|
|
IN THE NEWS
|
Visiting officials say wage laws didn't hurt their cities |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 17 August 2006 |
|

By Gary Washburn Tribune staff reporter
Officials from Santa Fe, N.M. and San Francisco told Chicago aldermen today that minimum wage-ordinances enacted in their own communities have had no negative impact and have not prevented "big-box" retailers from opening new stores.
Two years after Santa Fe's measure went into effect, the local economy "continues to grow," said David Coss, mayor of the southwestern U.S. city. "Unemployment is low…. Business growth is strong."
The message was similar from San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano. Businesses in the northern California city are required to pay from $8.85 to $10.75 an hour as well as $1.60 an hour for employee health care.
Coss and Ammiano spoke at a Chicago City Council hearing called by aldermanic supporters of the so-called Big Box Living Wage Ordinance.
The measure, approved by the council last month, requires stores with at least 90,000 square feet and whose operators have $1 billion or more a year in sales to pay a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour and $1.25 in benefits starting next July. The pay would rise to $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.
Wal-Mart, Lowe's and Target have said their development plans for Chicago are on hold pending the fate of the city's ordinance.
Mayor Richard Daley has given strong indications that he will veto the measure. He has until Sept. 13 to do so.
Today, Daley scoffed at any comparison between Chicago and the smaller western cities. He said the across-the-board wage measures in those cities are much different from Chicago's ordinance, which singles out one type of retailer.
"They should get back and help their own cities," Daley said of the out-of-town visitors. "I will compare my record to Santa Fe anytime, and San Francisco. You manage your city. We manage here." |
|
|
Two mayors to attend City Council session |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 17 August 2006 |
|
Northwest Indiana Times CHICAGO Big Box ordinance continues to be discussed
BY STEVEN STANEK Medill News Service CHICAGO | Forty-ninth Ward Alderman Joe Moore said the purpose of today's emergency City Council session with the mayor of Santa Fe and a supervisor from San Francisco is to "get the facts out" about the "big box" ordinance.
It will not be to respond to threats of a mayoral veto and the changing sentiment among aldermen who originally supported the bill. Moore, the chief sponsor of the living wage ordinance, and 6th Alderman Freddrenna Lyle called for the ad-hoc meeting earlier this week, inviting Mayor David Coss of Santa Fe and Supervisor Tom Ammiano of San Francisco to explain the economic benefits of a living wage.
Both cities have enacted wage laws and serve as examples, according to Moore, that the big box ordinance can work in Chicago despite threats by large retailers that they will pull out of the city.
The Chicago ordinance passed in a 35-14 vote last month. It calls for large retailers to pay a higher minimum wage -- $10 an hour and $3 in benefits -- by 2010. Critics, including Mayor Richard M. Daley and the retailers, claim the law is unfairly targets businesses because of their size and will drive much needed jobs from the city.
When the Santa Fe living wage law was passed two years ago, the measure also sparked heated public debates and threats by major retailers to pull out, Coss said.
"We had the same kind of threats in my city, and 9,000 people in Santa Fe got a pay raise," he said. "We were told it would mean economic ruin and that the sky was falling. Two years later, our economy is fine."
Several "big box" retailers with construction plans for Chicago -- including Target, Lowe's, and Wal-Mart -- have recently shelved the blueprints and hinted that they might cancel their plans entirely if the ordinance takes effect. Moore pointed out that in Santa Fe and San Francisco, however, the stores never actually stopped construction.
"Stores continue to open in those cities, and Wal-Mart is opening a new super Wal-Mart in Santa Fe even though they have a living wage ordinance going up to $10.50 an hour in 2008, 50 cents higher than ours will be in 2010," Moore said. |
|
|
`Big-box' wage law to get outsider aid |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 August 2006 |
|
 Supporters of Chicago's new "big-box" ordinance are expected to get support from officials of two cities with municipal laws that set pay at levels higher than the federal minimum wage.
A special City Council hearing, scheduled for Thursday, will feature Santa Fe Mayor David Cross and San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano, even as Mayor Richard Daley considers a veto of Chicago's controversial law. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 16 August 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Wal-Mart and Target can afford to pay workers a living wage |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 August 2006 |
|
From the Austin Weekly News James Thindwa, One View
Mr. Dean, responsible journalism should have led you to balance your July 19 "Enterprise Zone" article with a more studied analysis of pro-Big Box Living Wage arguments. Instead, you talked only about labor's opposition, based on Wal-Mart's low wages. Your piece was disconcerting in its gaps and omissions. I'd like to direct your attention to the following gaps in it: You do not mention the exorbitant salaries paid to CEOs: $45 million, $36 million and $35 million for Target, Home Depot and Wal-Mart, respectively. How can these CEOs seriously contest a $10/hour wage for their employees? Intentionally or not, you omit the fact that Santa Fe has enacted a living wage law. But Wal-Mart is not only staying in Santa Fe, it has applied to build a Super Center there. You do not question why Chicago city officials are not offended that companies that get big tax subsidies ($10 million for Target) would threaten to leave the city because they don't want to pay $10 per hour. Where is the reciprocity and respect? You do not consider the fact that Chicago consumers have given Target its most profitable store in the country. Why is it unreasonable to expect this company to pay back the city by paying a living wage to workers? You do not question why these companies cannot afford to pay a living wage right here in Chicago when Costco pays a living wage and covers most health care costs for its workers. If Costco can do it, why can't Target and Wal-Mart? You skip over a big reason there is a frenzy to build Big Box stores in Chicago: Wal-Mart has exhausted small towns and is reaching saturation in the suburbs. In order to maintain current growth levels, it needs to enter the big cities. The very fact that company officials are fighting so hard to stop this ordinance confirms their need to enter Chicago. You uncritically indulge Alderman Emma Mitts' invocation of racism without wondering why she is content with Costco paying a living wage in a white neighborhood but makes no such demands for Wal-Mart on the West Side. Furthermore, you make no mention of the fact that black people themselves (90 percent) want a living wage requirement for Big Box stores. Why? They know Wal-Mart can afford it, and that neither it nor Target is going to leave Chicago. As I write this letter, Wal-Mart has announced wholesale pay increases in several markets. Just last week, it couldn't afford to pay a living wage in Chicago. I hope you will ask some hard questions about this apparent contradiction. Wal-Mart and Target are issuing empty threats. But I must say it is reassuring that average people seem to "get it" while Emma Mitts and a minority of aldermen and black ministers seem hell-bent to roll out the red carpet without any demand for accountability. James Thindwa is executive director of Chicago Jobs With Justice. |
|
|
Ald. Coleman to switch big-box vote if Daley wants |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 15 August 2006 |
August 15, 2006 BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter A South Side alderman who voted for the controversial big-box ordinance said Monday she plans to change her vote if Mayor Daley flexes his veto muscle. Ald. Shirley Coleman (16th) said she changed her mind about requiring retail stores with more than 90,000 square feet of space to pay their employees at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010 after learning that Wal-Mart was seriously considering building a store in her impoverished ward. |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 31 August 2006 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 161 - 180 of 191 | |
|
|