"Don't Block DC Progress" just called me

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a big store locate inside DC, it will drive out some of the smaller stores. Like if a Home Depot relocated to Gtown, Glover Park Hardware would close.

OK but that's an issue of protecting small business. They are being duplicitous in saying that they are protecting the wages of retail workers.

No, the Council is not being duplicitous. Trying to make this a small business/Big Box issue is missing the bigger picture. There is actually a divide between big boxes on this issue. Giant and Safeway are unionized and collectively bargain with their employees over wages and benefits. Costco already pays fairly generously. If Walmart shows up opposing unions, paying low wages, and not offering benefits, it puts downward pressure on those businesses (probably not Costco, which can handled it). Giant and Safeway will be forced to go back to their unions and offer them lower pay or fewer jobs in order to compete. So, Walmart will drag down the entire large retail wage scale.

For some time, Giant has not been the homegrown, community-minded grocery chain that viewed its workers as extended family, as it was under the leadership of Izzy Cohen. It became part of the Ahold group, which has been better known for accounting fraud and similar practices, and today is managed under Ahold's Stop n Shop group. Although
Giant has built new stores (some nearly as big as Walmarts), the quality of its products has gone down hill, as have its labor relations. Ahold is not unionized everywhere in the US and, don't kid yourself, they would like to get out from under there remaining contracts in a heartbeat. I don't shop at Giant anymore.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
For some time, Giant has not been the homegrown, community-minded grocery chain that viewed its workers as extended family, as it was under the leadership of Izzy Cohen. It became part of the Ahold group, which has been better known for accounting fraud and similar practices, and today is managed under Ahold's Stop n Shop group. Although
Giant has built new stores (some nearly as big as Walmarts), the quality of its products has gone down hill, as have its labor relations. Ahold is not unionized everywhere in the US and, don't kid yourself, they would like to get out from under there remaining contracts in a heartbeat. I don't shop at Giant anymore.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. However, I think you are adding another reason this legislation is important. If Giant were to get rid of it's union it would fall under the requirements of this bill. So, this bill would remove some incentive to de-unionize and protect Giant's employees in the case it happened anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have a big store locate inside DC, it will drive out some of the smaller stores. Like if a Home Depot relocated to Gtown, Glover Park Hardware would close.

Don't kid yourself, people don't want to pay more than they have to. If it wasn't Home Depot it would be Amazon. How many of you have prime and avoid leaving the house for most stuff you could buy at your local store...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a big store locate inside DC, it will drive out some of the smaller stores. Like if a Home Depot relocated to Gtown, Glover Park Hardware would close.

OK but that's an issue of protecting small business. They are being duplicitous in saying that they are protecting the wages of retail workers.

No, the Council is not being duplicitous. Trying to make this a small business/Big Box issue is missing the bigger picture. There is actually a divide between big boxes on this issue. Giant and Safeway are unionized and collectively bargain with their employees over wages and benefits. Costco already pays fairly generously. If Walmart shows up opposing unions, paying low wages, and not offering benefits, it puts downward pressure on those businesses (probably not Costco, which can handled it). Giant and Safeway will be forced to go back to their unions and offer them lower pay or fewer jobs in order to compete. So, Walmart will drag down the entire large retail wage scale.

I get the "if". But while Walmart is not union, I don't believe they pay low wages and they seem to have pretty good health care options. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. It is my understanding, supported by several sources, that Walmart's wages are quite low, that a large number of employees are limited to less than full time so that they are not eligible for benefits, and that the healthcare benefits for full-time employees are so expensive that many choose to pass.

See this in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/wal-mart-cuts-some-health-care-benefits.html

Or this from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

"This pay scale places employees with families below the poverty line, with the majority of employees' children qualifying for free lunch at school. ... One-third are part-time employees - limited to less than 28 hours of work per week - and are not eligible for benefits. "

"Full-time employees are eligible for benefits, but the health insurance package is so expensive (employees pay 35 percent - almost double the national average) that less than half opt to buy it."

I don't think this is the full story on benefits. Walmart offered health care plans to even part time workers, which was not the norm. So when employees pay more, it's compared to full time workers. Also, half of employees didn't take it but 95% of employees are covered, which means that about half the time they are on their spouse's plan. Not exactly bad. http://www.amednews.com/article/20090720/business/307209993/6/

And that is why Walmart backed the employer insurance mandate during the health care debate. I don't think we should turn our backs on a major corporation willing to back that mandate. I don't find this plan outrageous. http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/responsibility-report/2012/benefits.aspx I will say that the low rate plan is a high deductible plan, don't get me wrong. But if for $8/week you can get a plan which protects you from major medical expenses and gives you a credit for your first $250-500 of medical expenses, that's pretty good for a worker who is not full time.

I am disappointed that they raised the minimum hours fro 24 to 30, but frankly they were just meeting the industry at that point because of the ACA and I can't blame them for not going over and above. But the fact is that they were insuring part time workers when very few others were.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think this is the full story on benefits. Walmart offered health care plans to even part time workers, which was not the norm. So when employees pay more, it's compared to full time workers. Also, half of employees didn't take it but 95% of employees are covered, which means that about half the time they are on their spouse's plan. Not exactly bad. http://www.amednews.com/article/20090720/business/307209993/6/

I'm sorry, but you are using information from at 2009 article. You missed the 2011 article from the NYT that I posted above that describes how Walmart substantially rolled back its benefits and now most part time workers aren't covered.

While Walmart initially supported Obamacare and garnered a lot of good publicity for the move, the company has more recently changed its position:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/09/walmart-bails-on-obamacare-sticks-taxpayers-with-employee-healthcare-costs/

"After making a big deal of publicly supporting the Affordable Care Act, Walmart—the nation’s largest private sector employer—is joining the ranks of companies seeking to avoid their obligation to provide employees with health insurance as required by Obamacare."

Note, this is Forbes, not some lefty rag.

[Anonymous]

Walmart has that little problem in Mexico that could really hurt them.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info. The guy on the phone yesterday seemed really uninformed about what he was trying to get me to support. Now that I know more about this bill, I will let my council member know that I support this bill.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For some time, Giant has not been the homegrown, community-minded grocery chain that viewed its workers as extended family, as it was under the leadership of Izzy Cohen. It became part of the Ahold group, which has been better known for accounting fraud and similar practices, and today is managed under Ahold's Stop n Shop group. Although
Giant has built new stores (some nearly as big as Walmarts), the quality of its products has gone down hill, as have its labor relations. Ahold is not unionized everywhere in the US and, don't kid yourself, they would like to get out from under there remaining contracts in a heartbeat. I don't shop at Giant anymore.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. However, I think you are adding another reason this legislation is important. If Giant were to get rid of it's union it would fall under the requirements of this bill. So, this bill would remove some incentive to de-unionize and protect Giant's employees in the case it happened anyway.

Unfortunately the bill as drafted mea s that Giant would fall just outside of its requirements. It's "superCenter" type stores are just under the thresholds, coincidence?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately the bill as drafted mea s that Giant would fall just outside of its requirements. It's "superCenter" type stores are just under the thresholds, coincidence?

Well, that sucks. Perhaps that's something that could be amended?

[Anonymous]

I don't think the effect on wages will be what you say it is, JSteele. If anything, the fact that competitors have better wages and benefits might force Walmart to raise their compensation package to compete.

We also forget the benefits of Walmarts. Yes, their pay is low, but this in part allows them to offer low prices, which greatly benefit folks in the lower economic classes. Ultimately, government shouldn't be meddling in which businesses can open where. If the marketplace can support a given business and its practices, go for it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the effect on wages will be what you say it is, JSteele. If anything, the fact that competitors have better wages and benefits might force Walmart to raise their compensation package to compete.

We also forget the benefits of Walmarts. Yes, their pay is low, but this in part allows them to offer low prices, which greatly benefit folks in the lower economic classes. Ultimately, government shouldn't be meddling in which businesses can open where. If the marketplace can support a given business and its practices, go for it.

I assume that your attitude regarding government meddling in businesses would change if someone wanted to buy the houses on either side of yours and open strip joints.

There is example after example of Walmart destroying communities. Low prices come at a high cost. This is true not only on the retail side where Walmart wipes out existing businesses, but on the manufacturer's side as well. Take some time to read this story about how Walmart puts pressure on suppliers to the point they can barely survive:

http://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart

Walmart's venture in DC is a little different than its traditional model and I'm not totally opposed to them opening in DC. But, I think we need to be vigilant about the conditions under which Walmart operates here. This is a company whose lobbyists are connected at the hip to Council Members Bowser and Alexander. It's a company that has helped created the "Don't Block DC Progress" to misinform DC voters about the living wage bill (for one thing, their telephone callers don't tell the people they call that its a living wage bill). Walmart should not be expected to pursue what is best for DC. That's something we have to do.

[Anonymous]

jsteele,

I would be bothered by strip clubs in my neighborhood. I don't object to zoning laws and other universally-applied laws that are based on a broader principle. And I'm not of the mindset that the free market cures all ills. However, I also object, strenuously, to the government enacting laws aimed at a particular retailer or business, which it appears this law does. Why is it limited to stores of a certain size? Because they want to hit Walmart and Walmart alone. I find that problematic. If a living wage is the goal, is a value the DC community seeks to promote, than the bill should apply to all businesses, not just Walmart.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the linked article, I don't see the problem that you seem to. Yes, Walmart wanted to sell Snappers at a given price point, one that would damage the long-term interests of Snapper's parent company. So the latter rejected the deal, and Walmart moved on. That's business, no?

I get that there are unsavory potential outcomes when Walmart is involved. But I'd also rather live in a world where Walmarts existed and consumers and communities could dictate their viabilities through their purchasing habits than one in which the government decides which businesses they will allow to open and operate and which ones they will not.

Not everyone wants or can afford a $350 mower, even one that is fairly priced. Those people should have the option of buying a $99 one at Walmart.

[Anonymous]

Do people really think that consumers will stop shopping at Walmart if there is no Walmart in the district. I live in the district and drive to the Walmart in Ann Arundel Millls. The District of Columbia is surrounded by Walmarts. We are simply taking our tax dollars to MD and VA.

Also, if Walmart and Targets wages are comparable, why not the fuss and outrage at Target.

Finally, does not DC have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage? What figure is considered a living wage. Just asking?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Do people really think that consumers will stop shopping at Walmart if there is no Walmart in the district. I live in the district and drive to the Walmart in Ann Arundel Millls. The District of Columbia is surrounded by Walmarts. We are simply taking our tax dollars to MD and VA.

Also, if Walmart and Targets wages are comparable, why not the fuss and outrage at Target.

Finally, does not DC have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage? What figure is considered a living wage. Just asking?

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that Walmart shouldn't be allowed to operate in the District at all. We are simply discussing a bill that will set requirements for its operation.

I don't see why Target wouldn't be covered by this bill as well. The difference is that Target has one DC location and Walmart is proposing six. I think fuss and outrage -- though "outrage" is a bit of an overstatement -- are proportional.

DC's minimum wage is one dollar an hour higher than the federal minimum wage. Of course, remember that on DCUM, $250,000 HHI is subsistence living. The proposed wage under the Large Retailer Accountability Act is $11.75 per hour. There is already a living wage requirement for DC government contractors of $12.50 per hour. Incidentally, House Republicans just defeated a proposed increase in the federal minimum wage.