Merchant of Shame

WAL-MART -- the world's largest corporation -- doesn't take no for an
answer. When it decided to build 40 new big-box stores in California, it
acted as though it had a divine right to expand its empire into the state.

When Contra Costa County supervisors tried to ban the behemoth, Wal-Mart
placed a referendum on the ballot -- and won. When Oakland decided to ban
such "supercenters" -- stores the size of several football fields that
also sell groceries -- Wal-Mart sued.

If, as expected, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approves a ban on
such big-box stores this week, you can be sure the corporation will fight
back.

It's unlikely, however, that Wal-Mart will employ the same tactics that
resulted in its recent defeat in Inglewood. With breathtaking arrogance,
Wal- Mart tried to exempt itself from all environmental, traffic and
zoning laws in that low-income community. In response, residents stood up
to the giant retailer, opposed the corporation's initiative, and on April
6 voted the plan down, 61 to 39 percent.

But neither community opposition nor 6,549 active individual employee
lawsuits worry the giant retailer. The real threats that have rattled
corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., are the class-action suits,
especially a huge sex discrimination claim awaiting certification by a San
Francisco federal judge.

In 2001, two California women, joined by four workers from other states,
(Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Store, Inc.) charged that Wal-Mart had discriminated
against its female employees in promotion, wages and job assignments.

Between 1996 and 2001, women took home about 5 percent less than men doing
similar jobs. Most women workers -- 72 percent of the sales force --
earned $6.10 per hour and $12,688 per year, which made half their families
eligible for the federal food stamp program and government-funded health
care for their children.

In September 2003, lead attorney Brad Seligman asked a San Francisco
federal judge to certify the suit as a class-action suit.

Wal-Mart argues that any discrimination that has occurred is due to
different job descriptions and rogue managers. Seligman, however, says
that the corporation fosters a common culture. "All managers are trained
together. This is not a case involving disparate autonomous stores."

If the judge rules favorably, the suit will represent 1.6 million former
and current women workers -- making it the largest class-action suit in
history against the biggest corporation in the world.

"Individual employee lawsuits," says Seligman, "are like a fly biting an
elephant. Only large class-action suits scare such a large corporation."

Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, agrees. "It's No. 1 on our radar
screen right now, " she said, soon after Seligman filed for class-action
status.

Accustomed to opposition from labor unions and environmentalists, Wal-
Mart was caught off guard when the National Organization for Women in 2002
officially designated the corporation a "Merchant of Shame" -- a label
bestowed upon businesses that have the worst labor practices.

Since then, hundreds of NOW activists have been canvassing local Wal-Mart
stores, trying to inform consumers -- who like the low prices, easy
parking and one-stop shopping -- how the corporation is able to offer such
great deals: Wal-Mart pays a pittance to workers in sweatshops in China,
squeezes its suppliers, compensates its employees with the industry's
lowest wages and offers unaffordable health benefits.

Wal-Mart also faces 30 other employee class-actions suits across the
country, four of which have received certification. Last week, the
California Supreme Court gave the green light to a class-action suit that
will proceed to trial next September in Oakland.

The suit, which represents about 204,000 California employees, charges
that Wal-Mart managers routinely forced workers to labor without taking
required rest or meal breaks and to work overtime without payment.

The reasons for these practices, according to Jessica Grant, an attorney
with the San Francisco firm that represents the workers, is that Wal-Mart
habitually understaffs its stores. Workers must skip breaks and work
unpaid overtime or risk getting fired. Grant also told me that Wal-Mart
has recently asked workers to sign waivers for meal breaks. When the case
goes to trial, the corporation will then argue that workers didn't really
want any time to eat.

Wal-Mart has denied all allegations. It has also launched a television
advertising campaign that features beaming workers describing their
excellent health care and casts the corporation as a good neighbor who
contributes "good works" to local communities.

Wal-Mart knows no shame.