+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Walmart v. the District of Columbia (/showthread.php?tid=154865)
Walmart v. the District of Columbia - Lemon Drop - 07-10-2013
Walmart is threatening to cancel 3 proposed new stores and possibly stop construction on 3 other stores now underway in the District of Columbia if the city council approves a living wage bill that would require Walmart to pay workers at least $12.50 an hour.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/top-shelf/2013/07/wal-mart-threatens-to-pull-out-of.html
I say pass the bill, let them go. If consumer demand is there, other less stingy retailers will come in and meet that.
FYI - these are average salaries at Costco:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Costco-Wholesale-Hourly-Pay-E2590.htm
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - Chakravartin - 07-10-2013
DC does not need Walmart.
It needs good pizza and a Glatt deli with New York barrel-cured pickels.
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - WOOF - 07-10-2013
Make nice to to WalMart , pass the bill after they build the stores
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - Filliam H. Muffman - 07-10-2013
WOOF wrote:
Make nice to to WalMart , pass the bill after they build the stores
Great idea, make them pay for infrastructure upgrades. It might be one time they improved a city before they closed.
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - SDGuy - 07-10-2013
Shouldn't this already cover the situation?
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - Lemon Drop - 07-10-2013
SDGuy wrote:
Shouldn't this already cover the situation?
DC wants to increase it's minimum to $12.50 - that's the issue.
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - freeradical - 07-10-2013
Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
Shouldn't this already cover the situation?
DC wants to increase it's minimum to $12.50 - that's the issue.
For Walmart.
They're okay with smaller stores, as well as union stores only paying the help $8.25 an hour.
It might also just be cheap posturing. You never know.
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - Lemon Drop - 07-10-2013
The Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2013 has passed the DC council on the first vote.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2013/06/26/council-passes-living-wage-bill/
It applies to retailers with certain sized businesses, union or not.
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - SDGuy - 07-10-2013
"limits the effects of the bill to retailers with more than 75,000 square feet of store space"
I foresee lots of 74,999 square foot stores in the future...maybe even some right next door to eachother - say "Walmart Electronics and Sporting Goods" right next door to a "Walmart Everything Except Electronics and Sporting Goods"...
Re: Walmart v. the District of Columbia - max - 07-10-2013
Lemon Drop wrote:
The Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2013 has passed the DC council on the first vote.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2013/06/26/council-passes-living-wage-bill/
It applies to retailers with certain sized businesses, union or not.
Actually, NO, Lemon. The water IS wet.
It does let union members get only $8.25....
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....
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 ....