Chong Won Factory Workers Criticize Wal-Mart For Failing to Renew Order
From Financial Times:
Workers in the Philippines who were sacked for going on strike have criticised Wal-Mart for its decision not to renew orders from their factory, in a case that is testing the retailer’s efforts to use its buying power to improve the ethical standards of its global supply chain.
The world’s largest retailer allowed its contract with the Chong Won factory outside Manila to expire last month and has said it will not renew it unless management meets a series of conditions. The conditions require the reinstatement of 117 sacked workers and the opening of discussions towards establishing a collective bargaining agreement with their union.
The 117 workers were sacked after going on strike in September in an attempt to force the management to reach a collective bargaining agreement.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: International | Workers Rights & Wages | | | Philippines
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Thursday, June 07, 2007 | Permalink
Trenton, NJ. Court Gives Wal-Mart Its 9th. Class Action “Off the Clock” Case
Wal-Mart is suffering from a corporate illness that even its $4 prescriptions can’t cure: Litigation Fatigue. In its recently-released 2007 Annual Report, Wal-Mart devotes two entire pages of 10-point type to the subject of “Litigation.” The giant retailer has become a giant target of legal actions against it. “The company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class action allegations,” the company admits, “in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege that the company forced them to work ‘off the clock’ or failed to provide work breaks, or otherwise that they were not paid for worked performed.” In most of these cases, class action status is still under consideration by the courts. Wal-Mart says that in 14 cases, class action certification has been denied, but in 8 cases it has been approved in full or in part. In all, there are roughly 30 such lawsuits currently pending. These cases are like a financial sword hanging over shareholders. “The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss which may arise from these lawsuits,” Wal-Mart warns. Just before Christmas of 2005, Wal-Mart was fined $172 million in one of these cases in California, and the retailer has now appealed that verdict. In October of 2006, Wal-Mart lost a similar case in Pennsylvania, setting the company back by $78 million. The largest class action lawsuit now pending, Dukes v Wal-Mart, began six years ago, is a gender discrimination suit that covers 1.6 million women workers. Wal-Mart appealed the class certification in the Dukes case, lost, and at the end of February, 2007, filed a motion to reconsider. In a classic understatement, Wal-Mart warns its shareholders that if it loses or settles in the Dukes case, “the resulting liability could be material to the company.” Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that another off-the-clock lawsuit could proceed as a class action on behalf of roughly 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Judith L. Spanier, said the New Jersey case was similar to the Pennsylvania case noted above. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 5-1 against Wal-Mart, which means that this case can proceed as one action, rather than thousands of separate lawsuits. “By allowing this manageable litigation to proceed, we permit a class of hourly, retail employees to unite and — on an equal footing with their adversary — to seek relief for their ‘small claims,’ ” the court ruled. As a class action case, Wal-Mart financial risk is much greater, as opposed to facing individual cases, many of which would never come to trial. The New Jersey case covers all hourly employees who worked for Wal-Mart stores in New Jersey since May 30, 1996. According to the decision written by Chief Justice James R. Zazzali, “The core of the present dispute is whether Wal-Mart engaged in a systematic and widespread practice of disregarding its contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations to hourly employees in this state by refusing to provide earned rest and meal breaks and by encouraging off-the-clock work.” Wal-Mart issued its standard reply in such cases: “We’ve always maintained that it is our policy to pay every associate for every hour they have worked.” But the plaintiffs charge that, in fact, Wal-Mart forced its workers to work hours without pay, and to skip required rest breaks. The court noted that many of the low-wage workers might remain silent because of “legitimate fears concerning employer retaliation, lack of resources, or a sense of powerlessness when confronting their would-be corporate adversary…We cannot ignore the reality that if the proposed class is not certified, thousands of aggrieved employees will not seek redress for defendant’s alleged wrongdoing.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Lawsuits
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 | Permalink
San Diego, CA. City Council Takes Final Vote To Cap Size of Superstores
Sprawl-Busters reported on November 30, 2006 that the San Diego, California city council had taken the first major step towards imposing a cap on the size of retail buildings when it voted 5-3 on November 28th to ban retail stores of more than 90,000 s.f. that use 10% of their interior space to sell groceries or other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. This ordinance is modeled on similar ordinances in California, most notably Turlock, where Wal-Mart has failed repeatedly to challenge the law in the courts. The Mayor of San Diego told reporters at the time that he would veto the new cap if it went through its required second vote in January. Councilman Tony Young, who voted for the cap, told the Associated Press, “I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people’s lives.” That vision came closer to reality yesterday, when the City Council voted to approve the big box ordinance. As adopted, the measure would limit the size of superstores, like the ones that Wal-Mart has been trying to build. The second reading of the ordinance was delayed from the original January date, so that the public could have time to comment. San Diego’s act is pre-emptive, since the city currently has no Wal-Mart supercenter, but local sources indicate that Wal-Mart wants to add several supercenters in San Diego. As with November’s vote, the new ordinance was adopted on a 5-3 vote. Mayor Jerry Sanders, who also opposed the ordinance, warns he will veto it, but 5 votes on the Council is enough to override the Mayor’s veto. Wal-Mart is now busy preparing to hire people to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot in the form of a referendum. This would not appear before voters until February, 2008—another nine month delay for Wal-Mart. The mayor has 10 days to veto the ordinance. The City Council will then have a month to vote to override his veto.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Site Fights & Local Ordinances | Lawsuits | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE FATE OF SUPER STORES
City Council To Decide Fate Of Super Stores [10 News San Diego]
SAN DIEGO—The city council will consider Monday final passage of an ordinance that would prohibit the construction of so-called big-box retail stores within city limits.
The measure to limit construction of superstores such as those that Wal-Mart has been trying to erect was approved 5-3 by the city council in November last year, but the second reading was delayed so that more public input could be generated.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Site Fights & Local Ordinances
Posted by Jason Korta on Monday, June 04, 2007 | Permalink
Fayetteville, AR. Citizen Opposition Forces Wal-Mart To Apply Brakes On Growth
Opposition by local community groups across the country, and by Wall Street analysts, has taken a big bite out of Wal-Mart’s projected new store growth plans. Widespread unhappiness on Main Street and Wall Street combined to force the giant retailer to suddenly pull in its wings. The company has admitted for many years that it is cannibalizing its own sales. But Wal-Mart abruptly announced yesterday at its Annual Stockholder’s meeting that during its 2008 fiscal year, it will open between 190 and 200 new stores in the United States. Any of the 18,000 stockholders present---if they happened to open the company’s 2007 Annual Report in their lap---would read that Wal-Mart’s future expansion plans called for “265 to 270 new supercenters.” In just a matter of weeks, Wal-Mart executives chose to depart from the “Management’s Discussion” in their Annual Report, and instead cut back expansion plans dramatically by 26%. Two years ago, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying, “When we you get as large as we are, you have to paint a picture in people’s minds that you can still grow. Otherwise, they think of $285 billion (in sales) and think ‘That’s the end of that.’ Well, it isn’t.” For several years, Wall Street’s reaction to the retailer’s overly-aggressive U.S. construction forecast has been less than encouraging. Two months before Scott’s speech at the Executive Club in Chicago, Bernstein Research Call issued a 13 page report warning stockholders of the downside of Wal-Mart’s superstore plans. The analysts noted that Wal-Mart’s growth “is under siege in several regions of the country from growing opposition by local communities…Local opposition has successfully squashed numerous plans among big box players in different parts of the country.” Bernstein noted that “heightened resistance could negatively impact these retailers by slowing their square footage growth rates.” Even modestly slower long-term square footage growth could have both an earnings per share and valuation impact, researchers said. Because of opposition groups, “it is clear that (discount retailers) will need to pursue a substantially larger number of permits going forward to hit their internal square footage targets given the likelihood of many opportunities failing.” Citizen groups’ successes grew at a 21% annual rate in 2004 and 2005. Sprawl-Busters records indicate that 46 Wal-Mart projects alone were defeated or withdrawn in 2006. Not only has Wal-Mart suddenly slammed the brakes for 2008, but the company said yesterday it would open about 170 superstores per year for the next three years. As proof that citizen opposition has thrown Wal-Mart off its production schedule, the company also admitted that as many as 80 of its supercenters which were expected to have ribbon-cuttings in 2008, now have been deferred into 2009. Roughly 30% of its planned stores are not coming in on time, and many of these may never, in fact, open. Hence, the narrowing of the production pipeline for 2008 and out years. Wal-Mart said its deceleration plans mean adjustments will be made at Wal-Mart Realty. The real estate division of the company has been submitting supercenter sites as close as two or three miles apart. Wal-Mart acknowledges that this amounts to picking its own pockets. “We also have been focused this year on reducing cannibalization of existing stores via our more strategic selection of U.S. real estate projects,” explained John Menzer, the company’s Chief Administrative Officer.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, June 04, 2007 | Permalink
Gresham, OR. Wal-Mart Loses---Again
Citizens are celebrating--again--in Gresham, Oregon today. Sprawl-Busters reported on December 10, 2006 that Wal-Mart had decided to appeal the 57-page decision of Hearing Officer Joe Turner, rejecting a proposed supercenter. Turner’s decision said that the developer, PacLand, “failed to sustain the burden of proof that the car trip distribution estimates for vehicles leaving the site are accurate…” A combination of the developer’s insubstantial traffic impact data, and the citizen group, Gresham First’s, expert traffic analysis, left the Hearing Officer without solid evidence that the impact on this intersection would meet the city’s traffic standards. Many other issues were raised, but as the Hearing Officer noted, “Opponents of the proposed development raised a number of other issues including, but not limited to, potential environmental impacts, increased crime, visual impacts, tree removal and impacts on the locally economy and businesses. Those issues were not raised in the Notice Of Appeal and therefore are beyond the scope of the appeal.” Wal-Mart appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, stating, “We do not agree with the hearings examiner’s decision on traffic.We feel that, if traffic is viewed under normal conditions, our traffic study and plans are a good fit for the area.” But the LUBA only sent the case back to the Hearing Officer, who today rejected Wal-Mart’s plans a second time. Turner said that Wal-Mart still failed to “sustain the burden of proof” about their assumptions on traffic. He said specifically, Wal-Mart failed to demonstrate that traffic from the development wouldn’t exceed minimum levels under city code. Here is the report from the frontlines sent to Sprawl-Busters by Gresham First: “Wal-Mart’s proposal to build a Super-Center is southwest Gresham was denied today by Hearings Officer Joe Turner.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Traffic/Sprawl | Lawsuits | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, June 01, 2007 | Permalink
Blacksburg, VA. Special Permit On Big Box Stores Passes Unanimously
Large scale retail projects in the town of Blacksburg, Virginia will face a lot more scrutiny because of a new zoning law passed yesterday. On May 14, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that the town of Blacksburg was going to vote on land use ordinance 1450, which would limit the size of retail buildings in town to 80,000 s.f. Larger buildings would require a special use permit issued by the town council. Jubilant residents tell Sprawl-Busters today that they have at least succeeded in getting their zoning law passed. “Last night, after a marathon 5-hour public hearing,” citizens wrote, “the Blacksburg Town Council passed, by a 7-0 vote, an ordinance that will require a special use permit for any retail over 80,000 square feet. A grassroots effort by Blacksburg United for Responsible Growth (BURG) brought in petitions with over 3,500 signatures. This was more than the total number of votes cast in the last, hotly contested, mayoral election. Speakers at the hearing in favor of the ordinance outnumbered those opposed by a ratio of 8 to 1. Almost all of the opposition to the ordinance came from individuals with a direct stake in a development on South Main Street that includes a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The ordinance gives us the breathing room we need to have the thorough study and public discussion of the best way of regulating big box development. We will be looking at ways to strengthen the protections of the new ordinance. In order to circumvent the new law and the will of the town’s residents, the developers of the South Main project have already sued the town. They have asked the circuit court to retroactively award them vested rights to build their supercenter. BURG is considering joining the case on the town’s side. We are elated at the unequivocal statement that the Town Council has made, but are still focused on winning the case and stopping this project that would be disastrous for the town.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Site Fights & Local Ordinances
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, May 31, 2007 | Permalink
Newmarket, NH. Wal-Mart Smells New Market in Newmarket
Everywhere Wal-Mart has stepped along the seacoast of New Hampshire, controversy has followed. In towns like Stratham and Exeter, New Hampshire, Sprawl-Busters worked with local residents to oppose Wal-Mart superstores. Today local merchants in the coastal community of Newmarket contacted Sprawl-Busters in response to a newspaper story that the giant retailer is now looking at Newmarket. You couldn’t pick a more unlikely place for a superstore. This town of roughly 8,000 people describes itself as having “white church steeples, old mill buildings, a dammed river, park land with nature walks, and good road access to beaches, skiing and golfing, Newmarket is an ideal place to work and live.” This scenic mill town along the banks of the Lamprey River and Great Bay has also been planning for nearly ten years to revitalize its existing downtown. The Main Street Reconstruction Project is the result of an extensive public process that grew out of the work of a group called the Newmarket Tomorrow Committee, which was formed by the Town Council in 1999 to formulate a vision for the future development of Downtown Newmarket. The town also recreated a Downtown Business Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District in 1998 for the purpose of financing the investment needed to attract new development and revitalize the downtown and the mills. At the time of its creation, the assessment level of all properties located within the TIF District established the tax revenue that would continue to go into the Town’s General Fund. Taxes from any subsequent increase in property value would go into the TIF Fund. These “incremental taxes” are not subject to County or State education taxes, so all of the money stays in Newmarket. Town voters approved bonding authority of $2.0 million in 1998 and $2.5 million in 2003 to help improve the downtown. Despite all this focus on the core downtown, and local businesses, the Exeter News-Letter reports that Wal-Mart is sniffing around the edges of Newmarket. “I have been told there is work being done to evaluate a site in town (for a potential Wal-Mart store),” said town Planner Diane Hardy. “No paperwork has been filed with us yet.” The newspaper also cited a Planning Board member confirming that Wal-Mart is definitely looking at Newmarket as a possible location for a new store. “The town manager mentioned it to (the members of the board),” the local board member said. “He was kind of informing us it’s in the works.” Wal-Mart, as ususal, denied any specific plans for Newmarket, just as they did in Stratham and Exeter, where they encountered strong local opposition. “While Wal-Mart is interested in the entire southern New Hampshire area, we have not publicly announced plans for Newmarket,” said the company’s senior manager for public affairs. The site Wal-Mart wants, local merchants told us, is the Rockingham Country Club and Golf Course, located at the corner of Route 108 and Ash Swamp Road. The golf club owner denied any knowledge of the plan. “As far as I know, Wal-Mart is not coming here,” she said. Score that comment as a double-bogey.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Community Impact | Economic/Small Business
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, May 31, 2007 | Permalink
Page 156 of 208 pages « First < 154 155 156 157 158 > Last »
