You might recall that when the Maryland legislature voted to overturn a veto of "fair share", it was news all over the country. For those who have forgotten, "fair share" is a process whereby unions seek to punish Wal Mart for daring to be successful without union membership. "Fair share" is touted as a means of getting more health care to workers, but it is really just a means of making it harder for Wal Mart to discount greater than unionised retailers - you make Wal Mart (and only Wal Mart) pay more for health care than everyone else, and that helps to balance out the fact that retailers who are unionised have much more inefficient work forces which cost like the devil.
Well, you did see all the massive coverage when Indiana voted down a version of "fair share", didn't you? Oh, you didn't...well, isn't that a surprise? Here's the press release:
BENTONVILLE, Ark., Jan. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. spokesman Nate Hurst today issued the following statement on defeated "Fair Share Health Care" legislation in Indiana:
"The Indiana House is only the most recent legislative body to see these kinds of bills for what they are: a misguided approach to the health care challenges facing all employers. These bills do nothing to address the soaring cost of health care. And just as bad, they will cost jobs and hurt economic growth.
"Wal-Mart is working diligently to find solutions to the same health care challenges facing every business in America. That's why we now offer associates the choice of as many as 18 health plan options that cost as little as $11 per month in some areas. Anywhere in the country, any Wal-Mart associate -- both full and part-time -- can become eligible for health benefits starting at just $23 per month. More than three-fourths of Wal-Mart associates have health insurance -- either through a company plan, a spouse's plan or Medicare.
My hat's off to Wal Mart, as usual...I started to be sympathetic to the company when our local government here in Las Vegas tried to do it a different way...changing zoning ordinances so that Wal Mart, and only Wal Mart, wouldn't be able to build stores here. The main thing for me is that what is happening shows that unions are not at all interested in what is best for America and America's workers, but only what is best for the union bosses who have lived quite long enough on the gravy train, if you ask me.
Posted by Mark Noonan at January 26, 2006 06:07 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
repeat 3 times while clicking our heels -
"I wish we had TORT REFORM..."
"I'll get you, me pretty...& your little attorney too!"
"We aint in Indiana anymore, toto"
Posted by: OhioOrrin at January 26, 2006 07:25 AM
Unions are legalized corruption and organized mediocrity!
Posted by: hammerhead at January 26, 2006 08:44 AM
"you make Wal Mart (and only Wal Mart) pay more for health care than everyone else,"
I'm confused. If this is how it works, then doesn't it do exactly the opposite of the stated goal:
"'Fair share' is touted as a means of getting more health care to workers,"
If Walmart has to pay more for health insurance than other companies, wouldn't that mean it would be getting less health care to workers?
Or are you saying that these "fair share" laws make Walmart pay a greater portion of the costs as compared to their employees?
Posted by: LNC at January 26, 2006 09:37 AM
Why should Walmart have to pay more money to thier employee's for health care? They must do this without taking it out of the employee's paycheck so where are these funds going to come from, the consumer thats where. Walmart will be forced to raise their prices to account for this health care benefit, thus the average Walmart shopper is the one who will pay for this in the long run.
Posted by: Sam28 at January 26, 2006 02:34 PM
Can we call this 'consumer busting" - an attempt by unions to destroy a successful business that provides a variety of goods to consumers at lower prices?
Unions seem to have forgotten that their members are consumers as well. Unions are now big business, with all the potential for abuses that go with any large organization. They can exploit their membership to achieve personal prestige and wealth.
Posted by: omapian at January 26, 2006 02:56 PM
A little different note about Walmart saw it My Word by John Gibson today where Walmart was not allowed to build in Chicago and so it was built outside of Chicago proper. What was funny is they put out a bullitn for people to fill out applications they apparently got something like 25,000 applications for 338 or something like that jobs. And what was funnier is over 24,000 of the applications were from Chicago residents. Now talk about an embarrassment for the Chicago politicians who stopped it not only do they not get the $1,000,000 or so tax dollars their own residents would prefer to drive outside of the city to work then work within the biased city limits.
Posted by: Jodi at January 26, 2006 07:54 PM
Like I enjoy telling my pro abortion friends...if you don't like Walmart, don't shop there.
Posted by: John at January 27, 2006 12:33 AM
Why is everything a "war" to you wingnuts?
Posted by: shortz at January 27, 2006 12:30 PM
Democrats are for Walmart! I am a republican and I shop at Walmart! Yuck! I reside in Las Vegas!!!
Posted by:
Tiffany Ongsiaco at January 29, 2006 12:14 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
repeat 3 times while clicking our heels -
"I wish we had TORT REFORM..."
"I'll get you, me pretty...& your little attorney too!"
"We aint in Indiana anymore, toto"
Unions are legalized corruption and organized mediocrity!
"you make Wal Mart (and only Wal Mart) pay more for health care than everyone else,"
I'm confused. If this is how it works, then doesn't it do exactly the opposite of the stated goal:
"'Fair share' is touted as a means of getting more health care to workers,"
If Walmart has to pay more for health insurance than other companies, wouldn't that mean it would be getting less health care to workers?
Or are you saying that these "fair share" laws make Walmart pay a greater portion of the costs as compared to their employees?
Why should Walmart have to pay more money to thier employee's for health care? They must do this without taking it out of the employee's paycheck so where are these funds going to come from, the consumer thats where. Walmart will be forced to raise their prices to account for this health care benefit, thus the average Walmart shopper is the one who will pay for this in the long run.
Can we call this 'consumer busting" - an attempt by unions to destroy a successful business that provides a variety of goods to consumers at lower prices?
Unions seem to have forgotten that their members are consumers as well. Unions are now big business, with all the potential for abuses that go with any large organization. They can exploit their membership to achieve personal prestige and wealth.
A little different note about Walmart saw it My Word by John Gibson today where Walmart was not allowed to build in Chicago and so it was built outside of Chicago proper. What was funny is they put out a bullitn for people to fill out applications they apparently got something like 25,000 applications for 338 or something like that jobs. And what was funnier is over 24,000 of the applications were from Chicago residents. Now talk about an embarrassment for the Chicago politicians who stopped it not only do they not get the $1,000,000 or so tax dollars their own residents would prefer to drive outside of the city to work then work within the biased city limits.
Like I enjoy telling my pro abortion friends...if you don't like Walmart, don't shop there.
Why is everything a "war" to you wingnuts?
Democrats are for Walmart! I am a republican and I shop at Walmart! Yuck! I reside in Las Vegas!!!