Work For Wal-Mart? You May Need Welfare

When Susan Mediger-Paul went into labor in 1995 and gave birth prematurely to her third child, she knew the health insurance provided by her employer would not cover the cost. Nor would it pay for the birth of her fourth and fifth child later on, in 1998 and 1999. She said she relied on Minnesota Care, the state's public assistance healthcare, to pay for the multiple hospitalizations of her children, two of whom suffered from asthma.

Mediger-Paul seems an unlikely candidate for public assistance healthcare. She held a good-paying job as an accountant at Wal-Mart, the infamously profitable company and the largest private sector employer in the nation.

So why was Mediger-Paul on the dole?

Because "Wal-Mart's health insurance was awful!" she says. Mediger-Paul opted out of the company health plan, she says, to pay into the state healthcare system. "I had two preemies and they both had asthma--there was no way I would have made it on Wal-Mart's insurance." With cheap premiums but large deductibles and gaps in care, she says the Wal-Mart insurance wouldn't even have covered her kids' vaccinations.

Mediger-Paul is in good company as she complains about the inadequacy of Wal-Mart's healthcare. This week, in an attempt to hold large employers accountable for their worker's healthcare costs, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced the Health Care Accountability Act. Originally authored by the union-backed Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign, the legislation would require states to publicly report the number of employees that companies have on taxpayer-funded public health care. These annual reports would include the state's cost of providing healthcare to those workers.

"We deserve to know the truth about the high cost of Wal-Mart's greed," says Paul Blank, the campaign director for Wake-Up Wal-Mart.

Mediger-Paul's home state of Minnesota has been debating similar legislation, which is set to pass by the end of the month. Additionally, 23 other state legislatures have recently debated or passed these so-called "Wal-Mart bills." Some states have moved even further, considering "pay or play" legislation that would force large employers to either commit a certain percent of payroll costs to employee healthcare, or pay into the state healthcare system.

The idea, say supporters of the legislation, is to stop subsidizing corporate profits with public healthcare money.

The Wal-Mart bills have been sponsored by a number of state lawmakers interested in universal healthcare, but labor organizers have honed in specifically and vocally on Wal-Mart. The legislation has stirred up a vitriolic fight between a labor movement trying to stay relevant in a service and retail economy and Wal-Mart, a profiteering giant that relies on cheap labor and would rather shut a store down than see it unionized. At the core of the debate is a difference in opinion over what is considered adequate, and who is ultimately responsible for the healthcare needs of low-wage workers.

"I believe every worker should have healthcare provided by the employer. It should be a right," says Bernie Hesse, director of organizing for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 in Minnesota. He also believes that part of the way to get there is to create a public education campaign against Wal-Mart, exposing "what a shitty place it is and how bad they treat people."

Nate Hurst, Wal-Mart's public and government relations manager, says Wal-Mart is living up to its responsibility, emphasizing that his company does provide health insurance that has saved lives. As for any snags in affordability or coverage, he implies that the whole healthcare system is at fault. "We certainly believe it's long past time for meaningful reform for our healthcare in this country, but these bills do not address these concerns, nor do they even ensure that one more person comes off the list of America's uninsured."