Anonymous wrote:
But if this bill makes it LESS likely that others get a living wage, what then?

I don't believe the bill will do that. But, I guess if you believe it will, opposition makes sense.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you are going to advocate for something called a "Living Wage Bill" than I presume you believe in a legally mandated living wage. If you believe in a legally mandated living wage, why would you not support this for ALL employees in the district? Why doesn't EVERYONE, regardless of whether they work for a big box or a tiny business, deserve this?

Just to be clear, I would support a living wage bill for all employees in the District. But, that is not the bill that is on the table. I won't oppose a good bill because it isn't perfect. District contractor already have a living wage requirement. This bill would create such as requirement for big box stores. I would happily support a bill to fill in the gaps.

But if this bill makes it LESS likely that others get a living wage, what then? That is my fear. If this bill passes and a new bill is proposed to expand it to all businesses, folks will decry how it is favoring Big Corp or unfairly targets small businesses. If a universal living wage bill was proposed but could not pass and this was the best the council could pull off, I could maybe get behind it. But, as I understand it, it is deliberately and intentionally aimed at Walmart and similar type stores and, as such, is something I can't support.

Anonymous wrote:

If you are going to advocate for something called a "Living Wage Bill" than I presume you believe in a legally mandated living wage. If you believe in a legally mandated living wage, why would you not support this for ALL employees in the district? Why doesn't EVERYONE, regardless of whether they work for a big box or a tiny business, deserve this?

Just to be clear, I would support a living wage bill for all employees in the District. But, that is not the bill that is on the table. I won't oppose a good bill because it isn't perfect. District contractor already have a living wage requirement. This bill would create such as requirement for big box stores. I would happily support a bill to fill in the gaps.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But why should the government be involved in protecting smaller, more specialized stores? If they are wiped out by the one-stop-shopping megastore, then clearly the market isn't there to support them. And why should the employees of smaller, more specialized stores not similarly be guaranteed a living wage?

Again, if a living wage is admirable, laws should apply to *ALL* businesses.

If the goal is to protect small businesses, than don't hide behind the guise of a living wage bill.

I challenged a previous poster -- maybe even you -- about the government's role in zoning. The poster agreed that the government should have such a role. Similarly, city residents seem to feel strongly that small businesses should be supported. Why do I say that? Because every single politician I have ever heard has touted his/her support of small business. If this wasn't popular, they wouldn't take the position. If you want to live in a city of nothing but big boxes, I suggest you move to Rockville Pike.

Moreover, a previous poster who opposed the LRAA suggested forcing Walmart and other big boxes to pay a living wage was unfair to small businesses because their employees would either leave or demand higher wages. So, either LRAA is supportive of small business or unfair to small business. It can't be both.

Tomorrow is the hearing on the bill. With Muriel Bowser's pending announcement that she will run for Mayor, it will be very interesting to see what she does. She is a co-sponsor of the bill. Yet, one of her main fundraisers is a lobbyist for Walmart. Ward 4 is targeted to get two Walmarts, something she strongly supports. It will probably be difficult for her to find a middle ground.

It likely was me who you challenged, or at least I was among those you challenged.

But you haven't answered with a *principled* argument in favor of the bill. Which is fine. If you are a pragmatist or a firm believer in majority rule, your arguments stand up. Me? I'm not. Just because it is what people want... or, rather, what people *say* they want but which they're practices often indicate otherwise... to me doesn't make it right. If people *really* believed in small businesses, they would gladly pony up the extra money to support them. But they don't. So, to me, that is a bunch of touchy-feely rhetoric that doesn't amount to a hill of beans when discussing policy.

I don't care what it's impact is on small business.

If you are going to advocate for something called a "Living Wage Bill" than I presume you believe in a legally mandated living wage. If you believe in a legally mandated living wage, why would you not support this for ALL employees in the district? Why doesn't EVERYONE, regardless of whether they work for a big box or a tiny business, deserve this?

And I did live on the Rockville Pike a few years back... wasn't bad at all.

Anonymous wrote:
But why should the government be involved in protecting smaller, more specialized stores? If they are wiped out by the one-stop-shopping megastore, then clearly the market isn't there to support them. And why should the employees of smaller, more specialized stores not similarly be guaranteed a living wage?

Again, if a living wage is admirable, laws should apply to *ALL* businesses.

If the goal is to protect small businesses, than don't hide behind the guise of a living wage bill.

I challenged a previous poster -- maybe even you -- about the government's role in zoning. The poster agreed that the government should have such a role. Similarly, city residents seem to feel strongly that small businesses should be supported. Why do I say that? Because every single politician I have ever heard has touted his/her support of small business. If this wasn't popular, they wouldn't take the position. If you want to live in a city of nothing but big boxes, I suggest you move to Rockville Pike.

Moreover, a previous poster who opposed the LRAA suggested forcing Walmart and other big boxes to pay a living wage was unfair to small businesses because their employees would either leave or demand higher wages. So, either LRAA is supportive of small business or unfair to small business. It can't be both.

Tomorrow is the hearing on the bill. With Muriel Bowser's pending announcement that she will run for Mayor, it will be very interesting to see what she does. She is a co-sponsor of the bill. Yet, one of her main fundraisers is a lobbyist for Walmart. Ward 4 is targeted to get two Walmarts, something she strongly supports. It will probably be difficult for her to find a middle ground.

Anonymous wrote:The Large Retailer Accountability Act does not target Walmart or any particular business. It defines a Large Retailer as one chalking up sales of $1 billion or more annually and having at least one store of 75,000 square feet or more. The bill will therefore apply to Target, Costco (which already pays nearly the defined living wage and benefits), Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowe's. If another Large Retailer that meets the definition moves into the city, the legislation will apply to it as well. The living wage is defined as $11.75. Already DC requires employers with contracts to do city work to pay a living wage. Aside from enabling employees of these retailers, who presently subsist one step from destitution, to get a foot up on the kind of lives you take for granted, this law will somewhat level the playing field for smaller, more specialized stores that customarily are wiped out by one-stop-shopping megastores. These are the kinds of stores that make neighborhoods, and cities.

But why should the government be involved in protecting smaller, more specialized stores? If they are wiped out by the one-stop-shopping megastore, then clearly the market isn't there to support them. And why should the employees of smaller, more specialized stores not similarly be guaranteed a living wage?

Again, if a living wage is admirable, laws should apply to *ALL* businesses.

If the goal is to protect small businesses, than don't hide behind the guise of a living wage bill.

Anonymous wrote:The Large Retailer Accountability Act excludes retailers with collective bargaining agreements. When it comes to buttering up officials with cash--Google the Washington Post to discover how Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation have spread their largesse around D.C. (including funding the IFF Study that recommended closing 38 public schools and replacing them with charters). They gave even more money to New York charities, but Walmart now seem to have realized that the Big Apple is a tougher nut to penetrate. And don't forget to read the New York Times in-depth investigative report on Walmart's bribery of officials from the town council to the Ministry of Culture in order to build a mammoth store in the shadow of Mexico's most revered cultural landmark, the pyramids of Teotihuacán.

Woops, left out the country--Mexico--the first time around.

The Large Retailer Accountability Act excludes retailers with collective bargaining agreements. When it comes to buttering up officials with cash--Google the Washington Post to discover how Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation have spread their largesse around D.C. (including funding the IFF Study that recommended closing 38 public schools and replacing them with charters). They gave even more money to New York charities, but Walmart now seem to have realized that the Big Apple is a tougher nut to penetrate. And don't forget to read the New York Times in-depth investigative report on Walmart's bribery of officials from the town council to the Ministry of Culture in order to build a mammoth store in the shadow of that country's most revered cultural landmark, the pyramids of Teotihuacán.

Anonymous wrote:The Large Retailer Accountability Act does not target Walmart or any particular business. It defines a Large Retailer as one chalking up sales of $1 billion or more annually and having at least one store of 75,000 square feet or more. The bill will therefore apply to Target, Costco (which already pays nearly the defined living wage and benefits), Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowe's. If another Large Retailer that meets the definition moves into the city, the legislation will apply to it as well. The living wage is defined as $11.75. Already DC requires employers with contracts to do city work to pay a living wage. Aside from enabling employees of these retailers, who presently subsist one step from destitution, to get a foot up on the kind of lives you take for granted, this law will somewhat level the playing field for smaller, more specialized stores that customarily are wiped out by one-stop-shopping megastores. These are the kinds of stores that make neighborhoods, and cities.

If the bill is going to focus on large stores, then it missed a large loophole in omitting the very large grocery/pharma/misc. superstores that Giant (and now Safeway) are building, which come in just under 75,000 sq. ft. This can't be an accident. I don't know about Safeway, but Giant Ahold and its handlers have a local reputation for aggressively spreading a lot of cash (er, "legitimately expressed political contributions") around town to get favorable legislation, planning decisions, etc.

The Large Retailer Accountability Act does not target Walmart or any particular business. It defines a Large Retailer as one chalking up sales of $1 billion or more annually and having at least one store of 75,000 square feet or more. The bill will therefore apply to Target, Costco (which already pays nearly the defined living wage and benefits), Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowe's. If another Large Retailer that meets the definition moves into the city, the legislation will apply to it as well. The living wage is defined as $11.75. Already DC requires employers with contracts to do city work to pay a living wage. Aside from enabling employees of these retailers, who presently subsist one step from destitution, to get a foot up on the kind of lives you take for granted, this law will somewhat level the playing field for smaller, more specialized stores that customarily are wiped out by one-stop-shopping megastores. These are the kinds of stores that make neighborhoods, and cities.

"I don't think it's problematic for DC or the Feds to target Walmart because Walmart costs taxpayers dearly because their employees have a very high usage of assistance programs."

That is at least partly a function of Walmart's size. The reality is, anyone paying Walmart-type wages is able to do so in part because their employees can and do subsidize their income through various entitlement programs. This is a problem, no doubt; I just don't think the solution is targeting one particular player, no matter how large. The bill should be universally applied. But living wage bills, while a laudable and honorable pursuit, must be weighed against the drawbacks. If Walmart is forced to up their wages, potential outcomes include hiring fewer people and demanding higher productivity, thus guaranteeing themselves no additional labor costs. This will mean fewer people working, and those who do being subjected to the type of work-related stress that can be detrimental to their health and well-being. If they do maintain their work force, it is possible that prices rise, putting a strain on the low-income people who rely on them, and/or that Walmart cuts costs elsewhere, such as with increased pressure on their suppliers.

All of this is problematic, no doubt. There is no easy solution. I am not opposed to a living wage bill; I just see it as coming with both pros and cons. But I am opposed to specifically targeting an individual business with a law. If the goal of the law is so noble, it should apply to all businesses, no? And if most businesses are already offering a living wage, they won't be impacted by the bill anyway.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm in Ward 4 and signed it. I heard back directly from Mary Cheh, Phil Mendelson, Jack Evans, and from a rep of Catania's.

I'm shocked, shocked, I say, that you didn't hear from your own Council Member. Of course, her planned announcement this week that she will run for Mayor means that she will be more interested in maximum contributions than minimum wages.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't think it's problematic for DC or the Feds to target Walmart because Walmart costs taxpayers dearly because their employees have a very high usage of assistance programs. "In 2004, a year in which Walmart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley." http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf

Here's Mother Jones' take on the benefits of raising Walmart's wages. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/why-raises-walmart-workers-are-good-everyone

If you want to see the bill enacted please send a message of support to the council through http://afl.salsalabs.com/o/4023/c/188/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5895

I'm in Ward 4 and signed it. I heard back directly from Mary Cheh, Phil Mendelson, Jack Evans, and from a rep of Catania's.