According to Good Jobs First and The Wall Street Journal, a large chunk of sales tax revenue gets redirected to retailers like Wal-Mart, a company that pockets an estimated $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.
At least that is the finding of a report released today by Good Jobs First, a nonprofit research group here in Washington:
Most of us don’t realize that in a majority of states with a sales tax, a portion of the money actually goes into the pocket of the retailer under programs set up by state and local governments. In this first-ever comprehensive national analysis of the subject, Good Jobs First finds that the public sector is losing more than $1 billion a year through these sales-tax diversions. A large share of revenue gets redirected to giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, a company we estimate pockets more than $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.
The state laws discussed in the report allow retailers to keep a portion of sales-tax revenue to offset the cost of collecting the funds in the first place, a reasonable enough excuse (especially since state governments are so flush with cash at the present). But does anyone really, and I mean REALLY, believe that Wal-Mart spends $60 million a year collecting sales tax? In this age of computer everything and electronic money transfers, I have a hard time believing it costs more than a fraction of that.
As it stands, many states have calculated a vendor compensation rate, which can be applied to a percentage of sales tax revenue to determine how much a retailer gets to keep for its trouble. As the WSJ reports, Good Jobs First has identified 13 states that impose no ceiling on the total amount retailers can keep. In states such as Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado that vendor compensation rate can be applied to the full amount of sales tax a company collects, resulting in substantial returns for companies like Wal-Mart. Good Jobs First has estimated the givebacks in these states - Illinois ($126 million), Texas ($90 million), Pennsylvania ($72 million), and Colorado ($69 million). Jesse Drucker at the WSJ kindly puts some perspective on those numbers - for example, the $90 million Texas gives away by not capping vendor compensation would cover the $82 million price-tag needed to fund that state’s primary pre-kindergarten program.
For what its worth, the Illinois Revenue Department was quoted as saying the state has tried to cap the compensation program, but relentless lobbying by the retail industry has so far kept legislators from making changes.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Nov13
Help Wanted
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.
Posted by Research Team | Permalink
Mary Bach, a woman from Murrysville, Pennsylvania has won her fourth lawsuit against Wal-Mart after being over-charged for a dress. Bach, nicknamed the ‘scanner-lady’ has gained a certain level of fame recently, as a champion of consumers for filing numerous small-claims suits against retailers for what she calls: “electronic shopper-lifting.” She has sued Kmart and Eckard after being over-charged for products. Wal-Mart plead no-contest, having violated a consumer-protection law and had to pay Bach $164 including court fees. “Bach said it is not about the money” says WPXI-TV (Pa.), who also quoted her as saying:
“Here you have retailers who can reach into your wallet by overcharging you multiple times and they then shrug their shoulders and say, ‘oops it’s a mistake.’”
The Associated Press said that Bach was a key player in passing a law which requires the state to conduct inspections of price-scanners.
Wal-Mart is accustomed to being sued over pricing issues. Just over a year ago, we posted a story from the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter about how Wal-Mart was fined almost $90,000 from the Wisconsin State Legislature for over-charging for bulk food items.
Woman Sues Wal-Mart Over Price Problems [WPXI-TV (Pa.)]:
DELMONT, Pa.—A woman won a lawsuit against Wal-Mart after she claimed she was overcharged for purchases at the chain’s store in Delmont.
Wal-Mart pleaded no contest and will play Mary Bach $164, including $64 in court fees.
In an earlier version of this story, Channel 11 posted only a portion of Wal-Mart’s response to the litigation. The following is Wal-Mart’s response in its entirety:
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Luke West | Permalink
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).
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
If you’ve read our FEC complaint by now, you’ll be familiar with our contention that at its training sessions, Wal-Mart was explicitly advocating against the election of Democratic candidates this coming November because of its fear of possible unionization in the future. You’ll also be familiar with our contention that Wal-Mart is limited, under both the United States Code and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, from directing its political meetings or “trainings” at anything beyond its stockholders and executive or administrative personnel. Certainly, the issue is serious enough to warrant a looksee from the Federal Election Commission - now that multiple labor groups have sent a complaint of their own, similar to the one submitted by Wal-Mart Watch last week, we’ll see if the FEC decides to initiate an investigation.
If that does happen, attorney Bob Bauer has been helpful enought to give a brief guide on the federal regulations involved - you might want to read it in shifts, as staring too long at federal regulatory language has been known to cause eyes to bleed, etc. Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP, and the author of numerous books including: United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004).
The Wal-Mart Matter [posted August 14, 2008]
The Wal-Mart controversy, now headed toward the Federal Election Commission, presents interesting questions about how the campaign finance laws treat coercive political conduct by a corporate employer. As the allegations have been framed in press reports, Wal-Mart is claimed to have breached two requirements for lawful corporate political action: (1) it spent corporate funds outside the limited allowances for election-related speech, and (2) it did so through coercive means, subjecting employees to job-related pressures to support one candidate or party rather than another.
FEC rules specify in fair detail when and how corporations may spend resources in relation to federal elections without breaking the core campaign spending prohibition. 11 C.F.R. Part 114. The most liberal of the allowances is for “partisan” communications to the “restricted class,” of executives and shareholders, and a corporation may also repeatedly solicit them for contributions to the company’s political action committee. It can arrange for the candidates favored by the company to address this defined group.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Every year, hundreds of Wal-Mart store development plans are thwarted by local community groups and activists. Battle–Mart brings news and updates of these fights, some of communities trying to stop a new Wal-Mart from being built, others of local groups uniting to prevent an existing Wal-Mart from expanding.
Each week, Battle-Mart will highlight local fights that need immediate action. Check back each week to take action. Now it is your turn to take action to bust sprawl!
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…
Colonie, NY. Wal-Mart Superstore Requires Nearby Wal-Mart To Close
A year and a half after walking from Colonie, NY due to a lack of support, Wal-Mart is back before local town officials. This time around, WMW is floating the idea of building a 195,000 sq. ft supercenter. Building a new store in Colonie would mean closing an existing WMT store a few miles from the proposed supercenter site and the lay off of 275 employees, many of whom will have to seek employment at the supercenter if it is approved.
Readers are urged to email Colonie’s new supervisor, Paula Mahan at . Send Supervisor Mahan the following message:
“Colonie was right to reject the project proposed by Wal-Mart in 2006 and should take the same action now. The proposed project makes no sense. The proposed store is too big and is wrong Colonie. If you allow WMT to build bigger store, and you will force the closing of another one a few miles away. This project will not create “new” jobs. It will merely shift existing jobs from Latham Farms, and from area grocery stores, to the new Wal-Mart. I urge you to vote against this project.”
Click below to read more…
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Mayor Pete Sanchez (right) of Suisun City, California, could soon be on the hot seat. In what appears to be an unusual move, recall notices were served to Sanchez, Vice Mayor Jane Day and Councilman Mike Hudson during the city council meeting earlier this week.
The group Save Our Suisun claims the council ignored safety experts and approved the controversial 227,000-square-foot proposed project on 21 acres at state Highway 12 and Walters Road last month, “risking the health and safety” of Suisun residents.
Sanchez has served as mayor for 14 years now, and from the story, did not seem overly concerned about the recall attempt. The group has up to 120 days to collect 2,050 valid signatures of registered voters in order to force a recall election.
Wal-Mart issue stirs recall in Suisun City [Vacaville Reporter]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
According to today’s The Wall Street Journal, documents filed in a North Carolina tax case may have gotten Wal-Mart into some big time trouble. At the very least, they outline Ernst & Young’s contributions to Wal-Mart’s state-tax minimization efforts.
The case, Wal-Mart Stores East v. E. Norris Tolson, Secretary of Revenue of the State of North Carolina, was filed by Wal-Mart in 2006. Wal-Mart filed seeking a refund of over $30 million it was assessed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue for its use of a “captive REIT” tax strategy. This term has been tossed around in the media for some time now, so just to recap: In Wal-Mart’s case, the company set up its own real-estate investment trust, or REIT, in Delaware, then in effect paid billions of dollars in rent to itself which was subsequently deducted from its state taxes in about 25 states. As The Wall Street Journal documented earlier this year, such a strategy has served to save Wal-Mart hundreds of millions in state taxes nationwide.
Though the loophole could be lawful in several states, one key, it appears, to its lawfulness is the purpose behind the use of the tax strategy. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue, for example, is alleging Wal-Mart owes over $17 million and possibly more in back taxes because of its use of the REIT, claiming the strategy is being used simply to avoid taxes thereby disallowing use of the deduction. On the contrary, Wal-Mart’s creation of the REIT, according to Wal-Mart’s spokeswoman Tara Stewart, was intended not to avoid paying taxes but instead “as part of a larger company-wide restructuring to more effectively and efficiently manage our business, including our ever-growing real-estate portfolio.”
That is all well and good, except that Wal-Mart now appears to be contradicting itself with every excuse it mutters in defense of these tax strategies. According to The Wall Street Journal, in a May 2001 letter from Wal-Mart Senior Director for Income Tax Wyman Atwell to accounting firms, Wal-Mart opened with the following:
Wal-Mart is requesting your proposal(s) for professional tax advice and related implementation services in connection with minimization of state income taxes in the following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
Wal-Mart eventually hired Ernst & Young to devise tax strategies in at least four of those states - Arizona, California, Michigan and Texas - the same accounting firm that had initially set up its nationwide captive REIT strategy. According to documents filed in the North Carolina case, Ernst & Young delivered to Wal-Mart what the WSJ refers to as a “37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord of 27 potential tax strategies” revealing Wal-Mart’s one primary purpose: “cutting its state income taxes.”
Lawmakers, enforcement officials, and U.S. Senate investigators have already shown a keen interest in tax shelters after Ernst & Young and KPMG were taken to the woodshed for their promotion of abusive tax shelters...and now its Wal-Mart’s turn to feel the heat. And the fact that meetings between Ernst & Young experts and Wal-Mart executives took place at Wal-Mart’s Bentonville headquarters inside what was referred to as the “Tax Shelter Room?”
Well, that’s just taxalicious icing on the cake.
So come, and lets jump down Wal-Mart’s tax avoidance rabbit hole with that saucy dirt-digging publication known as The Wall Street Journal:
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
From today’s Seattle Times:
More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.
That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.
The reports are sure to fuel the debate over a labor-backed push in the Legislature to require companies such as Wal-Mart to pay more for health care. Democrats in the House and Senate say the reports show that Wal-Mart and some other big companies are shifting millions of dollars in health-care costs to the state.
“I think taxpayers should be outraged,” Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said Monday. “They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.”
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
Media Matters reports during his January 13th nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh described Maryland’s Fair Share Health Care Law as “government-sanctioned rape of an American business.”
I think this—we’ve talked about this at great length on this program. This is nothing else—it’s nothing other than a government-sanctioned rape. This is a government sanctioned-rape of an American business.
Posted by Brian Kline | Permalink
Jan18
The Mighty Penn
Just days after Maryland lawmakers overrode Gov. Bob Ehrlich’s (R) veto of the Fair Share Health Care Act, voices from across the country are calling on corporations to pay their fair share for employee health care costs. The following editorial comes from today’s Allentown Morning Call (PA).
For the fourth straight year, Wal-Mart was No. 1 on Fortune magazine’s annual list of the Fortune 500 in 2005, based on total revenue in the prior year.
Also last year, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education found that 22 percent of children of employees of large retailers are enrolled in Medicaid and programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. In comparison, 27 percent of children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.
State governments are justified to question why taxpayers should help subsidize health care insurance for employees of a company that topped the Fortune 500 list for four consecutive years.
State Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Pittsburgh, has proposed legislation requiring the public welfare department to make a report of employers with 20 or more workers who have employees enrolled in state-run health insurance programs. Using a cutoff of 20 employees isn’t reasonable. But it’s well worth finding out the impact on Pennsylvania of government-subsidized health care for the employees of large companies, including Wal-Mart.
Maryland was just the beginning to make Wal-Mart pay its fair share for health care costs. Don’t wait, take action against the Wal-Mart Tax in your state.
Posted by Brian Kline | Permalink
From Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s State of the State address tonight:
Even as we expand our commitment to health coverage, we need to make sure that some companies aren’t reducing theirs.
Wal-Mart is one of the most profitable companies in the world, yet it has more than 1,200 employees and dependents on BadgerCare-far more than any other company in the state. And Wisconsin’s taxpayers are picking up the tab.
I want to make this very clear to Wal-Mart and any other company that might be thinking of shifting its health care responsibility to taxpayers: BadgerCare is intended to help working families, not multi-billion dollar corporations.
Tonight, I am calling on the Legislature to outlaw the practice of health care dumping. Companies cannot be allowed to deliberately manipulate the system. If they are dropping coverage for employees they know are eligible for state programs so they can increase profits, there should be serious consequences.
It is unfair ... it is unethical ... and we should make it illegal.
Click here to read the response from Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director Andrew Grossman.
Click here to read about how Wal-Mart is dumping its employee health care costs onto Wisconsin taxpayers.
Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
From KBCI-TV in Boise:
Idaho native Steven Sayko wore the Wal-Mart vest for a year, while he was in Florida caring for his dying father-in-law.
When given the option, he says he chose to pay a higher insurance premium: $116 every two weeks for him and his wife.
“As you can see, Wal-Mart processes their own claims for Blue Shield,” he said, pointing to one of several claims he has kept on record since returning to Boise last September. “This is saying the doctor’s care was $90, lab was $15-- for a total of $105. Eligible coverage-- they paid nothing.”
Even after he paid his $325 deductible, Sayko says the doctor bills began adding up, but the insurance never kicked in. Because he lived with his father-in-law and did not have to pay rent, Sayko says he was able to pay the bills using his savings.
In Maryland, lawmakers have tackled this very problem, and overrode their governor’s veto last week in order to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care.
Meanwhile, Idaho House Speaker Bruce Newcomb (R) has asked the Department of Health and Welfare to do some preliminary research, to determine whether a similar measure needs to be explored here.
He says he is concerned Wal-Mart’s practices-- and its ability to drive out small-town competitors-- could eventually hurt Idaho’s economy and force other companies to lower their health care standards.
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
From the Associated Press, via today’s Huntington Herald-Dispatch:
Taking aim at West Virginia’s largest private employer, state lawmakers are following the lead of neighboring Maryland with a bipartisan bill that would make Wal-Mart pony up more money for its workers’ health care costs.
The West Virginia Fair Share Health Care Act would require any employer with 10,000 or more workers in the state to spend at least 8 percent of its wages for health care costs. Those that don’t must pay the difference to the state’s Medicaid insurance program for the poor.
With 12,054 employees at 35 locations across the state, including four Sam’s Clubs, only Wal-Mart appears to fall under the bill’s provisions. The bill does not mention Wal-Mart or any employer by name.
“The largest employer in the state doesn’t provide what most people feel is an adequate level of health care,” said Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha and a physician, a co-sponsor of the bill.
“It increases the amount of uncompensated care, and that increases the costs for everybody."…
West Virginia ranked sixth in the nation for its share of uninsured adults, at 23.5 percent or 264,000 residents, according to a 2005 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study. Another 22 percent rely on Medicaid for their health care.
Lawmakers have asked the state Department of Health and Human Resources for figures showing how many Wal-Mart employees and families are uninsured or rely on government-funded health care programs. Those figures were not immediately available Monday…
Other co-sponsors of Friday’s bill include Sen. Charles Lanham, R-Putnam, and Sen. Evan Jenkins, D-Cabell and executive director of the West Virginia State Medical Association. Four Democratic delegates introduced a House version of the measure (HB4024) on Monday. The Maryland legislation had been studied by Mountain State lawmakers during their monthly interim meetings last year.
The AFL-CIO and allied groups critical of the retail giant, including Wal-Mart Watch, have championed the new Maryland law. They vow to push for similar legislation in at least 30 other states. Lawmakers in neighboring Kentucky, where Wal-Mart has more than 32,000 employees, also introduced a version of the bill last week.
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
From Saturday’s Louisville Courier-Journal:
Wal-Mart would have to increase spending on health insurance for its Kentucky employees or else help the state’s Medicaid program pay for their care under a bill pending before the General Assembly.
The measure, patterned after a law enacted by the Maryland legislature this week, is opposed by Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration.
The bill, whose lead sponsor is freshman Rep. Melvin Henley, R-Murray, makes Kentucky one of about 30 states where “Wal-Mart bills” could be filed this year. That’s according to union-backed organizations pushing for such legislation.
The bills are in response to growing criticism that the retail giant has shifted health costs to state governments by skimping on benefits for employees.
Wal-Mart offers health insurance, but many low-income employees who can’t afford the premiums join state Medicaid rolls instead, critics say.
Henley is sponsoring the bill with Jefferson County Democratic Reps. Joni Jenkins and Mary Lou Marzian.
He said he did so after being contacted by Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group in Washington, D.C., that seeks to boost pay and benefits for the retailer’s workers.
“I just felt like it was the right thing to do,” Henley said.
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
Aug04
Bankers Take On Wal-Mart
From American Banker Online:
A small-business coalition that is urging Congress to prohibit commercial businesses from entering banking cited a recent application by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for a Utah industrial loan company charter as a reason to act quickly…
“The Wal-Mart application makes the ILC loophole an issue that requires urgent attention,” the Sound Banking Coalition wrote in a letter sent last week to House members. “Congressional action is needed to prevent the many dangers posed by the ILC loophole before Wal-Mart or a similar entity can exploit it.”
...A Wal-Mart spokesman would not discuss the letter. The Bentonville, Ark., retailer has said it plans to use its ILC only to conduct back-office operations.
Click here to read more about Wal-Mart’s attempt to establish their own industrial bank in Utah.
Click here to read more about Wal-Mart’s previous unsuccessful attempts to get into the banking business in California, Oklahoma, and Toronto.
Posted by Nu Wexler | Permalink
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the world’s largest company with over 3,600 stores worldwide and a $10 billion profit in 2004 alone, has told a federal appeals court that it’s just not big enough to defend itself against a class action gender-discrimination lawsuit now pending in federal court.
As reported in today’s Los Angeles Times, Wal-Mart’s allies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed a brief arguing that the Dukes lawsuit is “too big.” Dukes, filed in 2001 by current and former female Wal-Mart employees, is the largest class action lawsuit against a private employer in U.S. history. The case was certified by a U.S. District Court in June 2004, and Wal-Mart immediately appealed the decision.
A recent Bloomberg News story offered an analysis of the case that cited new allegations of discrimination and quoted one expert who described the likelihood that Wal-Mart loses at trial as “very, very high.” According to company memos, reports, and depositions, Wal-Mart ignored the recommendations of a diversity task force and eliminated a group that was tasked with increasing the number of female managers. Two years after the group folded, employment statistics revealed that the number of women Wal-Mart managers had actually decreased.
The Bloomberg story also includes this assessment of Wal-Mart’s legal predicament from Stanford law professor William Gould: “… they didn’t have the wherewithal or the interest to follow through or do something about [the problem]. It strengthens the plaintiff’s case that it’s about intentional as well as unintentional discrimination. I’m sure this has made them more interested in settling.”
Wal-Mart may eventually be forced to settle Dukes, but today’s news shows that they’ve decided to pursue a novel and somewhat ironic defense. If Wal-Mart isn’t big enough to defend itself in court, then who is? And at what point does a corporation become large enough to receive immunity from gender and race discrimination lawsuits?
Click here to read the full LA Times article.
Click here to read the full Bloomberg article.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
New figures disclosed in Arizona reveal Wal-Mart, yet again, tops the list of companies with employees on state-funded healthcare. The Arizona Daily Star has the details:
Close to one of every 10 Wal-Mart employees is getting health insurance paid for by Arizona taxpayers, according to figures obtained Friday from the state.
The nearly 2,700 Wal-Mart workers represent about 1.9 percent of working people who are getting benefits from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.
The company is the largest private employer in the state and has more workers getting state-paid health care than any other.
By contrast, other retailers in the top 15 list of private employers had rates of AHCCCS enrollment among their workers about half that of Wal-Mart's.
Predictably, Wal-Mart responded by casting doubt on the government’s statistics:
Dan Fogleman, a Wal-Mart corporate spokesman, questioned the accuracy of the numbers. He said there is no way to know whether those applying for AHCCCS, the state's Medicaid program, were telling the truth.
Despite Wal-Mart’s ever-increasing litany of excuses, other retailers have far fewer employees on taxpayer-funded healthcare. For example, eighty-five percent of Costco's workers have health insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart, according to the New York Times.
This is national problem evident in several other states that have disclosed similar information. In some, the numbers are even worse. Nearly one in four Wal-Mart workers in Tennessee are on Medicaid and in Georgia, a study found 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees on public assistance.
Before the latest announcement, the drive to hold Wal-Mart accountable for skyrocketing healthcare costs had already attracted a diverse and vocal group of supporters, including Republican lawmakers in Tennessee and Idaho and Congressional Democrats.
Click here to read a full round up of all the state studies of Wal-Mart’s healthcare problems and the growing legislative action around the country.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
The Boston Globe reports, "Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is sponsoring a conference designed to examine its effect on jobs, inflation, and income growth. The meeting will be run by Lexington-based Global Insight Inc., an economic and financial services firm."
More from the Global Insight website:
Call For Contributed Papers For the Wal-Mart: Independent Assessments Conference
4 November 2005Global Insight is calling for papers to be presented at the Wal-Mart: Independent Assessments Conference on 4 November 2005. Sponsored by Wal-Mart with independent oversight from Global Insight, this meeting is designed to bring together academic and business professionals to discuss the economic impact of Wal-Mart on the U.S. economy. Global Insight, an independent economic forecasting and consulting firm, will select papers for presentation based on their relevance to the conference, academic rigor, methodology, and overall quality of analysis. The positive or negative findings of individual papers will not be used as selection criteria.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube