Best practice & Ethics
Wal-mart can't be singled out for health care spending
The US court of appeals has upheld last year’s ruling by a
federal judge who nullified the
Maryland Fair Share Health Care law, which was effectively intended to force
Wal-Mart to increase spending on
healthcare.
The decision was applauded by
Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group
set up to defend the retail giant’s reputation. Catherine Smith, interim chair
of Working Families, said the court had struck down a measure that was both
illegal and bad public policy, and urged union leaders “to abandon these failed
gimmicks and … help pass meaningful reforms that expand affordable health
coverage”.
Campaigning group
WakeUpWalMart took a somewhat different view, suggesting that the US public
would not stand for such “corporate irresponsibility”.
Paul Blank, WakeUpWalMart campaign director, accused the
retailer of failing to provide healthcare for over half of its employees, which
he said burdens US taxpayers with a cost of at least $1.3bn a year.
This came as Wal-Mart launched a new ad campaign promoting
its record on company-sponsored insurance plans and announcing that it is one of
the US’ largest givers to charity, last year donating over $245m. Again,
WakeUpWalMart was not impressed, and said it hoped Wal-Mart would abandon “smoke
screens and failed public relations campaigns” in favour of real change.
Links
Maryland Fair Share Health Care law
Wal-Mart
Working Families for Wal-Mart
WakeUpWalMart
February, 2007 |
