Posted on 07/26/2006 2:39:50 PM PDT by jaydubya2
Big-box retailers would be required to pay their Chicago employees a “living wage” — at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010 — under a groundbreaking ordinance approved today that sets the stage for a court fight.
The 35 to 14 vote by a bitterly divided City Council is a victory for organized labor, a stunning defeat for Wal-Mart and the latest in a string of legislative embarrassments for Mayor Daley.
Chanting protesters on both sides of the contentious debate lined up early and jammed the Council chambers to witness a vote that could change the economic landscape of a city becoming more and more service-oriented every day.
A lobbying campaign waged behind the scenes for the last two years culminated in a more than three-hour debate that aired all of the old arguments and some new ones.
Chief sponsor Ald. Joe Moore (49th) likened the ordinance to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts 68 years ago to impose a 40-cent-an-hour minimum wage, outlaw child labor and mandate a 40-hour work week. “Our job is not to safeguard the profit for the world’s wealthiest corporations. Our job is to look out for our constituents,’’ he said.
Moore scoffed at the threat by Wal-Mart and Target to cancel their ambitious Chicago plans. “There is a buck to be made. A lot of bucks. They’ve saturated the rural markets,’’ he said.
Moore’s New Deal comparison did not sit well with his seatmate, Ald. Bernard Stone (50th).
“Instead of wrapping himself in President Roosevelt’s cloak, he should be wearing a little cap with a feather. This is Sherwood Forest. My colleague is Robin Hood. What he wants to do is steal from the rich and give to the poor,’’ he said.
Nowhere was the bitter division more evident than among African-American aldermen. Ald. Dorothy Tillman (3rd) said she “resents outside forces manipulating our community,’’ especially when it is “unions that have not been fair to us,’’ she said.
Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th) said he finds it “amazing’’ that his colleagues are willing to ‘take the risk’’ and hope that Wal-Mart and Target are bluffing. “When it comes to the West Side, ‘Let’s gamble.’ They’re willing to gamble with my side of town.’’
Ald. Ed Smith, 28th, chairman of the City Council’s black caucus, took the opposite view. He presented charts that showed the average Wal-Mart employee is paid $7.70 an hour and $16,016 a year, while Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott is paid $16,826 an hour (figuring on a 40-hour week) and $34.9 million a year.
“How can I tell Mrs. Jones I won’t support an extra $2 an hour?’’ he said.
Earlier this week, Daley refused to tip his hand for fear it would let aldermen off the hook.
“First the City Council has to make this decision. It’s called, `Profiles in Courage.’ Simple as that,” he said Monday.
The mayor tried desperately — albeit at the 11th hour — to avert the veto dilemma he now faces.
He branded the ordinance as “redlining,” arguing that mandating wage and benefit standards would deprive impoverished African-American communities of the jobs, shopping alternatives and revenues they so desperately need.
Wal-Mart and Target underscored the mayor’s claim with threats to abandon their ambitious Chicago expansion plans.
Wal-Mart threatened to cancel plans to build as many as 20 new Chicago Wal-Marts over the next five years. Target put plans to build three South Side stores “on hold” — and made thinly veiled threats to close existing Chicago stores.
But, in the end, none of that sabre-rattling mattered.
Aldermen had made their commitments to organized labor months ago. They were not about to renege — and test labor’s threat to run candidates against sitting aldermen who dare to oppose the “living wage — just seven months before the election.
The ordinance that will make Chicago the first big city in the nation to mandate wage and benefit standards for retailing giants is a watered-down version of the original.
Last month, proponents made a series of concessions aimed at softening the blow to business.
Instead of raising wages and benefits in one fell swoop, they agreed to a four-year phase-in that calls for giant retailers to pay: $9.25-an-hour and $1.50 in benefits on July 1, 2007; $9.50 and $2 a year later; $ 9.75 and $2.50 on July 1, 2009 and the full $10-an-hour and $3 in benefits on July 1, 2010. After that, the “living wage” would be raised annually to match the rate of inflation.
And instead of applying those standards to newly built and existing stores with at least 75,000 square feet of space, the store size was raised to 90,000 square feet. Small vendors renting less than 50 percent of the space inside big-box stores were exempt from the standard.
The so-called “living wage” would apply to any employee who works more than 10 hours a week. The old version would have kicked in at five hours a week.
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association has vowed a court challenge to block the ordinance from taking effect.
The association has already commissioned a legal opinion that claims the ordinance would interfere with interstate commerce; violate the Equal Protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions by singling out large retailers and exceed the city’s home rule powers because minimum wages are the exclusive purview of the Illinois General Assembly.
Complicating the mayor’s position is the fact that the law firm of Daley & George — which once included Mayor Daley and still counts his brother, Michael, as a partner — represented Wal-Mart on the West Side zoning change that paved the way for Wal-Mart’s entry into the Chicago market. The Austin store is scheduled to open in September.
Two years ago, a bitterly divided City Council handed Wal-Mart a split decision: zoning approval to build its first Chicago store in the West Side’s Austin community and a one-vote defeat in Chatham.
The vote followed an acrimonious debate that saw organized labor’s City Council’s allies throw the kitchen sink at Wal-Mart. They talked about a “predatory pricing” scheme that drives smaller competitors out of business and about a retailing behemoth that provides low-paying jobs with meager benefits and faces lawsuits for allegedly forcing hourly workers to work overtime without pay.
The failed effort to stop Wal-Mart gave birth to the big-box movement. Opponents claim that labor leaders’ real beef is their failure to unionize Wal-Mart.
Well, I got raked over the coals for saying that I did not think Target would pull out of Chicago if this happened, as they threatened.
Now we'll see.
I'm betting they just raise their prices.
If it is not, then I suspect Walmart will not operate in Chicago.
Seems like the City Council has a Detroit Death Wish.
...and *why* did labor fail to organize Wal-Mart?! Perhaps because the major unions are spending more than $80 million per election year in political contributions to Democrats, leaving only $40 million (or less) in funds for "organizing."
In short, labor unions have become a political organization; spending more money on partisan politics than on core union functions such as Organizing.
Stunning defeat my a**! What's so stunning about a bunch of commie rats wanting to suck blood out of a propering business? If this sticks, Wlamart will move out and then we'll see who is stunned.
Here, let me pound the last nail in the coffin......say bye, bye!
WalMart will continue to open stores on the border of the city. Chicago then gets none of the sales tax.
I'd bet that the towns just outside of the Chicago city limits will appreciate the jobs and tax revenues that the new stores will bring in.
Unlikely to stand judicial review.
More like a gravedigging ordinance.
It all comes down to the envy of petty little people.
IIRC, the store in Evergreen Park is across the street from Chicago. LOL!
and Atlas PUKED!!!
That stampeding noise is (more) businesses fleeing Chicago...
Supporters of the proposed 'living wage' ordinance that would force 'big box' stores such as Wal-Mart and Target inside Chicago's city limits to pay workers more money cheer as Alderman Joseph Moore addresses the city council about the ordinance Wednesday, July 26, 2006, in Chicago. The council is to vote on the ordinance later today. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)
Angela Munguia, 20, Karla Munoz, 20, and Jeyson Florez, 21, left to right, speak with organizer Madeline Talbott after the group showed its support for the 'living wage' proposal at Chicago's City Hall on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. The proposed ordinance, which would require 'big box' retailers to pay higher minimum wages and greater benefits to its workers, will go before the City Council vote on Wednesday, July 26. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)
I seem to remember Ben and Jerry's a few years ago had a policy that no one in the company could earn more than 17 times the lowest paid worker. That policy didn't last too long. It doesn't work.
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.