Supporters in the gallery cheer as the Aldermen debate the "big box" ordinance on the city council floor. (KEITH HALE/SUN-TIMES)
Posted on 07/27/2006 6:53:01 AM PDT by Jean S
Defying Mayor Daley and challenging Wal-Mart and Target to follow through on their threats, a bitterly divided City Council voted Wednesday to require Chicago's big-box retailers to pay employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.
The 35-14, veto-proof vote is an overwhelming victory for organized labor and the latest in a string of legislative defeats for a corruption-weakened Daley.
"They're afraid of candidates running against them. That's what it is. That was the real issue," Daley said, denying that the vote was a sign of his diminishing grip on a Council he once controlled with an iron fist.
"I can roll with the punches on anything."
Thirty-four votes are needed to override a mayoral veto, and union leaders ended up with 35. Unless Daley can pick off at least two votes -- highly unlikely on such an emotionally charged issue -- a veto is out of the question.
Nevertheless, David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, exhorted Daley to "tear down this wall and veto the barrier to economic opportunity for all.''
The mayor refused to rule out his first-ever veto.
But chances are he will pin his hopes on a court challenge promised by the association.
FDR vs. Robin Hood
"It affects a [90,000-square-foot] big box today. Does it affect someone with 50,000 square feet tomorrow [or] 25,000? ... Everybody is for a living wage. But to only single out one unit -- and they're afraid they'll move down. Next week, is it going to be something else? ... Where do you stop? That's the concern that I have ... I have to keep sales tax here some way. It can't all be on Michigan Avenue," Daley said.
When the roll call was finally announced, a packed City Council gallery erupted in cheers. Supporters had lined up early to witness a vote that could change the economic landscape of Chicago -- and set a precedent across the nation.
A two-year lobbying campaign waged behind the scenes culminated in more than three hours of debate that aired all of the old arguments -- and some new ones.
Chief sponsor Ald. Joe Moore (49th) likened the living-wage campaign 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 workweek.
"Our job is not to safeguard profits for the world's wealthiest corporations. Our job is to look out for our constituents," he said.
Moore scoffed at threats by Wal-Mart and Target to cancel their ambitious expansion plans for Chicago. "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. Nine voted against the ordinance and 10 for it.
Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th) said he finds it "amazing" his colleagues are willing to "take the risk" 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," he said.
Ald. Ed Smith (28th), chairman of the Council's Black Caucus, took the opposite view. He presented charts to show the average Wal-Mart employee is paid $7.70 an hour and $16,016 a year, while Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott rakes in $16,826 an hour (based on a 40-hour week) and $34.9 million a year. "How can I tell Mrs. Jones that I won't support an extra $2 an hour?" he said.
The mayor has branded the ordinance "redlining," arguing it would deprive impoverished African-American communities of jobs, places to shop and revenues.
Commitments made to labor
Underscoring Daley's claim, Wal-Mart and Target threatened to abandon Chicago expansion.
Wal-Mart warned it could 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 stores.
But in the end, none of that saber-rattling mattered.
Aldermen had made commitments to organized labor months ago. They were not about to renege -- and test labor's threat to run candidates against sitting aldermen.
The ordinance that will make Chicago the nation's largest city to mandate wage and benefit standards for retailing giants will be phased in, beginning with mandatory pay of $9.25 an hour and $1.50 in benefits on July 1, 2007, and ending July 1, 2010, with $10 an hour and $3 in benefits. After that, the "living wage" would be raised annually to match the rate of inflation.
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association has vowed a court challenge.
The association has a legal opinion that 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.
"We're extremely disappointed. Aldermen who voted for this hung out the sign that Chicago is closed for business," said Jerry Roper, president of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
They will. They know the cost of submission, and they know how to break opposition.
The opposition does not understand what they're up against. Wal-Mart now consumes 10% of China's exports to the U.S. and 1% of China's GDP. Got that? A full 1% of the entire revenue of 1,313,973,713 people comes from ONE COMPANY - WAL-MART. They know the game, and with 6601 stores they won't hesitate to shut down 1 store to say "no, it's not our job to ensure everyone gets a 'living wage'."
AThe people in the picture were against the council ordanance, right? They did not want to see the big retailers forced to pay a minimum wage of $10?
I'd like to see these retailers make good on their threat and move their stores to the subs.
That must have been sometime ago because Toleduh! has driven most of the business away.
I've heard that Wal-Mart controls something like HALF the shelf space of all the major consumer brands in the US.
If they wanted to mount a counter-offensive against this city council, it could get ugly.
My guess is that they will delay building first and appeal this decision, eventually to the federal level.
Wasn't there a recent decision in their favor in Maryland on a similar kind of thing?
No longer any need for the Atlas Shrugged movie. We're about to see it in real life.
This is one of those situations where the players who are typically enemies (Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.) are going to have to be allies. Whatever anyone's thoughts are otherwise on Mayor Daley, HE GETS IT. He knows if these companies are backed into a corner, they'll simply set up shop outside city limits. If any one of them gives in, every one of them will suffer, so count on Wal-Mart, Target, et al. to give these groups the finger and get on with business.
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)
From yesterday ..
Big-box 'living wage' passed, Chicago ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672803/posts
**Ald. Ed Smith (28th), chairman of the Council's Black Caucus, took the opposite view. He presented charts to show the average Wal-Mart employee is paid $7.70 an hour and $16,016 a year, while Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott rakes in $16,826 an hour (based on a 40-hour week) and $34.9 million a year. "How can I tell Mrs. Jones that I won't support an extra $2 an hour?" he said.**
Lee Scott's 35 million divided by the 1.3 million Walmart corporation employees equals $27 per employee a year. The CEO's pay is not taking money from the employees.
How long will it be before the same group of nitwits demand an investigation into why Walmart's prices have gone up.
Or why Wal-Mart suddenly cut a lot of jobs. Bet those people won't be smiling when they get their pink slips.
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.