|
Re: The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart bill only makes a dent in larger problem (USA TODAY, JAN 19, 2006)
While politicians and businesses decry the recent legislation in Maryland -- which requires Wal-Mart to spend at least 8% of its payroll on employee health care or else pay into a fund for the uninsured -- no one goes far enough to solve a national problem ("Maryland first to OK 'Wal-Mart bill'," Money, Friday).
From multinational companies to local restaurants, many businesses avoid Social Security contributions and use state and federal programs to pay for their employees' health care. Maryland has finally realized that it cannot and should not subsidize worker benefits for commercial enterprises -- and neither should the federal government.
For too long, we taxpayers have been paying to provide health care, housing and food subsidies to the employees of companies such as Wal-Mart, while company profits soar.
Minimum wages are kept artificially low by politicians, lobbyists and corporate greed. And some companies are able to avoid Social Security contributions -- helping to drain yet another taxpayer-funded program.
Foreign business owners laugh at the suckers we taxpayers have become. They also laugh at the wimpy politicians we elect, who fail to protect citizens from these scams to the nation's detriment.
Any business that cannot pay living wages is not viable and ultimately hurts our economy.
L.A. Brown
Fallston, Md.
Law may cost Maryland
Wal-Mart could decide to capitulate and increase its health care package to the legislated 8%; this would raise Wal-Mart's costs, which would then be passed on to its customers. Wal-Mart could also decide to take the matter to court, where I suspect the tax levy would be defeated. Another option: Wal-Mart could retaliate with a plan that would bust state and local budgets and union membership.
With 17,000 employees and more than 40 stores in Maryland, Wal-Mart has approximately 425 employees per store. Should Wal-Mart choose to simply close 17 marginal stores, it would then employ fewer than 10,000 workers and become exempt from Maryland's new law. However, this would create a number of undesirable consequences:
*17 communities would possess 17 huge, empty, non-revenue producing big boxes with no local, school or state tax revenues.
*About 7,225 income-earning, tax-paying voters and potential union members would be unemployed and upset with the unions and the legislators.
*Lower-income families in 17 communities would be denied access to the low-cost Wal-Mart merchandise they need to survive, and would be forced to pay more at other stores.
*Wal-Mart could scrap any plans it may have for new stores or distribution centers, thus denying the entire state of employment and revenue potential.
The moral of the legislation would seem to be: "Do not become a successful business in the USA. The unions will hold your arms while the states pound you into submission."
Jim Esch
Niskayuna, N.Y.
USA TODAY, JAN 19, 2006
__________________
|
Linear Mode
