States looking to compel Wal-Mart to offer greater health benefits for employees are examining their options in the wake of yesterday's federal court ruling against such an effort in Maryland. Alex Cohen reports.
Interesting concept to believe that the State has the right to dictate to a business as to what benefits to offer or not offer. I don't understand how any State representative has the notion that they can not only impose this, but decide that they are going to impose it on a particular company. Either the government is trying to crack open the door on this and make it accepted that they will intrude were they have no right to intrude, or it is grandstanding for the voters. It makes the legislators look like they are "standing up to the big bad corporations".
(not here either, Barbara) So, Keith, how do you think the state should deal with the increased burden on them to provide healthcare to the employees of the company that pays below poverty wages and provides no health care. Have you see the percentage of walmart employees in need of social programs?
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 2
Either the government is trying to crack open the door on this and make it accepted that they will intrude were they have no right to intrude, or it is grandstanding for the voters. It makes the legislators look like they are "standing up to the big bad corporations".