TT logo
You are viewing a low-graphics version of this page. Click the headline to view full version:

City of Chicago orders WalMart to pay $10 min wage

...and other "big box" stores too

Toytown Germany > Discussion forum > Themes > Miscellaneous
cinzia
QUOTE
After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring “big box� stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.

The ordinance, imposing the requirement on stores that occupy more than 90,000 square feet and are part of companies grossing more than $1 billion annually, would be the first in the country to single out large retailers for wage rules.

It's an interesting way to get the larger retailers to pay a decent wage in your city, especially since recent efforts to get Congress to raise the national minimum wage have failed.

From the New York Times
gemini
Looks as if cities and states are increasingly taking on the issues that Congress is totally UNWILLING to do F**k all about...if it means less campaign $$

Well in the end it is really grass roots stuff that matters.

I don't think Target or Walmart will be leaving anytime soon...as threatened...so just call their bluff.
Joliet Jake
It'll be interesting to see if Daley decides to veto this one. He's tried to avoid public comment to date, but it's fairly obvious that he's on the Wal-Mart/Target side of the fence on this one. The argument that this will drive away business is bull, although it certainly changes the economic equation a tad. Wal-Mart still wants into the city, it just may take a little longer now as they can get better profit margins elsewhere.
Topsy
i saw this on CNN this morning
the mayor can still veto it, and he was still sitting on the fence ("i can see both sides" etc)

still, good for them
hope it goes through
Small Town Boy
So people who have the misfortune of working in a smaller store will continue to live below the poverty line? Is working in a large store, like Wal-Mart, so much more unbearable than working at McDonalds that it requires a larger salary? Can McDonalds not afford to pay their staff more? unsure.gif
Joliet Jake
The real issue here is the fear that the entry of Wal-Mart into some city neighborhoods will drive out small business. Note that Wal-Mart is just about to open its first store in the city limits and are specifically targetting poorer neighborhoods for entry. One can argue that the city council is in effect levying a tariff on the large stores so that their profit margin is not as great and the smaller businessman can stick around a bit longer. Not sure the strategy will really work.
gemini
@STB as JJ stated, there have been (supposedly as I have not read them), interesting studies on the economic inpact on the city when these "box stores" open up.

Not only do they drive out smaller businesses, but they use up my greater % of community resources (water, trash, police) and increase pollution/traffic levels.

So one argument is that the communities are saying...if you come in at least our workers will benefit from it. Level the playing field
jml
FYI: The Economist ran two interesting articles on minimum wage a while back and how it could affect voter turnout in favour of the Democrats this November.

QUOTE
WITH unemployment as low as 4.6%, America’s labour market might be expected to be painfully tight. In fact there seems to be some slack in it. Labour force participation is relatively low, by the standard of recent years. Real hourly earnings have barely budged since 2001. Perhaps that is why many Americans tell pollsters that they are not happy with the state of the economy.

Naturally, Democrats hope to profit from this in November’s congressional elections. This week Republicans in Congress fought Democratic efforts—led by Edward Kennedy—to put through a hefty hike in the Federal minimum wage to $7.25, up from $5.15 where it was fixed in 1997. The measure was defeated in the Senate on procedural grounds, even though 52 senators voted for it (including eight Republicans). The House has it locked up in committee. An alternative bill that paired a more moderate increase to $6.25 with some changes in work regulations also died after drawing Democratic opposition.

Mr Kennedy and other Democrats are not ready to give up. Although they have little chance of getting a bill passed this year, and despite the fact that some 20 states have increased their own minimum wages in the past few years, Democrats are hoping to make the issue prominent before the November poll. The goal is to attract disgruntled voters who feel they have missed out in the current economic boom.
For complete article see the Economist on Wage Rage

and a followup article showcasing the strategy

QUOTE
HOW much does it cost to buy an election? Supporters of the Democratic Party have a new answer to that question: between $1 and $1.70 an hour. That is how much minimum wages will go up in several states if voters in those places approve ballot initiatives this November.


QUOTE
The minimum wage is an ideal issue for boosting left-wing turnout. For a start, progressive voters are fired with the idea. They are tired of watching Republicans win elections by appealing to voters' “values�, and are convinced that “fairness� (which they believe minimum wages promote) is the most persuasive value they can offer. In addition, raising a state's minimum wage does not require tax increases, since the exchange is between employers and low-wage workers. Small-business owners, who would bear much of the cost, tend to be Republicans anyway.

For complete article see the Economist on November's $5.15 Question
brokenm
QUOTE (Small Town Boy @ Jul 27 2006, 9:45 am) *
So people who have the misfortune of working in a smaller store will continue to live below the poverty line? Is working in a large store, like Wal-Mart, so much more unbearable than working at McDonalds that it requires a larger salary? Can McDonalds not afford to pay their staff more?

The problem is not that Wal-Mart drives out smaller retail stores, they also stop employing full-time workers. They hire all college or after high school aged employeees or elderly and have them on a part-time position. Therefore they are not required to pay for health insurance or retirement packages for their employees. So when a Wal-mart comes to a town, it may open 1000 new part-time jobs and due to the competitive pricing they cause 900 full time small business positions to disappear.
Joliet Jake
Excellent point, brokenm. The insurance debate has been a long-standing one.
Small Town Boy
Raising the minimum wage seems an odd way of dealing with these two problems.

There are other employment laws that could be used to deal with the issue of part-time staff not receiving insurance or pension schemes. For example, they could introduce a law requiring stores to give part-time staff insurance and pension schemes rolleyes.gif

With regard to local stores closing down: I agree that this is a huge problem, but the fact is that these stores have to request planning permission before they can open. Denying permission on economic grounds is, in the UK at least, perfectly acceptable. They could also grant permission but limit the size of the store. I don't really see how raising the minimum wage is connected with this issue.

I think JML probably hit the nail on the head: it's just a pre-election stunt.
mere
raising the minimum wage also ensures the people are making enough to live off of! As already stated many Wal-Mart employees are either older or already lower-income. Both of those groups often struggle to make ends meet and have a hard time finding employment elsewhere thus ending up stuck at Wal-Mart since getting paid poorly at least brings in a tiny bit to try to live off of compared to not having a job at all.
jml
Heya, I went slightly off topic. Theres two, albeit related issues, as I see them. First the general minimum wage and then second the big box minimum wage. At $10.00 an hour the latter would be well above the "standard" minimum wage.

The concern I have for the big box wage is that this will likely force store closures in big cities like Chicago. I don't know but some would probably be in the less desirable parts of town. Great if small businesses open up in their place but somehow I think there would be a bunch of ugly boxes, empty parking lots and a quite a few more unemployed people, particularly the elderly who are already less mobile and would have difficulty commuting or finding replacement jobs.

I'd rather see a fair wage and benefits across the board to include all the retail giants (grocery stores, fast food) AND levies on the increased consumption, as well as more assistance for small businesses. Frankly getting the little guys in place so they can compete is an equal challenge in my book. The big boxes will survive regardless and will do whatever necessary in the form of employees, structuring or costs, to protect their bottom line.
jml
ps: all of that to say that I probably should have started a separte thread re: the dems using the standard minimum wage as a tool for voter turnout in November. huh.gif
Joliet Jake
QUOTE (Small Town Boy @ Jul 27 2006, 10:53 am) *
just a pre-election stunt

If this was a state or federal legislature, I'd be inclined to agree with the pre-election stunt argument. Since this is the Chicago city council, I really don't think so. Chicago is a one-party town. Granted, there is a great deal of political pandering here (it is their stock in trade) but this isn't an election year for them and it would be a leap for the aldermen of Chicago to start acting with an eye on national elections.
Small Town Boy
QUOTE (mere @ Jul 27 2006, 10:58 am) *
raising the minimum wage also ensures the people are making enough to live off of! As already stated many Wal-Mart employees are either older or already lower-income.

I never said I was opposed to raising the minimum wage. My question was why it only applied to people working in larger stores. The are plenty -- millions -- of older or low-income people working in smaller stores, fast food restaurants etc. Why would the wage increase not benefit them?
mere
i don't know! i'm guessing b/c Wal-mart is notorious for screwing people over; other companies probably do the same. Also, many of the other ones, ie fast food, often allow you to work fulltime if you want and also provide benefits. i have friends who were raised off the income/benefits of a single parent as s/he worked at McDonalds or such and know others who are on Badgercare (our state health care program) and Fed aid due to not earning enough at Walmart.
Cookie
QUOTE (Small Town Boy @ Jul 27 2006, 11:29 am) *
I never said I was opposed to raising the minimum wage. My question was why it only applied to people working in larger stores. The are plenty -- millions -- of older or low-income people working in smaller stores, fast food restaurants etc. Why would the wage increase not benefit them?

Because an overall rise in the minimum wage (as well as requiring businesses to provide more benefits) would put many small mom-n-pop stores out of business. Larger stores like WalMart are doing just fine, thanks, and can afford it.
cinzia
QUOTE (brokenm @ Jul 27 2006, 10:10 am) *
The problem is not that Wal-Mart drives out smaller retail stores, they also stop employing full-time workers. They hire all college or after high school aged employeees or elderly and have them on a part-time position. Therefore they are not required to pay for health insurance or retirement packages for their employees. So when a Wal-mart comes to a town, it may open 1000 new part-time jobs and due to the competitive pricing they cause 900 full time small business positions to disappear.

Right. AND these people can't live on the wage they make part-time at Wal-Mart, especially with no health insurance, so lots of employees of big-box stores are actually considered "working poor." They make little enough that they qualify for food stamps and other public service programs.

Who pays for these programs? Well, partly the city's taxpayers, which is ironic because people shop at these stores because of perceived lower prices. In reality, the social costs of having big boxes located in your community can be high. Especially if other, better-paying, jobs have been lost after a big box opens.
jml
I *heard* that property values also decline when these things pop into your neighbourhood. Also, the small towns outside of chicago should beware. My tiny town had one and it was a success so they built a superwalmart which is all well and good but they left the box empty and built a big retail centre a bit further out. The businesses which were next to the old location pretty much followed it. Now theres an empty walmart strip hole in a town thats not really big enough to well have two strip holes in the first place. Its ugly unwanted real estate.
brokenm
I also know that usually Wal-mart and Sam's wholesale club pay their employees more than minimum wage, due to the reduction in benefits they pay out. So raising the minimum wage won't effect them that much. I would rather see a society where they capped the maximum wage than raised the minimum wage, or at least raised the minimum educated.
mere
Brokenm- why on earth would you want a cap on minimum wage? why not cap maximum wage? that makes more sense!

edit: nevermind reread what he wrote and yeah he said that... smile.gif
brokenm
mere, maybe you fall into the last category of my post. tongue.gif
BadBob
I seem to remember reading that Wal-Mart´s new store is located just outside the city limits, so this shouldn´t affect them, unless they open another store inside city limits. It is the stupid tax policies of the Dems in Chicago that forces big stores out (taking any tax money that they would´ve paid to the city with them). Why do Libs hate Wal-Mart? I guess they just have to hate somebody (besides Bush).
brokenm
Wal-mart's philosophy has never to enter into innercities. They usually place stores in the suburbs or small towns near by and make a fortune on a distribution center for all of their stores. That is not implying that they won't build in a city, but that is not their SOP.
Small Town Boy
QUOTE (BadBob @ Jul 27 2006, 2:52 pm) *
I guess they just have to hate somebody (besides Bush).

And you!!
mere
good point brokenm. i can't think of a walmart w/in a big city. some might be in the city, but on the outter edges thus not centrally located. either way walmart has to go.

(oddly enough i don't mind Target though)
Joliet Jake
You're seeing the beginning of a strategic shift for Wal-Mart into the bigger cities.
@BadBob if you reread the article you'll note that

QUOTE
Wal-Mart will still open its nearly completed branch on Chicago’s West Side in September — the company’s first store in the city

They are already all over the suburbs, including many spots not far from the city line, so that's not the issue at hand.
BadBob
Is there a Wal-Mart in Joliet?
Joliet Jake
QUOTE (BadBob @ Jul 27 2006, 2:52 pm) *
It is the stupid tax policies of the Dems in Chicago that forces big stores out (taking any tax money that they would´ve paid to the city with them).

Or one can have a less knee-jerk reaction. The biggest barrier to entry for big stores to date has been real estate. That should be no surprise. Chicago politicians, Mayor Daley especially, have been working hard to reverse the trend of companies leaving with generous tax breaks (see Boeing). The tax policy criticism should be aimed at levies which have driven convention business away.
Joliet Jake
QUOTE (BadBob @ Jul 27 2006, 3:12 pm) *
Is there a Wal-Mart in Joliet?

3 actually. One not far from the old joint. B)
cinzia
QUOTE (brokenm @ Jul 27 2006, 2:34 pm) *
I also know that usually Wal-mart and Sam's wholesale club pay their employees more than minimum wage, due to the reduction in benefits they pay out. So raising the minimum wage won't effect them that much. I would rather see a society where they capped the maximum wage than raised the minimum wage, or at least raised the minimum educated.

Are you a communist, brokenm? Capping the maximum wage, indeed.

But you're right about this: raising the minimum wage on the national level doesn't help people who live in more expensive locations (most big cities.) That's why I find it an intriguing idea for a city to set its own minimum wage.
mere
what's wrong with capping the max wage?
i find it disturbing how CEOs, COOs, and other top execs make hundreds of thousands or millions plus stock options etc while others struggle.
cinzia
How much of the free market do you want to overhaul, then, mere?

I think it's insane what these people "earn," too, don't get me wrong, but I don't see how some notion of a maximum wage would help matters. It doesn't automatically follow that the grunts would be paid more somehow.
mere
never said it would and in fact i highly doubt it would help anyone, but i just think it's ridiculous the amount of money some make- seriously does the COO of Kohl's (a department store) really need to make (salary and stocks) millions each year? or a local lawyer in the middle of nowhere a couple million?
cinzia
So the maximum wage should be $. . . ?
mere
i have no clue- i never suggested one! i have simply said that i think some people are grossly overpaid and that those massive amounts of money are ridiculous and unneeded.
gemini
I seem to remember reading that Wal-Mart´s new store is located just outside the city limits, so this shouldn´t affect them

Actually I believe that Wal-Mart wanted to open in another area within the city limits...but it was rejected by the community.
brokenm
I just don't believe that raising the minimum wage helps anybody. Look at it this way. If the least wage that someone was paid per year was one million dollars, and everybody was a millionaire what would happen to the value of those dollars? You have inflation. Raising the base salary to a set level has that effect in economics, it just isn't as simple to see. However, if you brought down the company CEO salaries, how would that effect the economy? Do you really think they are so skilled that other people would not jump at the opportunity to fill the position and do an equivalent job? I would set the maximum at a rough estimate of the profit margin of the company tied to a factor of the lowest paid employees raise. But, then again I believe in giving people money for not working as well.

and this applies only to publicly traded companies. As there needs to be protection for the workers compared to every decision being only for increasing the shareholders wealth. If you want to start your own private company and set your slaary at whatever level, you should be encouraged.
BadBob
I just read a story about WalMart pulling out of Germany. Now where am I going to shop?
Small Town Boy
QUOTE (brokenm @ Jul 27 2006, 4:25 pm) *
I just don't believe that raising the minimum wage helps anybody. Look at it this way. If the least wage that someone was paid per year was one million dollars, and everybody was a millionaire what would happen to the value of those dollars? You have inflation.

Interesting theory, but not one borne out by reality. The UK introduced a minimum wage in 1999 and since then has had among the lowest rates of inflation in all of Europe. Capping the maximum wage won't make any difference either because of the miniscule proportion of the population that this would affect.
Joliet Jake
Update: Chicago's mayor Daley has vetoed the ordinance.
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.