# Complex calculations behind the Wal-Mart vote



## Big Don (Jul 13, 2013)

Complex calculations behind the Wal-Mart vote

 *By Lydia DePillis, Updated: July 11, 2013* Washington Post Excerpt:

                       Wednesday&#8217;s vote on the District&#8217;s new &#8220;living wage&#8221; law had about a decade of history behind it.

 Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), a longtime friend of labor, has  tried several times to pass a bill mandating a higher minimum wages for  big box stores. In the past, they&#8217;ve been almost symbolic efforts, a  duty to the unions who knew they didn&#8217;t really have a chance.

 As Wal-Mart announced plans for store after store last year, with  little resistance from the D.C. Council and and no binding community  benefits agreement, it appeared that the company&#8217;s triumph was complete.

 And yet, when the final vote came on a bill that would require  retailers with more than a billion dollars in sales and operating in  spaces larger than 75,000 square feet to pay a minimum wage 50 percent  higher than the District currently mandates, eight council members voted  yes.

****SNIP****
Labor leaders, which drafted the bill originally, met with Wal-Mart  representatives to say they would pull the bill if Wal-Mart agreed to  collective bargaining. Predictably, the mega-retailer said no. &#8220;They  pulled out all the stops and said this is our number one priority,&#8221; said  a council staffer who requested anonymity to speak freely. &#8220;And when  all labor pulls in one direction, that is a powerful thing in this  council.&#8221;
END EXCERPT
How many people who buy their things at Wal-Mart will be screwed by this blatant play  by unions?


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

What?

There is no union in Walmart....


----------



## Big Don (Jul 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> What?
> 
> There is no union in Walmart....



Exactly why the proposed ordinance exempts big stores that ARE unionized...
You know, and why the unions wrote this...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 13, 2013)

i don't buy anything from walmart, ever.  It's been decades since I've set foot into one of those places.  If walmart shriveled up and died, the world would be a better place.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 13, 2013)

Corporations write legislation all the time and conservatives smile. Why should unions be barred from doing so?

Also, it's a good bet that unionized stores already pay over that threshold, which is likely why they are exempt from the ordinance.

And I rarely by from the Agent of S.A.T.A.N. known as Wal-Mart as well. I generally shop at Costco, who has a record of treating their employees well.


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

Eh, for me it's either Wally World or do without...like most people in the country.

But I bet, without that chain, our trade deficit would look much better!


----------



## rlobrecht (Jul 14, 2013)

I wonder what portion of Walmart's costs are people being paid minimum wage?  I'd guess its fairly small, compared to the cost of goods, transportation, and warehousing.  I flipped through their annual report, but it doesn't go to that level of detail.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

I'll shop anywhere I don't care where stuff is made even American made stuff is made using parts from mexico or China so its all crap I use Target mostly now since its closer but I'll hit up Walmart on occasion.  As for Walmart paying its employees they don't deserve more then min wage.  Your doing an unskilled job you get unskilled money.  Want more money learn a skill


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

Who the **** are you to decide what someone's worth?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

We shop at Walmart. Make them pay more and they'll raise their prices.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> Who the **** are you to decide what someone's worth?



The market sets the price  on what someone's labor is worth.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The market sets the price  on what someone's labor is worth.


Which part of the market, the lowballers like WalMart or the highballers like Costco?


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

It's something that the airline WestJet figured out, you treat your people properly, they'll reject union pushes themselves.


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> Which part of the market, the lowballers like WalMart or the highballers like Costco?



the market that draws from the same pool of employees.

Like, some places pay you 10 bucks an hour to shovel manure, other places don't pay you but 8 for qualified work.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

I work for a construction company. I make less than $48 an hour. A couple of weeks ago, I picked up 2 hours of Prevailing Wage at $48.54 an hour, what did I do during those two hours? I shoveled asphalt onto the edges of trench plates. That is pretty unskilled. Why then was I paid the extra wage?
RACISM


> To make matters worse, the Davis-Bacon Act has explicitly racist origins. It was introduced in response to the presence of Southern black construction workers on a Long Island, N.Y.. veterans hospital project. This "cheap" and "bootleg" labor was denounced by Rep. Robert L. Bacon, New York Republican, who introduced the legislation. American Federation of Labor (AFL) president William Green eagerly testified in support of the law before the U.S. Senate, claiming that "colored labor is being brought in to demoralize wage rates."
> 
> Emil Preiss, business manager of the New York branch of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (a powerful AFL affiliate that banned black workers from its ranks) told the House of Representatives that Algernon Blair's crew of black workers were "an undesirable element of people." The bill's co-sponsor, Republican Sen. James Davis of Pennsylvania, was an outspoken racist who had argued in 1925 that Congress must restrict immigration in order "to dry up the sources of hereditary poisoning."


What racial group makes up a large portion of D.C.'s population? Who are the unions screwing over by driving Wal-Mart out of town?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> Which part of the market, the lowballers like WalMart or the highballers like Costco?



Nobody forces anyone to work for Walmart they all take the job.  If they want to make more money go find a better job


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> Who the **** are you to decide what someone's worth?



Who are you to decide what a business should pay it's employees?

I'm not going to defend illegal or unfair practices like requiring employees to clock out and return to work -- but the employee takes the job, at the pay offered.  They agreed to the deal.  If Walmart can't get employees at a given rate -- they'll raise it.  Having the DC city council decide to force certain business to pay employees more than other similar businesses is unfair, and will drive business away.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

*response to ballen*

They usually do, which leads to another problem: Labour shortage. Don't know about where you live, but this province has a severe shortage in skilled and unskilled labour, forcing us to look at the Mexican, filipino, Irish and American labour pools (among others) to take up the slack


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> *response to ballen*
> 
> They usually do, which leads to another problem: Labour shortage. Don't know about where you live, but this province has a severe shortage in skilled and unskilled labour, forcing us to look at the Mexican, filipino, Irish and American labour pools (among others) to take up the slack


If there is a labor shortage then as an employer the market dictates that you need to pay more.  If there's a labor surplus like here then employers can pay less.  The market dictates.  The problems with Unions is the artificially inflate wages beyond market value and it becomes cheaper to outsource to china


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I work for a construction company. I make less than $48 an hour. A couple of weeks ago, I picked up 2 hours of Prevailing Wage at $48.54 an hour, what did I do during those two hours? I shoveled asphalt onto the edges of trench plates. That is pretty unskilled. Why then was I paid the extra wage?
> RACISM
> 
> What racial group makes up a large portion of D.C.'s population? Who are the unions screwing over by driving Wal-Mart out of town?



so you are a middle aged white woman, being offended on principle?

I am pretty sure the powers pushing for such ordinances are off like demographic s the people who work there....

leave the racism cry to Al Sharpton...he has no union to claim encroachment on his domain....


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If there is a labor shortage then as an employer the market dictates that you need to pay more.  If there's a labor surplus like here then employers can pay less.  The market dictates.  The problems with Unions is the artificially inflate wages beyond market value and it becomes cheaper to outsource to china



I wondered how long it would take for someone to 'blame the unions',,,


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> I wondered how long it would take for someone to 'blame the unions',,,



Not blaming thats just the facts


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not blaming thats just the facts


So multimillion dollar pay packages and bonuses for upper management, regardless of quality of performance, have absolutely nothing to do with profit levels? it's all on the unions in your mind?


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

Scott T said:


> So multimillion dollar pay packages and bonuses for upper management, regardless of quality of performance, have absolutely nothing to do with profit levels? it's all on the unions in your mind?


Did you read the article linked in the OP? The unions are, by unfairly targeting Wal Mart, running 1800+ jobs out of DC, does that help the poor?


----------



## Scott T (Jul 14, 2013)

One decent paying job rather than 3 crap-paying jobs to survive would help the poor a hell of a lot more. As Ballen said:  





> If they want to make more money go find a better job


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Scott T said:


> So multimillion dollar pay packages and bonuses for upper management, regardless of quality of performance, have absolutely nothing to do with profit levels? it's all on the unions in your mind?


Yes when the unions drive up labor costs higher then fair market value for the job.  The multimillion pay for one or two CEOs is still paid if the labor is in Alabama or India so its a non issue.  But when unions causing wages for a job that should be paid $8 an hour to be artificially inflated to $15 is a problem.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 15, 2013)

Scott T said:


> One decent paying job rather than 3 crap-paying jobs to survive would help the poor a hell of a lot more. As Ballen said:



Not that most people have three crap paying jobs, so what is your point?  And you can't just pull high paying jobs out of thin air.  There has to be a profit margin for a business to stay in business.  China hasn't gotten there yet, but one reason Japan and some other countries have done so well was a better product and a lower but still decent wage. Unions have their place to prevent excesses by business, but if they inflate wages too much, they eventually pull companies down. 

Granted that I don't agree with the lack of tariffs on some goods.  Nor do I agree with the inflated money some CEOs pull down.  But shareholders apparently do.


----------



## billc (Jul 15, 2013)

> So multimillion dollar pay packages and bonuses for upper management, regardless of quality of performance, have absolutely nothing to do with profit levels?



Eventually, when these overpaid guys keep performing poorly, their corporation will lose money and will fail, and another corporation, paying their smarter upper management people  multimillion dollar pay packages will come in and take over...much the way Wal-Mart has done across the country.  When they do something stupid they will eventually disapear, as did K-mart, and Montgomery Wards and Cee Bees and all the other big chains that were eventually defeated by up and comers...it is the way things are supposed to work...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 16, 2013)

D.C. pays people less than they demand Wal-Mart pay.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

Big Don said:


> D.C. pays people less than they demand Wal-Mart pay.



I'd wager total compensation--with benefits--is better for the public employee.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'd wager total compensation--with benefits--is better for the public employee.


Probably so, however, they aren't whining to have WalMart do that, are they?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 17, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Probably so, however, they aren't whining to have WalMart do that, are they?



Yes, they have been--the lack of reasonable health care benefits has been a big issue here. I'm not in favor of targeting just the big stores like this but benefits has indeed been a big point of discussion.


----------



## Steve (Jul 17, 2013)

If I can out my hippy hat on for a second, if we had universal healthcare, it would eliminate that as a concern for people looking for full time work, and for businesses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2013)

Steve said:


> If I can out my hippy hat on for a second, if we had universal healthcare, it would eliminate that as a concern for people looking for full time work, and for businesses.



Agreed. I don't know about you, but I know lots of martial artists who couldn't start their own school because of this--and more who only could because their spouse had good health insurance. It's always been the one big thing.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Agreed. I don't know about you, but I know lots of martial artists who couldn't start their own school because of this--and more who only could because their spouse had good health insurance. It's always been the one big thing.


I know many, many people who have marketable skills that remain 'hobby' only because they have to work 40 hours at a job they hate in order to have health care.  Think about the boon to small businesses universal healthcare could be.  

And then, maybe Wal-Mart would have some local competitors that they can't put out of business.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 18, 2013)

So, DC wants to boost Min wage from 8 to 12 bucks an hour.

What about the guy who busted their *** the last few years and is currently making 12/hr?  He just went from 'experienced' to 'newb' income over night.

Does the law mandate the big boxes adjust everyone? Or just a demoralizing levelling of the playing field with now decreased incentives to perform?  I know I used to love busting my *** for those annual 5c raises. /sarcasm

Min wage needs to be abolished.  Unskilled labor shouldn't make the same as skilled. Some jobs just aren't worth paying top buck for.  Really.  Should a guy washing lettuce make the same amount as the guy you talk to to get your internet to work?    What's the point in learning anything if you make the same as the slacker who spent his high school days stoned and sleeping?  Why should someone put extra effort in to get ahead if they'll get crap return? 

Walmart should pull out of DC, cancel the 3 planned stores, if legally possible cancel the 3 in progress builds, and look to the surrounding business friendly communities and build there. Let the DC folks commute. Or not.  5,000 freshly unemployed people should help DC greatly.  3 years of free unemployment benefits, hell we'll be in Obama's 3rd term before the effects hit.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2013)

The irony here, Bob, is that there are many communities that would love to keep WalMart out, and if this works, it may become a tactic.  I can hear Leslie Knope saying to the rest of the Pawnee city council.  It's a ready made Parks and Rec plot.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 19, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, DC wants to boost Min wage from 8 to 12 bucks an hour.
> 
> What about the guy who busted their *** the last few years and is currently making 12/hr?  He just went from 'experienced' to 'newb' income over night.
> 
> ...



Good points.  As to DC, they don't want to increase the minimum wage.  That was covered earlier as I recall.  They just want businesses the size of Walmart to pay more than the current minimum wage.  DC government doesn't want to pay that much to their employees.  They probably can't.  The mayor keeps saying he will veto the bill, or that he will study it for the maximum time before he makes a decision.  Maybe needs more time to see how much he can milk Walmart for?

I suspect it wouldn't be too much of a problem for Walmart to cancel all their stores, unless they have made some enforcible agreement with DC to build and remain for a certain amount of time.  I don't know about the other stores they are currently building, but one will also have a fair number of condominiums over the store.  At the price of condominiums near capitol hill, they could sell them, then sell the retail space to someone else, and still probably make a profit.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 19, 2013)

Something else that needs repeating.

Walmart, in fact no employer is responsible for paying a so called 'living wage'.  That's just BS.  An employers job is to make maximum profit for the company.  A corporation is responsible for making maximum return for the stock holders.   Pushing a mandate through that only certain companies pay more than others because some clueless politician who is ignorant of business or a particular business's PnL is, well, ********.

Sure, Walmart would pay cashiers $1 an hour if they could. There's nothing wrong with that.
There's also nothing wrong with people saying "No, I want more than that."

There was a Burger King near me that over -10- years ago was paying $8.75/hr. They were always hiring, always short handed, and had a hell of a time finding people to work that location. (Min wage was $4.25/hr at the time).  
I interviewed last year for a sales rep job. It paid $14/hr. I was the only one of 4 people to show up for the 1st day.  Spent the last year trying to get more people to do the job, and couldn't even get people to the interview stage. 

I get it, people can't live on min-wage. But I run several businesses (MT is 1, my photography, web design and now again hosting are 3 others), and still picked up a part time job to help make ends meet.   As an employee, sure I'd love some government asshat to make my boss pay me more. As the guy on the other end who might endup having to pay someone more than a job is worth though, I want the government to gtfo of business all together.

Right now for example, McDonalds makes a measly 6c profit on it's Dollar Menu items.  That's 95 burgers per hour per employee on shift at $5.75/hr pay.  
BurgerKing says they -lose- 10-15c per double cheeseburger on their $1 menu.

If you force businesses to raise their pay, they -must- raise prices, decrease staff, or decrease offerings to remain profitable.

Going back to Walmart, does that mandate only apply to the stores in the effected region? What about the companies delivery people? 



> The document [PDF], first obtained by the _Huffington Post,_ shows  that Walmart workers can earn a base pay as low as $8.00, and earn wage  increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents.  &#8221;As a result, a  &#8216;solid performer&#8217; who starts at Walmart as a cart pusher making $8 an  hour and receives one promotion, about the average rate, can expect to  make $10.60 after working at the company for 6 years,&#8221;


http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/19/leaked-document-reveals-walmarts-meager-compensation-structure/

This goes back to my earlier argument.
If -I- busted my *** for 6 years to work my way up the chain, showed up when sick, put family aside for the job, came in or stayed late when asked, etc., and some newb started making the same as me, I'd be pissed.  Your 'solid performer' would be gone as I'd feel my past efforts were a waste.



> &#8220;I struggle to support my family on $14,000 a year,&#8221; said Sara Gilbert, a  customer service manager at the company for three years. &#8220;My children  are in state housing and we get subsidized housing and food stamps.&#8221;


Tough ****. I wish someone else paid for my food, housing and utilities for me.  What Sara's really saying here is "Walmart pays me $14,000 per year, and the tax payers pay me  $14,300, for a real annual income of $28,300." ($6k/yr rent, $900/yr gas, $900/yr electric, $6,500/yr food)
$30,000 per year income breaks down to $577 / week which is $14.43/hr.  Allow $6k in taxes (20% approximation of fed, state, fica, etc) leaves $24,000. 
Ms. Gilbert most likely pays only FICA as at $14k, with kids she probably pays nothing in income tax, and in fact probably gets a nice kickback in credits.

But incase she really does want to get ahead and stop being a jackass of boss holder: 100 Businesses you can start right now

(Oh yeah, in case anyone needs a website, hi. Shameless plug.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2013)

Bob, one thing you said struck me as a little funny.  I see your points, but who is forcing McDs and BK to set their prices so low?  If they're cutting their profit margin so close, don't you think there's a reason?  Can't we assume they're making their money some where else? 

I'm not speaking to the wage issue.  I'm strictly reacting to your comments regarding profitability.  Let's be real.  Wal-Mart and McDs are making money hand over fist.  They're not being victimized.  Now, small businesses?  Yeah.  Maybe.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 19, 2013)

Steve, do you have any idea how much complaining happens when they raise prices 5c on an item, or move it off the $1 menu and price it at $1.29?   I dealt with that when I was an ast. at BK years back.  I needed rum therapy.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This goes back to my earlier argument.
> If -I- busted my *** for 6 years to work my way up the chain, showed up when sick, put family aside for the job, came in or stayed late when asked, etc., and some newb started making the same as me, I'd be pissed.  Your 'solid performer' would be gone as I'd feel my past efforts were a waste.



That relates to an issue my chief had.  We were short several bodies for the last couple of years.  It takes 9 months of training -- academy & field -- before a new officer really counts as a body on the street.  A lateral hire can cut that to several weeks because they don't need the academy, and FTO can generally move pretty quick.  Make sure they can get around without getting too lost, check their understanding of the rules, and see how they _really_ work...  but it's a safe bet we can cut that time in half.  But... laterals often want more than the starting pay; after all, they're NOT an untrained rook...  Here's the problem my chief ran into; for the last couple of years nobody received their longevity/merit steps.  So, say he tries to hire Officer Crockett who went through the academy with Officer Tubbs, but worked for another agency for the two years since the academy.  Crockett now wants a step or two to recognize the training and experience he's bringing to the table compared to a raw recruit.  Understandable... but Tubbs, with the same training and experience is still at step 1.  How do you sell that to Tubbs  -- that he's spent two years here, working hard, doing his job right, but you're going to pay Crockett more?

Decisions and things like this DC law or not giving longevity/merit steps have effects that ripple a lot further and in directions that aren't always foreseen.


----------



## granfire (Jul 19, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> That relates to an issue my chief had.  We were short several bodies for the last couple of years.  It takes 9 months of training -- academy & field -- before a new officer really counts as a body on the street.  A lateral hire can cut that to several weeks because they don't need the academy, and FTO can generally move pretty quick.  Make sure they can get around without getting too lost, check their understanding of the rules, and see how they _really_ work...  but it's a safe bet we can cut that time in half.  But... laterals often want more than the starting pay; after all, they're NOT an untrained rook...  Here's the problem my chief ran into; for the last couple of years nobody received their longevity/merit steps.  So, say he tries to hire Officer Crockett who went through the academy with Officer Tubbs, but worked for another agency for the two years since the academy.  Crockett now wants a step or two to recognize the training and experience he's bringing to the table compared to a raw recruit.  Understandable... but Tubbs, with the same training and experience is still at step 1.  How do you sell that to Tubbs  -- that he's spent two years here, working hard, doing his job right, but you're going to pay Crockett more?
> 
> Decisions and things like this DC law or not giving longevity/merit steps have effects that ripple a lot further and in directions that aren't always foreseen.



It's a racial thing, Tubbs will understand!


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2013)

The Mayor vetoed the idiotic thing, and issued a nice letter detailing why.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The Mayor vetoed the idiotic thing, and issued a nice letter detailing why.




Good.


----------

