June 26, 2006
Wage War
The District has become expert at approaching public issues with an ambivalence approaching schizophrenia. We want and don't want development, fear and don't fear gentrification, and embrace and disdain our suburbs. Perhaps nothing encapsulates our status as capital of the love-hate relationship more than our approach toward big-box retail.
Many of us looked on with approval at Annapolis' decision to require more health care spending from Wal-Mart, and residents of Northeast D.C. waged an all-out campaign to prevent the bouncing smiley from putting down roots in the District. At the same time, D.C. officials are proud to note how they were able to bring Target to Columbia Heights, and Vincent Orange never hesitates to trumpet his role in attracting the Brentwood Home Depot, which remains a bustling success despite its near mythic status as an urban planning abomination, a metro-side behemoth presiding over a massive parking lot. And hardly a coffeeshop conversation goes by in the city when retail wishlists fail to appear. Costco? Wegman's? We anxiously await new options.
The tensions that come along with these stores — between smart urban planning and convenience, between new tax revenue and damage to existing businesses and workers — make life extremely difficult for politicians seeking to chart a sensible course, but local interest groups won't let them ignore the issues. After trying and failing to derail big-box plans in the District last year, labor advocates are now pushing the D.C. Council to enact legislation requiring a living wage of $11 an hour and health benefits equal to $3 an hour, according to the Washington Business Journal. The bill, which was introduced last year by Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), has languished in the Council but is now receiving a hearing in committee, and a number of Council Members are expressing mixed feelings on the matter. With fall elections looming, the Council would like to appear sympathetic to workers but cannot afford to alienate the business community.
There is also concern that a number of current recruitment efforts will be damaged by the potential legislation, meaning that the weekend parade of District drivers to Tyson's and Potomac Yards and the College Park Ikea will continue, taking with it lost tax dollars. One might hope for an ultimate regional agreement, to prevent competitive policies between D.C. and the suburbs; if the retailers don't have the easy option of moving across the border to avoid pressure for better employment policies, then they'll have to improve their workplaces to enjoy the benefits of the metropolitan market. It would also be nice to see Council commitment to neighborhood-oriented retail over big-box and a parking lot, but it's not easy to rally voter support for such investments, when convenience is so clearly a concern.
Most likely a compromise will result, with new rules that don't apply to grandfathered companies currently in the pipeline. While other outcomes could certainly be worse, this site continues to hope for a display of vision from this fall's candidates. We'd love to see a potential mayor blaze a trail rather than minimize damage.
Picture taken by dabdiputs.
|
It makes perfect sense! Why? Because Wal-Mart is evil and those other big-boxes are, well, less-evil. Never mind the double standard.
Seriously, the majority of low income NE'ers would love to be able to get cheap diapers, tp and other household items instead of spending a fortune at the corner mart. But they can't because a bunch of liberal reactionarys who've never been to NE can't stand the idea of the dreaded Wal-Mart being somewhere over there. The other half of it is the union crows (Giant Food, etc...) desperately trying to keep Wal Mart from gaining a foothold.
What if we let Walmart in ON THE CONDITION that their employees were part of the SEIU? Is that a compromise that liberal do-gooders like me and free-market fundamentalists like Slaup would accept?
What if we let Walmart in ON THE CONDITION that their employees were part of the SEIU? Is that a compromise that liberal do-gooders like me and free-market fundamentalists like Slaup would accept?
As it happens, I've read that the proposed bill does exempt stores with a collective bargaining agreement. So liberal do-gooders would seem to be okay with that compromise, but I can't see free-market fundamentalists approving of the exercise of market power in the labor market in the same way they approve of it in the retail market.
There's three issues here --
1. No Wal-Mart based on sprawl/aesthetics.
2. No Wal-Mart because it will hurt small businesses.
3. No Wal-Mart because they don't treat their workers very well/not unionized.
Taking these in order --
1. This is where I am most ambivalent. I don't think that a big ashphalt parking lot is an asset to the city, but there are ways you can get around it. For, example, front the store onto sidewalk and put a big garage behind/below.
2. As someone who grew up in rural America at a time when we didn't have big boxes, I can say with authority that small businesses don't automatically qualify for great community-asset status and sainthood. They generally have poor selection, high prices, and underpaid employees exploited by their the businesses "family ownership." Plus they've got little chance for advancement in contrast to Wal-Mart where literally thousands of well-paid managers and executives have risen from entry-level status.
The corner store is the DC equivalent. Would you choose to do all your shopping there? Of course not, but many don't have a choice.
3. This is the weakest arguement. There are tons of non-union, low benefit, minimum wage jobs in this town. Why should Wal-Mart be singled out for doing the same? No one is forced to work there and, as opposed to some small towns, there sure are a lot of other options in D.C. Wherever they are, Wal-Mart no doubt complies with local labor laws and that is the minimum by which they should be judged. If they treat their employees badly (but legally) they do so at their own peril.
Can we can the "war" hyperbole? It's more appropriate for combat than retail, don't you think?
Wal-Mart would sooner forego opening a store here than give in to organized labor. Those pieces of shit have a history of eliminating positions after workers have successfully voted to unionize. They eliminated the meat department in a Texas store where meat cutters organized, and they closed a store completely in Quebec after it went union.
Of course they don't want unionization as many companies strenuosly avoid. It will drive up costs and ruin their businesses model which is based on razor thin margins. Again, plenty of businesses offer minimum wage and lousy benefits. What about Target? Ikea? Do they "suck" too?
It doesn't matter to me if the big box stores are good or bad. I think that consumers should be able to vote with their wallets. If you think that Wal-Mart is destroying America (and it might very well be doing that,) then don't shop there.
If my neighbors and I are driving across borders for Target, Costco and IKEA, those are tax dollars not going to DC and jobs going to other areas. Why should my neighbors who don't have access to Target be forced to spend 50% more for diapers? They're the ones who can least afford it. Blocking these stores might make people and unions feel good, but it is on the backs of the working poor in DC.
One problem with those big box stores is that they are taking area money and taking it out of the area, instead of pumping it back into the community like smaller stores would.
Another problem is that stores like Walmart create a horrible circular pattern for poor people, like fast food. Fast food is so cheap that you live on it, and then you develop poor health, can't afford to pay your bills, and then need to eat even more cheaply. It's not sustainable and is heavily subsidized: that burger with everything factored in is actually quite pricey.
Likewise, Walmart is not sustainable. It gives jobs to poor people, yes, but without health care, vacation days, and many things on top of the bad hourly wage. There's a whole bad cycle between its employees and customers here and the workers and environments that produce its goods.
heather, that has to be the dumbest anti walmart argument I've ever heard!
Gotta love those liberals man! They do all their shopping at whole foods and bed bath beyond, while depriving low income folks the opportunity of buying quality products at cheap prices from places like walmart. They always argue that big box stores will drive small businesses out of the market. GOOD! Mr and Ms Lee should be driven out of the community. Do you know how much a gallon of milk is in these "community stores"? Almost 5 bones. The little asian carryout on minnesota ave sells single potatoes for $1.90. That is crazy. I say saturate the city with big boxes. They provide hundreds if not thousands of jobs for residents, something small businesses will never do. One day low income folks will realize that liberal democrats, who claim to be looking out for their best interests, are actually their worst enemy.
come on, give me a break all you pro-unioners. do you think your Shaw Giant employees deserve more than they're being paid? would you want your Shaw Giant workers uping their salary while you continue to stand in line for 30 minutes?
pay for productivity. productivity sucks in so many service companies here, so screw the wage increases.
Re: "It would also be nice to see Council commitment to neighborhood-oriented retail over big-box and a parking lot, but it's not easy to rally voter support for such investments, when convenience is so clearly a concern."
I think it'd be really easy to rally voter support for this *in the places where functional neighborhood-oriented retail exists already* Unfortunately, that's not a lot of places. But it will be. Look at how, over the past 10 years, 14th below U and U streets have lit up. 1st came Home Rule (Greg and Ron) and then many many others. Look at how upper 14th (Tivoli) and Georgia are starting to light up now.
The only reason these big-box stores want in is they see that money has and will continue to move here. They've ignored us for so many years, and now they come knocking, offering to rescue us from retail hell?
Sure, you'll be able to get your diapers cheaper (we go to Costco in VA), but you will see the local independants suffer. And the profit margin will, as Heather says, be siphoned to corporate, wherever the hell that is. Money will leave the area. Will that siphoning be more or less than the lost to VA sales tax I and others spend on diapers and vacume-packed tenderloin? I dunno.
Also, think of the level of service you get at the RI Ave Home Depot. It's got to be staffed by circa 1980's DMV employees. When's the last time you suffered that dysfunction anywhere else?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. A little chain competition's good- it improves the mix and keeps people honest. But please don't either idealize them as your saviour or demonize the little guys who stuck around hoping for happier days. If we're going to have them, let's put them where they don't damage the streetscape or clash with the existing sense of scale.
Those who think that Wal-Mart somehow ruins local economies or takes money out of the area should consider this --
If I am able to spend A LOT less on staples, which would be the case for DC residents if Wal Mart moved in, then I have got a lot more disposable income to go out to dinner or remodelling my kitchen or buy a pair of shoes. That is really putting $ into the local economy instead of just Giant's markup on a box of cereal.
DC deserves a Wal-Mart. You may take that in whichever spirit you like.
sluap, how many staples do you buy in a year? I'd think your paper bills would be outrageous too.
Why is it that Costco is so successful and still treats its employees as better than chattel? And who really wants Kathie Lee loungewear?
What if we let Walmart in ON THE CONDITION that their employees were part of the SEIU?
If anything, it'd be UFCW, not SEIU.
The other thing to consider is that if we allow DC's retail to be concentrated within or mostly within a few large stores than we would also give up the notion of vibrant mixed-use districts within our neighborhoods. They would be largely composed of restaruants/bars and condos, rather than the generally more desireable full-spectrum of mixed use.
I'm thinking that these large-scale providers should only be welcomed in controled numbers and at controled locations. I think also, since DC is (rightly) moving toward a living wage standard, that they should also provide that.