Big Boxes Line Up Against American Workers and Their Families

                  

Are you keeping up with the story about Chicago's living wage ordinance?   Basically, it asks the following question:

Will the future of the American economy be one that brings workers along for any expansion on the horizon or will it work to leave those workers behind in increasingly desperate straits while the investor class profits? 

If you want the corportist, WalMart perspective, it's easy to find.   All you have to do is google "chicago big box" and a bunch of stories screaming the corportist line will pop up.   In fact when the story broke, the top stories were all about Target, which has pulled out of the development that would have been affected by the new ordinance.  Here's a story which delivers the big box line.  Try to hold back your tears for the billionaires:

The Chicago City Council approved the big-box ordinance 35-14 last week, ignoring the protests of Daley and aldermen who represent some of the city's poorest neighborhoods, all who said the measure will drive businesses to surrounding suburbs.

Primestor's $90 million development was expected to produce 450 construction jobs and 750 retail jobs. On Thursday, the developer bringing Target to the North and South Sides officially ended the project, issuing a letter to the mayor and aldermen saying, in part: "The fundamental fact is that under this ordinance, wages will increase 40 percent to 60 percent, making future Chicago stores economically unviable."

"Their real estate committee is not interested in investing in a store that will lose money," said Chicago Planning Commissioner Lori Healey.

The ordinance mandates companies with $1 billion in annual sales and 90,000 square feet of retail space to pay workers $10 an hour plus $3 in benefits by July 2010.

Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) lamented Target's loss, saying the store was to anchor a 32-acre shopping mall in her district that has already secured $23 million in city funding.

"I'm depressed. Calumet Park has land right across the street they can develop," Austin said. "Our development will just sit there for another century."

Today Lowe's delivered their blackmail note:

Lowe's has put its plans for two home-improvement centers in Chicago on hold in the wake of the city's new "big-box" minimum-wage ordinance, following similar steps taken by Wal-Mart and Target, a developer and alderman said.    

...

"They are waiting to see if (Mayor Richard Daley) will veto the ordinance," he said, adding that "chances are they will pull out" unless the ordinance is vetoed.

   

Lowe's spokeswoman Jennifer Smith would not discuss the company's development plans Wednesday but said they were "very disappointed" with the city's passage of the big-box ordinance.

   

"The ordinance is something that will weigh very heavily in our consideration of new store sites in the city of Chicago," she said.

Oh my goodness, how can any company with billions of dollars in annual sales ever be able to pay its employees a living wage?    If you want that question answered by people interested in creating a tide that lifts all boats instead of one that drops and drops and drops until we're all scraping the bottom, working for tips, then you can read Nathan Newman.  He's an economist who answers Target, Lowe's and the rest of the big-box whiners, who can't find a way to pay their employees a living wage with one word - Costco:

And while large retailers covered by the ordinance are making noises about not building new stores in the city, the reality is that after Santa Fe created a living wage of $9.50 per hour for large employers, Wal-Mart asked for approval to build a new Supercenter. The fact that leading retailer Costco already pays all its employees a living wage of $10 per hour plus benefits nationwide emphasizes that "big box" retailers can thrive paying a living wage. See this economic analysis of why the expansion drive by large retailers means higher wage standards will not deter their growth.

Here's what the big box defenders of keeping workers in poverty have planned: (emph mine)

Conversely, such efforts will not go unopposed. Prior to its passage, Mayor Daley threatened to veto Chicago's Big Box ordinance, yet in order for such a veto to be effective, he will be forced to use his political heft to change the votes of two council members. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association has already threatened to mount a constitutional challenge to the Chicago ordinance suggesting that the ordinance, by targeting large retailers, violates constitutional equal protection guarantees.  Similarly, other business groups are lobbying and organizing to enact state-level legislation prohibiting local wage laws. Such preemption laws have already passed in Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Louisiana, Missouri, Utah, Oregon and Texas. Other preemption campaigns are being mounted in Michigan, Kansas, Tennessee and New Mexico.

I didn't know about those preemption laws.  I'm starting to hate that word, "preemption."

So right now it's a game of chicken in Chicago.  The big boxers are holding jobs and progress hostage in the hopes that local and state governments will cave under that pressure and the propaganda from the corporate media.    In my ideal world, CostCo would step in to fill Target's void.    But I'm not even sure the developers of that site want someone to come in to save the day - yet.    They definitely don't want any progress to happen while the blackmailing is full swing.    But if Chicago's aldermen hold the line and the ordinance stands, we'll see how long it takes for poor Target and Lowe's, victim of workers united for justice,  to come to the realization that they can afford to pay those workers what they are worth: a wage that keeps them out of poverty.

UPDATE:  The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce is throwing its weight around as well on the side of the corporations, hoping to scare enough of the alderman into changing their votes by September 13:

The president of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce admits some aldermen are being pressured by the business community to change their votes. "We will go talk to the aldermen and say, 'If you're not with us, obviously you're against us,' "Roeper said.  "What that means is that they won't be around the next one or two elections cause we're going to unelect them."

I have to admit that it's refreshing to see the terms of the class war laid so starkly on the table.   

I guess that's the cue for Chicago's community action groups organized around the principle of keeping working people of out poverty and all the people they represent to say "Bring it on."   

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

Hang in there, Chicago!

Great post, eRobin, thanks.