly after a lawsuit over Wal-Mart's secret life insurance policies was thrown out because of a technicality, a class action suit has taken its place. Two husbands of deceased former Wal-Mart employees claim the company benefited off of their spouses' deaths, and more than a hundred others. As it turns out, Wal-Mart made around $9.6 million on 135 or so claims in the state of Florida alone. We don't know how much the company made from the 350,000 policies it took out nationally between 1993 and 2000, but if Florida is any indication, it is a lot. It's hard to think of a more disgusting thing to profit on than your employee's deaths.

Here's the story from the Tampa Tribune:

Wal-Mart Got Millions From Workers' Life Insurance Policies

TAMPA – Wal-Mart received more than $9 million from life insurance it took out on 132 rank-and-file employees in Florida, the company says in a federal court filing.

The company has been sued by the husbands of two deceased former Wal-Mart employees in Tampa and Pasco County who alleged the company profited from the policies it secretly took out on store employees.

Last month, U.S. District Judge James Moody granted a motion by Wal-Mart and dismissed a federal lawsuit by Richard Armatrout, of Tampa, because the value of the life insurance policy on his late wife, Karen, was $72,820, below the $75,000 threshold for a matter to be heard in federal court.

Anticipating Moody's ruling, Armatrout's attorney, Michael Myers of Texas, filed a suit in state court in Pasco County with Armatrout and another plaintiff, Wayne Atkinson, whose late wife, Rita, worked for Wal-Mart.

Now, Wal-Mart is asking that the new lawsuit be moved to federal court. Noting that the plaintiffs want the lawsuit to be a class action, the company is now arguing that the total value of the suit is actually more than $9 milllion.

Wal-Mart included in its court filing a settlement demand from the plaintiffs, seeking to settle the case for about $7.2 million, 75 percent of the $9.6 million life insurance policy proceeds they claimed Wal-Mart received.

The settlement demand included a list of deceased former Wal-Mart employees whose policies the plaintiffs said the company collected.

Wal-Mart says in its new court filing that it was able to confirm most of what the plaintiffs said in the settlement demand. The amounts of the payouts on each policy ranged from about $55,000 to about $90,000. The company's retired vice president of benefits, Thomas G. Emerick, says in a sworn affidavit that the company collected on policies for all but three of the 135 names on the plaintiff's demand list.

Myers said the move by Wal-Mart to move the case back to federal court after successfully having it thrown out was "blatant forum shopping." He said he wasn't sure how he will respond, but that he would research the legality of what the company did.

Wal-Mart's motion became public today, and company attorneys in Miami were unavailable for comment.

Myers, who has successfully sued the corporation in other states, says Wal-Mart secretly insured about 350,000 employees nationwide. The policies were taken out on all full-time Wal-Mart employees who, in December 1993, were between ages 18 and 70 and participated in the medical benefits plan.

Myers said if the company paid a settlement, the money would go to the estates of the deceased former Wal-Mart employees or to the state of Florida if the estates could not be located. Myers said his firm would collect about a third of the payment for costs and its fee.

He said the company stopped taking out the policies in 1995 but continued to receive payouts on employees who died, even those who had left Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, which said it canceled its policies in early 2000 because it was losing money on the arrangement, says the program was intended to reduce its income taxes to help pay rising employee health care costs. Workers were notified and given the opportunity to opt out, the company said.

The lawsuit says Wal-Mart used confidential information it received from employees for use in their employment, such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth, to obtain the life insurance policies.

Myers said this corporate practice is not uncommon. He estimates that up to 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies have taken out such policies on employees. The vast majority of the time, the employees didn't know, Myers said.

The Federal Reserve just released the transcript of it's December 2002 meeting, and it included some rather entertaining Wal-Mart banter, as the Wall Street Journal Blog points out. The WSJ's blog post is below, and if you missed the "low-rent aura" reference, check out this former post about Wal-Mart's Real Estate Income Trust scam.

Fed 2002 Transcripts: No Love for Wal-Mart?

You’d think the one place in Washington Wal-Mart and its “low prices, always” slogan could count on some affection would be the Federal Reserve. Yet even there Wal-Mart can’t shed its low-rent aura. In December, 2002, according to an FOMC meeting transcript, St. Louis Fed President William Poole was citing the economic significance of the company’s sales of “discretionary items, electronics, and fashion apparel” when Chicago Fed President Michael Moskow interrupted: “Is that an oxymoron?”

Mr. Poole replied: “Well, at least Wal-Mart’s version of fashion apparel. How long has it been since you’ve been in a Wal-Mart?”

Jack Shewmaker, Wal-Mart Stores director, has confirmed what we've been saying for quite some time. He said that President Bush's economic stimulus plan, which will send $600 checks to millions of Americans will give Wal-Mart a "real boost." He also talked about the 2008 economic forecast, suggesting that Wal-Mart will have a strong year as it 'repositions' itself. This all just backs up what we've been saying for quite some time. Wal-Mart profits from the country's poverty, and Wal-Mart desperately wants your rebate check. We think its rather disgusting that Wal-Mart is all giddy about the shaky economy, but then again, Wal-Mart has always profited off the backs of their associates, so why shouldn't they do the same with all of America?

Here's the story from the Bloomburg News Service via Asbury Park Press:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. director Jack Shewmaker said a U.S. economic stimulus plan that includes tax rebates for 130 million households will give a "real boost'' to sales at the world's biggest retailer.

Customers who cash rebate checks at the discount chain will probably spend them there, Shewmaker said in an interview in Barcelona Thursday. He joined Wal-Mart's board in 1977 and is a retired vice chairman of the company.

The rebates start in May, part of a $168 billion government package to spur the economy. Sales at many U.S. retailers have slowed as consumers grapple with fuel prices, and soaring oil costs will make the industry "reconsider its model," Shewmaker said in a speech today. Wal-Mart raised its profit forecast Thursday after its price cuts lured cash-strapped shoppers.

"I think Wal-Mart has repositioned well," Shewmaker said in the interview, adding that 2008 will be a "strong year."

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company said yesterday that March sales at stores open at least a year increased 0.7 percent, while clothing retailers Limited Brands Inc., Gap Inc. and American Eagle Outfitters Inc. posted sales declines that exceeded analysts' estimates.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley declined to comment on Shewmaker's remarks.

Wal-Mart fell 12 cents to $54.54 in early New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares gained 15 percent this year through Thursday, compared with the 3.5 percent drop by the Standard & Poor's 500 Retailing Index.

Spending by U.S. consumers, which has sustained the economy during housing's worst slump in a generation, rose at the slowest pace in more than a year in February, stoking concern the country will enter a recession.

A close relationship with suppliers and daily sales updates for store managers enable Wal-Mart to adapt quickly to changes in demand, Shewmaker said.

"Partnership with suppliers is more important during these times," he said in the interview. "If your suppliers are negative or inefficient, then guess what you're going to be."

Retailers' same-store sales fell 0.5 percent last month, the biggest decline in almost a year and the worst March since 1995, the International Council of Shopping Centers said, based on a survey of 37 chains. The trade group had predicted sales would be little changed.

There are "hundreds of things" Wal-Mart should consider doing differently to cut costs, Shewmaker said in a speech at the World Retail Congress in Barcelona today. Soaring oil prices will be a "huge factor" for all retailers, he said.

The earliest Easter in almost a century may have brought forward seasonal spring sales, distorting revenue figures Wal-Mart reported Thursday, Shewmaker said.

Easter has "kicked off the spring season early" and April sales data will bring a "clearer picture," he said.

After being fired from her Wal-Mart position, a Clemson, South Carolina woman apparently returned to the deli counter where she worked and started throwing chickens at customers. Apparently she also
destroyed some merchandise, including 2 sets of dishes worth $400 each, at least according to the incident report.

We're not totally sure which is the funnier fact, that chickens were thrown at customers, or that Wal-Mart is claiming to be selling plates at their "always low prices" price of $400. According to their website, the most expensive set of plates they sell ring in at $79.97 (shown right).

Here's the article from IndependantMail:

Clemson woman allegedly acts out during Wal-Mart termination process

ANDERSON — A Clemson woman is facing charges of going “postal” at Wal-Mart in Anderson, causing $2,800 in damage when store managers terminated her from her job in the store's delicatessen.

Shanay Buie allegedly became upset about 3:30 p.m. Friday at 3812 Liberty Hwy.

“She returned to the deli and threw 2 chickens at 2 customers,” according to the incident report. “At that time, she also threw on the ground 2 printers worth about $1,000 each. She also threw to the ground 2 sets of dishes worth about $400 a set.”

An arrest has not been made, according to records at the Anderson City Jail.

Wal-Mart has posted a letter from Flagler on their website. The letter details the earlier negotiations the company tried with Wal-Mart. The letter also asks a final time if Wal-Mart has any interest in buying the video footage before Flagler sells a ton of it to news networks, labor and corporate historians, lawyers who are suing Wal-Mart, and activists. What is remarkable in this letter is the sheer absurdity of Wal-Mart's counter offer. Here's how the haggling went: Flagler asked for $150 million to which Wal-Mart said, we'll pay you $500,000, Flagler then said we'll take $145 million, to which they received no response. Flaglers asking price may be high, or maybe not for 30 years of intimate footage of company CEOs and execs, but Wal-Mart's counter offer is insulting. Imagine going into a store where they are selling a rug for $150 and offering to buy it for 50 cents.

The newspapers and blogs are all abuzz about the Flagler story. A lot of bloggers are talking particularly about footage of a private Wal-Mart meeting where male executives dress in drag and dance around on stage. Of course Wal-Mart is rightfully being called out on their misogynistic and sexist drag show, but many are also criticizing the company for mistreating Flagler. It just goes to show that what goes around comes around, in this case in the form of embarrassing and damning videos. Here's just a sample of some of the stories from the blogosphere:

From Daily Kos:

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Wal-Mart Vendor Scorned
by Scout Finch

For decades, Wal-Mart has used Flagler Productions, a small company based in Kansas, to record their internal meetings. In 2006, Wal-Mart suddenly stopped using their services - wiping out about 95% of their total business. As a consequence, Flagler is struggling to stay afloat and recently made the decision to open its archives to attorneys, unions, activists, and anybody else with a few bucks in their pocket. Needless to say, Wal-Mart is not happy. So, what exactly is on the tapes? From the KC Star:

Those moments never meant for public display include a scene of male managers parading in drag at an executive meeting, a clip used by union-backed critics at Wal-Mart Watch for a recent advertisement castigating the retailer's attitude toward female employees.

After yesterday's front page Wall Street Journal story about Wal-Mart dropping Flagler Production, we thought we'd share some of the footage we've found. In case you didn't read the story, Flagler Production taped all of Wal-Mart's events, meetings, and the like for around 30 years. Then, out of the blue, Wal-Mart fired them. This sent the company reeling and so Flagler offered to sell Wal-Mart all of the videos. Wal-Mart claimed no one would want the videos and offered to buy them for a vastly reduced price. Flagler rejected their offer and now Wal-Mart is regretting their decision. So here then, is a video we put together during the incredibly sad case surrounding Debbie Shank:

Today's front page of the Wall Street Journal featured this story about Flagler, a production company that has been video taping Wal-Mart's events and executives since the 70s. Wal-Mart, without any warning or reason, dumped the company leaving them reeling since Wal-Mart the vast majority of their business. Now, the company is selling the footage, all 15,000 tapes of it. This prompted some good commentary on the Wall Street Journal Blog.

Never forget the little guys who help along you the way. That old adage is likely ringing in the ears of Wal-Mart execs this morning following Gary McWilliams’ story about how a tiny video-production company is giving the world’s biggest retailer a massive headache.

It’s the story of Flagler Productions Inc., a small firm who for 30 years was employed as to capture footage of its top execs, sometimes in unguarded moments. Its relationship was sealed with a handshake, not a long-winded contract. Two years ago, Wal-Mart dumped Flagler and nearly caused the shop to fold because it accounted for such a large portion of its business.

...The biggest players in the world can’t function without smaller ones to keep them supplied, technologically-sound, and otherwise ticking. To stay afloat, Flagler offered to sell Wal-Mart the whole video archive for several million dollars. Wal-Mart, whose revenue is now over $375 billion, countered with an offer of $500,000.

And the little guy hasn’t forgotten.

A new movie, Wal-Mart Nation takes a look at activists battling the giant corporation, and why so many people shop there despite the controversy. The movie has already opened in Canada, and it's set to open here in the United States very soon at a few film festivals. Check out the film's Website, and for a good review of the film, check out Al Norman's article on the Huffington Post.

Since 1994, when Wal-Mart swallowed 122 Woolco stores, the Canadians have greeted Wal-Mart with a Big Chill. Today the giant retailer controls 305 stores in Canada, and is in the early stages of a superstore rollout across the provinces. But Wal-Mart's history north of the border has been marked by bitter union battles, and increasingly fractious encounters with local residents. It was in Canada, after all, where Wal-Mart shut down a newly-minted store---rather than see it unionized.

In the middle of his new film, Wal-Mart Nation, Toronto-based Andrew Munger quotes a member of an Arkansas group called "Against the Wal" saying, "We'd all be a lot better off if Wal-Mart was less greedy." That pretty much epitomizes Munger's film, which has been shown thus far only to Canadian audiences--but opens this coming week in a couple of American film festivals. Munger borrows a few iconic American symbols---like Miss America, and Presidential candidate John Edwards---to reveal the underside of Wal-Mart Canada.

Munger spent several years compiling this documentary, filming in 3 Ontario communities, 7 U.S. cities and towns, and 3 countries. "There's never been a company like Wal-Mart," Munger explains in the opening narration. "It's the world's most hated company." Munger's camera travels throughout America and Canada to profile what he calls "the growing army of activists" that comes "from the deep south to the chilly north." Munger says he wanted to find out, "Who are these people, and why were they so obsessed with a big box store?" He also wanted to answer the primary question, "If Wal-Mart is so bad, why do so many people shop there?"

That question is answered in the film by Diana Reid, the owner of Clubhouse Donuts, a small bakery in the town of Guelph, Ontario. She tells Munger that when she heard Wal-Mart was coming, "We were all thrilled---until all this opposition came. All of us are in a familiar position where we have to be very careful with our money." But her comments stand in contrast to the Wal-Mart worker in the Wake Up Wal-Mart TV spot shown in the film, who is told that it would take her 1,000 years to earn as much as Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott makes in a year. "A thousand years?" repeats the astonished Wal-Mart employee, Charmaine Givens. "I'm getting upset."

Among the anti-Wal-Mart army regulars tracked by Munger are: Anna Liu, a young labor organizer for a Canadian local of the United Food and Commercial Workers, who conducts undercover leafleting of Wal-Mart stores; Carolyn Sapp, the 1992 Miss America winner, who speaks nationally for the rights of women workers at Wal-Mart; Ben Bennett, the Guelph, Ontario resident who fended off Wal-Mart for a decade, before losing the end game; Chris Kofinis, Communications Director of Wake Up Wal-Mart, the multi-million campaign funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union; and Al Norman, founder of Sprawl-Busters.

Wal-Mart Nation opens at the Fayetteville, Arkansas Annual Shareholders' meeting, with thousands of chanting employees and investors. Munger interviews Arkansas residents about the huge retailer, asking one woman in a soccer Mom t-shirt, how she feels about all the controversy surrounding Wal-Mart. "I wasn't aware there was," she says flatly. The narrator adds: "Wal-Mart's best allies are its customers: average folks in search of a bargain."

Wal-Mart Canada's Director of Corporate Communications shrugs off all the criticisms of his company. "As the world's biggest corporation, you become the world's biggest corporate target for any range of criticisms. The bottom line is, we need to tell our story better." Munger's film won't help that storyline.

Former Miss America, Carolyn Sapp, is shown working a bullhorn in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Las Vegas. "We know that they abuse women and men---their hard-working employees," Sapp says. After reading of the massive class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 1.6 million Wal-Mart female workers, Carolyn Sapp found her mission. "You know what? This is abuse. It's not physical abuse, but it's emotional abuse. Its time we as consumers say: Wait a second. Why are we all supporting the wealthiest corporation in America if they don't treat their women with dignity?" Sapp found a good use for her beauty pageant crown. "If I can use the Miss America title to entice people to learn about this, and to educate them, then it's OK. There's a good use to the Miss American title."

Munger explores the prolonged Wal-Mart controversy in Guelph, a small town in Ontario that cost the retailer 10 years of delay. Activist Ben Bennett pursued Wal-Mart in town hall, and through the courts. Bennett and his group helped collect over 12,000 names on a petition against Wal-Mart. In the end, the store is built---in between two cemeteries and a Jesuit retreat--but the victory cost Wal-Mart millions of dollars in lost sales, and gave them a public relations black eye.

Munger flew to London to capture the protests in Queens Market---one of the last open air markets in the city---a site coveted by Wal-Mart's operating front in the U.K., the ASDA chain. "My family's been here for 120 years," says one of the local British small merchants protesting Wal-Mart. And his family will remain there---because ASDA pulled out of the Queen's Market deal.

There's even some American Presidential politics in this film--though not where you'd expect it. Munger does not focus on Hillary Clinton, who sat on Wal-Mart's board of directors, and is seated in a 1990 photo between Sam Walton and David Glass as the only woman on the board. Wal-Mart Nation rolls a clip of then-candidate John Edwards recounting the day his six year old son Jack told the family his brother Alex had gotten new shoes. "That's bad," young Jack explains. "He got them at Wal-Mart. They're bad to their workers." Then Edwards adds, "If a six year old can understand it, America can understand it."

Andrew Munger carefully pieces together these clips from Wal-Mart Nation, above and below the Canadian border---knowing full well that there really is no single Wal-Mart Nation---only a deeply divided, and conflicted series of populations. There are the Wal-Mart shoppers versus the Wal-Mart Haters--and they have been hammering one another for the past twenty years.

This is perhaps best reflected in the film's end. Munger pans the camera across the huge Wal-Mart store on its opening day in Guelph, after a stormy decade of battles. The narrator explains that one week after the Wal-Mart opened in Guelph in November, 2006, every candidate up for election that was pro-Wal-Mart---was defeated. The film cuts to a hired Santa Claus in front of the Guelph Wal-Mart, whose post-election comment is simply, "Ho, Ho, Ho." But Wal-Mart's painful entry into Guelph was anything but merry, and since then, the company has continued to brace itself from the arctic blasts from union organizing and citizen's groups across Canada.

It's not likely that the Wal-Mart Canada brass who let Munger film some of their activities, still have him on their Christmas card list.

Wal-Mart Nation was produced by Ultramagnetic Productions in association with the CBC. DVDs of the film are available from www.walmartnation.com. The film will have its first American screenings at the Oxford, Ohio Film Festival, April 11 & 13, and the Independent Spirit Film Festival, Colorado Springs, CO, Saturday, April 26.

Mark Penn lost his spot as a top strategic adviser on the Clinton campaign over the weekend for lobbying for a free trade deal with Colombia. The deal has been pushed by President Bush, and now some major companies are jumping on board to support the deal too, including Wal-Mart. The deal is particularly controversial because of Colombia's record of brutal attacks on, and murders, of, Labor organizers. Of course, this is a dream come true for Wal-Mart: they get to send manufacturing down to Colombia without paying taxes on the goods coming back in to the states, and they don't have to worry about those pesky unions springing up since there is a pretty long history of union organizers dying before they get anything serious going.

Here's the story from the New York Times:

There have been all-expense paid trips to Colombia for more than 50 members of Congress, featuring coffee tastings and dinner at a posh restaurant inside an old Spanish fort. The Colombian president has visited Washington to make personal appeals. Major corporations like WalMart and Citigroup are taking up the cause. And former Clinton administration officials have landed lucrative lobbying contracts.

This barrage of activity is over the trade pact that cost Mark Penn, a top adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his job over the weekend. Mr. Penn had been working for a presidential primary candidate opposed to the trade deal with Colombia, while also running a public relations firm hired by the Colombian government to promote it.

The debate has been quietly brewing ever since the Bush administration finished negotiating the pact to ease trade restrictions in late 2006. Human rights groups and labor leaders have urged Congress to put off considering the deal or to reject it outright, citing paramilitary violence against labor activists in Colombia.

The behind-the- scenes dispute has now escalated to a classic Washington boil in recent weeks after President Bush, growing impatient with Democrats on Capitol Hill, decided to send the agreement to Congress anyway, an action he announced formally on Monday.

“The need for this agreement is too urgent — the stakes for our national security are too high — to allow this year to end without a vote,” Mr. Bush said.

He and others cited the need to support Colombia, which does $18 billion of trade with the United States annually and is battling leftist rebels that Colombian officials assert have received financing from the Venezuelan government.

To help make its case, Colombia had already hired at least three firms on Capitol Hill, in addition to the work by Mr. Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller, paying out from $15,000 to $40,000 a month. Collectively the Colombian government has paid more than $1 million to firms that have negotiated or lobbied on behalf of the deal.

They include the Glover Park Group, the fast-growing firm set up by former Clinton White House aides including Joe Lockhart, who was chief spokesman for the president. (Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications director, was a partner at the firm but has taken a leave of absence.)

The firm has approached more than a dozen members of Congress, focusing on moderate Democrats who the lobbyists believe might be persuaded to disregard their party leaders and vote in favor of the deal.

Lobbyists at Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart — whose partners include another former aide in the Clinton White House, Bill Danvers — have separately met with pro-business Democrats like Representative Joseph Crowley of New York. And Andrew Samet, a deputy secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, has been hired under yet another lobbying contract.

Mr. Penn got into trouble last week after he attended a meeting with Colombia government officials, as they prepared for the move by Mr. Bush to force a debate in Congress. His firm had been representing the Colombian government since last April, helping it promote the deal with news media, among other tasks.

But Mr. Penn, a strategist and pollster, ended up getting blasted by both sides. The Colombian government canceled the contract with his firm after he called the meeting an “error in judgment.” Mr. Penn then stepped down from his campaign post after Mrs. Clinton was criticized for having a close adviser lobbying for a pact she opposed. Mr. Penn’s advocacy was particularly awkward because Mrs. Clinton increasingly has taken a stance opposing free trade during her campaign.

The ties between the lobbying firms and the Clinton campaign illustrate the complexity of Washington’s political world, where players are often switching positions or playing multiple roles. While Mr. Wolfson has taken a leave from Glover Park, for example, he still has equity in the firm valued at $500,000 to $1 million, according to a disclosure form.

A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders.

Besides the Colombian government, the Bush administration has perhaps been the most forceful player in the fight, holding more than 400 meetings or telephone conference calls with officials on Capitol Hill to push the deal, the president said Monday. It has also paid most of the cost of the Congressional delegations, although an administration spokesman said on Monday that he could not estimate what the tab for these trips had been.

One trip, which wrapped up Sunday night, showed off Colombia to nine members of Congress, who first toured Medellín, the onetime capital of the cocaine trade, and met with the former mayor and labor leaders who support the free-trade deal. They also stopped by a flower farm and tasted Colombian coffee. The next stop was Cartagena, where they heard from other labor leaders who opposed the pact.

But the overwhelming message of the trip was that the deal would be good for Colombia and the United States, said Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, Republican of New Jersey.

“This is a nation that has recovered enormously from the scourge of violence and drug wars,” Mr. Frelinghuysen said.

To opponents of the deal, the campaign by the Colombia government, their lobbyists and the Bush administration proves how uneasy they are about the prospects for its adoption.

Bill Samuel, a lobbyist for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said, “They obviously think they have a product that is going to be difficult to sell.”

The opposition cites a history of attacks in Colombia against trade union members, 39 of whom the A.F.L.-C.I.O. says were killed in the country last year after trying to stand up for worker rights. The government there, the union leaders claim, has not completely cut its ties to paramilitary organizations responsible for the attacks or taken stiff enough action against those involved in the crimes.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. intends to run newspaper advertisements this week that say, ”Don’t Reward Murder.”

Colombian officials respond that in the five years since President Álvaro Uribe has been in power, violence in the country has declined significantly, including attacks against unionists. At the same time, the economy has boomed.

Trade with Colombia is a minuscule portion of the United States’ global trade. The United States imports grains, cotton, flowers and soybeans from Colombia, and exports chemicals, plastics, cereal, heavy machinery and electronics.

Most of what the United States imports, moreover, is duty-free under trade preferences that are renewed periodically. But opponents of the deal argue that keeping products permanently duty-free might prompt American companies to transfer their manufacturing units to Colombia, costing American jobs.

The Bush administration concedes that it does not yet have enough Democratic votes to join with the overwhelming majority of Republican votes expected to endorse the Colombia deal.

“This is a very difficult issue for Democrats,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The way the administration has handled it has made it more difficult.”

It was a strange weekend for Wal-Mart news. We learned that after a dinner at Ruby Tuesday's, Jamie Lynn Spears spent her 17th Birthday at a Wal-Mart, shopping (apparently for sleeping bags). We also learned that John McCain and the GOP are targeting 'Wal-Mart Mom's' in the upcoming election, along with 'FaceBook Independents' and 'Rehab Republicans'. Oh, and McCain campaign manager Rick Davis suggests that the GOP party officials, "Go to Wal-Mart and stand next to the greeter for 20 minutes," so if you see a suit standing next to your local greeter, don't be alarmed, it's just the GOP.

Probably in an effort to pump up it's green image, Wal-Mart is now advertising the Ethanol,a corn based biofuel, in it's gas. The article from wcpo suggests Wal-Mart is the first major retailer to advertise it's use of gas "Enhanced with Ethanol." The article takes issue with the phrase 'enhanced': "However, some critics question the term "enhanced with ethanol." They say since it reduces your car's gas mileage, why is that "enhanced?"" In fact in addition to Ethanol reducing gas mileage (though also decreasing the total amount of gas used), it is also posing other environmental problems. According to