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

[twa]

Hail!

Hail!

 

I like debate/arguing ,but I understand your concern and that is not my desire for any.

[NoCalMike]

When it comes to Wal-Mart and companies in the  like, how they treat their employees is only half the story of how "evil" they are.  Just do some investigating in how they obtain their items so cheap in the first place.

[skinsmarydu]

Which is why I stay away from cheap ****.

Another good one is Nike.  A really old OTL on ESPN was about the sneaker wars.  You wouldn't believe the workers getting sick from the glue, etc.  Haven't purchased anything Nike (except my RGIII elite) since.

[LadySkinsFan]

I believe Wegman pays much better than Wal-Mart. They'd probably need to go up a little with this. But from what I read, they are still offering health insurance for part-time employees. So....I don't think they'd fall into the same issue.

 

Its not the clientele. Is the ownership making a choice about what they sell and how they compensate their employees already. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

i read yesterday they are dropping ins for PTers....say thank you obamacare

 

Companies have been dropping benefits like health insurance for part timers for many years.  Sears did it back in the 70s.  Obamacare has nothing to do with it.

 

Now, if health insurance coverage wasn't tied to employers, and we had single payer tied to the insured, part timers could get health insurance at a nominal cost to them.  But no, the Republicans wouldn't even consider this plan.  They WANT employers to be in charge of health insurance for their employees, except for the part timers who don't get benefits anyway.

[HeluCopter29]

Also, for anyone who thinks this will kill jobs should read this:

 

http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/news/2011-01-11/new-study-wal-mart-means-fewer-jobs-less-small-businesses-more-burden-taxpayers

[isle-hawg]

I wish some of you who are so passionate against Walmart would be even half as passionte about buying (paying more for) your stuff made in the USA vice China.  Walmart is low paying but at least these low paying jobs are not moved overseas.

 

Is no job better then a low paying job?

 

Where I live if you wanted to purchase stuff you either had to drive to another county or purchase it online before Walmart moved in.  Walmart put no-one out of work in my county- but instead created jobs, tax revenue, and convenience for the county residents.

[Bang]

You know Wal Mart advertises that they sell "made in the USA' products, and then they force the manufacturers of said products to sell to them so cheaply that they have to get things made overseas.

 

Wal Mart can't move a shelf stocker's job overseas. And the idea that they don't move jobs overseas is a big lie. 

"Is no job better than a low paying job" is exactly the mindset that they like to hear.

It's what you're willing to accept. American workers used to have a higher value to their employers than that, and a higher self esteem as well.

 

~Bang

[twa]

I believe Wegman pays much better than Wal-Mart. They'd probably need to go up a little with this. But from what I read, they are still offering health insurance for part-time employees. So....I don't think they'd fall into the same issue.

 

Its not the clientele. Is the ownership making a choice about what they sell and how they compensate their employees already. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

i read yesterday they are dropping ins for PTers....say thank you obamacare

 

Companies have been dropping benefits like health insurance for part timers for many years.  Sears did it back in the 70s.  Obamacare has nothing to do with it.

believe what ya wish

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-will-destroy-the-very-health-and-wellbeing-of-workers/

govt intervention by idiots with no clue how it impacts jobs and the economy is mine.

I'm from the govt and here to help.LOL

[HeluCopter29]

 

 

I believe Wegman pays much better than Wal-Mart. They'd probably need to go up a little with this. But from what I read, they are still offering health insurance for part-time employees. So....I don't think they'd fall into the same issue.

 

Its not the clientele. Is the ownership making a choice about what they sell and how they compensate their employees already. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

i read yesterday they are dropping ins for PTers....say thank you obamacare

 

 

Companies have been dropping benefits like health insurance for part timers for many years.  Sears did it back in the 70s.  Obamacare has nothing to do with it.

 

believe what ya wish

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-will-destroy-the-very-health-and-wellbeing-of-workers/

govt intervention by idiots with no clue how it impacts jobs and the economy is mine.

I'm from the govt and here to help.LOL

 

Obamacare is the just the latest excuse.  The idea that Walmart was somehow helpful before the Affordable Care Act is laughable.

[aREDSKIN]

LOL @ the people who vote for these imbeciles. They deserve what they get. But it's DC & it's been going on for decades. All politicains are just scum. IMO

 

 

 

Someone needs to carve those words onto a wall in the D.C. Council legislative chamber
 

Last week, the Council approved
a measure that would require Walmart and other large retailers doing
business in the District to pay a “living wage” of $12.50 per hour.

But… uh oh. Hypocrisy alert.

District government pays less than $12.50 per hour.

According to the D.C. Department of

Human Resources, some full-time school maintenance workers and
custodians make $11.75 per hour. The rate for a clerk at the University
of the District of Columbia is $10.40.

Council members went to great lengths to criticize Walmart's pay scale. They should have taken care of their own business first.


The Council's thinking is flawed on
other accounts, too. Their law targets Walmart while exempting other
businesses from paying higher salaries.

Here is a better idea: Raise the

current minimum wage in D.C. -- $8.25 per hour -- for every worker.
Scale it up incrementally over time.

 

 

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/DC-Government-Doesnt-Pay-a-Living-Wage-215585001.html

[isle-hawg]

Holy cow, the last post pretty much sums up the mess that is the DC council!

[Bang]

Yeah, wal mart aside, DC government is a circus.

 

~Bang

[elkabong82]

The interesting thing is how companies like Wal-Mart are, indirectly, massively funded by taxpayer dollars. They pay crap and don't pay for healthcare for many of their employees. As a result, the person doesn't make enough money to live and feed their family so they have to get gov't assistance in the form of "food stamps" and welfare; the taxpayers float the bill and Wal-Mart pays zilch. The person gets sick, goes to the ER and the taxpayers float the bill; Wal-Mart doesn't have to pay a dime.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, some of the greatest cons in US history have been (and are continuing to be) carried out by US corporations. And that isn't "anti-business" or whatever nonsense some people immediately react with. It is the recognition that we have a completely rigged game when it comes to the way our business and gov't institutions work when it comes to profits and the economy. To be honest, what they do is about as "anti-capitalist" as I can imagine if you're talking about pure capitalist theory and free markets. It isn't a free market and they make sure it stays that way.

 

You are dead on. Problem is too many confuse "profit at all costs" with "pure capitalism" when they are not actually one in the same. Pure capitalism relies on open competition. A rigged system is not open competition, in fact it is the opposite. Some confuse the two as being similar so much that, despite being pro-small business and anti-gov't assistance they'll defend a corporation that destroys small business and leaves its workers with no other option than gov't assistance.

 

The reason, IMO, those folks consistently merge the two is because they are too far to the extreme on their opinion and thus are more easily manipulated because of it. They view any kind of regulation or attempt to correct as an attack on business and this allows corps. to manipulate them into not realizing that some of those fixes are actually in favor of business and are attempting to enable pure capitalism which the corp. has actually blocked due to its practices. Requiring a decent wage for workers from a company that can easily afford it means greater purchasing power for workers, a necessity for capitalism to truly work, and allows that purchasing power to be flexible and applicable to other businesses. By screwing over employees into such low wages, they have to spend those wages on the company's own cheap merch. It's the same corrupt model as mine towns and their company stores back in the day, and the opposite of the spirit of the Ford model.

 

Basically Wal-mart's tactic keeps their own pockets lined and screws over the employees, gov't asst programs and by extension the tax payer, small businesses, etc. It is not capitalism because it destroys the free market by essentially crippling many members of the market. Costco does it right, follows the spirit of the Ford model, is a big employer and enables the purchasing power of its employees thus strengthening the free market and fueling capitalism. Walmart rigs the game and if you can't see that then it's likely because you're confused and think capitalism means a system fueled by greed where the wealthiest/most successful can do whatever they want for more profit. In reality such a system is actually dangerous to capitalism because it creates an enslaved market with very limited options. Capitalism relies on competition and the best business wins as determined by the consumer. This means the average consumer has to have at least decent purchasing power. If the average consumer doesn't have that, then the system becomes rigged in favor of cheap, mass goods (from the same corps. causing the reduction of purchase power), which hurts capitalism and also hurts the economy. Corporations having record profits does not automatically equal good capitalism. It is easy to confuse that as a sign of the consumer voice favoring it and purchasing a lot there. But when the profits are going strong because employees have no other options nor does the average consumer, that is actually very bad for the economy and runs counter to the spirit of pure capitalism.

 

It may seem on the surface that requiring increased wages is not capitalism, but that actually isn't true. When the wage increases are required so that the consumer purchase power is not crippled and its choices can remain diverse, that actually fuels capitalism. When a company is crippling consumer purchase power and crippling its options, it hurts capitalism and it actually is a long con by the corp. in turning itself into a monopoly. Like I said, it's the same dirty tactic mining companies had way back when where employees were paid poorly and could only buy from the company's store, essentially being held financially hostage by the company. It's dangerous and is why the prior time is known as the Gilded Age. 

[elkabong82]

LOL @ the people who vote for these imbeciles. They deserve what they get. But it's DC & it's been going on for decades. All politicains are just scum. IMO

 

 

 

Someone needs to carve those words onto a wall in the D.C. Council legislative chamber

 

Last week, the Council approved

a measure that would require Walmart and other large retailers doing

business in the District to pay a “living wage” of $12.50 per hour.

But… uh oh. Hypocrisy alert.

District government pays less than $12.50 per hour.

 

I agree DC council is a mess, but you are ignoring why they want Wal-Mart and other large retailers to raise wages. It's because they can afford to do so and it will help the local economy greatly, whereas having a large retailer paying unliveable wages is only going to help the company and hurt the workers and local government. If everyone is making a wage, great. But when the wage can only go into low income housing that the government has to be involved in, when the employees are still draining gov't assistance programs, and when most of the rest of the wages go right back into the company because of such low-cost merch. then the only one benefiting is the company, not the economy or the citizens, and that is not capitalism. 

 

Guess what? If Wal-Mart moved into town and paid all their workers that $12.50 per hour liveable wage, then the taxes on those wages and all their purchases, which would greatly increase and go into more area of private business sector, THEN the district government's revenue would increase and then they too could increase wages.

 

It's one thing if a company can't afford to increase its wages. It is another when they can, but won't and instead run a long con making employees and others dependent on their services alone.

[rictus58]

Elkabong, I award you a gold star. You hit the nail on the head.

[pointyfootball]

Quoted from elkabong (because I don't know how to only partially quote):  "It's one thing if a company can't afford to increase its wages. It is another when they can, but won't and instead run a long con making employees and others dependent on their services alone."

 

I don't want it to seem like I'm defending WalMart....however, local government should not be able to target a specific company with a law that other companies in the same market do not follow themselves.  If everyone has to pay a "liveable" wage, than that's fine, and it essentially is the new minimum wage.  But you can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to focus on one business simply because you don't like their business practices.

 

As much as people rail against WM, we (even myself that rarely shops there) enabled/empowered them in our continual short-term pursuit of low-priced consumer goods, at the expense of long-term economic benefits of paying slightly more for products manufactured in the US and sold via neighborhood/regional stores.

[CrypticVillain]

Yeah, it's not that DC didn't have a good cause to do what they did. It is sort of the way they tried to do it. Very, very, shady tactics on their part. And now it looks like there will be no Wal-Marts at all. How will the city benefit from that?

[LadySkinsFan]

 

 

I believe Wegman pays much better than Wal-Mart. They'd probably need to go up a little with this. But from what I read, they are still offering health insurance for part-time employees. So....I don't think they'd fall into the same issue.

 

Its not the clientele. Is the ownership making a choice about what they sell and how they compensate their employees already. 

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

i read yesterday they are dropping ins for PTers....say thank you obamacare

 

 

Companies have been dropping benefits like health insurance for part timers for many years.  Sears did it back in the 70s.  Obamacare has nothing to do with it.

 

believe what ya wish

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-will-destroy-the-very-health-and-wellbeing-of-workers/

govt intervention by idiots with no clue how it impacts jobs and the economy is mine.

I'm from the govt and here to help.LOL

 

I worked at Sears part-time in the 70s, so I know whereof I speak.  I didn't get benefits until I went full-time.  JC Penney's was also doing it.  Anytime corporations can increase their profits by not offering benefits to employees, they will do it.  The corporations have influenced local, state and Federal employment laws to benefit themselves and not their workers.  Witness the union busting activities over the last decades.  Also, one of the reasons for forming the Dept of Homeland Security was to bust AFSME from all the myriad agencies glommed into DHS.  If they didn't get rid of it entirely, they weakened labor provisions.

 

It's one reason why I want corporations out of the employee health insurance business.  It's one way to keep employees tied to their jobs in these bad economic ties while every year when they have to buy policies for their employees, they can decrease what those policies cover and decrease costs, or pass on the premium costs to their employees without employees having a chance to buy what they need.

[Elessar78]

Corporations who don't want to pay a living wage are also usually the cheapskates who hate social programs that help the people they employ.

No way! The social programs subsidizes the wages they pay with little no cost to the company.

 

So in essence, Wal-Mart shoppers should really love WM because they're subsidizing them with tax dollars. 

[elkabong82]

Yeah, it's not that DC didn't have a good cause to do what they did. It is sort of the way they tried to do it. Very, very, shady tactics on their part. And now it looks like there will be no Wal-Marts at all. How will the city benefit from that?

 

I agree. While the DC council requirement does apply to certain other businesses it clearly is meant for Wal-Mart since it was trying to come in and since older stores are not affected. What they should have done was have it apply to all large retailers and give the older stores a deadline of 6 months to a year to get ready for it. 

 

There are benefits to having Wal-mart there, but there are also benefits to not having it there. I was under the impression from the start of this thread that the affected population mostly didn't want it there in the first place anyway.

[CrypticVillain]

Yeah, it's not that DC didn't have a good cause to do what they did. It is sort of the way they tried to do it. Very, very, shady tactics on their part. And now it looks like there will be no Wal-Marts at all. How will the city benefit from that?

 

I agree. While the DC council requirement does apply to certain other businesses it clearly is meant for Wal-Mart since it was trying to come in and since older stores are not affected. What they should have done was have it apply to all large retailers and give the older stores a deadline of 6 months to a year to get ready for it. 

 

There are benefits to having Wal-mart there, but there are also benefits to not having it there. I was under the impression from the start of this thread that the affected population mostly didn't want it there in the first place anyway.

It is mix. Some did want it, some didn't want it, and I say majority didn't care either way.

[CooleyNaMean]

Peezy, play your game.

[@DCGoldPants]

Mayor Gray vetoes ‘living wage’ bill aimed at Wal-Mart, setting up decisive council vote

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mayor-gray-vetoes-living-wage-bill-aimed-at-wal-mart-setting-up-decisive-council-vote/2013/09/12/664d7310-077d-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

[PokerPacker]

But yeah, I don't never want to work retail again. It ain't for me

I don't care how good Wegman and Costco treat their employees....

Wegmans ain't that great, either. I don't know how they got #1 company to work for in the country, but I know it wasn't the cashiers/helping hands that got 'em there.

[Renegade7]

Really, his logic for vetoing will only make sense if he does indeed push for a district-wide minimum wage hike. Him not throwing out a number to raise to lets me feel someone slipped him an envelope to change his mind. Local DC politics is a joke...