Which Oregon employers rely on the government the most?
Chuck Sheketoff
An open letter to Governor Ted Kulongoski
Dear Governor Kulongoski,
Across the country state employment and human services agencies are matching their data and disclosing to the media which employers have the most employees utilizing health insurance and other public benefits.
As noted at Good Jobs First, Arizona's Department of Economic Security issued data on the largest private employers with workers receiving taxpayer-financed medical insurance through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. At the top of the list was Wal-Mart, with about 2,700 workers--or 9.6 percent of its Arizona workforce--participating in the program. It was followed by Target, Kroger (owner of Oregon's Fred Meyer), each of which had about 5 percent of their workers getting state healthcare coverage.
Will you please ask the Oregon Employment and Human Services Departments to disclose which employers have the most employees with family members enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan (including SCHIP and FHIAP) and the Oregon Food Stamp Program?
If Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin residents can learn which employers are most dependent on public services to support their low wage employment, why can't Oregonians learn the same thing?
There's nothing stopping you from producing the reports. Oregonians deserve to know which employers benefit the most by Oregon's public assistance programs.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Aug 4, '05
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Large employers should be able to provide health insurance to employees.
4:45 p.m.
Aug 4, '05
At a minimum, we should know the data...
Then, it seems to me that billion dollar companies should provide health care to their employees.
Aug 4, '05
Why is it the responsibility of the employer to provide health care/insurance for the employees?
Aug 5, '05
"Why is it the responsibility of the employer to provide health care/insurance for the employees?" - Bailie
It may not be the "responsibility of the employer" but it is the responsibility of some entity. According to the Constitution of the United States, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
That is the law. Don't believe me? Let me site the source.
Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The US is a signatory to this treaty. The above is from Article 25.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the Supreme law of the land as defined by the Constitution. So the question is, who is responsible to provide an adequate standard of living? Since the government can regulate businesses, it can and should make them provide compensation to meet these needs. Or it should provide the services needed.
9:49 a.m.
Aug 5, '05
Grant, I've never heard that argument before. Fascinating. Has it ever been tested in a court of law?
Aug 5, '05
Thank you for the information. I still don't understand why it is the employers responsibility/obligation to provide health care/insurance/retirement for employees. I do understand the relationship for hiring/retaining employees as a market force. Why is the employer obligated any more than your neighbor or your parent?
9:53 a.m.
Aug 5, '05
Bailie -- you're right. It's not, right now, the responsibility of employers to provide health care.
However, if there are major billion dollar corporations who are competing on a low-cost basis with their competitors by "outsourcing" their health care plans to Oregon taxpayers, then we should - at minimum - know that.
I'm sure you agree that we should at least get the data.
Of course, I'd go further. I'd simply argue that while they have no requirement to provide health care, the state of Oregon should have a fee to cover the outsourcing of those costs to taxpayers.
As an anti-tax conservative, I'm sure you agree: we shouldn't have tax money subsidizing some businesses and not others. Right?
Aug 5, '05
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Grant, It seems that this Article 25 has serious "holes" subject to interpretation or definitions. The terms, "standard of living", "well-being" and "right to security" can be defined differently by just about anyone.
Aug 5, '05
I agree that the information would be interesting, but why? For leverage against these companies?
I do think this is an interesting topic for discussion. I just fail to see that it should be an "obligation" of an employer to provide health care or retirement. It is nice, and some businesses might find it necessary to hire/retain employees in a market economy. But certainly not an obligation.
If it should be an obligation, would the business then have complete rights to control employee health e.g. no smoking, no fast foods or no over weight employees?
I am not an "anti-tax conservative". Where did that come from?
I'm sure you agree: we shouldn't have tax money subsidizing some businesses and not others.
That is happening every day in Oregon, isn't it?
Aug 6, '05
For once I actually AGREE with Bailie.
You are arguing for single payer national healthcare, aren't you Ms B?
Aug 6, '05
Hello! BIG (and small) BUSINESS is the single biggest WINNER of public services in Oregon. Let's review:
No sales tax, second lowest wine/beer tax in USA, cheapest business income tax ($10) in entire world, cheapest car licenses in USA, plus, in Oregon, business owners can write off the entire $75,000 for their Humvee which gets just 8 MPG, allowing the loyal Bushies to support The House of Saud and Saudi-born Osama Bin Laden and his fly boys, 15 of 19 which were Saudi. None Iraqi.
My local corner store uses more CORPPORATE WELFARE than every welfare mom who has lived in this state going back to when Saddam was our bestest friend and Rummy was kissing him all day long.
HIstory is SUCH a bitch, huh kids?
Aug 6, '05
Sid,
You say, "Hello! BIG (and small) BUSINESS is the single biggest WINNER of public services in Oregon."
Are you suggesting we make it more difficult for business in Oregon? We (Oregon)have been near the top in the U.S. in unemployment for the last 5 years. We certainly don't have businesses rushing into our state to take advantage of your "perceived" giveaways by government. So how would your suggestions help the economy of Oregon? Could it be that without your critical suggestions, our economy would be worse than it is?
Aug 6, '05
Terry, I have no problem with the concept of "national healthcare" if done correctly. I am leary of the government controlling something of that size, however. The government's track record is dismal. Many of the other countries often spoke highly, have very serious problems rendering healthcare in a timely manner. I wonder about that?
5:21 p.m.
Aug 6, '05
The United States is well behind other industrialized nations when it comes to health care.
We're the only one not to have national health care.
If I remember correctly, we're one of two that does not give paid time off for maternity leave.
It'd ridiculous that the U.S. is behind on so many of these things.
And in those nations their businesses typically pay into the system towards the cost of their employees' insurance. Here in the U.S. we allow the some of the country's biggest companies to push their employees onto state health plans. With the low wages they pay, it is impossible for people to get health insurance any other way.
And making things a bit harder on big business in Oregon isn't going to hurt our economy. Some of the states that have plenty of businesses (and low unemployment) are also the states with higher taxes, stricter laws, etc. Because the fact is things that businesses look at first are items like the state's education system, roads & bridges, public safety, etc. If a state has low taxes, but those things are falling apart, they'll go elsewhere.
Aug 6, '05
Jenni, So you also, are advocating making it more difficult to do business in Oregon? The "per capita income" in Oregon has fallen from 25th in 1990 to 36th in 2004. Does making it more difficult for business, help this slide?
Aug 7, '05
Let's revisit ther world of FACTS, for a minute, shall we.
The Sunnyside and Richmond neighborhood associations say there are little or no business vacancies on the Eastside as hundreds and hundreds of small businesses move in as fast as they can -- coffee shops, bookstores, accounting firms, recording studios, realty comnpanies, etc,... paying MORE MONEY than WalMart could even dream about.
Anyone who cries crocodile tears about Oregon businesses paying big taxes ($10 a year, BOO HOO!)also believes tax cuts adds jobs, which is the biggest GOP (Greedy Old People) myth in Economics 101.
You ever take college economics, Miss Bailie?
Aug 8, '05
Great idea, Chuck! While were at it, let's also make the unions report how many of their members are unemployed and how many collect public assistance ...