Photo by Ron Dauphin

A D.C. Council bill that would require retailers with stores larger than 75,000 square feet and revenues over $1 billion a year to pay employees a living wage of $11.75 an hour drew passionate defenders and detractors at a hearing in the Wilson Building today.

Social justice advocates and unions called the bill a fair way to ensure economic equality, while representatives of business groups loudly complained that it was arbitrary and discriminatory and would scare off any large retailers looking to set up shop in D.C. Absent from the hearing, though, were any of the retailers that would have been affected, primarily Walmart, which has helped marshal the opposition ahead of the opening of six D.C. stores.

Proponents of the bill, including Council Chair Phil Mendelson, argued not only that large retailers could afford to pay workers a living wage of between $11.75 and $12.50 per hour, but that by doing so they would ensure that those same workers can live, shop and raise a family within city limits.

Without such wages, said some advocates, employees would merely have to rely on the publicly funded social safety net. “Low wages in the District creates costs that we all pay for,” said Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. Under current law, D.C.’s minimum hourly wage is $8.25, though contractors getting city assistance have to pay $11.75 per hour.

Opponents, though, lobbed counter-arguments at legislators, saying that mandating living wages would send retailers packing. Additionally, they picked at the size and revenue restrictions written into the bill, saying that they arbitrarily targeted big box stores while exempting profitable retailers like Apple and Nike that have smaller local footprints. Some even said that these distinctions would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, a point the bill’s supporters said wasn’t true.

And though Walmart wasn’t on hand to defend itself, a company representative fired off repeated emails—11, at last count—during the hearing with points on everything from existing wages and benefits to who was behind the bill (grocery stores, which could be exempted due to size and existing unionized workforces). On Sunday Walmart published an op-ed in the Post outlining its opposition to the bill.

Despite being co-sponsored by a majority of the council already, a number of legislators seemed willing to tweak the bill to address some of the concerns raised by business advocates. Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large) floated removing the 75,000-square-foot requirement, which would force a living wage on much larger cross section of national retailers in town. (A past version of this bill put the threshold at 30,000 feet.) Labor leaders admitted that they would prefer to see a living wage adopted citywide, but also said that they picked the existing space and revenue requirements because it would be more politically palatable.

Councilmember and mayoral contender Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4) largely avoided picking sides in the debate, though she did seem concerned that certain large retailer employees would benefit from a living wage while employees from other business wouldn’t. Barbara Lang, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, made a similar argument.

“By forcing only one group of employers to pay the living wage, you dissuade employees from working for our small and medium size local businesses who cannot afford to pay at least $11.75 an hour. Small employers should not be placed at an even further disadvantage where they already face significant difficulties finding reliable and competent employees,” she said.

But for as much Orange said he’d be open to amending the bill, he didn’t seem convinced that it would be such a bad idea. (He also said repeatedly that was disappointed that Walmart didn’t send anyone to testify.) He pushed back at witnesses that claimed that retailers would simply refuse to come to D.C., saying that the city’s economic vitality was the envy of many jurisdictions across the country. He also insisted that while city officials were fighting unemployment, many of the jobs that are being created don’t allow residents the means to remain within the city.

“You have a great thing here, but who’s it for? I think this bill is saying it should be for everybody,” he said.