Posted on 07/22/2013 5:23:16 PM PDT by markomalley
At some point in the coming weeks, the Large Retailer Accountability Act will hit the desk of Mayor Vincent C. Gray, who will be forced to choose between (a) signing the narrowly targeted “living wage” bill and forsaking at least three Wal-Mart stores and their attendant jobs and low-priced goods or (b) vetoing the bill, thus vexing unions that supported his election and potentially alienating the liberal-leaning public by buckling to the controversial megaretailer’s ultimatum.
Thus far, all signs indicate Gray is leaning toward a veto. A deputy mayor has said the bill would be disastrous for the city’s economic development efforts, Gray’s spokesperson has shared letters urging a veto and, after going great lengths to lure a Wal-Mart to anchor the redevelopment at Skyland Town Center, it’s difficult to see Gray signing a bill that would effectively kill the project.
But the group of clergy who rallied Friday urging Gray to sign the bill think they have identified Hizzoner’s political soft spot: his zest for “self-determination.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
WM should stay out
Why?
Hello 100% unemployment
Funny we never hear of a:
“LARGE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT”
F-ckn traitors. Shoot em all and let God sort em out.
The rev is a moron. Walmart has simply highlighted the consequences of the potential hazards of "self-determination". DC can determine for itself if it wants the jobs Walmart offer or it does not. Walmart is not mandating how the city acts, it is simply letting them know that they cannot operate in a way the city is trying to force them to act.
Here is your answer.
They should stay out because if Gray vetoes this bill they will wait until the stores open and pass another one which he will sign.
They should stay out because the work force available to Walmart is incapable of running a store.
They should stay out because theft will kill them. The cost of security will be double any other store they have.
like tank said
Gray will veto the bill - its the sensible thing to do. Also, he is veto-proof on it.
DC needs the jobs, income tax revenue, and sales tax receipts far more than forcing WM to pay $12.75/hour to its workers.
Also, WM acts as an “anchor” in its shopping areas, attracting more shops to open up in the vicinity.
Also, by forcing WM to pay the increased wages, class warfare is gonna break out. Workers at NON-”BIG BOX” stores will still get the DC-mandated $8.75/hour wages, whilst WM workers will feed at the $12.75/hour trough ...
BTW, the DC Council itself only pays its low-wage workers $10.75/hour ...
Perfect example of the wisdom of our Forefathers.
All valid concerns, but surely ones that Walmart would have considered. When I was teaching econ at Creighton U, I did a research study that compared the cost of a “fixed basket” of grocery items that were likely to be purchased weekly by a family of four. I “bought” that same basket in four inner city stores and four suburban stores for a period of 5 weeks. As I recall, the cost differential was 13% higher for inner city stores. Subsequent interviews with store managers confirmed that theft and higher insurance costs were the reasons for the higher prices.
Living wage comes with improving yourself.
That in effect means that they are open to a law suit for charging a higher price.
To avoid that they raise prices in all of their stores.
Walmart has no idea what they face in DC.
I would gladly advise them for a few pennies.
For free I tell them stay out.
Unless the law has changed, stores are free to charge different prices if they can show the costs of doing business varies. Property taxes, land costs, insurance, etc. often account for differing prices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.