YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLICDecember 24, 2006
Fruit industry part of debate over workers' health care
Yakima Valley agricultural employers are bracing for possible legislation that could lasso them into an updated version of the so-called Wal-Mart bill. And depending on what the 2007 Legislature does, large, private companies might have to provide health care to their employees -- or reimburse the state for workers on public plans. Two recently released state surveys found that taxpayers are subsidizing health care for thousands of workers in presumably profitable industries, from retailers and fast-food chains to packing sheds and fruit warehouses. One Yakima Valley company, Zirkle Fruit of Selah, ranks as the ninth-largest user of medical assistance programs for the state's poorest residents, not including the Basic Health Plan. As of June 2006, Zirkle had 1,628 employees or their dependents on medical assistance, for a combined monthly cost of $255,910 in state and federal funds, or $3 million a year. Home Depot ranks eighth, while Target is 10th. Wal-Mart -- which has 16,000 employees in the state, including 450 at its distribution center in Grandview -- is the largest user of taxpayer-subsidized health care. About 3,000 employees of Wal-Mart, more than any other employer in the state, receive public health assistance at an estimated cost to the state of $9 million this year. The Seattle Times Co., parent company of the Yakima Herald-Republic, ranks 41st on the list of 576 employers with people on medical assistance, including many public sector agencies such as the Washington State Migrant Council and Central Washington University. Data in the report are limited, concede the authors, the Department of Social and Health Services and the state Health Care Authority. The numbers represent a snapshot in time and don't reflect changes in the status of employees. But the information, requested by the 2006 Legislature, is sure to arm the Fair Share Health Care Coalition, a union-backed group that pushed the Wal-Mart bill last session. The coalition is considering a new proposal that would require employers of 1,000 or more to spend 9 percent of their payroll on health care. Agricultural employers don't dispute that they have many employees on public health plans. But they say the seasonal nature of the work, which means many work only part of the year or part-time, makes it financially prohibitive to offer health insurance. Legislation that would include seasonal workers "would be a tough pill for our industry to swallow," says Miles Kohl, executive director of the Yakima Valley Growers- A similar bill last year didn't advance because Democratic House Speaker Frank Chopp resisted it. But Kohl worries that Democrats, with their newfound strong majorities in both chambers, will run with the issue this go-round. "I view this as their session to get things done and I'm not optimistic about a good honest debate and understanding of our industry's spikes in employment," he says.
Defining 'seasonal' Skeptical that agriculture's seasonal nature should give the industry "a pass" on mandated health benefits is David West, director of the Center for a Change Workforce. The Seattle-based public policy research firm is part of the National Alliance for Fair Employment, a network of groups that advocate for the "contingent" work force: temporary, part-time, day, immigrant and prison labor. The only true seasonal work, West says, is picking in the orchards. But apples are packed and shipped from warehouses nearly year-round. "When you see the packing houses, the question is, how many of those folks work long enough so that they really can't be classified as seasonal?" he says. West also says that the Basic Health Plan requires its enrollees to be residents of the state, which means they are not traditional migrant workers following the crop around the country. "The fruit companies seem to have done a very good job of getting their employees on Basic Health. To the extent they are working in the state they are living here, and they are going to be incurring health care expenses. Somebody has to pay for it and the employer has to be part of that solution so it's not just falling on other Yakima County employers." Many fruit company employees are year-round residents of the area, Kohl acknowledges, but they also change employers frequently, making continuous coverage difficult. A possible compromise could be a multi-employer health plan within the tree fruit industry, he says. Fruit companies that offer health insurance often hear from employees that they'd rather have a pay raise, and employers oblige, Kohl says. Other agricultural representatives say a state law to mandate health benefits is simply a way of avoiding the larger health care problem of rising costs, which are causing employers to drop coverage. "Let's deal with the crisis instead of penalizing employers," says Dan Fazio, director of employer services for the Washington Farm Bureau.
Finding compromise Although no legislation is in the hopper yet, the stage is set for a showdown that could put Gov. Chris Gregoire on the spot. Observers like Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger, and Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, expect Democrats at the very least to hang a bill out for discussion over the three-month session. Much rests with Chopp, the powerful House speaker, who can keep the unions in line but who also represents the more liberal side of the Democratic aisle. "Frank is rather pragmatic at times, but he's also indebted to the unions," Honeyford says. "I think it's going to be more difficult for him to turn them down." Chopp isn't showing his hand publicly. He didn't return phone calls requesting comment for this story. Gregoire, too, is waiting and watching. A blue-ribbon health commission created by the 2006 Legislature could address the issue in a report on the state's health care system, due later in January. The governor, who likes back-room compromises to precede legislation, said recently that she could not support a bill that singles out a few employers or Wal-Mart, but she doesn't want large, profitable employers to continue sending their employees to public plans. "We need to address the problem in a creative way so that there is shared responsibility among industry, the state and the employee," she said.
|