A Swing and Amiss
If you seek a five forces analysis of Wal-Mart, please try this page.
Rick Karlin of the Albany-Times Union reports today on two stinging defeats resulting from recent rounds of hardball. Rick's not a sports reporter, however. His beat is the capitol, the game is political hardball, and the losers are labor and consumer groups.
A controversial measure that would have forced businesses to provide health care insurance or pay an additional tax appears to have died in the Legislature, along with a bill to force drug companies to reveal how much they give physicians who prescribe their medications. Both bills were of keen interest to labor and consumer groups, who say their collapse is a setback in the health care arena. Opponents, however, said the insurance bill was unaffordable and would have killed jobs. They called the drug disclosure bill unneeded and unfair.
Here's what the insurance bill, known as "Fair Share for Health Care" proposed:
Known as the Wal-Mart bill because it would affect the giant retailer and other similar companies, Fair Share for Health Care would have forced companies with 100 employees or more to provide health insurance for workers or pay a $3 hourly tax per employee.
Naturally, the bill had both supporters and detractors:
Supporters such as labor unions and the Working Families Party said it would help ease the state's costs for Medicaid and other publicly funded programs for poor and low-wage workers. And they said it was only fair that employers take responsibility for their people. The push also was an effective tool around which labor unions, struggling to gain new members, could rally. The business community, though, bemoaned the Wal-Mart bill as precisely the kind of costly big government program that drives companies out of New York. While it would provide coverage for an estimated 466,000 people, that's still less than one-third of the state's uninsured. It also could cost businesses up to $9.2 billion and kill up to 100,000 jobs, according to research by the Employment Policies Institute, a nonpartisan group that sides with business on key financial issues.
The article neglected to mention that among fiercest fans of the Fair Share bill, also known as "The Wal-Mart" bill, were two well-known anti-Wal-Mart groups- the AFL-CIO-backed Wal-Mart Watch and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union supported WakeUp Walmar. Riding high on their admittedly successful campaign to pass "Fair Share" in Maryland, Wal-Mart Watch decided to take its winning team on a road trip. (WakeUp WalMart also announced a similar effort. )
Fair Share Health Care is now the law in Maryland because the people took matters into their own hands. Regular Americans - Republican and Democrat, employees and employers - canvassed neighborhoods, manned the phone-banks and wrote to their local papers. They out-hustled Wal-Mart’s expensive team of lobbyists and fought back bought-and-paid-for politicians who tried to stop the legislation at every turn. Fueled by this victory, state senators and representatives are pushing similar legislation in state capitals around the country. Every one of their states faces a crippling health care crisis, and they aren’t going to stand by and let Wal-Mart, or any large employer, pad its profits at the expense of taxpayers and small businesses. Over the coming months, we will track the national progress of Fair Share Health Care, starting with the selected states in the right-hand column. It’s up to each of us to make Maryland count, so look around and act now to support Fair Share Health Care in your own community.
So far, in every other of the "selected" states where Wal-Mart Watch and WakeUp WalMart have stepped up to the plate, the result has been a swing and a miss and a miss and a miss and a miss. That's not to say that state legislators are not concerned about uninsured citizens- they clearly are. What they are not interested in, however, at least not in New York, is Fair Share's so-called solution:
As of Wednesday evening, Fair Share hadn't moved forward in either the (New York) Assembly or Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno said it wasn't going to happen this year. "We're not going to do that," he said, explaining he preferred to look at what was done in Massachusetts, which required employers to provide insurance but has individuals bear some of the cost.
Despite the string of defeats in several states - now including New York - Fair Share supporters aren't close to calling it quits. Nor does it appear that they are even prepared to change their order of the lineup. According to Progressive States:
California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia have each introduced and are considering versions of the legislation. Colorado, New Hamphire, Iowa, Missisippi, Missouri, Washington and Wisconsin have killed in committee or postponed consideration of versions until next year.
My prediction: More swings and more misses. My suggestion: a better batting coach, heavier hitters, and/or more time in the legislative equivalent of the batting cage. My question: how many times do you have a-swing-and-a-miss before you realize something is amiss?
See also: Fair Share Health Care? | Wal Mart: We Won’t Abandon Maryland Customers | Wal Mart: Do the Other States Pile On? |
Disclosure: Disclosure: Marshall Manson of Edelman PR, one of Wal-Mart's PR firms, brought to my attention the Albany Times-Union article upon which this post is based.