0 comments

---

So were back to this? And we thought worker intimidation was soooooooo last year.

In 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing Wal-Mart’s unionbusting policies and practices in the United States. According to the report, “while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus.”

That aggressiveness is back in the news, courtesy of a unionizing push in St. Paul, Minnesota:

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 filed unfair labor practices complaints this week with the National Labor Relations Board. The union contends that during meetings with employees at its Midway store in St. Paul, Wal-Mart managers said people who sign union authorization cards would be fired. The union also charges that store managers interrogated employees regarding their union support and whether they had signed cards in favor of the union.

Of course this shouldn’t be very surprising, though it does seem pretty interesting that management staff came right out and told people that they’d no longer be a Wal-Mart employee if they supported unionization. You’d think they would hew closer to the Godfather-esque, vague threat route - we can’t be held responsible if, say, a supporter “had an accident” type thing. They should know that threatening workers’ employment status is illegal, right? Or do they just not care? One thing we do know is that they’ve certainly had problems with labor issues in Minnesota before.

Anyway, we’re attempting to get a copy of the NLRB complaint. In the meantime, feel free to check out video of the Local 789 worker rally after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to the Courthouse News Service, Wal-Mart has been using a sales tax loophole to swindle customers out of a full refund on returned merchandise. Basically, the lawsuit claims that when customers have purchased items at a store that charges a particular sales tax, and have returned the item at a store in an area with a lower sales tax, Wal-Mart has refused to return the difference in paid tax if the rate at the point of sale is higher than that at the store where the merchandise is being returned.

(Plaintiff John) Whitewall says he bought a Blue Ray disc player from Wal-Mart’s store in Collinsville, Ill. for $214.04, at an 8.1 percent sales tax rate. But when he returned the player to Wal-Mart’s store in Glen Carbon, Ill., he received only $211.56, because that store has a 6.85 percent sales tax.

This seems like such a small issue - $3.50 or $4 dollars on a sale - but multiplied over thousands of transactions it has the potential to add up. Wal-Mart has had similar issues with returns before - late last year the Connecticut Attorney General began looking into Wal-Mart after charges began surfacing that major retailers (most notably Wal-Mart) were violating state law by charging a second sales tax when merchandise paid for with cash was exchanged. You can refresh your memory on that story here and here.

The lawsuit was filed as a national class action, and we’ll continue checking for updates. You can read the complaint here. The lawsuit is seeking actual damages, plus any additional damages the court would deem appropriate - read: punitive damages in an amount high enough to make Wal-Mart consider changing its practices.

It’s unclear if the plaintiff has examples beyond his own - the complaint mentions only the Blu-ray player purchase - but I have to believe they have additional plaintiffs. A class action based on one case is, after all, not really in much danger of moving forward as a class action.

Class Sues Wal-Mart Over Returns Policy [Courthouse News Service]

0 comments

---

Two outlets - Congressional Quarterly and AllGov.com - have picked up on our FEC story from last week - all of which stems from Wal-Mart’s activities last summer, when meetings were held warning store managers and department supervisors around the country that if Democrats won power in last year’s elections, they would likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies—including Wal-Mart.

Basically, Wal-Mart was telling its employees that if they voted Democratic, unionizing would lead to store closings, lost jobs and more bad things:

“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.

Following a Wall Street Journal piece that relied heavily on sources provided by Wal-Mart Watch, several groups (WMW included) filed complaints with the FEC, asking the commission to look into Wal-Mart’s election activities.

As we reported last week, that complaint ended badly with a deadlocked FEC and an eventual dismissal. Now, however, we can at least begin to piece together how the ruling unfolded (or the lack there of, unless you consider a “stalemate” as indicative of a ruling).

Six commissioners participated in the ruling, with three voting in favor of further investigation, and three against. Could they have voted down party lines, you ask? Surely not? Well, you’d be wrong - three Democrats favored investigating further while the three appointed Republicans said, “Screw it, it’s getting late, we’re heading for happy hour - let’s close the book on this horse.” A 3-3 vote ensued, and just like in baseball the tie went to the runner, with Wal-Mart running away from any official wrongdoing - although we will point out that the Republicans that Wal-Mart was nudging its employees towards didn’t actually win.

An excerpt from the FEC statement against Wal-Mart:

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Nine months ago, on a warm afternoon in mid-August, the following words were written by a very conscientious and wise organization...namely, us:

Today, several labor groups asked the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart. Last week, Wal-Mart Watch submitted a formal complaint to the Federal Election Committee last week, requesting an investigation of Wal-Mart’s political intimidation.

What followed included a copy of a Wall Street Journal article detailing efforts by the company to intimidate workers and discourage support of a labor-friendly administration, and text of the complaint we sent off to the FEC letting them know what we thought of Wal-Mart’s actions. And then we waited, nervously checking our mailbox for the FEC’s response...would they investigate? Would Wal-Mart be brought to task for their actions?

Well, needless to say enough time passed to make us only vaguely remember that the FEC even exists, which made it all the more surprising when 9 months after our initial inquiry, an answer was given to us. And the answer was not what we hoped. The good news is that the case warranted enough merit to be assigned to an attorney in the enforcement division. The bad news is that after taking his/her case back to the commission, the commission was divided on whether there was enough merit to proceed. The commissioners make the final decision by voting for or against a “reason to believe” recommendation (four affirmative votes are required to go forward with any enforcement action)...we obviously did not get the four votes. IF we decide to appeal, we do have the option to file a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

You can read the entire letter here, while we decide what to do next.

53 comments

---

We’ll continue to update this story as we find out more info. The following press release was sent earlier today by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union:

TYLER, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--“Yesterday, after nearly a decade of legal maneuverings and circumventions of federal law, Wal-Mart was finally forced to the bargaining table in Jacksonville, Texas. More than nine years ago, workers in the meat department in the Jacksonville Wal-Mart voted to be represented by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 540. What Wal-Mart proceeded to put these workers through was both unlawful and unconscionable.

“In one of the company’s most audacious displays of hubris, Wal-Mart first ignored the workers, refusing to bargain with them or provide information to their union. Only after the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Wal-Mart did the company try to move the goalposts by claiming that workers in the meat department had lost their right to representation because the skilled meatcutting jobs had been replaced by a prepackaged meat program. Eight years and several legal battles later, Wal-Mart ran out of excuses when the United States Court of Appeals forced the company to bargain with these workers.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Another lawsuit, just like the first one that was filed. In fact, its so similar, I’m even recycling our blog graphic.

Led by plaintiff Marci Badgerow from Chicago, the suit attacks the 2005 agreement struck between the retailers, in which Wal-Mart agreed to exit the online rental business in exchange for Netflix stopping all DVD sales. In this way, the companies hoped to stop unnecessarily cannibalizing revenue between each other.

The suit believes this agreement is illegal and promotes unfair trade. As proof, the suit particularly cries foul over Netflix raising its monthly subscription price from $14.99 to $17.99, on the heels of calling its truce with Wal-Mart. Prior to aligning with Netflix, Wal-Mart was offering a significantly cheaper $12.97 a month subscription plan.

In fact, this lawsuit is so similar, you can just read our previous blog post, except while reading it imagine you’re in a court in snowy Chicago instead of sunny Los Angeles. In the meantime, we’ll see if we can get our hands on the complaint.

And with that, enjoy your weekend.

Netflix, Wal-Mart face second class-action lawsuit [Video Business, via Variety]

Read the rest of this story ...

8 comments

---

Slowly but surely, states are beginning to realize that corporate income tax can do a lot more good for their citizens if its actually remaining in the state, and not being funnelled through some loophole or tax-avoidance scheme. Montana is the next on the list to attack the problem, after state Sen. Ron Erickson introduced Senate Bill 36 yesterday, which “is aimed at stopping efforts by large corporations that have found complex ways by setting up foreign offices to avoid or lower the amount of taxes they pay in this country.”

How did this legislation come about? Why, Wal-Mart, of course. In fact, Erickson passed out copies of a 2007 Wall Street Journal article to the Senate Taxation Committee, an article that detailed how Wal-Mart had opened an office in Florence, Italy, specifically for the purpose of evading taxes. According to the Journal, Wal-Mart’s office in Italy was its only operating unit of a real estate subsidiary that controls billions of dollars of its property in U.S. states and was able to avoid U.S. taxes.

Erickson said he shops at a market in Missoula on southwest Higgins Avenue owned by a man named Jim Edwards, whose store competes against Wal-Mart. “Jim Edwards does not have a back pocket in Florence, Italy,” Erickson said. “If we want to be fair to the Jim Edwardses of Missoula, we have to make sure everyone’s paying their fair share.”

We’ve documented Wal-Mart’s state tax avoidance attempts before, and closing the loophole in Montana appears would save the state about $2.5 million per year. It doesn’t sound like a huge sum, but then again Montana’s budget isn’t going to compare to California or Illinois or New York anyway. As the Wall Street Journal noted then:

The Illinois Department of Revenue objected to the Italian tax maneuver, demanding $26.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties. Wal-Mart paid the amount in dispute and then sued the state for a refund, according to a complaint filed in May in Illinois Circuit Court in Springfield.

The Illinois case is ongoing.

Missoula senator seeks to raise corporate taxes by closing loopholes [Missoulian]

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

BUSTED!!!

Actually, as a recently joined member of Netflix, I have to admit I might not be impartial on this story. After all, they do deliver movies right to my door, allowing me to overcome my lifelong fear of video stores.

But that aside, the lawsuit appears to be some pretty serious stuff. From the Los Angeles Times:

The two companies agreed in 2005 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, would close its online rental business and refer customers to Netflix, which would promote Wal-Mart’s DVD movie sales, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Sounds like a case of a couple companies engaging in some “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” behavior. The complaint suggests clandestine meetings, beginning with a dinner shared by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and then-Wal-Mart.com CEO John Fleming in January 2005, in which discussions began as to how the two could reduce competition in the DVD sales and online DVD rental markets. You can check out the whole complaint here. Its like reading The Bourne Identity...if it was written by lawyers. Bland, legalese-loving lawyers. But seriously, it is pretty interesting, and at 24 pages its not tooooo long, so check it out.

Wal-Mart, Netflix sued over online video rentals [Reuters]

Wal-Mart, Netflix conspired to create monopoly, suit alleges [Bloomberg via Los Angeles Times]

Resnick v. Wal-Mart, Netflix (Complaint)

1 comments

---

Something about oil not meeting viscosity levels? The report doesn’t pack a ton of information, however, it appears that Wal-Mart has been selling low-quality gear oil in violation of California law. You can check out the whole article below...In total, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay over $350,000 in civil penalties and attorney fees.

DA settles consumer protection lawsuit [Vacaville Reporter]

The Solano County District Attorney’s Office joined with DA’s in Napa, Monterey, Shasta and Sonoma counties to settle a consumer protection action against Wal-Mart and Warren Oil.

According to District Attorney Dave Paulson, the complaint alleged Wal-Mart and Warren Oil—the manufacturer of Wal-Mart SuperTech Gear Oil—sold gear oil that did not meet advertised viscosity levels, a violation of California law.

“Wal-Mart and Warren cooperated with prosecutors during the investigation and agreed to undertake additional testing procedures in order to comply with law,” Paulson announced Monday.

Some 5,000 bottles of the non-compliant gear oil were sold in California.

Read the rest of this story ...

9 comments

---

We thought this story was over last week when Wal-Mart fessed up to charging illegal sales tax in Connecticut. We were wrong.

The Hartford Courant is reporting that, despite acknowledging the wrongdoing and vowing to change its ways when it comes to double-charging sales tax, the message has yet to filter down to, you know, the people that matter. Namely, employees. The following is an excerpt from a letter submitted to the Courant:

I find it absolutely incredible that no salesperson knew the “corrected” policy. I hope the assistant manager refunded my sales tax because she really knew it was the right thing to do, or if she just did it to please the customer.  In any case, I’m happy I got my money back. Of course, it’s not the money, it was the principal of the whole thing. I’m still amazed at the whole thing and it has “tainted” my thoughts of their store and my willingness to continue shopping there.

I’d say this was a one-time deal, and we’ll never read about these sales tax shenanigans again. But…

The Courant has forwarded the complaint to the Connecticut Consumer Protection Commission.

Despite promise of reform, Wal-Mart still violating Connecticut tax laws [Hartford Courant]

Read the rest of this story ...

25 comments

---

A Wal-Mart employee in Oregon has accused Wal-Mart of demoting her because - of all things - she took time off during the Christmas shopping season to undergo an emergency hysterectomy.

According to her complaint, which was filed last week in Oregon’s federal district court, Lynda deBarros had worked for Wal-Mart since mid-2000 and over the last 8 years had received consistently positive evaluations resulting in increased responsibilities. She had advanced from photo technician to assistant manager, and then was transferred to a new store to oversee its construction.

DeBarros began experiencing health problems in October 2007, of which I will let The Oregonian do the describing:

On Nov. 14, 2007, deBarros went to her gynecologist because of excessive menstrual bleeding, documents show. DeBarros “had a strong family history of cancer and was very worried that cancer was the cause of her excessive vaginal bleeding.” On Dec. 3, 2007, her doctor recommended an emergency hysterectomy, which was scheduled for Dec. 10. When deBarros notified her boss, Kenneth Hutchison, about her medical condition, the suit said, he scolded her and told her to go to the doctor on her time, not his.

The moral of the story is apparently this: don’t have emergency health issues during the holidays, as deBarros was advised to postpone the procedure because it was Wal-Mart’s “busiest time of the season” and they needed all hands on deck. All that excessive bleeding she was experiencing? Yeah, you just tough that out until the holiday shopping season is over...you’ll have plenty of time for your emergency surgery after the new year.

Two weeks after returning from FMLA leave, deBarros was demoted from her assistant manager position to a simple associate position. This is the second time in two months an FMLA case has made news in a major state paper - in October a West Virginia woman filed suit against Wal-Mart alleging she was wrongfully fired after she used her FMLA leave to care for her young son who had a rare bowel disorder, requiring 12 months of hospitalization and several surgeries. Despite working for Wal-Mart since 1994 with positive evaluations, Arlene Jett was reprimanded for absenteeism after taking her first FMLA leave. Both cases are ongoing.

Employee in Oregon sues Wal-Mart [The Oregonian]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

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 ...

27 comments

---

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) has agreed to hear a complaint by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW Canada) accusing Wal-Mart of engaging in unfair labor practices as defined by Saskatchewan law. What’s more, the SLRB has ruled that Wal-Mart’s actions outside the province of Saskatchewan can be taken into account in assessing whether it is engaging in unfair labor actions within the province.

This means that the SLRB can take into account the example of Jonquiere, Quebec, when ruling on UFCW Canada’s complaint. It was in that small town, just over 100 miles north of Quebec City, that Wal-Mart announced it was going to shut its doors after workers voted to make the Jonquiere store the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The closure put 190 employees out of work, served as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who may have considered unionization against the company’s wishes.

Board chair James Seibel said the board was not required to determine whether Wal-Mart had acted illegally in Quebec to consider whether its actions “intimidated employees in Saskatchewan” from exercising their right under the province’s Trade Union Act to “organize and be represented by a bargaining agent of their choosing.”

“The fact that the actions of Wal-Mart upon which the allegations are based were committed outside the geographic confines of Saskatchewan does not mean that they cannot constitute (a) violation of the restriction on intimidation of its employees in the province,” Seibel ruled.

As the UFCW Canada complaint moves forward in Saskatchewan, it will be interesting to see if Wal-Mart’s actions in Quebec play a significant role - the company’s labor issues have yet to fade away there. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees:

The ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks for Wal-Mart in Canada. The company recently shut down a second operation in Quebec – a tire and lube shop in Gatineau – after failing to stop a union contract from being imposed there. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court of Canada case arising from the Jonquiere closure is scheduled to be heard within months.

We’ll keep you posted.

Wal-Mart actions in Quebec intimidate employees elsewhere [National Union of Public and General Employees]

Read the rest of this story ...