I’m in Maryland, and while I’m not a Wal-Mart cheerleader, to target them simply because they employ over 10.000 workers seems a bit discriminatory.
Is this law fair and reasonable? Is the point about the state’s picking up some Wal-Mart workers health care costs any more valid for Wal-Mart than it is for a host of other employers of minimum and lower wage part time and hourly workers? Is Wal-Mart really getting free ride at the expense of the taxpayers?
Fair according to the law or fair according to Human fairness, a sense of what is right and wrong?
Fair in the law is not for me to answer, my WAG is; no it is not fair by normal business law but lets hear from some Professionals on this one.
Fair by human standards, yes, everyone should have basic health care coverage, but shouldn’t we as a nation provide the health care and not create legislation that singles out one company.
I think it is reprehensible that a company as large and profitable as Wal-Marts won’t provide health care to all its full time employees, but it seems to me that they have a right to be scumbags if they choose.
Morally of course I think they are in the wrong but again the USA is in the wrong. One of the best Pro-Small business and working class actions we could have in this country would be to enact laws to provide basic health care for all citizens.
Jim
I’ve been working in Baltimore for the past couple of weeks and have heard and read a lot about this during that time. The political ads have been particularly painful to hear. I’m a pretty strong free-market fan, so I’m generally against this sort of mandate, especially one that appears to have been designed to target one company. Two large unionized grocery chains have been active in support of this and have spent lobbying and campaign money on it. Walmart claims that they provide affordable health insurance for their full-time employees, which I believe is true, but their business model involves a huge number of part-time folks. The law of unintended consequences looms over this law, IMO. The majority of Maryland’s counties border other states. Is it hard to envision strategic store and warehouse relocations to evade this law? Walmart employs 17,000 people in Maryland. Many of these are part-time. Some say Walmart prefers part-time people because it doesn’t have to offer benefits to them. While that undoubtedly is part of the reason for this preference, I think it also stems from the nature of retail staffing, peak hours, etc. One way of evading this law would be to fill the required staffing hours almost entirely with full-time positions. This could create a bunch of full-time jobs, get Walmart below the 10,000 threshold, and eliminate a bunch of part-time jobs. I think that many people think of part-time jobs as less desirable than full-time ones, but that’s not the case for everyone. I don’t know whether pushing Walmart into shifting to more full-time employees is a net gain for Maryland.
I’m not a big fan. If you’re so worried about this issue, maybe it’s time to seriously look at universal health care and even the playing field that way.
To some extent their “profitability” (and continued existence) is because they control costs across the board and are a highly efficient company and retail distribution engine. Is the fact that they pay less than 8% of payroll into health care due to overall corporate efficiency (including health care expenses) or the act they they are niggardly misers letting the state carry their hourly workers?.
Does the fact that you are of a certain size as an employer impute a more rigorous moral and social duty to your employees relative to smaller companies?
Since Wal-Mart’s actions were ultimately effecting MD in the form of medical bills getting covered by the state instead of private insurance, I don’t have much of a problem with them addressing it. I won’t be suprised if Wal-Mart soon has 9,999 employees in MD though.
NurseCarmen - The cost to Maryland’s Medicaid program is one of the issues that has been driving me a little crazy during the couple of weeks I’ve been in Maryland. The Anti-Walmart faction claims or implies that every Walmart employee who does not have medical insurance through Walmart is therefore uninsured. This claim can’t possibly be true. It would mean that there’s no one at Walmart part-time who has coverage from another job, or from their spouse’s job, or from their parents. I’m sure that there are Walmart employees who add to the Medicaid load. There are part-time, non-union employees of the two grocery chains who do the same thing. This issue has been a major point in the anti-Walmart argument, and I have yet to see any attempt to quantify it.
As I understand it, the law specifically addresses Wal-Mart. Is it legal (or proper) to write a law affecting only one employer?
Jim, or as I’d prefer to call you, What Exit?, I don’t have a cite for this, but I’ve been hearing on the radio that Walmart does offer health insurance to all of its full-time employees. The issue is the large proportion of their employees who are part-time.
Dewey, the bill does not name Walmart. It is simply written with specifications that only match Walmart. There’s a charming old political term for this.
Well that is why I carefully stated Full-Time. 
The Law seems wrong to me. Now very wrong.
I do not like many of Wal-Marts Employee practices but it does not seem fair on any level to ask them to do more than provide health care for Full-Timers.
Of course I really believe in a UHS, so I guess I put the blame elsewhere to begin with.
Jim
Exactamundo!!
We need to get past the idea that every job has to come with medical benefits. In fact, employer paid heath insurance is one of the reasons health care costs are so high in this country. If something is “free”, there is no incentive to use that something wisely. Before we go saddling a company with extra costs, we need to ask ourselves if we’d be better off without the company at all-- because that’s the real alternative, especially in a geographically small state like Maryland.
Also not commenting legally - but the reason it singles out just one company is that only one company has the gall to hire that many people and not pay a damn thing for their health care.
This makes me ask “Why am I, a taxpayer, subsidizing Walmart? I won’t even shop there.”
I would prefer national health care. But we don’t have that. In the meantime, Walmart benefits greatly from Medicaid - they should (morally, ethically - again, I’m not commenting legally) pay something back.
The ironic issue regarding legislation like this is that it may very likely have the opposite effect of its intent, over the long run.
Most companies of significant size are generally self-insured for their medical benefits. I’d be very surprised if Wal-Mart was not self-insured.
Mandating medical insurance will likely have employers ask more health related questions of applicants than they do know. The net effect of this will be that the less healthy (smokers, this means you) will have more difficultly getting hired, which will move more of the unhealthy group under the support of Medicaid, driving their costs up.
Heading toward the day where your typical employment application will involve a scale to help calculate body mass index.
Yep. This law does seem unfair in theory, but Walmart is costing MD money. They have the right to foist the costs back onto the corporation. People DO need health care, and I’d rather the company pay for it than the taxpayers, if we are not going to institute universal care for all. If they have to be forced, well, that speaks badly for them.
And also, “part time” doesn’t just refer to the workers who work ten hours a week. Walmart has a practice of cutting workers’ hours to thirty-five a week, which is not full time but is way more than what I would consider “part time.” They do this specifically to get around these health care laws. Why should they be allowed to take advantage of technicalities and hand off costs to the state? Walmart employs a huge number of people, and their actions have repercussions for everyone, not just the workers.
Surprisingly, I’m going to have to agree with what Evil Captor said in another thread (the one about firing, paraphrasing: ), why are companies forced to give health insurance? It was originally given as a benefit when a company couldn’t compete on salary, now we are mandating it? Are we going to mandate 401(k) to force people to save for retirement? Are we going to mandate corporate sponsored health programs so that people can stay healthy? Are we going to mandate corporations to have day care services so that its employees can be more productive? I didn’t know Wal-Mart was in the business of health insurance.
This issue is only a small part of a much larger issue of universal health care. I would rather only have UHC for those who cannot afford it, even if working (well, I guess then it’s not exactly universal, is it? Wait, isn’t that Medicaid?) The idea should be that UHC should be as economic as possible, which is difficult, i.e. economizing something that is free.
Personally, I would like to see corporations give the option to its employees to whether or not take the corporate health insurance or get the equivalent in base pay. UHC for the poor, too (brightline threshold, like in taxes). Insurance premiums should be dependant on the actual person to, so, I should get extra benefit because I watch and maintain my health. Is there a reason why health insurance can’t work like auto insurance? Why isn’t there corporate auto insurance?
Because people get sick and it’s more ethical to give them treatment than to let them die in the street? Especially when we live in one of the richest countries in the world? Face it, someone is going to pay. Isn’t it better that a private company pays than taxpayers (if we do not institute universal care, which is a better option IMO than partial or total privatization)? I know that I don’t like paying more taxes for other people’s Medicare (which I do not receive) just because Walmart decides to plop itself down and drive out the higher paying, insurance carrying businesses.
Many insurance companies do force people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay more since they get sick more. Also, Walmart’s health insurance policy is terrible. It does not pay for prescriptions, dental care (that’s extra), counseling, or vision. So they are still foisting off costs onto the community. One business should not have that much power. Give everyone an equal plan and let us all pay in, none of this indirect corporate welfare.
Then why not close the part-time loophole? Require full-time benefits for anyone work more than N hours, where N is whatever floats your boat.
Then Walmart will just make workers work just under whatever the new full time threshold is. They love exploiting technicalities.
Or simply say that part-time employees get the benefits of full-time employees pro rata.