Scott Phillips
Journal Article
From the WSJ opinion page, Thursday, February 16, 2006
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007974
There has been much talk in the business community recently about so called “Wal-Mart” laws. Simply stated, these are laws that force “larger” companies to set aside money and pay for employee healthcare. The moniker “Wal-Mart law” is due to the fact that the first two states to pass them made no bones about the fact that they were targeting Wal-Mart’s labor practices.
The WSJ opinion section focuses on the backing that organized labor gave to these bills. It is a little disingenuous on the part of the Journal to frame this as a “Business versus Unions” dispute. While it is true that unions gave financial support in the run-up to this bill, the genesis for this bill is very different. The bill its self is a direct result of recent media reports and studies indicating that an undue number of Wal-Mart employees are receiving welfare and public assistance while still employed at the retailer. Many in the legislature felt that Wal-Mart was dodging their healthcare responsibilities.
In order to support these laws, one would have to believe that Wal-Mart is willfully underpaying their employees in an effort to keep down labor costs. I’m not sure I’m ready to buy that yet, but some of the facts regarding Wal-Mart employees on the public dole cannot be ignored. Yet strangely the journal manages to do just that.
I realize that they are staunchly pro-business, but creating a straw-man as part of your opinion piece is weak. If the issue is going to be mentioned, then at least give the rationale behind it due diligence. Resorting to a hot-button rebuttal (i.e: “it’s the unions!”) is not doing their readers any favors as far as educating them about a possible emerging national trend.