Retail Watchers

Stores being closed are in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on 15th ave and the Wedgwood store on 35th ave. They are set to close in April

Like with the other thread, I think Kroger is using the hazard pay as an excuse to clean house on underperforming locations rather than actually being unable to afford it.

How many more cities have passed Hazard Pay since Kroger decided to close the 2 Long Beach, CA Stores over these Hazard Pay rules?

Clearly this strategy to discourage cities from passing this sort of thing by closing stores as a result of it, did not work.

If they want to close 2 underperforming stores, that is certainly understandable but if that is the case say what it is- closure due to underperformance. Not due to the "hazard pay." But given the lack of new stores out of Kroger in CA and WA despite many of the competitors opening new stores in those states (even Albertsons), it seems closing stores is not a great move for them to maintain market share on the west coast.

storewanderer wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 5:34 pm
Clearly this strategy to discourage cities from passing this sort of thing by closing stores as a result of it, did not work.

I'm not sure if that's even the case. Again, echoing from the other thread, if Kroger really wanted to play hardball with hazard pay, then they should've threatened to close ALL of their stores in the area like what they had threatened over union disputes in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the meantime, I'll keep my eyes peeled for closures in other divisions.

Kroger is seriously screwing up with these decisions to close stores over these temporary "hazard pay" mandates. Though I have my doubts- there is still a 50/50 chance these lawsuits end up going favorable to the grocers and getting this hazard pay thing legally thrown out as it is based on the lawsuits that are being filed by the grocer's trade groups. Why not at least wait and see how the lawsuits go before closing the stores?

Shameful behavior from Kroger...............SHAMEFUL!

I do not shop at Ralphs any longer. I spoke to someone at corporate regarding my observations on many issues (past and present) and their clear decline. I was transparent with them and shared my perspectives as a shopper, a former employee and an industry expert (and former shareholder).

I was given a $30.00 "rewards" bonus on my card (which I of course used) and thanked. No call from anyone at corporate, No call from store management (2 stores).

I will not return.

I find it beyond belief that Kroger is willing to throw away decades of serving these neighborhoods over a temporary mandated $4/hr pay increase that in the case of Seattle is in effect only through the end of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Seriously- what are they doing with the other 13 stores they are keeping open in Seattle to pay for this? Just increase prices or cut down services to afford it.

Does Fred Meyer have to pay the extra in Seattle? It appears most retailers do not. Not clear how those like Fred Meyer and Target fit in on this.

Oh well, I am sure getting the extra customers over to the competitors who are at least keeping their stores open, who will will benefit long-term from these closures Kroger is doing, will help those competitors pay for part of this hazard pay thing.

Will be interesting to see how this behavior impacts Kroger's relationship with these communities going forward. Like if they want to go get a building permit or propose a new store or something.

storewanderer wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 10:51 pm Kroger is seriously screwing up with these decisions to close stores over these temporary "hazard pay" mandates. Though I have my doubts- there is still a 50/50 chance these lawsuits end up going favorable to the grocers and getting this hazard pay thing legally thrown out as it is based on the lawsuits that are being filed by the grocer's trade groups. Why not at least wait and see how the lawsuits go before closing the stores?

50/50 chance seems a bit high to me. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but from what I've read, it seems like a hail mary lawsuit. It's well established that cities have the right to regulate wages even higher than the state.

HCal wrote: ↑February 18th, 2021, 10:06 pm

50/50 chance seems a bit high to me. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but from what I've read, it seems like a hail mary lawsuit. It's well established that cities have the right to regulate wages even higher than the state.

The one factor that may fall into their favor is that they are only subjecting grocers to this and not even Wal Mart or Target or Costco or similar places that all offer "fresh groceries." In Seattle, I wonder if Amazon's grocery operations will be subject to it.

storewanderer wrote: ↑February 18th, 2021, 10:20 pm

HCal wrote: ↑February 18th, 2021, 10:06 pm

50/50 chance seems a bit high to me. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but from what I've read, it seems like a hail mary lawsuit. It's well established that cities have the right to regulate wages even higher than the state.

The one factor that may fall into their favor is that they are only subjecting grocers to this and not even Wal Mart or Target or Costco or similar places that all offer "fresh groceries." In Seattle, I wonder if Amazon's grocery operations will be subject to it.

If that happens, I imagine they would simply amend the ordinance to include Walmart and such stores.

Seattle covers grocery stores over 10,000 square feet and supercenters over 85,000 square feet if 30% or more is dedicated to groceries. So to me, that sounds like it would cover Amazon, Walmart, Costco, etc. But I don't think those stores are going to throw a tantrum like Kroger is doing.