Posted on 07/14/2006 4:02:49 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
Target is putting plans to build three South Side stores "on hold" -- and making veiled threats to close existing Chicago stores -- if the City Council mandates wage and benefit standards for "big-box" retailers, African-American aldermen warned Thursday.
The saber-rattling is intensifying as the clock winds down toward a July 26 showdown vote on plans to make Chicago the nation's first major city to establish a "living wage" for stores with at least 90,000 square feet of space operated by retailers with $1 billion in sales.
Minneapolis-based Target becomes the second retailing giant to threaten to pull out of the lucrative Chicago market in a last-ditch effort to stop an ordinance championed by organized labor that breezed through the City Council's Finance Committee 15-6 and has attracted support from 33 aldermen.
WAGE WAR
The current federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Illinois' minimum wage is $6.50
Most Chicago area Wal-Mart employees average $10.99 an hour, with just a few making the starting wage of $7.25 an hour, Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio recently said.
As of 2004, Target in many cities had a starting salary of about $7 an hour, published reports said. A few Target workers outside Illinois said they recently started with salaries as low as $6.25 an hour, according to postings on the Target Union! (www.targetunion.org) Web site for store employees.
Wal-Mart has threatened to cancel plans to build as many as 20 Chicago stores over the next five years if retailers are required to pay employees at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by July 1, 2010.
'It would be devastation for us'
Mayor Daley is taking the threat seriously. He has challenged aldermen who oppose Wal-Mart's 20-store expansion to describe how they would replace the 8,000 lost jobs.
Target failed to return calls on the admonition communicated to aldermen of the 5th, 9th and 34th wards in recent days. Target real estate executive Chris Case was scheduled to meet with African-American aldermen Thursday, but the meeting was canceled because of scheduling conflicts.
Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) said a Target pullout would be devastating to the 32-acre shopping mall at 119th and Marshfield that developers had hoped to build, with help from a $23 million city subsidy. Home Depot would likely follow Target out the door. As many as 1,000 jobs would be lost, Austin said.
"It would be devastation for us. Our largest employer in the 34th Ward is the Police Department. The second-largest for us would be Jewel. We have no other resources," Austin said.
Referring to the anti-Wal-Mart movement that gave birth to the big-box ordinance, Austin said, "If you want to bully up on Wal-Mart, you've got to bring in the other ones, and damned if you do on them. If they suffer from it, too bad. If you want to control Wal-Mart, you should go about that a different way."
Accused of 'bullying tactics'
Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) said she has a letter of intent from Target to build a new store at Marquette and Stony Island in her ward. But the developer has told her the store is "on hold" and that Target may close existing Chicago stores if the big-box ordinance goes through.
Hairston called it little more than a scare tactic. And even if the threat turns out to be real, she's standing firm in support of organized labor.
"Wal-Mart and Target could pay their people a living wage. Then we wouldn't have this problem, and people could actually live on the money they made," Hairston said.
Ald. Joe Moore (49th), chief sponsor of the big-box ordinance, accused Target and Wal-Mart of using "bullying tactics" to stop a train that has already left the station.
"It's an idle threat. ... They're clearly trying to ... intimidate members of the City Council. I am very hopeful that members will hold firm. ... The votes are still there," Moore said. He predicted 33 votes for the ordinance, "maybe more," even though Daley has been buttonholing aldermen to try to stop it.
Ald. Howard Brookins (21st) is still searching for a big-box retailer to replace the Wal-Mart his colleagues nixed at 83rd and Stewart.
Brookins said Wal-Mart executives have told him they may take the lead of the riverboat casinos that ring Chicago and run free shuttle buses to their suburban stores if the big-box ordinance passes.
"I don't know if it was in jest, but they did say it. ... That is an option that they could employ. They could set up locations to have pickup and dropoff. I don't think that is that farfetched," Brookins said.
fspielman@suntimes.com
Shrug Atlas, shrug!
The left would like to destroy business and private property. They succeed whenever they are given the chance.
re: "Plus, these stores will have higher insurance, higher rates of theft and vandalism, and higher employee turnover."
Extortion from the political machine far outweighs shoplifting.
Shoplifting is pretty much the same in the suburbs as in the city, at least in the electronics chain I'm familiar with, and from my many years in loss prevention.
And we aren't against corporate profit at all most of us however don't feel we need the extra tax burden so I guess there really isn't a viable solution for all is there?
As long as Target keeps its stores clean and uncluttered, you won't hear a peep from this Wal-Mart hater.
"Our largest employer in the 34th Ward is the Police Department."
A neighborhood where the police is the largest employer can't be a good place to locate. The crime rate must be sky high.
stopem, there's a guy who wrote a book recently, Dreher (sp?)I believe. He had a nice line about how a true conservative should feel.
A distrust of Big Govt, and an equal distrust of Big Business. I couldn't agree more.
The word Chicago and the word Alderman make me feel sick. Target and Walmart don't make me feel sick (I shop them both), but I will never feel the need to defend them. They are big boys with plenty of lobby money.
Good point,
"Section 8 housing is socialism. Stop those socialism payments and the market will soon find housing - employers will factor in the wages to keep essential employees."
That is the answer to this dilemma however will we ever see that come to pass in our lifetime?
Not exactly. Dayton/Hudson/MF owned Target for quite some time, Mervyn's as well. They started streamlining operations about a decade ago by changing all D/H stores to MF, which had better name recognition nationwide. As high-end retailers began to lose market share to midpoint retailers, Target became more powerful than its parent company, culminating in Target Corporation actually becoming the parent company. The first thing they did was drop Mervyn's, and MF followed soon after.
I worked for Target for most of the '90s but couldn't make a career of it. I'm just too damn hetero.
Hmm interesting, and that brings up a whole new debate.
You are right about lobbyists. What's a conservative to do :)
'm not in favor of it. I'm just saying that they aren't going to close shop in Chicago over this. At worst, they will raise their prices.
That ain't so brilliant, Brilliant.
Try owning a business, you'll see.
There is no such thing as Dayton Hudson Corp anymore. It was renamed to Target Corp several years ago. This was done partly because, of all the holdings that the company held (Daytons, Hudsons, Target, Mervyns, Marshall Fields) by far the most profitable was Target.
As of now, only Target remains of the group.
While it is quite possible, even likely, that Mark Dayton still owns shares of Target Corp, he has long since divested himself of any controlling interests in the company.
And yes, he is a real joy to those of us living here in Minnesota.
How many do leech? A lot. Does that justify raising prices for literally everyone in town lowering everyone's real wages to force this onto Target & Walmart? Nope.
Why not make the minimum "living wage" at least $20/hour plus 401(k) and benefits, maybe higher? Yeah, that'll be a real boom to the economy...
Economics is not a zero sum game. The size of the pie can grow in a capitalist economy where both employees and employers have an incentive for growth.
The whole point here is that Chicago Aldermen are illiterate in economics 101. They have no concept of supply and demand. They have no concept of anything except centralized CONTROL of a static economy and the transfer of money from the rich to the poor BECAUSE the rich are rich and because the poor are poor.
Invariably, when a socialist program fails, the caring solution is to make the program bigger and throw more money at the problem.
The corruption in Chicago is a special twist. The political machine has run a lot of neighborhood business out of Chicago. That neighborhood business left due to extortion from the local ward committeeman's machine. Of course, that hurt the coffers of the local machine's and strengthened the centralized control of Daley over the ward committeemen, including the Black politicians.
Both Black and non-Black ward politicians who would like to rise within the organization now lack the base of contributors. There is a conscious attempt on the part of ward politicians to attract "business" to their ward so that they have someone they can extort money from.
Sometimes this extortion is a blatant "Give me cash to put in my freezer". But more often, it is "Hire my unqualified nephew for a do-nothing no-show job if you don't want to be hassled by the health inspector."
Well, come to think of it. Their nephew is qualified for a do-nothing no-show job.
Target isn't French owned, you idiot.
I mean...over here, LOL! (Two postings of same article.)
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.