Premium on minium wage mandated by D.C. lawmakers could chase Wal-Mart jobs elsewhere
By The Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, July 10, 2013, 7:33 p.m.
WASHINGTON — District of Columbia lawmakers gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill requiring certain large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city's minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned the law would jeopardize their plans in the city.
The retail giant on Tuesday linked the status of at least three planned stores in the district to the proposal. But the ultimatum did not change any legislators' minds. The 8-5 vote, the result of an hourlong debate in a packed council chamber, matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter.
“The question here is a living wage; it's not whether Wal-Mart comes or stays,” said Vincent Orange, a Democrat and lead backer of the legislation, who added the city did not need to kowtow to threats: “We're at a point where we don't need retailers. Retailers need us.”
Should the bill be signed by Mayor Vincent C. Gray 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.
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 has made it clear the measure is aimed at Wal-Mart, which has announced plans to open six stores in the city.
“Nothing has changed from our perspective,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo. He reiterated that the company will abandon plans for three unbuilt stores and “review the financial and legal implications” of not opening three others under construction.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Patriots’ back Nevada rancher; Reid labels them ‘domestic terrorists’
- Health care law enrollee passwords at risk for Heartbleed Internet security flaw, feds warn
- Washington’s snowy owl recovers from apparent bus crash, returns to wild
- Denver wife killed 12 minutes into 911 call, sparking inquiry
- Ohio couple married for 70 years dies just 15 hours apart
- IRS, other agencies award contracts to license plate tracking company
- Gun rights to return to Supreme Court’s agenda
- Recovery expert believes wreckage of missing plane located
- Colorado deaths stoke marijuana worries
- High court ruling sets off race for bigger campaign donations
- Tax Day’s a big deal ... only if you owe Uncle Sam