Just doing my public service and keeping you up to date on the ongoing discussion about Maryland's "Wal*Mart Bill."
Either it's not going to sweep the country or it is...the experts seem to disagree.
As to my contention that companies do have a choice on how to pay for increased health care costs that is neither raising prices nor reducing the work force, perhaps new SEC rules that will expose more complete information about how top execs are paid will help.
I'm not way hopeful, given that the SEC loosened some rules while they tightened others...and that will just provide the path to Boards wanting to continue to obfuscate exec compensation...but it might be a start.
In 2004 Lee Scott (CEO of Wal-Mart) earned $17.5M in pay including bonuses, stock options and other incentives.
The top 5 executives at Wal-Mart & Sam's earned an additional $24M in compensation for a total of $41.5M spread over 6 executives.
That same year Wal-Mart employed approximately 1.2M people.
If the top executives worked for nothing, the 1.2M employees could be paid an extra $34.58 per year.
That doesn't buy much in the way of health care . . .
Posted by: Bob | January 19, 2006 at 05:27 AM
Oh Bob, two can play that game.
Let's see...I've read that Wal-Mart actually covers somewhere around half their employees, so if we used that money to cover only those without coverage that would give each person about $70. If they're minimum wage workers, that's more than a full day's work. Let's say a marketing consultant can make $1000/day, out of which she pays her own health and taxes. Even a high tech marketing director makes about $500 a day, with her health care and some taxes covered.
Do you know anyone who would sneer at being handed $500?
Taking it out of the realm of the relative: we've also all heard stories about the elderly and low-income folks who only take their prescription medication every other month to save money. Speaking for myself, $70 would cover at least a month of my prescription if not two.
I'm not saying this is a solution, to hand people $70, it's not, but it's very easy to have a cavalier attitude sitting at our computers blogging!
As for those execs...Steve Apple and John Chambers have both taken salaries of $1/year while their companies experienced struggles. I'm sure those execs are all already rich. Imagine the good will they could generate for their company if they did something similar to help their employees. Just for a year. Imagine.
Posted by: Elisa Camahort | January 19, 2006 at 09:22 AM
Oh, and I meant to add the a healthy adult can probably find a catastrophic health care plan that has a monthly premium in the $70 range.
Again, it only solves one month's worth of the issue, my point is that we shouldn't so easily dismiss what look like small amounts of money.
Posted by: Elisa Camahort | January 19, 2006 at 09:24 AM
You DO understand the figures I used were ANNUAL, right? Somewhere you convoluted it and apparently converted it to monthly figures.
OK, so give half the workforce $70 a year.
Whoopee.
Posted by: Bob | January 19, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Bob, really, do you miss my point on purpose? Yes, I realize it's annual. Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Elisa Camahort | January 19, 2006 at 03:29 PM
No dear, I see your point completely.
I am married to a Social Worker who used to think she could save the world too, by robbing the rich to give to the poor.
She now has a grasp of reality and understands the poor will always be that way, no matter how much you give them, or how often you give it to them.
Posted by: Bob | January 19, 2006 at 05:53 PM