In 2003, Jim Singleton, former chief of police in Pine Bluff Arkansas, was shot in the ankle and knocked in the head while patting down a suspect. He sustained permanent injuries to his ankle as well as brain damage and as a result, he must walk with a cane, suffers from frequent migraine headaches, and his thinking is impaired. After serving the Pine Bluff community for years and sustaining serious injuries on the job, Singleton felt he deserved to retire with dignity and left the force and applied for disability benefits. Five years later, however, The Morning News reports that Singleton is still in the midst of a legal battle over his disability benefits. The state Worker's Compensation Commission has twice voted to deny Singleton any benefits but both times, the state appeals court overruled the commission. The case has now gone all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where, strangely, Wal-Mart and other large corporations have filed briefings arguing that the former officer should receive no disability benefits. Singleton remains baffled as to why Wal-Mart has gotten involved:

"That just blows me out of the water," he said. "I have no clue. My attorney told me, and I couldn't understand it. I don't know why they're getting involved."

The reason Wal-Mart is involved, it turns out, is their fear that this case could serve as a precedent, potentially threatening their own bottom line down the road:

Harper [Singleton's Attorney] said the "big boys" are interested in the case because they fear the Court of Appeals' rulings will set a precedent that will allow more people to collect on disability claims.

In other words, Wal-Mart is pushing for the state to deny an injured police officer the disability benefits to which the Appeals court has ruled he is entitled in order to ensure that they don't have to provide disability benefits to more of their own injured employees. After the Debbie Shank fiasco I didn't think Wal-Mart could get any worse, but they have proved me wrong and taken their greed to a whole new level.

Kenneth Harper, Singleton's Attorney, summed up the case perfectly with these words:

"I really think it's just an ugly situation"

Indeed it is, and Wal-Mart should be ashamed of themselves.

There have been several stories written this week which seek to dispel the widespread belief that Wal-Mart is bad for small businesses. A piece in The Washington Post claimed that Wal-Mart can have a neutral effect on small business while a story in Risky Business, a U.S. and World Report blog, made an even bolder argument that Wal-Mart can be good for them. The facts, however, indicate otherwise and both pieces make flawed arguments.

The Risky Business piece relies on a recent study, conducted in Chicago, on the impact of Wal-Mart on urban small businesses. The author claims that:

in urban areas Wal-Mart has not driven out small competing businesses, as it often has in rural and more distant suburban areas

However, in actuality the study found that Wal-Mart's impact on urban small businesses is just less severe, though still significant and negative, than its effect on small businesses in rural and suburban areas.

The Washington Post article discussed the impact of a new Wal-Mart in Landover, Maryland, the first in the Washington, D.C. metro area, and claimed that small proprietors have not suffered from the construction of the new Wal-Mart store. However, the article used only anecdotal evidence drawn from interviews with a few local businesspeople to make its claim. Al Norman, founder of the anti-Big Box organization, Sprawl Busters, says that's problematic for many reasons:

The Post reporter interviewed the owner of a mall with an exotic pet store, a pancake restaurant, and a bank. Of course that mall felt no impact---it does not sell products that compete with Wal-Mart. I have also found in 15 years of talking with merchants, that they will NEVER tell reporters how their bottom line is doing, until the draw the shutters and close. The Post reporter told me this story was "local story only" but articles like this one show the danger of extrapolating from two or three ancedotal reports. It takes at least 2 to 3 years to see merchant impact.

Today, the Rutland Herald stepped into this debate with a story that assessed the potential impact of the proposed expansion of a Wal-Mart store in the town of Bennington, Vermont. The article featured an interesting approach: it was based on facts! The story cited a comprehensive study by local economists which found that the planned expansion will have a devastating impact on local businesses:

The report estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the existing downtown businesses are likely to be hurt by the Wal-Mart expansion, including those selling clothing, beauty and hair products, sporting goods, electronics, eye wear and home and hardware goods. It added that empty storefronts may remain so for longer periods.

Further, although the expansion will create new jobs in the short term, in the long term, it will result in a net job loss for the town:

On the jobs front, the report said, “In 2009, operation of the expanded store will generate a total of about 78 jobs, mostly in the retail trade sector. Total county employment impacts over the longer term, however, shrink to zero by 2013 and ultimately decline by about 35 jobs,” the report states.

For the people of Bennington, this study is likely pretty shocking news, but its findings are quite similar to those of most comprehensive impact studies that have been conducted on Wal-Mart. I hope local leaders take this study into account when planning for the future.

Furthermore, I hope that our readers are not swayed by anecdotes or distortions. The facts are in: Wal-Mart is bad for small business.

Wal-Mart has made it to the Final Four in Consumerists' Worst Company in America competition. They're going up against Countrywide in the next few days and we'll be sure to let you know when voting starts. Surprisingly Exxon got bumped off last round by Comcast, so we think Wal-Mart has a pretty good shot of winning this whole thing! GO WAL-MART!

For years, Wal-Mart has been holding its annual convention of national managers at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Kansas City and had agreed to continue doing so through 2012. But Midwest Voices reports that Wal-Mart just backed out on its agreement and will be moving its convention to Orlando. Kansas City residents, who have already spent millions of their tax dollars to keep the hotel open and have come to rely on the business the convention brings to the city every year, naturally feel like they've been abandoned by the giant retailer.

Two days ago, we commented on a recent Harris Interactive poll which showed that, of the 60 most well known companies in America, Wal-Mart is rated 47th on the question of sincerity. Their behavior in Kansas City shows that their reputation for insincerity is well justified. The poll also showed that Wal-Mart's reputation was worse last year than in 2006. If Wal-Mart keeps breaking its promises to communities around the country, its image will likely continue to deteriorate.

Corporate Accountability International is asking people to vote for the most abusive corporation in the world in their 2008 Corporate Hall of Shame and Wal-Mart is, of course, one of the top nominees. Please click on the link below to cast your ballot for Wal-Mart as the worst company in the world!

Wal-Mart held a press conference today to announce their support for legislation that would expand the use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). For readers who may be unfamiliar with the program, The EITC is a tax credit designed to boost the income of low wage workers by lowering their federal tax liability. The EITC is also fully refundable, so if an EITC-eligible worker has a low enough income that he or she owes $0 in federal income taxes, the IRS will actually write them a check (for as much as $4000) to supplement his or her wages. For a more in-depth explanation of the EITC, check out this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

For many low-income workers, the EITC is the only thing keeping them from abject poverty. For that reason, it's certainly a good program. However, the real problem is that so many workers have such low wages in the first place. Wal-Mart, which pays its workers poverty-level wages and drives down wages throughout the retail sector, is at the heart of this problem. If companies like Wal-Mart paid their employees a living wage in the first place, the EITC would not be necessary. As a result, it is highly irresponsible and downright hypocritical for Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world and a company that made over $12 billion in profits last year, to request that the American taxpayer subsidize its incredibly low wages. Then again, I can't say I'm surprised.

In 2001 Barbara Ehrenreich published Nickel and Dimed. The book is mostly an account of her own experience working minimum wage jobs and trying to get by. Now she has a new book out called This Land is Their Land about the drastic gap between rich and poor in this country. She was on The Colbert Report last night and talks quite a bit about Wal-Mart. She discusses her experience working there, and Wal-Mart's negative impact on the poor. Most importantly, however, she fingers Wal-Mart when asked how we got into this situation, "we've got too many employers, say like Wal-Mart, who make huge amounts of money by squeezing down their workers, not letting them form unions, for example, holding down their wages..."

It's a great interview, I encourage you all to watch it!

Here's the the Consumerist's most recent round for Worst Company in America. Wal-Mart is going up against American Airlines today, and thus far has a steady lead. So go vote! Wal-Mart's got a real shot of winning the whole thing!

For all the talk about Wal-Mart improving its reputation and changing their ways, they aren't doing too well where it counts. A new Harris Interactive poll of consumers shows that while Wal-Mart is the most well known company in America (more than McDonald's or Coca-Cola, more than Google or Microsoft), their reputation has slipped from the already sad 40 of 60 to a rank of 44. Wal-Mart also ranks a telling 47th of 60 on the question of sincerity. This slip in reputation comes at a time when Wal-Mart is spending millions on PR campaigns, has rolled out a new slogan, is profiting from the relatively slow economy, and when Wal-Mart has spent a ton of time and effort on programs designed to improve their reputation. They have "improved" their health insurance coverage - it's not much better than it was and only covers a few more of its employees. They've started "going green" to convince you they are socially responsible, and to sell lots of new environmentally friendly stuff - even though their model of business can never be sustainable and is, in fact detrimental to the environment.

In spite of their best efforts, (and a TON of money and effort) Wal-Mart can't shake their bad reputation. People aren't buying their PR campaigns, they can tell when Wal-Mart is doing something to boost their reputation. Perhaps when Wal-Mart starts making real changes, their reputation will go up.

Here's an article from The Morning News about the poll:

Report: Wal-Mart Reputation Continues To Slide

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in 2007 continued to slip down a list of corporate reputation rankings, according to a survey.

The Bentonville-based retailer ranked No. 44 on the Harris Interactive report, which ranks the reputations of the country's 60 "most visible" companies based on consumer perception surveys.

It was the third consecutive year Wal-Mart's score on the list declined.

Wal-Mart's slipped score was the also the third largest rating change, trailing behind Bank of America and Halliburton Co., which saw more significant declines in reputation scores.

Wal-Mart has similarly dropped down Fortune Magazine's list of America's most admired companies.

Wal-Mart in 2003 and 2004 was America's No. 1 most admired company on Fortune Magazine's list, but fell to No. 12 in 2005. The retailer in 2007 dropped to No. 19.

Wal-Mart isn't too concerned with reports on its reputation.

"At a time when the public and Wal-Mart customers specifically are being pressed financially to make ends meet, we think the ultimate measure of reputation is sales," said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman. "Our sales over the last several months demonstrate pretty clearly that the public trusts Wal-Mart to help them save money to live better."

The retailer has in recent years set out to be a better corporate citizen by incorporating health care and environmental sustainability initiatives into its business. But it may take time for the public to shift their perceptions of the retailer, said Sam Waltz, the director of Sam Waltz & Associates and a specialist in corporate reputational management.

"When there's acute reputational damage that becomes chronic reputational damage, it becomes a very difficult thing to regain positive attributes," Waltz said.

"In other words, it can take some time to get public credit for the good work Wal-Mart is doing now. It could take months and years because there's people who look at them with a political paradigm and just do not want to give them credit."

Nearly half of the American public surveyed said that companies need to address global social issues such as poverty, hunger and disease. Yet treatment of employees, including labor practices and human rights, continued to be a the most important measurement in evaluating a company, according to the report.

Harris Interactive, a Rochester, New York-based market research company, surveyed more than 20,000 people and asked them to rate on a point scale a company's reputation on 20 attributes like vision and leadership, emotional appeal, financial performance and social responsibility.

Each survey participant is asked to rate one randomly selected company from the 60 included and each is given the option to rate a second company.

About 535 people rate each company.

A recent article from The Washington Post discusses the impact of Wal-Mart on small businesses in Landover, Maryland, a community in the Washington, D.C. metro area. According to the authors, small businesses have been minimally impacted by the Wal-Mart store, which is great to hear. I hope the people of Landover continue to support their local independent businesses.

However, the facts suggest that their experience is not representative of most American small businesses. Several studies have demonstrated that when Wal-Mart comes to town, many small, locally-owned shops inevitably close down. One of the most comprehensive studies on the impact of Wal-Mart on rural communities was conducted by Kenneth Stone at the University of Iowa. Check out the full text of the study here. Stone found that small towns lose up to 47% of their retail trade within 10 years of a Wal-Mart moving in nearby. Landover is not a rural area, it should be noted, and a recent Chicago study found that Wal-Mart's impact on urban small businesses tends to be less severe than rural ones. The authors cite the Chicago study as evidence that small proprietors in urban areas like Landover have nothing to fear from Wal-Mart. What the authors did not mention, however, is that the study still found that within a year of Wal-Mart opening its first store in Chicago, 23 stores, or 12% of businesses within three miles of the Wal-Mart, went out of business. While that might not as severe as the rural Wal-Mart effect, for those 23 small businesses, Wal-Mart's impact was anything but insignificant.

I remain hopeful that the Landover business community will be able to withstand Wal-Mart's impact, but urban communities around the country should continue to be weary about the Bentonville Behemoth.

Marred with a bad rap on Health Care, Wal-Mart launched an aggressive PR campaign meant to change the perception that Wal-Mart offered terrible health insurance and relied on the Government to subsidize health care for its employees. They unleashed a 'new' insurance plan which still left a large percentage of employees uninsured or on government insurance, and they opened in store health clinics and heralded them as the savior to the health care problem. In May, it seemed that those clinics were ill-fated. They weren't making much money, and one of the largest companies running such clinics shut quite a few down. Now it seems that more of Wal-Mart's clinics have shut down. With no warning, and with no reason given, 15 clinics shut down in Colorado.

Once again, we wonder about these clinics. Are they really a solution to our problems? Wouldn't it make more sense to just have good, affordable insurance? What happens to the working families, including Wal-Mart employees, who, for a short period of time, depended on these clinics because they didn't have insurance now that they are closed? Instead of doing the responsible thing and offering quality, affordable health insurance to its employees, Wal-Mart has attempted to turn health care in to something they can make money off of. We think that is a shame.

Here's the full article from the Rocky Mountain News:

SmartCare closes 15 Wal-Mart med clinics

SmartCare Family Medical Centers on Friday unexpectedly shut its 15 in-store health clinics located in Wal-Mart stores throughout Colorado.

Wal-Mart had no prior notice, company spokesman William Wertz said.

SmartCare's public relations agency issued a statement confirming the closures and referred questions to the company's Texas headquarters, which didn't return a call.

The in-store clinics treated common medical problems like strep throat and ear infections for a $65 flat fee. The clinics, staffed with nurse practitioners, were open from early morning to late evening seven days a week for walk-in appointments.

Several other operators of in-store health care clinics, including New York-based CheckUps, have closed sites amid high operating costs. Last month, CVS/Caremark, the parent of MinuteClinic, said it was curbing growth plans and might shutter some locations.

Wal-Mart contracts with a number of clinic operators nationwide and remains committed to the idea, Wertz said.

It's too soon to tell what Wal-Mart will do with the SmartCare clinic locations, he said, but the store might consider a partnership with local medical centers or other providers.

In recent weeks, reports in several news outlets including The New York Times, have wholeheartedly swallowed Wal-Mart's propaganda and declared that, thanks to minor changes in its miserly health plan that still fails to cover almost half of its employees, Wal-Mart is now a socially responsible company. Thankfully, a recent article from The Morning News, a major paper in Northwest Arkansas, debunks this myth by revealing an unpleasant fact about the Behemoth from Bentonville: Wal-Mart is currently the subject of over 80 class action lawsuits from its current and former employees. These cases include the landmark Dukes vs. Wal-Mart case, in which 1.6 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart are suing for gender discrimination, and 76, that's right, 76 cases of employees suing for being forced to work off the clock.

Here's a summary of five of the biggest suits against Wal-Mart:

AT A GLANCE

Wal-Mart faces more than 80 lawsuits filed by current and former employees, most of whom allege the retailer required them to work off the clock. Five of the largest class-action lawsuits include:

Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Class size: 1.6 million female plaintiffs

Filed: 2001

Location: San Francisco, Calif.

Next action: Court to set briefing schedule on an appeal. Wal-Mart is seeking a rehearing on the class-action status

Potential financial impact: More than a billion dollars

Celia Hale v. Wal-Mart

Class size: 200,000 plaintiffs

Filed: 2002

Location: Jackson County, Mo.

Next action: Trial set for April 6

Potential financial impact: Unknown

Michelle Braun/Dolores Hummel v. Wal-Mart

Class size: 186,000 plaintiffs

Filed: 2002/2004, consolidated in 2006

Location: Philadelphia, Penn.

Next action: Wal-Mart to appeal, filed notice in December

Potential financial impact: $187.6 million

Andrea Savaglio v. Wal-Mart

Class size: 116,000 plaintiffs

Filed: 2001

Location: Alameda County, Calif.

Next action: Wal-Mart's appeal pending

Potential financial impact: $172 million

Nancy Braun v. Wal-Mart

Class size: 56,000 plaintiffs

Filed: 2003

Location: Hastings, Minn.

Next action: Judge to decide liability, back pay and willfulness by July 1

Potential financial Impact: Unknown

Sources: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. federal filings with U.S Securities & Exchange Commission, attorneys for respective plaintiffs.

Every so often, we like to highlight stories where communities stand up to Wal-Mart and let the giant corporation know that, for various reasons, they don't want a massive big box store in their town. This story is particularly inspiring. I encourage you to go to the website too, and watch the footage, it shows some of the land these two moms saved.

From WESH in Florida:

Moms Win Battle Against Wal-Mart

A couple of Central Florida stay-at-home moms have taken on the biggest bullies in business and government and won.

The area's environment and drinking water supply could be winners as well.

Lisa Smith and Arlynn Baker walked through what will become Central Florida's newest nature preserve after winning a five-year battle.

It all started because they were determined to prevent their children from having to dodge Wal-Mart traffic in front of their school. The land once was an Atlantic beach.

Authorities said it's a critical recharge area for Titusville's drinking water wells, and there's almost no land like it left.

The two women stirred up so much opposition that it was too hot even for Wal-Mart, and the retail giant backed down.

"This is a perfect example to people elsewhere that, you know, it does look like a mountain, but take one step at a time," Smith said.

The state's land preservation agency, Forever Florida, just voted to buy the property, so now, no one can ever develop it -- all because two mothers refused to give up and refused to be intimidated by red tape or corporate lawyers.

In January of this year, Wal-Mart decided that instead of using in house IT services, they would outsource the services to India, sending billions of dollars overseas. Now, the Economic Times is reporting that Wal-Mart may be looking to send more money over to Inda for more IT offices. The article suggests that Wal-Mart may wait until after the presidential election because as the article points out, "the flight of jobs abroad continues to be a sensitive issue in America." If that isn't an understatement! Wal-Mart is probably smart to avoid shipping jobs overseas during a presidential election. More important, however, is not the political sensitivity of jobs leaving the US, but the real consequences to real people of jobs leaving. The fact remains that losing a job in December or January hurts just as much as losing a job in August or September.

Here's the article from the Economic Times:

Wal-Mart plans IT back office in Bangalore

BANGALORE: A new address may be added to Bangalore’s already-crowded IT landscape. Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, is mulling a captive IT/ITeS unit in India’s tech capital, with the potential to create several hundred jobs, sources said.

The $388-billion retail giant, based in Bentonville in the US, has outsourcing ties with IT vendors like Infosys and has done a recce for developing a captive shared service centre to cater to multiple functions in its worldwide operations. Besides IT development and maintenance, a shared service centre supports different parts of a global enterprise such as HR, finance and accounting.

Sources said Wal-Mart looked at a few potential locations before more or less zeroing in on Bangalore. While a definite call on the captive unit is still pending, Wal-Mart is believed to have scouted for senior tech personnel to take the idea forward.

“Wal-Mart is expanding its IT resources globally, including India, to support its growing international business and operations in India. However, we have made no further announcements to that growth. We currently have no plans for a captive development centre in India,” a Wal-Mart spokesperson said. Wal-Mart’s information systems division is centralised at Bentonville, with a large pool of Indian techies on board. But going forward, the retail behemoth may be looking at developing IT hubs globally to bolster its round-the-clock support services.

In February this year, the retailer said it was expanding IT staffing in India through outsourcing deals with unidentified vendors. The press statement at the time mentioned that Wal-Mart was expanding outsourcing even as it created several hundred new jobs in Northwest Arkansas in the US. Some observers said Wal-Mart may firm up plans only after the US presidential elections later this year as the flight of jobs abroad continues to be a sensitive issue in America. Interestingly, the development comes when there’s a raging but inconclusive debate about the long-term viability of captive IT units on concerns of escalating costs.

But several global retailers like Tesco, Target and Supervalu have set up captive support centres in Bangalore in the last 3-4 years. A source said Wal-Mart may kick off the captive centre with a small operation and may even rope in a dedicated third-party vendor to start with a small basket of offerings. But Wal-Mart’s global peers have set up their own captives due to the fact that no large Indian IT/ITeS player has the capability to provide end-to-end services in the dynamic and complex world of retailing.

UK’s Tesco, the world’s third-largest retailer behind Wal-Mart and Carrefour, set up a captive centre nearly four years ago, and currently employs over 2,700 people. Tesco Hindustan Service Centre caters to the entire IT life-cycle management of the parent’s global retail operations, besides support businesses and finance services like payroll and pension management as well as store design support. In fact, the Hindustan Service Centre played a crucial supportive role in Tesco’s recent high-profile foray into the US market pitting it against Wal-Mart on the latter’s home turf.

At the same time, India’s outsourcing majors have been deepening their retail vertical offerings, with Infosys counting Wal-Mart and Tesco among its clients while TCS does work for Home Depot. Most frontline IT companies have projected a substantial ramp-up in their retail vertical, with the rapidly-expanding domestic retail sector showing huge potential.

Wal-Mart has entered into a joint venture with the Sunil Mittal-led Bharti Group for cash & carry operations while Carrefour and Tesco are rumoured to be in advanced discussions with local suitors for similar tie-ups.

Back in April, Wal-Mart had to recall a Chinese made key chain, made exclusively for their stores, because of high levels of lead. Now it turns out that Wal-Mart has to recall about 39,000 more key chains, also because of lead. One would think that Wal-Mart might have learned their lesson and double checked the lead content of the other key chains, but apparently not. It is now two months later, and who knows how many kids have ingested dangerous levels of lead because of Wal-Mart's neglect.

Here's the full story from Consumer Affairs:

Wal-Mart is recalling about 39,000 Hip Charm key chains, in addition to 12,000 chains recalled in April.

The charms on the key chain can contain high levels of lead, which is toxic if ingested and can cause adverse health effects.

There have been no injuries reported with the additional key chains included in this recall. The Illinois Attorney General informed Wal-Mart and CPSC in April that the previously recalled key chain was found in the home of a 9-month-old child who was discovered to have high blood levels of lead. The child was observed mouthing this key chain.

The recalled key chains have several charms including a button, clover, leaf, and heart. The charms hang from a silver-colored chain. The words “Hip charm” and the following UPC numbers are printed on the products packaging: 03156811032, 03156811029, 03156811019, 03156811016, 03156811018, 03156811028, and 03156811030.

The key chains were sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from April 2005 through June 2008 for between $ .50 and $6. They were made in China.

Consumers should not allow children to handle the key chain and should return it to any Wal-Mart store for a full refund.

For further information, contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.walmartstores.com.

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

Earlier this year, Wal-Mart began selling a variety of Fair Trade certified products at its Sam's Club stores, including coffee, tea, bananas, and cut flowers. In doing so, it has sparked quite a debate, which is discussed in a recent article in Business Week

For readers who are unfamiliar with the concept, Fair Trade is an alternative way of doing business which seeks, as the name suggests, greater fairness in international trade. For products to be certified as Fair Trade they must be produced in an environmentally sustainable way and the farmers have to be paid a fair, above market price. Fair Trade began in the 1950s as a movement of nonprofit importers that were committed to buying from small cooperatives of family farmers in the developing world. In recent years, however, Fair Trade has changed dramatically. Demand for Fair Trade products in the U.S. has increased significantly and as a result, large corporations have been rushing to cash in on the growing niche market. Hence, Wal-Mart's recent decision to sell Fair Trade flowers, coffee, and tea.

At first, this sounds like a great idea. If Fair Trade products have to meet strict social and environmental standards and Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer begins to sell them, it should be a great opportunity for poor farmers, no? However, the appearance of Fair Trade products on Wal-Mart's shelves may not be as great for farmers or the planet as they claim. Here's why: in their quest to expand the Fair Trade market to include large corporations like Wal-Mart, Transfair, the largest Fair Trade labeling organization in the United States, has certified several large plantations as Fair Trade producers. These plantations treat their workers better than your average plantation, but they are a far cry from the farmer-run cooperatives that have historically been certified as Fair Trade. According to Jonathan Rosenthal, CEO of Oké USA, which sells fair-trade-certified fruit purchased directly from the farmer-run cooperatives, no plantation can truly be called a Fair Trade producer:

Plantations are the legacy of an unfair system where the elite and the wealthy classes denied small producers their land, and small farmers always got the raw end of the deal

Also, workers' rights groups like the International Labor Rights forum say it is highly difficult to monitor labor standards on these plantations and question whether Transfair has the capacity to do so. Many of the Fair Trade certified bananas and flowers sold at Wal-Mart come from plantations in Colombia. None of the Fair Trade plantations in Colombia have labor unions and the country is notorious for its abuses of workers rights.

Small, family-run farms are also much better for the environment than large agribusinesses, even if they are certified Fair Trade and organic.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly from our perspective, it is inherently contradictory for a company like Wal-Mart, which routinely abuses its workers in its stores at home and at its suppliers abroad, to congratulate itself for its commitment to Fair Trade. In an article last month, Business Week, elaborated on this issue as well.

None of this is to say that Wal-Mart's decision to sell Fair Trade products is unequivocally bad. There are intelligent, dedicated people on both sides of this issue. All I am saying is that Americans should think twice before patting Wal-Mart on the back for its commitment to farmers in poor countries. And without a doubt, Wal-Mart still has a lot of work to do before it can be called a responsible company.

For more information on Fair Trade, check out the Fair Trade Federation's website

In the aftermath of devastating earthquakes in China, Wal-Mart was quick to donate about $430,000 to relief efforts. After receiving some harsh criticism for donating so little while gaining so much from China, Wal-Mart upped its donation to around $3 million (nearly 2 weeks later). Now, the Chinese government has called out Wal-Mart, and several other companies. The Ministry of Commerce put out a report questioning whether major companies actually donated as much as they said they would after the quakes. It was clear to us from the beginning that Wal-Mart was attempting to get some cheap PR by donating. Even $3 million is pocket change for a company that rakes in more than $300 billion in sales a year. It is also an insultingly small sum for a company that gets 70% of it's goods from China.

And what was Wal-Mart's response to the allegation that they didn't give as much as they said they would?

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mou Mingming said she hoped the ministry would contact companies directly to confirm the contributions. "In fact, we made two initial corporate donations. We sent out at least 3 million yuan in materials to the quake areas soon after the disaster," Ms Mou said.

"In all, our donations will be at least 20 million yuan. But the report has confused the public and created misunderstanding about Wal-Mart."

Notice that she said "our donations will be" suggesting that they have not in fact given that much money yet. So the government is right, Wal-Mart hasn't yet donated the full 20 million yuan. But don't worry, they will, and as we all know, you can always trust Wal-Mart's word.

Read the full article from the South China Morning Post here.

Wal-Mart has been talking about scaling back growth for quite some time, but it seems that it is official now. It was reported yesterday that Wal-Mart would cut back on Capital Expenditure in the upcoming year, and communities and activists like you all across the country can claim a victory in that! Recently you have stopped a record 64 Wal-Mart stores from being built, and Wal-Mart is clearly feeling the effects. Juxtapose the cut in spending on new Supercenters with an exploding budget for Lobbying, PR, and advertising and you get an even clearer picture that Wal-Mart is feeling the pressure. Communities are standing up to the giant corporation to protect their towns from a corporation that kills mom and pop shops, from poor jobs that reduce wages for all local retail and grocery workers, from environmental degradation and from a corporation that spies on workers that might be unionizing, but lets crime happen in its parking lots. So congratulations to all of us fighting to change Wal-Mart's ways. We can clearly have an impact on the company.

Here's the article from Reuters:

Wal-Mart cuts capital expenditure forecast

Wal-Mart Stores Inc on Tuesday lowered its capital expenditure forecast for its current fiscal year, saying it remains focused on moderating supercenter store growth in the United States.

The discount retailer said that for its fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2009, it now expects capital expenditures to be in the range of $13.0 billion to $14.0 billion, down from its previous view of $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion.

At its analyst meeting in October, Wal-Mart cut its capital expenditure forecast and scaled back on planned supercenters -- or locations that combine a full grocery store with a discount store -- as it faced slowing sales in a saturated U.S. market.

The world's largest retailer said the pullback would allow it to concentrate on boosting sales at its existing stores by remodeling older locations and improving its merchandise assortment.

In recent months, Wal-Mart's sales at stores open at least a year, or same-store sales, have been outpacing those of competitors as cash-strapped U.S. shoppers look to buy basics like food and medicine at discounted prices.

In May, Wal-Mart's U.S. same-store sales rose a stronger-than-expected 3.9 percent while smaller rival Target Corp reported a same-store sales decline of 0.7 percent.

Speaking at a William Blair & Co conference, which was broadcast over the Internet, Wal-Mart Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe said the retailer's May sales were boosted in part by inflation and tax rebates, which are currently making their way into the hands of consumers.

He said the real question remains how much of a benefit it will continue to see once all the checks make their way into the hands of consumers by mid July.

Wal-Mart shares declined 1 percent, or 57 cents, to $58.74 in afternoon New York Stock Exchange trading.

Apparently Wal-Mart has a history of selling knock offs of copyrighted Adidas shoes, and after 2 warnings, Adidas is looking to put a stop to it. Adidas has recently sued several other companies, including Payless Shoes and won considerable money from them. They won over $300 million from Payless, and could win $326 million from Wal-Mart, or more in the Jury decides that Wal-Mart should pay more in punitive damages. The Payless verdict saw Payless paying 7 times it's profit that year (it made $42.7 million and paid $304.6 million). So in fairness, because Wal-Mart has a history of ripping off the brand, the jury could force Wal-Mart to pay a similar 7 times it's most recent annual profit. That would be around $77 billion. That is not likely to happen, but it does seem likely that Adidas will win a large sum from Wal-Mart.

Read the full story from Bloomberg:

Adidas Poised to Win $1.60/Share on Wal-Mart Copycats

Adidas AG, which was awarded a $304.6 million verdict against Payless ShoeSource on May 5 for selling knockoff striped sneakers, is poised to win even more from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a lawsuit making similar claims.

The world's second-biggest sporting-goods maker may collect at least $326 million in damages, the equivalent of $1.60 a share, if a jury agrees Wal-Mart copied Adidas's three-stripe sneakers by selling shoes with two- and four-stripe motifs as Payless did. A jury trial is set to start Oct. 6 in federal court in Portland, Oregon, the same courthouse where the Payless trademark-infringement case was decided.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, settled two earlier suits by Adidas over striped sneakers. The company's repeated promises not to mimic Adidas may prompt a jury to award punitive damages much higher than those against Payless, said Steven Nataupsky, managing partner of the law firm Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear in Irvine, California.

``Adidas will be arguing that a company has infringed twice, has agreed to stop twice and yet is marching forward with more infringing shoes,'' said Nataupsky, whose firm represents plaintiffs and defendants and isn't involved in the Adidas case. Its clients include Starbucks Corp. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Adidas, based in Herzogenaurach, Germany, has sued about three dozen retailers since 1999 in the U.S. and Europe to keep what it considers knockoffs of its trademarked shoes and clothing from diluting the brand. The campaign is finally paying off.

Brand Value

``The brand value is incredibly important,'' said Alexander Roepers, president of New York-based Atlantic Investment Management Inc., Adidas's second-largest investor. ``Just like Coke or Nike, they'd be wise to protect it, and that's what they're doing.''

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, disagrees with Adidas's assertion that the stripe pattern, used since at least 1952, has significance in the sporting world.

``Wal-Mart denies that the three-stripe mark has achieved international fame and tremendous public recognition,'' the company said in court papers.

The Arkansas retailer ``probably watched every step'' of the Payless trial to develop its own strategy and recognizes problems in the Payless defense, Nataupsky said.

``If Wal-Mart's going to take it to trial, then they have clearly in their own minds determined how they can avoid mistakes,'' he said.

Wal-Mart Spokeswoman

Daphne Moore, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, declined to comment on the likelihood of another settlement or any other aspect of the case.

The suit, filed in 2005, claims Wal-Mart ``maliciously'' sold hundreds of thousands of imitation Adidas shoes in violation of a 2002 settlement that barred it from offering ``confusingly similar'' products. A previous settlement, in 1995, prohibited Wal-Mart from selling shoes with three parallel stripes or certain four-stripe designs.

Topeka, Kansas-based Payless, which last year changed its name to Collective Brands Inc. after buying the Stride Rite chain, was told by a jury to pay Adidas $304.6 million. Two days later, Sears Holdings Corp.'s Kmart unit reached a confidential settlement of a suit Adidas filed in Portland in 2005.

``You can see where Kmart stepped up and settled because there was now a precedent for an enormous award out there,'' Nataupsky said. ``Adidas now has a game plan in place for seeking an enormous number and obtaining that result.''

Payless Verdict

The Payless verdict was more than seven times the retailer's profit last year of $42.7 million. The award consisted of $30 million in actual damages, $137 million in forfeited profit and another $137 million in punitive damages.

Wal-Mart reported sales last year of $378.8 billion, dwarfing Payless's $3 billion. The companies' relative sizes might cause the jury to impose higher punitive damages than the Payless jury did, according to Nataupsky.

``The size of the defendant is absolutely taken into consideration'' in punitive-damage awards, which are ``designed to punish and deter future infringement,'' he said.

Andrea Corso, a spokeswoman for Adidas, declined to comment on the case.

The German sportswear company also enjoys a hometown advantage, with its North American headquarters located in Portland.

``That can only be a plus for Adidas,'' Nataupsky said.

Adidas Profit

Adidas, founded in 1924, had profit last year of 551 million euros ($852.3 million) on sales of 10.3 billion euros. The shares rose 35 cents to 45 euros at 2:44 p.m. local time today in Frankfurt trading. Wal-Mart rose 13 cents to $59.31 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Shoe sales represent about 1.7 percent of Wal-Mart's revenue, according to Edward Weller, an analyst at ThinkEquity Partners LLC in San Francisco. Based on that estimate, Wal-Mart had shoe sales of about $25 billion in the U.S. and Canada in the six-year period covered by the lawsuit.

Payless shoe sales totaled more than $22 billion in the eight years covered by the Adidas suit. A jury said it should forfeit $137 million, which equals 0.6 percent of its sales for those years.

If Wal-Mart's disputed shoes enjoyed the same margins, its profit would be about $148 million. Should the retailer lose, a jury applying the formula used in the Payless case might order Wal-Mart to pay $326 million -- the profit, an equal amount of punitive damages and $30 million in actual damages.

Adidas has also sued Steven Madden Ltd., Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., Target Corp. and Nordstrom Inc. Those cases were all settled before going to trial.

``A ruling against Wal-Mart will give Adidas more security,'' said Uwe Weinreich, an Adidas analyst at UniCredit in Munich. ``In the future, there will be clear and transparent limits, which have to be observed by competitors and retailers.''

The case is Adidas America Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 3:05-cv-01297, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Portland).

Voting is now open for the sweet 16 lineup of The Consumerist's Worst Company in America 2008 competition. Wal-Mart goes head to head with Well Point. We think it's a no brainer, and we're pretty sure Wal-Mart will make it to the final 4, if not win the whole thing (though Exxon may be tough competition). So go vote, Wal-Mart is currently killing Well Point 77% to 23%.

It was reported today that a group of individuals from the Spring Hill Wildlife Ranch in Texas were attempting to sell 6 tiger cubs in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. The buyers were in a van with Mexican license plates and were, apparently, going to bring the tigers down to Mexico. Neither the buyer nor the seller had the proper licenses to transport the animals across the border. While this has nothing to do with Wal-Mart, except for the location, it was simply too good a story not to share.

Enjoy the full article from The Monitor:

Police investigate sale of tigers in Wal-Mart parking lot

McALLEN - Police and federal authorities are investigating the sale of six Bengal tiger cubs in a Wal-Mart parking lot Sunday afternoon.

The animals appear to have been bound for Mexico and neither the buyer nor seller had the permits needed to legally transport the endangered species across national borders, a federal agent said.

A group from Spring Hill Wildlife Ranch in Bryan was selling the cubs - four white ones and two orange ones - in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart near Jackson Avenue and Expressway 83.

Authorities believe the Spring Hill employees were selling the tigers to a pre-arranged buyer via an intermediary, and that the animals' final destination would be in Mexico.

"The people who were picking up the tigers and taking possession of them... were Mexican nationals in a Mexico-licensed vehicle," said Special Agent Alejandro Rodriguez of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said tigers have been smuggled into Mexico through the Rio Grande Valley before.

Rodriguez said some people involved in the transaction said the tigers were to be taken to a Mexico City zoo, while others said they would be going to Roma.

Under federal law, it's illegal to transport an endangered species across national borders unless both buyer and seller have what is known as a CITES permit.

Those involved in the transaction could face federal conspiracy charges if authorities determine the animals were, in fact, Mexico-bound.

Police said ranch employees were selling the white cubs for $5,500 per animal, and the orange ones for $900 per animal. The buyers' vehicle lacked air conditioning, police said, which also raised concern about the animals' safety.

Rodriguez said the cubs are healthy and would be transported to the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville as authorities continue their investigation.

The orange tigers are about 10 weeks old, Rodriguez said, and the white ones are about two weeks old.

Rodriguez said it appears Spring Hill has sold tigers in the Rio Grande Valley at least two other times in the last 18 months.

Police arrested the co-owner of Spring Hill Wildlife Ranch for interfering with public duties, authorities said.

The woman, whose name police have not released, attempted to barricade herself in the truck containing the tigers after Monitor staff began photographing the animals from the parking lot. She is expected to be arraigned Monday.

Two people who had been questioned by the police about the transaction declined to comment on the case to The Monitor.

Police learned of the transaction when a McAllen Police Department patrol officer became suspicious of the truck with Mexican license plates in the Wal-Mart parking lot, police said.

When the officer approached, the group moved to the parking lot of the nearby Mervyn's department store, prompting him to follow and ultimately discover the tiger cubs.

"The basic premise of this transaction in a parking lot - it doesn't seem right," said McAllen Police Sgt. Eddie De La Rosa.

Bengal tigers can grow to 9 feet long and weight more than 550 pounds. There are about 2,000 Bengal tigers living in the wild. The cats can be found in Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar and Nepal.

Jerry Stones, facilities director at Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, said Bengal tigers are an endangered species. There are thousands of large cats including tigers, leopards and lions owned privately - and legally -in Texas, Stones said.

He said he thinks some tiger owners may not realize the effort that goes into caring for the cats. "They buy them as babies," Stones said. "They don't realize it's going to get to be hundreds of pounds, eat an awful lot of food and become dangerous."

A local group in Atascadero, California are working on passing an initiative that would set up size restrictions for retail space, and ban massive super-stores, like the one Wal-Mart is trying to build. They just had their first victory working toward the initiative, getting over 1,500 signatures from the community (more than 10% of the registered voters) on a petition that will allow the initiative to be introduced to the city council. Congratulations on the first step, Atascadero, you have our support as you move forward!

Here is some local coverage from KSBY, a local news station:

The fight to keep a retail giant out of one Central Coast city gets a boost of local support.

Thursday, the "Atascadero Shield Initiative" got the required number of signatures to present its case to the city council on June 24.

The initiative is sponsored by the group Oppose Wal-Mart. It would set a size limit on commercial retail stores and ban superstores like the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter from coming to the city.

Once it is presented, the city council can make the initiative an ordinance or submit it to voters in November.

and from SanLuisObispo.com, the county's news site:

An initiative that would block a Wal-Mart Superstore proposed for Atascadero’s north end has obtained enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

The petition for the measure, called the Atascadero Shield Initiative by its proponents, contained at least 1,511 valid signatures, enough to satisfy the requirement that 10 percent of registered voters sign it, City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson confirmed Friday.

Tom Comar, a leader of the anti-Wal-Mart effort, said the measure is intended “to protect local businesses, to ensure that the General Plan is maintained and to protect the rural, small-town character and the feel of this unique city on the Central Coast.”

The City Council is scheduled to discuss the measure June 24, when it will have three options. It can adopt the proposed measure as a city ordinance, place it on the Nov. 4 General Election ballot, or ask for analysis of the effects of the measure before deciding to adopt it as law or put it before the voters.

City Manager Wade McKinney said his staff would describe the options to the council but would not recommend a course of action.

The proposed Wal-Mart project for property at Del Rio Road and El Camino Real has divided the community for more than two years.

Supporters say it would encourage residents to shop locally and would bring new sales tax revenue to the city. Opponents say a mega-store would provide only low-income jobs and would hurt local businesses and the environment.

The Consumerist just published another article about a Wal-Mart shopper who was detained and harassed for failing to show a receipt for his purchase. It turns out that the cashier threw away the original receipt by mistake but the customer, Ben of Germantown, Maryland, was nonetheless verbally and physically harassed by a Wal-Mart security guard upon trying to exit the store. He was also stopped by a local police officer. This story is very similar to one we commented on in our blog two months ago. We have received many e-mails complaining of similar instances as well. Wal-Mart shouldn't treat its customers like prisoners. If Wal-Mart keeps doing so I suspect that many, like Ben, will choose to bring their business elsewhere.

Here's the full version of the story:

This guy was trying to make strawberry jam this morning, and he had to go buy 4 bags of sugar. The cashier threw away the original receipt but put the sugar in a couple of Wal-Mart shopping bags, so Ben left the store thinking everything was, you know, normal for a Saturday morning. Then he was stopped by a security guard, a store manager, and an off-duty police officer, all of whom went batshit crazy on Ben over his 4 bags of sugar and lack of receipt. Before it was over one of the shopping bags was ripped open, a bag of sugar lay broken open on the parking lot, the guard had threatened to kick Ben's ass, and the police officer said, "you'd better not be lying to me." Ben was marched back into the store so they could verify with his cashier that he wasn't a sugar thief. Welcome to Wal-Mart, the police-state superstore where prices are low and civil rights don't exist.

I was at the Germantown Wal*Mart to buy four bags of sugar because earlier in the day I had been at Butler’s Orchard picking 10 pounds of strawberries to turn into delicious jam. And to make delicious jam, you need lots of sugar. I grabbed four bags and headed to the checkout, where I also decided I could use some refreshment. I grabbed a Mountain Dew from the cooler, but the cashier had already processed my card for the four bags of sugar. He apologized and rang up another transaction for the Mt. Dew. At that point, he crumpled up my receipt for the four bags of sugar and handed me the receipt for the Mountain Dew. I headed for the exit, and was greeted by Wal*Mart security who wanted to check my receipt. I produced the receipt for the Mountain Dew and explained that the cashier had tossed the other receipt for the sugar. I would repeat this explanation 6 more times before this affair ended.

At this point, I attempted to leave, but was told I could not. I immediately asked if I was being detained. I was told “no” but that I wasn’t allowed to leave unless I walked back to the cashier to get a receipt. I said that I was “happy to let the security guard talk to the cashier, but that I was heading home with my sugar.” I attempted to leave again, and the door was blocked. I asked again if I was being detained, and was told “yes.” I asked on what grounds, and the security guard said “Because you stole.”

I informed the guard I had done no such thing, that the sugar was my property, and I was leaving with it. This time I pushed passed him and left the store, with him following me demanding I stop. As I left, he grabbed my bags, ripping them open. As he followed me he attempted to grab my bags, and grab the items inside of my bags. At one point, he told me that he should “kick my ass.” As I reached the end of sidewalk outside the store and headed towards my car in the parking lot, another employee came running and blocked my path. Soon afterwards a manager arrived. I again asked if I was being detained. I was informed by the manager that I was. I again asked for what reason, and was told by the original security guard that it was for stealing. I once again informed them that I hadn’t stolen anything and that I was leaving.

At this point, the manager informed me that Wal*Mart policy did not allow me to leave the store without showing a receipt. I said that I had paid for my merchandise, that it was in fact a store employee that had thrown away my receipt, and that I was not compelled to prove that items that I legally owned belonged to anyone but me. Again I inquired whether I was being detained, and was told my only options were to go back in the store to talk to the cashier or have the police called. I informed the manager that she was welcome to call the police, because I had done nothing wrong. At tht point, she radioed for someone to call the police. Once again, I started to walk to my car as the two security guards again attempted to block my path in the parking lot.

At this point, and off duty police officer came to the scene (he appeared to be heading into Wal*Mart to shop, not the one called by the manager), showed his badge, and asked for an explanation. Everyone was calmed by this, and tensions visibly eased on the faces of the Wal*Mart employees. I explained my side, and Wal*Mart employees explained their side. After the explanations, I asked the police officer if I was being detained, and he said yes. I asked on what grounds, and he said “suspicion of theft.” The officer told me I could give them “their merchandise back” and leave at that point or I could go inside and talk to the cashier. I indicated that since he was detaining me, I was willing to go back into the store and speak with the cashier, but that the merchandise belonged to me. At this point, one of the bags of sugar fell from my ripped bags and split open on the pavement. It was an accident, but I could tell no one believed me when I said so.

On the way into the store, the officer informed me that it was his day off, he had important things to do, and he didn’t want to take me to jail. But I had one last chance to give them their merchandise back and just leave, because if I wasn’t telling the truth, he would personally drive me to the station. I agreed wholeheartedly with him, and told him so. I’m fairly certain he thought I had actually stolen the sugar at this point. He then asked what I needed so much sugar for anyway. At the time, I was literally covered with strawberry juice. It had stained my shorts and shirt red, and I thought it was fairly believable that I was going to make strawberry jam. He still seemed skeptical, asking where I had been picking strawberries, and only seemed to believe me after I was able to name Butler’s Orchard. He then asked if I had ID, what my name was, and how old I was. Upon telling him this, he said “You better not be lying to me,” so perhaps I was too quick to think he didn’t assume I was guilty.

Of course, upon re-entering the store and speaking with the cashier, he informed everyone that I had paid for the sugar and the receipt was found in his trash can. His story differed slightly in that he told them he had given me the receipt but I had thrown it into his trash can. That was impossible based on where his trash can was from the checkout counter, but it didn’t matter. The original security guard was cordial, shook my hand, and apologized. The Wal*Mart manager and police officer lectured about how next time if I just cooperated and gave up my rights at the beginning, it would have been much easier on everyone. Trust me, Wal*Mart, there won’t be a next time.

If you defend Wal-Mart for this treatment of an average customer, you are a slave. There are other ways to prevent shoplifting. How about the security guard follows the suspected shoplifter to his car to take down his license plate while radioing someone in the store to confirm whether or not his story is legit? Besides that, Ben had four bags of sugar in Wal-Mart branded plastic bags—the likelihood that he was shoplifting them was low, and the value of the sugar to the store was virtually nonexistent compared to other merchandise that was and is probably being stolen from Wal-Marts all over America this weekend. No matter how belligerent a customer is in this situation, the guard, manager, and officer should remember that if the customer is innocent, he has a right to be belligerent and offended that he's being harrassed to such a degree—especially over something as trivial as four bags of sugar.

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice released a new study today called Volatile Vinyl: The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell in which the group tested out vinyl shower curtains from various major retailers. The findings are pretty scary.

Not only did the group find a slew of dangerous chemicals that leach in to the air of your bathroom and house when you hang the curtain, but they found that the chemicals can linger for nearly a month. The study found that "Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic shower curtains purchased at Bed Bath & Beyond, Kmart, Sears, Target, and Wal-Mart all contain avoidable toxic chemicals including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phthalates, organotins and metals." In all, the study found as many as 108 volatile chemicals, that is, chemicals that can spread from the shower curtain in to the air. The report found that some of these chemicals could "cause developmental damage as well as damage to the liver and central nervous, respiratory, and reproductive systems."

In short, it's not good stuff to have hanging in your bathroom, especially because the report says that humidity and heat may speed up the release of these chemicals. The group bought shower curtains from a number of retailers, including Wal-Mart and while Ikea, Target, Sears, Kmart, Bed Bath & Beyond, Macy’s, JC Penny’s and Marks and Spencer, all have at least cursory plans to do away with these dangerous PVC shower curtains, it seems Wal-Mart does not. Here's what the report has to say about Wal-Mart:

CHEJ mailed and faxed letters to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. inquiring whether or not the company has a policy on PVC shower curtains. Unfortunately, we have received no response from the company to date. We can only assume that Wal-Mart does not have a policy or timeframe to phase out PVC shower curtains.

It is almost hard to figure out what to make of this one. A student at Texas Southern University sold her car and was paid in Wal-Mart money orders. When she went to cash them, Wal-Mart accused her of forgery and had her arrested. Then, as if that wasn't enough, they sent her a letter demanding she pay $200 to settle a shoplifting charge that they must have made up. The first shocking thing about this story is how poorly Wal-Mart treated Nitra Gipson for doing nothing more than attempting to cash her very real money orders. Does Wal-Mart make it a policy of throwing customers in jail just because they happen to have a large sum in money orders? Was the manager following Wal-Mart's rules, or has he just been taught to reduce costs any way possible, and this seems like a good way to do it. The second shocking thing about this story is the letter they sent after they locked up this young woman for 2 days, demanding $200.

Here's the story from KHOU, and be sure to check out the video of the site, it's got a good interview with Nitra.

HOUSTON -- A college student’s trip to Wal-Mart last month ended with her in handcuffs and a two-day stay in the Harris County jail.

Nitra Gipson was charged with felony forgery after the Meyer Park Wal-Mart manager accused her of passing bogus money orders. Thing is, the money orders were legit and had been purchased at Wal-Mart to begin with.

The cash-strapped college student had just sold her car to pay for her last two semesters at Texas Southern University, where she is studying criminal justice. She was paid with Wal-Mart money orders, which the giant retailer advertises as “good as cash.”

In Gipson’s case, they were as good as time behind bars.

“Humiliating is not the word for it,” said Gipson. “I was horrified. I think they singled me out because of the amount of money that it was and (thought) I was trying to get over on them.”

No manner of effort by Gipson to show that the money orders were legit worked. The store manager insisted she be charged.

The district attorney’s office saw it differently. Charges were dropped after the money orders were verified when Gipson provided the purchase receipts.

But after spending 48 hours behind bars, the damage had already beeen done.

“Wal-Mart should be held responsible and accountable for letting this child go to jail for two days. All because she was doing what any customer of Wal-Mart should do,” said community activist Quannel X.

Gipson said Wal-Mart then added insult to injury when she got a letter in the mail.

“I started to read it and thought, ‘Oh my God.’ They are asking me to pay them when it was clearly their mistake,” said Gipson.

The letter demanded Gipson pay Wal-Mart $200 to settle a shoplifting charge. It is a charge that never existed, though.

When 11 News contacted Wal-Mart officials they said they were looking into the case and would provide no further details.

The spokesperson did claim that the decision to pursue charges was up to the law enforcement officials on the scene. But the copy of the criminal complaint obtained by 11 News, shows that the store manager is who pressed charges.

If you keep up on Wal-Mart news, you will have no doubt picked up on the large number of law suits and stories involving inappropriate behavior of male supervisors towards females who work at the store. This, of course, could happen anywhere, but at Wal-Mart, it's a part of the corporate culture to turn a blind eye to such demeaning, sexist harassment. Well once again, there is an example of a woman being fired after she complained to HR.

The West Virginia Record has the story:

Logan woman says she was wrongly fired by Wal-Mart

CHARLESTON - A Logan County woman has filed a suit against Wal-Mart, claiming she was fired after she informed human resources of inappropriate conduct taking place among the store supervisors.

Sherry Muncy filed the suit May 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court. The suit is against Wal-Mart as well as supervisors Dwight Neal and Calvin Stapleton.

According to the suit, Muncy was an assistant store manager at Wal-Mart. While employed there, she claims Neal and other employees subjected her to unwanted and unwelcome hostile remarks, including some of a sexual nature.

Muncy claims she informed the human resources manager of the inappropriate conduct, but no action was taken to stop the hostile behavior.

On Oct. 26, 2007, Muncy was discharged, which she claims is retaliation because of her reports on the harassment that was occurring in the workplace.

In the three-count suit, Muncy claims her termination is a violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. She seeks compensation, including back pay, front pay, damages for humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and mental distress and loss of personal dignity, as well as punitive damages.

Attorney Paul Stroebel is representing Muncy. The case has been assigned to Judge Charles King.

Wal-Mart is trying super hard to make you believe they are great for the environment. It's a great PR campaign for them, but what does it really amount to? It is fair to say that Wal-Mart's main focus is on cutting costs from their supply chain, and selling lots and lots of stuff. Now there are some environmental initiatives that fit in to their model, like reducing packaging so that things cost less for them to buy (so they can make more money) or selling as many Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs as they can (so they can make more money). But mostly, Wal-Mart, and it's fundamental focus, is not good for the environment. Recently the EPA fined a construction company $300,000 for polluting storm water at 16 sites in 4 states. The stores being built are Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Building massive stores and focusing on selling as much as you possibly can is simply not good for the environment, and here is yet another example.

Here's the story from the Colorado Springs Gazette:

A Colorado Springs construction firm has been fined $300,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater violations at 16 big-box store construction sites in four states.

Colorado Structures Inc. had runoff management and permit inadequacies at construction sites for 13 Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores in Colorado, including one in Colorado Springs, and one each in Nevada, South Dakota and California, according to court documents.

In a settlement with the EPA and the Justice Department, Colorado Structures agreed to reduce stormwater pollution at its sites, comply with permit requirements, inspect sites regularly and report the findings to the EPA, and provide stormwater training for employees, in addition to paying the fine.

"Stormwater runoff from construction sites poses a threat to the environment by washing sediment, debris and other pollutants into surrounding waterways and degrading water quality," said Ronald J. Tenpas, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, in a news release issued Friday.

Calls to Colorado Structures were not returned Tuesday.

It was unclear how the fine ranks in terms of others given to construction companies for stormwater violations. While fines at single construction sites can be in the tens of thousands of dollars, multiple violations or large projects have drawn larger fines.

According to a complaint filed in Denver federal court, EPA inspectors visited the Wal-Mart under construction on Space Center Drive in May 2002. Inspectors found inadequate measures to prevent rain from washing dirt and other materials into storm drains, including a silt fence with gaps, another fence that had been knocked down and a dirt pile upstream from a storm drain.

Inspectors found a pattern of inadequate stormwater management, planning and inspections going back to 1999 at Wal-Mart construction sites run by Colorado Structures at three locations in Aurora, as well as sites in Castle Rock; Commerce City; Cortez; Pueblo; Fort Morgan; Littleton; Carson City, Nev.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; and Roseville, Calif.

Violations were also found at two Home Depot sites in Aurora and one in Evergreen.

The federal Clean Water Act requires builders to have measures in place to prevent pollution from reaching waterways and storm sewers.

Both big-box retailers have been fined in connection with these and other storm water violations around the country. Wal-Mart paid $3.1 million in 2005 and Home Depot paid $1.3 million earlier this year.

Wal-Mart has made it to the 3rd round, of the Consumerist's Worst Company in America competition, and we think they're going to go all the way. They may have a though match up against either American Airlines or Microsoft (I'm guessing Microsoft) next round, but the chances are looking pretty solid that they'll make it at least to the final 4. We'll let you know when the voting starts for this round which has Wal-Mart going up against Wellpoint, it should be a blowout.

From Wal-Mart praising President Bushes tax rebate to their green audits of state buildings, Wal-Mart has been making nice to the government, even acting like a piece of the government. Wal-Mart has been upping their lobbying budget by leaps and bounds, and now, they're reaching out to the government even more. Of course Wal-Mart's desire to 'fix social problems' is all about the PR and getting to sell more stuff in the name of fixing social problems. It's just another way Wal-Mart can leverage their weight in Washington. Do we really think Wal-Mart wants to fix the social issue of the minimum wage, or is it really about getting that trade deal just the way they want it?

Here's the piece from the Wall Street Journal explaining how Wal-Mart is cozying up to the presidential candidates and congress:

Wal-Mart Reaches Out to Candidates, Congress

Sounding more like the ruler of a sovereign nation than a corporate chief executive, the leader of retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. used the annual shareholder meeting to sketch out a broad agenda to improve customers' lives, and offered to partner with governments to solve social problems.

On issues from the environment to health-care reform, "we stand ready to work with the next president and next Congress, Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. told stockholders on Friday. "Leaders who want to get things done will see Wal-Mart as a partner."

In a departure from the past, Wal-Mart is communicating with each of the U.S. presidential candidates, Mr. Scott said, and has also held talks with government officials outside the U.S.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, president and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores' U.S. division, speaks during the annual Wal-Mart shareholder's meeting.

"In every country, food and energy are issues," he said. "Wal-Mart can play a role."

That Mr. Scott is holding the company out as a social steward and government partner for addressing the world's ills would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Then the company was repeatedly criticized for skimpy health benefits, forcing employees to work overtime without pay, and prizing store growth over all else -- including neighborhood and environmental concerns.

There are still plenty of skeptics who doubt Wal-Mart is really out to save the world. "Whether it's health care or the environment, there's a change election under way, and on nearly every issue, Wal-Mart is on the wrong side of change," said Meghan Scott, spokeswoman for Wake Up Wal Mart.com, a group that is funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union and that is critical of Wal-Mart.

Mr. Scott acknowledged that the company's new role in social issues was to some extent thrust upon it, and urged his listeners to challenge the company's goals if they are too narrow. "We found ourselves playing catch-up," he said. "We can never let that happen again."

He did not offer any new initiatives, but praised employees' community activism and noted the company's contributions to disaster relief in China after the earthquake, and its $4 prescription drug plan, which was recently expanded to include, among other things, an array of over-the-counter drugs.

Wal-mart also has undergone a financial transformation recently. To boost flagging returns, the retailer last year throttled back store growth in the U.S., cut merchandise inventory and renewed its founders' focus on reducing prices -- a message particularly resonant with customers pinched by higher gas and food costs.

But Wal-Mart executives remain confident that the company will continue to do well even when the economy improves. "As the economy turns, and it will, customers will have experienced several months" of a very improved service level, said Eduardo Castro-Wright, president of U.S. Wal-Mart Stores. That experience would keep these more affluent customers shopping at Wal-Mart, he said.

Earlier in the day, Thomas M. Schoewe, the company's chief financial officer, lauded Wal-Mart's financial performance last year, noting its revenue increased by $30 billion from the year earlier, to about $375 billion, and that its share price has recently jumped. The company's shares declined 2% or $1.43 to $58.37 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

On Thursday, Wal-Mart announced its U.S. same-store sales rose a strong 3.9%, excluding fuel, in May, more than double Wall Street's estimate and the company's own forecast. Mr. Schoewe credited better management and the impact of customers spending their tax rebates.

Pointing to rising energy prices and tighter credit, he said, "This is a time our customers need us."

Wal-Mart is being forced to pay a quarter of a million dollars to a pharmacy employee they fired because she had a disability from a gun shot wound. Wal-Mart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing Glenda Allen for her disability. It follows the long history of Wal-Mart's discrimination against people with disabilities, including firing Tom Hampton for coming to work in his wheelchair.

Here's the press release from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

BALTIMORE – Retail giant Wal-Mart will pay $250,000 and furnish significant injunctive relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate and then fired a long-time pharmacy technician who suffered a disability resulting from a gunshot wound.

In its suit (1:06-cv-2514), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the EEOC said that Glenda D. Allen had been employed with the Arkansas-based company as a pharmacy technician since July 1993, most recently at its store in Abingdon, Md. As a result of a gunshot wound sustained during the course of a robbery at a different employer in 1994, Allen suffered permanent damage to her spinal cord and other medical issues, including an abnormal gait requiring the use of a cane as an assistive device.

The agency charged that despite Allen’s successful job performance throughout her employment, Wal-Mart declared her incapable of performing her position with or without a reasonable accommodation, denied her a reasonable accommodation, and then unlawfully fired her because of her disability. The lawsuit settled shortly after the court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment on March 10, and partially granted the EEOC’s cross-motion for summary judgment finding that Wal-Mart had no undue hardship defense.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Commenting on her case, Allen said, “After beating all the odds -- surviving my injury when not expected to survive, walking again when told that I would never walk again, and returning to work where I received excellent performance evaluations and consistent merit increases -- I was devastated to have the rug pulled out from underneath me simply because Wal-Mart could ‘no longer accommodate my handicap needs.’ I am hopeful that this settlement will make Wal-Mart take a closer look at its policies and practices with respect to the employment of individuals with disabilities so that what happened to me will not happen to someone else.”

Along with the monetary payment, the consent decree settling the suit requires Wal-Mart to:

* Observe the ADA and post a notice to employees on the ADA;
* Have all salaried supervisors and managers of its Abingdon stores and in pharmacies in the district that includes Abingdon complete training on the ADA with annual refresher training for the next three years; and
* Submit a list of all employees at the Abingdon store and the pharmacies in the Abingdon district who have been denied reasonable accommodation and/or complained that they have been unlawfully denied reasonable accommodation or terminated because of their disabilities.

The EEOC will monitor the company’s compliance with the decree for the next three years.

“When an employer is faced with an employee who has difficulty performing certain tasks because of his or her disability, it cannot sit back passively and then turn around and fire the employee because of its own failure to accommodate,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “Federal law mandates that employers engage in a good-faith interactive dialogue with the qualified disabled employee to identify potential reasonable accommodations.”

This is the EEOC’s second settlement this year with Wal-Mart concerning the ADA. In April 2008, the EEOC settled a lawsuit concerning Wal-Mart’s failure to hire an individual with cerebral palsy in Richmond, Mo., (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 04-cv-0076 (W.D. Mo. April 18, 2008) for $300,000 and injunctive relief. According to its web site (www.walmart.com), “Today, 7,357 Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Club locations in 14 mar
kets employ more than 2 million associates, serving more than 179 million customers a year.”

During Fiscal Year 2007, disability discrimination charges filed with the EEOC under the ADA increased 14% to 17,734 -- the highest level in a decade. Approximately one out of every five private sector charge filings with the EEOC contains an allegation of disability discrimination.

Right after Wal-Mart threw a massive party to congratulate itself for profiting from the country's economic problems, complete with bright shiny lights, and song and dance (queen Latifah was the MC, David Cook preformed, and while Miley Syrus didn't show, they had about 6 other musical acts to make up for it) comes a story that proves just how callous Wal-Mart really is. It proves what the Shareholder's meeting demonstrated, that Wal-mart is interested in putting on a good face, and getting good PR, but they don't want to help their employees if it means spending money, even if it's a small amount for a company that pulls in $300 billion in sales a year.

Here is an excerpt from an Phoenix News Times story about Herman Teague who Wal-Mart refused to help after he was injured while working there.

Teague had been retired for years when Wal-Mart, which is North America's biggest retailer and Arizona's largest private employer, hired him in January 2006 to say hello to shoppers entering the store.

Herm Teague made people around him feel good. He always had a friendly "question of the day" for those he knew and a smile for those he didn't. The idea of getting paid to schmooze a little with customers appealed to him.

Teague was 86 when Wal-Mart hired him, though he looked and acted like a much younger man. He had heart problems and suffered from borderline diabetes and hypertension. But his doctor declared him fit for work, and he did fine for several weeks, winning over customers and his much younger co-workers with his upbeat attitude.

But in late February 2006, Teague complained at home of having a hard time catching his breath. He was out of work for a few weeks, during which time he underwent an angioplasty, a procedure in which doctors use a balloon to open a coronary blockage and improve a patient's blood flow.

But doctors told Teague that he was well enough to return to Wal-Mart, which he did on March 6, 2006.

What happened shortly after he punched in that day would become the focus of a significant court case decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals on April 1.

And, sadly, it marked the beginning of the end of Herm Teague.

What happened was, Teague fainted a few yards from his greeter's "station" just inside Wal-Mart and the back of his head hit the concrete floor, causing a deep wound. He came to before emergency paramedics arrived and said he recalled nothing after sipping on a Coke he'd just bought at a machine near his work post.

On the face of it, you might think that an employer of any size, much less a mega-corporation that registers a profit of about $20,000 a minute, at least would have been willing to pay for the cost of Teague's emergency room services, where the bill for stitching him up came to about $3,500.

But Wal-Mart — whose famous slogan is "Save money, live better" — declined to give Teague even one cent in workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he suffered on the job. In addition to the emergency room fee, that payout would have amounted to about $400 a month until Teague was able to go back to work.

Read the full story here.

So recently we sent our members an e-mail telling them about the New York Times story that totally ignores all your hard work. We asked them to e-mail the New York Time and tell them they'd gotten the story wrong, that the movement is far from 'slowing down' and that Wal-Mart doesn't get a free pass just because they say so. Some of your fellow activist's letters to the New York Times are below, but I want to encourage all of you to click on the box to the right and write your own letter to the New York Times. The real story wasn't told by The Times, but your voice can still be heard. Write The New York Times today. Tell them you have not stopped working to make Wal-Mart a responsible corporation.

Here are some of the letters already sent:

K. B. writes
As a lifetime reader and long time subscriber of the NYT, I have loved it for it's "liberal bias." You have traveled so far from your roots. First backing the Iraq War, now becoming corporate hacks. The article today on Walmart was such a disservice to the workers and labor in general. Those of us who care about the workers have NOT given up the fight. I will not shop in Walmart. And I am getting close to giving up on the NYT.

T. K. writes This is sad. A lot of people are trying to affect positive change. It is truly unfortunate your publication has chosen to dismiss our efforts and promote the corporation over the individual.

S. S. writes I, for one, am not done being part of the citizens of this state, and this country, to protest WalMart's ongoing abuses.

J. L. writes Both of my children have worked at WalMart. I know what this company is up to and let me tell you, "it ain't over 'til it's over". This is just the beginning of the fight.

E. B. writes Wal-Mart still has a huge sex discrimination suit pending. More workers may be offered health insurance, but that doesn't help if they can't afford the premiums. We know too many workers who still have only part-time hours. The Times has an obligation to tell the whole story.

photo credit: this photo comes from yet another stellar New York Times article

On the day we learned that nearly 50,000 more Americans lost their jobs, Wal-Mart saw fit to throw a party in Bentonville to literally dance on the American economy’s grave, It’s just another reminder that what’s good for Wal-Mart is bad for America, something its Chief Financial Officer as much as admitted when he said "tough times are actually a good time for Wal-Mart." Instead of celebrating the hard times Americans are facing, Wal-Mart should make the real changes to support its workers that would make our country stronger.

Apparently Walmart.com has been infected with a computer virus, and many who shopped at the website recently could have infected computers now. Maybe sending a whole bunch of tech jobs overseas wasn't the best idea.

Here's the story from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Walmart.com Shoppers Beware

If you've been shopping at Walmart.com this week, better scan your computer for possible infections and make sure your software patches are up to date.

Scansafe reported Wednesday that it was blocking access to at least one page on Walmart.com--framedart.walmart.com--because the page was redirecting visitors to a site serving malware that exploited Adobe Flash. If you had an unpatched version of Adobe Flash on your computer, you were vulnerable.

Attacks on Websites have been a problem all year because of the high quality of tools available to cyberthieves, who can automatically scan sites for coding flaws like the ones at walmart.com that let them redirect Walmart's visitors to sources of malware.

In May alone, over 1.5 million pages were compromised all over the Web, some from legitimate sites like Walmart's. This latest round of attacks, called SQL injections, began on Sunday, Scansafe said.

Walmart did not return calls asking for details.
UPDATE--Walmart's response: "We're aware of the matter, and we're working with the appropriate third parties to resolve it. This matter has not affected any customer transactions on the site, but we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused our customers."

Today's New York Times Business section features a story, titled "Wal-Mart’s Detractors Come In From the Cold." The story's main point is that campaigns like ours are "slowing down," as Wal-Mart changes and quiets critics. It is unfortunate that the Times chose to ignore all that we've done over the last year, and all that we are planning for this year, and instead focus on Wal-Mart's PR stunts as evidence of an imaginary slow down.

Here are just a few of the accomplishments you have helped us with in the last year:

-You helped us expose Wal-Mart's poor treatment of Mother's, especially military mothers like Olga Sanchez.

-You helped Debbie Shank get fair treatment from Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart workers involved in our campaign signed our petition asking the company to do the right thing

-You helped spread the word about how Wal-Mart is trying to help China, not America.

-You helped our campaign (your campaign) grow by over 100,000 people in just the last year, we're up to 427,612 members and growing!

-You helped make our first web video such a huge success. More than 60,000 people have seen it, and there are more videos on the way.

It is truly unfortunate that the New York Times has ignored all this, but we wanted to let you know that we are not slowing down, and we are not letting Wal-Mart off the hook. Wal-Mart still has to do better. They've still got a responsibility to their employees and customers. We know they can change because we've seen it before.

Thanks for all you guys do! We're not slowing down, no matter what the Times says.

This story is by Al Norman and comes form the Huffington Post:

Wal-Mart took another bullet this week--fired from its own gun.

The bad news came just as thousands of revelers at Wal-Mart's Annual shareholder's meeting were preparing to party down in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ABC News reported that Wal-Mart is being sued by a husband in Peoria, Illinois who says his wife killed herself with ammunition sold to her by an untrained clerk at a Wal-Mart firearms department. Mark Johnson, the plaintiff, says his wife, Candace, bought bullets to load into his gun and shot herself last January. Johnson, a former Marine, admitted that he had a gun at home--but says it had no bullets.

The lawsuit charges that Candace Johnson did not own a firearms ID card, and the Wal-Mart clerk should never had sold her the ammunition. The clerk, Christy Blake, was initially facing criminal charges, but the Peoria county State's Attorney's office dropped the charges, according to ABC News. Wal-Mart initiallly suspended Blake, but she is now back working at Wal-Mart.

Johnson's lawyer has taken aim at Wal-Mart, not the clerk. "(Candace) had been a mental patient," Davis told ABC. "In the state of Illinois, they're not allowed to get firearm ammunition or firearms, and that's for the purpose of protecting them and society at large. So that's why the lawsuit is filed. They (Wal-Mart) dropped the ball unfortunately there's a dead person."

Wal-Mart has apparently admitted that its clerk did not receive training for ammunition sales, which is company policy. Gun sales training was a major talking point for Wal-Mart in April of this year, when the company linked arms with Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Wal-Mart became a prominent member of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership. The retailer promised to implement new gun sale rules at roughly one-third of its American stores. But the Partnership did not save Candace Johnson.

Wal-Mart said it would 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 pledged it would institute tougher background checks for its "associates" who work in the firearms department. They must have skipped over the Peoria store.

Wal-Mart has had its own troubled background with guns. In January of 2005, the California Attorney General's office revealed that Wal-Mart had 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 lax, the state created a special training program for Wal-Mart workers. That training seems to have misfired. State agents found so many violations at Wal-Mart stores, that the company eventually stopped selling guns altogether in California.

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. But now the old wound is open again, and Wal-Mart is in the headlines for selling bullets to a mentally ill woman in Peoria.

I wrote last April that if the California lawsuit was 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 and ammunition. At the store level, where press releases are just so much corporate confetti, there is no reason to believe that sales clerks are prepared to deal with customers like Candace Johnson.

It will be instructive to see how Wal-Mart's legal defense plays in Peoria. Guns seem to be a major part of the Wal-Mart culture. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott told a gathering of businessmen in Chicago three years ago, "One of the things that can happen when you get under attack is that you actually can close up. We call it at home, being very sophisticated, that you pull out the sandbags and the machine guns." It looks like Wal-Mart is going to need a lot of sandbags and machine guns to defend itself in Peoria.

Across the United States, communities everywhere are standing up to the invasion of the colossal force known as Wal-Mart. Over 450 site fights against Wal-Mart have occurred here in our nation. In West Dundee, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois, over 500 local residents have been raising their voices against the planned 186,000 square foot retail center and have been attending village commission meetings to speak out against the new development.

"That scale and proximity to the nearby Tartans Glen subdivision -- located southwest of the proposed development -- would hamper residents' quality of life," said resident Teresa Smith. "The placement will make it impossible for residents not to be affected in a negative way by Wal-Mart."

We, across this nation, need to congratulate the residents of West Dundee for having the guts to stand up to the Wal-Mart. Check out this article from the Daily Herald for more information.

So here's the agenda for the Wal-Mart Shareholder's Meeting, including official board business and Shareholder Resolutions. The Shareholders bring up some really good suggestions, like establishing a Human Rights committee so the company could at least begin to sort out the various problems it has with sweatshops and the like. Unfortunately, shareholder resolutions seems to fall on deaf ears. The Board has ignored all of the resolutions.

Here's the full list, published by The Morning News in Arkansas:

Wal-Mart Shareholders Meeting

At each annual meeting, Wal-Mart and its shareholders propose changes they'd like to see the company make to its policies and procedures. A majority of the outstanding shares must support a proposal for it to be approved.

Company proposals

1. Election of directors - The board recommends the approval of two candidates to the board of directors to replace outgoing members Roland Hernandez and Jack Shewmaker.

Gregory Penner, 38, is a general partner at investment firm Madrone Capital Partners and the former chief financial officer for Wal-Mart's Japan operations and Rob Walton's son-in-law.

Arne Sorenson, 49, is the chief financial officer at Marriott International.

2. Approval of the management incentive plan - The board recommends approval of the company's management incentive plan. Through the plan, officers and other management are eligible to receive performance-based cash incentive payments on an annual basis.

As of Jan. 31, 2008, approximately 20,107 employees were eligible to participate.

3. Ratification of independent accountants - The board recommends approval of Earnst & Young as the company's independent accountants to audit the consolidated financial statements for the company for fiscal 2009.

Earnst & Young and its predecessor, Arthur Young & Co., have been Wal-Mart's independent accountants since prior to the company's initial offering of securities in 1970.

Shareholder proposals

1. Amend equal employment opportunity policy - United Universalist Association of Congregations in Boston requests that Wal-Mart amend its written employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity, and to substantially implement this policy.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

2. Pay for superior performance - The Central Laborers' Pension Welfare & Annuity Funds in Jacksonville, Ill., requests that the Board of Director's Executive Compensation Committee adopt a pay for superior performance principle by establishing an executive compensation plan for senior executives.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

3. Recoupment of senior executive compensation policy - The AFL-CIO Reserve Fund in Washington, D.C., requests the board of directors adopt a policy for the board to recoup for the benefit of the company any future compensation to senior executive officers to the extent that the compensation was based on fraudulent or illegal conduct or other similar misconduct.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

4. Establish a human rights committee - Harrington Investments Inc. in Napa, Calif., requests the company establish a human rights committee.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

5. Advisory vote on executive compensation - Amalgamated Bank LongView Collective Investment Fund in Washington, D.C., requests that the board of directors adopt a policy under which shareholders could vote at each annual meeting on an advisory resolution to ratify the compensation of the named executive officers.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

6. Political contributions report - Multiple shareholders including New York City's Comptroller Office, Teacher's Retirement System, Police Pension Fund, Fire Department Pension Fund, Board of Education Retirement System and Miami Firefighters' Fund request the company provide a semi-annual political contributions report.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

7. Social and reputation impact report - F&C Management Ltd. of Boston requests the board of directors issue a report to shareholders on the negative social and reputational impacts of reported and known cases of management noncompliance with International Labor Organization conventions and standards on worker's rights and the company's legal and regulatory controls. The report should include the board's recommendations and actions taken to improve compliance.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

8. Special shareholders' meetings - John Chevedden of Redondo Beach, Calif., and William Steiner of Piemont, N.Y., request that there is no restriction on the shareholder right to call a special meeting.

The board recommends that the shareholders vote against this proposal.

On the eve of the Wal-Mart shareholder's meeting, we thought it was important to let you know that there are a number of free concerts associated with the very important, very serious, yearly meeting. The concerts are open to the public, but shareholders and Wal-Mart employees get in first, so get there early if you want to see Taylor Swift, Lifehouse, the All American Rejects, Journey, Juan Luis Guerra, Keith Urban, or Carrie Underwood. With all the free music, it is a wonder there is time to get anything done at the shareholder's meeting. Of course, there's not really anything to get done. The Board of Directors has recommended voting against all eight of the shareholder's resolutions, so really they are just there to ensure that the Board's measures are passed. It's business as usual, plus a concert or four.

Here's the report from the local station in Arkansas explaining when and where all those free concerts are:

Wal-Mart Shareholders Meeting Concerts Open To Public

The fun begins on Tuesday night at Bud Walton Arena with country music star Taylor Swift and the rock group Lifehouse taking the stage.

On Wednesday you can see the All-American Rejects and Journey.

Thursday night you can catch the Latin Grammy award-winning Juan Luis Guerra at Barnhill Area.

Country music stars Keith Urban and Carrie Underwood will also take the stage Thursday night at Razorback Stadium.

This year all the concerts are open to the public, though Wal-Mart shareholders and employees get first dibs on the seats, and all shows are first-come, first-served at the door.

A piece by Steve Adubato originally appearing in The Star Ledger:

It's no secret Wal-Mart has experienced significant communication and public relations problems. The Wal-Mart brand and image have been taking hits in the public marketplace for years. There are websites exclusively dedicated to criticizing Wal-Mart, including wakeupwalmart.com.

If you log on to Yahoo or Google, you will see millions of postings critical of the company. Some of it fair, some of it not, but much of it related to the poor communication strategy undertaken by Wal-Mart executives over the past decade. Early on, when criticism of Wal-Mart's hiring practices surfaced on a series of internet sites connected to unions and religious groups, the company decided to ignore the criticism. Wal-Mart's chief executive, Lee Scott, apparently felt responding to the criticism would give it added validity.

That was a mistake. Over time, the opposition's momentum grew and the criticism of Wal-Mart began to take on a life of its own. Wal-Mart's opponents engaged in a shrewd and effective communication strategy by framing the issue in a very simple and understandable way. Their position was Wal-Mart was engaging in hiring practices that were unfair to minorities, and they had a terrible track record of hiring and promoting women.

In fact, the New York-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, headed by Sister Patricia Wolf, got into the public dialogue together with the Sisters of Charity and filed a series of shareholder resolutions at Wal-Mart's annual meetings criticizing the companies hiring and promotion practices. But again, Wal-Mart opted not to respond.

Ignoring nuns is not smart.

When the negative publicity and criticism reached the boiling point, and media reports surfaced about possible illegal surveillance operations within Wal-Mart, the company finally decided to respond. CEO Scott opted to communicate with key media organizations, except, when he sat down to get his message across, it was not only too late, he was ill-prepared.

When asked about Wal-Mart moving into the New York market (where there was significant opposition to the company), Scott responded: "I don't care if we are ever here." That only made things worse. Wal-Mart's CEO was vilified for his comments, which he tried to clarify later. But again, it was too late. The damage was done.

Some within Wal-Mart may criticize the media for what they call "unfair or biased reporting" or may say they haven't had the opportunity to communicate their story to the larger public. Some of that may be true, but the larger issue is that much of Wal-Mart's image problem is a product of not practicing smart and strategic communication. They didn't understand how they were being perceived by key audiences and how their opponents could use the Internet to portray the company in a negative light.

Right or wrong, fair or not, Wal- Mart is seen by millions of Americans as a company that is insensitive to certain populations and engages in labor practices that are less than fair. It is a company that failed to respond to criticism with a pro-active, positive story, about what it was doing right and what people needed to know about the company's track record. Now, it is playing catch-up.

Over-reacting and panicking to public criticism is one thing. Communicating in a defensive and weak fashion is never a good thing. Responding to every charge and accusation is also not smart. However, ignoring the groundswell of public opinion and opposition out of a combination of ignorance and apathy is even more dangerous be cause sooner or later, prominent individuals or organizations must get a message out.

The longer you take to allow others to frame your image and reputation, the harder it is to do this. Wal-Mart had to learn the hard way, but these lessons should not be lost on others who must communicate and compete in a challenging and ever-changing communication environment.

After agreeing to tape all firearm purchases, and crack down on background checks, Wal-Mart received some praise for taking gun safety seriously. On the heels of that story comes a tragic case. An unqualified Wal-Mart employee sold a woman ammunition which she used to kill herself. Had the clerk been trained, she might have known that the woman did not have the proper ID card. Had the clerk been trained, she might have known that the woman was a former psychiatric patient and thus not allowed to buy guns or ammunition. Unfortunately, she wasn't trained.

Here's the story from a local Illinois station:

Man files wrongful death suit against Wal-Mart

A Peoria man is taking on Wal-Mart saying the lack of an employee's training led to the death of his wife.

Mark Johnson says his wife Candace bought bullets from the Peoria Wal-Mart on Allen Road in January, then went home and shot herself.

Now, we've learned he's suing the company.

Mark Johnson is a former Marine, and says he had a gun in the house, but no bullets.

Johnson's attorney Ralph Davis says Candace did not have a firearms owners identification or FOID card, and therefore, should not have been sold the ammunition.

The Peoria County State's Attorney's office filed criminal charges against Wal-Mart clerk Christy Blake for selling the ammunition, but later dropped the charges.

We spoke with Blake, who after being suspended, is back to work at Wal-Mart.

She had no comment.

Attorney Ralph Davis says this case goes beyond the clerk and that Wal-Mart should be held responsible.

"She had been a mental patient," said Davis. "In the state of Illinois, they're not allowed to get firearm ammunition or firearms, and that's for the purpose of protecting them and society at large. So that's why the lawsuit is filed. They (Wal-Mart) dropped the ball unfortunately there's a dead person."

HOI 19 News obtained a copy of the police report, where a manager confirms Blake had not received training for ammunition sales, which is store policy.

Wal-Mart has 60 days to file a response to Johnson's lawsuit.

As of Monday afternoon, a call seeking comment from the company was not returned.

The lawsuit seeks damages over $75,000.

With Wal-Mart's shareholder's meeting coming up, there is a flurry of stories about Wal-Mart's stock prices, law suits against the company, shareholder resolutions, and speculation about where the company is headed. We'll keep you up to date with all the news about Wal-Mart's shareholder's meeting as it gets closer, but here's a story from the Morning News in Arkansas with a time line of major Wal-Mart stories since last year's meeting. We'd like to point out that a full 11 of the 31 bullets in the story deal with lawsuits about Wal-Mart's misdeeds or prominent employee's misdeeds. What is alarming is that these 11 bullets don't even include the massive class action suit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees for sexual discrimination, nor the various states that are suing Wal-Mart for back taxes because of their shady real estate schemes. It doesn't include the Department of Justice suing Wal-Mart because they refused to give Sean Thornton his job back when he returned from the military, or the money they paid due to a law suit on tainted pet food they sold. In all, Wal-Mart's year has been riddled with controversy, misdeeds, and lawsuits.

Here's the story from the Morning News:

Wal-Mart: A Year In Review

June

1 - Businessman Irwin Jacobs files lawsuit against former Wal-Mart marketing executive Julie Roehm claiming she defamed him by alleging in a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that CEO Lee Scott accepted favors and services from him.

July

12 - Wal-Mart regains the top spot on Fortune Global 500 after an 11 percent increase brought revenues up to $351 billion.

20 - Claire Watts, who headed Wal-Mart's merchandising team, announces her resignation.

August

8 - Wal-Mart launches Facebook Web group "Roommate Style Match," a marketing effort aimed at college students through the social networking site.

21 - "Walmartopia!" begins performing its off-Broadway musical satire of Wal-Mart.

September

12 - Wal-Mart changes its longtime tagline "always low prices" to "Save money. Live Better." The company had used the former slogan 19 years.

October

10 - Wal-Mart introduces a recycled, reusable, washable shopping bag at a sustainability summit in Rogers.

16 - Consumers file two federal class-action lawsuits against the dairy supplier for Wal-Mart's private-label organic milk. The lawsuits against Aurora Organic Dairy claimed it defrauded consumers by passing off milk that did not meet organic dairy standards.

18 - Wal-Mart cut prices on more than 15,000 items in holiday season price war.

22 - Wal-Mart announces move to acquire 49.1 percent of Seiyu Ltd. it doesn't already own. Wal-Mart had invested in the Japanese supermarket chain for five years.

23 - Wal-Mart announces at an analyst and investor conference plans to cut back its U.S. sales growth to make way for international expansion over the next three years.

November

1 - Wal-Mart and Clinton Climate Initiative announce partnership to bring environmentally-friendly technologies to U.S. cities and world.

5 - Roehm says she won't take retailer to court a second time. Wal-Mart subsequently drops lawsuit against her.

6 - The Occupational Safety and Health Administration opens investigation into whistleblower complaint against Wal-Mart that the retailer notified the party named in the complaint and revealed the complainant.

12 - Wal-Mart announces it is shopping the energy market to invest in biomass or power plants that would allow the retailer to buy energy direct.

14 - Wal-Mart releases better-than-expected third quarter earnings of $2.86 billion.

15 - Judge orders Wal-Mart to pay $36.4 million in fees and expenses in a class-action lawsuit for Pennsylvania workers forced to work off the clock. Attorney's fees bring the judgment to $187.6 million.

16 - Coughlin files counterclaim against seeking retirement benefits worth between $12 to $15 million. Wal-Mart had sued Coughlin to void the retirement agreement.

20 - A Wall Street Journal article publicizes case of former employee Deborah Shank. The retailer was seeking reimbursement for her medical care after she won a settlement from the trucking company responsible for her injuries.

December

26 - Wal-Mart moves in-house the company it enlisted to publicly counter union-led.

January

7 - Wal-Mart finalizes a partnership with Camille's Sidewalk Cafe to lease space inside Supercenters to the Tulsa, Okla.-based franchise.

15 - Wal-Mart confirms it will reduce Saturday morning meetings to one per month.

22 - The Morning News reports an apparel division shuffle that would eliminate up to 200 positions from sourcing and product development. After denying the story, the retailer confirmed the reorganization the next week.

February

1 - Wal-Mart sets deadline for suppliers to submit product packaging information to serve as a benchmark to reduce packaging.

1 - Coughlin avoids prison a second time when U.S. District Judge Robert Dawson added 1,500 hours' community service to his previous sentence of home confinement, restitution and probation.

21 - Wal-Mart disputes a customer satisfaction survey from the University of Michigan that shows satisfaction at an all-time low.

March

19 - Wal-Mart announces it will complete takeover of Seiyu Ltd., which it began investing into in 2002.

April

2 - Wal-Mart sends a letter to Shank apologizing for seeking reimbursement for her medical care and says it will refund the nearly half million dollars.

May

16 - Wal-Mart submits building plans for its new Marketside stores in the southeast United States, stores that are a fraction of the typical supercenter to compete against Tesco's Fresh & Easy markets.