OT- Another Walmart story
 

In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
here recently.

Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
live on.

The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The
news story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to
spend more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
tiny:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj

“The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to
kowtow to threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers.
Retailers need us.”

All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...
--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/11/2013 8:58 PM, Cheryl wrote:

> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...

Oops, I meant to say that he refused to say that he was in favor or not,
since the passing of this bill would help his constituents more than
Walmart not being required to pay more, but he is holding back. To me
that speaks volumes about his side, which is on the good of Walmart, not
the good of the people.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/11/13 8:58 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
> here recently.
>
> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
> live on.
>
> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably....

There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
and three more planned. All may be scrapped.

-- Larry

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/11/2013 9:11 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 7/11/13 8:58 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>> here recently.
>>
>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
>> live on.
>>
>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably....
>
> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.
>
> -- Larry
>
I thought I heard on the radio story there were already 3.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
b.com...
> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for hourly
> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
> recently.
>
> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just because
> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>
> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more for
> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
> tiny:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>
> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer
> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need
> us.”
..


I find this very telling:

"D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large
retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s
minimum wage,"

so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive disadvantage
to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for the
gander.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/11/2013 9:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> b.com...
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for hourly
>> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
>> recently.
>>
>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just because
>> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>>
>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more for
>> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
>> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
>> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>> tiny:
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>>
>> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
>> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer
>> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
>> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need
>> us.”
> .
>
>
> I find this very telling:
>
> "D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large
> retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s
> minimum wage,"
>
> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive disadvantage
> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for the
> gander.
>
>
Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio
said that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries
just to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid
question, though.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
b.com...
> On 7/11/2013 9:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> b.com...
>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>> hourly
>>> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
>>> recently.
>>>
>>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>>> because
>>> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>>>
>>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>>> for
>>> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
>>> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
>>> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>>> tiny:
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>>>
>>> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
>>> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
>>> backer
>>> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
>>> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need
>>> us.”
>> .
>>
>>
>> I find this very telling:
>>
>> "D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some
>> large
>> retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s
>> minimum wage,"
>>
>> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive
>> disadvantage
>> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for
>> the
>> gander.
>>
>>
> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
> though.
>
Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
Graham

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> b.com...
>> On 7/11/2013 9:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>>> b.com...
>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>>> hourly
>>>> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
>>>> recently.
>>>>
>>>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>>>> because
>>>> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>>>>
>>>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>>>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>>>> for
>>>> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
>>>> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
>>>> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>>>> tiny:
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>>>>
>>>> "The question here is a living wage; it's not whether Wal-Mart comes or
>>>> stays," said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
>>>> backer
>>>> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
>>>> threats. "We're at a point where we don't need retailers. Retailers
>>>> need
>>>> us."
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> I find this very telling:
>>>
>>> "D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some
>>> large
>>> retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city's
>>> minimum wage,"
>>>
>>> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive
>>> disadvantage
>>> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for
>>> the
>>> gander.
>>>
>>>
>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio
>> said that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries
>> just to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid
>> question, though.
>>
> Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?

so it is the lawmakers' job to "level the playing field"? And I see no
mention of where the cutoff is, i.e. which are the "some large retailers".

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:



>>>
>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
>> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
>> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
>> though.
>>
>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>Graham
>

Buying power has nothing to do with wages paid, or being forced to
pay. What does the buying power of a small card and gift shop have to
do with the wages paid as compared to a big retailer of home goods
like Lowes?

If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
should apply equally to every business in that category.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:58:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:28:40 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>
>>> Some of the commentary not shown in that article but was on the radio said
>>> that it is likely other retailers would have to pay higher salaries just
>>> to keep employees. No, that doesn't answer your very valid question,
>>> though.
>>>
>>Valid? Do small stores have the buying power of Walmart?
>>Graham
>>
>
>Buying power has nothing to do with wages paid, or being forced to
>pay. What does the buying power of a small card and gift shop have to
>do with the wages paid as compared to a big retailer of home goods
>like Lowes?
>
>If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
>should apply equally to every business in that category.

Below is the gist of the bill. What they are saying is, we will take
the money from big companies and spend it as we see fit. This is
going to hurt the small retailer they think they are protecting. The
mom & pop stores will have to pay those wages to keep help.


Should the bill be signed by Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and pass a
congressional review period, retailers with corporate sales of $1
billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger
would be required to pay employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The
city’s minimum wage is $8.25, a dollar higher than the federal minimum
wage.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/11/2013 7:41 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> b.com...
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for hourly
>> rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this here
>> recently.
>>
>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just because
>> they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to live on.
>>
>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more for
>> salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The news
>> story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to spend
>> more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>> tiny:
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>>
>> “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
>> stays,” said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer
>> of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to kowtow to
>> threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need
>> us.”
> .
>
>
> I find this very telling:
>
> "D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large
> retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s
> minimum wage,"
>
> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive disadvantage
> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for the
> gander.
>
>
Good gravy, it's DC, they're likely all sauced!

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
> here recently.

The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
they can afford to pay it.

Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats

Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
life in rfc.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:11:58 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:

> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.

Good, I hope they all go. One Walmart is one too many.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:41:12 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

> so, the D.C. lawmakers feel Walmart should be at a competitive disadvantage
> to smaller stores. Why? What's good for the goose should be good for the
> gander.

It sounds to me as if they don't want Walmart and that's the way to
"discourage" them.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:31:10 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

> so it is the lawmakers' job to "level the playing field"? And I see no
> mention of where the cutoff is, i.e. which are the "some large retailers".
>
I don't think they should be treated any differently from any other
retailer.... which means they shouldn't be required to pay any more in
wages AND they shouldn't be given any more "incentives" to conduct
business in the area. Hopefully, they will buy a clue and decide to
go elsewhere because the "welcome" mat is clearly NOT out for them.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:58:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> If the government wants to demand a certain wage must be paid, it
> should apply equally to every business in that category.

Agreed. Clearly, they do NOT want Walmart there.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:33:07 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>wrote:
>
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>> here recently.
>
>The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>they can afford to pay it.
>
>Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.

They will keep out a number of large retailers. Is that the job of
our government?

I'm certainly not a bleeding heart liberal, but I also think any
business should be paying a minimum of $10 for any help. But it
should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.

The despising of Wal Mart will also keep out Home Depot, Lowes, some
supermarkets (or at least limit the store size) etc. If, however,
those store do elect to build there, they also steal much of the labor
away from the other retailers. The little store with five employees
suddenly loses them all as they jump ship for $150 a week, or, he has
to pay that much more.

The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
an interesting experiment.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 2013-07-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.

The problem with low wages is, it forces workers to turn to the state
to get basic need services they cannot get with their wages. If a
family of four must go on food stamps cuz it cannot earn enough at a
paid job, the govt is in effect subsidizing that employer. This has
been at the heart of the good/evil debate about Walmart for years.
Too many of Walmart's employees must rely on the public dole to make
ends meet. This is one way Walmart maintains it's lower prices.

The other is not paying sales taxes to local govt. Almost all new
Walmart stores come with a reduced tax payout for the first five yrs.
This is typically obtained by (cough) convincing (cough) the local
govt to do it. IOW, the city coucil is paid off, the city loses
taxes, the county must pay subsistence level services to underpaid
Walmart employees. It's such a loss-loss situation for so many
places, they decline Walmart's offer to build.

Kicking all that aside, what does WW give the consumer? Lower prices,
right? But, at what cost? I never shopped at WW till I moved here.
Initially I saw bennies to shopping WW. Some goods were still USA
made and cheap. Now, 5 yrs later, almost all products I once saw as a
good buy have cheapened to the point I will no longer waste my money.
I still have a pair of winter gloves I bought at WW, but they're
pretty raggedy. I went to buy a new pair. No way! Cheapened way
beyond usability. Same with some waterproof mattress covers I've been
buying for Mom. Originally, they had a soft fabric layer over the
vinyl covering. Those are suddenly "out of stock", only to be
replaced by unacceptable plain vinyl covers at a lower price. Now I
must go looking for a higher priced equivelent. WW's relentless price
lowering policies look good to the consumer on some levels, but when
the mechandise becomes so shoddy it's unusable, of what benefit is
that?

Can I go back? No. WW drove the independent hardware store out of
business. They drove the Rexall out of business. Do I still shop
there. Gotta. In many instances, only game in town. OTOH, I'm sure
getting good at online shopping! And, with gas prices being what they
are, it's damn sure cheaper than driving 18 miles to WW. ;)

nb

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 5:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> I'm certainly not a bleeding heart liberal, but I also think any
> business should be paying a minimum of $10 for any help. But it
> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.

Exactly. The minimum wage is way too low. People complain that Walmart
wages force people onto food stamps and they are right. An increase in
the minimum wage would take some (many) people off the food stamp program.

Also, I would refine the laws that define a part-time worker. Big
companies often classify people as part time workers (usually 30 hours a
week or less) and then schedule them for 40 or more hours a week to
avoid paying for benefits such as health care, etc.

Simple rule... if you work more then 30 hours a week two weeks in a row,
you are full time. That would stop that nonsense.

George L

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
> an interesting experiment.

Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
died?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:58:12 PM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>
> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>
> here recently.
>
>
>
> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>
> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
>
> live on.
>
>
>
> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>
> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>
> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The
>
> news story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to
>
> spend more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>
> tiny:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>
>
>
> �The question here is a living wage; it�s not whether Wal-Mart comes or
>
> stays,� said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
>
> backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to
>
> kowtow to threats. �We�re at a point where we don�t need retailers.
>
> Retailers need us.�
>
>
>
> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
>
> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
>
> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
>
> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...
>
> --
>
> CAPSLOCK�Preventing Login Since 1980.

Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow forever. One planned in my area got nixed - good.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 12:34 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:11:58 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:
>
>> There are no existing stores in DC. There are three under construction,
>> and three more planned. All may be scrapped.
>
> Good, I hope they all go. One Walmart is one too many.
>
Low income residents of DC, and I believe they comprise most of the
city, may feel otherwise.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 4:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:33:07 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>> here recently.
>>
>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>> they can afford to pay it.
>>
>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>
> They will keep out a number of large retailers. Is that the job of
> our government?
>
> I'm certainly not a bleeding heart liberal, but I also think any
> business should be paying a minimum of $10 for any help. But it
> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.
>
> The despising of Wal Mart will also keep out Home Depot, Lowes, some
> supermarkets (or at least limit the store size) etc. If, however,
> those store do elect to build there, they also steal much of the labor
> away from the other retailers. The little store with five employees
> suddenly loses them all as they jump ship for $150 a week, or, he has
> to pay that much more.
>
> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
> an interesting experiment.
>

I find a general agreement regarding the meddling and the potential
consequences were Wal Mart to knuckle under.

Your observation regarding other big box retailers like Lowes and so on
is accurate.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 6:44 AM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/12/2013 5:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> I'm certainly not a bleeding heart liberal, but I also think any
>> business should be paying a minimum of $10 for any help. But it
>> should be done for moral and ethical reasons, not because some
>> government entity feels you are a big business and can afford it.
>
> Exactly. The minimum wage is way too low. People complain that Walmart
> wages force people onto food stamps and they are right. An increase in
> the minimum wage would take some (many) people off the food stamp program.
>
> Also, I would refine the laws that define a part-time worker. Big
> companies often classify people as part time workers (usually 30 hours a
> week or less) and then schedule them for 40 or more hours a week to
> avoid paying for benefits such as health care, etc.
>
> Simple rule... if you work more then 30 hours a week two weeks in a row,
> you are full time. That would stop that nonsense.
>
> George L

Now you have rally hit on something with theta two week rule, that's
something that could, if carefully crafted be sensible.

I'd add the proviso that the 2 week trigger has to happen (x) number of
times per quarter, not just once.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
>> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
>> an interesting experiment.
>
> Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> died?
>

They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
government however.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 10:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>
> Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow forever. One planned in my area got nixed - good.
>

When I first moved here Walmart wanted to build another store on Lady's
Island. There's already one in Beaufort.

The land where they wanted to build isn't zoned for anything that big.
It also borders on protected wetlands. What's the Joni Mitchell song?
Paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Walmart, in their typical entitled fashion, sent in a team of lawyers to
try to force the city council to have the land rezoned. Uh, that would
be a NO.

One person wrote to the editor of the local newspaper. I'm
paraphrasing: "The day *every* checkout stand at the existing WalMart is
manned and people are *still* waiting in line, then you can build
another Walmart."

It *is* possible to fight them. I don't know about forcing them to pay
a living wage... there's more than just Walmart involved with how low
the minimum wage is. But you don't have to put up with having a Walmart
on every corner.

Jill

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:52 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
> >> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
> >> an interesting experiment.
> >
> > Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> > been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> > died?
> >
>
> They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
> government however.

They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business
anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about
Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that
you get what you pay for.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 11:23 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:52 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
>>>> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
>>>> an interesting experiment.
>>>
>>> Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
>>> been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
>>> died?
>>>
>>
>> They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
>> government however.
>
> They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business
> anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about
> Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that
> you get what you pay for.
>

You do, and when you're poor you can go the garage sale route (and
should) or you can go Wal Mart.

It used to be K-Mart but they're almost gone now.

Funny thing is, no one was blaming K-Mart for squeezing out local Mom &
Pops even though they had to have.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>> here recently.
>
> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
> they can afford to pay it.
>
> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>
> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
> life in rfc.


Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.

Big deal.

Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.

They not only can afford it but is about time they did.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:58:12 PM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>
> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>
> here recently.
>
>
>
> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>
> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
>
> live on.
>
>
>
> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>
> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>
> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The
>
> news story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to
>
> spend more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>
> tiny:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>
>
>
> �The question here is a living wage; it�s not whether Wal-Mart comes
> or
>
> stays,� said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
>
> backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to
>
> kowtow to threats. �We�re at a point where we don�t need retailers.
>
> Retailers need us.�
>
>
>
> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
>
> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
>
> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
>
> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...
>
> --
>
> CAPSLOCK�Preventing Login Since 1980.

Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow forever.
One planned in my area got nixed - good.


We have no Super Wal-Marts within a 20 mile radius of me. And I like that.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 11:59 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>> here recently.
>>
>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>> they can afford to pay it.
>>
>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>
>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>> life in rfc.
>
>
> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>
> Big deal.
>
> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>
> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.

So because they are rich they should pay more?

What about non-family owned corporations?

Should Eddie Lampert pay K-Mart workers more?

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 12:00 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:58:12 PM UTC-4, Cheryl wrote:
>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>
>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>
>> here recently.
>>
>>
>>
>> Walmart is now rethinking its plan to open 3 new stores in DC just
>>
>> because they will be forced to pay their employees enough for them to
>>
>> live on.
>>
>>
>>
>> The news here is all over this. A huge conglomerate with billions in
>>
>> profits decide not to expand here because they have to shell out more
>>
>> for salaries. Will they also close existing stores? Probably. The
>>
>> news story went on to say that those with lower yearly income tend to
>>
>> spend more, and usually all of it. Wouldn't that be beneficial overall?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...211_story.html
>>
>> tiny:
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhyvtoj
>>
>>
>>
>> �The question here is a living wage; it�s not whether Wal-Mart comes
>> or
>>
>> stays,� said council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead
>>
>> backer of the legislation, who added that the city did not need to
>>
>> kowtow to threats. �We�re at a point where we don�t need retailers.
>>
>> Retailers need us.�
>>
>>
>>
>> All DC mayor Vincent Gray says about his ability to veto this bill is
>>
>> that he has not decided. He needs to wait and see if it is somehow
>>
>> modified. Does he have any stake in Walmart staying in DC regardless of
>>
>> whether they pay a living wage to his constituents? Hmm...
>>
>> --
>>
>> CAPSLOCK�Preventing Login Since 1980.
>
> Good - maybe the Wal-tide is turning at last. No company can grow forever.
> One planned in my area got nixed - good.
>
>
> We have no Super Wal-Marts within a 20 mile radius of me. And I like that.
>
No one forces you to shop there, do they?

why should it make any difference to you?

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:36:57 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 7/12/2013 11:23 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:52 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
> >>>> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
> >>>> an interesting experiment.
> >>>
> >>> Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
> >>> been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
> >>> died?
> >>>
> >>
> >> They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
> >> government however.
> >
> > They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business
> > anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about
> > Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that
> > you get what you pay for.
> >
>
> You do, and when you're poor you can go the garage sale route (and
> should) or you can go Wal Mart.
>
> It used to be K-Mart but they're almost gone now.
>
> Funny thing is, no one was blaming K-Mart for squeezing out local Mom &
> Pops even though they had to have.
>
It's quite disheartening to see shopping center after shopping center
filled with only big box stores and chain restaurants... and no
downtown to speak of.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 12:10 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:36:57 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2013 11:23 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:52 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/12/2013 8:05 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:00:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The cynical side of me hopes WM builds the stores, pays the wages, and
>>>>>> F's up the entire local economic structure of the region. It would be
>>>>>> an interesting experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiment? They've already done it in non-urban areas or haven't you
>>>>> been paying attention to what they've been doing since Sam Walton
>>>>> died?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've not done it under mandatory minimum wage edicts from local
>>>> government however.
>>>
>>> They didn't need to and the little guys were driven out of business
>>> anyway. American greed in action... and I'm not talking about
>>> Walmart. People in general seem to be too stupid to figure out that
>>> you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>
>> You do, and when you're poor you can go the garage sale route (and
>> should) or you can go Wal Mart.
>>
>> It used to be K-Mart but they're almost gone now.
>>
>> Funny thing is, no one was blaming K-Mart for squeezing out local Mom &
>> Pops even though they had to have.
>>
> It's quite disheartening to see shopping center after shopping center
> filled with only big box stores and chain restaurants... and no
> downtown to speak of.
>

I guess it varies according to where one lives, but the trend is set for
sure.

Of course I recall when growing up what a treat it was when the first
malls opened, all that convenience and inside too!

Now it's depressing to see older outdoor strip malls anchored by
storefront congregations, and right next door smoke shops or tattoo
parlors - just weird!

It all goes in cycles I suppose.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>> here recently.
>>
>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>> they can afford to pay it.
>>
>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>
>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>> life in rfc.
>
>
> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>
> Big deal.
>
> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>
> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>
I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there is
a crime."
Graham

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote:
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>>> here recently.
>>>
>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>>> they can afford to pay it.
>>>
>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>>
>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>>> life in rfc.
>>
>>
>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>>
>> Big deal.
>>
>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And the
>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>>
>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>>
> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there is
> a crime."
> Graham
>
>
So being wealthy is a crime?

Do tell..

OT- Another Walmart story
 

"casa bona" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote:
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>>>> here recently.
>>>>
>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>>>> they can afford to pay it.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>>>
>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>>>> life in rfc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>>>
>>> Big deal.
>>>
>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And
>>> the
>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>>>
>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>>>
>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there
>> is
>> a crime."
>> Graham
>>
>>
> So being wealthy is a crime?
>
Comprehension not your forte?

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 12:52 PM, graham wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/12/2013 12:41 PM, graham wrote:
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:58:12 -0400, Cheryl >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In DC, legislators voted and passed to require a "living wage" for
>>>>>> hourly rates paid to its employees. We had a conversation about this
>>>>>> here recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "living wage" they are required to pay is called a "super" minimum
>>>>> wage, $4 above what's expected of smaller businesses there. I'm what
>>>>> you'd probably call a "bleeding heart liberal" and I do not think that
>>>>> Walmart should be treated differently and required to pay a minimum
>>>>> wage that's higher than any other business in the area just because
>>>>> they can afford to pay it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, 3 stores planned for an area as small as DC is over kill...
>>>>> so if that's what DC needs to do to keep Walmart out - then so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...almart-threats
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheryl, if you're being frogged - I'm disappointed that you haven't
>>>>> spoken out about it and if it's really you - I'm disappointed to see
>>>>> your true colors. I thought you were smarter than that, but such is
>>>>> life in rfc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wal-Mart would pass on the cost and it has been estimated would cost the
>>>> average shopper an additional 12 bucks a year.
>>>>
>>>> Big deal.
>>>>
>>>> Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for welfare. And
>>>> the
>>>> Walton family is worth more than 100 billion dollars.
>>>>
>>>> They not only can afford it but is about time they did.
>>>>
>>> I recall a debate once on the motion: "Behind every great fortune, there
>>> is
>>> a crime."
>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>> So being wealthy is a crime?
>>
> Comprehension not your forte?
>
>
The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"?

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"?

I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public
assistance to survive.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

OT- Another Walmart story
 

On 7/12/2013 1:02 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:56:04 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> The Walton's have a "great fortune", what do you state is their "crime"?
>
> I say paying such poor wages that their employees need public
> assistance to survive.
>

It is no crime to pay the federal minimum wage.

But the earlier suggestion that we remove the part-time loophole has
real merit.

How do you feel about that solution?