State should spurn anti-Wal-Mart bill

Maryland set the wrong example

Published January 19, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

The legislature could pass a bill saying something like this: "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must dedicate at least 8 percent of total wages and salaries to employee health benefits or pay the difference to Medicaid."

But the courts might strike down that law as unconstitutional because it targets a single company for punitive treatment.

Or lawmakers could instead use generic language to accomplish the same objective, hammering the retail giant without naming it in the bill.

Guess which option Democratic leaders have made a priority this session?

While the Colorado version of the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act - a brainchild of the national AFL-CIO - has not yet been introduced, it's no secret that union leaders and Democratic supporters have a bit more swagger in recent days. Last week, Maryland became the first state to dictate the amount of medical benefits Wal-Mart must offer its workers. Next stop: Denver and 30 other state capitals.

The Maryland legislature overrode Gov. Bob Ehrlich's veto of the "fair share" bill, which covered any company in the state that employs more than 10,000 people and does not hit the 8 percent threshold. Turns out only four businesses met the employment target. But only one fell short on the health-care side. And it's headquartered in Bentonville, Ark.

Union antipathy to Wal-Mart is no secret. Nor is the company's public assertions that rejecting organized labor is in its employees' best interests. So unions are leaning on friendly legislators to hamstring the discount retailer.

Two canards stoke the "Get Wal-Mart" campaign: First, Wal- Mart provides inadequate medical coverage for its employees. Next, the company's avarice has forced tens of thousands of underinsured workers into Medicaid. As a result, Wal-Mart pads its profits by bilking taxpayers.

Like most non-union businesses, Wal-Mart cannot compel its workers to enroll in its medical plan. Even so, the retailer claims that 75 percent of full- and part-time employees purchase company-sponsored medical coverage, with monthly premiums starting at $11.

To be sure, Wal- Mart does not offer the platinum-plated benefit package bundled into labor contracts; the company contains costs by imposing higher deductibles and co- payments than its unionized rivals. But it's disingenuous to claim that Wal-Mart shortchanges its employees.

The second contention is overstated as well. Nationwide, roughly 5 percent of Wal-Mart employees are enrolled in Medicaid. But so are 4 percent of private-sector workers overall. And most full-time workers on Medicaid are there for only the first few months of employment; typically, they had been out of work temporarily and signed up for subsidized health care until they were covered by their new employers.

So Wal-Mart's Scroogelike employment practices have landed roughly 13,000 additional Americans on Medicaid. That's hardly cause for indignation, let alone what Washington Post editorialists rightly called "a legislative mugging."

If Colorado follows Maryland's lead, look for Wal-Mart to slow local expansion plans, and maybe raise prices. Low-income consumers who save hundreds of dollars a year at Wal-Mart would hardly call that fair. Nor would the entry-level workers who'll find fewer opportunities for meaningful employment as the hiring windows at Wal-Mart close.

And yet the union PR machines continue to bellow that organized labor is looking out for the little guy. Go figure.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News