Yuku free message boards

This Happened a few months ago, I think the story came out in March of 2008, Never been to the store since, This morning on CNN they aired a story based on a story from The Wall Street Journal, in which a disabled woman must pay back Wal-Mart for her medical expenses. Seems that about 7 years ago, Deborah Shank was hit broadside by a semi truck and suffered massive brain damage. Deborah has been employed by Wal-Mart when she had the accident and also had a medical policy with the company. Hidden in the small type was a clause that if you receive a court settlement for the injury, you must pay back Wal-Mart.

The Shank family did received $417,000 settlement and Wal-Mart now wants some $470,000 paid back. In the WSJ article it states:

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home, between shifts as a maintenance worker and running a tanning salon. "This girl needs the money more than they do." Mrs. Shank, who needs help with eating and other basic tasks, spends more time alone since Mr. Shank had to let her private caregiver go. At some point, he says, she may have to be moved from a private to a semi-private room in the nursing home where she lives.

The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart's reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.

Until recently, many employers didn't vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn't think the claim held water. But as the cost of covering workers continues to escalate, employers and health plans are getting more aggressive about going after the money. A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning.

In insurance circles, the recovery practice is called "subrogation." Employers and insurers say it's necessary to ensure that medical expenses aren't paid twice. By recovering those costs from someone who's been compensated elsewhere, they argue, they're saving money for everyone on the plan.

I don't doubt Wal-Marts claim as being legitimate. Even if it was concealed in the small print they do have a right to file a claim for the money owed to the insurance plan. But what rubs me the wrong way is the situation. There should be some type of an exception to the rule in cases when a person is totally disabled. This family needs the small amount they won in court to pay for the woman's medical care in a nursing home.

What do you think? Comments welcome.

PS Wal-Mart took in $90 billion dollars last year.

PSS I also forgot to mention that because of this woman's brain damage, she can not comprehend that her son was killed in Iraq while serving our country.

Quote "Wal Mart is evil" Yep it looks that way - Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
$100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
[The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
Health care subsidies compared to executive compensation

Excluding his salary of $1.2 million, in 2004 Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott made around $22 million in bonuses, stock awards, and stock options in 2004.
This $22 million could reimburse taxpayers in 3 states where Wal-Mart topped the list of users of state-sponsored health care programs, covering more than 15,000 Wal-Mart employees and dependents. [Wal-Mart Proxy Statement and News Articles GA, CT, AL].
Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.
A Wal-Mart official stated that "it is common" for the company to request subsidies "in about one-third of all [retail] projects." This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. ["Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth," Good Job First, May 2004]
Back to top


Community Impact
Download the Wal-Mart and Community Impact Fact Sheet - PDF

Wal-Mart's growth negatively impact worker's wages

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005]
The Cost of Wal-Mart's entry into a community can be significant

According to a 2003 estimate, the influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits which could cost the area up to $221 million [San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), 2003]
Lower wages mean less money for communities

When an employer pays low wages to its employees, the employees have less money to spend on goods and services in the community, which in turn reduces the income and spending of others in the community. In other words a reduction in wages has a multiplier impact in the surrounding area.
For instance, in 1999, Southern California municipalities estimated that for every dollar decrease in wages in the southern California economy, $2.08 in spending was lost-- the $1 decrease plus another $1.08 in indirect multiplier impacts. ["The Impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California" Dr. Marlon Boarnet and Dr. Randall Crane, 1999.]
Wal-Mart hurts other businesses when it comes to town.

In Maine, existing businesses lost over 10 percent of their market in 80 percent of the towns where Wal-Mart opened stores. [Georgeanne Artz And James McConnon, The Impact of Wal-Mart on Host Towns and Surrounding Communities in Maine, 2001]
Food stores in Mississippi lost 17 percent of their sales by the fifth year after a Wal-Mart Supercenter had come into their county, and retail stores lost 9 percent of their sales [Kenneth Stone and Georgeanne Artz, The Economic Impact of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Existing Businesses in Mississippi, 2002]
Over the course of [a few years after Wal-Mart entered a community], retailers' sales of apparel dropped 28% on average, hardware sales fell by 20%, and sales of specialty stores fell by 17%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997]
In towns without Wal-Marts that are close to towns with Wal-Marts, sales in general merchandise declined immediately after Wal-Mart stores opened. After ten years, sales declined by a cumulative 34%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997]
Wal-Mart destroys the environment

Between 2003 and 2005, state and federal environmental agencies fined Wal-Mart $5 million.
In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other pollutants to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05]
In May 2004, Wal-Mart agreed to pay the largest settlement for stormwater violations in EPA history. The United States sued Wal-mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3.1 million and changes to Wal-Mart's building practices. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 12, 2004, U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700]
In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida's petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]
In Georgia, Wal-Mart was fined about $150,000 in 2004 for water contamination. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05]
Wal-Mart increases vehicle traffic

A 2004 study of estimated additional driving costs of Supercenters in the San Francisco Bay area concluded that there would be up to an additional 238 million vehicle miles traveled per year. [Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts. Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004]
These extra miles traveled could cost communities in the Bay area up $ 256 million in additional costs for infrastructure repair and environmental degradation. [Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts. Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004]
Wal-Mart desecrates sacred grounds

A nonprofit group that oversees the care of Native Hawaiian remains filed a lawsuit in 2003 against Wal-Mart, the State of Hawaii and the City of Honolulu. It alleged they violated state law dealing with the protection of preservation of human remains and desecration of graves. More than 60 sets of human remains were found at the Wal-Mart construction site in Honolulu. [KHNL-TV/KHBC/KOGG, HI. 7/20/2005]
In 2004, Wal-Mart built a 71,902-square-foot store near the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon in San Juan Teotichuacan, Mexico. Teotihuacan was called "the place where the gods were created" by the Aztecs. [Knight Ridder, 10/25/04]
In 1997, the Alliance for Native American Indian Rights in Tennessee called for a retail boycott of Wal-Mart after construction began on a site for a new store near Nashville. According to a state archaeologist, the site contained 150 graves. [Fulton County Daily Report, 11/30/00, Chattanooga Free Press, 11/23/98]
Wal-Mart's empty stores are blighting communities

As of May 2006, Wal-Mart Realty has listed 320 vacant or soon to be vacant properties that the company is looking to lease or sell. They total to over 25 million square feet. Combined they are more than 6 times larger than the Pentagon building and larger than 440 football fields. [www.walmartrealty.com]
Wal-Mart's rapid expansion of Supercenters and Sam's Clubs has contributed to hundreds of vacant stores across the country. ["Wal Mart site: Use as is or rebuild?", Dallas Morning News, 2/20/02]
When Wal-Mart decides to convert a discount store into a larger Supercenter, it is often cheaper or easier simply to relocate entirely. David Brennan, associate professor of marketing at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minn, noted that Wal-Mart stores relocate so regularly that, "it is not uncommon to relocate right across the street." ["Home Depot to Move from Old to New Store Next Door," Providence News-Journal, 8/17/03]
Wal-Mart's stores are uselessly large for most other tenants. An average discount store is 97,000 square feet. Wal-Mart's Supercenters are on average nearly twice as large at 186,000 square feet. [www.walmartfacts.com]
Also Wal-Mart often resists other large retail stores moving in. A president of a major real estate developer in Dallas said in 2002, "They're not going to be very receptive to any retailer going into it and even if they sell it, they might put a non- compete clause in there." As one Wal-Mart spokesperson said in 2004, "There are times when it's in our interest to get the property moving faster, but we're certainly not going to give a competitor an advantage." [Dallas Morning News 2/20/02, Wall Street Journal, 9/15/04]
Wal-Mart planned to build another 60 million square feet of store space in 2006, or roughly the equivalent of 1,040 football fields or 16 Pentagon buildings. [Wal-Mart Stores, Twelfth Annual Analysts' Meeting, FD (Fair Disclosure) Wire October 25, 2005]
Back to top


Wal-Mart and Imports
70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China. [China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004]
Just because Wal-Mart bought goods from suppliers based in the United States does not mean that they were actually manufactured in the United States. In fact, Ray Bracy, Wal-Mart's vice president for federal and international public affairs, was asked, "Do you have any idea what percentage [of non-grocery, domestic sales] comes from overseas?" He responded, "What we don't know is the numbers of products that come from distributors or from manufacturers that they [sic] decide where to manufacture." Wal-Mart fails to track where their products are manufactured. [Frontline, 11/16/2004]
Wal-Mart and China
Wal-Mart buys much of its merchandise from China

Wal-Mart reported that it purchased $18 billion of goods from China in 2004.
Wal-Mart was responsible for about 1/10th of the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2005. ["U.S. Stock Investors Wary of Analyst `Yuan Plays': Taking Stock, Bloomberg, 7/1/05]
If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada. [China Business Weekly, 12/02/2004]
Many of Wal-Mart's "American Suppliers" actually manufacture most or all of their products in China

An example of an "American Supplier" is Hasbro, headquartered in Rhode Island. Today, Wal-Mart is the largest purchaser of Hasbro products-accounting for 21 percent of all Hasbro goods or more than $600 million in sales. But Hasbro reports, "We source production of substantially all of our toy products and certain of our game products through unrelated manufacturers in various Far East countries, principally China." Hasbro specifies that "the substantial majority of our toy products are manufactured in China." [2004 Hasbro 10-K filed with the SEC]
Wal-Mart's Chinese factory workers are treated poorly

Workers making clothing for Wal-Mart in Shenzhen, China filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005 claiming that they were not paid the legal minimum wage, not permitted to take holidays off and were forced to work overtime. They said their employer had withheld the first three months of all workers' pay, almost making them indentured servants because the company refused to pay the money if they quit. [New York Times, September 14, 2005]
Workers making toys for Wal-Mart in China's Guangdong Province reported that they would have to meet a quota of painting 8,900 toy pieces in an eight hour shift in order to earn the stated wage of $3.45 a day. If they failed to meet that quota, the factory would only pay them $1.23 for a day's work. [China Labor Watch, December 21, 2005]
Elsewhere workers producing goods for Wal-Mart also face appalling conditions, despite Wal-Mart's factory inspection program

Workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland brought a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005 asserting that the company's codes of conduct were violated in dozens of ways. They said they were often paid less than the legal minimum wage and did not receive mandated time-and-a-half for overtime, and some said they were beaten by managers and were locked in their factories. [New York Times, September 14, 2005]
A female apparel worker in Dhaka, Bangladesh, said she was locked into the factory and did not have a day off in her first six months. She said she was told if she refused to work the required overtime, she would be fired. Another worker said her supervisor attacked her "by slapping her face so hard that her nose began bleeding simply because she was unable to meet" her "high quota." [New York Times, September 14, 2005]
In 2004, only 8 percent of Wal-Mart inspectors' visits to factories were unannounced, giving supervisors the chance to coach workers what to say and hide violations. Wal-Mart claimed it planned to double unannounced visits by its inspectors but that would still leave 80 percent of inspections announced. [CFO Magazine, August 2005]
A former Wal-Mart executive James Lynn has sued the company claiming he was fired because he warned the company that an inspection manager was intimidating underlings into passing Central American suppliers. Lynn documented forced pregnancy tests, 24-hour work shifts, extreme heat, pat-down searches, locked exits, and other violations of the labor laws of these Central American countries. [New York Times, July 1, 2005 and James Lynn to Odair Violim, April 28, 2002, www.nclnet.org]
Back to top


Wal-Mart and Worker Injuries
Wal-Mart cares little for the safety of its workers

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a $5,000 fine against a Wal-Mart store in Hoover, Ala., for blocking emergency exits. The court upheld a decision by a judge who found that Wal-Mart was guilty of a serious and repeated offense. [New York Times, 5/17/05]
According to New York Times report in 2004, Wal-Mart instituted a "lock-in" policy at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. The stores lock their doors at night so that no one can enter or leave the building, leaving workers inside trapped. Some workers reported that managers had threatened to fire them if they ever used the fire exit to leave the building. Instead, they were supposed to wait for a manager to unlock doors to allow employees to escape in an emergency. [New York Times 1/18/2004]
The West Virginiastate workmen's comp agency placed Wal-Mart in an "adverse risk" pool because Wal-Mart had unusually high accident rates. [Charleston Gazette, 6/3/99]
Wal-Mart takes a combative approach to workers' compensation claims
Arkansas Business in 2001 described Wal-Mart as "the state's most aggressive" when it comes to challenging worker's compensation claims. The company "stands far above any other self-insurer in challenges to employee claims." [Arkansas Business, 1/8/01]
Back to top


Wal-Mart Non-Health Care Benefits
Wal-Mart fails to provide a secure retirement benefit for its employees.

Wal-Mart sponsors two retirement plans - a profit sharing plan and 401(k) plan - neither of which guarantee workers a fixed monthly pension benefit.
Wal-Mart has shifted risks to employees by concentrating investment in its own stock. From January 2000 to January 2005, the average adjusted share price of Wal-Mart's stock lost more than a fifth of its value. By being concentrated in one security, employees' retirement plans are subject to the whims of one stock rather than having the safety of a diversified portfolio. [Wal-Mart Annual Reports, 2000-2005]
Wal-Mart's retirement plans are Enron-like -- in 2003-04, 67% of their combined assets were invested in Wal-Mart stock. [Wal-Mart Stores 5500 IRS Filing, 2004]
Wal-Mart shares little of its $11 billion profits with employees.
In 2004, Wal-Mart contributed $570 a year per U. S. employee for profit sharing and 401(k) plans for the United States. [Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005, www.walmartfacts.com]
To boost its profits by 1 percent, Wal-Mart is seeking to reduce its contributions to the profit sharing and 401(k) plans from 4 percent of wages to 3 percent of wages. As opposed to reducing the benefit to the 1.2 million hourly workers, Wal-Mart should reduce the number of stock options that it grants to management. In 2004, this expense amounted to 2 percent of net profit. [Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Internal Memo, 2005, Wal-Mart Proxy Statements 2004-5]
Wal-Mart shifts retirement costs onto communities

When employees retire without adequate savings and benefits, they are less able to pay for health care, housing, and food. Communities and taxpayers ultimately bear the cost.
Back to top


Wal-Mart Anti-Union Policy
Wal-Mart closes down stores and departments that unionize

Wal-Mart closed its store in Jonquierre, Quebec in April 2005 after its employees received union certification. The store became the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America when 51 percent of the employees at the store signed union cards. [Washington Post, 4/14/05]
In December 2005, the Quebec Labour Board ordered Wal-Mart to compensate former employees of its store in Jonquiere Quebec. The Board ruled that Wal-Mart had improperly closed the store in April 2005 in reprisal against unionized workers. [Personnel Today, 12/19/05]
In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide. [Pan Demetrakakes, "Is Wal-Mart Wrapped in Union Phobia?" Food & Packaging 76 (August 1, 2003).]
Wal-Mart has issued "A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free,"

This toolbox provides managers with lists of warning signs that workers might be organizing, including "frequent meetings at associates' homes" and "associates who are never seen together start talking or associating with each other." The "Toolbox" gives managers a hotline to call so that company specialists can respond rapidly and head off any attempt by employees to organize. [Wal-Mart, A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free at 20-21]
Wal-Mart is committed to an anti-union policy

In the last few years, well over 100 unfair labor practice charges have been filed against Wal-Mart throughout the country, with 43 charges filed in 2002 alone.
Since 1995, the U.S. government has been forced to issue at least 60 complaints against Wal-Mart at the National Labor Relations Board. [International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Internationally Recognised Core Labour Standards in the United States: Report for the WTO General Council Review of the Trade Policies of the United States (Geneva, January 14-16, 2004)]
Wal-Mart's labor law violations range from illegally firing workers who attempt to organize a union to unlawful surveillance, threats, and intimidation of employees who dare to speak out. ["Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart," A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/16/04]
Back to top


Wal-Mart & Gender Discrimination
Download the Wal-Mart and Gender Discrimination fact sheet - PDF

Wal-Mart discriminates against women

In 2001, six women sued Wal-Mart in California claiming the company discriminated against women by systematically denying them promotions and paying them less than men. The lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, has expanded to include more than 1.6 million current and former female employees, and was certified on June 21 2004 as the largest class action lawsuit ever. [Mondaq Business Briefing, November 1, 2004]
In 2001, while more than two-thirds of Wal-Mart's hourly workers were female, women held only one-third of managerial positions and made up less than 15 percent of store managers. This is all despite women having had on average longer seniority and higher merit ratings than their male counterparts. [Neil Buckley and Caroline Daniel, "Wal-Mart vs. the Workers: Labour Grievances Are Stacking Up Against the World's Biggest Company,"" Financial Times 11, 11/20/03]
In 2001, women managers on average earned $14,500 less than their male counterparts. Female hourly workers earned on average $1,100 less than male counterparts. [Drogin 2003]
In 2001, for the same job classification, women earned from 5 percent to 15 percent less than men, even after taking into account factors such as seniority and performance. [Drogin 2003]
Back to top


Wal-Mart & Child Labor
Download the Wal-Mart and Child Labor fact sheet - PDF

Wal-Mart violates Child Labor Laws

An internal Wal-Mart audit found "extensive violations of child-labor laws and state regulations requiring time for breaks and meals." [New York Times, 1/13/04]
One week of time records from 25,000 employees in July 2000 found 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. There were 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. [New York Times, 1/13/04]
Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle child labor violation charges in January 2005 for allegedly breaking child labor laws in 24 incidents. [Wall Street Journal, 2/12/05]
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell announced that the state found 11 violations in three Wal-Mart stores in the state and that 337 minors worked at the company's 32 Connecticut stores from 2003 to 2005. The probe came after the Labor Department in February said the retailer had similar violations nationwide. [Bloomberg News, 6/22/05]
Wal-Mart has also been fined $205,650 for 1,436 violations of child labor laws in Maine for the period 1995 to 1998. The settlement represents the largest number of citations as well as the largest fine ever issued by the Maine Department of Labor for child labor violations. [Bureau of Business Practice News]
Back to top


Wal-Mart & Undocumented Immigrants
In 2003, federal authorities arrested 250 undocumented immigrants who were employed by janitor contracting services and hired by Wal-Mart in 21 states. Many of the janitors - from Mexico, Russia, Mongolia, Poland and a host of other nations - worked seven days or nights a week without overtime pay or injury compensation. Those who worked nights were often locked in the store until the morning. [Wall Street Journal, 11/5/05, CNN Money, "Wal-Mart pays $11m over illegal labor", 2005]
In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used undocumented immigrants to clean its stores. This was the largest immigration related fine ever levied. [CNN Money, "Wal-Mart pays $11m over illegal labor", 2005 and Wall Street Journal, 11/5/05]
Federal immigration officers, in November 2005, arrested 125 undocumented workers in a raid at a Wal-Mart distribution center under construction north of Philadelphia. The workers from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico were detained Thursday at the site. [Associated Press, 11/18/05]
Back to top


Wal-Mart & Port Security
WAL-MART IS AMERICA'S LARGEST IMPORTER OF PORT CONTAINERS

For 2005, the year for which the most recent figures are available, Wal-Mart led the Journal of Commerce's annual Top 100 Importers rankings. Wal-Mart also led the list in 2004 and 2003. In 2005, Wal-Mart imported the equivalent of 695,000 20-foot equivalent container units (TEU). [Journal of Commerce, May 29, 2006 and Journal of Commerce, May 31, 2004]

The latest and most comprehensive figures available for comparing imports by various companies are from 2004. In 2004, as measured in 20-foot-equivalent container units (or TEUs), Wal-Mart was larger than Target, Sears/K-Mart and COSTCO combined (Journal of Commerce and the Port Import/Export Reporting Service).

Figures for 2004 1. Wal-Mart Stores 576,000

2. The Home Depot 301,200

3. Target Corp 202,700

4. Sears/K-Mart 186,000

5. Dole Food 171,300

6. Chiquita Brands Intl 115,600

7. Ikea Intl. 100,000

8. Lowes Cos. 100,000

9. Heineken USA 83,400

10. Costco Wholesale 66,400

[All Business, Oct 28, 2005]

A WAL-MART CONTAINER ARRIVES IN THE U.S. AT A RATE OF 1 EVERY 45 SECONDS. One of every 25 containers shipped to the United States in 2005 was destined for Wal-Mart. At that ratio, Wal-Mart's imports accounted for 695,118 cargo containers that year, with an average of one arriving to a U.S. port every 45 seconds. [Forbes, 7/5/06]

SINCE 9/11, AMERICA'S PORT'S REMAIN VULNERABLE BY ONLY INSPECTING ABOUT 5 TO 6 PERCENT OF CARGO CONTAINERS COMING INTO OUR PORTS

Incredibly, even after 9/11, our nation's ports remain vulnerable since only a small fraction of containers imported into the United States are actually scanned. As Senator Robert Menendez stated publicly last year, "only 5 percent of the containers passing through our ports are scanned." [Sen. Robert Menendez, April 25, 2006]
Even at some of the busiest ports in America, for example Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors, only about 6% of the containers they carry are selected to be scanned on the docks with X-ray machines and hand-held radiation detectors, officials say. Then about 6% of those are selected to be unloaded for inspection at customs facilities. [Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2006]
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AGREE THE RISK TO PORT SECURITY COULD LEAD TO THE 'NIGHTMARE' SCENARIO
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler: "All it takes is one atomic or radiological bomb to make 9/11 look like a firecracker [and] to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while every ship is searched by hand because we don't have in place the means to scan every container. That is what this motion [to mandate 100% scanning] is about. If we really want to make this country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in the foreign port." [Jerrold Nadler, floor debate, 5/4/06]
U.S. Rep. Ed Markey: "Now, why is [100 percent scanning of cargo] important? It is important because of all of the unsecured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union that al Qaeda can purchase, take to a port in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and then, with a piece of paper and an ID, waive on a 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 pound container and, with the nuclear bomb inside of it, send that ship, that container, right to a port in the United States, to New York, to Boston, to California, to any other city in America, without being screened." [Ed Markey, floor debate, 5/4/06]
Sen. Charles Schumer: Concluding his comments on adopting technology used at one Hong Kong port which scans 100 percent of containers, Schumer said, "My nightmare, Mr. Chairman, has been, ever since 9/11, that somebody somehow smuggles a nuclear weapon into one of our cities -- not just a dirty bomb, but a real nuclear weapon. ... It's worth a little extra effort and a few extra dollars to make sure that doesn't happen." [Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 4/25/06]
AND PORT SECURITY EXPERTS HAVE OUTLINED THE THREAT OF UNSCANNED CONTAINERS
"We're living on borrowed time," said Jerry Hultin, president of New York's Polytechnic University and a former Clinton administration Navy undersecretary who studies port security. "The ports have become a very appealing target." [Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, February 23, 2006]
"'In terms of maritime security, have people done things? Yes,' said retired Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen E. Flynn, a consultant and expert on port security. 'But are we keeping pace with terrorists' capabilities and the potential consequences five years after 9/11? The answer is no.'" "A key vulnerability, Flynn and others say, remains the ubiquitous cargo container, the mainstay of international commerce and a potential Trojan horse in the age of terrorism." [Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2006]
"In August 2006, the Rand Corporation released a report concluding that 'a nuclear explosion at the Port of Long Beach could kill 60,000 people immediately, expose 150,000 more to radiation and cause 10 times - 10 times the economic loss of the September 11th attacks.'" [Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2006]
IGNORING THIS THREAT, WAL-MART LOBBIES MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO RESIST TIGHTENING PORT SECURITY Even with the tragedy of 9/11 still fresh in our minds, Wal-Mart and its retail lobby group, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), are lobbying Members of Congress to oppose 100% scanning of port containers.
The Wall Street Journal, in a "Washington Wire" blurb March 24, 2006 made it clear: "Wal-Mart resists efforts in Congress to dramatically tighten port security in wake of Dubai-ports furor. The company argues examining all containers or even a fixed percentage of them could impede shipping and boost costs." [Wall Street Journal, 3/24/06]
"Wal-Mart and other big businesses have been lobbying against 100-percent scanning, alleging that it will slow their massive import operations." [US Fed News, 4/26/06]
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have consistently opposed new maritime and port security rules. Their mantra is: "Security requirements should not become a barrier to trade."[AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
RILA sent a letter to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives opposing Congress's attempt to mandate "100 percent scanning." [Retail Industry Leaders Association, press release, 1/8/07]
WAL-MART USES RILA AS AN ANTI-SECURITY LOBBYING ORGANIZATION Wal-Mart is a key member of the Washington, D.C. lobbyist group the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA).
Finally, Wal-Mart, RILA and two Wal-Mart-connected law firms-Sandler Travis and Strasburger & Price-hold seats on Customs' Commercial operations Advisory Committee (CoAC), a group of retailers, shippers and lobbyists who ensure that national security demands do not obscure the need for efficiency in the supply chain. RILA's and Wal-Mart's seats on the committee and subcommittees give them a chance to weaken supply chain security measures such as the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which they were unable to defeat in Congress. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
WAL-MART AND RILA: PUTTING PROFITS BEFORE AMERICAN SECURITY
The following is RILA's public warning to Congress from March 2006 that it should not put protection of our ports ahead of profits: "[M]ove cautiously and with careful deliberation before considering any new legislation related to the security of our nation's seaports or commercial cargo....Congress should be careful to avoid measures that would harm global supply chain efficiency or unnecessarily delay the movement of food and cargo." [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
RILA boasted in its 2005 lobbying report to Wal-Mart and other members about its "continued industry leadership in opposition to ill-advised and onerous port security measures (i.e., cargo fees, increased physical inspections)." In fact, beating back meaningful port security measures topped RILA's agenda. [The New Yorker, 6/19/06]
RILA's top trade lobbyist on post-Sept. 11 safeguards in a 2002 Washington Post story: "We are the industry driving the U.S. economy... Any increased delays or costs would really impact" retailers such as Wal-Mart. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
RILA is a founder of the Waterfront Coalition, another retail industry lobby group dedicated to improving "the productivity, efficiency and through-put" of U.S. ports. RILA and the Waterfront Coalition collaborated in 2005 on a container transportation policy paper that runs to nearly 50 pages but says nothing-not one word-about supply-chain security. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
RILA warned Congress in 2004 that x-rays of shipping containers at U.S. ports would "cause major delays" for their goods, although a 100-percent container x-ray system in Hong Kong's busy port won praise from security experts. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
MEANWHILE PORT SECURITY EXPERTS DISPUTE THE POTENTIAL COST TO WAL-MART According to Stephen Flynn, retired Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and senior fellow on national security Council on Foreign Relations: "The total cost of third party compliance inspections, deploying 'smart' containers, and operating a cargo scanning system such as the one being piloted in Hong Kong [100 percent scanning] likely reach $50 to $100 per container depending on the number of containers an importer has and the complexity of its supply chain. ... Can industry afford the cost of this regime? Even if the final price tag came in at $100 additional cost per container, it would raise the average price of cargo moved by Wal-Mart or Target by only .2 percent. [Congressional Quarterly, March 28, 2006]
WAL-MART USES MONEY AND INFLUENCE TO PRESSURE POLITICIANS TO OPPOSE STRENGTHING PORT SECURITY Wal-Mart's and RILA's recent investments in members of Congress with power over port and supply-chain security issues are massive and tilt heavily to Republicans.

As of 2006, Wal-Mart had given $191,500 to current House Homeland Security Committee members since 2000-all but $9,500 of that since the September 2001 attacks. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
In the 109th Congress, eighteen of the committee's nineteen Republican members took in $173,000-90 percent of the total-and four of the committee's fourteen Democrats collected $18,500. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
In the past eight years, Wal-Mart's Washington Political Action Committee put more than $360,000 into current members of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. In the 109th Congress, twenty-three of the committee's 24 Republicans took Wal-Mart's money-82 percent of the total-compared to only eight of the committee's 17 Democrats. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
Wal-Mart also has spent $63,000 on current members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the past eight years-more than two-thirds of that since September 2001. Ninety-six percent of Wal-Mart's spending went to the committee's Republican members. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
The Bush administration released its 2007 homeland security budget proposal at the height of the Dubai Ports World debate, eliminating grants to improve port security and increasing the C-TPAT budget by a mere 1.3 percent-a cut in real terms from the program's 2006 budget request. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
WAL-MART USES LOBBYISTS WHO HAVE CLOSE TIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Robert Bonner, former top Homeland Security official, went to work for one of Wal-Mart's Washington lobbyists in 2005. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
Asa Hutchinson left his job as under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to lobby for companies on security issues at Venable, one of Washington's oldest lobbying law firms and another of Wal-Mart's Washington partners. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
Hutchinson was connected to Wal-Mart long before he took the nation's No. 2 security post. In his brief stint as congressman from Arkansas' Third Congressional District-home to Bentonville and Wal-Mart's global headquarters-Hutchinson had taken more than $12,500 from Wal-Mart's Political Action Committee, and at least $7,000 more from top Wal-Mart executives and Walton family heirs. Wal-Mart's previous CEO, David Glass, has been a long-time patron to Hutchinson. [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]
Hutchinson's brief tenure at the Department of Homeland Security saw the creation of Customs' voluntary supply-chain security program and a controversial decision not to bring criminal charges against Wal-Mart for its abuse of illegal immigrants hired to clean its stores. The workers' lawyer said, "They generally worked seven nights a week, 364 days a year, and they were often locked in the stores." Wal-Mart instead was fined $11 million. Wal-Mart even denied being fined, calling the payment "voluntary." [AFL-CIO, Unchecked How Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security," April 2006]