Wal-Mart law repealled
Yesterday, a federal judge overturned the Maryland law that dictated health care requirements. The law forced employers with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of payroll on health benefits. The only employer in the state of Maryland who employs more than 10,000 workers is… Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is very glad to see government regulation out of their pocket book, but as expected there are some very ticked off people. One of those groups is the union backed Wal-Mart Watch, who stated, “This setback does not change the fact that Wal-Mart’s health care plan is unaffordable and inaccessible for its employees.” WakeUpWalMart (also backed by Unions) is steadfast in their support of the appeals now underway, “The fight to provide better health care and to reduce Wal-Mart’s tax burden on American taxpayers will continue.”
Is anyone else noticing a pattern here? Unions have money pumped into the governments in the form of forced campaign contributions. Wal-Mart is strictly non-union and they make no efforts to hide that fact. The unions don’t like this, so they do the only thing they can do… legislate their way into retail pockets.
The unions complain that Wal-Mart doesn’t offer affordable health care, or “good enough” wages for their employees. Well folks, this is a free country, if you don’t like your job, GET A NEW ONE. My employer does not offer ANY health care benefits, but you don’t see me filing lawsuits and pushing my local public officials to force them to.
It is not the role of ANY government, state or federal to dictate what a company offers or pays it’s employees. If they don’t pay well enough no one would work there and the company would have to adjust their policies to attract workers.
ken
20 Jul, 2006
It seems to me that as a libertarian you would support the Wal-mart bill. It simply ends corporate welfare for the retail giant. At any rate, the judge cited ERISA. In the 9th Circuit, the ERISA argument hasn’t held up so it’s not settled yet, unless the state decided not to appeal.
James
20 Jul, 2006
How would a bill designed specifically to require ONE company to pay 8% of it’s payroll towards heathcare for it’s employee’s, end corporate welfare for Wal-Mart?
Please explain.
ken
21 Jul, 2006
Many of Wal-mart’s employees fall below the poverty line and therefor are on state welfare and public assistance plans. The competition doesn’t have that luxury, because they are unionized and pay higher wages. So while other grocers must “pay their own way” in terms of employee healthcare, Wal-mart depends on the state providing healthcare for its workers. That amounts to a subsidy for Wal-mart, and gives it an unfair advantage. The law seeks to address by forcing Wal-mart to pay its own way and get off the state welfare program. I think it’s a bad law because it dodges the real issue, which is Wal-mart’s habit of illegally closing stores that unionize, but I sympathize with its intent.
In other words, here are your welfare queens.