Human Rights Watch vs. Wal-Mart?

Recently, Human Rights Watch came out against Wal-Mart claiming that the retailer "abuses" it's employees.
Now, I understand that some people don't like Wal-Mart for various reasons...but with the horrible atrocities going on in Darfur, Nigeria, North Korea and elsewhere, doesn't Human Rights Watch have more important things to worry about than Wal-Mart?
Just a few facts about Wal-Mart:
>Most Wal-Mart stores that open up get anywhere from 5000-20,000 job applications to fill an average of 400 jobs.
>Wal-Mart annually gives millions of dollars to various charity and community development groups
>Wal-Mart doesn't provide about 45% of it's employees with health insurance...but the vast majority of those are part-time employees who only work 15-20 hours per week

I don't want to beat the drum too loudly for Wal-Mart, so tell me what you think about this issue.
Is Human Rights Watch justified in their criticizm of Wal-Mart or are they just buying into the "Wal-Mart hater" hype?

I think Wal-Mart must not be that bad of a place to work because they never seem to have trouble finding employees. Here's the way capitalism works: two people enter into a contract because it's mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Sure, one person might be getting a better deal than the other person, but they're both agreeing because they are each other's best option. Wal-Mart goes into little towns where unemployment is high. These people don't have better options, which is why they're all lining up to work at Wal-Mart. So why are we all getting worked up that people who were unemployed five months ago now have steady employment?

I absolutely agree with you - people are dying from genocide, disease, and starvation all around the world. Those who hate Wal-Mart are complaining that its employees can't afford to pay for rent AND a cell phone and have to get SECOND jobs. Do you know how desperate some people outside of the United States are to have even one job? If they had one job that paid even a tenth as much as Wal-Mart does, they'd be able to eat every day.

Isn't it nice to live in a Country that let's you consider one way or the other without prosecution? this is "human rights" it's your choice.
I could go on and on about Wal-Mart, one way or the other but, that's my opinion too.
I would rather be able to shop at several different places then one (Wal-Mart) and be forced to buy their merchandise because they've chased every other business out of the area and, this is true with our area.
I saw this happening with the 7-11 stores in one South-western city, a 7-11 on each corner of each city block, four to an intersection, until the city saw something going on and stepped in and said "no more"
This is starting to happen around here. Wal-Mart has been prevented from opening several stores in the area, believe this or not, one store was opening within sight of another one.

Ben Franklyn stated "when you work for an employer, speak well of him or, find other work" this goes for Wal-Mart too. Unless you have subversive ideas, work for someone else, other then Wal-Mart.
I suppose you could say, it goes both ways. This insurance thing started long before Wal-Mart started up in business, it was just helped by them.

I just wanted to add a bit on the statement about employee health care. Every employee with Walmart can become eligible for health care...even part time. With the part-time employees, however, there is a 1 year waiting period before they qualify. So everyone can receive health care benefits, but many are covered by a spouse's plan through their place of employment.

I really can't see Walmart abusing its employees. Why would they risk losing an employee and have to go through hiring and training another person? It's a big expense, a huge time investment, plus it lowers the quality of customer service. The retail giant didn't get to where it is today by condoning practices like that.