Here it is!

The Primary WM response to the movie that was sent out. Obviously there are things not responded too, and I'm leaving my personal commentary out for now just so you know what's being said.

As many of you are aware, an anti-Wal-Mart video is being released to the public at select screenings across the country. A full release of the video is expected the week of November 13th.
The video, produced by Robert Greenwald and entitled "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices," is a 90-minutes attack ad on Wal-Mart and is full of errors, misstatements and distortions that we feel are part of a special interest agenda to damage our reputation.
We expect a lot of you will have questions about the video and its content. Below we have provided an overview of the top distortions we found in the video, along with documentation to provide the real facts behind Mr. Greenwald’s claims.

Mr. Greenwald: Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts
________________________________________________

1. Wal-Mart “Crushed” Local Hardware Store

Greenwald claims that Wal-Mart “crushed” a hardware store in Middlefield, Ohio. “There's only one problem: H&H Hardware shut down nearly three months before a Wal-Mart Supercenter opened around the corner in mid-May… There’s no mention of the timing of H&H’s closing relative to Wal-Mart’s opening.” (Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 10/28/05)

The store’s owners even told Greenwald that Wal-Mart had nothing to do with their decision to the close the store, and a new owner quickly reopened a renovated store on the site of the old store. (Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 10/28/05)

2. Wal-Mart Devastated Middlefield, Ohio
Greenwald fills the first 10 minutes of the movie – his showcase – with the tale of Wal-Mart shattering Middlefield, Ohio, the village where H & H Hardware was located. (Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 10/28/05))
But, to repeat, Wal-Mart had not yet opened when Greenwald swooped into town. If Greenwald had bothered visiting Middlefield once Wal-Mart actually arrived in town, he would have found a thriving village that welcomed Wal-Mart:
· "I can't wait," said Betty Conrad. "Since our Ames [store] went out, we don't have anyplace to shop for clothes or jewelry in Middlefield. In that respect, I think Wal-Mart will be good for Middlefield." (Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 5/18/05)
· According to Kevin Tibbles of NBC News: “For some in this religious community who shun cars and electricity, a new Wal-Mart is a welcome thing…And in Middlefield, there's little concern a big, new place to shop is going to upset the way people live. (NBC’s “Saturday Today,” 5/21/05)
· Women’s Wear Daily added: “…most residents agree that Wal-Mart's entrance into their town is a plus…” (Women’s Wear Daily, 6/20/05)

The Middlefield store, which created 350 new jobs, also “donated nearly $24,000 to local schools and nonprofit groups” upon its grand opening. (Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 5/19/05) Finally, according to the official Village of Middlefield website: “Middlefield Village is now one of the most prosperous villages of its size in Northeast Ohio…Local business are thriving, and more are locating here all the time, giving residents more and more conveniences.” (http://www.middlefieldohio.com/page4.html)

3. Wal-Mart Prevents Its Associates from Attaining Full-Time Status

Greenwald promotes the following claim of a former Wal-Mart co-manager: “Keep the number of associates from being full time, as many as you can, keep many of them part time, as much as you can…”

But Wal-Mart’s ratio of full-time to part-time associates is roughly 3 to 1. At unionized grocers, it is much, much lower.

Later, Greenwald uses the “expert” testimony of comedian Jon Stewart to state the claim that Wal-Mart’s full-time status begins at 28 hours per week. Wrong, again. Wal-Mart’s “full time” status begins at 34 hours per week, not 28, for associates hired after 2002.

4. “…Report from UC-Berkeley Researchers Concludes Wal-Mart Costs State Taxpayers 86 Million a Year…”

Greenwald touts a news clip claiming that a “report from UC-Berkeley researchers concludes Wal-Mart costs taxpayers 86 million a year…”

But the “report” in question is simply a union hit piece disguised as a scholarly tract; it comes from the Berkeley Labor Center, “an institute that is openly supportive of union causes.” (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/3/04; emphasis added) At the time the report was released, a majority of the Labor Center's advisory board were union leaders representing such groups as the Alameda County Central Labor Council, Contra Costa Building Trades, Sacramento Labor Council, and San Mateo County Central Labor Council.

5. “$7,000 Anti-Union Camera Package per Store; $30,000 Undercover Van…$100,000 24 hour Anti-Union Hotline; and $7,000,000 Rapid Response Corporate Jet.”

In a desperate attempt to spin the UFCW’s crushing failure to organize the Loveland Wal-Mart’s Tire and Lube Express Department, Greenwald argues, without any documentation, that Wal-Mart is spending millions of dollars on a myriad of anti-union efforts.

These figures, supposedly part of Wal-Mart’s response to the Loveland unionization efforts, are unsubstantiated nonsense. There has never been any evidence produced anywhere regarding “anti-union camera packages” or “undercover vans.” The figure for the hotline is completely random, and there is no corporate jet dedicated to Labor Relations. The Labor Relations Department use of corporate jets depends on space and availability, just like all other Home Office departments.

6. Wal-Mart “Paid Around $50 million to Settle an off the Clock Class Action suit in Colorado”

Greenwald uses a news clip to press the claim that Wal-Mart paid $50 million to settle a massive class action claim, the implication being that Wal-Mart must be guilty if it agreed to pay so much money. But the $50 million figure is simply wrong. The actual settlement in this case is part of a sealed agreement that was not to be released publicly.
7. “And in Texas, Wal-Mart was Ordered to Repay $150 Million”

Building on his tale of the alleged $50 million settlement in Colorado, Greenwald continues the “news footage” with a report that Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $150 million to satisfy a Texas judgment.

This is a completely false report used to inflame an argument on the UFCW website. There has never been a wage-hour or employment case involving a $150 million order in Texas. This is a distortion of a comment on the UFCW’s website, which notes that the plaintiffs’ statisticians in a case are claiming that Wal-Mart underpaid associates by $150 million over a four year period.

8. “…There’s No Place for People Like You [An African-American Woman] in Management”

Greenwald showcases an interview with former Wal-Mart employee Edith Arana, who claims she was told “there’s no place” for African-American women in management.

But Greenwald relays only one accusation when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Wal-Mart is consistently recognized as one of the most diverse companies in the United States, plain and simple:
· Wal-Mart was recently named one of “The 30 Best Companies for Diversity” by Black Enterprise Magazine. (Progressive Grocer, 6/15/05)
· Wal-Mart was rated among the top 50 companies for diversity in the U.S. for 2005 by DiversityInc Magazine. (Progressive Grocer, 6/15/05)
· Wal-Mart was listed on the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility's (HACR) Corporate Index as one of the top 10 companies for Hispanics. (Progressive Grocer, 6/15/05)
· Asian Enterprise magazine featured Wal-Mart in its listing of the top 10 companies for Asian Americans. (Progressive Grocer, 6/15/05)
9. Subsidy for Irvin Esry’s Family, $0

Greenwald blames the decline of Irvin Esry’s family business on Wal-Mart’s entrance into Northern Missouri. The implication is that the Esry family business, which included grocery stores and farms, was left to wither against unfair competition, without any government assistance, as contrasted with the “subsidies” allegedly awarded to Wal-Mart.

Once again, the facts tell a different story. Esry family businesses have actually received hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies from the federal government (source: Environmental Working Group), and Esry grocery stores have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans backed by the Small Business Administration (source: LoanSensePlus.com)

And if Wal-Mart supposedly destroyed the Esry family grocers, then why do a total of six grocery, convenience, and general stores continue to operate in the small towns of Brookfield, Cameron, and Hamilton MO?