Chicago alderman inside their boxes: Thinking of themselves
Crossposted on Marathon Pundit. And later today, don't forget to listen to my radio interview.
While yesterday's passing of Chicago's "big box" living wage ordinance was the major local news story--and it's gotten pretty heavy play nationally--one story got buried. Chicago's alderman voted themselves pay raise for themselves yesterday, (free registration may be required to access the link).
As for the "big box" bill, the unions no longer bother denying that they've threatened to run opponents against the soon-to-be-a-little wealthier aldercreatures if they voted "wrong" on "big box."
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
Aldermen had made commitments to organized labor months ago. They were not about to renege -- and test labor's threat to run candidates against sitting aldermen.
Today's John Kass column in the Chicago Tribune is a work of brilliance. Here is an excerpt, and yes, free registration may be required:
As public policy, the big-box ordinance is certainly unconstitutional. It is an insidious attempt by Chicago politicians to squeeze businesses that hoped to open new markets--particularly underserved minority neighborhoods--while providing tax revenue and thousands of desperately needed jobs to unskilled workers, many of them black and Latino.
"I've got these white liberals telling me what's good for my community. But this big-box thing will cost black people jobs," Ald. Ike Carothers (29th) told me during Wednesday's pontifications.
"If I put out a notice that there were 500 jobs waiting in my ward--what Wal-Mart was offering for each store--you'd see a line of people from my ward all the way to Mississippi. People want jobs. That's it."
Eventually, Wednesday's histrionics will cost taxpayers even more money, once lawyers start generating billable hours. Ultimately, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, requiring equal protection under the law, should trump the council's economic populism.
Sure it'd be illegal, but it would be a fair ending to this tale if the 35 alderman who voted for the "big box" wage bill were forced to pay the legal bills resulting from "big box" out of their own salaries. After all, they just voted themselves a raise.
20 comments:
If the ordinance passes muster (as I'm sure it will), can we bill Ruberry for the costs in defending the challenges?
The challenges look weak to me.
I do like the irony of it though. These big corps who are so opposed to lawsuits are happy to file when they feel the slighest twinge of injury.
Just because the Sun-Times writes about threats to run opponents doesn't mean that Labor is openly making those threats; your snippet doesn't prove your assertion. And while you may oppose the Big Box ordinance, suggesting that legislators should be open to intimidation by threats of personal liability for litigation costs is just irresponsible.
I work for an Alderman; SEIU is openly making those threats.
Another post on Wal-Mart. Is that the best you can do? If you really cared, you'd move to Chicago and work to replace the Alderman who voted for the living wage ordinance.
Another option for you. Why don't you start a legal fund to help Wal-Mart should it decide to challange the ordinance in court. Do something instead of just sitting on the sidelines carping about the issue.
...move to chicago...
anon,
You don't think this ordinace should move throughout Illinois instead?
I'm with Skeeter -- I wonder how much money Wal-Mart has pumped into the "frivilous lawsuit" propaganda machine? Then when one democracy doesn't vote its way, they threaten a lawsuit. Hippo-crites.
The labor unions are taking the democratic approach. They petitioned their government. They introduced legislation. They lobbied for its passage. They even - HORRORS - told alderman that if they wanted their political support, they needed to support them on their issues.
And while the labor unions do deserve alot of credit, Wal-Mart and its henchmen like to wallpaper over the fact that the living wage ordinance was backed by a broad coalition of faith-based groups, civil rights groups, economic justice groups, and other grassroots advocates.
Most of all, lets remember that some 85% of voters agree that the taxpayers shouldn't be stuck subsidizing employee benefits for the second-most profitable country in America and largest retailer in the world. If COSTCO can afford to pay its workers $10 and hour plus benefits, Wal-Mart sure as heck can.
What if African American police officers in Michigan electocuted the testicles of Patrick Daley or beat and tortured him into a confession when that Filipino kid got put in a coma when Patrick threw that party at the summer home (was it a hate crime?????
Would there have been indictments or a special prosecutor to get those cops???
What if police or DEA tortured and suffocated and choked Daniel Joyce the son of former Senator and O'Hare businessman Jeremiah Joyce when he was dealing cocaine???
What if burned him, or didn't let him sleep or threw him out a window??
Do you think the Senator would of changed his mind about police abuse and forced confessions?
Is it o.k. for large coporations to buy off politician but not unions? Good move. visit www.chicagoclout.com for some pictures on the event. James
By the way, when did the notion that democratic (small "d") elections should be contested become so outrageous that it's considered newsworthy, or a threat? Heck, Republican Suzanne Simpson ran against State Sen. Adeline Geo-Karis just because she thought she wasn't dying fast enough.
John:
I wondering if you're counting more on the legal challenge or on the mega-retailers following through on their threats (btw, why won't Target return calls even to Crain's?). Either way, it seems you'd like to see the proponents and potential beneficiaries of this law suffer. Is that compassionate conservatism?
As for legal challenges, you've mentioned elsewhere the ruling against the Maryland law, claiming it was ruled unconstitutional. That decision actually was very narrow, referring only to ERISA, and written so that it actually could strengthen the grounds for the Chicago big box law.
It'll be too bad to see corporations not get to rely yet again on that great pro-business amendment, the 14th.
What makes litigation in this case frivolous? It seems very valid for a business to want to protect its interests, especially when those interests are also the intersets of the great majority of the consumers, taxpayers, and workers of Chicago.
Bill, if you really think the ordinance will spread throughout the state after being adopted in Chicago, you should moved back to the city and work with the local Wal-Mart proponents to urge a veto or repeal it. Like John, you chose to leave Chicago and seem content to simply sit on the sidelines and moan about what's going on in the city. It's pretty easy to be a critic when you live miles from the action.
anon,
Chicago is the engine of NW Illinois.
No one in the burbs can or should be indifferent to what goes on there.
This ordinance is going to have a big impact on where retail is located in the metro area. It sends a message, even if struck down, that City Gov is going to meddle too much.
So these 40 super centers Walmart plans on building are going to circle the city in the inner burbs.
I don't think that's going to be good for Chicago or anyone else.
It just accelerates the trend of a gentrified core and empty zone around it.
I too look forward to an age of Progressive realism; where pigeons no longer stain the statuary; where the union of man and man/woman and woman produces the off-spring necessary to sustain a loving planet; where community activists can order enough T-shirts to really put and end to gun violence; where increasing a part time ( 35 of 50) Alderman to a salary commensurate to the failed economics of corporate CEO’s who rarely work in best interests of their shareholders; where public icons have no civic virtue; where people of faith can be brought to court and sued; where MY thoughts on all things are really important; and where I can nestle in the funding of University based ‘Centers’ of doctrine and correct living; where every citizen gets it good and hard for his/her own good; where we can achieve a life that celebrates no crime too horrific or dysfunction too personal in a very public way; and where I can bring my pot-bellied pet pig into the Garfield Park for a feed-and greet with Loretta Swit; and my children can be proud in the fact that their Dad loves ’short haired women and long-haired men’ who have struggled to convince all of us that abortion is a good thing and that Catholics can not be good because of our fealty to a German Pope in an Italian City State. Free Patty Columbo! And Free T-Shirts to the Children!
I see it's too late for Pat to spare us yet another of his patronizing, bitter rants. All that hot air will just add to this weekend's already-scorching misery.
As I said over on Rich Miller's Blog, the aldermen think they are legislating social policy. The union backers think they are legislating labor policy.
The proliferation of Wal-marts will vacate the stores in the neighborhood shopping areas which have been the the focus of social communication for the residents.
Just what we need in Chicago.
Property taxes will increase because of the Big Boxes being built and the stickiness of County assigned assessed valuations in the neighborhoods -- they won't fall as fast.
Wal-mart will by nothing but labor from Chicago. The unemployment rolls will provide much of the labor. However, the closed stores will add to the unemployed.
Increased sales taxes are forecast; but from where will sales come? What additional sales from people driving into Chicago will Wal-Mart generate?
Wistful,
I don't spend a great deal of time on the west and south sides, but when I am there I see lots of neighborhoods that don't seem to have those "neighborhood shopping areas" you seem wistful abou. It's hard to drive away something that isn't there.
Dumb a s s, they did not vote THEMSELVES a raise. Illinois Law prevents officeholders pay from increasing during their term of office.
It is a cost of living increase for the NEXT council, effective in April.
Try to get facts before spouting off.
Darryl,
Are you expected a lot of turnover in February?
Try and accept reality before spouting off. Otherwise people will see you as a corrupt hack.
If the people want a turnover, they have the power to do so, it is called voting.
Nothing is preventing others from running or the electorate from voting for them.
Unless you are so patronizing as to think people do not do things in their best interests
Post a Comment