City Council Tries to Cockblock Wal-Mart

Today, the City Council will be working to override a mayoral veto of the Health Care Security Act, which would as the NY Sun says, "require large supermarkets and big-box stores that sell food in the five boroughs to pay part of their employees' medical expenses for the first time." In other words, don't stick that Wal-Mart in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the act, claiming that a federal law already requires private businesses to provide health care. Okay, Gothamist is not the sharpest tack in the toolbox at times, but this federal law... does anyone follow it? If so, then why don't more follow it? (If any readers can explain, please do in the comments.) Opponents of the act say that this will drive businesses away from NYC, while proponents (including Fernando Ferrer) are emphasizing that these workers need any benefits they can get. The Sun speaks with an NYU professor of public and health administration, who says, "I think what the City Council is trying to show is that it is sympathetic to people who don't have health insurance, which is a fine objective, but the fact is that they are trying to deal with a problem in a way that doesn't make a lot of economic sense," which is the kind of quote you'd expect from a conservative paper which has an editorial saying the act might as well be called the "Higher-Priced Groceries and Minority Unemployment Act." The higher-priced groceries angle comes about because if costs are higher for businesses, then so will the groceries; this bill would force existing businesses like Garden of Eden and Gourmet Garage to give their workers benefits.

In the Bronx, some people protested at a Bronx Target for selling Halloween costumes made in a sweatshop in Mexico. Wal-Mart has abandoned its NYC plans for now, plus what qualifies as a big box store and Gothamist on how Wal-Marts are nice when they are not in your backyard.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on October 11, 2005 11:18 AM

Comments [rss]

nola

You think Wal-Mart pays less than the competition? Maybe they pay less than Goldman Sachs, but give most people the choice between Wal-Mart and the local bodega and they will flock to Wal-Mart. Whenever they open a new store they are inundated with applicants. And beating your competition doesn't make you "anti-competitive".

As for "free" health care, the last time I checked the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD had double digit unemployment, ridiculous tax rates and anemic economic growth.

Josh

All I know is, Wal Mart needs to fix their slogan: "Every Day Low Prices" is wrong where "Every Day" functions as an adjective to modify "Low Prices." It should be "Everyday." Jeez. No wonder snooty liberals hate Wal Mart.

Peter Kirn

The issue is part-time workers. And no, you're not required to provide health insurance for them -- especially bad news when Wal-Mart is as reliant as it is on part-time labor. The problem is, in comparison to other employers, Wal-Mart pays those workers little, with a disproportionate burden on them to pay for health insurance. By fixing prices from suppliers, the retail giant can suck an entire market into a price war that lowers worker standards even at other employers. The reality is, even if you're buying from a grocery chain in NYC, their workers are likely getting compensated much more fairly than they are at Wal-Mart. And Wal-Mart likes to use that to their advantage. That's anticompetitive, and it's bad for labor standards.

That said, the insurance issue is a big, big one for a lot of employers. We could fix that with nationalized health care.

Whoops, something went wrong and I just sounded HORRIBLY out of touch with reality (or at least reality in the US, though not the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD.)

nola

By keeping Wal-Mart out we get both higher grocery bills and higher taxes. How many grocery stores are insuring all of their employees? We're already paying for those emergency room visits.

alex

"You should fight the battle over whether it is more fair to society to pay higher prices for groceries in return for better health care for the workers."

Or to put it in another context, whether it's fair to society to pick up the tab (i.e. higher taxes) in all the emergency visits those who are employed but uninsured by such places as Walmart, and thus Mr. John Q. Public is subsidizing Walmart's bottom line. You make the call which you would prefer, higher grocery bill or higher taxes. Either way you're getting screwed while Walmart's stockholders laugh their way to the bank.

OTC

I for one would hate to see a Wal-Mart in NYC, the idea of paying lower prices makes my skin crawl and the notion that workers are free to choose where they work is moronic. No, I want to keep paying the outlandish prices and think the government should tell people that since you're too dumb to find a better job we'll force your company to give you health insurance.

timThompson

which is the kind of quote you'd expect from a conservative paper

Of course, the quote is from an NYU professor, not the Sun's editorial board. Generally speaking, you can assume rules like this don't maximize economic value. You should fight the battle over whether it is more fair to society to pay higher prices for groceries in return for better health care for the workers. i.e. "Even though it costs more, we owe it to the workers to ensure they are adequately covered".