"Don't Block DC Progress" just called me

[Anonymous]

Someone just called stating he was calling on behalf of "Don't Block DC Progress." I asked for a website and found this blurb: "Special interest groups recently proposed the Large Retailer Accountability Act (LRAA), a bill that will prevent retailers like Macy’s, Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s and Target from bringing thousands of jobs and access to retail to our city. This bill is wrong for D.C.?"

Does anyone know anything about this? The guy on the phone wanted me to show up to a protest.

[Anonymous]

It's a "living wage" bill to prevent large big-box retailers from exerting downward pressure on wages.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2013/03/13/large-retailer-living-wage-bill-is-moving-forward/

[jsteele]

The bill in question is a living wage bill proposed by Chairman Mendelson and co-sponsored by the majority of the Council. However, I think some of the co-sponsors are not actually supporters of the bill, but just want voters to think they are. The "Don't Block DC Progress" group is supported by WalMart, which is the biggest target of the living wage bill. I think Costco already pays enough so that it wouldn't be affected.

The guy told me that Costco opposed the bill and I challenged him on that. He then told me he was new and asked his manager who told him to give me the URL for the website. In retrospect, I realized that he was probably poorly paid and I should have tried to convert him into being a supporter of living wage bills.

BTW, the website sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a "living wage" bill to prevent large big-box retailers from exerting downward pressure on wages.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2013/03/13/large-retailer-living-wage-bill-is-moving-forward/

I don't think this makes sense. More jobs should increase wage levels

It seems to me the most direct response to their objection would be to raise the minimum wage. That solves the downward pressure problem and it is fair to all employers? And if they aren't for that, then it sounds more like this is about protecting shop owners and not workers.

[Anonymous]

I'm for decent minimum wages. Still it's curious that this bill applies to big box stores over 70k sq ft but not to other big box retailers like Royal Ahol (Giant) which is building 60 k sq ft plus "super centers,". I suspect that there's been some lobbying going on to "target" new competitors to the established order in DC.

[Anonymous]

There are so many things wrong with this bill I don't know where to start... I too am for decent minimum wages but with this bill only applying to big box stores it will REALLY hurt the low-skilled worker calls as well as small businesses that rely on mid-skilled workers. For example, if I were a small biz owner paying a mid-skilled worker 10.50 an hour and he could turn around and push carts at Walmart for 11.75 where do you think he will go? Then where does that leave the low-skilled workers?

Also, what about the stores that have some outlets that apply and others that do not... if I was at a Safeway under 70K making 8.25 as a cashier and the cashier up the street is doing the exact same job for 11.75 in a larger store is that fair?

Or what about the MD and VA workers? I would take a metro ride in for $2-3 more an hour which is what will happen leaving the DC unemployment rate exactly where it is today -- over 9-10%

One more point, this will kill ANY future big store development... places like Lord & Taylor, Bloomies, Macy's,Target, Lowes, Home Depot etc looking to bring more retail outlets will pull out fast. So what good is that, no new jobs and the lack of much needed retail will remain.

Bottom line, wage reform needs to be more comprehensive...

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many things wrong with this bill I don't know where to start... I too am for decent minimum wages but with this bill only applying to big box stores it will REALLY hurt the low-skilled worker calls as well as small businesses that rely on mid-skilled workers. For example, if I were a small biz owner paying a mid-skilled worker 10.50 an hour and he could turn around and push carts at Walmart for 11.75 where do you think he will go? Then where does that leave the low-skilled workers?

Also, what about the stores that have some outlets that apply and others that do not... if I was at a Safeway under 70K making 8.25 as a cashier and the cashier up the street is doing the exact same job for 11.75 in a larger store is that fair?

Or what about the MD and VA workers? I would take a metro ride in for $2-3 more an hour which is what will happen leaving the DC unemployment rate exactly where it is today -- over 9-10%

One more point, this will kill ANY future big store development... places like Lord & Taylor, Bloomies, Macy's,Target, Lowes, Home Depot etc looking to bring more retail outlets will pull out fast. So what good is that, no new jobs and the lack of much needed retail will remain.

Bottom line, wage reform needs to be more comprehensive...

You make a number of good points. You say that you are for decent minimum wages. Would you mind stating what you would consider to be an appropriate minimum wage?

I appreciate your concern for small business owners. However, if the medium-skilled workers leave their $10.50 an hour jobs to go to WalMart for $11.75, their $10.50 per hour jobs will be filled by the currently unemployed. I don't see this as a bad thing. Where is leaves the low-wage earners is in medium-wage jobs (after appropriate training where necessary). That seems like a win-win.

I looked into the bill and the language says that the living wage requirements can be waived if the employer enters into a collective bargaining agreement with the employees. Giant, Safeway, and Costco already have collective bargaining agreements. So, your argument that there will be wage differences between branches of the came store don't really apply.

It's pretty clear that the primary target of this bill is WalMart. With it's planned opening of six stores in the District, it will have a tremendous impact on the business environment. It it sets the standard of low wages, no benefits, and no collective bargaining, it will result in downward pressure on wages as other retailers need to cut costs to compete.

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Walmart and Target pay scales comparable?

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Walmart and Target pay scales comparable?

Yes, if not higher. Both actually often have higher than their unioned peers after due are taken out. And please don't compare to Costco, they are completely different business models and not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Haven't looked at the details of this legislation yet so I don't have a firm opinion on it but I wanted to share something I heard this week. I'm on the board of a non-profit which asked Walmart for a grant. I just heard that Walmart told us that they would consider all applications of course but it sure would make us look good in their eyes if we wrote a letter supporting them and opposing the legislation.

Disgusting.

[jsteele]

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."