Posted on 07/19/2006 2:12:38 PM PDT by screw boll
...The state law would have required non-governmental employers with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. The measure was directly aimed at Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, which has been under attack by critics who say that its inadequate health care plans are forcing some employees to rely on state-funded plans.
So, the Peoples Republic of Maryland got their arse handed to them....for a change.
LOL!!
Walmart would have simply passed on the higher costs to customers.
The proponents of these laws are the unions, who have been unable to get Walmart employees to join them, so they seek to undermine Walmart and make them less competitive.
The law also required Walmart to simply spend more money on health care benefits, it didn't have any kind of requirements on the quality of those benefits.
It didn't require other retailers to provide similar benefits. It would actually discourage other retailers from creating more jobs in Maryland to avoid falling victim to this law.
Pure socialist stupidity.
It was a horribly written law that pandered to the unions.
It's clear that this law targeted one particular business in Maryland, Wal-Mart. There's a federal law that prevents singling out a particular business for penalty, though I have forgotten the name of it.
Good news ping
Dear sinkspur,
Perhaps you're thinking of the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.
sitetest
The libs argument was that it didn't single out Wal-Mart but any business Wal-Marts size and therefore was not a bill of attainder.
Never mind that there aren't any other businesses that fit the description in Maryland.
Fortunately there's a judge with a brain that isn't fried with leftist ideas.
Bills of attainder! That's it! Thanks.
Dear sinkspur,
Actually, the legal argument cited by the judge was that companies' health and welfare benefits are governed by federal law, through ERISA, and any state act that impinges on the freedoms companies enjoy from ERISA in determining their benefits violates federal law.
Good ruling. Tieing it down to ERISA makes it tough to appeal.
sitetest
You are very uninformed.
I have been with WAL~MART for the last seven Years and the benefits are pretty good,so is my pay.
WAL~MART promotes from within and you can build a career with WAL~MART.
You are listening to the Union mouthpieces my friend.
How is Walmart pro American? The last time I was in Walmart 2 years ago I had to look hard to find two sweatshirts that were made in America. Even then I ended up buying colors I didn't really want just to get an American made product.
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.