Will Wal-Mart Cash In Support For Health Care Reform To Crush EFCA?
One of the biggest developments on the health care front this week was Wal-Mart's decision to back an employer mandate as a major provision of reform legislation. The move rankled the Chamber of Commerce, which accused the retail giant of using the government to build competitive advantage against its competitors--all despite the fact that Wal-Mart is the Chamber's largest member. But liberals were by and large pretty happy with the development.
At least as far as health reform goes.
But Wal-Mart is a major stakeholder on a number of key issues, and some wonder whether the Arkansas-based behemoth will try to cash in their support for health reform with the White House when the focus in Washington eventually turns to employee free choice.
Labor sources, well-acquainted with Wal-Mart's anti-EFCA tactics, have suggested or acknowledged this concern to me in the days since the administration announced the deal--and as hard as it is to imagine Wal-Mart fighting that legislation harder than they already do, the sources say both sides may turn up the temperature in the fight over employee rights in the weeks and months ahead.
It's unclear where the basis of this concern lies--whether it comes from internal knowledge of Wal-Mart's negotiations with key health care players in Washington; or from an understanding of the company's incentives; or whether some in the labor movement are using this moment to launch a pre-emptive strike against their main EFCA opponent.
But either way, it's clear that the uneasy alliance between labor and Wal-Mart on the question of health reform does not translate into rapprochement on the issue of unionization. If anything, it makes the fight over that issue bloodier.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Is this anything but speculation? Does it deserve to be the headline story on the front page without anything more to substantiate it?
The implication is that the WH made some agreement with Walmart that they wouldn't push hard for EFCA if Walmart supported their healthcare plan, but there isn't even a secondhand source indicating their is any basis for believing that.
I say remove this story, or at least downgrade it from the lead on the main page.
July 3, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not recognizing enough quid pro quo and the like (payola) is how we got into such a terrible mess.
It is a worthwhile question to ask. If not you would not have read this piece, let alone post on it.
July 3, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i read the piece to see what it said. it said nothing that was indicated by headline. I'M AS LIBERAL AS THEY COME and this is an article about organized labor paranoia.
July 3, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the piece because, until I did, I didn't know what basis, or lack thereof, there was for it. Given its high visibility, I figured there was something to it.
After reading it and finding it wanting, I commented to that effect.
Does that answer your questions?
July 3, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
second
July 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's the source for this? Is this just speculation, I agree with what everyone else has stated, the headline appears to be, at least for now, misplaced.
July 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speculation? Given Obama's and the Democrat's sorry track record so far, it's nearly certain they'll capitulate on EFCA too. (And real health care reform too)
I say: Give this story an even BIGGER headline!
CAMCO
July 3, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree wholeheartedly with Davidsfr. This story,so far, is pretty much speculation. Brian and David K., suggest you keep your powder dry on this, at least for now. However, please don't stop investigating this. There "might" be something to this. BO sure has a lot of balls in the air right now.
July 3, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would leave it up, but change it to an opinion piece. I had the same thought when I read that Wal-Mart teamed up with the Center for American Progress and SEIU--that there probably was some kind of deal to dilute or kill the EFCA.
But, that is my opinion, I have no sources to cite it. Just that Wal-Mart would prefer healthcare (even if they have to pay something for it) than being unionized.
July 3, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speculation, but fair enough to ask. We aren't talking pinochle here. This is politics. Quid Pro Quo is the currency of the industry. Nothing happens without an equal and opposite reaction, or some such thing.
July 3, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed the line where you call Wal-Mart and ask them to confirm or deny the concerns of your Labor sources...
July 3, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another possibility might be that Wal-Mart might use this as a way to unload people onto the public plan without having to pay the fine or fee being discussed. They were very good here in California at dumping their part time employees onto the MediCal system by helping them navigate the signing up process.
If something gets passed that will not allow employees to leave an employer group plan unless their premium costs are greater than 12.5% of the their income or some such, this might allow Wal-Mart to reduce it's insurance costs. Most of their employees are part time. Insurance for a Wal Mart employee and one dependent runs around $500 a month for the employee. This would easily surpass the 12.5% threshold making the employee eligible for a public plan. If that were to be cheaper, many employees in that situation might just opt out of the group plan in favor of the public option, thus saving Wal-Mart money by reducing their insurance costs. Especially if the employees overall income would qualify them for some sort of subsidy. Since Wal-Mart does provide insurance I don't think they would be exposed to the tax or fee that is being discussed for companies that don't provide insurance. If this turns out to be the case Wal-Mart will be more than happy to support a public option as it would probably save them millions.
July 3, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paranoia? Does anybody think that WalMart will back down on EFCA?
Of course WalMart will try to cash in their support for an employer mandate. Whether that will sway many legislators is another matter.
July 3, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink