0 comments

---

In the last week, the blog Chicagoist has written what is one of the most in-depth looks at what it means for Americans to work at Walmart we’ve seen in the media this year.

In a three-part series, Chicagoist journalist Kevin Robinson, interviewed three current and former Walmart employees about what it is like for them to work for the world’s largest private employer and took a look at the labor practices that Walmart uses to create massive profits while at the same time depressing wages throughout entire industries.

That the Chicagoist is taking a look at Walmart is especially, well, appropriate.  The Good Jobs Chicago coalition has been working for years make sure that if a Walmart is built in the South Side community of Englewood it will provide good jobs with living wages. 

And we mean years. 

If you live in Chicago (and I would imagine most regular Chicagoist readers do) you’ve been hearing about this proposed Walmart store for some time.  A big-box wage ordinance that was aimed at the retailer was passed by the City Council and was then vetoed by Mayor Daley, his only veto to date (and he’s been in office for two decades).  In 2007, a coalition of activists, unions, and community organizers pushed back against Daley, not supporting him for reelection, and helping to elect a number of pro-labor alderman.  Now activists are looking to push a living wage ordinance that would require any company with 50 or more workers to pay the wage of at least $11.03 per hour if the company benefits from a city subsidy. 

So Walmart might have been in the news a few times.

Part One of the Chicagoist series introduces the three associates, all working at Chicagoland area Walmart stores, how tough management can be as taskmasters, safety concerns (two of whom have suffered injuries on the job), and how Walmart’s push for low prices extends into how they pay their employees.

The second part addresses wage concerns and one of the scams that Walmart uses to increase profits.  The scam?  Pushing employee wages so low that many employees qualify for food stamps and public assistance.  Specifically, the piece looks at how Walmart employees make such low wages that they are eligible for food stamps, which they then spend at Walmart to great advantage by the company.

Part Three examines Walmart’s labor practices, something near to our hearts here at Wake Up Walmart.  That Walmart has one of the most aggressive anti-union practices in the world should come as no surprise, and Robinson includes some very interesting information about how those practices directly impact associates.

So if you have a few minutes, head over and read the articles.  It is a very good introduction to how Walmart operates nationwide and provides good insight for anyone who might be hearing about a Walmart attempting to move into their town, or for Walmart associates to know that they are not alone when it comes to the kind of poor working conditions and employee treatment that occurs in Walmart stores everywhere.

0 comments

---

This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post:

More bad headlines for Wal-Mart, the sexist employer. The company was nailed again by its own employees--this time in Kentucky.

In Wal-Mart’s Annual Report to shareholders there is a two page note simply called “Legal Proceedings.” In it, the company summarizes “a number of legal proceedings” which, “if adversely decided...may result in liability material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.” In addition to the well-known collection of wage and hour ‘off the clock’ class action lawsuits, are the gender discrimination lawsuits, including the massive Dukes v. Wal-Mart case which began 9 years ago. Damages sought by the women in the Dukes case could be so large that Wal-Mart admits, “the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation.”

Less well known is another lawsuit that was originally filed in the summer of 2001, just two months after the Dukes case. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The lawsuit, EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Janice Smith and all other women who made application or transfer requests since 1995 at the Wal-Mart distribution center in London, Kentucky, and were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for which they applied.

The EEOC sought backpay for these women not selected for hire or transfer, and injunctive relief. According to Wal-Mart, the Kentucky complaint charges that the retailer based its hiring decisions on gender---which is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Wal-Mart told his investors that it could not “reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this litigation.”

But this week the EEOC helped quantify that loss. The federal agency announced that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $11.7 million in back wages and compensatory damages, plus its share of employer taxes, and up as much as $250,000 in administration fees.

According to the EEOC, Walmart’s London Distribution Center denied jobs to female applicants from 1998 through February 2005. Wal-Mart hired male entry-level applicants for warehouse positions---but excluded female applicants who were equally or better qualified. Wal-Mart routinely would tell female applicants that order filling positions were not “suitable” for women, and that they hired mostly 18- to 25-year-old men for these positions.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Check out this piece from the Oakland Tribune on our kickoff event for our week of action:

The sick-leave policy of the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., is putting the public at risk because workers are not paid the first day they take off for an illness, even if it is a serious contagious disease, according to members of several unions and labor watchdog groups.

The policy of docking pay on the first day of an illness, they said, ignores government recommendations to let H1N1 victims stay home without being penalized.

“Wal-Mart workers are coming to work sick,” said Jenya Cassidy, of the Labor Project for Working Families, during a rally Wednesday organized by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5, and Wake Up Wal-Mart.

“Everybody gets sick, but not everyone can afford to get well,” Cassidy said.

Wal-Mart, which has become the largest grocer in the United States, denies the claim. But the specter of workers potentially spreading the H1N1 virus because they cannot afford to take time off has public health officials worried — especially retail workers who have frequent direct contact with the public.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

From our allies over at Wake Up Walmart:

WakeUpWalmart.com and a coalition of supporters today launched a national week of action against Walmart’s irresponsible sick leave policy.  WakeUpWalmart.com will hold events at 50 Walmart stores across the country to deliver ‘demerits’ and a letter to local store managers calling on Walmart to change its unfair and harmful sick day policy.

Last fall the New York Times article Lack of Sick Days May Worsen Flu Pandemic, exposed Walmart’s track record of giving employees “demerits” that can lead to termination when they call in sick.  A number of workers across the country reported retaliation and termination from Walmart due to illness.

Beatrice Parker, a former greeter at Walmart # 3371 in Charlotte, N.C., felt forced to resign due to Walmart’s sick leave policy after suffering from a bladder infection caused by not being given bathroom breaks on the job.

In a new video released today, Parker describes abuse and age discrimination and asks Walmart CEO Mike Duke, “If you don’t have any or can’t have any concern for the way I was treated in this Walmart, please have some for the people who work there, especially the older people.” You can watch the video on the right of this post.

Walmart’s policies and actions create a working environment where employees feel they are faced with a choice between spreading the flu and keeping their job.  Walmart deserves public demerits for sick leave policies that put the public at risk and make its employees sicker.

The Demerit Walmart program is supported by leading advocacy groups such as the MomsRising.org and the Labor Partnership for Working Families.

“MomsRising is extremely concerned by news reports that Walmart associates risk receiving demerits (which can lead to termination) for taking earned paid sick days,” said MomsRising Executive Director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner.  “Such a practice is a public health hazard and a threat to the economic security of Walmart associates and their families. We call on Walmart to publicly respond to these charges and immediately end any ongoing practice of issuing demerits .”

Walmart is America’s largest private employer and sets the standard for workplaces in the retail industry.  Walmart associates should not be afraid of losing their jobs simply because they are too sick to help customers.  Walmart can and should live up to the highest possible workplace standards. 

0 comments

---

Walmart just announced, with much patting of their own back, that more of their employees are enrolled in their company health insurance this year. The total number of their own workers enrolled in their insurance? It is up to 54% from 52% last year. The industry standard, by the way, is 65% and many big retailers insure a much larger percentage of their workforce. Costco, for example insures 85% of its workers.

But the real news in Walmart’s announcement is that more employees are uninsured and more employees are relying on state aid. The AP reports:

The number of Wal-Mart employees with health coverage — provided by either Wal-Mart or another source — dropped from 94 percent last year to 87 percent.

Wal-Mart said 43,000 of its workers receive health coverage through a state assistance program, up from 36,000 last year.

So not only does Walmart fail to insure 644,000 of its workers, a whopping 182,000 are left completely uninsured while another 43,000 (that Walmart admits to) must rely on Medicaid and other state run programs.

David Tovar, Walmart’s spokesperson said, “We believe this is just one more indicator that our nation’s current health care system is not sustainable.” But the comment fails to understand that Walmart is a part of the problem with our nation’s current health care system. Employers have to take some of the responsibility for providing health insurance and they fail to take any.

0 comments

---

Did you catch “Undercover Boss” after the Super Bowl? It’s a new reality show on CBS where executives go undercover at their own companies and work entry level jobs to see what it’s like. In the first episode, Waste Management’s President and Chief Operating Officer Larry O’Donnell works several different jobs over a week and discovers how tough life can be for his employees. He also discovers how his policies have affected workers.

It’s nice to see a show that uncovers these kinds of problems in the American workplace. Of course, most of us already know how tough work can be, but most of us don’t have a reality show. That’s why American Rights At Work started Fix Our Jobs which is pushing for real, systematic reform in our workplace, not just feel good TV moments. They’re asking folks to sign a petition to congress: “America’s workers need a voice on the job so they can fight for fair pay, real benefits, reasonable hours, and better working conditions. We need to fix our labor laws now!”

They’re also asking for stories about your job, good or bad. We’re sure you all have some stories to share, so go check out the site. You can also watch a video they put together just to the right.

We also want to hear from Walmart workers. Tell us your stories from work. What would Mike Duke find if he came to work as a greeter at your store for a day or two? Would he make the cut as an overnight stocker?

Would Mike Duke ever take on this kind of undercover assignment? We don’t think so, but if he did, we’re sure he’d find some pretty disturbing stories, just like Larry O’Donnell did.

0 comments

---

Walmart is certainly shaking things up recently. A week ago, Walmart laid off more than 11,000 of its Sam’s Club workers. Two weeks before that, Walmart closed down 10 Sam’s Club stores putting 1,500 jobs at risk. Since the Sam’s Club layoffs, Walmart has announced other substantial institutional changes like splitting its US operations in to regions and establishing a global online organization.

Then today, Walmart announced it would laying off another 300 employees from its Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters. Just about a year ago, Walmart laid off between 700 and 800 workers from headquarters.

Between the two layoffs, Walmart has let go around 9% of the 12,000 headquarters staff.

The positions being eliminated this time around were in the corporate affairs, finance, human resources, information systems and legal departments.

We’re always concerned to hear about layoffs, especially from a company that is doing so well right now, racking up billions of dollars in sales.

With a 10% cut in Sam’s club staff, and a nearly 10% cut in headquarter staff, are there more layoffs on the way?

You can read more about the layoffs, and the memo from Mike Duke from the Associated Press here.

0 comments

---

It’s been a rough few weeks for Sam’s Club employees. First came the announcement that ten Sam’s Club stores would close and the 1,500 employees who worked there could lose their jobs. Then, yesterday, Walmart announced they would be laying off 11,200 workers. Most of those being laid off demonstrate products in the stores. Walmart’s spokesperson made it clear that this wasn’t about the economy, or the employees performance, rather, they were outsourcing the jobs to Shopper Events a company who’s only purpose is to demonstrate products in Walmart stores.

Walmart has suggested that the 10,000 employees they are firing can apply for a job with Shopper Events, who will be hiring roughly 10,000 employees to fill the gap left by the lay off. It sure sounds a lot like Walmart is asking 10,000 of their employees to reapply for their own jobs.

Here’s our official statement:

For Immediate Release: January 25, 2010

Walmart Sam’s Club Lowering Worker and Community Standards

Layoffs Raise Important Questions About Commitment to its Workforce

(Washington, DC) – The following is a statement from Wake Up Walmart: 

Walmart launched another assault on living and working standards in communities across the country yesterday, by laying off more than ten thousand Sam’s Club employees.  The company is outsourcing jobs, many of them part-time, to a company based in Arkansas.

Workers report that Walmart called them into mass meetings where they were offered boxes of tissues and told they were no longer needed by the nation’s largest private employer.

The mass layoffs raise serious questions such as whether or not older and more senior workers were targeted for lay off.  Why hasn’t Walmart made a clearer path to employment with Shopper Events for these 11,000 associates – which they clearly have the power to do?  And for workers hired by the outsourced company, what kind of jobs will Shoppers Events provide to the new applicants?  Why is Walmart telling workers they must agree not to pursue age discrimination claims in order to qualify for severance pay?

Walmart and Sams Club workers seeking additional assistance and answers are encouraged to contact Walmart Workers for Change at 866-587-2299 or log on to http://www.walmartworkersforchange.org/.

0 comments

---

Amid one of the worst economies we have seen in years, Walmart has faired exceedingly well. They’ve made record profits, continue to grow at a steady pace, and broken in to new international markets. The Motley Fool, suggests that the recession finally caught up with Walmart as they announced the closing of 10 Sam’s Club stores.

The clubs will close and it is the employees and communities who will pay the price. The closing will mean 1,500 employees will be out of a job, though Walmart said they would try to find jobs for the employees. The closing will also mean big, empty warehouse style buildings in communities. The kind of big, empty buildings that often go unoccupied for years (especially in this economy), attract crime, and drain local resources.

Read the full article from the Motley Fool here.

0 comments

---

Today the Wall Street Journal breaks a story we’ve been hearing about for a little while now. Apparently Walmart will no longer be offering regular paper checks to its employees. Instead, Walmart will begin paying its workers either through a direct deposit program, or on a debit card. Walmart is touting the change as a way to save money (for themselves) and as a green initiative because of all the paper it will save. While both are undeniably true, it could turn out to be a pretty raw deal for employees.

Employees with checking accounts who opt to get their pay through direct deposit will likely not be affected at all, but employees without a checking account could have to deal with fees for checking their balance, withdrawing money, and more. While the fees may not seem like a lot of money, they can add up and make a difference to an employee making poverty level wages.

What’s more, it seems to us that Walmart is trying to create a ‘factory store’ like situation, where employees end up spending large portions of their income where they work, giving their hard earned money right back to the company.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Though the debit cards save companies money by reducing payroll costs, consumer advocates have criticized some card programs, noting that workers are often charged fees to access their money or even check balances.

MasterCard, however, said First Data Corp., which will process the transactions, agreed with Wal-Mart to offer some of the lowest fees available among such cards, and noted that many workers already pay fees for cashing checks. It said employees’ first ATM transaction a pay period is free; subsequent ones cost $2 each.

Laura Kelly, senior vice president of global prepaid cards at MasterCard, said the arrangement benefits both companies and workers, who “won’t have to go to stores to pick up their paychecks anymore.”

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Major news from Wal-Mart on the health care front. And its not good. 

Recently, Wal-Mart has been in the news urging for health care reform and even accepting a nation wide employer mandate as part of the package. But today we see another side of Wal-Mart strategy: cutting benefits. In a letter to its employees, Wal-Mart notified its workers that their health benefits no longer covered Preferred Brand Name and Non-Preferred Brand Name drugs. Instead, in attempt to allegedly help Wal-Mart employees save “a yearly savings of over $300,” Wal-Mart’s health care plan will only include a single Generic Drug Plan.

It didn’t take long for Wal-Mart to show its true Health Care colors. From Bnet:

Previously, Walmart’s health benefits covered about 260 brand name drugs — from Abilify to Zyprexa – according to a Walmart “Quick Reference Preferred Brand List” from January 2009. The July 20, 2009, list contains only about 128 preferred brands.

The move has huge consequences for workers’ health — Walmart is the U.S.’s largest employer with about 1.1 million employees (or “associates,” as the company calls them). Roughly 700,000 associates are covered by the health plan, a Walmart spokesperson said.

Wal-Mart notified its employees in a letter, and about the details of the plan and specified which drugs would and would not be covered:

Effective July 20, 2009, the Preferred and Non-Preferred Brand Name Drug programs will be eliminated and will be replaced with a singe [sic] Brand Name Drug Plan. All of the drugs covered under the Non-Preferred Brand Name Drug Program will be eliminated (except Specialty Drugs).

Important changes to your Pharmacy benefits include: … A single Brand Name Drug benefit with a cost to you of $30 or 20 percent, whichever is greater. (Any Brand prescription drug not on the Brand Name Drug List will not be covered.)

We are committed to helping you save money and live a better life.

Download the entire letter here.

0 comments

---

We’re excited to see Aubretia Edick, a Wal-Mart employee and long time friend of Wal-Mart Watch, continue to tell her story and advocate for economic equality and higher labor standards. You may remember our interview with Aubretia and her compelling insight about how Wal-Mart has affected her town and what issues she faces as an employee.

Recently she appeared on the Laura Flanders show to talk about hunger in America - and life at Wal-Mart.

0 comments

---

We’ve received many, many emails and submissions from Wal-Mart employees over the past few years. And even more have gone to our Wal-Mart Speak Out site to share their stories. It’s much more infrequent that we come across an industry professional that deals with Wal-Mart employees on a regular basis, but in today’s Baltimore Sun that’s exactly what we found. It’s a letter from a doctor, and we’ll let it stand on its own merits.

Wal-Mart is an image conscious opportunist. I have several Wal-Mart employees as my patients. I can in all honesty declare that Wal-Mart, a wealthy corporation, for years got away with providing its employees no health care coverage at all or the type of coverage from which doctors could barely eke out payments.

Out of pocket expenses for patients are outrageous with this coverage. Hand me a Wal-Mart health insurance card, and I will let out a spontaneous sigh of exasperation because I know from experience what lies ahead is a runaround for meager compensation after I have delivered all the services.

You say Wal-Mart has obtained religion and is behind Obama’s health plan? Will there be a richer bounty on my plate now for tending to my overworked and underpaid Wal-Mart flock tenderly? Somehow I doubt my sighs of exasperation will cease with this new miracle under way in the health care sector.

A fed up doc

Wal-Mart stingy with health benefits [Baltimore Sun]

0 comments

---

For years, we’ve heard hints that Wal-Mart might support a broad-based government health care plan. Now that health care reform is on the table, Wal-Mart is coming out in force to support it. One executive even wrote an op-ed in the The Tennessean recently about how:

Everyone must have access to quality, affordable health coverage, and businesses, individuals and governments must share responsibility for financing and managing a system that ensures we meet that goal.

But as you all know, Wal-Mart could have been helping the problem all along by putting some of its multi-billion-dollar profits into its health care plan.  At Wal-Mart Watch, we’ve heard for years from Wal-Mart employees that aren’t eligible for the company plan, can’t afford it - or have been somehow shortchanged by the plan. But there’s no need to take our word for it - here’s a sampling of what we’ve heard from real employees lately.

Is Wal-Mart serious about health care reform? Let us know in the blog comments below.

Wal-Mart’s High Deductible Plans Are Only For Emergencies

I signed up for the Wal-Mart health insurance plan as soon as I was eligible, but after a few years, the price kept going UP UP UP and I had to trade down to the lower level insurance with a high deductible. Wal-Mart lies about its employees being insured under its plan. At my store, hardly anyone can afford to get the insurance. Some were on their spouse’s insurance, some did without insurance at all, and some were on Medicaid.

When I was making just over $11 an hour, my insurance went from $170 to $240 every two weeks and I had to go with the lesser insurance, which really would only cover you for a catastrophe. Let’s face it, you can’t raise a family, let alone pay for health insurance and run a used car on $9 to $15 an hour like Wal-Mart pays its employees. Since I quit, I’ve found better insurance for about the same rate as I was paying for the inferior Wal-Mart insurance.

- Anonymous in New Jersey

I have insurance through Wal-Mart. It’s not expensive - about $20.00 a month - but it has a high deductible and I can only afford to use it for emergencies. I can’t afford to buy a plan with a smaller deductible because I can’t afford to take $100.00 more out of my paycheck. Last year, they offered a plan like I have now, but with three doctors visits and a $20.00 co-pay. My 2-year-old is on state medical insurance because I can’t afford to pay the high deductible on my insurance.

- Anonymous in Louisiana

Wal-Mart Health Care is Too Expensive, Employees Forced To Find Coverage Elsewhere

While working for Wal-Mart, I had to get health care coverage through a charity program connected to the Wheaton Franciscan health care system.  They pay 100% of my bills when I got to their facilities.  Their program has literally saved my life on a couple of occasions—once through surgery on my left foot and again when I had to have surgery to remove a cancerous tumor.  Thank God for these charity programs. Even though employees give their blood, sweat and tears to Wal-Mart, they won’t do the same for you.  I had to be carried out on a stretcher with chest pains two years ago. I had a stress test, which thankfully came back negative, but I was told the chest pains were stress related. I wonder where the stress came from?

- P.F. in Wisconsin

I have worked for Wal-Mart for close to a year now and I have carefully read about all the different health plan choices they offer. To a person who makes a lot more than the average Wal-Mart employee, their plans might seem affordable.

My wife--who works for another company--makes three times more than I do and she only has to pay a fraction for comparable insurance. With over two million associates, half of them in the U.S., Wal-Mart should be able to provide much better plans than what they have now. For this reason, I’ll stick with my wife’s insurance.

- Anonymous in Illinois

Read the rest of this story ...

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

---

Today, Wal-Mart Watch is launching a new web page - “Wal-Mart’s Urban Problem” - which looks at the company’s attempts to get back in to New York, Chicago and L.A. Over the next few weeks we’re going to make sure to keep you as informed as possible on this issue, and give our readers every opportunity to take action to stop it.

If you’ve been reading the blog, it’s no secret to you. For years, Wal-Mart has tried and failed to build stores in America’s biggest cities.

Why they want to build in cities like New York, Chicago and L.A. is no secret either. Wal-Mart has expanded to nearly every corner of the country, and America’s untapped urban cities represent the last real avenue for growth - and perhaps the greatest challenge that the company still faces.

In an April 2006 speech in Chicago, Lee Scott declared that his company wanted to be an “urban pioneer” and that Wal-Mart “has never been afraid to invest in communities that are overlooked by other retailers.”

Unfortunately for Lee Scott, it didn’t come true. Wal-Mart was notably shut out of Chicago after refusing to pay higher wages, but also has continued to be stonewalled in New York City and central Los Angeles - as well as Detroit, Washington, DC, and Boston.

Lee Scott was so frustrated with the failures that he famously went to New York City and said “I don’t care if we are ever here...I don’t think it’s worth the effort.”

But now that the economy has turned down, Wal-Mart smells a weakness and wants another shot. Wal-Mart has negotiations underway for a store in the Florence-Firestone neighborhood of central L.A., is eying up to 5 stores in Chicago, and is rumored to be considering several locations in New York City.

Unfortunately for Wal-Mart, the company hasn’t changed – only the economy has.

We’re confident that Americans won’t be fooled into believing that Wal-Mart has changed its low-wage, low-benefit business model. Without any assurance that Wal-Mart will be a responsible company, letting Wal-Mart build in America’s biggest cities would be a major mistake.

A Case For Employee Free Choice

The only thing on the table that would assure Wal-Mart respect New York workers is the Employee Free Choice Act. EFCA is a bill that would finally allow Wal-Mart workers to freedom they deserve to join a union – without harassment or intimidation from their managers. 

If you live in or around New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, send an email to your city council and let them know how you feel (by clicking the aforementioned links.) Your city council members can’t pass EFCA themselves, but they can send a strong message to Wal-Mart and to Congress that they won’t even discuss a potential Wal-Mart plan until the Employee Free Choice Act is passed. 

Our big cities are special places - let’s make sure they stay that way.

0 comments

---

Much is made of Wal-Mart’s presence in China - from the fact that many of its products are sourced there to the realization that the growing power remains a prime target for Wal-Mart’s expansion.

Harold Meyerson, in his Washington Post column marking the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, poses that it has been American capitalism - chiefly the Wal-Marts of the world - that has spurred the growth of China into a rising superpower:

The transfer of manufacturing from the United States to China—driven by the rise of mega-retailers such as Wal-Mart that have been able to enforce a regime of low wages all along their global supply chains—has diminished our middle class and expanded theirs.

In fact, Meyerson points out it was American businesses and their representative groups (here’s looking at you, U.S. Chamber of Commerce) that opposed legislation in China aimed at strengthening worker rights. The goal was to improve working conditions and arrest the practice of withholding wages and forcing employees into working insanely long hours, but American business interests succeeded in pushing amendments to “make it more acceptable to foreign firms” - a fancy way of saying weakening the effect the bill would actually have on workers and the businesses that depend on keeping costs down. No wonder they’re such close buddies nowadays.

You can read the whole column, but Meyerson unleashes his most venomous critique in his closing:

Wal-Mart, which used to lock its night-shift stock clerks and janitors inside a number of its stores until the morning managers arrived, prefers production in Guangdong to manufacturing in the Midwest. Indeed, the director of purchasing for Wal-Mart is based in China.

As historian Nelson Lichtenstein and others have documented, Wal-Mart inspires in its managers an almost fanatical allegiance to the company’s cause. In Wal-Mart world, the provincialism (if not “idiocy") of rural life is fused with a brilliance in the art of low-cost, low-wage logistics to create a company that is both authoritarian in its inner workings and a friend of authoritarian regimes abroad. The butchers of Beijing could not have found any more compatible capitalists.

Beijing’s Favorite Capitalists [Washington Post]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to Bloomberg, Wal-Mart has won preliminary court approval to pay as much as $85 million to settle 30 wage/hour lawsuits. The lawsuits claimed the company didn’t pay employees for all hours worked, forcing them to miss breaks and forgo overtime pay.

Late last year, Wal-Mart announced that it would settle 63 wage and hour class action lawsuits that have been pending against the company for several years. There were just under 80 such suits pending against Wal-Mart at the time, so it represented a pretty large legal housecleaning. This $85 million settlement covers just under half those cases as part of the larger agreement made back in December, which could cost the company up to $640 million before all is said and done.

Following the initial settlement, we noted that what these cases revealed through evidence and employee testimony was a “corporate culture” and systematic approach geared towards cutting labor costs, by dictating managers hire below the “preferred” staffing levels and rewarding managers for keeping labor costs down. Steven Greenhouse on TPM has pointed out that while store management is ultimately responsible for setting schedules, pressure often comes from the top:

Robert Eckert, a former assistant store manager at several Wal-Marts in California, said: “They tell you that working off the clock is against the law, is not allowed by Wal-Mart, and then they tell you to get the job done. But they didn’t give you the budget to get the job done. It is clearly understood that if you don’t make payroll, it’s a serious issue and you can lose your job over it.”

For more information on wage theft in general, you should check out Kim Bobo’s “Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It.”

As for the $85 settlement, a Federal Judge in granting temporary approval called the wage theft agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Merely adequate for the workers, perhaps, but no doubt a “steal” for Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...