Senate Majority Leader Bruno says his house will not pass the unions' pet bill that would force thousands of private employers to spend at least $3 an hour on each employee's health coverage. It's noteworthy, though, that the bill was considered to be "in play" until the last few days of session. Our Senators and Assembly representatives gave no such serious consideration to any proposal that might reduce the health-care burden on employers. In fact, they may force those costs even higher with yet another coverage mandate. Their actions seem to reflect a belief that the problem with health care is stingy employers. That's what the unions argue, after all. Our elected representatives find it convenient to agree with the unions.
The Times Union's Rick Karlin has this story on the death (for now) of the big health-care mandate. The article includes an even-handed summary of arguments for and against the bill, and a clear-eyed observation of its political value to the unions.
Known as the Wal-Mart bill because it would affect the giant retailer and other similar companies, Fair Share for Health Care would have forced companies with 100 employees or more to provide health insurance for workers or pay a $3 hourly tax per employee. Supporters such as labor unions and the Working Families Party said it would help ease the state's costs for Medicaid and other publicly funded programs for poor and low-wage workers.
And they said it was only fair that employers take responsibility for their people.
The push also was an effective tool around which labor unions, struggling to gain new members, could rally.
The business community, though, bemoaned the Wal-Mart bill as precisely the kind of costly big government program that drives companies out of New York. While it would provide coverage for an estimated 466,000 people, that's still less than one-third of the state's uninsured. It also could cost businesses up to $9.2 billion and kill up to 100,000 jobs, according to research by the Employment Policies Institute, a nonpartisan group that sides with business on key financial issues.A quibble: As Karlin notes, the bill would affect companies with 100 employees or more. That's far from just targeting "the giant retailer and other similar companies." Companies that make life-saving drugs are bad if they're big: That's the assumption behind comments from the "goo-goos" on another bill described in Karlin's story, a proposal to regulate drug companies' marketing practices.
The apparent shutdown of the drug bill Wednesday drew a rebuke from watchdogs like Common Cause, which were quick to note that Big Pharma -- the nickname for major drug makers -- spent vast sums on lobbying and campaign contributions.
"When you get to these last seconds of the session, influence counts," said Rachel Leon, executive director of Common Cause New York, which found drug makers have since 2003 spent $7.3 million in lobbying and $1.4 million in campaign donations.We don't recall Common Cause complaining about the United Federation of Teachers and Civil Service Employees Association pushing legislators to pass a bill that would have added 52,000 workers to the state payroll. The teachers union and CSEA are both among the 10 highest-spending lobbying organizations in Albany. Common Cause, like its "goo-goo" partner the New York Public Interest Research Group, often criticizes business spending on lobbying--but says little about the never-ending rent-seeking by New York's powerful public-employee unions.