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

---

Image above from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When Wal-Mart’s use of an intricate web of subsidiaries to avoid state taxes was discovered, the N.C. Secretary of Revenue famously sent tax lawyers and auditors after the world’s biggest retailer. With state economies strapped for cash, North Carolina is now looking to halt such shenanigans before they can start.

A proposed “combined-reporting” law would require companies with multiple subsidiaries operating in several states to file tax returns as a single business. Opponents of this legislation have given lawmakers the shivers...But in the face of the state’s biggest budget crisis since the Great Depression, combined reporting took a first step Tuesday toward becoming law. After a contentious House Finance Committee meeting, the Democrat-led committee voted along party lines to approve a larger tax package that includes combined reporting.

Combined reporting basically treats a parent company and its subsidiaries as one entity for tax purposes. A driving force behind the move was the public realization of just how much money North Carolina has been losing through loopholes in its tax laws.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing’s Favorite Capitalists [Washington Post]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

$7,000 dollars is the figure. That was the amount the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) fined Wal-Mart for the death of Jdimytai Damour, after he was trampled to death in a Long Island Wal-Mart in the opening minutes of a Black Friday shopping blitz.

A story on this morning’s Village Voice blog got us thinking about the subject again, after it discussed how Damour’s death led the NY City Council to enact new legislation – a “doorbuster” bill – making it unlawful for any person or company to publish notice about or conduct a “doorbuster” sale without first obtaining a license issued by the city commissioner. The license application would require stores like Wal-Mart to detail its floorplan and provide a detailed plan for crowd control.

That’s great for New York, but in the larger scheme of things, are retailers that regularly hold such sales really being held responsible in any meaningful way when a tragedy like the Damour death occurs – especially one that could have easily been avoided?

In announcing that it had cited Wal-Mart, OSHA’s press release stated that the company had failed to implement reasonable and effective crowd management principles and would be fined as a result.

As a result, OSHA has issued Wal-Mart one serious citation under its general duty clause for exposing workers to the recognized hazard of being crushed by the crowd. The citation carries a proposed fine of $7,000, the maximum penalty amount for a serious violation allowed under the law.

The problem with this is that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which governs OSHA, was enacted back in 1970, before Wal-Mart even existed. More to the point, it was really enacted prior to the whole chain-store phenomenon – the proliferation of the Wal-Marts, Targets and Home Depots of the world that we see as commonplace today had yet to happen. Today, the idea of imposing a small fine on one store owned by a parent company operating thousands across the country is laughable - $7,000 isn’t even a drop in the ocean for Wal-Mart…it’s a drop in the Universe.

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

---

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

---

When is a loss really a win? In Colorado, it’s when a piece of legislation fails and the result is a victory for the little guys.

The Colorado General Assembly has been debating HB 1192, a bill that would have allowed large grocery chains and drug stores to sell liquor, wine and full strength beer (grocery stores can already sell beer with an alcohol content at or below 3.2% - Bud, Miller Lt., Coors Light, etc). The reasons for the bill being introduced are many, but basically for a long time in Colorado, grocery stores were the only place that you could purchase beer on Sundays. When laws were changed in mid-2008 and liquor stores were allowed to remain open 7 days a week, grocery stores saw their revenue dip ever so slightly, and they were not happy. So the grocery industry began pushing HB 1192.

The consequence of allowing grocery chains to move into the wine and premium beer market, of course, is that perhaps you risk putting local liquor stores out of business. One can argue all they want that the increased competition will be a good thing, but it really won’t. Why? First, as Colorado resident Denise Washington explains, the liquor store industry in Colorado really is a local industry:

Many liquor stores and wine shops in Colorado are family owned. They build relationships with their customers and learn their tastes. There is added value of a knowledgeable staff who wants to work with you to make your experience with a new wine or beer memorable. Who enjoy teaching you about how to choose a good Pinot Noir for your dinner party or a hearty stout for your big BBQ.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that local liquor stores and wine shops support other Colorado businesses - vineyards and microbreweries from across the state that Coloradoans wouldn’t be able to find in large grocery aisles regardless of whether HB 1192 passed.

With the bill failing, grocery stores (many owned by companies outside the state) aren’t really going to see much change - they aren’t going to close up or raise prices simply because they can’t sell craft beers or wine. For them, life will go on. But had the bill passed, 1,650 locally-owned liquor stores would have been devastated to the tune of 50% of its full-strength beer sales in the first year. It doesn’t take much to determine that a loss of business like that would eventually threaten not only the local liquor store industry, but the breweries and wineries they support.

You can get more information on the legislation, including a great video piece from BeerTap TV, after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

LONG ISLAND STAMPEDE VICTIMS WIN SETTLEMENT, SAFETY CHANGES FROM WAL-MART

• Wal-Mart to pay victims of stampede [Newsday via Chicago Tribune]
  Mega-retailer Wal-Mart will pay an unspecified sum to victims hurt in a stampede that left a security guard trampled to death at a Valley Stream store during an after-Thanksgiving sale.
  

• NY prosecutor ends investigation into Wal-Mart trampling death, creates pact with retailer [Associated Press via Chicago Tribune]
  A New York prosecutor is ending a criminal investigation into the post-Thanksgiving trampling death of a temporary employee at a Long Island Wal-Mart.
  

• Wal-Mart To Announce Changes In Wake Of Trampling Death [NY 1-TV (N.Y.)]
  Wal-Mart officials are expected to announce today an agreement to improve safety measures following the trampling death of an employee from Queens last year.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

3 comments

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this story ...

14 comments

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more after the jump:

Read the rest of this story ...

1 comments

---

Yesterday, Sen. Michael Bennet - the junior Democratic Senator from Colorado - again declined to take a position on the Employee Free Choice Act, even though most of his Senate colleagues have already done so. Bennet, appointed to the Senate after Ken Salazar’s nomination for the Secretary of the Interior, has been reluctant to support EFCA because of pressure from local and national business leaders.

After the latest inquiry into his position, Sen. Bennet is trying to position himself in the center by saying:

“I’m in a much better position to be helpful to a constructive conversation by not having taken a position on the existing language in the legislation than I would be if I had.”

But straddling the fence is not always the safest political position, and he’s already taking heat for refusing to make up his mind. Scott Newkirk, of Fort Collins, CO was quoted by Denver’s ABC-7 News:

“I can’t believe how bad he waffled on that,” Newkirk said. “What we’ve got here is someone who may or may not be willing to make tough choices. I really hope he faces a primary challenge.”

We agree that in the U.S. Senate, tough choices must be made. Sen. Bennet is facing reelection in 2010, and is no doubt worried about his political career. But waffling on Employee Free Choice isn’t going to help persuade any workers to come out to polls a couple Novembers from now.

Senator Bennet, it’s time to take a stand with Wal-Mart workers - and workers everywhere - on the right side of history.

Bennet stays mum on union-vote issue [Denver Post]:

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet on Wednesday declined once again to take a position on a labor-business battle royale over legislation that could make it easier for workers to organize.

“Everywhere I go, from the labor side I hear: ‘This is the most important issue to us.’ From the business community I hear: ‘Stopping this is the most important issue to us,’ “Bennet said during a meeting with The Denver Post editorial board.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Brendan Gaffney | Permalink

Tags: labor, employee free choice act, union, efca, legislation, colorado

Apr07

Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln Reverses EFCA Support, But Leaves Door Cracked

32 comments

---

Yesterday, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) became the first Senate Democrat to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. But when later allowed to elaborate, she left the door open for her to eventually get on board a revised version of the legislation.

It looked bleak early on - as the Washington Post reported, Senator Lincoln didn’t mince words when stating whether she still supported the Employee Free Choice Act legislation that she had voted for back in 2007:

“I cannot support that bill,” Lincoln told the club, one attendee recounted to Arkansas Business. “Cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form.”

But as the day moved forward, Senator Lincoln did soften her stance - if only a bit - after listing several issues she hoped to tackle in 2009:

“Even though the Employee Free Choice Act is not on this priority list, it is receiving a lot of attention in the news and is the focus of many of my conversations with constituents on both sides of the issue. I consider both the labor and the business communities to be my friends. However, now that we need all hands on deck, including business and labor, to get our economy moving again, this issue is dividing us...I am stating today that I cannot support Employee Free Choice Act in its current form and I can’t support efforts to bring it to Senate consideration in its current form. I will consider alternatives that have the support of both business and labor but my pledge today is to focus my full attention on the priorities I have mentioned that affect every working family in Arkansas.”

Why is Senator Lincoln’s vote so important? Her defection would make it increasingly difficult for supporters of the bill to get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and help it to move forward under Senate rules. Not surprisingly, Lincoln’s shift towards the right - she has also recently made news for teaming with Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to push a provision that would slash the controversial estate tax rate (or “death tax” if you’re a Republican or just a pessimist) - just happens to come as she looks towards a 2010 reelection bid in Arkansas, Wal-Mart’s home state. And we all know what Wal-Mart thinks of EFCA.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: labor, efca, legislation, tax, arkansas, washington, unions, workers, democrat

Apr02

Wal-Mart Dealt a Union Blow in Canada

48 comments

---

The Regina Leader-Post is reporting that an application for reconsideration of union certification at Wal-Mart’s Weyburn store has been dismissed by the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan.

This ongoing battle hit the headlines back in December of last year, when after four years of legal wrangling, Wal-Mart workers in Weyburn, Saskatchewan were granted union status. The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board granted union certification last year to the Weyburn store, where a majority of the workers had indicated their support to form a union through card signings. In 2004. Over four years prior.

Meanwhile, last year also saw provincial legislation approved which required a secret ballot be held to certify a union, meaning the previous practice in which a union could be certified through the card-signing practice without a secret ballot was no longer valid. Sensing an opening, Wal-Mart filed to have the Weyburn certification reconsidered since, after all, back in 2004 the employees didn’t conduct a secret ballot. But the argument has gone for naught, as the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board held that the requirement passed in 2008 will not apply to the union certification which begun back in 2004.

“In the Board’s opinion, when the Union filed an application for certification together with sufficient evidence of majority support in accordance with state of the law at that time, they completed all procedures within their control to complete under the procedures in place,’’ the labour board said.

“At that point in time, their reliance on the state of the law crystallized into a right, a tangible and particular legal right protected under the common law presumption against retrospectively,’’ the labour board ruled.

Boo-yah, Wal-Mart. Boo-yah. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart plans to appeal. We’d say we’re surprised, but, well, you know.

Labour relations board rules against Wal-Mart [Regina Leader-Post]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: employees, union, legislation, legal, workers, labor issues, saskatchewan

Mar25

Sen. Specter Flips, Chooses Not To Support Employee Free Choice

58 comments

---

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced yesterday that he would not be supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. In actuality his decision will not only affect the bill itself, but it could first and foremost affect the ability of Congress to even vote on it, because without his vote Conservatives could filibuster the poor thing to death.

When legislation like the Free Choice Act is introduced in the Senate - assuming it makes it to the floor - there eventually takes place debate between Senators as to whether the legislation should be passed. This debate can go on indefinitely, most commonly referred to as a filibuster and taking the form of an exceptionally long speech (as in one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches) to prevent the legislation from moving forward...and that, my friends, is where Senator Specter would come in. Sixty votes are needed in the Senate to enact what is called cloture - basically this sets a deadline for debate to end, after which a final vote is made. Senate Democrats currently have enough votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, but without Specter, there appears to be only 59 Senators that would vote for cloture - one fewer than needed to end debate and take the legislation to a final vote. Senator Specter announced his decision yesterday on the Senate floor:

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

Basically, the Senator had big business screaming at him from one shoulder, and labor from the other...and business (and Conservatives) won. Some, however, noted that while he decided not to support the bill this time, he did identify a need to reform labor law as it currently stands.

Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, chairman of the Health, Education and Labor Committee, said, “It’s disappointing that Senator Specter feels he cannot support the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form, but I welcome his recognition of the urgent need for labor law reform...I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find the best way to move forward with this important legislation.”

Republican opposes US labor bill, may doom measure [Reuters]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: employees, labor, jobs, legislation, pennsylvania, economy, unions, workers, opposition, vote

Mar13

Four Corporate Tax Loopholes That Should Be Closed

8 comments

---

The Institute for Local Self Reliance and the New Rules Project have developed proposals for closing four of the most significant loopholes — two involving state sales taxes and two involving corporate income taxes. Those proposals include:

1. Require large online retailers to collect sales tax;
2. Stop big retailers from skimming sales taxes;
3. Bar companies from hiding taxable income in subsidiaries;
4. Eliminate corporate “nowhere” income.

Not surprisingly Wal-Mart serves as a reoccurring example of poor corporate conduct, especially when it comes to skimming sales tax or funneling money through subsidiaries. You can read the entire story here. The article suggests that adopting the proposed changes would have several beneficial effects, especially considering the shortfalls facing many state budgets.

One way states could make up some of the shortfall is to close several common loopholes that allow large corporations to escape paying their fair share of state taxes. Doing so would ease the pressure on state budgets and have the added benefit of restoring a measure of competitive fairness for small businesses, which are unable to take advantage of these loopholes and end up shouldering a much heavier tax burden than their biggest rivals.

Four Corporate Tax Loopholes States Should Close [The Hometown Advantage]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: sales, legislation, economy, taxes, lobbying, growth, states, loophole

Mar10

Workers Bring EFCA Fight To Heart Of Washington

22 comments

---

With Democratic Rep. George Miller looking to officially roll out the Employee Free Choice Act today in Congress, America’s workers are physically bringing their message of the need for better wages, health care, and overall treatment to the heart of the Washington establishment. Yesterday under warm breezes and a sunny sky, hundreds of SEIU members rallied in front of some of EFCA’s most notorious opponents: the Retail Industry Lobbying Association, the American Chamber of Commerce, and a banking association meeting. Then, they marched to Lafayette Square—just a few yards from the White House—where SEIU President Andy Stern made it clear that workers and all Americans who look to Employee Free Choice as a way to restore America’s middle class will not desist in their struggle. Let the festivities begin.

The original Politico article reporting on the rally is below: 

You’ve probably seen the ads and heard the rhetoric on the House and Senate floor, but now the protests over the Employee Free Choice Act are under way.

A spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union says the organization has dispatched 300 labor union members to protest outside the offices of the Chamber of Commerce, a leading business group that has been leading the fight against the bill, which opponents call the card check legislation.

“It’s startling how huge a lobbying machine corporations have deployed against change that would help workers gain a greater voice at a time when our country and our economy so desperately need it,” said Jeffrey Cappella, an SEIU spokesman.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Chris C | Permalink

Tags: employees, labor, union, legislation, washington, unions, workers, protest, petition, andy stern

Mar03

New York: Debate Over a Glass of Wine

0 comments

---

According to USA Today, state governments struggling to find new ways to raise revenue are running into stiff opposition to one idea — the expansion of wine sales into grocery stores.

One such state is New York, where embattled Governor David Paterson’s proposed 2009-10 fiscal budget includes a provision to allow such expansion, a move that if approved he believes could yield $105 million in licensing and franchise fees from stores during the new fiscal year. New York currently is currently facing a rather daunting $14 billion budget gap.

“This legislation would provide greater choice and convenience for New Yorkers and provide an even greater market for New York wines,” said Matt Anderson, a spokesman for the state Budget Division.

Not everyone in the Empire State is happy with the provision, however. In fact, there is a relatively large coalition of small business owners and independent wine sellers opposing the change, basically calling it a gift to big box chains and grocery stores. The argument is that the proposal will not create any new jobs - in fact, all it will do is divert liquor-buying traffic from independently-owned shops and liquor stores to larger chains and big box stores like Wal-Mart. And while it could result in $105 million in licensing fees from the Wal-Marts of the world, it wouldn’t really increase the alcohol market as a whole - so while New York gets its money and Wal-Mart gets its booze, small business owners will see less costumers and eventually a good portion of them could see unemployment.

“This misguided plan would benefit big-box stores like Wal-Mart without creating even one new job, while imperiling Main Street businesses across the state and the thousands of jobs they provide,” said Jeff Saunders of the Retailers Alliance Foundation, a New York state retailers’ lobbying group that helped form the Last Store coalition. If the legislation passes, Saunders predicts roughly 1,000 liquor stores will close, costing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs.

Job loss means more people on unemployment and more people people on state health roles, and that equals more cost to New York taxpayers. Some might call this “thinning of the heard,” but the prospect of losing 4,000 jobs that will not be replaced seems questionable at best. Already this year a similar idea has been killed in Kentucky, and the proposal in New York and another in Tennessee both face stiff opposition.

Spirited debate over state wine laws [USA Today]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: expansion, retail, jobs, legislation, new york, revenue, grocery, kentucky, tennessee, taxpayers

Feb13

BREAKING: North Dakota knocks off Wal-Mart by 3 touchdowns, keeps pharmacy ownership law

27 comments

---

We’ve covered and covered and covered the debate on this one, and finally the long wait is over! The law in question requires a pharmacist to have majority ownership of a pharmacy, so repealing it would have allowed large chains like Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS the opportunity to move in.

Pharmacy bill fails, 57-35 [Bismarck Tribune]

After about an hour of emotional debate, the House voted against a bill today that would have repealed North Dakota’s pharmacy ownership law, 57-35. More updates to come.

So there you go...we’ll let you know when more updates have indeed come.

***Update*** (3:23pm) More coverage - ND House votes to keep pharmacy ownership law [Associated Press]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: pharmacy, legislation, competition, debate, north dakota

Feb12

Chicago: The debate over Wal-Mart in the Windy City continues

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart; Chicago.

Chicago; Wal-Mart.

Now that you’ve been reintroduced, will you be friends this time?

Time will tell, but opinions on whether the mega-retailer would be good for the Windy City continue to be sharply divided.

From KXMC CBS 13 [North Dakota]:

Because it’d be just awful if the retail giant moved into the city and started providing low-income families with jobs and access to low-priced goods. Big news in bad times: A major retailer wants to bring thousands of jobs to Chicago. But Wal-Mart’s offer is running into the same roadblocks it hit several years ago…

We’ll leave the question of why a North Dakota station is eyeing Chicago alone for now, beyond the fact that they might have Wal-Mart on the brain. Here’s the opposing view courtesy of BloggingStocks:

Whether Chicago and other cities should open their doors to Wal-Mart is a matter that has been debated for literally millions of hours. But it would be a shame to see the city completely abandon whatever principles it claims in order to raise quick cash in a tough economy. But if the city is going to try to make a deal with Wal-Mart, I know an unemployed former governor who is a master negotiator.

The last time Wal-Mart backed down from Chicago, it was because the retailer refused to agree to pay its workers under living wage legislation. This time, the question seems to be - Should Chicago take the quick jobs now, with all the negatives that come with them...or should it hold out for something better? Time will tell…

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: expansion, labor, union, jobs, legislation, economy, workers, chicago, recession

Feb09

North Dakota lawmakers continue to discuss pharmacy bill

3 comments

---

**********UPDATE**********
******February 10, 2009******

The North Dakota House Industry, Business and Labor Committee voted 8-5 yesterday to recommend that the full House defeat legislation to repeal the restrictions.

Proponents of the repeal argue that competition will lower drug prices throughout the state, especially with Wal-Mart’s $4 drugs. But opponents say repealing the law would endanger the future of rural pharmacies in small-town North Dakota.

Our original post is below - for more on the update, check out today’s stories in Forbes and the Bismarck Tribune.

***************************

North Dakota legislators have elected to go with the safe answer when asked about a bill that would change pharmacy ownership rules: we have no idea.

That may be oversimplifying, of course, but since little has changed since we first mentioned this piece of legislation last week, I’m satisfied being overly simple. The bill would pave the way for large retailers like Wal-Mart to get into the pharmacy business, a market that has to this point been served by locally-owned businesses.

For more public opinion on the matter, check out this, and this, and this, and this.

Legislators say they haven’t decided to support pharmacy bill [Jamestown Sun]

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink

Tags: pharmacy, legislation, customers, prices, revenue, north dakota