Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

The Wal-Mart Mystery. Solved.

SEIU and Podesta got you by the balls, Wal-Mart!

SEIU and Podesta got you by the balls, Wal-Mart!

Wal-Mart, SEIU and Center for American Progress (aka John Podesta, Obama’s Transition Dude) penned a letter together yesterday to President Obama urging support for an employer mandate for the health care reform. Huh?  Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer who is also hostile to union organizing and SEIU, arguably the nation’s most powerful and effective union, penned a letter together to push support for the federal mandate in the health care reform bill that requires employers to provide some kind of health care coverage.

Is Wal-Mart “waking up” finally and becoming a good player?  Or is this yet another plot by the country’s largest employer to snuff out small business competitors who will struggle to meet the demands of employer mandates for health care?

Let’s recall:  this is the same company that warned its managers of an Obama win last year and the horrors such a win would create for Wal-Mart and union organizing.  Now they are warming up to his very left-of-center, very anti-US Chamber of Commerce health care plan?  Either Podesta and SEIU are very persuasive (possible) or there’s something in that Kool-Aid at Wal-Mart.  (Note to our Republican readers: Don’t buy the bulk Kool-Aid at Wal-Mart, you’re likely to switch parties.)  Or it’s something else entirely more self-serving .

It’s not news that Wal-Mart has spent the last few years trying to give itself a little image makeover.  See, they have had what you’d call a “tarnished reputation” as an employer (“Hi, class action!”) And now with Democrats in control and pro-class action Sotomayor waiting in the SCOTUS wings, maybe Wal-Mart realizes it’s time to clean up their act and get with the program.

Wrong.  Call me cynical, but a little testifying before Congress to increase the minimum wage and settling some lawsuits pertaining to wage discrimination doesn’t make you a good business player all of a sudden. These efforts are not an Extreme Home Makeover or The Swan; rather, it’s an attempt to maintain their edge. Wal-Mart can afford an employer mandate, Mom-n-Pop grocery or retail stores, not so much.


  • Mikos

    I think the truism that fits this case is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Obama has been counting on (hoping?) business would get on board with healthcare. After all, why should they be in the healthcare business at all? Maybe there is a deal hidden in here some place (SEIU lays off organizing their employees for a while?) but that’s politics.

  • Mikos

    I think the truism that fits this case is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Obama has been counting on (hoping?) business would get on board with healthcare. After all, why should they be in the healthcare business at all? Maybe there is a deal hidden in here some place (SEIU lays off organizing their employees for a while?) but that’s politics.

  • Mikos

    I think the truism that fits this case is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Obama has been counting on (hoping?) business would get on board with healthcare. After all, why should they be in the healthcare business at all? Maybe there is a deal hidden in here some place (SEIU lays off organizing their employees for a while?) but that’s politics.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    This one’s easy to figure out.

    Wal-Mart doesn’t want to pay employee benefits. With public option, they won’t have to.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    This one’s easy to figure out.

    Wal-Mart doesn’t want to pay employee benefits. With public option, they won’t have to.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    This one’s easy to figure out.

    Wal-Mart doesn’t want to pay employee benefits. With public option, they won’t have to.

  • ObamaNerd

    @1. Strange Bedfellows indeed.
    @2. Not true. An employer mandate would say companies over a certain size would need to spend $XXX per employee per year on health care. Wal-Mart made $406 billion last year. Target, it’s nearest competitor, made $60 billion by contrast. Which company can better absorb the costs of employer-mandated health care? Who has the competitive edge here? The only thing a public option does in this particular scenario is drive down the per employee cost that each employer (ie Wal-Mart, Target) would pay. My guess is that Wal-Mart calculated they could absorb the cost while it would severely hurt their competitors. Incidentally, Wal-mart is one of the country’s biggest pharmacies too. More people on health care means more prescriptions. My guess is they like the idea of more people filling prescriptions.

  • ObamaNerd

    @1. Strange Bedfellows indeed.
    @2. Not true. An employer mandate would say companies over a certain size would need to spend $XXX per employee per year on health care. Wal-Mart made $406 billion last year. Target, it’s nearest competitor, made $60 billion by contrast. Which company can better absorb the costs of employer-mandated health care? Who has the competitive edge here? The only thing a public option does in this particular scenario is drive down the per employee cost that each employer (ie Wal-Mart, Target) would pay. My guess is that Wal-Mart calculated they could absorb the cost while it would severely hurt their competitors. Incidentally, Wal-mart is one of the country’s biggest pharmacies too. More people on health care means more prescriptions. My guess is they like the idea of more people filling prescriptions.

  • ObamaNerd

    @1. Strange Bedfellows indeed.
    @2. Not true. An employer mandate would say companies over a certain size would need to spend $XXX per employee per year on health care. Wal-Mart made $406 billion last year. Target, it’s nearest competitor, made $60 billion by contrast. Which company can better absorb the costs of employer-mandated health care? Who has the competitive edge here? The only thing a public option does in this particular scenario is drive down the per employee cost that each employer (ie Wal-Mart, Target) would pay. My guess is that Wal-Mart calculated they could absorb the cost while it would severely hurt their competitors. Incidentally, Wal-mart is one of the country’s biggest pharmacies too. More people on health care means more prescriptions. My guess is they like the idea of more people filling prescriptions.