Ald. Joe Moore, retail genius
Crossposted on Marathon Pundit. While there, you can read about my upcoming radio appearance.
On Wednesday a vote is scheduled to take place in Chicago's City Council on the Chicago "Big Box Living Wage" ordinance.
Ald. Joe Moore, a two-year opponent of Wal-Mart and other "big box" stores, is the sponsor of the ordinance.
Supporters of the bill include the usual suspects: unions and the far left. Opponents include business leaders, as well as African-American community and church leaders.
Before becoming an alderman, Moore was an attorney for the City. He has no experience in retail.
Yesterday morning, I drove down Howard street to take a look at the Gateway Shopping Center, a project that was built at the inspiration of Alderman Moore, who helped grease things along by using the power of eminent domain to get the place built.
Driving west on Howard from Sheridan Road, I notice quite a few empty store fronts on Howard east of Gateway. West of Gateway too.
Arriving at the shopping center, I noticed, it does look pretty nice. A non-big box discounter, probably not union, Marshall's is there. Grocer Dominick's has a store, and yes, they're union.
But among the smaller units there, set aside for specialty outlets, about one-third sit empty. Gateway opened in 2000.
Now that "expert" in retail, Joe Moore, wants to tell the rest of Chicago how retail businesses should operate in the City.
For those readers living outside of Chicago, a quick lesson in how things are done in the Second City is needed. There's a "gentleman's agreement" among the Chicago's fifty alderman that the council member representing the ward, using--or shall I say, abusing zoning laws, exerts enormous power on what is built---or not built--in their ward.
Oh, the picture was taken Sunday morning in front of one of the many vacant store lots at Gateway. Call the number listed if you need retail space in Chicago's Rogers Park community.
12 comments:
You all keep posting on this, but you really don't answer the question:
Since Wal-Mart will not provide a living wage and will not provide health insurance, can we raise your taxes to pay for the health care of the Wal Mart employees?
In the alternative, should we force Wal Mart to pick up the tab?
Or, as fine pro-lifers, do you just believe that the poor should be denied access to health care?
You all keep posting on this, but you really don't answer the question:
Since Wal-Mart will not provide a living wage and will not provide health insurance, can we raise your taxes to pay for the health care of the Wal Mart employees?
In the alternative, should we force Wal Mart to pick up the tab?
Or, as fine pro-lifers, do you just believe that the poor should be denied access to health care?
I answered that one in the other thread.
This comes from Paidcritics.com, yes, a Wal-Marat site...
In Sunday’s Chicago Tribune (free reg. req’d), UFCW steward and ACORN official Toni Foulkes, who reportedly earns $12.85 per hour, explained why Chicagoans should expect to pay higher prices for their groceries:
Toni Foulkes tells customers there’s a reason the cakes she sells at a South Side Jewel store cost more than cakes at Sam’s Club. “They don’t put love in ‘em like I do,” she says. “And their employees don’t make what I make.”
Perhaps. But according to the Tribune, the starting wage at Wal-Mart is actually higher than at its unionized competitor:
Baggers at Jewel start at $6.55 an hour, according to the union contract. Wal-Mart’s lowest paid workers earn $7.25 an hour.
Wal-Mart supervisor Lisa Cox, who earns $13.47 per hour, explained the opportunities for an entry-level worker at her store:
The 40-year-old single mother dropped out of high school in the 11th grade and worked two jobs while raising her son. She started at Wal-Mart eight years ago as a part-time cashier, making $7.25 per hour. “You don’t have a problem moving [up] at Wal-Mart,” she said. “There’s nothing I can’t do.”
http://paidcritics.com/2006/07/post_1.html
Joe Moore is a liberal hypocrite and completely ineffective. Phony anti jobs and anti minority
Actually, John, you haven't answered. First, those union baggers have company funded health insurance.
Who is going to pay for the health insurance for the Wal-Mart workers?
As the other thread noted, only 50% of Wal Mart employees have any sort of company health insurance.
Can we raise your taxes to pay for the rest?
Moreover, do you really think that the entry level people are the ones with the health insurance?
Two interesting points from the Trib article cited. First, the supervisor who earns $13.47/hr started at $7.25/hr eight years ago; yet, the entry wage at WalMart today is still only $7.25/hr. What, no increases in the starting wage in eight years?
Second, WalMart's employee spokesperson is a supervisor, not a rank and file person. (This also makes comparing the salary of the Jewel employee suspect: you're comparing a supervisor's salary with a front line worker's wage.)
Last, a supervisor with eight years experience at WalMart -- and obviously someone who is well like, if WalMart's public relations machine let her speak to a reporter -- earns only $28,000/year. I suppose you could live on that, but not well. (After taxes, this is around $20,000/yr -- in area where rents run $700-$900/yr, even in "bad" neighborhoods.)
Besides, all of this misses the biggest wage-supressing effect of WalMart's monopsony: they force their suppliers to cut wages, or outsource production to China:
Case in point: Bill Nichol, CEO of Kentucky Derby Hosiery, a sock manufacturer that has supplied Wal-Mart for 40 years. He credits Wal-Mart with forcing his company to be more disciplined and efficient, but he adds: "Their message to us, surprisingly, is, 'There's a broad market out there. If you want to focus on the lowest-cost part of the market, it's obvious that you can't do that in the United States'." So half of Nichol's 1,500 U.S. employees will soon be out of work and he'll have to open plants in China and other low-cost countries to hang onto his Wal-Mart account. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/shots.html
The big box living wage, for me, is the first step in reining in a huge corporation that is hurting America by abusing its position as the largest purchaser. That the ordinance will probably drive increased wages (in an economy that right now has a low inflation rate) is simply a bonus.
As usual the argument centers around the corporation vs. the workers, which in a free society is nearly irrelevant.
The consumer is the one that pays the bills, and the one that benefits most from low prices and convenient shopping.
Driving out consumer choice is a miserable way to provide higher wages for the few that work at these stores vs. the many that shop there.
Absolutely, JB! I detest Wal-Mart and have never set foot in one of their dens.
However, I avoid them the old-fashioned way - I buy elsewhere.
To pass ordinances to keep out or bring in is riduculous. Let the marketplace decide.
Pat,
It is not nearly as simple as you state. Actions have consequences.
When you "let the marketplace decide" you are also choosing to pay higher taxes to provide medical care for those workers, since the employer refuses to provide it.
The "market" has decided to raise Hickey's taxes, and he is standing there letting it happen.
Skeeter,
Since we don't have statewide mandated health insurance, what is your point? If you want statewide mandates, go campaign for them, but since we don't, then why limit the ability for businesses to sell to consumers at an attractive price?
JBP
Maybe Skeeter thinks that these people have jobs and are leaving them for Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot jobs. Or maybe, people who are getting health care courtesy of the City, State or Federal Goverment tax dollars want to be productive members of society. Skeeter, if you really feel this way, the burden should fall on all business in Chicago, not some arbitrary number based on store square footage. How about McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, etc. Joe Moore is just acting as a lackie for the Unions.
I am a Walmart employee. I have been with them for just under 2 yrs. In my city Walmart actually pays $1.00 per hr MORE for my position than all other similar positions in the surrounding communities.
As for people quoting the "50% uninsured".....what they don't tell you are ALL the reasons why. I don't have insurance though them. I am insured through my wife's work place due to the fact the price is the same and we have been on the plan for years so why change. There are plenty of people where I work that do the same thing. They are insured under there spouse. How about asking "What is the percent of work force that DOES NOT QUALIFY for insurance at walmart".
Why does everyone complain that walmart does not pay there workers a decent wage to live off of? #1. If you don't like there pay.....then don't work for them....simple. #2. Do you see people ranting and raving about hundreds of thousands of other companies that only pay min wage....NO....and thats because there small and and they are not known to 99% of the population.
By the way....my wife works for another big retailer in this state who sells higher end clothes than walmart and I make MORE per hour than her.
Thank you all for your time.
Post a Comment