0
   

Groundbreaking: Chicago Orders Megastores to Raise Min. Wage

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 04:40 pm
Raising the minimum wage state by state when the federal government cant be buggered to sounds good to me, and has become common practice in the US already.

However, one common objection against raising the minimum wage is that it will hit - and close down - small businesses, who provide a crucial community role, especially in disadvantaged areas, provide many low-skilled jobs, and are already under threat from large corporations.

Under pressure from a long-lasting campaign of unions and others, the City of Chicago has now taken this dilemma head-on. It raises the minimum wages further, but specifically for "stores that occupy more than 90,000 square feet and are part of companies grossing more than $1 billion annually".

Heartening to see such activism on a bread-and-butter issue -- and see it achieve a success that will directly improve the lives of hard-working people, who live on the edge of poverty.

Quote:
Chicago Orders ?'Big Box' Stores to Raise Wage

July 27, 2006

After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring "big box" stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.

The ordinance, imposing the requirement on stores that occupy more than 90,000 square feet and are part of companies grossing more than $1 billion annually, would be the first in the country to single out large retailers for wage rules.

A gallery packed with supporters of the bill broke into cheers as the measure passed, by a vote of 35 to 14, after four hours of intense speeches and debate.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/27/us/27chicago190.1.jpg

"This is a great day for the working men and women of Chicago," said Alderman Joseph A. Moore, the measure's chief sponsor. Mr. Moore said he had had inquiries about the ordinance from officials in several other cities.

An Illinois retailers' group said it would challenge the measure in court, and Mayor Richard M. Daley, who opposed the measure, has not said whether he will veto it. [He said earlier that the ordinance could impede growth and tax revenues, but he would have to persuade two aldermen to switch their votes to avoid an override.]

Wal-Mart's response to the Council's action was swift and blunt.

"It's sad ?- this puts politics ahead of working men and women," John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in a telephone interview. "It means that Chicago is closed to business." [..]

In arguing that Wal-Mart and other companies can easily afford to meet the new standards, proponents of the measure pointed to Costco, which says it already pays at least $10 an hour plus benefits to starting workers around the country. [..]

With this ordinance, Chicago has opened a contentious front in the growing national movement, led by labor and poverty groups, to raise the incomes of bottom-rung workers through local minimum wage and "living wage" legislation. Some economists say such measures will stifle development and deprive consumers of access to cheap goods, but many poverty experts say that local efforts elsewhere to raise wages have not choked off growth and that the expanding, low-paying retail sector can be safely pressed to raise pay.

"We're very confident that retailers want and need to be in Chicago, and the question for the city is what kinds of jobs they will bring," said Annette Bernhardt of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, which helped draft the Chicago bill and has done economic studies of its likely impact. [..]

The bill was the object of a fierce lobbying battle over recent months, with unions and community groups flooding aldermen with petitions, post cards and telephone calls and retailers doing the same.

In a meeting with several black aldermen, Target officials warned that passage of the measure could cause the company to cancel or delay three stores planned for the city's South Side, the aldermen told reporters.

Yet the proposal had strong appeal, especially in the city's lower-income black and Hispanic wards. [..]

The bill comes at a time when many large retailers are increasing their presence in large cities.

The drive to raise state and city minimum wages has grown out of frustration with Congress, which has left the federal minimum wage at $5.15 an hour since 1997. At least 22 states have enacted somewhat higher minimum wage laws.

San Francisco; Albuquerque; Santa Fe, N.M.; and Washington have across-the-board minimum wage ordinances for all but the smallest businesses. Those in San Francisco and Santa Fe have set levels near that in the Chicago bill without driving out retailers, Ms. Bernhardt said.

Ms. Bernhardt said large retailers had saturated suburban markets and had powerful incentives to move into urban areas.

Under the bill, minimum wages in the covered stores would rise to $9.25 in 2007 and to $10 in 2010, and be indexed to inflation after that. Benefits would have to total $1.50 an hour in 2007 and $3 in 2010.

Smaller retailers would remain subject to the state minimum wage of $6.50 an hour. [..]

The bill would affect 35 stores already in Chicago, including branches of Kmart, Target, Toys "R" Us and stores like Sears and Lowes. Support for the idea started taking off two years ago when Wal-Mart said it would open its first store in the city in 2006, in the poor Austin ward on the West Side.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 620 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 05:23 pm
We touched on this topic, nimh, a few days ago in another thread (the increasingly nasty one re immigration). I didn't comment about this there because the thread has long since degenerated into a bunch of personal attacks back and forth. But, here are my thoughts:
1) The Chicago ordinance, if signed into law, will be challanged in court and I think it will be struck down.
2) The issue here may overtly be the minimum wage/living wage thing. But lurking under that are the unions' interest and also, I would add, the folks who are tilting at the windmill of the "wal-martization" of America.
3) The US Congress got into this on Friday. Some Republicans indicated that they might be willing to see a gradual increase in the Federal Minimum Wage over a several year timeframe but only if the inheritance tax on rich people was repealed immediately. Talk about handing an election issue to the Dems!

Anyway, I am a liberal who believes in the concept of a minimum wage/living wage. I also am a small business owner (retailer; 35 employees). And I know a bit about economics.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 05:27 pm
btw, the mob in Chicago is just pressing for a raise.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jul, 2006 06:56 pm
It's a nice idea, but the idea of one place having to pay a higher minimum wage than a place next door might have difficulty getting through the courts.

In a related development, Connecticut is raising a cry because Wal-Mart doesn't pay medical benefits, and the employees' paychecks are so small that the state ends up subsidizing the employees' medical care.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 04:17 am
realjohnboy wrote:
1) The Chicago ordinance, if signed into law, will be challanged in court and I think it will be struck down.

kelticwizard wrote:
It's a nice idea, but the idea of one place having to pay a higher minimum wage than a place next door might have difficulty getting through the courts.

Well, in one of the bits I snipped for brevity, the article adds:

A legal brief prepared recently for the Illinois Retail Merchants Association said the bill would violate equal protection guarantees in the Constitution, but a legal analysis by the Brennan Center at New York University said there was ample precedent for selective imposition of minimum wages by size of business.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 07:29 am
If the chicago city government wants to raise the minimum wage, they should do so. Otherwise, they should piss off and leave the business community alone.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 07:33 am
I listened to this story last week on the radio....I'll be reading this thread with interest.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 07:57 am
I don't understand how seemingly intelligent people always fall for this crap. Last time they tried this in Chicago, Walmart simply moved out of the lower income neighborhood they planed to build in which was inside city limits and into the business friendly city next door. All that was accomplished was the people who could use the low prices and jobs that Walmart provides got nothing... not even the "non-living wage" jobs.

It isn't Walmart's responsibility (or any other retailer for that matter) to provide salary to raise a family of 4 for being a door greeter. It is called a minimum wage job for a reason. It is an unskilled job that anybody over the age of 16 could do with relative ease.

The minimum wage scam does nothing but raise prices and screw with the market.
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jul, 2006 09:20 am
The Brennan Center is the Brennan Center for "Justice"..........there isn't much doubt their analysis of this matter is skewed in favor of the city. I would love to hear some of their precedents for this. This will eventually eat up more money in attorney and court time than it is worth to the workers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Groundbreaking: Chicago Orders Megastores to Raise Min. Wage
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/13/2026 at 05:03:58