Thread: Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. should city mandate ‘living wage’ $12.50

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

jstampfl/c.o. A&R Companies - A rendering of the Wal-Mart planned for East Capitol Street

By Mike DeBonis, Updated: Tuesday, July 9, 5:23 PM E-mail the writer

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 should a super-minimum-wage proposal become 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 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 soon.
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Wal-Mart U.S., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the proposed wage requirement “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”
As a result, Barron said, the company “will not pursue” stores at three locations where construction has yet to begin — two in Ward 7 and one in Ward 5. He added that the legislation, if passed, will also jeopardize the three stores underway, pending a review of the “financial and legal implications.” While precise terms of its agreements with developers are not known, the company’s leases could be difficult to break without major financial penalties.
The company had, until Tuesday, made statements opposing the bill but had not directly threatened to withdraw from its plans. A community affairs executive told a city business group last month that the three unbuilt stores could be in doubt, according to the Current newspapers, and a company spokesman later warned of “negative consequences” should the bill become law.
Wal-Mart’s decision echoes the retailer’s first incursion into an American urban center seven years ago, when the Chicago City Council passed a similar “living-wage” measure. The company indicated then that the bill would cause it to scale back or entirely scrap its plans to open several stores, Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed the bill, and the council failed to override it. In March, New York raised its minimum wage only after a compromise offered tax subsidies to firms such as Wal-Mart that hire seasonal workers. Ken Jacobs, chairman of the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education, who has investigated Wal-Mart’s wage policies, said the firm has opposed living-wage laws and other measures that target its business practices, particularly in urban markets.
“When asked about labor law, they generally say, we follow the laws of the jurisdiction in which we’re operating,” he said. “But it’s also clear when they say that, that they put a lot of weight on shaping the laws in the jurisdictions where they are operating.”


(The Washington Post)

More news about D.C. politics

One prominent local proponent of the D.C. Council bill said the fight is properly placed in a national context. “We have learned from Chicago; we have learned from New York City,” said Joslyn N. Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO. “Our fight here is not just a local fight. ”

The bill, known as the Large Retailer Accountability Act, passed the council on a initial 8 to 5 vote last month. The council would need nine votes to override a potential veto from Gray, who lobbied Wal-Mart to open a store at the Skyland Town Center site, near his Hillcrest home.
The retailer’s decision did not appear likely to change any votes, but lawmakers said they were dismayed by the timing.
Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a backer of the legislation, said Wal-Mart’s announcement revealed its “true character.”
“For them to now stick guns to council members’ heads is unfortunate and regrettable,” he said.
But colleague Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7), who represents an area slated for two stores and opposes the bill, said she was “angry and upset” about the message, delivered by Keith Morris, Wal-Mart’s director of public affairs and government relations. “That means back to the drawing board for Ward 7 unless there’s a vote in opposition,” she said. “This is going to just about ruin two major development plans in Ward 7.”
It was a sentiment echoed by her constituents. Karen Williams, president of the Hillcrest Community Civic Association, said she was “very disappointed” to hear Wal-Mart could pull out of the Skyland site.
“We have been working on making this project a reality for over 23 years,” she said. “We finally felt that we were so close to having it built. . . . Even though there are people who are not exactly Wal-Mart fans, we all want the project to move forward.”
In a statement, Gray hinted more strongly than ever that he is prepared to veto the legislation. “The cancellation of three planned stores will surely set us back,” he said. “I strongly urge the Council to consider whether this legislation will actually promote strong economic development in the District and expand job opportunities for District residents.”
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), another lead sponsor of the bill, said Wal-Mart’s stance is “an all-or-nothing approach, which is not a helpful way for us to do development.”
But Jacobs said that has long been Wal-Mart’s way in taking on these types of proposals: “There’s good reason to believe they could actually compete quite well under these rules, but it is not a proposition they have wanted to test.”
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

D.C. Council approves ‘living wage’ bill over Wal-Mart ultimatum

By Mike DeBonis, Wednesday, July 10, 1:52 PM E-mail the writers

D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring certain large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned the law would jeopardize their plans in the city.
The retail giant on Tuesday linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But the ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8-5 vote, which came after a hour-long debate in a packed council chamber, matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter.

Graphic


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.

Gallery

In May 2012, union members march with Wal-Mart employees, churchgoers and community leaders to protest the retailer’s presence in the District.





“The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or stays,” said Vincent Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the legislation who added the city did not need to kowtow to threats: “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”
Should the bill be signed by Mayor Vincent C. Gray and pass a congressional review period, retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger would be required to pay employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.
While the bill would affect several existing District retailers — such as Macy’s and Target — an extended grandfather period and an exception for unionized businesses has made it clear the measure is aimed at Wal-Mart, which has announced plans to open six stores in the city.
The vote sets up a difficult veto decision for Gray, who has supported Wal-Mart’s entry into the city, arguing the company would bring badly needed jobs and retail to neighborhoods in need of both.
Gray (D) made a particular push to have Wal-Mart anchor a development at Skyland Town Center, a site along Alabama Avenue SE near the mayor’s home that has long been eyed by city leaders for renewal.
Gary D. Rappaport, the project’s developer, has said Wal-Mart’s withdrawal would put those plans on ice. “If there’s not a Walmart at Skyland then Skyland is not able to go forward at this time,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.
The mayor called Wal-Mart’s Tuesday announcement “immensely discouraging,” hinting more strongly than ever that he is prepared to veto the legislation: “I strongly urge the Council to consider whether this legislation will actually promote strong economic development in the District and expand job opportunities for District residents.”
Gray said much the same in a letter to council members delivered Wednesday: “It is clear that numerous issues remain unclear about the impact of the bill on the District’s current economic development renaissance,” he wrote.
The debate over the living wage bill has been highly pitched, echoing conflicts elsewhere in the country over similar measures targeting Wal-Mart and other “big box” retailers.
Several dozen pro-Wal-Mart protesters rallied on the front steps of the John A. Wilson Building Wednesday, while inside a larger group of living-wage supporters walked from council office to council office hoping to pick up additional votes.
“If you allow a bully to bully you, it’s never going end,” said the Rev. Graylan Hagler, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ and a leader of pro-living-wage group Respect D.C. “There will be something else. There will always be another agenda.”
The recent tactics echo the retailer’s first incursion into an American urban center seven years ago, when the Chicago City Council passed a similar “living-wage” measure. The company indicated then that the bill would cause it to scale back or entirely scrap its plans to open several stores, Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed the bill, and the council failed to override it. In March, New York raised its minimum wage only after a compromise offered tax subsidies to firms such as Wal-Mart that hire seasonal workers.



Ken Jacobs, chairman of the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education, who has investigated Wal-Mart’s wage policies, said the firm has opposed living-wage laws and other measures that target its business practices, particularly in urban markets.
“When asked about labor law, they generally say, we follow the laws of the jurisdiction in which we’re operating,” he said. “But it’s also clear when they say that, that they put a lot of weight on shaping the laws in the jurisdictions where they are operating.”
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Wal-Mart U.S., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece published online Tuesday that the wage requirement “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”
As a result, he wrote, the company “will not pursue” stores at three locations where construction has yet to begin — two in Ward 7, including Skyland, and one in Ward 5 — if the bill passed.
Barron added that the legislation, if passed, would also jeopardize the three stores underway, pending a review of the “financial and legal implications.” While precise terms of its agreements with developers are not known, the company’s leases could be difficult to break without major financial penalties.
That outcome, said Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), constituted her “worst nightmare.” She moved unsuccessfully to table the bill Wednesday before voting against it.
“This legislation is a development killer,” she said. “This legislation is a jobs killer.”
Orange, early in the debate, said the “District has arrived” as a desirable place for major retailers to locate. But Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), a mayoral candidate, said that was not true throughout the city. “When I go to Skyland, we have not arrived,” she said. “That project has been some 20 years in the waiting.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-approves-living-wage-bill-over-wal-mart-ultimatum/2013/07/10/724aab6e-e96f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

People just don't seem to understand min wage and how it effects everything on up. Min wage is what you pay the uneducated workers doing the real crap work. They are the ones in the factories, cashiers, fast food, and many other bottom wrung jobs. But what people don't seem to get is when you increase Min Wage $1 the price on the product they are selling goes up more then the wage increase to make up for the extra loss from a higher min wage. So every time min wage goes up the cost of goods goes up even more. This means those making min wage are making less money when you look at purchasing power. The middle class makes less as well as their purchasing power goes down. Your Big Mac Combo is now $6 instead of $4.5 because min wage went up $.50. The only ones who don't take a hit are the rich at the top as they are covering their loss from higher product costs.

This is why Min wage should NOT go up, infact it should go down. Those at the bottom may end up living in a family house and not owning their own house and car so quickly. They may have to tone their lives down and like many legal immigrants live in a shared living space to make money last and go further.

The American Dream is about giving people the opportunity to improve themselves and build a better life. Education and building skills that can promote you higher is part of that. I'm betting many life myself worked min wage jobs when they were young and while doing so furthered their own education and skills to get something better.

The minimum wage increased in 10 states on January 1, 2013. Here's a list of the states and the new minimum wage for each location.

• Arizona - $7.80
• Colorado - $7.78
• Florida - $7.79
• Missouri - $7.35
• Montana - $7.80
• Ohio - $7.85
• Oregon - $8.95
• Rhode Island - $7.75
• Vermont - $8.60
• Washington - $9.19

New York has passed an increase in the minimum wage to $9 per hour which goes into effect over 3 years, starting at the of 2013. There will be an increase to $8 per hour at the end of the year, followed by an increase to $8.75 a year later, then to $9 per hour the following year.
The federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 per hour. The last increase was in 2009. If an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages.

Congress members make $174,000 a year. Rep. Moran says it’s not enough.

Aaron Blake
The retiring Virginia Democrat says members can't afford to live "decently" in Washington...