24 hours at a time with no overtime pay

According to a recent front-page article in Bloomberg Magazine, Wal-Mart hired a defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, to use military-grade cybersecurity techniques to monitor the social media accounts of labor organizers and Wal-Mart employees. Worse, on at least one occasion, the company’s global security team “began working with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces” to counter worker protests.¹

Giant corporations shouldn’t be able to enlist the FBI’s help to crack down on workers simply asking for dignity and respect. So we are joining our friends at OUR Walmart to demand that the Department of Justice investigate the FBI’s relationship with Wal-Mart and whether the agency or company broke any laws.

Tell the Justice Department: Investigate reported FBI spying on Wal-Mart employees. Click here to sign the petition.

Wal-Mart jobs pay so little that some workers go hungry. Most face irregular hours that make it impossible to raise parents or plan ahead, and have few benefits or health care coverage. All Wal-Mart employees are asking for is higher pay, safe working conditions, dependable schedules, and respect in the workplace.² This is not terrorism, and there is no way the FBI should be involved.

The Bloomberg report reveals an intentional and long-running effort on the part of Wal-Mart executives to monitor current and former employees who are involved with OUR Walmart. Wal-Mart organized a “Delta team” of executives tasked with cracking down, staffed up its labor hotline, and hired Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest defense contractors in the world.³ Many of the employees monitored were later fired, potentially violating the law.⁴

In 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Wal-Mart, claiming that the company violated labor law in 14 states by engaging in retaliation against workers who organized for better pay and better lives.⁵ The NLRB investigation turned up thousands of documents, some of which detail Wal-Mart’s hiring of Lockheed Martin – and its unacceptable coordination with the FBI.⁶

OUR Walmart has submitted a letter to the Department of Justice demanding an investigation, and we need to show that hundreds of thousands of Americans stand with them.⁷

Tell the Justice Department: Investigate reported FBI spying on Wal-Mart employees. Click here to sign the petition.

We do not know how often the FBI and Wal-Mart have teamed up. The documents unearthed by the NLRB also do not reveal the extent of FBI involvement in monitoring protesters who traveled by bus across the country to the retail behemoth’s Arkansas headquarters. It is also possible that Wal-Mart used information turned over by the FBI to illegally retaliate against employees.⁸

OUR Walmart and Wal-Mart workers have been at the forefront of the "Fight for $15" and their courageous stand has yielded results providing momentum for higher wages across the country. If the FBI’s anti-terrorism team is partnering with Wal-Mart, it may be working with other companies as well. We need to make sure the Justice Department doesn’t turn a blind eye any outrageous and dangerous abuse of authority targeting Wal-Mart workers.

Tell the Justice Department: Investigate reported FBI spying on Wal-Mart employees. Click below to sign the petition:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/FBI_walmart?t=7&akid=16624.5084505._Fq35q

Thank you for speaking out,

Murshed Zaheed, Deputy Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Add your name:

1. Susan Berfield, “How Walmart Keeps an Eye on Its Massive Workforce,” Bloomberg, November 24, 2015.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. OUR Walmart, "Letters to the Department of Justice," United4Respect.org, January 14, 2016.
5. Amanda Becker, “U.S. labor board alleges Wal-Mart violated labor law in 14 states,” Reuters, January 15, 2014.
6. Berfield, “How Walmart Keeps an Eye on Its Massive Workforce.”
7. OUR Walmart, "Letters to the Department of Justice," United4Respect.org, January 14, 2016.
8. Berfield, “How Walmart Keeps an Eye on Its Massive Workforce.”

rash of violence in USA

29/11/2015

Friday’s mass shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood health center, alongside last week’s white supremacist attack on a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis, is a stark reminder that domestic terrorists continues to be one of the most real and present threats to Americans’ safety.

Monsanto's GMO sweet corn

Published on Aug 1, 2013

14 year old Rachel Parent debates Kevin O'Leary on the issue of Genetically Modified Food
Donate to the cause at Rachel's website: http://www.gmo-news.com
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network: www.cban.ca
petition for mandatory GMO food labelling: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Brin...
O'Leary knocks himself out: http://youtu.be/OFS035Kdo-s
Rachel's challenge to O'Leary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcXK...
original broadcast on CBC: If you want to see CBC's "The Lang O'Leary Exchange" with the commercials: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Show...

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

---

Clicking here will automatically add your name to this to Walmart CEO Mike Duke: "Walmart: Live up to your commitment to consumer safety, and reject Monsanto's untested and potentially toxic genetically-modified sweet corn before it's planted this spring." Automatically add your name: Learn more about this campaign Unlabeled. Untested. Unsafe. Walmart, don't sell Monsanto's GMO sweet corn! Dear Friend, This spring, Monsanto's GMO sweet corn — their first product for direct human consumption — will be getting planted for the first time. Then it will be sold, unlabeled, in a grocery store near you. What would it take to stop it? It would take the largest food retailer in the country rejecting Monsanto's untested, potentially toxic corn. Tell Walmart: Don't carry Monsanto's GMO sweet corn! Click here to automatically sign the petition. In response to pressure from more than 250,000 CREDO Activists and others last fall, Trader Joes, Whole Foods and General Mills all committed not to sell Monsanto's sweet corn.1 But not Walmart. Walmart, wrote to us that "nothing is more important than the safety and satisfaction of our customers." But that's just not consistent with selling this unlabeled GMO sweet corn, which contains three genetic modifications — including the insecticide Bt — and hasn't been tested to prove it is safe for humans to eat.2 Walmart could make a powerful statement for consumer safety by rejecting Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, but they won't do it unless we put very public pressure on the company. Tell Walmart: Don't carry Monsanto's GMO sweet corn! Click here to automatically sign the petition. This corn is Monsanto's first foray into designing GMO foods that could wind up whole on your plate. If it's successful, we can be sure that it will just be the beginning for Monsanto, who already produces roughly 90% of GMO seeds around the globe. As the largest food retailer, and even the largest seller of organic foods, Walmart can set an important precedent that could keep Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, and any future GMO foods, from taking root. If Walmart really means that nothing is more important than their customers safety then they need to take a stand now. Click below to automatically sign the petition: http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5535403&id=35505-5154581-RZHw_fx&t=10 Thanks for fighting for safe and healthy food. Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets 1. "Food companies petitioned to ban new Monsanto GMO corn," Reuters, 10/27/11 2. "Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals," Huffington Post, 3/18/10

Walmart Stores, Inc

LOS ANGELES -- Warehouse workers in Southern California have filed a petition in court to name Walmart as a defendant in a federal wage-theft lawsuit, marking a significant turn in low-wage supply chain workers' fight with the world's largest retailer.

Although workers in Walmart's contracted warehouses in California and Illinois have alleged labor violations in the past, the filing on Friday is the first time Walmart itself has been directly implicated in the claims of abuse. Until now, only the retailer's subcontractors have been accused in court of shorting workers on pay and forcing them to work in substandard conditions.

"Walmart's name does not appear on any of these workers paychecks, and the Walmart logo does not appear on the t-shirts they're required to wear," Michael Rubin, the workers' lawyer, said on Friday. "But it has become increasingly clear that the ultimate liability for these workplace violations rests squarely on the shoulders of Walmart."

While Walmart directly manages much of its distribution network, the company outsources the operation of some of its largest warehouses to third-party logistics firms, which in turn hire low-paid temporary workers to perform the heavy lifting. These warehouses have become the target of a union-backed organizing effort through the groups Warehouse Workers United and Warehouse Workers for Justice, and several of them have been hit with employee lawsuits and labor-law violations.

Oligopolic cartels

A monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)^{[1][clarification needed]} Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.^[2] The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a company gains much greater market share than what is expected with perfect competition.

A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in a game theoretic manner – meaning that expectations about their behavior affects other players' choice of strategy and vice versa. This is to be contrasted with the model of perfect competition in which companies are "price takers" and do not have market power.
When not coerced legally to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition. (See also Bertrand, Cournot or Stackelberg equilibria, market power, market share, market concentration, Monopoly profit, industrial economics). Sometimes governments decide legally that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force such companies to divide into smaller independent corporations as was the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as was the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors by using practices (such as underselling) which derive from its market or political influence (see Chainstore paradox). There is often debate of whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are all examples of government granted and enforced monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived, by analogy with "monopoly", from the Greek ὀλίγοι (oligoi) "few" + πόλειν (pólein) "to sell". Because there are few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants.

Oligopoly is a common market form. As a quantitative description of oligopoly, the four-firm concentration ratio is often utilized. This measure expresses the market share of the four largest firms in an industry as a percentage. For example, as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular phone market.
Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.

Firms often collude in an attempt to stabilize unstable markets, so as to reduce the risks inherent in these markets for investment and product development.^{[citation needed]} There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be actual communication between companies)–for example, in some industries there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.

In other situations, competition between sellers in an oligopoly can be fierce, with relatively low prices and high production. This could lead to an efficient outcome approaching perfect competition. The competition in an oligopoly can be greater than when there are more firms in an industry if, for example, the firms were only regionally based and did not compete directly with each other.
Thus the welfare analysis of oligopolies is sensitive to the parameter values used to define the market's structure. In particular, the level of dead weight loss is hard to measure. The study of product differentiation indicates that oligopolies might also create excessive levels of differentiation in order to stifle competition.
Oligopoly theory makes heavy use of game theory to model the behavior of oligopolies:

• Stackelberg's duopoly. In this model the firms move sequentially (see Stackelberg competition).
• Cournot's duopoly. In this model the firms simultaneously choose quantities (see Cournot competition).
• Bertrand's oligopoly. In this model the firms simultaneously choose prices (see Bertrand competition).

In game theory, Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his own strategy unilaterally^[1]:14. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Phil are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Phil's decision, and Phil is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best payoff for all the players involved; in many cases, all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium: e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits.

Institutional Sociopathy

A complex, sobering documentary, THE CORPORATION takes its audience on a graphic and engaging quest to reveal the corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.

The high cost of cheap

A very good and true Documentary about Wal Mart! Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price is a feature length documentary that uncovers a retail giant's assault on families and American values. The film dives into the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to fight a Goliath. A working mother is forced to turn to public assistance to provide health care for her two small children. A Missouri family loses its business after Wal-Mart is given over $2 million to open its doors down the road. A mayor struggles to equip his first responders after Wal-Mart pulls out and relocates just outside the city limits. A community in California unites, takes on the giant, and wins! Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.

Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.

Check out their website: http://www.walmartmovie.com

The media material presented in this production is protected by the FAIR USE CLAUSE of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.

(2007) China Blue

They live crowded together in cement factory dormitories where water has to be carried upstairs in buckets. Their meals and rent are deducted from their wages, which amount to less than a dollar a day. Most of the jeans they make in the factory are purchased by retailers in the U.S. and other countries. CHINA BLUE takes viewers inside a blue jeans factory in southern China, where teenage workers struggle to survive harsh working conditions.

oil theft from Pemex

U.S. refineries bought millions of dollars worth of oil stolen from Mexican government pipelines and smuggled across the border, the U.S. Justice Department told The Associated Press - illegal operations now led by Mexican drug cartels expanding their reach.

Criminals - mostly drug gangs - tap remote pipelines, sometimes building pipelines of their own, to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil each year, the Mexican oil monopoly said. At least one U.S. oil executive has pleaded guilty to conspiracy in such a deal.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Homeland Security department is scheduled to return $2.4 million to Mexico's tax administration, the first batch of money seized during a binational investigation into smuggled oil that authorities expect to lead to more arrests and seizures.

"The United States is working with the Mexican government on the theft of oil," said Nancy Herrera, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston. "It's an ongoing investigation, with one indictment so far."

In that case, Donald Schroeder, president of Houston-based Trammo Petroleum, is scheduled to be sentenced in December after pleading guilty in May.

In a $2 million scheme, Herrera said, Schroeder purchased stolen Mexican oil that had been brought across the border in trucks and barges and sold it to various U.S. refineries, which she did not identify. Trammo's tiny firm profited about $150,000 in the scheme, she said.

Schroeder's attorneys said in an e-mail that neither they nor their client would respond to AP's requests for comment.

Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said a single indictment against a small company should not be used to smear the reputation of the entire U.S. oil industry, "and is not indicative of how domestic refiners operate."

But in Mexico, federal police commissioner Rodrigo Esparza said the Zetas, a fierce drug gang aligned with the Gulf cartel, used false import documents to smuggle at least $46 million worth of oil in tankers to unnamed U.S. refineries.

A law enforcement source told CBS News illicit proceeds from the scheme involving theft from the Mexican government-owned Pemex oil conglomerate were seized in the investigation.

In a surprising public acknowledgment, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said last week that drug cartels have extended their operations into the theft of oil, Mexico's leading source of foreign income which finances about 40 percent of the national budget.

"These are Mexican resources, and we do not have to sit back or turn a blind eye," Calderon said. "This is our national heritage and we must defend it."

Highly sophisticated thieves using Pemex equipment "are basically working day and night, seeing how they can penetrate our infrastructure," said Pemex spokesman Carlos Ramirez. The thieves, operating in remote parts of the country, have even built tunnels and their own pipelines to siphon off the product, he said.

How much of the stolen oil is crossing into the U.S., and how much of the theft is at the hands of cartels? So far, nobody knows.

"These questions are really the center point of all of this," Ramirez said.

He said cartels in northern Mexico are responsible for most of the theft, though he said there may well be internal operatives at Pemex stealing as well. Last week, police raided Pemex offices looking for insider misconduct.

Trammo, the sole company named in court records so far, is dwarfed by any refiner most people have heard of. It sells some 2.1 million barrels a year.

Major refiners such as San Antonio-based Valero Energy can produce more than that in a single day, buying crude from tankers or pipelines, and none has been implicated in buying stolen oil.

"It is Exxon Mobil's policy to always obey relevant laws, rules and regulations everywhere we operate," said spokesman Kevin Allexon. Shell Oil Co. said it abides by all laws.

Various kinds of petroleum products, including gasoline, are being stolen and sold to gas stations and factories in Mexico, said Ramirez, adding that service stations in at least two states have been shut down recently for selling stolen gas.

The thefts are a devastating blow to Pemex, which saw production fall 7.5 percent in the first half of the year.

So far this year, Pemex is aware of 190 different thefts, almost half in the Gulf state of Veracruz. Ramirez said Pemex is using hidden cameras, extra guards and additional investigators to catch the thieves, but the problem is still spreading: So far this year, oil theft is up 10 percent, and have been confirmed in 19 states, up from 13 in 2008.

And oil theft experts say that just like drugs, the crimes will be tough to stop as long as there's money to be made.

"U.S. refineries willing to buy stolen crude don't care where it comes from. Once the product is at their doorstep, the deal is done, and they can pay pennies on the dollar without taking the risk of getting it across the border," said Kent Chrisman, director for global security with Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy.

Chrisman, a former Secret Service agent, recently teamed up with Texas law enforcement agents to bust a ring of thieves in that state.

Oil theft in general is a relatively new problem, Chrisman said, "but we've seen a big spike in recent years because oil prices went up. Every year it seems to get worse and worse. It's a profitable business."

Wal-Mart de Mexico

By Jessica Wohl and Carlyn Kolker

(Reuters) - Allegations that Wal-Mart Stores Inc stymied an internal investigation into extensive bribery at its Mexican subsidiary are likely to lead to years of regulatory scrutiny and could eventually cost some executives their jobs.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that in September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an email from Sergio Cicero Zapata, a former executive at the company's largest foreign unit, Wal-Mart de Mexico, describing how the subsidiary had paid bribes to obtain permits to build stores in the country.

Wal-Mart sent investigators to Mexico City and found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million, but the company's leaders shut down the investigation and neglected to notify U.S. or Mexican law enforcement officials, the Times reported.

Legal and retail experts said that the allegations, if proven true, could badly hamper the company and its management for years. They could lead to a time-consuming global probe, substantial financial penalties paid to U.S. authorities, and the departure of some executives.

One option Wal-Mart will have is to remove some of those involved in the alleged bribery or cover-up as this could make it easier to reach an out-of-court settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice concerning possible breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a U.S. law that forbids the payment of bribes to foreign government officials.

"Among the remedial actions is 'house cleaning' of anyone involved in illegal conduct," said Richard Cassin, a lawyer who is an expert on the FCPA and writes a blog about it. "If a company can say those involved in the questionable conduct are already gone, the DOJ is likely to look more favorably on the company and current management."

Wal-Mart said it had disclosed its probe to the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also said it had taken steps at the Mexico unit, which is widely known as Walmex, to boost internal controls to make sure it was FCPA compliant.

But, according to the Times, the disclosure came only after it informed Wal-Mart that it was looking into the bribery allegations, years after the bribes were said to first come to management's attention.

A spokesman at the SEC said on Saturday he did not have any comment on the Times article. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.

"Because of Wal-Mart's inaction for a very long time, it's likely its exposure is only going to increase," said Michael Koehler, a professor at Butler University and an expert on the FCPA.

According to the Times, current Wal-Mart Chief Executive Mike Duke and former CEO Lee Scott, who still sits on the company's board, were among senior executives allegedly aware of the situation. Duke was put in charge of Wal-Mart's international division in 2005.

"DEEPLY CONCERNED"

The newspaper also reported that the whistleblower Cicero had identified former Walmex CEO Eduardo Castro-Wright as the driving force behind years of bribery.

Castro-Wright became CEO of Walmex in 2003 and was named CEO of Walmart US in 2005 and became a vice chairman in 2008. He led Wal-Mart's e-commerce business from 2010 until January this year, and is set to retire on July 1 after the company said last September that he was going to leave to spend more time with his family. He could not be reached for comment.

Wal-Mart said in a statement on Saturday it was "deeply concerned" about the allegations in the Times report. It said it began an investigation into its compliance with anti-bribery laws last autumn. The company declined to make Duke or any other executives available for comment, and said the investigation was continuing.

On Sunday, Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said Duke had instructed the company to conduct a worldwide FCPA compliance review in March 2011.

"Mike is fully supportive of the independent investigation being conducted in Mexico with oversight by the Audit Committee, including ensuring that all resources necessary are available to pursue the independent investigation aggressively," Tovar said.

On Friday, Walmex announced that one executive named the next day in the Times report, its general counsel and secretary to the board Jose Luis Rodriguezmacedo, had been assigned to other duties. He was removed from his role "in the interest of the investigation," Walmex spokesman Antonio Ocaranza said in an email, adding that he could not give further details about Rodriguezmacedo's status at Walmex. Calls to Rodriguezmacedo were referred to the spokesman.

COSTLY AND FAR-REACHING

Experts in bribery laws said Wal-Mart will be forced to devote millions of dollars and enormous amounts of manpower to its internal investigation. In many FCPA cases involving large companies, they do a large part of the investigation themselves and then hand the results over to the authorities.

"This is very likely to last two to four years for Walmart. These worldwide investigations tend to take two to four years in the normal course of business; it simply takes time," said Koehler.

Cassin said Wal-Mart faces an uphill battle to convince U.S. regulators that its problems are confined to Mexico. The U.S. retailer also has major operations in the UK, Brazil, Japan, China and Canada, and it is also seeking to expand rapidly in emerging markets such as India and parts of Africa.

"Before any resolution with U.S. authorities is possible, the company has to look under every stone for possible corruption. Are there any similar issues in China or other countries? That's what U.S. authorities will want to know. Wal-Mart's shareholders will be asking the same question," said Cassin.

The allegations could prove a huge problem for Wal-Mart if proven true, said Deutsche Bank retail analyst Charles Grom. "It would put a broadside in the growth engine of the company," he said. "Unlike prior bad PR stories in recent years, this will be a material distraction for Wal-Mart on multiple fronts."

Some retail experts said they thought that Wal-Mart would be unlikely to sacrifice Duke in the investigation and any related talks over a settlement with the government.

"I don't get the sense that Mike Duke's going to lose his job over this," said Joseph Feldman, senior retail analyst at Telsey Advisory Group. "I think that they'll try to put the spin on it that they have been putting on it - that it happened years ago, they rooted it out and it doesn't happen anymore."

The company's corporate structure may also reduce the chances of outside pressure from shareholder activists and others leading to drastic changes in the executive suite. The family of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton owns nearly 50 percent of the shares and Walton's eldest son, S. Robson (Rob) Walton, is chairman, and his younger brother Jim is also on the board.

According to the Times, Rob Walton, Duke and Scott also had received an anonymous email in January 2006 saying Wal-Mart de Mexico's top real estate executives were receiving kickbacks from construction companies.

IMAGE STRUGGLES

Wal-Mart, which employs 2.2 million people and runs more than 10,000 stores around the world, is often targeted by labor and community activists who argue that it underpays its workers and its sprawling stores undercut smaller shops, often putting them out of business. It has fought hard to improve its image in recent years with a number of campaigns, including one to make its operations more environmentally friendly.

Wal-Mart executives have, though, been active in a lobbying group that is pushing to scale back the FCPA. A 2010 tax return for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform lists Jeff Gearhart, Wal-Mart's general counsel since 2009, and Thomas Hyde, who retired in August 2010 as Wal-Mart corporate secretary, as two of 40 people who served as board members.

The board includes top lawyers and executives from other major corporations. Dow Chemical Co, Exxon Mobil Corp and State Farm Insurance each had two people among the 40 listed board members during 2010.

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform is associated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. It wants lawmakers to make several changes to the corruption law, for example by adding a provision that would protect a corporation from liability if one of its employees circumvented compliance measures.

(Additional reporting by Jennifer Ablan, Aruna Viswanatha, Jeremy Pelofsky, David Ingram, Elinor Comlay and Suzi Parker; Editing by Maureen Bavdek and Martin Howell)