In some circles, it's verboten to come down in favor of the world's largest retailer, but in a move of brazen political incorrectness, I'll do just that. From MSNBC:
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant “faces threatened injury” from the law’s spending requirement.
I've always been fascinated that those outside of the business world would try to dictate what happens in the business world.
The basic details go like this:
The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.
Sounds a bit personal to me. But I'll admit at least a small bit of bias.
Lawyers for the state argued before (U.S. District Judge J. Frederick) Motz that the so-called Wal-Mart law wasn’t an illegal mandate. They said Wal-Mart was free to pay the penalty — estimated at $6 million a year — instead of providing better benefits. As another alternative, the retailer could also have set up health clinics for its employees.
...and businesses in the garment district were "free" to not pay the Cosa Nostra to "protect" their businesses. Geez.
But, in my world, I follow the maxim that says, "follow the money". Like this.
In Maryland, where state budget writers were looking for ways to rein in a $4.6 billion annual Medicaid tab, the Wal-Mart law was seen as a way to encourage companies to keep employees off public rolls. It became law last winter when the Democratic legislature overrode a 2005 veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
I love it when politicians use the term "encourage". Yeah, with encouragement like that, who needs brass knuckles.
I still believe governments should generally stay out of business. Let the consumer (us) put our money where we want to. Businesses will be watching what we do.
.jpg)
Comment Preview