Thursday, January 13, 2005

By Jim McKay, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

It took nearly five years of legal wrangling, but 15 workers in the auto services department at the Wal-Mart supercenter store in New Castle are getting an opportunity to vote on joining a union.

The National Labor Relations Board, in a case that has been pending since 2000, has scheduled an election for Feb. 11 to let employees of the store's Tire & Lube Express department decide whether to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

It is the only pending union-representation election at any Wal-Mart in the United States, according to the UFCW, which for years has unsuccessfully sought to represent Wal-Mart employees in stores across the country.

The New Castle election originally was scheduled for the summer of 2000 after the labor board ruled that the tire department workers were an appropriate voting unit.

Wal-Mart had argued that the vote should include the store's total work force of more than 400.

But the 2000 election was halted when the UFCW's Cleveland-based Local 880 filed unfair labor practice charges against Wal-Mart, alleging the giant retailer interfered with the election. The union alleged Wal-Mart executives from Arkansas descended on the store immediately after the election was scheduled and improved conditions for the auto service department workers.

The company installed new equipment and, the UFCW argued, engaged in surveillance of employees' union activities, interrogated them about their union sympathies and moved various employees in and out of the department to dilute support of the union. The allegations were settled by the board in an unpublished ruling late last year, paving the way for the next month's election.

Wal-Mart, which as part of the settlement was ordered to cease the offending practices and inform employees by posting notices in the store, declined to comment yesterday.

UFCW spokesman Greg Denier said Wal-Mart's actions at the New Castle store were typical of tactics used over the years to keep the union out.


From the Los Angeles Times
CALIFORNIA

Study Cites Social Costs of Wal-Mart
Company workers draw $86 million a year in aid, researchers say. But the retailer says it gives jobs to people who otherwise would not be employed.

By Abigail Goldman
Times Staff Writer
Published August 3, 2004

Inadequate wages and benefits force workers at Wal-Mart stores in California to seek $86 million a year in state aid, according to a report released Monday by the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

Moreover, if other retailers cut their wages and benefits to the levels offered by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the cost to California's public-assistance programs would rise by $410 million annually, the study said.

In their report, Berkeley researchers Arindrajit Dube and Ken Jacobs contend that more than other retail workers, Wal-Mart employees rely on a variety of public-aid programs, including food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing.

"In effect, Wal-Mart is shifting part of its labor costs onto the public," the researchers wrote. "Wal-Mart's long-term impact on compensation in the retail industry has the potential to place a significant strain on the state's already heavily burdened social safety net."

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, maintains that it pays competitive wages and relieves public assistance burdens by giving jobs to many people who otherwise would not be employed.

"It's unfortunate that these UC Berkeley researchers would release a study whose findings are questionable," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Cynthia Lin said. The company employs more than 60,000 people in California.

The public debate about whether Wal-Mart benefits or hurts local communities has grown considerably louder over the last few years, particularly in California, where some communities have opposed the company's expansion plans.

The company's wage and benefit structure was also cited as a reason behind last year's strike and lockout of unionized grocery workers in Southern California; the largest supermarket chains said they needed to revamp costs to compete with the retail giant.

Dube and Jacobs' study took into account statewide data on wages paid by large retailers, the numbers of workers throughout the retail industry who use state assistance programs and information gleaned from lawsuits about Wal-Mart's pay and benefits.

Dube, of Berkeley's Institute of Industrial Relations, and Jacobs, of the school's Center for Labor Research and Education, said they did not contact Wal-Mart in preparing their report.

The report found that Wal-Mart's wages on average were 31% below those of the broader group of large retailers — $9.70 an hour versus $14.01 an hour.

And with less earning power, Wal-Mart workers rely more heavily on state resources, Dube and Jacobs found, costing the state $32 million in health-related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.

The study contends that the average non-management Wal-Mart employee receives $1,952 in public assistance compared with $1,401 for workers at large retailers in general.

"The disproportionate use by Wal-Mart workers of the various healthcare and social safety net programs, and the cost that that brings to the state, is an important consideration for policymakers," Jacobs said in an interview.

Dube and Jacobs noted that other studies have reported similar findings.

In Georgia, a state survey of the state's children's health insurance program found that Wal-Mart employees' families disproportionately relied on the program, accounting for more than 10,000 of the 166,000 children enrolled.

In Congress, a report by Democratic staffers on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce looked at employee eligibility for assistance programs and found that a typical 200-employee Wal-Mart store could cost federal taxpayers $420,750 a year, or more than $2,000 per employee.

Wal-Mart has disputed those findings.

Class action could finally put women on fast track
Chicago Sun-Times
published on June 24, 2004

If someone had told Gloria Steinem that something she wrote 25 years ago would bear truths today, she probably wouldn't be surprised. When it comes to equal pay for work of equal value, little has changed for women since the 1970s. Women clerks still don't earn what the guys do. There are only a handful women at the helms of major corporations and fewer still with genuine political clout.

In 1979, Steinem wrote in Ms. magazine that "If men become flight attendants but women don't become pilots and airline executives, for instance, women will still be on the losing edge." Indefensibly, women are still on the losing edge. The employment gender gap -- to use that quaint '70s term -- remains almost as entrenched today as it was when Steinem and her colleagues launched Ms. Women still earn 77 percent of what men do. Some -- but only a small part -- of that can be attributed to social factors, such as women being more likely to take time off for family reasons. In fact, the Institute For Women's Policy Research reports that if you consider the rate of progress between 1989 and 2002, women will not "achieve wage parity for more than 50 years." And the numbers of women of any color recruited into managerial positions remain dismal.

The continued job disparity between men and women was thrown into sorry relief by the recent certification of a class action suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. -- the largest class action in history. The suit, filed in 2001 by six women, on behalf of 1.5 million former and present Wal-Mart workers, alleges the giant retailer paid them less than their male peers and provided them little chance for promotion. Sixty-five percent of Wal-Mart's hourly workers are women, the suit states, but only 33 percent of its managers are female. Almost all of its cashiers are women; only 15.5 percent of its store managers are, the suit says. The suit claims female hourly employees who worked at least 45 weeks earned $1,150 less than males, and women store managers earned $16,400 less.

U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, who decided the case had merit, said the plaintiffs had compelling evidence. They "present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women." Wal-Mart is the country's largest employer with 1.2 million workers -- 700,000 women -- and losing this lawsuit would mean the firm would have to pay up big time. But this case is important not because of the money. Its import is the impact it will have on other employers. If the suit's allegations hold up, and they certainly sound compelling, this case may do more to end gender discrimination in one fell swoop than anything in the past -- a major victory for workplace justice.

We'll stick with the old scores

People tend to mythologize the past, but sometimes the good old days really were better. If you don't think so, try this test: Hum one of the tunes that was up for an Oscar this year, or even name a nominee. With all respect to the musical artists who contributed to such features as "Cold Mountain" and "The Triplets of Belleville," their songs will never work their way into moviegoers' hearts like "Over the Rainbow," "As Time Goes By" and "Singin' in the Rain" -- to name the top three titles on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest movie songs.

As with most such polls, there's plenty of room for debate. If Celine Dion's warbling of the endless "Titanic" theme makes your ears gloss over, you'll think it a grave injustice to place "My Heart Will Go On" 14th -- a notch ahead of "Cheek to Cheek"! Even at No. 80, Mel Brooks' jokey "Producers" tune, "Springtime for Hitler," may seem overrated. And should a hit song co-opted for a film, like Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll" was for "Risky Business," compete with songs that originate in movies?

Whatever you think of the AFI list, it fills our head with a lot of memorable tunes. Like Proust's madeleine, they evoke a lot of sensory memories of bygone eras. We can only wish upon a star that movie tunes will one day mean as much as they used to.

Group sees Wal-Mart threat to Vermont
Historic trust group says new stores would smash state's rural life.
May 24, 2004: 1:11 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vermont was designated an "endangered place" Monday by preservationists who say Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, threatens the picturesque state with huge new stores that smash rural life.

In its annual list of most endangered historic places, the National Trust for Historic Preservation included the state of Vermont because of an "onslaught of big-box" stores by Wal-Mart , the Arkansas-based retailer.

Trust President Richard Moe said Wal-Mart planned to "saturate" Vermont -- known for its quaint villages, winding back roads and strong sense of community -- with seven new "Super Stores."

These stores, said Moe, would spur more development, sprawl and lead to disinvestment in historic downtown areas and a loss of locally owned business.

"We are sounding the alarm bell that Vermonters need to pay attention to this," Moe said in an interview, pointing out that Vermont also made its list in 1993 for the same reasons.

He criticized Wal-Mart and other retailers for not consulting properly with local communities before building giant stores, which changed the fabric of community life.

"We think Wal-Mart and other big box retailers should work with communities and have stores of a size and a design which are compatible with the community," he said.

In Vermont, Moe said there were currently four Wal-Mart Stores amounting to about 300,000 square feet of space and the company proposed quadrupling this to at least 1.3 million square feet in seven new stores.

"Vermont is a small state and it is uniquely a state of small towns. There is no question the character of this state will be dramatically changed if those seven stores are built," he said.

In a statement to CNNfn, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams referred to the company's comment on another study -- that one from a group claiming that the retailer has received $1 billion in government subsidies.

That comment said, in part, that over the past decade Wal-Mart has "collected more than $52 billion insales taxes, half of which generally stays in local communities and helps fund schools, police and fire departments, libraries and other services; remitted $192 million in income taxes, wage withholdings and unemployment taxes to local governments; (and) paid $4.0 billion in local property taxes."

Other sites in danger

In its list of endangered places, the National Trust also named Nine Mile Canyon in a remote part of Utah.

The canyon is called the world's "longest art gallery" for its 10,000 native American rock art images and the Trust said it was threatened by extensive oil and gas exploration plans.

Ridgewood Ranch in northern California, the resting place of famous racehorse Seabiscuit, was also in jeopardy as well as historic Cook County Hospital in Chicago which faced the wrecking ball unless money could be found to save it.

Other sites included wood-frame tobacco barns in southern Maryland and the Madison-Lenox hotel in Detroit. Built in 1901, the hotel is an example of turn-of-the-century architecture which the Trust believes could play an important role in the area's renaissance.

Two buildings from the recent past, the George Kraigher House in Brownsville Texas, built by American architect Richard Neutra and 2 Columbus Circle by architect Edward Durrell Stone, on the southwest corner of Central Park in New York City, also faced demolition.

"Scholars are just now beginning to study and evaluate buildings from the recent past. It's critical that we protect these structures from destruction now when they are most vulnerable so that they are with us 50 years from now," said Moe.

APRIL 15, 2004
By Wendy Zellner
Businessweekonline.com
Analyzing the "Sins" of Wal-Mart

At a California conference, a diverse crowd, from academics to union workers, explored the growing backlash against the giant

After losing a bitter battle to build a store in Inglewood, Calif., Wal-Mart (WMT ) might like to write off the humiliating defeat at the ballot box as an isolated event. But an unusual one-day conference at the University of California Santa Barbara on Apr. 12 suggests that the world's largest retailer ain't seen nothing yet.

"Wal-Mart: Template for 21st Century Capitalism?" drew historians, sociologists, and other academics from around the country. Community activists, environmentalists, union workers, and others eagerly absorbed the discussions as they pondered the kinds of coalitions that might stop or transform Wal-Mart in the future. Three hundred people, including students, attended the conference.

Yes, there was admiration for Wal-Mart's powerful use of logistics and information technology, the kind of activity that used to get most of the public attention. But the bigger agenda at the UCSB's Center for the Study of Work, Labor & Democracy focused on Wal-Mart's "sins" -- from low wages and lackluster benefits to stress-filled jobs and anti-union managers.

THEY DON'T GO THERE. In this oceanside city some 30 miles from the closest Wal-Mart, even the conference organizers expressed amazement at how the company has become such a lightning rod for controversy. Professor Nelson Lichtenstein, who teaches history at UCSB, says the idea for the event came to him after fielding numerous inquiries about Wal-Mart during the recent California grocery strike. "There's no such thing as 'Wal-Mart studies,' but there's something going on here," says Lichtenstein. Historian Susan Strasser from the University of Delaware says when she mentioned her plans to attend the conference to friends and acquaintances, she was stunned at the level of interest it generated.

Not surprisingly, on this liberal college campus in a city obsessed with urban planning, those attending were a decidedly anti-Wal-Mart crowd. One of the panelists was a United Food & Commercial Workers researcher. Another was a lawyer involved in the massive sex-discrimination suit against Wal-Mart. Many of the academic participants acknowledged that they rarely, if ever, step foot in a Wal-Mart store, and few had ever visited Bentonville, Ark., the company's headquarters.

Lichtenstein says Wal-Mart was invited to participate. Peter Kanelos, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart in California, says he didn't attend because he doesn't have time to go to all the events he is invited to. He told BusinessWeek Online that the anti-Wal-Mart reports at the conference were "the typical rhetoric that's espoused by labor." He continued: "I just have to question how fair and balanced the forum was."

MORE FACE-OFFS TO COME. So is this just the yapping of some Ivory Tower eggheads and some longtime Wal-Mart enemies preaching to media "elites" from BusinessWeek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, PBS, and other outlets? That's certainly the way Wal-Mart's staunchest defenders are likely to paint it.

But like it or not, the opinions of this far-flung group are helping to shape a broad and growing anti-Wal-Mart movement that goes well beyond organized labor. And considering that the retail behemoth is in less than 40% of the top 100 grocery markets, Wal-Mart will increasingly face this crowd as it tries to move into untapped urban areas with its supercenters.

The daylong litany of Wal-Mart's alleged failings should provide plenty of fodder for its opponents. Take employee relations, once considered a Wal-Mart strength. Ellen Rosen, a professor at the Center for the Study of Women at Brandeis University, is using Wal-Mart as a case study in a book on gender stratification in the retail trade. She has been collecting the tales of dozens of current and former Wal-Mart workers, from cashiers to store managers.

NO TAX BONANZA? Many hit on similar themes: humiliating discipline, constant stress, a lack of resources to do their jobs, and over it all, the ironic veneer that everyone is part of the "Wal-Mart family." Charges of sex discrimination and wage-and-hour law violations are no fluke, insists Rosen, but a direct result of the way Wal-Mart constantly strives to drive down labor costs.

David Karjanen of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California San Diego, sees few benefits for communities from the jobs and sales-tax revenue Wal-Mart generates. When he looked at the impact of one Wal-Mart project in San Diego, he found that it brought in very little, if any, additional tax revenue for the city, which gave $10 million in direct subsidies to Wal-Mart. At the same time, most of the jobs created by the redevelopment project were part-time and below "self-sufficiency" levels in San Diego -- an hourly wage of $11.38, according to the Center on Policy Initiatives, a local advocacy organization.

While some studies have shown that Wal-Mart creates a small number of net new jobs, "more important is the issue of job quality," insists Karjanen. "There's no reason why the world's largest retailer can't talk to communities about raising the bar."

"DESPERATELY AFRAID." Wal-Mart has argued that its wages and benefits are competitive with others in retailing. And given its ambitious growth plans, it contends, it would be self-defeating to treat workers as badly as critics say it does. Professor James Hoopes of Babson University, a conference participant, says "Wal-Mart is desperately afraid of the reputation it's getting as a bad employer."

Some conference goers took solace in the presentations on Wal-Mart's sometimes bumbling efforts abroad. Julio Moreno, a University of San Francisco history professor, called Wal-Mart's performance in Argentina "disastrous." He credits that in part to the retailer's initial obliviousness to the building fiscal crisis in that country and inflexibility in the store formats Wal-Mart used there. On top of that, it faced stiff competition from French retailer Carrefour.

Even in Mexico, where Wal-Mart is now the largest retailer, with about 7% of total sales, there are reasons to believe its future gains won't come easily, predicts Chris Tilly of the University of Massachusetts in Lowell. "Wal-Mart actually charges higher prices than the small stores" in Mexico, some 5% to 15% more, figures Tilly, based on his studies there.

SIMILAR FATE? Mexican shoppers don't have the "culture of convenience" and are more likely to care about the freshness of their food, prompting them to shop from street vendors, mobile markets, and other small venues. And many consumers say they don't see a difference in the service, prices, or assortments of the big chains, he says. "I think the future of Wal-Mart in Mexico is going to be marked with a question mark."

What about its future in the U.S.? Historian Strasser points out that Wal-Mart is hardly the first retailer to depend on low-cost labor or to face strong resistance. Woolworth openly boasted of its high turnover and low pay. Sears (S ) was so concerned about an anti-mail-order campaign in 1906 that it started shipping its packages in plain-brown wrappers. Through the 1930s and '40s, anti-chain-store legislation proliferated across the country, and A&P fought a massive antitrust case.

Today, those campaigns are long forgotten. But Sears and A&P are shadows of their former selves, while the Woolworth stores have vanished. Is Wal-Mart destined to suffer the same fate? Strasser notes that Wal-Mart's size relative to the economy and its suppliers is much bigger than anything seen before. But, she says, "Wal-Mart's success is stimulating countervailing forces."

INNER CONFLICT. Whether those forces change or slow Wal-Mart remains to be seen. And that's in part because Wal-Mart's success puts so many people in conflict with themselves. Strasser cites her hairdresser as a case in point. As a small-business owner, he wants to oppose Wal-Mart. But still, he has bought seven low-price bikes from the chain so every member of his household can enjoy one. That seems like the stuff of which Wal-Mart ads are made.

Strasser appears sympathetic but then asks a question that might make many a shopper squirm: "Shouldn't kids learn to share? What's happening in a culture where everybody gets to have his own bike because they're so cheap? How do we move beyond the single-minded self-interest of price?" That's a debate that's now echoing far beyond the serene world of Santa Barbara.

California tries to slam lid on big-boxed Wal-Mart

By John Ritter, USA TODAY

BAY POINT, Calif. - Wal-Mart's relentless rollout of new stores has foundered in California like a beached whale. Two years ago, the world's biggest company announced aggressive plans to build 40 of its trademark "supercenters" in this lucrative market of 35 million consumers, the last untapped domestic prize for a global behemoth whose "always low prices" stretch from China to Brazil.

Wal-Mart protesters outside a Planning Commission meeting in Bakersfield, Calif.

By John Harte, The Bakersfield Californian

But not a single supercenter has opened in California, and Wal-Mart's (WMT) goal - a new one every two months - looks dubious. Nearly everywhere it turns, the Bentonville, Ark., retailer finds itself embroiled in lawsuits, politics and voter hostility toward its profitable blend of groceries and discount merchandise.

On Tuesday, voters in Inglewood, San Marcos and here in Contra Costa County will decide whether to prohibit "big-box" stores epitomized by Wal-Mart supercenters. Los Angeles, San Diego, Salinas and other cities are mulling similar bans. Lawsuits over Wal-Mart are pending in Alameda County, Bakersfield and Turlock.

Across the USA, Wal-Mart faces backlash where it once found welcome mats - often with taxpayer-financed sweeteners to boot. From Lawrence, Kan., to Sequim, Wash.; Milford, Ohio; Manatee County, Fla.; Manor, Pa.; Stoughton, Wis.; Urbana, Ill.; and Florence, S.C., communities are questioning whether Wal-Mart's ultracompetitive business practices - critics call them cutthroat and predatory - are in their best interest.

"Ten years ago, fighting Wal-Mart was so unusual it was a national story - small town beats Goliath," says Al Norman, founder of Sprawl-Busters, a Wal-Mart watchdog. "Today, these battles are raging all over."

But last week, Fortune magazine crowned Wal-Mart No. 1 on its annual list of the most admired companies for the second consecutive year. "There's a reason Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world," says George Whalin, a San Marcos retail consultant who doesn't work for Wal-Mart. "Consumers want to buy things at lower prices."

So why all the clashes? Supercenters were the catalyst, Norman says. In the 1970s and 1980s, discount stores in Wal-Mart's initial sweep through the South and Midwest were modest by today's standards - "40,000-, 50,000-square-foot little things," he says.

Not only are supercenters far grander - 200,000 square feet or about six football fields - but they often leave vacant older Wal-Marts behind. Norman counts 371 "dead" stores, up 39% since 1999.

"Communities are irritated that they're building stores right down the street from older stores," he says. "And they're irritated that they're getting the skeletal remains of the old stores."

California's lucrative market

In California, a volatile mix of circumstances makes the Wal-Mart wars unique. To a growth-driven company that looks beyond existing-store sales to satisfy Wall Street, the Golden State offers huge potential. Because local governments get a share of California sales taxes, elected officials are often eager for revenue-generating big-box retailers.

But many cities and counties have tough growth controls or grass-roots opposition. Gridlock on streets and highways fuels resistance to big-box developments on the suburban fringe that aggravate traffic and sprawl.

Politically potent unions see jobs threatened by supercenters selling groceries and offering consumers low-priced, one-stop shopping for most of their needs. Wal-Mart loomed large over the 4-month-old Southern California grocery strike, which ended Sunday after becoming the longest in the state's history. Supermarket chains, under intense pressure to stay competitive in an industry of skinny profit margins, want workers to pay more of health benefits, but the union resisted.

A study by the Bay Area Economic Forum, an organization of major employers, found that Wal-Mart's annual wages and benefits were $21,000 less per average worker than those of local supermarket chains.

"It's fear of the unknown," says Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Hill. "The food workers union is trying to scare people and create a myth that supercenters come in and shut everybody else down. But in 44 other states, people see that's not the case."

Since its first supercenter opened in 1988, Wal-Mart has shot from nowhere to America's grocery king, grabbing 21% of the market. A study by market researcher Retail Forward predicts that Wal-Mart grocery and drug sales will almost double to $162 billion by 2007, boosting its market share to 35% and "leaving a path of destruction in its wake" among competitors.

Wal-Mart's $256 billion in annual sales is at least $60 billion more than the USA's No. 2 company, General Motors (GM). At its current rate, Wal-Mart will open 1,000 supercenters in the next five years.

Non-union, non-grocery discount chains such as Ames, Bradlee's and Caldors folded under the Wal-Mart onslaught, but unionized supermarkets are digging in. "This issue is much more contentious in California, because there's a tradition of 'I'll see you in court' or 'I'll see you at the ballot box,' " Norman says.

Wal-Mart fights back

Contra Costa, a suburban county of 1 million northeast of San Francisco, is a bellwether battleground because its demographics mirror the state's. In June, the Board of Supervisors voted to limit stores that devote more than 5% of space to groceries to 90,000 square feet. That effectively barred supercenters without naming Wal-Mart. Bulk-food sellers such as Costco were exempted.

"Unincorporated areas are where we want to protect open space," says Supervisor John Gioia. "Large developments don't generate enough sales tax revenue to mitigate the negative impact."

Wal-Mart gathered enough signatures to put a referendum on today's ballot and will spend more than $1 million on the vote, although the company says it has no plans for supercenters in Contra Costa. With $500,000 from Safeway and unions, opponents have knocked on tens of thousands of doors with a plea to keep Wal-Mart from big-footing in local politics.

"This is about the right to choose," says Dee Dee Ferro, president of a Bay Point chapter of ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. "We've already decided to ban supercenters. Just because Wal-Mart has money, they can come in and take over our land-use decisions?"

Wal-Mart foes say supercenters wipe out competitors, especially independently owned neighborhood mom-and-pop stores. "No way they can compete with bargain-basement prices," Ferro says.

Wal-Mart's painful impact on local business is a rallying cry. The company says new stores create jobs, while opponents contend they're merely low-paying substitutes for jobs swept away by Wal-Mart. Besides more traffic and pollution - a supercenter adds 3,300 daily trips - Wal-Mart kills supermarkets that anchor neighborhood strip malls, hastening urban blight, critics say.

In 1997-2002, Wal-Mart blanketed Oklahoma City with seven supercenters and seven of its "neighborhood markets" that mimic stand-alone supermarkets. It added a Sam's Club warehouse store to three already in the metro area. Result: 30 competing supermarkets closed, according to Retail Forward. In Dallas over the same period, Wal-Mart added 34 stores. Winn-Dixie abandoned all of its 15 stores.

Opponents conjure up the ruthless image of a powerful multinational bent on squeezing workers and suppliers, dispensing poverty-level wages and abusing Third World workers. "We're a blue-collar, middle-class area and we'd rather not engage in the race to the bottom," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who represents most of Contra Costa.

But to legions of fans, especially cost-conscious shoppers, Wal-Mart's low prices and vast selection guard household budgets. Wal-Mart's speed, efficiency and innovation undercut competitors who foolishly go head-to-head on price instead of finding other niches, retail experts say.

"They're not the evil empire," says retail consultant Whalin. "They're formidable. They're tough. They're very good at what they do. But we know retailers around the country - Target's an example - that do quite well in the same marketplace."

Wal-Mart says in court papers that an Alameda County big-box ordinance limiting groceries illegally targets the company. But county officials say such bans also could cover Target or Sears superstores that sell groceries, though neither has plans in California.

"If they're trying to just stop all big box, write the ordinance that says no store over a certain square feet can come in," says Wal-Mart's Hill.

Wal-Mart is nothing if not adaptable. Last month, its first smaller, 99,000-square-foot supercenter opened in Tampa. It's meant for urban areas - and to circumvent bans of more than 100,000 square feet.

Search for low prices

Supercenter prohibitions arguably penalize low-income consumers. A year ago, a Wal-Mart store became a long-sought anchor for a fading regional mall in a south Los Angeles community torn by 1992 riots. Residents no longer had to depend on mom-and-pops or long trips to find low prices, says John Mack, president of the Los Angeles Urban League. The store provided more than 300 badly needed jobs.

A city council proposal to ban big-box stores that sell groceries is short-sighted, Mack says: "This can't be a cookie-cutter approach. What may make sense in the overdeveloped San Fernando Valley and west Los Angeles may not make sense in underdeveloped south Los Angeles."

Studies in San Diego and Orange County predict a net economic loss for California when Wal-Mart jobs replace union jobs. Wal-Mart fired back with its own study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., a coalition of groups promoting new business, that found shoppers usually pay 20% less at supercenters than at union supermarkets.

Surveys show that eight Americans in 10 have shopped at Wal-Mart. "People say Wal-Mart put small business out of business. Actually, they put big business like Montgomery Ward and Kmart out of business," says Roger Blackwell, an Ohio State University marketing professor. "It's little David beating up on Goliath, not the other way around, because 30 years ago Wal-Mart was just a little independent chain."

Blackwell's take on Wal-Mart bashing: "People who want to hang onto the past fighting the innovations Wal-Mart brings to the marketplace."

For all the bad press and battles over new stores, the fact is, Wal-Mart usually wins.

Al Norman's Web site, www.sprawl-busters.com, lists nearly 200 communities that have "beaten big-box stores," mostly Wal-Marts, since 1998. But over the same period, Wal-Mart has opened nearly 600 new stores and expanded more than 500 others.

And it doesn't always lose at the ballot box. In Calexico, Calif., two years ago, more than 70% of voters defeated a proposed supercenter ban. Clark County, Nev., supervisors passed a ban but quickly rescinded it when Wal-Mart began collecting signatures in metropolitan Las Vegas.

In Inglewood, a working-class, heavily minority city of 117,000 bordering Los Angeles International Airport, Wal-Mart twice had to troll for signatures to try to overturn a supercenter ban. Today's outcome could foreshadow bitter battles to come: Voters will be torn between the needs of low-income residents and the union sympathies of airport and port workers.

As Wal-Mart opens its first California supercenter this week in La Quinta near Palm Springs, the votes could move the war to a new phase. Wal-Mart may be vulnerable to lawsuits if it uses the ballot box to skirt environmental and other local mandates.

Still, for every place that snubs Wal-Mart, plenty of others embrace it. "We'd welcome a supercenter," says Terrence Grindall, economic development manager in Manteca, a city of 60,000 near Turlock, whose supercenter ban triggered a lawsuit. "We're pro-business."

Wal-Mart's low prices carry a high price tag here and abroad

When you think about it, the price you pay at Wal-Mart isn't so low after all.

RICHARD AMRHINE
Date published: 2/15/2004

WAL-MART HAS become my store of last resort. Price may be everything to some people. But when you consider how Wal-Mart manages to keep those prices so low, you might think twice about shopping there.

There are three basic viewpoints to consider--that of the company, that of its employees and suppliers, and that of the shoppers.

In the end, the company alone comes out ahead.

The last time I shopped the Wal-Mart Supercenter at Central Park, my jaw dropped when I arrived at the checkout area. Half the registers were closed, and those that were open had lines with as many as 25 customers in them--most with heaping-full carts.

I chose a line and stood there, and stood there. After 20 minutes, with at least another 20 minutes to go, I gave up, took my cart to the greeter, and left empty-handed.

That poor service is basic, in-your-face evidence of the high price people pay for Wal-Mart's low prices. The company knows that nearly all shoppers will wait it out.

Once when I actually did make it to checkout, I asked the clerk why so many registers were closed, and she said the store can't find enough people willing to work there.

Yes, the company does pay a few bucks above minimum wage, on average, but then makes it back by denying decent health care and other benefits to its "associates."

By beating back all moves toward unionization, the company is able to keep its personnel costs at rock bottom. The average wage of $8.25 is $2 less than at the average unionized grocery store.

The company also pays less for the goods it sells. Because of its size and clout, Wal-Mart can force vendors to meet its prices, rather than negotiate with them.

The so-called all-American Wal-Mart turns to the cheap labor of Third World countries to keep prices low. A recent Washington Post article reveals that 80 percent of the 6,000 factories in Wal-Mart's database are in China. The company might try to keep tabs on these foreign sweatshop operations, but the factories still routinely employ underage workers and require 80-hour work weeks, and they might pay less than $100 a month. There is no need to improve conditions when there are millions of surplus Chinese workers available.

Made in Myanmar

Wal-Mart factories in Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, and the African countries of Lesotho and Malawi also employ workers who work long hours in unsafe conditions and earn less than what would provide a decent standard of living even in those economies.

In this country, federal agents last fall arrested some 300 illegal workers at U.S. Wal-Mart stores, including the one in Culpeper, who were brought in by subcontracted janitorial services.

If Wal-Mart can't keep an eye on its contractors here, how well can it do in China?

The business Web site Hoover's Online reports that Wal-Mart is the world's top retailer with 4,800 stores, three-quarters of them in this country. The company estimates that 93 million Americans shop at its stores. It also happens to be the top retailer in Canada and Mexico.

So things are looking rosy at Wal-Mart corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. The firm had net income of more than $8 billion last year, up more than 20 percent from the year before. It had sales of $245 billion last year, 12 percent more than the year before. But with 1.4 million employees in 2003, it had only 1.2 percent more than the year before.

When you see those vests that ask, "How may I help you?" it should add, "I may be your last chance."

From a strictly business standpoint, the company's record of growth is unmatched. According to the specialized publication Chain Store Age, Wal-Mart plans to spend more than $12 billion on new-store construction in 2004, resulting in some 50 to 55 discount stores and 220 to 230 supercenters across America. About 140 of the new supercenters, which include full grocery stores, will be relocated or expanded units. That was the case with the new one at Central Park that replaced the old one on State Route 3 in Spotsylvania.

There's no denying the success of the Wal-Mart model, and no indication that the company will change what it considers a proven, successful formula. Why should it, when the Walton family is free to amass billions of dollars rather than reinvest it in its own workers or in foreign factories?

But in the long run, will Wal-Mart prove to be an American success story or an American nightmare? Is it really shoppers' Nirvana, or is that simply what Wal-Mart would have us believe?

Wal-Mart has become America's largest toy retailer. As a result, FAO Schwarz has shut down, Zany Brainy has filed for bankruptcy, KB Toys is closing 375 stores (including nine elsewhere in Virginia), and Toys "R" Us is reacting to the pressure by carrying more clothes and fewer toys.

Giant impact
A survey on the supercenters' impact on grocery stores suggests that two supermarkets will close every time a supercenter opens. Locally, the impact may be felt as Royal Ahold, the parent company of Giant Food, reorganizes its holdings, cuts jobs, and turns Giant into a leaner, more price-oriented chain. Ahold blames its troubles, in part, on Wal-Mart supercenters.

Drug stores feel the pinch as well when Wal-Mart pharmacies gobble up their business.

Which local stores will close when Wal-Mart opens yet another supercenter next year at Southpoint? Time will tell.

County officials applauded the company's return to Spotsylvania County after closing the Route 3 store in 2002. But will the new tax revenues be offset by the loss of business elsewhere? How about the less-visible costs of emergency-room visits by Wal-Mart employees who can't afford health insurance? How about the unemployment insurance that's paid to those put out of work by Wal-Mart?

Such costs are borne by everyone, including the low-income families who rely on Wal-Mart to stretch their dollars. The company's very existence depends on people failing to realize that, in one way or another, we all end up paying for low, low Wal-Mart prices.

What we get are fewer stores to choose from, higher insurance costs, unemployed neighbors who face the loss of their homes, and a culture that believes there's nothing more important than saving a few cents on toilet paper and light bulbs.

The richest nation in the world, and all we want are low prices and low taxes. When it finally hits home that we have a cheapened quality of life to match, we shouldn't complain.

Certainly Wal-Mart won't complain. It is supplying itself with an ever growing pool of low-income people who think they're doing themselves a favor by shopping there. And if Wal-Mart took away their jobs, they can wait in line all day.

RICHARD AMRHINE is a writer and editor with The Free Lance-Star.
Date published: 2/15/2004

1/23/04, San Francisco Chronicle: Some officials back Wal-Mart against county

Some officials back Wal-Mart against county

Chip Johnson Friday, January 23, 2004

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has upped the ante in its bid to defeat an ordinance, approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, that would ban the construction of "superstores" of the type being proposed by the giant discount retailer.

With county supervisors aligned against it, the nation's largest retailer and employer began scouring local municipalities for support -- and has found it in politicians in several East Bay cities.

The names of more than a half-dozen elected officials from Antioch, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, San Pablo and Oakley appear on letters sent to registered voters by Contra Costa Consumers for Choice, the committee leading the campaign for Measure L on the March ballot.

The campaign is heavily funded by Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, of Bentonville, Ark., launched the ballot initiative after county supervisors banned big-box stores that devote more than 5 percent of their floor space to nontaxable grocery items.

County supervisors said superstores create traffic and overcrowding, an argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, said one of the officials who signed the letter, San Ramon Vice Mayor Dave Hudson, who is a candidate for county supervisor in the March election.

"My issue is plain and simple: To protect open space by not allowing a big-box store is just wrong,'' Hudson said. A Wal-Mart store -- even a superstore -- will create no more traffic than big-box stores of similar size, he said, and county tax revenues will benefit, not suffer, from a new store.

"I don't know of any city (or county) government that puts a different restriction on parking because of who you are,'' Hudson added.

When county supervisors approved the ordinance, Wal-Mart launched a petition drive to get 27,000 signatures for the initiative.

But if there ever were a company that should be reeled in a bit, it's Wal- Mart.

In the letters sent to voters over the past two months, the company has emphasized that the county supervisors' actions were more about politics than sound public policy.

"This misguided measure is not about controlling growth -- it's about politics,'' the company said in both letters.

Assume for the moment the company is absolutely right about politicians playing politics. What a concept.

What Wal-Mart officials don't say is that the company is hell bent for leather in its push into the Western states.

It plans to build 40 combination retail-grocery superstores' in California, and it doesn't care who gets run over in the process.

That's quite a leap for a company that has used its own clout to shoehorn its superstores into small cities in Nevada and California during the past two years.

Wal-Mart, which has refused to negotiate a union contract with its employees, has accused county supervisors of bowing to union pressure in passing the ordinance. But make no mistake, the company is not looking out for consumers' interests, it is looking for greater profits, and that's the bottom line.

If it's any consolation, although Wal-Mart stores may have taken the rest of the country by storm, it will be an uphill battle in Northern California.

Following Contra Costa's lead, the Oakland City Council passed a similar measure in October that would ban construction of retail stores with more than 10 percent of space devoted to nontaxable groceries. Alameda County supervisors approved a carbon copy of the Oakland measure last month.

When Oakland council members approved the ban by a 7-1 vote, they cited Wal-Mart's ability to undercut local merchants, destabilize local businesses and create parking and congestion problems.

So the March ballot initiative in Contra Costa may not be about store locations at all.

Instead, voters may be affirming the right of local government to set public policy over the objections of a private business whose sole interest in the region is to turn a profit.


January 18, 2004

Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins by Wal-Mart

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.

It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the hospital.

The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said, was hardly an option — management had drummed into the overnight workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they would lose their jobs.

"My ankle was crushed," Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of merchandise. "I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the door."

The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting situations, such as when a worker in Indiana suffered a heart attack, when hurricanes hit in Florida and when workers' wives have gone into labor.

"You could be bleeding to death, and they'll have you locked in," Mr. Rodriguez said. "Being locked in in an emergency like that, that's not right."

Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime areas. She said Wal-Mart locked in workers — the company calls them associates — at 10 percent of its stores, a percentage that has declined as Wal-Mart has opened more 24-hour stores.

Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500 stores nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that every overnight shift at every store has a night manager with a key to let workers out in emergencies.

"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that has employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked to protect associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are always accessible for safety, and there will always be at least one manager in the store with a set of keys to unlock the doors."

Ms. Williams said individual store managers, rather than headquarters, decided whether to lock workers in, depending on the crime rate in their area.

Retailing experts and Wal-Mart's competitors said the company's lock-in policy was highly unusual. Officials at Kmart, Sears, Toys "R" Us, Home Depot and Costco, said they did not lock in workers.

Even some retail industry experts questioned the policy. "It's clearly cause for concern," said Burt Flickinger, who runs a retail consulting concern. "Locking in workers, that's more of a 19th-century practice than a 20th-century one."

Several Wal-Mart employees said that as recently as a few months ago they had been locked in on some nights without a manager who had a key. Robert Schuster said that until last October, when he left his job at a Sam's Club in Colorado Springs, workers were locked in every night, and on Friday and Saturday nights there was no one there with a key. One night, he recalled, a worker had been throwing up violently, and no one had a store key to let him out.

"They told us it's a big fine for the company if we go out the fire door and there's no fire," Mr. Schuster said. "They gave us a big lecture that if we go out that door, you better make sure it's an emergency like the place going up on fire."

Augustine Herrera, who worked at the Colorado Springs store for nine years, disputed the company's assertion that it locked workers in stores in only high-crime areas, largely to protect employees.

"The store is in a perfectly safe area," Mr. Herrera said.

Several employees said Wal-Mart began making sure that there was someone with a key seven nights a week at the Colorado Springs store and other stores starting Jan. 1, shortly after The New York Times began making inquiries about employees' being locked in.

The main reason that Wal-Mart and Sam's stores lock in workers, several former store managers said, was not to protect employees but to stop "shrinkage" — theft by employees and outsiders.

Tom Lewis, who managed four Sam's Clubs in Texas and Tennessee, said: "It's to prevent shrinkage. Wal-Mart is like any other company. They're concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is affected by shrinkage in the store."

Another reason for lock-ins, he said, was to increase efficiency — workers could not sneak outside to smoke a cigarette, get high or make a quick trip home.

Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that the seemingly obvious thing to have done after breaking his ankle was to leave by the fire door, but he and two dozen other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club workers said they had repeatedly been warned never to do that unless there was a fire. Leaving for any other reason, they said, could jeopardize the jobs of the offending employee and the night supervisor.

Regarding Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Williams said, "He was clearly capable of walking out a fire door anytime during the night."

She added: "We tell associates that common sense has to prevail. Fire doors are for emergencies, and by all means use them if you have emergencies. We have no way of knowing what any individual manager said to an associate."

None of the Wal-Mart workers interviewed said they knew anyone who had been fired for violating the fire-exit policy in an emergency, but several said they knew workers who had received official reprimands, the first step toward firing. Several said managers had told them of firing workers for such an offense.

"They let us know they'd fire people for going out the fire door, unless there was a fire." said Farris Cobb, who was a night supervisor at several Sam's Clubs in Florida. "They instilled in us they had done it before and they would do it again."

Mr. Cobb and several other workers interviewed about lock-ins were plaintiffs in lawsuits accusing Wal-Mart of forcing them to work off the clock, for example working several hours without pay after their shifts ended. Wal-Mart says it tells managers never to let employees work off the clock.

Janet Anderson, who was a night supervisor at a Sam's Club in Colorado from 1996 to 2002, said that many of her employees were also airmen stationed at a nearby Air Force base. Their commanders sometimes called the store to order them to report to duty immediately, but she said they often had to wait until a manager arrived around 6 a.m. She said one airman received a reprimand from management for leaving by the fire door to report for duty.

Ms. Anderson also told of a worker who had broken his foot one night while using a cardboard box baler and had to wait four hours for someone to open the door. She said the store's managers had lied to her and the overnight crew, telling them the fire doors could not be physically opened by the workers and that the doors would open automatically when the fire alarm was triggered.

Only after several years as night supervisor did she learn that she could open the fire door from inside, she said, but she was told she faced dismissal if she opened it when there was no fire. One night, she said, she cut her finger badly with a box cutter but dared not go out the fire exit — waiting until morning to get 13 stitches at a hospital.

The federal government and almost all states do not bar locking in workers so long as they have access to an emergency exit. But several longtime Wal-Mart workers recalled that in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the fire doors of some Wal-Marts were chained shut.

Wal-Mart officials said they cracked down on that practice after an overnight stocker at a store in Savannah, Ga., collapsed and died in 1988. Paramedics could not get into the store soon enough because the employees inside could not open the fire door or front door, and there was no manager with a key.

"We certainly do not do that now," Ms. Williams said. "It's not been that way for a long time."

Explaining the policy, she said, "Only about 10 percent of our stores do not allow associates to come and go at will, and these are generally in higher crime areas where the associates' safety is considered an issue."

Mr. Lewis, the former store manager, said he had been willing to get out of bed at any hour to drive back to his store to unlock the door in an emergency. But he said many Sam's Club managers were not as responsive. "Sometimes you couldn't get hold of a manager," he said. "The tendency of managers was to sleep through the nights. They let the answering machine pick up."

Mr. Cobb, the overnight supervisor in Florida, said he remembered once when a stocker was deathly sick, throwing up repeatedly. He said he called the store manager at home and told him, " `You need to come let this person out.' He said: `Find one of the mattresses. Have him lay down on the floor.'

"I went into certain situations like that, and I called store managers, and they pretty much told me that they wouldn't come in to unlock the door. So I would call another manager, and a lot of times they would tell you that they were on their way, when they weren't."

Mr. Cobb said the Wal-Mart rule that generally prohibits employees from working more than 40 hours a week to avoid paying overtime played out in strange ways for night-shift employees. Mr. Cobb said that on many workers' fifth work day of the week, they would approach the 40-hour mark and then clock out, usually around 1 a.m. They would then have to sit around, napping, playing cards or watching television, until a manager arrived at 6 a.m.

Roy Ellsworth Jr., who was a cashier at a Wal-Mart in Pueblo, Colo., said he was normally scheduled to work until the store closed at 10 p.m., but most nights management locked the front door, at closing time, and did not let workers leave until everyone had straightened up the store.

"They would keep us there for however long they wanted," Mr. Ellsworth said. "It was often for half an hour, and it could be two hours or longer during Christmas season."

One night, shortly after closing time, Mr. Ellsworth had an asthma attack. "My inhaler hardly helped," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I felt I was going to pass out. I got fuzzy vision. I told the assistant manager I really needed to go to the hospital. He pretty much got in my face and told me not to leave or I'd get fired. I was having trouble standing. When I finally told him I was going to call a lawyer, he finally let me out."

One top Wal-Mart official said: "If those things happened five or six years ago, we're a very large company with more that 3,000 stores, and individual instances like that could happen. That's certainly not something Wal-Mart would condone."