29 comments

$15 Walmart Canada Gift Card with Pampers Purchase

Posted by & filed under Canadian Deals & Coupons.

$15 Walmart Canada Gift Card with Pampers Purchase

Thanks Trayco for sug­gest­ing this Wal­mart Canada and Pam­pers promo. Thanks Kim for remind me of this deal. Bump­ing it since it’s very useful.

Receive a $15 gift card by mail when you pur­chase any Pam­pers Dia­pers box and any Pam­pers Wipes 5, 6 or 7 count refill box between April 21 till July 31, 2008.

To receive your $15 Wal-Mart Gift Card by mail, send your cash reg­is­ter receipt(s) dated between April 21 to July 31, 2008 with the par­tic­i­pat­ing prod­ucts cir­cled along with the rebate form found here.

Par­tic­i­pat­ing prod­ucts: Any ver­sion of Pam­pers Dia­pers boxes AND
Pam­pers Wipes 5, 6 or 7 count refill boxes.

Click here to print out the rebate form

29 Responses to “$15 Walmart Canada Gift Card with Pampers Purchase”

  1. alajen

    ok, found the link and will post on the French blog.

    Thanks to both of you for your help.

    Merci. :top:

  2. consumatrix

    Has any­one received their gift­cards from this offer yet? I did it ages ago and no gift cards yet.

    thx

  3. Karen

    I sent mine away about 4 weeks ago and received a reply in the mail today. I didn’t qual­ify for the gift cards. I sent in receipts for a Pam­pers refill pack (num­ber 5) and size 2 Pam­pers Swad­dlers (sold in a bag). I’m a lit­tle annoyed at myself for this, but they’re also count­ing on MANY peo­ple mak­ing this mis­take, I’m sure. It’s kind of decep­tive I think. The Pam­pers I bought were in a BAG not box, and the refill pack was in a bag as well. It’s the refill pack that really bugs me. ‘Num­ber 5′ is sold in both bags and boxes, and appar­ently only the boxed ver­sion qual­i­fies (on sale now by the way for $9.97), even though it’s exactly the same product.

  4. Alex

    Report: Wal-Mart Rep­u­ta­tion Con­tin­ues To Slide
    Retailer Spokesman Says Sales Bet­ter Mea­sure Than Sur­vey
    Last updated Mon­day, June 23, 2008 6:35 PM CDT in Busi­ness
    By Kim­berly Mor­ri­son
    THE MORNING NEWS

    http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/06/23/business/062408wmreputation.txt

    Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in 2007 con­tin­ued to slip down a list of cor­po­rate rep­u­ta­tion rank­ings, accord­ing to a survey.

    The Bentonville-based retailer ranked No. 44 on the Har­ris Inter­ac­tive report, which ranks the rep­u­ta­tions of the country’s 60 “most vis­i­ble” com­pa­nies based on con­sumer per­cep­tion surveys.

    It was the third con­sec­u­tive year Wal-Mart’s score on the list declined.

    Wal-Mart’s slipped score was the also the third largest rat­ing change, trail­ing behind Bank of Amer­ica and Hal­libur­ton Co., which saw more sig­nif­i­cant declines in rep­u­ta­tion scores.

    Wal-Mart has sim­i­larly dropped down For­tune Magazine’s list of America’s most admired companies.

    Wal-Mart in 2003 and 2004 was America’s No. 1 most admired com­pany on For­tune Magazine’s list, but fell to No. 12 in 2005. The retailer in 2007 dropped to No. 19.

    Wal-Mart isn’t too con­cerned with reports on its reputation.

    At a time when the pub­lic and Wal-Mart cus­tomers specif­i­cally are being pressed finan­cially to make ends meet, we think the ulti­mate mea­sure of rep­u­ta­tion is sales,” said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman. “Our sales over the last sev­eral months demon­strate pretty clearly that the pub­lic trusts Wal-Mart to help them save money to live better.”

    The retailer has in recent years set out to be a bet­ter cor­po­rate cit­i­zen by incor­po­rat­ing health care and envi­ron­men­tal sus­tain­abil­ity ini­tia­tives into its busi­ness. But it may take time for the pub­lic to shift their per­cep­tions of the retailer, said Sam Waltz, the direc­tor of Sam Waltz & Asso­ciates and a spe­cial­ist in cor­po­rate rep­u­ta­tional management.

    When there’s acute rep­u­ta­tional dam­age that becomes chronic rep­u­ta­tional dam­age, it becomes a very dif­fi­cult thing to regain pos­i­tive attrib­utes,” Waltz said.

    In other words, it can take some time to get pub­lic credit for the good work Wal-Mart is doing now. It could take months and years because there’s peo­ple who look at them with a polit­i­cal par­a­digm and just do not want to give them credit.”

    Nearly half of the Amer­i­can pub­lic sur­veyed said that com­pa­nies need to address global social issues such as poverty, hunger and dis­ease. Yet treat­ment of employ­ees, includ­ing labor prac­tices and human rights, con­tin­ued to be a the most impor­tant mea­sure­ment in eval­u­at­ing a com­pany, accord­ing to the report.

    Har­ris Inter­ac­tive, a Rochester, New York-based mar­ket research com­pany, sur­veyed more than 20,000 peo­ple and asked them to rate on a point scale a company’s rep­u­ta­tion on 20 attrib­utes like vision and lead­er­ship, emo­tional appeal, finan­cial per­for­mance and social responsibility.

    Each sur­vey par­tic­i­pant is asked to rate one ran­domly selected com­pany from the 60 included and each is given the option to rate a sec­ond company.

    About 535 peo­ple rate each company.

    AT A GLANCE

    The Rank­ing

    Har­ris Interactive’s 9th annual rep­u­ta­tion report ranks the rep­u­ta­tions of 60 top U.S. com­pa­nies. The top 10 are:

    • Google

    • John­son & Johnson

    • Intel Corp.

    • Gen­eral Mills

    • Kraft Foods

    • Berk­shire Hath­away Inc.

    • 3M Co.

    • The Coca-Cola Co.

    • Honda Motor Co.

    • Microsoft Corp.

    Source: Har­ris Interactive

  5. Debbie

    I sent in two of these a while ago and just recieved my sec­ond gift card. I wasn’t sure if I would get both. I’m send­ing in another for the next round today.

    I buy the wipes 7 count and box of dia­pers and use the 1.50 off wipes coupon and 4 dol­lars off the dia­pers. Then I get a 15 dol­lar gift card. Super deal!

  6. TKO from Ontario

    I too was wait­ing for my gift cards for 8 weeks.

    They finally came in yes­ter­day. So the deal is real.

    Sent in two, got two back from same household.

    Ps. Food Basics is run­ning a $19.99 Pam­pers Box Spe­cial, get Wal­mart to price match and save money for your lit­tle ones.

  7. Alex

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02walmart.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Wal-Mart Faces Fine in Min­nesota Suit Involv­ing Work Breaks
    By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
    Pub­lished: July 2, 2008
    A state judge in Min­nesota has ruled that Wal-Mart Stores vio­lated state laws on rest breaks and other wage mat­ters more than two mil­lion times and as a result could face more than $2 bil­lion in fines. The judge has threat­ened to impose a $1,000 penalty for each violation.

    Times Top­ics: Wal-Mart Stores Inc.The judge also ruled on Mon­day that Wal-Mart owed $6.5 mil­lion to 56,000 cur­rent and for­mer employ­ees because of con­trac­tual vio­la­tions, includ­ing a fail­ure to give work­ers promised rest breaks at least 1.5 mil­lion times. The judge also found that Wal-Mart man­agers in Min­nesota had sys­tem­at­i­cally bro­ken the law by hav­ing employ­ees take in-house train­ing while off the clock.

    “It’s been a long time com­ing,” said William R. Sieben, a lawyer for the plain­tiffs, who filed the law­suit nearly seven years ago. “It’s only through a deci­sion like this that Wal-Mart can be held to its con­trac­tual agree­ments and to com­ply­ing with Min­nesota law.”

    The judge, Robert R. King Jr. of the First Judi­cial Dis­trict in Dakota County, ruled in favor of Wal-Mart on sev­eral impor­tant issues in the class-action law­suit, find­ing that Wal-Mart man­agers did not rou­tinely make cashiers and stock per­son­nel work off the clock while doing their reg­u­lar jobs.

    A Wal-Mart spokes­woman, Daphne Moore, said the com­pany was con­sid­er­ing an appeal. “We do respect­fully dis­agree with por­tions of the deci­sion,” Ms. Moore said, adding that Wal-Mart was pleased that the court ruled in its favor on many points.

    “Our poli­cies are to pay every asso­ciate for every hour worked and make rest and meal breaks avail­able for our asso­ciates,” said Ms. Moore, whose com­pany uses the term asso­ciates for its employees.

    Four women filed the law­suit in Sep­tem­ber 2001, con­tend­ing that Wal-Mart man­agers had often made employ­ees work off the clock and denied them meal breaks and rest breaks that were promised in the employee hand­book — promises that the judge said con­sti­tuted a con­trac­tual obligation.

    In his 151-page rul­ing, Judge King set Oct. 20 as the date for the sec­ond phase of the trial to allow a jury to deter­mine puni­tive dam­ages and the amount of statu­tory penalties.

    The Min­nesota case is one of more than 70 law­suits filed across the coun­try in which employ­ees have accused Wal-Mart of mak­ing them work off the clock or miss required breaks. In Penn­syl­va­nia in 2006, a jury awarded $78 mil­lion in a law­suit against Wal-Mart over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 mil­lion to include dam­ages, inter­est and lawyers’ fees.

    In a 2005 ver­dict in Cal­i­for­nia, Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $172 mil­lion for mak­ing employ­ees miss meal breaks. The com­pany has appealed both verdicts.

    In the Min­nesota case, Judge King found that Wal-Mart had vio­lated state law by fail­ing to keep records for 325,188 shifts, or 13 per­cent. He also found that on 69,710 occa­sions, Wal-Mart stores in the state had failed to make appro­pri­ate time records for peo­ple who were off the clock and hav­ing in-store computer-based training.

    Judge King repeat­edly said that Wal-Mart’s audits had found that its work­ers were miss­ing meal and rest breaks tens of thou­sands of times.

    Wal-Mart said that it could not rely on those audits, but the judge faulted com­pany man­agers for tak­ing no action in response to the audits. “They put their heads in the sand,” he wrote.

    In what some work­ers said were the most seri­ous vio­la­tions, Judge King found that Wal-Mart owed $3.6 mil­lion for fail­ing to pro­vide the 56,000 mem­bers in the class-action suit with rest breaks to which they were con­trac­tu­ally entitled.

    He also said the com­pany owed $1.6 mil­lion for 4.4 mil­lion con­trac­tual vio­la­tions of short­ing work­ers — giv­ing work­ers less than the amount of time they were enti­tled to — on their 15-minute rest breaks

    Under the rul­ing, Wal-Mart faces the great­est lia­bil­ity for vio­lat­ing Min­nesota law by deduct­ing sev­eral min­utes from work­ers’ pay when they took rest breaks for 16, 17 or 18 min­utes, when Wal-Mart said they were enti­tled to 15-minute breaks. Under Min­nesota law, employ­ers are barred from deduct­ing min­utes from a worker’s pay so long as the break lasts less than 20 minutes.

    Judge King found that Wal-Mart had com­mit­ted that statu­tory vio­la­tion 1.5 mil­lion times; the com­pany is sub­ject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each of those violations.

    Judge King also con­cluded that Wal-Mart had bro­ken state law by fail­ing to give 73,864 meal breaks. Each of those vio­la­tions could also bring a $1,000 fine.

    “There was just too much work to do and never enough time to do it,” said Nancy Braun, the lead plain­tiff in the case. “There just wasn’t enough time in the day to take the breaks we were enti­tled to.”

    Judge King wrote that Ms. Braun had recounted the humil­i­at­ing expe­ri­ence of soil­ing her­self while at work because she had not been per­mit­ted time to use the restroom. He said that another Wal-Mart employee “had to beg to use the restroom dur­ing one of her men­strual cycles.”

    While say­ing that these inci­dents were aber­ra­tions and not class­wide, Judge King wrote that the restric­tions on using the restroom were “dehu­man­iz­ing and reprehensible.”

    More Arti­cles in Business »

  8. some chica

    ALEX …

    NO ONE CARES (in case you haven’t noticed every­one is ignor­ing your comments)

  9. mememe

    Yes you can sub­mit more than 1 per house­hold! As long as each one totals the amount nec­es­sary you will get more cards. The rea­son they took so long is they got SO many requests they ran out of cards … but they will be send­ing more when they receive more cards so just hang tight you will get yours soon!

  10. Leanne

    I sent in 2 receipt in May some­time and still have not received anything.…I will keep waiting.

  11. user

    why don’t you email them or call the pam­pers num­ber? they will tell u what’s up i bet

  12. Alice

    I’m not sure why com­pa­nies put us through this has­sle. It’s a Wal-Mart gift card. Why can’t you just get the card directly from the store when they scan your com­bined pur­chase? This is not con­ve­nient to the customer.

  13. user

    i guess it’s eas­ier for the com­pany to keep track than to train every sin­gle wal­mart employee across the coun­try! lol

  14. Leanne

    Thank you Eri. Still noth­ing today for me but I am sure they are on the way. Is there an expiry date on the gift cards?

  15. mma

    I find this blog very inter­est­ing, i will be here every­day till now. Greetings

  16. Leanne

    Hi all, received my 2 $15 Wal­mart gift cards today.…finally!

  17. consumatrix

    I finally received 2 gift cards (2+ month delay).

    I sent in more — will see if they come.

    Both of my gift cards came with a let­ter say­ing that they had run out of cards and that the offer is now over. I’m guess­ing they just don’t want the same peo­ple doing the offer over and over again.

    I will see if they will send me my other 2 gift cards (I bought in bulk!)

  18. Eri

    the let­ter i got said they had run out of these book­let things..not the cards themselves

  19. Leanne

    Ya, the let­ter I got also said the bonus book­let offer has been depleted.…not the cards. Plan­ning on buy­ing a few more boxes before the offer expires.

  20. Sammy

    I hope they will throw a free gift card offers again this year…please keep us posted.

    Thanks,
    Sam

  21. Rafaela Jetton

    Pretty good post. I just stum­bled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed read­ing your blog posts. Any way I’ll be sub­scrib­ing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>