Walmart said Wednesday it would abandon three planned stores in Washington, D.C. and consider stopping the construction of three others over a so-called “living wage” bill.
“Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction,” Walmart spokesman Steven Restivo said in a statement. “This was a difficult decision for us — and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents — but the Council has forced our hand.”
The Large Retailer Accountability Act was passed in the D.C. Council by a 8-5 vote on Wednesday. If signed by Mayor Vince Gray, it would require retailers that make more than $1 billion per year and occupy at least 75,000 square feet to pay employees at least $12.50 per hour, minus benefits. Stores with collective bargaining agreements would not be effected by the law.
The Council was apparently unmoved by Walmart’s threats to pull out of the city.
“From day one, we have said that this legislation is arbitrary and discriminatory and that it discourages investment in Washington,” Walmart regional general manager Alex Barron said in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post.
“As a result, Wal-Mart will not pursue stores at Skyland, Capitol Gateway or New York Avenue if the LRAA is passed,” he added. “What’s more, passage would also jeopardize the three stores already under construction, as we would thoroughly review the financial and legal implications of the bill on those projects.”
Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry was not convinced the big-box retailer would completely abandon the city.
“I don’t believe Walmart at this point, that they’re gonna leave the District,” he said, according to Washington City Paper. “That’s a stickup. And we’re not gonna be stuck up.”
In a waywardattempt to rebrand himself as amiddle-class hero, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is running headlong into his history with Bain Capital. Not only does the firm have a history of making millions by buying up and gutting companies, but Romney also secured a plush retirement dealfrom Bain that brought him “millions of dollars in income each year.”
Of course, Romney has tried to spin his private sector role as that of a “job creator.” But a closer look at Bain’s modus operandi reveals that firm spent a lot of time laying off company employees rather than hiring them — all while turning a profit. More than 20 years ago, Bain — with Romney at the helm — opened a new plant in Gaffney, South Carolina with the promise of “highly anticipated manufacturing jobs,” only to shut down that plant four years later, laying off 150 workers while making millions:
More than two decades ago, Mitt Romney’s business venture came to town with a bounty of highly anticipated manufacturing jobs. The new plant, just past the gas station off Interstate 85, needed skilled workers to churn out thousands of photo albums.
Four years later, the Holson Burns Group Inc. – the company controlled by Romney’s Bain Capital LLC – closed the factory and laid off about 150 workers. Some jobs were sent north, where months later many of those were also eliminated. Other operations went overseas. [...]
For Bain, the plan was a financial success: Holson Burnes raised $24 million from its initial public offering on the over-the-counter trading market, with Bain executives retaining the majority of the company’s shares. Bain, in the end, reaped more than double the return on its initial investment. But workers were left jobless just as the local economy began to slump.
“In the real world, some things don’t make it,” Romney offered as an explanation for the layoffs he had overseen as Bain’s CEO. However, the plant in South Carolina is not an isolated incident. Under Romney, “four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs.” But documents show that “Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy.” Indeed, the firm pointedly made higher profits “by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.”
As Romney’s own business partner stated, “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation.” It’ll be an interesting display of acrobatics to see how Romney explains to South Carolinians that the profit his company made off the backs of 150 laid off workers proves his bona fides as a job creator.
Seven of Nine GOP Members Vote to Cut Auto Loans, Killing Jobs in Michigan
LANSING – Most of the Michigan Republican Congressional delegation doesn’t care about Michigan auto jobs. Members Dave Camp, Fred Upton, Thad McCotter, Candice Miller, Mike Rogers, Dan Benishek, and Tim Walberg all voted to kill Michigan auto jobs last night when they voted for a stopgap budget bill (HR 2608, RC 727, 9/23/11) that cuts $1.5 billion from an auto industry loan program.
“These representatives don’t care about the people they represent,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “How can they vote to kill auto jobs in a state with an unemployment rate over 11 percent? These Republicans aren’t interested in turning around Michigan’s economy. They’d rather continue the same agenda of Governor Snyder and legislative Republicans to kill jobs and force more workers into the unemployment line.”
With their vote, Camp, Upton, McCotter, Miller, Rogers, Benishek, and Walberg are cutting auto industry loans, and jeopardizing the industry’s recovery and the jobs of tens of thousands of autoworkers.
“How can Members of Congress from Michigan vote against Michigan auto workers?” asked Brewer. “This is irresponsible and unforgivable. They’re not looking out for the best interest of their constituents and are instead pandering to the extreme right of their Party. Voters will hold them accountable for it in 2012.”
The GOP presidential candidates and other prominent conservatives spoke today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Florida. This afternoon, Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) took to the stage to talk about “successes” in his state, including decreasing the state’s unemployment rate to 10.7 percent — which he noted is still well above the national average.
In the next sentence, though, Scott touted another “success” — laying off 15,000 public sector workers, which of course increased the unemployment rolls in his state. Scott then declared, “government can’t create jobs”:
SCOTT: We’ve had plenty of success so far. Not enough…In Florida, unemployment rate’s gone from 12 percent down to 10.7. We’re still above the national average, but we’ve generated 87,200 private sector jobs — private sector! And we have 15,000 less government jobs in the state of Florida. [Applause] Government doesn’t create jobs.
Watch it:
Scott’s reminder that he laid of thousands of Floridians drew big applause from the conservative crowd. At least 600,000 government workers have lost their jobs since the recession began, but Republicans nevertheless keep scapegoating public employees who have shouldered more than their fair share of economic pain.
In fact, massive job losses in the public sector are one of the main factors keeping national unemployment so high. In August, a gain of 17,000 private sector jobs was completely negatedby 17,000 public sector job losses. According to David Leonhardt, if state and local governments had continued to hire at their previous pace, they would have added half a million jobs to the economy. In other words, government austerity over the past two years “has cost the economy about one million jobs.”
Attack is Congressman’s Latest Against Middle-Class Workers
LANSING – Republican Michigan Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-7) continues his assault against the middle-class – this time attacking the minimum wage and overtime benefits for workers.
Walberg is the Chairman of the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee and recently held a hearing at which he questioned the Fair Labor Standards Act which guarantees a minimum wage and overtime for workers. Walberg claims the federal law stands “in the way of progress.” Abolishing or weakening the law would have dire consequences for workers who could see their pay and benefits drastically decrease.
“This is nothing more than another Republican attack on the middle-class,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “If it were up to Republicans, they would turn our wages into those seen in China and India. This isn’t a race to the bottom despite the best efforts of Republicans.”
“Middle-class families continue to be assaulted by the GOP,” added Brewer. “Whether it’s unfair tax increases, cuts to public education and public safety, or the elimination of Medicare, Republicans will stop at nothing to dismantle the middle-class. Tim Walberg should focus his time on ending subsidies for oil companies and eliminating obscene bonuses for Wall Street CEOs instead of attacking middle-class workers.”
Just days after the nation’sunemployment ratehit 9.2 percent, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) said on CNBC that it’s a problem that the federal government isn’t “sacrificing” by laying off workers like the private sector. Last week’s dismal jobs report showed that the recovery has stalled and14.1 million Americansare out of work, but Brady complained that government isn’t doing its part to “get our financial house in order” because it’s hiring workers while private companies lay them off:
BRADY: Truth is, when’s the government going to sacrifice? Everyone’s been pinching pennies, the government budgets have almost doubled the last couple years. Most companies are laying off workers, especially small businesses, the federal government’s hiring federal workers.So my question is, when is the government going to sacrifice in order to help us get our financial house in order?
Watch it:
Brady’s suggestion that the government needs to lay off more workers during a time of high unemployment is not only disturbingly out-of-touch, it’s also untrue. Last month marked thesharpest decline in state and local jobs since the 1982, and most job growth at the moment is coming from private companies.
As Matt Yglesias has documented, over 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since January 2009. State and local government employees have been particularly hard hit: nearly 100,000 have lost their jobs so far this year, and 464,000 have found themselves jobless since September 2008. Forecasts say another 110,000 could soon lose their jobs as states begin their new fiscal years.
Federal payrolls have been mostly flat for years, even as the population has been growing. In November, President Obama announced a two-year pay freeze for 1.9 million federal workers.
According to David Leonhardt, if state and local governments had continued to hire at their previous pace, they would have added half a million jobs to the economy. In other words, government austerity over the past two years “has cost the economy about one million jobs.”
It should go without saying, but apparently doesn’t, that it’s a bad thing that some small businesses are laying off workers and the public sector should not try to emulate them. It’s also callous and ignorant to suggest that government workers aren’t shouldering their fair share of economic pain.
Two Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire have resigned their leadership posts, citing deeply held disagreements with the GOP's recent attacks on organized labor.
State Rep. Matt Quandt and House Whip Tim Copeland both said they simply could not sit idly by as pensions and bargaining rights were rolled back.
"What they're doing, going after the public employees and pensions just isn't right," Copeland reportedly added.
Republicans in New Hampshire have pushed a pension reform plan that would significantly reduce benefits paid out to those who retire after Jan. 1, 2012. It also requires higher contributions from employees and extends how long they must pay into their pensions before taking advantage of them.
While the deal has not yet passed, negotiators are trying to strike a compromise that would allow public workers to remain unionized and bargain with employers.
Today, President Obama addressed the leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a highly ideologicalright-wing trade association representing mostlylarge international corporations. Obama urged the audience of business executives to “get in the game” and spend some of the trillions of dollars corporations have compiled in the past year on job creation. Indeed, much of the executive leadership of the Chamber has spent the past few years rewarding themselves with millions in additional compensation while eliminating American jobs.
Trucking Manufacturer Navistar Inc Is On The US Chamber’s Board Of Directors:
– In 2010, Naivstar CEO Daniel Ustianincreased his total compensation by 27%, from $6.64 million in FY 2009 to $8.43 million in the year that ended October 31. The company has enjoyed healthy profits: in 2009, it earned $320 million, or $4.46 a share, and in 2010, it made $223 million, or $3.11 a share.
– Navistar has slashed jobs at factories across the country. In Springfield, Ohio, Navistar laid off250 workers from a truck assembly plant. At itsplant in Arkansas, the company laid off 477 in 2009 after letting 300workers go in 2008. Amid the layoffs and plant closures, Navistar, a major military contractor, openeda new factory in Mexico last year.
Telecommunications Giant AT&T Is On The US Chamber’s Board Of Directors:
– AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was awarded a compensation package valued at $20.3 million in 2009, a jump of 35% from 2008. Last year, AT&T devoted an extra $8.99 million into Stephenson’s pension plan, ensuring that his retirement will include a pension “equal to 60 percent of his highest average salary and bonus in three of his last 10 years at the company. Although he’s not currently eligible for retirement, his pension is valued at an estimated $31 million today.”
– In recent years, AT&T has aggressively downsized its American workforce. In 2008, the company killed over 16,000 jobs as the recession hit. But in the last two years as AT&T enjoyed record profits, the company announced layoffs of “hundreds” in Kansas, 96 in Reynoldsburg, Ohio,150 in Connecticut, 525 technicians in California, and 140 jobs inOklahoma.
Agricultural Manufacturer Deere And Co. (John Deere Company) Is On The US Chamber’s Board Of Directors:
– Samuel Allen, the CEO and Chairman of Deere and Co., was awarded a compensation package in 2010 three times the size of his pay in 2009. Allen’s compensation was $12.29 million in 2010.
– As Deere and Co. recorded high profits, the company slashed jobs. The company killed 367 jobs in East Moline, Illinois, 325 in Iowa, and 89jobs in North Dakota.
Health Insurance Company WellPoint Is On The US Chamber’s Board Of Directors:
– In recent years, WellPoint has reported record profits and extraordinary executive compensation. In 2009, WellPoint CEO Angela Braly was awarded a 51% compensation boost from $8.7 million in 2008 to $13.1 million.
– During the same period of high profits and highly compensated executives, WellPoint shed thousands of jobs. In 2009, WellPoint laid off1,500 employees across the nation. Following the first round of layoffs, the company got rid of an additional 136 jobs in Missouri and 111 inWisconsin. Notably, during this same period WellPoint’s trade association secretly transfered $86 million to the Chamber to fight health reform.
Despite bloated rhetoric about the virtues of “free enterprise,” the Chamber demanded taxpayer bailouts for its bank members (AIG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc.), billions in taxpayer money for its defense contract members, taxpayer money forcleaning up BP’s oil spill, and preferential tax cuts for its millionaire executives.
As ThinkProgress has documented, the Chamber has a history of being singularly focused on boosting profits, not creating American jobs. The Chamber has pushed for unfettered free trade deals, sponsored a series of conferences to teach businesses how to outsource jobs to China, and even lobbied against legislation that would have created over 1.7 million jobs.
Several dozen protesters demonstrated in front of the Chamber today as Obama walked across Lafayette Park from the White House to the business lobby. Watch a video produced by ThinkProgress interns Kevin Donohue and Paul Breer:
– Lee Fang, Zaid Jilani, Kevin Donohue and Paul Breer
Faced with growing budget deficits and restive taxpayers, elected officials from Maine to Alabama, Ohio to Arizona, are pushing new legislation to limit the power of labor unions, particularly those representing government workers, in collective bargaining and politics.
State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.
But in some cases — mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities — officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.
For example, Republican lawmakers in Indiana, Maine, Missouri and seven other states plan to introduce legislation that would bar private sector unions from forcing workers they represent to pay dues or fees, reducing the flow of funds into union treasuries. In Ohio, the new Republican governor, following the precedent of many other states, wants to ban strikes by public school teachers.
Some new governors, most notably Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are even threatening to take away government workers’ right to form unions and bargain contracts.
“We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots,” Mr. Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. “The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers.”
Many of the proposals may never become law. But those that do are likely to reduce union influence in election campaigns, with reverberations for both parties.
In the 2010 elections, Republicans emerged with seven more governor’s mansions and won control of the legislature in 26 states, up from 14. That swing has put unions more on the defensive than they have been in decades.
But it is not only Republicans who are seeking to rein in unions. In addition to Mr. Cuomo, California’s new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, is promising to review the benefits received by government workers in his state, which faces a more than $20 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months.
“We will also have to look at our system of pensions and how to ensure that they are transparent and actuarially sound and fair — fair to the workers and fair to the taxpayers,” Mr. Brown said in his inaugural speech on Monday.
Many of the state officials pushing for union-related changes say they want to restore some balance, arguing that unions have become too powerful, skewing political campaigns with their large war chests and throwing state budgets off kilter with their expensive pension plans.
But labor leaders view these efforts as political retaliation by Republicans upset that unions recently spent more than $200 million to defeat Republican candidates.
“I see this as payback for the role we played in the 2010 elections,” said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the main union of state employees. Mr. McEntee said in October that his union was spending more than $90 million on the campaign, largely to help Democrats.
“Now there’s a bull’s-eye on our back, and they’re out to inflict pain,” he said.
In an internal memorandum, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. warned that in 16 states, Republican lawmakers would seek to starve public sector unions of money by requiring each government worker to “opt in” before that person’s dues money could be used for political activities.
“In the long run, if these measures deprive unions of resources, it will cut them off at their knees. They’ll melt away,” said Charles E. Wilson, a law professor at Ohio State University.
Of all the new governors, John Kasich, Republican of Ohio, appears to be planning the most comprehensive assault against unions. He is proposing to take away the right of 14,000 state-financed child care and home care workers to unionize. He also wants to ban strikes by teachers, much the way some states bar strikes by the police and firefighters.
“If they want to strike, they should be fired,” Mr. Kasich said in a speech. “They’ve got good jobs, they’ve got high pay, they get good benefits, a great retirement. What are they striking for?”
Mr. Kasich also wants to eliminate a requirement that the state pay union-scale wages to construction workers on public contracts, even if the contractors are nonunion. In addition, he would like to ban the use of binding arbitration to settle disputes between the state and unions representing government employees.
Labor leaders, who argue that government employees are not overpaid, worry that many of these measures have a much better chance of enactment than in previous years because of Republican electoral gains and recession-ravaged taxpayers’ reduced sympathy toward government workers.
The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s internal memo warned labor leaders, “With the enormous losses in state legislatures around the country, we will face not only more attacks on working families and their unions — we will face more serious attacks, particularly in the formerly blue or purple states that are now controlled by a Republican trifecta.”
It pointed in particular to six states, including several former union strongholds, where Republicans control the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature: Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Naomi Walker, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s director of state government relations, said many voters would oppose the antiunion efforts. “I think folks in these states are going to ask whether this is the right time to weaken unions when corporations are amassing more power than ever,” she said. “We’ve been fighting against privatizing Social Security and sending jobs offshore and to get the best deal for the unemployed. It would be a lot easier for Republicans if unions weren’t there to throw up these roadblocks.”
Union leaders particularly dread the spread of right-to-work laws, which prevail in 22 states, almost all in the South or West. Under such laws, unions and employers cannot require workers to join a union or pay any dues or fees to unions to represent them.
Unions complain that such laws allow workers in unionized workplaces to reap the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for it. Pointing to lower wages in right-to-work states, unions say the laws lead to worse wages and benefits by weakening unions.
But lawmakers who are pushing right-to-work laws argue that they help attract investment. “The folks who work day-to-day in economic development tell us that the No. 1 thing we can do to make Indiana more attractive to business is to make Indiana a right-to-work state,” said Jerry Torr, an Indiana state representative who backs such legislation.
Some union leaders say that proposals like right-to-work laws, which have little effect on state budgets, show that Republicans are using budget woes as a pretext to undercut unions.
“They’re throwing the kitchen sink at us,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “We’re seeing people use the budget crisis to make every attempt to roll back workers’ voices and any ability of workers to join collectively in any way whatsoever.”
A group composed of Republican state lawmakers and corporate executives, the American Legislative Exchange Council, is quietly spreading these proposals from state to state, sending e-mails about the latest efforts as well as suggested legislative language.
Michael Hough, director of the council’s commerce task force, said the aim of these measures was not political, but to reduce labor’s swollen power. “Government budgets have grown and grown because of the cost of employees’ pensions and salaries,” he said. “Now we have to deal with that.”
Wow. Here I thought that Michigan's economy was suffering because of the massive economic downturn nationally and the near-collapse of the manufacturing sector over the past two years. Apparently I was wrong. According to Rick Snyder, Michigan's problems are all the fault of government employees.
Rick Snyder, a certified public accountant and businessman who has never before held public office, said Tuesday he plans to confront head-on what he regards as excessive compensation for public-sector employees, including schoolteachers. Further, he said, he will seek to enact reforms in the way the state distributes revenue to local governments and schools as a way to encourage them to consolidate and streamline operations.
Snyder, in an interview with the Free Press at his transition office near the Capitol, said his proposed reforms -- the details of which he said will be released in January and February -- will be painful, and he anticipates stiff opposition. But they are necessary to transform the jobs climate and rid the state of pervasive ennui, he said.
Government at all levels "is an expense to the economy," Snyder said. "We're taking more than we should because our costs are out of line."
All those out-of-work auto workers will be so happy to hear that. I'm sure once he's trimmed the government's footprint, they'll all be promptly hired back
The New York Daily News is reporting that, after a marathon negotiating session late last night and continuing into this morning, Senate Democrats have struck a deal to pass the 9/11 first responders bill with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who has been blocking the bill because of its cost. Coburn, along with fellow-obstructionist Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), managed to extract huge concessions, bringing the total compensation package to $4.3 billion, down from an original pool of over $7 billion. The “time span was also significantly limited to five years each for the health treatment program.”
“I’ll stand in the way of anything that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t spend our money wisely, so you know, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, we’re in such a hole, Jon, that we don’t have the luxury of not getting things right,” Coburn told ABC News today after announcing the deal.
Last night on CNBC, Coburn defended his obstruction of the bill and his insistence that it lavishes too much money on dying 9/11 first responders, saying “we’re spending four times as much money as we need to.” Coburn said that the actual cost of pre-deal bill would be $11 billion (he disputed the way the Congressional Budget Office scored it), and suggested that it was not paid for, saying, “we don’t have an extra $11 billion right now.” Watch it:
Of course, the bill would not require an “extra” $11 billion. The bill is entirely paid for by offsets, some of which were changed at the GOP’s behest. As ThinkProgress has noted, these offsets — which at one point included a tax on foreign corporations — led the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby against the measure.
Meanwhile, on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, guest host Chris Hayes brought on Ground Zero worker T.J. Gilmartin, who recounted his disturbing interaction with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the bill earlier this month. Gilmartin told his heartbreaking story about losing his ability to breath properly after working in the toxic dust at Ground Zero, how he can no longer work, and has “nothing left.” Still, he said he has no regrets about volunteering to work after 9/11. Speaking hypothetically to Coburn, Gilmartin asked, “what about the responders in Oklahoma?” “What are you going to tell them as they get sicker and sicker and start dying and they need help? Are you going tell them, ‘Well, I had a to bicker like a 5 year old in kindergarten’?” Watch it:
UPDATEThe Senate passed a compromise version of the 9/11 first responders bill this afternoon. "The measure was passed on a voice vote with no one objecting after Democrats and Republican critics reached a compromise reducing the bill's cost from $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion." The House will vote on it later today.
M.C.L Comment: On one hand Republicans can say: we don't have money for the unemployed and 9.11 workers. Republicans on the other hand can say: We got the money to give Paris Hilton and the cast of Jersey Shore tax breaks.
