On Tuesday, D.C. councilmembers failed to override Mayor Gray’s veto of the contentious Large Retailers Accountability Act (LRAA), legislation that would have required retailers with gross revenues of at least $1 billion and retail stores with over 75,000 sq. ft. to pay employees a minimum wage of $12.50 an hour.
The Council’s vote could have overturned Gray’s veto if it had received support from nine of the 13 council members, but only seven voted in favor of the bill. In spite of the decision, several councilmembers introduced new versions of a living wage bill.
Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), one of the five councilmembers who originally voted against the bill, introduced his own version of the bill that would raise the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour after two years.
“My bill actually helps everyone making minimum wage. The LRAA bill only helps people in future Walmart stores up until four years from now. My bill does not exclude McDonalds, does not exclude Burger King, does not exclude Walgreens,” Wells told the Voice. “With regard to this type of legislation, there ought to be no winners and losers in the corporate world.”
Councilmember Anita Bonds, who switched her vote from yea to nay, co-introduced the “The Living Wage for All Act” with Wells.
“When I supported the Large Retailers Accountability Act, it was the right and only thing to do,” Bonds wrote in a press release on Tuesday. “[However], the issue of fairness remained. What would be done for the thousands of workers in the banks, cleaners, sandwich shops, and corner stores, as well as those employed by large retailers?”
Nonetheless, many supporters of the LRAA believe Gray’s veto has granted Walmart yet another victory. Nick Wertsch, program coordinator for Georgetown University’s Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, says Walmart could have set the bar higher for similar retailers across the country.
“[This issue] has been reduced to a false choice between low-cost retail options versus jobs that pay a living wage,” Wertsch said. “It seems reasonable to ask a company with a $17 billion profit margin to pay its workers a living wage. [There is] clear evidence that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s practice of paying poverty wages.”
In his press release, Gray categorized the LRAA as a “job killer,” claiming that it would cost the District 4,000 jobs in the first few years alone because major retailers such as Target, Home Depot, and Wegmans, would reconsider opening stores in the District.
However, according to Peter Davis, an employee at the Ralph Nader Center for Study of Responsive Law, which has been following the LRAA since its introduction to the council back in June, the veto could actually result in more job loss.
“An unrestrained Walmart is a good job killer,” Davis said. “It will drive good jobs out of the neighborhood. … 71 percent of D.C. residents want the LRAA, and that number goes up in wards affected by the incoming Walmarts,” he said.
Davis also feels Walmart can afford these wage increases. The large retailer announced on June 7 that it would spend $15 billion buying back its own stock. In fact, the monolithic superstore has been buying back its stock for the last four years at a total of $36 billion, a sum that could have granted their 1.3 million workers a “$3.30 per hour bonus each year for five years,” according to the institute.
Wells, for his part, says he supports a higher minimum wage, but reiterates that he doesn’t want a bill he sees as discriminatory against some businesses.
“I really agree that I don’t like Walmart, but I don’t get to legislate that way,” he said. “I’m really going to try to help the residents of D.C. and all the residents of D.C. [because] we’ve got food deserts in Ward 7 and underprivileged areas.”
And, in spite of the initial failure to pass the LRAA, Wells believes the campaign for a minimum wage in D.C. is gaining momentum.
“I think part of it is the sensitivity around the Walmart bill,” Wells said. “We’ve got more support for a minimum wage hike, than we’ve had, I think, ever.”
