Wal-Mart vs. Karl Marx


Wal-Mart in Karl Marx street in Berlin, Germany

This is a photo of Wal-Mart in Karl Marx street in (West) Berlin, Germany.

See also here.

USA: Black Teacher May Get 15 Years in Prison for Cutting in Line at Wal-Mart: here.

It must have seemed like a great plot line at the time. In 2005, Wal-Mart and Netflix announced that the companies’ two online retail sites would “promote each other’s core business.” Now, the deal is back in the headlines — but with a negative spin: here.

More than six years before the biggest sex discrimination lawsuit in history was filed against Wal-Mart Stores, the company hired a prominent law firm to examine its vulnerability to just such a suit: here.

Why the Wal-Mart Case Is So Important to Women, Minorities: here.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes and the Matter of Size. Erica Payne, New Deal 2.0: “Women’s History Month is a celebration of women’s progress and the American piece of this epic story began in Lawrence, Massachusetts, when 25,000 mill workers took to the streets to protest for better wages. One particularly memorable account from the Bread and Roses strike involves several women who surrounded a police officer, stole his gun and then his pants and then tried to throw him in a river. The officer was saved from an icy dunking by fellow members of the force (who were colluding with the mill owners to stop these fierce women from striking). Here in the U.S., we will best honor our sisters past and present by ensuring that women’s progress doesn’t come to a grinding halt on March 29th in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court”: here.

3 thoughts on “Wal-Mart vs. Karl Marx

  1. Dear Friends, Colleagues and Supporters,
    Watch the video
    1. Watch and share this video
    2. Sign the memo
    3. Tell us your Starbucks story

    Both corporate giants have long track records of harassing their workers when it comes to joining unions. Harassment and intimidation are illegal under Federal law, and we won’t stand for it. Tell Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ billionaire owner, to respect the people who work for Starbucks.

    “The regional manager literally told us that we weren’t allowed to invite people to union meetings…that’s the same kind of violation that you see at Wal-Mart,” said Erik Forman, a former Starbucks employee fired for union organizing.

    Starbucks, like retail giant Wal-Mart, has a well-established history of breaking labor laws. The company has spent millions settling five labor complaints in the past few years alone, and it has fought hard against the Employee Free Choice Act in an attempt to continue intimidating workers hoping to unionize. In 2005, we took on Wal-Mart for their assault on workers with Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. Now we are exposing Starbucks’ atrocious labor practices in our newest campaign, Stop Starbucks.

    Watch the video to see Starbucks’ blatant disregard for workers’ rights.

    SPILL THE BEANS ABOUT STARBUCKS:

    1. Sign the memo insisting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz allow workers to unionize. Help us reach 50,000 signatures before Congress votes on the Employee Free Choice Act. We will deliver the petition to Schultz, sending the clear message that corporations should support this vital legislation.

    2. Send the video to your friends and family and post it on your Facebook page. Starbucks and Schultz’s mistreatment of workers must be known.

    3. Spread the word on Digg and make this campaign become more prominent than a Starbucks on every corner.

    4. Tell us your Starbucks story. If you’ve ever worked at a Starbucks or even purchased a cup of coffee from them, we want to hear about it.

    There are over 127,000 baristas in our country alone, many of whom are in dire need of better wages, health benefits, and hours. Shouldn’t they have the right to be treated fairly? Sign the memo and tell Schultz to stop his mistreatment of workers.

    Yours,
    Robert Greenwald, Christopher Sprinkle, Erikka Yancy
    and the Brave New Films team

    Like

  2. Wal-Mart pays out over sex inequality

    US: Retail giant Wal-Mart has agreed to pay out nearly $12 million (£8m) and change its recruitment practices to settle a sex-discrimination suit over hiring at a Kentucky warehouse.

    Bosses reached the deal with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Monday, when a trial was set to open in a nine-year-old lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart illegally hired people based on gender, bypassing women for jobs at its London regional distribution centre.

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/87488

    Like

  3. BUZZFLASH DAILY HEADLINES

    Will we one day wake up to a completely Walmartized world?

    That’s a question that is not out of the realm of possibility, considering Walmart’s rapid expansion around the globe, including – of course – as a manufacturer and seller in China.

    South Africa has given conditional approval to Walmart buying up the nation’s third-largest retailer, but is having some second thoughts, according to WalmartWatch.org.

    Apparently, some departments in the South African government are now concerned about Walmart’s commitment to buying local produce and the issue of local businesses and unions. According to a South African newspaper:

    A key condition sought by the three departments is that the merged entity will “at least maintain or increase the percentage of pre-merger local procurement by product category.”

    The departments’ submission suggests that Walmart and Massmart’s initial “willingness to co-operate in an attempt to alleviate those concerns” faded significantly last month after the Competition Commission recommended unconditional approval for the proposed merger….

    The departments have requested the postponement [of the final approval of the merger] because they now believe that as a result of “the refusal of the merging parties to make any tangible or enforceable commitments, particularly with regard to procurement and small (especially broad-based BEE) businesses,” it is necessary for them to intervene more actively in the merger proceedings.

    In short, Walmart is saying – as was the mantra in the Bush administration – trust a large corporation to self-regulate itself.

    As Ronald Reagan said about the Soviet Union, however, a more appropriate stance in relation to Walmart would be “trust, but verify.”

    Or better yet, let them show the world that they can be trusted. They’ve got a lot of work to do there.

    Mark Karlin
    Editor, BuzzFlash at Truthout

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.