Wal-Mart Fights Maryland Law Mandating Minimus Level of Health Benefit Spending

[ryan198]

No. That's like suggesting it's slavery because you're boss won't give you the 50% raise you want.

Forced unpaid overtime is bullshit. It's not slavery, because it's countered by the employees ability to tell Wal-Mart to shove it.

Then they fire you and bring in the next poor schlub...it's the time-honored Wal-Mart way. They have been sued over this many, many times successfully. Unfortunately they still haven't changed.

[farfromglorified]

I can see your points but where I disagree is that I feel like anytime Wal-Mart gets punished it's a good thing. Secondly, taxing corporations is a good thing to, but again this is where we disagree.

That's cool. But the fact that you see this primarily as "punishment" should tell you everything you need to know about this law. It sets a very ugly precedent in this country, and the next time this happens it may not be on a target so attractive to you as Wal-Mart.

[Songburst]

From an outside observer, it seems that all this law is doing is equalling the playing field. If businesses in Maryland are like businesses here in Ontario, I'm sure that most employers in Maryland offer some sort of health benefits to their employees. I'm just hypothesizing here, but maybe the average amount spent on health benefits among companies that give a shit about their employees is around 8% of the payroll of a typical Maryland business. Forcing Wal Mart to treat their employees as human beings is a good thing in my opinion. However, if the concensus of other businesses in Maryland is to not offer these benefits, then I would say that this law is unfair. I don't know enough about business practises in Maryland to say with conviction that this law is just or not. Wal Mart should be doing this on their own accord anyway. Respectable companies offer good benefits to their employees. They don't sell out the people who make them their money just so they can sell a 5 pound jar of pickels for 1.98.

[farfromglorified]

and then they can eat the leather off their shoes for dinner...light a match for heat...you know the drill.

So why don't you pass a law that forces Wal-Mart to employ everyone?

[farfromglorified]

nope, don't you remember farfromsympathetic's financial plan?? a family of 4 or more can live a month off of 5lbs of hamburger meat!!!

That seems strange since it wasn't the only thing on the list.

That said, you're correct. I'm not sympathetic. I don't base my political opinions off of pity or sympathy.

[farfromglorified]

From an outside observer, it seems that all this law is doing is equalling the playing field.

How can a law the applies to only one business be equated to "equalling the playing field"????

If businesses in Maryland are like businesses here in Ontario, I'm sure that most employers in Maryland offer some sort of health benefits to their employees. I'm just hypothesizing here, but maybe the average amount spent on health benefits among companies that give a shit about their employees is around 8% of the payroll of a typical Maryland business. Forcing Wal Mart to treat their employees as human beings is a good thing in my opinion. However, if the concensus of other businesses in Maryland is to not offer these benefits, then I would say that this law is unfair. I don't know enough about business practises in Maryland to say with conviction that this law is just or not. Wal Mart should be doing this on their own accord anyway. Respectable companies offer good benefits to their employees. They don't sell out the people who make them their money just so they can sell a 5 pound jar of pickels for 1.98.

Most Maryland businesses do offer health benefits, but are free not to (except for Wal-Mart of course).

As a business owner, I can tell you that the 8% number is very low, even for the average business. My employees' health care packages cost about 30% of my payroll.

[El_Kabong]

That seems strange since it wasn't the only thing on the list.

strange? i copied and pasted your whole list...didn't you read my entire post? granted i edited it...but i last edited a full 4 min before you replied to it

That said, you're correct. I'm not sympathetic. I don't base my political opinions off of pity or sympathy.

i think politics has a lot to do w/ it's citizens

[ryan198]

That seems strange since it wasn't the only thing on the list.

That said, you're correct. I'm not sympathetic. I don't base my political opinions off of pity or sympathy.

What about empathy, or understanding of the near-caste system we have here in the United States. Yes a few poor can make it out, but our class system has never been so strong as it is today, and that's messed up.

[Abookamongstthemany]

So why don't you pass a law that forces Wal-Mart to employ everyone?

why would I do that?

[farfromglorified]

strange? i copied and pasted your whole list...didn't you read my entire post? granted i edited it...but i last edited a full 4 min before you replied to it

You pasted the whole list, but then pretended that there was only one item on it in your statment.

i think politics has a lot to do w/ it's citizens

Politics has everything to do with it's citizens....all of them. Interesting that you would equate citizens with sympathy and pity.

[Abookamongstthemany]

What about empathy, or understanding of the near-caste system we have here in the United States. Yes a few poor can make it out, but our class system has never been so strong as it is today, and that's messed up.

the capitalist system guarantees that only a few can rise above or else it wouldn't work.

[farfromglorified]

why would I do that?

You seem to imply that the only thing standing between Wal-Mart employees and starvation is their job at Wal-Mart. Since we can't allow anyone to starve, let's just force Wal-Mart to employ everyone.

[Abookamongstthemany]

Politics has everything to do with it's citizens....all of them. Interesting that you would equate citizens with sympathy and pity.

no, that would be you....we call it justice

[Abookamongstthemany]

You seem to imply that the only thing standing between Wal-Mart employees and starvation is their job at Wal-Mart. Since we can't allow anyone to starve, let's just force Wal-Mart to employ everyone.

go ahead and pretend that there are so many options for these folks...i prefer to work with the reality of a situation. the reality is this system is failing far too many.

[ryan198]

You seem to imply that the only thing standing between Wal-Mart employees and starvation is their job at Wal-Mart. Since we can't allow anyone to starve, let's just force Wal-Mart to employ everyone.

are you implying that we should let people starve? this goes back to my first question, do you not care about other human beings?