TEXT OF STORY
CHERYL GLASER: Wal-Mart got a break in court yesterday. A federal judge overturned a law. It would have required Wal-Marts in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or shell out the difference in taxes. The ruling could have big implications. Alex Cohen explains
ALEX COHEN: After Maryland passed its so-called “Fair Share” law in January, Wal-Mart and the Retail Industry Leaders’ Association filed suit against it, in part to send a message to at least 30 other states considering similar legislation.
Yesterday Judge Frederick Motz ruled it was unfair to make Wal-Mart dole out different benefits in different states.
Ron Pollack of the health care advocacy group Families USA says the decision may give other states one more reason to back off of Wal-Mart.
RON POLLACK: I think states are more interested in larger, more systematic approaches that don’t only focus on one company but are likely to provide relief for many other people who might be in other companies.
Pollack says states may be more likely to follow the example of Massachusetts, which passed a law earlier this year requiring companies with just 11 employees or more to provide health coverage.
I’m Alex Cohen for Marketplace.
Marketplace is on a mission.
We believe Main Street matters as much as Wall Street, economic news is made relevant and real through human stories, and a touch of humor helps enliven topics you might typically find…well, dull.
Through the signature style that only Marketplace can deliver, we’re on a mission to raise the economic intelligence of the country—but we don’t do it alone. We count on listeners and readers like you to keep this public service free and accessible to all. Will you become a partner in our mission today?