Over the weekend the Associated Press ran an interesting correction. Apparently back in April they ran a story claiming that last year Mike Duke, Walmart's current CEO made $6.49 million in compensation. While that SHOULD sound like a ton of money, by today's absurd standards of executive compensation, it instead sounds like small salary.

Of course the AP fixed the number. Duke did not, in fact, make six and a half million, he made $29.07 million. That's 1,318 times the average Walmart employees wage. To put that another way, an average associate at Walmart would have to work 1,318 years just to make what Mike Duke made last year.

The comparison between the two salaries should highlight not just how little Walmart workers make, but also how much its executives make. It should also highlight how much money Walmart has. If they can pay their top executives (remember Mike Duke wasn't yet CEO when he was making nearly $30 million a year) such an outrageous sum, they can afford to better take care of the associates.

Walmart employees have been cheated out of their well deserved money yet again. News reports from last Thursday reveal that Walmart won preliminary court approval to settle 30 lawsuits for only $85 million. The class action lawsuit was filed by Walmart employees in 29 different states. Employees had been denied their mandatory lunch breaks, overtime pay and even had their time cards intentionally changed by Walmart.

$85 million might seem like a lot of money, but that is for all 30 lawsuits. Last December, Walmart paid $54.25 million to workers in the state of Minnesota for ONE lawsuit. To truly compensate the workers (for backpay) and the States (for breaking wage and hour laws) Walmart should have to pay much more.

Here an excerpt of the article from Bloomberg:

Wal-Mart Wins Initial Approval for Wage Settlements

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s biggest retailer, won preliminary court approval to pay as much as $85 million to settle 30 lawsuits claiming the company didn’t pay employees for all hours worked.

The settlement covers cases filed in federal courts in 29 states and Puerto Rico, according to court filings. The accord is part of a global $640 million resolution of wage-and-hour claims reached between Wal-Mart and workers in December.

The settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro said in granting tentative approval today. The agreement was a “hard-fought compromise of claims that have been actively litigated before this court” since February 2006, he said.

The suits claimed that Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart violated wage and hours laws by denying workers rest breaks and manipulated time cards to “shave” their pay. The suits were filed as class actions, or group lawsuits, on behalf of all hourly workers in the individual states, including Alabama, Michigan, Maryland, Oregon and Texas.

It is important to understand that this is not one isolated incident. All over the country Walmart makes money by blatantly stealing time and money from its employees.

Check out some of the previous posts we've done about the issue.

It is truly sad that the men and women who work for the world’s larges retail store, must fight so hard just to be paid for doing their jobs.

Back in August of last year, we filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because of Walmart's mandatory political meetings where employees where warned about voting for Democrats. The meetings were coercive, used scare tactics and intimidation, and we thought they were breaking the law. So did many others.

It's been almost 10 months and the FEC has just decided not to investigate. The Commission, made up of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans, voted along partisan lines on whether the country's largest retailer should come under scrutiny, and in such a deadlock, the complaint is thrown out. According to CQ Politics, the Republican's on the Commission "found that the instances described in the complaints and media accounts did not constitute a violation of law." The Democrats on the commission, however, "said accusations regarding 'alleged political coercion' of its employees on the part of Wal-Mart were 'very serious charges.'" And so, with half of the FEC believing that Walmart used political coercion amounting to very serious charges and the other half believing that Walmart broke no laws at all, the Commission will not investigate at all.

Is it me, or does this sound like the craziest system around? In a case where there is disagreement over whether or not a company broke the law, especially an even split, why in the world wouldn't they investigate and find out who is right? It wasn't as if this was some anonymous tipster and the commissioners were deciding based on whims. Countless employees came forward and laid out exactly what they were told in the meetings and who was there. We're thoroughly disappointed with the FEC.

You can read the full article from CQ Politics here.

Sometimes Walmart simply astounds us. There are instances when Walmart could easily avoid a knock-down-drag-out fight by doing something rather simple, but instead they do just the opposite.

A few days back we told you about several more prominent actors, historians, and elected officials who came out against Walmart building a store very close to an important civil war battlefield. All that anyone is asking of Walmart is that they consider a new location which won't degrade the battlefield, a relatively small request, in our opinion. Instead of considering a new location, however, Walmart has decided to stick with the site.

According to the Orange County Review, the local paper, Walmart is defending the site, arguing that,

"the Walmart property has been zoned for commercial uses for 24 years and is designated for commercial uses in the county’s Comprehensive Plan; that the same site runs the risk of development for other commercial uses without design and aesthetic controls; and that a recent poll conducted by an independent firm for Walmart found there is overwhelming support within Orange County for the store and that the proposed store would not negatively impact the Civil War sites."

Of course many, many experts disagree with Walmart's assessment. The article notes that, "information released by the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, a group of nine preservationist and activist organizations, claims the Walmart stores’ close proximity to historic areas threatens the integrity of the area."

For our part, we're inclined to believe the experts, historians, public officials, and people who work for and know about the battlefield over Walmart. Besides what does Walmart lose by moving the proposed store to a new site?

In the press conference with Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice and Wal-Mart vice president Hank Mullany that just happened, the parties announced that Walmart will, instead of facing a $10,00 fine, pay $400,000 to a victims' compensation fund, give $1.5 million in grants to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups, and set up safety regulations in their New York state stores.

According to the Associated Press article, "The agreement included no admission of guilt by Wal-Mart."

While $400,000 sounds like a good chunk of money for Jdimytai Damour's family, accepting the money would mean waving their right to a civil law suit.

Walmart isn't known for paying its employees well. The average employee makes very little, usually around $7 or $8 an hour. Walmart did pay Lee Scott well, however. Last year the company paid Scott a remarkable $30.2 million in total compensation. That included $17.4 million in stock awards, $4.4 million in options, $5.8 million as non-equity incentive compensation and his regular salary. While his salary was down a bit from the year before, I think you'll agree that this is a staggering figure. If Scott worked a forty hour work week last year, he made roughly $14,520 an hour (which is about what many employees see in a year). That means Lee made roughly 1,340 times more than the average employee.

Here's an excerpt from the article from Reuters:

Wal-Mart paid ex-CEO Scott $30.2 mln in FY09

Wal-Mart Stores Inc's (WMT.N) recently retired Chief Executive, Lee Scott, took home a total of $30.2 million in the year ended January, slightly down from a year ago, as revealed by the company's proxy statement.

Scott, who retired as the world's largest retailer's president and CEO effective January 31, had received a total compensation of $31.6 million in fiscal 2008.

Scott had served as Wal-Mart's CEO since January 2000.

Much of Scott's tenure was marked by struggles and a stagnating stock price. From 2000 through 2007, the company's stock fell 31 percent, with most of the drop coming shortly after his promotion.

In fiscal 2009, Scott received $17.4 million in stock awards, up from $14.1 million in the previous year.

His fiscal 2009 option awards were valued at $4.4 million, down from $6.8 million a year ago.

He received $5.8 million as non-equity incentive compensation, down from $8.4 million.

Scott's total compensation also includes salary, non-qualified deferred compensation and all other compensation.

The state press in China is reporting that the state run Union, the All China Federation of Trade Unions, is blocking Walmart's "restructuring" plan. If it had gone through, Walmart was going to slash around 1,400 jobs, mostly mid-level executives. The media is also reporting that many executives who had been told they were to be fired are going back to work. It's pretty incredible that back in February, Walmart did essentially the same thing here in America but instead of the workers getting to go back to work, they are all out of a job now. In other words, Walmart's Chinese employees have more job security than its American workers. Amazing. And sad.

Here's our official statement:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 20, 2009

WALMART’S CHINESE EMPLOYEES MORE PROTECTED THAN ITS AMERICAN WORKERS

On April 10th, Walmart announced that they would restructure their workforce in China affecting 1,400 employees and eliminating mid-level executives. Today, however Chinese state press is reporting that the All China Federation of Trade Unions has blocked the move. Executives who were told they would be laid off have reportedly returned to work.

“There’s something wrong when Walmart’s Chinese employees have more job security than its American employees,” said Meghan Scott, Director of WakeUpWalMart.com. “If Walmart decided they wanted to do the same thing here in America, those workers would sure still be out of a job today.”

While this is certainly good news for the 1,400 workers in China who would have otherwise lost their jobs, it also highlights the lack of protection Walmart’s employees are afforded here in America. In February, 2009, Walmart announced to 800 layoffs at its home office in Bentonville, Arkansas. Unlike the Chinese restructuring, however, those 800 employees had no protection and are now out of a job. The different outcome of these two similar situations is stark and disturbing.”

Walmart has historically been vehemently anti-union, using propaganda, strong-arm tactics, coercion, intimidation, even spying to stop workers from unionizing. If Walmart can function alongside a union in China they can do it here.”

“The disparity between protection of Walmart’s employees here and in China should be a wake-up call. It is simply shocking that Walmart’s Chinese employees are protected on the job while their American counterparts have no such protection.”

Back in January of 2005, workers at a Walmart store in Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada voted to allow a union to represent them. Of course, Walmart being Walmart, instead of letting their employees have a say at the workplace, they stalled. For more than four years, Walmart kept the case held up in court. And then, when it looked like they couldn't stall any longer, they tried to say that, because it had been four years since the initial certification and because labor laws had changed in Quebec, the court should make the employees vote again to certify a union. The courts thought that was absurd (which it is). Walmart was the one that kept stalling and they don't get to ask for a recount because they stalled. So an arbitrator granted the Walmart employees a contract with a union. That makes these employees the only Walmart employees to be covered under a union contract in North America. In the contract, workers get, "seniority rights, wage increases and a wage ladder free from favouritism, and, for the first time ever, a legally-binding grievance procedure that provides more stability, fairness, and dignity in the workplace."

Of course, if you read this blog regularly, you know that Walmart will do ANYTHING to avoid unions. In the past, they've simply shut down entire stores, or parts of stores, or stopped providing a service in order to avoid unionization. So it remains possible that this store too, will close. Andrew Pelletier, vice-president of corporate affairs for Wal-Mart Canada, said, when asked about the store closing, "We’ll have to see. Our objective has always been to run a viable store in St. Hyacinthe."

That sounds to us like they're seriously considering closing the store. And it wouldn't be a big surprise if they did, but it would be shameful. Walmart would be firing hundreds of associates for simply availing themselves of their legal right to form a union.

Here's our official statement:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 13, 2009

CONTACT: Meghan Scott

CANADIAN WALMART WORKERS WIN UNION CONTRACT

WAKEUPWALMART.COM CALLS ON WALMART TO DO THE RIGHT THING, HONOR THE CONTRACT

An arbitrator awarded workers at a Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada Walmart store a union contract more than four years after the employees voted to certify the union. The workers at this store are the only Walmart employees in North America to be covered by a union. Andrew Pelletier, vice-president of corporate affairs for Walmart Canada said he couldn’t speculate on any store's economic future, when asked about whether the Saint-Hyacinthe store would close, “We’ll have to see. Our objective has always been to run a viable store in Saint-Hyacinthe.”

“We’re glad to see that these employees finally have a union contract,” said Meghan Scott, Director of WakeUpWalMart.com. “They voted to be represented by a union, and that choice should be respected. After nearly four years of legal stalling by Walmart, the employees at this store finally have a voice on the job. While this is a great victory for the workers, it sounds like Walmart will use the same old dirty tricks to avoid treating their workers fairly.

“Walmart has a history of simply shutting down stores when its workers win union representation. We’ve already seen Walmart close an auto shop in Gatineau and an entire store in Jonquiere. Mr. Pelletier’s comments would seem to leave the door open to a similar scenario in Saint-Hyacinthe.

“Closing the store down would mean employees there would not just lose a rightful voice in the workplace, it would mean they’d lose their jobs. Walmart cannot be allowed to fire hundreds of employees because they voted for union representation.

“We hope Walmart keeps the Saint-Hyacinthe store open and honors the contract with its workers. It is the right thing to do, and Walmart has a responsibility to their employees. Firing hundreds of associates rather than allowing them a voice on the job would show a gross disregard for that responsibility.”

You can also read the statement from the UFCW Canada, who will represent the workers here, and the story from the Dow Jones Newswires here.

A lawyer for several witnesses to the Black Friday stampede at a New York Wal-Mart reports today that his clients have been called before a grand jury. It is possible that Wal-Mart could be the target of a criminal charges for its role in the deadly stampede. Though the penalty could be as little as $5,000 or $10,000, a criminal prosecution would be an important message to even the countries largest retailer. Wal-Mart too often gets away with breaking laws simply because they are large and have an army of lawyers on staff. We hope the District Attorney is going after Wal-Mart for criminally negligent homicide. While we're no lawyers, we strongly believe that Wal-Mart could have prevent this tragic event. Moreover, we believe Wal-Mart had a responsibility to prevent the death of Mr. Damour and the injuries of others.

Read the article from Newsday here:

Lawyer: Wal-Mart stampede witnesses get grand jury call

Witnesses to a shopper stampede that killed a man at a Valley Stream Wal-Mart on Black Friday last year have been called to testify before a special grand jury, their lawyer said.

Robert Steinberg of Garden City, who represents two people who were hurt in the melee, said one of his clients has already testified before the grand jury and the other has been subpoenaed. He declined to identify his clients.

If a grand jury has been empaneled to look into the case, it could mean that the district attorney is exploring criminal charges against Wal-Mart, experts said.

Eric Phillips, a spokesman for Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice, would not confirm that a grand jury has been empaneled because he said there is an ongoing investigation into what happened.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore also would not confirm that a grand jury is meeting, and would not speculate on the possibility that the superstore could be charged with a crime.

Seasonal security worker Jdimytai Damour, 34, of Jamaica, Queens, was trampled during a stampede at Green Acres Mall by some 2,000 frenzied shoppers who broke through a glass door in a rush to take advantage of sales. Damour's family and several other people who were involved in the melee have filed lawsuits against Wal-Mart.

Damour's "family supports any effort to investigate this terrible tragedy, and ensure that justice is served," said Andrew Libo, a Manhattan lawyer representing Damour's relatives.

Experts said prosecutors are more likely to bring criminal charges against Wal-Mart than they are against individuals who were present during the stampede, although that possibility cannot be ruled out.

If the grand jury were to indict Wal-Mart on a charge of criminally negligent homicide - the charge experts said would be most likely - prosecutors would then have to prove that the company failed to perceive that it was taking a substantial risk in the way it handled the Black Friday event, said Eugene O'Donnell, a law and police science professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan.

Prosecutors would likely focus on how much warning the store had that such a large crowd might turn up and how it trained employees and security personnel, among other things, O'Donnell said.

If Wal-Mart were charged criminally, it could be punished with a fine - up to $5,000 for a misdemeanor or up to $10,000 for a felony. It could also receive a "conditional discharge" and the conditions could include providing restitution to people hurt in the crush or their families, O'Donnell said.

James Acker, a criminal law professor at Albany Law School, said even though $10,000 is a pittance to a huge company like Wal-Mart, it can make a strong symbolic statement.

"It's an attention-getting device that shows the community that this is serious," he said.

Since last year, We've heard quite a few stories about how aggressive Wal-Mart has been getting with shoplifting. They've started to demand that customers show their receipts upon exiting the store, which recently turned violent. They have also apparently instructed their loss prevention officers to get serious about catching criminals because we've received e-mails and calls about some pretty brutal and physical treatment from customers who were (wrongfully) suspected of shoplifting, not to mention this story w

Today, we hear that a suspected shoplifter died after a 'scuffle' with Wal-Mart security guards, and it's not the first time this has happened.

Al Norman over at the Huffington Post has a full rundown of this and past incidents:

Another Shoplifter Death at Wal-Mart

Oh no, not again.

The media in Missouri reported Tuesday that a 38 year old caucasian man, identified as Russell S. Palmer, died Monday night, February 2nd while struggling with two Wal-Mart security guards as the result of an alleged shoplifting incident.

The fatality was a repetition of a similar death-by-shoplifting scene that took place less than two months ago in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, when 53 year old Patrick Donovan died while being wrestled to the pavement by Wal-Mart employees. The retailer alleges that Donovan had stolen $393 worth of merchandise. 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 they told Donovan to stop fighting, and asked witnesses to call 911. By the time Donovan had stopped struggling, he had died.

A similar harrowing incident took place in August of 2005, when 30 year old Stacy Driver, of Cleveland, Ohio, a master carpenter and the father of a two year old son, died on from a heart attack while lying in a Wal-Mart parking lot. 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. After Driver was handcuffed, one eyewitness said a Wal-Mart 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," the eyewitness told police. "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."

The Kansas City Star described this latest death as the result of a 'scuffle,' which took place at Wal-Mart supercenter #234 on North Church Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri. Palmer reportedly "went limp and abruptly stopped fighting," while being subdued by Wal-Mart employees. The guards attempted to conduct CPR on Palmer, but he died later in the hospital.

The Kansas City police said that according to the suspected shoplifter's girlfriend, Palmer took drugs for an unspecified medical condition. One TV station claimed that Palmer was a crack cocaine user, with a prior arrest record for stealing.

Wal-Mart issued a statement extending its "deepest sympathies to the family."

According to one Wal-Mart employee handbook, workers are told: "Great caution must be used in any shoplifting situation. If you suspect someone is shoplifting, maintain eye contact with the suspected shoplifter and notify a member of management. DO NOT, in any circumstance, accuse or try to apprehend a shoplifting suspect on your own. You may assist in the apprehension if directed to do so by a member of management or Loss Prevention." Wal-Mart also tells its employees, "Wal-Mart takes a very stern view of shoplifting and will prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, anyone caught shoplifting."

This is not a 'hands off' policy. It clearly suggests that Wal-Mart employees can "assist in apprehension," instead of leaving it to the police to handle. Wal-Mart likes to tell its workers to practice "aggressive hospitality," but it looks once again like Wal-Mart's workers have been a tad bit too aggressive.

These parking lot deaths would stop if Wal-Mart spent the time and money necessary to train its workers how to collect the information they need to help authorities make an apprehension. Deadly force is not appropriate, or needed, in these cases.

Regardless of whether you think every shoplifter is a drug dealer with a long rap sheet -- their life is worth more than a cheap pair of underwear, and they don't deserve to die face down in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Wal-Mart's "deepest sympathies" appear to be with loss prevention, over loss of life.

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.

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.

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.

Wal-Mart has once again demonstrated its true talent of earning really really bad PR. They just seem to thrive at it. And when a family called to get a Birthday cake made with their son's name on it, they once again stepped up. What is so bad about making a Birthday cake? Well if the child's name happens to be Adolf Hitler and his family happens to be holocaust deniers, it is, at the very least, bad PR, and we think pretty offensive to boot. What makes it worse is that other stores in the area had the good sense to say no to the family and that Wal-Mart has made this particular cake three years running.

And we can't forget that this isn't Wal-Mart's first run in with the Nazi issue. There was the tee shirt that Wal-Mart sold with a Nazi logo on it, which they subsequently failed to pull from shelves. There was an ad they bankrolled which went after a community group who did not want Wal-Mart to build in their town by using Nazi imagery. There was the book they sold, called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which "recounts" as fact a plot by Jewish citizens to take over the world. It has been widely discredited as a fraud but was nonetheless used by Nazi propagandists. Wal-Mart's description of the book apparently did not indicate that it was, unambiguously a made up, antisemitic book.

The story is, deservedly, getting a lot of play. Most are simply bemused all around. Here's what Keith Olberman had to say last night:

Because more than 70% of Wal-Mart's goods come from China, and because Wal-Mart cuts corners (or forces manufacturers to do so) to save money, they have been plagued with stories of unsafe products sold at their store. Most notably, lead has been an issue. It's been found in toys, Christmas lights, dinner plates, charm bracelets, even pet toys and more.

While there haven't been nearly as many news stories about it recently, Wal-Mart is still apparently selling lead tainted products. The Center for Environmental Health recently released a report and found that products from Wal-Mart and other retailers contained high levels of lead which is both dangerous and against the law. They report that

A surface coating on a WalMart store-brand green frog charm for a child’s necklace tested as high as 37% lead, more than 600 times over the standard set by the state law that was developed from CEH’s landmark January 2006 settlement with the jewelry industry. The surface coating has variable lead levels, with some pieces testing at more than three times the legal limit.

You can check out The Center for Environmental Justice's full report here.

Shoplifting is never advisable, but at a local Wal-Mart in South Carolina, it became physically dangerous to boot. A "Loss Prevention" officer physically assaulted a woman he thought to be shoplifting, picking her up in a bear hug and, "slamming her face-first onto the floor." The loss prevention officer was arrested after the woman was rushed to the hospital to treat her injuries. She sustained a rather severe black eye, as you can see in the picture.

Now, of course, we don't condone shop lifting, but we're pretty sure that you shouldn't be slammed on the floor for it, either. Wal-Mart's statement regarding the incident were a bit blase: "First and foremost, the safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority. We always expect the utmost professionalism from our associates at all times. We are currently investigating the claims related to this situation and will take appropriate action. We are cooperating with police on their investigation." The guy was caught on camera, so what is there to investigate? If Wal-Mart is serious about the safety and security of their customers and the professionalism of their associates, shouldn't they simply fire this guy?

Here's the full story form WYFF news in South Carolina:

Officers: Wal-Mart Guard Slammed Woman To Floor

A Wal-Mart loss prevention officer is under arrest after police said that surveillance video showed him grabbing a woman he suspected of shoplifting in a bear-hug and slamming her face-first onto the floor.

Spartanburg Public Safety officers were called to the Wal-Mart on Dorman Centre Drive on Tuesday after loss prevention officer Joseph Gregorie delete said he had detained a shoplifter at the store.

Gregorie told officers that he had observed 58-year-old Deborah Blackwell, of Greer, conceal several items in a tote bag while a male companion watched her do it. Gregorie said that Blackwell and the man then headed out the grocery store exit without paying for the items.

Gregorie said that Blackwell dropped the tote when he identified himself as an officer, but that she continued to try to leave the store. He said he grabbed her, and she lost her balance and they both fell.

Blackwell told officers that Gregorie had grabbed her in a "bear hug" and slammed her to the ground face first.

The officer reviewed the surveillance video, and said it confirmed that Gregorie had grabbed Blackwell in a bear-hug and threw her to the ground.

Blackwell was transported by ambulance to Spartanburg Regional Medical Center for treatment of facial injuries. Police said that Blackwell's severe black eye was caused by the incident at Wal-Mart.

Blackwell is charged with shoplifting. Gregorie is charged with assault and battery.

Both have since been released.

Wal-Mart sent a statement to WYFF News 4 saying: "First and foremost, the safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority. We always expect the utmost professionalism from our associates at all times. We are currently investigating the claims related to this situation and will take appropriate action. We are cooperating with police on their investigation."

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files suit against Wal-Mart

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h/t ValleyWag)

So apparently Wal-Mart has been forging back to school shopping lists complete with details making it look like an official school list. One imagines that this was an attempt to get parents to buy a few extra supplies, but why in the world did they think they could get away with this? Perhaps the best detail of this story is that the fake list included items banned from schools.

The full story is posted below from Kelby Carr. Enjoy!

My daughter is about to start kindergarten, so naturally we did some back to school shopping. Our state sales tax break weekend happened recently. When we noticed the local Wal-Mart had shopping lists not only specific to school and grade level, but to teacher, we were thrilled. We started tossing items in the cart to spend, spend, spend.

Weren’t we a little surprised to learn afterwards that Wal-Mart invented those lists. Not only were we a bit surprised to learn they did not, in fact, base the lists on anything remotely suggested by the school. Wal-Mart, in fact, put items on the list that are BANNED from being brought to school.

Our daughter’s school said Wal-Mart makes up those lists on their own, and a number of items (such as crayons) are on a list from the school. A list of items parents are specifically told not to have their child bring to school. Seriously?

The real back to school list also featured several items that are not on Wal-Mart’s list.

So these lists are, in essence, a trick to get parents (and I can only assume, being that it’s a discount store like Wal-Mart, a great many parents who are on a tight budget) to drop cash on unnecessary purchases. That really aggravates me. It isn’t a big deal if I buy a few extra supplies. I can afford it, and I am sure we will use these items elsewhere. I wouldn’t have bought them otherwise, but it isn’t the end of the world.

But what if I was broke? Or a single mom living on a low income? Or both? I truck over to Wal-Mart thinking I will stretch my precious dollars, only to drop cash on crap I don’t need just because I am trying hard to be sure my poor child isn’t embarrassed by missing needed supplies. That part of it sickens me.

I can imagine they would say that they are making these lists as suggestions to assist shopping parents. (In fact, Wal-Mart officials can feel free to comment and explain the rationale here. I will definitely approve your comments, and would frankly love to hear your explanation).

Here is the problem with that, however. I have done things like create registries and so forth. Often there is a suggested list of items to get or add to the list. Always, it is clear to me these items are not necessary. So, for example, Wal-Mart could make a list that is titled something like, “Suggested Back to School Items for Kindergartners.” Shoot, even then I would make the top of the page have a statement along the lines that these are suggestions and are not an official list from the school.

Instead, there is no way to describe these lists except as ones that are trying very hard to look official. They have a fax send line at the top of the page (who on earth faxed these, if not the schools?). They not only state the school, but also the grade level and they have various lists based on teacher. Each teacher has slightly different supplies required. If that doesn’t look like something official from the school, I’m not sure what would. Perhaps adding a medieval wax seal to each list?

I also presume other retail stores are doing the same thing, but I honestly haven’t checked.

Either way, be sure you get your back to school shopping list from the school itself. And let me know what’s on it. Because right now I have a shopping bag packed with crap I don’t need. Classy.

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

Here's the full version of the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the story from a local Illinois station:

Man files wrongful death suit against Wal-Mart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She had no comment.

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit seeks damages over $75,000.

When you think of West Virginia, scorpions don't exactly come to mind, so you can imagine how surprised Megan Templeton was when she was stung while picking up a Watermelon at her local Wal-Mart. Here is yet another reason to shop for locally grown produce: you can't get stung by exotic creatures when you pick up a head of lettuce grown in the next town over. A Watermelon from Mexico, however, can bring all kinds of nasty critters with it, as we can see here.

Here's the AP story via USA Today:

Girl stung by scorpion in Wal-Mart watermelon

BARBOURSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) — One young shopper at a Wal-Mart in West Virginia had to watch out for more than falling prices.

A 12-year-old girl picking up a seedless watermelon from a bin was stung Sunday by a tan, inch-long scorpion that had apparently stowed away in a shipment from Mexico.

Megan Templeton, of Barboursville, was taken to the hospital as a precaution but later released. Her father, William Templeton, said the pain was a little worse than a bee sting.

He initially didn't believe his daughter when she said she had been stung by a scorpion, but then he saw the critter scurry underneath a box. It was captured by Wal-Mart employees.

Most of the nearly 2,000 kinds of scorpions are not dangerous to humans.

This is a pretty unbelievable case. Andre Johnson, an NFL star bought several bikes at Wal-Mart through his charity (to be given to underprivileged children), and Wal-Mart agreed to donate some water and ice to the event. Somehow the order got messed up and because Andre Johnson did not end up buying as many bike as he originally planned, Wal-Mart refused to give him the water and ice.

How callous does one have to be to refuse a donation because the person in question spent a little less at your store? For that matter, why should their donation be dependent on spending money at all?

Here's the story from TMZ:

NFL Star: Wal-Mart Left Kids Out in the Cold

NFL superstar Andre Johnson claims his charity got stiffed by Wal-Mart -- it all involves water and ice. Yes, ice.

Johnson ordered 750 bicycles to be given to underprivileged kids at an event sponsored by the Andre Johnson Foundation -- in return for the purchase, Wal-Mart agreed to donate water and ice for the May 3 event.

But there was a problem with the order, so Johnson ended up buying fewer bikes than planned. Wal-Mart countered by not giving the water and ice as promised. That's cold.

Wal-Mart is trying to rectify the situation. They tell TMZ, "We are reaching out to the Andre Johnson Foundation as we speak to rectify the situation. It's disappointing that this happened."

Via Wal-Mart Watch's blog, here's a letter from Christopher Shank, Debbie Shank's son. You can see how profoundly this ordeal has affected this family's life, and how different it would have been if Wal-Mart had done the right thing.

First of all, let it be known that I’m Debbie Shank’s son, and not some random dude putting in his two cents. That being said, here’s the skinny…

When we sued the trucking company, our lawyer told us that the only amount we could get off of the trucking company was what the truck was insured for...namely, a million dollars. As they were a small trucking company, they had no real net worth, and the amount we could sue them for was just for their insurance.

When we received the settlement of 1 million, a third of that was paid out to the lawyers. After that, my dad was given a portion of that to make up for lost wages. We told Wal-Mart about all of this, and they basically said “Okay.” and did nothing. We set up the rest, 417K, to take care of mom. We took care of her for three years on that, but when the statute of limitations was set to expire on Wal-Mart suing us, they literally had days left, they filed to sue us. Our lawyer told us at the time that they were only doing this to keep their options open, but Wal-Mart decided that they wanted to go after the settlement, as they say time and time again, “out of fairness for everyone in the medical plan”.

And so it went. The first ruling came August 31, 2006. At the time it was the worst thing that had happened. Six days later, my brother was killed. Dad said “Fine. Whatever. They won.” We were without any will to keep going. Our lawyers said “We’ll appeal. You just don’t worry about things. We’ll take care of all of it.”

Appeal after appeal, Wal-Mart won them all. We finally appealed to the Supreme Court. Last week, they said they weren’t going to take our case. We lost. Now, Wal-Mart can’t take any more money than we had in the trust fund, so they get that. But, we still have 150K in outstanding medical bills. We have a fund set up that has accepted donations, but it quickly depletes due to bills. Even with government assistance, we still must pay anywhere from 500-1000 per month to keep mom in the nursing home, and that’s not counting bills she has from trips to the hospital (a couple weeks ago she was bleeding internally) . The outstanding bills we have, they can sue my father directly, so it’s looking like he may have to sell his home at least. My youngest brother, if he wants to have the money to go to college, will himself either have to take out thousands in loans or join the military.

Dad has worked all his life, was set to retire in 5 years, but now it’s looking as if he’ll have to work longer and longer. Plus he has cancer to worry about.

So, that’s the story. I have a feeling that somewhere along the lines, be it by Wal-Mart, the courts, the lawyers, the trucking company, or a combination of all, we’ve been taken advantage of. We could only sue for so much, we had to pay the lawyers, the courts decided to maintain the status quo, and Wal-Mart sold it’s soul.

Whoever’s fault it is, we’re screwed. Plain and simple.

Here's the video footage from CNN. It is incredibly humanizing to see this family on tape, and incredibly sad too.

CNN has more coverage of the incredibly sad healthcare case today. Here's the article:

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses, but in 2005, Wal-Mart's health plan sued the Shanks for the same amount.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

Here is a rather unbelievable story, or perhaps not considering how easy it is to get fired from Wal-Mart. It is disgraceful that Tom Hampton was fired for his disability. Wal-Mart should be ashamed at making such a poor choice, both ethically and from a business standpoint (after all, it sounds like Tom was a great employee, and could perform his job just as well, if not better in his wheelchair). Wal-Mart is apparently looking to rehire Tom once they find a suitable position for him. I'm not sure what is wrong with his old position, which he clearly enjoyed. What is most disturbing about this story, however, is not Tom's individual case but the trend of intolerance and the speed at which an associate can be fired.

Here's the full story from The Mansfield News Journal:

Tom Hampton wants to go back to work. A Wal-Mart official said the company wants to find him work.

But Hampton continues to sit at home.

The 48-year-old Lexington man, paralyzed on his left side since a 1986 motorcycle accident, said problems began in October when he filed a request to use his wheelchair at the Possum Run Road store.

"I knew the Christmas rush was coming and I was running out of energy in my left leg, so I asked if I could bring my wheelchair into work," he said. "They have a form you fill out, which is a request for a reasonable accommodation. I gave it to my store manager, but then I heard nothing back about it for a long time. For three months, they just kept saying that they hadn't heard anything. So one day I just showed up in my wheelchair."

Hampton said he worked 30 minutes before he was called into the office.

"They told me I either had to get up out of the chair or go home," he said. "It really surprised me. After working there for two years, I thought I'd proven myself. I never missed a day of work and I thought I was a pretty valued employee and they'd want to keep me -- but they didn't seem like they wanted to."

Hampton went home.

Nearly four months have passed, but Wal-Mart spokesperson Sharon Weber said the company is working to find Hampton a position.

"He's gotten a letter from us," Weber said. "We don't discuss personnel issues dealing with associates, but we always try to work closely with our associates to help them perform their jobs.

"We certainly want to help this individual. Each department has minimum job requirements that employees have to meet. We do allow people with wheelchairs to work, but right now we're working to help him find a position."

Hampton said he hasn't received a letter from Wal-Mart.

"When I went in for an interview, I went through the same hiring process like everyone else did. My disabilities were visible -- I had a cane and my left arm was in a sling. They did not question me at all on my condition."

Until recently, he was pleased with his experience at the store. That's a point of pride for the company, Weber said.

"We value all our associates and work so hard to be an employer of choice," Weber said. "We've received awards for our work with associates with disabilities."

Hampton said he worked as a sales associate in the electronics department, where he helped run the cash register and general customer service responsibilities.

"I was impressed that they'd given me a chance as a disabled person," he said. "They treated me really well until this past winter."

Hampton said he was asked to provide a doctor's release to add to his request for the wheelchair. Three weeks later he was told his request had been denied.

"I don't have any use of my left arm. I can walk fairly well, but it's not very smooth with my left leg," Hampton said.

Hampton said he experienced no problems in his chair.

"I didn't have any trouble maneuvering through the aisles," he said. "Actually, I could move faster in the wheelchair than I could walking. A lot of my customers know me by name and they didn't mind me in the chair, just the management did."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken Hampton's statement, but he said they haven't gotten back to him yet.

"They said it could take six months to a year to get me on their list," he said. "I'm holding my own for now, but it's not great. I was working for a reason. I needed the money."

Bill Hiser, of the Independent Living Center, said Hampton has been with the Mansfield agency for more than 12 years.

"He was on the board, he was treasurer and a friend, so he's been part of the Independent Living Center family for a long time," Hiser said. "We were just amazed that the whole thing happened -- amazed and a little horrified. He's had good reviews, he's very knowledgeable in the world of electronics and computers and worked there two years, so I don't think his disability is an issue. Tom has always strived to be as independent as he can, where most people in his situation would want to roll over and not work. He wants to work."

Hampton said he's amenable to shifting to a new position if necessary.

"I would be willing to work in another department, hopefully it would be one in which I could still use my knowledge and expertise," he said. "I just would really like to get back to work."

The U.S Supreme Court has refused to review the case of Debbie Shank, who worked for Wal-Mart as a stocker and was severely brain damaged in a car accident. The refusal means that the Shank family now owes Wal-Mart $470,000. Wal-Mart sued the family after paying their medical bills because the Shanks won a lawsuit against the trucking company that hit Debbie's car.

Wal-Mart says they sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the insurance plan, except, it seems, to the Shanks. The money they won from the trucking company was set aside to use for long term care because Debbie needs full time care. Instead, Wal-Mart will put this money back in to their insurance plan.

Here's the story from the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

WASHINGTON — The family of a Missouri woman must reimburse Wal-Mart for nearly a half-million dollars in medical expenses now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review her case.

The court on Monday let stand a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis requiring Debbie Shank of Cape Girardeau County to pay nearly $470,000 to Wal-Mart.

The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.

"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said Monday when told about the court's decision.

Nathan Shank said that with her case in limbo, his mother already had lost a private caregiver and might be moved out of her private room in the nursing home.

According to legal documents, Shank's medical bills — totaling $469,216 — were covered by a health insurance program at Wal-Mart, where Shank worked nights stocking shelves.

Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.

As is common for employer-sponsored health plans, Shank's insurance required full repayment of medical expenses if she received money from a lawsuit.

Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the company sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the plan.

"This is a tragic situation," Moore said. "The reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay future claims for other associates and their family members."

The Supreme Court gave no explanation for its decision.

Imagine your spouse dying and their employer collecting thousands of dollars because of it. Wouldn't you be angry? Especially if you hadn't known their employer might benefit from their death? For many spouses of Wal-Mart employees, this happened. Recently a lawsuit against the company was thrown out of court because of a technicality, but Wal-Mart paid nearly $15 million because of the 350,000 secret claims they had.

Here's the story from the St. Petersburg Times:

A federal judge has dismissed a Hillsborough County man's lawsuit against Wal-Mart over a life insurance claim the company received when the man's wife died.

Friday, U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. dismissed the suit filed by Richard Armatrout, because it failed to reach the $75,000 threshold for a civil complaint to go before a federal judge.

When Karen Armatrout, 50, died of cancer in 1997, Wal-Mart collected $72,820.30 from an insurance policy the retail giant had in her name. Armatrout's husband sued, saying the couple never knew about the policy and he received none of the payout.

Armatrout's attorney argued the lawsuit exceeded the $75,000 limit if punitive damages were included.

Karen Armatrout worked at a Wal-Mart pharmacy on Waters Avenue in Tampa and took a leave of absence when doctors diagnosed her with cancer.

Michael D. Myers, a Texas attorney representing Richard Armatrout, said Monday he anticipated the case would be thrown out because of the technicality. Before Moody's ruling, Myers filed Armatrout's lawsuit in Pasco County, along with a similar case for Pasco resident Wayne Atkinson. Myers said Wal-Mart also collected on a policy when Atkinson's wife, Rita, died.

Myers estimates Wal-Mart secretly insured about 350,000 employees for two years beginning in 1993. Wal-Mart officials said they dropped the policies by the start of 2000.

He has won settlements against Wal-Mart in Texas and Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, a judge approved a $5.1-million class-action settlement in a case brought by the estates of deceased Wal-Mart employees. A $10-million settlement was reached in Texas.

Myers is waiting to see if a Pasco County judge will grant his motion to give Armatrout's case class-action status for similar estate claims in Florida.

After the Consumerist published their story about a customer being held in a Wal-Mart because he didn't show his receipt, letters poured in of others who had similar experiences. Here's one they published that's particularly interesting. Perhaps this is why Wal-Mart ranks last in consumer satisfaction. Here's the letter from a customer who wasn't allowed to leave the store, even though a manager was there with him, holding his purchase:

Here's a basic run down of my WalMart experience from this past Saturday in Memphis, TN. I went there to buy 1)firearm, 2)ammunition for firearm, and 3)groceries. I knew the firearm would take the longest so I went to the sporting goods counter first with the intent of buying the firearm and ammunition back there and groceries up front ( I had produce). I was going to have my initial purchase in its own basket and flow through the self check out with my groceries. While waiting for the government approval to buy the firearm, I gathered my groceries and the ammunition. The cashier, who really was nice and pleasant, kept telling me it would be just another five minutes and to wait instead of going up front and buying my groceries. After an hour the approval came through so a manager was called to complete the sale. We waited 15 minutes for Assistant Manager Ladarrel to show up. He checks the paperwork then tells me he can't ring the ammunition up with the firearm. I would have to take them to the car and come back. Since I had already spent an hour waiting so far and no one in sporting goods bothered to point out that store policy, I decided I would just buy the ammunition at another time. I already had to wait in 2 separate lines. I didn't want to make it 3. Ladarrel sells me the firearm. I give him cash. He gives me a receipt. He then says it is store policy that he escorts the firearm out of the store. So he, holding the box with the firearm, follows me and my shopping cart to the front of the store. When I walk to a check out line he tells me he has to escort the firearm out of the store immediately and I would have to take the firearm to my car and come back to buy the groceries. I explained I could not secure or even hide the firearm in my car so once I put the box in my car I was leaving. He insisted I could not buy my groceries at that time. So, we abandoned the cart and went to the door. When he reaches the door checker, he, still holding my purchased firearm, stops and tells me to show them my receipt. I say that I don't do that. He says it's store policy. I explain that it's my policy not to show my receipts unless absolutely necessary. Soon another man who apparently is in charge of the front joins in and insists that unless I show my receipt I can't have my firearm. I try to explain that not only did I give cash to Assistant Manager Ladarrel AND he gave me a receipt of sale AND he has been in complete possession of the firearm since the sale; he escorted me from the back of the store to where we were standing. At no time had I been in possession of my merchandise. He knew he had sold me the merchandise and he knew I was the owner at that time. It was useless. We argued for about 10 minutes. It all came down to their saying that unless I showed proof of ownership the merchandise was not mine. I insisted that not only did Ladarrel know I owned the merchandise so he was illegally in retaining possession of it; the proof was located in the records they are required to keep for a firearm sale; records that Ladarrel had personally verified for accuracy. Finally, I said I wanted to return the item. They insisted that without a receipt I could only get store credit. I told them that I paid cash and I would get cash. We walked to the sporting goods counter and they easily printed a copy of the receipt from the register. I received my cash back and they kept the firearm. I left and went to a grocery store and a sporting goods store. All in all, I would have spent over $450 at WalMart but other companies received my business. Patrick

In January, an investigative reporter from St. Louis station KMOV went undercover and found that Wal-Mart was throwing away a huge amount of food that had reached its sell-by date, but was still perfectly safe to eat. The station recently learned that this is official Wal-Mart corporate policy. Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri and Representative Jo Ann Emerson have written letters to Lee Scott telling him to donate the food to pantries and soup kitchens. Check out the report!

Wal-Mare is being sued once again. This time, it's not for gender discrimination or forcing employees to work off the clock. This time it's for refusing to help a customer when his three year old daughter was molested in a Wal-Mart! Following is the full story from the OC Register:

A Stanton father is suing Wal-Mart alleging that store managers in the Westminster outlet failed to protect or help his then 3-year-old daughter when she was being inappropriately touched by another man.

Tom Flood said in his civil complaint that he had to follow John Anderson, whom police later arrested on suspicion of a lewd act with a minor in connection with the incide