After years of pretty staunch resistance, Walmart (WMT) may finally be gaining access to the nation's third-biggest market: Chicago. In the past, labor unions and other organizations had banned the retailing giant from the metro area, citing unreasonable salaries and unfair treatment.

In an effort to respond to these concerns, WMT has devised the "Chicago Community Investment Partnership," which carries enough economic clout to win over the Windy City's decision-makers. As Alderman Anthony A. Beale summed up in a release, "most of all, [the city of Chicago] need(s) good jobs."

The Partnership, to be carried out over the next five years, promises the following:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (WMT) will be paying $86 million as the result of a class-action lawsuit in regards to back wages owed to California employees who left the company only to see built-up benefits apparently vaporize into thin air.

The amount is a small one for the retailing behemoth, and the retailer did not admit to not paying those back wages to some 232,000 former employees. The case, filed in 2006, claimed that back wages were either delayed beyond the amount allowed by state law or weren't provided at all to these former employees. The company had already settled another lawsuit in 2008 over similar issues for a total of $640 million.

Speaking at Bloomberg Washington Summit Friday, Steven Rattner, the former head of the government's auto task force, wasn't exactly in the mood for pulling punches.

Referring to his time overseeing the government involvement in the auto industry, he said that "They were some of the worst-run companies I've ever seen in my life," and said there was plenty of blame to go around, including unions and the companies' executives.

This winter, a bit more of New York is headed to Florida. Layoffs for 2010 have already been announced for the New York Times Company(NYT). The New York Times News Service will lose 25 editorial positions next year and shift the service's editing to one of the parent company's Florida newspapers. At present, the news service has 30 editorial jobs. Some of the layoffs will occur in February, and the others will happen in May.

These layoffs are not included in the planned slashing of 100 jobs in the flagship newspaper's newsroom -- a workforce reduction of 8% that should take hold by the end of the year. The NY Times is also ceasing pension contributions for nonunion employees.

Reportedly, a bankruptcy judge has given General Motors (OTC: GMGMQ) the okay to sell a majority of its assets to a new company. This move could open the path for General Motors to "quickly emerge from bankruptcy protection," the AP wrote. U.S. Judge Robert Gerber said in his ruling late Sunday that the sale "was in the best interests of both GM and its creditors," who would get nothing otherwise.

In his ruling, Gerber wrote, "As nobody can seriously dispute, the only alternative to an immediate sale is liquidation - a disastrous result for GM's creditors, its employees, the suppliers who depend on GM for their own existence, and the communities in which GM operates."

Reports have surfaced in London that Italian automaker Fiat is ready to walk away from the Chrysler deal. The bone of contention is high labor costs. The Italian firm has given the U.S. auto firm and Canadian and American labor unions until the end of the month to "significantly reduce labor costs." This revelation was made in an interview of Fiat's CEO Sergio Marchionne in the Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail. Fiat wants Chrysler to lower the labor costs to Japanese and German plants levels.

The problem facing Chrysler is that the deal with Fiat is its last chance to stay out of bankruptcy. With Fiat ready to walk away from the deal, the North American unions had better agree to the demands or face some job losses. Let's not forget that Chrysler was given 30 days to complete the merger with Fiat or the American firm would be cut off from the government funding it is currently existing on.

Normally, unions blame management for corporate problems and management blames unions. The truth? Both are usually right.

But the Associated Press reports that exiled General Motors (NYSE: GM) CEO Richard Wagoner is being defended as a "sacrificial lamb," "scapegoat" and "fall guy" by workers and union bosses.

"We knew someone was going to have to take the proverbial `bullet,' and it would have made it a lot easier to accept that had the CEOs of the banks also been required to give up their jobs," said Jim Graham, president of a union local in Lordstown, Ohio, where GM produces the Cobalt and Pontiac G5 fuel-efficient cars.

The comparison isn't entirely unreasonable: Ken Lewis and Vikram Pandit should have been dumped out on the street too, and it's a testimony to both appallingly bad corporate governance and poor oversight by the federal government that either of them currently has a job doing anything other than dogwalking.

But why defend Wagoner? By defending Wagoner's "leadership", people like Mr. Graham are essentially admitting that GM was essentially destined to fail because of overseas competition and its uncompetitive labor costs. If they want to deflect blame from themselves, they should be embracing the Richard Wagoner as The Man Who Ruined General Motors script. Otherwise, there's nowhere to point the finger but inward.

International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM) is taking offshoring to a new level.

According to CNN/Money, Big Blue has a program called Project Match that will "help interested workers whose jobs are on the chopping block to "identify potential opportunities in (overseas) growth markets and facilitate consideration by hiring managers in those markets.'" It will even help with moving costs and provide assistance with visas.

"Many big businesses aren't interested in getting the economy back on track by creating jobs. They've shown during the past 30 years that they're more interested in rewarding shareholders by cutting jobs."

The above quote comes from James P. Hoffa. These words, and other of Hoffa's rhetorical quips, appeared Friday, November 14, 2008, in The Detroit News. In his blog post there, Hoffa raises the banner of change, though perhaps not the typical organized labor banner that we're used to seeing. For the most part, Hoffa's words show me just how out of touch with the rank and file he really is. They also show how tightly tied to liberal fiscal politics he is.

On the one hand, James P. Hoffa claims that big businesses reward shareholders by cutting jobs. However, he neglects to acknowledge that in today's economic climate, cutting jobs is sometimes an essential ingredient in a business's very survival. He also seems to overlook the fact that those shareholders he's talking about are the exact same people he is talking to. I'd think that the president of the Teamsters would understand where pension funds and retirement portfolios tend to keep their money invested. The fiscal health of American retirement strategy is directly reflected in the fiscal health of Wall Street. You can tell J.P. Hoffa, that I said so.

Now, Hoffa is calling for the government to step in to save the auto makers. The implication here is that a government bailout will help to save auto industry jobs. What I believe he's really saying is that he'd like the reins of our auto industry handed over to the government. How convenient that would be for Hoffa and his organization. It would be especially convenient, when given how cozy Hoffa has become with the incoming administration.

Doing business in China was supposed to be cheap. As the old saying goes "cheap gets expensive." The central government wants all of the foreign companies with local operations to have unions. All of those workers will be able to stage stop strikes if they like. They can ask for more cash. They can demand more benefits.

China does not say this, but getting U.S. companies to take on unions means that there is a good chance insurance and other services, which the government might pay for, can come out of the pockets of firms like Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) and McDonald's (NYSE: MCD).

According to The New York Times, "The union push is coming at a time when global corporations are already facing rising labor and commodity costs in China." Of course, the communist government probably forgot to mention the labor issue when corporations from the U.S. started moving into China to get cheap manufacturing and access to the rapidly increasing consumer base. A classic bait and switch move.

China is putting the screws to foreign companies and that may backfire. The temptation to move manufacturing to other countries like Vietnam and Mexico is likely to grow. China may see some of its best employers begin to leave.

The Chinese may want to see conditions improve for its workers who are employed by outside companies, but the push could put a lot of local workers out on the streets. Doing business in China isn't what it used to be.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Welcome to the 74th installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions, and just a bit of everything else when it comes to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

This week, I'll be taking a look at whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s (NYSE: WMT) attempts to fend off unions in its stores can continue succeeding. With Labor Day occurring in the U.S. tomorrow, it seemed appropriate to delve a little into Wal-Mart's potential labor union situation in its U.S. stores based on small gains being made in Canadian Wal-Mart locations.

North of the U.S. border, there has been a successful attempt to unionize Wal-Mart workers in the province of Quebec. Although the location is small, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union sees it as an entry point into unionizing more Wal-Mart Supercenters in Canada.

With critics saying that the entry of Wal-Mart into many markets (if not all) has caused wages to go down and competition to deteriorate, the heat won't go down on Wal-Mart's fending off collective unions in its Canadian stores. And, when the heat gets hot enough, the UFCW and others will set their sights on U.S. locations -- the holy grail of organized labor potential if there ever was one. Wal-Mart isn't taking those threats lying down, and has even called meetings with U.S. managers to bring the upcoming Presidential election into the fray.

This is not the way to kick off the fall production season, typically a time when companies introduce new products and plans. Boeing (NYSE: BA) could lose up to $3.5 billion per month in revenue if a threatened strike by a machinist union occurs next week, USAToday reported Friday.

The potential action by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers could also delay the 787 Dreamliner program and other aircraft programs. About 27,000 machinists in Washington state, Oregon and Kansas would be affected.

Boeing's latest contract offer calls for an 11% pay increase in annual increments of 5%, 3%, and 3%, Bloomberg News reported Friday. Machinists would also get a $2,500 payment if they approve the new contract by September 3.

Stock Analyst C. Leonard Bauer told BloggingStocks Friday Boeing "will probably have to increase its offer to the IAM, given what's at stake for Boeing."

"Boeing is in a position where it can increase its labor cost base. Revenue remains strong, with large backorders," Bauer said. "Those facts, plus the fact that Boeing can not afford any more delays in the 787 program, means the IAM has the upper hand in these contract negotiations. I'm sure the machinists don't want a strike, either, so my call would be for Boeing to up its pay raise offer to 6%, 5%, and 5% for a 16% pay increase." Bauer added that he does not have a rating on nor own shares in Boeing.

I'm not normally one for union-bashing, but I'm puzzled by organized labor's record of private equity-bashing. The New York Post reports that the two million member Service Employees International Union wants increased government oversight of the private equity industry, with a special emphasis on the various banks that are in desperate need of cash.

"The biggest buyout firms are used to gaming the system to turn a profit -- it's no surprise they want special rules now to take over another sector of our economy," SEIU president Andy Stern told the Post.

KKR and other buyout shops counter that the SEIU is trying to unionize employees at companies acquired by private equity, and is grasping at straws to drum up support.

That may be the case, but I can't imagine one has to do with the other. Employees should join unions (or not) because they feel (or don't feel) that their pay, job security and working conditions will benefit from membership. Bashing buyout firms would seem to be an irrelevant sideshow and a counterproductive one at that. Many union pension plans are large shareholders in banks and other firms that stand to benefit from private equity involvement, and they may be shooting their members in the foot by fighting macro issues like banking regulations that have absolutely nothing to do with their members' interests.

It was a publicity nightmare for the Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS): Tinkerbell, Snow White, Pinocchio, and Minnie Mouse being handcuffed and hauled away from Disneyland in a police van.

32 costumed protesters were arrested for failing to obey a police order and traffic violations on Thursday. The protest was part of a labor dispute involving 2,300 workers at Disney's hotels: the Paradise Pier, the Grand Californian and the Disneyland Hotel.

The union's contract expired in February, and workers complain that the new offer from Disney management would make health care unaffordable and, according to the president of Unite Here Local 681, workers are comparable local hotels make $2-3 an hour more. You can read the details of the dispute here.

I can't imagine that stuff like this is good for traffic at Disneyland: imagine showing up for a day of fun rides with your family, only to have your 4-year old ask why Mickey and Goofy are being hauled off in handcuffs!

A Disney spokesman told the USA Today that "Publicity stunts are not productive and are extremely disruptive to the resort district."

But won't disrupting the resort district "encourage" Disney to meet its workers' demands? If so, that sounds productive to me!

The cold war between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and the unions is heating up again.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the world's largest retailer had warned employees that a Democratic president would back the Employee Free Choice Act, a law that would make it easier for unions to organize workers, which the company opposes. The paper now is saying that the union groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the matter, which they claim violates federal law.

Of course, this is a brilliant public relations move by the unions. First of all, the FEC is as toothless as some Wal-Mart greeters. Even if the FEC finds that Wal-Mart broke the law, the worst that the company will get is a slap -- make that a tickle -- on the wrist. That may not even happen until well into an Obama administration, which brings up my next point.

Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don't the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today's results won't last.