[Vision2020] Maryland Law Ripples Across States

[Tom Hansen]

>From today's (January 15, 2006) Spokesman Review -

 

In addition to lacking a living wage for its employees, Wal-Mart provides
insufficient health care.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Maryland law ripples across states 

Wal-Mart is target of efforts to improve workers' health care

Tony Pugh

Knight Ridder

January 15, 2006

 

WASHINGTON - Maryland's bold new law requiring Wal-Mart and other large
companies to increase health care coverage of their workers has given new
life to supporters trying to pass similar legislation nationwide.

 

The state's Legislature on Thursday passed a law that directs firms with
more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payrolls on
employee health benefits. The law targeted Wal-Mart, the world's largest
retailer, whose low pay and scant benefits have drawn widespread criticism.

 

In at least 30 other states, plans are under way to draft and introduce
similar "fair share" laws. A proposal in Rhode Island would require
companies with 1,000 or more employees to spend 8 percent of their payrolls
on health benefits. A bill in Washington state would require companies of
5,000 or more to spend 9 percent of payroll on employee health care.

 

In each state proposal, affected companies that don't meet the payment
threshold would have to pay the difference into a state fund to assist the
uninsured.

 

Maryland's law, which overcame fierce opposition from Wal-Mart and a veto by
Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich, prompted cheers from activists across the
nation.

 

"Just (from) the level of calls we're getting from supporters today,
everyone's excited. I certainly think what happened in Maryland will help
the momentum here in New Hampshire," said John Thyng, director of New
Hampshire for Health Care, a Concord-based organization that also backs a
measure requiring an 8 percent spending threshold for firms with 1,000 or
more workers.

 

To rein in state Medicaid costs for the uninsured, which now rival spending
for education, supporters say it's important that large companies provide
adequate coverage for workers and their families.

 

The percentage of businesses that offer health insurance has declined for
five straight years, according to a 2005 report by the Kaiser Family
Foundation. The cost of health insurance premiums has gone up 73 percent,
the Kaiser study found.

 

But groups such as the state and national chambers of commerce and the
National Federation of Independent Business have strongly opposed "fair
share" measures, saying they could scare new jobs away and cause the number
of existing jobs to dwindle if cash-strapped employers can't afford the
mandated coverage.

 

Fair share laws also don't address the problem of the uninsured and rising
health care costs, said Helen Darling, president of the Washington Business
Group on Health, which represents the health care interests of more than 200
large employers that provide health coverage for more than 51 million
people.

 

"We're very concerned about states taking steps like this, which really is a
mandate on businesses," Darling said. "They ought to be working on a way to
deal with the uninsured, and this doesn't make sense as a way to do it."

 

Opposition to Maryland's law was led mainly by Wal-Mart, which employs
nearly 17,000 people in the state. Three other firms in Maryland employ
10,000 or more people, but they're now spending at least 8 percent of their
payroll costs on health coverage.

 

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman blamed passage of the bill on partisan politics.

 

"In allowing a bad bill to become a bad law, the (Maryland) 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," said Sarah Clark.

 

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce has claimed that the new law violates the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which supersedes "all state
laws insomuch as they ... relate to any employee benefit plan."

 

Dan Fogelman, a Wal-Mart spokesman at the company's headquarters in
Bentonville, Ark., said the company could challenge the law.

 

"I'm sure that's something that our attorneys are looking into as we decide
our course of action," he said.

 

Supporters say they're certain the new law will stand.

 

Wal-Mart's spotty reputation for employee benefits may have hurt the
company's effort to fight the proposal, but its deep pockets helped the
company hire four lobbying groups to help sway lawmakers.

 

"Wal-Mart is an incredibly powerful corporation. And if you're picking a
fight with the biggest bully on the block, it's going to be a harder fight,"
said Jonathan Parker, national director of Americans for Health Care, a
project of the Service Employees International Union. The union is backing
similar measures across the country.

 

Because most large employers already provide valuable employee health
coverage, the impact of these laws won't be felt by many companies, said Ron
Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit health care
advocacy group in Washington.

 

"I think businesses that already provide good coverage are quietly saying to
themselves that it's about time that companies like Wal-Mart fulfill the
same kind of responsibility that we've been providing all along."

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Take care, Moscow.

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

 

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060115/c89c69b9/attachment-0001.htm