In the ongoing battle against Wal-Mart, one of the biggest knocks against America’s largest retailer has been the inability of its employees, all of whom are non-union, to purchase and maintain their own health insurance. Last week, the company took steps to change the public perception that Wal-Mart employees are dependent on government charity when it comes to their healthcare.
The company released a survey of its health insurance portfolio, noting that 90 percent of its employees have health insurance, and that roughly 47 percent of those employees get their health insurance through Wal-Mart itself. A Census Bureau report in 2005 showed that close to 16 percent of Americans lacked health insurance, so Wal-Mart appears to be ahead of the curve. Linda Dillman, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for risk management, even went on to state that the company would do everything it could to get those employees without insurance into a company program.
“We are not satisfied that 9.6 percent of associates still do not have any type of health coverage,” said Dillman. “We will continue to work hard to get a better understanding of why people decline health care coverage, and what we can do to help.”
But critics of the company have also analyzed these figures, and have determined that the company’s health insurance program is still not good enough. Wake Up Wal-Mart, a liberal activist group with strong ties to national labor unions, noted that about ten percent of the company’s employees get their health insurance and called the company’s percentage of workers insured under Wal-Mart’s plan “embarrassing.”
“Given the enormous cost American taxpayers must pay to subsidize Wal-Mart’s health care crisis, we call on Wal-Mart to stop misleading the American people and our elected leaders who expect, if nothing else, that America’s largest private employer will live up to it’s health care responsibilities,” said Wake Up Wal-Mart spokesman Paul Blank.
Of those ten percent that are getting their health benefits through the government, Wal-Mart states that 4.5 percent are receiving Medicare, 2.3 percent are insured through veterans’ benefits, 1.9 percent through Medicaid and 1.2 percent through other state programs. Though activists might see a problem with taxpayer funding of insurance, not all government handouts are equal. Veterans earned their insurance through service to their country, and many of the Medicare recipients working for Wal-Mart are likely senior citizens employed by the company, individuals who would not choose Wal-Mart’s insurance anyway.
But still, a substantial number of Wal-Mart employees do receive their health insurance through the government. It might be a real problem for the company, especially given the hostile climate they face today, that such a significant percentage of its workers do not hold their own health insurance. But the real problem for Blank and others may be the fact that the number of Wal-Mart employees with health insurance through their employer does not approach 100 percent, a ridiculous standard to impose on any company.
For example, the company reports that about a quarter of its employees who do not get their insurance through Wal-Mart get it instead through their spouse. Another 4.5 percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance through their parents, and another 2.5 percent just buy their own insurance from someone else. Spousal insurance benefits have been around since the dawn of employment, and many people simply find that they get a better deal when they hook up with their husband or wife’s insurance plan. Should Wal-Mart be punished because a quarter of its employees found a better deal?
As for those insured by their parents, these are almost certainly part-time high school and college students who are working to earn extra pocket cash, not to support their family. And anyone who buys their own insurance rather than what their employer offers is probably a savvier consumer, and has made a decision that Wal-Mart does not offer what they need. Though hard data is not easily attainable, the situation is likely comparable to other non-union retail shops, such as Target, Ikea and Whole Foods, who do not have to suffer the constant barbs that Wal-Mart faces from its critics. John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, has been quoted calling labor unions “parasites” and has compared them to “having herpes,” noting that while the disease might not kill you it is “unpleasant and inconvenient.” Despite all this, liberals continue to flock to the supermarket for their organic needs, though Wal-Mart would never get the same consideration.
Only two types of employers ever get anywhere near insuring 100 percent of their employees: labor unions and government workers. Wal-Mart might need to work on offering more health insurance options to keep employees off of public rolls. But the high bar set by its opponents would indicate that no matter how much the company improves, it will never be good enough.
