February 8, 2007
Opposites Attracted to Healthcare Coalition
Wal-Mart and labor unions are on the opposite side of most issues but recently the two antagonists have found some common ground. First, the retailer and organized labor lobbied separately for an increase in the national minimum wage.
In an even more remarkable event that took place yesterday, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, and Andrew Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), took part in the announcement of a new coalition called “Better Health Care Together.” The initiative counts universal healthcare coverage for all Americans by 2012 as one of its goals.
“Wal-Mart is committed to high quality, affordable and accessible healthcare. But our current system hurts America’s competitiveness and leaves too many people uninsured,” said Mr. Scott during the press conference.
“Government alone won’t and can’t solve this crisis,” he said. “We have to work together – business, labor, government and our communities. We also need to empower people to take more responsibility and more control over their own healthcare.
SEIU’s Stern said he is willing to work with Mr. Scott and Wal-Mart.
“Healthcare is no longer just a moral crisis. It has become an economic crisis as well. More people went to work today in retail than in manufacturing. It is time to admit that the employer-based healthcare system is dead. It is a relic of the industrial economy,” he said.
“American business by 2008 will pay more for healthcare than they will make in profits. That is untenable,” Mr. Stern added.
The “Better Health Care Together” coalition has called for “quality, affordable health insurance coverage” for all, with business, government, and individuals contributing to managing and paying for “a new American healthcare system.”
Discussion Question: Is the “Better Health Care Together” coalition the beginning of a truly new approach to healthcare in the U.S.?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I don’t think so. Organized labor backs it because they believe in it and Wal-Mart backs it because they want somebody other than employers to carry the cost of the uninsured and under-insured.
The Suffolk County NY law that mandates employer spending on health care insurance came about because supermarket unions and their employers lobbied together, as a team. Wal-Mart and the SEIU are doing the same thing. It’s much easier to get progress when there’s consensus.
Charles raises a fair point. So, let’s look a little deeper. When we do, we run into a wall of allegation accusing Wal-Mart of transferring the cost of insuring workers onto the communities in which it operates. Given its labor history, it’s hard to think that all of a sudden the company has become a champion of the working man and woman. Cynics aren’t born — they’re forged in the fires of experience.
Some kind of national health care plan would disproportionately benefit larger employers — especially if they’re not too fond of paying full benefits in the first place. This isn’t to say it’s all some sinister plot or that Lee Scott doesn’t believe what he says, but sometimes politics does make for strange bedfellows — and this appears to be one of those times.
There was a time when Wal-Mart worked very hard to get waste out of its internal processes as well as the processes of those who it did business with.
Wal-Mart could, if it desired, assume a real leadership role by:
1) Shining a glaring light on the inefficiencies of the current healthcare system (in which approximately 50% of costs are waste.
2) Offering to make available seasoned Wal-Mart executives who know how to successfully reduce waste while improving quality and speed.
3) Challenging others (e.g. politicians, trial bar, insurance companies, health care providers and unions) to work on the root causes.
Sadly, Wal-Mart would rather go down the path of institutionalizing the waste inherent in the status quo so long as the waste is socialized.
Seems the world opinion makers are becoming more cynical as time goes by, or perhaps such opinions are more interesting when they are more controversial.
It may be more interesting to look for the “dark side” and “hidden agenda” in every action and/or comment that high profile companies and individuals take these days.
Rather than applauding Wal-Mart these folks and companies we find something sinister and less than honest in their positions. That is evidenced in some of the comments both in the press and within our community here on RetailWire. While I respect their right to these opinions, I sometimes despair over our seemingly increasing jaded-ness.
Is Wal-Mart a “green-washer” because of the actions that they have taken over the past year or will their very public and admittedly “it’s good business to be green” approach and partnership with groups such as Environmental Defense help to move sustainable business practices ever more into the mainstream?
Is the position that they are taking on healthcare selfish and done only in order to mitigate their rising health care costs or will their partnerships with groups such as SEIU help to increase the effectiveness of efforts at reforming our seriously broken health care system?
I say we give them, and others like them, a more balanced review.
Getting Wal-Mart involved is a step in the right direction. Wal-Mart tends to have a bit more political clout than other retailers. I don’t think the taxes on universal healthcare will cost Wal-Mart much more than what they pay out now for their employees. Universal health care gets Wal-Mart and other retailers off the hook for not giving away free health care to a less productive workforce. Low wage workers often cannot afford, or are unwilling to pay for the health benefits offered by their employers. Some states will remove people from state sponsored health insurance if they qualify for their health plan at work. This often results in employees hopping form job to job to avoid being eligible for employee sponsored healthcare. Some employers are saving money by paying employees extra not to have health insurance. This disincentive is a cruel trick as low wage workers are attracted to the bonus checks and then don’t have health insurance when they need it. Universal coverage would eliminate this irresponsible behavior on both the employer and employee. However we all know there are some downsides to universal care, but as a person who pays nearly $10,000 a year for family coverage, $2500 per person deductibles, and limited geographic coverage, I think I’m ready for a change.
Labor and Wal-Mart both support better health for different reasons: one for Honest Belief, one for Financial Relief. The cause is just but this particular “union” of “good fellows” is paradoxical. Has expediency become a new Wal-Mart asset or will this be just another “This too shall pass”?
Our health care system is completely out of control and it is very encouraging to have two leaders speaking out about it. It is pretty remarkable that it would be Wal-Mart and a union official though. Hopefully if they can get some traction it may give congress the incentive that it needs to play an active and effective role in bringing about real change in this area. It will take our best collective minds and support to correct this problem, but it has to start somewhere. If we can begin to formulate a plan that could be supported by grass roots efforts before our next national election, it would increase the odds of moving ahead in the right direction. Our elected officials don’t seem smart enough to develop a plan but would support one if they feel that is the only way to get elected and stay that way.
If Wal-Mart truly gets behind initiatives like improving the environment, saving energy and improving healthcare, then positive change will happen. And, when doing so, if Wal-Mart positively encourages suppliers and partners to “do the right thing” by saving energy and working to improve health care and worker conditions, good things can happen. By seeing to it that the supply channels which feed them the goods for the shelves and the equipment to the stores is provided by companies which treat their employees right, provide health coverage, seek to reduce waste, save energy and protect the environment, well, we’d have to do all we can to encourage and replicate behavior like that!
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
I don’t think so. Organized labor backs it because they believe in it and Wal-Mart backs it because they want somebody other than employers to carry the cost of the uninsured and under-insured.
The Suffolk County NY law that mandates employer spending on health care insurance came about because supermarket unions and their employers lobbied together, as a team. Wal-Mart and the SEIU are doing the same thing. It’s much easier to get progress when there’s consensus.
Charles raises a fair point. So, let’s look a little deeper. When we do, we run into a wall of allegation accusing Wal-Mart of transferring the cost of insuring workers onto the communities in which it operates. Given its labor history, it’s hard to think that all of a sudden the company has become a champion of the working man and woman. Cynics aren’t born — they’re forged in the fires of experience.
Some kind of national health care plan would disproportionately benefit larger employers — especially if they’re not too fond of paying full benefits in the first place. This isn’t to say it’s all some sinister plot or that Lee Scott doesn’t believe what he says, but sometimes politics does make for strange bedfellows — and this appears to be one of those times.
There was a time when Wal-Mart worked very hard to get waste out of its internal processes as well as the processes of those who it did business with.
Wal-Mart could, if it desired, assume a real leadership role by:
1) Shining a glaring light on the inefficiencies of the current healthcare system (in which approximately 50% of costs are waste.
2) Offering to make available seasoned Wal-Mart executives who know how to successfully reduce waste while improving quality and speed.
3) Challenging others (e.g. politicians, trial bar, insurance companies, health care providers and unions) to work on the root causes.
Sadly, Wal-Mart would rather go down the path of institutionalizing the waste inherent in the status quo so long as the waste is socialized.
Seems the world opinion makers are becoming more cynical as time goes by, or perhaps such opinions are more interesting when they are more controversial.
It may be more interesting to look for the “dark side” and “hidden agenda” in every action and/or comment that high profile companies and individuals take these days.
Rather than applauding Wal-Mart these folks and companies we find something sinister and less than honest in their positions. That is evidenced in some of the comments both in the press and within our community here on RetailWire. While I respect their right to these opinions, I sometimes despair over our seemingly increasing jaded-ness.
Is Wal-Mart a “green-washer” because of the actions that they have taken over the past year or will their very public and admittedly “it’s good business to be green” approach and partnership with groups such as Environmental Defense help to move sustainable business practices ever more into the mainstream?
Is the position that they are taking on healthcare selfish and done only in order to mitigate their rising health care costs or will their partnerships with groups such as SEIU help to increase the effectiveness of efforts at reforming our seriously broken health care system?
I say we give them, and others like them, a more balanced review.
Getting Wal-Mart involved is a step in the right direction. Wal-Mart tends to have a bit more political clout than other retailers. I don’t think the taxes on universal healthcare will cost Wal-Mart much more than what they pay out now for their employees. Universal health care gets Wal-Mart and other retailers off the hook for not giving away free health care to a less productive workforce. Low wage workers often cannot afford, or are unwilling to pay for the health benefits offered by their employers. Some states will remove people from state sponsored health insurance if they qualify for their health plan at work. This often results in employees hopping form job to job to avoid being eligible for employee sponsored healthcare. Some employers are saving money by paying employees extra not to have health insurance. This disincentive is a cruel trick as low wage workers are attracted to the bonus checks and then don’t have health insurance when they need it. Universal coverage would eliminate this irresponsible behavior on both the employer and employee. However we all know there are some downsides to universal care, but as a person who pays nearly $10,000 a year for family coverage, $2500 per person deductibles, and limited geographic coverage, I think I’m ready for a change.
Labor and Wal-Mart both support better health for different reasons: one for Honest Belief, one for Financial Relief. The cause is just but this particular “union” of “good fellows” is paradoxical. Has expediency become a new Wal-Mart asset or will this be just another “This too shall pass”?
Our health care system is completely out of control and it is very encouraging to have two leaders speaking out about it. It is pretty remarkable that it would be Wal-Mart and a union official though. Hopefully if they can get some traction it may give congress the incentive that it needs to play an active and effective role in bringing about real change in this area. It will take our best collective minds and support to correct this problem, but it has to start somewhere. If we can begin to formulate a plan that could be supported by grass roots efforts before our next national election, it would increase the odds of moving ahead in the right direction. Our elected officials don’t seem smart enough to develop a plan but would support one if they feel that is the only way to get elected and stay that way.
If Wal-Mart truly gets behind initiatives like improving the environment, saving energy and improving healthcare, then positive change will happen. And, when doing so, if Wal-Mart positively encourages suppliers and partners to “do the right thing” by saving energy and working to improve health care and worker conditions, good things can happen. By seeing to it that the supply channels which feed them the goods for the shelves and the equipment to the stores is provided by companies which treat their employees right, provide health coverage, seek to reduce waste, save energy and protect the environment, well, we’d have to do all we can to encourage and replicate behavior like that!