Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A tangled web, or an innocent gift? - Updated x6
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Rep. Schock’s new TV ad; ILCV Endorsements
Posted in:
The Sun-Times fills us in.
Infuriating organized labor and delighting business leaders, Mayor Daley today vetoed an ordinance that would have required Wal-Mart and other “big-box†retailers to pay employees a “living wage†of at least $13-an-hour in wages and benefits by 2010.“I return herewith, without my approval, an ordinance passed by the City Council on July 26, 2006,†Daley said in his first-ever veto message. “I understand and share a desire to ensure that everyone who works in the City of Chicago earns a decent wage. But I do not believe that this ordinance, well-intentioned as it may be, would achieve that end. Rather, I believe it would drive jobs and businesses from our city, penalizing neighborhoods that need additional economic activity the most. In light of this, I believe it is my duty to veto this ordinance.†[…]
Ald. Manny Flores (1st), one of 35 aldermen who voted for the big-box ordinance, is in China and is not expected to attend the Council meeting. That means the mayor needs only one big-box supporter to change sides to sustain his veto.
Your thoughts?
UPDATE: Also today…
Two aldermen said Monday they have introduced a measure to repeal Chicago’s ban on foie gras.Both Ald. Bernard Stone (50th) and Ald. Burton Natarus (42d) originally voted in favor of the foie gras legislation, but they said they have had second thoughts.
Chicago has become a “laughingstock” because of its prohibition of the delicacy made from the livers of geese and ducks, Stone said.
UPDATE 2: From a Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. press release:
“Mayor Daley stands with President Bush and the Republican-led Congress against incrementally raising the minimum wage. I support a living wage on principle and as a human right. I also believe that it is impossible to support a living wage and say that the richest corporations in the world can’t pay it.“After 17 years of no jobs for the urban core of our city, Mayor Daley vetoed a livable wage ordinance. In other words, he has joined the corporations’ exploitation of the most desperate by offering them either low-wages or no-wages, offering them a big-box or no-box.
“I suggest that the Mayor give up his $200,000+ job for six months and try living on the salary that the Chicago City Council passed. Richard M. Daley is the mayor of the ‘city that works,’ and now the mayor of the city that works for lower wages.”
UPDATE 3: From Tony Peraica’s campaign:
“Mayor Daley did the right thing for Chicago today when he vetoed the so-called ‘Big Box’ ordinance. In doing so, he’s struck a mortal blow at a piece of legislation that would kill tens of thousands of new jobs.“But now the City Council must vote to uphold that veto. And I challenge my opponent, Alderman Todd Stroger, to reverse course and stand with the Mayor to ensure this job-killing legislation is put to bed once and for all.
“In a city known for its political deal-making, here’s a deal I’ll offer Todd Stroger: go ahead and do the right thing by voting to uphold the Mayor’s veto, and I won’t criticize you for flip-flopping on this issue or ‘voting for it before you voted against it’. For a change, Todd, you can do the right thing at no political cost to yourself. When was the last time you were made an offer like that?
“Todd Stroger was wrong when he cast his vote back in July in support of this legislation. I said then that major corporations would put a hold on their plans to expand into Chicago, and tens of thousands of jobs would be lost - from the very neighborhoods that need them most. Todd went ahead and voted for it anyway…
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 10:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A tangled web, or an innocent gift? - Updated x6
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Rep. Schock’s new TV ad; ILCV Endorsements
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Way to go Rich!
Comment by Cook citizen Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:04 am
Alderman Moore should table the veto override vote until October if he can, giving Flores a chance to get back to town and big box supporters an extra month to shore up support.
Let WWIII begin!
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:05 am
It will past next year, over a Veto. We are going to see a huge effort by organized labor to beat many Aldmeran who voted againsth big box. I hear the SEIU is planning to spend millions on these races alone. There is no doubt Big box supporters will pick up several seats in the spring.
Comment by HANKSTER Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:13 am
Daley wouldn’t have vetoed this if he didn’t have the support to stop an override. I’d guess he flipped several aldermen, including Solis, Cardenas, and Pope.
Daley stuck by his principles, which is commendable. This is better than foie gras where he didn’t use his veto but still complains about it.
Comment by Tom Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:14 am
Too bad the Mayor wasn’t so protective of jobs when the big boxers were running the local family business out of town.
Comment by anon Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:28 am
> the mayor needs only one big-box supporter to change sides to sustain his veto.
> Alderman Moore should table the veto override vote until October if he can
Fran Spielman reported yesterday in the Sun-Times that Moore won’t be there Wed either.
Timing dispute on override of a big-box veto
September 10, 2006
Down 2 there are not enough votes to table or to prevent the override from being taken up by the full Council & defeated Wed. Buh-bye “big box.”
Comment by Hugh Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:45 am
pass, veto or whatever, it will be struck down by the courts. Targetting specific businesses will not hold up in court.
Call me whatever you will, but some jobs are not worth $13/hr. I respect these people for working and wanting to make money, but someone simply saying hello to you as you walk in Wal Mart does not warrant that type of money.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:51 am
I love how Daley has just enough respect/contempt for the democratic process that he waits until he can control the vote to issue the veto.
Comment by Timing is everything Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:51 am
This was the first step to heel the run-a-way unions, in my opinion. This isn’t the Haymarket Rebellion, by any means and workers in Chicago are hardly toiling away in sweatshop conditions.
Other than run off economy-boosting conventions from McCormick Place, what have unions done for me lately? The unions have outlived their usefulness and want to do nothing more than line their own pockets at the expense of those they purport to serve. The Dems are afraid of the unions because they are going to fill the void where HDO left off — fielding precinct armies. Meet your new unionized precinct captain. He’ll get more done for you than your alderman!
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:53 am
This veto will create a new anti-Daley force that will cause him tremendous problems in the election campaign and his possible defeat.
The ordinance was an attempt to bring poor working class people into a better economic position. What Democrat could be opposed to that concept.
It seems that City Hall has become an ivory tower and lost touch with the reality of how people have to live on very little income.
Doug Dobmeyer
Publisher
Today’s Issues
www.dobmeyer.com
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 11:53 am
Doug:
Regarding your comment: “The ordinance was an attempt to bring poor working class people into a better economic position,”, I say you can’t legislate this! This is communism in reverse. Instead of having the government own and run the businesses, you have the government telling the business how to run themselves. Let’s bring back the Reagan Principle: Get government out of business.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:01 pm
I agree this veto will energize the anti-Daley factions, but ask yourself why 10 people lined up to apply for every one job available at these stores?
Raising the big box wages will not raise the economic tide for all poor people. Only more jobs will.
Comment by Anon sequitur Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:02 pm
There are people who hold fast to the belief that ‘hey, hard work has been tried and it has failed miserably; why not try a different approach - why not Communism?’
Comment by Pat Hickey Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:11 pm
Timing is Everything:
1. Daley has the votes for an override
2. The date of this veto and its follow-up have been known for a month
Yellow Dog:
1. You’re a lttle too excited
2. SEIU workers can’t stay out of the local Target let alone swing elections.
Comment by Loco(l) 220 Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:16 pm
I wish he woulda vetoed the foie gras ban also. Anything that makes Ald. Joe Moore look like a fool is ok with me.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:16 pm
Without corporations increasing wages to the lowest (and probbaly largest) wage earners, how in the world will the city, county and state be able to keep raising taxes?
Are we forcing the poorest members of our society to choose between paying the gasoline tax or the cigarette tax? Between gambling and paying their property taxes?
If corporations are allowed to keep this class of people down, how will the Illinois government agencies be able to bring in more tax revenue??
Comment by Leroy Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:17 pm
Daley and his appointees have really done it this time. The arrogance of power will come back to haunt him. The unions are only one piece in the anti-daley puzzle. It is time for him to go. It is time for aldermen to be elected who will vote for the common good of the citizens and not Massa daley.
Comment by Bill Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:23 pm
Leroy: They wont bring in more tax revenue without raising taxes and state expenses will go up as more and more people (as is happening now) must enroll in government aid programs. There was a study last week that put the cost that local and county governments in the area must spend to provide basic aid to low wage workers in the billions of dollars a year.
Comment by HANKSTER Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:30 pm
All of you wringing your hands over this veto, I have one question for you: How many of you plan to apply for the jobs at the Target, Wal-Mart, et al were going to build in Chicago for the living wage?
I have an answer: not a single one of you. So, as a follow-up, other than Doug Dobmeyer (whom I understand to be an honest advocate for the less fortunate), what’s in it for you to have this forced wage go into effect?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:32 pm
Anonymous 12:32:
If you understand enough about all of us to KNOW where we are or arent applying to for employment than arent you smart enough to know why we support a living wage?
Comment by HANKSTER Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:39 pm
Yes, Hank, I will put up my home to back my belief that you a) did not, b) will not, c) will never apply for a job at a big box. But I will also put up my house to support my belief that you and the other “union sympathizers” will forever put your nose where it doesn’t belong.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:51 pm
Not all jobs SHOULD pay a “living wage”. Some jobs are structured for teenagers and “supplemental earners” that just want an opportunity to work, and perhaps give them a means to better themselves through education at night or further training.
This “big box” ordinance would close that road for tens of thousands of entry and supplemental workers.
Daley needed to assert himself politically on this issue, because there’s clearly an “aldermanic revolt” gaining steam.
The Alderman are bypassing the “organization” and going right to the cash cows for the Dems, the wealthy and single minded unions.
Daley now has to show these alderman and unions that there are consequences for trying to push Hizzoner around.
It’ll be interesting to see how these “consequences” manifest themselves, especially if Peraica wins and teams with Daley to cut off city AND county patronage jobs and contracts to these maverick alderman and Ward bosses.
Comment by PalosParkBob Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:57 pm
First off I have been part of the SEIU so stop pretending like you are some sort of know it all. For a smart guy you sure cant say clearly what you mean….let me do it for you…you are trying to say that “if you dont agree with me stay out of it.”
Comment by HANKSTER Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 12:59 pm
Another shot in the arm for free enterprise. Nice move Mayor, nice move.
Comment by Joe Goody Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 1:11 pm
Before this dialogue becomes a rant about unions and politics, may I suggest people do two pieces of required reading? Yesterday’s Tribune editorial on the big box issue and the 8/15 “Inside Retailing” column in the Tribune on “Traditional grocery stores forecast to be less crowded.”
Times are changing, folks … and please pass the Frango mints.
Comment by jaundiced eye Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 1:14 pm
I forgot Shirley Coleman said she would switch if Daley vetoed the ordinance. Even if Joe Moore and Manny Flores were to be present Wednesday I don’t think the votes exist override the veto.
Comment by Tom Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 1:22 pm
3 cheers for Richie! We need a minimum wage increase and benefits reform legislation…but not in one city and not aimed at one subset of one industry. Good day for Chicago, not so good of a day at the inner ring suburbs which had been salivating at the tax dollars.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 1:40 pm
From the Trib’s foie gras article:
Natarus said he is pushing for a repeal not because of the “ridicule” the ban has caused, but because “it is a matter of logic. It is a matter of reasonableness.”
Translation: The flak I am catching from downtown restaurant owners puts my already difficult re-election bid in further jeopardy.
Comment by Tom Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 2:25 pm
This veto reminds people why Daley, for all his recent scandals and arrogant abuses of power, continues to be important to the city’s success. Would anyone else stand up to the new power brokers–SEIU and the other unions–and do the right thing here?
Chicago businesses better wake up and open their wallets. Right now, most of the City Council is in the back pocket of SEIU and Big Labor. They’ve got the Big Cash and a ready source to collect it–involuntary labor dues.
The day will come when Daley isn’t sitting in the big chair to protect businesses and the jobs they create. When that day comes, they’ ll wish they’d been supplying a little more support for the few courageous souls on the City Council looking out for the future of the city, instead of just their own upcoming elections.
Comment by Anonymous in Chicago Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 2:47 pm
I think it’s disgusting. I guess this is what the Mayor thinks of “working people.” You have to wonder what his father would be thinking right now.
I guess this Mayor feels you can get by on $5.00 an hour. What a joke!!
Comment by swede Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 2:56 pm
As a conservative I hate to say that Mayor Daley just did a great thing for the City of Chicago. Anyone aware of what is happening in our new-age economy is aware of the declining influence that unions will have on our economy. Perhaps this is the start of a split between the Democratic Party and labor unions. If labor unions continue to attempt to run over democratic lawmakers then the favorable legislation that keeps unions in business may no longer be protected. Unions should take notice, if you mess with the leaders of the Democratic Party you better be sure you have someone to replace them and protect the awful laws that allow you to circumvent the free-market capitalism that is the basis of the US economy.
Comment by Karl Hungus Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 2:57 pm
Natarus has “second thoughts” about foie gras?
That must be a mistake. There is no evidence that he had any first thoughts and the issue is just more evidence that he needs to get out of his office and talk to people other than rich developers handing him campaign contributions.
The 42nd is filled with places that were hurt by the foie gras ban — Tru, Everest, Naha, Kevin, Blackbird, NoMi, Seasons, etc.. But Burton Natarus thought — assuming again that he actually thought — that he knew better than the chefs who run those places.
Natarus either didn’t know and just voted out of ignorance or just didn’t care.
Just like he did not care about security on the lakefront in the 42nd, which is why we had an armed robbery at Navy Pier, muggings in Streeterville, and a recent tragedy at Ohio Street Beach.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 3:04 pm
I guess if you ever wanted to try and muffle the media coverage of your veto, announcing this on the fifth anniversary of September 11th is as good a time as ever.
Daley to unions: Game on! And correct me if I’m wrong, but we’re not just talking SEIU here right? Which union is affected most directly by this, SEIU or UFCW?
Comment by ZC Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 3:18 pm
If today’s Democrats were in charge of yesterday’s booming Chicago, they would have outlawed Sears, Wards, Field’s, Carson’s and the other catalog retail merchants. They would have complained at the number of Mom/Pop stores these retail giants were putting out of business, the long hours they forced workers to endure, and the cost to taxpayers to pay for free rural mail deliveries to farms located far from towns.
Then they would have shut down Armour and Swift meatpacking because of the smell, unsanitary conditions, and hearlessness of slaughter techniques.
They would have banned the Sanitary canals. There would have been environmentalists claiming that reversing the Chicago River would destroy the ecology, harm the wetlands, and drive pollution south to Peoria.
They would have banned the railroads, claiming that they create too much pollution, endanger pedestrians, haul toxic wastes, and make too much noise.
If today’s Democratic Party was in charge of Chicago during it’s boom years, Chicago wouldn’t have boomed. It would have fizzled, just as it is fizzling now.
There was once a time when both political parties believed in what Chicagoans were building on the edge of Lake Michigan. Today, they don’t, and they are pulling the city down with their petty politics.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 3:56 pm
You are not supposed to get by on $5.00/hr. it is a entry-level job that minimum wage is meant to pay for. Mayor Daley went to school and passed the bar..eventually, and that is why he is not being paid minimum wage. A very small percentage get paid the minimum wage, especially in IL where it is higher, so $5.00 is a lie! Mostly kids and people w/no-minimal skills get paid this wage, not people who have skills and experience! I do admit that people get put in bad situations and have to take lower pay, I had to do it, but I have since moved up and on.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:03 pm
Interesing ramble, VM.
You may want to read some history though.
You may want to check out the conditions in those plants before the big-government types got involved, you may want to look at work conditions generally before the big-government types got involved, and you may want to look at wages and standards of living, you may want to look at housing conditions.
It is fun to ramble on about how life was, but you really should do some reading to find out how it was.
Upton Sinclair actually wrote a book about those meatpacking plants. Give it a read.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:03 pm
“It would have fizzled, just as it is fizzling now.”
You are in a dream world if you think Chicago is “fizzling”
How about backing up your pointless claims with facts.
Comment by HANKSTER Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:20 pm
Skeeter - you took the words right out of my mouth.
Given a choice between Wal-Mart’s “Every man for himself” attitude and the philosophy that “I am my brother’s keeper”, I’ll take the Bible any day.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:26 pm
Of course, the circus has to roll into town with Peraica making a childish and silly “challenge” to Todd Stroger. But what do you get when the circus comes to town? You get clowns.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:28 pm
YDD:
You see, this is what the debate boils down to….the unions want to dictate a free market place to make sure their members get paid enough to pay their dues so that Dennis Gannon and the rest of the union leaders can go to Boca Del Vista every year for the annual union boondoggle. The unions have lost all credibilty given their track record of manipulating pensions and mob ties.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 4:32 pm
“Chicago is in a decline, a continued slow decline,” - George G. Kaufman, a longtime finance professor at Loyola University Chicago.
Chicago is no longer the worlds biggest futures exchange. It’s largest bank, BankOne is staffed by New Yorkers since it’s merger. Many of Chicago’s proud corporate names - such as Ameritech, Amoco, Illinois Central, Santa Fe, Marshall Field’s, Continental Bank, Inland Steel, and Morton International - are gone - lost in global mergers. The lack of venture capital has driven Chicago off the list of high-tech frontier cities. Chicagoans had to go to Silicon Valley to build Oracle and other high tech companies.
Chicago is no longer a retail giant. Sears is struggling, and the once-mighty catalog merchants are gone with nothing to replace them. United Airlines has been struggling for years, and McDonalds has hit a growth ceiling. Amoco is gone, and Helene Curtis has moved to pro-business states.
Our affordable housing, in comparison to East and West coast cities, is due to a slow growing economy. From an international perspective, Chicago has been seen as moving too slowly and has not kept up with world cities in this global market.
I was raised on the south side, so perhaps it was like being a canary. But since 1982, Chicago has lost it’s “mojo”, and has not gotten it back. In the Industrial Age, Chicago was a giant, but since it ended, Chicago has not had a driving dynamic to help it keep pace in the 21st Century. Being located in the center of the US made us the hub of the US in railroads, highways, airlines, and inland shipping. On the other hand, we now live in a global market.
In the 1800’s Chicago, the city was big, fast, smelly, and ugly. It was everything that today’s Democratic Party hates. Since 1931, the party has been in charge and it shows on Chicago’s lack of a global future.
I have been asked to read “The Jungle” and get out to see “reality” by my fellow bloggers who are too partisan to open their eyes and minds. If today’s Democratic Party was in charge in Chicago during it’s boom years, there wouldn’t have been a meat-packing industry; it would have been regulated away. There wouldn’t have been that big ugly wild city on the prairie to regulate.
We see it everyday. Over-regulated economies manage yesterday’s successes; free economies create the future.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 5:07 pm
VM,
You spent valuable time adding to your rant that could have been used reading.
What were living conditions like in those pre-big government days?
What were working conditions like?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 5:16 pm
Anon 4:32-
71% of Chicagoans support a living wage ordinance. If you think 71% of Chicagoans are union members, you are deluded.
If you think this is a “free market,” you are equally deluded. The number of TIF districts in Chicago has exploded to 140, now covering 1/3 of the city. Businesses in those districts have their property taxes essentially frozen, and every single homeowner in Chicago is making up the difference. If Mayor Daley has his way, the beneficiaries of your hard-earned tax dollars will soon include the Sears Tower and the Board of Trade. Think about that when you balance your checkbook this month.
I’m also tired of hearing this “businesses create jobs” argument. Business doesn’t create jobs, it creates profits. Jobs and wages are a waste product they fight very hard to reduce. That’s why the middle class has seen its wages stagnate or decline over the last decade, even while the productivity of the American worker has risen dramatically.
You don’t even want to get into a conversation with me about Gannon. I’ll bet the execs at Wal-Mart piss away more money on toys every year than Gannon will make in his lifetime.
When the living wage ordinance passes — and it will sooner or later — Gannon won’t make a single penny off of it. Compare that to our City Council, who just voted themselves a big, fat raise for what is, by definition, a part-time job.
Why are Gannon and the CFL helping lead this fight? Because Gannon and alot of folks understand that Wal-Mart wants to come to town so they can put Dominick’s and Jewel out of business, and a lot of union workers and their families in the unemployment line. They elected Gannon and the rest of their union leaders to stand up for them, and I’d sleep pretty good at night knowing that Dennis Gannon was standing on the wall to protect my dreams of a better life for myself and my family.
However, the most powerful leaders of the living wage movement have been Christian leaders. They understand what the Bible says, and they take their faith seriously. About 3,000 verses in the Bible talk about our obligations to lift up the poor. You don’t have to be an economist to understand that you don’t lift up the poor by paying them poverty wages and denying them health care coverage.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 6:09 pm
YDD
Well Said!
Comment by Bill Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 6:33 pm
Yellow Dog Communist:
What does TIF districts have to do with the city council dictating how much the market place pays workers? Plus, that poll was bunk: “would you support every worker making $13 an hour if it didn’t come out of your end”?
That argument about Gannon protecting everybody from big bad Wal Mart was used against the same businesses he is allegedy trying to protect: Jewel, Dominicks etc. The poor mom and pops and all.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 6:35 pm
Let’s compare what unions did in the 1800’s vs what they are doing today, now thats relevant!
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 8:57 pm
Even with a veto of the big box ordinance, there remains nothing that precludes the unions from attempting to organize the employees of the big box stores. Of course, in order to be successful they would have to convince a majority of the employees of those stores that they would be better off with union representation than they there are without union representation. Apparently, the unions have determined that they can’t convince the employees that they are better off being unionized. Having given up attempting this approach instead they attempted to use the political process to what they lack the ability to do under the existing law - organize and negotiate a so-called living wage.
Comment by Just the facts Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:01 pm
Just the facts:
For somebody with that name, you really don’t seem to have much control over the facts.
“Just convince the workers.”
Sure. Easy. Now if we could just get the big boxes to stop canning anybody who attempted to organize.
You make it seem like a battle of ideas has been lost. In reality, the facts are that these places take no prisoners in doing everything legal and illegal to stop union activity.
Of course, the labor relations boards under the B-Team do nothing to stop employers from engaging in that sort of activity, so why not try?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:12 pm
You libs are delusional. The veto won’t be overriden. And if it was, the ordinance would be ruled as unconsitutional. Ladies and fellas, don’t put your money on the “living wage” horse. It’s a sucker bet.
Comment by John Ruberry Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:20 pm
Skeeter - Somehow, in the thirties the auto industry, the steel industry, the mines, etc. were all organized by the unions. I suspect that management in those days was as anti-union as the management of the big boxes.
Perhaps the real reason for the big box ordinance is that the folks in charge of the unions have gone soft. About the only area where they seem to be growing is in the area of government.
In addition, the unions don’t seem to be able to convince the employees of the big boxes that they would be better off than they are today with union organization.
Face the facts Skeeter - unions have been in decline for many years and will continue to decline. They are an anachronism.
It appears that they lack the will and the ability to challenge the big boxes.
Comment by Just the facts Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:28 pm
Just the facts:
Let me get this right: When a person already poor should risk getting fired for union activity, that person has lost a “battle of ideas”?
Rube:
Great I’ve been called “delusional” by the member of a party who thought that Alan Keyes was a good idea for Illinois. Apparently you can use the word because it describes you so well
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:35 pm
Jesse Jackson hasn’t produced any jobs
Mayor Daley doesn’t care about the poor
this city is only for the rich
I don’t know who to vote for
Comment by small Fry Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 9:58 pm
Way to go Mayor! You have done the right and correct thing to keep Chicago competitive. This repulican has voted for you in every election and your decision has made sure I will vote for you again!
Comment by JS in Chicago Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 10:08 pm
I would like see Jesse Jackson Jr. take the mayor’s office but I really don’t like his rather socialist tendencies. He was at a church four years ago talking about someone must speak up for Robbins and well by supporting an ordinace or law like this he may just hurt a place like Robbins, Illinois.
Comment by Levois Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 10:13 pm
YDD: “Businesses in those districts have their property taxes essentially frozen.”
Sorry, that’s factually incorrect. The taxes increase just like any other area, but the proceeds are dedicated to a special-use fund, enabling bond issuance and other economic development tools. You can argue that TIF funds should be used for different purposes, but the taxes are still collected.
This is a perfect example of how the “big-box” issue is generating more heat than light. Let’s assume that every single big-box store that would have been built in the City of Chicago gets built anyway, a key argument of the ordinance’s supporters. Who will pay for those increased wages? It will not be taken out of the wages of retail executives. It will not be assessed on city residents with cars who already shop in the suburbs. It will not be assessed on wealthy city and suburban taxpayers who shop on Oak Street and Neiman Marcus. It will be reflected in higher prices at the big-box stores. The cost of this wage increase will be paid disproportionately by the very low-income families the ordinance is designed to help. That means this is a REGRESSIVE policy solution. Truly progressive aldermen would propose an income tax on city residents earning above $98,125 and dedicate those proceeds to providing health care and a supplemental earned income tax credit to working families.
Source: http://www.ncbg.org/tifs/tifs.htm, a major critic of TIFs
Note: $98,125 is the current salary for Chicago aldermen, which will increase at the rate of inflation for the next 4 years.
Comment by Earlie Monday, Sep 11, 06 @ 10:49 pm
can anyone name all the appointed alderman by the mayor?….now compare that list with the vote against big box and who flips. bet my right leg it will be the same. so much for indepencence.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 12:28 am
Need we point out that not a single job has been lost because of the Big Box Ordinance.
Many conservatives — like Peraica — have belly-ached about it, but not one job has been lost.
–
“Just the Facts” - Many of those people who attempted to form unions were killed. As in shot to death. As in beaten to death.
All so you could enjoy a reasonable workday and little things like weekends.
You dishonor their sacrifice with your negligence of “just the facts”.
–
Anonymous, if only conservatives had something say other than moronic name-calling….
Comment by NW burbs Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 2:53 am
Anonymous, if only conservatives had something say other than moronic name-calling….
You mean Skeeter?
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 4:19 am
Solidarity Forever! Until Andy Stern and Melissa Burger ( two Pennsylvannia social workers by trade) decided that their members should hit the silk. Ask the mist obnoxious semi-literate on these Blogs says, ‘try reading something:’
From SEIU:
Following the 2004 presidential elections, SEIU launched a widely publicized dialogue to help rebuild the labor movement following several decades of decline. Despite massive economic changes in our world today, the strategies, structure, and priorities of the AFL-CIO, and many unions, haven’t changed much since the federation was founded 50 years ago - prompting SEIU and four major unions to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO in the summer of 2005 and build something stronger to help unite the 90 percent of workers who have no union.
Yep, Sweeney and the AFL-CIO can go ‘good luck’ themselves. And you think state-wide politics is dirty.
Comment by Pat Hickey Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 8:29 am
hey this was fun…
whether we like to admit it or not, jewel and dominicks put lots of “old style” corner groceries out of business. it happennes, and now they are in jeapordy as the shopping styles of americans have changed.
and… face the realities, SEIU is a political movement, not a union. Mr. Sterns philosphy is clearly aimed at changing our lives via the political process, not the workplace.
dont like the big box stores… dont shop at them. Want bigger selection at better prices instead?…..
brothers and sisters …. sieze the TIME !!!
rofl
Comment by The Horse Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 9:02 am
Pat:
I have to admit, sometimes I can’t understand all that is written on this blog (maybe it’s inside baseball) but your post has me truly baffled.
What does this mean:
“Until Andy Stern and Melissa Burger ( two Pennsylvannia social workers by trade) decided that their members should hit the silk. Ask the mist obnoxious semi-literate on these Blogs says, ‘try reading something”
or this?:
Yep, Sweeney and the AFL-CIO can go ‘good luck’ themselves.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 9:06 am
NW Burbs
To rebut your arguments:
Not a single job has been lost due to the “big box” ordinance because it isn’t law yet! Those foolish enough to have built “big box” stores already are stuck, and the wage increases will definitely lower the threshhold for the decision to close marginally profitable, or unprofitable, stores.
Get a clue!
As far as people forming unions getting killed, the same fate fell to those who OPPOSED forming unions. Organized crime teamed with numerous unions to provide the “muscle” to intimidate and extort. The price? Organized crime got to raid the unions’ pension funds with impunity while union officials looked the other way.
If you want a short life expectancy, try being a union “reformer”. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa how that works out.
As far as those telling others to read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair, it’s clear that you’re indeed illiterate. In case you didn’t know, “The Jungle” is a work of FICTION! Sinclair never claimed that the story was factually accurate, or represented actual conditions.
In fact he was rather surprised that readers regaded it as NON-FICTION.
It appears we still have Bloggers like Skeeter, Bill, and NWBurbs trying to feed us “fiction” as reality.
No surprise there!
Comment by PalosParkBob Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 9:36 am
I am sorry - Andy Stern and Melissa Burger are the heads of the SEIU an din 2005 they took their membership OUT of the AFL-CIO much to embarassment of President John Sweeney et al. and are using the BBO as leverage to force local unions into supporting their Marxism wrapped up in Union language and play nice with them. The AFL-CIO should tell them to Let the Door Hit Them Where They Work! But that is politics.
Comment by Pat Hickey Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 9:47 am
Apologies again Anonymous -
This bit:
‘Ask the mist obnoxious semi-literate on these Blogs says, ‘try reading something†‘ Is a typo
Change to - As the most obnoxious semi-literate on these Blogs says, ‘try reading something’ :followed by a paste-up of the SEIU website bragging up their withdrawal from the AFL-CIO - Again , to me anyway, their message egenerally and the BBO particularly is a skunk in a silk dress.
Comment by Pat Hickey Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 9:54 am
If anyone actually thinks Wal Mart has low prices, go take a look at the price of disk drives and wireless adapters at Wal Mart. Now go to Fry’s Electronics or Microcenter. Even the non-sale price at these places (and pretty much everything goes on sale on a rotating basis) beats Wal Mart every time.
Check out how much meat costs at a Wal Mart then go to Costco and check their prices (yes you have to buy enough for a batallion but at a per lb. price it can’t be beat–even when you factor in the membership fee over the course of a year).
I’m surprised at what a rep Wal Mart has for low prices when the stuff I buy can be bought competitively elsewhere.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 12:56 pm
Never been in one;nor do I plan to do so.
Comment by Pat Hickey Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 1:12 pm
One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the EITC. Does the EITC impact this issue? Can a full-time Wal Mart employee earn so little than they would qualify for an EITC “refund”? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.
If low wage employers are getting effectively subsidized by the EITC, is this a good use of tax money? If the EITC is larger for those who have children, is that then fair to those who are dependents (teenagers) yet who do the same job and should work for the same wage. After all the EITC is not about a manager deciding that one employee is more valuable than another, it’s about something else.
I’m a little stumped on EITC. On the one hand, I admire a program that has lifted so many out of poverty, on the other hand, the above issues don’t sit well with me.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 1:35 pm
Pat Hickey,
Yes, living in the Chicago region, I seldom find a reason to go to Walmart. However, I have a vac spot out in Iowa, and there it comes down to a choice between Walmart or ShopKo. I usually choose ShopKo but only because its in town whereas the Walmart is 20 miles away. When I’ve already driven 250 miles to get there, that 20miles seems like a lot for a few pennies here and there.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 1:38 pm
Our Mayor is the past, present, and future champion of Lets You and Him Fight. He’ll now find out who are the bigger blowhards: the Chamber boys or the CFL lads. Round One went to the CFL lads. Round Two will go to the Chamber boys. Round Three will be a real dennybrook… or not. The dapper duo will duke it out this Fall and Winter. Let’s hope the scrappy south sider has more going for him than a giant ratmobile. After all, everyone enjoys a good fight.
Comment by Samuel Chompers Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 3:04 pm
Sam,
Absolutely on target about the pugs; but, how about the four-eyes holding CFL’s coat -Andy and SEIU?
Comment by Pat Hickey Tuesday, Sep 12, 06 @ 3:11 pm