Jobs v. Low Wages: Council Debates Wal-Mart

If Wal-Mart intends to open a store in Boston, some members of the City Council would like to have a say in the company’s employment practices.

Before an audience that included two agents from Wal-Mart, on Wednesday city councilors weighed the potential benefits of Wal-Mart (hundreds of jobs and cheap goods) against the company’s reputation for paying low wages.

Wal-Mart is in search of a possible location in Boston and, according to news reports, the company is eyeing property in Roxbury. The mayor has already made it clear that he is opposed to Wal-Mart, which is the largest private employer in the country.

At Wednesday’s meeting, several city councilors also expressed some concerns about the big box retailer. Ultimately, councilors agreed to move the issue to the council’s economic development and planning committee.  

Councilor Felix Arroyo initiated the discussion by asking the council agree to a meeting that would bring Wal-Mart representatives, local unions and the public together to consider how the company could open a location in the city. Arroyo said he wants the Wal-Mart discussion support sustainable growth in the city and “help set fair and equitable employment standards for large retailers throughout the City of Boston,” according to his resolution on the matter.

Councilor Michael Ross said that although Wal-Mart has a poor reputation for providing employees with a livable wage, he supported a hearing with company officials – so they could respond to the council’s requests for better working conditions. He cited the economy as another reason to stay open to the possibility of Wal-Mart setting up shop in the city.

“We can’t turn away hundreds of jobs and revenue during this downturn or close out the free market,” he said. 

Councilor Bill Linehan said that Wal-Mart would supply “quality products at a reasonable price,” particularly benefitting the poor residents in his and other districts. However, he said he didn’t want that to happen “on the backs of employees.”  

Councilors also discussed whether or not they should hold a public hearing on Wal-Mart, giving residents a chance to speak for or against a possible store in the city. Councilors wondered if a hearing would jeopardize the discussions the city is having with the company.

Council President Stephen Murphy objected to giving residents an opportunity to be heard because he said public discussion might chase Wal-Mart away. 

On the other hand, Councilor Charles Yancey said that a hearing would be “a positive opportunity for Wal-Mart to make its case for coming here”

Meanwhile, Councilor Matt O’Malley, who said he doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart because he finds some of the company’s practices “horrible,” supported the resolution. 

“But until there’s an actual plan, or location or store,” he said, “I think a hearing is premature.”

Other notable votes

• The council voted unanimously to accept a $28 million from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to cover some 80 percent of medical expenses incurred over the last year by people aged 55 through 64 who retired before becoming eligible to receive Medicare. The city covers insurance claims between $15,000 and $90,000 through the federal Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.
• The council voted unanimously to pass an ordinance that would enable the Boston Public Health Commission to continue to force retailers to obtain a permit to sell tobacco, forbid the sale of tobacco to minors and impose fines and suspensions on those that violate the ordinance. Currently, City of Boston code fines retailers only $300 for selling tobacco to minors. But the ordinance allows the Health Commission to raise the fine to $1,000.
•  The council voted unanimously to establish an advisory panel to deal with owners and tenants of properties where crime, pollution or other disturbances routinely occur. The panel, called the “Problem Properties Task Force,” would include the police, fire and public health commissioners, who will meet monthly at City Hall.