I hate Walmart and all, but this is screwed up...

Scrum · 07-26-2006, 04:12 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-hed

Chicago's City Council will vote today on a controversial minimum wage for "big-box" retail employees in the city, and the outcome appears too close to call.

Supporters, including church, community and labor groups, say Chicago should be a leader in setting standards for worker pay and benefits.

But critics—including Mayor Richard Daley—say the proposal will drive jobs and development away from the city.

As aldermen assembled this morning for their meeting, hundreds of people protested outside the Council chambers.

The proposal would require megaretailers to pay at least $10 an hour in wages plus another $3 in fringe benefits by July 2010.

The state's minimum wage is $6.50 an hour.

The ordinance would cover companies with over $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.

The Council vote is bound to be viewed as a new test of Daley's power.

For years, Daley has enjoyed what critics have characterized as rubber-stamp control over the Council.

But the mayor has been plagued by a federal investigation into contracting and hiring fraud in his administration, and political organizations loyal to him that have done his bidding at election time have gone out of business as a result of the probe.

Daley's problems have prompted some aldermen, formerly considered under his thumb, to begin to show some independence. And this sets the stage for Wednesday's vote.

An 11th-hour flash of passion by Daley on the minimum wage ordinance could sway some new support his way, aldermen said Tuesday.

Daley, who opposes the ordinance as anti-business and a roadblock to economic development, on Monday called for its defeat unless it undergoes dramatic amendment.

But some aldermen said his forceful comments at a City Hall news conference may have come too late to change many minds.

"From everything I hear, everyone is holding firm," said Ald. Joe Moore (49th), sponsor of the measure, who believes that 30 to 32 of the council's 50 aldermen will vote for passage.

But Ald. Patrick O'Connor (40th) was a bit less sure. "If I were a betting man, there are probably enough votes to pass. But it is getting closer and closer," he said."

Ald. Edward Burke (14th) said that "furious lobbying" was continuing on both sides of the issue. Daley has declined to say whether he would veto the ordinance if it wins approval. It would take 34 votes to override a veto.

TV ads, news conferences, City Hall demonstrations and cards, letters and automated calls to aldermanic offices all were part of highly orchestrated campaigns to sway opinion.

At the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church about 30 members of Metro Seniors in Action turned out Tuesday morning to win Ald. Arenda Troutman's support for the ordinance.

Cassandra Sudduth, the alderman's chief of staff, told the group that Troutman (20th) had not made up her mind. "The alderman is the voice of the people, and she's looking at what the people are saying," Sudduth said after the meeting.

Forcing Walmart to pay even above the minimum wage? How is that right? If you want the wage increased, raise the state minimum again, don't pick and choose who has to pay more.

There are some dirty fucking politics in the city.

While searching for this story I found that they did vote to allow the store, I didn't see anything about the wage issue though.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 04:19 PM

There was a special on Fox News, CNN and CSpan of all places talking about Chicago politics this past week and how corrupt it was. It is all family/friends that just pass the torch around.

If Chicago wants to do it they better be prepared for an exodus from their city or rising unemployment.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 04:21 PM

Wow, what bullshit. This bill seems to be targeted at ONLY Walmart.

I hope Walmart pulls their stores out of the city. As much as I might not like some of Walmart's business practices (running smaller companies out of business by selling at a loss until they can no longer compete), or the people who shop there, or the quality of their merchandise.. they do bring good with them to the stores that they build.

Lots of jobs and opportunity for advancement within the company/store for people who might not otherwise have it.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Wow, what bullshit. This bill seems to be targeted at ONLY Walmart.

I hope Walmart pulls their stores out of the city. As much as I might not like some of Walmart's business practices (running smaller companies out of business by selling at a loss until they can no longer compete), or the people who shop there, or the quality of their merchandise.. they do bring good with them to the stores that they build.

Lots of jobs and opportunity for advancement within the company/store for people who might not otherwise have it.

From what I understand WalMart only has one store in the city of Chicago, the rest are in suburbs because the City voted to ban them a few years back.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:22 PM

Hmm. I hate this and think it's wrong, but at the same time, some part of me says "hey, maybe this'll help give the little guy a chance".

Perhaps it could be looked at as a tax that actually helps the people instead of funding the government for once.

I'm honestly kinda torn. Corporations are too powerful these days.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 04:22 PM

Walmart already gives the little guy a chance they might not otherwise have by providing jobs though.. This is just shitting on Walmart really

Scrum · 07-26-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Wow, what bullshit. This bill seems to be targeted at ONLY Walmart.

I hope Walmart pulls their stores out of the city. As much as I might not like some of Walmart's business practices (running smaller companies out of business by selling at a loss until they can no longer compete), or the people who shop there, or the quality of their merchandise.. they do bring good with them to the stores that they build.

Lots of jobs and opportunity for advancement within the company/store for people who might not otherwise have it.

They said if they are forced to do this, they will just open stores in the surrounding suburbs.

"Chicago" is really about 5X the size of the actual city proper.

thomez · 07-26-2006, 04:23 PM

WalMart will just stay in the suburbs

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Hmm. I hate this and think it's wrong, but at the same time, some part of me says "hey, maybe this'll help give the little guy a chance".

You might wanna look into the catastrophic results that resulted when such policies were implemented during the great depression

Scrum · 07-26-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

From what I understand WalMart only has one store in the city of Chicago, the rest are in suburbs because the City voted to ban them a few years back.

I don't think that store in the city is open yet.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Walmart already gives the little guy a chance they might not otherwise have by providing jobs though.. This is just shitting on Walmart really

That's hardly a chance. I'm not putting down a company that provides jobs, but people would be far better off running their own small store than working for walmart for squat.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You might wanna look into the catastrophic results that resulted when such policies were implemented during the great depression

Not saying it's good. Just saying I'm torn. See edit

Scrum · 07-26-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Hmm. I hate this and think it's wrong, but at the same time, some part of me says "hey, maybe this'll help give the little guy a chance".

Perhaps it could be looked at as a tax that actually helps the people instead of funding the government for once.

I'm honestly kinda torn. Corporations are too powerful these days.

They have been slowly moving poor people out of the city and into certain suburbs for years.

I agree, I can't stand these huge corperations that squash the little guy, but there has to be a better way.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

That's hardly a chance. I'm not putting down a company that provides jobs, but people would be far better off running their own small store than working for walmart for squat.

How many of them have the means, knowledge, etc, to do that though? The answer is: not many.

The people Walmart employs are either too old (store greeters) to get other jobs, or are simply not educated enough to do much else with their time.. It's not like these people have MBA's, good credit, etc, and can sipmly take out a loan and open up their own business.

This is giving them a chance to hold down a steady job and advance within the company if they do good where they otherwise wouldn't have that chance.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

How many of them have the means, knowledge, etc, to do that though? The answer is: not many.

The people Walmart employs are either too old (store greeters) to get other jobs, or are simply not educated enough to do much else with their time.. It's not like these people have MBA's, good credit, etc, and can sipmly take out a loan and open up their own business.

This is giving them a chance to hold down a steady job and advance within the company if they do good where they otherwise wouldn't have that chance.

You don't need and MBA and good credit to open a store. It might help of course, but it's not required by any means. People have done it throughout history without either. Also they create jobs as well.

But these smaller businesses have a hard time competing against walmart. Sure it can be done still, but it's tough.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

You don't need and MBA and good credit to open a store. It might help of course, but it's not required by any means. People have done it throughout history without either. Also they create jobs as well.

But these smaller businesses have a hard time competing against walmart. Sure it can be done still, but it's tough.

But like I said, most of these people don't have the means, knowledge, or desire to do so. Walmart isn't employing the next innovator like Bill Gates, for the most part they're employing people who don't want to or haven't done much with their life.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

They have been slowly moving poor people out of the city and into certain suburbs for years.

I agree, I can't stand these huge corperations that squash the little guy, but there has to be a better way.

Yup, I agree with you. Again I'm not defending this, but I am playing devil's advocate here. Part of me is like "yay they stuck it to walmart" but part of me is appalled.

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

But like I said, most of these people don't have the means, knowledge, or desire to do so. Walmart isn't employing the next innovator like Bill Gates, for the most part they're employing people who don't want to or haven't done much with their life.

I tend to see more potential in people than that. Sure, a lot of them are not going anywhere in life, but would they go somewhere in life if more possibility existed? Would they go somewhere in life if they didn't have these crapass jobs to get stuck in?

Or perhaps they would just work for more enterprising people that don't currently work for walmart, but could actually stay in business with walmart crippled like this? They would get paid more probably, and almost certainly have better bosses. Best of all they wouldn't work in that store that is so gloomy and void of hope (IMO, just the feeling I get when I walk in one and see the employees) that it reminds me of soviet russia or communist china or something

motivez · 07-26-2006, 04:33 PM

Yeah, I don't feel differently. I think walmart can afford to pay their people more and provide health care, etc. Look at a place like Costco, they're successful and they treat their employees very well

thewise1 · 07-26-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, I don't feel differently. I think walmart can afford to pay their people more and provide health care, etc. Look at a place like Costco, they're successful and they treat their employees very well

werd. Ever notice that Costcos are darker inside, yet they aren't gloomy?

Maybe I'm the only one that has noticed this. Walmart has a lethargic attitude of death about it. In Costco the employees are upbeat, cheerful, smart enough to help you in a hurry, etc.

Maybe it's just the walmarts near me