Posted on 07/11/2013 6:22:37 AM PDT by servo1969
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Isaac Newton’s Law of Motion
Washington DC Democrats passed a bill that would require retailers to pay workers at least $12.50 per hour.
Within hours of the decision Wal-Mart announced it was canceling three store openings in the area. Nice work, Democrats. WTOP reported:
The D.C. Council has passed a bill that would require large retailers like Wal-Mart to pay workers at least $12.50.
The bill now goes to Mayor Vincent Gray for his consideration. The 8-5 vote was short of the votes needed to override a veto from the mayor.
In a statement, Wal-Mart says the Council has forced the retailer’s hands and it will abandon three planned projects in the District.
“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. This was a difficult decision for us – and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents – but the Council has forced our hand,” the written statement says.
So now, instead of letting people work for $8.25 per hour with a chance to move up, you get nothing. Good job, DC.
Oh, but they feel good about themselves. They’re “good people” because they support a “living wage”.
Doesn’t matter what actually results from their support - the real goal was accomplished - they feel good about themselves.
How can Liberals go their entire lives so completely clueless about basic economics?
Glad this worked out this way.
Those Walmarts were going to end up screwed, it is good this happened up front and that Walmart got out of them.
Now to decide on where to send them...
They are educated well beyond their intelligence..........
THIS is all part of the great humanitarian concern Liberals have for the poor and it’s part of their drive for full employment!!! :)
It's called pre-operational egocentrism. It's a stage of development found in most toddlers.
As I understand it, it is not “large retailers like Wal-Mart” but in fact tailored so it is ONLY Wal-Mart. There is a Target store already in the District, no? And there is zero mention of them falling under this bill.
And I haven’t heard any grousing from the other minimum wage workers in DC, no “hey, what about us? We want $12.50 too.” Now why might that be? /rhetorical
Good for Wal-Mart! Tell them to stick it.
Why not set the minimum wage at $20? Now, that’s a living wage.
In a statement, Wal-Mart says the Council has forced the retailer’s hands and it will abandon three planned projects in the District.
“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. This was a difficult decision for us – and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents – but the Council has forced our hand,” the written statement says
**
Killing opportunity for all ...what Democrats do best!
Oh, but they will never get blamed for the cutback in jobs; the evil anti-union Walmart will be demonized.
I don’t know of any plans for WalMart in Detroit but they did just open a Meijer on the corner of Woodward and 8 Mile bringing some 400 jobs. (Meijer is a regional store comparable to Walmart)
That tells me that despite Detroit’s problems, economic freedom wins out over economic oppression.
Inner city residents ought to protest. Two family members could get jobs, get married, stay together and earn $16 per hour combined. Their kids could get jobs and save for college.
Oh, well, no ...we can’t have that.
A lot of congressional staff is going to love this law up until the time they get replaced with unpaid interns.
Particularly stupid because with the extreme cost of living in D.C., market forces probably would have eventually forced Walmart to pay something close to $12.50 to get competent help anyway.
Meijer is a unionized company that has deep ties to all the major unions in Michigan. The Woodward store is likely a political favor, and at the end of the day I suspect you’ll learn your Michigan taxes are helping to pay for it.
If it is not a bill of Attainder, it is awfully close.
If not that, or in addition, it does seem that it violates the 14th amendment.
Walmart has threatened to stop construction on three stores in Washington D.C. and to cancel plans for three more if Washington goes ahead with a dramatic increase in minimum wage to $12.50 an hour. Walmart argues that the bill arbitrarily discriminates against large retailers, and that is at least partly true. The measure under consideration would only apply to stores of at least 75,000 square feet and $1 billion in annual corporate profits. This net catches Walmart, Best Buy, Home Depot, Target and Macy’s, but not Starbucks (enough profits, but under 75,000 square feet) or local supermarkets like Giant Foods (possibly enough space, not enough profits).
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”
“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service A
14th amendment. Excerpt of Section 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
actually, this isn’t an example of the liberals shooting themselves in the foot. they are simply exposing their true colors.
publicly, they scream out that “the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer”. the dirty secret is that the liberals don’t give a damn about poor; but they desperately want to destroy the “rich”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.