Md. forces Wal-Mart to spend more on health

[PingSpike]

They should probably change the medicaid system instead, to close the loophole.

 

[piasabird]

What about k-mart, Target, and other businesses?

Why not do this for McDonalds?

I would just take this to the supreme court and tell them to go to hell.

It is one thing for the state to say all businesses have to do this or all businesses that hire X number of employees have to provide better health care. However, you cant just pick one company and target it like this.

This is just leftist agenda.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

what you have here is in effect a tax. It will be buried in the cost of everything you buy.

Assuming this is even true, how is it any different than the direct tax increases foisted on citizens to pay for the medical programs that Wal-mart won't pay for?

Sounds a lot like two sides poitning the finger at each other, and no one willing to step up and do what's right.

Stupid special interest BS. This is just a business issue. Somehow Costco runs a very profitable business charging fair prices while paying its employees a fair wage and providing good benefits. Wal mart is just trying to be maverick, and is ultimately hurting the consumer. With their group buying power, they could purchase much more expansive and cheaper insurance coverage than what their employees are receiving now at direct tax payer expense.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Shivetya

what you have here is in effect a tax. It will be buried in the cost of everything you buy.

Assuming this is even true, how is it any different than the direct tax increases foisted on citizens to pay for the medical programs that Wal-mart won't pay for?

Sounds a lot like two sides poitning the finger at each other, and no one willing to step up and do what's right.

Stupid special interest BS. This is just a business issue. Somehow Costco runs a very profitable business charging fair prices while paying its employees a fair wage and providing good benefits. Wal mart is just trying to be maverick, and is ultimately hurting the consumer. With their group buying power, they could purchase much more expansive and cheaper insurance coverage than what their employees are receiving now at direct tax payer expense.

perhaps they could. but who's place is it to say they have to? the goverment really has not right ot say that they have to have health insurance. people forget that it is a benifit not a right.

this law should get struck down. IF i was in charge fo walmart i would lay off everyone until i was well under the 10k threshold and suspend any new expansion in the state.

 

[Feldenak]

Heh, what Wal-Mart should do is cut down to 9999 employees and leave it there.

This is a ridiculous law and shows just how much leverage the unions have purchased.

 

[miri]

You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: miri
You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

yeah so?

good for them that they have a lot of money. what does that change ANYTHING?

 

[piasabird]

They should just change their incorporation charter and make each store a coproration by itself so each store is considered a franchise and a company unto itself.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: miri
You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

yeah so?

good for them that they have a lot of money. what does that change ANYTHING?

It doesn't have any bearing on the arguement...miri is just jealous.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Shivetya

what you have here is in effect a tax. It will be buried in the cost of everything you buy.

Assuming this is even true, how is it any different than the direct tax increases foisted on citizens to pay for the medical programs that Wal-mart won't pay for?

Sounds a lot like two sides poitning the finger at each other, and no one willing to step up and do what's right.

Stupid special interest BS. This is just a business issue. Somehow Costco runs a very profitable business charging fair prices while paying its employees a fair wage and providing good benefits. Wal mart is just trying to be maverick, and is ultimately hurting the consumer. With their group buying power, they could purchase much more expansive and cheaper insurance coverage than what their employees are receiving now at direct tax payer expense.

perhaps they could. but who's place is it to say they have to? the goverment really has not right ot say that they have to have health insurance. people forget that it is a benifit not a right.

this law should get struck down. IF i was in charge fo walmart i would lay off everyone until i was well under the 10k threshold and suspend any new expansion in the state.

They did put on hold a large distribution center they were planning on opening in MD. If they have any common sense they will announce that they will close all operations in Maryland the day before the law is scheduled to take effect.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

More likely they'd cut down to under 10K, I doubt they'd pull out completely.

I'm not necessarily a Walmart fan but I do love that they don't take sh!t from anybody. You want to unionize your store? Fine, you don't have a store.

Capitalism at its best.

:thumbsup:

Viper GTS

Really? You think that's capitalism "at its best?" I don't have a problem with it, but calling it capitalism "at its best" is an insult to capitalism.

you're kidding, right? The insult to capitalism is the dems attempting to strongarm walmart, not walmart making a sound business decision to keep profits in the black

 

[Feldenak]

BTW, I'm waiting for dmcowen674 to do his run by threadcrapping about: the rich, Bush, Republicans, the rich again, etc...

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: miri
You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

yeah so?

good for them that they have a lot of money. what does that change ANYTHING?

It doesn't have any bearing on the arguement...miri is just jealous.

jealous? no. I never argued for health benefits for walmart workers, if anything they should work elsewhere if they want them.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: miri
You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

yeah so?

good for them that they have a lot of money. what does that change ANYTHING?

It doesn't have any bearing on the arguement...miri is just jealous.

jealous? no. I never argued for health benefits for walmart workers, if anything they should work elsewhere if they want them.

Your earlier post reeked of class jealousy.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Your earlier post reeked of class jealousy.

well thats your misperception. If your wondering, I am against any type of minimum wage and I believe that employers should not have to provide any type of benefits to any employees.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: miri
You folks fail to realize that if walmart provides better benefits, it might hurt the 5 heirs chances of breaking 100 billion in net worth. They are so close to.

yeah so?

good for them that they have a lot of money. what does that change ANYTHING?

It doesn't have any bearing on the arguement...miri is just jealous.

jealous? no. I never argued for health benefits for walmart workers, if anything they should work elsewhere if they want them.

then why post what you did? The heirs of walton hving 100 Billion matters NOTHING to the topic. besides show the fact that dislike them because of jealousy?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Your earlier post reeked of class jealousy.

well thats your misperception. If your wondering, I am against any type of minimum wage and I believe that employers should not have to provide any type of benefits to any employees.

Cheers! :beer:

 

[Ilmater]

I hope Wal-Mart just closes all of its MD stores. Fvck that sh1t. Wal-Mart is more powerful than Bill Gates. Just stop selling there, and I'll bet they will change their tune. "NO! COME BACK! WE CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT YOUR JOBS!!!"

I officially hate MD, and still love Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart: We'll offer you what we want to offer you, and if you don't like it, get the fvck out.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Kobota
?If you don?t want to work for Wal-Mart, no one?s twisting your arms. Go somewhere else and work,? Edwards said.

:thumbsup:

Unless Walmart has caused all other businesses to fold and just about the only place left to work is Walmart.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Zalez
This could be the start of a retail empire crumbling to the ground

Hsrdly. Like I said, Wal-Mart can survive without MD easy. Maryland couldn't survive w/o Wal-Mart.

In my old home town, population ~30k w/ surrounding areas, if Wal-Mart went out of business, around 100 people would immediately be out of work. The other stores in town WOULD NOT be able to keep up with demand for food, etc. We would be in trouble, big time.

My home town also happens to be the site of the first Wal-Mart "Supercenter."

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Kobota
?If you don?t want to work for Wal-Mart, no one?s twisting your arms. Go somewhere else and work,? Edwards said.

:thumbsup:

Unless Walmart has caused all other businesses to fold and just about the only place left to work is Walmart.

I've had three Super Wal-Marts open near me in the last year and a half or so and the only business I've noticed that has folded so far is a Sav-Rite grocery store that was about to fold anyways. It was a Win-Dixie store that was transformed into a Sav-Rite and was just atrocious.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Kobota
?If you don?t want to work for Wal-Mart, no one?s twisting your arms. Go somewhere else and work,? Edwards said.

:thumbsup:

Unless Walmart has caused all other businesses to fold and just about the only place left to work is Walmart.

yeah because MD does not have any other stores. just walmart.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: waggy
wow how can this be legal?

as others said health care is a benefit not a right. They agree to work at walmart for $x an hour. not $X+insurance. IF they want the benefit of having paid insurance go get a job that has it. It is not walmarts responsibility to do it for them.

I work at a Hospital and we have a lot of their employees come into the ER for colds and crap. What are we supposed to do for all of that lost money when all of the companies around pay so little and won't help with healthcare for their employees?? This is a major problem everywhere and I have no idea of a good solution for it honestly. Do one thing and it hurts another. Should healthcare be socialized into government totally? It would be nice to go back to the old days to where you could pay for a visit to the doctor out of pocket without insurance help.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: waggy
perhaps they could. but who's place is it to say they have to?

Have to? No one has said that they have to. But it is a damned ethical responsibility for the company and definitely in its best financial interests to ensure a healthy, happy, DEPENDABLE workforce.

The alternative is Upton Sinclair. No f'ing thank you.

the goverment really has not right ot say that they have to have health insurance.

They're not. The givt action here is to stop Wal-Mart from passing operating costs onto taxpayers, which is pure corporate greed. Wal-Mart has taken advantage of a loophole (ironically displaying the same type of freeloading behavior most of their proponents decry) to supplement part of their cost of doing business through govt tax dollars, which SHOULD offend the hell out of you.

You're looking at this all wrong when you talk about benefits, etc. On the scale that Wal Mart operates, a healthy labor force that routinely comes in to work, can perform its duties, and can be relied on is a MAJOR cost consideration, and speciifically, takings teps to ensure that they have such a work force is a cost of doing business. The partisan talking head supply side arguments that overlook simple PRACTICAL cost considerations are so blatantly narrowminded and idealogical without any regard for reality/practicality... it's stupid. No one who has ever run a large business would make these type of obtuse arguments.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
They're not. Wal-Mart has taken advantage of a loophole (ironically displaying the same type of freeloading behavior most of their proponents decry) to supplement part of their cost of doing business through govt tax dollars, which SHOULD offend the hell out of you.

Approximately 5% of Wal-Mart's work force gets insurance through government programs. The national average for retail stores is 4%.

I fail to see how Wal-Mart is doing anything out of the ordinary and why they should be specifically targeted as Maryland is doing.