A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Monday, July 26, 2010
WP: DC Walmart Plan Creates Controversey
The Post reports that Walmart's labor practices are a point of contention now that the chain plans to open in DC.
85 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Off topic: I noticed that the the New Joe Cole community center is almost finished? Do we have a date when it is set to open? Will there be a fitness center in the new building?
Ugg I never envisioned a day when I was on the side of Walmart.
The neighborhood where it's proposed to be located has at least a 25% unemployment rate. Which is more desirable for our communities- 7 bucks an hour, or zero bucks an hour? I do like the full time employment clause though.
It's not that I don't like Wally World, I just wish there were someway to raise sature of the area. A store like Wegman, or something more upperscale. I shop at Walmart, but when I want something upperscale, I mostly have to leave the area, or even DC altogether. If I appear classist, I apologize, but I really would like to keep my tax dollars in DC, but save from Spring Valley, Georgetown and Friendship heights, it means I am headed to the burbs.
Besides there'a walmart right up the Road.
The wage thing will be easy for them to agree on, it's the 75% full time which is crazy.
They may even be willing to pay people $15 starting, but I can't see how they can agree to 75% fulltime.
I agree with you. I would kill for a wegmans in this location. I also wish there was a Disney park located there too so I did not have to go to Florida to go there. However, the spot we are talking about is now home to junk yards and a strip club. Not exactly the kind of area that Wegmans targets. That being said if this Walmart comes in, I am sure that within a few years others stores, restaurants and grocery stores will begin to target the area.
I think that the powers that be need to remember that all Wal-Mart needs to do is move a few miles up the road and open up in Maryland if they slap too many requirements on them. I'm fine with changing the minimum wage requirements, but they need to apply to all businesses not just Wal-Mart. Why single out Wal-Mart and not the Home Depot or the Target?
Why single out Wal-Mart and not the Home Depot or the Target?
Because Home Depot and Target don't have the long and extensive history of violating labor laws that Walmart does. Gender discrimination, violating overtime rules, not allowing employees to go to the bathroom, they've been dragged into court many many times and they've lost most of them, which is pretty striking for a large corporation with deep pockets and expensive lawyers. These are not one-offs or a handful of bad-apple managers, they've been hit with several class-action suits in multiple states that they've lost.
if Sam Walton were alive today, he'd probably burn WalMart down.
I read somewhere that wal mart is going to be using a large chunk of that land..something like 11 out of the 16 acres available. That doesn't leave much room for other businesses to set up shop so we can pretty much forget about a nice grocery coming.
Again, I love a nice grocery store like Wegmans, but I am a little confused about this obsession with grocery stores we have on this board. I have lived off of H Street for 12 years now. When I first moved here, I had two choices, I could my flack jacket on and go to the Cap Hill Safeway, or I could drive over to Georgetown, or Arlington. Today, I can be at the Harris Teeter on the Hill in 10 minutes. I can be to the new Safeway on K street in about 5 minutes. In 3 months I will be able to get to the new Teeter on NY ave in about 3 minutes, and in a couple of years I will be able to walk 30 seconds to Giant. How many more freaking brand new grocery stores do we need?
Can't we just enjoy that an established low cost merchant who will provide hundreds of jobs is coming to replace junk yards and a strip club?
Enough with the grocery store obsession people. I also have to agree with MJ. Walmart has too much history as a bad actor when it comes to labor. Considering that as a community we often require concessions and amenities from large developers (and even small businesses), I don't think a good wage and full time jobs are too much to ask from a corporation like Walmart.
To take a slightly different tack on this, I would like to see the city require them to have trees (on islands) in the parking lot and some pervious cover as well. The massive land requirements I'm assuming are because of the big parking lot they'll have around the store? It'll add to the urban heat island and look terrible. Yes, I wish the same had been required of Giant/Home Depot. Is this the same parcel of land that was once going to be the big Abdo multi-use development? What a shame.
I am sympathetic to those currently unemployed; however, WalMart is NOT the answer. As another poster mentioned, there has never been a Corporation in modern-day America which has treated their workers as consistently bad as WalMart does. Their impact on local communities is also well documented - whenever a WalMart opens, many small businesses, which are employing people at a living wage, will go under.
Please give the following movie a watch:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
The following website also has a lot of good information:
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/
If this was any other store, we wouldn't be having this discussion; however, WalMart has proven, time and time again, to be untrustworthy.
WalMart is a massive American employers, so I hope there comes a time when WalMart treats it's workers (and suppliers) better. Until then, we need to support our local community and keep them out.
I like your green sensibility Rob. Though not a full blown green building or shopping center, the Brentwood Shopping Center does have some rather extensive storm water management best practices in place.
The district has even more restrictive requirements for land development for a site this large, since Brentwood was developed. And i would be surprised if Walmart did not attempt to build something innovative and green, see http://instoresnow.walmart.com/Sustainabilityaspx, green washed at least. Plus the city has many incentive programs for this type of green development.
Sure it wont be Rock Creek Park or even Marvin Gaye Park, with substantial tree cover and a stream running through the middle of it, but It will have to meet requirements for storm water management, energy efficiency etc, and will have some landscaping, and hopefully other aminities, and they will probably contribute to other improvements in the hood. Of course traffic will be forever F'ed, but public transportation is available... ... which means green points for the location.
Also, developing the site will be an improvement over the current land use of junk yards and other dirty car related businesses,currently occupying the site. Hopefully in time we will do better.
Finally, I think these labor and wage disputes will be over come. Let us not forget Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. They're to big a company not to be in DC and want the urban market! So good bye Family Dollar, look at the other big box retailers, they're all in urban markets, NY City even. Targets here, Barnes and Noble is here , Whole foods is here, Best Buys is here, Costco will likely be here soon.
To bad about the Skylark Lounge though, maybe they will build around it. I wonder what Harry Thomas Jr's position is on this?
To the poster that said there would be no room for other businesses, if Walmart opens there-the land under all the used car lots, empty warehouses, and other blight on Bladensburg and NY Ave will become a lot more valuable, and will likely get redeveloped with other stores.
Kevin, a lot of DC residents already shop at Walmart in VA and MD, I do. What is destroying our communities and business districts is not having the stores to compete with the suburbs. Instead we have corner ripoff stores that are mostly owned by VA and MD residents, not by members of our communities.
"To the poster that said there would be no room for other businesses, if Walmart opens there-the land under all the used car lots, empty warehouses, and other blight on Bladensburg and NY Ave will become a lot more valuable, and will likely get redeveloped with other stores."
That entire plot of land (triangle within west virginia, montana and bladensburg rd) will be razed. That is 17 acres and Wal Mart is using a good 3/4 chunk of that land. So no, there is not much room for other businesses.
Agree with JRO. Many folks already shop at Walmart, and bringing a store here will provide an important anchor for retail and other development that will provide jobs.
As for Kevin, what on earth are you talking about? "whenever a WalMart opens, many small businesses, which are employing people at a living wage, will go under." Who are all these great small businesses you're talking about? Pawn shops? liquor stores? Have you ever been down to that part of town??
I was referring to the other parcels of land on NY Ave and on Bladensburg, outside the 17 acre parcel that Walmart is targeting. I don't know if you're familiar with this area, but NY Ave and Bladensburg are both several mile long roads with a lot of land that could stand to be redeveloped. Something as big as Walmart would stimulate redevelopment elsewhere in the area, outside the 17 acre parcel, and this is where other stores could move in.
I hesitated to get into this, but: "corner ripoff stores"? Yes, the prices are high at corner convenience stores, which is why I don't do most of my shopping there, but they are convenient when you need to get a few things. But "ripoff" suggests that the owners are getting rich and could easily lower prices. Actual information is welcome, but my impression is they are working 80+ hour weeks and making relatively low profits.
The biggest concern I have bringing in a Wal Mart over there is it would end up attracting investors/builders for similar types of businesses to that area that mostly serve the lower end of the low income earners.
I realize many people don't agree with my opinion of WalMart. Mainly what this comes down to is I believe we deserve better than a retailer that has a long history of mistreating its employees and suppliers.
Tarisdaddy, I have to disagree with you comment "I would be surprised if Walmart did not attempt to build something innovative and green". What are you basing this on? WalMart PR? (your link is broken, by the way). WalMart cancels contracts with supplier when they don't drop the price of socks $0.01 per pair. When they build that store, they probably won't even use local contractors. WalMart has shut down entire stores if they even think the employees are about to vote to unionize:
They simply don't care about you. The community needs to get their information from someone other than WalMarts PR flackies:
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/
Again, I am all for jobs, but WalMart has historically been proven to REMOVE jobs from communities. I'll say it again, they REMOVE jobs from areas where there stores are. WalMart is a very efficient operation. When they enter a community, other retailers always close - Safeways, Targets, Hardware Stores, Neighborhood stores, etc. By their very nature, smaller businesses are less efficient. But less efficient translates to more jobs. Ask Frager's on Capitol Hill how many people full-time employees they have. Do you think the garden/hardware section of WalMart will employ nearly as many, or treat them well? No way in hell. So, if you're asking me if I want to replace many more smaller retailers, employing more people, with a single large retailer, with fewer jobs, this answer has to be 'NO'.
DC, we deserve jobs, but we deserve better than an employer with a track record of mistreating employees, suppliers, and their communities.
I think that the people who think that this site would be perfect for a grocery store are a little deluded. Why would a high end grocery open up there and not elsewhere either in the suburbs or in the city. There are enough other grocery stores in the area that can serve our needs. Case in point, there is a safeway on Bladensburg and Benning, and they are opening an Aldi there. The demand for high end stuff is satisfied with the Teeter opening upon in NOMA and the one at Jenkins Row. Aren't they opening a Whole Food near the Navy Yard as well? What about the Costco opening up in Ft. Lincoln?
There is a niche for a store like Wal-Mart. While a lot of you may hate Wal-Mart's hiring practices, remember this is DC, not Texas. The City will be more than happy to crack down on them if they violate any worker's rights.
@Kevin, what jobs are they going to remove from the area that they are opening up in? There isn't a whole lot there, in either direction. This particular area isn't a vibrant small town center, it is a desolate wasteland of junkyards,and auto shops. The only business I see there is the nursery.
Many of those have grocery sections that are hands down some of the nicest I've seen. Some even have extensive organic sections. And considerably cheaper than Whole Foods.
And Target prices are comparable to WalMart but often the quality is noticeably better.
Kevin, you're telling others to get their information from better sources, but you are continually quoting the same source that is also biased. I can definitively say that Wal Mart does not ALWAYS mean fewer jobs for a community. I'm from a somewhat rural area originally. Guess what? Wal-Mart moved in and brought jobs (they moved to a previously empty lot). Within ten years after Wal-Mart opened, a locally-owned grocery store, two locally-owned restaurants, several chain restaurants, and three other big box stores opened within a ten mile radius. Previously, you had to take a 30+ mile drive to even get to a small grocery store. Wal-Mart isn't a good fit for every community and can kill jobs, but there are places (and I believe this is one of them) where a Wal Mart can help.
Hey how about this. We give Walmart the following demands.
All jobs must be unionized, and pay at least $30 an hour. They all have to be from DC, and have to represent the demographics from DC
They have to allot at least 20% of their items to low income people who can not normally afford Walmart items.
They have to give .98 cents of ever dollar in profit, to a liberal think tank that comes up with ideas on how to unionize more jobs
They also have to build the entire complex underground, so that it is not a blight on the beautiful scenery in that area, and on the ground, they have to build a park, with a beautiful pond that has mermaids in it.
Oh, and at least half of their food items must be organic, and grown only be unionized farmers. These items must be priced high as to satisfy the uppity yet guilty liberal crowd.
If Walmart refuses, I saw we hold out another 20 years until we can get a unionized company who makes pixie dust, and employs flying fairies. For the time being we are perfectly happy with the junk yards and strip clubs.
I agree with anon 11:04, I lived for years in the south where Walmart has existed since the 80's. Originally, they had regular Walmarts, then they started building Super Walmarts in the 90's. The old stores were all filled with new tenants and are still occupied today. Some of the spaces were broken up into 2 or 3 stores, but it's not as if Walmart is leaving empty vacant stores everywhere in the country. The areas I lived all had vibrant economies.
Kevin, that site cherry picks out the stores in towns that probably had bad economies already that were unable to get other stores in. I bet if you go elsewhere in those towns, factories and places of employment are also shuttered. Besides, last time I checked, there were dozens if not hundreds of empty, blighted mom and pop stores all over the District. Should we ban all mom and pop stores and say things like "they moved out because they don't care about the community". Of course not. If a store cannot make money, they should not be required to stay, after all business exist to make money.
DC has some of the highest income earners in the country. I don't think a Walmart would have a problem staying in business here. I make higher than average income for DC, and I shop at Walmart. Who doesn't like to save a little money? Why should I pay $4 dollars for a stick of deoderant at the corner store when Walmart can sell it for $2? Does the corner market really care that much more about the community?
NPM- If you want to see what the corner stores pay for stuff, all you have to do is go in the cash and carry places in the FL Ave market. I have friends that have business licenses and have bought things there with them. Corner store markup for most things is 100-200%. One example- those 24oz bottles of soda cost about 50 cents at the wholesale market, most stores sell them for $1.50 or more. Walmart sells them for $1 to $1.25. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself. Anybody can go in, but you have to have a DC business license to actually buy anything.
Since we're talking fantasy deals, howsabout this- If Walmart can go one year without being found culpable for violating labor laws or the terms of contracts with workers for one year I'll support them going in. Yes, a Walmart job is better than no job at all, in the same way a shit sandwich beats starving.
I notice that none of the pro-Walmart crowd tries to deal with their piss-poor labor practices and record of being hauled into court and losing. In general Walmarts have a net negative effect on their local community (personal anecdotes about this one Walmart that had a restaurant open 10 miles away aside). Until the pro-Walmart crowd addresses Walmart's awful record of violating labor laws AND written contracts they have no reason to call anyone here "naive".
The NY Ave NE area is already 1000 times worse than a landmark mall. Last I checked, there was a Best Buy, BJ's, and a number of other stores across the street from landmark. landmark failed for reasons of mismanagement.
NY Ave NE has been that way for DECADES. It needs something big to come in and be a catalyst to redevelop the entire area. A Walmart would do so. A $10/hr job is not that bad for a lot of unskilled people in DC. These people are begging for these jobs. If you don't like Walmart, fine, don't shop there. But quit depriving everyone else of an opportunity to improve their lives because of your own self-righteousness.
MJ- most Walmart workers are perfectly happy. It's only the cherry picked few that the union backed propoganda movies showcase that have issues.
A Walmart job is a shitty job. So is fast food and a lot of other jobs. No one is supposed to make a career out of these jobs. They're stepping stone jobs. You work there to get some experience (social skills, customer service, working for income, etc), which are all skills that a lot of poor people in DC are sorely lacking. Once you have that experience, you move on to something better.
I worked a lot of jobs that I didn't like and didn't get benefits. I learned the skills I listed above, though, and this motivated me to seek out something better.
The poor people of DC need these jobs to begin to improve their lives.
How about this, maybe some of the youth of DC can work at this Walmart instead of being paid by the city to "work" summer jobs? They don't need benefits anyways, and will be happy to work part time. This will get them off the streets and the crime rate will go down. Plus, they will learn the life skills that Anon 12:21 mentioned.
A Walmart opened recently in the west side of Chicago, in a previously economically depressed area, and it has successfully revitalized the area. The average wage paid was almost $12/hr, and most workers are full time, according to the article.
“Ever since Walmart opened a West Side store it has been an economic boom,” Mitts told the Defender. “And this job fair gives residents an opportunity to work for an employer who cares about restoring economic development in underserved communities.”
People need to get off of their liberal high horses and be realistic.
Can always tell when someone's lost the argument. "Be realistic libtards! Hillary's fat!!"
Whatever.
But I do wish the folks who come here all the time, shilling for WalMarts, gas stations, lead smelting plants, or whatever, because "We have to be realistic!" would understand it's a new world.
It ain't 1980 anymore. There's a reason WalMart's itching to put a store there, and it ain't out of the goodness of their hearts.
Speaking of naivete, JRO, the idea that, should WalMart pass, that land will be vacant for another couple of decades is beyond naive.
WalMart wants it because it's suddenly valuable. Or did you not notice all of the new hotels springing up on that corner.
"WalMart wants it because it's suddenly valuable. Or did you not notice all of the new hotels springing up on that corner."
Walmart has wanted to open a store in DC for a while. They are targeting urban areas nationwide because they are the last frontier in this country for them and they want to make money. Remember, businesses are supposed to make money? Charities do things out of the "goodness of their heart". So they make money, we get access to affordable goods, low/no income people in DC get jobs and can afford to live better and get off the gov't dole list, crime goes down, tax revenue goes up, fewer people on the gov't dole equals less tax burden. Sounds to me like everyone wins.
I don't see what liberal or conservative has to do with anything. I'm liberal, but I like to save money. Northern VA and MD both voted Democrat in the last presidential election, and both have a proliferation of Walmarts.
The "personal anecdote about this one Wal-Mart that had a restaurant open ten miles away" (which is not what that anecdote was about at all, so I find that characterization laughable) was meant to counteract Kevin's claim that Wal-Mart always means small businesses have to close. Clearly claiming the effects of Wal-Mart are the same everywhere is rather silly, which is what that story was meant to demonstrate.
Wal-Mart has lost some employment law cases, all of which began in the courts years ago. I can't find any evidence of cases regarding recent discriminatory practices. All of the cases I've found currently still in the pipeline come from allegations of illegal practices years ago. By all un-biased accounts, Wal-Mart has drastically changed their employment practices. I'd love to see (unbiased) evidence of recent cases, because I can't find any.
You fail to see my point. The kiddie porn industry provides jobs also, that still doesn't make it right. Wal Mart is an evil corporation, anybody who says otherwise is delusional.
I recognize that people have many environmental, labor, and related social justice concerns regarding Wal-Mart as a whole. I also recognize that people who have such concerns feel that opening a new store anywhere is a bad thing, because it can make Wal-Mart bigger and stronger.
But setting those macro issues aside, has anyone seen specific issues raised regarding this proposed Wal-Mart? I'm sure that traffic will be a problem, and I imagine that there will be issues regarding impervious surface and the aesthetics might suck. What else is there?
I know that one knock against Wal-Mart is that it puts local stores out of business, but I don't quite see how that might play out here. For example, I assume that Wal-Mart will draw some shoppers away from Family Dollar, CVS, Home Depot, Giant, Safeway, etc.; however, I can't see those national chains closing up just because a Wal-Mart opens up. Moreover, I don't think that they are "local" stores.
At the other end of the spectrum, I can't see the corner stores closing up either, but that's based on the assumption that they serve a different niche (e.g. the "need something small and can't or don't want to drive niche").
So, what's in between? There are a few medium-sized local stores like Fragers in the area, and I suppose that some of them might take a hit; however, the only one I can really think of that might compete with Wal-Mart is Fragers, and I assume that the people who currently go to Frager's instead of Home Depot will continue to go to Fragers after Wal-Mart opens (again, that's just my gut feeling).
So, what am I missing? Which types of stores (if any) likely will be pushed out if Wal-Mart opens?
If the answer is "none" or even "not many," then I don't see how opening a new Wal-Mart store in the area can have a negative impact on the local labor market. If the other stores in the area can continue to hire people, then I assume that wages will not suffer too much (if at all), and people will still have the option of working at places other than Wal-Mart. If the Wal-Mart jobs are terrible, those people can pursue other options. All things being equal, this particular proposed Wal-Mart seems to give people more job options, not fewer. Is that incorrect? If that’s not incorrect, then how is would the local labor market be harmed by Wal-Mart opening?
What am I missing? I'm not a "shill" for Wal-Mart, I genuinely want to know the positives and negatives of this particular proposal.
If somebody feels that they will be treated unfairly at Wal-Mart then they should choose not to apply for a job there. Plain and simple.
I love how all of you latte sipping hippies make a determination what is "best" for people in the community. The self-righteousness of that position is is flatly patronizing and beyond disturbing.
AND if you have a problem with Wal-Mart's employment practices then DO NOT SHOP THERE. If your position was/is so self-evident the company would have been bankrupt years ago.
The bottom line is that people CHOOSE to work there and CHOOSE to shop there. The company is in compliance with every workplace regulation and law.
The anti-Wal-Mart arguments on this site are just ludicrous.
AND if you have a problem with Wal-Mart's employment practices then DO NOT SHOP THERE. If your position was/is so self-evident the company would have been bankrupt years ago.
I have a problem with their employment practices so I don't shop there. Evidently some people here do not have these issues and are willing to ignore the fact that Walmart has a long history of violating labor laws, discrimination and overall terrible employment practices so that they can save $2 on a case of Capri Sun.
I don't know where you came up with "The company is in compliance with every workplace regulation and law" when there's a long trail of court cases that proves that the opposite is true. If asking that a company uphold the the law and the contracts they've signed makes me a "liberal" then so be it.
I don't think that Frager's or Brookland Hardware are really going to be affected. There main competition is Home Depot or Lowe's. Wal-Mart is the last place I would go to buy paint, hardware, or construction materials. Wal-Mart's direct competition is Target.
Of course not every Wal-Mart helps the community in which its built. And Wal-Mart has a spotty history regarding employment practices. (Although, I'm still waiting for evidence of recent problems regarding this, which I've yet to see someone post here or anywhere else.)
However, I think it's important to look at this Wal-Mart. What will this Wal-Mart do for this community? What businesses do people think it will displace. I can't think of one and no one has mentioned one here yet.
Anon 11:46: Yes, the corner stores have big markups, which is why they are expensive and I don't buy a lot of things there. But they also have relatively low volume, so I'd be shocked if they are getting rich. Again, I'd love to know for sure.
Here's one data point: http://www.bizbuysell.com/cgi-bin/addetail?p=0&ss=1&s=DC&i=AC&county=316&pfrom=0.00&pto=0.00&spid=4&tab=eb&q=538699
Corner store for sale, $20,000 gross sales, $5,800 rent. Asking $350,000. Open 11 hours a day. Let's say there is 100 percent markup and just a single person working 13 hour days, or 91 hours a week. That's $10,000/week gross profit (sales less cost of goods). Net of $2500 or so weekly rent, mortgage, other expenses, that's somewhere around $7,500 net, or around $80 an hour.
But if margin was 50 percent, then gross profit is about $6700 a week(20000/3), or $4000/week, or $46 an hour. But clearly you need more than 1 person; let's say you hire 1 extra person @ $10 an hour - that's another $1000 a week. And this place lists a deli - that could mean you probably need to hire a couple more people. And I'd guess there are a lot of costs I'm not taking into account, and there are a lot of carrying costs (it's not like they sell a lot of cans of capers, or canned onions, or whatever, but they do have them on the shelf!).
Basically, these corner store owners are working their asses off. Perhaps they are making a decent living, but if you think it's such a ripoff - i.e., such a easy way to get rich - then I'd suggest you buy a store.
Here's another interesting Walmart article: Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf
Folks, folks. Please, could we please put this stuff at the *beginning* of our posts? I had to read a whole paragraph before PP revealed themselves to be a poo-flinging monkey, bereft of capacity for argument.
I don't actually think the corner stores are getting rich. And I'm not against them. If you need something in a pinch and don't have time to go elsewhere, they're convenient.
But really, they don't even compete with Walmart. Their competition is 7-11.
Everyone I know in DC that wants a Walmart type store drives to VA or MD once a week and stocks up there. Or they go to the Target in Columbia Hts.
I think a Walmart in that location would primarily get customers that already go to Walmarts in VA or MD. Which is why it makes so much sense. Instead of revenue and commerce leaving the city, we keep it here. Also, we create jobs and remove blight. This is such a no brainer. The forces that oppose it are the same ones that have held DC back economically for so long.
for those of you opposed to walmart because of their horrible treatment of their employees: how about that shirt you're wearing that some 8 year old in China made? get off the high horse. this is capitalism baby!
There's a crapload of recent employment litigation cases pending against Wal-Mart. Over 1000 filed since 1990; over 600 of those since 2000.
I'm not sure of the outcome of all those dockets, but a quick news search reveals that Wal-Mart is paying boatloads of money to settle these claims:
1) Wal-Mart was the defendant in 1three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009 in wage-and-hour class actions involving private plaintiffs, according to this report.
a) The biggest payout was $65 million to settle multi-district litigation in federal court in Nevada (MDL No. 06-225) brought by workers who claimed Wal-Mart altered payroll records to reduce labor costs.
b) The second in the top 10 was a Wal-Mart's $55 million settlement of a class action brought by workers in Missouri claiming overtime violations.
c) And number six in the top 10 was the Wal-Mart settlement of a class action involving 88,000 Washington state employees who alleged they were forced to work through breaks and were locked in stores overnight while being required to clock-out. That settlement was for $35 million.
2) Wal-Mart agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in a Massachusetts pay dispute, averting a trial. The group lawsuit, filed by hourly workers, claimed Wal-Mart's managers required them to work off the clock and denied or cut short breaks. The settlement covers more than 87,000 current and former hourly workers in Massachusetts Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, employee lawyers said Wednesday.
The Massachusetts agreement brings the total amount of Wal-Mart wage-and-hour lawsuit settlements to almost $900 million. This includes a December 2008 agreement to pay as much as $640 million to settle more than 60 wage-and-hour class actions filed in state and federal courts. The Massachusetts case wasn't among those settled.
3) In 2006, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $78 million against Wal-Mart in a lawsuit over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 million to include damages, interest and lawyers' fees.
4) And they get weirder: In 2006, Wal-Mart ran into trouble for taking out life insurance policies on employees. The company reasoned that it had an economic interest in the employees' well-being, making the policies valid. But opponents argued that employers should not collect death benefits from workers without their knowledge. Wal-Mart paid $5.1 million, the amount it collected after employees died, to settle a class-action suit brought by the workers' estates and families.
Ugh-gotta stop reading these-it's gonna make me not feel right saving $2 on Capri Sun.
There's a crapload of recent employment litigation cases pending against Wal-Mart. Over 1000 filed since 1990; over 600 of those since 2000.
I'm not sure of the outcome of all those dockets, but a quick news search reveals that Wal-Mart is paying boatloads of money to settle these claims:
1) Wal-Mart was the defendant in 1three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009 in wage-and-hour class actions involving private plaintiffs, according to this report.
a) The biggest payout was $65 million to settle multi-district litigation in federal court in Nevada (MDL No. 06-225) brought by workers who claimed Wal-Mart altered payroll records to reduce labor costs.
b) The second in the top 10 was a Wal-Mart's $55 million settlement of a class action brought by workers in Missouri claiming overtime violations.
c) And number six in the top 10 was the Wal-Mart settlement of a class action involving 88,000 Washington state employees who alleged they were forced to work through breaks and were locked in stores overnight while being required to clock-out. That settlement was for $35 million.
2) Wal-Mart agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in a Massachusetts pay dispute, averting a trial. The group lawsuit, filed by hourly workers, claimed Wal-Mart's managers required them to work off the clock and denied or cut short breaks. The settlement covers more than 87,000 current and former hourly workers in Massachusetts Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, employee lawyers said Wednesday.
The Massachusetts agreement brings the total amount of Wal-Mart wage-and-hour lawsuit settlements to almost $900 million. This includes a December 2008 agreement to pay as much as $640 million to settle more than 60 wage-and-hour class actions filed in state and federal courts. The Massachusetts case wasn't among those settled.
3) In 2006, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $78 million against Wal-Mart in a lawsuit over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 million to include damages, interest and lawyers' fees.
4) And they get weirder: In 2006, Wal-Mart ran into trouble for taking out life insurance policies on employees. The company reasoned that it had an economic interest in the employees' well-being, making the policies valid. But opponents argued that employers should not collect death benefits from workers without their knowledge. Wal-Mart paid $5.1 million, the amount it collected after employees died, to settle a class-action suit brought by the workers' estates and families.
Ugh-gotta stop reading these-it's gonna make me not feel right saving $2 on Capri Sun.
Anon @ 1:01, nice try, but I just looked in to each of those cases and every single one of them deals with alleged violations that took place years ago.
So, I guess it stands, no one can name any cases regarding recent (within the past two years) alleged violation of employment laws.
Also, we create jobs and remove blight. This is such a no brainer. The forces that oppose it are the same ones that have held DC back economically for so long.
First, it depends on what you mean by "blight". For a lot of folks, a gigantic big-box store with masses of surface parking in the District *is* blight.
Second, the idea that the folks who won't bend over and grab their ankles the instant some exurban sprawl-engine expresses interest in an up-and-coming corridor aren't the ones who've "held DC back economically for so long" is laughable. If you guys had had your way over the last few decades, the city would be nothing but one giant H Street Connection -style strip mall.
And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living.
Believe me, turning the city into Manassas with shittier schools is not a noble goal.
So instead of a store that contributes to the economy, you'd rather have empty warehouses? I don't think there's many people that would agree with your preference of beautiful used car lots and abandoned warehouses over a store. Alas, to each his/her own.
And your argument that because Walmart builds in Manassas it will automatically build a suburban store in DC is flawed. In case you haven't noticed, Target, Best Buy and others have urban stores in the city. The solution is not to stop development, but to work with developers to ensure that development is agreeable to the community.
The forces that have held DC back that I was referring to are the "stop all development at all costs NIMBYs" that permeated the city for so long. If you want a city full of disinvestment and beautiful abandoned buidings, I hear Detroit is a great place for that.
Best Buy, Target, and pretty much every major corporation have class action suits pending.
I'm not excusing Walmart, they have definitely had some shady practices, but I don't think stopping them from opening a store is going to solve anything. Instead, we need to work with them and bargain to get what the community needs and make sure that they treat our citizen/employees with the same standards as other area employers. I don't think Walmart's practices are any worse than other major corporations.
BTW, just because a company settles a suit, doesn't mean that there was any guilt. Employees allege injustices all the time and companies settle simply because it's not worth the time and trouble. Guess what? The bigger the company, the more its employees allege "injustices", so is it any surprise that Walmart is such a target?
"And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living."
The middle class returned to DC because of all the new business investment encouraged by the Williams and Fenty administrations. Because of new investment, the city became desirable again.
People that held back development in the 70's and 80's are the reasons DC degenerated into the dump that it was then.
$900 million all because the suits are not worth the time and trouble? Yeah, maybe if it was a few hundred thousand--even a few low million. But even Wal-Mart is not going to settle suits where they have no liability to the tune of $900 million!
"And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living."
Yeah, let's go back to the good ol' days when DC was the murder capital, was full of abandoned buildings and property that was practically worthless. Let's go back to having Chinese carryouts, liquor stores, pawn shops, etc. everywhere. Because that's what makes "DC a place worth living".
All this stuff that's happened in the past 10 years is total crap, and all of us new comers that want good restaurants and stores have "no idea what makes DC a place worth living".
OMG, this cracks me up. DC is not the place that it was in the 90's or 80's, and if you long for the DC of old, I suggest you head to PG county to reunite with the "old DC".
Best Buy, Target, and pretty much every major corporation have class action suits pending.
My original post stated that other big box stores don't have the "long and extensive history of violating labor laws that Walmart does" and i stand by that- look at Anon 1:01's post, you cannot put together a list of settlements and lost cases like that for any other big box retailer. "Wal-Mart was the defendant in three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009" (anon 9:52 please note this was only last year, even though the violations occurred years earlier. You can't get much more recent than that)- that doesn't make you think that they're a special brand of crap employer? You don't hear complaints like this about K-Mart, which for all intents and purposes is the same demographic store without the shabby employee treatment.
"People that held back development in the 70's and 80's are the reasons DC degenerated into the dump that it was then."
Actually DC degenerated into a dump because of the crack heads. They single handedly turned their own town into one of the most feared cities to live in in the 80's. Nice try though.
Walmart has a market cap of nearly 200 billion and sales of over 400 billion. To a company that is valued at those levels, 900 million is a drop in the bucket.
If you click on current cases on the website, most of the cases are only a few million, the largest was 40 million. So I don't know where you're getting this 900 million number from anyway.
For a few million, companies with revenue and valuation in the multi-hundred billions typically settle because it's not worth the trouble and negative PR.
Does DC even HAVE a middle class? Has there been growth in the middle class in DC?
It seems that everyone in DC is either well off (family income well over 100k living in homes that cost over 500k.)
Or poor ... living in subsidized housing or sharing an apartment with a bunch of people and working as a barista/musician/nonprofit wonk.
Please show me the middle class family in DC making 60-80k and buying homes that cost 250k.
I've adjusted up for inflation and the COL in DC, but in in the US, in 2005 the median household income was $46,326 while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.
So where is the DC middle class? It's In Manassas, Bowie, and Hyattsville.
"Actually DC degenerated into a dump because of the crack heads. They single handedly turned their own town into one of the most feared cities to live in in the 80's."
Crackheads proliferated in the 80's because of fleeing middle class population and disinvestment in the 70's by NIMBYs that shunned investment by anybody other than fast food joints and liquor stores. By the time the 80's rolled around, DC was already done for, and crackheads were all that was left.
Want to get rid of business investment? Get ready for the 1980's all over again.
First off, the area median income is right at 100k, so for around here, that is the middle of middle class. Obviously, there is a range, so IMO anything from 60k to 140k is middle class range, with the lower and upper parts of the range being lower and upper middle class repsectively.
Neighborhoods in DC with median incomes in that range? There's tons. Brookland, Columbia Hts, Adams Morgan, Petworth, Capitol Hill, really most neighborhoods east of Rock Creek Park and west of the Anacostia are solidly in that range. Incomes west of the park are mostly above that range, so to me those areas are the truly affluent ones, and incomes east of the river are mostly below that range, so Wards 7 and 8 tend to be the impoverished areas. Of course, there's exceptions throughout but that's a general rule of thumb.
For a few million, companies with revenue and valuation in the multi-hundred billions typically settle because it's not worth the trouble and negative PR.
no, they don't- they typically fight it because if they settle one frivolous suit it sends the message that they're willing to pay out, which would entice others to file frivolous suits. Not to mention the ludicrous notion that they're settling multiple multi-million suits that they would otherwise win because a trial would "look bad"; "negative PR" typically means "discovery", where they have to disclose how they actually treat workers. If the truth is "negative PR", then maybe you need to change your behavior.
It still is not clear to me whether the folks opposed to the proposed NY Ave. Wal-Mart are opposed to the project b/c they don't like any Wal-Marts anywhere (because they're an "evil" corporation) or b/c they think that the specific store at issue will be bad for workers.
If it's the former, that's fine. Everyone is free to argue their values (although calling the people who disagree with you "delusional" probably won't win many allies). Heck, I won't shop there, because I believe that the company's goal of aggressively pushing down prices to the absolute minimum creates externalities that negatively impact the things that I care about. But I have that choice.
I'm not convinced of the latter justication (that the specific store at issue will be bad for workers). If Wal-Mart is adding retail to the DC market rather than replacing retail, then local workers would seem to be better off, regardless of how crappy some people think the new jobs will be. A crappy job is better than no job, and if there are better jobs available, then people can choose to take those jobs instead of the Wal-Mart jobs. I would find it really hard to tell people that I have decided to deny them job opportunities because I don't think that those opportnities are good enough.
Am I missing something? Is there a specific reason why a new Wal-Mart on New York Ave. would be bad for the local labor market, or (at least with regard to labor issues) is this whole debate about larger, nationwide concerns?
"Please show me the middle class family in DC making 60-80k and buying homes that cost 250k."
I make 80k and bought a house for 240k in Brookland. I'm single, not a family, so perhaps I don't count in your book.
I know plenty of people with similar income and home buying preferences. Do a search on the MLS. The average rowhouse in Petworth, Brookland, and many parts of the city are around 300-400k. The DC median home price has been around 400k even throughout the bust. People in Manassas wish they could say the same. Trust me, I work some unfortunate souls that are upside down on their Manassas mcmansions to the tune of a couple hundred thousand.
It's not welfare recipients and homeless people that are making the DC median home price 400k. Quoting income stats from 5 years ago doesn't help your cause.
June 2010 median home sale prices: DC: $395,000 Manassas: $200,000 PG County: $187,000
http://www.mris.com/reports/stats/route.cfm
The truth is that demographics in DC are changing faster than census stats can possibly keep up. I bought my house a year ago, within the past year, 6 homes on my block have sold, all to people in my income range or higher. In all cases, it was middle-upper middle class white people displacing poor black people. This scenario has been playing out all over DC for the past 5 years. Want to get the most current picture of how much people are making? Look at what homes are selling for in a given area.
and disinvestment in the 70's by NIMBYs that shunned investment by anybody other than fast food joints and liquor stores.
In the late 70s Omni Consumer Products could've bought the entirety of H Street and no one would've said squat; there was no "NIMBYism" going on, the proliferation of fast food joints and liquor stores arose because those businesses were actually profitable and no one cared about the type of business opening.
Remember that Auto Zone was given a sweetheart deal years ago in hopes of attracting new business to H in the name of "development"; now they're considered one of the worst tenants on the street.
Remember that Auto Zone was given a sweetheart deal years ago in hopes of attracting new business to H in the name of "development"; now they're considered one of the worst tenants on the street.
Exactly. It's a perfect example of how folks like Anon@10:38 and 11:06 haven't the first clue why the city turned around. They're mistaking cause for effect.
The city didn't start attracting middle-class citizens because they got a Home Depot, H Street Connection, and now--dream the impossible dream!--a WalMart!
The city started attracting middle-class residents who wanted development on a human-scale. Dupont, then Adams-Morgan, then the U Street Corridor, then 14th, etc.., etc... The undescriminating sprawlsters are the same folks who would've razed the Penn Quarter area 15 years ago, and remade it as Crystal City. Heck, they're the same folks who would've torn down Old Town Alexandria and done the same 20 years ago.
Columbia Heights didn't become the next up-and-coming neighborhood in the city because they put in a fucking Target. Target came because CH was the next up-and-coming area of the city.
The exact same thing is currently happening with H Street. The exact same thing is on the cusp of happening in the Bladensburg/NYA area. The sprawlsters above think it's 1985, and whatever we have to do to convince suburban-type development to come, by gum, we do it!
These are the exact same folks who, 10-15 years ago would be clamoring to tear down and remake Barracks Row into 10 blocks of H Street Connection sprawl, and not having a clue why anyone would want to push the type of development that actually exists today.
Were there run-down buildings? Of course. Now 99% of those are gone. H Street's going to take the same path. In the not-too-distant future, the Benning Rd/NY Ave area is going to develop as well. Will it be "Barracks Row". Of course not. Maybe a WalMart would be appropriate, depending on how it's implemented. Maybe it should be smaller shops. Whatever.
But the idea that if we don't give in to whatever anyone wants to slap down there, then it'll be abandoned warehouses *forever* is stupidly short-sighted.
The crap that we "settle" for is going to be around for 30 years. In light of that, it makes sense to take a deep breath, and use the substantial leverage that we have to steer growth in the right direction.
I agree, we don't need suburban style development in CH or H St, but the scale on NY Ave NE does support that.
I don't see why a Walmart can't be part of the solution in revitalizing that area. If we use our leverage to work with Walmart to ensure that it comes out the way we want instead of just fighting it at any cost, that will be more beneficial for everyone.
wasnt a Wal-Mart prevented from going in near the waterfront? I seem to recall something ablout Wal-Mart demanding a cut throat rate on the sq footage and Fenty not budging.
I don't see why a Walmart can't be part of the solution in revitalizing that area. If we use our leverage to work with Walmart to ensure that it comes out the way we want
I actually agree with you here. Just saying the attitude that "We're not in a position to make demands; how are we going to attract middle-class residents unless we let exurban-style mega corporations pillage our urban fabric?" is incredibly short-sighted, and fundamentally misattributes how cities will grow stronger in the future.
If WalMart can be pressured to be a good *urban* neighbor as, say, target has done in CH, or Trader Joe's, or Harris Teeter, then go for it.
I think a lot of this WalMart boosterism (e.g. "You dirty hippies just hate WalMart because they sell soap!") is just red-blue resentment politics made local. I don't think for a second some of the previous posters really want to live in Manassas. That is unless it pisses off a few hipsters--then no price is too great to pay...
@Anon @ 1:01, nice try, but I just looked in to each of those cases and every single one of them deals with alleged violations that took place years ago.
So, I guess it stands, no one can name any cases regarding recent (within the past two years) alleged violation of employment laws.
AHEM. If we look at employments cases filed against Wal-Mart in your arbitrary 2-year period, there were 137 cases filed since 1-01-2008.
Here's just a FEW: Zinman v. Wal-Mart (proposed class action, ND CA, filed 4/29/10)
Carlisle v. Wal-mart (wage/hour violations, SD FL, filed 4/21/10)
Davis v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, MD AL, filed 1/26/10)
Boone v. Wal-Mart (unpaid wages & discrimination, CA Sup Ct., filed 1/05/10)
Lynch v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, D Mass, filed 12/16/09)
Bramble v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, E.D. Pa, filed 10/27/09)
And the Washington State case I mentioned before covered any Wal-mart employees who worked there through February 2009—within your 2-year window.
The Nevada case covered present employees at the time of the lawsuit’s filing—2007.
Recent lawsuits doesn't necessarily mean a thing. Any employer with that many locations and a zillion employees will be the target of lawsuits. Some probably justified, some because Walmart has deep pockets and lawyers out there are trying to gin up income. I work at a place with just 1,000 employees, and we have lawsuits filed against from time to time, many for ridiculous reasons.
Oboe, please tone down your posts. I can see you getting all hot and bothered sitting by your computer. The chicken and the egg argument (did Target come because of development, or development came because of Target) won't go anywhere, because it's unprovable. And it's ridiculous to claim that the area in question would become Manassas because of one Walmart (although if it did, frankly, it would be a boon for the local economy and create a lot of jobs for the people in that area). The simple question is, is Walmart better than what exists now? Is it better than what is likely to exist there in the future? That area is NOT Columbia Heights, and there is no evidence it is going in that direction. So the answer to me is clearly yes, it is worth having. Let's negotiate with them!
Comparison with Columbia Heights is silly on its face. CH is in NORTHWEST, and was right in the path of well established gentrification at the time. The area the Walmart would go is nowhere near that. CH was a much safer investment for a Target-- much closer to the demographic and income pool they wanted to attract.
NW vs NE has nothing to do with it. Capitol Hill is in NE and is more established than anything near Columbia Hts, to this day.
I do agree this location has little in common with Columbia Hts, though. First, there's no metro anywhere nearby. The closest established area is Capitol Hill, which is at least a mile away. The scale is totally different from Columbia Hts. NY Ave NE is a 6 lane thorough fare. Box type development makes sense in this area. Unlike Columbia Hts, there is no quality housing stock in the area, just decrepit old warehouses that need to be torn down.
Why is it that the more evidence that's posted about what a terrible employer Walmart is, the more glib and dismissive the pro-Walmart commentary gets? I get that you think warehouses are visually unappealing but even if I do buy your argument (and I don't) that we need to do something about the "blight" why is Walmart the only option? Why not offer a similar deal to a company like Costco that has a much better track record of employee relations?
I, like most of the residents in that area, am pro-development. Right now, the land of abandoned warehouses doesn't produce a lot for the local economy.
I am open to anyone coming in and developing that land. If Target wants to come, great. NE needs more stores, and a discount merchant is desired by many.
Perhaps you enjoy the aura of abandoned warehouses, but most residents of the area want it cleaned up and support having more retail options. Do you live in the area?
You asked: "Why not offer a similar deal to a company like Costco that has a much better track record of employee relations?"
According to the City Paper (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2010/07/15/waltzing-with-wal-mart-can-d-c-convince-the-worlds-largest-retailer-to-take-up-urbanism/2/), it appears that Wal-Mart doesn't need any subsidies or zoning changes to set up shop on NY Ave. Accordingly, it appears that there is no "deal" that can be offered to other companies. Obviously, the City Paper can be wrong about that. The city is, however, apparently giving Costco a deal to build a store in the planned Fort Lincoln development.
As an aside -- the article notes that the apparent lack of subsidies and zoning changes gives the city substantially less leverage than it would otherwise have to dictate wages, design, etc.
Just so people are aware, there will be no visible parking lot, it's all underground. Also, the store will be significantly smaller than your average walmart, it's only 102,000 sq ft.
85 comments:
Off topic: I noticed that the the New Joe Cole community center is almost finished? Do we have a date when it is set to open? Will there be a fitness center in the new building?
Ugg I never envisioned a day when I was on the side of Walmart.
The neighborhood where it's proposed to be located has at least a 25% unemployment rate. Which is more desirable for our communities- 7 bucks an hour, or zero bucks an hour? I do like the full time employment clause though.
It's not that I don't like Wally World, I just wish there were someway to raise sature of the area. A store like Wegman, or something more upperscale. I shop at Walmart, but when I want something upperscale, I mostly have to leave the area, or even DC altogether. If I appear classist, I apologize, but I really would like to keep my tax dollars in DC, but save from Spring Valley, Georgetown and Friendship heights, it means I am headed to the burbs.
Besides there'a walmart right up the Road.
The wage thing will be easy for them to agree on, it's the 75% full time which is crazy.
They may even be willing to pay people $15 starting, but I can't see how they can agree to 75% fulltime.
Robby,
I agree with you. I would kill for a wegmans in this location. I also wish there was a Disney park located there too so I did not have to go to Florida to go there. However, the spot we are talking about is now home to junk yards and a strip club. Not exactly the kind of area that Wegmans targets. That being said if this Walmart comes in, I am sure that within a few years others stores, restaurants and grocery stores will begin to target the area.
One step at a time people.
I think that the powers that be need to remember that all Wal-Mart needs to do is move a few miles up the road and open up in Maryland if they slap too many requirements on them. I'm fine with changing the minimum wage requirements, but they need to apply to all businesses not just Wal-Mart. Why single out Wal-Mart and not the Home Depot or the Target?
@nonny: There already *is* a Wal-Mart "a few miles up the road" in Maryland.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=walmart+6210+Annapolis+Road,+Hyattsville,+MD%E2%80%8E+&sll=38.933776,-76.927643&sspn=0.727468,1.231842&ie=UTF8&hq=walmart+%E2%80%8E&hnear=6210+Annapolis+Rd,+Hyattsville,+Prince+George's,+Maryland+20784&ll=38.940602,-76.909254&spn=0.011783,0.019248&z=16
Why single out Wal-Mart and not the Home Depot or the Target?
Because Home Depot and Target don't have the long and extensive history of violating labor laws that Walmart does. Gender discrimination, violating overtime rules, not allowing employees to go to the bathroom, they've been dragged into court many many times and they've lost most of them, which is pretty striking for a large corporation with deep pockets and expensive lawyers. These are not one-offs or a handful of bad-apple managers, they've been hit with several class-action suits in multiple states that they've lost.
if Sam Walton were alive today, he'd probably burn WalMart down.
I read somewhere that wal mart is going to be using a large chunk of that land..something like 11 out of the 16 acres available. That doesn't leave much room for other businesses to set up shop so we can pretty much forget about a nice grocery coming.
ENOUGH WITH THE GROCERY STORES ALREADY!
Again, I love a nice grocery store like Wegmans, but I am a little confused about this obsession with grocery stores we have on this board. I have lived off of H Street for 12 years now. When I first moved here, I had two choices, I could my flack jacket on and go to the Cap Hill Safeway, or I could drive over to Georgetown, or Arlington. Today, I can be at the Harris Teeter on the Hill in 10 minutes. I can be to the new Safeway on K street in about 5 minutes. In 3 months I will be able to get to the new Teeter on NY ave in about 3 minutes, and in a couple of years I will be able to walk 30 seconds to Giant. How many more freaking brand new grocery stores do we need?
Can't we just enjoy that an established low cost merchant who will provide hundreds of jobs is coming to replace junk yards and a strip club?
Amen JRO!
Enough with the grocery store obsession people. I also have to agree with MJ. Walmart has too much history as a bad actor when it comes to labor. Considering that as a community we often require concessions and amenities from large developers (and even small businesses), I don't think a good wage and full time jobs are too much to ask from a corporation like Walmart.
--Donna
To take a slightly different tack on this, I would like to see the city require them to have trees (on islands) in the parking lot and some pervious cover as well. The massive land requirements I'm assuming are because of the big parking lot they'll have around the store? It'll add to the urban heat island and look terrible. Yes, I wish the same had been required of Giant/Home Depot.
Is this the same parcel of land that was once going to be the big Abdo multi-use development? What a shame.
I am sympathetic to those currently unemployed; however, WalMart is NOT the answer. As another poster mentioned, there has never been a Corporation in modern-day America which has treated their workers as consistently bad as WalMart does. Their impact on local communities is also well documented - whenever a WalMart opens, many small businesses, which are employing people at a living wage, will go under.
Please give the following movie a watch:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
The following website also has a lot of good information:
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/video/
If this was any other store, we wouldn't be having this discussion; however, WalMart has proven, time and time again, to be untrustworthy.
WalMart is a massive American employers, so I hope there comes a time when WalMart treats it's workers (and suppliers) better. Until then, we need to support our local community and keep them out.
Walmart destroys communities,
Kevin
I like your green sensibility Rob. Though not a full blown green building or shopping center, the Brentwood Shopping Center does have some rather extensive storm water management best practices in place.
The district has even more restrictive requirements for land development for a site this large, since Brentwood was developed. And i would be surprised if Walmart did not attempt to build something innovative and green, see http://instoresnow.walmart.com/Sustainabilityaspx, green washed at least. Plus the city has many incentive programs for this type of green development.
Sure it wont be Rock Creek Park or even Marvin Gaye Park, with substantial tree cover and a stream running through the middle of it, but It will have to meet requirements for storm water management, energy efficiency etc, and will have some landscaping, and hopefully other aminities, and they will probably contribute to other improvements in the hood. Of course traffic will be forever F'ed, but public transportation is available... ... which means green points for the location.
Also, developing the site will be an improvement over the current land use of junk yards and other dirty car related businesses,currently occupying the site. Hopefully in time we will do better.
Finally, I think these labor and wage disputes will be over come. Let us not forget Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. They're to big a company not to be in DC and want the urban market! So good bye Family Dollar, look at the other big box retailers, they're all in urban markets, NY City even. Targets here, Barnes and Noble is here , Whole foods is here, Best Buys is here, Costco will likely be here soon.
To bad about the Skylark Lounge though, maybe they will build around it. I wonder what Harry Thomas Jr's position is on this?
I agree 100% with JRO.
To the poster that said there would be no room for other businesses, if Walmart opens there-the land under all the used car lots, empty warehouses, and other blight on Bladensburg and NY Ave will become a lot more valuable, and will likely get redeveloped with other stores.
Kevin, a lot of DC residents already shop at Walmart in VA and MD, I do. What is destroying our communities and business districts is not having the stores to compete with the suburbs. Instead we have corner ripoff stores that are mostly owned by VA and MD residents, not by members of our communities.
"To the poster that said there would be no room for other businesses, if Walmart opens there-the land under all the used car lots, empty warehouses, and other blight on Bladensburg and NY Ave will become a lot more valuable, and will likely get redeveloped with other stores."
That entire plot of land (triangle within west virginia, montana and bladensburg rd) will be razed. That is 17 acres and Wal Mart is using a good 3/4 chunk of that land. So no, there is not much room for other businesses.
Agree with JRO. Many folks already shop at Walmart, and bringing a store here will provide an important anchor for retail and other development that will provide jobs.
As for Kevin, what on earth are you talking about? "whenever a WalMart opens, many small businesses, which are employing people at a living wage, will go under." Who are all these great small businesses you're talking about? Pawn shops? liquor stores? Have you ever been down to that part of town??
This is the sort of naiveté that scares me. People need to get off of their liberal high horses and be realistic. Walmart is simply worth bringing in here; the good outweighs the bad.
Anon 8:58-
I was referring to the other parcels of land on NY Ave and on Bladensburg, outside the 17 acre parcel that Walmart is targeting. I don't know if you're familiar with this area, but NY Ave and Bladensburg are both several mile long roads with a lot of land that could stand to be redeveloped. Something as big as Walmart would stimulate redevelopment elsewhere in the area, outside the 17 acre parcel, and this is where other stores could move in.
I hesitated to get into this, but: "corner ripoff stores"? Yes, the prices are high at corner convenience stores, which is why I don't do most of my shopping there, but they are convenient when you need to get a few things. But "ripoff" suggests that the owners are getting rich and could easily lower prices. Actual information is welcome, but my impression is they are working 80+ hour weeks and making relatively low profits.
You have a point 9:58. Let's hope that is the case
The biggest concern I have bringing in a Wal Mart over there is it would end up attracting investors/builders for similar types of businesses to that area that mostly serve the lower end of the low income earners.
I realize many people don't agree with my opinion of WalMart. Mainly what this comes down to is I believe we deserve better than a retailer that has a long history of mistreating its employees and suppliers.
Tarisdaddy, I have to disagree with you comment "I would be surprised if Walmart did not attempt to build something innovative and green". What are you basing this on? WalMart PR? (your link is broken, by the way). WalMart cancels contracts with supplier when they don't drop the price of socks $0.01 per pair. When they build that store, they probably won't even use local contractors. WalMart has shut down entire stores if they even think the employees are about to vote to unionize:
Here's a photo 200 abandoned WalMarts:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1016/walmartjetfuelcafe.png
They simply don't care about you. The community needs to get their information from someone other than WalMarts PR flackies:
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/
Again, I am all for jobs, but WalMart has historically been proven to REMOVE jobs from communities. I'll say it again, they REMOVE jobs from areas where there stores are. WalMart is a very efficient operation. When they enter a community, other retailers always close - Safeways, Targets, Hardware Stores, Neighborhood stores, etc. By their very nature, smaller businesses are less efficient. But less efficient translates to more jobs. Ask Frager's on Capitol Hill how many people full-time employees they have. Do you think the garden/hardware section of WalMart will employ nearly as many, or treat them well? No way in hell. So, if you're asking me if I want to replace many more smaller retailers, employing more people, with a single large retailer, with fewer jobs, this answer has to be 'NO'.
DC, we deserve jobs, but we deserve better than an employer with a track record of mistreating employees, suppliers, and their communities.
Kevin Horgan
I think that the people who think that this site would be perfect for a grocery store are a little deluded. Why would a high end grocery open up there and not elsewhere either in the suburbs or in the city. There are enough other grocery stores in the area that can serve our needs. Case in point, there is a safeway on Bladensburg and Benning, and they are opening an Aldi there. The demand for high end stuff is satisfied with the Teeter opening upon in NOMA and the one at Jenkins Row. Aren't they opening a Whole Food near the Navy Yard as well? What about the Costco opening up in Ft. Lincoln?
There is a niche for a store like Wal-Mart. While a lot of you may hate Wal-Mart's hiring practices, remember this is DC, not Texas. The City will be more than happy to crack down on them if they violate any worker's rights.
@Kevin, what jobs are they going to remove from the area that they are opening up in? There isn't a whole lot there, in either direction. This particular area isn't a vibrant small town center, it is a desolate wasteland of junkyards,and auto shops. The only business I see there is the nursery.
A Super Target at that location would be great.
Many of those have grocery sections that are hands down some of the nicest I've seen. Some even have extensive organic sections. And considerably cheaper than Whole Foods.
And Target prices are comparable to WalMart but often the quality is noticeably better.
And they train their employees better.
Kevin, you're telling others to get their information from better sources, but you are continually quoting the same source that is also biased. I can definitively say that Wal Mart does not ALWAYS mean fewer jobs for a community. I'm from a somewhat rural area originally. Guess what? Wal-Mart moved in and brought jobs (they moved to a previously empty lot). Within ten years after Wal-Mart opened, a locally-owned grocery store, two locally-owned restaurants, several chain restaurants, and three other big box stores opened within a ten mile radius. Previously, you had to take a 30+ mile drive to even get to a small grocery store. Wal-Mart isn't a good fit for every community and can kill jobs, but there are places (and I believe this is one of them) where a Wal Mart can help.
Hillman, most Wal-Marts with food also have extensive organic sections.
Hey how about this. We give Walmart the following demands.
All jobs must be unionized, and pay at least $30 an hour. They all have to be from DC, and have to represent the demographics from DC
They have to allot at least 20% of their items to low income people who can not normally afford Walmart items.
They have to give .98 cents of ever dollar in profit, to a liberal think tank that comes up with ideas on how to unionize more jobs
They also have to build the entire complex underground, so that it is not a blight on the beautiful scenery in that area, and on the ground, they have to build a park, with a beautiful pond that has mermaids in it.
Oh, and at least half of their food items must be organic, and grown only be unionized farmers. These items must be priced high as to satisfy the uppity yet guilty liberal crowd.
If Walmart refuses, I saw we hold out another 20 years until we can get a unionized company who makes pixie dust, and employs flying fairies. For the time being we are perfectly happy with the junk yards and strip clubs.
Seriously, you people have lost your mind.
JRO
+1 billion
I agree with anon 11:04, I lived for years in the south where Walmart has existed since the 80's. Originally, they had regular Walmarts, then they started building Super Walmarts in the 90's. The old stores were all filled with new tenants and are still occupied today. Some of the spaces were broken up into 2 or 3 stores, but it's not as if Walmart is leaving empty vacant stores everywhere in the country. The areas I lived all had vibrant economies.
Kevin, that site cherry picks out the stores in towns that probably had bad economies already that were unable to get other stores in. I bet if you go elsewhere in those towns, factories and places of employment are also shuttered. Besides, last time I checked, there were dozens if not hundreds of empty, blighted mom and pop stores all over the District. Should we ban all mom and pop stores and say things like "they moved out because they don't care about the community". Of course not. If a store cannot make money, they should not be required to stay, after all business exist to make money.
DC has some of the highest income earners in the country. I don't think a Walmart would have a problem staying in business here. I make higher than average income for DC, and I shop at Walmart. Who doesn't like to save a little money? Why should I pay $4 dollars for a stick of deoderant at the corner store when Walmart can sell it for $2? Does the corner market really care that much more about the community?
NPM- If you want to see what the corner stores pay for stuff, all you have to do is go in the cash and carry places in the FL Ave market. I have friends that have business licenses and have bought things there with them. Corner store markup for most things is 100-200%. One example- those 24oz bottles of soda cost about 50 cents at the wholesale market, most stores sell them for $1.50 or more. Walmart sells them for $1 to $1.25. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself. Anybody can go in, but you have to have a DC business license to actually buy anything.
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=9379106286620074850&q=dc+cash+and+carry&hl=en&cd=2&cad=src:pplink&ei=Of9OTP3PG5L6yAXL_9nhDw
Since we're talking fantasy deals, howsabout this- If Walmart can go one year without being found culpable for violating labor laws or the terms of contracts with workers for one year I'll support them going in. Yes, a Walmart job is better than no job at all, in the same way a shit sandwich beats starving.
I notice that none of the pro-Walmart crowd tries to deal with their piss-poor labor practices and record of being hauled into court and losing. In general Walmarts have a net negative effect on their local community (personal anecdotes about this one Walmart that had a restaurant open 10 miles away aside). Until the pro-Walmart crowd addresses Walmart's awful record of violating labor laws AND written contracts they have no reason to call anyone here "naive".
JRO - you seem to want a wal mart there for the sake of replacing junk yards and strip clubs. That's a recipe for disaster.
If they're not careful that area will turn into another landmark mall
Anon 11:50-
The NY Ave NE area is already 1000 times worse than a landmark mall. Last I checked, there was a Best Buy, BJ's, and a number of other stores across the street from landmark. landmark failed for reasons of mismanagement.
NY Ave NE has been that way for DECADES. It needs something big to come in and be a catalyst to redevelop the entire area. A Walmart would do so. A $10/hr job is not that bad for a lot of unskilled people in DC. These people are begging for these jobs. If you don't like Walmart, fine, don't shop there. But quit depriving everyone else of an opportunity to improve their lives because of your own self-righteousness.
MJ- most Walmart workers are perfectly happy. It's only the cherry picked few that the union backed propoganda movies showcase that have issues.
A Walmart job is a shitty job. So is fast food and a lot of other jobs. No one is supposed to make a career out of these jobs. They're stepping stone jobs. You work there to get some experience (social skills, customer service, working for income, etc), which are all skills that a lot of poor people in DC are sorely lacking. Once you have that experience, you move on to something better.
I worked a lot of jobs that I didn't like and didn't get benefits. I learned the skills I listed above, though, and this motivated me to seek out something better.
The poor people of DC need these jobs to begin to improve their lives.
How about this, maybe some of the youth of DC can work at this Walmart instead of being paid by the city to "work" summer jobs? They don't need benefits anyways, and will be happy to work part time. This will get them off the streets and the crime rate will go down. Plus, they will learn the life skills that Anon 12:21 mentioned.
A Walmart opened recently in the west side of Chicago, in a previously economically depressed area, and it has successfully revitalized the area. The average wage paid was almost $12/hr, and most workers are full time, according to the article.
“Ever since Walmart opened a West Side store it has been an economic boom,” Mitts told the Defender. “And this job fair gives residents an opportunity to work for an employer who cares about restoring economic development in underserved communities.”
http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-8353-job-opportunities-available-at-west-sides-walmart.html
People need to get off of their liberal high horses and be realistic.
Can always tell when someone's lost the argument. "Be realistic libtards! Hillary's fat!!"
Whatever.
But I do wish the folks who come here all the time, shilling for WalMarts, gas stations, lead smelting plants, or whatever, because "We have to be realistic!" would understand it's a new world.
It ain't 1980 anymore. There's a reason WalMart's itching to put a store there, and it ain't out of the goodness of their hearts.
Speaking of naivete, JRO, the idea that, should WalMart pass, that land will be vacant for another couple of decades is beyond naive.
WalMart wants it because it's suddenly valuable. Or did you not notice all of the new hotels springing up on that corner.
"WalMart wants it because it's suddenly valuable. Or did you not notice all of the new hotels springing up on that corner."
Walmart has wanted to open a store in DC for a while. They are targeting urban areas nationwide because they are the last frontier in this country for them and they want to make money. Remember, businesses are supposed to make money? Charities do things out of the "goodness of their heart". So they make money, we get access to affordable goods, low/no income people in DC get jobs and can afford to live better and get off the gov't dole list, crime goes down, tax revenue goes up, fewer people on the gov't dole equals less tax burden. Sounds to me like everyone wins.
I don't see what liberal or conservative has to do with anything. I'm liberal, but I like to save money. Northern VA and MD both voted Democrat in the last presidential election, and both have a proliferation of Walmarts.
The "personal anecdote about this one Wal-Mart that had a restaurant open ten miles away" (which is not what that anecdote was about at all, so I find that characterization laughable) was meant to counteract Kevin's claim that Wal-Mart always means small businesses have to close. Clearly claiming the effects of Wal-Mart are the same everywhere is rather silly, which is what that story was meant to demonstrate.
Wal-Mart has lost some employment law cases, all of which began in the courts years ago. I can't find any evidence of cases regarding recent discriminatory practices. All of the cases I've found currently still in the pipeline come from allegations of illegal practices years ago. By all un-biased accounts, Wal-Mart has drastically changed their employment practices. I'd love to see (unbiased) evidence of recent cases, because I can't find any.
anon 12:01 -
You fail to see my point.
The kiddie porn industry provides jobs also, that still doesn't make it right. Wal Mart is an evil corporation, anybody who says otherwise is delusional.
I recognize that people have many environmental, labor, and related social justice concerns regarding Wal-Mart as a whole. I also recognize that people who have such concerns feel that opening a new store anywhere is a bad thing, because it can make Wal-Mart bigger and stronger.
But setting those macro issues aside, has anyone seen specific issues raised regarding this proposed Wal-Mart? I'm sure that traffic will be a problem, and I imagine that there will be issues regarding impervious surface and the aesthetics might suck. What else is there?
I know that one knock against Wal-Mart is that it puts local stores out of business, but I don't quite see how that might play out here. For example, I assume that Wal-Mart will draw some shoppers away from Family Dollar, CVS, Home Depot, Giant, Safeway, etc.; however, I can't see those national chains closing up just because a Wal-Mart opens up. Moreover, I don't think that they are "local" stores.
At the other end of the spectrum, I can't see the corner stores closing up either, but that's based on the assumption that they serve a different niche (e.g. the "need something small and can't or don't want to drive niche").
So, what's in between? There are a few medium-sized local stores like Fragers in the area, and I suppose that some of them might take a hit; however, the only one I can really think of that might compete with Wal-Mart is Fragers, and I assume that the people who currently go to Frager's instead of Home Depot will continue to go to Fragers after Wal-Mart opens (again, that's just my gut feeling).
So, what am I missing? Which types of stores (if any) likely will be pushed out if Wal-Mart opens?
If the answer is "none" or even "not many," then I don't see how opening a new Wal-Mart store in the area can have a negative impact on the local labor market. If the other stores in the area can continue to hire people, then I assume that wages will not suffer too much (if at all), and people will still have the option of working at places other than Wal-Mart. If the Wal-Mart jobs are terrible, those people can pursue other options. All things being equal, this particular proposed Wal-Mart seems to give people more job options, not fewer. Is that incorrect? If that’s not incorrect, then how is would the local labor market be harmed by Wal-Mart opening?
What am I missing? I'm not a "shill" for Wal-Mart, I genuinely want to know the positives and negatives of this particular proposal.
Thanks.
If somebody feels that they will be treated unfairly at Wal-Mart then they should choose not to apply for a job there. Plain and simple.
I love how all of you latte sipping hippies make a determination what is "best" for people in the community. The self-righteousness of that position is is flatly patronizing and beyond disturbing.
AND if you have a problem with Wal-Mart's employment practices then DO NOT SHOP THERE. If your position was/is so self-evident the company would have been bankrupt years ago.
The bottom line is that people CHOOSE to work there and CHOOSE to shop there. The company is in compliance with every workplace regulation and law.
The anti-Wal-Mart arguments on this site are just ludicrous.
VIVA J-RO
It takes guts to set up a business over there. Let them be the first to come and lets sit back and hope others will follow.
AND if you have a problem with Wal-Mart's employment practices then DO NOT SHOP THERE. If your position was/is so self-evident the company would have been bankrupt years ago.
I have a problem with their employment practices so I don't shop there. Evidently some people here do not have these issues and are willing to ignore the fact that Walmart has a long history of violating labor laws, discrimination and overall terrible employment practices so that they can save $2 on a case of Capri Sun.
I don't know where you came up with "The company is in compliance with every workplace regulation and law" when there's a long trail of court cases that proves that the opposite is true. If asking that a company uphold the the law and the contracts they've signed makes me a "liberal" then so be it.
You mean, so CONSUMERS can save an extra $2 a case on Capri Sun, right?
As my econ prof used to say--
"Wal-Mart has done more for the under-privileged in our society than generations of welfare."
I say, bring in the qualitiy goods at inexpensive prices!
I don't think that Frager's or Brookland Hardware are really going to be affected. There main competition is Home Depot or Lowe's. Wal-Mart is the last place I would go to buy paint, hardware, or construction materials. Wal-Mart's direct competition is Target.
As long as they sell raccoon hats, I am okay.
Well put, Todd.
Of course not every Wal-Mart helps the community in which its built. And Wal-Mart has a spotty history regarding employment practices. (Although, I'm still waiting for evidence of recent problems regarding this, which I've yet to see someone post here or anywhere else.)
However, I think it's important to look at this Wal-Mart. What will this Wal-Mart do for this community? What businesses do people think it will displace. I can't think of one and no one has mentioned one here yet.
Anon 11:46: Yes, the corner stores have big markups, which is why they are expensive and I don't buy a lot of things there. But they also have relatively low volume, so I'd be shocked if they are getting rich. Again, I'd love to know for sure.
Here's one data point: http://www.bizbuysell.com/cgi-bin/addetail?p=0&ss=1&s=DC&i=AC&county=316&pfrom=0.00&pto=0.00&spid=4&tab=eb&q=538699
Corner store for sale, $20,000 gross sales, $5,800 rent. Asking $350,000. Open 11 hours a day. Let's say there is 100 percent markup and just a single person working 13 hour days, or 91 hours a week. That's $10,000/week gross profit (sales less cost of goods). Net of $2500 or so weekly rent, mortgage, other expenses, that's somewhere around $7,500 net, or around $80 an hour.
But if margin was 50 percent, then gross profit is about $6700 a week(20000/3), or $4000/week, or $46 an hour. But clearly you need more than 1 person; let's say you hire 1 extra person @ $10 an hour - that's another $1000 a week. And this place lists a deli - that could mean you probably need to hire a couple more people. And I'd guess there are a lot of costs I'm not taking into account, and there are a lot of carrying costs (it's not like they sell a lot of cans of capers, or canned onions, or whatever, but they do have them on the shelf!).
Basically, these corner store owners are working their asses off. Perhaps they are making a decent living, but if you think it's such a ripoff - i.e., such a easy way to get rich - then I'd suggest you buy a store.
Here's another interesting Walmart article: Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf
I love how all of you latte sipping hippies...
Folks, folks. Please, could we please put this stuff at the *beginning* of our posts? I had to read a whole paragraph before PP revealed themselves to be a poo-flinging monkey, bereft of capacity for argument.
Much obliged!
npm-
I don't actually think the corner stores are getting rich. And I'm not against them. If you need something in a pinch and don't have time to go elsewhere, they're convenient.
But really, they don't even compete with Walmart. Their competition is 7-11.
Everyone I know in DC that wants a Walmart type store drives to VA or MD once a week and stocks up there. Or they go to the Target in Columbia Hts.
I think a Walmart in that location would primarily get customers that already go to Walmarts in VA or MD. Which is why it makes so much sense. Instead of revenue and commerce leaving the city, we keep it here. Also, we create jobs and remove blight. This is such a no brainer. The forces that oppose it are the same ones that have held DC back economically for so long.
for those of you opposed to walmart because of their horrible treatment of their employees: how about that shirt you're wearing that some 8 year old in China made? get off the high horse. this is capitalism baby!
There's a crapload of recent employment litigation cases pending against Wal-Mart. Over 1000 filed since 1990; over 600 of those since 2000.
I'm not sure of the outcome of all those dockets, but a quick news search reveals that Wal-Mart is paying boatloads of money to settle these claims:
1) Wal-Mart was the defendant in 1three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009 in wage-and-hour class actions involving private plaintiffs, according to this report.
a) The biggest payout was $65 million to settle multi-district litigation in federal court in Nevada (MDL No. 06-225) brought by workers who claimed Wal-Mart altered payroll records to reduce labor costs.
b) The second in the top 10 was a Wal-Mart's $55 million settlement of a class action brought by workers in Missouri claiming overtime violations.
c) And number six in the top 10 was the Wal-Mart settlement of a class action involving 88,000 Washington state employees who alleged they were forced to work through breaks and were locked in stores overnight while being required to clock-out. That settlement was for $35 million.
2) Wal-Mart agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in a Massachusetts pay dispute, averting a trial. The group lawsuit, filed by hourly workers, claimed Wal-Mart's managers required them to work off the clock and denied or cut short breaks. The settlement covers more than 87,000 current and former hourly workers in Massachusetts Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, employee lawyers said Wednesday.
The Massachusetts agreement brings the total amount of Wal-Mart wage-and-hour lawsuit settlements to almost $900 million. This includes a December 2008 agreement to pay as much as $640 million to settle more than 60 wage-and-hour class actions filed in state and federal courts. The Massachusetts case wasn't among those settled.
3) In 2006, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $78 million against Wal-Mart in a lawsuit over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 million to include damages, interest and lawyers' fees.
4) And they get weirder: In 2006, Wal-Mart ran into trouble for taking out life insurance policies on employees. The company reasoned that it had an economic interest in the employees' well-being, making the policies valid. But opponents argued that employers should not collect death benefits from workers without their knowledge. Wal-Mart paid $5.1 million, the amount it collected after employees died, to settle a class-action suit brought by the workers' estates and families.
Ugh-gotta stop reading these-it's gonna make me not feel right saving $2 on Capri Sun.
There's a crapload of recent employment litigation cases pending against Wal-Mart. Over 1000 filed since 1990; over 600 of those since 2000.
I'm not sure of the outcome of all those dockets, but a quick news search reveals that Wal-Mart is paying boatloads of money to settle these claims:
1) Wal-Mart was the defendant in 1three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009 in wage-and-hour class actions involving private plaintiffs, according to this report.
a) The biggest payout was $65 million to settle multi-district litigation in federal court in Nevada (MDL No. 06-225) brought by workers who claimed Wal-Mart altered payroll records to reduce labor costs.
b) The second in the top 10 was a Wal-Mart's $55 million settlement of a class action brought by workers in Missouri claiming overtime violations.
c) And number six in the top 10 was the Wal-Mart settlement of a class action involving 88,000 Washington state employees who alleged they were forced to work through breaks and were locked in stores overnight while being required to clock-out. That settlement was for $35 million.
2) Wal-Mart agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in a Massachusetts pay dispute, averting a trial. The group lawsuit, filed by hourly workers, claimed Wal-Mart's managers required them to work off the clock and denied or cut short breaks. The settlement covers more than 87,000 current and former hourly workers in Massachusetts Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, employee lawyers said Wednesday.
The Massachusetts agreement brings the total amount of Wal-Mart wage-and-hour lawsuit settlements to almost $900 million. This includes a December 2008 agreement to pay as much as $640 million to settle more than 60 wage-and-hour class actions filed in state and federal courts. The Massachusetts case wasn't among those settled.
3) In 2006, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $78 million against Wal-Mart in a lawsuit over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 million to include damages, interest and lawyers' fees.
4) And they get weirder: In 2006, Wal-Mart ran into trouble for taking out life insurance policies on employees. The company reasoned that it had an economic interest in the employees' well-being, making the policies valid. But opponents argued that employers should not collect death benefits from workers without their knowledge. Wal-Mart paid $5.1 million, the amount it collected after employees died, to settle a class-action suit brought by the workers' estates and families.
Ugh-gotta stop reading these-it's gonna make me not feel right saving $2 on Capri Sun.
Anon @ 1:01, nice try, but I just looked in to each of those cases and every single one of them deals with alleged violations that took place years ago.
So, I guess it stands, no one can name any cases regarding recent (within the past two years) alleged violation of employment laws.
Also, we create jobs and remove blight. This is such a no brainer. The forces that oppose it are the same ones that have held DC back economically for so long.
First, it depends on what you mean by "blight". For a lot of folks, a gigantic big-box store with masses of surface parking in the District *is* blight.
Second, the idea that the folks who won't bend over and grab their ankles the instant some exurban sprawl-engine expresses interest in an up-and-coming corridor aren't the ones who've "held DC back economically for so long" is laughable. If you guys had had your way over the last few decades, the city would be nothing but one giant H Street Connection -style strip mall.
And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living.
Believe me, turning the city into Manassas with shittier schools is not a noble goal.
oboe,
So instead of a store that contributes to the economy, you'd rather have empty warehouses? I don't think there's many people that would agree with your preference of beautiful used car lots and abandoned warehouses over a store. Alas, to each his/her own.
And your argument that because Walmart builds in Manassas it will automatically build a suburban store in DC is flawed. In case you haven't noticed, Target, Best Buy and others have urban stores in the city. The solution is not to stop development, but to work with developers to ensure that development is agreeable to the community.
The forces that have held DC back that I was referring to are the "stop all development at all costs NIMBYs" that permeated the city for so long. If you want a city full of disinvestment and beautiful abandoned buidings, I hear Detroit is a great place for that.
Anon 1:01-
Best Buy, Target, and pretty much every major corporation have class action suits pending.
I'm not excusing Walmart, they have definitely had some shady practices, but I don't think stopping them from opening a store is going to solve anything. Instead, we need to work with them and bargain to get what the community needs and make sure that they treat our citizen/employees with the same standards as other area employers. I don't think Walmart's practices are any worse than other major corporations.
BTW, just because a company settles a suit, doesn't mean that there was any guilt. Employees allege injustices all the time and companies settle simply because it's not worth the time and trouble. Guess what? The bigger the company, the more its employees allege "injustices", so is it any surprise that Walmart is such a target?
"And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living."
The middle class returned to DC because of all the new business investment encouraged by the Williams and Fenty administrations. Because of new investment, the city became desirable again.
People that held back development in the 70's and 80's are the reasons DC degenerated into the dump that it was then.
+2 billion for you oboe
$900 million all because the suits are not worth the time and trouble? Yeah, maybe if it was a few hundred thousand--even a few low million. But even Wal-Mart is not going to settle suits where they have no liability to the tune of $900 million!
"And the growth of the middle-class the city has seen over the last decade or so would never have happened. You guys don't even understand what it is that makes DC a place worth living."
Yeah, let's go back to the good ol' days when DC was the murder capital, was full of abandoned buildings and property that was practically worthless. Let's go back to having Chinese carryouts, liquor stores, pawn shops, etc. everywhere. Because that's what makes "DC a place worth living".
All this stuff that's happened in the past 10 years is total crap, and all of us new comers that want good restaurants and stores have "no idea what makes DC a place worth living".
OMG, this cracks me up. DC is not the place that it was in the 90's or 80's, and if you long for the DC of old, I suggest you head to PG county to reunite with the "old DC".
Best Buy, Target, and pretty much every major corporation have class action suits pending.
My original post stated that other big box stores don't have the "long and extensive history of violating labor laws that Walmart does" and i stand by that- look at Anon 1:01's post, you cannot put together a list of settlements and lost cases like that for any other big box retailer. "Wal-Mart was the defendant in three of the top 10 private settlements entered into or paid in 2009" (anon 9:52 please note this was only last year, even though the violations occurred years earlier. You can't get much more recent than that)- that doesn't make you think that they're a special brand of crap employer? You don't hear complaints like this about K-Mart, which for all intents and purposes is the same demographic store without the shabby employee treatment.
"People that held back development in the 70's and 80's are the reasons DC degenerated into the dump that it was then."
Actually DC degenerated into a dump because of the crack heads. They single handedly turned their own town into one of the most feared cities to live in in the 80's.
Nice try though.
Walmart has a market cap of nearly 200 billion and sales of over 400 billion. To a company that is valued at those levels, 900 million is a drop in the bucket.
http://investors.walmartstores.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112761&p=irol-irhome
If you click on current cases on the website, most of the cases are only a few million, the largest was 40 million. So I don't know where you're getting this 900 million number from anyway.
For a few million, companies with revenue and valuation in the multi-hundred billions typically settle because it's not worth the trouble and negative PR.
Does DC even HAVE a middle class? Has there been growth in the middle class in DC?
It seems that everyone in DC is either well off (family income well over 100k living in homes that cost over 500k.)
Or poor ... living in subsidized housing or sharing an apartment with a bunch of people and working as a barista/musician/nonprofit wonk.
Please show me the middle class family in DC making 60-80k and buying homes that cost 250k.
I've adjusted up for inflation and the COL in DC, but in in the US, in 2005 the median household income was $46,326 while the median personal income (including only those above the age of 25) was $32,140.
So where is the DC middle class? It's In Manassas, Bowie, and Hyattsville.
"Actually DC degenerated into a dump because of the crack heads. They single handedly turned their own town into one of the most feared cities to live in in the 80's."
Crackheads proliferated in the 80's because of fleeing middle class population and disinvestment in the 70's by NIMBYs that shunned investment by anybody other than fast food joints and liquor stores. By the time the 80's rolled around, DC was already done for, and crackheads were all that was left.
Want to get rid of business investment? Get ready for the 1980's all over again.
Tom A,
First off, the area median income is right at 100k, so for around here, that is the middle of middle class. Obviously, there is a range, so IMO anything from 60k to 140k is middle class range, with the lower and upper parts of the range being lower and upper middle class repsectively.
Neighborhoods in DC with median incomes in that range? There's tons. Brookland, Columbia Hts, Adams Morgan, Petworth, Capitol Hill, really most neighborhoods east of Rock Creek Park and west of the Anacostia are solidly in that range. Incomes west of the park are mostly above that range, so to me those areas are the truly affluent ones, and incomes east of the river are mostly below that range, so Wards 7 and 8 tend to be the impoverished areas. Of course, there's exceptions throughout but that's a general rule of thumb.
For a few million, companies with revenue and valuation in the multi-hundred billions typically settle because it's not worth the trouble and negative PR.
no, they don't- they typically fight it because if they settle one frivolous suit it sends the message that they're willing to pay out, which would entice others to file frivolous suits. Not to mention the ludicrous notion that they're settling multiple multi-million suits that they would otherwise win because a trial would "look bad"; "negative PR" typically means "discovery", where they have to disclose how they actually treat workers. If the truth is "negative PR", then maybe you need to change your behavior.
It still is not clear to me whether the folks opposed to the proposed NY Ave. Wal-Mart are opposed to the project b/c they don't like any Wal-Marts anywhere (because they're an "evil" corporation) or b/c they think that the specific store at issue will be bad for workers.
If it's the former, that's fine. Everyone is free to argue their values (although calling the people who disagree with you "delusional" probably won't win many allies). Heck, I won't shop there, because I believe that the company's goal of aggressively pushing down prices to the absolute minimum creates externalities that negatively impact the things that I care about. But I have that choice.
I'm not convinced of the latter justication (that the specific store at issue will be bad for workers). If Wal-Mart is adding retail to the DC market rather than replacing retail, then local workers would seem to be better off, regardless of how crappy some people think the new jobs will be. A crappy job is better than no job, and if there are better jobs available, then people can choose to take those jobs instead of the Wal-Mart jobs. I would find it really hard to tell people that I have decided to deny them job opportunities because I don't think that those opportnities are good enough.
Am I missing something? Is there a specific reason why a new Wal-Mart on New York Ave. would be bad for the local labor market, or (at least with regard to labor issues) is this whole debate about larger, nationwide concerns?
"Please show me the middle class family in DC making 60-80k and buying homes that cost 250k."
I make 80k and bought a house for 240k in Brookland. I'm single, not a family, so perhaps I don't count in your book.
I know plenty of people with similar income and home buying preferences. Do a search on the MLS. The average rowhouse in Petworth, Brookland, and many parts of the city are around 300-400k. The DC median home price has been around 400k even throughout the bust. People in Manassas wish they could say the same. Trust me, I work some unfortunate souls that are upside down on their Manassas mcmansions to the tune of a couple hundred thousand.
It's not welfare recipients and homeless people that are making the DC median home price 400k. Quoting income stats from 5 years ago doesn't help your cause.
June 2010 median home sale prices:
DC: $395,000
Manassas: $200,000
PG County: $187,000
http://www.mris.com/reports/stats/route.cfm
The truth is that demographics in DC are changing faster than census stats can possibly keep up. I bought my house a year ago, within the past year, 6 homes on my block have sold, all to people in my income range or higher. In all cases, it was middle-upper middle class white people displacing poor black people. This scenario has been playing out all over DC for the past 5 years. Want to get the most current picture of how much people are making? Look at what homes are selling for in a given area.
and disinvestment in the 70's by NIMBYs that shunned investment by anybody other than fast food joints and liquor stores.
In the late 70s Omni Consumer Products could've bought the entirety of H Street and no one would've said squat; there was no "NIMBYism" going on, the proliferation of fast food joints and liquor stores arose because those businesses were actually profitable and no one cared about the type of business opening.
Remember that Auto Zone was given a sweetheart deal years ago in hopes of attracting new business to H in the name of "development"; now they're considered one of the worst tenants on the street.
@mj:
Remember that Auto Zone was given a sweetheart deal years ago in hopes of attracting new business to H in the name of "development"; now they're considered one of the worst tenants on the street.
Exactly. It's a perfect example of how folks like Anon@10:38 and 11:06 haven't the first clue why the city turned around. They're mistaking cause for effect.
The city didn't start attracting middle-class citizens because they got a Home Depot, H Street Connection, and now--dream the impossible dream!--a WalMart!
The city started attracting middle-class residents who wanted development on a human-scale. Dupont, then Adams-Morgan, then the U Street Corridor, then 14th, etc.., etc... The undescriminating sprawlsters are the same folks who would've razed the Penn Quarter area 15 years ago, and remade it as Crystal City. Heck, they're the same folks who would've torn down Old Town Alexandria and done the same 20 years ago.
Columbia Heights didn't become the next up-and-coming neighborhood in the city because they put in a fucking Target. Target came because CH was the next up-and-coming area of the city.
The exact same thing is currently happening with H Street. The exact same thing is on the cusp of happening in the Bladensburg/NYA area. The sprawlsters above think it's 1985, and whatever we have to do to convince suburban-type development to come, by gum, we do it!
These are the exact same folks who, 10-15 years ago would be clamoring to tear down and remake Barracks Row into 10 blocks of H Street Connection sprawl, and not having a clue why anyone would want to push the type of development that actually exists today.
Were there run-down buildings? Of course. Now 99% of those are gone. H Street's going to take the same path. In the not-too-distant future, the Benning Rd/NY Ave area is going to develop as well. Will it be "Barracks Row". Of course not. Maybe a WalMart would be appropriate, depending on how it's implemented. Maybe it should be smaller shops. Whatever.
But the idea that if we don't give in to whatever anyone wants to slap down there, then it'll be abandoned warehouses *forever* is stupidly short-sighted.
The crap that we "settle" for is going to be around for 30 years. In light of that, it makes sense to take a deep breath, and use the substantial leverage that we have to steer growth in the right direction.
Oboe,
I agree, we don't need suburban style development in CH or H St, but the scale on NY Ave NE does support that.
I don't see why a Walmart can't be part of the solution in revitalizing that area. If we use our leverage to work with Walmart to ensure that it comes out the way we want instead of just fighting it at any cost, that will be more beneficial for everyone.
wasnt a Wal-Mart prevented from going in near the waterfront? I seem to recall something ablout Wal-Mart demanding a cut throat rate on the sq footage and Fenty not budging.
I don't see why a Walmart can't be part of the solution in revitalizing that area. If we use our leverage to work with Walmart to ensure that it comes out the way we want
I actually agree with you here. Just saying the attitude that "We're not in a position to make demands; how are we going to attract middle-class residents unless we let exurban-style mega corporations pillage our urban fabric?" is incredibly short-sighted, and fundamentally misattributes how cities will grow stronger in the future.
If WalMart can be pressured to be a good *urban* neighbor as, say, target has done in CH, or Trader Joe's, or Harris Teeter, then go for it.
I think a lot of this WalMart boosterism (e.g. "You dirty hippies just hate WalMart because they sell soap!") is just red-blue resentment politics made local. I don't think for a second some of the previous posters really want to live in Manassas. That is unless it pisses off a few hipsters--then no price is too great to pay...
Anon@9:52, you said:
@Anon @ 1:01, nice try, but I just looked in to each of those cases and every single one of them deals with alleged violations that took place years ago.
So, I guess it stands, no one can name any cases regarding recent (within the past two years) alleged violation of employment laws.
AHEM. If we look at employments cases filed against Wal-Mart in your arbitrary 2-year period, there were 137 cases filed since 1-01-2008.
Here's just a FEW:
Zinman v. Wal-Mart (proposed class action, ND CA, filed 4/29/10)
Carlisle v. Wal-mart (wage/hour violations, SD FL, filed 4/21/10)
Davis v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, MD AL, filed 1/26/10)
Boone v. Wal-Mart (unpaid wages & discrimination, CA Sup Ct., filed 1/05/10)
Lynch v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, D Mass, filed 12/16/09)
Bramble v. Wal-Mart (proposed wage/hour class action, E.D. Pa, filed 10/27/09)
And the Washington State case I mentioned before covered any Wal-mart employees who worked there through February 2009—within your 2-year window.
The Nevada case covered present employees at the time of the lawsuit’s filing—2007.
Recent lawsuits doesn't necessarily mean a thing. Any employer with that many locations and a zillion employees will be the target of lawsuits. Some probably justified, some because Walmart has deep pockets and lawyers out there are trying to gin up income. I work at a place with just 1,000 employees, and we have lawsuits filed against from time to time, many for ridiculous reasons.
Oboe, please tone down your posts. I can see you getting all hot and bothered sitting by your computer. The chicken and the egg argument (did Target come because of development, or development came because of Target) won't go anywhere, because it's unprovable. And it's ridiculous to claim that the area in question would become Manassas because of one Walmart (although if it did, frankly, it would be a boon for the local economy and create a lot of jobs for the people in that area). The simple question is, is Walmart better than what exists now? Is it better than what is likely to exist there in the future? That area is NOT Columbia Heights, and there is no evidence it is going in that direction. So the answer to me is clearly yes, it is worth having. Let's negotiate with them!
Amen to that Rick,
Comparison with Columbia Heights is silly on its face. CH is in NORTHWEST, and was right in the path of well established gentrification at the time. The area the Walmart would go is nowhere near that. CH was a much safer investment for a Target-- much closer to the demographic and income pool they wanted to attract.
Anon 8:37-
NW vs NE has nothing to do with it. Capitol Hill is in NE and is more established than anything near Columbia Hts, to this day.
I do agree this location has little in common with Columbia Hts, though. First, there's no metro anywhere nearby. The closest established area is Capitol Hill, which is at least a mile away. The scale is totally different from Columbia Hts. NY Ave NE is a 6 lane thorough fare. Box type development makes sense in this area. Unlike Columbia Hts, there is no quality housing stock in the area, just decrepit old warehouses that need to be torn down.
Why is it that the more evidence that's posted about what a terrible employer Walmart is, the more glib and dismissive the pro-Walmart commentary gets? I get that you think warehouses are visually unappealing but even if I do buy your argument (and I don't) that we need to do something about the "blight" why is Walmart the only option? Why not offer a similar deal to a company like Costco that has a much better track record of employee relations?
MJ,
I, like most of the residents in that area, am pro-development. Right now, the land of abandoned warehouses doesn't produce a lot for the local economy.
I am open to anyone coming in and developing that land. If Target wants to come, great. NE needs more stores, and a discount merchant is desired by many.
Perhaps you enjoy the aura of abandoned warehouses, but most residents of the area want it cleaned up and support having more retail options. Do you live in the area?
Some people here just can't let go of the false dichotomy, no matter how much it's pointed out.
MJ,
You asked: "Why not offer a similar deal to a company like Costco that has a much better track record of employee relations?"
According to the City Paper (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2010/07/15/waltzing-with-wal-mart-can-d-c-convince-the-worlds-largest-retailer-to-take-up-urbanism/2/), it appears that Wal-Mart doesn't need any subsidies or zoning changes to set up shop on NY Ave. Accordingly, it appears that there is no "deal" that can be offered to other companies. Obviously, the City Paper can be wrong about that. The city is, however, apparently giving Costco a deal to build a store in the planned Fort Lincoln development.
As an aside -- the article notes that the apparent lack of subsidies and zoning changes gives the city substantially less leverage than it would otherwise have to dictate wages, design, etc.
Todd,
Also, Costco is already putting a store in at Ft Lincoln up the road. Target may be interested in that as well.
Just so people are aware, there will be no visible parking lot, it's all underground. Also, the store will be significantly smaller than your average walmart, it's only 102,000 sq ft.
Post a Comment