Weekly Update for Elected Officials: Nov. 21, 2008
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with a new study from the group Good Jobs First, which reveals that cash-strapped states are forgoing a total of roughly $1 billion annually in tax revenue because of little-noticed laws that permit retailers to keep a slice of the sales taxes they collect for the government. In fact, the study finds thirteen states do not cap the amount that a retailer can receive as vendor compensation for collecting sales tax, resulting in millions of lost tax dollars.
A large focus this week is also on Wal-Mart’s announcement that Lee Scott will step down as CEO in February 2009, to be replaced by Michael Duke, Wal-Mart’s Vice Chairman of its International Division. In addition to the CEO change, you’ll find stories on the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, how Wal-Mart will deal with the Obama Administration from a labor perspective, and related news on Wal-Mart’s labor battles in Canada.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Wal-Mart has founded a new consumer group in New England geared towards fighting Wal-Mart opponents, and has purchased its own wind-energy supply based out of Odessa, Texas
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 21, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod on Friday, November 21 | 1 comments | Permalink
Should states let retailers keep such a hefty slice of the sales tax pie?
According to Good Jobs First and The Wall Street Journal, a large chunk of sales tax revenue gets redirected to retailers like Wal-Mart, a company that pockets an estimated $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.
At least that is the finding of a report released today by Good Jobs First, a nonprofit research group here in Washington:
Most of us don’t realize that in a majority of states with a sales tax, a portion of the money actually goes into the pocket of the retailer under programs set up by state and local governments. In this first-ever comprehensive national analysis of the subject, Good Jobs First finds that the public sector is losing more than $1 billion a year through these sales-tax diversions. A large share of revenue gets redirected to giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, a company we estimate pockets more than $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.
The state laws discussed in the report allow retailers to keep a portion of sales-tax revenue to offset the cost of collecting the funds in the first place, a reasonable enough excuse (especially since state governments are so flush with cash at the present). But does anyone really, and I mean REALLY, believe that Wal-Mart spends $60 million a year collecting sales tax? In this age of computer everything and electronic money transfers, I have a hard time believing it costs more than a fraction of that.
As it stands, many states have calculated a vendor compensation rate, which can be applied to a percentage of sales tax revenue to determine how much a retailer gets to keep for its trouble. As the WSJ reports, Good Jobs First has identified 13 states that impose no ceiling on the total amount retailers can keep. In states such as Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado that vendor compensation rate can be applied to the full amount of sales tax a company collects, resulting in substantial returns for companies like Wal-Mart. Good Jobs First has estimated the givebacks in these states - Illinois ($126 million), Texas ($90 million), Pennsylvania ($72 million), and Colorado ($69 million). Jesse Drucker at the WSJ kindly puts some perspective on those numbers - for example, the $90 million Texas gives away by not capping vendor compensation would cover the $82 million price-tag needed to fund that state’s primary pre-kindergarten program.
For what its worth, the Illinois Revenue Department was quoted as saying the state has tried to cap the compensation program, but relentless lobbying by the retail industry has so far kept legislators from making changes.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, November 18 | 6 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart discriminates against female…sex offenders?
A Missouri City (Texas) woman convicted of a sex crime is out to prove that she has rights after being fired from her job at Wal-Mart.
Rebecca Vlasek, she of the inspiring mug shot, has filed suit claiming discrimination against our little Wal-Mart. Why you ask? Well, I’ll tell you.
Picture it: Brenham, Texas...1999. A sultry high school teacher pleads guilty to felony sexual assault of a minor. The charge: having a relationship with a 14-year-old female student. The result: 10 years on probation and the thrill of getting to register as an official pervert within the state of Texas. You can check out her rap sheet here and here.
So why is Vlasek complaining now? Well Wal-Mart, it turns out, discovered some time ago that it has quite a few sexual offenders working within its friendly confines. And, as it also turns out, every so often one of these offenders decides to, how shall we say, engage in some recidivism? Like this, and this...AND this........AANNNND this.
The result is that Wal-Mart, since adopting a new criminal background check policy, has fired approximately 800 employees who are registered sex offenders. Vlasek (pictured more recently), however, isn’t complaining about those that were fired...no, she’s complaining about the 25 or more (male, she claims) employee offenders Wal-Mart ISN’T firing. That’s right - according to her complaint, Vlasek is alleging that she has received disparate treatment because of her gender. We’ll see whether the court buys the arguments that Vlasek was fired not just because she “had relations” with a 14-year-old girl but because she is a woman...AND that Wal-Mart retained those other 25 or so offenders specifically because they’re men, and not for some other reason.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Friday, November 14 | 0 comments | Permalink
Weekly Update for Elected Officials: Nov. 12, 2008
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with a Bloomberg report of Wal-Mart being placed on a list of most controversial companies. Also named - the company responsible for producing melamine-tainted milk in China. The list includes companies criticized for producing negative impacts on communities, health, and the environment, and was based on a study by RepRisk, a consulting firm that analyzes companies’ exposure to controversial issues and news.
You’ll also find stories from BusinessWeek and the Financial Times on how corporate giants like Wal-Mart are gearing up to battle potential pro-labor legislation in 2009. With President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats taking over next year, retailers are bracing to fight the Employee Free Choice Act – or EFCA – which could make it easier to organize unions in the workplace.
In addition to EFCA, you’ll find stories on Wal-Mart and the economy. And from the legal front, read about a $19 million discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart and Pepsi in West Virginia. Plus, in the world of product safety, read more about questions raised by the controversial chemical BPA, as well how Wal-Mart has been selling lead-tainted face paint for kids…a no-no anytime, and especially around Halloween.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Chicago city aldermen have a wish list for an Obama presidency; the fight continues over whether Wal-Mart can build near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia; and towns in California and Nevada deny Wal-Mart the ability to sell alcohol on its store shelves.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 12, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod on Wednesday, November 12 | 31 comments | Permalink
Vote Please :)
While we certainly wouldn’t recommend taking advice from Paris on a regular basis, and we most definitely don’t think you’ll meet your maker if you don’t hit the ballot booth, we’d like to take an opportunity to encourage all of our readers to go out and vote.
You might think we lean towards one candidate over another, and its possible you might be right [Sarah Palin says we have a constitutional right to privacy...interesting coming from her...but we’re going with it!], but regardless of who you support please take the time if you haven’t already to exercise your right and cast your vote for Barack Obama or John McCain. One of them is going to be our President-elect, and you’ll feel better knowing you participated in the process. You can even write me in instead if you’re so inclined - I’ve totally watched every episode of The West Wing, and am waaaayyyy qualified.
Anyway, I’m happy to say I braved the lines in Virginia to vote this morning, which means no death-by-Paris-Hilton for me. And I’ve got the sticker to prove it. So go vote! And remember...Wal-Mart [inserted for relevance purposes only]
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, November 04 | 29 comments | Permalink
Weekly Update for Elected Officials: Halloween Edition
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins on Wal-Mart and the economy, and whether Wal-Mart sales statistics can be used as a new barometer for the U.S. economy. You’ll also find stories on changes in shopper behavior, now that consumers are faced with less disposable income. And, you’ll find stories on Wal-Mart’s slowed growth, and the switch to smaller store formats by retailers across the country.
In addition to the economy, you’ll find stories related to next week’s election. Barack Obama highlighted the story of a 72-year-old man forced to go back to work for Wal-Mart in his half-hour special this past Wednesday night. Meanwhile, according to Reuters Wal-Mart vows to remain non-partisan in the 2008 election season, while the Financial Times reports on the candidates attempting to woo the so-called “Wal-Mart Moms.” Plus, there are suspicions that Wal-Mart is behind a new grassroots group recently set up to fight the Employee Free Choice Act, as reported in The National Journal.
Also: Find out whether a Wal-Mart case in Montana could lead to changes in that state’s campaign finance law.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. A California ballot measure could lead to increased demand for more humane animal products, while citizens in Virginia continue to fight Wal-Mart’s attempt to build near an historic Civil War battlefield.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [October 31, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod on Friday, October 31 | 51 comments | Permalink
KANSAS SITE FIGHT: WAL-MART FOR LEAVENWORTH?
City moves forward on retail developments [Leavenworth Times (Kan.)]
Leavenworth, Kan. -
Residents will soon notice a couple of additions when it comes to retail locations in Leavenworth.
The Leavenworth City Commission approved final plats on Tuesday for both the South Crossroads development that includes a Wal-Mart Supercenter on the northwest corner of Eisenhower Road and 10th Avenue and the Limit Street Plaza development that includes a Walgreens on the southwest corner of Fourth and Limit streets.
Although commissioners had no comments regarding the South Crossroads development, Louis Klemp asked the commission to clarify its understanding of who would be paying for a traffic signal at the intersection of 10th Avenue and Eisenhower Road.
His question came near the end of the meeting when the commission approved a bid of $143,736 by Sosaya and Sons construction to install a traffic signal for the intersection.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Luke West on Friday, October 31 | 0 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart case could lead to changes in Montana campaign finance law
Allegations of campaign violations are rising in the Big Sky State, and a recently-released decision on a 2006 complaint might lead to changes in Montana’s campaign finance law.
Complaints of violations flowing in at the rate of about 30 per day to the state’s Commissioner or Political Practices, have of which are coming from Ravalli County in southwestern Montana. According to the Ravalli Republic:
The state’s most pressing investigation in Ravalli County concerns the Higher Ground Foundation, a nonprofit group that is urging voters to repeal the county’s growth policy in an effort to prevent zoning and streamside setback regulations from being adopted later.
The group formed as an “incidental committee,” which are defined as a group that makes political contributions but whose primary purpose isn’t to influence elections. But it has become clear to many that Higher Ground has a higher purpose than simply contributing funds, and is instead directly promoting the repeal of the county’s growth policy. Complainants are urging the state to force the group disclose the sources of its funding, and its expenditures.
So how does this tie into Wal-Mart? Well, just over a week ago, Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth released his opinion regarding a 2006 complaint against a group called Ravalli County Citizens for Free Enterprise. The group supported construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the successful repeal of a zoning ordinance that blocked big-box stores. Unsworth ruled that RCCFE was nothing more than a Wal-Mart front-group that violated financial reporting and record-keeping laws. He said that Wal-Mart appeared to have bought a campaign in order to influence an election, and that the case could lead to Third party campaigning is growing in the state [The Missoulian]” title="changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws">changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws. It turned out that only $90 of the PAC’s money came from local residents, whereas $115,000 came from Wal-Mart.
“It’s absolutely critical,” Unsworth said, “that voters know who’s behind these groups, in order to make informed decisions.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, October 28 | 13 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube