Taming Wal-Mart
My ongoing war against Wal-Mart

Here's a good development in taming Wal-Mart's hubris--the Maryland legislature voted to overturn a veto by the governor on a bill that would require Wa-Ma to pay more for employee health benefits. From the Wa-Po:

The Senate voted 30-17 for the bill after a filibuster attempt by Republicans. The House followed last night with an 88-50 vote that handed Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) a defeat early in the legislative session on a bill he argues is an unwarranted government intrusion into business.

The bill will require private companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state's insurance program for the poor. Wal-Mart, which employs about 17,000 Marylanders, is the only known company of such size that does not meet that spending requirement.

Wal-Mart spokesman Nate Hurst said the votes were driven by "partisan politics."

[...]

The legislation has resonated in Maryland and beyond in part because it is viewed as a relatively easy and inexpensive way for lawmakers to expand access to health care and because Wal-Mart, a company with a reputation for stingy benefits, is considered an easy target.

Here's why this is so important, from another WaPo article focusing on how this legislation will affect Wal-Mart workers, with this quote from a typical Wal-Mart clerk named Cynthia Murray:

"I've worked at Wal-Mart for more than five years, and I still can't afford their health care. I know many of my co-workers can't afford it either."

Murray said the $200-a-month plan she was offered to cover her and her husband would cost about a quarter of her monthly pay. So she goes without coverage and prays that she and her family will stay well. She said she might face repercussions for speaking out, but that is beyond her control.

[...]

Some of Maryland's Wal-Mart workers make so little that they qualify for such poverty programs.

The average wage for full-time sales associates in Maryland is $9.97 an hour, and full-time workers at Wal-Mart put in from 34 to 40 hours a week, Hurst said. At that rate, an employee working 40 hours a week earns $19,142 a year, an income below the $19,350 federal poverty level for a family of four.

Wal-Mart officials have said their company is living up to its responsibilities to provide adequate health care coverage to workers.

Under recently expanded benefits, Maryland workers now have a choice of several plans, including a "value plan" that costs $23 a month for a single worker, $37 a month for a parent and children, and $65 a month for two parents and children, said corporate spokesman Dan Fogleman.

That gives each family member three doctors' visits and three generic prescriptions before being subject to an annual deductible of $1,000. Full-time workers are eligible for enrollment after 180 days. Part-timers can enroll after two years.

But despite the good news of this legislation from Maryland, Jonathan Cohn over at The New Republic's Plank blog adds a tinge of regret (with a dash of hope):

Of course, even people (like myself) who are extremely sympathetic to the cause of care reform question whether this is a particularly effective way to go about it. But more effective solutions, like a government-run universal health care system, aren't really part of the national conversation right now. And Wal-Mart--like much of the employer community--has done its part to keep it that way.

So maybe the Maryland law will do more good for low-wage employees (by shoring up their health insurance) than it will do bad for low-wage consumers (who will end up paying higher prices). Or maybe, as its critics say, it won't. But if it convinces Wal-Mart to wash its hands of health care altogether and support a government-administered solution like every other industrialized country has, it will have been worth the effort.