Another Wal-Mart story

[WaterMan]

Rollback Ruling Favors Wal-Mart

The retail giant scores a massive victory when a judge overturns a Maryland law that required more health-care coverage for its employees

 

In a clear victory for Wal-Mart Stores, a federal judge on July 19 struck down a Maryland law that required the world's largest retailer to provide more health-care coverage for its employees in the state. The decision marks a significant setback for government officials and others who have been pressing Wal-Mart to boost the benefits and wages that it pays to its 1.3 million U.S. employees.

 

The Maryland state law was passed in January and was scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2007. It required nongovernment employers with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health benefits. While other large employers in the state, such as Giant Foods, met that threshold, Wal-Mart did not.

 

Wal-Mart battled against the legislation for months, first through lobbyists and then via a lawsuit against the state filed in February. The suit was filed by the Retail Industry Leaders Assn., a trade group representing Wal-Mart and other big retailers. In his decision on July 19, Judge J. Frederick Motz of U.S. District Court in Baltimore found that the law violated federal law regulating employee benefits, specifically the Federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). "The act violates ERISA's fundamental purpose of permitting multi-state employers to maintain nationwide health and welfare plans, providing uniform nationwide benefits and permitting uniform national administration," he wrote in the decision.

 

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS IN DANGER.

 

The retail group was thrilled with the ruling. "The decision sends a clear signal that employer health plans are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local laws. It also is a clear message that similar bills under consideration in other states and municipalities violate federal law, as well," said Sandy Kennedy, president of the association. Investors cheered too, sending the stock up $1.03, or 2.39%, to end the day at $44.20.

 

Motz's decision, however, is a huge blow to retail employees, many of whom would have been automatically eligible for health benefits. It also undercuts similar moves around the country. Just this year, at least 30 state and local governments have considered rules similar to the Maryland law, but the retail association has worked hard at creating enough dissenting voices in legislatures and has even challenged the proposed laws in court.

 

Unions that represent employees were deeply disappointed. "The District Court's decision, unfortunately, ignores the strong public support for requiring large, profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care," said Chris Kofinis, communications director at WakeupWalmart.com, a movement started by the United Food and Commercial Workers, the largest union in the U.S.

 

HEALTH-CARE HOT BUTTON.

 

While the Maryland ruling is a clear legal victory, it may be a setback in the court of public opinion. Wal-Mart has been working hard to improve its image, after withering public criticism over the way it treats its employees. On April 17, the company publicly touted changes to its benefits plan, which would allow employees to be eligible for health-care benefits a year after being employed, compared with two years previously, and part-timers will be able to add their children to their coverage. "We think this is a really big deal," Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Stores executive vice-president of human resources, said at the time

 

Health care has been a particularly sensitive issue for the company. A memo leaked to the public earlier this year showed that Wal-Mart's employees—who make an average of $20,000 a year—spend 8% of their income on health care, nearly twice the national average. Some 46% of employees' children are either uninsured or on Medicaid, the memo said. Many workers and their dependents end up costing state governments, via their Medicaid programs.

 

Yet Wal-Mart has fought hard to stop local and state governments from dictating changes to its benefits. It has hired several public relations firms, while at the same time boosting the number of lobbyists in Washington who work with policymakers on laws that protect Wal-Mart, the corporation, not necessarily its employees. In February, CEO Lee Scott met with state governors at a meeting of the National Governors Assn. and urged them not to pass legislation that would burden the retailer, and pledged to work with the governors to move workers off state Medicaid rolls.

[cre8tiff]

Wal-Mart is real Great Satan.

[Wolverines Fan]

Wal-Mart is real Great Satan.

 

 

Agree...but their prices are hard to beat. I've unfortunately caved in and starting shopping there for some things.

[The Holy Roller]

Wal-Mart. Health care. Wal-Mart. Health care. Wal-Mart. Health care.

 

Maybe we should let Wal-Mart run the countriy's health care business. Surely they'd do better than if the goberment was doing it.

[Beaumont]

Conservative Activist Judges?

 

Conservatives hate states rights?

 

George Bush sniffs magic marker fumes?

 

You be the judge ...

 

[Ursa Majoris]

The retail group was thrilled with the ruling. "The decision sends a clear signal that employers like us can continue to treat our workers as if they were in a third world country while making sure our already insanely rich owners become even more insanely rich at the taxpayer's expense", said Sandy Kennedy, president of the association.

 

Fixed

[Beaumont]

Ironically, the "S" in ERISA stands for "Security" ...

 

Financial security for Wal-Mart I suppose ...

[Perchoutofwater]

Why is this a bad ruling? Wal-mart isn't holding a gun to anyones head and telling them they have to work for them. If the people don't like the compensation package offered by Wal-mart, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Why do you libs want more government regulation on business? Why do you want the cost of your groceries and the other crap that Wally World sales to go up?

[Ursa Majoris]

Why is this a bad ruling? Wal-mart isn't holding a gun to anyones head and telling them they have to work for them. If the people don't like the compensation package offered by Wal-mart, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Why do you libs want more government regulation on business? Why do you want the cost of your groceries and the other crap that Wally World sales to go up?

 

I wondered how long it would be before you showed up to defend the corporate leech that is Walmart. Do you see no irony in your detestation of individual welfare parasites and your admiration of a corporation that also battens onto the welfare tit?

[Perchoutofwater]

I wondered how long it would be before you showed up to defend the corporate leech that is Walmart. Do you see no irony in your detestation of individual welfare parasites and your admiration of a corporation that also battens onto the welfare tit?

 

 

Does Wally World force anyone to work for them? Maybe if the workers stopped smoking, cut back to a case of beer a week, didn't play the lottery every week, and didn't have a 10 carat gold ring on each finger they could afford their own health care.

 

Should all employers provide healthcare for all of their workers?

[Ursa Majoris]

Should all employers provide healthcare for all of their workers?

 

No. All health care should be provided by the state via taxes, thus relieving all employers of this burden. There should, however, be optional private health care that any individual could buy. I could even go for a state "opt in" system where individuals can pay extra tax for the state system and not have to fork over the health care contribution while others who actually like the current racket can continue with it.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Ursa Majoris

[TimC]

All health care should be provided by the state via taxes

 

I'd rather hire inmates to pick up the dead bodies by those without insurance or savings to help themselves.

[gsmayes]

Why is this a bad ruling? Wal-mart isn't holding a gun to anyones head and telling them they have to work for them. If the people don't like the compensation package offered by Wal-mart, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Why do you libs want more government regulation on business? Why do you want the cost of your groceries and the other crap that Wally World sales to go up?

 

 

I wish I lived in this magical fairy world where jobs are so plentiful. The fact is in a lot of areas the alternative to not working at Wal-Mart is not working at all.

[Perchoutofwater]

No. All health care should be provided by the state via taxes, thus relieving all employers of this burden. There should, however, be optional private health care that any individual could buy. I could even go for a state "opt in" system where individuals can pay extra tax for the state system and not have to fork over the health care contribution while others who actually like the current racket can continue with it.

 

 

While I'm philosophically opposed to this, as a practical manner I agree with you. Unfortunately today there are far to many people that are dependent on mother governemnts tit, and it is far to late to ween them off of it. If we taxed it, then at least everyone would be paying something, even if those like me would be paying the majority of it, I'm already paying the majority anyway. I would not allow the opt out unless they provide proof of insurance with minimum limits with each years tax return, otherwise you'll have a lot of people that opt out that end up not having insurance, and the government would have to step in and pay for them as well.

[Perchoutofwater]

I wish I lived in this magical fairy world where jobs are so plentiful. The fact is in a lot of areas the alternative to not working at Wal-Mart is not working at all.

 

 

How much does a bus ticket to another city cost? They could move. Hell they could go work in Mexico.

[Furd]

I wish that I could get back the 12.5 dollars that I spent at Walmarts a few years ago.

[Ursa Majoris]

While I'm philosophically opposed to this, as a practical manner I agree with you. Unfortunately today there are far to many people that are dependent on mother governemnts tit, and it is far to late to ween them off of it. If we taxed it, then at least everyone would be paying something, even if those like me would be paying the majority of it, I'm already paying the majority anyway. I would not allow the opt out unless they provide proof of insurance with minimum limits with each years tax return, otherwise you'll have a lot of people that opt out that end up not having insurance, and the government would have to step in and pay for them as well.

 

You make some good points especially about the mandatory insurance if you want to opt out and pay less tax. The problem with socialized health care is not the standard (a recent study showed the bottom third of Brits are healthier than the top third of us). The problem is not the system overhead - most countries have streamlined their bureaucracy so that it is a much smaller take of the overall health system. Per capita, the UK spends 40% of what we do on health care, for instance.

 

The problem is the number of freeloaders and also the fact that it is completely and totally "free", so the system becomes overwhelmed. A co-pay system such as we have now would resolve much of that problem. Another way to mitigate cost would be to use government negotiating power to reduce costs, which is what other countries do.

 

One thing that can't happen to you under a socialized scheme is bankruptcy. 20 yards away from me right now is a guy who had a catastrophic accident and had to file bankruptcy when his insurance refused to handle any more costs. That is simply wrong, IMO.

[skins]

Wal Mart gears its pay and hour requirements state by state to take advantage of welfare laws. If the cutoff for required healthcare is 35 hours per week where the employer must provide healthcare, Wal Mart will let people work 30-34 hours and then give them info on how to apply for Medicaid and welfare. Wal Mart gears its labor force to take advantage of the taxpayer and state subsidies. There is nothing necessarily illegal about that, dont get me wrong, lets just all recognize that they do it.