Posted on 02/07/2006 12:26:30 PM PST by BenLurkin
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- A national retail industry trade association filed suit Tuesday challenging a Maryland law designed to pressure Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more money on health care for its employees.
The law, the first of its kind in the nation, was enacted Jan. 12 when the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto. The law requires companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or contribute the difference to the state Medicaid fund.
State officials said Wal-Mart is the only company of that size that does not meet the 8 percent threshold.
The suit was announced in Arlington, Va., by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents companies that operate more than 100,000 stores with more than $1.4 trillion in annual sales.
The association, which also filed a lawsuit challenging a health care law passed in Suffolk County, N.Y., said the two laws illegally mandate specific health care expenditures and threaten to take away flexibility businesses need to deal with their employees.
"We all agree that access to health care is vital, but these spending mandates will drive away business and discourage job creation," Brad Anderson, chairman of the association and vice chairman and CEO of Best Buy Co. Inc., said in a written statement.
The association also said the two laws are invalid because they violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
"Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court of the United State has held repeatedly that ERISA, not state and local laws, regulates employer health plans," said Steve Cannon, outside general counsel to the association.
Chris Kofinis, communications director for union-backed Wake Up Wal-Mart, which lobbied for the bill in Maryland, predicted it will withstand a court challenge.
"The Maryland bill is a responsible piece of legislation that will make sure that large employers live up to their health care responsibilities. Overwhelmingly Marylanders supported this legislation" Kofinis said.
Lawmakers in Suffolk County, N.Y., approved a law last fall that would require large grocery retailers to give workers a health care benefit worth at least $3 an hour. The law applies to companies with at least $1 billion in annual revenue and at least 25,000 square feet of sales space for groceries. Companies are exempt from the rule if they have a collective bargaining agreement, which Wal-Mart does not.
Ten thousand employees now. Ten employees in the not too distant future. The income tax started off at a low rate on the mega wealthy, and now . . .
No, I think the bill was overridden because the Democrats have an IQ equal to the square root of diddly squat.
Any Erisa lawyers out there think this suit has a chance?
Could the Republican Administration get around the legislature by consenting to a settlement of this lawsuit in favor or the retailers? In other words, treat it as a friendly lawsuit. Any Freeper attorneys care to comment?
Hey! Don't insult didly squat like that.
I don't think so. Our dem controlled legislators here are, as the senate leader Mr. Miller has said,"bury the republicans so deep it will be years before they get out".
No. I imagine it is codified in MD law that the attorney general must defend all laws that are challenged. I am an attorney in DC, VA and LA and that is how it works in those jurisdictions.
And what might that be?
Three breaks a day, water fountains and adequate bathroom facilities.
What can the legislature do, really, if his "defense" looks like something an pre-law student cranked up at 4 AM while high on pot and No-Doz for an assignment due the next day?
I hope that the lawsuit is successful. This country is perilously close to socialized medicine. Health care today already is expensive and inefficient and getting worse. There was a time in Maryland that all you had to worry about was "hospitalization" insurance for accidents, appendicitis, etc. You went to your private doctor and paid for an office visit, at the same time getting a pocketfull of sample medications. Whatever happened to that model? Now we have health care plans that subsidize HIV patients, abortions, contraceptives, and other diseases caused by plain stupid behavior, that you and I help to pay for.
make sure that large employers live up to their health care responsibilities.And what might that be?
. . . and how might the health care 'responsibility' of a large employer differ from that of a small employer?These people are so transparently hypocritical. Friend of mine had the same attitude toward all employers; "they should pay for it." I asked if she payed for anyone else's health care, and she was offended at the suggestion that she should. It's called "laying a burden on others that they themselves will no touch with their little finger."
I'm with you. It seem that the more elaborate the system of health 'plans' the more expensive health care gets.
"And what might that be?"
Knowing this state, next it will be companies with 8000 employees.
One legislator actually abstained from voting to override because his real job is with a company that is very close to 10,000 employees. I guess he did not want to lose his job.
Lol...probably nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.