Why Wal-Mart May Move to Support Minimum-Wage Hike

The company may have a lot to gain from a federal increase.

Demonstrators march and block traffic in a major intersection outside a Walmart store during rush hour September 5, 2013 in Hyattsville, Maryland.
National Journal
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Feb. 20, 2014, midnight

The largest private em­ploy­er in Amer­ica, a com­pany that pos­sibly re­cently paid a ma­jor­ity of its em­ploy­ees less than $25,000 an­nu­ally, is con­sid­er­ing sup­port­ing an in­crease in the fed­er­al min­im­um wage.

For Wal-Mart, the move might make a whole lot of sense.

Dav­id To­var, a Wal-Mart spokes­man, told Bloomberg Wed­nes­day that his com­pany is “look­ing at” sup­port­ing a fed­er­al wage in­crease. “Whenev­er there’s de­bates,” he said, “it’s not like we look once and make a de­cision. We look a few times from oth­er angles.” For now, the com­pany re­mains neut­ral.

To­var did give one reas­on why the com­pany might sup­port an in­crease. Boost­ing the wage, he said, would mean that some Wal­mart shop­pers would “now have ad­di­tion­al in­come” to spend at the store. At the same time, “it’s really hard to mod­el be­ha­vi­or based on these kinds of changes,” To­var told Bloomberg.

Wal-Mart has a total of 1.3 mil­lion U.S. em­ploy­ees. About 300,000 of those em­ploy­ees earn an av­er­age of $8.75 an hour, ac­cord­ing to Berke­ley’s Labor Re­search Cen­ter. Boost­ing the fed­er­al min­im­um to $10.10 an hour from the cur­rent $7.25, which is the pro­pos­al from Pres­id­ent Obama and Sen­ate Demo­crats, could have a big im­pact just from the store’s own em­ploy­ees.

Some eco­nom­ists are on board with the idea. “If sud­denly all these low-wage work­ers have more in­come, they are likely to spend that money right away,” Dav­id Cooper of the left-lean­ing Eco­nom­ic Policy In­sti­tute told The Huff­ing­ton Post last fall. “If an em­ploy­ee at Mc­Don­ald’s or Pizza Hut sud­denly has ad­di­tion­al in­come,” he said, “they could spend it at Wal­mart.”

There’s not yet enough data out there to sug­gest the move would work, and Wal-Mart would most likely want to have more to go on than just the opin­ion of a few wage-in­crease ad­voc­ates. But for a com­pany with a prob­lem­at­ic im­age when it comes to how it treats its work­ers, back­ing a change here could be a gain in it­self. CVS isn’t the only U.S. mega-store cap­able of mak­ing a big PR move that could come with ser­i­ous up-front costs.

And Wal-Mart wouldn’t be alone in rush­ing out ahead of a pos­sible fed­er­al in­crease: On Wed­nes­day, Gap an­nounced that the com­pany would in­crease its own min­im­um wage to $10 an hour by June 2015. That de­cision will im­pact about 65,000 U.S. em­ploy­ees. “Our de­cision to in­vest in front­line em­ploy­ees will dir­ectly sup­port our busi­ness, and is one that we ex­pect to de­liv­er a re­turn many times over,” said the com­pany’s CEO.

Sup­port­ing an in­crease also wouldn’t be a first for Wal-Mart. Back in 2005, CEO Lee Scott urged Con­gress to raise the fed­er­al wage from $5.15 an hour. “We can see first-hand at Wal-Mart how many of our cus­tom­ers are strug­gling to get by,” Scott said then. “Our cus­tom­ers simply don’t have the money to buy ba­sic ne­ces­sit­ies between pay checks.” Con­gress even­tu­ally began a series of wage in­creases, which first took ef­fect in 2007 and cul­min­ated in an in­crease to $7.25 start­ing in 2009.

A dec­ade ago, Wal-Mart went all in on the ar­gu­ment that it could be a win­ner as a res­ult of a wage in­crease. There’s no reas­on to think the com­pany can’t do it again now.

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
17 hours ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
18 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
1 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login