What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wal Mart Bill Struck Down

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The left suffered another defeat today..........

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=BWK&Date=20060720&ID=5882513

In a clear victory for Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), a federal judge on July 19 struck down a Maryland law that required the world's largest retailer to provide more health-care coverage for its employees in the state. The decision marks a significant setback for government officials and others who have been pressing Wal-Mart to boost the benefits and wages that it pays to its 1.3 million U.S. employees.

The Maryland state law was passed in January and was scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2007. It required nongovernment employers with more than 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health benefits. While other large employers in the state, such as Giant Foods, met that threshold, Wal-Mart did not.
Wal-Mart battled against the legislation for months, first through lobbyists and then via a lawsuit against the state filed in February. The suit was filed by the Retail Industry Leaders Assn., a trade group representing Wal-Mart and other big retailers. In his decision on July 19, Judge J. Frederick Motz of U.S. District Court in Baltimore found that the law violated federal law regulating employee benefits, specifically the Federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. "The act violates ERISA's fundamental purpose of permitting multi-state employers to maintain nationwide health and welfare plans, providing uniform nationwide benefits and permitting uniform national administration," he wrote in the decision.

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS IN DANGER.

The retail group was thrilled with the ruling. "The decision sends a clear signal that employer health plans are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local laws. It also is a clear message that similar bills under consideration in other states and municipalities violate federal law, as well," said Sandy Kennedy, president of the association. Investors cheered too, sending the stock up $1.03, or 2.39%, to end the day at $44.20.

Motz's decision, however, is a huge blow to retail employees, many of whom would have been automatically eligible for health benefits. It also undercuts similar moves around the country. Just this year, at least 30 state and local governments have considered rules similar to the Maryland law, but the retail association has worked hard at creating enough dissenting voices in legislatures and has even challenged the proposed laws in court.

Unions that represent employees were deeply disappointed. "The District Court's decision, unfortunately, ignores the strong public support for requiring large, profitable corporations to pay their fair share for health care," said Chris Kofinis, communications director at WakeupWalmart.com, a movement started by the United Food and Commercial Workers, the largest union in the U.S.

HEALTH-CARE HOT BUTTON.

While the Maryland ruling is a clear legal victory, it may be a setback in the court of public opinion. Wal-Mart has been working hard to improve its image, after withering public criticism over the way it treats its employees. On April 17, the company publicly touted changes to its benefits plan, which would allow employees to be eligible for health-care benefits a year after being employed, compared with two years previously, and part-timers will be able to add their children to their coverage. "We think this is a really big deal," Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart Stores executive vice-president of human resources, said at the time [see BusinessWeek.com, 4/19/06, "Wal-Mart Puts on a Happy Face"].

Health care has been a particularly sensitive issue for the company. A memo leaked to the public earlier this year showed that Wal-Mart's employees -- who make an average of $20,000 a year -- spend 8% of their income on health care, nearly twice the national average. Some 46% of employees' children are either uninsured or on Medicaid, the memo said. Many workers and their dependents end up costing state governments, via their Medicaid programs.

Yet Wal-Mart has fought hard to stop local and state governments from dictating changes to its benefits. It has hired several public relations firms, while at the same time boosting the number of lobbyists in Washington who work with policymakers on laws that protect Wal-Mart, the corporation, not necessarily its employees. In February, CEO Lee Scott met with state governors at a meeting of the National Governors Assn. and urged them not to pass legislation that would burden the retailer, and pledged to work with the governors to move workers off state Medicaid rolls.
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
Do you have some sort of infatuation with Wal Mart?
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
red states rule said:
In a clear victory for Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), a federal judge on July 19 struck down a Maryland law that required the world's largest retailer to provide more health-care coverage for its employees in the state. The decision marks a significant setback for government officials and others who have been pressing Wal-Mart to boost the benefits and wages that it pays to its 1.3 million U.S. employees.
Another hit on socialist! A plus for all businesses.:thup:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Mr. P said:
Another hit on socialist! A plus for all businesses.:thup:


It was one of the most insane law ever passed by libs. Government taking it upon itself to order how much a company must spend of health insurance for its employees.

Thank God we have at least one Federal Judge with an IQ above room temp and willing to enforce existing law.

What a slap in the face to libs everywhere
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:
 

insein

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
359
Points
48
Location
Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
jillian said:
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:

Because their business plan is to provide the cheapest goods possible to the public. They will have to raise prices in order to provide MORE health care the nthey already do to their employees. If they do that, then they cease to be walmart and some other company that sells things for cheaper will cut into their share.

Walmart is a business not a health care system. People choose to work for walmart. Walmart does not force people to work for them. If people want health care then they should know its probably not a good idea to get a job at Walmart. Get a job at an employer that provides adequate health care. Thats the free market.

The "vested" interest in Walmart is not to see people not have healthcare. Its to see government stay the hell out of private business.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
jillian said:
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:


Libs should love Wal Mart. Wal Mart is the best place for the working class to get what they need, when they need it, at a fair price

I do not see any Wal Mart employee chained to their work station

Libs hate Wal Mart because they will NOT let the unions in

Unions would destroy Wal Mart like they did GM
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
jillian said:
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:

WHY?--it's called free enterprise.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
dilloduck said:
WHY?--it's called free enterprise.

as well as capitalism

Wal Mart is a blessing to the US economy. Over 100 million people shop at Wal Mart each week
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
jillian said:
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:
No one in this thread asked such a question. Are you?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Mr. P said:
No one in this thread asked such a question. Are you?

Mr. Conley asked:

Do you have some sort of infatuation with Wal Mart?

Did you think he was asking something else?
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
jillian said:
Mr. Conley asked:



Did you think he was asking something else?

Asked and answered. You want government to mess with business but not people? Business consists of people and provide goods and services to people.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
jillian said:
I do believe the question was WHY is the right vested in protecting Wal-Mart and seeing people not have health coverage?

Now try answering that one.... come on... you can do it. :poke:

http://www.wal-martfacts.com/lifeatwalmart/

July 14, 2006
"I couldn't imagine working anywhere else."
Heidi U., Optical District Manager, Harrisville, Utah

I have worked for Wal-Mart for 10 years and couldn't imagine working anywhere else. I have had the opportunity to work in five areas of the sales floor and six operational positions. I have expanded my horizons wider than I ever imagined possible, I have laid down a solid nest egg for retirement, and I have gained a family I would never, ever trade.

Wal-Mart has let me adapt my career to my life. I was able to work part time as my children were born and grew to school age, full time as I needed more money to pay for "kid things" and into a full blown career as they become more independent (and more expensive). Over the years I have had personal experiences with this company that would refute accusations that have been made in the press:

- Wages: I started at higher than minimum wage and now make more money than my husband, who works two jobs.

- Benefits: My benefits for medical and dental are cheaper and cover more than my husband can get at either of his jobs. My discount, 401K, profit sharing, and stock purchase benefits definitely put us in a better financial position than we would be in with anything his employers offer. All that and a whole website full of miscellaneous benefits too numerous to mention!

- Opportunity for women and minorities: In my career I have only been turned down once for promotion (two months into my career). I have been successful because I work hard and qualify myself for a position before I apply for it. Wal-Mart promotes because of ability and attitude, not seniority, favoritism and certainly not race, color or creed. They actively seek out diversity and truly appreciate it. I'm living proof.

- Impact on communities: My favorite position was when I had responsibility for community involvement. I got involved with the best people in the community and got to give them money – lots of it! Our Associate in Critical Need Trust has been used several times by people I have worked with and cried with when disaster struck. I have personally sent and seen cards and letters received from across the country to console those with a hardship to bear. I value my Wal-Mart family as much as my blood one.

I have seen this company practice the "3 Basic Beliefs" that it was built on consistently for 10 years now. It worries me that so many of our country's leaders will form their opinions on incomplete data and obviously biased commentary. The exaggerations of fact that are thrown about make me cringe and wish that one of these politicians would sit down and have a heart to heart with one of the thousands of happy associates that I know and work with every day, or one of the millions of happy customers that we serve every day.

Posted by Wal-Mart Facts on July 14, 2006 | Permalink
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
jillian said:
Mr. Conley asked:



Did you think he was asking something else?
No he asked what he asked, not what you wrote in yer first post..:poke:
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Mr. P said:
No he asked what he asked, not what you wrote in yer first post..:poke:

Heh! I thought I paraphrased fairly. He might tell me I misunderstood though. :cof:

But it's clear there's something celebratory in RSR's response. I can't imagine that's because working people will have to do without health coverage, even though it would cost perhaps one extra penny for each item (not that paying that would substantially effect the Walton family).

So... again, I have to wonder why the attachment to seeing the wealthy get wealthier when there's more than enough to make sure the workers get their basic necessities.
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
jillian said:
Heh! I thought I paraphrased fairly. He might tell me I misunderstood though. :cof:

But it's clear there's something celebratory in RSR's response. I can't imagine that's because working people will have to do without health coverage, even though it would cost perhaps one extra penny for each item (not that paying that would substantially effect the Walton family).

So... again, I have to wonder why the attachment to seeing the wealthy get wealthier when there's more than enough to make sure the workers get their basic necessities.
I think your question has been answered several times already.:D
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Mr. P said:
I think your question has been answered several times already.:D

No. The issue has been spun. And again, Wal-Mart could charge one cent more per item and satisfy everyone. I don't see how that keeps people from getting the consumer benefit that Wal-Mart provides.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
jillian said:
No. The issue has been spun. And again, Wal-Mart could charge one cent more per item and satisfy everyone. I don't see how that keeps people from getting the consumer benefit that Wal-Mart provides.

Don't shop there and forget this silly liberal issue. It's paltry. Your country is being attacked and here you are wanting Wally World to change its ways.:laugh:
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
jillian said:
No. The issue has been spun. And again, Wal-Mart could charge one cent more per item and satisfy everyone. I don't see how that keeps people from getting the consumer benefit that Wal-Mart provides.
Yep, and you spun it in post #5.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
dilloduck said:
Don't shop there and forget this silly liberal issue. It's paltry. Your country is being attacked and here you are wanting Wally World to change its ways.:laugh:

Health coverage and standard of living for workers is a "silly liberal issue"?

I'm not going to forget about domestic issue because some extremist nutcases flew planes into buildings.

The issues really have nothing to do with one another.

Mr. P said:
Yep, and you spun it in post #5.

Again, respectfully, I'll disagree with you and wait to see if Mr. Connolly checks back to clarify. :beer:
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top