Today I saw these two white highschool kids wondering around in the clothes section. But before I ever saw them, with backward caps and all, I heard them coming down the aisle. I am guessing they had some sort of portable mp3 player and it was blasting a tiny speaker with obnoxious urban beats. Those cats knew "gangsta" like no others. :missingte
A little more Wal-Mart info to wake up Levistep
WAL-MART'S WHITE HOUSE SWEETHEART<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower<o></o>
Listen to this Commentary<o></o>
Those who say that George W is not a "compassionate conservative," as he pledged to be when he first ran for president, obviously missed a remarkable, truly touching moment of Bush compassion in an action taken by his labor department last year. In a spirit of kindness and forgiveness that surely must stem from lessons he learned in Sunday school years ago, Bush & Company stepped in to prevent harsh treatment of someone who had made a mistake, compassionately offering leniency instead. <o></o>
The someone was Wal-Mart. It's mistake was that it was caught in 85 violations of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">America</st1lace></st1:country-region>'s child labor laws. This was hardly Wal-Mart's first case of child labor abuse, and a less-compassionate president might have said: Throw the book at the creeps! But, no, Bush's political operatives in the labor department reached a kinder, gentler settlement. Wal-Mart, with $312 billion in yearly revenue, did have to pay a fine of $135,000 – but it was allowed to claim it had done nothing wrong.<o></o>
Then, showing a passion for compassion, the Bushites agreed that Wal-Mart would be given 15-days notice before any further inspections of its stores! And, if any child labor abuses are found after the notice is given, Wal-Mart can avoid any punishment if it stops the abuses within 10 days.<o></o>
In fairness, Bush has to share credit for such a moving display of regulatory restraint. While George had the sensitivity to go along with it, the settlement itself was substantially written by Wal-Mart's helpful lawyers. In fact, the labor department's own legal division was left out of the settlement process. And, in a neat touch of teamwork, even the press release about the deal was jointly written by Wal-Mart and Bush's political appointees.<o></o>
This is Jim Hightower saying... Did I mention that Wal-Mart has given more than $4 million in campaign funds to Bush and the Republicans in the past seven years? No wonder he's their sweetheart.<o></o>
Sources:
"Labor Dept. Is Rebuked Over Pact With Wal-Mart," The New York Times, November, 1, 2005.
WAL-MART'S WHITE HOUSE SWEETHEART<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower<o
></o>Listen to this Commentary<o
></o>Those who say that George W is not a "compassionate conservative," as he pledged to be when he first ran for president, obviously missed a remarkable, truly touching moment of Bush compassion in an action taken by his labor department last year. In a spirit of kindness and forgiveness that surely must stem from lessons he learned in Sunday school years ago, Bush & Company stepped in to prevent harsh treatment of someone who had made a mistake, compassionately offering leniency instead. <o
></o>The someone was Wal-Mart. It's mistake was that it was caught in 85 violations of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">America</st1lace></st1:country-region>'s child labor laws. This was hardly Wal-Mart's first case of child labor abuse, and a less-compassionate president might have said: Throw the book at the creeps! But, no, Bush's political operatives in the labor department reached a kinder, gentler settlement. Wal-Mart, with $312 billion in yearly revenue, did have to pay a fine of $135,000 – but it was allowed to claim it had done nothing wrong.<o></o>Then, showing a passion for compassion, the Bushites agreed that Wal-Mart would be given 15-days notice before any further inspections of its stores! And, if any child labor abuses are found after the notice is given, Wal-Mart can avoid any punishment if it stops the abuses within 10 days.<o
></o>In fairness, Bush has to share credit for such a moving display of regulatory restraint. While George had the sensitivity to go along with it, the settlement itself was substantially written by Wal-Mart's helpful lawyers. In fact, the labor department's own legal division was left out of the settlement process. And, in a neat touch of teamwork, even the press release about the deal was jointly written by Wal-Mart and Bush's political appointees.<o
></o>This is Jim Hightower saying... Did I mention that Wal-Mart has given more than $4 million in campaign funds to Bush and the Republicans in the past seven years? No wonder he's their sweetheart.<o
></o>Sources:
"Labor Dept. Is Rebuked Over Pact With Wal-Mart," The New York Times, November, 1, 2005.
WOMAN OF WAL_MART FIGHT DISCRIMINATION
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower
Get ready for another touchie-feelie Wal-Mart ad to saturate the airwaves soon.
Whenever this retailing behemoth gets caught in one of its many abusive practices, it races to cover-up the damage with a PR blitz. This time, though, Wal-Mart's image has not merely hit a pot hole on the road of greed, but a sink hole – and it's going to take more than ads for them to get out of it.
A federal appeals court has ruled that a sex-descrimination suit filed back in 2001 by six women is entitled to class-action status, bringing some two million more former and current employees into the case. So Wal-Mart, the nations largest employer, now has the distinction of facing the largest sex-descrimination suit in U.S. history. As the court put it: "Expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination [against] female employees nationwide." The facts are damning. For example, 65 percent of Wal-Mart's employees are women, but only 16 percent of its store managers are.
Bizarrely, the corporation tried to lay the blame for holding back women on individual store managers, claiming that Wal-Mart did not operate as a centralized unit. Now, that's a scream, since this giant constantly brags that it's central computers keep track of every penny that comes in and goes out of its global empire, as well as tracking the performance of every employee. Workers can't take a piss without headquarters knowing how long it took!
Of course, rather than do right by the women it has routinely wronged, Wal-Mart will continue to unleash its bevy of lawyers to drag out the case, hoping women will be discouraged and quit. But I don't think these ladies are quitters. It's already been six years – and justice is drawing closer.
This is Jim Hightower saying... To keep informed, go to www.walmartwatch.com.
Sources:
"Wal-Mart is handed a setback in sex bias suit," Austin American-Statesman, February 7, 2007.
"Court Approves Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart," New York Times, February 7, 2007.
Nasser, David. Letter. February 7, 2007.
"Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination," CMH&T, February 7, 2007.
"Federal Judge Order Wal-Mart Store, The Nation's Private Employer, To Stand trial for Company-Wide Sex Discrimination," June 22, 2004.
HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!!!!! Dirty rat bastards!!!!!
Hope I didn't offend Levistep :missingte
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Posted by Jim Hightower
Get ready for another touchie-feelie Wal-Mart ad to saturate the airwaves soon.
Whenever this retailing behemoth gets caught in one of its many abusive practices, it races to cover-up the damage with a PR blitz. This time, though, Wal-Mart's image has not merely hit a pot hole on the road of greed, but a sink hole – and it's going to take more than ads for them to get out of it.
A federal appeals court has ruled that a sex-descrimination suit filed back in 2001 by six women is entitled to class-action status, bringing some two million more former and current employees into the case. So Wal-Mart, the nations largest employer, now has the distinction of facing the largest sex-descrimination suit in U.S. history. As the court put it: "Expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination [against] female employees nationwide." The facts are damning. For example, 65 percent of Wal-Mart's employees are women, but only 16 percent of its store managers are.
Bizarrely, the corporation tried to lay the blame for holding back women on individual store managers, claiming that Wal-Mart did not operate as a centralized unit. Now, that's a scream, since this giant constantly brags that it's central computers keep track of every penny that comes in and goes out of its global empire, as well as tracking the performance of every employee. Workers can't take a piss without headquarters knowing how long it took!
Of course, rather than do right by the women it has routinely wronged, Wal-Mart will continue to unleash its bevy of lawyers to drag out the case, hoping women will be discouraged and quit. But I don't think these ladies are quitters. It's already been six years – and justice is drawing closer.
This is Jim Hightower saying... To keep informed, go to www.walmartwatch.com.
Sources:
"Wal-Mart is handed a setback in sex bias suit," Austin American-Statesman, February 7, 2007.
"Court Approves Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart," New York Times, February 7, 2007.
Nasser, David. Letter. February 7, 2007.
"Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination," CMH&T, February 7, 2007.
"Federal Judge Order Wal-Mart Store, The Nation's Private Employer, To Stand trial for Company-Wide Sex Discrimination," June 22, 2004.
HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!!!!! Dirty rat bastards!!!!!
Hope I didn't offend Levistep :missingte
who are these people that shop at walmart? They are the soldiers. They are the ones who fight and die in Iraq. They are the ones whose children, fathers, brothers, sisters, come home in flag draped caskets. These white trash rednecks that the middle and upper classes look down on, are the greatest among us. THEY ARE THE SOLDIERS!!!
I agree CNC. Walmart sucks!!! The people who shop there, though, fight the wars. I joined the Air Force in 1986. Only 5 out of 60 in my basic training squadron, had ever taken a college course. Like it or not, it's mostly the working class who fight and die in wars, and it's mostly the working class who shop at Walmart.
This is why I refuse to shop at Welfare-Mart
Wal-Mart Welfare
How taxpayers subsidize the world's largest retailer.
by Jenna Wright
Dollars and Sense magazine, January/February 2005
Wal-Mart has released its expansion plans for 2005, and Americans can expect up to 230 new supercenters to open in their communities. The company plans to open SO million square feet of retail space this year. President and CEO Lee Scott is confident the expansion will boost Wal-Mart's bottom line. But it takes money to make money, and WalMart is getting a surprising amount of that seed money, along with massive subsidies to its existing operations, from U.S. taxpayers.
A raft of studies show that millions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to new and existing Wal-Mart stores around the country. In many instances, individual Wal-Mart facilities have received either direct or indirect subsidies from states and localities. Last May, Good Jobs First (GJF), a research and advocacy group that seeks to hold corporations accountable when they receive public subsidies, released a report detailing subsidies WalMart has received to build both retail stores and the network of nearly 100 distribution centers the company has created to facilitate its expansion. The group found that over 90% of the company's distribution centers have been subsidized. It also uncovered 91 instances when the retail stores received public funds, and believes "the real total is certainly much higher."
GJF investigators documented 244 Wal-Mart subsidy deals with a total value of $1.008 billion. Taxpayer dollars have helped individual stores and distribution centers with everything from free or cut-price land to general grants. One example: in Sharon Springs, N.Y., a distribution center made a deal with an industrial development agency for the agency to hold the legal title to the facility so the corporation could evade property taxes. Good Jobs First estimates that Wal-Mart will save about $46 million over the life of this one agreement.
Subsidizing Low Wages
Wal-Mart's low-road labor policies give the corporation access to a less obvious taxpayer subsidy: government benefits to its employees. The company's policies by now are notorious: wages at or close to poverty level, managers discouraged from awarding overtime, employees forced to work off the clock without pay and repeatedly denied their right to organize. The result is that many Wal-Mart employees are eligible for myriad forms of public assistance. In other words, by providing financial assistance in various forms to Wal-Mart employees, the federal and state governments are essentially subsidizing the corporation for its substandard wages and benefits.
Health care benefits represent one such subsidy. Wal-Mart's employee health coverage is minimal and expensive; little of the company's vast low-wage workforce is covered. Nationally, two-thirds of workers at large firms get health insurance from their employer. But at WalMart, only 41% to 46% of employees use the company's health insurance, in large part because many of Wal-Mart's low-wage workers simply cannot afford to pay the high premium the company
charges.
In 2001, Wal-Mart workers paid 42% of the total cost of the company's health plan. In contrast, the typical large business expects employees to pay only 16% of the total cost for individual coverage, or 25% for family coverage. At discount retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club stores, employees pay less than 10%; as a result, 82% of them are covered through the company.
Instead of providing affordable health insurance, Wal-Mart encourages its employees to sign up for publicly funded programs, dodging its health care costs and passing them on to taxpayers. The company is the poster child for a problem outlined in a 2003 AFL-CIO report on Wal-Mart's role in the health care crisis: "federal, state and local governments" - American taxpayers - must pick up the multi-billion-dollar tab for employees and dependents, especially children, of large and profitable employers who are forced to rely on public hospitals and other public health programs for care and treatment they need but cannot obtain under their employers' health plans."
In Georgia, one of every four WalMart employees has a child in the state's PeachCare health program, according to a recent survey. Over 10,000 of the 166,000 children covered by PeachCare have a parent working for Wal-Mart; no other employer in the state has a comparable share of its employees in the program.
In California, the families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 40% more in publicly funded health care than the average for families of employees at other large retail firms, according to an August 2003 study by University of California, Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations. Providing health care to Wal-Mart families costs California taxpayers an estimated $32 million annually.
Thanks to their poverty-level wages, Wal-Mart workers are often eligible for other kinds of government assistance as well. The same study found that California Wal-Mart employees and their families utilize an additional $54 million in non-health related federal assistance, including food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing.
The Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimated the breakdown of costs for one 200-employee Wal-Mart store:
* $36,000 a year for free or reduced school lunches, assuming that 50 families of employees qualify.
* $42,000 a year for Section 8 rental assistance, assuming that 3% of the store employees qualify.
* $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming that 50 employees are heads of households with a child, and 50 employees are married with two children.
* $108,000 a year for the additional federal contribution to state children's health insurance programs, assuming
that 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
* $100,000 a year for additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 families with two children qualify.
* $9,750 a year for the additional costs of low-income energy assistance.
Overall, the committee estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in an excess cost of $420,750 a year for federal taxpayers.
The effects of Wal-Mart's free-loader policies radiate beyond Wal-Mart itself; Wal-Mart employees are not the only victims. Firms large and small are forced to cut their own costs in order to compete, creating a "race to the bottom, in which everyone suffers," according to the AFL-CIO report. Employers that provide adequate pay and benefits to their employees are under pressure from companies like Wal-Mart that do not. The result: a growing low-wage sector and ever-greater need for government benefits (funded, incidentally, by an increasingly regressive tax structure).
As an economic power, Wal-Mart is in a class by itself, with over $8 billion in net income last year-it's about five times the size of the second-largest retailer in the United States. Wal-Mart's sheer size means it can drag whole sectors with millions of workers both in the United States and abroad down its low-road path. Taxpayers are feeding this giant corporate monster, and at a very high price.
Wal-Mart Welfare
How taxpayers subsidize the world's largest retailer.
by Jenna Wright
Dollars and Sense magazine, January/February 2005
Wal-Mart has released its expansion plans for 2005, and Americans can expect up to 230 new supercenters to open in their communities. The company plans to open SO million square feet of retail space this year. President and CEO Lee Scott is confident the expansion will boost Wal-Mart's bottom line. But it takes money to make money, and WalMart is getting a surprising amount of that seed money, along with massive subsidies to its existing operations, from U.S. taxpayers.
A raft of studies show that millions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to new and existing Wal-Mart stores around the country. In many instances, individual Wal-Mart facilities have received either direct or indirect subsidies from states and localities. Last May, Good Jobs First (GJF), a research and advocacy group that seeks to hold corporations accountable when they receive public subsidies, released a report detailing subsidies WalMart has received to build both retail stores and the network of nearly 100 distribution centers the company has created to facilitate its expansion. The group found that over 90% of the company's distribution centers have been subsidized. It also uncovered 91 instances when the retail stores received public funds, and believes "the real total is certainly much higher."
GJF investigators documented 244 Wal-Mart subsidy deals with a total value of $1.008 billion. Taxpayer dollars have helped individual stores and distribution centers with everything from free or cut-price land to general grants. One example: in Sharon Springs, N.Y., a distribution center made a deal with an industrial development agency for the agency to hold the legal title to the facility so the corporation could evade property taxes. Good Jobs First estimates that Wal-Mart will save about $46 million over the life of this one agreement.
Subsidizing Low Wages
Wal-Mart's low-road labor policies give the corporation access to a less obvious taxpayer subsidy: government benefits to its employees. The company's policies by now are notorious: wages at or close to poverty level, managers discouraged from awarding overtime, employees forced to work off the clock without pay and repeatedly denied their right to organize. The result is that many Wal-Mart employees are eligible for myriad forms of public assistance. In other words, by providing financial assistance in various forms to Wal-Mart employees, the federal and state governments are essentially subsidizing the corporation for its substandard wages and benefits.
Health care benefits represent one such subsidy. Wal-Mart's employee health coverage is minimal and expensive; little of the company's vast low-wage workforce is covered. Nationally, two-thirds of workers at large firms get health insurance from their employer. But at WalMart, only 41% to 46% of employees use the company's health insurance, in large part because many of Wal-Mart's low-wage workers simply cannot afford to pay the high premium the company
charges.
In 2001, Wal-Mart workers paid 42% of the total cost of the company's health plan. In contrast, the typical large business expects employees to pay only 16% of the total cost for individual coverage, or 25% for family coverage. At discount retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club stores, employees pay less than 10%; as a result, 82% of them are covered through the company.
Instead of providing affordable health insurance, Wal-Mart encourages its employees to sign up for publicly funded programs, dodging its health care costs and passing them on to taxpayers. The company is the poster child for a problem outlined in a 2003 AFL-CIO report on Wal-Mart's role in the health care crisis: "federal, state and local governments" - American taxpayers - must pick up the multi-billion-dollar tab for employees and dependents, especially children, of large and profitable employers who are forced to rely on public hospitals and other public health programs for care and treatment they need but cannot obtain under their employers' health plans."
In Georgia, one of every four WalMart employees has a child in the state's PeachCare health program, according to a recent survey. Over 10,000 of the 166,000 children covered by PeachCare have a parent working for Wal-Mart; no other employer in the state has a comparable share of its employees in the program.
In California, the families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 40% more in publicly funded health care than the average for families of employees at other large retail firms, according to an August 2003 study by University of California, Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations. Providing health care to Wal-Mart families costs California taxpayers an estimated $32 million annually.
Thanks to their poverty-level wages, Wal-Mart workers are often eligible for other kinds of government assistance as well. The same study found that California Wal-Mart employees and their families utilize an additional $54 million in non-health related federal assistance, including food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing.
The Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimated the breakdown of costs for one 200-employee Wal-Mart store:
* $36,000 a year for free or reduced school lunches, assuming that 50 families of employees qualify.
* $42,000 a year for Section 8 rental assistance, assuming that 3% of the store employees qualify.
* $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming that 50 employees are heads of households with a child, and 50 employees are married with two children.
* $108,000 a year for the additional federal contribution to state children's health insurance programs, assuming
that 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
* $100,000 a year for additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 families with two children qualify.
* $9,750 a year for the additional costs of low-income energy assistance.
Overall, the committee estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in an excess cost of $420,750 a year for federal taxpayers.
The effects of Wal-Mart's free-loader policies radiate beyond Wal-Mart itself; Wal-Mart employees are not the only victims. Firms large and small are forced to cut their own costs in order to compete, creating a "race to the bottom, in which everyone suffers," according to the AFL-CIO report. Employers that provide adequate pay and benefits to their employees are under pressure from companies like Wal-Mart that do not. The result: a growing low-wage sector and ever-greater need for government benefits (funded, incidentally, by an increasingly regressive tax structure).
As an economic power, Wal-Mart is in a class by itself, with over $8 billion in net income last year-it's about five times the size of the second-largest retailer in the United States. Wal-Mart's sheer size means it can drag whole sectors with millions of workers both in the United States and abroad down its low-road path. Taxpayers are feeding this giant corporate monster, and at a very high price.
At least 70 percent of items sold in Wal-Mart stores have a Chinese component.
According to Ted Fishman, author of the newly published China, Inc., “…there’s a Chinese component in virtually every aisle you walk there in Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart is the conduit for all of the output of the Chinese economy directly into American lives.” Fishman also notes, “…70 percent of the things sold in Wal-Mart stores have a Chinese component to them.” And a stock analyst for Gladstone Capital notes that figure is even higher, saying, “They have about 70 percent of their products coming from China, not including the food products.” The “Buy American” program has virtually vanished, as “its shelves bear little trace of the ‘Buy American’ philosophy of its founder,” notes the Washington Post. [CNN, 2/16/05; NPR, 2/12/05; Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 3/27/05; Gladstone Capital Quarterly Shareholders Call, 2/10/05; Washington Post, 10/29/03]
Wal-Mart is China’s Eighth Largest Trading Partner. One company, ahead of Russia and Germany!
Figures vary about how much Wal-Mart purchases from China, and Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott has evaded fully answering that question, but is it widely estimated by scholars and journalists that Wal-Mart is China’s eighth largest trading partner. [Scott Interview, ABC “Good Morning America,” 1/13/05; PBS Frontline, 2004; CBS, 12/14/03; New York Times, 4/17/04; US News & World Report, 9/15/03]
$20 billion saved, billions more lost
Wal-Mart's relentless drive to deliver low prices now directly saves American consumers $20 billion a year by one estimate -- and probably several times that sum once the indirect effect on competitors is factored in. To win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China.
According to Ted Fishman, author of the newly published China, Inc., “…there’s a Chinese component in virtually every aisle you walk there in Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart is the conduit for all of the output of the Chinese economy directly into American lives.” Fishman also notes, “…70 percent of the things sold in Wal-Mart stores have a Chinese component to them.” And a stock analyst for Gladstone Capital notes that figure is even higher, saying, “They have about 70 percent of their products coming from China, not including the food products.” The “Buy American” program has virtually vanished, as “its shelves bear little trace of the ‘Buy American’ philosophy of its founder,” notes the Washington Post. [CNN, 2/16/05; NPR, 2/12/05; Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 3/27/05; Gladstone Capital Quarterly Shareholders Call, 2/10/05; Washington Post, 10/29/03]
Wal-Mart is China’s Eighth Largest Trading Partner. One company, ahead of Russia and Germany!
Figures vary about how much Wal-Mart purchases from China, and Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott has evaded fully answering that question, but is it widely estimated by scholars and journalists that Wal-Mart is China’s eighth largest trading partner. [Scott Interview, ABC “Good Morning America,” 1/13/05; PBS Frontline, 2004; CBS, 12/14/03; New York Times, 4/17/04; US News & World Report, 9/15/03]
$20 billion saved, billions more lost
Wal-Mart's relentless drive to deliver low prices now directly saves American consumers $20 billion a year by one estimate -- and probably several times that sum once the indirect effect on competitors is factored in. To win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China.
Just stop in out of curiosity at the new Super Walmart in the area. Never been a fan of Walmart, always avoided it. But will admit its night and day difference from this Super to the regular ones. Really nice place. Now will I go back, probally not, its still a Walmart and I don't believe in Walmart practices.
