[Speed Gibson,
Sunday April 16, 2006 at 1:30am]
And if you mention Extortion again ...
Taxpayer's League Live had an informative discussion in their first hour yesterday, talking about the "anti-WalMart" bills being introduced around the country, including Minnesota. The guests were Bernie Hesse, Organizing Director of the United Food and Commercial Workers local 789 (St. Paul) and Rick Varco, Director of Communications and Research for the Service Employees International Union local 113 (Minnesota and Wisconsin).
The "anti-WalMart" concept as presented is that large companies should be paying some percentage of their payroll in health care. Any shortfall is paid to the State on the assumption that the employer is burdening Minnesota Care, Medicaid, or other public agencies with those costs. In Minnesota's case, a bill introduced by Senator and gubernatorial candidate Becky Lourey, those thresholds are 10,000 employees and 8 percent, respectively. You may remember her interview on The Patriot Insider when she claimed this would not be a tax increase.
Hosts David Strom and Margaret Martin went back and forth with the guests, who were surprisingly open in admitting that, yes, a "living wage" and "single payer health care" would also be good ideas. David at one point, apparently hardened by his neighborhood crime situation, openly called this proposal extortion. Not to worry, though. All kidding aside, the two union representatives couldn't have been nicer.
Like I said, it was informative, but not very satisfying for me because the underlying premise that employers are responsible for providing health care coverage for all employees was never challenged, even when the guests casually mentioned it. David and Margaret did a decent job debunking their various scenarios, but the guests parried those quite well I must say. The hosts won on points, but there were no knock downs let alone a knock out.
Patrick Campion, recently departed from The Patriot, did score a TKO against Lourey by not accepting such assumptions. I wish David and Margaret had done that here, right from the start. (Cazzata Malenga!)
If I wash dishes for Ruby Tuesday, someone in Tennessee is responsible for my health care. If I leave to work for Applebee's, now it's a Kansas executive's responsibility? Unless I waive it because I'm wealthy or covered elsewhere? This is silly, and the anti-WalMart bill only makes this worse.
It would also exacerbate the current problem of having employers pay for health care: it violates equal pay for equal work. Family coverage can run over $10,000 a year. Coverage for a healthy single is typically under $3,000 a year. Should a waiter with a family in effect receive $7,000 more than a single waiter each year? And what about those who need no coverage because they are covered by a spouse's or parent's policy? Or on Medicare?
The law we really need is this: All tangible compensation shall be in cash, duly reported on the employee pay stubs and W-2's. Meals, life insurance, disability insurance, health care, etc, can be purchased through the company, with payroll deductions much like today. But we now start with the concept of equal pay for equal work.
The "anti-WalMart" concept as presented is that large companies should be paying some percentage of their payroll in health care. Any shortfall is paid to the State on the assumption that the employer is burdening Minnesota Care, Medicaid, or other public agencies with those costs. In Minnesota's case, a bill introduced by Senator and gubernatorial candidate Becky Lourey, those thresholds are 10,000 employees and 8 percent, respectively. You may remember her interview on The Patriot Insider when she claimed this would not be a tax increase.
Hosts David Strom and Margaret Martin went back and forth with the guests, who were surprisingly open in admitting that, yes, a "living wage" and "single payer health care" would also be good ideas. David at one point, apparently hardened by his neighborhood crime situation, openly called this proposal extortion. Not to worry, though. All kidding aside, the two union representatives couldn't have been nicer.
Like I said, it was informative, but not very satisfying for me because the underlying premise that employers are responsible for providing health care coverage for all employees was never challenged, even when the guests casually mentioned it. David and Margaret did a decent job debunking their various scenarios, but the guests parried those quite well I must say. The hosts won on points, but there were no knock downs let alone a knock out.
Patrick Campion, recently departed from The Patriot, did score a TKO against Lourey by not accepting such assumptions. I wish David and Margaret had done that here, right from the start. (Cazzata Malenga!)
If I wash dishes for Ruby Tuesday, someone in Tennessee is responsible for my health care. If I leave to work for Applebee's, now it's a Kansas executive's responsibility? Unless I waive it because I'm wealthy or covered elsewhere? This is silly, and the anti-WalMart bill only makes this worse.
It would also exacerbate the current problem of having employers pay for health care: it violates equal pay for equal work. Family coverage can run over $10,000 a year. Coverage for a healthy single is typically under $3,000 a year. Should a waiter with a family in effect receive $7,000 more than a single waiter each year? And what about those who need no coverage because they are covered by a spouse's or parent's policy? Or on Medicare?
The law we really need is this: All tangible compensation shall be in cash, duly reported on the employee pay stubs and W-2's. Meals, life insurance, disability insurance, health care, etc, can be purchased through the company, with payroll deductions much like today. But we now start with the concept of equal pay for equal work.