Answer to Mayor Daley's veto is statewide big-box law
Mayor Daley vetoed the income-raising big box ordinance yesterday, that would have forced the out-of-state owners of some of the most profitable corporations in the world to pay more than poverty-level wages to their employees in Chicago.
His main objection to the ordinance is that it would have disadvantaged potential city stores versus suburban stores (who would not fall under the terms of the ordinance, and thus could pay their employees the state minimum wage of $6.50 without any benefits). It's a fair point. I still think he should have signed the ordinance into law, as I believe the benefits from higher wages and benefits to Chicago residents would have outweighed the costs of any big box stores that did not open in Chicago. Who knows whether the big box behemoths, that have clearly articulated their express desire to penetrate the urban market (the last frontier for the big boxes who have reached points of market saturation in the exurbs and in most rural markets), would have shouldered the higher operating cost of paying non-poverty wages in Chicago, or whether they would have followed through with the threats to ignore Chicago altogether?
It's worth pointing out that the problem is not that the ordinance to require non-poverty wages and benefits is a bad idea, it's that the ordinance wasn't broad enough.
It only covered Chicago.
The response seems clear: a statewide big box law.
With a statewide law, the border question doesn't afflict the Howard Avenue or Cicero Avenue. It only affects the state border.
Would the big boxes ignore a 12,000,000 person market? I doubt it.
Would the cost of paying non-poverty wages be a big enough burden to write off 12,000,000 people? I don't think so.
There would be similar border dynamics around the ring of the state, but for most of the 12,000,000 potential customers who, according to industry standards that I learned about in Crain's will not travel more than 3-5 miles for retail, there isn't a border question.
Every county board should start passing similar big box ordinances, starting with Cook. And Lake County, Indiana, should do the same thing.
When wages are down (and they are -- average wages are falling) and the number of people without health insurance jumped by 1.1 million last year, we can't wait for the federal government to solve these problems. Cities, counties and states must continue to show leadership on raising the purchasing power of people to make everyone better off. Chicago's big box ordinance is a very innovative, envelope-pushing remedy to the problems of falling wages in our increasingly service-based economy. We need to come up with more solutions and I think it's progress that Chicago has led the national debate on the question.
To his credit, Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn has been pushing the idea of a statewide big box ordinance. And I have a correction to make as well: I wrote about the $7.50 an hour minimum wage advisory referendum on the Cook County ballot and assumed that the Cook County Board voted to put the question on the ballot. I was wrong: citizens did submit petitions to place the question on the ballot. And the Master of Referenda -- Lt. Governor Quinn -- was behind the effort. Congratulations to him and his political team for a smart move.
12 comments:
I agree, that would be an effective proposal - for starters. However, I would go further and get a state-wide boost to the minimum wage across the board as well.
Getting all weepy-eyed over the SEIU's blackmail of the AFL-CIO in order to 'come back' into the fold does nothing for me.
Here is their smarmy tug on the Solidarity Rip-chord from the SEIU website:
'Following the 2004 presidential elections, SEIU launched a widely publicized dialogue to help rebuild the labor movement following several decades of decline. Despite massive economic changes in our world today, the strategies, structure, and priorities of the AFL-CIO, and many unions, haven’t changed much since the federation was founded 50 years ago - prompting SEIU and four major unions to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO in the summer of 2005 and build something stronger to help unite the 90 percent of workers who have no union.'
Can you imagine trying to get them to close ranks behind a Pipefitters, Sprinklerfitters, Plumbers walk-out at say ALL OF THE COOK COUNTY Facilities? As if?
Sweeney should bid them a lefty farewell. Like the one they planted in his 'base of support.'
To this non-Phi Beta Kappan, The BBO is nothing more than an exercise in tired old Marxism packaged to look like real Trade Unionism - it's a skunk in a silk dress.
Dan,
The arbitrariness of the Cicero or Howard Avenue boundary isn’t the most troubling to opponents like me. It’s the arbitrariness of the companies affected.
Consider: Isn’t McDonald’s owned by a profitable, out of state corporation? Why aren’t they held to the same standard? Walgreens is one of the most profitable retailers in the world, why is it exempt? Why make a distinction based on square-footage?
Heck, why even make a distinction based on profit margin of the corporation? A living wage is a living wage, right? Does your life require less of a wage if you work at a local, family owned business?
Why not just raise the state minimum wage to $10?
You know, it’s funny. I’ve never seen a billboard asking me to boycott McDonald’s or Walgreens because they don’t allow their employees to unionize. I have, however, seen such pleas regarding Wal-Mart, Target, and K-Mart. I find it to be less than a coincidence. This law is just petty retribution from a group of politicians that are wrapped so tightly around big labor’s thumb that they can’t take a leak without having a union plumber around to inspect the urinal before and after.
OH GOD YES!
Then I can get a $13/hr + benefits job down in Chester, Illinois. On that kind of salary down there, I'd be living like a KING! My entire career can be folding towels and putting them on a shelf.
Screw this thinking for a living, let someone else do it.
Face it folks, Andy Stern's SEIU is a political leftist movement and not a trade union.
Get with the history of the SEIU - I was a member. It was the Janitor's Union Locals - taken over by leftists from Canada in the 1970's.
Andy and Melissa are social engineers from Pennsylvannia and more than left-wing in their orientation and agenda.
The targeting ( no pun intended) of Wal-Mart is symbolic -as in most leftie ploys -and not seeking an immediate cure for anything.
I also don't think the problem was that it only covered Chicago, but that it only covered big-box retailers. Cities, counties or the state can boost minimum wage across the board, so how can it make sense to tailor the law so narrowly?
Better yet, let's give a huge boost to the state EITC. This would help working families more than any minimum wage increase, and it wouldn't create inflation or drive jobs away from blighted areas.
the goofy thing was the city council didn't deal for a distribution center from some of these big boxes instead...
The city has lost that to Rochelle, Rockford,,, other places... and the sad thing is the rail facility in Rochelle is not meeting expectations because it's too far out...
That would have been a real effort for real jobs... instead we get this symbolic stuff.
It's not a working stiffs party anymore.
Rob re: EITC...
that's a serious thought too again lost on a left concerned soley with mostly symbolic issues....
Meister Baar,
You Hubermensch, no one is calling SEIU on its social engineering agenda and it's sad to see legitimate tardes unions going along with the Burger/Stern Comintern.
good luck getting Madigan to call any bill Daley opposes.
Rob, as the name implies Earned Income Tax Credit requires that first step and that is lost on those seeking to 'change the world' through legislation.
North Carolina is that very problem at the moment:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15489649.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news
Raising the minimum wage might put those problems aside:
http://www.bradleyweekly.com/news.cfm?id=4236
I appreciate the dialogue. It's true that applying the law only to big box stores raised some boundary concerns, but don't you think a company with record profits ought to provide health insurance to all of its workers? I've long been an advocate of lowering the tax burden on low incomes. I think we should raise the 3% state income tax rate and put all the money into low income tax relief by raising the personal exemption to $12,000 and increasing the percentage of state refundability of the federal EITC from 5% to 20%. That's actually revenue neutral (well, $700 million in the hole, but you get the idea). What do you think, GOP, Bill and Pat? Would you support that? Check out HB 155 that lays it all out. So, Bill, talking about "the left" is a straw man argument. Lots of "the left" which I prefer to think of as progressives are working hard at coming up with solutions that can attract a consensus that increase purchasing power for people.
Post a Comment