From Walmartwatch.com

http://walmartwatch.com/img/blog/rol...x_payments.pdf This link shows how Wal-Mart short changes the community on property taxes.

All I Want For Christmas Are Some Recalled Toys.That to the right is a screen capture of the latest Wal-Mart holiday toy guide. The toy those kids are playing with is the popular Aqua Dots. Aqua Dots, when placed in patterns and sprayed with water, magically bond together and transform into fun shapes to play with. Aqua Dots, when swallowed, contain a chemical that can turn toxic, causing children to become comatose, develop respiratory depression, or have seizures.

Aqua Dots should probably not still be in your toy guide a week after they?ve been recalled.

So good luck telling your child they can?t have the pretty toy in the toy magazine - along with Aqua Dots, the Fisher Price Laugh and Learn Kitchen was recalled yet remains in the guide, despite multiple choking hazards. Instead, I suggest a nice set of Lincoln Logs, like I had when I was a kid. They?re big, they?re wood, and they?ll provide you with ample opportunity to discuss with your children what life was like in the ?old days.? Plus, if you have enough, you might even be able to build your own dream home. Just try and do THAT with some lousy Aqua Dots.

Recalled toys make it into Wal-Mart?s Holiday Guide [KHON FOX 2 - Honolulu, Hawaii]

Parents shopping for their kids this Christmas have to make their list and check it twice. The growing number of recalls has made it a huge challenge. Two toys recently pulled for safety concerns even fell through the cracks of a major retailers? holiday ad campaign.

?Cool!,? said Avery Koomoa.

Something inside Wal-Mart?s holiday guide immediately catches Avery?s eye.

?Transformers!,? says the 7-year old.

5th grader Jeremy Stevens even knows what page to turn to for his toy of choice.

?Which one? This is my favorite part,? said Stevens.

It was two other ads that caught our eye. The Fisher Price Laugh and Learn Kitchen was recalled last week because of small parts separating.

?I heard that one on the radio I think. About small pieces kids choking on it,? said Avery?s father Ben Koomoa.

This one listed a ?Top 12 Toy? also concerned us. It?s for the Aqua Dots Super Studio, also pulled last week because chemicals inside are toxic. hey contain chemicals similar to the so-called Date Rape Drug.

Walmart Spokesman Kory Lundberg told KHON2, ?Unfortunately, this book was printed and shipped prior to completion of the additional testing and the recalls of these two products.?

Wal-Mart says toy safety is a priority and it?s taken additional steps this year to test products and work with suppliers and our government on new standards.

If a manufacturer recalls a product, Walmart?s spokesman says ? we immediately remove it from shelves, our web site, and place a block on the item at our registers.?

This season, parents won?t only scramble to find the year?s hottest toys, but also to keep the wrong ones out of their keiki?s hands.

Inside Wal-Mart stores, there are fliers listing recalls in the toy section.

Does Wal-Mart really save families $2,500 each year?
Posted Nov 12th 2007 3:27PM by Brian White
Filed under: Competitive strategy, Wal-Mart (WMT), Personal finance

Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) instituted a new customer slogan this year: "Save Money. Live Better." Although it was intended to reinforce the retailer's position that it helps families in an age of increasing prices and general inflationary pressure, much of the public didn't get the memo, apparently.

Keep in mind that it's hard to completely trust anything by either the retailer or its watchdog groups like Wal-Mart Watch, the latter released a survey that concluded only 4% of people believe that Wal-Mart saves the average American family $2,500 annually. The same report says that customers may indeed be paying less, but Wal-Mart is not the only company that can help them pad those wallets and fill those purses.

Of course, Wal-Mart Watch says that the study that backs Wal-Mart's "$2,500" claim credits just the retailer's existence with saving the customer that much. Perhaps that's through pricing competition in the area and inflation control more than Wal-Mart customers specifically saving that much by shopping at Wal-Mart? That could certainly be inferred here.

Regardless, does the mere existence of Wal-Mart control the complete, surrounding retail ecosystem, causing prices to remain ultra-competitive? Probably so -- and Wal-Mart's "Save Money. Live Better" might just be a statement of fact rather than a corporate pitch. Either way, there's probably some good truth in there.

Fight Over Proposed Wal-Mart Goes to Court
11/13/2007

Newsroom

A group protesting the re-development of Northcross Mall into a Wal-Mart Supercenter plans to fight the city of Austin in court today.

"They're the ones who could easily call this whole thing off if they would work with the citizens to create a better development there," says Jason Meeker, with the group 'Responsible Growth for Northcross'. "If the developers and Wal-Mart would come to their senses and work with the residents in that area, you would probably see us come to a better conclusion rather than us going to our lawyers and going to court."

Last Thursday, a judge tossed part of a lawsuit meant to stop the Wal-Mart project. RG4N claims city hall approved the developer's site plans without following the law.

"Every neighborhood association around the development rejected the plan," Meeker adds. "No one around the area supports it in the majority."

The group says neighbors will complain about increased traffic, noise and what they see as a ruined neighborhood, should the big box retailer move in.

Wal-Mart to pay Wisconsin $90,000 for overcharging customers




Associated Press - November 7, 2007 1:15 PM ET

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Wal-Mart has agreed to pay the state of Wisconsin almost $90,000 for overcharging customers for bulk coffee and vegetables.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection settled with Wal-Mart after weights and measures inspectors found 280 violations at nine Wal-Mart stores canvassed a year ago.

The department says the stores were charging customers for the weight of packaging when they bought bulk items such as coffee, broccoli and sweet potatoes. State law requires stores to subtract the weight of packaging material when weighing food.

DATCP administrator Janet Jenkins says customers paid as much as 21 cents extra for a bag of grind-it-yourself coffee.

Inspectors found violations at Wal-Mart stores in West Bend, Appleton, Oshkosh, Eau Claire, Chippewa Falls, Manitowoc, Prairie Du Chien, Platteville and Rice Lake

What Wal-Mart Savings Claim Doesn't Tell You
Families Spared $2,500 a Year -- Whether They Shop at Retail Behemoth or Not
By Jack Neff

Published: November 12, 2007

Consumers aren't buying Wal-Mart's new "Save Money. Live Better" ad campaign, according to a survey to be released today by Wal-Mart Watch, which found that only 4% of people believe that Wal-Mart saves the average family $2,500 annually.
Consumers are paying less, but they don't necessarily have to shop at Wal-Mart to do so.

And consumers have reason to be skeptical. The study Wal-Mart used to back that claim doesn't say people need to shop at Wal-Mart to get the savings. It says only that "the existence of Wal-Mart saves the average family $2,500 a year."

The report, which doesn't analyze price differences among retailers, says some of the savings are a result of rival retailers becoming more efficient and lowering their prices in response to competition from Wal-Mart. Take Wal-Mart's much-touted $4-generic-prescription program. It's been matched by rivals such as Walgreens, CVS and Kroger Co. Consumers are paying less, but they don't necessarily have to shop at Wal-Mart to do so.

Not as much spending power
Global Insight, the author of the Wal-Mart study on which the claims are based, also notes that the net increase in purchasing power due to Wal-Mart averages only $1,122 annually after the retailer's depression of wages is factored in.

"The report does talk about the impact of Wal-Mart on the communities where the retailer is located," a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said.

She said the ads and Wal-Mart press releases do not specify that people need to shop at Wal-Mart to get all of the savings. That's a distinction that has been lost, however, in much of the news coverage of the campaign. Media outlets including ABC's "Good Morning America," The Washington Post, Advertising Age and The Honolulu Advertiser all have reported in recent months that the report said shopping at Wal-Mart saves the average family $2,500.

In an e-mail, a Wal-Mart spokesman said it is "ridiculous" to believe it's "some kind of surprise" that people don't need to shop at Wal-Mart to realize the $2,500 in savings. "In 2005 we held an economic-impact conference in Washington to air these very issues," the spokesman said. "Just the very presence of Wal-Mart saves Americans an average of $2,500 a year whether they're Wal-Mart shoppers or not. We're very proud of that. But of course, the more you shop with us, the more you save."

Confusion
Wal-Mart didn't try to correct reports that people needed to shop there to get the savings, but the spokesman said in an interview, "There were several news organizations that did get it right."

At times, Wal-Mart seems a bit confused itself. According to a transcript of the retailer's October analyst meeting from FD Wire, Leslie Dach, exec-VP of corporate affairs and government relations, told analysts Oct. 23: "Whether or not [families] shop at Wal-Mart or they don't shop at Wal-Mart, they're saving $2,500 a year -- sorry, by shopping at Wal-Mart." The spokesman said Mr. Dach was "just trying to correct his own double negative."

It seems consumers are a tad more skeptical than journalists. Though the Gotham Research survey funded by Wal-Mart Watch, one of the leading bashers of the retailer, may be suspect, Wal-Mart's own sales results last month showed the second consecutive monthly decline in same-store-sales growth since the new campaign by Interpublic Group of Cos.' Martin Agency launched in September.

Wal-Mart Stores' same-store sales were flat compared with a year ago, though sibling Sam's Club, not covered by the campaign, saw comparable-store sales rise 2.7%, pulling the company's overall U.S. same-store sales up 0.4%.

Hot air?
Wal-Mart and Martin declined to comment on whether the sales results indicate the campaign isn't working, but Wal-Mart did weigh in with an attack on Wal-Mart Watch and a pitch for its low prices.

"With another holiday season filled with great deals on Wal-Mart merchandise comes yet another union-funded attack based on nothing but rhetoric," the company said in a statement.

One reason those savings may not be as persuasive as they once were, however, is that they're shrinking. Key competitors are finding ways to narrow the price gaps enough to render them largely unnoticeable, said Chris Hoyt, a Scottsdale, Ariz., retail-marketing consultant.

Wal-Mart's operating expenses as a percent of sales have been creeping up in the past decade -- a total of more than two percentage points -- as those of supermarket rivals have declined, Mr. Hoyt said. Leading supermarket retailer Kroger Co.'s operating expenses as a percent of sales are only 2.2 points ahead of Wal-Mart's, and its gross margin is about 0.8 points higher, he said. That should amount to only about a 3% average difference in pricing with Wal-Mart, he said, small enough to escape notice by many consumers.

For a company that has long embraced the virtues of global sourcing, Wal-Mart?s decision to cut its global procurement headcount by over 250 has come of something of a surprise.

And with China the region hit most severely by the cuts ? reports suggest that more than 100 staff could go in the company?s Shanghai, Putian and Dongguan divisions ? the move seems to suggest that the US retail giant is intending to shift its focus away from the far east and could soon be switching its attention to India.

The company?s PR head Jonathan **** has insisted that the cuts have nothing to do with the China?s new Labour Contract Law, which comes into affect on January 1 2008, but the decision has already brought a chorus of derision from Chinese law experts who claim that the headcount reductions go against existing legislation which states that companies can only implement job cuts once all other avenues have been explored.

Others have claimed that Wal-Mart is cutting jobs to both cut costs and give them an excuse to go to countries where labour prices have not soared to the extent they have in China, something **** , who pointed out that his company?s direct procurement in the country currently runs at $9bn a year, has strenuously denied.

Wal-Mart insists this week?s decisions have been taken to make the company more competitive in a market that is becoming increasingly crowded with Western competitors. Whether it signals a fundamental shift in procurement policy remains to be seen.

Suspicious firings ahead of new labor law

Adjust font size:
The rumor mill is churning as industry giants including Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, LG Electronics, and Wal-Mart China carry out drastic domestic work cuts just before the enactment of the Employment Contract Law on January 1, 2008.

On October 22, the Wal-Mart Procurement Center ordered its Chinese branches to cut about 100 employees in Shenzhen, Shanghai, Putian, and Dongguan stores. Shenzhen-based Huawei asked over 7,000 employees working for more than eight years to voluntarily resign before next year, offering one-to-three-year contracts with some after the resignations, China Business News reported on November 5.

According to the Employment Contract Law, employees who work for 10 years in a company may sign flexible-term contracts with their employers, and industry insiders believe the new law is the driving force behind this sudden round of firings. However, almost all major companies firing employees at the end of this year denied that the adjustments were related to the Employment Contract Law.

Officials from the Wal-Mart Procurement Center explained the move was just part of the center's global human resource strategy, while LG Electronics said it was a tactic for the company to secure higher status in the industry. Most employees that LG let go had worked in the company for about five years and were fired after their contracts expired. Meanwhile, Huawei said the human resource restructure aims to enhance the company's competitiveness, according to China Business News.

Although these companies are itching to make clear their motivations, experts and industry insiders see things in a different light. "Labor costs will be increased and it will be difficult for companies to fire employees after the legislation is ratified next year," said an anonymous human resource manager from a multinational company.

The new law, which regulates probation periods, contract terms, and company liabilities, aims to erect stronger legal protection for employees. Companies have been compelled to rebuild talent pools as the new law challenges human resource management, according to Zhang Mingjing, a lawyer from the Shanghai Huarong Law Firm.

It is understandable for companies like Huawei to enhance competitiveness by asking veteran employees to resign and signing short-term contracts with some of them, said Yang Xihong, general manager of Guangzhou Ruiqi Human Resource Co Ltd. "However, it conveys a negative image and magnifies misunderstandings of the new law," he added. Spreadtrum Communications Inc, China's Nasdaq-listed 3G solution provider, slashed its workforce in the same month as Huawei, one of the biggest telecommunication network providers in the country.

Although China Business News revealed Huawei offered compensation packages totaling about 1 billion yuan (US$134.16 million) for those asked to resign before next year, experts believe the move is meant is to avert liabilities required by the new law.

"The Employment Contract Law was set up to enhance companies' innovative abilities in the long run," said Ye Jiaguo, deputy researcher from the Companies' Social Duties and Public Service Research Center at the Guangdong Social Sciences Institute. "The economy will be trapped in a vicious circle if it relies too much on a cheap labor force. The increase of labor costs will force companies to pay more attention to innovation and employees training."

The Labor Dept.'s Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has opened an investigation into a whistleblower complaint against Wal-Mart Stores (WMT). OSHA sent a letter to Chalace Epley Lowry, the employee involved, saying the agency is "notifying the party named in the complaint about the filing of the complaint" and "conducting an investigation into your allegations," according to a copy of the letter reviewed by BusinessWeek.

BusinessWeek wrote in June about Lowry (BusinessWeek.com, 6/13/07), an administrative assistant in the company's communications department, after she reported what she believed could have been insider trading by a senior executive. The executive was quickly cleared. But in the process, Lowry's identity was revealed to the executive. This resulted in her having to look for another position within the company, with no guarantee that she would get one.

Stressful Complaint
It's unclear how strong Lowry's OSHA complaint is since she ultimately did find another job within Wal-Mart's legal department (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). She has decided to pursue her complaint with OSHA because she contends Wal-Mart broke its own promise of confidentiality by revealing her identity, which caused her three months of extreme stress as she looked for a new job. She says she has been diagnosed with stress-induced angina, has separated from her husband, and has had her house foreclosed. "Wal-Mart has been very careful about the way it's handled me?there's been no loss of wages and I haven't been demoted," says Lowry. "Still, I think that I did the right thing and they did me wrong by disclosing my identity."

Wal-Mart declined to comment for this story. In the past, the company has said it revealed Lowry's identity only after she agreed to the disclosure. (Lowry says she was never given a choice.) Wal-Mart also said it decided to move Lowry out of the communications department only because she asked for the change.

A Political Issue
The investigation comes amid a debate over the role of whistleblowers in American business. Many Democrats have argued that current whistleblower protection laws aren't strong enough, even in the wake of legislation passed after the accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom. On Nov. 1, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) introduced a new proposal to strengthen and standardize the laws. "Employees who expose illegal practices or safety violations benefit us all," says Woolsey. "But when they blow the whistle, they are often retaliated against. They are demoted, lose their jobs, and are blacklisted."

Whistleblowers frequently do not fare well after reporting what they believe to be wrongdoing. OSHA administers whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted July 30, 2002. In an article published in the latest issue of the William & Mary Law Review, Richard Moberly, an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska, writes that during the first three years, only 3.6% of the employees who filed Sarbanes-Oxley complaints with OSHA won. The agency fielded 491 employee complaints, resolved 361 of them, and only 13 times were the decisions in favor of the employees. "In the first three years after the statute's enactment, the act hasn't protected the vast majority of employees who filed a Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claim," says Moberly. OSHA's own, more up-to-date figures show somewhat better results. The agency says that from 2002 through Sept. 30, 2007, a total of 1,059 employees filed whistleblower complaints. Of the 1,032 cases handled so far, 728 complaints were dismissed and 138 were withdrawn. OSHA found 165 complaints, or 16%, in favor of the employee, of which 148 were settled and issued orders in 17 cases.

Identity Disclosure
Lowry made her controversial complaint last spring when Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice-president for corporate communications, had asked her to make digital copies and send some papers that Lowry thought were stock-related. A few days later, Lowry found out that Wal-Mart was planning a $15 billion stock buyback, and she worried that Williams might have traded on insider information by exercising her stock options. Lowry was prompted to file her complaint with the company's ethics department, in part because of an orientation session she had when she started at Wal-Mart in January that emphasized corporate ethics.

Wal-Mart has said its ethics office investigated the matter and Williams was cleared the same day the complaint was filed. A spokesman for the company said in June that Lowry mistook a deferred compensation form for an options exercise request. Soon after she filed the complaint, however, Lowry's identity as the whistleblower was disclosed to Williams?the development now most in dispute. At that time, a distressed Lowry said it was impossible to remain in the communications department since Williams was effectively her boss, so she asked for a transfer.

Lowry says she should have cause for action because the company disclosed her identity, a potential form of retaliation. But that argument hasn't been tested yet, says Michael Kohn, general counsel at the National Whistleblower Center, a Washington (D.C.) group that reviews laws to ensure proper protection for whistleblowers.

Bryan Little, deputy assistant secretary at OSHA, declined to comment on the specifics of this case. However, he says: "If a person engages in an activity protected by the law, and if his or her employer takes an adverse employment action such as firing, demoting, transferring, or other adverse action and there is a nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action, retaliation may have occurred."

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 14, 2007 03:27 AM: Message edited by: stormrider ]</font>