Montgomery, AL. Wal-Mart Tire Customer Wins $4 Million Negligence Suit
Carolyn Thome of Montgomery, Alabama won a $4 million lawsuit this week against Wal-Mart, and it only took her three years to do it. Thome was paralyzed as a result of an auto accident. Thome’s case stems from a 2004 rollover crash involving her Ford Expedition SUV. The crash occurred when the tread on one of her SUV’s tires separated. Thome’s attorney said his client was awarded $2 million in punitive damages and $2 million in compensatory damages by the jury. There were actually several companies that Thome sued, including Continental Tire, Sonic Automotive, and Ford Motor Co. The other three companies settled, but only Wal-Mart forced Thome to take them to court. Thorne was driving to a business meeting, wearing her seatbelt, when the tire tread separated and she lost control of her car. Her SUV rolled over one time and the roof was crushed down on Thome. Continental Tire put a recall on her make of tire in August of 2002. Thorne sued Wal-Mart on negligence and products liability theories.
She charged that Wal-Mart’s service personnel were not trained to check the tires on customers’ cars for tire problems and that Wal-Mart had a policy of not disclosing recalls on tires unless Wal-Mart sold the tires to the customer in the first place. The company replaced four of Thorne’s tires---but did not replace a fifth one, which she used as a spare, but which was on her car the day of the crash. Thorne had her car serviced at the Wal-Mart after the recall, but she wasn’t told that the fifth tire was also defective. “Their defense was: ‘All we’re doing is checking tread depth,’ and she thought they were checking for safety,” Thome’s lawyer told the Associated Press. Thome took her car to Wal-Mart service center a week before the crash. “If somebody had looked at it, they would have found the bulge and realized it was separating,” the lawyer noted.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Crime & Safety | Lawsuits
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 23, 2007 | Permalink
Weyburn, Canada. Supreme Court Allows Unionization of Wal-Mart to Proceed
Two strikes and you’re out. That’s the score in Canada, where Wal-Mart has now lost two Supreme Court battles in their three year effort to stop workers in its store in Weyburn, Saskatchewan from trying to form a union. Bloomberg News reported today that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal by Wal-Mart from a lower court ruling that said workers in the retailer’s Weyburn store could continue their unionization efforts. Wal-Mart tried to argue in the case “Wal-Mart Canada Corp. v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board” that the Labour Board should not be allowed to rule on their case because the Board is biased in favor of labor, and against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has been desperately trying to delay the unionization process. The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board is now free to decide whether Wal-Mart workers at the Weyburn store should be certified, so they can bargain for a labor contract. Weyburn will be the third Wal-Mart store in Canada with active union status. “After losing in the high court, you’d think they have run out of stalling tactics,’’ a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union told Bloomberg News. In April of 2005, Wal-Mart lost an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, when the justices refused to overturn the Labour Board’s demand that the company turn over documents to the union. The workers first applied for union status in April 2004, so the company has successfully run up the union’s legal bills, and blocked the door to unionization. Wal-Mart stores in the Quebec towns of Saint-Hyacinthe and Gatineau are already unionized. Wal-Mart has taken the Gatineau unionization to court, the union said.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Workers Rights & Wages | Lawsuits | Organizing | Canada
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, April 20, 2007 | Permalink
Wal-Mart’s Growing Pains
Wal-Mart’s Midlife Crisis [BusinessWeek]
John E. Fleming, Wal-Mart’s newly appointed chief merchandising officer, is staring hard at a display of $14 women’s T-shirts in a Supercenter a few miles from the retailer’s Bentonville (Ark.) headquarters. The bright-hued stretch T’s carry Wal-Mart’s own George label and are of a quality and stylishness not commonly associated with America’s über-discounter. What vexes Fleming is that numerous sizes are out of stock in about half of the 12 colors, including frozen kiwi and black soot.
Fleming may be America’s most powerful merchant, but a timely solution is beyond him even so. Wal-Mart failed to order enough of these China-made T-shirts last year, and so they and other George-brand basics will remain in short supply in most of its 3,443 U.S. stores until 2007’s second half, depriving the retailer of tens of millions of dollars a week it sorely needs. “The issue with apparel is long lead times,” says the quietly intense Fleming, who spent 20 years at Target Corp. (TGT ) before joining Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) “We will get it fixed.”
For nearly five decades, Wal-Mart’s signature “everyday low prices” and their enabler—low costs—defined not only its business model but also the distinctive personality of this proud, insular company that emerged from the Ozarks backwoods to dominate retailing. Over the past year and a half, though, Wal-Mart’s growth formula has stopped working. In 2006 its U.S. division eked out a 1.9% gain in same-store sales—its worst performance ever—and this year has begun no better. By this key measure, such competitors as Target, Costco (COST ), Kroger (KR ), Safeway (SWY ), Walgreen’s (WAG ), CVS, and Best Buy (BBY ) now are all growing two to five times faster than Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart’s botched entry into cheap-chic apparel is emblematic of the quandary it faces. Is its alarming loss of momentum the temporary result of disruptions caused by transitory errors like the T-shirt screwup and by overdue improvements such as the store remodeling program launched last year? Or is Wal-Mart doing lasting damage to its low-budget franchise by trying to compete with much hipper, nimbler rivals for the middle-income dollar? Should the retailer redouble its efforts to out-Target Target, or would it be better off going back to basics?
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | | | | | Faith |
Posted by Media Team on Friday, April 20, 2007 | Permalink
Prescott Valley, AZ. Wal-Mart Spends $300K to Win Ballot Question
In a corporate democracy, the one with the most money wins. That’s the rule they follow in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart makes lavish “gifts” to local astro-roots citizens groups who support the retailer on election day. Case in point: Prescott Valley, Arizona. Sprawl-Busters reported on March 9, 2007 that the Prescott Valley Town Council had voted in July, 2006 to rezone 19.5 acres to allow Wal-Mart to build a superstore, but local residents challenged that vote on the ballot. In response, Wal-Mart hired a PR firm and created an “astro-roots” group to overwhelm the grassroots efforts to block their store. The measure was called Proposition 400, and a No vote would have killed the rezoning. The campaign committee set up by Wal-Mart ran afoul of state campaign reporting laws, and the town Clerk said that the so-called “Friends of Prescott Valley, Yes on 400” was facing a $70,000 fine for not reporting its income. This pro-Wal-Mart group gave the town a campaign statement that said the group had no receipts, but a debt of $33,313 for the Jan. 1 through Feb. 21 reporting period. State law mandates that campaign groups inform the town within 24 hours of its financial activities the first time it receives or spends $10,000 or more. On March 13th, the voters supported the Wal-Mart rezoning by a 65% majority. It turns out that every vote in Prescott Valley was worth its weight in gold, as the group received more than $300,658 from Wal-Mart and its consultants. The “Friends” group had very wealthy ties at Wal-Mart. The group reported receiving contributions from Wal-Mart Stores of Bentonville, Ark., of $100,000 on March 9, $116,100 March 12 and about $59,558 March 16, and $25,000 from the Prescott Valley-based Fain group March 9. The committee reported spending $266,243 during the Feb. 22 to April 2 reporting period. The group “Protect Prescott Valley,” received a total of $1,500 from Local 99 of the United Food & Commercial Workers union, and spent $1,486 during the same reporting period. That means for every one dollar spent by the anti Wal-Mart group, $179 was spent by the pro Wal-Mart group. In local ballot questions, finance law allows corporations to spend an unlimited amount of funding. The Friends of Prescott Valley faxed its financial report late to the town. The Town Attorney required the Friends group to submit an amended report for the pre-primary reporting period of Jan. 1 to Feb. 21 because he determined the previously submitted report was incomplete. The town notified the pro-Wal-Mart committee on April 2 that they faced a $30,000 fine but had the right to challenge the penalty.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, April 19, 2007 | Permalink
Montgomery, AL. Mayor Asks Residents Not To Shop At Nearby Wal-Mart
The Mayor of Montgomery, Alabama says that a new Wal-Mart supercenter just outside his city’s limits is getting an unfair tax break. Mayor Bobby Bright told the Montgomery Advertiser that because the 203,856 s.f.
Wal-Mart is outside the city limits, it will be allowed to charge only 6.5 cents sales tax-—while businesses a stone’s throw from the superstore will have to charge 8.75 cents in the city of Pike Road, and 10 cents in the city of Montgomery itself. Merchants within the city limits, less than a mile from the new Wal-Mart, say Wal-Mart is being given an unfair advantage. Mayor Bright adds that the superstore and other stores that are opening in nearby Chantilly, including Home Depot, will be able to use city water and sewer lines, without paying their fair share. The Mayor has vowed that he will never allow this situation to happen again. He said Wal-Mart now has to pay the same sewer and water fees as others in the city, but not the taxes that go to build and maintain the utility systems.
“About 90 percent of the people shopping at those businesses will be from Montgomery, yet the city won’t be getting sales tax,” the Mayor said.
“It’s not right. It’s not fair, and that’s why it’s important for me to let the people of the city of Montgomery know about it. The people of the city should rise up (and stop shopping there) because we don’t need a big retailer locating themselves right on the outskirts of our city limits and draining our resources—not if we are going to continue to pay our police and firemen and maintain our city services,” he said. A spokesman from Wal-Mart said that some cities have talked about annexing them into their city. “Wal-Mart is happy to operate in whatever municipality we find ourselves in,” he said. “Municipalities have contacted us, but we have not entered into any negotiations or stated a preference, and will not.” One local grocery store said it was not happy about the tax arrangement, but added, “We’ll do the best we can.” His store has a written “Wal-Mart Defense Manual” that stresses his store’s advantages: a high quality meat market, deli, bakery, and better customer service. But Mayor Bright is outspoken in his opposition to the Wal-Mart store. “We don’t need businesses ripping the city of Montgomery off, and that is exactly what they are trying to do by locating themselves right over the city limits and using our services without paying any sales taxes like other businesses here do,” the Mayor said. “They are already there using city services, and we are going to have to deal with it. But they are going to have to be paying a surcharge, or at least be paying more than the people of Montgomery are paying. These people are reaping the benefits of our services without paying for them, and all the people who go and shop there from Montgomery are supporting them in what they are doing.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Community Impact
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, April 19, 2007 | Permalink
Knightdale, NC. Judge Rules Against Local Homeowners In Wal-Mart Case
On April 13th, a Superior Court judge in Wake County, North Carolina set back efforts of local residents in Knightdale to block a Wal-Mart superstore from being built far too close for comfort. According to The News & Observer, Judge Henry Barnette Jr. ruled that Knightdale officials did not act improperly last year when they approved the Wal-Mart. The Citizens Against Residential Encroachment (CARE), filed their lawsuit last August, charging that Knightdale officials failed to notify neighbors of public hearings, and gave the developer variances to the town’s ordinances. The residents also charged that one councilor who voted for the project had a conflict of interest. The Judge said none of the plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to be present at any hearing, and the councilman had no substantial financial interest in the project.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 | Permalink
Charleston, WV. Another Lawsuit Filed in Wal-Mart “Time Shaving” Case
The West Virginia Record newspaper reported this week that another lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart, charging the company with stealing from its own workers by not fully crediting them for their hours worked. This practice is known as “time-shaving.” Sprawl-Busters reported on December 20, 2005 that Massachusetts Attorney Robert Bonsignore had charged Wal-Mart with time-shaving, and said the retailer was facing a serious class action lawsuit because of its prevalent “time shaving” violations against its workers. Bonsignore said that Wal-Mart had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from its workers across the country. “Time shaving” is a form of theft in which the company fails to properly credit its employees for all the time they worked. According to Atty. Bonsignore, “Our case is going well. We have filed in a number of states and have had interest expressed in several more. We have proof that Wal-Mart secretly manipulated the time records of their hourly rate employees, robbing them of about $1,000,000 per year per store. We can prove they did this through objective electronic evidence from 1997 on.” On April 3, 2007, Charleston, West Virginia lawyer Troy Giatras filed suit in U. S. District Court claiming that Wal-Mart shaved minutes from payroll records. In the suit, three former employees at the South Charleston store seek to represent every employee Wal-Mart has stolen time from in West Virginia since 1989.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Workers Rights & Wages | Lawsuits
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 16, 2007 | Permalink
Richmond, CA. Wal-Mart Opens Three-Level Store
Community groups often complain that Wal-Mart’s single-floor, windowless box is the worst form of retail sprawl, and that the retailer could do a better job at learning ‘low-impact design’ techniques for its stores. One of those low-impact options is to build a more compact floor plan, by putting its stores on multiple levels. This reduces the size of its footprint, reduces impervious space, and allows more open space. Wal-Mart rarely opens multi-level stores, but tends to boast about it when it does.
Here are excerpts from the company’s press release this week from Richmond, California, where the retailer went up, not out: “This morning (April 11th), Wal-Mart will open the doors to a unique, three-level store inside a formerly vacant space at Richmond California’s Hilltop Mall...In order to blend in with the layout of the mall and neighboring department stores, designers reconfigured the store format to accommodate the mall’s multi-floor plan. Wal-Mart took over space formerly occupied by another large retailer and completely remodeled and retrofitted the interior.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Environment | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 16, 2007 | Permalink
Page 161 of 208 pages « First < 159 160 161 162 163 > Last »
