California To Walmart: 'Enough' Already!

California Takes On Walmart's Taxpayer Subsidized Profits: Forbes

For years, Wal-Mart—and other large retail operators—have been piling up huge profits by controlling their labor costs through paying employees sub-poverty level wages. As a result, it has long been left to the taxpayer to provide healthcare and other subsidized benefits to the many Wal-Mart employees who are dependent on Medicaid, food stamp programs and subsidized housing in order to keep their families from going under.

With Medicaid eligibility about to be expanded in some 30 states, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Wal-Mart has responded by cutting employee hours—and thereby wages—even further in order to push more of their workers into state Medicaid programs and increase Wal-Mart profits. Good news for Wal-Mart shareholders and senior management earning the big bucks—not so good for the taxpayers who will now be expected to contribute even larger amounts of money to subsidize Wal-Mart’s burgeoning profits.

Legislation is now making its way through the California legislature—with the support of consumer groups, unions and, interestingly, physicians—that would levy a fine of up to $6,000 on employers like Wal-Mart for every full-time employee that ends up on the state’s Medi-Cal program—the California incarnation of Medicaid. The amount of the fine is no coincidence.

A report released last week by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, estimates that the cost of Wal-Mart’s failure to adequately pay its employees could total about $5,815 per employee each and every year of employment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... f=business

It's about time... Wally-World wants to cut hours, pay its employees slave-wages, cut hours to ensure they don't qualify for health coverage, and even dump them on the food-stamp and subsidized-housing systems, and then expect the taxpayers to pay for it so Wally-World can increase their profits... Payback is a b*tch, ain't it?

Isn't this just what you want? A goverment single payer healthcare system?

Absolutely!....It certainly is....

And what I want even more is for Wal-Mart to stop dumping its employees on State agencies and health-care systems just so it can increase its profits, at taxpayer expense.

Payback is a b*tch, ain't it?...I hope more states follow California's lead...

Since you are so outraged with Walmart, I'm sure you won't support Hillary in 2016...

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

Her Senate campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from a Wal-Mart Political Action Committee, although ABCNews.com discovered another $20,000 in contributions from Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1#.Ua68YkDUnSg

Bottom line, for better or worse, this is what is going to happen with Obamacare for many businesses beyond Walmart. Since part time employees don't have to be covered with very expensive new health care benefits, many full time employees will find themselves now part time. Yeah, it sucks, but government added taxes and expenses have consequences, both for businesses and individuals.

Isn't this just what you want? A goverment single payer healthcare system?

LadyJazzer wrote: Absolutely!....It certainly is....

And what I want even more is for Wal-Mart to stop dumping its employees on State agencies and health-care systems just so it can increase its profits, at taxpayer expense.

Who do you think is going to pay for a single payer healthcare system?

Hilary Clinton is also on the board of Monsanto, genetically modified corn anyone? But LJ will still support her campaign for President. Poison us? Still will vote for Hillary. Take stock options from evil Wal-Mart? LJ will still vote for her.

Mary Scott wrote:

Isn't this just what you want? A goverment single payer healthcare system?

LadyJazzer wrote: Absolutely!....It certainly is....

And what I want even more is for Wal-Mart to stop dumping its employees on State agencies and health-care systems just so it can increase its profits, at taxpayer expense.

Who do you think is going to pay for a single payer healthcare system?

Same people who are paying for the lack of a single payer healthcare system.....everyone who has health insurance, and everyone who uses our totally out of date healthcare system in this country. Just because you don't see on some dotted line what your costs are for the lack of affordable health insurance in this country, that doesn't mean you don't pay for the uninsured's health care....and probably more than if there was a single payer system in this country.

I'm all but certain that Wal-Mart is paying above government mandated minimum wages for all of their employees. Whether a position is full time or part time is a decision for the company, not government, to make. This is precisely what happens when one decides to use the force of government improperly for the purpose of redistributing wealth that belongs to others. For some strange reason that I've never been able to decipher, collectivists seem to believe that businesses are in business for the benefit of the government and employees instead of those who are risking their capital and their customers. Where that flawed notion comes from is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

So why didn't Bill Clinton's attorney general go after Wal-Mart? How about Obama's? Looks like Wal-Mart needs to put Jerry Brown on the board?

AHEM......Kroeger is maintaining the SAME practice....and has for a VERY LONG TIME....cashiers are part-time at K.S. in Aspen Park,been
doing that since AT LEAST the last 2000's...HOW is K.S. any different??? This practice is pretty wide spread and Obamacare did NOT
create it.....companies do NOT want to pay out health benefits when they have an "out" clause.....(part-time employee)