Last week, we told you about Riverview Market, a grocery store in New Hampshire, that closed because Wal-Mart came to town. It was a classic example of how Wal-Mart ruins "Main Street" in small towns across the country. Today, we've got yet another example, and this one is literally on Main St. Sobeys grocery store on Main St. in Stouffville, Ontario is closing after a Wal-Mart came to town.

Here's the full article from The Canadian:

U.S. Owned Walmart causes Canadians to loose 81 jobs in Stouffville

One of Stouffville’s four grocery stores will close Nov. 15.

Sobeys management gave the news to the 81 employees at its Main Street store Wednesday.

It’s the only Canadian store slated to close.

The west-end store opened in 2002 first as an IGA, replacing the downtown Stouffville IGA that closed in the 1990s. It became a Sobeys two years later.

The store is popular with seniors at the Parkview seniors complex across Weldon Road from it.

“Unfortunately, we had to make this decision,” said Sobeys Ontario spokesperson Tracy Chisholm. “Several factors go into these decisions.”

She could not elaborate, she said.

Sobeys will attempt to find positions for workers at its other area stores.

Wal-Mart made a big splash on the Canadian retail landscape when it opened its largest Super-Centre in the country, including a full grocery store, two years ago in southwest Stouffville.

Stouffville is also home to an A & P and a No Frills.

Sobeys Inc., headquartered in Stellarton, N.S., owns or franchises 1,296 Sobeys, IGA extra, IGA, Foodland and Price Chopper stores across Canada. The company is owned by Empire Company Ltd. Empire employs 37,000 people directly and through its subsidiaries. The company has approximately $13.2 billion in annual revenue and $5.1 billion in assets.

Imagine going to the store to buy something, lets say a blender. You get it home and it doesn't work properly. So you take it back and exchange it for one that works. Imagine that the store wants to charge you for tax on the new blender even though you've already paid the sales tax for the product.

The Hartford Courant has uncovered just such a trend at Wal-Mart stores across Connecticut, and now the Governor has promised to investigate.

Here's the story from The Courant:

Consumer Protection reviewing Wal-Mart's double tax policy

Despite complaints from customers of its stores throughout Connecticut, Wal-Mart insists that it's following state tax laws by requiring them to pay tax again on exchanges made without receipts.

My conclusion is that not only is Wal-Mart violating state laws by charging tax again without receipts, but is letting its employees falsely blame the state. But you be the judge.

The law seems clear:

"When a retailer exchanges or replaces taxable merchandise with identical or similar merchandise for no additional consideration because of a defect or because the item is otherwise unsatisfactory to the customer, no additional sales tax is due from the customer regardless of whether the customer is unable to produce the original sales receipt or other verification of the date and place of purchase, and/or the exchange or replacement takes place more than 90 days after the original retail sale," the state Department of Revenue Services states in its 2005 ruling.

The state tax department -- which refuses to say whether Wal-Mart is violating its laws -- says the critical question is whether a store has an even exchange policy.

"If a retailer allows even exchanges, then sales tax should not be charged on the second item," department spokeswoman Sarah Kaufman wrote me this month when I asked similar questions about Home Depot.

Wal-Mart says on its website: "You can replace, exchange, or get credit for an item immediately in a store, pending product availability."

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman refuses to discuss the issue, despite several requests for clarification about its policy:

"George, I believe I've answered your question already, but I'll gladly do it again. Walmart's policy is to satisfy the customer and follow the law. Thanks again," Ashley Hardie, Wal-Mart spokeswoman, wrote me in an e-mail.

We probably aren't talking about a lot of money here and the second tax goes to the state, but customers who are charged the additional tax are furious.

During the past two weeks I have had written complaints from customers who shopped at Wal-Mart stores in Manchester, Cromwell, East Windsor, Torrington, Norwalk, Willimantic, North Windham, Newington and Southington.

Shirley Cleveland of Newington wrote me that a month ago she purchased a toaster from Wal-Mart in her town, but returned it after learning on a television news program that it was defective and could start a fire.

She returned to the store without a sales slip, but took her charge statement from her credit card account.

"I asked for a credit on my credit card and was refused, they would only give me a gift card and would not credit me the tax I paid. The amount was only under two dollars but it's in someone's pocket not mine," she wrote me.

Another customer, C. William Lee of Wethersfield, said he and his wife were told by a Wal-Mart manager Saturday in the Newington store that there can be no tax refund if cash was used, even though they had a receipt.

I went to the East Windsor Wal-Mart this week and confirmed what others have told me, that employees who work at the return desk say that state law prevents them from returning sales tax on an even exchange without a receipt.

On Friday, a spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she believes that consumers shouldn't needlessly pay double taxes and would have the tax department review the issue.

But, since it's the Consumer Protection Department that is supposed to enforce return and exchange laws, the hot potato has been dropped into Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr.'s lap, to determine whether stores are properly charging taxes on exchanges.

Based on my dealings with Farrell, I think we will have a fair decision.

Yesterday, we told you about Wal-Mart's new push for getting good coverage about the election. But what of the videos themselves? New York Times blogger Virginia Heffernan weighs in:

Go to the Wal-Mart’s homepage these days, and up come two videos, one for Barack Obama and one for John McCain. These are the two campaigns’ Wal-Mart-only pitches. Presumably, they reflect what each candidate thinks that Wal-Mart shoppers — regular folk? Flyover folk? Poor people? — want from them. They’re fascinating. The differences between them are fascinating.

Here they are. First up — following the left-to-right order on the site, is Barack Obama. In his tinny-audio video, he’s all alone, talking straight to regular folks about “what we need to do.”

(Spoiler: grow the economy, middle-class tax break, let workers unionize for fair wages and health care, protect pensions, strengthen Social Security, supply health care universally, educate every kid so he can compete globally, make jobs with made-in-America energy initiatives, end the war and quit needing Middle Eastern oil in 10 years.)

Those things we need to do are written so straight, but they’re also very self-assured and respectably specific. (Still, you can’t help wishing that he pulled a Palin-wink when he mentioned organizing workers.) They’re under the rubric of restoring the American dream, which Obama says is slipping away.

Next up, John McCain. His is one of his extra-lush campaign videos, beginning with the young P.O.W. McCain barely choking out his name and turning to voiceover thereafter. In fact, you never hear from the candidate again. His “video” is in fact a slide show with fades — no moving pictures — and it’s elegantly produced, unlike Obama’s video, which almost looks as if it were shot in a Wal-Mart itself.

McCain doesn’t say anything just for Wal-Mart; he hits the melodrama of his “common-sense conservative” character. He’s tough; he’s a fighter; he “abhors waste” (like bargain shoppers?); he evinces “a faithful, unyielding love for America.” The big strings section surges. The audio trounces Obama’s. Where Obama’s surprise step is to renounce production values, McCain’s video’s weirdest quality is its superstitious streak: “The stars are aligned. Change will come.” Wha—?

And “What good fortune that America will choose this leader at precisely this time.” Will choose? Voters, you are getting sleepy. … Does this kind of salesmanship work on anyone anymore? Did it ever?

Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's CEO, had some interesting things to say at their recent sustainability summit. Essentially, he revealed what we've always known: Wal-Mart's basic business model is built upon selling stuff. Lots of stuff. Increasing amounts of stuff. And if they can't sell lots and lots of stuff, they can't make billions of dollars.

This is a problem for Wal-Mart because they would like us to think they are green. They would like us to think that they are incredibly good for the environment. And while they are focusing more on environmentally friendly products, they ultimately can't be good for the environment with a mass consumerist mentality.

The Treehugger blog comes to similar conclusions, here are a few passages:

Near the end of Wal-Mart's 2008 Sustainability Summit in Beijing, CEO Lee Scott addressed one of the greatest existential questions for the world's biggest retailer as it pursues its sustainability goals: Can true sustainability be reached without lowering -- lowering -- consumption, especially with the increasing growth of China's middle class?...

...But on the macro level, is Wal-Mart ironically -- cynically? -- using sustainability to sell more stuff to more customers? Surely, I don't want to be in the business of telling Mr. Wang or any other Chinese consumer not to buy another (energy-efficient) television. But Wal-Mart is in the business of telling people like Mr. Wang to buy another television, and perhaps a new (power-saving) DVD player, even as it pledges to make what they consume more sustainable.

It's a curious tension. As Sami pointed out last year, "If they use half as much energy to produce a T-shirt, but sell four times as many, the environment will still suffer."

Fresh off of their stint intimidating their employees, Wal-Mart wants you to be informed about the candidates. Wal-Mart just launched "a non-partisan, video voter guide in the form of a series of three-minute educational videos from Senators Barack Obama and John McCain." You can see the videos the candidates gave Wal-Mart here.

Of course it's pretty obvious that Wal-Mart is trying to generate some positive press surrounding the election for themselves. It's great that they now want their employees and customers to know where the candidates stand, but it doesn't erase their illicit meetings, the lies they told about the Employee Free Choice Act during those meetings, or their insistence that their employees vote against Obama. Wal-Mart got caught telling their employees how to vote, and suddenly they'd like everyone to know that they are really just bipartisan. I'll believe that when their employees get decent affordable health care.

You can see the press release about the new videos here.

BloggingStocks weighs in on Wal-Mart's Tire and Lube shop closing. They frame the issue in a 'personal responsibility' versus 'corporate responsibility' light. While the blog doesn't draw a strong conclusion on the situation, they seem to suggest that closing down any location with a union is no way to run a business. Their reasons are mostly practical: your customers will be upset if you just go closing stores they're used to shopping in, and if Wal-Mart really can't afford the small increase in wages to 6 employees, how are they going to keep up with a sharply rising cost of living? We would add that shutting down a store and firing the workers simply because they are advocating for themselves is wrong.

Here are a few excerpts from the BloggingStocks piece:

...the retailer would rather see the operation shut down entirely instead of having employees with any kind of power.

That may sound harsh, but it has to be the feeling around a Wal-Mart tire and lube shop in Gatineau, Quebec, which was literally closed due to its unionization last week. What better a way to leave consumers in the lurch than to close up shop on something that brings in revenue even if its employees decide to stray from Wal-Mart's "non-union" stance in its retail locations.

Is Wal-Mart's perspective on labor costs "simply unworkable" too? With costs going up for fuel, food and everything in between, Wal-Mart employees will feel the pinch first. That pinch will turn into a tourniquet. At that point, those who can't leave Wal-Mart employment may try to work in some kind of union activity into more of the retailer's North American locations. Wal-Mart can't just shut those locations down when this starts happening. Or, can it?

Wal-Mart may think they can just shut down a store because its employees decided they wanted a union and no one would notice, but people are sitting up and taking notice.

Here is a list of just some of the coverage this story has been getting:

Wal-Mart, Union-Busting Again [CJAD Radio]

Union raps Wal-Mart move to close unionized shop [Canadian Broadcasting Centre]

Wal-Mart to close unionized auto shop in Quebec [The Canadian Press]

Wal-Mart closes unionized Canada center [Real Clear Markets]

Wal-Mart to shut unionized Gatineau garage [Ottawa Business Journal]

Union attacks Wal-Mart for closing garage [The Gazette]

Wal-Mart closes unionized Gatineau shop [Ottawa Citizen]

Wal-Mart closes unionized Canada center [Washington Post]

Can you call (1-800-Wal-Mart) or e-mail Wal-Mart and tell them you think it's reprehensible that they are simply firing workers who chose to be represented by a union. Let them know that the world is watching, and they can't simply dismiss workers because they don't like unions.

Here's our statement about Wal-Mart shutting down a tire and lube shop because it was unionized:

For Immediate Release October 16, 2008

WAL-MART’S EMPLOYEES VOTE FOR A UNION, SO WAL-MART CLOSES DOWN INSTEAD OF NEGOTIATING WITH THEM

Roughly two months ago the first collective bargaining agreement between Wal-Mart and unionized employees, who worked at a Wal-Mart tire and lube shop, was presented to Wal-Mart. At the time there was speculation that Wal-Mart would simply shut down the store instead of accepting the agreement as they did in 2005 in Jonquière, Quebec after its workers decided to join a union. Today Wal-Mart has announced that they will indeed shut down the tire and lube shop.

The following statement is attributed to Meghan Scott, Spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com.

“Once again Wal-Mart proves how anti-worker, and shamelessly anti-union, they are. Wal-Mart has fired workers and shut down a department simply because the workers chose to be represented by a union. Wal-Mart consistently shows that they put profit over people and this case is no exception. Wal-Mart should be ashamed that they so wantonly fired their employees.”

###

As they did in 2005, Wal-Mart is shutting down a location because the workers voted to form a union. Back in '05, Wal-Mart suggested that they were closing the store because it wasn't making enough money. This time, they didn't even pretend there was another reason.

Here's the Reuters article:

Wal-Mart Canada closes auto shop after union win

TORONTO, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Canada (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) closed an auto center in one of its stores in Gatineau, Quebec, on Thursday, two months after employees won the right to unionize the tiny operation.

The six employees at the local Tire Lubrication Express won a three-year court battle in August to be represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, with the court imposing a 33 percent wage increase for the workers to an average C$13.76 an hour.

Wal-Mart Canada spokesman Kevin Groh said the company could not justify the wage hike.

"We think the numbers speak for themselves when the imposed contract would increase operating costs by more than 30 percent and combined with the fact that TLEs (Tire Lubrication Express) operate under very narrow profit margins, such a large increase could have raised consumer prices by more than 30 percent," Groh said.

"No business can afford to run an unprofitable unit and it's unlikely customers would accept a 30 percent price increase."

In 2005, the company closed a Wal-Mart store in Jonquiere, Quebec, that had been the first in North America to win union certification. The store had employed 190 people.

Union representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Five associates and one manager of the tire and lubrication bay at the store were offered jobs at other local Wal-Mart automotive shops, Groh said. The larger retail store in Gatineau that housed the Tire Lubrication Express remains open.

And here's the press release from the United Food and Commercial Workers:

The closure of a unionized Wal-Mart Tire and Lube Express in Gatineau, Quebec "is another attack on its workers, on the community, and one more example of its blatant disregard for Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms," says Wayne Hanley, the National President of UFCW Canada.

"Wal-Mart thinks a cheap oil change is more important than the Canadian constitution."

Wal-Mart Canada announced Thursday that it was shutting the Gatineau outlet because a union contract, which came into force in August, didn't fit with its business model. It is the second time Wal-Mart has shut a Quebec outlet after its workers decided to form a union.

In April 2005 Wal-Mart shut its store in Jonquiere, Quebec and terminated more than 200 workers just as binding arbitration for a first-contract was set to begin. Later this year the Supreme Court will hear arguments that the shutting of the Jonquiere store was a violation of those workers' rights.

In June 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that under the Charter's Freedom of Association protections, workers in Canada are guaranteed the right to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining, "but once again Wal-Mart has proven the only rules it respects are its own, " said Hanley.

"For Wal-Mart to say its employees are free to unionize, but then declare that a contract produced through mediation just doesn't work for their business model, means as far as Wal-Mart is concerned, the rights of its American shareholders are more important than the human rights of its workers in Canada."

"Now it is up to the Supreme Court to tell Wal-Mart that it is not above the law and that it must respect the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively."

Wal-Mart is bad for local business. We've all heard about Wal-Mart moving in to town and all the local business closing down. But usually, we hear about it in broad terms. Now, we hear about a grocery store that is closing, and they've identified Wal-Mart as the reason. Riverview Market in Woodsville, NH. The store closes its doors just 6 months after Wal-Mart moved in to town. Wal-Mart claims another store. The retail giant has directly or indirectly been responsible for countless closings just like this one.

Read the article from the local news station:

Woodsville Grocer Blames Wal-Mart for Closure

Riverview Market, a grocery store in downtown Woodsville, NH, plans to close its doors any day and blames Wal-Mart's arrival across town as the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Wal-Mart Supercenter opened in March 2008 to much fanfare and despite concerns this very event would happen.

Tim Merrill, general manager of AG Supermarkets, Inc., which owns Riverview Market, said in a statement, "The recent opening of a nearby Wal-Mart further decreased sales at what was already a marginally successful location. We could not forecast a turnaround in the near future and were left with no other logical decision than to close."

The store's lease lasts into November, but with store shelves nearly bare after a 30 percent liquidation sale, it is unlikely it will last through the end of the week. Merrill also said AG Supermarkets, Inc., would help its employees with job placement in other Associated Grocers of New England stores.

That news disappointed loyal shoppers, including Elton Brinker.

"It's really sad to see it closing," Brinker said. "We've gained an option but then we lose an option."

Other nearby residents, who shop more often at Wal-Mart, were still upset by Riverview's imminent closure.

"I'm a business owner and it's sad to see a smaller company like that get basically pushed out 'cause of these larger companies," said Allen Riley.

At the same time, Riley said, "It's to be expected, you know? [Because} obviously Wal-Mart's here and they have everything and where ya gonna go? Where they have everything."

Back in June, Adidas sued Wal-Mart for selling shoes that were similar in design to their own copyrighted shoes. They had sued Wal-Mart before over the same issue. Wal-Mart settled with Adidas instead of letting it go to court, but we haven't heard how much they gave the shoe company. Now Nike is suing for, essentially, the same thing. It is pretty clear that Wal-Mart is continuing their tactic of taking popular products, having them manufactured incredibly cheaply, and undercutting the original product by selling the knockoff for cheaper. Only this time companies are pushing back.

Here's the article from Reuters:

Nike sues Wal-Mart, alleges patent infringement

NEW YORK, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Nike Inc has sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc, saying the world's largest retailer is selling athletic shoes that infringe on its design patents.

In a complaint filed on Monday, Nike claims Wal-Mart is selling shoes that infringe on its Shox line, which is designed with what looks like springs in the heels.

"Wal-Mart knowingly and intentionally sold and continues to sell the infringing Shoes as simulations of Nike shoes," the Nike complaint states.

Nike is seeking an order to bar Wal-Mart from selling items that infringe on its patents and "damages adequate to compensate Nike for the patent infringement that has occurred."

Wal-Mart could not be reached for an immediate comment.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

It seems that Wal-Mart's bottled water is neither saving money, or living better. The Environmental Working Group released a report where they tested bottled water of various brands. They did not release all the brands, but they did release the name of Wal-Mart's Sam's Choice bottled water. What they found is disturbing. Apparently in addition to being bad for the environment, drinking Wal-Mart's bottled water could also be bad for your health. The Environmental Working Group also found that some of the water sold at Wal-Mart came from Las Vegas public water supplies. In other words, Wal-Mart is charing you for tap water. And they're charging an arm and a leg for it. Bottled Water can cost 1900 times more than tap water.

So let's recap, Wal-Mart's bottled water is:

-bad for the environment, like all bottled water
-bad for your health because it contains dangerous pollutants, toxins, and pharmaceuticals
-sometimes just tap water in a bottle
-incredibly expensive compared to tap water

Yup for a company that wants you to save money and live better, this product is sure a winner.

Here are a few excerpts from the San Fransisco Chronicle:

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization with offices in Oakland, tested 10 brands of bottled water and found that Wal-Mart's Sam's Choice contained chemical levels that exceeded legal limits in California and the voluntary standards adopted by the industry...

...Some findings from the study:

-- Three samples of Sam's Choice bought in Oakland, Mountain View and Fayetteville, N.C., contained levels of total trihalomethanes between 14 ppb and 37 ppb, exceeding the state and industry standard of 10 ppb.

-- One of the byproducts, bromodichloromethane, also a carcinogen, is even more toxic to lab animals and is more strictly controlled. The state's cancer safety standard is 2.5 ppb. Three bottles of Sam's Choice purchased in Mountain View and Oakland contained the contaminant at levels from 7.7 ppb and 13 ppb.

-- Also present in bottled water were caffeine and the pharmaceutical Tylenol, as well as arsenic, radioactive isotopes, nitrates and ammonia from fertilizer residue. Industrial chemicals used as solvents, degreasing agents and propellants were also found in the tests.

-- Trace amounts of synthetic chemicals or degradation products from the manufacture of PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, plastic bottles were found, including acetaldehyde, isobutane and toluene. At those low levels, scientists can't ascertain the health effects.

For Immediate Release
October 10, 2008

WAL-MART EXPOSED: SWEATSHOP LABOR PROVES WAL-MART HASN’T CHANGED A BIT

Today a Business Week article once again shone a light on Wal-Mart’s relationships with sweatshops. The article details how workers at a factory in Bangladesh were forced to work incredibly long hours to make school uniforms for Wal-Mart while being paid incredibly low wages. The workers were subject to verbal and physical abuse and were forced to stand for hours at a time as punishment for tardiness. The article questions not just Wal-Mart’s relationship with this factory, but its oversight of the entire supply chain.

The following statement is attributed to Meghan Scott, Spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com.

“New slogan. New ads. Same Wal-Mart. Whether it's providing health care to its workers or failing to provide adequate oversight of its supply chain, Wal-Mart, despite its rhetoric, hasn't changed a bit. Wal-Mart’s low prices still come at a high cost.”

###

Business Week reminds us, once again, that Wal-Mart's low prices come at a high cost. The article exposes Wal-Mart's relationship with a factory in Bangladesh where workers were paid less than the $24 a month minimum wage, were punished for being late to work with beatings and worked excruciating hours. The story gets more disturbing because Wal-Mart tried to stop the report from being published. Wal-Mart's connection to sweatshops are nothing new. We've discussed it on this blog here and here. Indeed this is the very model Wal-Mart is based on.

Here's an excerpt from the Business Week article:

The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), is being accused of buying school uniforms that were made under extreme sweatshop conditions at a factory in Bangladesh.

The JMS Garments Factory in Chittagong, Bangladesh, produces school uniforms that are sold in Wal-Mart stores under the Faded Glory brand name. A report from SweatFree Communities, an anti-sweatshop activist group based in Bangor (Me.), found that workers at the factory work up to 19-hour shifts to finish Wal-Mart's orders under tight deadlines; are made to stand for hours as punishment for arriving late to work; and are frequently subject to verbal abuse and kicking or beatings. Some workers earn as little as $20 each month, the group says—even lower than the country's legal minimum wage of $24 per month.

The report is based on interviews with more than 90 workers conducted away from the factory in workers' homes by a Bangladeshi nongovernmental labor research organization on behalf of SweatFree Communities, a five-year-old nonprofit group funded by activist foundations such as the Solidago Foundation, CarEth Foundation, and Presbyterian Hunger Program. The group works to get commitments from schools, cities, and other employers to buy goods with employee rights in mind.

Read the full article here

According to the Associated Press, Wal-Mart has reached a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency after violating the Clean Air Act by selling cans of silly string with a banned ozone-depleting substance. The EPA is fining Wal-Mart $199,000 for the violation.

This is just more evidence that Wal-Mart's basic business model isn't good for the environment. Sure, they can sell lots of eco-friendly or "eco-friendly" products, but keeping prices down means cutting corners, ignoring regulations, or pushing manufacturing to places that don't have regulations. Wal-Mart doesn't know why the banned substance was in the cans, but if they paid half as much attention to going green as they did to cutting costs they probably would.

Here's the article the AP via Forbes:

Wal-Mart and EPA reach settlement on violations

ATLANTA -The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have reached a settlement over alleged violations of the Clear Air Act, which prohibits the sale or distribution of nonessential products containing ozone-depleting substances.

Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) will pay $199,000 in penalties under the settlement.

According to the agency, EPA investigators bought cans of a party string product called "Glow-in-the-Dark Looney String" from Wal-Mart stores between November 2005 and January 2006, and results of an analysis showed the products contained a banned ozone-depleting substance.

Wal-Mart violated the Clean Air Act by distributing and selling the product, according to the EPA.

The EPA said Wal-Mart has taken action to investigate the cause of the violation, meet compliance and ensure that violations do not happen again.

Greg Rossiter, a representative for Wal-Mart of Bentonville, Ark., said once notified by the EPA, Wal-Mart inspected its inventory and conducted a full review of other party string products to make certain that no other similar items being sold contained the banned substance.

"Product safety for Wal-Mart customers is our top priority," Rossiter said.

Rossiter said Wal-Mart is no longer conducting business with the unnamed supplier.

Shares of Wal-Mart slipped 94 cents to $53.63 in afternoon trading.

Over the last year or so, many reporters have written stories about how much Wal-Mart has changed, and how they are no longer as controversial as they were. Of course we know better. While Wal-Mart has ramped up their PR effort with flashy stunts and prominent press releases, they have remained, at base, the same company with the same problems. And the controversy hasn't gone away. Just take a look at this story about a recent Planning Commission meeting in Lodi, CA. Usually Planning Commission meetings don't draw a crowd, but when Wal-Mart was the topic, the hall was full and the discussion lasted far longer than it was scheduled.

Yes, controversy is alive and well when it comes to Wal-Mart. Many at the meeting were concerned that Wal-Mart would kill off local businesses, particularly grocery stores.

Here's the article from The Record:

LODI - A long-proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Wednesday night was once again the center of a heated debate in Lodi.

A capacity crowd filled Lodi's Carnegie Forum to argue whether the Planning Commission should approve a 226,441-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter at Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road.

The debate lasted until late into the night. Commissioners did not consider resolutions that would approve a land-use permit, and design and energy specifications by press time.

Proponents - who included Wal-Mart employees and the project's developer, Darryl Browman - touted Wal-Mart's ability to generate tax revenue, jobs and other forms of economic growth.

Opponents argued that a Supercenter would hurt small businesses and grocers. One even threatened to move away if a Wal-Mart was approved.

"I wasn't thrilled when the first Wal-Mart was approved," said Mary Miller of Lodi. "Now, I'm wondering if it's not the right time to sell my house and retire in Carlsbad."

City officials said in order for a Supercenter to gain approval, Browman must comply with a lengthy list of conditions.

The most notable conditions include purchasing 40 acres of farmland within 15 miles of the project and investing a minimum of $700,000 toward improving downtown Lodi.

Browman also must ensure the current Kettleman Lane building is leased to at least 50 percent of its capacity, sell the building to another retailer or put cash toward demolition costs, according to a staff report.

Browman told the commission he has already negotiated a lease for 90 percent of the building.

Here at Wake Up Wal-Mart, we talk to a lot of workers. Both through e-mail and on the phone, Wal-Mart employees get in touch with us because they're being mistreated, they've been unjustly fired, or just because they think Wal-Mart is doing something wrong.

Recently we've been hearing from quite a few associates that Wal-Mart has been calling them in to meetings to inform them, basically, that they are not allowed to say anything bad about Wal-Mart, ever. It is certainly understandable that Wal-Mart doesn't want their employees trash talking the store while on the job, but this is something much more. According to employees, Wal-Mart is suggesting that saying anything negative about the store anywhere, at any time, is a fire-able offense. In other words if you happen to be overheard saying 'man, Wal-Mart sucks, I can't afford their health insurance with the terrible wage they pay me' while you are at home, or out at the mall, you could be fired. Or if you go online to a personal web page, a social networking site, a blog, or a site like this one and criticize Wal-Mart, you could be fired. This is a pretty serious business.

Here's what one employee wrote us (we'll withhold their name because apparently Wal-Mart is watching):

Subject: new WM policy announced at morning meeting!

Chatting about "people" (actually manager means talking about walmart) on the internet will be under scrutiny. "you better have your facts straight when talking about people".

This is a scare tactic! To ward off negative press. Please post this new policy!

For the third time in less than a month, Wal-Mart is being sued for wrongful termination. First it was Barbara Hacker who was fired for having a seizure even though Wal-Mart knew she had Epilepsy. Then it was Yvonne Loskot who was apparently fired for having worked at Wal-Mart too long and making too much money. Now it is Arlene Jett who is suing Wal-Mart.

She was fired, apparently, because she used family and medical leave too often in her tenure as a Wal-Mart employee. That is, of course, no reason to fire someone. Any company with a conscience would understand if you needed to take time to give birth, be with your child in the hospital, be with your husband in the hospital, and take care of yourself when your documented medical conditions need treatment. Indeed the purpose of the Family and Medical Leave Act was to allow people to take such time without fear of losing their jobs. Mrs. Jett used this bill to take unpaid time off and was fired for it despite her 14 years of good service.

Her story is a sad one, and we hope she gets the justice she deserves. There is clearly a pattern here. Wal-Mart has little regard for its employees. They fire whoever they can to save a few bucks and the law can just step aside.

Here's an excerpt from the West Virginia Record article:

CHARLESTON -- A Wirt County woman has filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging she was wrongfully fired after she used her Family and Medical Leave Act multiple times.

Arlene Jett took medical leave from the store to care for her son, who was born in October 2003, according to the original complaint filed in Wood Circuit Court.

Her son had a rare bowel disorder, necessitating 12 months of hospitalization and several surgeries, the suit states.

In 2006, she took time off because of her, her husband's and her son's medical conditions, she claims.

Jett claims her husband is disabled and suffers from several serious health conditions, including chronic high blood pressure and neck and back injuries.

Jett has been diagnosed with Crohn's Disease and depression, according to the suit.

She again took six weeks of unpaid leave in February 2007 after her husband underwent surgery, according to the complaint.

Jett had been working at a Virginia Wal-Mart since Sept. 12, 1994. She transferred to the Parkersburg store in August 2002, according to the complaint.

Throughout her employment, Jett continually received good performance evaluations and raises, the suit states.

In addition to our ads running during a very highly watched vice presidential debate (Neilson shows that last nights debate drew 43% more viewers than the first presidential debate) we got some great coverage around the internet.

Ben Smith wrote a piece about our ad on his blog over at Politico. NPR covered our ad too. And FireDogLake's Campaign Silo blog featured our ad. We also got some pretty good coverage on Slate. Thanks for helping us spread the word. We've also been talking to folks on a number of blogs and we've had some really great feedback.

Check out our newest ad, airing today nation wide in 8 states and in DC. Following the ad is the release that just went out.

Also, can you help spread the word? Go digg this ad!

IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 2, 2008

NEW AD HIGHLIGHTS WAL-MART’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION LEGAL TROUBLES, MCCAIN’S OPPOSITION TO FAIR PAY

WAKEUPWALMART.COM ASKS WAL-MART MOMS TO TELL JOHN MCCAIN “WE CAN’T AFFORD IT ANY LONGER”

Washington, DC - WakeUpWalMart.com, America's campaign to change Wal-Mart with more than 433,000 members nationally, today launches a hard-hitting 30-second TV ad -- “Breadwinners” -- that shows John McCain siding with corporations like Wal-Mart and its lobbyists in opposing equal pay. The ad ends with a plea for consumers to tell John McCain, “we can’t afford it any longer.” (Full script below.)

The ad comes on the same day that Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin will square off in the only Vice Presidential debate. While Sarah Palin is the first female to run for Vice President on a Republican ticket her running mate, Sen. John McCain, opposes paying women the same wage as men doing the same job.

As Palin’s presence on the GOP’s ticket highlights issues like fair pay, Wal-Mart is in the midst of the largest discrimination class action lawsuit in history. One point six million (1.6 million) women have sued Wal-Mart because of their unfair discrimination in pay and promotional opportunities. When McCain had the opportunity to stand against gender discrimination, he instead sided with corporate lobbyists and Wal-Mart in opposing fair pay legislation.

The ad will begin airing nationwide today in nine states: Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and in the District of Columbia. It can be viewed at http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/breadwinners.

TV AD SCRIPT

They put in the same long hours as men, but take home less.
Mothers, daughters, breadwinners.
One point six million women are standing up to pay discrimination at Wal-Mart alone.
But when fair pay legislation came to the Senate, John McCain helped defeat it.
He sided with corporate lobbyists, against equal pay.
Tell John McCain we can’t afford it any longer.

###

There is yet another dangerous Chinese made product being recalled from Wal-Mart. 210,000 General Electric brand toasters have been recalled because of an electrical problem. The toasters can short circuit and cause electrical shock and fire. This joins the long list of recalled products made in China and sold at Wal-Mart. Indeed Wal-Mart is the number one importer of Chinese goods in the US with roughly 70% of their goods coming from China. According to the Dallas Morning News, there were 140 reported cases of shock or fire from the toaster.

If you bought a toaster from Wal-Mart recently, please read the story from the Dallas Morning News, and be sure to review Wal-Mart's recall notice.

Christmas shopping usually starts on "Black Friday" the day after Thanksgiving. It is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year as folks head out to catch early sales. Last year, however, Wal-Mart bucked the trend and put popular items on sale a few weeks before Thanksgiving, and, because they are the leader in the retail industry, other stores followed. But this year, Wal-Mart is putting popular toys on sale by October 10th. That's right, October 10th. That's three weeks before Halloween and seven weeks before Black Friday! SEVEN! For those of you keeping track, it's also just two and a half weeks after the start of fall, and 11 weeks before Christmas. The reason for this crazy move? Well, in short, Wal-Mart, and the rest of the retail industry, is desperate. With the economy in such dire straights this could be the worst holiday shopping season in more than 15 years.

What do you think? Will we see Christmas shopping starting in September next year?

Here are a few stories from Reuters and the Associated Press.