Md. Senate Overrides Veto of Wal-Mart Bill
By KRISTEN WYATT (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 12, 2006 9:50 PM EST
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Maryland legislators voted Thursday to enact a first-in-the-nation requirement that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spend more on employee health care. The measure, touted as a money-saver for the state-supported Medicaid program, takes effect despite the governor's veto of the bill.
Labor unions have said they are seeking similar legislation this year in at least 30 other states. Supporters say the retailing giant unfairly takes advantage of taxpayer-funded health care plans because some workers can't afford Wal-Mart's health insurance.
"The taxpayers are giving a health-care subsidy to the largest retailer on earth," argued Democratic Delegate Kumar Barve. The House and Senate, both controlled by Democrats, both notched the three-fifths margins needed to override a veto last May by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
The bill requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund.
Currently, only Wal-Mart would meet the criteria in Maryland. The company employs about 17,000 Marylanders at more than 40 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, and about 1.3 million people nationwide.
Critics of the legislation called it a dangerous precedent that ultimately would cost Maryland jobs.
A Wal-Mart executive called the bill a poorly worded mandate for a single company. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mia Masten said Thursday that the bill "could be the beginning of a slippery slope."
"We believe everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, although this legislation does nothing to accomplish that," said Masten, who said the retailer may partially pull out of Maryland if the bill becomes law.
She said Wal-Mart was unfairly singled out because of "partisan politics" and that Medicaid's problems go beyond the behavior of one company.
The veto override had been one of the session's most intensely lobbied, with business groups taking out print ads supporting a veto and labor groups rallying and taking out their own ads siding with supporters.
The decision is being closely watched by labor unions and legislatures around the country.
"We expect that today's vote with generate important momentum in many other state legislatures," said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Washington-based Wal-Mart Watch, which is funded by a union.
The unions have said the states they will focus on include Colorado, Connecticut and Washington.
Some Maryland Democrats had harsh words for Wal-Mart.
"Don't dump your employees that you refuse to insure into our Medicaid system," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Gloria Lawlah.
In the House, Delegate Anne Healey compared Wal-Mart to a schoolyard bully. But House Republican Leader George Edwards called the measure an unwarranted intrusion into private enterprise.
"If you don't want to work for Wal-Mart, no one's twisting your arms. Go somewhere else and work," Edwards said.
The company is under legal pressures around the country.
In Pennsylvania, a judge this week approved a class-action lawsuit by employees who say the company pressured them to work off the clock. Last month, a California jury awarded workers $172 million for illegally denied lunch breaks, and Wal-Mart settled a similar Colorado case for $50 million.
The company is appealing the California verdict and may pursue an appeal of the class-action certification in Philadelphia.
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, Sarah Clark, said a law like Maryland's "does nothing to help the 46 million uninsured individuals in this country."
Wal Mart
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Disgusting. Since when is it a responsibility of an employer to pay for health care. Sure, it's good business, but responsibility??? Phah!
Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. They think someone else should pay for any misfortune their own decisions may result in.
If so many Wal-Mart employees are destitute, here's an idea: team up. If all these people get together, I guarantee there is enough brain power to figure out a way they can form a company to make more money.
I can't tell you how impressed I am with FarRider & the way he's expanded a "failed" business just through diligence and hard work. These employees should use their energy to come up with a similar business venture, rather than whingeing that a retail store isn't paying for health insurance.
Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. They think someone else should pay for any misfortune their own decisions may result in.
If so many Wal-Mart employees are destitute, here's an idea: team up. If all these people get together, I guarantee there is enough brain power to figure out a way they can form a company to make more money.
I can't tell you how impressed I am with FarRider & the way he's expanded a "failed" business just through diligence and hard work. These employees should use their energy to come up with a similar business venture, rather than whingeing that a retail store isn't paying for health insurance.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: Disgusting. Since when is it a responsibility of an employer to pay for health care. Sure, it's good business, but responsibility??? Phah!
Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. They think someone else should pay for any misfortune their own decisions may result in.
If so many Wal-Mart employees are destitute, here's an idea: team up. If all these people get together, I guarantee there is enough brain power to figure out a way they can form a company to make more money.
I can't tell you how impressed I am with FarRider & the way he's expanded a "failed" business just through diligence and hard work. These employees should use their energy to come up with a similar business venture, rather than whingeing that a retail store isn't paying for health insurance.
You didn't read the article did you?
Nobody wants to take responsibility for themselves anymore. They think someone else should pay for any misfortune their own decisions may result in.
If so many Wal-Mart employees are destitute, here's an idea: team up. If all these people get together, I guarantee there is enough brain power to figure out a way they can form a company to make more money.
I can't tell you how impressed I am with FarRider & the way he's expanded a "failed" business just through diligence and hard work. These employees should use their energy to come up with a similar business venture, rather than whingeing that a retail store isn't paying for health insurance.
You didn't read the article did you?
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
I thought "Finally! Somebody has a response so we can get a conversation going!"
I shoulda known better. :yh_frustr
Yes I read the article and saw the news report.
Do you have something pertinent to add?
I shoulda known better. :yh_frustr
Yes I read the article and saw the news report.
Do you have something pertinent to add?
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: I thought "Finally! Somebody has a response so we can get a conversation going!"
I shoulda known better. :yh_frustr
Yes I read the article and saw the news report.
Do you have something pertinent to add?
Sure I do. The Taxpayers are subsidizing the Insurance....Why?
I shoulda known better. :yh_frustr
Yes I read the article and saw the news report.
Do you have something pertinent to add?
Sure I do. The Taxpayers are subsidizing the Insurance....Why?
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
:yh_wait
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: :yh_wait
Come on......It's the richest retailer in the world.
Come on......It's the richest retailer in the world.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Make your point.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
:yh_wait Still waiting...........
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: :yh_wait Still waiting...........
The point is that Walmart gets subsidies from the government, they hire a lot of people that are on welfare and have disabilities, these people are encourged to keep their medical benefits from the state....thats one. Plus they get their cheap labor.
The point is that Walmart gets subsidies from the government, they hire a lot of people that are on welfare and have disabilities, these people are encourged to keep their medical benefits from the state....thats one. Plus they get their cheap labor.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: The point is that Walmart gets subsidies from the government, they hire a lot of people that are on welfare and have disabilities, these people are encourged to keep their medical benefits from the state....thats one. Plus they get their cheap labor.
........................................
........................................
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: The point is that Walmart gets subsidies from the government, they hire a lot of people that are on welfare and have disabilities, these people are encourged to keep their medical benefits from the state....thats one. Plus they get their cheap labor.Did you read my post?
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: Did you read my post?
I see you want to play games.
I see you want to play games.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
SnoozeControl wrote: Oh for pete's sake, why don't you two just get married already?:rolleyes:
Who's Pete?:o
Who's Pete?:o
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Couldn't resist. 
The gov't shouldn't give Wal-mart subsidies.
No employer should be required to pay medical.
The gov't shouldn't give Wal-mart subsidies.
No employer should be required to pay medical.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: Couldn't resist.
The gov't shouldn't give Wal-mart subsidies.
No employer should be required to pay medical.
I'm all for A National Healthcare program;)
The gov't shouldn't give Wal-mart subsidies.
No employer should be required to pay medical.
I'm all for A National Healthcare program;)
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
Wal Mart
Well, well, I just can't seem to get on your good side these days, can I Accountable? What's funny about that is that I really, really like you! You're supremely intelligent..but unfortunately, you and I seem to be diametrically opoosed politically!
Oh well!
Why should it be that Walmart be held responsible for it's employee's health care?
Two reasons:
1. They employ massive amounts of the population. Moreover, the people it employs are almost exclusively poor or at least very low socio-economic status. Without health care, you and I, the taxpayers, will foot the bill for the emergency room visits.
Who can afford it better? You or Walmart?
2. Almost unilaterally, Walmart pays it's employees a salary that is barely enough for survival, but is obviously not enough for health care. That's just mean.
3. Here's an example from the past of the kind of tactics that Walmart employs:
There once was an employer who, similarly, employed thousands of workers. This employer mandated that his employees live in ramshackle, broken down housing on the lot behind his factory. the conditions were heinous.
Since he owned the land, he then charged them a very large chunk of their salary for rent, in effect a "kickback" of the wages he had just paid them.
To top it off, he made them shop at the company store for groceries and took what little money they had left.
Let's look at the end result...the worker for this man, although technically "paid", was in the very same position as a slave! His master provided food and lodging for him, but since he had no disposable income, he couldn't change his position in life, just as a slave couldn't.
Now flash forward to Walmart. The giant employs massive chunks of the population, then pays wages that are so low that their employees live on the edge of poverty.
Next, Walmart kicks out a policy of charging exorbitant health insurance fees that it knows for a fact that it's employees can't pay! What result could they expect?
Exactly what's happening. The workers, unable to afford Walmart's insurance, overwhelm the emergency rooms. Moreover, because of their low income, they become indigent and do not pay their bills. Result?
Walmart abdicates all responsibility for it's workers, while still "seeming" to have a health plan.
Pretty evil, if you ask me. They must be taking lessons from the tobacco industry.
Oh well!
Why should it be that Walmart be held responsible for it's employee's health care?
Two reasons:
1. They employ massive amounts of the population. Moreover, the people it employs are almost exclusively poor or at least very low socio-economic status. Without health care, you and I, the taxpayers, will foot the bill for the emergency room visits.
Who can afford it better? You or Walmart?
2. Almost unilaterally, Walmart pays it's employees a salary that is barely enough for survival, but is obviously not enough for health care. That's just mean.
3. Here's an example from the past of the kind of tactics that Walmart employs:
There once was an employer who, similarly, employed thousands of workers. This employer mandated that his employees live in ramshackle, broken down housing on the lot behind his factory. the conditions were heinous.
Since he owned the land, he then charged them a very large chunk of their salary for rent, in effect a "kickback" of the wages he had just paid them.
To top it off, he made them shop at the company store for groceries and took what little money they had left.
Let's look at the end result...the worker for this man, although technically "paid", was in the very same position as a slave! His master provided food and lodging for him, but since he had no disposable income, he couldn't change his position in life, just as a slave couldn't.
Now flash forward to Walmart. The giant employs massive chunks of the population, then pays wages that are so low that their employees live on the edge of poverty.
Next, Walmart kicks out a policy of charging exorbitant health insurance fees that it knows for a fact that it's employees can't pay! What result could they expect?
Exactly what's happening. The workers, unable to afford Walmart's insurance, overwhelm the emergency rooms. Moreover, because of their low income, they become indigent and do not pay their bills. Result?
Walmart abdicates all responsibility for it's workers, while still "seeming" to have a health plan.
Pretty evil, if you ask me. They must be taking lessons from the tobacco industry.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Wal Mart
Oh..for you history buffs, that @%$#$## employer from the past? His name was Henry Ford.
His treatment of his employees resulted in the very first unions.
His treatment of his employees resulted in the very first unions.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Jives wrote: Well, well, I just can't seem to get on your good side these days, can I Accountable. What's funny about that is that I really really like you! You're supremely intelligent..but unfortunately you and I seem to be diametrically opoosed politically!
Oh well!
Yaaay freedom! Do me a favor & address my post (#2). I like to watch your brain work, too. I, presumably like you, am wide open to investigating my ideas & juxtaposing them to others' ideas. That's why Stupid is so frustrating with her insipid questions that go nowhere. By bringing my ideas out in the air & light I can examine them to see if they make sense.
Jives wrote: Why should it be that Walmart be held responsible for it's employee's health care?
Two reasons:
1. They employ massive amounts of the population. Moreover, the people it employs are almost exclusively poor or at least very low socio-economic status. Without health care you and I, the taxpayers will foot the bill for the eemergency room visits.
Who can afford it better? You or Walmart? So they should pay simply because they can??? So why don't we just send the bill to Bill Gates?
Look, paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
But that doesn't make the employer responsible for the employees' healthcare.
Jives wrote: 2. Almost unilaterally, Walmart pays it's emplyees a salary that is not only barely enough for survival, but is obviously not enough for health care. That's just mean. So? They're mean. The employees have options. They can Unionize. They can go elsewhere to find work. They can start their own businesses. Life sux, so does Wal-Mart. It will implode soon or change.
Oh well!
Yaaay freedom! Do me a favor & address my post (#2). I like to watch your brain work, too. I, presumably like you, am wide open to investigating my ideas & juxtaposing them to others' ideas. That's why Stupid is so frustrating with her insipid questions that go nowhere. By bringing my ideas out in the air & light I can examine them to see if they make sense.
Jives wrote: Why should it be that Walmart be held responsible for it's employee's health care?
Two reasons:
1. They employ massive amounts of the population. Moreover, the people it employs are almost exclusively poor or at least very low socio-economic status. Without health care you and I, the taxpayers will foot the bill for the eemergency room visits.
Who can afford it better? You or Walmart? So they should pay simply because they can??? So why don't we just send the bill to Bill Gates?
Look, paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
But that doesn't make the employer responsible for the employees' healthcare.
Jives wrote: 2. Almost unilaterally, Walmart pays it's emplyees a salary that is not only barely enough for survival, but is obviously not enough for health care. That's just mean. So? They're mean. The employees have options. They can Unionize. They can go elsewhere to find work. They can start their own businesses. Life sux, so does Wal-Mart. It will implode soon or change.
Wal Mart
Oh horrors! That fast-fingered Accountable quoted my post before I could correct the spelling mistakes! Blasted arthritus!!!
Accountable wrote: That's why Stupid is so frustrating with her insipid questions that go nowhere.
At first I thought you were flaming her, then I realized that you had just shortened her username, as I often do. But it does have a funny side effect, eh? LOL!:wah:
So they should pay simply because they can??? So why don't we just send the bill to Bill Gates?
Ummm....damn. I don't have a good answer for that.
Look, paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
Uh...YEAH! That's right, that's what I meant to say!
(Sheesh! I'd better go home, Accountable's whipping me about the head like an unwanted stepchild!):(
So? They're mean. The employees have options. They can Unionize. They can go elsewhere to find work. They can start their own businesses. Life sux, so does Wal-Mart. It will implode soon or change.
Well..one last volley is all I have left in me, sir. Then I must retreat from the battle.
1. They can't unionize, Walmart is notorious for intimidation and illegal firings. They can afford the lawsuits, so they act with impunity in stopping unionization.
2. They can't go elsewhere, Walmart has driven most smal retailers out of business, especially the ones that would hire ex-Walmart employees.
3. They can't start their own businesses. With the wages that Walmart pays them, they can't save any money, can't qualify for a small business loan, and even assuming they did, Walmart's marketing power can crush them in weeks. Walmart can take a complete loss at any one of their stores for the amount of time it will take for undercutting prices to force their competition out of business.
Walmart is a modern-day icon of evil.
Now please excuse me, I need to pick up some beer, milk, cold pills, catfood, and steaks. Hmmm...where can I get all that cheap?
Oh. I know, I'll head over to Walmart.:-3
Accountable wrote: That's why Stupid is so frustrating with her insipid questions that go nowhere.
At first I thought you were flaming her, then I realized that you had just shortened her username, as I often do. But it does have a funny side effect, eh? LOL!:wah:
So they should pay simply because they can??? So why don't we just send the bill to Bill Gates?
Ummm....damn. I don't have a good answer for that.
Look, paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
Uh...YEAH! That's right, that's what I meant to say!
(Sheesh! I'd better go home, Accountable's whipping me about the head like an unwanted stepchild!):(
So? They're mean. The employees have options. They can Unionize. They can go elsewhere to find work. They can start their own businesses. Life sux, so does Wal-Mart. It will implode soon or change.
Well..one last volley is all I have left in me, sir. Then I must retreat from the battle.
1. They can't unionize, Walmart is notorious for intimidation and illegal firings. They can afford the lawsuits, so they act with impunity in stopping unionization.
2. They can't go elsewhere, Walmart has driven most smal retailers out of business, especially the ones that would hire ex-Walmart employees.
3. They can't start their own businesses. With the wages that Walmart pays them, they can't save any money, can't qualify for a small business loan, and even assuming they did, Walmart's marketing power can crush them in weeks. Walmart can take a complete loss at any one of their stores for the amount of time it will take for undercutting prices to force their competition out of business.
Walmart is a modern-day icon of evil.
Now please excuse me, I need to pick up some beer, milk, cold pills, catfood, and steaks. Hmmm...where can I get all that cheap?
Oh. I know, I'll head over to Walmart.:-3
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Jives wrote: Oh..for you history buffs, that @%$#$## employer from the past? His name was Henry Ford.
His treatment of his employees resulted in the very first unions.
and might I add if it wasn't for These "UNIONS" many of the things we have and take for granted today would not have been realized.
But today doesn't remember yesterday and we are losing what we have today to gain nothing for tomorrow.
His treatment of his employees resulted in the very first unions.
and might I add if it wasn't for These "UNIONS" many of the things we have and take for granted today would not have been realized.
But today doesn't remember yesterday and we are losing what we have today to gain nothing for tomorrow.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: and might I add if it wasn't for These "UNIONS" many of the things we have and take for granted today would not have been realized.
But today doesn't remember yesterday and we are losing what we have today to gain nothing for tomorrow.
That was borderline deep. :yh_clap
Unions are like weapons. They are essential and effective when used appropriately, but we need to know when to hang them on the wall. Still, it is vital to keep them in good condition in case the time comes to use them again.
WalMart employees need a union, not gov't.
But today doesn't remember yesterday and we are losing what we have today to gain nothing for tomorrow.
That was borderline deep. :yh_clap
Unions are like weapons. They are essential and effective when used appropriately, but we need to know when to hang them on the wall. Still, it is vital to keep them in good condition in case the time comes to use them again.
WalMart employees need a union, not gov't.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: That was borderline deep. :yh_clap
Unions are like weapons. They are essential and effective when used appropriately, but we need to know when to hang them on the wall. Still, it is vital to keep them in good condition in case the time comes to use them again.
WalMart employees need a union, not gov't.
I don't need to be deep.
We need health care, just like retired military eh?
Unions are like weapons. They are essential and effective when used appropriately, but we need to know when to hang them on the wall. Still, it is vital to keep them in good condition in case the time comes to use them again.
WalMart employees need a union, not gov't.
I don't need to be deep.
We need health care, just like retired military eh?
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I don't need to be deep.
We need health care, just like retired military eh?
Earn it, fight for it, or pay for it. Don't ask me to fund ya.
We need health care, just like retired military eh?
Earn it, fight for it, or pay for it. Don't ask me to fund ya.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: Earn it, fight for it, or pay for it. Don't ask me to fund ya.
I say we don't pay taxes
I say we don't pay taxes
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I'm all for A National Healthcare program;)
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I say we don't pay taxes
You can't have it both ways. I agree with the second statement when it comes to federal social programs.
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I say we don't pay taxes
You can't have it both ways. I agree with the second statement when it comes to federal social programs.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: You can't have it both ways. I agree with the second statement when it comes to federal social programs.
so we don't pay for your medical Insurance.:p
so we don't pay for your medical Insurance.:p
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: so we don't pay for your medical Insurance.:pMy employer offered it as a benefit of my job, just as if I worked for any corporation but Wal-mart. Big difference between that and a social program.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
This just in. I haven't read it yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 13, 2006 07:00 PM ET Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law
All Associated Press News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.
Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.
"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.
The law was enacted Thursday when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill it passed last April. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into the state Medicaid fund to help pay for health care for low-income Marylanders.
Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the only company in the state that currently would be affected by the law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2007. It has about 17,000 employees at 53 stores and two distribution centers in Maryland and was planning on building a distribution center on the Eastern Shore, which the governor said may now be in jeopardy.
Supporters say the law is needed because Maryland is underwriting the cost of health care for many Wal-Mart employees who can't afford to pay their share of insurance premiums. Democratic leaders, who pushed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act through the legislature, said they did not know how many people were involved or what the cost was to the state.
Wal-Mart has not provided specific information on its Maryland employees, but Clark said earlier this month that more than three-quarters of the retailer's total 1.3 million employees have health coverage through the company, their family or Medicare. The retailer also announced in October that it was launching a plan to lower insurance premiums for workers.
Supporters and opponents produced conflicting legal advice on the validity of the law in the days leading up to the veto override.
Henry A. Smith, a Baltimore lawyer who reviewed the law for the state Chamber of Commerce, said it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate employee benefits.
"Any state attempt to regulate an employee benefit plan is pre-empted by the federal employee benefit law because of the Congress' belief that a single federal regulatory scheme for employee benefits is preferable to 51 separate, varying state schemes," Smith said.
Smith said there have not been any court cases dealing with a law identical to the Maryland statute. But he cited "a very close case" from the District of Columbia in which a federal court struck down a law mandating employee benefit levels because it was pre-empted under federal law.
Ronald Wineholt, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, said the business group probably does not have legal standing to challenge the law, but he hopes a lawsuit will be filed.
"This law is ripe for a legal challenge," he said.
But the state attorney general's office advised the governor and the legislature before the veto override votes that the law does not violate the federal statute.
"The Fair Share Act does not specifically refer to employee welfare benefit plans," said a letter signed by Democratic Attorney General J. Joseph W. Curran.
Wal-Mart could avoid paying the assessment by such methods as reducing payroll or cutting employees below the 10,000 threshold.
Kenneth Stanton, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Baltimore, who is a critic of the law, said Wal-Mart might be able to avoid paying into the Medicaid fund by creating a second Maryland company and dividing employees between the two companies.
Wal-Mart had little else to say Friday about the bill. "We are pausing and evaluating the situation thoroughly at this point," Dan Fogleman, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the Maryland bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 13, 2006 07:00 PM ET Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law
All Associated Press News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.
Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.
"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.
The law was enacted Thursday when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill it passed last April. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into the state Medicaid fund to help pay for health care for low-income Marylanders.
Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the only company in the state that currently would be affected by the law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2007. It has about 17,000 employees at 53 stores and two distribution centers in Maryland and was planning on building a distribution center on the Eastern Shore, which the governor said may now be in jeopardy.
Supporters say the law is needed because Maryland is underwriting the cost of health care for many Wal-Mart employees who can't afford to pay their share of insurance premiums. Democratic leaders, who pushed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act through the legislature, said they did not know how many people were involved or what the cost was to the state.
Wal-Mart has not provided specific information on its Maryland employees, but Clark said earlier this month that more than three-quarters of the retailer's total 1.3 million employees have health coverage through the company, their family or Medicare. The retailer also announced in October that it was launching a plan to lower insurance premiums for workers.
Supporters and opponents produced conflicting legal advice on the validity of the law in the days leading up to the veto override.
Henry A. Smith, a Baltimore lawyer who reviewed the law for the state Chamber of Commerce, said it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate employee benefits.
"Any state attempt to regulate an employee benefit plan is pre-empted by the federal employee benefit law because of the Congress' belief that a single federal regulatory scheme for employee benefits is preferable to 51 separate, varying state schemes," Smith said.
Smith said there have not been any court cases dealing with a law identical to the Maryland statute. But he cited "a very close case" from the District of Columbia in which a federal court struck down a law mandating employee benefit levels because it was pre-empted under federal law.
Ronald Wineholt, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, said the business group probably does not have legal standing to challenge the law, but he hopes a lawsuit will be filed.
"This law is ripe for a legal challenge," he said.
But the state attorney general's office advised the governor and the legislature before the veto override votes that the law does not violate the federal statute.
"The Fair Share Act does not specifically refer to employee welfare benefit plans," said a letter signed by Democratic Attorney General J. Joseph W. Curran.
Wal-Mart could avoid paying the assessment by such methods as reducing payroll or cutting employees below the 10,000 threshold.
Kenneth Stanton, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Baltimore, who is a critic of the law, said Wal-Mart might be able to avoid paying into the Medicaid fund by creating a second Maryland company and dividing employees between the two companies.
Wal-Mart had little else to say Friday about the bill. "We are pausing and evaluating the situation thoroughly at this point," Dan Fogleman, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the Maryland bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: This just in. I haven't read it yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 13, 2006 07:00 PM ET Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law
All Associated Press News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.
Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.
"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.
The law was enacted Thursday when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill it passed last April. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into the state Medicaid fund to help pay for health care for low-income Marylanders.
Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the only company in the state that currently would be affected by the law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2007. It has about 17,000 employees at 53 stores and two distribution centers in Maryland and was planning on building a distribution center on the Eastern Shore, which the governor said may now be in jeopardy.
Supporters say the law is needed because Maryland is underwriting the cost of health care for many Wal-Mart employees who can't afford to pay their share of insurance premiums. Democratic leaders, who pushed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act through the legislature, said they did not know how many people were involved or what the cost was to the state.
Wal-Mart has not provided specific information on its Maryland employees, but Clark said earlier this month that more than three-quarters of the retailer's total 1.3 million employees have health coverage through the company, their family or Medicare. The retailer also announced in October that it was launching a plan to lower insurance premiums for workers.
Supporters and opponents produced conflicting legal advice on the validity of the law in the days leading up to the veto override.
Henry A. Smith, a Baltimore lawyer who reviewed the law for the state Chamber of Commerce, said it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate employee benefits.
"Any state attempt to regulate an employee benefit plan is pre-empted by the federal employee benefit law because of the Congress' belief that a single federal regulatory scheme for employee benefits is preferable to 51 separate, varying state schemes," Smith said.
Smith said there have not been any court cases dealing with a law identical to the Maryland statute. But he cited "a very close case" from the District of Columbia in which a federal court struck down a law mandating employee benefit levels because it was pre-empted under federal law.
Ronald Wineholt, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, said the business group probably does not have legal standing to challenge the law, but he hopes a lawsuit will be filed.
"This law is ripe for a legal challenge," he said.
But the state attorney general's office advised the governor and the legislature before the veto override votes that the law does not violate the federal statute.
"The Fair Share Act does not specifically refer to employee welfare benefit plans," said a letter signed by Democratic Attorney General J. Joseph W. Curran.
Wal-Mart could avoid paying the assessment by such methods as reducing payroll or cutting employees below the 10,000 threshold.
Kenneth Stanton, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Baltimore, who is a critic of the law, said Wal-Mart might be able to avoid paying into the Medicaid fund by creating a second Maryland company and dividing employees between the two companies.
Wal-Mart had little else to say Friday about the bill. "We are pausing and evaluating the situation thoroughly at this point," Dan Fogleman, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the Maryland bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states.
Why don't you get a job there and you can check in with us and how "GROOVY" it is to work For Walmart?:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 13, 2006 07:00 PM ET Wal-Mart Mulls Legal Challenge to Md. Law
All Associated Press News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.
Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.
"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.
The law was enacted Thursday when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of a bill it passed last April. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into the state Medicaid fund to help pay for health care for low-income Marylanders.
Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart is the only company in the state that currently would be affected by the law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2007. It has about 17,000 employees at 53 stores and two distribution centers in Maryland and was planning on building a distribution center on the Eastern Shore, which the governor said may now be in jeopardy.
Supporters say the law is needed because Maryland is underwriting the cost of health care for many Wal-Mart employees who can't afford to pay their share of insurance premiums. Democratic leaders, who pushed the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act through the legislature, said they did not know how many people were involved or what the cost was to the state.
Wal-Mart has not provided specific information on its Maryland employees, but Clark said earlier this month that more than three-quarters of the retailer's total 1.3 million employees have health coverage through the company, their family or Medicare. The retailer also announced in October that it was launching a plan to lower insurance premiums for workers.
Supporters and opponents produced conflicting legal advice on the validity of the law in the days leading up to the veto override.
Henry A. Smith, a Baltimore lawyer who reviewed the law for the state Chamber of Commerce, said it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which pre-empts state efforts to regulate employee benefits.
"Any state attempt to regulate an employee benefit plan is pre-empted by the federal employee benefit law because of the Congress' belief that a single federal regulatory scheme for employee benefits is preferable to 51 separate, varying state schemes," Smith said.
Smith said there have not been any court cases dealing with a law identical to the Maryland statute. But he cited "a very close case" from the District of Columbia in which a federal court struck down a law mandating employee benefit levels because it was pre-empted under federal law.
Ronald Wineholt, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, said the business group probably does not have legal standing to challenge the law, but he hopes a lawsuit will be filed.
"This law is ripe for a legal challenge," he said.
But the state attorney general's office advised the governor and the legislature before the veto override votes that the law does not violate the federal statute.
"The Fair Share Act does not specifically refer to employee welfare benefit plans," said a letter signed by Democratic Attorney General J. Joseph W. Curran.
Wal-Mart could avoid paying the assessment by such methods as reducing payroll or cutting employees below the 10,000 threshold.
Kenneth Stanton, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Baltimore, who is a critic of the law, said Wal-Mart might be able to avoid paying into the Medicaid fund by creating a second Maryland company and dividing employees between the two companies.
Wal-Mart had little else to say Friday about the bill. "We are pausing and evaluating the situation thoroughly at this point," Dan Fogleman, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the Maryland bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states.
Why don't you get a job there and you can check in with us and how "GROOVY" it is to work For Walmart?:)
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Why don't you get a job there and you can check in with us and how "GROOVY" it is to work For Walmart?:)And the bulb fades. 
Well, it was good while it lasted.
Well, it was good while it lasted.-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: And the bulb fades. Well, it was good while it lasted.
You could be in management!;)
Well, it was good while it lasted.You could be in management!;)
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Jives wrote: Well..one last volley is all I have left in me, sir. Then I must retreat from the battle.
1. They can't unionize, Walmart is notorious for intimidation and illegal firings. They can afford the lawsuits, so they act with impunity in stopping unionization. So could Ford. Nobody claimed it would be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
Jives wrote: 2. They can't go elsewhere, Walmart has driven most smal retailers out of business, especially the ones that would hire ex-Walmart employees.
3. They can't start their own businesses. With the wages that Walmart pays them, they can't save any money, can't qualify for a small business loan, and even assuming they did, Walmart's marketing power can crush them in weeks. Walmart can take a complete loss at any one of their stores for the amount of time it will take for undercutting prices to force their competition out of business.
I'm surprised to see this attitude from a molder of young minds! Of course they can't go up against Wal-Mart. That's suicide! So they must be creative. I have faith that if a group of them gets together, they can come up with an idea for a business to fill a need in the area. It could be landscaping, delivery, warehousing, cleaning grease out of chinese restaurant chimneys, the world's their oyster! A very wise man I greatly respect once said "It's a Golden Age of Mankind!" and I could not agree more. People have lost faith in themselves, that's all.
1. They can't unionize, Walmart is notorious for intimidation and illegal firings. They can afford the lawsuits, so they act with impunity in stopping unionization. So could Ford. Nobody claimed it would be easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
Jives wrote: 2. They can't go elsewhere, Walmart has driven most smal retailers out of business, especially the ones that would hire ex-Walmart employees.
3. They can't start their own businesses. With the wages that Walmart pays them, they can't save any money, can't qualify for a small business loan, and even assuming they did, Walmart's marketing power can crush them in weeks. Walmart can take a complete loss at any one of their stores for the amount of time it will take for undercutting prices to force their competition out of business.
I'm surprised to see this attitude from a molder of young minds! Of course they can't go up against Wal-Mart. That's suicide! So they must be creative. I have faith that if a group of them gets together, they can come up with an idea for a business to fill a need in the area. It could be landscaping, delivery, warehousing, cleaning grease out of chinese restaurant chimneys, the world's their oyster! A very wise man I greatly respect once said "It's a Golden Age of Mankind!" and I could not agree more. People have lost faith in themselves, that's all.
Wal Mart
I havent got the energy to argue with you right now but you really disappoint me acc. Yea I know big deal. In a nutshell, why should Wal Mart have a comprehensive health plan and fair wages for their employees ? Because its the right thing to do, and because they can.
You sound like an economic imperialist.
You sound like an economic imperialist.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Nomad wrote: I havent got the energy to argue with you right now but you really disappoint me acc. Yea I know big deal. In a nutshell, why should Wal Mart have a comprehensive health plan and fair wages for their employees ? Because its the right thing to do, and because they can.
You sound like an economic imperialist.
I agree. 100% unequevicably, without a doubt. Make a sign and place it in the Wal-Mart parking lot for all to see. Wal-Mart should have a comprehensive health plan and fair wages.
When a patron goes to a restaurant and receives good service, the accepted response is to leave a 15% gratuity. Everyone should leave a tip, and a millionaire should leave more, because he can afford it. Absolutely!
But that doesn't mean legislature should force patrons to leave tips.
In most Christian churches the members tithe (give 10% of their income). This is something they should do because their chosen faith dictates it.
But that doesn't mean the legislature should force Christians to tithe.
If a person is entering a building at the same time a another person who has an armload of groceries, he should hold the door open. It would be rude to do otherwise.
But that doesn't mean the legislature should mandate such a courtesy.
Paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
But that doesn't make the employer responsible for the employees' healthcare, even if the employer can afford it and all the other employers are doing it.
Sorry to disappoint you, Nomad. You should agree with me, but I'm not about to sic the gov't on you.
If a new law dictated that all employers must provide healthcare, it would mean instant depression because virtually all small businesses would instantly go under. If any caviat existed, such as minimum number of employees or size of the company, Wal-Mart would simply trim staff (fire the very people you want to help) or rearrange their corporate structure to avoid paying the healthcare. If the law specified Wal-Mart by name, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Besides, it just wouldn't be right.
You sound like an economic imperialist.
I agree. 100% unequevicably, without a doubt. Make a sign and place it in the Wal-Mart parking lot for all to see. Wal-Mart should have a comprehensive health plan and fair wages.
When a patron goes to a restaurant and receives good service, the accepted response is to leave a 15% gratuity. Everyone should leave a tip, and a millionaire should leave more, because he can afford it. Absolutely!
But that doesn't mean legislature should force patrons to leave tips.
In most Christian churches the members tithe (give 10% of their income). This is something they should do because their chosen faith dictates it.
But that doesn't mean the legislature should force Christians to tithe.
If a person is entering a building at the same time a another person who has an armload of groceries, he should hold the door open. It would be rude to do otherwise.
But that doesn't mean the legislature should mandate such a courtesy.
Paying medical coverage is undeniably good business. It promotes loyalty and reduces turnover, which is cheaper in the long run than constantly recruiting, hiring, & training new people.
But that doesn't make the employer responsible for the employees' healthcare, even if the employer can afford it and all the other employers are doing it.
Sorry to disappoint you, Nomad. You should agree with me, but I'm not about to sic the gov't on you.
If a new law dictated that all employers must provide healthcare, it would mean instant depression because virtually all small businesses would instantly go under. If any caviat existed, such as minimum number of employees or size of the company, Wal-Mart would simply trim staff (fire the very people you want to help) or rearrange their corporate structure to avoid paying the healthcare. If the law specified Wal-Mart by name, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Besides, it just wouldn't be right.
Wal Mart
Im treading lightly here because I really dont have it in me for a debate, however I will say I agree with everything you said, almost. The govt. stepped in on Ma Bell when it was obvious they were becoming a monopoly and with good reasoning behind it. Wal Mart should be watched. What if Wal Mart were owned by a Chinese corp. ? Would that make a difference to you ?
Jives was correct in saying that when they move into a neighborhood they choke out all the small businesses around them. Its the plan.
I believe in a free market economy but not at any expense, Wal Mart is unethical in its business practices. Agreed when they buy in bulk the economy grows however their own people that help them grow arent growing with them. Jives also was right on the money in making a comparison between Henry Ford and slavery practices.
Wal Marts employees are dispensable, something less than valued.
Should govt. mandate ethics to corporations ? As a general rule of thumb no.
This lies squarely on the family ownership. A very few are getting very very wealthy through shrewd business mindset but also at the expense of families all across America. My problem is with the Board of Directors not the White House.
I refuse to shop there. They reek of filth and stench and I abhor them.
Jives was correct in saying that when they move into a neighborhood they choke out all the small businesses around them. Its the plan.
I believe in a free market economy but not at any expense, Wal Mart is unethical in its business practices. Agreed when they buy in bulk the economy grows however their own people that help them grow arent growing with them. Jives also was right on the money in making a comparison between Henry Ford and slavery practices.
Wal Marts employees are dispensable, something less than valued.
Should govt. mandate ethics to corporations ? As a general rule of thumb no.
This lies squarely on the family ownership. A very few are getting very very wealthy through shrewd business mindset but also at the expense of families all across America. My problem is with the Board of Directors not the White House.
I refuse to shop there. They reek of filth and stench and I abhor them.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Wal Mart
i used to bust shoplifters for walmart. i was an entity unto myself, not their employee, in fact i had license to bust management. but i would be so sickened and appalled at the performances in the break room in the morning, big cheerleading sessions which would embarrass barney the purple dinosaur. it was such blatent propoganda, and disgusting, they'd get down and wiggle for chris' sake. they hired people without a lot of brain cells and no education, then rip them off. they made sure nobody worked 40 hours so they wouldn't have to pay for insurance. everyone was 'part-time'.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Nomad wrote: Im treading lightly here because I really dont have it in me for a debate, however I will say I agree with everything you said, almost. The govt. stepped in on Ma Bell when it was obvious they were becoming a monopoly and with good reasoning behind it. Wal Mart should be watched. Agreed.
Nomad wrote: What if Wal Mart were owned by a Chinese corp. ? Would that make a difference to you ?Not one bit.
Nomad wrote: Jives was correct in saying that when they move into a neighborhood they choke out all the small businesse around them. Its the plan.The people allow it. The people can stop it by (1) not applying to work there and (2) not shopping there. I wish I could put (3) not selling them the real estate to build a store in the first place, but the gov't is using imminent domain to steal private property so Wal-Mart can build. Oh, this is the very gov't you want to trust to make Wal-Mart 'do the right thing.'
Nomad wrote: I believe in a free market economy but not at any expense, Wal Mart is unethical in its business practices. Agreed when they buy in bulk the economy grows however their own people that help them grow arent growing with them. Jives also was right on the money in making a comparison between Henry Ford and slavery practices. The gov't didn't break Ford, the employees did it by unionizing.
Nomad wrote: Wal Marts employees are dispensable, something less than valued.
Should govt. mandate ethics to corporations ? As a general rule of thumb no.
This lies squarely on the family ownership. A very few are getting very very wealthy through shrewd business mindset but also at the expense of families all across America. My problem is with the Board of Directors not the White House.
I refuse to shop there. They reek of filth and stench and I abhor them.Don't shop there. Don't work there. Encourage family & friends to do the same.
Also, get rest & drink lots of liquids. Take your meds and obey your wife. You're one of my best friends here & I miss ya. [smilie=4,17,24]
Nomad wrote: What if Wal Mart were owned by a Chinese corp. ? Would that make a difference to you ?Not one bit.
Nomad wrote: Jives was correct in saying that when they move into a neighborhood they choke out all the small businesse around them. Its the plan.The people allow it. The people can stop it by (1) not applying to work there and (2) not shopping there. I wish I could put (3) not selling them the real estate to build a store in the first place, but the gov't is using imminent domain to steal private property so Wal-Mart can build. Oh, this is the very gov't you want to trust to make Wal-Mart 'do the right thing.'
Nomad wrote: I believe in a free market economy but not at any expense, Wal Mart is unethical in its business practices. Agreed when they buy in bulk the economy grows however their own people that help them grow arent growing with them. Jives also was right on the money in making a comparison between Henry Ford and slavery practices. The gov't didn't break Ford, the employees did it by unionizing.
Nomad wrote: Wal Marts employees are dispensable, something less than valued.
Should govt. mandate ethics to corporations ? As a general rule of thumb no.
This lies squarely on the family ownership. A very few are getting very very wealthy through shrewd business mindset but also at the expense of families all across America. My problem is with the Board of Directors not the White House.
I refuse to shop there. They reek of filth and stench and I abhor them.Don't shop there. Don't work there. Encourage family & friends to do the same.
Also, get rest & drink lots of liquids. Take your meds and obey your wife. You're one of my best friends here & I miss ya. [smilie=4,17,24]
Wal Mart
They make me literally sick to my stomach. Putrid is too kind a word to use for the name Wal Mart.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Shop Costco, because Wal-Mart owns Sam's Club too.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Accountable wrote: Shop Costco, because Wal-Mart owns Sam's Club too.
Costco is good to their employees.
Costco is good to their employees.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Costco is good to their employees.Oustanding! I saw the story on one of those news magazine shows. High wages, respect, family atmosphere, ... and the CEO sets his pay at 12 times the average Costco employee. that comes out to something like $350K! a tenth of less effective CEOs. :yh_clap
They're going to take over Sam's by miles without having to resort to legislation.
They're going to take over Sam's by miles without having to resort to legislation.
Wal Mart
Also, get rest & drink lots of liquids. Take your meds and obey your wife. You're one of my best friends here & I miss ya.
Feelings mutual...thanks !
Feelings mutual...thanks !
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
Wal Mart
Far Rider wrote: Good Lord I finally got time to read this whole thread!
I'm with ACC right down the line here... walmart should offer it as a benifit or pay their employees enough to afford basic life items. But they shoudlnt be forced to.
I dont quite see walmart as a monopoly yet, there are still very large competing businesses out there and no one is forced to go souly to walmart as we needed to with the ma-bell comparison.
Good for you Far......now on another thread Public Domain comes into the mix. OH, Is Walmart $bucks here (paying taxes) or in foriegn Banks? :-3
I'm with ACC right down the line here... walmart should offer it as a benifit or pay their employees enough to afford basic life items. But they shoudlnt be forced to.
I dont quite see walmart as a monopoly yet, there are still very large competing businesses out there and no one is forced to go souly to walmart as we needed to with the ma-bell comparison.
Good for you Far......now on another thread Public Domain comes into the mix. OH, Is Walmart $bucks here (paying taxes) or in foriegn Banks? :-3
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wal Mart
Today is the day we remember that great American hero, Martin Luther King, Jr. I read what I believe was his last speech before he was murdered. I believe that if he were alive today, he would have basically the same message to those who are truly concerned about Wal-Mart:
Entire speech plus audio is here:
Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people. Individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles. We don't need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy -- what is the other bread? -- Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.
Dr. King was a man of conviction. One leader with conviction can move mountains. One leader with conviction can change societies.
Entire speech plus audio is here:
Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people. Individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.
We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles. We don't need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."
And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy -- what is the other bread? -- Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.
Dr. King was a man of conviction. One leader with conviction can move mountains. One leader with conviction can change societies.