> -Going after Wal-Mart can be part of a generalized movement to expand
> -health care coverage, if proponents of Wal-Mart fair-share-for-
> health-
> -care bills and the like didn't disparage socialization of health care
> -through the government, but unfortunately they do -- vigorously: one
> -of the WakeUpWalMart demands is this -- "Affordable Health Care.
> -Provide all workers comprehensive, affordable health insurance
> -coverage so they can care for their families and no longer be forced
> -to rely on taxpayer-funded public health care" (at <http://
> -www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/benton/>). But we are for families
> -relying on taxpayer-funded public health care rather than employer-
> -sponsored insurance plans, because that's good both workers first of
> -all (and it can be argued to be good for some businesses, too, as it
> -helps increase "labor flexibility" without social conflicts).
>
> Well, this is where we differ. I don't want to pay taxes to fund
> Wal-Mart's compensation costs. I want to tax corporate America and
> cut the tax burden on lower-income folks.
Corporations need to pay more taxes, and I'd love to cut the tax burden on lower-income workers (especially mine :->), but I want to have corporations pay taxes to help fund a single-payer health care system. Employer-sponsored insurance plans, even when they offer full-time workers who are covered by it exactly the same coverage as what a single-payer health care system would, still create problems when businesses become less profitable or even go bankrupt, when workers quit, get laid off, get disabled, want to work only part-time because they want to go back to school or take time off for families, etc., when workers go on strike, etc.
> But you'd rather have progressives calling for more taxes to help
> business get "labor flexibility"?
Workers do want flexibility -- on workers' own terms (i.e. workers taking time off when it suits them), not on corporations' (i.e., management increasing and decreasing hours when it suits them). The labor movement needs to respond to workers' desire for flexible work schedules and more time off, or else businesses give us flexibility on management's terms.
> an actual legislative victory that helps working families
Since it's being litigated, we actually don't have any victory yet. Besides, "Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. . . . On average, large firms (200 or more workers) cover approximately 68% of their employees. If Wal-Mart was to reach the average coverage rate, Wal-Mart should be covering an additional 260,000 employees" (at <http://wakeupwalmart.com/downloads/ wal-mart-health-care-facts.pdf>). An additional 260,000 Wal-Mart employees would probably be just about the maximum number of workers who are conceivably positively affected if the court doesn't find the Wal-Mart law in violation of ERISA or the equal protection clause or both and if Wal-Mart doesn't find a way to compensate for a rise in health care costs by lower wages and so forth -- both big ifs. While organized labor is doodling, though, more workers lose their insurance: "After adjusting for inflation, total federal spending for care for the uninsured increased by 1.3 percent from 2001-2004 while the number of uninsured increased by 11.2 percent" (at <http:// www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu110405nr.cfm>). How long can we go on like this?
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>