Labor Victory !!!! Md. Senate Overrides Veto of Wal-Mart Bill
- Thread starter Heath
- Start date
M
Mookie
Guest
Hey DeafScuba,
Any comment?
Any comment?
sr171soars
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,699
- Reaction score
- 3
The failure of the political system to address the health care crisis is astounding to say the least. It has be percolating for over a decade or two.
This legislative action in Maryland though doesn't really attack the problem but rather hit a company that doesn't always have a great track record anyway in the various communities it has stores. The thinking goes that if you force Walmart into this, then the other follows. I think you will see some employers deciding not to set up "shop" in Md and others getting out over time.
Everything in life is a tradeoff and the one here is better benefits but less jobs for everybody (and with no safety net).
The health care crisis needs to be dealt with at the national level but the pain hasn't been enough yet to force these leaders to act yet. Oh, it will come...just wait long enough and they will finally do something.
I can see one important benefit of this action. It will start the long overdue dialog as business have enough clout to get the idiots in congress moving to do something.
This legislative action in Maryland though doesn't really attack the problem but rather hit a company that doesn't always have a great track record anyway in the various communities it has stores. The thinking goes that if you force Walmart into this, then the other follows. I think you will see some employers deciding not to set up "shop" in Md and others getting out over time.
Everything in life is a tradeoff and the one here is better benefits but less jobs for everybody (and with no safety net).
The health care crisis needs to be dealt with at the national level but the pain hasn't been enough yet to force these leaders to act yet. Oh, it will come...just wait long enough and they will finally do something.
I can see one important benefit of this action. It will start the long overdue dialog as business have enough clout to get the idiots in congress moving to do something.
diehardbiker
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,188
- Reaction score
- 16
FYI, President Richard Nixon de-regulated the health insurance back in early 70's! before that, government go t full control on health insurance. After this deregulation, the heath cost SKYROCKETED without any possiblity of slowing it down!!! This has to be stopped, because more and more people are suffering and the medicaid budget is getting bigger and bigger and seems in endless spiral upward!
M
Mookie
Guest
Another Walmart Article
Md. Senate Overrides Veto on 'Wal-Mart Bill'
By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 13, 2006; A01
Maryland lawmakers bucked the will of the state's Republican governor and the nation's largest retailer yesterday, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care.
In a veto reversal that was closely watched nationally, lawmakers in the Democrat-led General Assembly voted largely along party lines for a measure that legislatures in more than 30 states are considering replicating.
"Maryland is not a shrinking violet -- no, far from it," said Sen. Gloria G. Lawlah (D-Prince George's), a lead sponsor of the legislation, which drew strong backing from labor unions and health care advocates. "Maryland is a leader. Let us light the torch today. Let us lead."
The Senate voted 30-17 for the bill after a filibuster attempt by Republicans. The House followed last night with an 88-50 vote that handed Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) a defeat early in the legislative session on a bill he argues is an unwarranted government intrusion into business.
The bill will require private companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state's insurance program for the poor. Wal-Mart, which employs about 17,000 Marylanders, is the only known company of such size that does not meet that spending requirement.
Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst said the votes were driven by "partisan politics."
"This vote was never about health care," Hurst said. "In allowing a bad bill to become a bad law, the General Assembly took a giant step backward and placed the special interests of Washington, D.C., union leaders ahead of the well-being of the people they serve. And that's wrong."
Hurst said the company's lawyers were certain to look into questions raised by business groups about whether the bill violates federal law. The Maryland Attorney General's Office issued an opinion this week dismissing those concerns.
The legislation has resonated in Maryland and beyond in part because it is viewed as a relatively easy and inexpensive way for lawmakers to expand access to health care and because Wal-Mart, a company with a reputation for stingy benefits, is considered an easy target.
"We don't want to kill this giant. We want this giant to behave itself," said Del. Anne Healey (D-Prince George's County), the lead sponsor in the House. "We want this giant not to be a bully."
The bill drew spirited opposition from Republican legislators, who argued that supporters were trying to punish an unpopular company and help its unionized rivals. Opponents also predicted that lawmakers would gradually expand the bill to include smaller businesses.
"This is a revenge bill," said Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's). "This isn't about health care."
Democratic lawmakers countered that the bill was intended to make large employers pay their "fair share" of health costs. Wal-Mart says that more than three-quarters of its sales associates have health insurance but acknowledged that some of its low-wage workers are on Medicaid, the state insurance program for the poor.
Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's) argued that the bill would "take people who should be getting health care at the workplace off the rolls."
Ehrlich's chief of staff, Chip DiPaula, said last night that lawmakers had started "marching down the road to socialized medicine.
"The governor thought it was terrible public policy, but we're done. We're over it," DiPaula said.
Supporters predicted that Maryland's success would give a lift to similar legislative initiatives elsewhere. Vincent DeMarco, who lobbied for the bill as president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, said he has been invited to speak to several national groups about Maryland's experience.
"This is going to sweep the nation because people have been looking for a way to expand health care access and spread the burden," DeMarco said.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a national health care advocacy group, said some initiatives that have emerged in other states are more expansive than Maryland's, affecting more than just the largest employers.
Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said he could not predict what other states would do. But Josten said Maryland's approach "completely misses the mark."
Josten said that roughly 25 million of the more than 45 million uninsured Americans work for companies with 10 or fewer employees. "This in no way gets to the root of the problem," he said.
Hurst said there are 786,000 uninsured people in Maryland, and fewer than one-half of 1 percent of them work for Wal-Mart.
The bill prompted frantic lobbying in recent weeks, with unions and health care advocates airing radio and television ads and Wal-Mart running full-page ads in major newspapers. The company also bulked up its lobbying corps in Annapolis, hiring at least 12 lobbyists, whom Pinsky derisively called the Dirty Dozen during yesterday's debate.
The Annapolis press corps was swollen with members of the national media, and immediately after the House vote, Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) was whisked outside the State House for a national television interview.
The whoops and cheers of advocates echoed in the vast hallway outside the House chamber. Union members and their lobbyists hugged lawmakers and posed for photos, giving a thumbs-up, some with tears in their eyes. "We prevailed. Yes!" said an exuberant Del. Veronica L. Turner (D-Prince George's).
Ehrlich vetoed the bill last spring after the legislative session ended.
In the interim, Wal-Mart announced an overhaul of health care options for its employees, including a plan that it said costs $23 a month for a single worker.
The Senate's vote to override Ehrlich's veto met the three-fifths requirement with one vote to spare. The only Democrats who broke with their party were three senators representing Anne Arundel County, a relatively conservative jurisdiction. All 14 of the chamber's Republicans voted against the bill.
In the House, Democrats had a harder time harnessing the votes needed. But by early yesterday, Busch said he felt certain he had reached the critical number: 85.
Lawmakers also maneuvered yesterday to override other Ehrlich vetoes, including a $1 increase in the minimum wage. The House passed the measure, and the Senate could do the same Tuesday. The Senate, meanwhile, overrode Ehrlich vetoes of bills that would allow early voting in this year's election and would seek to address voter intimidation.
Staff writers Matthew Mosk and Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Md. Senate Overrides Veto on 'Wal-Mart Bill'
By John Wagner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 13, 2006; A01
Maryland lawmakers bucked the will of the state's Republican governor and the nation's largest retailer yesterday, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care.
In a veto reversal that was closely watched nationally, lawmakers in the Democrat-led General Assembly voted largely along party lines for a measure that legislatures in more than 30 states are considering replicating.
"Maryland is not a shrinking violet -- no, far from it," said Sen. Gloria G. Lawlah (D-Prince George's), a lead sponsor of the legislation, which drew strong backing from labor unions and health care advocates. "Maryland is a leader. Let us light the torch today. Let us lead."
The Senate voted 30-17 for the bill after a filibuster attempt by Republicans. The House followed last night with an 88-50 vote that handed Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) a defeat early in the legislative session on a bill he argues is an unwarranted government intrusion into business.
The bill will require private companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state's insurance program for the poor. Wal-Mart, which employs about 17,000 Marylanders, is the only known company of such size that does not meet that spending requirement.
Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst said the votes were driven by "partisan politics."
"This vote was never about health care," Hurst said. "In allowing a bad bill to become a bad law, the General Assembly took a giant step backward and placed the special interests of Washington, D.C., union leaders ahead of the well-being of the people they serve. And that's wrong."
Hurst said the company's lawyers were certain to look into questions raised by business groups about whether the bill violates federal law. The Maryland Attorney General's Office issued an opinion this week dismissing those concerns.
The legislation has resonated in Maryland and beyond in part because it is viewed as a relatively easy and inexpensive way for lawmakers to expand access to health care and because Wal-Mart, a company with a reputation for stingy benefits, is considered an easy target.
"We don't want to kill this giant. We want this giant to behave itself," said Del. Anne Healey (D-Prince George's County), the lead sponsor in the House. "We want this giant not to be a bully."
The bill drew spirited opposition from Republican legislators, who argued that supporters were trying to punish an unpopular company and help its unionized rivals. Opponents also predicted that lawmakers would gradually expand the bill to include smaller businesses.
"This is a revenge bill," said Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's). "This isn't about health care."
Democratic lawmakers countered that the bill was intended to make large employers pay their "fair share" of health costs. Wal-Mart says that more than three-quarters of its sales associates have health insurance but acknowledged that some of its low-wage workers are on Medicaid, the state insurance program for the poor.
Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's) argued that the bill would "take people who should be getting health care at the workplace off the rolls."
Ehrlich's chief of staff, Chip DiPaula, said last night that lawmakers had started "marching down the road to socialized medicine.
"The governor thought it was terrible public policy, but we're done. We're over it," DiPaula said.
Supporters predicted that Maryland's success would give a lift to similar legislative initiatives elsewhere. Vincent DeMarco, who lobbied for the bill as president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, said he has been invited to speak to several national groups about Maryland's experience.
"This is going to sweep the nation because people have been looking for a way to expand health care access and spread the burden," DeMarco said.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a national health care advocacy group, said some initiatives that have emerged in other states are more expansive than Maryland's, affecting more than just the largest employers.
Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said he could not predict what other states would do. But Josten said Maryland's approach "completely misses the mark."
Josten said that roughly 25 million of the more than 45 million uninsured Americans work for companies with 10 or fewer employees. "This in no way gets to the root of the problem," he said.
Hurst said there are 786,000 uninsured people in Maryland, and fewer than one-half of 1 percent of them work for Wal-Mart.
The bill prompted frantic lobbying in recent weeks, with unions and health care advocates airing radio and television ads and Wal-Mart running full-page ads in major newspapers. The company also bulked up its lobbying corps in Annapolis, hiring at least 12 lobbyists, whom Pinsky derisively called the Dirty Dozen during yesterday's debate.
The Annapolis press corps was swollen with members of the national media, and immediately after the House vote, Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) was whisked outside the State House for a national television interview.
The whoops and cheers of advocates echoed in the vast hallway outside the House chamber. Union members and their lobbyists hugged lawmakers and posed for photos, giving a thumbs-up, some with tears in their eyes. "We prevailed. Yes!" said an exuberant Del. Veronica L. Turner (D-Prince George's).
Ehrlich vetoed the bill last spring after the legislative session ended.
In the interim, Wal-Mart announced an overhaul of health care options for its employees, including a plan that it said costs $23 a month for a single worker.
The Senate's vote to override Ehrlich's veto met the three-fifths requirement with one vote to spare. The only Democrats who broke with their party were three senators representing Anne Arundel County, a relatively conservative jurisdiction. All 14 of the chamber's Republicans voted against the bill.
In the House, Democrats had a harder time harnessing the votes needed. But by early yesterday, Busch said he felt certain he had reached the critical number: 85.
Lawmakers also maneuvered yesterday to override other Ehrlich vetoes, including a $1 increase in the minimum wage. The House passed the measure, and the Senate could do the same Tuesday. The Senate, meanwhile, overrode Ehrlich vetoes of bills that would allow early voting in this year's election and would seek to address voter intimidation.
Staff writers Matthew Mosk and Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
M
Mookie
Guest
786,000 x .005 = 3,930
3,930 uninsured people out of 17,000 Marylanders are working for Wal-Mart. That's why we as the paytaxers can not afford Medicare plan for them. Wal-mart corporate is very selfish for not giving them extra pennies for full health insurance plan.
If Wal-Mart employees are single without any child, they can easily afford any health plan. However, married employees with child(s) can not afford for higher cost of health plan than single's health plan.
Keep in mind that they can not afford to purchase rocket-rising new house price to keep their family under safety and health roof....
M
Mookie
Guest
Letter to the Editor: Washington Post
Wal-Mart's Agenda
Friday, January 13, 2006; Page A20
Last year the Maryland General Assembly passed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, which would have required Maryland's biggest companies to pay their fair share of their workers' health care costs. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed the bill. This year Wal-Mart mobilized an army of lobbyists to fight the bill ["Md. Bill on Health Benefits Triggers a Deluge of Lobbying and Attention," Metro, Jan. 10]. It wanted other state legislatures to see the lengths to which it would go. Yesterday, the Maryland legislature overrode the governor's veto.
To most Marylanders, it makes sense that the state's biggest employers should have to ensure that their workers can get affordable health insurance.
More than half of Wal-Mart's 1.3 million employees nationwide aren't covered by the company's health insurance, pushing thousands of them and their children into Medicaid programs. Wal-Mart raked in $10 billion in profits last year yet doesn't offer decent health insurance to its workers.
Mr. Ehrlich said the bill was bad for business, and The Post ["Beating Up on Wal-Mart," editorial, Jan. 12] echoed that charge. But what could be worse for Maryland businesses than picking up Wal-Mart's health care tab? And what could be worse for companies that provide good health care than having to compete with giant companies that won't pay their fair share? Leaders in 32 other states are introducing similar bills this month in their legislatures.
Wal-Mart is promising big changes in its health care coverage, but a secret memo from its Arkansas headquarters surfaced last year that showed that company executives want to cut experienced workers because they're too expensive, to weed out unhealthy workers and to hire more part-timers.
Wal-Mart also was threatening to kill off its planned Princess Anne distribution center if the Fair Share bill became law, but it is plowing ahead with efforts to add to the 52 stores it has in Maryland.
Wal-Mart complains that it's being singled out in Maryland, but Wal-Mart isn't the only company affected by the Fair Share Health Care bill. It's just the only company that thinks its workers don't deserve any better.
JOHN J. SWEENEY
President
AFL-CIO
Wal-Mart's Agenda
Friday, January 13, 2006; Page A20
Last year the Maryland General Assembly passed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, which would have required Maryland's biggest companies to pay their fair share of their workers' health care costs. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed the bill. This year Wal-Mart mobilized an army of lobbyists to fight the bill ["Md. Bill on Health Benefits Triggers a Deluge of Lobbying and Attention," Metro, Jan. 10]. It wanted other state legislatures to see the lengths to which it would go. Yesterday, the Maryland legislature overrode the governor's veto.
To most Marylanders, it makes sense that the state's biggest employers should have to ensure that their workers can get affordable health insurance.
More than half of Wal-Mart's 1.3 million employees nationwide aren't covered by the company's health insurance, pushing thousands of them and their children into Medicaid programs. Wal-Mart raked in $10 billion in profits last year yet doesn't offer decent health insurance to its workers.
Mr. Ehrlich said the bill was bad for business, and The Post ["Beating Up on Wal-Mart," editorial, Jan. 12] echoed that charge. But what could be worse for Maryland businesses than picking up Wal-Mart's health care tab? And what could be worse for companies that provide good health care than having to compete with giant companies that won't pay their fair share? Leaders in 32 other states are introducing similar bills this month in their legislatures.
Wal-Mart is promising big changes in its health care coverage, but a secret memo from its Arkansas headquarters surfaced last year that showed that company executives want to cut experienced workers because they're too expensive, to weed out unhealthy workers and to hire more part-timers.
Wal-Mart also was threatening to kill off its planned Princess Anne distribution center if the Fair Share bill became law, but it is plowing ahead with efforts to add to the 52 stores it has in Maryland.
Wal-Mart complains that it's being singled out in Maryland, but Wal-Mart isn't the only company affected by the Fair Share Health Care bill. It's just the only company that thinks its workers don't deserve any better.
JOHN J. SWEENEY
President
AFL-CIO
The*Empress
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,908
- Reaction score
- 3
That is dumb....
Nobody work at Walmart a long time. They always have different workers....
And Walmart hired anybody, they hired smokers, overweight people, disabled people, old people, and people who have health problem.
Nobody wants to stand on their feet for 7 hours and only can sit for an hour during lunch break.
I don't blame Walmart for hiring immigrants... Because American workers are so demanding and greedy.
Nobody work at Walmart a long time. They always have different workers....
And Walmart hired anybody, they hired smokers, overweight people, disabled people, old people, and people who have health problem.
Nobody wants to stand on their feet for 7 hours and only can sit for an hour during lunch break.
I don't blame Walmart for hiring immigrants... Because American workers are so demanding and greedy.
Taylor
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,630
- Reaction score
- 4
While I would like to see everyone get affordable Health Care, Ehrlich has good intentions in his veto. He believes the government should not regulate everything that a business does. If Wal-mart chooses not to give their employees benefits (or poor benefits), that falls on the company and not the government. He wants the government to stay out of telling people how to run their lives and their businesses. It sucks that Wal-mart doesn't offer anything, and I feel for the people that work there, but this is a Wal-mart issue and not a government issue.
Now that Maryland has had its say, the wheels have started turning in a negative direction. The plants and stores that were planning on opening may not happen now. Why would Wal-mart put more stores into the state of Maryland when they can go to another state and not have to do Healthcare? So now, those Marylanders that would have had the jobs in those stores and plants, no longer have that opportunity to have a job there at all. That means finding other work or remaining unemployed on the welfare rolls.
There are a lot of businesses around the country that do not offer healthcare to their employees, most of them smaller businesses. I know a lot of smaller employers here in Maryland don't offer Healthcare and if they do, its at a steep price. If they are required to provide healthcare to everyone, you will see people get fired and you will see businesses close down because they just can't afford it.
Now that Maryland has had its say, the wheels have started turning in a negative direction. The plants and stores that were planning on opening may not happen now. Why would Wal-mart put more stores into the state of Maryland when they can go to another state and not have to do Healthcare? So now, those Marylanders that would have had the jobs in those stores and plants, no longer have that opportunity to have a job there at all. That means finding other work or remaining unemployed on the welfare rolls.
There are a lot of businesses around the country that do not offer healthcare to their employees, most of them smaller businesses. I know a lot of smaller employers here in Maryland don't offer Healthcare and if they do, its at a steep price. If they are required to provide healthcare to everyone, you will see people get fired and you will see businesses close down because they just can't afford it.
Taylor
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,630
- Reaction score
- 4
bbnt...it should still be up to wal-mart if they provide insurance to their employees, and it is up to us as customers to make sure that they do so. If you don't like wal-mart, then I encourage you to take your business elsewhere...and I don't mean that in a smart ass way...I mean put your dollars in the companies that you believe are doing the right thing. It is us that are putting that profit into their pockets. If the government forces wal-mart to provide coverage, it sets a precident that ALL businesses must provide excellent coverage for their employees and this will hurt the smaller businesses and will take jobs away from americans.
Let me say again that I think all citizens should have good coverage and I don't dispute that, but the government telling everyone how to do it is the wrong approach. God knows that the goverment has enough problems functioning on their own, let alone regulating how businesses are run.
Wal-mart is the country's largest retailer. That is a lot of jobs being lost when Wal-mart decides they want to move their operations elsewhere. I hate what Wal-mart has done to our local economy, but a lot of people work there and a lot of people shop there. And who is to say that Wal-mart wouldn't pull something like hiring illegal immigrants to fill those vacancies?
Let me say again that I think all citizens should have good coverage and I don't dispute that, but the government telling everyone how to do it is the wrong approach. God knows that the goverment has enough problems functioning on their own, let alone regulating how businesses are run.
Wal-mart is the country's largest retailer. That is a lot of jobs being lost when Wal-mart decides they want to move their operations elsewhere. I hate what Wal-mart has done to our local economy, but a lot of people work there and a lot of people shop there. And who is to say that Wal-mart wouldn't pull something like hiring illegal immigrants to fill those vacancies?
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 0
have not been to a Walmart in over 4 years
It does not set a precedent for excellent coverage but
it should set one for a minimum amount of coverage.
good, then maybe some of those better paying jobs
that closed down when Walmart showed up may reopen
Taylor said:
More like the world's largest retailer. How can they move their operations somewhere else? They're already everywhere.
Even if people take their businesses somewhere else, it won't make an impact. There's still 300 million other American wallets and purses to empty.
It's a lose/lose war. If you hate what they've done to your local economy, it's because the local residents allowed it to happen.
Taylor
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,630
- Reaction score
- 4
bbnt said:
One can only hope. I was not happy about Wal-mart coming to town for this very reason. We lost several 'Mom and Pop' stores in the area because of Wal-mart but I don't feel government intervention is the way to go at it.
Before becoming a cop, I worked in broadcast radio as a disc jockey. Our station had roughly 40 employees. Their contribution to our health care was $70.00 a month...that's better than nothing but it sucked. I could not afford to pay the remainder and did not have it. A jock that I worked with was a mother of 4 and her ENTIRE paycheck went to pay for the benefits alone. If the goverment steps in and says that the station must pay more, you can bet a few people there would have lost their jobs and would have been replaced by something, such as station automation where the station is run by a computer instead of a human being.
They can move their operations to other places, and not specifically out of the country. Wal-mart was set to open new stores and plants in the state of Maryland. OK...so Maryland forces them to pay for the coverage. Instead of opening those plants and stores here, they open the new ones in Virginia and Pennsylvania where they don't have to pay for the coverage.
I guess the issue I'm having is of all the people I have known who have worked at wal-mart actually liked working there. The only complaints I heard was about stupid co-workers (just like any other job) and they had nothing bad to say about the company or the work that they did.
And yes, the residents here allowed it to happen but they will tell you that they love having the wal-mart nearby.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 0
The government has protected small bussiness before
while placeing rules on larger work places.
and now workers in the state Maryland won't be
losing there current jobs becouse of low cost low
paying low benifit Walmart. When the other states
get a clue they will make the same laws leaving
nowhere for Walmart to go
M
Mookie
Guest
Business Section: Washington Post
Wow, already spreading to West Virginia and Kentucky. Thanks to Maryland Lawmakers....
Wow, already spreading to West Virginia and Kentucky. Thanks to Maryland Lawmakers....