WaPo: Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

[mistertim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/wal-mart-says-it-will-pull-out-of-dc-plans-should-city-mandate-living-wage/2013/07/09/4fa7e710-e8d0-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html?hpid=z1

 

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

 

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-

retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members.

 

The company’s hardball tactics come out of a well-worn playbook that involves successfully using Wal-Mart’s leverage in the form of jobs and low-priced goods to fend off legislation and regulation that could cut into its profits and set precedent in other potential markets. In the Wilson Building, elected officials have found their reliable liberal, pro-union political sentiments in conflict with their desire to bring amenities to underserved neighborhoods.

 

Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) called Wal-Mart’s move “immensely discouraging,” indicating that he may consider vetoing the bill while pondering whether to seek reelection.

 

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

 

While the bill would apply to some other retailers — such as Home Depot, Costco and Macy’s — a grandfather period and an exception for those with unionized workforces made it clear that the bill targets Wal-Mart, which has said it would open six stores, employing up to 1,800 people.

 

I really have always had a severe dislike of the way Wal-Mart does business (which is why I refuse to spend any money there) and this certainly doesn't do much to remedy that. Hate the strong arm tactics and whining these pricks do about anything that could have any potential to cut into their already gargantuan profit margin. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about a law that basically targets ONE specific company. I mean yeah, on one hand I say screw Wal-Mart; stick it to them as hard as possible. But on the other, I feel like legislation shouldn't necessarily do that sort of thing. Bit torn there.

 

What do you all think?

[SkinsHokieFan]

A "living wage" in DC is probably more like 25.00 an hour rather then what the Council is proposing.

 

The council is really trying to look as anti business as possible in a jurisdiction that makes it very difficult to do business in already

[@DCGoldPants]

They wanted to build in Rockville but was blocked by the city after enough folks said they didn't want Wal-Mart along/next to the Pike, so they found a spot right beyond Rockville limits to do it where Bagel City is....that little shopping center. Last time at bagel city my Dad asked one of the managers what was happening with that and was told "enough people complained, looks like its not happening now".

 

I hear what you're saying about screw them....but not with a pay wage law. Not really torn though. I'm tired of reading stories about how they treat their workers.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A "living wage" in DC is probably more like 25.00 an hour rather then what the Council is proposing.

 

The council is really trying to look as anti business as possible in a jurisdiction that makes it very difficult to do business in already

 

Its not that much to ask for.  

 

Poor walmart.

[mistertim]

A "living wage" in DC is probably more like 25.00 an hour rather then what the Council is proposing.

 

The council is really trying to look as anti business as possible in a jurisdiction that makes it very difficult to do business in already

I don't think trying to get people somewhere even in the ballpark of something resembling a wage that they can actually live on is being "anti-business". It's pretty amazing how if you're a huge business and you just keep lowering the bar for how much your workers can make and then whine incessantly about anything that cuts into your company's profits you can redefine pretty much whatever you don't like as "anti-business". IMO it's been one hell of a con that's been going on for a very long time (hand in hand with the gov't shills they own of course).

 

Though I will restate that I'm not really sure how I feel about actual legislation that targets a specific company. That makes me a bit uneasy.

[Bang]

Good. Wal Mart is a parasite that drains the community.

The fact they would rather leave then pay their people anything close to a living wage should say all that needs to be said.

 

~Bang

[pointyfootball]

As much as I hate WalMart, it is us as citizens that are to blame.

 

Not sure what is worse, DCC or Walmart!

[mike42]

Against the D.C. Council bill as it is unfair to target certain business even if they are a greedy corporation. If you raise the minium wage at those jobs, everything else will increase with price and eventually will be no better than what they were with 8.25/hr.

[CrypticVillain]

Not sure what is worse, DCC or Walmart!

 

It's the DC Council.

Forget about the stuff that they have been caught doing, you wouldn't believe the stuff they get away with.

 

Which leads me to my biggest complaint....

 

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about a law that basically targets ONE specific company.

 

They promise citizens this Wal-Mart for three years. Now all of a sudden they found out a way to get a bigger slice of the pie and wants Wal-Mart to pay more than what they originally thought they had to?

Wal-Mart is the big evil company and whatnot, but I have seen this city do some shady things. This ranks as one of the shadiest.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

I've yet to meet a Wal  Mart employee worth 8 dollars an hour, much less 12.

[The Evil Genius]

I've yet to meet a Wal  Mart employee worth 8 dollars an hour, much less 12.

 

I suspect that probably falls into you get what you pay for.

 

If you only offer near minimum wage, then you probably won't attract the best and the brightest (or most worthy) employees.

[Bang]

And when they end up spending 60% of their paycheck back into Wal Mart, then it's not likely to produce any motivated employees.

 

~BAng

[Elessar78]

WalMart is the modern equivalent of the "Company Store". They figure that the low wages can always be supplemented by food stamps and the like, which end up right back at Walmart. 

[Kilmer17]

I think everyone should be on Wal Marts side on this one.  the DC Govt passes a bill requiring ONE business to pay more than any other in wages and people are upset when the company says no thanks?

[PleaseBlitz]

I like WalMart.  I don't shop there very often, and I totally support everyone's right to boycott/criticize/whatever, because they certainly do things that are not nice, but they do a lot of good for a lot of people.  They are THE place in America where everything is cheapest.  So they allow a lot of people to stretch their paychecks.  There is a lot to be said for that.

 

If you make enough money that you can go to Target or wherever and pay 15% more for everything, then good for you.  I'm like that.  I like Target way more, which is why I rarely go to Walmart.  But a lot of people have a lot of trouble making ends meet, so they get everything from WalMart because that is where its cheapest.  Period.  And this is hugely important for a very large number of people in this country.  

 

And when they end up spending 60% of their paycheck back into Wal Mart, then it's not likely to produce any motivated employees.

 

~BAng

 

Guess why they spend their 60% of their paycheck at Walmart?  Because they are ****ing poor and WalMart is where they can get the most stuff for their dollar and you know, have food to eat and stuff.  It would be a lot more than 60% if Walmart sold gas or would let them live there.

 

Why should WalMart pay people that greet, run cash registers, or stock shelves, 173% of the minimum wage?  Those jobs were designed for the minimum wage, they require no skills, minimal training, nothing.  If people don't want those jobs, then they don't have to take them.  People that work at Walmart work there because they need a job, can't get a better one, and have made the decision that $7.25/hr is worth their time.  

 

If you only offer near minimum wage, then you probably won't attract the best and the brightest (or most worthy) employees.

WalMart doesn't need or want the best and brightest, they have specifically designed their operations around exactly the type of people that will work for minimum wage.  This was a conscious decision by them.  They don't WANT to change it, they are doing just fine with that model. 

 

Walmart probably isn't for an urban area.  And if the city wants to pass a law that is going to make it prohibitive for Walmart to open a store, then I suppose that's fine too.  But it is really dumb when people fault Walmart for not opening up 3 stores somewhere where the local government has singled them out for abuse and eliminated their ability to conform to their own business plan.  

[The Evil Genius]

I think everyone should be on Wal Marts side on this one.  the DC Govt passes a bill requiring ONE business to pay more than any other in wages and people are upset when the company says no thanks?

 

Originally it was a requirement of all retailers who are bigger than 75,000 square feet.

 

However, "under the revised legislation, any new retail outlet affiliated with a parent company having yearly revenue of $1 billion or more would be subject to the wage requirement, regardless of the size of the store. A draft report mentions Apple and Nike as among the retailers that might be affected. Franchisees and subcontractors, however, would be exempt."

 

So, it's not just Wal-mart, apparently. They are just the biggest name..or at least the most noticeable one to be affected. 

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-30/local/39627226_1_living-wage-minimum-wage-draft-report

[Bang]

I know that's why, and Wal Mart keeps those prices down how?

Wal Mart's purchasing power is so large that they shove companies around, cut your costs or we'll cut you out is their game.
The manufacturer HAS to play, because Wal Mart has so much of the market share.

And the consumer supposedly gains by having marginally lower prices.

except to meet wal Mart's demands, companies lay off workers, outsource jobs, buy cheaper manufacturing from overseas. After all, they have to be in Wal Mart. Net loss for the community as a whole, who is mollified by saving a few pennies on shampoo.

 

wal Mart hires greeters and such because they force every other employer in town out of business. So wal mart does a wonderful thing hiring these people, so they can spend the money they earn at Wal Mart

 

They get more than their pound of flesh and do nothing to help the community, no matter how glossy it is painted.

 

It's a slave ship. But like most slaves we're pretty powerless in the face of it.

 

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

I think everyone should be on Wal Marts side on this one.  the DC Govt passes a bill requiring ONE business to pay more than any other in wages and people are upset when the company says no thanks?

 

Originally it was a requirement of all retailers who are bigger than 75,000 square feet.

 

However, "under the revised legislation, any new retail outlet affiliated with a parent company having yearly revenue of $1 billion or more would be subject to the wage requirement, regardless of the size of the store. A draft report mentions Apple and Nike as among the retailers that might be affected. Franchisees and subcontractors, however, would be exempt."

 

So, it's not just Wal-mart, apparently. They are just the biggest name..or at least the one with the biggest axe to sharpen. 

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-30/local/39627226_1_living-wage-minimum-wage-draft-report

Is there a Nike or Apple store over 75000 SF anywhere in the US?

 

It's obvious what the DCC is doing.  Too bad their actions will ultimately harm the people of DC.  Or help them, if you take the approach that Wal Mart is the devil.  Either way, the people of DC wont have the option.

[Bang]

True enough.. Wal Mart is the devil, for sure, but at the same time, they are the devil that is in control, and we're forced to play cards by their rules.

Where I am i have options, and we try to use them, but you can't get away from wal Mart completely if you want to survive in the middle class these days.

 

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

 

I think everyone should be on Wal Marts side on this one.  the DC Govt passes a bill requiring ONE business to pay more than any other in wages and people are upset when the company says no thanks?

 

Originally it was a requirement of all retailers who are bigger than 75,000 square feet.

 

However, "under the revised legislation, any new retail outlet affiliated with a parent company having yearly revenue of $1 billion or more would be subject to the wage requirement, regardless of the size of the store. A draft report mentions Apple and Nike as among the retailers that might be affected. Franchisees and subcontractors, however, would be exempt."

 

So, it's not just Wal-mart, apparently. They are just the biggest name..or at least the one with the biggest axe to sharpen. 

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-30/local/39627226_1_living-wage-minimum-wage-draft-report

Is there a Nike or Apple store over 75000 SF anywhere in the US?

 

It's obvious what the DCC is doing.  Too bad their actions will ultimately harm the people of DC.  Or help them, if you take the approach that Wal Mart is the devil.  Either way, the people of DC wont have the option.

 

All Wal-mart had to do originally was limit the size of their stores.  However, the revised legislation keeps them (and previously unaffected stores like Nike or Apple) in the crosshairs because of their yearly revenues.

 

I don't necessarily see this as a great piece of legislation (I do understand the concept - however misguided it will be in its implementation) - but I suspect those who support the rights of the community, states, etc. to pass any and all asinine legislation must be feeling a little conflicted in how they can argue for Wal-mart and state/community rights at the same time.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

I know that's why, and Wal Mart keeps those prices down how?

Wal Mart's purchasing power is so large that they shove companies around, cut your costs or we'll cut you out is their game.

The manufacturer HAS to play, because Wal Mart has so much of the market share.

 

The manufacturer doesn't HAVE to pay.  They WANT to pay.  People are lined up around the block to get their products on WalMart's shelves.  Why?  Because Walmart sells so much stuff, even if you cut your profit margin by half or more, you'll make up for it several times over in volume.  

 

 

The rest of your post was basically just explaining how capitalism works, so, yea, thats capitalism.  

[Kilmer17]

True enough.. Wal Mart is the devil, for sure, but at the same time, they are the devil that is in control, and we're forced to play cards by their rules.

Where I am i have options, and we try to use them, but you can't get away from wal Mart completely if you want to survive in the middle class these days.

 

~Bang

Yeah.  But in DC, I think the options are already pretty limitted.

 

I can avoid Wal Mart pretty easily. 

[@DCGoldPants]

Well, it passed 8-5. So, we'll see what happens now (meaning will the mayor veto it?)

[PleaseBlitz]

Besides Walmart, this will probably require Barnes and Noble to close down.  Maybe Busboys & Poets can expand further.  

[Larry]

I'm with the "mixed feelings" crowd, here.

I think raising the minimum wage is probably a good idea. A net benefit for society as a whole.

Really got a problem with passing legislation for only one company, though. I think they've got a right to complain.