DC City Council fails its residents, and the nation fails DC residents

 In These Times had a piece by Cole Stangler on the epic failure of the DC City Council to override Mayor Gray’s veto. On Tuesday, Mayor Gray vetoed the Large Retailer Accountability Act (LRAA), which would have increased DC’s minimum wage from $8.25 to $12.50. The bill would require a higher minimum wage on city retailers with $1 billion or more in revenue and 75,000 square feet or more of space. The council voted to override the veto by failed with seven votes in favor of the override and six opposed, which was two votes shy of what is needed to override a mayor’s veto.

Of course, this was a sign to local leaders (and maybe national?) because separate legislation was introduced that raises DC’s minimum wage to $10.25, and then pegs it to cost-of-living increases. This bill had nine-cointroducers.

Of course, the defeat of LRAA is a victory for Wal-mart, and possibly indicates the last bit of Mayor Gray’s soul has been taken by corporations. It was a defeat for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) backed Respect-DC, but also really any resident in DC that works for low wages. I’m not going into too much detail about the bill or the legislative process in DC. There are a few more important things to note about the bill though. First, seventy-one percent of DC voters support the bill. Secondly, Wal-mart was terrified of this bill. They threatened not to open the stores they promised, threatened they wouldn’t be able to hire as many people, etc, and they mounted a serious campaign against the bill.

DC has record inequity, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who lives here. After all class stratification is happening everywhere, but in DC it is evident in every aspect. However, there is cause for some hope after all New York City just elected a “progressive” (enough) Mayor who backs wage reform. So this could be a sign that government leaders are going to have to sign on with living wages or risk losing elections. I never thought I’d write that line. Finally, backers of the bill say they are going to push for a living wage regardless of this defeat.

Because we’re talking about DC, I thought I’d bring up the shooting at Navy Yard on Monday morning. That was horrifying. As awful as it sounds, I’m getting used to this. There is always some mass tragedy happening now, and it is hard to generate enough anger anymore. That said, I also don’t have cable (one day I’ll share my thoughts on Comcast and their monopoly) so all I know is the local reaction to the shooting via local news sites and social media sites. Everyone I know in DC reacted the way people always do in tragedies, but then I read a piece on the shooting, which we’ll get to in a moment, and it occurred to me: my family and friends in Ohio, West Virginia, California who didn’t have ties to the community had nothing to say.

The post I read is entitled “This Town,” and it was posted by Cynthia from Brunch Bird. I wanted to post an excerpt from the piece that really resonated with a lot of people in DC:

“Unless you know us personally, the men and women who work and live here [DC] are considered faceless, pointless bureaucrats. They pay taxes and do not have a vote in Congress. Our work and our city is held up as a symbol of everything wrong with politics, government, media. Tourists from Real America come here and ask us for directions on Metro or to snap a photo of their family in front of a landmark and then they go home and talk about how terrible ‘Washington’ is. Nice to meet you, too.

“A New York Times writer just sold a lot of books by reducing us to a catchphrase: This Town. That he opened the book by making fun of a man’s funeral here spoke volumes, and foreshadowed the non-reaction to what happened yesterday.”

Cynthia then goes on to note, no one changed their profile pictures to ribbons on Monday. No one said the nation stands “D.C. Strong.” She has a point. The nation doesn’t seem so broken up that twelve people were murdered Monday in DC.

“When 12 people are massacred in This Town, our nation shrugs collectively and offers justifications for its apathy that all translate to: ‘There’s a viable reason we don’t care too much.’

“Beyond the Beltway, our fellow Americans can be forgiven for not knowing the geography of the city. For not knowing that everything here happens within a few miles. That the site of the massacre is about a block from a park where we all take our kids to splash in the fountain. What cannot be forgiven, if it persists, is the dehumanization of an entire town and the disinterest when 12 of its residents do not make it home at night.”

I first read this when my friend F posted it. Her husband works in that building. He’s fine, and she knew pretty quickly that he was. He was in another building when it happened. But I have to wonder where is the outrage? Where are those clamoring for gun control, not that I think we’ll get it, but where are they? Why are the lives in DC less? I have a few theories that go beyond Cynthia’s assert that the nation thinks of DC residents as faceless, nameless bureaucrats. That is true, but as mentioned in the beginning of this post, there are two DCs. There is the wealthy DC, and the murder of those citizens should spark outrage, and those were the victims Monday. Then there is the DC like Chicago; the DC in poverty and no one mourns on a national scale because those victims are seen as less. After all no one is mourning those in Chicago the way they mourn the victims of mass gun violence.

Wal-Mart settles with the DOL

Wal-Mart has agreed to settle with the U.S. Department of Labor for the amount of $4.8 million on charges that Wal-Mart misclassified employees working at vision centers in the retail stores. Wal-Mart labeled them managers to exempt them from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Wal-Mart could then refuse to pay these employees overtime when they worked more than 40 house a week. Well played Wal-Mart.

Additionally, Wal-mart will pay back overtime wages to 4,500 employees and must pay $463,815 in civil penalties for the repeated FLSA violations.

Fun fact, calling employees managers doesn't make them exempt under FLSA. Your attorney must review the exempt/nonexempt classifications to ensure FLSA compliance if your organization's managers perform the same tasks as other employees do.

And here I thought Wal-Mart knew all the ways to beat the system and exploit their workers.

Chile's Department of Labor calls out Starbucks and Wal-Mart over labor practices

Last week Chile's Department of Labor blacklisted Starbucks and Wal-Mart for their local labor practices. 

Chile blacklisted 36 companies over labor practices. Starbucks was fined $25,000 for discriminating against unions and bad faith in collective bargaining negotiations. The supermarket chain, Hipermercados Lider, owned by Wal-Mart, was fined $4,167 for not paying replacement worker bonuses. Starbucks and Wal-Mart are repeat offenders; Starbucks have been charged the highest fine by the courts for a second time. 

Starbucks spokesman, Jim Olson, claims the company has not had Chilean government contracts in the past and does not plan to have them, so they don't see any impact on business. Olson responded to questions about the company's reputation with:

We're proud of the work environment we've created. He added the company "recognizes and respects" its employees rights to belong to unions.

Wal-Mart was not available for comment, shocking I know. Starbucks had their first strike at a company-owned store, with the Chilean workers seeking pay that keeps up with inflation, a $100 monthly lunch stipend, and other benefits. Workers claim to have abandoned the strike without reaching an agreement with the company. 

What does it say about you when Wal-Mart doesn't want anything to do with you?

Wal-mart has bailed on ALEC, did you hear the sighs of relief from their employees? In case you didn't know Wal-Mart has required employees to watch and read conservative propaganda, which I imagine has at times come from ALEC.


Wal-Mart suspended it's membership to ALEC on Wednesday; they've been members since 1993. They join others who have been jumping ship since Trayvon was murdered, including Coca-Cola Co, Kraft Foods Inc., McDonald's Corp, Procter & Gamble, and the Gates Foundation. Wal-Mart's abandonment comes after ALEC decided to move away from public safety and elections and to focus on the economy. 


Reuters attributes this to the criticism of ALEC's support of "Stand Your Ground" or as we call it "Kill at Will." This is kind of weird, they didn't just support Kill at Will, they pushed it in several states, and probably photo copied the bills for the state legislatures. 


Wal-Mart's Vice President of Public Affairs and Government Relations, Maggie Sans says:

"Previously, we expressed our concerns about ALEC's decision to weigh in on issues that stray from its core mission 'to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets. We feel that the divide between these activities and our purpose as a business has become too wide. To that end, we are suspending our membership in ALEC."

Sans also resigned her position of secretary on ALEC's private enterprise board.

Wal-Mart cut employee health care benefits

Sometimes I think Wal-Mart actively tries to out douche bag itself.  Like, today we're going to union bust, we're going to discriminate against women in a variety of ways and win in the Supreme Court, and tomorrow we're going to cut benefits to employees. It's going to be a good year [slow clap].  That's what I think happens behind closed doors at Wal-Mart.

In the past few years Wal-Mart has increased the health care benefits they offer to their employees, due largely to pressure, from well people, because many of 1.4 million workers couldn't afford or didn't qualify for coverage, but were excluded them from Medicaid.  However, now they will be rolling back coverage for their part time staff and raising premiums for full time staff.  Because it is so expensive, Wal-Mart has no choice but to cut the benefits offered; all future part time employees who work less than 24 hours a week on average will no longer qualify for the company's health care plans.  I want to note that "on average" means we can over work you at certain points in the year as long as we cut your hours down later.  Additionally, new employees who average 24 to 33 hours a week can't include a spouse on their health care plan, but fortunately the children will be covered.

Naturally, Wal-Mart would not say the percentage of it's work force that is part time or worked fewer than 24 hours a week.  Wal-Mart spokesman, Greg Rossiter (@gregrossiter, feel free to stalk this man) claims the decision to deny coverage is the result of the company's revamping of its health care offerings and rising costs.

“Over the last few years, we’ve all seen our health care rates increase and it’s probably not a surprise that this year will be no different. We made the difficult decision to raise rates that will affect our associates’ medical costs. The decisions made were not easy, but they strike a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.”

There are many potential causes:

• New Federal Health Care
• Flat sales
• Lack of incentive for employers to provide benefits for employees during the recession
• Premiums are up 9%, which is 5% more than predicted, and employees are shouldering the burdens

In 2012, Wal-Mart's premiums will increase for some plans by more than 40%.  Some would argue that these workers pay relatively low premiums compared to other plans from different employers, but Wal-Mart  employees complain that the low premiums are accompanied by high deductibles, which can exceed 20% of their pay. Now, employees will pay $260 to $2,340 a year for coverage.  The reality is that many employees won't be able to afford health care coverage.  

Back to Rossiter:

“We are proud to be among a few companies that continue to offer an affordable associate-only medical option for about a dollar per day or $15 per pay period.”

Of course many employers don't offer health care coverage at all.  Additionally, Wal-Mart is reducing the amount of money employees can contribute to personal health savings accounts.  

Wal-Mart is one of the worst companies in the US, and one of the largest employers.  They are an example of a company were it is better not to have a job than work for them.  The manipulation of hours, they pay you just enough you don't qualify for public benefits, but still remain in poverty. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/wal-mart-cuts-some-health-care-benefits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=walmartstoresinc

Target workers don't need union protections

They're just going to walk it off. Workers at a Target in New York voted down putting in a union in a 137 to 85 vote. This happened last Friday and hurts the pro-union campaigns currently underway.

According to the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers' Union), this was a result from the illegal intimidation by Target management that made the workers too frightened to vote in favor regardless of their feelings on unions. UFCW is calling on the National Labor Relations Board to investigate Target and maybe mandate a new election.

This was the first attempt to unionize inside Target in two decades. No Target has a union representative.

It is alleged that Target's victory came through intimidation methods such as pamphlets, video, and public states; these all pretty much reiterated the same anti-union sentiments we've heard before. The union comes in takes your money and you get nothing.

One of the women interviewed in the article on HuffPo discussed her pay being around $20,000 and that she receives food stamps, but her pay is fine. Additionally, she can look out for herself. Unions not necessary.

The organizers claim the problem stems from not being able to get their message out on store property, which of course the company can (thanks Supreme Court). The organizers rely on home visits.

Seriously, I've tried to overlook some things because Target is awesome. But between the anti-gay political donations and now the blatant union busting, I will no longer go near a Target. Essentially, Target is Wal-Mart for hipsters, and no more I say. I'll buy sweatshop made clothes somewhere else. Jesus, why did I ever shop here?

WalMart Supports Workers' Right to Health Insurance Now

Walmart now supports workers' right to health insurance. This is a pretty drastic change for a corporation which used to hand our federal assistance forms to new employees.

Specifically, Walmart has come out in support of requiring companies to provide health insurance/coverage to their employees. The mandate requiring health coverage and benefits is largely contested by just about every business association in DC, including, but not limited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Walmart wrote a joint letter with SEIU and the Center for American Progress...yeah, you read that right. This could mean a variety of things, and trust me I'm running through all the devious scenarios that Walmart could be up to. The article implies, Walmart could be attempting to mend fences with the liberals and make friends in Washington. Walmart has expanded benefits for workers in the recent past, but it has also been successfully fighting and winning lawsuits on the state evel which would have required companies to provide insurance.

The typical arguments apply on each side for and against the mandate: it is essential for health care reform and it is an unnecessary burden for small businesses. The letter composed by Walmart, SEIU, and the Center for American Progress calls for varying degrees of contributions by different size companies.

I'm still scratching my head over this one...

Wal-mart Strikes Again!

Wal-Mart is on their way back to federal appeals court in hopes to prevent the sex-discrimination lawsuit from being argued as a class-action lawsuit. Instead Wal-Mart wants each case argued individually (for those who are paying attention this covers more than a million women). The size of the plaintiffs implies that Wal-Mart could be paying billions in damages. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believes that if Wal-Mart is successful the plaintiffs wouldn't be able to argue a pattern of discrimination for damages and back pay. This is important because as we saw with Lilly Ledbetter people will get caught up in thinking that the individuals are suing for back pay and that they waited too long to file.

Hopefully, Wal-Mart won't win. It would set a bad example and have negative implications for the future of discrimination cases.

This was brought to you today by the Wall Street Journal.

"Wal-Mart is a case study 'of the abysmal workers' rights regime we have here in the United States,'

said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch."  Yeah, Human Rights Watch said that.  The article, "Wal-Mart Has Perfected the Art of Union-Busting," was written by Barb Kurera.  Some highlights of Wal-Mart's anti-union ways: anti-union orientation video, a 24 hour hot line for managers to call in case there are any signs of a union, lectures on the evils of unions, surveillance of employees, discipline and dismissal.  When Wal-Mart is charged with workers' right violations they make the process drawn out so even in the worker wins nothing can happen because too much time has passed (sound like Goodyear and Lilly Ledbetter?)

The Employee Free Choice Act would help workers confront the shortcomings of labor laws.  The Act supported, by Obama and other Dems, could fine up to 20,000 for each violation (a lot of money from Wal-Mart) and the workers could choose representation by signing cards (side stepping the long drawn out process).  This Act won't fix things, but it will help.  

The image was taken from Current.com's post about the Alternet.org article.

McCain and Minimum Wage

Of course, someone asked because we didn't all know the answer...McCain will not be raising the minimum wage if elected.  Because of his friends the small business owners who would have to lay off people if they raised the minimum wage to a living wage.  It's almost communism (defined by Webster as the final stage of Marxist theory in which the state as withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably; state owned society with the aim of stateless society*)...spreading the poverty around.  It is the Wal-Mart/sweat shop argument about well at least they have a job.   So what if they can't live on what they are paid.  

*This is not to be confused with socialism: the stage of Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work being done; the condition of society is controlled by the state.