I read that my primary employer, Home Depot, was number 2 on the list of companies.

What is unfair about that statistic is that Home Depot offers very good health insurance coverage, at least two plans, a PPO and an HMO. Both are very good plans. While there is a cost to it, it is subsidized. It is offered to all employees. No employee has it forced on them, and the employees on the list must have declined the coverage.

My benefits book is almost the size of a small phone book. In additional to medical benefits, there are many other benefits like basic free term life insurance, 401K, employee stock purchase, even discounted pet insurance.

Perhaps Wal-Mart is a poor employer, but Home Depot is not.

This insurance situation is unfortunate but the problem results from a pattern of failed regulatory polcy in the state. The state politicians have made health insurance highly expensive compared to other states. Perhaps it's instinctive for politicians, particularly NJ Democrats, to think that businesses are greedy & evil. But its not the case, businesses really just act rationally trying to reduce costs. The problem is that health care policies cost 7 times more in NJ than in neighboring PA or DE. Why is that? Trenton Policy makers, who probably couldn't pass a basic economics course, have meddled with the market and have create the situation they complain about - Its easier in NJ for politicos to blame businesses rather than own up to there own failures.
States normally compete on the basis of tax policy and regulation, as usual, NJ just doesn't get it.

Excellent information. Very informative and well researched.
Thank you.
M. Jackson

very insightful in the dealing with these companies and local and state governments. I find it sad that capitalism has for the most part has given away it's soul so to speak in that starting back in the late 70's. They are loyal to no one, this country our people to themself's. As far as wal-mart goes, this is just more corporate welfare that goes un-noticed in the public eye.

I refer readers to the following Business Week article comparing the Costco and Wal-mart business models, you decide:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878084_mz021.htm

I will respond to M Conley comment below:

"As for the statement regarding growing up and pay for your own benefits the writer shows his true disdain for working people trying to work their way into the middle class."

Actually, the exact opposite is true. People who want to attain middle class status are people who work hard, get education and try to be as productive a worker as possible.

If workers are provided a "crutch" by either taxpayers (a health care program that takes money from me to pay for the workers health care), or Walmart (providing a payroll package that exceeds the productive output of the worker), it will have the effect of discouraging people from entering the middle class, as well as discouraging the taxpayer from working harder.

Here's an example why:
Worker A:
Productivity: 20,000.
Cost of payroll: 26,000.

Worker B:
Value of Productivity: 75,000.
Cost of Payroll: 75,000.

Worker A is only worth $20K. The worker receives a total pay package of $26K because taxpayers have given him a "Free" benefit package of $6K. The employer could try to get the worker for $14K and $6K of benefits, but most workers probably wouldn't take the job.

Worker B is productive enough that health care benefits are built in to the package.

Lets ask some questions:
1) Worker A is getting benefits, paid for by other taxpayers. What incentive does the worker have to get a job that pays enough to include benefits? He already is getting it.

2) Worker B is paying for Worker A's health care through taxes. What incentive does this worker have to worker harder if there will be more taxes and less take home pay?

We should be thankful that jobs provided by Walmart exist at all. They provide a spring board for people to enter the workforce and gain employment experience.

John Shure sent me an email regarding my post. Thanks, John, for choosing to respond to people who may have different viewpoints.

I want to respond to his question, "How do you know that providing health care to all its employees would make Wal-Mart uncompetitive?"

Walmart's business model is created with the primary intention of utilizing the least skilled, transitory and youngest labor (in other words the lowest end of the employment scale). If Walmart paid more, the competitor down the street could simply undercut them. As it stands right now, Walmart has enough people willing to work for the wage/benefits offered. Why should them offer more?

The employment equation is not a one way street. Many people who work for Walmart realize that it is not necessarily the best working situation (I wouldn't tell you that working for low wages/small benefits is advantageous), which contributes to the relatively high worker turnover.

If you think that Walmart can exploit workers without consequences in the marketplace, you would be wrong. They need a class of worker who is longer term and more productive to manage their stores and distribution system. They have to compete with stores like Costco who pay high wages/benefits to these workers.

If Walmart were forced to provide health care for every worker at full cost, it would have the effect of eliminating jobs for the least skilled, least experienced workers because the cost of the worker would exceed the worker productivity.

The first comment can only be described as mis-leading and blatantly authored by wal-marts now infamous spin machine. The argument they make is absurd. Let me get this straight...It is cheaper for an employee to get free health care from the state so the employee chooses that as an option? It is common knowledge what the average wal-mart employee makes $7-8 per hour. What the minister of propoganda for wal-mart does not tell you is how much the benefit package, with its limited coverage, costs an employee who attempts to enroll. As for the statement regarding growing up and pay for your own benefits the writer shows his true disdain for working people trying to work their way into the middle class.

wal-mart is not the sole culprit here. Many other big corps have employees on the state medical care program so there is plenty of blame to go around, bt wal-mart has been found guilty of so many other obnoxious practices that one has to wonder about the intentions of this behemoth. A good neighbor they are not!

This article can only be described as misleading.

By the stats given in the article, Walmart does offer health care insurance to its employees. The cost of the health care (or more accurately, the cost of payroll) is reflected in the total benefit package that employees are offered.

Walmart will not provide an employee benefit that makes them uncompetitive. The cost of their health insurance reflects this market reality.

But, if someone offered you a state plan, at a lower cost, would you take it? Most probably would. The state is providing a plan that no private market competitor can beat. Common sense would tell you that if the subsidized state plan didn't exist, more people would enroll in the private sector plan. So the state plan has the effect of lowering enrollment rates.

People need to grow up and pay for their own health care.

Great report! This data is very useful in the numerous battles in NJ to prevent more Wal-Marts from taking over our towns. Thank you for doing this and making it accessible. Valorie