Last Sunday’s letter to the editor from Eric Berger, manager of Wal-Mart’s community affairs, contained an “interesting” statistic (“Wal-Mart’s response: Poor employer? Hardly, look at stats”). To quote … “Eighty-six percent of our associates are covered by health insurance, more than half through Wal-Mart’s plan.” One of the problems associated with Wal-Mart is the taxpayer support of Wal-Mart employees on the Basic Health Plan of Washington, a taxpayer-sponsored health plan for the working poor in Washington. I believe they are the No. 1 employer of people on the plan with others being seasonal agricultural companies. To take credit for taxpayer-provided health plan coverage or employees on spouses’ plans from other employers as providing for employees is a bit much, isn’t it?
Wal-Mart benefits practices are also where the “pay or play” concept of mandated coverage for employers of 50 or more came from that was recently floated in the Legislature. As Washington state’s budget dollars are stretched thin legislators are wondering why taxpayers’ dollars are supporting the world’s largest retailer and the world’s wealthiest family (Waltons) to cover their employees. I’m also sure other employers in the area are wondering why they are responsible for providing coverage to Wal-Mart employees who are dependents on their plans while Wal-Mart attempts to drive them out of business. Mr. Berger shouldn’t take credit for providing health coverage to Wal-Mart’s employees when somebody else really is.
Larry Gilmore
Marysville
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
