Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with a new study from the group Good Jobs First, which reveals that cash-strapped states are forgoing a total of roughly $1 billion annually in tax revenue because of little-noticed laws that permit retailers to keep a slice of the sales taxes they collect for the government. In fact, the study finds thirteen states do not cap the amount that a retailer can receive as vendor compensation for collecting sales tax, resulting in millions of lost tax dollars.
A large focus this week is also on Wal-Mart’s announcement that Lee Scott will step down as CEO in February 2009, to be replaced by Michael Duke, Wal-Mart’s Vice Chairman of its International Division. In addition to the CEO change, you’ll find stories on the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, how Wal-Mart will deal with the Obama Administration from a labor perspective, and related news on Wal-Mart’s labor battles in Canada.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Wal-Mart has founded a new consumer group in New England geared towards fighting Wal-Mart opponents, and has purchased its own wind-energy supply based out of Odessa, Texas
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 21, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
There are two important economic discussions going on right now in America, and too rarely are they tied together as they should be.
Not a day goes by without talk in the media of the ‘Wal-Mart Economy’ and Wal-Mart’s role in a recession. Similarly, with the proposed auto bailout being debated on Capitol Hill, we’ve heard endlessly about the supposed failures of GM, Ford and Chrysler to adjust and adapt.
Everyone tends to agree that more Americans are now forced to shop at Wal-Mart - whether they love or whether they hate it. Likewise, the talking heads know that the Big Three are suffering - whether or not they need to be bailed out, or are getting what they deserve.
But the two aren’t separate stories.
A couple of columns by the Washington Post Writers Group over the past two days have done a great job of laying out the differences between Bentonville and Detroit – and what that has meant for the American economy.
Warren A. Brown writes mostly about cars. A lot of his column defends Detroit’s efforts to make greener cars, but more importantly (for this blog post at least) - he draws a more realistic picture of what’s been happening in America:
“Here is where newspaper columnists—Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind—routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.
It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven’t bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.
The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three—General Motors, Ford and Chrysler—still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king—that’s Wal-Mart, one of America’s biggest importers of foreign goods—that was bound to change.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
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
We’ve been talking all week about the looming fight between Wal-Mart and the Obama Administration over labor reforms which might force Wal-Mart to treat its employees a little more fairly and give workers a little more say in the terms of their employment.
But we shouldn’t look at this as just a fight between Lee Scott and Barack Obama. There are 1.4 million Americans in the middle of this fight as well.
How has Wal-Mart been responding to the state of its workforce? Last week, Lee Scott was quoted talking non-specifically about his company’s response to the EFCA threat:
“We’re going to run this business,” Scott said. “Our associates are going to be productive. We’re going to reach out. We’re going to have relationships with our associates. We’re going to care about them and we’re going to serve our customers.”
("We’re going to care about them”?....that’s the best you can do, Lee? Anyone else think that sounds eerily like he’s admitting that he’s not caring about them now?)
But regardless, over the next year Wal-Mart execs will continue to tell us that all Wal-Mart employees are happy and productive and that all 1.4 million U.S. “associates” are one big warm fuzzy family. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. We know because every day we hear otherwise from Wal-Mart employees. Here’s a few more stories we’ve received lately.
Read these and more - in their entirety - on walmartspeakout.com:
“Why do you work overtime when you know that they will not pay you?”
“I have posted here a number of times before and I am always amazed that I have new bullets for my anti-Wal-Mart weaponry. No, my store doesn’t miss a beat when it comes to denying overtime pay.”
“Benefits” is a Loose Term to Wal-Mart
“When I was hired at Wal-Mart about 7 months ago, I was told by the hiring manager that Wal-Mart has the best benefits and I would receive then after 3 months. I believed him, but was in for a very rude awakening.”
Deaf Employee’s Request: Ignored
“I tried to apply for a promotion and they required me to do an interview over the phone, which was difficult considering there was no accommodation made for my disability.”
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) has agreed to hear a complaint by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW Canada) accusing Wal-Mart of engaging in unfair labor practices as defined by Saskatchewan law. What’s more, the SLRB has ruled that Wal-Mart’s actions outside the province of Saskatchewan can be taken into account in assessing whether it is engaging in unfair labor actions within the province.
This means that the SLRB can take into account the example of Jonquiere, Quebec, when ruling on UFCW Canada’s complaint. It was in that small town, just over 100 miles north of Quebec City, that Wal-Mart announced it was going to shut its doors after workers voted to make the Jonquiere store the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The closure put 190 employees out of work, served as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who may have considered unionization against the company’s wishes.
Board chair James Seibel said the board was not required to determine whether Wal-Mart had acted illegally in Quebec to consider whether its actions “intimidated employees in Saskatchewan” from exercising their right under the province’s Trade Union Act to “organize and be represented by a bargaining agent of their choosing.”
“The fact that the actions of Wal-Mart upon which the allegations are based were committed outside the geographic confines of Saskatchewan does not mean that they cannot constitute (a) violation of the restriction on intimidation of its employees in the province,” Seibel ruled.
As the UFCW Canada complaint moves forward in Saskatchewan, it will be interesting to see if Wal-Mart’s actions in Quebec play a significant role - the company’s labor issues have yet to fade away there. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees:
The ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks for Wal-Mart in Canada. The company recently shut down a second operation in Quebec – a tire and lube shop in Gatineau – after failing to stop a union contract from being imposed there. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court of Canada case arising from the Jonquiere closure is scheduled to be heard within months.
We’ll keep you posted.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
The National Journal’s Under The Influence Blog brings our attention to a new 501(c)6 group called the “Workforce Fairness Institute,” whose sole purpose is to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
The National Journal tells us:
Packer would not identify the WFI’s funders. But sources familiar with its creation speculate that such big retailers as Wal-Mart and Home Depot—a which are high-profile opponents of EFCA—are likely among the group’s donors. One source says the WFI is trying to raise as much as $10 million for its operations.
Presumably, Wal-Mart and other companies are spending early while preparing for a possible Obama administration and strong Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - which are expected to make a push for the legislation which, of course, would make it easier for Wal-Mart workers to form unions and negotiate contracts for higher wages and better benefits.
The WFI website is savetheelection.org, and the featured video is a fake news broadcast which for the first minute or so openly implies that the presidential election is being taken away. Halfway through it tells us we’re talking about a possible change in unionization rules.
But - the website reminds us that WFI (just like Wal-Mart!) is “NOT anti-Union.” Which is reassuring.
We’ll do our best to investigate WFI’s funding disclosure laws, and Wal-Mart’s role in the venture. As usual....we’ll be watching.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
So, every few months Wal-Mart holds a meeting to crack down its suppliers for one reason or another. What makes this one different enough to earn coverage in every major newspaper in the country? We’re not sure, but it definitely gave Lee Scott an international podium to further shift ethical responsibilty away from Wal-Mart and tell all of China to “do as I say, not as I do.”
Women’s Wear Daily gives what is definitely one of the most absurd quotes we’ve heard from Lee Scott in a long time (links added by me, but he might as well have put them in himself ):
“I firmly believe that a company that cheats on overtime and on the age of its labor, that dumps its scraps and chemicals in our rivers, that does not pay its taxes or honor its contracts — will ultimately cheat on the quality of its products,” said Scott. “And cheating on the quality of products is the same as cheating on customers. We will not tolerate that at Wal-Mart.”
That sounds like someone I know, I just can’t put my finger on it…
A couple other interesting bits. The Financial Times quotes a grumbling supplier:
“It’s going to make things a lot worse,” said one manufacturer at the meeting, who asked not to be identified. Others were more relaxed. “If they don’t like it, they are not going to be doing business with Wal-Mart,” said one US-based Wal-Mart supplier who sources components from China.
The New York Times’ Dot Earth Blog asks what might be the fundamental question:
Wal-Mart has been working to improve its image and lighten its environmental impact for several years now. Of course, as some campaigners against over-consumption have pointed out, Wal-Mart is still selling consumerism even as it pledges to cut the social and environmental costs of making the stuff in its stores. Can we have it all? Can we have cheap shirts and disposable batteries in a world heading toward 9 billion people seeking a decent life? I guess we’ll find out one way or the other.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Great News! Wal-Mart Watch’s new website - walmartspeakout.com - has a had a great first day! We’ve had a ton of visitors on our first day, and even better - new stories from Wal-Mart employees are rolling in. You can bet that we’ll be formatting them and loading ‘em up, so make sure to keep reading the site.
Below are two unbelievable stories we received this morning:
I tripped over the box and went down to the hard cemment floor. I screamed and management came running. I was told to go to the office, so I started hobbling to the office to fill out the paper work. The assistant and support manager were their and after the paper work was filled out they asked me if I wanted to see a doctor and I replied yes. Then they told me I had to see my family doctor. I replied on a Friday night. Saturday morning and they replied yes. My clinic is not open and they me that I have 24 hours to see my family doctor. I was told to go back to work. The store was closed and we are locked in the store at night. I was forced to work for 8 hours when my shift was over I left and said I am going to the ER. The assistance manager just shruged her shoulders. When I was done in the ER I had to go back to the store to give them the papers. The store manager asked me how many days was I going to be off work. and I replied 2 because I don’t work the other days. He replied oh ok. He never asked if I was ok or anything. The following Wed. when I returned back to work the Harassing started by management.That Friday I was cut from full time to part time (I have it on tape). I ended up to going in for surgery and now I must use a wheelchair to get around and I haven’t been back to work.
This one, if true, is terrifying:
I worked for a transportation company that was under contract to WalMart in Canada. When Walmart was closing its Quebec store due to the union issue it requested us to quote on sending in a trailer to the closing store to load 26 pallets of inventory and then deliver 1pallet to each of 26 stores in western canada.This expensive request was to send a message to each store that this skid came from a store that organized a union and now it is closed . Expensive message but you get what their purpose was.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Today marks the debut of a new project from Wal-Mart Watch: Wal-Mart Employees Speak-Out. The new website is a chance for Wal-Mart’s employees and former employees to talk about how the retailer’s low wage, poor benefits business model impacts their lives. The site features user-submitted material in the form of comments, stories, and video testimonies. Check it out at: http://walmartspeakout.com.
Wal-Mart workers often face retaliation for speaking out about the many problems at the company. This website is a chance for them to speak out – anonymously, in many cases – without fear of being fired or demoted. The project comes at a time when working Americans are suffering more than ever, but while Wal-Mart reaps record profits as the largest corporation in the world.
Are you a former or current employee of Wal-Mart that has a story to share? Click here to SPEAK OUT! All entries will be kept anonymous unless authorized. Speaking out helps others fight the unfair treatment Wal-Mart is infamous for. Help transform Wal-Mart into the kind of workplace it claims to be, and speak out against unfair policies at the company.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
Wal-Mart’s health care plan is sprawling, and past attempts (PDF) to asses the plan have proved difficult. So we’re not immediately sure what to make of this announcement from Wal-Mart earlier today.
The retailer’s claims that it will expand health coverage for its associates appear fairly superficial, focusing on maternity care and smoking cessation (as opposed to, oh I don’t know, subrogation clauses). They don’t address many of the fundamental problems with the company’s plan: premiums that are too high, waiting periods that are too long and coverage that’s too sparse. To our Wal-Mart-employee readers, what do you think of Wal-Mart’s proposed changes?
Wal-Mart expands worker health benefits [Reuters]
etail leader Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday that it was expanding health benefits for workers, including offering a 2009 program that provides pre-pregnancy and child development services.
The company said a “Life With Baby” program in next year’s benefits package would provide workers counseling with registered nurses through all phases of maternity.
It said that plan also includes expanded benefits such as periodontal cleanings to help prevent gum disease in mother and child, and a new program designed to stop smoking.
In a statement, the retailer said about 15,000 of its workers have babies each year.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
An article in today’s Wall Street Journal reports Wal-Mart recently conducted a survey to “test the voting preferences of men and women who are shopping at its stores.” Wal-Mart asked shoppers which candidate they’ll most likely vote for in November, and which issues facing the U.S. today are most important. The move not only gives politicians a look at a sought-after demographic - “Wal-Mart Moms” - it also places Wal-Mart at the heart of American politics.
Not surprisingly, the economy takes center stage for many of Wal-Mart’s shoppers. Like so many people living in the U.S. right now, Wal-Mart’s customers are trying harder than ever to make ends meet. And as the economy gets worse, many people are “trading down” to shop at Wal-Mart, even if they disagree with the retailer’s business practices.
Low wages, poor health care, and job losses are a major part of this picture. Despite Wal-Mart’s recurring suggestions that its low prices are a solution to our economic crisis, the retailer is actually a big part of the problem. By paying its workers so little and failing to provide health coverage for many of its workers, Wal-Mart is making it even harder for many families to stay afloat.
Congress is searching for answers to the economic problems we now face - whether they be emergency bailout measures or more long-term solutions like passing the Employee Free Choice Act. In the mean time, if Wal-Mart really wanted to help its shoppers with the issue they care about most, the company would start improving conditions for the lowest-earning members of its work force. That’s something Wal-Mart Moms on both sides of the political spectrum could support.
‘Wal-Mart Women’ Vote Remains in Play [Wall Street Journal]
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
In case you hadn’t noticed, Wal-Mart has received some criticism for its business practices over the last few years. Condemnations of low wages, discrimination, environmental damage, damage to local economies and sweatshop sourcing have come at Wal-Mart from all angles. At some point, someone at the company realized these attacks might be bad for business.
So the company went on the offensive. Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect, explained to a conference of editorial writers this week that in recent months, Wal-Mart has made a massive effort to improve its image. Whereas the retailer once focused on lowering prices regardless of the cost, attacks on the company’s ethics made Wal-Mart realize the high price of behaving badly.
Fishman is certainly right on this point: after years of criticism, it seems Wal-Mart’s leadership finally recognized the value of a good reputation. Since its revelation, Wal-Mart has worked to highlight not only its low prices but its good deeds too, spending millions to publicize its environmental efforts and charitable giving. A new ad campaign, a new slogan and numerous public appearances by company executives drive home Wal-Mart’s new message: We’re not all bad, really.
Wal-Mart’s work to become a socially responsible company, however, is far from done. The company’s labor problems remain completely unresolved: wages and benefits for hourly workers are still paltry, allegations of union-busting remain rampant, and the company’s discriminatory practices have resulted in dozens of lawsuits in the last year alone. Labor issues are the most expensive to resolve, but a recent study (PDF) shows that shoppers take a company’s labor practices into consideration above all other social responsibility issues. The company cannot and will not succeed with its image overhaul until these issues are addressed.
Even Wal-Mart’s highly-touted environmental campaign has problems. While the company cites reduced packaging and organic cotton among its crowning achievements, Wal-Mart’s massive energy consumption, unsustainable land use, and unethical sourcing practices negate any positive impact the company might have. Poor product quality contributes to environmental problems too, and several recalls over the last year and a half reveal the high price of cutting costs. The company’s relationship with local communities continues to be a problem as well.
Like Mr. Fishman, we are also interested to know the impact of Wal-Mart’s environmental footprint - both good and bad. But any examination of Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts should take into account the company as a whole - with all its problems, from factory to shopping cart - not just the side Wal-Mart wants us to see.
Two say Wal-Mart image on mend [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Ah, to be a Walton. While most of America struggles to keep their houses, afford basic food items and preserve their dwindling retirement funds, the Waltons have made a big leap up on Forbes’ list of the top 400 richest Americans and now comfortably reside in slots four through seven on the list of top ten wealthiest people in the country. That’s up from their rank last year - when Jim, Rob, and Christy were tied for 12th place, with their sister Alice coming in right after them at 15th.
Sam Walton’s four children aren’t the only Walton family members on the list: E Stanley Kroenke and his wife Ann Walton Kroenke also make an appearance, as does Sam’s niece, Nancy Walton Laurie. Taken together, the family is worth over $100 billion.
That’s more than an average Wal-Mart worker could earn in ten thousand lifetimes. Many of Wal-Mart’s hourly employees live in near-poverty, often earning so little that they qualify for government assistance. Basic life needs - housing, food, health care - are often out of reach, even for employees working full time. The Walton family’s wealth is obscene in comparison.
Wal-Mart executives have refused to raise wages for the company’s lowest earning employees, stating that such increases would cut in to company profits. Obviously, profitability is not a problem. As Wal-Mart sees record sales and the Walton family climbs to the top of America’s economic ladder, the company should be ashamed for not sharing its wealth with its lowest-earning workers.
The 400 Richest Americans [Forbes]
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, speaking about the Employee Free Choice Act on Meet the Bloggers. On what the EFCA is, and why it would benefit workers:
If we understand what’s happening in America today, the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing pretty wide and pretty fast, which leads to all those foreclosures and other debt problems you talked about. One of the ways American workers used to get a raise was they had a union. And they way they got a union was they could make their own choice about whether they wanted to have an organization to talk to their employer about their wages and their heath care. And over the last 50 years what we’ve seen, is the courts and the corporations begin to eat away at those rights. So the Employee Free Choice Act just modernizes the national labor relations laws of our country, that again allow workers to make their own choice about whether they have a union, and tell the employer “We’ll see you after we have a majority of people who want to talk with you at the collective bargaining table, and until then this is our decision not your decision.
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Wal-Mart’s customer service is notoriously bad: chronic understaffing, low wages, high turnover and ever-shifting work schedules mean employees are unhappy and unlikely to perform well. So it’s no surprise that Wal-Mart winds up “among the worst” on AOL’s list of favorite grocery stores.
30 Most and Least Favorite Grocery Stores [Wallet Pop]
The absolute worst place hands down is Wal-mart! Now, normally, we don’t shop there—however, my husband needed something that he couldn’t find anywhere else, so ... in we went ... and out we walked! We had about 3 items that we were carrying and they had 3 registers open with about 20 customers in each line. They were not even bothering to try to open up any other lanes. We gave the merchandise to one of the employees and told her we will NOT wait in these lines.
UPDATE: Almost as interesting, if not more so, are the comments. Wallet Pop readers weigh in on Wal-Mart, after the jump.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
For those of you who’ve seen Wal-Mart’s training videos, this new short from American Rights at Work will ring particularly true.
I don’t know about you, but that bottle of soda does look pretty enticing.
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
While the FEC investigates Wal-Mart’s possibly-illegal attempts to influence the votes of its employees, writers at the Legal Times discuss what those mandatory meetings exposed. While obviously making clear how much Wal-Mart fears unionization - and how much its managers exaggerate the impact of Democrats and the Employee Free Choice Act - the meetings also exposed the national need for stronger laws against employee intimidation.
Chained to Office Politics [Legal Times]
Imagine you work for the largest company in town. You live from paycheck to paycheck like a large portion of lower- to middle-wage workers and can’t afford to be without a job for long. Your company has pretty high turnover, and it has a reputation for firing people it labels troublemakers, people who don’t fit into the corporate culture.
Now imagine that at a mandatory work meeting, your supervisor warns you that Congress is considering legislation that will make it easier for unions to come into your company. A union here would be a disaster, the supervisor warns, and would mean layoffs, or even worse, closing down entire locations. Unions are bad news. And just to top it off, if a Democrat gets into the White House, we can be sure that bill in Congress will become the law. So think about that, he says, when you’re in that voting booth.
This speech might make you a little nervous about what your supervisor thinks your political leanings are. You might be very careful about what you say to be sure it can’t be interpreted to support the Democrats, particularly if your company has the reputation of firing people who support unionizing. And since your employer is the biggest in town, you watch what you say no matter where you are. You can’t afford to have anything get back to the company.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
In the past, we’ve compared Wal-Mart to the Harry Potter villain Voldemort, as a way to highlight the retailer’s harsh treatment of employees and devastating impact on small towns. The Mexican Supreme Court has made an even more extreme condemnation: the court recently compared Wal-Mart’s labor practices to those of Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz, whose rule was known for brutal use of power and widespread corruption.
The comparison arose after a Wal-Mart employee complained to the court that Wal-Mart was essentially paying its workers in store credit, rather than actual money. Vouchers handed out to employees as part of their salary could only be used at Wal-Mart stores, the employee said. President Diaz used similar plans during his regime.
Labor problems have dogged Wal-Mart in Mexico since it began expanding in the country in the early 2000s. A worker strike at several Walmex stores in February ended suspiciously, leading many to wonder if the company hired false negotiators or intimidated employees. Prior to that incident, Wal-Mart workers rallied in Mexico City to demand better conditions and a union. The company has also been criticized for refusing to pay teenagers employed as baggers at its Mexico stores. In light of these problems, the Supreme Court’s comparison seems somewhat fitting.
Mexico’s Supreme Court slams Walmart’s labor practices [AFP]
Mexico’s Supreme Court compared the practices of US retail giant Walmart in Mexico to employer-worker relations during the dictatorship of former president Porfirio Diaz.
Diaz served as president and absolute ruler of Mexico from 1877-80 and from 1884-1911.
Mexico’s top court on Thursday backed a Walmart employee who had complained that vouchers handed out by the company as part of its salary payments could only be spent in the company’s stores.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the world, with just over 2 millions employees on its payroll. So when the company does something wrong, there are usually a lot of people involved and for that reason, Wal-Mart often finds itself the subject of class action lawsuits.
An article today from Bloomberg News notes that there are currently over 70 lawsuits currently pending against Wal-Mart which deal with wage-and-hour violations alone. A 2005 federal law, which ruled that any lawsuit involving parties from multiple states and damages exceeding $5 million must go to federal court, means some of the cases filed since 2005 and currently pending against Wal-Mart will be combined. This had included class action suits from Delaware, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska, until U.S. District Judge Phillip Pro denied their class status in June. Today’s article asserts that Wal-Mart stands to benefit from the 2005 law, which could make it harder for employees to collectively litigate against the company.
Whether Wal-Mart “shaved” time off employees’ schedules is not up for debate here: Judge Pro explained each wage-and-hour violation will simply be treated individually. Wal-Mart continues to look for ways to spend as little as possible on payroll, even if this means unfairly compensating employees for their hours worked. Rulings such as this one make it more difficult for employees to change Wal-Mart as a whole, but the company should stop breaking labor laws in the first place and pay its workers fairly.
Wal-Mart Shareholders Benefit From Judge’s Pay Ruling [Bloomberg News]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., facing as much as $2 billion in damages in a Minnesota employee-pay trial, may be shielded from similar cases in the future thanks to a 2005 federal law.
The statute requires federal courts to handle class-action lawsuits of $5 million or more when plaintiffs and defendants are from different states. Because judges have been less willing to certify these cases as class actions, the law may save Wal-Mart as much as $5 billion, said Robert Bonsignore, lead workers’ attorney in Nevada suits against the world’s largest retailer. That’s equivalent to 77 percent of Wal-Mart’s $6.5 billion first- half profit.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Two stories in the Chinese press last week show that collective bargaining agreements are spreading across Wal-Mart’s China stores like wildfire. Several stores even had union card signing ceremonies, showing that employees take pride in their union membership.
The unions at Wal-Mart’s store in China are made possible in large part by China’s powerful retail labor laws. Strong governmental involvement has thus far been the most effective tool in the quest for Wal-Mart unionization. While workers in China bargain collectively for better pay and better benefits, politicians in the U.S. work to strengthen labor laws here so unionization is not just a possibility, but something workers can accomplish and take pride in.
900 Wal-Mart Employees in Wuhan Sign Collective Contract [Sina Finance]
On August 26, officials from the Wal-Mart store on Xudong Street and the store on Zhongshan Street in Wuhan, Hubei and the local labor union held a collective contract signing ceremony…
This collective contract involves nearly 900 Wal-Mart employees from two stores. The contract addresses essential issues such as wage increases, paid vacation, social security, worker safety, etc. with clear-cut provisions. The contract includes a mechanism to collectively consult on wages. For 2008 and 2009 full-time employee wages will increase an average of 8%. Workers with at least three years may sign the contract without a fixed deadline with provisions on salary, vacation, social security, working women’s rights, benefits, protections, etc. and employee welfare. “Henceforth, we employees have the right to demand wage increases,” a labor union representative from the Zhongshan store expressed.
Presently, Hunan has 27,000 companies that have agreed to collective contracts – establishing mechanisms to evaluate equality. For collective contracts, labor unions and workers elect representatives to consult and negotiate on issues such as wage and hour, work conditions, rest and vacations, worker health and safety, insurance, etc.
Posted by Research Team | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube