Mayor vetoes Chicago 'living wage' bill

[Dob Bole]

"CHICAGO - Mayor Richard Daley vetoed an ordinance Monday that would have required mega-retailers to pay their workers more than other employers after some of the nation's largest stores including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warned the measure would keep them from opening their doors within the city's limits...

...The ordinance was approved by the council in late July and requires so-called "big box" stores to pay workers at least $10 an hour plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The rules would only apply to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet."

MORE:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060911/ap_on_re_us/chicago_living_wage

[truebrit71]

1. Fucking bastard.

Doesn't surprise me though....g-damned crook...although saying that in reference to Chicago politics is redundant....

[bluestateguy]

2. That's a real shame

Inexcusable for a Democrat to do.

I wonder what his old man would have done.

[Ken Burch]

31. Richie's never really been a Democrat anyway...

Richie and his brother have been toadies for "free trade" and have never been pro-worker in any recognizable sense.

Chicago needs another Harold Washington.

[CollegeDUer]

3. Fire up the Greens

It's time for another progressive mayor in the vein of Bernie and Kucinich

[Warpy]

4. Jeez, like most cities need those damned things, anyway

I bought all my good stuff in Boston from places like Filene's basement, pushcarts, and shabby stores in bad neighborhoods with perpetual "going out of business sale" signs in the front windows.

Now that I'm in the heartland, discount house rubbish and mall crapola are IT. I really miss being able to find high quality things, period, never mind having to rummage through a huge bin full of stuff to find what I'm looking for.

Most people can get by in the cities a lot cheaper than Walmart sells their stuff for.

Expect Daley to get tossed out on his privileged ass for this one.

[AtomicKitten]

5. that is very UNDemocratic

I realize people may argue the blue/red state dichotomy, but this issue should bind the Democratic Party. We should NEVER emulate the GOP in their quest to screw the middle class. Shame.

[Mel]

6. Jesse Jackson Jr.

just might take Daley's job.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/06/jesse_jackson_jr_may_run_for_mayor/

Jesse Jackson Jr. may run for mayor
By Deanna Bellandi, Associated Press Writer | September 6, 2006

CHICAGO --Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. announced Wednesday that he is exploring a run for mayor of Chicago and said it is "more likely than not" that he will enter the February contest.

<snip>Jackson said he supports Chicago's controversial new big-box ordinance, which requires giant retailers like Wal-Mart to pay their workers more.</snip>

[Dob Bole]

7. Great...hope he runs. nt

[tritsofme]

15. Daley is mayor for life.

He'll be there until he chooses to leave or God does for him.

Jackson might be his most serious challenge in decades, but that might mean he gets 40% of the vote. And I would imagine he would lose even more interest in the campaign if we take back Congress in November.

[michreject]

30. JJ Jr may run

but winning is another thing. He doesn't have a chance. Daley is so firmely planted in that position that he'll remain there until he's planted someplace else.

[Itchinjim]

8. Time for little Richie to go...

n/t

[Jimbo S]

9. This was a bad bill

like most other living wage laws.

I don't like Wal-Mart any more than anyone else here, but that's no excuse to single out one or two employers to one standard and their competitors to another.

[Dob Bole]

10. I like Wal-Mart fine...

I just want their employees to not be eligible for food stamps and be able to unionize. It's not like Wal-Mart couldn't afford to pay $10 an hour...profits are up and wages are down. They just won't, unless they are forced to.

[Jimbo S]

14. Let the workers

unionize and enter into collective bargaining with management to determine wages. All the power to them! I don't think the government has a role in this case. If Wal-Mart practices unfair labor relations, then the government has the right to stick their nose in.

Yeah, maybe Wal-Mart could afford to pay $10 (I haven't seen the books), they just don't need to unless the labor market dictates otherwise.

[Dob Bole]

25. That's the problem.

Wal-Mart DOESN'T let the workers unionize...which is illegal. If they are circumventing the law, then the government DOES have the right to stick their nose in, as you said.

[gratuitous]

11. Tailored to avoid driving small businesses out of town

And besides, why should Wal-Mart or any other large retailer making lots of money off of the community be allowed to fatten its bottom line at taxpayer expense? By not paying a living wage and not providing health care benefits, Wal-Mart pushes those legitimate costs of doing business off on the local and federal taxpayers, which have to make up the difference between what Wal-Mart is actually paying and what it should be paying under the free market. But because Wal-Mart can distort the free market through corrupting the system, it gets a corporate welfare check worth millions of dollars every year by keeping its labor costs down artificially.

There's no excuse for Wal-Mart to have its labor costs subsidized by the taxpayers while its competitors have to contend with the fixed cost of labor in the same market.

[Exiled in America]

12. Very well said. (nt)

[Jimbo S]

13. Then the government should address

specific employers who abuse the health care system in this manner. That's a separate issue than mandating an arbitary wage to companies that meet some arbitrary employment/earnings standard.

[gratuitous]

16. Nope, just re-leveling the playing field

Wal-Mart has so jiggered the game that this is the most expedient remedy to reinsert a measure of fairness and place the cost where it rightfully belongs -- on the player (Wal-Mart) that is trying to game the system by requiring that its fixed cost of labor is more in line with what the free market in Chicago has set. Nothing arbitrary about that, unless you're saying that the free market is flawed in setting the cost of labor.

[Nevernose]

20. So are you also against a progressive income tax?

Personally, I see a lot fo good points in a flat tax, in the right circumstances, but ulitmately a progressive tax seems to work the best for the most amount of people.

This isn't any different than a progressive income tax. Considering the cost of living in Chicago, a fairly reasonable one. Wal-Mart's not going to NOT open stores there, they'll just make less money, and STILL be the most profitable company on earth. No one loses.

[LostinVA]

32. How is any living wage bill bad??

Are you like a poster or two we've had on her arguing that minimum wage is also bad? Not that that is anywhere near a living wage, of course. Hmm?

[dogman]

17. It seems they've spelled his name wrong.

He has morphed to Mayor Delay. After seeing his affinity for w and denny Hazard, I'm not surprised at this move against the people of his city. They can control the location of the stores, but the City can educate the consumers.

[Idioteque]

18. Good

I'm ok with a minimum wage but $13 is really high. It would price a lot of unskilled workers out of the market. Any reasonable economist would oppose this ordinance.

Edit: It seems that the goal of the ordinance is to stop Wal-Mart from opening at all. While the effect would not be that big, it is generally unfair to treat Wal-Mart differently than other businesses.

[Nevernose]

19. 5 questions:

Any "reasonable economist" would oppose this ordinance, according to you. Is that including the national cost-of-living and national average pay, or does that take into account the high cost of living in urban Chicago? And what about the numerous economists who have said that Wal-Mart could double the amount paid in salaries and benefits and STILL be the most successful corporation in the world?

The third question is, admittedly, not so relevant at this time, but: how does this law single out WalMart or treat them unfairly? It specifies multi-billion dollar businesses and businesses w/ more than 90,000 sq ft of selling space. Wat-Mart is, of course, the only company NOW that meets that definition, but how much longer until every similar company reaches it as well? It could be argued that good laws aren't based on today's needs, but tomorrow's.

Personally, I don't have anything against Wal-Mart or grudge them their success. Ol' Sam was a man before his time, and perhaps even a genius. They have a hell of a business model. I just think that they can afford to treat their employees a hell of a lot better, since the way they treat them now is downright irresponsible.

Remember the theme from Spiderman?

With great power comes great responsibility. And that's Wal-Mart in a nutshell.

[AngryAmish]

22. I thought this was the theme from Spider-Man

Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

Is he strong?
Listen bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Take a look overhead
Hey, there
There goes the Spiderman.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.

Spiderman, Spiderman
Friendly neighborhood Spiderman
Wealth and fame
He's ingnored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Spider man.

[Canadian_moderate]

21. I'm no fan of Wal-Mart

but why only target specific stores? If anything, larger employees already provide more benefits than smaller ones. They need to in order to attract employees and stay in business.

Democracy means letting employees choose where they wish to work. If Wal-Mart doesn't pay enough, they won't work there.

Daley is a progressive mayor and he's done wonders for Chicago, why fuck with that? If you think Jackson Jr. will be better for Chicago, you're seriously delusioned.

[Zodiak]

24. Couple of things

Democracy does not mean capitalism. Do not conflate the two because they are not synonymous.

It has already been proven that Wal-Mart does not pay enough...there is no "if" about it. But people work there. In fact, it is the largest employer in the US. Why do they work there? "Because there is nowhere else to go" would be the answer you get from the employee.

The "free market" is anything but free nowadays. We should stop pretending that our economic system is anything but rigged to favor the corporations and screw the worker; that is what is observable. This has nothing to do with the free market, but rather, with an alliance between the corporations and the goverment with the worker left out in the cold.

We should not protect fascism by pretending that it is free market capitalism.

[robcon]

23. This bill was wrong on a lot of levels.

Bad economics, bad social policy and bad politics.

I'm glad it was vetoed.

[mopinko]

26. some facts on the ground

i fully support this bill. i hope the city council can override this veto. this will not hurt these stores. right now there are 14 targets, 6 best buy, 1 circuit city at least, that would be subject to the law. (no walmarts. there are 20 wal marts in the chicago area, none in the city. there were plans for 2, and the alderman in one of the locations refused to approve unless they were paying a living wage.)
it used to be the case that folks expected to get a higher wage inside the city of chicago. the cost of living in the city was well known to the corporations that were here. they paid it, too. did this cause economic hardship here? oh, heck no. chicago was a money making machine. lots of people wanted to do business here. daley says suburban mayors were calling to thank him when it passed the council. but the fact is that these stores are already in the suburbs. and they want to get into the city.
ritchie knows full well that it is all good to the city to have this. we don't need crappy jobs here. i suspect he is hoping that it will be overridden. he knows. but he has people who must be kept happy. pity.

[AngryAmish]

27. He wouldn't veto if he didn't have the votes

He can't afford to look bad around election time.

[mopinko]

29. oh, i know he is twisting arms.

but alderman have to get elected, too. the original vote was 2 votes over an override. i think i heard he had one yes vote softened up, but he still needs one more, afaik.

[chat_noir]

28. off-topic, but....

Compare to Bush's ratings