Give Workers A Break, Not Wal-Mart
Every day, communities across America choose to side with Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, rather than local workers and small businesses. Wake Up Wal-Mart, along with community leaders across the country, are standing and demanding a change. From WakeUpWalMart.com:
Starting today, supporters of WakeUpWalMart.com and local elected officials will hold hundreds of press conferences throughout the country to launch a new campaign “Give Workers a break, not Wal-Mart.” The national effort will call on local officials and candidates at the local, state and federal level to side with workers, not Walmart.
As part of the launch of this new campaign, local WakeUpWalmart.com supporters, elected officials and candidates for office will gather outside Walmart stores to speak out about how the world’s largest retailer stands to profit from John McCain’s tax plan while working Americans continue to struggle in this tough economy. Supporters of WakeUpWalmart.com will hand out flyers to tell Wal-Mart customers how the retail giant stands to save billions under John McCain’s tax plan.
Elected officials, community leaders and candidates will also sign the “Give Workers a Break, Not Wal-Mart Pledge” which calls on John McCain, as well as local and state governments to demand that Wal-Mart end its irresponsible and immoral business practices.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, July 23 | 32 comments | Permalink
SPEAKING OUT ON THE BPOL TAX IN STAFFORD, VA
Letter to the Editor: Stafford supervisors were wrong on BPOL tax [Free Lance-Star (Va.)]
What a circus the Stafford County Board of Supervisors is ["Cash-strapped county seeks more revenue,” July 2].
I watched the BPOL hearing on TV because though I’m a small-business owner and resident of Stafford County, I couldn’t attend the hearing for lack of child care for my two children that night.
It was amazing how many people stood in front of the board and argued how this BPOL tax would affect them.
And still, four supervisors decided to vote on their own agenda rather than how the people who elected them told them to vote.
If I remember correctly, our government is elected by the people and for the people.
Supervisors Joe Brito, George Schwartz, Robert Woodson, and Harry Crisp didn’t act according to what their constituents thought was correct, fair, and reasonable. They should feel the wrath of all Stafford County small-business owners and residents.
As far as I’m concerned, these four gentlemen should resign immediately. They don’t look after what is best for us in Stafford County. They want to kill the backbone of our economy. They want to get all the small “mom and pop” businesses out and let the big guys like Wal-Mart and Target rule our county.
After all, Wal-Mart and Target don’t care about this new tax; they didn’t even show up at the hearing.
Boycott Supervisors Brito, Schwartz, Woodson, and Crisp. They should move to another county with the BPOL already in place and open their own small business; let’s see how they do.
Nylsa A. Correa
Stafford
Posted by Tony Calero on Friday, July 18 | 0 comments | Permalink
BOONE, NC WANTS WAL-MART AND SMALL BUSINESSES
High Country area grows, Wal-Mart expands [The Appalachian (N.C.)]
The Boone Wal-Mart will follow its trend of “roll-backs” by rolling back its walls and expanding its square feet.
According to Boone Town Council meeting minutes, the store, which sits currently at a size of approximately 122,000 square feet, will be adding an additional 27,738 square feet beginning next year for a total of almost 150,000 square feet.
A lease agreement was adopted on March 31, which made it possible for Wal-Mart to meet land-use intensity regulations.
According to the regulations, 27 percent of Wal-Mart’s gross land area needed to be green space set aside for recreational enjoyment. The Town of Boone made this possible by agreeing to lease 1.2 acres occupied by the Leola Street Community Garden, located at the intersection of Leola Street and Pride Drive.Wal-Mart then agreed to lease the land to the community garden for 15 years, according to the town council minutes.
According to the minutes, the lease will officially begin at the store’s grand opening, and Wal-Mart will not have the option of modifying the property or storing inventory on the property without written consent of the town.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Tony Calero on Wednesday, July 16 | 0 comments | Permalink
Pennsville, N.J. Wal-Mart’s Assault On Wildlife Refuge Is Over
On May 11, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that a coalition of labor, neighbors, and environmental groups had won an important victory over Wal-Mart and sprawl development in New Jersey. That victory was validated this week when a Wal-Mart developer sent the town of Pennsville, New Jersey a one sentence letter which read: “Please be advised that the applicant is hereby withdrawing the above referenced application.”
On January 25, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart Realty had chosen a site to construct a 220,000 s.f. superstore abutting the 2,800 acre Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. This turned out to be not only an environmental blunder, but a public relations disaster for the retailer. The company is spending millions to look ‘green’ to the public.
Part of Supawna Refuge is designated by the Department of Environmental Protection’s Endangered and Non-Game Species Program as a bald eagle and raptor foraging area. The Planning Board in Pennsville had no qualms about allowing Wal-Mart into the Refuge, but that’s when the retailer ran into a legal swamp. A group called COPAS, the Citizens of Pennsville Against Sprawl, fought the project on environmental and traffic issues, among others. Residents said one Wal-Mart in Pennsville, was one more than enough. The existing discount store in the township is 1/4 mile away, and would have been shut down if the supercenter were ever built. Wal-Mart wanted to build on the Sinnickson farm, 77 acres of land that includes a salt marsh, meadows, and open fields. The superstore footprint alone was 4.6 football fields in size, plus a 1,400 car parking lot.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, July 15 | 0 comments | Permalink
Legal Blog: Anti-Discrimination Laws Effective Against Wal-Mart?
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
Just as important as those large class actions, however, are the countless suits filed by individual plaintiffs – the tiny David trying to win justice over Wal-Mart’s Goliath. We at Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
Wal-mart’s recent loss in Brady v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., represents just one of the many discrimination cases successfully waged against the behemoth retailer. Brady’s case, filed in 2002, was only recently finalized in the Second Circuit court. After multiple appeals, a three-judge appellate panel upheld the 2006 decision settling that Wal-Mart engaged in discriminatory practices in regards to Brady’s employment. Brady, then a qualified 19 year old pharmacy employee with cerebral palsy, was transferred to a less desirable position as a result of Wal-Mart’s discrimination.
In 2006, the jury awarded Brady $5 million dollars in punitive damages. The trial judge, acting in accordance with the law, limited the punitive damages to a mere $300,000. Why? The American Disabilities Act & Civil Rights Act of 1991, statutorily limits the sum of potential compensatory and punitive damages as per several categories ranking an employer’s size by number of employees. These damage caps, included in the statute, breakdown employers by “a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees… $50,000; a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees… $100,000; a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees… $200,000; and a respondent who has more than 500 employees… $300,000.”
Wal-Mart who has 1,400,000 employees in the US (versus the mere 500+ outlined in the statue), was relegated to the last and final category of the statute: “…A respondent who has more than 500 employees… $300,000.” Clearly, benefiting from their sizeable status, Wal-Mart gets a disapproving glance from our legal system, rather than the serious time-out it deserves.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Christina Clark on Thursday, July 10 | 25 comments | Permalink
EXPANSION APPROVED IN BOONE, NC
Boone Wal-Mart gets approval for expansion [The Watauga Democrat (N.C.)]
The Boone Wal-Mart may offer low prices, but its square footage is about to get higher.
The current store is set to expand its facilities by approximately 28,000 square feet for a grand total of 149,978 square feet.
The Boone Town Council approved an additional water allocation of 1,998 gallons per day for the expansion, and attorney Don O’Toole spoke on behalf of Wal-Mart.
O’Toole said a store with less than 150,000 square feet is not a typical Wal-Mart size.
“It’s a lot smaller store than Wal-Mart typically builds,” he said. “With the expansion of this store, I think Boone will be getting some good improvements to the existing store.”
According to Boone Development Services, construction is expected to occur on the north side of the existing building, in the parking lot area.
O’Toole said the current store would be updated to meet the town’s Unified Development Ordinance requirements, including increased landscaping on site, an increase of pervious surface and enhanced architecture.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya on Wednesday, July 02 | 0 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Has Its Lawyers Working Overtime
Well, at least someone is getting paid.
Another day, another wage/hour class action is awarded judgment against Wal-Mart. This time it comes to us from Minnesota, where Dakota County District Court Judge Robert King Jr. ruled Monday that Wal-Mart broke Minnesota labor law more than two thousand million times over a six-year period by forcing employees to work without breaks and without full pay.
That is, in fact, not a typo. Two million times.
Judge King ruled that, in addition to penalties, Wal-Mart owes workers at least $6 million in back wages. In addition to penalties, you say? Ahhhhh, penalties...this is where it could get expensive for Wal-Mart, a company which, as the Northwest Arkansas Morning News reported last week, is already facing a whole plethora of legal woes. The violations at issue here carry a penalty of up to $1,000 each, which could be pretty pricey when you have two million of the darn things. According to Bloomberg’s math, which I am hardly in a position to disagree with, that puts the ceiling up around $2 billion. It probably won’t get that high, but it will be high, nonetheless...all I’m saying is, don’t be surprised if the next time you’re in Wal-Mart, a brand new copy of Guitar Hero costs...ummmmm...a million dollars?
A jury is expected to decide the amount of punitive damages and penalties in October, according to the judge’s order. And that could drive the amount Wal- Mart pays to hundreds of millions of dollars, said lawyer Frank Azar, whose Colorado firm was involved in the case and began fighting Wal-Mart in the 1990s.
Wal-Mart Faces $2 Billion Labor Law Trial, Judge Says [Bloomberg]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. broke Minnesota labor laws, a state judge ruled, handing the world’s largest retailer its third-straight defeat in a wage-class action trial and the possibility a jury may order it to pay $2 billion.
The company required hourly employees to work off-the-clock during training and denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws, Hastings, Minnesota, District Judge Robert King Jr. held today following a non-jury trial. King ruled Wal-Mart broke labor laws more than 2 million times and ordered the company to give employees $6.5 million in back-pay.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, July 01 | 48 comments | Permalink
Lady’s Island, S.C. City Gives Preliminary Approval To Limit Location of Big Box Stores
On June 19, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had decided not to pave over wetlands in Lady’s Island, South Carolina. Wal-Mart had applied for a permit to build a 195,000 s.f. store, plus two other retail stores, and a fast-food restaurant---all on 26 acres of wooded land.
Lady’s Island lies within the city limits of Beaufort, South Carolina, which boasts of its “Landmark Historic District,” its “horse-drawn carriage” tours, its “unique, fully restored central business district filled with shops and restaurants, all within walking distance of beautiful downtown inns and hotels.” In short, it’s a charming “low country” southern town just minutes from the beaches of Hilton Head. As the city says, “Beaufort has it all!” There are also three Wal-Marts within 20 miles of Beaufort, including a supercenter on Robert Smalls Parkway in Beaufort. The city says its concerned with “the preservation of open space, particularly Beaufort’s waterfront viewshed,” and has adopted an Open Space Master Plan. The City Council has directed staff to identify “those economic sectors that will increase wage levels, provide training in desirable skills, and diversify the economic base of the City.”
In March of 2008, the Beaufort Zoning Board of Appeals voted against the proposed second Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart’s lawyer told the Beaufort Gazette that his client was fighting “an entrenched anti-Wal-Mart sentiment.” “It looks like the odds are stacked against me,” the lawyer admitted.
Wal-Mart complained that this project had begun with meetings with Beaufort officials back in October of 2007, and that the city’s objection to the plan “came out of nowhere.” The executive director of the Historic Beaufort Foundation testified that Wal-Mart was incompatible with Beaufort’s aesthetics. “Show me a Wal-Mart that will fit the architecture of our small town,” Thompson said. “You won’t find it.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, June 27 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube