A Stitch in Haste

When the Maryland legislature prepared to override a veto by the governor of an obnoxious bill to require Wal-Mart — and only Wal-Mart — to devote at least 8% of its compensation expense to healthcare, I blogged, tongue-in-cheek, that Wal-Mart should simply threaten to pack up and leave the state if the bill became law.

Well, the executives at Wal-Mart are a bit more level-headed than I am:

If we closed our doors in Maryland, a lot of things would happen, and none of them would be good for the working families of this state. Seventeen thousand associates work for us in Maryland. Every one of them — both full-time and part-time — can become eligible for health coverage that costs as little as $23 per month. Our stores here collect $112 million in sales taxes and generate $13 million more in tax revenue for state and local governments. We buy $678 million worth of goods and services from 667 Maryland suppliers. Thanks to our foundation and good works in our stores, we donate $3.7 million to local charities in Maryland. And when it comes to our customers, we save the average household more than $2,300 per year by offering the products people want at affordable prices in one convenient place.

Of course, Wal-Mart should not have to justify its existence, to Maryland's hack politicians or to anyone else. So long as Wal-Mart wasn't breaking any laws — any legitimate laws, that is — then they should have been left alone.

Meanwhile, retailers that are big, but not quite as big as Wal-Mart, have seen the writing on the wall and realize that "10,000 employees" can easily be lowered to "5,000 employees" or "1,000 employees" or even "100 employees" and are fighting the good fight, with or without Wal-Mart:

The suit was announced in Arlington, Va., by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents companies that operate more than 100,000 stores with more than $1.4 trillion in annual sales.

The association, which also filed a lawsuit challenging a health care law passed in Suffolk County, N.Y., said the two laws illegally mandate specific health care expenditures and threaten to take away flexibility businesses need to deal with their employees.

"We all agree that access to health care is vital, but these spending mandates will drive away business and discourage job creation," Brad Anderson, chairman of the association and vice chairman and CEO of Best Buy Co. Inc., said in a written statement.

The association also said the two laws are invalid because they violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

This post is not the forum to review ERISA, the Supremacy Clause or the so-called "pre-emption doctrine." Suffice it to say that the retailers' case is viable but not certain. More thoughts from W$J Blog, Workplace Prof Blog.