Good
In Maryland, a federal judge overturned a law that required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend at least 8 percent of its payroll costs on health care for its employees:
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the law violates the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal law that sets minimum standards for pensions and health plans. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down similar state laws that conflict with the federal law, ruling that ERISA pre-empts any state law related to employee benefit plans.
Or he could have struck it down because Wal-Mart should decide how Wal-Mart spends its money. Insert reference to communism here.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:51 am
C’mon, this is America. Employers already have no choice at least some of their spending on worker retirement (Social Security), worker retirement medical care (Medicare), and workman’s comp. And if they offer a pension plan, they are forced to spend money on the federal pension insurance fund.
All because we have such a good, capitalist economy.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Yabbut all employers do those things in every state. This law only affected Wal-Mart, and only in one state. In return for spending that extra money, Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart employees would have gotten absolutely nothing.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Not true Les Jones, they would have gotten screwed.