Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Immigrants Are Not The Enemy | Main | Kalikow: I Goofed »
January 04, 2006
Watching Wal-Mart in Maryland
Next week, keep an eye on the Maryland state legislature. It looks like it will override the governor's veto of a bill that would require retailers like Wal-Mart to increase their share of spending on healthcare for its workers. The point of the bill was to lessen the burden on public healthcare programs, where workers like Wal-Mart end up because of their low wages and lack of real health care.
Of course, if we had Medicare For All, workers would not face the choice of putting food on the table versus trying to make sure they and their families can see a doctor or treat an illness without ending up in bankruptcy (one of the leading causes of bankruptcy is the inability to pay healthcare bills--in case any of the Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill care to be reminded). In the meantime, we have the choice of letting the so-called free market decide who can get decent health care or impose some sort of social responsibility on companies who do business in communities. I think the choice is clear.
The good folks at WalMart Watch have a good breakdown on the issue of the cost Wal-Mart puts on communities by failing to provide decent health care for its workers.
January 4, 2006 in Wal-Mart | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8345c5ace69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Watching Wal-Mart in Maryland:
» Advanced MP3 Catalog Download from MP3 Catalog
Download advanced mp3 catalog pro Advanced MP3 Catalog is designed for anyone ... Generate and print reports and CD covers, export your catalog, search for ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2006 11:25:10 PM
Comments
I believe I saw somewhere yesterday that one of Bob Erhlich's top aides was fingered by Abramoff.
Carl
Posted by: carl | Jan 4, 2006 11:58:08 AM
Mark Schmidt did an absolute must read post on the issue of Wal-Mart and public benefits. Here's an attempt to quote the core of the piece, but it's complex and subtle and I really, strongly suggest that you just go read the whole thing.
We should recognize the quiet revolution that has taken place in social policy for low-income workers over the last twenty years. Two decades ago, Medicaid was an adjunct of welfare. With some exceptions, the only way to be eligible for Medicaid was to get welfare (AFDC): that meant exclusively non-working single parents and their kids. When families came off welfare, they also lost Medicaid, which was the key fact that made the argument of Charles Murray"s Losing Ground basically true: a parent might well be better off on welfare, with health care, than working at a minimum wage job without it, especially with the added costs of child care.There's a lot more good stuff there. It really made me look at the issue in a way that I didn't before. I didn't necessarily change what I think has to happen, but I understand the context and history of what's going on a little bit better than I did before.. . . Over the course of twenty years, however, Medicaid was slowly expanded into a program for low-income families, not just welfare recipients: First, families with incomes up to 150% of the poverty line were made eligible, then states were allowed to cover families up to 185% of poverty. Families leaving welfare also got additional protections -- a year or more of "transitional Medicaid" to smooth the path into the workforce. The State Child Health Insurance Program created in 1997 goes up to 200% of the poverty line and some states go higher. The Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded several times over that period, and in 2001, the Additional Child Tax Credit added another small subsidy for working families with children.
. . . Meanwhile, in all that time, the minimum wage rose from $3.35 to $5.15, the last increase a decade ago, and in real dollars it"s worth fifty cents less than in 1984.
What we have here is a massive decision by the federal government to subsidize low-wage work rather than to force employers to pay more or provide basic benefits. Often the tradeoff was very specific: There was consensus among many Republicans and DLC Democrats that the Earned Income Credit was a "better" way of supporting low-wage workers than a minimum-wage increase, and whenever a minimum-wage increase seemed to gain momentum, Republicans would suddenly become the biggest fans of the Earned Income Credit.
So I sort of agree with Matt that there"s no point in blaming Wal-Mart for employing workers who take advantage of these programs. The entire thrust of social policy over the last two decades, albeit a quiet one, has been to encourage the creation of low-wage jobs by subsidizing them. We made a bipartisan political choice not to impose that responsibility on companies, and to use public subsidies instead.
But having made that choice, we can unmake it, or reconsider it. And we should. And if focusing on Wal-Mart, the world"s biggest company and the country"s biggest employer, helps show the consequences of that choice, that"s all to the good. . .
Posted by: Marc Brazeau | Jan 4, 2006 6:18:00 PM
Is a single payer system viable on a state-wide level? Probably in a big state like California. But what about smaller ones?
Posted by: Phil | Jan 4, 2006 10:14:37 PM
The Canadians provide single payer health care at the provincial level, and many of the provinces have quite small, geographically dispersed populations. I don't see why a state like Rhode Island (Pop: 1,048,319) would have any more difficult a time implementing and maintaining a single-payer system than Saskatchewan (Pop: 978,934) does.
Posted by: Rob | Jan 5, 2006 12:13:46 AM
I am a Canadian and it seems we are doing everything we can to move toward the American style system fo health care (or lack thereof) after all we have Walmart and McDonalds here as well.
Greed is a global issue and until the obsene profit mentality is changed it will only get worse for all of us as we have been led down the competive world path.
Posted by: Gene | Jan 5, 2006 8:46:13 AM
Phil,
The Vermont legislature was moving in that direction last year, until they were told any single-payer system would be vetoed by the (republican) governor. They are still working towards universal coverage, but it will probably now be some sort of hodge-podge of programs rather than Medicare for all.
Posted by: Adam Terando | Jan 5, 2006 12:57:53 PM
The only problem with the Fair Share legislation being promoted by John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO is it is anything but FAIR.
How can Fair Share Health Care be considered fair, when it only requires LARGE companies to participate. The system of health care in the US is predicated on ALL businesses, not just LARGE business providing health care to their employees.
Fair Share Health Care is simply a strategy instigated by labor unions to attack Wal-Mart. It does nothing to address the real problems with health care in the US.
The truth of the matter is, 95% of large companies, already provide health care coverage to their employees. Even if Fair Share legislation passed in every state, the net impact on covering the 46 million uninsured would be virtually negligible, health care costs would likely go up for these large corporations, and it would do nothing to solve the problem of spiraling health care costs.
Such incremental changes do nothing to help companies compete in the world economy against companies, in foreign countries, not saddled by such a burden, and may even result in more US companies moving operations overseas worsening the problem due to increase health care costs.
A single payer system is really the only answer, but if you must, at least require ALL employers to provide health care insurance to their employees, not just the large corporations
Posted by: Marc | Jan 8, 2006 10:33:16 PM
When did it become a rule that everyone gets health care paid for by the employer. Why not have every employerr provide a vehicle to every employee, or provide the dinner meal at every employees home. This infuriates me. It is a benefit provided by some employers as an incentive to attract good employees.
Nevertheless, it is a basic expense, and like any other expense it should be paid for by the person who benefits from it. If if offend some of you, get over it. Pay your own way. If you need more money to pay your bills, work harder, get a better job, etc. etc, just like it was always taught in my family.
I am self employed, always have been. I pay my way, I get no employee benefits, and guess what, If I take a vacation or get sick, I have to have put enough aside to take care of this. I don't look to the government to take care of this.
I believe that if a few more people would read and adhere to the fable about the ants and the grasshopper the world would be better off. It is real simple, if you don't work, you don't eat.
And just in case there are those of you who think me callous, evil, mean, whatever, I donate 20% of my income to a local charity for the homeless and needy, and do volunteer work in a local homeless shelter. And that is how I make it work. The government has no business dictating to business how they should spend their profits, let the market do it. Oh, yeah, by the way, for all of your ready to make Wal Mart the evil scape goat for all of the worlds ills, read up on this subject, this iAs nothing more than the competitors of wall mart using the gov. to force wal mart to raise its prices, (yeah, all of you that think this money comes from a big box in the store room) to cover the cost of this increase in its expense, thus, making their prices more in line with their over priced competitors. Any why, because wal mart employees have not cowtowed to the AFL CIO, and let unions in to their stores and this just drives them crazy, that employees have finally figured unions out.
GET OUT OF MY POCKET.
Posted by: Dan C.C. | Jan 14, 2006 2:20:31 AM
Thanks for your rambling thoughts on what life looks like through your eyes DCC. Just a couple of things stand out:
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't look to the government to take care of this.
----------------------------------------------------------
Nice, other than that was the point of the whole bill. Wal-Mart has been helping their employees apply for health care coverage through the state and federal programs that assist the working poor for years. In effect, Wal-Mart has often been using you and your pocketbook (via your tax dollars) to cover the costs of health care for those employees they pay too little to pay their own way.
And i really do love this statement:
------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that if a few more people would read and adhere to the fable about the ants and the grasshopper the world would be better off. It is real simple, if you don't work, you don't eat.
------------------------------------------------------------
Damn my new friend DCC, these folks are working. No more ranting about the welfare fruads and lazy asses sitting home watching Jerry Springer. Nope good buddy, we are talking about good hard working Americans who toil everyday for shit wages for bastard employers. Sadly, the owners, ceo's and executives see nothing wrong with earning millions while telling those workers how to get food stamps.
Spew your fairy tails all you want, but when people work hard for a living they deserve a fair return on their labor. Because a handful of retail robber barons think their workers should be paid shit, they drive the price of labor down to a point where workers can't make ends meet.
Free markets my ass. Wal-Mart has looked for handouts every step of the way. Large employers have been feeding at the trough of plenty forever and states are finally starting to get it. As the divide grows and society is stuck with crappy jobs with no future and workers who can't make ends meet, you are now seeing some push back.
In your words, tough, learn to deal with it.
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Jan 14, 2006 9:43:47 AM
If I were Wal-Mart I'd close every Maryland Wal-Mart store and can thousands of Maryland Wal-Mart employees and open new Wal-Mart stores across the state line in Virginia. Maryland is completely out of line and I hope other businesses and residents continue to flee Maryland. Maryland is one step closer to a socialist state.
Creating laws targeting companies!!! Out friggin rageous!!!
Posted by: LazyAssAmericans | Jan 15, 2006 3:12:24 PM
LazzyAss,
You hit it right on the head, let the gov't deal with the welfare after Walmart moves out! Oh no! They might have to take resposibility for the lousy system they have now.
And to Bill Pearson, rant and rave all you want but walmart pays better than your gov'ts minimum wage and anyone with half a brain that wants to WORK (if thats what you call retail) can work their way up the ladder. My wifes been there 2 years and is making 40k+ and year with probably half the education you were able to get.
Posted by: David | Jan 16, 2006 12:35:49 AM
Another aspect to the entire problem is the extremely high cost of health insurance. Employers, like myself, would be more willing to offer better benefits if the health care wasn't so overpriced.
Posted by: Steve | Jan 21, 2006 11:40:49 AM
Another aspect to the entire problem is the extremely high cost of health insurance. Employers, like myself, would be more willing to offer better benefits if health care wasn't so overpriced. But I guess that's an entirely different blog. As an employer myself, Wal-Mart has no excuse for it's poor health care benefits. Just look at the numbers, 8% will not affect their bottom line, no matter how much they cry about it. In fact, it would probably help their 50% turnover rate with their employees. In my opinion, they brought this problem upon themselves by being cheap, which by the way will only get worse for Wal-Mart. They have become public enemy #1.
Posted by: Steve | Jan 21, 2006 11:52:32 AM
I too favor the "nuclear option" for Wal-Mart. Close every store in Maryland, move the merchandise to stores in neighboring states that are just over the border and FORGET about that new distribution center Wal-Mart was thinking about building in Maryland.
Screw Maryland and the little socialist autocrats living off the public trough in the Maryland Legistature. Let them explain why 17,000 people have suddenly lost their jobs. Let them explain why hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that Wal-Mart did generate for the local communities just ran away to business friendly states.
Wal-Mart, close down Maryland.
Posted by: biggandyy | Jan 27, 2006 4:50:33 PM
