Battling Wal-Mart by Neal Peirce The Wal-Mart Watch campaign, a labor-environmental group highly critical of America's mega-mega retailer, recently launched more than 1,000 events nationwide for its "Higher Expectations Week." "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," a scathing documentary by independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald with a focus on Wal-Mart's business tactics and treatment of workers, began to play to audiences across the country. Wal-Mart is fighting its critics with waves of television ads celebrating happy workers and the company's gifts to local charities. But the action goes much further. Across state capitals, legislators are into spirited debates over whether Wal-Mart should be forced to pay adequate health benefits or leave it to the states to subsidize its low-paid workers through Medicaid and other public benefits. Scene of the biggest current fight: Maryland, where Gov. Robert Ehrlich vetoed a measure to require any company with more than 10,000 workers -only Wal-Mart qualifies -- to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health benefits. Or, alternatively, to contribute significantly to the state's health insurance program. An override vote on Ehrlich's veto is set for January. Wal-Mart has deployed at least a dozen lobbyists to Annapolis, offering goodies such as a $10,000 gift to underwrite a conference of black legislators. In one sense, all of this is predictable: With annual sales of $288 billion and 1.6 million employees, Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation. Its footprint on American communities and retailing is so vast that some opposition to its tactics is virtually inevitable. Current debates about proposed Wal-Mart stores in Cornelius, Gresham and Beaverton -- with the typical protests by many local citizens and smaller retailers -- are par for the course. Usually Wal-Mart wins, though not always; it has experienced