While the nearby state of Virginia takes steps which suggests it cares more about conformity than social justice or compassion, Maryland took a welcoming step in a more positive direction on Thursday.
On Thursday the Maryland Senate voted 30-17 to overide an action by Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich on the so-called Wal-Mart bill, according to Bloomberg.com
Overriding a veto of a bill requires a three-fifths vote from both the Senate, which was accomplished, as well as the house. The house is expected to vote - and also override - the veto later today.
The so-called Wal-Mart bill, previously known as the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, requires corporations with more than 10,000 workers to devote at least 8 percent of payroll to pay health care costs of its employees.
Wal-Mart has 17,000 workers in the state.
Wal-Mart and other large business owners have criticized the proposed legislation since it amounts to the government telling a private company how to spend its money.
Supporters of the bill point to well-documented practices by the company of not giving workers a fair wage or benefits. The new documentary, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, is just the latest eye-opening report showing the company cares too much about profits at the expense of its employees and the communities it moves into.
Maryland's decision comes on the heels of other public relations nightmares for the company including allegations in the blogging world that Wal-Mart was being racist with some of its Movie suggestions on its Internet site.
Also this week a judge ruled that a class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania can proceed against Wal-Mart by former workers who say they were not paid for all the work they did for the company. The workers describe being told to do work off the clock.
The Pennsylvania law suit, which could affect nearly 150,000 current or former Wal-Mart workers in the state, the Associated Press reported.
The judge’s action follows Wal-Mart workers in California winning $172 million for illegally denied lunch breaks, Wal-Mart previously settled, for $50 million, a similar case in Colorado.
Even before this week Wal-Mart's month was already a public relations nightmare between aftermath from the movie's release plus last week's allegations by bloggers of racist groupings of movies at the Wal-Mart Internet site.
It is enough to make even the greeters at Wal-Mart frown.
Or is it?
Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing.
Besides, the company says at its Internet site::
"There is no formal relationship between Walmart and unions because at Wal Mart, unions are not necessary.
With Wal-Mart's open policy between our associates and managers and executives, we believe there is no need for third-party representation. "
Article comments
1 - Scott Butki
Wal-Mart suffers
two more body blows.
2 - RedTard
WalMart's only sin is being a successful american corporation (all things liberal democrats can't stand).
It's sad when the representatives of a US state are spending their time legislating punishment to corporations because they won't unionize, but that is exactly what is happening. Union's are pushing the propaganda and the American left is gobbling it up.
3 - Dave Nalle
I wonder if Maryland legislatures realize what a criplingly huge amount of money 8% of payroll is relative to the profit margin at WalMart. I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled all their stores out of the state - and then where would all the inbred Abu Ghraib torturing rednecks shop?
Dave
4 - Scott Butki
Dave:They could go to Target or K-Mart instead.
Redtard: I think this is more complicated than you suggest. Asking for employees to be able to get health care benfits doesn't neccesarily mean they have to unionize.
In fact if the workers do get benefits without unionizing wouldn't that just hurt the odds that they would unioning later?
5 - RedTard
Scott,
My main problem with the legislation is that it unfairly attacks a single company. If the loons in Maryland want 8% towards healthcare then they should apply the law equally to all companies.
Why do you think they chose to attack one company rather than make a blanket policy?
I'm old fashioned, I still believe in equal treatment and the really old fashioned notion of limited government.
It's easy to cheerlead while some liberals use the government to take away the property of a private business that you don't like. Just hope that those rich men in the state house don't want your property to build their next condo on. If they can screw WalMart they can certainly do it to you.
6 - Scott Butki
Well, technically speaking they did not attack one company but instead made a requirement with mandates for companies over a certain size.
It got its nickmame of the wal-mart bill because wal-mart is currently the only company of that size.
Similar laws in some cities have been set up regarding zoning of stores of the huge stadium-size of walmart's supercenter. On the one hand an argument can be made that it's not fair to single out a company - or store - of that size. On the other hand it causes problems - and I wrote about Wal-Mart related zoning problems as a reporter - when wal-mart is treated like just another business when its parking lot alone is bigger than some shopping malls I've seen.
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to them taking away "property."
How is telling them they must give health care to workers equal to taking away property?
to me it is more like a push for a living wage than eminent domain or whatever property matter you are are referring to.
7 - Dave Nalle
The way the law is described in the post it would probably also apply to Target at the very least - probably some of the big grocery store chains like Safeway too.
Dave
8 - Scott Butki
The story I read in the Washington Post yesterday said only Wal-Mart had enough employees to fit the criteria.
Opponents of the bill use the slippery slope argument about whether the line drawn about # of employees will change.
Incidentally it didn't help in recent days that the governor forgot he had attended a Wal-Mart fundraiser and got caught in the error/lie.
9 - Dave Nalle
The irony of this is that Wal-Mart will end up having to make up the additional cost in some other way, which probably means bad news for the worker. Either lower wages or the loss of some other benefit or quality of life issue in the workplace.
Whenever government tries to impose a reform like this it's invariably ham-handed and causes more problems than it solves.
Dave
10 - Scott Butki
Fox News is carrying the associated press story which confirms this point
Excerpt: The bill requires all companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend that much or give the state the difference. Currently, only Wal-Mart would meet the criteria in Maryland.
11 - Dave Nalle
There are lots of companies nationwide which could easily top that for employees in one location. So by doing this they guarantee that none of them are going to relocate or build a major plant or facility in Maryland with this law in place. That means no SBC call center, no giant semiconductor plants, no automobile factories. But then having lived in Maryland I can attest the state is fully 2/3 redneck morons. And having had a cousin who was a state legislator there I can confirm that they've got the leadership they deserve.
Dave
12 - Scott Butki
Ok, I just read the W. Post and the NY Times stories and it clarified this issue: It's the # of employees employed statewide,not # of employees at one store.
And yes there are other companies with more employees statewide but those already have 8 percent going to health care costs.
So that's why Wal-Mart is the one most affected
13 - Nancy
There are several chains which qualify; the difference is that they already are providing decent coverage & wages to their employees voluntarily, unlike Walmart which screws their employees, the MD taxpayers, & their competitors by not providing decent wages & benefits, thereby throwing most MD Walmart employees onto the public healthcare system.
In the past several years, Walmart has had to be dragged kicking, spitting, & screaming to comply with US norms of decency as well as the laws regarding employment law in almost every aspect of their business operations. MD will give Walmart & its vampiric scumbag CEO Lee Scott another slap in the face richly deserved, in that the legislature has just approved a minimum wage rate hike up to $6+ odd change per hour.
Walmart elicits neither sympathy nor credibility from me: so far they've been caught (& convicted) of violating any number of laws including discrimination (gender & race), unpaid labor, employing illegals (& then trying to claim they were subcontractors), violating minimum wage laws, child labor laws, etc. not to mention not only dealing with, but having interests in, slave labor manufacturing concerns overseas. Scott's claim that unions are neither needed nor wanted reminds me strongly of the claims of antebellum US slaveholders that blacks neither desired nor could handle freedom. Doubtless from the same altruistic motives, I'll bet.
14 - Scott Butki
Thanks for commenting, Nancy.
Just to be clear I'm not claiming wal-mart doesn't need unions - that was a quote from wal-mart itself.
Oh wait upon re-reading your comment I think when you said Scott you're referring to CEO Scott not me, right?
15 - Al Barger
Mr Butki, this is just pure Wal-Mart hating nonsense right here: "Maryland's decision comes on the heels of other public relations nightmares for the company including allegations in the blogging world that Wal-Mart was being racist with some of its Movie suggestions on its Internet site."
That's a plain flat-out baseless, gratuitous smear, and you have to know that even when you plunk it into the middle of totally unrelated stuff. Do you really think that someone at Wal-Mart was purposely programming their movie recommendation software to throw Planet of the Apes up to people looking at MLK stuff? Consider all the millions of random possibilities for couplings in movies, all the millions of hits on their sites. What's the odds that something like that would NOT happen from time to time?
But no sense letting any idea of FAIR come into play when you have a chance to stigmatize Wal-Mart.
And when they slap about, oh, an 8% pay cut on all their Maryland employees, I for one will not be interested in hearing the whining.
16 - Scott Butki
IF you are going to accuse me of a smear you might want to avoid doing a smear yourself.
Reread what I Wrote and what you wrote - you should find a difference between what you think I said and what I actually said.
I said there are some allegations in the blogging world that Wal-Mart is racist.
Are you denying that such allegations by bloggers exist? I made a point of linking to such allegations in last week's item on Wal-Mart.
I did not say I think Wal-Mart is racist.
When you confuse what I believe with what you think I believe you go to down a slippery slope, the result of which you are guessing at motives and beliefs and end up ascribing smears where none exist.
17 - Scott Butki
I choose my words carefully and would suggest you do the same when accusing others of "smears"
Ok, let's look more carefully at your assertion of my smear. It was based on comments I wrote about in
more detail here.
The prior piece's topic was "Wal-Mart is having a bad week."
Are you suggesting a week when it's on the defensive about a documentary, about weird computerized movie groups is not a bad week?
Are you suggesting that having lost two battles - in MD and Pa. - does not also make their year so far bad?
Ok, the sentence in question:
"Maryland's decision comes on the heels of other public relations nightmares for the company including allegations in the blogging world that Wal-Mart was being racist with some of its Movie suggestions on its Internet site."
Which part is a lie? Does the decision not come on the heels of a bad week?
Do allegations of racism by other bloggers not exist?
Is this not a bad combination of events for one company?
Put simply which part is a lie? If your problem is "wal mart isn't racist" well i didn't say it was - i said some said it was.
And here again is an example of a well-known blogger.
As this Washington Post pieces it concisely:
"Perceived racism is like anthrax to a company: potentially deadly and hard to clean off. The graveness of the situation was reflected in Wal-Mart's quick public apology, in which it said it was "heartsick" over the incident."
-------------------------------
This reminds me of O'Reilly - he doesn't like what someoen says so he says it's flat out wrong. then you when you look at it carefully - be it changed holiday song lyrics he gets all mad.
18 - Scott Butki
The so-called Wal-Mart Bill has been overturned
by a judge.