35 comments

---

Wal-Mart’s health care plan is sprawling, and past attempts (PDF) to asses the plan have proved difficult. So we’re not immediately sure what to make of this announcement from Wal-Mart earlier today.

The retailer’s claims that it will expand health coverage for its associates appear fairly superficial, focusing on maternity care and smoking cessation (as opposed to, oh I don’t know, subrogation clauses). They don’t address many of the fundamental problems with the company’s plan: premiums that are too high, waiting periods that are too long and coverage that’s too sparse. To our Wal-Mart-employee readers, what do you think of Wal-Mart’s proposed changes?

Wal-Mart expands worker health benefits [Reuters]

etail leader Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday that it was expanding health benefits for workers, including offering a 2009 program that provides pre-pregnancy and child development services.

The company said a “Life With Baby” program in next year’s benefits package would provide workers counseling with registered nurses through all phases of maternity.

It said that plan also includes expanded benefits such as periodontal cleanings to help prevent gum disease in mother and child, and a new program designed to stop smoking.

In a statement, the retailer said about 15,000 of its workers have babies each year.

Read the rest of this story ...

55 comments

---

As the weakening economy takes its toll on state budgets across the country, a new study from Policy Matters Ohio shows that Wal-Mart employees top the state’s list of Medicaid recipients.

Researchers found that an average of 13,141 Wal-Mart employees and their children were on the state-sponsored medical plan, more than any other private employer in Ohio.

Wal-Mart’s company health plan remains out of reach for many of its employees, and Medicaid is often the only affordable option for low-earning workers. The company’s failure to provide adequate health insurance for its 1.4 million U.S. employees isn’t just an unfortunate company policy - it’s something that affects taxpayers across the country.

Public pays health care for private workers [Beacon Journal (Ohio)]

Thousands of workers across Ohio labor for a paycheck, but still lack health benefits from their employer for themselves or their children.

Instead, they rely on Medicaid — a program funded with state and federal tax dollars — to pay for their medical care.

Researchers with the nonpartisan think tank Policy Matters Ohio estimate in a new report that the state spent $111.5 million last year to cover Medicaid costs for more than 111,000 workers and their dependents from the 50 companies with the highest Medicaid enrollment.

The federal government’s estimated share of the cost totaled $182 million.

‘’Right now, we’re in a very tight budget,’’ said Piet van Lier, the study’s author and a senior researcher at Policy Matters Ohio. ‘’Medicaid is a very big expense — not only for Ohio, but for other states — and here’s a substantial benefit going to employers.’’

Read the rest of this story ...

10 comments

---

The debate continues over whether Wal-Mart’s efforts to shape up are actually genuine, or merely the result of a well-crafted PR campaign. I think it’s fair to say: both. Perhaps the biggest problem this debate reveals is Wal-Mart’s lack of transparency. Despite the retailer’s dominant presence in communities across the country, no one really knows how it runs its business. What we do know, however, is that Wal-Mart will do anything to fight the negative publicity it’s received in recent years. As Wal-Mart Watch’s executive director David Nassar says in the article, “Wal-Mart heard the criticism and is trying to do something to address it. All the changes it’s made so far have passed costs onto someone else, whether it’s a health care plan that’s increasing costs for workers or environmental initiatives that pass costs on to suppliers.”

Creating a Better Rep: Wal-Mart Undergoes An Image Turnaround [Women’s Wear Daily]

Talk about a turnaround.

Wal-Mart not too long ago was making headlines almost weekly as critics lambasted the retailer for its pay practices, pollution and rapaciousness. Now it’s being held up as one of the retail world’s better corporate citizens. Along the way, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. executives — famously insular and focused principally on what founder Sam Walton would have done — have become more outspoken, open to outsiders’ views and adaptable.

Thanks to a multimillion-dollar public relations and marketing campaign, aggressive environmental initiatives and price rollbacks billed as the retailer’s very own “economic stimulus package,” the company is out to recast itself as a champion of the environment and a benevolent big business.

Read the rest of this story ...

8 comments

---

As Americans around the country file their taxes this week, Wal-Mart continues to use a number of loopholes, legal strategies and untruths to avoid paying its fair share of taxes. Learn more about all the company’s tax avoidance strategies in Wal-Mart Watch In Depth, issue 5 - “The Great Tax Dodge.” From the introduction:

When Wal-Mart wants to build a store in a new community, it makes a lot of promises. The company paints an alluring picture of a bustling local economy with more jobs, increased tax revenue and a thriving shopping district all centered around the town’s sparkling new Wal-Mart store. As American communities struggle to cope with budget shortfalls and a slowing economy, it is not surprising that many bend over backwards to bring Wal-Mart to town.

Unfortunately, communities often experience a much different reality. Studies have shown the retailer routinely drives down area wages and eliminates retail jobs. As local businesses close their
doors, towns become more dependent on Wal-Mart for tax revenue. However, the company has developed elaborate mechanisms for avoiding its taxes, leaving our cities and towns high and dry.

Throughout this issue of In Depth, we examine the myriad ways that Wal-Mart avoids paying taxes or uses public dollars for its private endeavors. Many of these practices, while technically legal, effectively abdicate the responsibilities Wal-Mart agreed to when it negotiated to enter a community. This is unfair to the working men and women who shop at Wal-Mart and pay their taxes every day.

Click here to download the document (PDF).

5 comments

---

After two dozen of its in-store clinics unexpectedly closed last week, Wal-Mart announced today that it will open several new clinics under the Wal-Mart brand name. Last week, contract company CheckUps, which operated 23 clinics in Wal-Mart stores, closed without explanation. Details later emerged that the CheckUps company closed all operations.

Medical concerns continue to dog retail clinics, and the American Academy of Pediatrics continues to oppose them. In addition, the clinics are largely unprofitable, making it a curious avenue for Wal-Mart to pursue. But as Wal-Mart’s sales sag in the U.S. and the company has an increasingly difficult time building new stores, the retailer needs to find new sources of revenue. Retail clinics is an attempt at this. While Wal-Mart might be good at selling merchandise, the retailer has never excelled at services: customer service in the company’s stores is notoriously bad, the company’s own health care plan is paltry and continuing labor disputes show that the company values profit over quality-of-life. Will the company’s walk-in clinics be any different?

Wal-Mart Will Expand In-Store Medical Clinics [New York Times]

Moving to upgrade its walk-in medical clinic business, Wal-Mart is set to announce on Thursday plans for several hundred new clinics at its stores, using a standardized format and jointly branded with hospitals and medical groups.

The first of the new Clinic at Wal-Mart walk-in centers, as they will be called, is to open in Little Rock, Ark., in April and be run by nurse practitioners employed by the St. Vincent Health System, a three-hospital group in central Arkansas.

Wal-Mart also says it plans to brand 200 of the new clinics with RediClinics, one of the Revolution Health companies of Steven Case, the AOL co-founder. Those are to be operated in partnership with various local health care providers. RediClinic, which already operates 13 clinics in Wal-Mart stores, plans to open one of the new units in Atlanta in April and another in Dallas next summer.

Read the rest of this story ...

19 comments

---

Twenty three - almost a third - of Wal-Mart’s walk-in clinics unexpectedly closed last week. The operator of the clinics, CheckUps, appears to have shut them without explanation. The problem appears to be with the CheckUps company itself, which fell behind on payroll payments and other expenses. As we’ve discussed previously on this site, Wal-Mart’s walk-in clinics are often run by independent entrepreneurs with little or no experience in health care. To cite just one example: the director of Wal-Mart contractor MinuteClinic, Michael Howe, is a former CEO of Arby’s. Howe was quoted as saying “clinics are to health care institutions, what ATMS are to the banking institution.” Making health care more accessible is important, but the quality of that health care is critical. As Wal-Mart expands its health care offerings and does more to keep employee health care expenses in-house, will doing things on-the-cheap really cut it?

Operator of Walk-In Clinics Shuts 23 Located in Wal-Mart Stores [New York Times]

CheckUps, a start-up operator of walk-in medical clinics, has shut down 23 of the clinics operating in Wal-Mart stores in Florida and three other Southern states.

CheckUps, based in New York, fell behind in paying its nurses and other vendors late last year, apparently running short of cash to meet its bills, according to a lawyer for one of its creditors.

Nurses arriving for work at the clinics on Jan. 18 found them to be closed.

CheckUps stopped paying some of its nurse practitioners in December, and it owes about $108,000 to Medtracker Personnel, said Stephanie Granda, a lawyer for Medtracker Personnel, a Louisiana employment agency that provided nurses to CheckUps clinics.

Read the rest of this story ...

57 comments

---

Wal-Mart announced enrollment numbers for the company’s health plan today, revealing that just barely half of Wal-Mart’s employees choose to enroll in the company’s plan. 7.3% of the company’s employees remain uninsured, a figure which does include the number of employees using state-funded health care.

Wal-Mart offers several different health care plans and the company’s release failed to note how many employees are enrolled in each of the different plans. The cheapest plan available - the one most accessible to an employee making the Wal-Mart average of $20,000 a year - offers very little coverage and high deductibles, making it all but useless for enrollees. For a closer look at the specifics of Wal-Mart’s health plan, see this New York Times’ article from November, 2007.

The company’s announcement today highlights the fact that Wal-Mart is only looking to placate its critics, not improve employee benefits. Rather than making substantive changes to its corporate practices, Wal-Mart is looking to do the least work possible while still improving its image. If the company’s health care plan improved as much as it claims, employees would be jumping to subscribe. Instead, the company failed to convince even 3% of its Associates to join, with many choosing to remain uninsured rather than be on the company plan. Wal-Mart might be the largest retailer in the world, but it has a pretty hard time selling health care to its own employees.

Wal-Mart: More Employees Have Health Coverage Than Last Year [Arkansas Business]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of Bentonville on Tuesday said the number of its workers without health insurance has fallen in the last year.

The world’s largest retailer said 7.3 percent of its workers had no health insurance, down from 9.6 percent a year ago. Wal-Mart credited its new “associate-tailored” plans for the decrease.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

An article in this month’s Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota’s gazette publication examines Wal-Mart’s effect on local communities. From the fedgazette:

[Wal-Mart] kills jobs and downtowns, say critics, and destroys community character. It’s been accused of discriminating against women, using illegal immigrants, requiring work off the clock and being overly aggressive in stopping the formation of labor unions among its workers.

It’s been blamed for sprawl and traffic congestion, as well as aesthetic offenses. For example, as the company upsizes from discount stores to supercenters in many towns, it often leaves behind an empty shell whose only visitors are the weeds that crop up in the unused parking lot, which might itself be in view of the new store. That new store, critics contend, probably received infrastructure upgrades that Wal-Mart strong-armed from local communities, lest it find a better offer elsewhere. The company adds a final dash of salt to the wound by repeatedly fighting (and mostly winning) property tax assessments on its stores.

The study finds that retail wages fell in every county examined with a Wal-Mart store, and that employee benefits were better in counties without Wal-Marts. Additionally, and perhaps most notably, the authors found that poverty rates were significantly higher in counties containing a Wal-Mart store. These findings seem to counter the authors’ assertion that Wal-Mart’s impact on local economies is minor.

This report is one of several dozen inquiries into Wal-Mart’s impact on local communities. Other such reports have examined Wal-Mart’s heavy reliance on public subsidies, the company’s influence on wages and stores’ damage to local ecosystems. Previous reports as well as scholarly papers and investigations can be found in our Research Center. More articles and reports on Wal-Mart’s negative impact on local economies can be found here.

Wal-Mart Has Minor Effect on Local Economy, Fed Says [Bloomberg News]

12 comments

---

Wal-Mart frequently uses its enormous size to shift favor towards itself. The retailer bullies suppliers to produce cheaper goods, bargains hard with townships and lobbies Congress to get its way. This article from the AP reveals Wal-Mart stepped up its lobbying expenditures in 2007: $1.8 million in the first six months of the year. That’s more than 10 times what Sears spent its efforts, and almost 20 times what Target paid. And that doesn’t even include Wal-Mart’s contributions to the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA). Why is Wal-Mart spending so much on lobbying? What problems does Wal-Mart think legislation can address? Click here for Resources for Elected Officials, here to read more about Wal-Mart’s political ties, and here to download a fact sheet Wal-Mart’s relationship with RILA (PDF).

Wal-Mart Lobbies Above Retail Value [Associated Press via Washington Post]

Wal-Mart’s message to America is “Save money. Live better.” Its motto in Washington might best be summed up another way: Spend more. Lobby harder.

Read the rest of this story ...

85 comments

---

Wal-Mart’s recent decision to improve its health care plan makes sense for the company’s employee’s AND its shareholders. Read more about Wal-Mart’s revised health care plan in this blog post on Monday’s NYT article.

Wal-Mart wises up [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Whether driven by pressure from union activists and politicians or just good business sense, Wal-Mart has finally decided to help its employees get affordable health care.

Since becoming the nation’s largest retailer, the Arkansas-based company has often been portrayed as the Ebenezer Scrooge of corporate America, especially when it comes to employee health care. For years, the company systematically declared tens of thousands of its 1.4 million workers ineligible for health benefits.

And at an average yearly wage of $20,000, many of those who were eligible couldn’t afford the high-priced group health plan the company offered.

To its credit, though, the company has gradually created a menu of affordable insurance options that has increased participation in its health benefit plans by 100,000 employees, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

Read the rest of this story ...

9 comments

---

Last year, Maryland garnered headline after headline for its Fair Share bill, a bill requiring private companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state’s insurance program for the poor. The bill, which ultimately effected only Wal-Mart, was shot down in federal court. Now, as the national debate over the health care crisis continues, the name on everyone’s lips isn’t the Governator, Hillary, or one of the myriad of GOP candidates jockeying for pole position on the issue - its a little fella named ERISA.

And, by little fella, I mean huge hulking piece of federal legislation likely to solve any insomnia issues you may have, should you choose to put it to the test and read it. Still, ERISA, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, has already shot down state attemps to solve their own health care woes in Maryland and New York. And California might be next on the list to test ERISA’s mighty reach.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

ERISA, which stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, shields businesses from state and local regulation of the benefits they offer workers, including health insurance. Without the law, national companies in particular could achieve little uniformity in their benefit plans.

But that uniformity comes at a cost: The law limits the abilities of state legislatures to serve as laboratories for healthcare solutions. Courts have already applied ERISA to strike down efforts in Maryland and Suffolk County, N.Y., that would compel employers to cover more people.

Read the rest of this story ...

10 comments

---

The simple answer to that, is, of course it should. We should feel nothing but privileged to help pay for a multi-billion dollar corporation to locate one of its giant, symmetrical, box-tastic stores in our neighborhood...we might as well, since we’re going to end up helping to pay for the healthcare of its employees and their children anyway. Why not go for the whole shabang, right?

Apparently, however, not everyone is so willing to give up their hard earned money to support Lee Scott’s blue-polo crew as I am. Its obvious that Bayard Black, America-hater and proud resident of Mankato “enemy of the Dakota people” Minnesota - a city that shelled out a cool $2 million in taxpayer money so a Wal-Mart distribution center would locate in town - does not feel that Wal-Mart is so deserving of our love...and more importantly, or tax dollar support. HE thinks that a company with over $350 billion in earnings, the largest corporation in the United States, should have to pay its own way.

Whoa, whoa there Bayard! That is crazy talk...C-R-A-Z-Y talk. So what if the House Committee on Education and Workforce found that taxpayers would have to pay $420,750 per year for a hypothetical Wal-Mart store employing 200 people, or $2,103 per employee? I laugh at your “facts” and “statistics” Bayard, if that is your real name. Support your local Wal-Mart...these mom and pop stores I keep seeing Sam Walton advertising for on the TV need all the help we can give them.

With that said, you go Brayard:

Wal-Mart doesn’t deserve taxpayer help [Mankato Free Press]

In late 2005, the Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners introduced a resolution to give Wal-Mart a $2 million subsidy for infrastructure improvement on a new distribution center in the name of increasing the community’s tax base.
What they failed to consider was that the national average wage of a Wal-Mart employee is $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below poverty lines, and only 48 percent of Wal-Mart employees receive health care.
What does that mean for the general public?

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

This story is from Friday’s News Tribune in Takoma, Washington, but its still an interesting piece. Other states - most notably Maryland - have tried passing bills aimed at forcing large employers to pay health insurance for employees. The Maryland law, called the Maryland Fair Share Bill, passed the legislature only to be struck down in court as being preempted by federal ERISA restrictions.

After a 2006 report showing that nearly one in five Wal-Mart employees in Washington are on Medicaid or the state’s basic health plan, the unions appear to be mobilizing again. Washington’s labor leaders have a powerful voice, especially in a state where Democrats control both the Governor’s Mansion and the Statehouse.

Unions will press ‘Wal-Mart bill’ [The News Tribune]

Washington labor leaders, enjoying big influence in this Democratic-controlled state, vowed Thursday to keep waging war on Wal-Mart as well as work to pass the huge Puget Sound-area roads and rails measure on this fall’s ballot.

Read the rest of this story ...

27 comments

---

New legislation, set to be introduced by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, would allow states to use their purchasing power to negotiate drug discounts for low-wage workers in much the same way as they do for people on Medicaid. The program would cover those with no drug coverage and incomes less than the federal poverty level, as well as those with insurance but limited or no prescription drug coverage and the elderly on Medicare whose coverage runs out.

Attempts have been made in the past to ease the prescription drug burden on low-wage workers, including failed attempts at laws forcing drug makers to cut prices, and fair share bills aimed at requiring large employers such as Wal-Mart to provide health insurance to employees.

Wal-Mart introduced its $4 generic drug program in 2006, allowing consumers to buy certain generic prescription drugs at lower prices. While that program covers approximately three hundred drugs, many of which are different generic versions of the same drug, Van Hollen’s bill would provide patients with a discount card that could then presumably be presented at pharmacies towards the purchase of any prescription.

Bill Would Let States Force Drug Discounts [The Washington Post]

U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen is preparing legislation that would allow states to make prescription drugs more affordable for low- and moderate-income Americans, a challenge to Bush administration policies that have thwarted such efforts in Maryland and elsewhere.

Read the rest of this story ...

17 comments

---

Anti-Wal-Mart bill strikes a chord in Augusta [Maine Current]

A bill that would deny big-box developers the right to build if studies show their stores would hurt the local economy won the support of a majority of the State and Local Government Committee Monday.

Dubbed the anti-Wal-Mart bill, the proposal hit a chord with both Democrats and Republicans, who say their downtown businesses have been hurt by mega-retailers.

“I’ve heard from Maine Street in Bath, from Topsham and Brunswick - people not even in my district,” said Sen. Paula Benoit, R-Sagadahoc County, who serves on the State and Local Government Committee and is also a small business owner. “They’re begging me to take action.”

Rep. Chris Barstow, D-Gorham, House chairman of the State and Local Government Committee and the main sponsor of the bill, said the proposal supports business and community.

The bill, written on behalf of the national Institute for Local Self-Reliance, would require developers of stores greater than 75,000 square feet to pay $40,000 up front for an independent study on the economic and environmental effects of their project on the local area.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

From Bloomberg News:

Maryland asked a U.S. appeals court to revive a law that would force Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, to spend more on health care for its 17,000 employees in the state.

Steven Sullivan, Maryland’s solicitor general, today urged a three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia, to overturn a lower court’s finding that the state law is trumped by a federal statute on compensation.

“There is no clear manifestation that Congress intended to pre-empt state law” covering health-care benefits, Sullivan told the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.

The Maryland law requires any employer with more than 10,000 workers in the state to spend 8 percent of revenue on their health care, or pay the state the difference between that level and what it actually spends. The law, which doesn’t identify any companies by name, would apply only to Wal-Mart.

The legislation was dubbed the “Wal-Mart bill” as a result. The Retail Industry Leaders Association, representing Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart and about 400 other retailers, sued in February, saying the law is unfair and federal law takes precedence on health benefits.

“The purpose of this law is to make Wal-Mart pay more,” William Kilberg, a Gibson Dunn attorney who represented the association, told the judges today. Upholding the law would lead to a patchwork of state and local regulations that would reduce the incentive for companies to provide benefits, he said.

Read the rest of this story ...

14 comments

---

From Associated Press:

The nation’s poverty rate was essentially unchanged last year, the first year it hasn’t increased since before President Bush took office.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 37 million Americans were living under the poverty line last year _ about 12.6 percent of the population. That’s down from 12.7 percent in 2004, but census officials said the change was statistically insignificant.

The median household income - the point at which half make more and half make less - was $46,300, a slight increase from 2004.

However, the number of people without health insurance increased to 46.6 million in 2005. About 45.3 million people were without insurance the year before.

The last decline in the poverty rate was in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when it dropped to 11.3 percent.

Poverty rates didn’t skyrocket as some had feared. But they didn’t drop much, either, suggesting that many of those who left welfare didn’t climb out of poverty. The poverty rate was 13.7 percent in 1996, when about 4.4 million families received welfare payments. About 1.9 million families receive payments today.

“Most of the people who leave welfare for work are leaving for jobs that pay $7 or $8 an hour,” said Joan Entmacher, vice president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group based in Washington. “Under the best of circumstances, they are just getting by.”

Wal-Mart Watch board chairman and SEIU president Andy Stern, in response to the Census figures (PDF), said:

“These numbers are a stain on this country, reminding us once again that the political leadership continues to fail the America people on the life-and-death issue of health care. If we’re going to fix our broken system, it will take business and labor working together to forge a solution outside of Washington, and then demanding that Congress take action.

In all 21 states that have released the data, Wal-Mart employees top the lists of Medicaid recipients. It’s time for the company to step up and take the lead in making health care an affordable reality for not just its workers, but for all Americans. 

26 comments

---

From today’s Seattle Times:

More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.

That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.

The reports are sure to fuel the debate over a labor-backed push in the Legislature to require companies such as Wal-Mart to pay more for health care. Democrats in the House and Senate say the reports show that Wal-Mart and some other big companies are shifting millions of dollars in health-care costs to the state.

“I think taxpayers should be outraged,” Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, said Monday. “They are subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.”

Click here to read the full story.

Click here to see what other states are picking up the health care tab for Wal-Mart’s employees.

94 comments

---

Media Matters reports during his January 13th nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh described Maryland’s Fair Share Health Care Law as “government-sanctioned rape of an American business.”

I think this—we’ve talked about this at great length on this program. This is nothing else—it’s nothing other than a government-sanctioned rape. This is a government sanctioned-rape of an American business.

54 comments

---

Just days after Maryland lawmakers overrode Gov. Bob Ehrlich’s (R) veto of the Fair Share Health Care Act, voices from across the country are calling on corporations to pay their fair share for employee health care costs. The following editorial comes from today’s Allentown Morning Call (PA).

For the fourth straight year, Wal-Mart was No. 1 on Fortune magazine’s annual list of the Fortune 500 in 2005, based on total revenue in the prior year.

Also last year, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education found that 22 percent of children of employees of large retailers are enrolled in Medicaid and programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. In comparison, 27 percent of children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.

State governments are justified to question why taxpayers should help subsidize health care insurance for employees of a company that topped the Fortune 500 list for four consecutive years.

State Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Pittsburgh, has proposed legislation requiring the public welfare department to make a report of employers with 20 or more workers who have employees enrolled in state-run health insurance programs. Using a cutoff of 20 employees isn’t reasonable. But it’s well worth finding out the impact on Pennsylvania of government-subsidized health care for the employees of large companies, including Wal-Mart.

Maryland was just the beginning to make Wal-Mart pay its fair share for health care costs. Don’t wait, take action against the Wal-Mart Tax in your state.