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

---

In a unionizing effort that stretches back to 2004, it would appear that Wal-Mart has once again attained the upper hand.

After four years of legal wrangling, Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan were finally granted union status last December. It had been four years since the United Food and Commercial Workers union originally filed an application to represent the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers based on the fact that more than half the store’s workers had signed union cards, but victory seemed within grasp. And that victory seem even closer in April, when an application Wal-Mart filed for reconsideration of union certification was dismissed by the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan.

Wal-Mart appealed, however, and now a Saskatchewan judge has pulled a Lucy, yanking the football away from Weyburn’s band of Charlie Browns.

A Saskatchewan judge has overturned the union certification of a Weyburn Wal-Mart store, saying workers should be allowed to vote on the matter...The law in 2004 was that if more than 50 per cent of employees signed cards, a secret ballot vote wasn’t required. However, after the Saskatchewan Party won the 2007 provincial election, defeating the NDP, the law changed — an employee vote is now mandatory before certification can be considered.

Where the Labour Relations Board had held that the applicable law was that in place at the time union status was filed for, this judge took the opposite route. He ruled that the amended law should have been the basis of the Labour Board’s decision when it ruled last year.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

It isn’t EFCA, but this week the Oregon legislature took its own step towards ending employer intimidation towards employees seeking to form a union. The Oregon Senate passed Senate Bill 519 - the Worker Freedom Act - by a 16-14 vote. The vote nearly split down party lines, with 16 Democrats voting in favor, and 12 Republicans (plus two Democrats) voting against. The measure now moves to the Oregon House, where a similar bill passed in 2007.

Senate Bill 519, which moved to the House on a 16-14 vote, bars businesses from requiring workers to attend company-organized meetings about politics — including union organizing — and religion. There are exceptions for churches and political parties.

The House bill passed 31-27 in 2007, and five more Democrats have since joined the state house. So, needless to say, the measure’s chance of becoming law are looking pretty good.

With public and legislative support behind the bill - 88% of Oregonians, in a December poll, said they did not think an employer should be allowed to force workers to attend meetings about the employer’s opinion on politics, religion, or union organizing - Oregon’s AFL-CIO President appeared surprised in an April email alert that Republicans were fighting the measure so strenuously. As you will note, the bill doesn’t bar the meetings from taking place - it simply bars employers from taking retribution against employees who choose not to attend meetings on politics, religion or union organizing during work hours.

“SB 519 simply states that an employer can’t discipline or fire a worker for opting out of a meetings on one of these topics. Are our Senators, and are the business associations who opposed this bill, upset that we are limiting their right to fire a worker who disagrees with their political or religious views? That’s all this bill does.”

Read the rest of this story ...

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.

34 comments

---

Wal-Mart workers from across the nation are converging today on Capitol Hill for a National Organizing Meeting to brief Senators about wages, benefits and the Employee Free Choice Act. We have Wal-Mart Watch peeps down on the Hill, and will have more updates as the day goes on.

Wal-Mart Workers Holding Historic National Organizing Meeting [UFCW Release via EarthTimes]

WASHINGTON - (Business Wire) Walmart workers from across the nation are converging today on Capitol Hill for a National Organizing Meeting to brief Senators about wages, benefits and the Employee Free Choice Act. Nearly 100 Walmart workers from 17 states are participating in the event. As part of their campaign for a union voice on the job, they will urge lawmakers to level the playing field for working people by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

“I made the trip into Washington DC to stand with my fellow Walmart workers and to urge my Senators to pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” said Dominique Sloan a Dallas, Texas, Walmart worker. “We need change in this country. All you have to do is look at how all the money goes to CEOs. But when it comes to workers, it’s always the same, no health care or health care that’s too expensive and low wages. We need to change that.”

The National Organizing Committee is made up of Walmart workers from Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Read the rest of this story ...

3 comments

---

Multiple proposals are being pushed by pro-business groups in 13 states in response to a certain bill pending in Congress known as the Employee Free Choice Act.

With the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act still up in the air, business groups appear willing to take no chances. The individual pieces of legislation, such as a resolution proposed in Missouri, are generally geared towards requiring secret ballots in union elections instead of allowing workers to choose between elections or signing cards.

The measure resembles proposals being pushed by pro-business groups in 12 other states in response to a bill pending in Congress that would make it easier for employees to form unions.

Florida is another state with a bill on the table - the Florida proposal has been titled “Guaranteeing the Right to Vote by Secret Ballot.” Not everyone in the state is sold on its “guarantee,” however:

“The intent of the language is to mislead the voters, to make the voters think that they are voting in favor of protecting their own rights at that ballot box,” said Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach. “That is not what this is about.”

Both measures remain in their respective statehouses - the Florida Senate still has to consider the issue, while the Missouri proposal remains with the Missouri House, and its chances of passing the Senate during this legislative session appear slim.

Read the rest of this story ...

9 comments

---

****UPDATE (12:59pm)****
Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have released snippets from Senator Specter’s statement this morning, and the WSJ noted that “Vice President Joe Biden had been openly courting his old friend and colleague from the Senate Judiciary Committee, making the case that he could breeze to re-election as a Democrat.” From Specter’s statement:

“When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing. Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.”

It should be noted that this flip comes almost exactly one month after Specter flipped on another issue - namely, ending his support for the Employee Free Choice Act. Could a switch to the left, in a union-heavy state like Pennsylvania, pave the way for Senator Specter to renew his support of EFCA?

From the Washington Post earlier today:

Specter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

Read the rest of this story ...

14 comments

---

Workers at a North Miami Beach Wal-Mart Supercenter are hoping to make their store one of the first Wal-Marts in the United States to unionize. The Miami Herald is reporting that workers have gathered signed pro-union cards from 150 of the store’s 476 employees.

If a majority of workers were to vote to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union, Wal-Mart would have to negotiate a contract setting pay, work rules, complaint procedures, health insurance and other benefits for the workers.

The Miami store is the most impressive example of card-signing activity, the movement occurring despite the fact that the Employee Free Choice Act movement remains in neutral in Washington. It isn’t the only unionizing target, however, as the UFCW admitted the North Miami Beach store is only one of about 100 Wal-Mart stores it is working to organize in 17 states, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

Meghan Scott, a Food and Commercial Workers spokesman in Washington, said the union increased its organizing efforts after the election of President Barack Obama and the reintroduction this year of federal legislation that would make it easier for workers to gain union representation. “We’ve seen a pretty significant uptick in calls from Wal-Mart workers across the country,” Scott said. “The workers just seem to be emboldened in a way that they have not been in the last few years.”

The Miami store is a continuation of a trend that began earlier this month, when the Wall Street Journal reported on organizing efforts in Texas and Illinois.

‘’If we vote and we get it [union certification], they can’t do nothing but go along with it,’’ (Miami employee) Cheryl Guzman said. ``That’s my hope and prayer.’’

Read more after the jump:

Read the rest of this story ...

18 comments

---

Senator Blanche Lincoln has made it clear where she stands. Over the past few weeks, she has turned her back on Wal-Mart workers, and stood up to fight for the Walton Family.

Just one month ago, on March 14th, Vice President and prominent Employee Free Choice Act supporter Joe Biden stood hand in hand with Senator Blanche Lincoln and praised her hard work in Arkansas and Washington. Biden made the trip to help Lincoln raise $800,000 for her 2010 reelection campaign, but also to convince her to support the bill. What a difference a month makes.

On April 6th, Lincoln finally betrayed Wal-Mart workers. While saying out of one corner of her mouth that she “consider[ed] both the labor and the business communities” to be her friends, she unequivocally stated she could not support Employee Free Choice in its current form.

But Lincoln was hardly done cowing to the Walton Family. Last week Lincoln took a step that shows where her loyalty truly lies: she partnered with Republicans and called for increasing the exemption on the Estate Tax from $5 to $10 million, which would stand to help the extremely wealthy more cheaply pass inheritance to their family. We can think of a lot of Wal-Mart executives and Walton Family members who are in the business of passing along millions in inheritance, but we sure can’t think of any workers who are in that situation.

And while all workers might not donate thousands to her campaign like the Waltons do, there will surely be a lot more of them to cast ballots next November.

One might say that Lincoln is merely repaying some of her prime donors: the Waltons as individuals together donated about $6,000 in 2008 to her election fund.

It’s not for ‘gazillionaires’ [Arkansas News]

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said I knew better than that.

I’d merely wondered whether she pushed a reduction in estate taxes to save millions for her richest constituents, the Arkansas Waltons, with whom she’s long been tight.

These “gazillionaires,” as she called them, don’t give a hoot about a marginal reduction in inheritance taxes, she argued. She said they’ve already attended to orderly reduction and protection of their inheritances with expert estate planning.

Indeed, an advocacy group that the Waltons help finance has fought to eliminate estates taxes, not reduce them.

Read the rest of this story ...

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 ...

1 comments

---

In the State of Washington, proposed legislation called the Worker Privacy Act would give workers the option of refusing to attend mandatory meetings where employers tell their side on issues of personal conscience, including politics or unionizing. Actually, the bill being considered in both the Washington House and Senate also mentions religion and charitable giving as protected issues, but politics and unionization are the ones getting all the media love. Yesterday, the Washington State Labor Council pointed out the following in arguing in favor of the bill to the House Labor and Commerce committee:

Under current law, companies can force their employees to attend such meetings to discourage union organizing or to press political views, as Wal-Mart did last year when it urged employees to vote against Barack Obama and Democrats.

Indeed, Wal-Mart Watch was intimately involved with the development of an August 2008 story in the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of Wal-Mart’s “mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies—including Wal-Mart.”

The actions by Wal-Mart—the nation’s largest private employer—reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don’t specifically tell attendees how to vote in November’s election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

In addition to those stories in the WSJ piece, some of the reports Wal-Mart Watch received were even more egregious - in one example, a worker said they were shown a slide that said “Obama = union” while being told why unions were bad. The Washington legislation would allow workers to elect not to attend such gatherings, without fear of reprisal.

Read the rest of this story ...

11 comments

---

Over the summer, we heard from many employees that Wal-Mart was in many ways openly opposing the candidacy of Barack Obama for president. When the Wall Street Journal published a front page story on August 1st on the allegations of manager meetings where workers were no-so-subtley urged to vote for John McCain, the issue became a national news sensation.

We’d assumed that the story was mostly over, but the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger today makes a new allegation that we haven’t seen printed before:

Wal-Mart, in response to reports that it had banned employees from speaking Obama’s name while at work, said it is discouraging its employees from engaging in certain political discourse on the job.

“One of the basic beliefs of our company is respect for the individual,” Wal-Mart corporate spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said in an e-mail statement.

“We are a bipartisan company and our associates reflect the wide range of attitudes and political diversity of this country. We prefer to maintain a politically neutral working and shopping environment in our stores,” Hardie said. “As such politically charged discussions are discouraged in order to ensure individual beliefs are respected.”

Any of our employee friends want to comment on this? We’ve heard stories hinting at this sort of thing, but not (to my knowledge) alleging an outright ban on mentioning a presidential candidate’s name in the store. One would assume that the story is true - given that Wal-Mart actually responded to the allegations, and didn’t even try to deny it.

Needless to say, it’s not a policy that jives well with Lee Scott’s recent love letter to our new President-Elect. 

2 comments

---

Despite its best efforts, Wal-Mart could not hold off Barack Obama and the incoming Democratic wave hitting our nation’s capital. When asked about the election results, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, in a letter to associates, said Wal-Mart was committed to working with either party.

“A number of associates asked me how our company viewed the election and what our post-election plans were. I told those associates that this is clearly a time of great opportunity for our country, and also a time of great challenge. I reminded them that last June I said that Wal-Mart looked forward to working with the new President and Congress, regardless of party, to find solutions to our challenges. We are even more committed to that objective today.”

Talk about revisionist history. Wal-Mart, since the beginning of the campaign, made it clear to everyone that the company would rather deal with John McCain. While disappointment is in the air in Bentonville, regular associates around the country should rejoice. Now workers have an advocate in the White House!

So where does Wal-Mart go from here? It looks like Wal-Mart has decided to hire a new set of “reputation warriors” and other government relations personnel to mislead inform Congress about two key issues – health care and sustainability. These new directors will beg for mercy advocate for Wal-Mart’s interests on Capitol Hill.

I think we are all familiar with Wal-Mart’s benefits package and green campaign. Good luck to the brave souls who fill these positions, you will need all the help you can get.

24 comments

---

Hey, Wal-Mart?  Do you feel the winds blowing today?  Ah, yes, the winds of change. Indeed, that key demographic of Wal-Mart women across the country surely voted their pocketbooks and their consciences - and helped the electorate hand a decisive victory to Senator Barack Obama.

You can bet the Walton family and CEO Lee Scott weren’t doing a victory dance last night when the election was called for Obama.  Oh, sure the company’s pr and gov relations guy, Leslie Dach has tried really, really, really, really hard recently (especially as things were looking really promising for Obama) to convince everyone that Wal-Mart was “non-partisan” – even going so far as to air infomercials for both candidates in the company’s stores.  But, those “non-partisan” activities, like so many things Wal-Mart does are mere distractions from what the company was really up to.

In August, the Wall Street Journal exposed Wal-Mart’s mandatory meetings to attempt to instruct its employees to vote against Democrats and Senator Obama – oh, sure they nuanced the message in some settings, but the point was clear.  And, the company implemented a plan at the beginning of 2008 to train all of its managers how to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) should Obama be elected.  During the presidential campaign, we saw anti-EFCA ads (and anti-Obama – walking the legal line in various forms) from several different organizations - including (but, not limited to): the Workforce Fairness Institute; Center for Union Facts; The Center for Consumer Freedom and of course, the Employment Policies Institute.  Since these groups don’t disclose all of their contributors, it’s hard to prove that Wal-Mart gave them money, but we have a pretty good idea that Wal-Mart invested a nice chunk of change in their efforts. Maybe someone should ask Wal-Mart.

For the past eight years, Wal-Mart has had a free pass to trample workers’ rights - in part due to the ineffectiveness of the NLRB – and in part due to a system that has favored employers.  The company’s business model of paying appallingly low wages, offering catastrophic, unaffordable health care plans, forcing employees to forgo overtime pay, manipulating employees’ schedules as punishment for standing up to the company, discriminating against employees and a host of other issues – evident from a multitude of lawsuits - and from the mouths of employees themselves - is finally in jeopardy. 

Yep, change is coming.  With an Obama presidency and the Democratic gains in Congress, average Americans – including Wal-Mart workers - will once more have a say and stand a chance of getting a fair shake.  Wal-Mart knows it – and fears it.

Expect to see the company increase its lobbying expenditures in the next few months and ramp up its efforts to mislead its employees about EFCA – which by the way, could finally give its employees the ability to stand up to the company.  And, expect to see even worse treatment of employees to send a clear message to them about who is still in charge (and Wal-Mart just doesn’t ever seem to learn on this front). 

35 comments

---

So, apparently there’s an election going on right now?

It seems there’s only a few hours left for Obama and McCain to make a run at the Wal-Mart vote.

Undoubtedly, talk in recent weeks about Wal-Mart Moms has cooled down a little bit - but it’s still there. From Wednesday on (hopefully), we’ll start to know whether this year’s new hot political demographic really made a difference in the results, or maybe even whether it exists at all. We’ll know whether the candidates Wal-Mart supported won or lost. And we can start to discuss on the blog how a new administration might affect the world’s biggest company.

If election mania is leaving you any time to read Wal-Mart news, here’s a rundown of Wal-Mart mentions in recent political coverage:

**And don’t foget to vote tomorrow!

Counting On Wal-Mart Women [Newsweek]:

Just about every poll shows Barack Obama ahead in key battleground states, yet an internal McCain campaign memo, conveniently leaked to the media, calls the race “functionally even.” The memo’s author, highly regarded pollster Bill McInturff, argues that McCain’s salvation will be “Wal-Mart women” without a college degree making below $60,000 a year. These are the voters the politicians overlook and who have found their voice in Sarah Palin and their gender counterpart in Joe the Plumber—or so the theory goes.

William Safire: ’08-isms [New York Times]:

This year, Gov. Sarah Palin modernized the soccer mom with the hockey mom and the Wal-Mart mom. (That chain has a great euphemism for the guy on the way out who makes sure you’re not stealing stuff: the exit greeter.)

McCain to face close fight in Indiana [Financial Times]:

Even then, the main local topic of discussion was not al-Qaeda or the invasion of Iraq, which still lay six months ahead – but the new Super Wal-Mart planned for the edge of town. Nothing has turned out quite as the optimists imagined, including the Wal-Mart. Prices are said to be higher here than at neighbouring branches, because there is no competition.

Read the rest of this story ...

51 comments

---

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]

24 comments

---

If you happened to catch Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator Obama’s infomercial last night, you saw a retired couple who couldn’t afford to pay for their medications so the 72-year old husband had to take a job at Wal-Mart. Instead of enjoying their retirement and what should be their “golden years,” this man like many others in these tough economic times had little choice but to join the forces of low-paid Wal-Mart workers. Go in any Wal-Mart and you’ll see many folks just like him – folks working as Wal-Mart sales associates, greeters and stockers.

But, with Wal-Mart’s average hourly wage of around $10 – not the starting wage, which is much lower - this family and others like them are struggling.  An average full-time employee earns about $19,200 a year – that’s living in poverty for a family of four. And, what about those medications and doctor bills?  You can bet this family is still paying them out of pocket – with Wal-Mart’s lousy health care plans and waiting periods.

Part-time workers have to wait a year before they are eligible for health care plans while full-timers still have a six-month wait. And even for eligible employees, the decent plans are too expensive to afford on a meager hourly wage. Most end up with high deductibles and very little coverage, which is why only about half of Wal-Mart’s employees are even covered under the company health care plan. 

As Senator Obama pointed out, this couple’s situation is not an isolated one. But, the sad thing is that so many of these folks who find themselves working at Wal-Mart in these desperate times, find themselves subject to bad treatment, low wages and poor health care plans. The stories we hear from employees every day show a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s willingness to take advantage of these hard-working employees - who are just trying to support their families and make ends meet. All you have to do is read a few of them to understand working at Wal-Mart isn’t always a good option.

We hope that the mention of Wal-Mart in this political infomercial puts the company on notice. People are paying attention: it’s time for a change, Wal-Mart.

13 comments

---

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 ...

6 comments

---

Yesterday, Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs, told reporters that Wal-Mart is “relentlessly non-partisan.” His claim does not make sense when you look at the facts.

While it is true that in the latest election cycle, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money away to House Democrats than House Republicans by a $456,700 to $418,500 margin, Wal-Mart overwhelmingly supports conservative causes and groups. Released just a few weeks ago, our Walton influence website clearly shows how the Walton family and Wal-Mart both support a right wing agenda. In fact, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money to Senate Republicans and more money to conservative PACs by a significant margin. In addition to PAC giving, Wal-Mart’s lobbying skews conservative. By lobbying against port security to save money on shipping costs, lobbying against country-of-origin labeling to shroud its supply chain in secrecy, and lobbying against the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act, Wal-Mart shows its true colors.  After the release of the 3rd quarter lobbying numbers, Wal-Mart’s in-house lobbying expenditures jumped to $5.22 million dollars – a 3629% increase since 1999. And let’s not forget the Employee Free Choice Act. An August story in the Wall Street Journal shows just how far Wal-Mart will go to prevent an Obama victory and unionization in its stories.

The Walton family is no different. The family, which controls 43% of Wal-Mart’s stock, is consistently pushing a right wing agenda. Worth over $100 billion dollars, the Walton family is free to spend their billion on causes like the school voucher movement. Public school supporters worry that the Walton family exerts a disproportionate level of influence in this area. Since 2000, the Walton Family Foundation donated over $47 million to the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation, a lobbying organization devoted to weakening the public school system in America by “providing research and publications to school choice groups and submitting amicus curie briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on voucher issues.” The Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), which promotes the voucher movement to African-American families, received over $3.8 million from the Walton Family Foundation since 2002. 

Sounds like Wal-Mart and the Walton family are relentlessly partisan to us.