Washington Post Letter to the Editor on Walmart's poverty wage regime
While working for Ralph Nader's Time for a Raise campaign, I had a wonky letter to the editor published in the Washington Post today regarding Walmart's poverty wage regime:
In the July 11 front-page article “Council approves ‘living wage’ bill,” The Post placed front and center the claim that the District’s Large Retailer Accountability Act requires big-box-store employers to pay “a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage,” a phrasing that could have left readers wondering whether the act goes too far. It is important to note, however, that the act calls not for a $12.50 wage but rather a $12.50 wage minus benefits, stating clearly: “The prorated hourly cost of any benefits that a large retailer chooses to provide an employee may be credited toward payment of the minimum hourly compensation required under this act.”
If Wal-Mart gave its District employees the health benefits they deserve, their minimum wage under the act would amount to significantly less than a “50 percent premium” over the current wage. Within the limits of the act, Wal-Mart can pay an hourly wage less than $12.50 if it offers its District workers, as the act states, “benefits related to health care, retirement security, disability, training and education, or paid leave.”
Peter Davis, Falls Church