D.C. Mayor Vetoes 'Living Wage' Bill Targeting Large Retailers

[No1]

Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray has vetoed a controversial "living wage" bill that would have forced large retailers such as Wal-Mart to pay a 50 percent premium on the district's $8.25 per hour minimum wage.

When the bill was approved by the city council in July, Wal-Mart said it would abandon three of the six stores it planned to build in the district, claiming the required minimum $12.50 it would have to pay was too much.

Since then Gray, a Democrat, has been mulling whether to sign the Large Retailer Accountability Act, as the bill is known. On Thursday, he ended weeks of speculation and vetoed it.

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, a supporter of the act, said he was "disappointed" by the mayor's decision, which he said was "not good for workers."

A letter sent by Mendelson to Gray said the bill was "not a true living-wage bill, because it would raise the minimum wage only for a small fraction of the District's workforce," according to The Washington Post.

The Post quotes Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo as saying the veto is "good news for D.C. residents," saying Gray chose "jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests."

He said that if the council fails to override the veto, "all stores are back on."

Other major retailers, such as Target and Home Depot, also opposed the bill.

In a statement from the National Retail Federation, spokesman David French thanked Gray "for his leadership on this important issue. With a stroke of his pen, the Mayor brought power back to D.C.'s 'Open for Business' sign."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ign=nprnews&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=twitter


Make sure more of your residents have to live partially on public assistance and protect Wal-Mart brehs...

 

[Atlrocafella]

He had to veto it, those companies were threatening to pack up and leave if he signed the bill. Than what would happen? More people would of been out of a job and the city gets less revenue.

 

[Rawtid]

He had to veto it, those companies were threatening to pack up and leave if he signed the bill. Than what would happen? More people would of been out of a job and the city gets less revenue.

Yeah but it's been proven that Walmarts destroy more jobs than they create i.e putting other companies out of business. Plus, they pay significantly lower so that's more "working" people relying on welfare to supplement their income.

 

[No1]

Yeah but it's been proven that Walmarts destroy more jobs than they create i.e putting other companies out of business. Plus, they pay significantly lower so that's more "working" people relying on welfare to supplement their income.

My point exactly.

 

[King Poetic]

He had to veto it, those companies were threatening to pack up and leave if he signed the bill. Than what would happen? More people would of been out of a job and the city gets less revenue.

c/s

These politicians need to do some fukking research first.

 

[No1]

He had to veto it, those companies were threatening to pack up and leave if he signed the bill. Than what would happen? More people would of been out of a job and the city gets less revenue.

I highly doubt that this was a credible threat. That's like all those employers in NYC who fought off the paid sick leave act this year. They always make these claims but ultimately they're not about to leave a major market that easily.

@King Poetic , it always astounds me how quickly people are to cape for big businesses and accept their "facts" as truth. What supposed research did these politicians not take into account when passing these acts...they were being lobbied the entire time. As long as people act this cowardly, in cases where something can change, they'll never get anything. What research did you do....

Please tell me where else in the metro DC area were these Wal-Marts and Targets going to move to that is (a) accessible and (b) where they would not be facing left-leaning populations that would most likely favor the same sort of legislation... These are serious questions...

 

[Gandolpiffini]

I'm sure he isnt receiving any $$$$ from Walmart here

 

[the cac mamba]

he shoulda called their bluff

pack up and leave?

you know what i was thinkin about today? we need to take away the liquor license from walmarts. that shyt must kill so many small liquor stores, which is a great small business opp

i know thats a bullshyt idea but still

 

[No1]

he shoulda called their bluff

pack up and leave?

you know what i was thinkin about today? we need to take away the liquor license from walmarts. that shyt must kill so many small liquor stores, which is a great small business opp

i know thats a bullshyt idea but still

Seriously, and this is after they had said in the past that they would pay $13 an hour regardless. This dude needs to

Finally, Mayor Vincent C. Gray took on the recruiting portfolio just as Wal-Mart’s growth at its traditional suburban and exurban outlets was flattening and the company was trying out a new, smaller model of stores in inner cities. In 2011, the numbers and timing finally clicked for Washington: Wal-Mart committed to building its first stores in the city.

More than a year ago, a senior Wal-Mart executive, Tony Waller, told a group of D.C. clergymen that the company would pay District employees a starting salary higher than the amount now proposed by the D.C. Council, according to two people who were at the meeting.

Promise of $13 an hour

“They promised they were going to start people at $13 an hour, and they said that over and over and over,” said the Rev. Graylan Hagler, senior pastor at Plymouth Congregational Church in Northeast Washington.

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo confirmed that the company plans to pay D.C. workers at least what it says it now pays full-time employees in suburban Virginia — an average of $12.39 an hour. He nonetheless called the council’s initiative an unfair bait-and-switch tactic.

“We were just operating under the assumption that the city’s minimum wage would remain in place,” he said. “It seems like some members of the council are interested in moving the goal posts at the eleventh hour.”

Restivo said the retailer’s decision to open in the District was based on “current market conditions, wage rates, the cost of doing business and the price of real estate, and we had no reason to believe that any of those business conditions were going to be changed.”

But if the salary the District wants to set as a floor for Wal-Mart and other large nonunion retailers is the same as what the company proposes to pay, does that constitute a change in business conditions?

Wal-Mart says it does. In recent meetings with council members and business leaders, Wal-Mart lobbyists have been specific: They say the legislation is an effort by politicians sympathetic to labor unions to protect unionized businesses by making life harder on nonunion retailers, including Wal-Mart.

 

[Atlrocafella]

Yeah but it's been proven that Walmarts destroy more jobs than they create i.e putting other companies out of business. Plus, they pay significantly lower so that's more "working" people relying on welfare to supplement their income.

I would agree, but Walmart moving in isn't the issue, they are already there. Them leaving is what was at risk, and that would of been a big blow.

@BarNone they could easily move to the southern conservative states and cities and have no problem.

 

[the cac mamba]

im no communist, but this shyt has to change. arent those 5 cocksuckers lined up for the money worth as much as the bottom 40 percent of this country, or something ridiculous like that?

i know its easy for me to say this cuz im not them, but for them to have that kind of wealth and still encourage employees to take government benefits, etc, is truly sickening

 

[No1]

I would agree, but Walmart moving in isn't the issue, they are already there. Them leaving is what was at risk, and that would of been a big blow.

@BarNone they could easily move to the southern conservative states and cities and have no problem.

No, they cannot bro. I suggest you read the entire article that my last post came from, and most importantly Wal-Mart is basically saying "we are against you codifying in law something we previously agreed to pay anyway." People need to stop letting these companies steam roll them. The fight for higher wages has to start somewhere. If people are too afraid to do it at the local level then it has no chance at the federal level. This is what this is all really about, Wal-Mart does not want unions in the area gaining traction.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

nikka should passed it, so Walmart closes its city stores (which are much smaller) that's not hurting the job market much. Target isn't walking away from locations like it has in Columbia heights. These dudes are posting billions in profits and can't pay living wages in high COL cities like DC? Gtfoh

 

[Mr. Somebody]

This politician has no courage. Hes probably making too much money from them being there to let them go.

 

[the bossman]

Mayor did the right thing. City government has no right to be robin hood. Had they passed this bill, Walmart would've pulled out on the stores they were building east of the river. Have yall nikkas seen the grocery stores east of the river? There are none