I know they can’t do this, but it’d be funny if Wal-Mart announced that they were pulling out of Maryland. The Wal-Mart employee stampede on Baltimore would crumble the state capitol, no doubt.

Next thing ya know, they’ll be enforcing wage and hour laws. Where will it all end!?!?!

I have recently moved up to Maryland and have had the wonderful honor to sit on some of the discussions of this issue with some higher ups in planning and marketing with the hospital.

Well the main reason why Wal-Mart has been targeted is because the legislation is seeking a notion of “fair share” or in what I like to call a forcible redistribution of wealth. Moreover, Wal-Mart boasting the highest number of Marylanders employed at its many stores is the poster child of this legislation. If a company is employing more than 10,000 of the given populous, the conceptual framework would be that it would pay higher to insure its employees. I agree that our healthcare system needs an overhaul, but to what end. Wal-Mart has the buying power to force providers to become “low cost” leaders in healthcare insurance. What happened in the House yesterday actually was a horrific move. With a rather larger distribution center, 1000+ jobs, increase revenue for the state and a usually corporate “friend” perception of Maryland in the balance; the House blew its collective load. WITHOUT the orgasm or afterglow.

The facts are this, Wal-Mart can ensure that its part and full time employees can become insured for about 23-27.00 bi-weekly. As a healthcare person, that is an amazing cost. At the moment I am paying 31.27 bi-weekly for single coverage. This is relatively cheap. I feel that the motivation of the “veto-ers” was to create a playing field that would move into a universal coverage system. HAHAHA, they pick the wrong state to attempt this end. For those of you not aware of the Reimbursement model used in Maryland it is relatively an “all payer” or “socialized”. Further definition of this is all insurance companies, be it governmental or commercial are paid the same amount based on a STATE determined rate. My job is actually to determine if my hospital system (University of Maryland Medical System) is in compliance to this rather unusual and complicated system of imbedded socialized notions. All programs Clinical programs are given a regressed approved rate that is charged and billed. Yes, I know it complicated but it actually causes healthcare providers and facilities to increase its competitive advantage not for the usual reasons of making money per se, but creating innovative procedures to increase its volumes.

I think Maryland dropped the ball on this one. Governor Ehrlich actually had the right idea - statewide competitive advantage should be the basis of a platform. Bring in the business, help the people…and things are good….LOL.

First of all, it must be noted that the United States is one of only two industrialized nations (the other being South Africa) out of the “big 25″ that do not provide health care to all of their citizens. That’s right, even our friends in Europe do it, and it hasn’t broken them or created insanely high taxes as is feared by the right. I do realize that this is not the proper place for this discussion, but I mention it in relation to Maryland’s new law only to illustrate the strong desire of our federal government and states across this union to continue to be free of the cost of providing health care to their citizens. It is evident by the number of states who, according to the National Council of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org), are also considering similar health care legislation.
•
Since Big Insurance Companies and the Health Care Industry have been in each others pockets for the past few decades, health costs have soared, benefiting both industries and consequently making even the most basic and general doctor visits unaffordable to the average American. Insurance is now a necessity, and health always has been. Those high costs combined with the deep pockets of the campaign-funding insurance companies are the reason a universal social health care system hasn’t been implemented in our country.
•
So, where do we turn for help? There is one place that should have a keen interest in our physical well-being: our employer. If we’re too sick to show up to work, or if we all die of the flu, they have no employees (or people to buy their products, for that matter). One fact about capitalism is that workers are paid to produce items at a wage that is exponentially less than the value of what they produce. The difference in wages and value attained for products fills the pockets of the big companies that employ those workers.
•
So, where does Wal-Mart come into play here?
• Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer. It is the largest corporation and private employer in the United States.
• Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in 25 states. They set the standard for wages and labor practices.
• Wal-Mart employs 1.4 million workers worldwide and over 1 million in the United States. More than half of Wal-Mart’s U.S. employees leave the company each year.
• Wal-Mart has more than 3,000 stores in the US and almost 1,300 International operations.
• The Walton family is worth about $102 billion.
• Wal-Mart topped the Fortune 500 list of America’s largest corporations ranked by sales for the fourth year in a row.
• Wal-Mart is the top U.S. seller of products ranging from dog food to diamonds with sales of $244.5 billion in the fiscal year ended January 2003 up from $220 billion in 2001.
•Wal-Mart was sued 4,851 times in 2000––or about once every 2 hours, every day of the year. Wal-Mart lawyers list about 9,400 open cases,” according to a report published in the August 14, 2001, USA Today newspaper.
• (Most of these statistics came from Wal-Mart, except the one from USA Today.)
•
In 1970, the country’s largest employer was General Motors, with 350,000 workers. Overwhelmingly union, they earned $17.50 an hour plus health, pension and vacation benefits and cost-of-living increases. Today, the country’s largest employer is Wal-Mart, with over 1 million US workers. They earn an average hourly wage of $8.00, with no defined benefit pension, and inadequate health care.
•
Wal-Mart does everything in its power to keep unions out of their company. They pay certain employees in each region to convince other employees not to unionize. When one store in Canada voted to unionize, Wal-Mart promptly closed the store indefinitely, putting hundreds of people out of a job.
•
67% of workers nationwide are insured by their employers. Only 47% of Wal-Mart workers have health care. More should be expected from the wealthiest corporation on the planet.
•
What was done in Maryland is only the beginning of what hopes to be a revolutionary demand that large corporations become responsible for the livelihoods of the people they employ. For, that is what people get a job for…so that they can live.

To those who think this law is preposterous, I’d like to ask this:

What else do you expect these people to do? Is it “their fault” they work at Wal-Mart? Is that “just the way life goes”? Keep in mind that this is the product of capitalism, a system this country stands by as supreme and infallible. How far do we have to go before we realize that a majority of our citizens are poor? We are definitely headed in that direction, and the economic policies of our current administration are doing nothing but widen the gap between the classes. The “American Dream” has become just that: a dream. The rich rely on the poor dreaming that unattainable dream, and will continue to do so as long as the current system stands.

Just to add this little FYI:
States considering similar laws:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

“I have, as yet, been able to comprehend the vast scorn for Wal-Mart. Since when do lower prices on basic consumer goods and employment opportunities deserving of such admonishment?”

i decided to correct your mistakes, feel free to replace the first two sentences of your post with this:

“I have, as yet, been UNABLE to comprehend the contempt for walmart. When did it become commonplace to admonish a provider of basic, low cost consumer goods and numerous job opportunities?”

walmart has a long history of not only hiring illegal immigrants for illegal wages and illegal hours but also preventing its workers from unionizing and also denying them health benefits. however, this isn’t likely to change. nor is walmart likely to stop undercutting american businesses with their purchase of foreign goods (which damage the economy as a whole by worsening the trade deficit).

rather, we should see in this example a reason for a national health care program which provides benefits for the millions of americans who are unable to afford health care for themselves and for their childrens. such a program would be easily paid for and would save american businesses( like GM) from crumbling under massive health care costs. these savings would cut the price of american goods, making them more attractive to american consumers, thus strengthening our domestic economy.

more importantly, it would be doing the right thing.

You leave out one very salient point - and by doing so dance very close to being intellectuall dishonest on this issue.

WAL-MART IS THE ONLY EMPLOYER IN MARYLAND THAT IS ACTUALLY SPENDING LESS THAN 8% ON IT’S HEALTHCARE FOR EMPLOYEES.

That’s why it’s the only one affected.

Source : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10827217/

This is a corporation dedicated to destroying Mainstreet America - the place where Conservative values and where the heart of individualism and entrepreneurship and independence beats. It’s the core of the Conservative base.

They stand accused of militantly holding down blacks and women - positions that conservatives keep a great deal of distance from.

There is no compelling reason for Republican’s or Conservatives to be so diligently defending corporate greed. We’re not the party of the corporation - we’re the party of the individual.

I’ll defend THAT all day long.

Just because the union’s hate ‘em - doesn’t make them Poster Child For The GOP.

Oops… almost forgot…

Wal-Mart, Ford Motor Co., AT&T, and Fannie Mae are among the major U.S. corporations whose foundations fund the liberal groups now waging war against Samuel Alito’s nomination.

Read more about it here : http://brownsludge.com/2005/12/16/the-hand-that-feeds/

Now… y’all be sure to throw yourself on that Wal-Mart grenade some more now.

Patrick,
Could you please give me a definition of “insanely high taxes” for the sake of clarification? Europe has admittedly implemented socialistic policies, which is fine for them if that is what they so desire. America is different, and our ideals and values will stifle what Europe has become: admittedly socialistic. Forgive me for being detail oriented, but I am just trying to get an idea of what you mean by this statement. Personally, the fair tax is the better fit for our system, and our taxes are holding back our economy, yet Europe has categorically higher taxes, so I am just trying to see where you are coming from on this issue…

I understand where you are coming from on the separate issue, and the employer-employee relationship has diverged, and reunited and diverged since the Progressive Era. Where I think we part ways is your stance against capitalism and the fundamental tenets of a system that has worked hand-in-hand with creating the greatest bastion of freedom this world has seen. I think their is a certain level of responsibility owed by the employer, yes, absolutely, but this spawns the question of what is the “right” or “correct” amount of coverage in an (infinite) number of areas and issues? But, my postulation is that this is not for you or me to decide, it is for the individual company to decide what is best for themselves, not for the government’s imposition of sociological experiments. There are methodologies built into the system to bring about change without the government imposing social will. Who is best fit to run this organization? Consumers and employees have individual choice, which is a powerful, powerful tool against industry.

Unions are not the solitary reason, but are a significant part of the reason that we have labor problems in this country, they spawn an entitlement mentality. It is interesting that your brought GM to the table in this discussion. Current events have shown that GM is a shell of what it was back in the 1970s due to many of the amenities and privileges that are being foisted upon Wal-Mart in Maryland. There, with GM, it was not the government who created such inefficiencies, but it is enough of a parallel to bring to the surface what I am trying to illuminate. How would you reconcile these two examples?

Also, with all due respect, the statement: ‘One fact about capitalism is that workers are paid to produce items at a wage that is exponentially less than the value of what they produce” is inherently flawed. I would beg to differ that your use of the word “fact” is not befitting. It sounds as though your concern lies with our capitalist system since a wide array of topics were discussed throughout your post. My concerns lies with the encroachment of a private corporation and their choices being made by governmental entities. I look forward to hearing from you on other topics since their is a diametrically opposed outlook on these issue, but I must hear your discussion of GM and the problems they face now since this was your paradigm example about the issue discussed in my post.

When people say that the government should not be telling a business how it is run, I automatically become concerned with their intentions. Although I agree that capitalism woudl never work if the gov stepped in for every little thing, usually when people make this kind of argument it is because they have a particular thing they would liek to do that they don’t want the gov to change. The idea behind our gov is that it will administer programs that protect and benefit our overall citizenry. You know, of the people, by the people, for the people. When the government, and that means you, refuses to interfere, it is with the hope that those in positions of power use that power to make money for themselves, using good judgement to avoid hurting the citizens. When it starts to hurt the citizens, the gov steps in. Am I wrong? The federal govenrment rarely “steps in”, so I can’t believe that you are so hyped up about one state making a couple of rules. Do some research. Try www.dol.gov. Go to the frequently asked questions and pose as a blue collar employee. Ask if you get vacations, or if your employer is required to give you a break after 8 hours, or if you can get fired for wearing the wrong shoes, or if your boss is allowed to yell at you and call you names. You will find that all of these are free of regulation by the federal government. If you were an employee, you would want those laws to be there for you. As an employer, of course, you don’t. But as I said, the government is supposed to be made up by a majority of citizens, making the rules and applying them for all of our benefit.
I also want to address your negative statement about unions. Where do you get the idea that unions preach self entitlement. You stated that it should be the employer’s choice what benefits to provide. So the government stays out, then employees and consumers should help the employer make the right choices by speaking up and using their unfluence. That is what unions do. The very foundation of unionism is that employees can withdraw their labor, which employers need, in order to influence employers’ business decisions. And that seems fair, since most employers can’t exist without employees. Only logical that employees want a say in business decision s and a piece of the profit pie. True unionism is not just fighting for benefits, but educating employees so that they understand that they play a very important role in the economy and are just as deserving of the fruits of their labor as those who are more educated and powerful. That is not self entitlement, that is self worth.