You know, I really wasn't sure how to vote on California's Proposition 72, but a NY Times article today really helped clarify my thinking on the process.
Here's a key point:
[Wal-Mart] says it spent about $1.3 billion of its $256 billion in revenue last year on employee health care to insure about 537,000 people, or about 45 percent of its work force. Wal-Mart says that 23 percent of its employees are not eligible for coverage, but that it covers 58 percent of those who are.That compares with an insured rate of 96 percent of eligible full-time or part-time employees of Costco Wholesale, the discount retailer that is Wal-Mart's closest competitor nationwide. Costco employees - most of whom are not represented by a union - become eligible for health insurance after three months working full time, or six months part time.
I have my concerns about the possible negative imact on employers of forcing them to either offer health insurance tor pay into a state pool. The job market out here is still pretty tight and I would hate to see it get tighter. But if Costco can do it and still be profitable, then Wal-Mart's claims are obviously wrong. My "screw you, Wal-Mart" drive starts to kick in.
I'm going from being on the fence to voting "Yes" on 72.
Side note - I should get off my butt and shop at Costco more.
Comments (2)
The problem I have with prop 72 is that it doesn't *ever* define what health insurance we're going to have to provide for our employees (assuming we get to the magic 50 employee number). It doesn't say what the minimum health insurance we must provide. Of all the prop's on the ballot, this is the one that I researched the most. It's the one I've actually dug through the full text of and tried to understand the most.
It's a badly written law.
I have no problem providing health care for my employees, in fact that's one of the reasons we don't have employees yet. We can't afford the health insurance I believe that I, as an employer, have a responsibility and an obligation to provide to my employees.
I would absolutely *love* to screw Wal-Mart and keep them out of California as much as possible. But prop 72 is a badly written law. It provides for no recourse for either the employer or the employee. I also do, deeply, believe that it is going to cause employers to employ out of state. California is a sucky place to run a business, and we don't have half the crap to deal with because we're so small. We're already planning how to keep as many employees as possible outside the state of California due to the costs of doing business in this state.
I really hope you rethink this one. Prop 72 would screw wal-mart, but I don't think that it's actually good for business in the state.
Posted by Laura | November 1, 2004 4:20 PM
Well, it's all moot because it didn't pass. :)
Posted by fiat lux | November 3, 2004 10:47 AM