The Wal-Mart Watch Blog
Electeds

| Feb 03, 2010

---

Back in September the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, and six nearby residents filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Orange County. They alleged that the country “supervisors failed to comply with the county’s comprehensive plan. The suit also claims the county’s zoning ordinance is invalid because it fails to comply with state laws requiring such ordinances to protect historic sites, and there were procedural defects in the approval process.”

Today, the court heard the first arguments of the case.

Here’s a quick excerpt from the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s press release outlining their central arguments (it was emailed to me, so I don’t have a link):

“The County has an affirmative responsibility to protect those historic resources under Virginia law and under the County’s own Comprehensive Plan for development. Yet, the Board ignored the concerns, objections and offers of assistance from the Governor and the Speaker of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the National Park Service, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, 250 Civil War experts, and others.

The Battle of the Wilderness, where 26,000 men were killed or wounded in May of 1864, may not be as well known as Gettysburg or Antietam, but it marked a milestone in the Civil War. It was the first time generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant met in battle. The site of the proposed 140,000-square-foot Wal-Mart superstore, along with 100,000 square feet of additional big box commercial development, stands on unprotected land within the historic boundaries of this battlefield.  It is also immediately adjacent to the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park, which was established by Congress in 1927. In a split vote, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a special use permit allowing the 240,000-square-foot project to proceed on August 25, 2009. This project poses a considerable risk of destruction and increased commercialization of a nationally significant and highly vulnerable historic site.”

We’ll certainly keep our eyes on the case. In the mean time, you can check out the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s website here and read more about the case here.

| Jan 28, 2010

---

Walmart has a pretty spotty record when it comes to grassroots support groups. They can’t seem to resist the temptation to simply let PR firms make things up for them. There was the fake blog “Walmarting Across America” which, it was revealed, was actually organized by Walmart’s PR firm. The vehicle the “bloggers” used as well as their meals, expenses and gas, were all provided for them. There was the fake “community group” Working Families for Walmart, which was also run by a PR firm Walmart hired.

And now it seems that Walmart is doing the same thing in Chicago, where they’re struggling to get a foothold for their potential second store within city limits. Chicagoist, a prominent local blog, received some suspiciously pro-Walmart comments on their blog and decided to investigate. They found what seems to be theChicagoland Chamber of Commerce and Serafin & Associates are both working to push Walmart’s agenda in Chicago, and posing as a local community group.

The Chicagoland admitted to launching the site Our Community, Our Choice which proclaims, “Everyone else but Chatham and the South Side are making the decisions – It’s OUR CHOICE, NOT THEIRS.”

You should read the full article from Chicagoist, but the following section is particularly interesting:

Mike Mini told me that Wal-Mart is indeed a member of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, that they have “a representative on the Government Affairs Committee,” and that “our process is kind of open. Any member that expresses an interest can come to meetings and work on issues that are important to them.” Is the Chamber working on behalf of Wal-Mart in the city? “We’re working on behalf of policies that we feel further business and commerce in the city.” Because I got to Mr. Mini through Our Community, Our Choice, I asked what his involvement in the site was. “It’s part of our advocacy effort to gain support,” and that “we set that up as a way to communicate with people. We were expecting this to come up for a vote before the council sooner, but obviously it’s been stalled.” I asked him if he was familiar with Serafin and Associates. “Yes, we have worked with them in our strategy sessions. We’ve worked with [Thomas] Serafin and his team.” When I told him that our site had gotten comments from the email address that led me to him and asked if he knew that it was being used to comment on blogs, he said “no, not that I’m aware of.” Are you surprised that an IP address from Serafin was being used that way? “No, not in particular.” Why not? “I really can’t comment without looking into it further.”

| Jan 08, 2010

---

Walmart is looking to move in to North Adams, MA, and many of the residents there are not happy about it. They have formed a group called North Adams First. Here is the description of their group:

“North Adams First is an opportunity for community engagement around the opportunities and challenges that face North Adams, MA.  It’s a hopeful time for our city with the election of Mayor-Elect Alcombright and it’s also a very challenging one. “Together we will succeed” means that we all need to participate by contributing ideas and by participating in the process of shaping our city’s future.

Civic duty does not stop at the voting booth. Attend meetings, talk to your elected officials, write letters to the editor. Be civil and be a part of the process.

The proposed Super WalMart is a significant project and as citizens, we need to be informed of the real impact and how it will contribute to our success or impede it. People can have their own opinion but it’s important that we are civil to each other as we become informed and contribute to the conversation.”

They are asking interested folks in the area to come to the Planning Board meeting on Monday, January 11 at 6 pm at the North Adams City Hall to let the planning board know what you think of the proposed project. You can read more about the proposed North Adams Walmart project on the North Adams First webpage.

Interested in getting involved with North Adams First? Join their mailing list by emailing . You can also support them by joining their Facebook group.

| Jul 02, 2009

---

Here are what the voices on the Internet are saying about Wal-Mart’s support of employer-mandated health care...not surprisingly, it hasn’t taken long for most to deduce that Wal-Mart is hardly acting in an altruistic way.

Number one on Wal-Mart’s hit list? Easy. Target. Because small businesses would either be exempt from the mandate or face a less-strenuous requirement, it would be Wal-Mart’s large competitors (and more specifically those who have to this point been better at managing health care costs than Wal-Mart) that would feel the brunt of the hurt.

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

I don’t want to make too much of this: Wal-Mart may chicken out once the specifics of an employer mandate end up on the table. Even if they don’t, they may not lift a finger to help. And, make no mistake, Wal-Mart is acting--as it always does--out of pure self-interest.

My undestanding is that, after all of these years, Wal-Mart has suddenly found itself in the same situation its competitors once did: Dealing with unpredictable health costs and facing new competition from businesses that have found ways to spend even less on employee health benefits. Is there some justice there? You bet.

Reihan Salam with the National Review:

There is another way of looking at this. As a large, powerful, deep-pocketed firm, Wal-Mart can sustain regulatory burdens that mom-and-pops and new entrants can’t. And so burdensome regulations are invariably Wal-Mart’s ally. Jonathan Rauch explained this dynamic brilliantly in his book Government’s End. It makes perfect sense for Wal-Mart to back a regulatory initiative that hurts its bottom line as long as it hurts its competitors more.

Megan McArdle for The Atlantic:

Wal-Mart is always going to have a seat at the table when employer mandates are discussed, because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private employer.  Target and Macy’s probably won’t have a seat at the table.  So Wal-Mart can influence the rules in ways that benefit Wal-Mart at the expense of the competition.

Jeffrey Young in The Atlantic:

Based on the axiom that nobody in business or politics acts strictly out of altruism, it’s safe to assume that Duke and Wal-Mart’s board of directors concluded that backing the employer mandate would provide the company with some kind of competitive advantage. When I originally reported the story, it wasn’t immediately clear to me what that might be, though I suspected it must have had something to do with Wal-Mart’s calculation of how much money the mandate would cost them relative to other retailers.

Michael Cannon, for the Cato Institute:

A couple of years ago, I shared a cab to the airport with a Wal-Mart lobbyist, who told me that Wal-Mart supports an “employer mandate.” An employer mandate is a legal requirement that employers provide a government-defined package of health benefits to their workers...But it all became clear when the lobbyist explained the reason for Wal-Mart’s position: “Target’s health-benefits costs are lower.”

I have no idea what Target’s or Wal-Mart’s health-benefits costs are.  Let’s say that Target spends $5,000 per worker on health benefits and Wal-Mart spends $10,000.  An employer mandate that requires both retail giants to spend $9,000 per worker would have no effect on Wal-Mart.  But it would cripple one of Wal-Mart’s chief competitors.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, quoted nearly everywhere (here courtesy again, of Mr. Jeffrey Young):

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took a pretty nasty swipe at Wal-Mart when I emailed them for a comment. Here’s the statement the Chamber’s press office sent me, attributed to James Gelfand, its senior manager for health policy: “Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition. We do not agree with this method.” Ouch.

| Jul 01, 2009

---

This is it, so don’t get scared now.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors is set to make a decision once and for all on the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart - a public hearing has been scheduled for July 27th, which will be the last time the public (and Robert Duvall) will be able to make their opinions known before the board takes the matter for good. Note: As a Civil War vet, Robert Duvall can actually comment all he’d like.

What will they decide? Will Wal-Mart be allowed to desecrate a piece of American history? Will they be denied, and an alternate site be recommended?

There seems to be a divide between the County Planning Commission and Orange County residents - the Commission voted 5-4 last week to approve development on the Battlefield site, yet at previous public hearings, the majority of Orange County residents were against the project (by an estimated 2-1 margin). This public outcry, combined with the history of the land at stake, would make it seem appropriate that Wal-Mart would be eager for a compromise that would still allow them to develop in the area, if one were presented...but to this point, no dice. Which is why County Administrator Bill Rolfe believes it’s now up to the supervisors to make the “win-win” a reality.

“The question that begs to be asked is, ‘Why isn’t the county trying to broker a deal that keeps Wal-Mart in the county and moves it further away from the congressionally approved boundary line of the Wilderness Battlefield?’ Both would be in our best interest,” Rolfe wrote the Board of Supervisors in a June 15 e-mail...He noted two goals--that Orange enlarge and diversify its tax base, and not do anything that would “detract from the [Wilderness] battlefield as a tourism destination for our community.”

Rolfe went on to point out that the coalition of historic preservation groups currently fighting the Wilderness plan would appear to be amenable to a development located farther from the battlefield park. And it just so happens that just such a piece of land could be made available next to a nearby 51-acre retail development. The question is, will County Supervisors go for it, or will they doom the Wilderness Battlefield to witnessing another brutal defeat?

Seeking win-win in store debate [Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star]

Read the rest of this story ...

| Jun 29, 2009

---

Bloomberg is reporting today that Wal-Mart and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among those opposing legislation that would allow the U.S. to cut off duty-free imports from factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if they fail to adhere to international labor standards on matters such as prohibiting forced labor and child labor. The bill, titled the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act, is meant to help strengthen democracy in the two countries by creating “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” and increasing their ability to export goods to the U.S. - and in return, it only requires that the countries make sure their factories are providing adequate working conditions.

Wal-Mart, however, is among those arguing that such labor restrictions would reduce any beneficial effect the legislation might otherwise have - and besides, if factories in Pakistan can’t export products to the U.S. because of labor and human rights abuses, Wal-Mart can’t then turn around and sell those products at their everyday low prices, right?

“Pakistan doesn’t have a good record in terms of child labor and the employment of women,” [Susan Aaronson, a professor at George Washington University in Washington who has written on trade and human rights] said. “This ensures the rule of law will be followed.”

The House bill states that each country “shall continue to receive duty-free treatment under this Act only if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be has implemented the requirements set forth” - said requirements including insuring the following:

(A) compliance with core labor standards; and
(B) compliance with the labor laws of Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be, that relate directly to core labor standards and to ensuring acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety.

We’ve already documented Wal-Mart’s sourcing issues in other international locales, so it shouldn’t be all that surprising that they would oppose such regulations here. Links to summaries of both the House version of the bill (with labor requirements) and the Senate version can be found after the jump.

Obama’s Bid to Boost Exports From Pakistan Hits Snag Over Labor [Bloomberg]

Read the rest of this story ...

| Jun 25, 2009

---

In a unionizing effort that stretches back to 2004, it would appear that Wal-Mart has once again attained the upper hand.

After four years of legal wrangling, Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan were finally granted union status last December. It had been four years since the United Food and Commercial Workers union originally filed an application to represent the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers based on the fact that more than half the store’s workers had signed union cards, but victory seemed within grasp. And that victory seem even closer in April, when an application Wal-Mart filed for reconsideration of union certification was dismissed by the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan.

Wal-Mart appealed, however, and now a Saskatchewan judge has pulled a Lucy, yanking the football away from Weyburn’s band of Charlie Browns.

A Saskatchewan judge has overturned the union certification of a Weyburn Wal-Mart store, saying workers should be allowed to vote on the matter...The law in 2004 was that if more than 50 per cent of employees signed cards, a secret ballot vote wasn’t required. However, after the Saskatchewan Party won the 2007 provincial election, defeating the NDP, the law changed — an employee vote is now mandatory before certification can be considered.

Where the Labour Relations Board had held that the applicable law was that in place at the time union status was filed for, this judge took the opposite route. He ruled that the amended law should have been the basis of the Labour Board’s decision when it ruled last year.

Read the rest of this story ...

| Jun 19, 2009

---

The U.S. International Trade Commission has made an announcement, and that announcement is one we shouldn’t be surprised by at this point. The ITC has ruled that U.S. tire companies are being harmed by cheap products from China, and as a result President Obama will have to decide whether to impose tariffs or quotas on the country that, thanks to Wal-Mart, is now America’s largest source of imports.

Of course, Wal-Mart’s tire business isn’t the only factor behind the ruling, but it certainly is one of the biggest. China sent 21 million tires to the U.S. in 2005, and that more than doubled to 46 million by last year. For its part, Modern Tire Dealer reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has close to 3,200 outlets selling tires, although most of those sales are concentrated in its approximately 2,435-store Tire & Lube Service Centers nationwide.

The (United Steelworkers) union said China has more than tripled its tire exports to the U.S. between 2004 and 2008, ending jobs for 5,100 American workers. The union said another 3,000 workers would lose their jobs by the end of the year.

The next move for the ITC will be to come up with come up with recommendations on what the President should do to help U.S. companies, including a couple familiar names based in Ohio - Akron-based Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Findlay-based Cooper Tire.

The case is the first test for Obama on trade with China, after he vowed during his presidential campaign last year to help unions or domestic industries seeking relief from foreign competition. Since the election, he also has pledged to avoid protectionism so as not to exacerbate the global recession.

U.S. agency rules for tire producers in China case [Bloomberg News]

Read the rest of this story ...

| Jun 18, 2009

---

By this time we should all be aware of the controversies surrounding credit companies - in addition to increasingly complex and confusing options for credit applicants, credit card issuers have been raising interest rates and fees for many current borrowers, many of whom were in complete compliance with their card holders’ agreements when their rates were raised. This is a major reason behind the call for continuing credit card reform.

What many people might not be aware of is the struggle between credit companies and the retailers at which their cards are used. As Bloomberg explains, this could end in a giant Visa vs. Wal-Mart rumble:

Lawmakers are promising new rules to bring down the interchange fee, a charge on purchases sometimes topping 3 percent that’s split by the two banks serving the customer and merchant. Supporters of the legislation include the biggest retail chains, restaurants and small businesses, which say the fees erode profit and inflate prices...Interchange is the second-biggest cost after payroll, Target said, and merchants want to negotiate lower payments collectively without running afoul of antitrust law.

The issue has become such a hot topic, the Government Accountability Office has been ordered to study the effect interchange fees have on both consumers and merchants. The “interchange fee” is the fraction of every credit card transaction that the card’s issuer retains. When combined with additional smaller fees levied by a retailer’s own bank (to which the retailer first submits the transaction), interchange fees can cut into retailer revenue - especially important for those retailers with slim profit margins.

Interchange fees have risen over time - interesting, since technological advances would suggest the cost of such transactions should go down - and the result is a growing battle between retailers and card issuers. Wikipedia provides a surprisingly simple example of how the fees work:

Read the rest of this story ...

| Jun 16, 2009

---

Not long ago, we reached out to our Wal-Mart Watch communities in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, asking them to contact their city councils and urge them to continue to oppose Wal-Mart’s moving into their cities. Combined, the populations of Chicago, NYC and LA house nearly 15 million people, or roughly 5% of the U.S. population.

For years, Wal-Mart has tried to build stores in those and other urban centers including Detroit, Washington, DC, and Boston. Building stores in these cities represents one of the last few rich avenues for domestic U.S growth open to Wal-Mart, but to this point it’s been one big, giant FAIL.

Since submitting our request, over 25,000 letters have been sent to the city councils in LA, New York and Chicago. And below is an example of the responses those letters have been generating - this one is from David Yassky, a member of the New York City Council currently running for New York City Comptroller:

Dear Neighbor:

Thank you for your concern regarding the recent proposals to open Wal-Mart stores in New York City. I agree that this is not the answer to our City’s economic problems, and I am concerned by the company’s poor track record regarding the treatment of its employees and its devastating effect on local businesses.  Small businesses are the life-blood of our City and as the Chair of the City Council’s Small Business Committee, I will fight against the development of new Wal-Mart stores that bring more harm than good to a community.

Moreover, I strongly support passing the Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation would be an important safeguard against employee abuses.  The Employee Free Choice Act would promote better working conditions and benefits for those who need it most:  New York’s working families.  I will continue to support this legislation and employee rights whenever I have the opportunity to do so. Thank you again for your interest.

Sincerely,
David Yassky
Council Member, 33rd District

We’ll keep updating you as we continue to get more responses. Until then, you can check out more on Wal-Mart’s Urban Problem here. What these cities need now are jobs that pay a living wage, good health benefits that keep people healthy and productive (and off public health care), and thriving small businesses that give back to their communities. Wal-Mart need not apply.

Page 1 of 42 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »