Anti-Walmart, Anti-Big Box Forces Lose A Battle

Their reasoning, like so many others, were that big companies like Wal-mart, Target, Lowe's etc. could not only afford to pay more for their employees, but have an obligation to do so. Soak the rich to help the poor mentality. They would never have been able to push this through for everyone because then you would affect the smaller mom-and-pops, which is un-American.

It's these short-sighted legislators pandering to their political constituents that don't realize the overreaching effect of this stupid law. I'm glad the people who wanted jobs came out on TV and basically said it was dumb. It's too bad they didn't think things through before passing the bill.

Well said, tatsrus, well said.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that these liberals are beholden to and must satisfy their union supporters who provide so much campaign help and funds. Unions want lower level wages to rise by any means so that they can demand more. In addition, unions don't want their workers competing against non-union shops.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Target and Costgo somehow manage to offer their employees decent wages and benefits. I wonder why Walmart can't? Oh yeah, the owners of the company are whorish, greedy pigs. They NEED that $10 billion extra in their pockets every year. It would simply CRUSH them to only stuff $9 billion, and pay the other $1 billion out in wages and benefits.

What I really love about Walmart is that, not only do they demand city welfare, in the form of exclusions from paying taxes on the property, and not only do they serve to drive state income tax revenue down by offering meager, crap wages, and not only do they make it nearly impossible for workers to have access to healthcare, but they also manage to pay such low wages that many of the employees actually qualify for social welfare as well.

Talk about creating a culture of dependents. You'd think that the right, which claims to be all about "pulling oneself up by the bootstrap," and gutting social spending, would be working to get Walmart to pay living wages and offer benefits, in order to get people OFF social welfare roles. But no, they can't do that, because it would be "unfair" to Walmart. They'd rather see these workers line up for welfare checks and get state-paid medical treatment, rather than see Walmart do the right thing. THAT, folks, is how strongly the right hates the working class. Class warfare at its finest.

If Walmart is to be held free and clear from providing living wages and benefits, because it's "too intrusive" to make them do so, then they should also receive zero tax handouts, and should have to pay in the amount that their workers receive in state and federal aid. We shouldn't have to subsidize them, simply because they refuse to do what's right.

Clark, I don't see how you can rant on Wal-mart when Target also considered pulling out of Chicago when this bill was originally passed. That means, according to the living wage definition of $10/hr and $3 in benefits, that neither of these companies are paying a "living wage."

If you are so convinced that Walmart is not paying a living wage, why not make the $10 plus $3 in benefits apply to all businesses or are you fearful for the mom and pops?

And why do you think that your opinion is somehow superior to that of the residents of Chicago who convinced their aldermen to withdraw support for your opinion?

What data do you have that Target pays more than Walmart? The stories I read from Chicago did not so indicate.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

But I do agree with you that none of these big box retailers should get tax handouts for locating in these towns.

"Target also considered pulling out of Chicago when this bill was originally passed. "

Ok, I'll include Target in my rant. Thanks for the heads up.




"If you are so convinced that Walmart is not paying a living wage, why not make the $10 plus $3 in benefits apply to all businesses or are you fearful for the mom and pops? "

If they were paying a living wage, their employees wouldn't be qualifying for welfare.




"And why do you think that your opinion is somehow superior to that of the residents of Chicago who convinced their aldermen to withdraw support for your opinion?"

I favor Walmart either paying its employees a living wage, or making them pay the difference when their employees are forced onto welfare roles in order to subsidize their meager income. I also favor Walmart being banned from receiving any tax handouts at any level. There is absolutely no reason why the public should be forced to subsidize a company this large. I'd much rather see the tax handouts go to the mom and pops.




"What data do you have that Target pays more than Walmart? The stories I read from Chicago did not so indicate."

You're probably right. I know several people who works for Target that seem to be doing just fine, but they're probably not the norm.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/14/target_walmart.php




Ben, how can you rationalize your position in support of a company that expands welfare roles, rather than contracts them? I thought the right was opposed to social spending.

Without all the above politics, I don't think it right that legislatures can impose selected laws, and or taxes, on certain companies or consumers. It just stings me as basically wrong.

"Without all the above politics, I don't think it right that legislatures can impose selected laws, and or taxes, on certain companies or consumers. It just stings me as basically wrong. "

So, you think that it's ok for Walmart to grab public subsidies in setting up their shops, and then employ people at wages that force them onto welfare roles?

The answer for me, Clark, is YES. No one is forced to give Walmart subsidies, no one is forced to work for Walmart and no one is forced to shop at Walmart. I know, you are against these freedoms and would rather have some form of fascism. Go east for that.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

"The answer for me, Clark, is YES."

No more need be said. That says it all right there.

Paul,

You are right about market generalities.

But about Walmart, I question your conclusions. In my area, Walmart jobs are valued above most others. I know that is also true where my oldest daughter lives as well. Elsewhere, I have no direct knowledge.

How did you come to the conclusion that Walmart has decided to mistreat their workers?

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Okay, I have to join in here, because first it wasn't just a Target or Walmart hike AND it wasn't going to hurt the Moms and Pops.

This was specifically a Big Box Living Wage Ordinance, which requires employees of retail stores with 90000 sq. feet or more and over $1 billion in revenue to be paid at least $10 per hour and $3 per hour in benefits by July, 2010.

AND, its definately not over.

City Council was in favor of the ordinance , they voted 31 to 18 and passed it, in addition, The Chicago Sun times ran a poll that came out this weekend which states that 74% of the voters in the area are FOR the big box ordinance.

We'll be hearing much more about this as we come up in elections in November and in Feb. as well.

This ordinance was designed to make sure that people could earn a living wage. Chicago is not an inexpensive city to live in and $10. an hour is not enough to support yourself, much less a family. Yet it's too much to qualify for health benefits elsewhere, leaving people uninsured and underpaid.

Big Box retailers are financially able to pay the extra few dollars an hour and many of the family run stores already pay thier employees better than the big box competitors. They tend to care a bit more about the people they employ and like to keep them around.

For the record,

Target and Wal-mart were the two companies out of the MANY big box retailers who stepped up to oppose the ordinance. Which is why there is such a backlash now towards them.

Many people expected this from Wal-mart, however Targets stance was a bit of a surprise because they have actually raised thier wages in other stores with no problem and rarely play politically.

It will be an interesting issue to watch over time.

!) I see this as a ransom initiated by the Unions. They have basically lost any foothold in this country, they have eliminated themselves with their damands.

I was raised in a town in Mich. that always saw Detroit slowdowns months in advance because our shops and factories manufacted parts. Their orders slowed first.

I saw families shattered when companies would suddenly pull up roots and re-establish in the South or other areas, with NO unions. No pensions, no retirements, NOTHING> The companies took the loss of having to train a new workforce and production 'waste' as an overall gain as opposed to paying the Unions' demands. Goodyear, Bendix, Auroquip and so on.

2) Wal-Mart gets tax breaks because it brings other businesses. I rarely have seen a WM without strip-malls and a Lowes, Home Depot, Applebys, Red Lobsters, or any number of other 'mega-brands' with an outlet nearby or under construction. They KNOW WM's bring TRAFFIC.

3) I do believe WM's should offer the power of Group Health polices, if only as the Group Underwriter persay. In other words, they offer a program like the Govt's where any number of companies and policies are offered to employees. The insurance co's. are offered a LARGE labor pool as potential customers. If WM contributes any portion of premiums, it could be a good PR move.

4) As long as the number of applications run to the effect of 100+ and more per job, WM does not have to do anything. Only when we stop applying and the stores don't opperate will they be forced to resond to higher wages. Besides, I know of MANY WM employees with 10+ years. Can't be ALL bad.

5) I suggest Target has another MAJOR PR promblem since they announced the ban awhile back that prohibited the Salvation Army from using their stores. Personally, I have never been in one since and will not but anything there.

6) Ben, you cited the avg. savings to families buying at WM's as $1,200/yr. I heard it put as an per hour raise basis and it is significant (buying power). Add the discounts offered to employees and I believe their actual hourly wage would easily exceed a $10/hr rate.

7) Dems jump on this because Unions have been REFUSED access by the WM WORKERS. This is nothing short of legislative blackmail by the Liberals to impose Union demands and pacify their whinnings. (WA WA).

I love WM and also stop in the shops built on and aroud the property there (Everything-A-Buck type, Subway, Jewlers, and not to mention the Wendy's, McD's, Video Rental, Krystals, WaffleHouse, Pawn Shops, Hair Salons. Sears Outlet, Lowes and so on. I also add a new subdivision is being built a couple of miles away that I do not beleve would have been if not the traffic of WM. (Not necessarily happy about that as this is a nice rural, old-time N. Fl city. That is for another time.

Thanks for all the info, Grateful, and I too love Walmart. There are few companies who have done more for consumers. The people I know who work there are very grateful for their jobs.

You certainly pegged the union well.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"