After releasing an exclusive album through Wal-Mart, Bruce Springsteen is now saying that it was a mistake to do so. He admits that he "dropped the ball" and cites Wal-Mart's labor record as a reason he should not have made the deal with them.

Here's the full article from the AP:

Springsteen calls Wal-Mart CD deal a mistake

The Boss is owning up to a mistake. In an interview with Sunday's New York Times, Bruce Springsteen says he shouldn't have made a deal with Wal-Mart. This month, the store started exclusively selling a Springsteen greatest hits CD.

Some fans were critical because Springsteen has been a longtime supporter of worker's rights, and Wal-Mart has faced criticism for its labor practices.

Springsteen told the Times that his team didn't vet the issue as closely as he should have, and that he "dropped the ball on it."

Springsteen went on to say: "It was a mistake. Our batting average is usually very good, but we missed that one. Fans will call you on that stuff, as it should be."

Springsteen released his new CD "Working on a Dream" this week and is performing the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

This Sunday Lee Scott will officially retire as CEO of Wal-Mart and Mike Duke will take over. The transition, according to reports and Lee Scott's comments, won't be eventful or groundbreaking. That's partly because Scott will stay on as the Chairman of Wal-Mart's board and work with Duke for a few years. Still, it is a transition and we'll be watching closely to see how Mr. Duke runs Wal-Mart. This blog post from Reuters Shop Talk asks what you would add to Mr. Duke's To Do list. When we first heard about the change of CEOs back in November, this is what we had to say:

We invite Mr. Duke, as the new CEO of Wal-Mart, to live up to the company's responsibility to pay its workers a living wage, especially in this dire economy where working people are struggling and Wal-Mart is profiting. We invite Mr. Duke to improve Wal-Mart's employee benefits so that all of its associates can afford quality health care. Lastly, we invite Mr. Duke to make a real commitment to the American economy by keeping manufacturing jobs here in the United States, not pressuring its suppliers to go overseas.

What about you? What would you add to Mr. Duke's To Do list?

Here are a few articles about the transition of power:

Mart's new CEO Duke needs to build on momentum [Reuters]

CEO brings merchandising to Wal-Mart leadership [Associated Press]

Top 25 Company's Headquarters

You can check out the full list of companies here.

Both Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's soon to be ex-CEO, and Mike Duke, who will take over as CEO on February 1st, were in the news today. Lee Scott was in the news because he's considering going to teach at Stanford University. While he said on Charlie Rose a week or so back that he's stay involved in Wal-Mart for the next two years and probably stay on the board after that, it seems he's also considering other projects. Mike Duke is in the news because he's made some of his first public remarks since he became the heir apparent to Mr. Scott. He spoke at a Sustainability Milestone Meeting and reiterated his support for the environmental initiatives Wal-Mart has started. Of course, this is somewhat akin to a presidential candidate telling the NRA they'll continue to support gun rights: It's probably mostly true, and it doesn't necessarily mean it'll happen. We sincerely hope that Mr. Duke is sincere, but based on Wal-Mart's past environmental record, we're not holding our breath for a truly environmentally friendly Wal-Mart. Any progress is good, but Wal-Mart has a history of green washing and using the "environmentally friendly" label simply to drive up consumption. We look forward to February 1st when the exchange of power happens. We'll be watching Mr. Duke very closely.

Here's a piece of the article about Mr. Duke's remarks from Reuters:

Wal-Mart's incoming CEO to expand environmental push

Wal-Mart Stores Inc's new leadership (WMT.N) plans to expand efforts to reduce waste, use renewable energy and push suppliers to clean up their act, the company's incoming chief executive officer said on Monday.

"We want to accelerate our efforts in sustainability. We want to broaden our efforts," said Mike Duke, who will become Wal-Mart's CEO on Feb. 1 when Lee Scott retires from that position.

Speaking at a "Sustainability Milestone Meeting," which was broadcast over the Internet, Duke said Wal-Mart's suppliers and employees need to make sustainability a priority.

"I am very serious about it. This is not optional," Duke said. "It's not something of the past. This is all about the future."

Scott began the retailer's environmental push in 2005, outlining plans to one day use only renewable energy and creating zero waste. The efforts have been seen as a way for Wal-Mart to improve its reputation, help the environment and cut costs.

To that end, Wal-Mart has increased its use of solar and wind power, pushed vendors to make electronics more energy-efficient and switched to selling only concentrated laundry detergent in its U.S. stores.

Newsday has been printing a lot of very good articles about the Black Friday stampede that killed Jdimytai Damour, a temporary Wal-Mart employee. They recently published an interview with Leana Lockley, the pregnant woman he protect from the crowd when he was crushed, and today, they have an interview with Jdimytai's mother, Marie Telismond. It is a heartbreaking article. We're glad Newsday is being so diligent about getting this story out there. We think it needs to be shared.

Here's the article. Check out the picture they published with it as well. It really gives you a sense of what it might have been like to be there:

Wal-Mart worker's mom laments loss of only son

The last time Marie Telismond saw her only son was Nov. 14, when he took her to the airport and waited with her until she was checked in for a trip to her native Haiti.

Jdimytai Damour then made sure his mother had safely arrived in Port-au-Prince.

"He called me three times," Telismond said Tuesday morning at her lawyer Andrew Libo's Manhattan office. "He said, 'Mommy, did you come in yet?' "

Damour told his mother that he had gotten a job, but she didn't know that he would be working as a temporary security guard at the Wal-Mart in the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream.

"He said, 'I just got a job,' but I didn't ask him where," she said.

Damour, 34, who lived with his mother in Rosedale, was trampled to death on Black Friday as shoppers broke down the doors of the store, authorities said.

he Damour family is planning a suit against Wal-Mart, the security firm and Green Acres Mall, according to Libo.

Known as "Jimmy," Damour was a generous man who would give his last dollar to aid a friend, his mother said.

"He liked to help people," Telismond said.

The news that Damour tried to help a South Jamaica woman who was five months' pregnant at the time of the stampede was not surprising to his mother, who said it was completely in his character.

Leana Lockley, 28, said last week that she owed her life to Damour, who tried to protect her but ended up trampled to death himself.

"He was a very, very good person," Telismond said.

Damour grew up in Brooklyn and Queens, and attended Freeport High School. He studied at Nassau Community College for a year and talked about becoming a teacher someday, his mother said.

He was a quiet man with a love for watching football and a bottomless appetite for his mother's cooking, she said.

Since the day her son died, Telismond said, she has lost sleep and stopped eating.

"I don't have anybody else," Telismond said, dabbing her wet eyes with a tissue. "It's very hard for me."

Recently Leana Lockley talked to the press about her experience in the terrifying stampede at a New York Wal-Mart on Black Friday. She discussed how scared she was and how Jdimytai Damour, the temporary Wal-Mart employee who was trampled to death, saved her life. Now she is suing Wal-Mart. Her lawyer claims that Wal-Mart did not do enough to control the crowd. Frankly, we agree. There were lots of things Wal-Mart could have done to prevent what happened. A fenced off line, more security, a simple blockade in front of the door to prevent it from breaking, even a few security guards outside may have made a difference.

Here's the article from Newsday:

Woman sues Wal-Mart after stampede

The family of Jdimytai Damour, the Wal-Mart employee killed in a shopper stampede at Wal-Mart in November, found some comfort knowing that he died helping another, their attorney said Friday.

A South Jamaica woman who was five months pregnant at the time of the stampede at the Valley Stream store recently spoke out crediting Damour, 34, with saving her life and that of her unborn daughter.

"The family takes some measure of solace that at the end of his life, he was helping someone else," said Andrew Libo, a Manhattan-based attorney representing Damour's family. "It doesn't surprise them. He was always looking out for other people."

Leana Lockley, 28, said she did not know where she could contact Damour's family, but she said: "I would like to give my condolences to them on the death of their son and my appreciation in him saving my life ... and also the life of my daughter."

Lockley's lawyer, David Sloan, of Hicksville, has said that Wal-Mart failed to provide proper crowd control and they are preparing a lawsuit against the store. Libo said the Damour family is also planning a suit against Wal-Mart, the security company and the Green Acres Mall where the incident took place.

If Lockley files suit against Wal-Mart, she will not be the first to do so. Last month Emmanuel Moultrie, of Jamaica, Queens, filed suit saying store managers ignored dangerous conditions, Moultrie's lawyer, Ken Mollins on Melville said.

Another attorney, Bruce Baron of Brooklyn, also filed lawsuits on behalf of two people: Theresa Sgro, who says her 14-year-old daughter suffered multiple fractures in the stampede, and Jennifer Jones, who Baron said suffered neurological damage.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman declined Friday to discuss the incident but Wal-Mart officials have maintained in the past that it is closely working with law enforcement and government officials to put security measures in place.

Lockley said she arrived at the store at 1 a.m. with her husband, Shawn, and two other family members. She said the crowd swelled to more than 2,000 when the store opened at 5 a.m.

She said she tried to pick up an older lady who fell and she ended up falling to her knees.

She said she could see Damour trying to push people back.

"I was screaming that I was pregnant, I am sure he heard that. . . . He was trying to block the people from pushing me down to the ground and trampling me," said Lockley, a nursing student at LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City.

"Mr. Damour was to the right of me, he was on his knees I could look at him eye to eye and he was trying to push them back and the crowd pushed him down and he fell on top of me."

Eventually on a second try, her husband was able to pull her out and free her.

She was taken to the hospital and treated for injuries where doctors examined the baby who appeared to be OK. Lockley said she suffers from back and neck pain, eye problems and also has insomnia.

Representatives from the Wal-Mart store did send her some baby items about two weeks later, along with a card that read: "May angels carry your little one through life upon their wings."

As details about the Black Friday stampede at Wal-Mart began trickling out in the days and weeks following the tragic event, the story got more and more horrifying. Perhaps one of the most sobering details was that the man who was killed was attempting to shield a pregnant woman. Today, a new interview with Leana Lockley, the pregnant woman Jdimytai Damour was trying to protect when he was killed, has been released and it adds another layer to this awful story.

Here's the story from the local CBS station:

Pregnant Wal-Mart Stampede Victim Remembers Horror

A post-Thanksgiving stampede claimed the life of a Wal-Mart employee assigned to open the door on "Black Friday." Now, another stampede victim, a pregnant woman, is speaking out for the first time and expressing her thanks to the security guard who gave his life to save hers.

Leana Lockley calls it a miracle she did not lose her baby in the "Black Friday" stampede.

"There were so many people on top of me it just went silent," Lockley said. "I started hearing my teeth grinding in my mouth and my body being crushed. I really thought I lost my baby."

Lockley, her husband and young son, were in line at 5 a.m. at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream when Wal-Mart opened its doors for the post-Thanksgiving Day sale blitz.

"Everyone started to push," Lockley said. "There was glass on the side of doors that started cracking and the hinges broke off. People were pushing. I was literally being carried into the store."

As Lockley became separated from her family she started screaming she was pregnant. One employee she now recognizes as victim Jdimytai Damour was crushed trying to rescue her.

"My back was to the crowd. His chest was facing the crowd. He had his hands up. Unfortunately, the crowd overpowered him. He fell back on me. That's when I fell to the ground. My whole body was flat, my face to the ground. It was dark," she said.

A grateful and emotional Lockley said Damour lost his life saving hers. Photos were taken by Hicksville attorney David Sloan just after she was released from the hospital. They are suing Wal-Mart.

"I just thought I was going to die," Lockley said.

Lockley is due to give birth to a baby girl on April 7. She said she wants to return to Wal-Mart to thank employees, but she doubts she will ever shop there again.

Lockley and her attorney say Wal-Mart has contacted them and is already sending baby diapers, baby food and clothing.

The Canadian Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments today in a case that will decide whether Wal-Mart illegally shut down a store in Quebec after the store was unionized. While Wal-Mart claims they shut the store down because it was unprofitable, the closure came right before they would have to begin working with the union and listening to their workers. The lawyers for the former employees of the store want the court to find that Wal-Mart violated labor laws by shutting down the store, and that it violated their right to freedom of association. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, wants an old ruling to stand which essentially gives them the power to shut down any store for any reason they want thus preserving their ability to fire groups of workers for no reason.

Of course we think that Wal-Mart closing down a store because it was unionized should be a labor violation. It's pretty simple, really. If workers in a store want to be in a union, Wal-Mart shouldn't be able to threaten, fire, intimidate, or otherwise prevent them from being in one, and that includes shutting down stores.

Here's a bit of the article from Canadian Business:

U.S. retail giant Wal-Mart is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday to defend a nearly four-year-old decision to shut down a Quebec store in the wake of a labour dispute.

Citing a loss in profitability, the company closed the Saguenay outlet in April 2005 just before an arbitrator was to impose a collective agreement for some 190 recently unionized employees.

The high court will be asked to decide whether closing the store contravenes the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association.

"We say the right of a business to close is not an absolute right," said United Food and Commercial Workers spokesman Louis Bolduc said.

"We don't think the Supreme Court will order the store to reopen but we think the Supreme Court will confirm that the closure, be it partial or total when a (labour) group organizes, must be viewed as a reprisal and should not be allowed."

The appellants want the court to confirm that it is in fact against the law for an employer to shut down in response to an organized labour dispute and that there are consequences for those who do.

We here at Wake Up Wal-Mart are in contact with a lot of workers, so we are often reminded of how difficult it can be for a typical Wal-Mart employee. Whether it's how much they make, or the benefits they can't afford, or unfair treatment they receive, many Wal-Mart employees are struggling to get by, especially those with families. Here's an interview from Air America's Tom Hartmann that will remind you just how tough the working poor have it. We've heard countless stories like this one from Wal-Mart employees across the country.

Are you on Twitter? It's a fun and useful site where users keep friends and family up to date with short posts. Wake Up Wal-Mart recently got on twitter, and we're keeping folks up to date about what we're doing, how we're working to change Wal-Mart, and what Wal-Mart is doing every day. Check out our page and follow us if you're on Twitter!

Wal-Mart's outgoing CEO Lee Scott will sit down with Charlie Rose tonight for an hour long interview. The show airs tonight at 11 pm on PBS. It should be an interesting interview. I'd look for them to talk about the current economic troubles, health care, China and perhaps Wal-Mart's move in to Russia, but most interestingly, I'm sure unions and the Employee Free Choice Act will come up. We look forward to hearing what Lee Scott has to say about his company's union busting activities. We're sure he won't say anything particularly new about unions; the company line is that they aren't needed because Wal-Mart has a wonderful 'open door' policy where employees can bring up issues with managers. Of course it doesn't work that way.

We'll let you know tomorrow if Mr. Scott says anything interesting or noteworthy.

In the meantime, we want to know what questions you would ask Mr. Scott. Leave your questions in the comment section.

It looks like Wal-Mart is moving closer to expanding in to Russia. They have just established a legal entity in the country and joined the Russian Association of Retail Trade Companies. It appears that they'll also use Russia as a jumping off point to expand into Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries. As we are when Wal-Mart looks to expand in the US, we're concerned for the communities Wal-Mart could affect in Russia.

Here's the article from The Moscow Times and Reuters:

Wal-Mart Moves Closer to Russia

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has registered a legal entity in Russia and joined a local retailers' organization, the latest in a series of moves indicating its interest in expanding into the country.

The company registered a subsidiary under the name WM Eastern Europe Holdings and joined the Russian Association of Retail Trade Companies, or AKORT, which includes the 28 largest commercial organizations in the country.

"Wal-Mart is working on the Russian market," Ilya Belonovsky, the executive director of the 28-member industry group said Dec. 29. He declined to elaborate.

Members of the association include French retail giants Carrefour and Auchan, Germany's Metro, as well as local firms X5 Retail Group and Magnit.

In April, Wal-Mart appointed an executive to head its efforts to explore business opportunities in Russia and neighboring markets.

In June, the company said it was "exploring opportunities in Russia," weeks after it acknowledged taking "active steps" to research Russia and nearby countries in Eastern Europe.

A source with an investment bank advising Wal-Mart said Dec. 29 that the U.S. company was in acquisition talks with Russian chains that may need a cash injection.

"It's a very opportune moment for Wal-Mart now that assets are getting cheaper," he said.

The Russian retail sector has been badly hit by a credit squeeze triggered by the global economic crisis, which analysts say could speed up consolidation within the fragmented sector.

A source with a headhunting agency familiar with Wal-Mart's expansion plans in Russia said the U.S. giant had been hiring administrative staff. "There are already about 30 managers working in their team," the source said.

Several months ago FlowingData made a map of where you can watch Wal-Mart spread across the country from its founding in 1962 up to today. It's been kicking around for quite some time but just recently lots and lots of blogs have discovered the map and it's gone viral, kind of like Wal-Mart's expansion across the US. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth watching. Hopefully they'll do a new map soon and update it with all the stores that were build in 2008.

You can watch a YouTube version of the map here:

You did it! Thanks to all of you who donated to the Damour legal fund to support the family of Jdimytai Damour, the young man who was trampled to death on black Friday at a Wal-Mart in New York. We reached our goal of 150 donors in just a few weeks. We're very impressed with all of you, and we know that the Damour family will be incredibly grateful too.

Thank you for all you do! We hope you'll keep supporting us in our fight to change Wal-Mart for the better, and in our fight for justice for Wal-Mart workers around the world.

Wal-Mart has been dealing with a lot of lawsuits recently. It seems that since we've been back, we've seen legal news nearly every day, and today is no exception.

Today, Wal-Mart is being sued by a construction company from central Ohio for allegedly breaching a contract. They could get more than $2 million.

Here's the story from Columbus Business First:

Area construction firm wins suit against Wal-Mart

A Central Ohio construction company could be in line for a more than $2 million payout from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. after winning a jury trial in a breach of contract lawsuit against the retail giant.

Thomas & Marker Construction, which has offices in Bellefontaine and Marysville, was awarded $1.55 million Dec. 23 under a unanimous jury verdict in Dayton federal court. The company had sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT), alleging the retailer breached a $9.6 million contract by not paying for extra costs for removing bedrock during construction of a Springfield store.

Thomas & Marker accused Wal-Mart of failing to indicate the hard-to-remove bedrock in a geotechnical report it provided before construction. Wal-Mart countersued, alleging a subcontractor didn’t properly install a water line during construction, but the jury also ruled in the firm’s favor on that count.

Wal-Mart has recently agreed to pay $637,000 in fines because it seems they failed to keep correct pharmaceutical records in several Southern Texas stores. We're not quite sure what was going on. Fivestores seems like a lot for just employee mess ups, but not a lot for a company-wide problem. We're also pretty concerned, pharmacy records are serious business. People can get hurt, or die, from botched prescriptions. Hopefully this hefty fine will shock them in to doing things right. Between recalled products, lead in toys and other goods from China, footwear that causes severe chemical burns, and now pharmacies with no records, it's getting dangerous to shop at Wal-Mart.

Read the story from Business Week here:

Wal-Mart settles drug records accusation

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has agreed to a $637,000 fine to settle allegations that it violated drug record keeping regulations at its pharmacies in south Texas.

Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that Wal-Mart paid the fine on Dec. 29 and that the settlement was made final on Tuesday.

Acting U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson says the case began with five Wal-Mart and Sam's Club pharmacies that allegedly didn't have records the government requires to help prevent diversion of controlled substances. Johnson said the problem with the records violated the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, under which the complaint was brought. More Wal-Mart pharmacies in the region were then audited, he said.

"The accountability audits did not match the drugs on hand, revealing major overages and shortages in the accountability of controlled substances, and there were missing invoices for controlled substances all in violation of the CSA," Johnson's office said in a news release.

"Because of the pharmacies' lack of proper record keeping, a variety of Schedule II, III, IV and V controlled substances were lost or stolen and possibly diverted," the release said.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore said the settlement was limited to discrepancies between records and inventory involving a small number of pharmacies in Texas. The company has more than 4,000 pharmacies in its U.S. stores.

Moore would not directly address questions about whether any drugs were missing.

"We provide our managers with training regarding controlled substances. Of course, we'll continue to review those practices," Moore said.

She said Wal-Mart is eager to comply with the law.

"We take record keeping seriously and we cooperated fully with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the (Drug Enforcement Administration) in the investigation. We continuously review our processes at our pharmacies to ensure they are accurate and in full compliance with the law," Moore said.

Wal-Mart has been sued for a lot of things. They've been sued for discrimination, wrongly firing an employee, violating tax laws, violating labor laws, attempting to build a store when a town doesn't want them, causing injury, wrongful death, tainted goods, and more. But one we hadn't seen yet was anti-trust, but that's just what Wal-Mart is being sued for.

Apparently Wal-Mart made some sort of deal with Netflix in which Wal-Mart agreed to shut down its online rental service and direct its hordes of customers to Netflix and in return, Netflix would promote Wal-Mart as a DVD retailer. The lawsuit accuses the companies of conspiring to create a monopoly.

Add one more lawsuit to the pile. Can you think of anything else strange Wal-Mart has been sued for? Let us know!

Here's the full article from Bloomberg via the L.A. Times

Wal-Mart, Netflix conspired to create monopoly, suit alleges

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Netflix Inc. were accused of conspiring to create a monopoly for online video rentals in a consumer lawsuit alleging that the collusion drove up prices.

The two companies agreed in 2005 that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, would close its online rental business and refer customers to Netflix, which would promote Wal-Mart's DVD movie sales, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

The accord eliminated competition, enabled Netflix to maintain monopoly power and led Blockbuster Inc. to raise subscription rental prices by $3 to meet Netflix's higher prices, the Jan. 2 complaint alleges.

Long time readers will remember the story about a woman who bought flip-flops from Wal-Mart that severely burned her feet. They were made in China and something in them caused a serious chemical burn. Now, more than a year later, a man in Texas had the same problem with some work boots he bought at Wal-Mart. The boots were also made in China. We're not sure if the same chemical is responsible, but wouldn't you think that after the first time, Wal-Mart would make sure it wouldn't happen again? I guess getting really cheap stuff is just more important than insuring your customers don't get severe chemical burns.

Here's the story from the local new station:

Man claims work boots cause painful burns

The man from Magnolia says he picked up some work boots at a Wal-Mart store, and he says the shoes have given him some major problems. He wants to know why.

It's the last thing Jay Kowolski thought would ever happen. He bought a new pair of work boots and almost immediately his feet began to itch, then burn. It wasn't until he took off the boots that he realized the extent of the damage to his feet in just one day. He took pictures to show the severity of the reaction.

"It's a real lightweight suede boot, sued leather work boot," said Kowolski.

Kowolski bought at the boots at a Wal-Mart in Tomball. They are the Brahma brand; a popular, reasonably priced boot. Kowolski wears boots at his job and on a rainy day, the new boots got wet, and that's when he says his feet began to have a burning sensation.

"When I got home and pulled my boots off, my toes were all covered in red, just literally started eating into the skin," he said.

The next day Kowolski could barely walk. His wife took him to a doctor.

'They said it was an allergic reaction to something in the boot, from the water going through the boots creating some sort of chemical reaction and had burned his feet," said Jay's wife, Kandie Kowolski.

Kowolski spent the next three weeks off his feet and on antibiotics. His skin eventually grew back, however he says the tips of his toes remain slightly red.

Kowolski's wife, meanwhile, began researching the boots and found similar experiences had happened to at least two other people. Kandie Kowolski sent a certified letter to Wal-Mart's president and CEO in Arkansas. She says she's upset the company has not responded.

"Actually, I am because they seem to, you know, they portray that they care so much about the American people but you get a letter like this and you don't even respond?" she said.

She is worried the problem could happen again.

"I would like for them to take these boots off the shelf," said Kandie. "Don't put the rest of these American people at risk because of something like that."

Because of the holiday weekend, a Wal-Mart spokesperson was unable to speak specifically about the boots, but offers this general statement.

"The safety of our customers and associates is a top priority. Wal-Mart is committed to the highest standard of quality and safety with the merchandize that is available in its stores. We take every claim seriously and investigate each and every one."

As for the Kowolskis, they tell Eyewitness News they have stopped buying any type of shoes at Wal-Mart until their complaint is resolved.

In 2007, about 10 customers claimed they received burns and blisters from flip-flop sandals they bought at Wal-Marts across the country. It's a different brand from the boots. After learning about the problem, Wal-Mart pulled the sandals off store shelves.

One of the biggest issues Wal-Mart has been facing the last several years is the myriad of lawsuits across the country over wages, overtime, and breaks. Wal-Mart had been systematically forcing employees to work through breaks, altering time cards, denying overtime pay, and generally cheating workers. It faced more than seventy class action lawsuits from employees. Now Wal-Mart has recently settled 63 of these cases and will pay at least $352 million to the workers they stole from. Of course Wal-Mart being Wal-Mart, they announced this two days before Christmas in hopes that the media wouldn't pay much attention. It seemed to work. In the past, when Wal-Mart has settled a single case, there are typically 6 or 7 stories, wire pieces, and considerable blog buzz. This time around, when they settled not one, but 63 cases? SO far we've seen a New York Times story and that's about it.

We're not letting it slip by, however. This is a big deal. And we think it's suspicious that Wal-Mart has settled for so little. $352 million for 63 cases? That's about $5.6 million per case. When Wal-Mart settled a single case in Minnesota in December, they paid out more than $54 million. A court in Pennsylvania upheld a jury's verdict that Wal-Mart owed up to $186 million.

Here's the article from the New York Times:

Wal-Mart Settles 63 Lawsuits Over Wages

Wal-Mart said on Tuesday that it would pay at least $352 million, and possibly far more, to settle lawsuits across the country claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations.

After years of being embarrassed by lawsuits over its wage practices, the company agreed to settle 63 cases pending in federal and state courts in 42 states.

The workers and their lawyers will receive at least $352 million, and the payments could reach $640 million, depending on how many claims affected workers submit.

Union critics of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, saw the settlement as proof of their view that the company achieves its low prices in part by cheating workers. But the company rejected that characterization, saying it had already corrected wage practices that it has long attributed to local managers acting without authority.