I think they are all Bozos on that Bus....
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.
I think they are all Bozos on that Bus....
Wouldn't do them a bit of good. The council meets on a regular basis. They'd just change the rule.
"Sounds to me like Chicago just handed an economic boom to the surrounding towns and cities."
Chicago did that years ago. Will and Dupage counties are the fasting growing areas outside of Chicago.
But Atlas is a pathetic sucker and will never shrug.
The rats are in terrible trouble. To be relevant they are having to resort to the basest level of class warfare.
The shism in the black/union coalition evident in this article should send shivers down Rat strategist spines.
Yep. When the stock boy starts making high level corporate decisions, maybe he can get paid more, too... In the meantime, the company won't collapse if the paper cups end up on the wrong end-cap.
I would love for Walmart to keep the same prices as elsewhere then add "Chicago 'living wage' fee" to the bottom of the ticket. That will set so many asses alight, you'll hear howling for 100 miles in any direction.
Simple economics. The store, whether it is a Mom-n-Pop or big box WallyWorld, Target, etc. passes taxes, wages, utilities, rent and other overhead costs on to their customers.
The City Council just voted a "tax" on their constituents disguised as something good for them which they call a living wage.
But the living wage they voted to approve only applies to those working at the stores.
The increase in prices passes to everyone in the city who shops there.
Now the stores must decide, do we stay and put up with this bit of socialism and have to listen to the employees at other stores complain about their wages and demand that their city councils also pass laws to give them raises or do we move and say "No more taxes to you city council, no more of your constituents have jobs with us for any wage, if your constituents want cheaper prices now they have to drive 20 extra miles."
Most importantly, they move their operations and send a clear signal that it is their business and not the city councils'.
In short, this is a small scale version of "outsourcing" jobs. When the cost of doing business becomes onerous, move to a more acceptable economic climate.
Saying, "Welcome to Wal-Mart" should not be a job which guidance counselors recommend.
The face of socialism. Keep that pic for future reference.
By 2010, when this goes into effect, every major chain store in the Chicago area will close and relocate to outlying areas in the region. As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs will be lost, sending Chicago's economy into a freefall.
Whether the people of Chicago will respond with a complete change in Aldermen remains to be seen.
Sounds like it is time to move away or be stuck in a liberal heaven.
You're probably right.
They will succeed in driving business outside the city limits and not benefit from any expansions.
We'll see.
The aldermen need to realize that big companies like this almost never bluff, especially in press releases. The plaintiff's lawyers have already put companies' feet to the fire on saying things in public that they don't mean.
I live in Texas, but have been noticing liberal enclaves keep collapsing and losing population. I'm just wondering how we take these places back after the last working person leaves.
Just out of curiosity, how big is the Marshall Field building downtown and what do they pay per hour?
Forgot to add.....wouldn't it be ironic if that operation hires all kinds of part-timers for under $10.00, has more than 50,000 square feet and they inadvertently screwed one of the nicer downtown retail establishments?
Wal-mart put one that size in north Tampa, don't go in, it's way to small. Any store smaller than 200,000 sq is just to small.
I can't answer your question about thier wage, but it's no longer Marshall Fields, it is now Macy's.
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.