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

---

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

---

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

---

The following article was originally posted on Huffington Post:

While many American retailers are just one lackluster back-to-school season away from disaster, the malingering recession has been very good to some retail manufacturers—especially in China.

American shoppers at Wal-Mart have made investors in Hong Kong very wealthy. By one estimate, in 2006 every Wal-Mart store in the United States caused the loss of about 77 American jobs due to Wal-Mart’s trade deficit with China. Without knowing it, millions of American consumers have been shopping at Fung-Mart.

A Chinese global conglomerate little known in this county has been ‘living better’ off of Wal-Mart’s sales. Li & Fung is not a household word in Kansas or Arizona—but it’s one of the main beneficiaries behind the Wal-Mart sales numbers. Described as the biggest supplier of clothes and toys to companies like Wal-Mart, Target and Kohl’s, Li & Fung has been one of the fireworks of the Hang Seng Index, and its stock has more than doubled this year.

Li & Fung describes itself as “one of the premier global consumer products export trading companies managing the supply chain for high-volume, time-sensitive consumer goods including garments, fashion accessories, toys, sporting goods, promotional merchandise, handicrafts, shoes, travel goods and household items.” Its products are sourced through a network of offices in nearly 40 countries for customers in the US, Europe, Asia and the Southern Hemisphere.”

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart has found a sweet spot.  Their decision two weeks ago to stand up for an employer mandate on health care has made them the new enemy of the National Retail Federaton. 

Or are they? 

Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in the United States and the National Retail Federation needs them.  The first time it makes sense, the NRF will be back in bed with Wal-Mart before you can say “EveryDay Low Prices”.  So what does Wal-Mart lose by being hit by the NRF? Nothing.  What do they gain?  They are now able to be the friend of liberals on a fight in which they have nothing to lose, politically or economically. 

To the latter point, Wal-Mart can afford an employee mandate, but their competitors may not be able to. As Costco Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti said Wal-Mart probably recognizes it is “going to be dragged into providing coverage one way or another, and might as well drag everyone else in retailing along with them.”

We’ll say this for Leslie Dach, he’s slippery.

Trade Group Challenges Wal-Mart on Health Care

By Miguel Bustillo and Janet Adamy

The retail industry’s biggest trade group is launching a broad attack against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for supporting congressional proposals requiring employers to help pay for health insurance, an idea that has gained political currency thanks to the backing of the nation’s largest private employer.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Bloomberg is reporting today that Wal-Mart and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among those opposing legislation that would allow the U.S. to cut off duty-free imports from factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if they fail to adhere to international labor standards on matters such as prohibiting forced labor and child labor. The bill, titled the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act, is meant to help strengthen democracy in the two countries by creating “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” and increasing their ability to export goods to the U.S. - and in return, it only requires that the countries make sure their factories are providing adequate working conditions.

Wal-Mart, however, is among those arguing that such labor restrictions would reduce any beneficial effect the legislation might otherwise have - and besides, if factories in Pakistan can’t export products to the U.S. because of labor and human rights abuses, Wal-Mart can’t then turn around and sell those products at their everyday low prices, right?

“Pakistan doesn’t have a good record in terms of child labor and the employment of women,” [Susan Aaronson, a professor at George Washington University in Washington who has written on trade and human rights] said. “This ensures the rule of law will be followed.”

The House bill states that each country “shall continue to receive duty-free treatment under this Act only if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be has implemented the requirements set forth” - said requirements including insuring the following:

(A) compliance with core labor standards; and
(B) compliance with the labor laws of Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be, that relate directly to core labor standards and to ensuring acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety.

We’ve already documented Wal-Mart’s sourcing issues in other international locales, so it shouldn’t be all that surprising that they would oppose such regulations here. Links to summaries of both the House version of the bill (with labor requirements) and the Senate version can be found after the jump.

Obama’s Bid to Boost Exports From Pakistan Hits Snag Over Labor [Bloomberg]

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

---

The week has come and gone, and as always, we have collected the best stories sent to us from employees all over the country about their experiences at Wal-Mart.

The following stories are full of raw and honest commentary from past and current employees regarding everything from cut hours to poor work environments.

This week, we heard from employees about the daily struggles associated with a low wage position, how managers are manipulating hours, and how a lack of air conditioning can lead to unbearable working conditions.

Our first story comes from an anonymous employee in Iowa:

This is an interesting web site. I visit daily and read the associate letters. One reason I do is so I can find out if the rules/hours/pay… whatever...changes are really coming from home office or they are just our management making changes. I am a LONG term assoc. and have had this game played on me a lot in the last 20+ years. The new one now is the total overhaul of our scheduling. People being slotted to work where they have no training. For example, IMS slotted to CSM...and being made to do so with no idea how to do the job. Floor assoc. put up on the registers who don’t even have sign on numbers and have never run a register. Seems like they are setting people up to fail. We are told home office is making the schedule and management has no control. Hours are being slashed. I have seen sales slump for a while before and they cut us all back for a while but I’ve never seen a response like this. The management team we have in our store is so under trained.

Our store manager has to be the worst I’ve seen. The store has turned into a mess. We used to have an outlet to voice concern but with the new “Market Management “ team approach the open door policy has gone out the window.They come into the store and don’t talk to anybody but managment then walk out leaving us with pages and pages of notes. Is this going on everywhere? All I know for sure is Sam is rolling over in his grave. Walmart is not the same as it was when he was in charge. Sure retail will change with the times but the culture of Sam has died. This company is no longer family oriented. Seems all they are worried about is money.

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

---

As you may have seen, last week we rolled out a new initiative to stop Wal-Mart’s plan to use the cover of recession to sneak in to Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles.

Since then, supporters across the country have sent thousands of letters urging their local city council members to refuse to even discuss Wal-Mart development plans until the Employee Free Choice Act is passed to safeguard their communities. The WMW team would like to thank everybody who wrote in to their local elected officials.

Particularly strong in their effort were New Yorkers. One letter that was particularly articulate, passionate, and well reasoned was sent to by Bill Millard, a resident of NYC. Thanks to Bill for giving us permission to publish the letter in its entirety:

Dear Councilmember Mendez:

Greetings from St. Mark’s Place. I’ve recently read that the Wal-Mart corporation is trying to gain a foothold in the Union Square area. As a constituent living in the East Village, and as a local architecture writer who treasures the unique culture, heritage, and built environment of our city, I would like to urge you to use all available means to prevent that corporation from opening anywhere in New York. Not in Union Square, not in Brooklyn, not in Queens: nowhere in our city, please. Not now, not ever, not here… and not even if they swear on a stack of every major culture’s holy books that they’ll pull an ideological 180-degree turn and start supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. No matter what promises they make, Wal-Mart simply doesn’t belong in New York City.

With a disgraceful record of corporate behavior and a business model premised on exurban sprawl, automobile dependence, a work force with no better options, and a bland commercial monoculture, Wal-Mart represents everything ugly and mediocre and unjust about our nation, the exact opposite of the values that progressive Americans take pride in. Part of the case against Wal-Mart is simply economic: Wal-Mart destroys local economies, puts people out of work, damages local environments with auto traffic, degrades local pay-scale standards, treats workers like cattle, and evades its responsibilities as a major employer to provide its workers with decent health care. I’m sure you’ve heard the grim stories about workers locked into stores, mandatory work hours off the clock, petty efforts to claw back legal settlements from workers with health problems, exploitation of Chinese labor under conditions that border on slavery—all the things that make the Wal-Mart name stink worldwide. The “low prices” that Wal-Mart offers on its goods are no bargain at all: they merely shift the costs of its profiteering onto the people and places that have the least power to bear them.  (The necessary statistics and narratives on all this, as you’re probably already aware, are available at walmartwatch.com.)

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 ...

0 comments

---

When you’re watching Wal-Mart and telling the stories of Wal-Mart workers, it’s easy to get down over the sad stories you hear every day. It’s nice to be able to share some good news every once and a while.

Remember Larry and Juanita Stuart from then-Senator Barack Obama’s campaign infomercial? The elderly couple from Sardinia, Ohio, was struggling to get by. Larry was forced to take a low-paying job at Wal-Mart, despite being long retired from a 30 years career with the B & O railroad. He didn’t have the benefits to cover the surgery Juanita needed for the painful Rheumatoid arthritis she had in her hands.

Aurthur Delaney of the Huffington Post is reporting that the Stuarts have received a gift from an anonymous donor that has allowed Juanita to get her surgery after all, relieving much of the pain. Delaney notes that life is still tough for the Stuarts - but that it has at least gotten a little better.

Although the story didn’t address it, it sounds like Larry is still working at Wal-Mart despite an urge to retire. We’re curious what work has been like for Larry after the infomercial aired.

From HuffPo:

“Someone that saw that ad, wanted to help me and so I’ve had surgery,” Stuart told the Huffington Post. “I’ve had implants in three of my fingers.”

The Stuarts’ problems haven’t gone away by any means, but the surgery provided an emotional boost.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Over 50 religious leaders from a variety of faiths and denominations came to Capitol Hill this week to lobby members of Congress and show their support for the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has formed a coalition called Faith Leaders for Workplace Fairness, which made its first public announcement in support of the labor reform bill on a conference call with press last week. The coalition has called the legislation a “moral imperative” and a civil and human right. Check out the video of their visit below.

0 comments

---

MAJOR MEETING IN VIRGINIA TONIGHT TO DEBATE FATE OF THE WILDERNESS WAL-MART

• Public gets say on Wal-Mart near Va battlefield [Daily Press (Va.)]
  Hundreds of historians have had their say on Wal-Mart's plans to build a Supercenter near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

• Tonight! Orange County will hear your thoughts on Wal-Mart [Free Lance-Star (Va.)]
  Tonight, the Orange County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed Wilderness Wal-Mart.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

As the New York Times is reporting, a new study by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner has found that employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of union organizing drives, and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent.

Unfortunately, it now appears to be that several employers - many of which have had stable relationships with their employees for years - have begun to follow Wal-Mart’s lead and get far more aggressive with employee groups seeking to organize. Bronfenbrenner writes:

What distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous decades of employer opposition to unions? The primary difference is that the most intense and aggressive anti-union campaign strategies, the kind previously found only at employers like Wal-Mart, are no longer reserved for a select coterie of extreme anti-union employers.

The report, titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” is being released today by the Economic Policy Institute. From the report:

Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation.

Of course, we know that one of the ways to rectify this would be federal legislation - the Employee Free Choice Act, perhaps??

For more information on the report, including the press release, fact sheet, and the report itself - click here.

Find the New York Times article, plus a video on how when it comes to unions Starbucks has made itself into the coffee drinker’s Wal-Mart, after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

FINAL RULING: NORTH CAROLINA COURT SAYS NO $33 MILLION TAX REFUND FOR WAL-MART

• NC appeals court upholds tax bill for Wal-Mart [Associated Press]
  The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its efforts to get a $33 million tax refund, upholding a trial judge's ruling that found a complex corporate structure was used primarily to avoid corporate income taxes.
  

• Wal-Mart loses appeal to get $30M in North Carolina tax refunds [Triangle Business Journal (N.C.)]
  The North Carolina Court of Appeals has denied Wal-Mart’s attempt to win $30 million in tax refunds from the state of North Carolina.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Yesterday, at an event in New Mexico, President Obama again reaffirmed his support for the Employee Free Choice Act. The New Mexico Independent notes that Obama also signaled that a compromise might be necessary to get the bill through the Senate.

Nonetheless, it’s reassuring to know that President Obama stands with Wal-Mart workers in their struggle for better jobs

0 comments

---

A group of Rabbis have jumped into the deep end of the EFCA fight by writing Senator Specter a letter in support of the controversial legislation which Wal-Mart also strongly opposes. The Rabbis clearly come down on the side of workers’ rights here. They point to a Talmudic ‘sanctity of labor’ that Wal-Mart, by neglecting its workers’ wages and benefits, has blatantly disrespected.

The Rabbis make an argument similar to what we at Wal-Mart Watch and others have been saying: it’s time to provide workers a level playing field, or as the Rabbis put it, ‘balance the scales of justice.’ Casting Specter’s opposition, and thereby Wal-Mart’s in religious terms, the Rabbis wrote:

“Every major religion is sympathetic to the laborer. Judaism was early among the major religions in its assertion that labor involved more than mere economic activity. The commandment to observe the Sabbath was as much an affirmation of human dignity as of divine authority. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.” But the seventh day was to be holy - holy in the eyes of God, but equally important - holy in its respect for all who work. As it is written in Deuteronomy: “You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, but you must pay him his wages on the same day, for he is needy and urgently depends on it.” It is not always easy to translate the sanctity of labor into terms that have meaning today, a time in which the marketplace seems to have been elevated above all other holy altars. We believe that the Employee Free Choice Act presents an opportunity to give concrete meaning to the often frustrated dream of a just society.” [Huffington Post]

This isn’t the first time that Wal-Mart’s values have been challenged by religious authorities. Some have gone so far as to call Wal-Mart’s treatment of labor immoral. We certainly think it is. And 75 Wal-Mart Workers who came to DC last week agreed, including Eugene Robinson who made an impassioned plea for better treatment from his employer. Watch the video here.

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.

29 comments

---

Wal-Mart has agreed to pay nearly $2 million and improve safety at its 92 New York stores as part of a deal with prosecutors that avoids criminal charges in the trampling death of a temporary worker. Jdimytai Damour, 34, was crushed as he and other employees attempted to unlock the doors of a Long Island, New York, store at 5 a.m. on Friday, November 28th.

The news comes months after Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice began a criminal investigation into the death of Damour, a seasonal worker from Jamaica, Queens, who it is now known died from “positional asphyxiation” that resulted from direct and intense pressure having been applied to his chest - a result to be expected when a human being is trampled by 2,000 on-rushing shoppers.

[Wal-Mart] has agreed to implement an improved crowd-management plan for post-Thanksgiving Day sales, set up a $400,000 victims’ compensation and remuneration fund, and give a $1.5 million grant to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is that Wal-Mart will escape criminal prosecution as a result of the agreement. A telling quote from the Chicago Tribune - “The agreement included no admission of guilt by Wal-Mart.”

This aspect is important, because while Attorney Rice points out that Wal-Mart would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine if convicted, that conviction would have been hanging like a cloud over Wal-Mart during plaintiffs’ civil cases. The $400,000 victims’ compensation fund isn’t nearly as much as Damour’s family would expect to collect in a civil suit if Wal-Mart were to be found at fault, and anyone who accepts money from the compensation fund will automatically waive their right to sue. And as we reported following the tragedy, many media outlets and labor officials from UFCW to the Wall Street Journal have heaped the majority of the blame squarely on Wal-Mart for being woefully unprepared and understaffed (though that hardly would make winning a civil suit a slam dunk). From the Tribune:

Earlier this year, Damour’s family announced plans to sue the county, retailer and others. The family’s attorney did not immediately comment on Wednesday’s announcement. Any victims who accept payment from the Wal-Mart compensation fund will be required to waive their right to a separate civil suit against Wal-Mart, Rice said.

A heartfelt move by Wal-Mart, or part of a strategic plan to gain some positive press and escape further liability? You decide...More on initial reaction to the stampede, and Wal-Mart’s settlement announcement, after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...