One of Wake Up Wal-Mart's major issues since its beginning has been health care. Wal-Mart's woefully inadequate coverage not only puts individuals at risk, but forces you, the tax payer, to foot the bill for their greed when Wal-Mart employees look to the state for help. Wal-Mart got a lot of credit last year when they announced they were overhauling their health coverage. We knew better though, and since then it has consistently been shown that Wal-Mart hasn't changed. As recently as this month, a report came out showing that Wal-Mart employees still rely heavily on state aid for health care.

Today, however, we learn that Wal-Mart is once again reforming their health care. This time, they're focusing on maternity care and anti-smoking programs. There is nothing wrong with this, both are important pieces of keeping a work force healthy. The problem is, it's a little like adding a shiny new mirror to a car with a broken engine and transmission. The problem with Wal-Mart's health coverage isn't that it doesn't provide for adequate maternity leave, the problem is that it's either affordable but provides close to no coverage, or far too expensive for the average Wal-Mart employee.

Once again Wal-Mart is showing that they'd rather put out a press release than keep their employees healthy. Sure, they'll get some good PR out of this, but their employees are suffering because of it.

Here's the story from Reuters:

Wal-Mart expands worker health benefits

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Retail leader Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday that it was expanding health benefits for workers, including offering a 2009 program that provides pre-pregnancy and child development services.

The company said a "Life With Baby" program in next year's benefits package would provide workers counseling with registered nurses through all phases of maternity.

It said that plan also includes expanded benefits such as periodontal cleanings to help prevent gum disease in mother and child, and a new program designed to stop smoking.

In a statement, the retailer said about 15,000 of its workers have babies each year.

Wal-Mart also said its 2009 health plan offerings would provide added preventive coverage such as mammograms, colonoscopies and flu vaccinations to workers.

Earlier this year, Wal-Mart said 92.7 percent of its employees have health-care coverage, including 50.2 percent who are covered by the retailer's plan. Wal-Mart has 1.4 million U.S. workers.

Wal-Mart has been plagued with lawsuits over denied breaks and time card tampering. They have been found guilty and paid out hundreds of millions of dollars so far, and more suits are still coming to judgment. Recently a class action suit filed in 2001 was reinstated in Massachusetts and the lawyer says Wal-Mart owes $600 million in fines for breaking the law over a million times. This is a simple matter of enforcement. The state mandates that anyone who works a 6 hour shift must have at least 30 minutes off. Wal-Mart denied their employees these breaks.

We'll keep an eye on this decision and if Wal-Mart is made to answer for its abuse of the law. No matter what your position on the retail giant is, they shouldn't be allowed to break the law and get away without consequences.

Here's an excerpt of the article from the Boston Herald:

The state is being deprived of as much as $600 million in fines from Wal-Mart alone by failing to enforce a Massachusetts law requiring companies to give employees meal breaks, according to a Medford lawyer waging a class-action lawsuit against the retailer.

Attorney Robert Bonsignore won a key Supreme Judicial Court appeal this week that reinstated the class-action lawsuit on behalf of 67,500 current and former Massachusetts employees of Wal-Mart. The suit alleges that Wal-Mart systematically withheld workers’ wages and cut short or denied their meal and rest breaks.

As part of the case, first filed in 2001, an expert statistician witness analyzed Wal-Mart’s paper and electronic payroll records from 1995 to 2005 and documented more than 1 million instances when Bay State employees were denied meal breaks.

Wal-Mart has announced it will cut 6% of its work force and close 20 stores in Japan. Wal-Mart acquired full ownership of Seiyu in March, but the move didn't improve its poor performance. One factor in the business losing money is, ironically, its focus on cheap products, which Japanese culture considers inferior.

When Wal-Mart upped its ownership of Seiyu from 96% to 100%, it claimed it needed more flexibility in order to save the failing company. Apparently they meant they needed the flexibility to cut jobs, close stores, and let the company continue to fail. Huh. We wonder how long Wal-Mart will last in Japan.

Here's and excerpt from the Reuter's article:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc's (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Japan unit Seiyu Ltd said it will close about 20 unprofitable stores and cut 6 percent of its workforce as it struggles to gain traction in the world's second-largest economy.

But Seiyu, which became a fully-owned subsidiary of the world's largest retailer earlier this year, said it would also look to open stores in new regions and consider acquisitions to help it expand.

Seiyu Senior Vice President Ryo Kanayama said targets may include supermarket chains with a nationwide network.

The current issue of The New Yorker has a great article about illegal Russian timber and Wal-Mart's connection to it (in particular, how that cheap wood toilet seat might be made from illegal wood). As you may recall, back in December we told you about the initial report by the Environmental Investigation Agency, which suggested that Wal-Mart was essentially propping up the illegal timber industry by demanding cheap goods. Now there is even more detail about how Russian forests are logged, smuggled in to China and made in to various household products sold at Wal-Mart. The world's largest corporation may talk a lot about going green, but their actions show their true motivator: profit.

Check out the video that goes with the New Yorker article, it is quite enlightening. In particular, notice that the Chinese importer mentions he pays "protection money" to get the wood into the country.

"Wal-Mart Women" are the soccer moms of this election. They are that magical demographic that both candidates covet and pundits claim will make or break a candidate. The Wall Street Journal has a particularly good take on the political demographic. In particular the article hits the nail directly on the head when it says of the recently released customer poll done by Wal-Mart, "But the poll was clearly an exercise in public relations. The discount retailer sought to play up the notion that Wal-Mart's customers have a key role in November's elections to show that it is a political force to be reckoned with."

As you probably recall, a little over a month ago Wal-Mart was caught holding meetings designed to intimidate employees into voting against Barack Obama. Wake Up Wal-Mart filed an official FEC complaint against Wal-Mart for these despicable meetings. Reeling from the bad press they got in the aftermath of their shady meetings, Wal-Mart is desperate to capitalize on the excitement surrounding "Wal-Mart Moms."

Here's the full article

Al Norman thinks Wal-Mart is making progress in pushing Hanes to move manufacturing jobs out of America to places with cheaper labor like Vietnam and Thailand. Of course he notes that they still have some work to do since Hanes still operates 11 plants in the US with 10,000 jobs.

Check out his article over at The Huffington Post. Here's a small piece of it:

Wal-Mart has helped drive another American manufacturing icon offshore.

This week Hanes (HBI, Hanesbrands Inc) announced that it was abandoning four production plants in North Carolina, and five more in Central America. Chasing cheap labor, the Hanes jobs will shift to Thailand and Vietnam. According to MarketWatch, Hanes is attempting to lower costs to remain competitive, "and answering to the demands of retailers such as No. 1 discounter Wal-Mart Stores Inc."

The American consumer knows Hanes as the company that makes T-shirts, bras, panties, men's and children's underwear--the same underwear that Michael Jordan wears. Hanes boasts that its brands "can be found in eight out of 10 American households." Brands such as Playtex and Wonderbra, Hanes, Champion and L'eggs. Most Americans think that Hanes products are as American as Michael Jordan. But the Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Hanesbrands long ago quietly shifted to a new vision for the company: "to be a world-class consumer goods company with a distinctive competence in operating a low-cost global supply chain." That sure ain't North Carolina.

For the second time in two weeks, Wal-Mart is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for discrimination, this time for age discrimination. Yvonne Loskot was recently fired after working at Wal-Mart for a decade. She was 67 and worked as an optician for $18 an hour. Wal-Mart claims she was fired because of a "violation of company policy," but were not any more specific.

We talk to lots of workers here at Wake Up Wal-Mart, and many have told us of similar things happening. Wal-Mart officially fires someone for "violating a policy" but they are really trying to save some money. An employee who has been around for ten years makes a lot and gets benefits (as paltry as they are at Wal-Mart). Hiring a new person means a much smaller salary and no benefits for a while.

Here is the article from the St. Louis Business Journal:

De Soto Wal-Mart employee files age discrimination suit

A Wal-Mart in De Soto, Mo., fired a long-time employee because of her age, a new lawsuit alleges.

The complaint, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Monday, alleges that Wal-Mart terminated Yvonne Loskot, 67, “because she was too old and made too much money,” the commission said.

Loskot, who worked for Wal-Mart for a decade, earned $18 an hour as a certified optician, making her the highest-paid employee in the De Soto store’s optical department.

Wal-Mart said Loskot was fired for other reasons.

"While we do not discuss specifics of personnel decisions, I can tell you this individual was terminated for violation of company policy," said Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "We will review the complaint and respond appropriately."

In fiscal 2007, the commission received 19,103 charges alleging age discrimination, a jump of nearly 3,000 from the previous year.

A local Florida news station investigated area Wal-Mart stores and found some pretty serious discrepancies in prices on the same products from store to store. The woman who asked the news station to investigate alleges that Wal-Mart is charging more for many products in low income areas. This wouldn't surprise us in the least. Wal-Mart has a long history of making a profit off the backs of the poor. From the low wages they pay workers here in America to near slave wages they pay in factories across the country, Wal-Mart succeeds by exploiting the poor. It is no stretch to believe that Wal-Mart would also try to squeeze every extra penny out of poor consumers to make an extra buck.

Here's an excerpt from the Local 6 article:

Local 6's Steven Cooper reported that Barnaby's theory held up during a Problem Solvers test.

Sugar
$2.38 Mt. Dora
$2.36 Clarcona/Pine Hills
$1.76 Apopka

Condensed Milk
$1.54 Mt. Dora
$1.56 Clarcona/Pine Hills
$1.04 Apopka

Asparagus
$2.42 Mt. Dora
$2.54 Clarcona/Pine Hills
$1.86 Apopka...

"When we see that a nearby competitor might temporarily lower a price on an item, our stores have the authority to adjust their price lower. This can happen in a very small vicinity of stores," the company said in a statement to Local 6.

However, the Problem Solvers found that the prices concerned were not temporary as Wal-Mart described, but consistent over a period of at least two months.

Barnaby said she thinks that Wal-Mart is charging more for the same products in poorer neighborhoods than in neighborhoods with higher incomes.

"It disgusts me that the people who can least afford to buy the food have to pay more money than everyone else does," Barnaby said.

Over at The Consumerist, a Wal-Mart employee writes in from Kentucky where 300,000 folks lost power in the aftermath of hurricane Ike. It seems that right after the storm phone chargers went from $10-15 to $19. He couldn't come up with a reason other than the hurricane and people really really needed them with no power.

The worker is particularly upset about this because it goes against the companies "Save Money. Live Better." slogan. We are also upset that Wal-Mart is attempting to squeeze extra money from hurricane victims. We're not surprised in the least, however, that Wal-Mart's actions don't match Wal-Mart's talk. On everything from paying their employees for the time they've worked, to offering affordable and quality health care, to a commitment to the environment, Wal-Mart consistently says one thing and does another.

Here is an excerpt from the employee's letter:

Here in KY, we didn't get the rain, but we did get high winds on Sunday morning, which knocked out power to some 300,000 people here. The next day when we opened, people bought every car charge and battery we had because they were still without any power. Now today all of our car chargers go up nearly 50%. In fact, every charger, car or wall, in our store is a flat $19.00, when car chargers were $10.00 and wall chargers were $15.00 yesterday. This is hardly a coincidence, and it's so blatently obvious to our customers.

The Walton family, heirs of Sam Walton's fortune made with Wal-Mart stores, rank numbers 4 through 7 on this years Forbes 400 list, the list of wealthiest Americans. While Bill Gates tops the list with $57 billion, the Walton family's combined worth is $89.9 billion.

Of course there is nothing wrong with this family being so absurdly wealthy. No, our objection is that they make their profits on the backs of their workers by mistreating them and paying them poverty level wages. Contrasting a typical Wal-Mart workers wage with the Walton families wealth is mind boggling, and more than a little depressing. For example, it would take someone making $20,000 a year (which is a relatively high wage for your typical Wal-Mart cashier) on million years to net the amount of money one Walton sibling is worth. Of course, they would have to spend nothing in order to actually have that much money after a million years, oh, and they'd have to live for a million years.

Here's an excerpt from The Morning News article:

Jim Walton, son of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder Sam Walton, reclaimed a leading spot this year at No. 4 with a $23.4 billion fortune after falling off last year. The 60-year-old is chairman of Arvest Bank Group and Community Publishers Inc., which owns a chain of small daily newspapers in Arkansas and surrounding states.

Eldest brother Robson Walton, 64, comes in a close second with $23.3 billion, landing him in the No. 5 spot. He is chairman of Wal-Mart.

Sister Alice Walton came in at No. 6 with $23.2 billion. The 59-year-old heiress has been investing her riches in the Crystal Brides art museum in Bentonville.

Christy Walton and family collectively ranked at No. 7 with $23.2 billion. The 53-year-old is the widow of John Walton, who died in 2005.

Check out our latest ad! It is up and running in 7 states across the country today. Let us know what you think, and spread it around!

As students return to school around the country, Wal-Mart makes a killing on back to school sales. They also like to tout their local support, often to schools. But in Washington State, and across the country, Wal-Mart is selling high school logo goods, undercutting the school's fund raising efforts. A few schools have tried to contact Wal-Mart, letting them know that they need the funds from selling their goods for things like diesel to get their teams to different events, and equipment. Wal-Mart has essentially said they will keep selling the goods, which could mean that Schools don't have enough for their athletic department budgets.

The Cheney Free Press and the Times News have both written stories about this trend. We think it is absurd and Wal-Mart should pledge to make a sizable donation to any school whose apparel they sell, and donate a portion of sales to the schools. After all, as the articles point out, Wal-Mart has no right to sell the apparel; the Schools own the brands and logos.

The New York Times recently reported that the All China Federation of Trade Unions, the only union allowed by the Chinese government, is pressuring companies to accept the union. This essentially amounts to the Chinese government pressuring major companies into accepting the union. The story reports that Wal-Mart is complying with the request. Indeed, about a month ago, Wal-Mart reached an agreement with the union in two cities.

This news might not sound quite right to many who know Wal-Mart. Typically when you hear Wal-Mart and Union in the same breath it has something to do with firing workers, espionage, closing stores, intimidation, or some other nasty anti-union activity. Wal-Mart really really REALLY hates unions. So this piece of news poses some questions:

Why is Wal-Mart cooperating with the Chinese union but still using their same dirty tricks here in the US?

Will this raise production costs in China as we suggested a few weeks back?

Will Wal-Mart agree to the unions and then simply leave causing thousands to lose their jobs?

We'll keep an eye on the situation and let you know what the answers might be.

Our friends over at Global Response have just filed complaints with the Consumers Union and the Federal Trade Commission because Wal-Mart, once again, is greenwashing.

Wal-Mart has been trying to capture more business by touting various environmental initiatives and products. It is a rather smart PR campaign, but unfortunately, it's nothing more than a PR campaign. Wal-Mart cares far more about profits than the environment, and their new "green" gold jewelry line is no exception.

Check out Global Response's press release:

For Immediate Release: September 11, 2008

Groups Charge Wal-Mart with “Greenwashing”
“Love,Earth” Gold is Tarnished

Boulder, CO: Environmental watchdog group Global Response announced today that it filed complaints with Consumers Union and the Federal Trade Commission, charging that Wal-Mart’s “green” claims for its “Love,Earth” jewelry are false.

“It is unconscionable that instead of addressing the planet’s serious environmental problems, Wal-Mart hoodwinks consumers into thinking they can ‘reduce impact on human health and the environment’ by buying gold jewelry,” says Global Response’s executive director Paula Palmer

The mines in Utah and Nevada and the factories in Peru and Bolivia where Wal-Mart claims its gold for Love,Earth is “sustainably mined and manufactured” are not monitored or certified by any credible independent agent.

“Wal-Mart has chosen to publicly endorse mining operations which have significant problems,” says Dan Randolph, executive director of the Nevada-based Great Basin Resource Watch. “These mines emit unacceptable quantities of mercury into the air, threatening the health of fetuses and young children. They deplete water quantity in an arid region, and they will go on contaminating water with toxic metals for centuries to come.”

Denver-based Newmont Mining Company mines Love,Earth’s gold on Western Shoshone lands without the permission of the Western Shoshone. “Wal-Mart claims its jewelry comes from ‘community friendly sources,’” says Larson Bill of the Western Shoshone Defense Project. “But they’ve never talked to us, and we’re the community affected by Newmont’s mines. They should meet with us. We need an independent health study here to show how these mines are affecting our people.”

Wal-Mart’s Love, Earth logo is encircled by the words, the “reduce, reuse, recycle, respect.” But mining is an extractive, non-renewable industry that is, by definition, unsustainable. A single gold ring leaves behind as much as 20 tons of waste rock and tailings that continue to pollute ground water even after the mine has stopped operations.

“The only sustainable gold is recycled gold – your grandmother’s wedding ring remade into a new piece. When Love,Earth jewelry is made entirely of recycled gold, it will earn its name. Until then,” says Global Response’s Palmer, “don’t believe it, and don’t buy it.”
###

You can help Global Action out by checking out their action page, and writing a letter to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) once again. This time, Wal-Mart fired Barbara Hacker for having a seizure. Barbara has epilepsy and upon being hired at Wal-Mart, told them of her condition and requested only that she be allowed to sit in a quiet room after having a seizure, should one occur. There seemed to be no problems at first, but when Barbara had a seizure recently during work, Wal-Mart promptly fired her.

You could chock this up to a single bad manager at a single bad store. Of course if you've been following Wal-Mart news, you know it's not a single incident. Wal-Mart has a pretty sordid history of discriminating against and firing employees with disabilities.

Take Glenda Allen who was fired because Wal-Mart claimed she wasn't working fast enough. She had suffered a gun shot wound that left her disabled years before. Wal-Mart knew this and fired her suddenly. Wal-Mart was forced to pay a quarter of a million dollars for the illegal firing.

Or take Tom Hampton who was fired for using his wheel chair at work one day. He had requested permission to use it weeks in advance because the holiday season was coming up and he knew it would be busy. He didn't hear from anyone for some time and one day he decided he needed to use his wheelchair. Wal-Mart fired him on the spot after demanding he either stand up or leave.

Or take Patrick Brady who was hired as a pharmacy clerk but moved to taking out garbage and collecting carts because, Wal-Mart said, he moved too slow on account of his Cerebral Palsy. Wal-Mart was forced to pay him $900,000 for breaking the law.

Yes, once again, Wal-Mart proves they don't care about their employees.

Here's a piece of the story from the Rockford Register Star:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files suit against Wal-Mart

ROCKFORD —The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Wal-Mart in federal court on behalf of a Rockford woman who claims she was fired because she had epilepsy.

Barbara Hacker worked as a greeter at the Wal-Mart store on West Riverside Boulevard in early 2006, EEOC attorney Aaron Decamp said, and had told her supervisors when she was hired that she had epilepsy. Hacker, who is in her early 30s and has a young child, asked to be allowed to sit down for a few minutes in a quiet location when she had a seizure.

Decamp said Wal-Mart complied initially, but later stopped accommodating her request. She was fired after having a seizure while in a back room at the store.

A Mexican court recently ruled that Wal-Mart de Mexico's practice of paying its employees with electronic cards, valid only in Wal-Mart stores, was unconstitutional. The court likened the practice to companies paying employees with money only valid at company stores, which was common during the dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz.

Can you really blame Wal-Mart though? Afterall, they were just trying to live up to their slogan "Save Money. Live Better." They were saving their money by keeping it in the store, and everyone knows that being paid with gift certificates is living better.

Here's the story from Reuters via The New York Times:

Mexican Court Rules Against Wal-Mart

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) — Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wal-Mart de México, the country’s top retailer, violated the Constitution by paying a worker in part with store cards usable only in Wal-Mart stores.

Wal-Mart de México, which is also known as Walmex and is a unit of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., gives employees electronic store cards as part of their salaries. The court said the practice harked back to exploitative wage schemes of a century ago.

For now, the ruling applies only to the worker who brought the lawsuit and will not require Walmex to stop giving store cards to other employees.

But if enough other workers decide to bring a similar case to court, the ruling could guarantee similar decisions in the future, a court spokesman said.

During the long dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz, which ended in 1911, wealthy landowners and businessmen paid employees with special currency valid only in company stores.

Walmex said that its store card program was voluntary but that it would study the court ruling.

Wal-Mart has been sued more than 70 times across the country on behalf of hundreds of thousands of current and former employees for tampering with time cards and not paying its employees for lunch and other breaks. Yesterday the appeals court of Pennsylvania upheld a jury's decision that Wal-Mart was guilty of violating the law in not compensating their workers. The judge also ruled that Wal-Mart should pay more than $62 million in statutory liquidated damages. That brings sum Wal-Mart owes to over $186 million.

Here's an excerpt from The Legal Intelligence article:

A Philadelphia judge has affirmed a $185 million award against retail titan Wal-Mart in a class action alleging underpayment of Wal-Mart employees as part of an opinion written for an appeal now pending with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein's opinion under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) said the appeals court should affirm a jury verdict finding over 186,000 current and former Pennsylvania Wal-Mart employees were not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks between March 19, 1998, and May 1, 2006.

The jury found that Wal-Mart employees were owed $1,462,910.35 in damages for off-the-clock work and $27,715,964 for rest break violations between March 19, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2001, and $1,031,430 for off-the-clock work and $48,258,111 for rest break violations between Jan. 1, 2002, and May 1, 2006, Bernstein wrote in his opinion from Wednesday.

Bernstein also said that the Superior Court should affirm his judgment that Wal-Mart should pay $62.2 million in statutory liquidated damages, $10.2 million in prejudgment interest, $33.8 million in statutory attorney fees and $11.9 million in nonstatutory attorney fees.

The total judgment against Wal-Mart now stands at $187,648,589.11.

Back in June we told you about a police officer who was injured on the job and fighting to get disability benefits. In the midst of his fight for benefits, Wal-Mart swooped in and filed a brief with the court asking them not to give him benefits. This was an incredibly crass and despicable act. It was a blatant attempt to avoid paying their own workers more disability benefits in the future, and it could have jeopardized this police officers chance at getting benefits.

We just learned, however, that the court has rejected the briefs filed by Wal-Mart and other companies. It is nice to know that the court won't stand for such blatant disregard for humanity and lack of empathy. Perhaps there's a more legal argument for why the brief was rejected, but we still think Wal-Mart showed poor taste in filing this brief. Not only did they show a complete lack of empathy, but they also proved they care way more about profits than their workers (no surprise there).

Here's an excerpt from The Morning News article:

LITTLE ROCK -- The state Supreme Court on Thursday denied motions by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Tyson Foods and three business organizations to file briefs in a former Pine Bluff police officer's lawsuit seeking disability benefits.

Jimmy Singleton, now retired, of Pine Bluff is seeking disability benefits for physical impairment he says he received on March 1, 2003, when he was beaten and shot while struggling with a suspect.

The state Court of Appeals has twice ruled in Singleton's favor, and the Supreme Court is considering a request to review the case. Wal-Mart, Tyson and the business groups had sought to submit briefs in support of state workers' compensation procedures.

Full article here.

It seems that no matter how hard they try to get good press, something always seems to pop up... and today is no exception. Apparently Wal-Mart, through a 3rd party company, is funding a white supremacist blog with some pretty offensive stuff on it. Take a look at the screen shot below:

According to ValleyWag who caught the banner, Wal-Mart responded to their inquiry with this statement: "We are investigating this matter and take it very seriously. This site used our banners without our authorization and we are working to have them immediately removed." Is anyone satisfied with the removal and investigation of this situation?

Wal-Mart has been pretty slow at catching up with web scene and the blogosphere, but I'm not sure there is any excuse for supporting this kind of hatred.

(h/t ValleyWag)

Last year, facing tons of pressure for the public, consumers, and the media, Wal-Mart announced it was overhauling its health care plan. It was a crass PR move (followed by more PR moves) in order to silence critics, and it did little to help its employees stay healthy.

A new study by Policy Matters Ohio shows that Wal-Mart's Health Care PR stunt was, well, a PR stunt. It has made no demonstrable difference in the number of their employees enrolled in state medicare, despite what their press releases say. Indeed, Wal-Mart is responsible for more workers on state Medicare than any other company. It is a true shame that Wal-Mart refuses to live up to its responsibility of providing affordable and decent health care to its employees. Instead Wal-Mart forces its workers to rely on the government, and you, the tax payer, foot the bill for them.

Check out the new report from Policy Matters Ohio titled PUBLIC BENEFITS SUBSIDIZE MAJOR OHIO EMPLOYERS: A 2008 UPDATE.

The town of Blacksburg, VA has teamed up with BURG, Blacksburg United for Responsible Growth. BURG's mission "is to promote the development of commercial activity in Blacksburg in a way that enhances the town’s distinctive character, maintains the integrity of its neighborhoods, and promotes environmental sustainability. We support measures that improve the viability of locally-owned businesses, encourage pedestrian-friendly development, help revitalize Blacksburg’s downtown, limit sprawl, and preserve open spaces." Based on these criteria, BURG, and the town of Blacksburg are fighting back against Wal-Mart.

They've got one more shot to stop the store using the courts with an upcoming case in the State Supreme Court, but BURG says they won't stop there. We support BURG and the great work they're doing.

If you live in the area, join with them to keep their town independent, locally owned, sustainable, open and sprawl free.

Check out the article from Planet Blacksburg:

Blacksburg's Wal-Mart Fight Continues Jenna Nichols

The fight for a Wal-Mart in Blacksburg continues as the Virginia Supreme Court grants an appeal to the January 24, 2008 ruling of Ordinance 1450.

Blacksburg United for Responsible Growth (BURG) and the Town of Blacksburg will have one more chance to fight for keeping Wal-Mart out of Blacksburg. A ruling by Montgomery County Circuit Court judge Robert Turk allowed Fairmont Properties to construct the box store by over turning the ordinance just as the Board of Zoning Appeals had done months earlier.

The Virginia Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments from BURG and the Town of Blacksburg on August 27, 2008. Before the groups spoke in front of the three-judge panel, they were informed that the appeal had already been granted based on the review of written arguments.

The hearing is expected to be set within the next few weeks. Members of BURG expect that the hearing will take place in late winter of 2008 or spring of 2009.

If the court rules in favor of BURG and the Town of Blacksburg, Fairmont Properties would then have to reissue site construction plans and seek special permission from the Town of Blacksburg to begin construction.

Daniel Breslou, chairman of BURG's steering committee, said that if the Virginia Supreme Court allows Fairmont Properties to construct a box store on the site then it is not exactly the end of the road for BURG's fight.

While legally the fight would be over for Fairmont Properties opposition there are other ways to continue. Breslou said, "We would make sure to keep in touch with Wal-Mart and let them know that the community is against [the construction]. We would use persuasion to fight."