Chicago City Council Put Pox in Big Boxes

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/...ll=chi-news-hed

 

Now, I am no fan of big box retailers. I think that often times, their net effect on the community is more negative than positive. So I shed few tears for them.

 

But, this really annoys me. The city council did something that, to me, defies basic democratic and capitalist principles: they rasied the minimum wage on a specific segment of business alone. To put it simply, they stomped on the idea of equality and fair treatment of business.

 

And then someone has the gall to say:

 

"At the heart of this ordinance is equality and fairness," Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon said in a statement. "Today's vote sends a message that our elected officials and community members alike are not interested in the creation of low-paying jobs that fail to provide a living wage or adequate health-care benefits for working families."

 

To me, this is the same as the people who say that affirmative action is about equality. No, they are both by nature about INequality. And its a load of crap.

 

But then, what should I expect from the same City Council that banned use of cell phones while driving but allowed the use of hands-free units, despite the fact that EVERY piece of research says one is no less dangerous than the other? And the same council who banned smoking not just in public spaces and restaurants, but bars and every kind of private business as well?

 

You'd think we had voted in a parade of socialists.

[southsider2k5]

It will be interesting to see the legalistic interpretation of this specific statute. The famous Maryland law got thrown out, as I predicted, because it knowingly applied only to one company. This one actually affects about a half dozen different retailers, including groups like Target, Fields, and Sears.

 

This was also the first time that I can remember the City Council manning up and stepping over what Sir Richard Daley the second decreed. They also managed to get a veto proof margin by two votes. So now the "Is Daley weakening?" questions have begun.

[jackie hayes]

It will be interesting to see the legalistic interpretation of this specific statute. The famous Maryland law got thrown out, as I predicted, because it knowingly applied only to one company. This one actually affects about a half dozen different retailers, including groups like Target, Fields, and Sears.

According to the article, it affects 40 stores nominally. Although I'm guessing some stores (Nordstrom's, say) will be more-or-less untouched.

[southsider2k5]

According to the article, it affects 40 stores nominally. Although I'm guessing some stores (Nordstrom's, say) will be more-or-less untouched.

 

Only about half a dozen companies are affected making up those 40ish locales.

[NorthSideSox72]

It will be interesting to see the legalistic interpretation of this specific statute. The famous Maryland law got thrown out, as I predicted, because it knowingly applied only to one company. This one actually affects about a half dozen different retailers, including groups like Target, Fields, and Sears.

 

This was also the first time that I can remember the City Council manning up and stepping over what Sir Richard Daley the second decreed. They also managed to get a veto proof margin by two votes. So now the "Is Daley weakening?" questions have begun.

Eh, I think something will be made of the weakening of Daley, but it will probably be short-lived. The city still loves the guy.

 

And this city council seems more than willing to defy convention, and even existing law, when they see a crusade they can be attached to, on behalf of the "common man". I think previously, Daley happened to be at the head of many of those crusades. Not this one, though.

[jackie hayes]

Only about half a dozen companies are affected making up those 40ish locales.

So all the rest pay all employees (or just full time -- I'm not sure what the new law stipulates) more than 9.50/hr + benefits already? I'm a little surprised, but okay.

[jackie hayes]

Walmart's response: Fine, then we'll just have a ring of Walmarts around the city.

 

It also mentions other workarounds. The first article mentioned that it "applies to stores of at least 90,000 square feet" -- could the companies just build 89,999 sq ft buildings, instead?

[southsider2k5]

Walmart's response: Fine, then we'll just have a ring of Walmarts around the city.

 

It also mentions other workarounds. The first article mentioned that it "applies to stores of at least 90,000 square feet" -- could the companies just build 89,999 sq ft buildings, instead?

 

One of the thing I heard speculated about was ways around this. One of the things I heard mentioned was to have more subletting of space so that they could claim that isn't "their" space and therefore shouldn't count, for example, renting out square footage to a cellphone company or to a bank. Another thing that was mentioned was 89,000 square foot buildings, with more off site storage to reduce the size needed for merchandise stock, reducing the need for square footage.

[Balta1701]

It will be interesting to see the legalistic interpretation of this specific statute. The famous Maryland law got thrown out, as I predicted, because it knowingly applied only to one company. This one actually affects about a half dozen different retailers, including groups like Target, Fields, and Sears.

Here's an NYU Law School review of this law. I'm sure there will be others out there that will disagree with it, but its' the first one I saw.

 

Contrary to the assertion made by the Chicago Tribune in its editorial on July 22 (“Chicago, take a look at Maryland“), Chicago’s proposed large retail living wage ordinance is not preempted by ERISA. The Maryland law was a straight health benefits mandate. The trial court found that the Maryland law was preempted by ERISA because it effectively forced covered employers to modify their health benefits offerings in order to comply with the law.

 

By contrast, it is well-established that combined wage and benefits laws that require employers to provide a minimum level of compensation, and give them the option of providing some of that compensation in the form of health, vacation, disability or other benefits, are not preempted by ERISA. To date, four federal appeals courts have ruled on whether ERISA preempts such laws, and all four have ruled that they are not so preempted.

 

The proposed Chicago ordinance follows exactly the structure of the wage laws that have been upheld by the courts: it establishes a base minimum wage for large retailers – set at $9.25 per hour in the first year – and asks employers to provide an additional $1.50 per hour, which can be provided in the form of supplemental wages, benefits, or any combination thereof. Whether to provide any benefits at all, and what kind of benefits to provide – paid vacation days, health or other benefits, or just supplemental wages – is left to the employer’s discretion.

 

One of the thing I heard speculated about was ways around this. One of the things I heard mentioned was to have more subletting of space so that they could claim that isn't "their" space and therefore shouldn't count, for example, renting out square footage to a cellphone company or to a bank. Another thing that was mentioned was 89,000 square foot buildings, with more off site storage to reduce the size needed for merchandise stock, reducing the need for square footage.

There's something heartwarming about how much time and money companies will be willing to spend in order to avoid paying a decent salary to their workforce.

[southsider2k5]

So all the rest pay all employees (or just full time -- I'm not sure what the new law stipulates) more than 9.50/hr + benefits already? I'm a little surprised, but okay.

 

There just aren't many name plates that fit all of the criteria, and are paying low wages. The law is made that way on purpose. They did try to make this one broader than the Maryland law, so I think this one will stand up to legal muster.

[jackie hayes]

There just aren't many name plates that fit all of the criteria, and are paying low wages. The law is made that way on purpose. They did try to make this one broader than the Maryland law, so I think this one will stand up to legal muster.

I believe that, I just find it hard to believe that it won't affect other companies at all. I imagine Marshalls has an average salary well above the (new) minimum. But it wouldn't shock me if a new part time custodial worker at Marshall Fields gets less than the 10.75 minimum compensation. So it wouldn't affect them in any noticeable way, but it would, strictly speaking, affect them. That's all I mean.

 

There's something heartwarming about how much time and money companies will be willing to spend in order to avoid paying a decent salary to their workforce.

This sort of thing is said just to make a company sound meanspirited, as if they're spending MORE money just to guarantee that workers remain poor. If it were cheaper to pay their workers more, they'd do it. But it's just not that costly to turn your 95,000 sq ft store into an 89,995 sq ft store.

 

If you want to talk about contemptible rationalizing, talk about the hypocrisy of these lawmakers. They talk about how everyone should get paid well, then they only apply it to a small group of companies. If you work for a small employer, then you don't deserve a "decent salary"? If they meant anything they say, they'd just pass a $10.75 Chicago minimum wage.

[southsider2k5]

I believe that, I just find it hard to believe that it won't affect other companies at all. I imagine Marshalls has an average salary well above the (new) minimum. But it wouldn't shock me if a new part time custodial worker at Marshall Fields gets less than the 10.75 minimum compensation. So it wouldn't affect them in any noticeable way, but it would, strictly speaking, affect them. That's all I mean.

This sort of thing is said just to make a company sound meanspirited, as if they're spending MORE money just to guarantee that workers remain poor. If it were cheaper to pay their workers more, they'd do it. But it's just not that costly to turn your 95,000 sq ft store into an 89,995 sq ft store.

 

If you want to talk about contemptible rationalizing, talk about the hypocrisy of these lawmakers. They talk about how everyone should get paid well, then they only apply it to a small group of companies. If you work for a small employer, then you don't deserve a "decent salary"? If they meant anything they say, they'd just pass a $10.75 Chicago minimum wage.

 

And if they really wanted to make as statement, they wouldn't be working on a payraise for themselves making their pay over 100k per year, while raising taxes on everything under the sun in the city of Chicago. I know when my companies have lost money, I never got a raise, but hey, that's just me.

[Balta1701]

And if they really wanted to make as statement, they wouldn't be working on a payraise for themselves making their pay over 100k per year, while raising taxes on everything under the sun in the city of Chicago. I know when my companies have lost money, I never got a raise, but hey, that's just me.

I think one could say the same thing about an ungodly number of people who run large corporations in this country as well. It'd really be nice if there were easier ways to link the performance of the people in power in either government or business to their pay, it really would.

 

If you want to talk about contemptible rationalizing, talk about the hypocrisy of these lawmakers. They talk about how everyone should get paid well, then they only apply it to a small group of companies. If you work for a small employer, then you don't deserve a "decent salary"? If they meant anything they say, they'd just pass a $10.75 Chicago minimum wage.

One could call it a small business exemption or something like that. I wouldn't agree, and I think it would actually make sense to set a $9.25 minimum wage plus health benefits for nearly all workers in big cities/high cost of living areas, but that's at least one possible rationalization. Another one might be the classic argument that beyond a certain size, if a company doesn't pay its workers enough, it winds up being a drain on tax dollars instead of a supply of tax dollars (the classic Wal Mart has the government paying for the health care of its workers argument that's been around for a few years)

[southsider2k5]

I think one could say the same thing about an ungodly number of people who run large corporations in this country as well. It'd really be nice if there were easier ways to link the performance of the people in power in either government or business to their pay, it really would.

 

Its already starting to happen to some extent. With the SEC cracking down on the reporting of CEO pay, the groundwork is being set. Now instead of just salary and bonuses, they are being forced to include stock options and the money they make off of that stuff, plus all other forms of compensation being put into a dollar amount. Its only a matter of time before those numbers start getting used to justify employee raises during good times, and firing CEOs during bad ones.

[mr_genius]

They talk about how everyone should get paid well, then they only apply it to a small group of companies. If you work for a small employer, then you don't deserve a "decent salary"? If they meant anything they say, they'd just pass a $10.75 Chicago minimum wage.

 

exactly. the main issue for the city council isn't wages but appeasing the strong union forces in the city, IMO. unions hate walmart and want to fight them everywhere possible.

Edited July 28, 2006 by mr_genius

[Cknolls]

If I were Wal-Mart, I would open a store in every suburb bordering the City.

[StrangeSox]

If I were Wal-Mart, I would open a store in every suburb bordering the City.

 

I think they have already.

Edited July 28, 2006 by StrangeSox

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If I were Wal-Mart, I would open a store in every suburb bordering the City.

 

 

That's what it's going to come to if this ordinance is allowed to stand. Which doesn't hurt the retailers ( they will still get access to the Chicago market by opening up in the burbs. It doesn't take jobs away from Chicago because people can still commute to the inner ring suburbs to work there. It only hurts the short-sighted and union dominated City of Chicago which won't get one nickel of tax revenue from these stores.

[Cknolls]

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/031abn3.htm

 

 

Hey, aldermen, who's bluffing now?

 

LMAO!!