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.
We’re here to help you navigate this changed world and economy.
Our mission at Marketplace is to raise the economic intelligence of the country. It’s a tough task, but it’s never been more important.
In the past year, we’ve seen record unemployment, stimulus bills, and reddit users influencing the stock market. Marketplace helps you understand it all, will fact-based, approachable, and unbiased reporting.
Generous support from listeners and readers is what powers our nonprofit news—and your donation today will help provide this essential service. For just $5/month, you can sustain independent journalism that keeps you and thousands of others informed.