No surprise here.
Chicago’s City Council members today failed to override Mayor Richard Daley’s veto of the so-called “big-box'’ ordinance that would have required mega-retailers in the city to pay their workers higher wages.
The 31 to 18 decision was three votes short of the 34 votes needed to override the mayoral veto.
Ald. Joe Moore (49th), sponsor of the so-called Big Box Living Wage Ordinance, had introduced the measure to override Daley’s veto and vowed to fight on even if it failed. “I can assure you this issue will not go away,” Moore told the council.
At the next council meeting, he said, he will introduce a new measure that would be broader, applying to workers of companies with at least 1,000 employees.
UPDATE: From a press release. Statement from SEIU president Tom Balanoff on today’s Living Wage Ordinance veto override vote:
“The mayor and the aldermen had the power to set a higher standard for wages for the working people of this city. Instead they used their power to welcome wealthy corporations paying poverty wages into this city.
“This is a bad decision for Chicago’s working people. But we are not discouraged. Over these last few months, we have experienced real victories.
• We saw a city council willing to vote independently at least once on a crucial issue to the city’s working people.
• We saw the vast majority of Chicagoans affirm and then reaffirm their support for a living wage ordinance, even after corporations spent millions on a smear campaign against it.
• We saw Wal-Mart raise its starting pay by 6%.
• We saw thousands of every-day citizens in Chicago make phone calls, write letters, attend rallies and speak out in favor of a living wage.
“It’s not just SEIU or UFCW or organized labor for a living wage. There is a movement in this city for a living wage and it’s not going to stop until it wins.â€
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 4:06 pm:
Why does Moore think that the number of co-workers you have should determine whether or not you deserve to get a “living wage?”
If people need/deserve this wage, then give it to them. All of them.
This was a stupid idea to begin with, and it isn’t getting any smarter.
- Lovie's Leather - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 4:15 pm:
Liberals like to stick it to big business. A living wage for everyone? Hell no… but a living wage for employees of business with “x” number of employees. Way to go. Why don’t they just raise the minimum wage? I would be less against that… but still against it….
- Tom - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 4:41 pm:
I thought Daley would get more than three aldermen to switch sides. Labor must be putting enormous pressure on Pope and O’Connor for them not to flip.
- aidanquinn - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 4:58 pm:
Regardless of the issue, organized labor is getting all to familiar with the tactic used by the Mayor. We are facing it in Springfield on an ever increasing basis.
“The big, bad Unions are screwing the minorities and I (here you can plug in the mayor, governor, or anyone else facing a possible tough re-election) am here to help you”. “Furthermore the Unions will get nothing from me as long as they don’t give up someting when the minorities request it”.
The only exception to this has been the Speaker.
We may not have the money large corporations have and we may not match the voting numbers of minorities, but in Illinois we often make a difference come election time.
If the Mayor and others want to paint all Union folks as biggots then they really don’t know real Union people nor do they understand Union history. All races and genders make up organized labor and true Union believers fight to stamp out racism. Union contracts contain anti-discrimination clauses for all races, creeds, genders, military status, disabilities, etc.
Brothers and Sisters will not forget and there are limits on the retoric and punishment we will take from our “friends” in government.
- B Hicks - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:12 pm:
Dick didn’t need more than 3 to flip.
- RFC - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:14 pm:
He only needed 3 to flip, and why have an old white guy flip when you’re going to accuse the other side of racism?
- Bubs - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:15 pm:
We should all be happily impressed by the process that took place here.
The ordinance, with its potential benefits and detriments, was certainly an important public issue. It was the subject of dispute and debate in the Council, and a disputed vote. The Mayor acted within his powers to assert his legal role as the executive branch, and the legislative branch addressed it, but failed to override the veto.
It was just like there was actual representative democracy in Chicago. I very much hope to see more of it in the future.
- Bridget Dooley - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:26 pm:
“It was just like there was actual representative democracy in Chicago. I very much hope to see more of it in the future.”
Ha, very well said. I wholeheartedly agree.
- Tom - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:43 pm:
It’s true Daley did not need more aldermen to flip, but 31-18 isn’t a strong show of force for Daley. I think he would be more comfortable with the pros down below 30.
Yes it is nice to see an instance of representative democracy in Chicago.
- Samuel Chompers - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 5:52 pm:
We will all have big box stores, where we can shop in our own neighborhoods for cheap goods made by slave labor, delivered by low-wage workers to low-income families. Separate and equal.
- minion - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 6:33 pm:
two questions: one, how did Haithcock vote?
Two, what is B. Reilly’s position as it relates to Natarus? Yes, I know the two questions deal with two different wards-they are ones I am interested in. The city council does not post votes until the next meeeting.
- Gregor - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 6:57 pm:
This is going to hurt Daley more than help him in the long run. Enough to cost him re-election? Too early to tell. But I hope so. Count on the unions to jog people’s memories at the required time. And you can pretty well bet between now and then Walmart WILL do something horrible and odious to prove the majority wanting the law was right.
- Lt. Guv - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 7:18 pm:
To those pondering why only 3 flipped, I’d remind them of the axiom of Joe Kennedy, “I ain’t payin’ for a landslide.”
Daley got what he needed to have. Save those other markers for another day.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 8:05 pm:
The union stomped out racism? Maybe Black unions. The unions are as racist an enterpise as ever.
- John Galt - Wednesday, Sep 13, 06 @ 9:08 pm:
“This is a bad decision for Chicago’s working people, but we are not discouraged.”
–Chairman/Comrade Balanoff
Working people are not discouraged. Now they can actually get jobs in some of the most distressed neighborhoods in the city.
- anon - Thursday, Sep 14, 06 @ 12:28 am:
did anyone see ald. coleman in a interview? maybe she has seen jesus and flipped…or maybe its the recent press?
- Grocery Guy - Thursday, Sep 14, 06 @ 4:03 am:
Daley acutally wanted 10 Aldermen to flip so he could say a majority of Council agrees with him on the Ordinance. He could only come up with 3. But then, with wide popular support in the City, why would any elected official vote no and have to defend the vote on Election Day. It’s not like anyone wants to ride Daley’s coattails.
- Pat Hickey - Thursday, Sep 14, 06 @ 7:53 am:
Anyway, some silliness got tossed into the ‘circular file’ yesterday.
Here is a link to The Peoples Weekly view on SEIU’s agenda in this whole thing - right out of Orwell’s ‘horse’s mouth’ so to speak:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/9748/1/337
- doubtful - Thursday, Sep 14, 06 @ 9:21 am:
‘Why does Moore think that the number of co-workers you have should determine whether or not you deserve to get a “living wage?‒ -Grand Old Partisan
How about using the cost to taxpayers to subsidize the low wage labor as a qualifier? There’s a hidden cost to low wages and Chicago better be prepared to pay it.