Posted on 07/27/2006 2:31:59 PM PDT by Jean S
Chicago aldermen bucked Mayor Daley on Wednesday, voting by a remarkable veto-proof majority to require big-box retailers to pay their workers at least $13 an hour in wages and benefits by 2010. Wal-Mart and other big stores had warned they would seriously reconsider plans to expand or locate in Chicago -- a threat the majority of aldermen didn't take seriously. For Chicago's sake and that of the city's unemployed poor, they'd better be right.
The proposal applies to any stores with more than 90,000 square feet of space that are owned by companies that have at least $1 billion in annual sales. That covers 38 existing retailers, including Sears, Nordstrom, Home Depot and -- most important -- Wal-Mart, whose efforts to enter Chicago two years ago sparked the recent debate. Unions see Wal-Mart as public enemy No. 1, and they have lobbied aldermen hard to win their support for the higher wages.
The risk to Chicago, of course, is that those retailers will follow through with their threats to avoid the city and instead locate in nearby suburbs, which would get the jobs and generate the sales and property tax revenues that would have otherwise come to the city. And those big-box stores tend to spur other development, providing a further economic boost that would be lost to Chicago.
Wal-Mart, which has one store under construction in the city, has said passage of the law will make it reconsider plans to add perhaps 20 more. Target has said it will reconsider three new stores and may even close existing locations.
Maybe what they should do instead is open stores that are 89,999 square feet in size. That would expose the arbitrary and unfair nature of the law. McDonald's, for instance, has more than $1 billion in sales but isn't affected because it has lots of little outlets instead of fewer big ones. More to the point, so does Walgreens, whose inventory is similar to that of Wal-Mart. Why should the size of the store dictate the pay for its workers? That will probably be a question for the courts because a lawsuit is all but inevitable.
Daley opposed the measure but did little to fight it until the 11th hour, when he proposed that aldermen who are opposed to Wal-Mart could simply keep the retailing giant out of their wards. That didn't work. And now the mayor can do nothing. Since the vote was 35-14, there are enough aldermen supporting the plan to override Daley if he vetoes the measure.
Supporters point to Wal-Mart's huge profits and executive salaries as evidence that it can afford to pay its workers more. They think Chicago's dense, urban market still will be attractive to the big boxes, which have saturated the rest of the area. If they're right, the City Council will have raised some workers out of poverty. But if they're wrong, they'll have relegated more workers to it.
"Retailers could outfox big-box wage ordinance"
The private sector never has problems outfoxinging the mouth breathing commissars in the public sector.
All that will result is that wal-mart will expand in the surrounding areas and the flight of people out of Chicago will just grow larger.
When will the politicians learn?
Chicago has been in a sustained state of decline for a long time. My brother in law and a coupld of family members moved to Indianapolis for a myriad of reasons but the cost of living, congestion and taxes where some of the biggest. Other honorable mentions included all the affordable housing is dangerous unless you move to the boonies and want to drive 90 minutes to work (more in rush hour).
To no one's surprise, the Chicago aldermen (and women) have just demonstrated a woeful lack of knowledge about economics and a woeful lack of concern for the "little people" they claim to champion.
definitely dense, if they fall for this 'living wage' nonsense...
To specify your point...
Everytime a Wallmart opens, about 500 jobs are created immediately. These developments almost always spur other shoping developments as Wallmart is considered a retail anchor wherever they set up shop. Those other stores create more jobs. Then, distrubution centers and districts are needed to supply the shopping centers. Walmart creates untold jobs and tax revenue where ever they set up shop.
I live literally 2 blocks from the very edge of Chicago.
My last 3 jobs have been right on the border to avoid being in the city.
With Chicago's PT system people can go to the suburbs to shop and work.
My office right now is right next to an L station. people come from the far southwest side for the jobs. Its a quick hour trip on the L.
Exactly. Corporate execs. are almost always brighter than the moron unaccomplished, undereducated local officials and easily figure out ways around these kinds of things. Frankly that should include not locating any Wal Marts anywhere near Chicago so the idiots who vote for these hacks have to pay higher prices for things and have fewer opportunities than if these low double digit IQ local official weren't scapegoating Wal Mart. Teach these fools to think before they vote.
Absolutely right. To liberals, "little people" means "union workers". Those are the only "little people" the liberals are interested in supporting.
I lived near a shopping center anchored by a Walmart. Walmart moved to a larger store, and blocked anyone that might compete from relocating there. (A lousy trick, but it's their lease)
The shopping center dropped dead. All the small stores had to move because of lost business, and it took a good 5 years for things to start recovering.
Liberals are constanting whipping up hate for large companies and big businesses, but they are major generators of our way of life. You take them down at your own loss.
will liberals EVER learn? sheesh.
Chicago going the way of Detroit. Anti-Business climate will be devastating. This action will not only affect Big-Box retailers, it will be seen as a red flag to ANY business of any size doing its risk analysis on whether to open up in Chicago. Socialists will never learn.
My mom owned a store in a shopping strip. When a Wal Mart replaced a Jewel (local grocery chain same chain as Albertsons) her sales nearly doubled.
She sold it to retire and the lady who bought it still is making money hand over fist.
And the product type she sells is also sold at Wal Mart.
Experimentally, didn't Wal-Mart, in another city, actually split its store in half, subdividing merchandise with two managers instead of one?
Though they didn't do this, the logical thing for them to do would be to split their store between Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. Any further efforts to oppress them through legislation would then be combatable with paperwork-only changes.
But the bottom line is that Wal-Mart has a healthy attitude towards not dealing with extortion, be it the frivolous slip-and-fall lawsuits they get a handful of a day, or some legislative body trying to rip them off.
Hopefully, what they come up with will leave those aldermen squealing like piggies.
Many big companies are in Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Rosemont the surrounding Ohare suburbs. Benefit of being near Ohare but not in Chicago.
I testified for Wal Mart a few years ago as a witness to an obviously set up slip and fall.
[Its a quick hour trip on the L.]
A quick hour trip?
I work downtown and live a mile from the city limit of one of the 15 largest cities in the nation. It takes me 17 minutes to drive to work and I have free parking. My taxes are almost 30% less than if I lived in Chicago. I moved out of San Francisco and from the DC area for the lousy life my family had as a result of the full extra work day I spend commuting every week.
BTW - I live just down the stree from Chicago, Indianapolis.
Its not an 'outfox'ing of the ordinance, its merely conformance to the ordinance's blindingly stupid requirements, such as "dont build in this jurisdiction" or "don't hire too many people" else your costs will go up.
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.