Legal Blog: Is Wal-Mart stealing money meant to help low-income women and their children?
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.
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.
Deborah Metcalf v. Wal-Mart Stores East
In the process of scouring the country searching for egregious examples of Wal-Mart malfeasance, we came across this interesting little case filed earlier this year in Oklahoma. On its surface, it’s a retaliatory discharge case – however, the plaintiff here, Deborah Metcalf, was fired for blowing the whistle on what should be considered some pretty repulsive conduct.
Among the many programs funded by the United States Government, we’re going to focus on one in particular – the federal WIC program. WIC stands for Women, Infants, and Children, and is a special supplemental nutrition program funded by grants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and administered in Oklahoma by the OK State Department of Health. Basically, WIC provides food and education to low-income women, infants and children deemed eligible for the program. The program’s website tagline delivers the following:
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, & children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care.
Deborah Metcalf, at the time of her firing, was an employee working at the Wal-Mart Pharmacy located within store #47 in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. In 2001, the Sallisaw Wal-Mart became a participant in the WIC program. Before we go any further, perhaps a little more information is needed on how the WIC program works:
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Wednesday, August 20 | 58 comments | Permalink
Some more insight into whether Wal-Mart has violated federal election law
If you’ve read our FEC complaint by now, you’ll be familiar with our contention that at its training sessions, Wal-Mart was explicitly advocating against the election of Democratic candidates this coming November because of its fear of possible unionization in the future. You’ll also be familiar with our contention that Wal-Mart is limited, under both the United States Code and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, from directing its political meetings or “trainings” at anything beyond its stockholders and executive or administrative personnel. Certainly, the issue is serious enough to warrant a looksee from the Federal Election Commission - now that multiple labor groups have sent a complaint of their own, similar to the one submitted by Wal-Mart Watch last week, we’ll see if the FEC decides to initiate an investigation.
If that does happen, attorney Bob Bauer has been helpful enought to give a brief guide on the federal regulations involved - you might want to read it in shifts, as staring too long at federal regulatory language has been known to cause eyes to bleed, etc. Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP, and the author of numerous books including: United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004).
The Wal-Mart Matter [posted August 14, 2008]
The Wal-Mart controversy, now headed toward the Federal Election Commission, presents interesting questions about how the campaign finance laws treat coercive political conduct by a corporate employer. As the allegations have been framed in press reports, Wal-Mart is claimed to have breached two requirements for lawful corporate political action: (1) it spent corporate funds outside the limited allowances for election-related speech, and (2) it did so through coercive means, subjecting employees to job-related pressures to support one candidate or party rather than another.
FEC rules specify in fair detail when and how corporations may spend resources in relation to federal elections without breaking the core campaign spending prohibition. 11 C.F.R. Part 114. The most liberal of the allowances is for “partisan” communications to the “restricted class,” of executives and shareholders, and a corporation may also repeatedly solicit them for contributions to the company’s political action committee. It can arrange for the candidates favored by the company to address this defined group.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Thursday, August 14 | 33 comments | Permalink
Labor Groups Request FEC Investigation Of Wal-Mart’s Tactics
Representatives from some of the nation’s largest labor organizations will be a formal letter to the FEC today requesting an investigation of Wal-Mart’s political meetings with employees. Along with the letter are the names of thousands of activists who signed a petition endorsing the request.
While Wal-Mart’s political involvement here might have been illegal - an FEC investigation would determine that for sure - the company’s message in its meetings was indisputably anti-union and anti-worker. The specter of unionization at its U.S. stores has Wal-Mart executives nervous, and the company’s actions reveal its intent to keep employees paid poorly and too afraid to speak up. The most important thing that could come out of this discussion of Wal-Mart’s practices is for store employees to realize federal law protects their right to speak out and band together.
Unions Seek Probe of Wal-Mart Over Election Law [Wall Street Journal]
Prominent labor groups are seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated federal election laws by telling employees that electing Democrats would lead to passage of legislation making it easier to unionize companies.
In a letter to be delivered as early as Thursday, the labor groups are asking the Federal Election Commission to determine whether the company “made prohibited corporate expenditures” by organizing meetings across the country to warn employees that a Democratic president would back legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company opposes. The groups say such statements amount to advocating the defeat of Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in the November election.
Companies aren’t permitted under federal election law to expressly advocate to hourly employees the election or defeat of specific candidates. The complaint cites as its source an Aug. 1 front-page article in The Wall Street Journal that reported the Bentonville, Ark., retailer held meetings with thousands of store managers and department supervisors across the country to discuss the legislation.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Thursday, August 14 | 43 comments | Permalink
Activists Call On the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart for Electioneering
If you haven’t already, we encourage everyone to sign American Rights at Work’s petition asking the Federal Election Committee to investigate Wal-Mart’s possible electioneering. More than 24,000 people have already signed on, and the more support for the petition, the better. In a post today on the Huffington Post, Michael Whitney from American Rights at Work takes a look at why Wal-Mart’s political involvement in this case should be considered illegal, as well as why the Employee Free Choice Act is so important.
Time To Investigate Wal-Mart’s Anti-Democrat Electioneering [Huffington Post]
When the news broke earlier this month that Wal-Mart started organizing its store supervisors against Barack Obama and other pro-worker candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act, there was widespread outrage—and rightly so.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
“The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,’” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.
Yikes! This obviously raises a lot of questions, but let’s start with two I want to specifically address: Is this legal? And what is Wal-Mart afraid of?
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, August 13 | 24 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update For Elected Officials
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 focuses again on Wal-Mart’s efforts to warn its managers across the country of a Democratic win in this November’s elections. The company has been holding mandatory meetings for its store managers and department supervisors (possibly in violation of state and federal election law), who are being warned that if Democrats win in November it could lead to potential store unionization. And speaking of unionization, read how Wal-Mart’s attempt to bust up unions in Canada has made it all the way to Canada’s Supreme Court, while on the other side of the globe all Wal-Mart stores in China will have labor contracts by September 2008.
In addition to the aforementioned stories, you’ll also find Bloomberg and the International Herald Tribune questioning whether a slowdown in Wal-mart sales could be a negative sign for the U.S. economy in the future. And on the environmental side of things, you’ll find the Christian Science Monitor among others discussing Wal-Mart’s opposition to carbon-offset guidelines, while the New York Times and Newsweek explain why concerns over keeping costs at low levels has lead Wal-Mart to drastically alter how its products are made and transported.
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 Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials
Posted by Corey Himrod on Monday, August 11 | 24 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart’s World In A Paris Hilton Presidency
Paris Hilton: hotel heiress...reality TV star...President?
Despite having not yet announced her campaign, Hilton was recently placed in a John McCain ad (along with Britney Spears) alongside Senator Barack Obama, most likely in an attempt to make her appear ultra-liberal and quite unpresidential. (Some would argue the advertisement was really an attempt to make Obama look like a self-important celebrity, but I doubt the McCain camp would go there.)
Anyway, Hilton, shown here on what is no doubt an excruciatingly important call with a foreign dignitary (and looking fabulous in a Diane von Furstenberg dress), has fought back, announcing her candidacy and her intent to run against a certain ”wrinkly white-haired guy.” And with that, we can be left to ponder what would become of us under President Hilton, as Sean Leviashvili at TheStreet.com has:
ECONOMIC POLICY:
What about universal healthcare? And what about universal shopping sprees? According to a recent CNN poll, 48% of Americans are most concerned about the economy and the troubled job market. And with big name-companies such as Wal-Mart missing their earnings expectations recently, the U.S. might need someone who actually knows what Wal-Mart sells. Paris once asked what Wal-Mart (WMT) was on national TV ("What’s Wal-Mart? Do they sell, like wall stuff?"), let’s hope she’s done some research.
Research schmesearch...I hope once she’s President, Hilton will finally find her way to Wal-Mart to fill all of her wall-related needs.
Potential Policies if Paris Hilton Becomes President [TheStreet.com]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Friday, August 08 | 20 comments | Permalink
CNBC: “Wal-Mart Warning of Democratic Win”
Managers could be influencing employees to vote Republican, with Julian Epstein, Democratic strategist and CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. [CNBC]
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Tuesday, August 05 | 25 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update For Elected Officials
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 focuses on the big story of the week - Wal-Mart’s efforts to mobilize its managers across the country to warn of a Democratic win in November. The company has been holding mandatory meetings for its store managers and department supervisors (possibly in violation of state and federal election law), who are being warned that if Democrats win in November it could lead to potential store unionization. The meetings focus on a piece of proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which could make it easier for stores to unionize if it’s the wish of a simple majority of store employees. Read all the major stories on Wal-Mart’s efforts, plus reaction from Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar.
Beyond the possible election law violations, the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune report on new toy safety legislation making its way through Congress. In addition, more legal problems for Wal-Mart - the first Salmonella-related lawsuit has been filed, and Wal-Mart is the defendant. Also, a new story in the Arkansas Business Journal describes how Wal-Mart knew of the existence of labor violations prior to the filing of the recent wage/hour class actions.
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 Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, August 05 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube
