International Action At Wal-Mart Watch
Since its opening of a Sam’s Club in Mexico in 1991, Wal-Mart has grown into a massive global retailer. With operations in thirteen different countries, and supplier relations in many more, and 500,000 associates worldwide, Wal-Mart is plugged into every part of the global economy.
However, this new terrain comes with new responsibilities, and Wal-Mart has been negligent in upholding any of them, particularly in labor and human rights.
The International Action section of the website documents Wal-Mart’s activities around the world through a variety of news sources and academic publications. This section covers a range of topics from Wal-Mart’s exploitation of child labor in Bangladesh to its harmful labor practices in Canada and serves as a resource for international activists seeking to learn from fellow activists worldwide.
We also highlight organizations in respective countries that are challenging Wal-Mart to be a better employer and global citizen.
- Click here to read more about Wal-Mart’s international expansion.
Posted by Vasudha Desikan on Tuesday, February 13 | 32 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Eyes Russia For Expansion
From the Moscow Times:
The long-awaited entry of a global retail giant into the Russian market appeared to inch closer as a senior executive for Wal-Mart hinted of an expansion into Russia and reports surfaced that the U.S. firm was planning talks with X5, Russia’s biggest food retailer.
“So far, we are currently studying the market, but the decision on how to enter it has not yet been made,” Wal-Mart vice president Mike Bratcher told a Moscow conference Thursday, Interfax reported.
Kommersant reported Jan. 29 that officials from X5 and Wal-Mart were due to hold talks in the United States last week. Wal-Mart could not be reached to confirm these reports.
The food retail market, though it accounts for less than 2 percent of GDP, has seen annual growth of more than 25 percent since 2001. At a time when Russian portfolio investors are getting tired of the instability in the country’s core oil market, the consumer sector’s steady growth has been a welcome source of relief.
- Click here to learn more about Wal-Mart’s international expansion.
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Monday, February 12 | 1 comments | Permalink
Friday Blog Roundup: Wal-Mart Women Win
Wal-Mart Women Win
- Wall Street Journal Legal Blog: Wal-Mart to Face Class-Action Suit
A federal appeals court ruled today that Wal-Mart must face a class-action lawsuit alleging female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions. The ruling paves the way for what could become the largest-ever pay discrimination suit. If a jury were to find discrimination, Wal-Mart could face multibillions of dollars in damages claims.
- Labor & Employment Law Blog: Ninth Circuit Approves Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination Class Action Involving At Least 1.5 Million Women
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision which found the case to be suitable for a class action and, therefore, allowed what is unquestionably the largest employment class action in history to proceed. Importantly, the court did not express any opinion on whether Wal-Mart actually discriminated against the plaintiffs or the remaining 1.5 million class members. It only held that the plaintiffs could pursue their claims as a class action.
- Wall Street Journal Law Blog: Lawyer of the Day: Brad Seligman
Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed class-action status for a suit alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart. More than 1.5 million past and present female employees of the retailer are included in the suit.
Wal-Mart has said it plans to ask an en banc panel to rehear the case. But for now, the 2-1 decision represents a big win for the co-lead plaintiffs lawyer in the case, Brad Seligman, the founder of the Impact Fund, a Berkeley, Calif., non-profit organization that, among other things, bring “public interest impact litigation.”
- Wal-Mart Watch Blog: The Women Of Wal-Mart Will Have Their Day In Court
Wal-Mart’s lead attorney in the case told reporters today’s ruling was “one step in what is going to be a long process. We are very optimistic about obtaining relief from this ruling as the case progresses.” If Wal-Mart can’t get the 3 judges who sat in today’s decision to rehear the case, they also can ask for the full panel of 15 judges to hear it. The Impact Fund of California represents the women who filed the lawsuit.
“What this shows is that no amount of PR or spin can avoid the day in court that is coming, and it’s time for Wal-Mart to face the music,” said the lead attorney for The Impact Fund. “We’re confident that the women of Wal-Mart will have their day in court.” Wal-Mart could wind up paying out billions if it loses the class-action lawsuit.
- Click here to learn more about the Dukes v. Wal-Mart suit.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Friday, February 09 | 0 comments | Permalink
The Wal-Martization of the World?
As Wal-Mart prepares to roll out the details of its joint venture with Bharti Enterprises later this month, Indian politicians are already preempting any foreign takeover of the local retail economy.
Recently, Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress Party, sent a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asking him to reconsider expanding foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail until it is determined what impact this will have on small shopkeepers. This could certainly be chalked up to political strategy as provincial elections in key northern states, with powerful trade lobbies, are not far off.
Nonetheless, Gandhi wields tremendous power and influence and has a past record of advocating for the interests of economically marginalized Indians. In conjunction with the Left parties, who are the most vocal opponents of Wal-Mart’s entry, the burgeoning anti-Wal-Mart movement in India could become a powerful force to reckon with.
For well over a decade, Wal-Mart has become a strong international player and gained significant experience in the global retail market. It has learned from its mistakes in Argentina and South Korea where the retailer went solo and the Wal-Mart brand respectively led to dismal sales or a full retreat from the country.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Vasudha Desikan on Wednesday, February 07 | 2 comments | Permalink
A Politically Incorrect Fish Makes A Comeback
From the Wall Street Journal:
One of the most politically incorrect foods is about to get a big boost from the world’s largest retailer.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which has been working to burnish its environmental credentials, says it will restore Chilean sea bass to its seafood counters in select markets in coming months. The retailer stopped carrying the fish in 2003 amid concerns that it was being overfished into extinction. Wal-Mart’s turnabout follows a decision by Whole Foods Market Inc. in October to sell Chilean sea bass for the first time since 1999.
It’s the latest twist in the extraordinary history of a fish that went from being an unwanted (and physically ugly) bycatch to a culinary delicacy to massively overfished in a decade. Some environmental activists are already criticizing Wal-Mart’s decision—a potentially difficult situation for the company, which has suffered public-relations missteps and is now engaged in a broad image campaign.
Both Wal-Mart and Whole Foods say they are putting Chilean sea bass back on their shelves because their supply comes from a single fishery near Antarctica that has been certified as sustainable by the London-based Marine Stewardship Council. But the certification is controversial, and critics say they are worried that seeing the fish in giant retailers will send a signal to consumers that the overfishing crisis has abated.
While the one certified fishery is well managed, says Gerry Leape of the National Environmental Trust, it produces only about a tenth of the total legal harvest. Elsewhere, overfishing and poaching remain rampant. “Wal-Mart has 175 million customers every week, so there won’t be enough,” says Mr. Leape. “One of the things we worry about is, what are they going to do when they need more?”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Monday, January 29 | 1 comments | Permalink
Senate Sweatshop Bill Gains Bipartisan Support
From McClatchy via the Contra Costa (Calif.) Times:
A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing American companies from profiting from the use of foreign sweatshops and other unfair labor practices abroad.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined four Democrats and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont in sponsoring a bill that would allow U.S. firms to sue competitors that they believe are selling imported products made in overseas sweatshops.
“Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, there’s a world out there where people are exploited—sometimes literally to the point of death—just to make a buck,” Graham said at a news conference in the Capitol.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said free-trade agreements between the United States and other countries have fueled the growth of sweatshop production in recent years.
Dorgan cited China and Jordan as major offenders, saying their factories employ workers as young as 5, often in long shifts, brutal conditions and for little or no pay. In many cases, he said, the foreign countries violate their own poorly enforced labor laws.
“There is no reason for the United States of America to allow the sale of products made in slave-labor-like conditions,” Dorgan said.
About 250 million children worldwide, ages 14 or younger, work in factories, many in deplorable conditions, he said.
If it becomes law, the legislation could have a major impact on large U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target, which contract with foreign firms to produce many of the products they sell to Americans.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Thursday, January 25 | 40 comments | Permalink
Friday Blog Roundup: Fumbles and Floggies
Wal-Mart’s PR Fumbles
- The Checkout: Stealth Doesn’t Pay
Fire No. 2: Sony received a flogging yesterday at the hands of bloggers over, well, some "flogging"—fake blogging. That’s right. Sony pulled a Wal-Mart and was caught creating a phony blog to entice consumers into buying PlayStation game consoles.
- Screenwerk: Off Topic: Spot the ‘Flog’
As user-generated content has gone from scary to essential for marketers in the course of about 12 months, flogs have arisen to try and exploit the trend. I propose a game to foil the cynical agencies who think users can and should be fooled: “Spot the Flog.”
Announcing the Floggies
- Consumerist: Announcing the Floggies
Since nobody should be allowed to move on from their mistakes, we’re holding a knife fight to see who had the "best" flog of 2006. We are pleased to announce… The Floggies. We will mail the winning company a magnificent trophy.
Growth at Wal-Mart
- Beetsolonely: Wal-Mart May Eat Itself
According to this article by James J. Cramer in New York magazine, uppity neighborhood groups like Responsible Growth for Northcross are the least of Wal-Mart’s problems. Between its underperforming stock and flatlining sales growth, the world’s largest retailer is steadily losing ground to more appealing stores like Target and JCPenney. They are beginning to look more like the bloated, pre-bankruptcy K-Mart every day, and we all remember what Rain Man had to say about those guys. Wal-Mart has a huge image problem on its hands.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Friday, December 22 | 147 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Suffers Setback In Canadian Union Fight
From the Canadian Press via Toronto Globe and Mail:
Wal-Mart has lost a battle in the Quebec Court of Appeal to fight the unionization of its store in Gatineau.
The world’s largest retailer wanted the court to order Quebec’s labour relations board to order a secret ballot by store employees. The court refused to hear the appeal.
The board ordered the certification of one United Food and Commercial Workers local after between 35 and 50 per cent of workers signed union cards.
The local withdrew its union request in May of 2005. But another local submitted its request for accreditation the next day. However, the labour board had cancelled a union vote because the original local had withdrawn its request.
Wal-Mart challenged that decision, saying it should have been allowed to present arguments on the legality of the withdrawal. A company lawyer said the union can’t withdraw the vote without the employer’s consent.
Posted by Russ Fagaly on Wednesday, December 06 | 34 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube