Wal-Mart v/s District of Columbia City Council
Mmmmmm no... From
CNN:
Losers in the unions vs. Wal-Mart game: D.C.'s poor
Tug on the stem of any anti-corporate protest these days, and you're likely to find the same root -- unions more attuned to their own self-interest than the futures of low-income workers.
Just take a look at what happened to Wal-Mart Stores, which had the audacity to make plans to bring six stores and 1,800 jobs to Washington, D.C. -- catering to parts of the city where unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation. After the city council voted to single out the giant retailer with a requirement to pay workers 50% above minimum wage, Wal-Mart iced at least part--and possibly all--of those plans.
A bit more -- unions at fault:
But the No. 1 company on the Fortune 500 list, no stranger to setting up shop in union-strangleholds, plowed on. Wal-Mart regional general manager Alex Barron noted in the Washington Post this week that store officials engaged "in an open dialogue with residents, stakeholders, critics, and elected officials" and became sufficiently confident of local support that plans were made to increase the investment from four to six stores and 1,200 to 1,800 jobs.
The company's charitable foundation doled out $3.8 million last year to poverty-fighting organizations like D.C. Central Kitchen and Capitol Area Food Bank.
Local officials, including the mayor, quickly recognized the importance not only of jobs, but of providing low-cost groceries, clothes, and other consumer products to residents who must take public transportation for miles to find retail outlets.
Then, at the 11th hour, with two stores slated to open this fall, organized labor struck. The D.C. council took up union-backed legislation, called the Large Retailer Accountability Act, that would force giant box stores -- i.e. Wal-Mart -- to pay workers $12.50 an hour instead of the $8.25 minimum wage. (The measure applies to retailers over 75,000 square feet and with a parent company gross revenues of more than $1 billion. Existing stores are exempt.)
It is never about the poor or unemployed, it is about preserving the organizations and bureaucracies. The article notes that the two Wards where Wal-Mart was planning to build suffer 15% and 23% unemployment.
Posted by DaveH at July 12, 2013 2:11 PM