I understand the Maryland thing is bad. Even unAmerican. But, ... I don’t know what I’d do in their shoes either.

For example, my mother’s friend works at Walmart. For 38 hours per week. With no insurance. Is it a coincidence that she is only allowed to work 38 hours? No. But, is it really part-time? No. Can she survive on that? No. Is her schedule free enough to get other jobs? No.

But, is it Walmarts fault that she feels trapped into taking that job to get the ends closer to each other? No. Is it Walmarts responsibility to improve the lives of their employees over the financial interests of their stockholders? No.

Still, should part of the orientation for employment at Walmart include explanations for filling out paperwork for government assistance? Should part of their corporate culture motto be “we’re on Welfare and proud of it”? That plays into the notion that governments have big sacks of money laying around. I don’t like my taxes paying for the official insurance plan for Walmart via public assistance.

Perhaps the answer is to do away with public assistance completely. If the program wasn’t there, then Walmart couldn’t abuse it.

Of course, we also have to consider that Wal-Mart doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  The government makes laws that require that benefits be available to all full time employees (by definition - those that work 40+ hours per week).  There are millions of companies who keep the some of their employees working just under that threshold to avoid these extra costs.  (I’ve worked a few of these jobs myself.) Why?  Because they feel the position is not worth what the benefits would force them to pay. 

I’ve always felt that employment was an agreement between an employee and an employer over work to be performed in return for compensation.  Every job compensates differently for a variety of reasons.  Sometimes the employer has the upper-hand and can extract more work for less pay, depending on the economic situation.  Other times, the employee has all the chips, based on need and experience.

The big-government approach is well represented by this 40-hour rule.  Another idea they bring up from time to time involves jacking the minimum wage as high as they can get away with.  It seems some people need a study in Newtonian Economics...for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Forcing benefits at 40 hours means that some jobs cannot get a full set of hours (or any overtime) forcing many to work two jobs to make ends meet.  They might be better off working one job without benefits that allows some overtime, but that option has been removed by legislation.

I know people who work at Wal-mart and they like it.  They work hard, do their job and get promoted.  They get paid what they feel is a fair price and although they might not get company provided health insurance, they do get a significant discount on all purchases within the store.  That may save them enough money to purchase insurance for themselves...should they have the inclination to do so.