Maryland Voting on Demanding Walmart Provide Health Insurance

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Getting interesting, The house and Senate voting right now on whether to overide the governor's veto or not.

[Rascal]

I like the idea of their gov't looking out for them, but I don't know if I like the gov't dictating that sort of thing. Should be interesting.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Getting interesting, The house and Senate voting right now on whether to overide the governor's veto or not.

There has to be something that's done for healthcare and lower-waged workers. The rising healthcare costs are what's going to get the people behind nat'l healthcare IMO

[W*GS]

If I were Wal-Mart, I'd close all my MD stores and pull up stakes and leave.

Let the MD taxpayers then cover the costs created by all those now-jobless former Wal-Mart employees.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

If I were Wal-Mart, I'd close all my MD stores and pull up stakes and leave.

Let the MD taxpayers then cover the costs created by all those now-jobless former Wal-Mart employees.

then the'd open up all the small business that walmart had closed returning the power back to the community and to the people. Good idea wags!

[Rascal]

That won't happen, but even if it did I'd imagine that the small businessman in MD would make a comeback. But do small businesses typically pay health insurance especially in the retail market?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

If I were Wal-Mart, I'd close all my MD stores and pull up stakes and leave.

Let the MD taxpayers then cover the costs created by all those now-jobless former Wal-Mart employees.

If you were Walmart would pull your stores in the 30+ other states that have the same type legislation at different stages in the process?

And they already cover costs for Walmart workers in many government programs that these workers quailify for because of the super low wages they are paid.

Originally Posted by Rascal

That won't happen, but even if it did I'd imagine that the small businessman in MD would make a comeback. But do small businesses typically pay health insurance especially in the retail market?

This legislation and all the rest across the country that is being considered applies to companies with 10,000 employees or more.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

If you were Walmart would pull your stores in the 30+ other states that have the same type legislation at different stages in the process?

The problem here isn't Wal-Mart. It's the government.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

And they already cover costs for Walmart workers in many government programs that these workers quailify for because of the super low wages they are paid.

So the solution is to force the corporation to take on those costs? Wal-Mart will simply pass on those costs to consumers via higher prices. Ergo, the benefits to consumers that Wal-Mart's low prices create will be lessened.

When are folks going to quit dicking with markets in their vain attempts to engineer society toward what they believe to be good? Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This legislation and all the rest across the country that is being considered applies to companies with 10,000 employees or more.

Just drop the coyness and call it the "Hitting Wal-Mart because some people hate it" law.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rascal

That won't happen, but even if it did I'd imagine that the small businessman in MD would make a comeback. But do small businesses typically pay health insurance especially in the retail market?

Not typically.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The problem here isn't Wal-Mart. It's the government.



So the solution is to force the corporation to take on those costs? Wal-Mart will simply pass on those costs to consumers via higher prices. Ergo, the benefits to consumers that Wal-Mart's low prices create will be lessened.

When are folks going to quit dicking with markets in their vain attempts to engineer society toward what they believe to be good? Sheesh.



Just drop the coyness and call it the "Hitting Wal-Mart because some people hate it" law.

Well walmart can just sue - like they do for everything else wags. Here in my area of PA, a township voted DOWN approving a walmart plan, and they sued saying that a township has no power over what business can get in there. Thus, the walmart will be opening.

I dont like walmart, but i don't shop there. I also find it interesting that CostCo doesn't have these types of problems - yet they are the very same type of business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

And they already cover costs for Walmart workers in many government programs that these workers quailify for because of the super low wages they are paid.

Funny how W*GS and other dreamers of Ayn Randian wet dreams never complain about this particular allocation of their tax money, isn't it?

Seems rather inconsistent.

They don't mind picking up the tab for healthcare and other social services for Wally World employees via their tax money, but God forbid that the mean ol' government should attempt to regulate WalMart when it comes to issues re: treatment of workers, worker benefits, wages, etc.

According to anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy types like W*GS, WalMart should be completely above the law and completely unaccountable to the community it "serves."

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by amesj523

then the'd open up all the small business that walmart had closed returning the power back to the community and to the people. Good idea wags!

And I'd be willing to bet the state of MD wouldn't find it necessary to pass a law requiring you to purchase health care for your employees.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Funny how W*GS and other dreamers of Ayn Randian wet dreams never complain about this particular allocation of their tax money, isn't it?

Kill that strawman!

Lack of comment on a given issue doesn't construe support of said issue.

Got that?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Seems rather inconsistent.

This from one of the most woefully inconsistent people on the OM. Thanks for the giggle.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

They don't mind picking up the tab for healthcare and other social services for Wally World employees via their tax money, but God forbid that the mean ol' government should attempt to regulate WalMart when it comes to issues re: treatment of workers, worker benefits, wages, etc.

One of the problems I have is that the government is singling out Wal-Mart for legislation. Makes the principle of the rule of law itself moot.

At what point does the regulation of business become over-regulation? LABF, you mention above "treatment of workers, worker benefits, wages, etc." - what sorts of regulation are appropriate and which are not?

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

According to anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy types like W*GS, WalMart should be completely above the law and completely unaccountable to the community it "serves."

According to micromanaging Statists like LABF, the government is the sole provider of "accountability" (aka coercion), therefore, all State regulation is automatically good regulation.

I don't patronize Wal-Mart. Do you?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

There you go Walmart. Go ahead and start puliing your Chinese outlet stores or pay health benefits like every other company in MD with over 10,000 employees.

------------------------------------------------------------
Md. Wal-Mart Required to Boost Health Care
By KRISTEN WYATT, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. Similar laws may be coming elsewhere.

The measure approved Thursday requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state-supported Medicaid program. Of the state's large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care.

Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states, focusing first on Colorado, Connecticut and Washington.

"The tide is turning because working people are not just fed up — they are ready to get active to set our country in a different direction, one state at a time," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement.

Maryland's Democratic-controlled Legislature overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

Critics of the legislation called it a dangerous precedent that ultimately would cost Maryland jobs.

The company employs about 17,000 Maryland residents at more than 40 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, and about 1.3 million people nationwide.

A Wal-Mart executive called the bill a poorly worded mandate for a single company. Mia Masten, a director of corporate affairs, said the bill "could be the beginning of a slippery slope."

"We believe everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, although this legislation does nothing to accomplish that," said Masten, who said the retailing giant may partially pull out of the state if the bill becomes law.

She said Wal-Mart was unfairly singled out because of "partisan politics" and that Medicaid's problems go beyond the behavior of one company.

"This does nothing to accomplish this goal of providing everyone access to affordable health care insurance," said Sarah Clark, a spokeswoman for the Bentonville, Ark.-based company.

A spokesman for Ehrlich said the governor was disappointed in the vote and that it may put in jeopardy a planned Wal-Mart distribution center slated for Maryland's Eastern Shore.

Clark also hinted that the distribution center may not open as planned because of the vote. "This certainly gives us pause to sit back and look at the situation," she said.

The veto override had been one of the session's most intensely lobbied, with business groups taking out print ads supporting a veto and labor groups rallying and taking out their own ads siding with supporters.

The decision is being closely watched by labor unions and legislatures around the country.

"We expect that today's vote will generate important momentum in many other state legislatures," said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Washington-based Wal-Mart Watch, which is funded by a union.

Some Maryland Democrats had harsh words for Wal-Mart.

"Don't dump your employees that you refuse to insure into our Medicaid system," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Gloria Lawlah.

In the House, Delegate Anne Healey compared Wal-Mart to a schoolyard bully. "We're here to tell this bully to change his behavior," she said.

But House Republican Leader George Edwards called the measure an unwarranted intrusion into private enterprise. "If you don't want to work for Wal-Mart, no one's twisting your arms. Go somewhere else and work," Edwards said.

The company faces legal pressure nationwide.

In Pennsylvania, a judge this week approved a class-action lawsuit by employees who say the company pressured them to work off the clock. Last month, a California jury awarded workers $172 million for illegally denied lunch breaks, and Wal-Mart settled a similar Colorado case for $50 million.

The company is appealing the California verdict and may pursue an appeal of the class-action certification in Philadelphia.
http://tinyurl.com/9zcft

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

There you go Walmart. Go ahead and start puliing your Chinese outlet stores or pay health benefits like every other company in MD with over 10,000 employees.

And how many companies in MD meet that requirement?

Let's just call this what it is - "Get Wal-Mart!".

I suspect it will be overturned by the courts.

[alkemical]

of course, walmart has thier own tie in to the labor dept.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by W*GS

And how many companies in MD meet that requirement?

Let's just call this what it is - "Get Wal-Mart!".

I suspect it will be overturned by the courts.

With A"lie"to all but confirmed, you're probably right.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by papi728

With A"lie"to all but confirmed, you're probably right.

I don't think it will get to the SCOTUS to be overturned.

IMHO, this law is so transparently anti-Wal-Mart that even if you hate that company, the concept of a law designed to specifically target a specific corporation (or even an individual) ought to be repugnant. Such laws make a mockery of the concept of the rule of law.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't think it will get to the SCOTUS to be overturned.

IMHO, this law is so transparently anti-Wal-Mart that even if you hate that company, the concept of a law designed to specifically target a specific corporation (or even an individual) ought to be repugnant. Such laws make a mockery of the concept of the rule of law.

My law professor, a die hard democrat BTW, agrees with you on this.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Rascal

My law professor, a die hard democrat BTW, agrees with you on this.

As a lawyer he's given up his soul. As a democrat he's given up his brain. Do we need to give him a Schiavo to get you an automatic Pass in the class?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't think it will get to the SCOTUS to be overturned.

IMHO, this law is so transparently anti-Wal-Mart that even if you hate that company, the concept of a law designed to specifically target a specific corporation (or even an individual) ought to be repugnant. Such laws make a mockery of the concept of the rule of law.

Ah, now you got it. Walmart is so inherently anti-worker that American citizens and governments across the land are acting to reign them in.

The fact they sh*t on most all their workers (constantly breaking established laws to do so) should be MORE "repugnant" to you than citizens and governments having to come together to pass laws to make them treat workers with some dignity.

Originally Posted by W*GS

And how many companies in MD meet that requirement?

Every one of them with over 10,000 employees.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

As a lawyer he's given up his soul. As a democrat he's given up his brain. Do we need to give him a Schiavo to get you an automatic Pass in the class?

Ouch.

I've never had a grade below a C my entire life and I'm confident it won't start now, but thanks for the offer.

***just remembered I got a C in Japanese. No suprise since my wife claims I can't speak english either.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Ouch.

I've never had a grade below a C my entire life and I'm confident it won't start now, but thanks for the offer.

***just remembered I got a C in Japanese. No suprise since my wife claims I can't speak english either.

Kinechiwa b!tches.

The Asian delegation chooses, the Riza, Gza, The Ghost Faced Killer, Wu Tang Clan.

BTW, how do you say sushi in Japanese?

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Kinechiwa b!tches.

The Asian delegation chooses, the Riza, Gza, The Ghost Faced Killer, Wu Tang Clan.

BTW, how do you say sushi in Japanese?

I have no clue, it was 6 years ago...sushi? I took three semesters of spanish in high school, and spanish is a piece of cake compared to Japanese.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Ah, now you got it. Walmart is so inherently anti-worker that American citizens and governments across the land are acting to reign them in.

That's a treacherous slope to jump onto.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The fact they sh*t on most all their workers (constantly breaking established laws to do so)

What good does one more law do? Besides, if Wal-Mart was soooo incredibly horrible to its workers, they can quit en masse.

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

should be MORE "repugnant" to you than citizens and governments having to come together to pass laws to make them treat workers with some dignity.

Oh puhleeze. Give me an objective definition of "worker dignity" that ought to be enforced by law.

This instance is nothing more than Wal-Mart bashers using the coercive power of the State to get their way. It's just as bad as the no-bid government contracts that Halliburton apparently gets on a regular basis.