Progress Pond

MD Legislature overturns veto on ‘Wal-Mart bill’

Okay, it’s time for some good news for a change.

Last year, the Maryland State legislature passed a bill requiring all employers in the state with more than 10,000 employees to put at least 8% of their payroll costs into healthcare benefits, or contribute to the state’s insurance program for the poor. Wal*Mart protested this bill was specifically aimed at them — as it happens, they’re the only large employer in the state that doesn’t already meet those requirements as a matter of course.

Our Republican governor vetoed the bill. Yesteday, the state legislature overturned the veto.

 
From the Washington Post article:

Md. Legislature Overrides Veto on ‘Wal-Mart Bill’

Maryland lawmakers bucked the will of the state’s Republican governor and the nation’s largest retailer yesterday, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care.

In a veto reversal that was closely watched nationally, lawmakers in the Democrat-led General Assembly voted largely along party lines for a measure that legislatures in more than 30 states are considering replicating.

The bill will require private companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state’s insurance program for the poor. Wal-Mart, which employs about 17,000 Marylanders, is the only known company of such size that does not meet that spending requirement.

Lawmakers also maneuvered yesterday to override other Ehrlich vetoes, including a $1 increase in the minimum wage. The House passed the measure, and the Senate could do the same Tuesday. The Senate, meanwhile, overrode Ehrlich vetoes of bills that would allow early voting in this year’s election and would seek to address voter intimidation.

Granted, this isn’t over yet — it may well end up in the courts, though the Maryland Attorney General’s office has already issued an opinion dismissing Walmart’s concerns over whether the requirement violates federal law.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Exit mobile version