The article you chose undoubtedly shows abuse that is outside Chinese regulations and I'm sure the Chinese will handle it in their own way. I'm also sure that this is the exception, rather than the rule. I've been to China and I'm going back there in May. I can assure you that, although not even close to being perfect, their system looks at non-conformists with a jaundiced eye. Remember, this is a third world country struggling to gain its footing in the modern world and they are slow to change. One day, when they finally overtake us as the world's economic leader, you will find that the average Chinese citizen will be much better off and will not tolerate this kind of stuff, much like we largely don't.
But I digress.
You're right, I don't want or see the need to change in this case. I just don't see how you expect to accomplish your goals by not patronizing Wal-mart. You're right, social movements don't happen spontaneously, but the impetus for them is nearly always the need for an antidote for some fundamental wrong in a society. What you describe here and ascribe to Wal-Mart has more to do with entitlements than some baseline human rights issue. Where there is increased prosperity, there is greater choice for employment, increased standard of living and the inclination to fight for better treatment (i.e. unions and labor/workplace oversight). But then, isn't unionization part of the "outsourcing overseas" equation in the first place? Power to the people!
Until you get your ideas into the mainstream of public discourse, there will never be the kind of change you want to incite. How can it? Wal-Mart will never get the message until people in numbers large enough to matter opt out of their enterprise. Good luck with your campaign.