Reply to "Don't Block DC Progress" just called me

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to ""Don't Block DC Progress" just called me"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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."

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics