Vacant lots employ no one

The former Dominick's grocery store on the left employs no one. Just as the vacant lot at 83rd and Stewart on Chicago's South Side doesn't have anyone on its payroll.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation, wants to build a store at 83rd and Stewart, and help revitalize an area that has few if any large grocery stores--a "food desert."

And some people want to keep it that way.

The Chicago Tribune, free registration may be required for the link, has an editorial today that about that lot. It's part of the Chatham Market redevelopment plan, and a clause in that plan calls for Chicago City Council approval for any store selling groceries with over 100,000 square feet. Two years ago, the council passed an ordinance, which was vetoed by Mayor Richard Daley, that would've forced any store with over 100,000 square feet of retail space, a "Big Box," to pay its workers more than smaller retailers. If that bill had becoome law, it would've been a disaster for Chicagoans. Fewer jobs, higher prices for goods.

From the Tribune editorial:

Despite the size trigger in the Chatham Market development and the now-defunct Big Box ordinance, this controversy has always been more about what's on the shelves than how many shelves there are. Wal-Mart is the nation's largest retailer—and the nation's largest grocer. Organized labor is determined to protect its unionized ranks at area Jewel and Dominick's grocery stores. That means it's determined to keep Wal-Mart and its big grocery departments out of Chicago.

Like Wal-Mart's employees, Lowe's workers also are non-union. Lowe's opened its 117,000-square-foot store in Chatham Market in December. Nobody protested. Lowe's doesn't sell groceries.

The city's latest rejection may not be the last turn of this wheel. Wal-Mart hasn't given up and neither has Ald. Howard Brookins (21st), who represents this area and knows how eager his constituents are for the hundreds of jobs and shopping convenience Wal-Mart would bring. But making this happen requires political courage from the mayor and from aldermen not beholden to labor. And there isn't much evidence of that.

The original developers of Chatham Market, Monroe Investment Partners LLC, vowed four years ago that "Wal-Mart is not now, and will not be, a part of our development." They might have added: A vacant lot is so much better.

Meanwhile, the food desert problem persists in Chicago and other large cities. The City of Chicago is aware of the problem, and as I noted in the related post, they are working to recruit medium-sized grocers (that means not Wal-Mart or Target) into the deserts.

Some people just don't get it.

Related Marathon Pundit posts:

Food deserts continue to plague Chicago
Obama's Wal-Mart connection: Wife served on board of big Wal-Mart supplier
Chicago's "food deserts" well known to Obama
My book report: The Wal-Mart Revolution: How Big Box Stores Benefit Consumers, Workers, and the Economy
The good life of working for the UFCW
Union leaders don't share their members pain
Chicago food desert update: Hyde Park Co-op to close
Big-box shy Chicago facing "food desert"

To comment on this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

One Teamster officer, three former Teamster employees indicted on election fraud charges in Chicago

I'll say it again in the land of the free, use your freedom of choice. Devo, "Freedom of Choice," 1980.

But will workers really have "Freedom of Choice?"

Organized labor, through the Democratic Party, is trying to enact something into law with the deceptive name of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Workers hoping to unionize will be able to, if the bill becomes law, choose to join a union by signing a card--bypassing one of the most sacred foundations of American society--the secret ballot. The legislation passed the House of Representatives in the spring, but it faces a doubtful future in the Senate. If it somehow makes it out of the Senate, President Bush vows to veto the bill.

Opponents of the bill have raised the valid (to me) concern that workers, via the card-signing option, could be bullied into voting in favor of joining a union. In other words, their freedom to make a choice will be taken away from them by the "Employee Free Choice Act."

Unions have been hemorrhaging members since the 1950s, mostly because fewer Americans work in manufacturing jobs. However, government workers being an exception, workers have been less willing, via the secret ballot, to say "Union, Yes!"

The "Employee Free Choice Act" is an attempt, a desperate one, to if not reverse that trend, at least slow it down.

Can union officials be trusted to run an honest "free choice" card signing? Based on the alleged actions of three former Teamster Local 743 employees and one current officer from that local, I have my doubts.

That local, by the way, has a long history of corruption. For more, read this story from not the Wall Street Journal, but the Socialist Worker Online.

From CBS 2 Chicago:

Teamsters Local 743 officer and three former union local employees were indicted on federal charges of stealing ballots in an effort to rig two elections in favor of an incumbent slate of officers in 2004, according to the U.S. Justice and Labor departments.

In two closely-contested elections just months apart, the defendants and others allegedly diverted to their friends, family and confidantes hundreds of mailed, official ballot packages intended for delivery to Local 743 members, then cast the ballots or caused them to be cast to ensure election of the incumbent slate, the indictment alleges.

Local 743 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, based in Chicago, represents more than 12,000 members engaged in warehouse, office, medical, service and other industries, and is one of the largest Teamsters locals in the country.

The seven-count indictment was returned Thursday by a federal grand jury, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s office. All four defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud by depriving Local 743 of their honest services and to embezzle, or steal, the official ballots, the release said.

Organized labor is not a good environment to exercise "Freedom of Choice."

To comment on this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

Obama expected to walk Congress Hotel picket line today

Okay kids, this one is local. And I'm not parroting Fox News talking points.


I worked at the Congress Hotel for nine years as either a catering or convention services manager. I worked with a lot of interesting groups, including International Mr. Leather, the annual meeting of the leftist rag In These Times, a swingers group, a street gang summit, and some Wiccans.

My time there helps explain why I'm so loosely wired.

Four years ago, the unionized workers there went on strike. My opinion on organized labor is mostly negative--many unions tend to be corrupt dens of nepotism.

However, in this battle, I'm on the side of the union. The dishwashers, bartenders, room attendants, and waiters walking the picket line were not well paid. Their union, Hotel Employees-Restaurant Employees Local #1 was recently cleaned up by the federal government, negotiated a major pay increase for their members with the bargaining unit hired by the big Chicago hotels. All signed on, except the Congress.

The owners are crying they can't afford the pay raise, but don't believe them. The core of the partnership, led by New Yorker Albert Nasser, has been in control of the Congress since 1987. Despite a 1995 bankruptcy declaration, they've obviously found owning the Congress worthwhile. Besides, they could always sell the hotel. The land the hotel sits on--the corner of Congress and Michigan Avenue overlooking Buckingham Fountain--is undoubtedly worth a fortune.

Or the owners could fix up the place and stop maintaining a dump. Renovated and run properly, the place would be a gold mine.

Click here from more on the owners of the Congress Hotel, including their man on-the-site, Shlomo Nahmias.

Sometime today, Senator Barack Obama will walk the hotel picket line with his striking constituents. Just as I support the union in this struggle, I'm with Obama today.

I'll end this post with a little story. I rented out the the hotel's Buckingham Room to an education society once. Two years later, I booked them again--I'd like to think it was because of me they returned. Anyway, when the group's president walked in the room for the second meeting, she pointed out a cracked window, and said, "Look that window is cracked, just as it was two years ago!"

That's the Congress Hotel.

To comment on this post, or to congratulate me on the fact that I live in one of America's "Ten Best Towns for Families," click here.

Read more...

Wal-Mart, Chicago, might compromise on "living wages"

Now that Chicago's municipal elections are over, it appears to be time for Wal-Mart and the City to revisit the big-box "living wage" debate.

Last year, in a bill sponsored by Alderman Joe Moore, the Chicago City Council passed a "living wage" ordinance that would've effected only "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Home Depot. Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed that bill, and the Council failed to in its attempt to override.

From Crain's Chicago Business, free registration may be required:

Despite post-election chest thumping, the first signs of a potential compromise are emerging in the political war between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and union-led advocates of a big-box minimum wage bill.

Sources on both sides say they're willing to sit down and talk at length, and they raise the possibility of a deal in which Wal-Mart would get zoning approval needed for more Chicago stores in exchange for agreeing to support a wider minimum wage bill that applies to more than the super-sized retail outlets known as big boxes.

Wal-Mart recently backed a similar law in Maryland, and while such a proposal would stir intense opposition from some partisans on either side of the fray, it might also provide a starting point for substantive discussions, sources say.

But sometimes, as with Palestinian extremists, people prefer to fight. When responding to the possibility of adding other retailers to the "living wage" battle, Madeline Talbott of ACORN said:

I don't know if you want every Walgreens and CVS on your case," Ms. Talbott says. "Wal-Mart is a great political enemy to have.

To comment on this post, or vote in the Pajamas Media presidential straw poll, click here.

Read more...

A moronic statement from Ald. Joe Moore

Back to Chicago's North Side: It appears that Ald. Joe Moore, barring a recount showing otherwise, has won reelection in the 49th Ward by 227 votes out of almost 8,000 cast.

Yesterday afternoon I watched WGN-TV's midday news, and Joe Moore made this comment about Tuesday's' election:

Whenever you fight for the common guy, people are going to fight back. My opponent was very well funded by some very powerful special interests, Republican interests....

Lies. Gordon did receive multiple contributions from the Illinois Restaurant Association, as well as the group Chicago Chefs for Choice. The last one must've had something to do with Moore's anti-foie gras legislation.

The former group is a big player in state politics, but seems to split its political spending money pretty evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Chicago Chefs for Choice? I'll see what I can find out, as I do know two conservative Chicago chefs.

Moore's campaign fund is dominated by contributions from the Service Employees International Union. And earlier this month, Moore received $10,000 from the Chicago Federation of Labor, and the same amount from AFSCME Council 31. That's big money for an aldermanic race

It's Moore's campaign that was dominated by special interests, but necessarily not Republican ones.

I haven't the time to add up Moore's and Gordon's contributions, but a quick look at the reports available at the Illinois State Board of Elections site clearly shows to the casual visitor that Moore easily raised more money than his challenger.

Joe Moore, liar.

To comment on this post, or to vote in the Pajamas Media predidential straw poll, click here.

Read more...