This is it, so don’t get scared now.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors is set to make a decision once and for all on the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart - a public hearing has been scheduled for July 27th, which will be the last time the public (and Robert Duvall) will be able to make their opinions known before the board takes the matter for good. Note: As a Civil War vet, Robert Duvall can actually comment all he’d like.

What will they decide? Will Wal-Mart be allowed to desecrate a piece of American history? Will they be denied, and an alternate site be recommended?

There seems to be a divide between the County Planning Commission and Orange County residents - the Commission voted 5-4 last week to approve development on the Battlefield site, yet at previous public hearings, the majority of Orange County residents were against the project (by an estimated 2-1 margin). This public outcry, combined with the history of the land at stake, would make it seem appropriate that Wal-Mart would be eager for a compromise that would still allow them to develop in the area, if one were presented...but to this point, no dice. Which is why County Administrator Bill Rolfe believes it’s now up to the supervisors to make the “win-win” a reality.

“The question that begs to be asked is, ‘Why isn’t the county trying to broker a deal that keeps Wal-Mart in the county and moves it further away from the congressionally approved boundary line of the Wilderness Battlefield?’ Both would be in our best interest,” Rolfe wrote the Board of Supervisors in a June 15 e-mail...He noted two goals--that Orange enlarge and diversify its tax base, and not do anything that would “detract from the [Wilderness] battlefield as a tourism destination for our community.”

Rolfe went on to point out that the coalition of historic preservation groups currently fighting the Wilderness plan would appear to be amenable to a development located farther from the battlefield park. And it just so happens that just such a piece of land could be made available next to a nearby 51-acre retail development. The question is, will County Supervisors go for it, or will they doom the Wilderness Battlefield to witnessing another brutal defeat?

Seeking win-win in store debate [Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star]

Read the rest of this story ...

To the right is Millswood eighth-grader Samantha Titus. She lives in California, and this week she had the chance to flex her arguing muscles in a debate competition at the Lodi Boys and Girls Club. The topic? If you guessed Wal-Mart - and this IS the Wal-Mart Watch blog - then commence patting yourself on the back.

Titus was one of about 25 middle school students to participate in the debate tackling whether the city of Lodi needs a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter - a battle that has frequently found its way onto our Battlemart Blog, as you can here, here, here and here.

Personally, I think this is a great story, and not just because those students arguing against the development so TOTALLY kicked butt. (Actually, all sides gave well-presented arguments, with those for offering job creation and convenience while opponents pointed out negative environmental impacts, poor wages and the effect on local business.) The real winners were all the students involved, who learned how to research an issue in depth while picking up a little thing called self confidence in the process:

Jeisen Elemen has noticed that the team of three boys and two girls that he coaches are less nervous with public speaking..."They were very quiet,” Elemen said. “Now, they are coming up and speaking out in front of a live audience,” he said.

And how did the students feel about the experience? Take us home, Samantha Titus:

“We’re teenagers. We like to fight with people,” said Titus. “We fight with our parents, so we should use our ability to debate.”

Local students debate Wal-Mart issue [Lodi News-Sentinel]

Read the rest of this story ...

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced yesterday that he would not be supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. In actuality his decision will not only affect the bill itself, but it could first and foremost affect the ability of Congress to even vote on it, because without his vote Conservatives could filibuster the poor thing to death.

When legislation like the Free Choice Act is introduced in the Senate - assuming it makes it to the floor - there eventually takes place debate between Senators as to whether the legislation should be passed. This debate can go on indefinitely, most commonly referred to as a filibuster and taking the form of an exceptionally long speech (as in one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches) to prevent the legislation from moving forward...and that, my friends, is where Senator Specter would come in. Sixty votes are needed in the Senate to enact what is called cloture - basically this sets a deadline for debate to end, after which a final vote is made. Senate Democrats currently have enough votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, but without Specter, there appears to be only 59 Senators that would vote for cloture - one fewer than needed to end debate and take the legislation to a final vote. Senator Specter announced his decision yesterday on the Senate floor:

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

Basically, the Senator had big business screaming at him from one shoulder, and labor from the other...and business (and Conservatives) won. Some, however, noted that while he decided not to support the bill this time, he did identify a need to reform labor law as it currently stands.

Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, chairman of the Health, Education and Labor Committee, said, “It’s disappointing that Senator Specter feels he cannot support the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form, but I welcome his recognition of the urgent need for labor law reform...I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find the best way to move forward with this important legislation.”

Republican opposes US labor bill, may doom measure [Reuters]

Read the rest of this story ...

Wal-Mart’s health care issues obviously go back quite some time. Nationally, 64% of workers in very large firms (5,000 employees or more) receive their health benefits from their employer. And Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart typically covers only 50% of its employees. Twenty-five states have tracked and reported the number of employees and dependents that the largest employers within their borders have enrolled in state-funded health care programs. Where does Wal-Mart rank in those states? Across the board Wal-Mart is at the head of the line for public assistance.

Despite these negatives, Politico says Wal-Mart is looking to throw its economic might into the health care ring:

Wal-Mart is ramping up its Washington activity to push for comprehensive health care reform, and the world’s largest retailer says it is ready to use its economic muscle to get out in front and influence the discussion.

That’s probably a good thing, as anything but the status quo would be a positive development. And we know Wal-Mart and its employees are familiar with using public health care. Michael Hicks, an economist at the Air Force Institute of Technology at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, conducted a study analyzing state Medicaid data from 1978 to 2003 - he found that Wal-Mart causes an increase in state Medicaid spending by as much as $898 per person. That sounds extreme, yet consider the example from Wal-Mart’s home state of Arkansas, where 3,971 of Wal-Mart’s 45,106 employees are on public assistance. That’s basically one in eleven employees taking advantage of public assistance, so no wonder the costs to taxpayers are high.

Still, Politico argues that Wal-Mart has made some gains recently - including offering a broader range of lower-cost insurance options and pushing for electronic health records - and notes that SEIU could be moving towards cautiously optimistic status:

“As the largest private corporation, they do have the ability to set a standard to providing good jobs with good health care,” said SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes. “Right now they are at the table, and they have a very strong commitment to reforming our health care system.”

Whether the reform Wal-Mart ultimately seeks ends up being a positive will remain a HUGE question mark for a while. In the meantime, Wal-Mart has announced that only 3 percent of the company’s employees are now on state assistance. So, only about 45 THOUSAND employees nationwide. So, you know...just a few.

Wal-Mart lends muscle to health reform [Politico]

Read the rest of this story ...

We’ve covered and covered and covered the debate on this one, and finally the long wait is over! The law in question requires a pharmacist to have majority ownership of a pharmacy, so repealing it would have allowed large chains like Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS the opportunity to move in.

Pharmacy bill fails, 57-35 [Bismarck Tribune]

After about an hour of emotional debate, the House voted against a bill today that would have repealed North Dakota’s pharmacy ownership law, 57-35. More updates to come.

So there you go...we’ll let you know when more updates have indeed come.

***Update*** (3:23pm) More coverage - ND House votes to keep pharmacy ownership law [Associated Press]

Read the rest of this story ...