Yesterday the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services released a report ranking major employers by their employees' reliance upon various state run programs like Medicaid and food stamps. With health care reform on the front burner of the American political agenda, this is obviously a pretty important report. It shows that large companies are shirking their responsibilities and forcing tax payers to subsidize them, and guess who was at the top of the list in Ohio.

That's right, Walmart has more than 15,000 employees and their dependents in Ohio on Medicaid, costing state taxpayers $68 million a year. Walmart has higher Medicaid and food stamp numbers than any other company on the report.

If you read this blog regularly, you know that Walmart is attempting to convince the American people that their company is a positive force when it comes to health care. They've run ads, started programs, attempted to open health clinics in their stores, and more. But stories like this throw Walmart's credibility in to question. How can we trust a company on health care when it fails to cover nearly half of its own employees? How can we trust a company on health care when they are slashing benefits for their own employees? How can we trust a company on health care when they claim that only 2.6% of their workforce in America relies on Medicaid when, in Ohio, the number appears to be so much higher? If Walmart really believes in health care reform, they need to lead by example. If Walmart really believes in health care reform, they need to offer quality affordable health care to their workers.

In the world of Walmart news, yesterday's big headline was "Walmart=America!!!" The strange and slightly sad (c'mon, we can do better than that!) headline comes from a new Vanity Fair/60 Minutes poll. The poll is the first in what will be a monthly series and this one included two questions about Walmart amid its rather scattered and odd selection of questions.

The first Walmart questions was "The American banking and auto industries have just suffered through one of their worst years ever. Given that, which of the following BEST SYMBOLIZES AMERICA TODAY?" The possible answers were Walmart, Google, Microsoft, the NFL, Goldman Sachs, or none of the above. We're not quite sure why the poll chose to have this question set up as a multiple choice, or how they decided which companies to include as possible answers. It seems odd that this wouldn't have been an open ended question given the nearly endless possibilities for answers. Walmart undoubtedly would have done well in an open ended format, given its size and scope, but one can imagine companies not on this list doing well. Facebook, for instance, might have made a showing, AIG may have been mentioned, or Ford.

The second question concerning Walmart was, "Wal-Mart has said that it is considering the addition of swine-flu, or H1N1-flu, vaccination stations to some of its 4,000 mega-stores across the country. IF WAL-MART OFFERED HEALTH-CARE SERVICES—such as flu shots, dental, eye, or basic check-ups—would you consider becoming a Wal-Mart patient?" Here the answer was more straight forward, and the results more interesting. In total, 33% of those responding said they would not consider using Walmart's medical services and 31% said they didn't know, leaving just 25% saying they would use Walmart for medical services. When you look at the break down of numbers, they get even more interesting. only 20% of men said they'd go to Walmart for flu shots and the like, while women were split rather evenly on the questions with 29% saying no, 30% saying yes, and 28% saying they didn't know. Age was a factor too. While 33% of 18-29 year olds would go to Walmart for a check up, only 15% of those over the age of 65 said they would while 41% said they wouldn't even consider it.

These numbers are important for a few reasons. First, Walmart has been on a major PR offensive when it comes to health care. They are attempting to draw attention away from their own inadequate health care coverage. Walmart is also attempting to launch in store health clinics on a large scale (as the questions suggests) but have been rather unsuccessful. The numbers from these polls suggests that a retail health clinic associated with Walmart probably won't do very well.

Perhaps the most interesting question these numbers bring up is why people seem so unwilling to trust their health to Walmart. Is it a perceived lack of trust or quality? Is it some kind of cultural bias? What do you think? Why do you think people are hesitant when it comes to Walmart and health care?

Check out this picture from Fail Blog showing the same product marked with four different prices. Perhaps this was a case of the movie moving from shelf to shelf, or from bargain bin to bargain bin; or maybe it was just a run of the mill screw up, but this humorous image is indicative of something more sinister at Walmart. We here at Wake Up Walmart get emails from customers regularly complaining about price irregularities at Walmart. We also hear similar stories from our friends over at The Consumerist. It seems that Walmart has made it a habit of listing products for one price on the floor, and ringing it up for an entirely different price at the register, and that's not even getting in to the pricing irregularities between stores in the same area. This image from Fail Blog certainly is funny, but it's also disturbing.

Our allies at Walmart Watch weigh in on the new David Faber documentary.

Every once in while the mainstream media produces an insightful and fair-handed look at Wal-Mart. Even less often, the mainstream business press produces such a piece.

But last night it happened, and Wal-Mart can’t be happy.

“The New Age of Wal-Mart” is billed as a 90 minute look “Inside the Walmart empire, revealing how the company navigated a period of intense criticism and controversy, only to strengthen its grip on the global market.” And it went even further than that.

Sure, the producers gave Mike Duke and Doug McMillan their fair share of air time to give the usual Wal-Mart spin. But reporter David Faber never waited too long to ask hard questions about wages and working conditions. Even more importantly, the documentary gave a ton of airtime to Wal-Mart critics like worker Eugene Hart from Miami (who you might remember from this video), Meghan Scott of Wake Up Wal-Mart and local activist Steve Krulick - who is fighting a Wal-Mart store in his hometown of Ellenville, New York.

There were plenty of great moments throughout, but a personal favorite came after Faber prodded Doug McMillan about the Wal-Mart family atmosphere. McMillan proceed to tell what at first appeared to be a heartwarming story about when he was initially asked by the company to move to a role in Wal-Mart International, and went to consult the then-CEO about the major hesitations he had about what the move would do to his family and so forth. How did Lee Scott respond? According to McMillan he chuckled and informed him that he had no choice and that “the company” would be the only one choosing his career.

Charming story to tell on national TV Doug! We’re sure the PR team is proud - that really went a long way to humanize the company.

But don’t take our word for it - if you have time tune it and watch yourself. There’s more information at walmart.cnbc.com - and the remaining showtimes are as follows:

Friday, September 25th 9p ET
Saturday, September 26th 7p ET
Sunday, September 27th 8p | 10:30p ET
Thursday, October 1st 8:30p ET
Sunday, October 4th 8p ET
Monday, October 5th 9p ET

You almost have to feel bad for Doug McMillan during brief (and entirely too creepy) moment in the spotlight.

Activists have placed a new hurdle between Walmart and its plan to desecrate the historic Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia.

Yesterday, September 23rd, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, and six nearby residents filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Orange County. The suit challenges the August 2009 approval of Walmart's proposal to plant a massive super center unacceptably close to the historic battlefield.

Walmart's Wilderness proposal has drawn widespread condemnation from prominent historians, actors, politicians, activist groups, and concerned citizens. However, Walmart is hardly shy about building stores where residents don't want them. As Walmart Real Estate Manager Jeff Doss once noted, "If that were the case, we'd never build a store anywhere."

This time, Walmart won't be allowed to impose without a long, hard, and expensive fight.

We applaud the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Friends of Wilderness Battlefield for taking a stand against irresponsible development.

Here is something we don't say often: go plant yourself in front of your television for 90 minutes tonight.

If you're interested in the ongoing struggle to make Walmart a more responsible corporation, you will probably want to see CNBC's latest offering. "The New Age of Walmart" is a CNBC produced, 90-minute documentary that follows up on David Faber's 2004 documentary with a similar name: "The Age of Walmart."

Walmart Workers for Change and WakeUpWalmart.com are both featured in the show.

From CNBC's description of the documentary:

CNBC presents "The New Age of Walmart," reported by award-winning correspondent David Faber. The 90-minute documentary takes an inside look at a company that sold more than $400 billion worth of goods last year and continues to thrive, even in an unforgiving economy. Faber investigates Walmart's effort to reinvent itself and whether new leadership, aggressive green policies and a full-scale store overhaul signify real change for the controversial powerhouse.

The documentary delivers an exclusive, never-before-seen look at how Walmart decides where to build a store. For the first time, television cameras accompany one of the teams that secretly traverse the country and the world looking for new places to plant its flag. CNBC speaks with Brian Hooper, the man in charge of the real estate development team for Walmart and Sam's Club in the Northeast. CNBC takes you on this covert operation where a decision to build can change a town's fortune forever.

In this economic climate, some might think the prospect of a brand new Supercenter would be an easy sell to communities. Faber found that while some people believe the opening of a Walmart would bring new job opportunities, others are convinced it will lead to their town's demise. In his first extended interview, new CEO Mike Duke addresses some of the tough issues that make Walmart both successful ... and controversial, including the company's ongoing fight against a proposed law that would make it easier for workers to form unions. Faber confronts Duke with questions about continued criticism of Walmart's health care coverage, as well as the level of wages it pays employees.

The piece airs Wednesday night at 9PM, with a repeat at 10:30PM.

What a joke.

Right Wing media outlets (think Limbaugh) spent much of Monday harping on the NEA conference call "controversy". Coincidentally, former WakeUpWalmart.com staffer Buffy Wicks was present on the call.

That "connection" lead conservative bloggers to believe all kinds of outlandish things (AKA lies) about WakeUpWalmart.com. Now our campaign is a target of the radical-right's rumor mill, complete with all the lies, smears, horrible research, and syntax-mangling half-truths we've come to expect from the far right.

What are they saying, you ask? Well, none of it makes much sense. In fact, most of the smears are so blatantly fabricated, we had to laugh. I can't recount them all, but here are my favorite new right-wing lies about WUWM.

The White House orchestrated our Glenn Beck campaign (Planet Freedom)

This is bizarre. Let me try to follow that logic. a) Buffy doesn't work here anymore. b) Buffy works for the Administration. Therefore, c) The White House created our Glenn Beck campaign.

Cool! Let me try that: a) Kal Penn quit his Kumar gig, b) Kal Penn works for the Administration. Therefore, c) Barack Obama wrote the screenplay for "A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas".

Personally, I like buffy. But, I thought we took on Glenn Beck because Walmart funded his race-baiting and hate. Just a crazy thought.

We are both sponsored by ACORN and entirely funded by the UFCW. (The American Spectator)

Why not throw in a connection to super duper "evil" ACORN? Who cares if you directly contradict that claim a few sentences later? Hold on, there is even more ACORN fun to come.

Wake-Up Walmart is just a front for ACORN and a copy of their WARN project (The American Spectator)

We get it. Nothing gets the far-right more angry than ACORN. That's ironic, because nothing makes the far-right happier than lying about ACORN. If you feel like making something up AND you're really conservative, you'll probably be talking about ACORN in less than 5 minutes.

I admit... reading the American Spectator piece got me a little worried. I began to wonder, "do I really work for ACORN?" and "just how long have I been showing up at the wrong office?"

Luckily, I checked my last pay stub and could find neither "ACORN" nor "Vast Left-wing Conspiracy" at the top. Then I remembered that the Spectator article is full of BS.

For the Factually Inclined

WakeUpWalmart.com isn't a secret department of the White House. We have worked with ACORN. We are not a project of ACORN. We are not a cheap copy of their work.

We are a group of activists working to change Walmart for the better. 470,000 joined our cause online because they believe in what we do. That is 470,000 more than the number of reasonable people who believe the latest round of far-right smears.

Filed under "humor."

"Smart Choices" is a food labeling program backed by industry heavyweights like Kellogg, Con-Agra, and (of course) Walmart. The idea behind it is obvious: if you flag "healthy" foods with a uniform labeling system, consumers can easily identify them and make better snap decisions.

Unfortunately, the program's health criteria are riddled with holes. Many products are rewarded merely for limiting sugar, fat, and salt, allowing questionable items like fudgcicles, microwave popcorn, and Lunchables to qualify for the "healthy" label.

When it comes to evaluating breakfast cereals, Smart Choices really puts on the kid gloves. Basically, a cereal containing a single encouraged nutrient and up to 12 grams of added sugar per serving earns the coveted green ribbon of health. This has allowed ridiculously unhealthy products like Froot Loops and marshmallow-laden Lucky Charms to sport the Smart Choices Label.

There is no news as to how extensively Walmart plans to implement the program, but the company remains on the Smart Choices Roundtable. We can only encourage Walmart to do the right thing by using its clout to make Smart Choices a little less... dumb.

For more, check out the New York Times article: For Your Health, Froot Loops

Walmart has had their trouble with wrongful termination in the past. They've fired folks for being disabled, or being in the military, or any number of other reasons, but this is the first I've heard of someone being fired simply for being of a particular faith.

It seems Mohammed Zakaria Memon was working as a consultant at Walmart Headquarters. As a practicing Muslim, he would take a few quick breaks throughout the day to pray. As part of his prayer, he would perform a short ritual called the "wazu", which entails washing before prayer. Apparently, though, the people at Walmart headquarters didn't like Mr. Memon sprinkling water on himself and complained. That's when the company he worked for pulled him from the project and then fired him for poor performance, despite only good reviews in previous projects.

The whole situation is pretty sad. There is no reason that someone should lose their job because of their identity, and it seems pretty clear this was about identity. It wasn't about the time lost during work, because it was only a few five minute breaks a day, and when the complaints started, it was suggested that he go to his hotel (thirty minutes away) to pray. It shows a basic lack of respect at Walmart's corporate headquarters.

You can read the article here.

According to an article in USA Today, the Supreme Court could alter contribution restrictions and open the door for corporations to spend millions to influence the political process. Considering how corporation already wield enormous influence, this ruling could instigate a spending bonanza. Read the article below for more details.

Supreme Court could loosen cap on corporate political spending By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY:

The Supreme Court appeared poised to open the door to more corporate spending in political elections Wednesday, in a fast-paced special hearing over campaign-finance regulation.

If the conservative majority moves in that direction — which would mean reversing decisions that endorsed restrictions on corporations — it will not be without a fight. Liberals, including senior Justice John Paul Stevens, lodged vigorous counterarguments in the case that could transform the rules for corporate and labor union money in elections.

The special session revolved around a 2008 movie by the conservative group Citizens United that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton when she ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. Hillary: The Movie presented 90 minutes of news clips and criticism of the former first lady. She lost the nomination to Barack Obama and is now secretary of State.
The case escalated during the presidential campaign when Citizens United sought to offer the movie through a TV video-on-demand service. The Federal Election Commission said it was subject to a 2002 law barring TV ads financed with corporate and labor union money close to an election.

Citizens United contended the FEC’s move violated its rights of free political speech.

After the Supreme Court’s first round of arguments in the case last spring, the justices asked the two sides to address the broader question of the constitutionality of limits on corporate spending in elections. That ratcheted up the stakes.

The tenor of Wednesday’s arguments suggested that a majority might be ready to lift limits on corporate expenditures in races.

Chief Justice John Roberts voiced skepticism that the U.S. government had sufficient justification to target corporations and suggested the disputed law swept too broadly.

“We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats,” Roberts said, worried about how far the federal government could extend the law.

His view seemed shared by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only one who did not ask questions, usually votes against regulation of campaign money.

Lawyer Theodore Olson, who represented Citizens United, insisted at the outset that “robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment.”

Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed him on why Congress could not treat corporations differently from individuals.

New Justice Sonia Sotomayor entered the fray 25 minutes into the 90-minute session to challenge Olson’s assertion that campaign-finance regulation was a complicated system difficult to navigate.

“You make very impassioned arguments about why this is a bad system … but we don’t have any record developed” in the litigation about alleged problems in the system, she said. She appeared unready to vote to change the rules, and asked whether doing so would interfere with state campaign regulation efforts and “the democratic process.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, defending the regulation and arguing her first case before the court, said Congress’ interest in curbing corporate money in elections is long-standing: “For over 100 years, Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections.”

Kagan urged the court not to overturn a pivotal 1990 case in which it allowed states to bar corporations from using general treasury funds on candidates. The ruling in the case said, “Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.”

Kennedy, who often is a swing vote in highly charged cases, is unlikely to play that role here. He dissented in the 1990 case and is suspicious of government regulation of campaign money. “There is no place where an ongoing chill (to speech) is more dangerous than in the elections context,” he said.

This article was originally published by the Huffington Post.

You steal, you die.

That's the international policy apparently at Wal-Mart stores, where reports indicate another alleged shoplifter has died at the hands of a gang of overzealous Wal-Mart workers -- this time in China.

According to the Associated Press report this week, Yu Xiachun, a 37-year-old woman, died 500 yards from the Wal-Mart store in Jiangxi province. Based on the local police report, Yu had exited the store and was on her way home on August 30th when she was surrounded by five Wal-Mart workers, who accused her of shoplifting.

The Wal-Mart workers asked Yu to produce a receipt, which she did. But then Yu tried to take the receipt back -- questioning who the four men and one woman were, because no one was wearing a Wal-Mart uniform. The police say that the Wal-Mart workers fought with Yu, and she was knocked to the ground. She was taken to the hospital, where she died three days later. The police have arrested two of the young Wal-Mart workers who fought with Yu. It is not clear yet what they are being charged with, if anything.

Wal-Mart's domestic 'loss prevention' strategy seems to be one of 'shoot first, ask questions later.' This horrible outcome in China is reminiscent of the equally appalling story from August of 2005, when 30-year-old Stacy Driver, a master carpenter and the father of a two-year-old son, died from a heart attack while lying face down in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Houston, Texas. Driver was pinned down on the burning hot pavement by several Wal-Mart workers who accused him of shoplifting a package of diapers, a pair of sunglasses, a BB gun, and a package of BBs. "When we got there," a paramedic said of the scene, "the man was facedown (in cardiac arrest) with handcuffs behind his back. About 30 people were saying, 'Let him up, it's too hot,' Another employee brought a rug for Driver to lie on, but one of those holding Driver said he was fine where he was. One eyewitness reported, "After about five minutes, (Driver) said, 'I'm dying, I can't breathe, call an ambulance.'" After Driver was handcuffed, the eyewitness said one employee had his knee on the man's neck and others were putting pressure on his back. "Finally the guy stopped moving" and the employees got off him. They wouldn't call an ambulance. "I looked at him and said, 'Hey, he's not breathing,' but one guy told me (Driver) was just on drugs. I told them his fingernails were all gray, and finally they called an ambulance."

Three years later, in December of 2008, another Wal-Mart patron died in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Patrick Donovan, 53, died over $393 in Wal-Mart merchandise, lying face down in the giant retailer's parking lot. Donovan's death came at the hands of three Wal-Mart workers, who wrestled the alleged shoplifter to the ground, where the man died. The Wal-Mart workers and one bystander held Donovan down, while one leaned on his back and another held down his arms and head. The police report says Wal-Mart workers told Donovan to stop fighting, and asked witnesses to call 911. By the time Donovan had stopped struggling, he had died.

Wal-Mart has been very quiet in response to this death in China. All the company has told the media is that "an incident occurred" between two of its "security associates" and a "female visitor." In past incidents, Wal-Mart's corporate office has refused to discuss its procedures for detaining and using force against shoplifting suspects. But here is their policy: Wal-Mart has an entire Loss Prevention Associate Guide. In that guide, it says that employees should "address the shoplifter politely and directly." It says that "reasonable force can be employed if the shoplifter refuses to return (to the store)." The policy goes on to clearly state, "If the situation becomes violent, or is deemed potentially dangerous, you should allow the shoplifter to leave." Wal-Mart Guides don't seem to carry much weight at the local store level.

After the Houston incident in 2005, a spokesman from the National Retail Federation said, "Most retailers have a policy of not going into a chase or getting into a combative fight with someone. Most retailers' policies would say that if a person becomes combative, let them go. You can tell police, and let the police handle the investigation and follow up."

It is only a matter of time before another 'visitor' to Wal-Mart is killed for allegedly shoplifting. In a matter of minutes, Wal-Mart will try, convict, and sentence the visitor to death in their parking lot. This corporation, which boasts that it has squeezed all the inefficiencies out of the supply chain, also has managed to squeeze out its customers' rights to protection under the law, and due process. Wal-Mart's loss prevention team needs to set a higher priority on preventing the loss of life at their stores.

You steal from Wal-Mart, you die.

Today the Wall Street Journal breaks a story we've been hearing about for a little while now. Apparently Walmart will no longer be offering regular paper checks to its employees. Instead, Walmart will begin paying its workers either through a direct deposit program, or on a debit card. Walmart is touting the change as a way to save money (for themselves) and as a green initiative because of all the paper it will save. While both are undeniably true, it could turn out to be a pretty raw deal for employees.

Employees with checking accounts who opt to get their pay through direct deposit will likely not be affected at all, but employees without a checking account could have to deal with fees for checking their balance, withdrawing money, and more. While the fees may not seem like a lot of money, they can add up and make a difference to an employee making poverty level wages.

What's more, it seems to us that Walmart is trying to create a 'factory store' like situation, where employees end up spending large portions of their income where they work, giving their hard earned money right back to the company.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Though the debit cards save companies money by reducing payroll costs, consumer advocates have criticized some card programs, noting that workers are often charged fees to access their money or even check balances.

MasterCard, however, said First Data Corp., which will process the transactions, agreed with Wal-Mart to offer some of the lowest fees available among such cards, and noted that many workers already pay fees for cashing checks. It said employees' first ATM transaction a pay period is free; subsequent ones cost $2 each.

Laura Kelly, senior vice president of global prepaid cards at MasterCard, said the arrangement benefits both companies and workers, who "won't have to go to stores to pick up their paychecks anymore."

It is worth pointing out how silly the 'upsides' of the debit card are in this article. Having the lowest fees sound nice, but the fees are replacing a form of payment that came with no fees. I don't care how low their fees are (and $2 withdrawal fees is not particularly low) it's still a net loss for the employees. Laura Kelly's comment that it'll be great for workers because they, "won't have to go to stores to pick up their paychecks anymore" is either willfully misleading or shockingly out of touch with the daily lives of Walmart workers. These workers aren't working from home or telecommuting, they're working in the stores, they have to be there regularly, and getting their paycheck when they go in for work is not a particularly difficult task.

Our tele-press conference yesterday was a great success, and we've been seeing some great coverage. Here are some of the articles:

New Coalition Targets Policies Of Wal-Mart [Washington Post]

Union launches anti-Wal-Mart ads [UPI]

Coalition of labor groups challenge Wal-Mart to change [Digital Journal]

WakeUpWalmart.com Launches Heathcare Ads [WWD Reatil]

Labor-Environmental Coalition Targets Wal-Mart [Huffington Post]

This Labor Day, Wake Up Walmart, along with a large coalition of labor, environmental and community groups, are challenging Walmart to live up to their PR promises and join us in supporting the American Values Agenda for Change at Walmart.

The coalition includes: AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Sierra Club, Campaign for America’s Future, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Consumers League, AFSCME, American Rights at Work, Communications Workers of America, Interfaith Worker Justice, LIUNA, National Labor Coordinating Committee, Service Employees International Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Auto Workers, United Farmer Workers and United Steel Workers.

The American Values Agenda for Change at Walmart issues a direct challenge to Walmart in five key areas: worker rights, quality jobs, equal opportunity, corporate responsibility and a healthy environment and lays out the next steps for how the coalition, led by the UFCW, will hold Walmart accountable for those challenges.

Check out the full American Values Agenda for Change at Walmart