‘Big Box’ store employees to get raises in Chicago

July 27, 2006

The growing “[tag]living wage[/tag]” movement, championed by unions and groups representing the working poor, scored a pretty significant victory yesterday in [tag]Chicago[/tag].

After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring “big box” stores, like [tag]Wal-Mart[/tag] and Home Depot, to pay a [tag]minimum wage[/tag] 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.

Wal-Mart, of course, said this kind compensation is both unreasonable and unfeasible. In response, proponents of the increased wage noted that Costco, a Wal-Mart competitor, already pays at least $10 an hour plus benefits to starting workers around the country.

The “Big Box” stores also predictably complained that they won’t be able to afford the increased wages and will probably exclude Chicago in future plans. Except no one’s buying that either. As NYU’s Annette Bernhardt, which helped draft the Chicago bill and has done economic studies of its likely impact, said, “We’re very confident that retailers want and need to be in Chicago, and the question for the city is what kinds of jobs they will bring.”

And best of all, there’s the possibility of the Chicago proposal spreading to other cities.

“This is a great day for the working men and women of Chicago,” said Alderman Joseph A. Moore, the measure’s chief sponsor. Mr. Moore said he had had inquiries about the ordinance from officials in several other cities. (emphasis added)

Republicans in Congress can block a minimum-wage increase for nine years, but we’re finally seeing progress despite lawmakers’ obstinacy. As the Times noted, San Francisco, DC, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe have already implemented across-the-board minimum wage ordinances for all but the smallest businesses. Other cities are prepared to follow suit.

And what about those cities that already raised wages on large retailers? Did the move force Wal-Mart and others to close their doors? As the Times article concluded, “San Francisco and Santa Fe have set [wage] levels near that in the Chicago bill without driving out retailers.”

Surprise, surprise.

July 27, 2006 at 9:46 am

We couldn’t be lucky enought to have high wage ordinances become the Wal-Mart repellent of the 21st century. They will just start building stores that are 89,900 Sq. Ft. and they will probably do it by cutting the size of the employee break rooom. The only way to stop Wal-Mart is to stop shopping there. I have to say they look really stupid whining about paying $10/hour while making Billions.

“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.”

That square footage requirement could be a huge loophole in this whole thing. According to CNNMoney:

“[Wal-Mart] Discount Stores, which average approximately 100,000 square feet in size and offer a wide assortment of general merchandise and a limited variety of food products; [Wal-Mart] Supercenters, which average approximately 187,000 square feet in size and offer a wide assortment of general merchandise and a full-line supermarket; and [Wal-Mart] Neighborhood Markets, which average approximately 43,000 square feet in size and offer a full-line supermarket and a limited assortment of general merchandise.”

So the Neighbordhood Markets already get excluded from the ordinance and the Discount Stores are only 10,000 square feet larger on average. In addition, I’m sure Wal-Mart already has a team of lawyers working on finding more loopholes as I’m writing this.

The British don’t seem to have any trouble with the idea of being “working class” and openly pursuing their class interests. Americans seem embarrassed by the term “working class”, preferring the illusionary “middle class”, “white collar” or other terms indicating that their interests like in the direction of the obscenely rich.

I used to accept the Marxian notion that it was necessary for working people to develop “consciousness” of their class interests, but I gave up on that in late adolescence. Isn’t going to happen. Perhaps we could still change things in a non-Marxist way: use the term “working people”. Do you work for a living? Then you’re “working people”. Now, pursue the interests of “working people”.

This would include voting Democratic (the party of working people) and unionizing white collar workers. Someone here said sometime ago “I could never be rich enough or mean enough to be Republican”. That could be the slogan for the party of people who work for a living.

Why just “big box” stores? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just raise the minimum wage in Chicago for ALL businesses? If the intent is to drive these “big box” stores out, CB already points out that won’t happen. If the intent is to get a decent living wage for employees of Chicago businesses, then it doesn’t seem right to not include employees of businesses with smaller retail store space.

I have to say they look really stupid whining about paying $10/hour while making Billions – MVProgressive

Keep in mind that if legislation like this spreads throughout the U.S., with around 1.2 million people employed by Wal-Mart, an increase in wage of $4 per hour can end up being an increase of more than a billion dollars per year depending on the number of employees currently earing less than $10, and the number of hours they work per year.

I suspect that Wal-Mart can absorb much of the cost, but there are other large businesses that might have a small enough profit to make it difficult to absorb such costs.

“I suspect that Wal-Mart can absorb much of the cost, but there are other large businesses that might have a small enough profit to make it difficult to absorb such costs.”

There’s a real simple way for these large business to absorb such costs: cut the bazillion dollars a year salaries for all the pinstriped pimps “managing” the place into its next collision with the rocks.

A 100% tax on all income from all sources over $2 million/year would go a long way toward straightening out the economic “gilded age” we live in.

Republicans in Congress can block a minimum-wage increase for nine years, but we’re finally seeing progress despite lawmakers’ obstinacy.

…and we’ll take progress any way we can get it. The only thing is this only helps people who work at the big box stores. It still does nothing for the people who work at Jack-in-the-box. It will still leave many people not making enough to rise above poverty level.

And worst of all the republicant’s will probably point to this and say that capitalism is working in this case so we don’t have to do anything else about it.

It’s a good step, and I like it in theory, but the loopholes abpove are sure to be exploited, and I’m not sure this isn’t legislation targetted solely at Wal-Mart as an attempt to keep ’em out of town.

If you can not run your business by paying the heart of your business a descent wage, then you should pack it up. All the arguments against it were the same arguments made by slave owners in the south.
It’s a stupid and borderline immoral argument.

There is a potential loophole to this—and it’s huge. The big-box stores can simply build their supercenters outside the cities. Most of the big units that WalMart has in our area are in the townships; city ordinances have no teeth beyond their respective corporation limits. There’s also the practice of “grandfathering,” in which properties annexed into a city’s corporation limits are usually held exempt from various ordinances and zoning procedures. This can last indefinitely; at least for a good number of years.

Consider the following model Let’s say a big-box has 1,000 employees (not too difficult, if it’s a 24/7 operation like many WalMarts). So:

$4/hour x 1,000 employees x 40 hours/week = $160,000. That’s just for 1 week. That’s $8,320,000/year. If we extrapolate that figure over, say, a 10-year grandfather clause, then that one WalMart is looking at Eighty-Three-Point-Two Million Dollars ($83,200,000.00) over that timespan in additional wage-costs. believe it or not, these guys can build several new supercenters for that amount of money; it’ll be cheaper for them to just pack up and move outward from the cities.

The idea of legislating wages below the federal level is good—but the local ordinance route isn’t going to cut it. This has to get ramped up to the statewide-level of legislating, or it holds the potential to become meaningless….

“If you can not run your business by paying the heart of your business a descent wage, then you should pack it up.” – ScottW

I’m not disagreeing with this. I’m not trying to justify the lower wage as moral, fair, acceptable, or reasonable.

I’m just using the fact that a small increase in wages can mean a huge increase in payroll (if you have enough employees) to demonstrate that companies don’t necessarilly “look really stupid whining about paying $10/hour while making Billions”.

There are usually a lot of good hard-working people employed by these companies, and many of them want their company to continue to exist. So while the minimum wage workers have a right to a fair living wage if they can find a job, the representatives of the corporations that currently manage to stay in existance by paying the current minimum wage should be expected to “whine” about a nearly 54% increase in minimum wage especially if doesn’t apply across the board to all companies. If your employer came to you and told you that most of your co-workers were going to maintain the same salary, but that you and anybody else who was the exact same height as you would be taking a 54% pay cut because of your height, wouldn’t you complain a bit too?

To continue with your “slave owners” analogy. Would it have made sense to tell “less large” plantation owners that they could continue to own slaves. Perhaps to tell the “big box” plantation owners that they could continue to own slaves as long as they split their plantations into smaller parcels? This legislation just doesn’t make much sense to me. Either raise the minimum wage or don’t. But to raise it selectively like this doesn’t seem to accomplish much.

Wal-Mart has already had the idea of building two stores right next to each other, each under the size limit but together exceeding it, to get around other laws targeting “big box” stores.

They should use the combined square feet of all the company’s stores within the city and include subsidiaries.

They should use the combined square feet of all the company’s stores within the city and include subsidiaries. – PhilW

I still don’t understand why they should try to close loopholes and force “big box” companies to pay a higher minimum wage than companies with less square footage. Shouldn’t they just raise the minimum wage across the board for all companies???

Danny.
Then why have a minimum wage, why not let the market dictate wages. Walmart could probably get away with paying $2/hr. The jobs will always be there, people need materials to function. If Walmart leaves Chicago, Target, who by the way pays well, will be there with the same goods. Big Boxes are here to stay regardless of wages.

I can not follow some of your argument, but I never made the argument specific to big business. But I will now. I do not have statistics, but my feeling is that small business owners in general treat their employees better. I would imagine that an increase in minimum wage hits big business a lot harder because the majority of their work force is working for a minimum wage. I do not believe that to be true for small business. If you know employee A personally, you tend to understand that their baby needs to eat. If employee A is just a name on the payroll books, who cares. My point is simply that minimum wage laws effect a greater percentage of big business employees.

I wasn’t making a slave owner analogy, I was saying the same arguments were made, that is all. But what the hell. I doubt there were many cotton plantations with a slave or two and I would imagine that as with big business, the larger the business, the worse they were treated.

At some point people become employees rather than human beings who want and strive for the same things you do.

Everyone doing these complete of the span of a lifetime calculations, you are forgetting one huge number, taxes.
Corporate income tax is 40%, and payroll is deductible.

So for every dollar you give an employee in wages, out of pocket is $.60.

“If Walmart leaves Chicago, Target, who by the way pays well, will be there with the same goods.” – ScottW

Technically Target Corp. isn’t much better than Wal-Mart. Do some googling and you’ll find that they are relatively competitive as far as low wages go. I think there have been some studies showing that Target shoppers traditionally vote Democrat while Wal-Mart shoppers vote Republican, which I would presume is as much do to the perception of each company as a whole. Democrats tend to assume that Target is morally on a higher ground compared to Wal-Mart, but in reality I think there is little that separates them.

Personally I shop both stores. I prefer Target, but I’m not opposed to shopping at Wal-Mart for groceries and such. It ultimately boils down to the fact that, while I’m not poor, I am fiscally responsible, as I am soon to become a poor student once again. Whatever moral stand I may be making by not making purchases at Wal-Mart only hurts my own pocketbook, and wouldn’t even be noticed by the company anyway. I’d be willing to sacrifice the low prices for increased wages and health care for Wal-Mart workers, but I can’t force that to happen with my actions.

“There are usually a lot of good hard-working people employed by these companies, and many of them want their company to continue to exist. So while the minimum wage workers have a right to a fair living wage if they can find a job, the representatives of the corporations that currently manage to stay in existance by paying the current minimum wage should be expected to “whine” about a nearly 54% increase in minimum wage especially if doesn’t apply across the board to all companies.”

Danny, Danny, Danny,
Did you study economics with our president?? Or with Paul Wolfowitz?(Phd. in PolySci, not economics, now running the World Bank, YIKES)
You are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, sympathizing with your captors. Don’t you see that these”managers” can manage to pay themselves 10-400 times what they pay their workers, but can’t “manage ” to pay a better wage?
And you dare to imply that workers should be willing to live in poverty just so the beneveolant corp can give them a job?? So that the managers of same corp can engorge themselves on stock-options, bonuses, golden parachute retirement, etc??

When Micheal Eisner took over Disney, they made 468million in profit that year. Eisner got 400 million of that. You think that is fair?????
Enron convinced it’s emplotees to buy shares of stock for retirement plans, then the “managers ” stole it and California paid for it. Stop defending these jerks. Unless, you are one.
Almost every economic period of growth in this country has been attributed to a raise in the minimum wage. The boom of the 90s was a direct result of Clinton raising the min.wage
Read Richard Korten- “When Corporations Rule the World” and you might get a clearer picture of you lack of economic reality.

Idiot!

ScottW,

I’m confused now…

“Then why have a minimum wage, why not let the market dictate wages. Walmart could probably get away with paying $2/hr. The jobs will always be there, people need materials to function. If Walmart leaves Chicago, Target, who by the way pays well, will be there with the same goods. Big Boxes are here to stay regardless of wages.” – ScottW

I think I already answered the question of why have a minimum wage with my comment:
“minimum wage workers have a right to a fair living wage” – Danny

I never made the argument specific to big business – ScottW

Umm, we are commenting on CB’s “‘Big Box’ store employees to get raises in Chicago” post right? Additionally, you did notice that I was responding in defense of my earlier post that asked “Why just ‘big box’ stores”, right?

my feeling is that small business owners in general treat their employees better. I would imagine that an increase in minimum wage hits big business a lot harder because the majority of their work force is working for a minimum wage. I do not believe that to be true for small business. If you know employee A personally, you tend to understand that their baby needs to eat. If employee A is just a name on the payroll books, who cares. My point is simply that minimum wage laws effect a greater percentage of big business employees. – ScottW

If this is true, then why not apply the new $10 minimum wage to all businesses? The smaller businesses in general are probably already paying it, or close to it, so it won’t affect them much anyhow, and those that aren’t should be, if it is decided that $10/hr is a fair living wage.

“I doubt there were many cotton plantations with a slave or two and I would imagine that as with big business, the larger the business, the worse they were treated” – ScottW

I don’t know much about the numbers of salves on a plantation, but this legislation doesn’t take into consideration number of employees, just size of the building. The are some employers with very large numbers of employees spread out to many small buildings (think franchise companies, and their competitors) who are completely unaffected by this new legislation. On the other hand a company may have far fewer employees, but be in business selling something that takes up a lot of space, and therefore need a very big building. I still don’t understand what the size of a building has to do with the amount the employees should be paid. If I’m a minimum wage worker in a small building then I don’t deserve the living wage that a minimum wage worker in a big building deserves?

I stand behind my original question/comments:

“while I’m not poor, I am fiscally responsible” – TL

Be careful TL. You’re walking a very fine line there. What about being morally responsible. There are a lot of people who do morally reprehensible things and try to defend their actions by claiming they were acting in a financially responsible way.

“Whatever moral stand I may be making by not making purchases at Wal-Mart only hurts my own pocketbook” – TL

And encourages companies to treat their employees better to get the business of you and all the other shoppers who take the same action. Should I purchase bootleg software/video/audio/etc. because I’m financially responsible? Whatever moral stand I make by making legitimate purchases only hurts my pocketbook.

“and wouldn’t even be noticed by the company anyway. . . .I can’t force that to happen with my actions” – TL

Do you bother to vote? Your one vote isn’t likely to be noticed by any politicians anyway. You can’t force anything to happen politically with your one vote. And yet if enough people who have the same political views as you ALL vote, then amazing things can happen. 1 vote, 1 dollar, in the end if you can get enough drops of water together, you can fill a bucket.

It’s quite simple. Big boxers can afford this wage. Big boxers will build in Chicago and pay this wage if they can still make profit, which they can. Chicago will not let them loophole their way around it. Eventually Wal-Mart and Target will stop throwing their hissy fits and build in the city. They’ve already built in every suburb around it, so that’s not really an option.

Yes, Danny, I do “bother to vote.” But I do subscribe to the theory that one vote, or one shopper in this case, doesn’t really make a difference. I understand your argument, but it really isn’t valid. If my opinion on the subject affects others, and they subscribe to my theory as a result, then I have more of an effect by my actions. But you can’t tell me that the 99,999 people in the U.S. that boycott Wal-Mart for moral reasons are suddenly going to bankrupt Wal-Mart if I join them. It’s just not logical. I believe that in politics, it takes more than your personal vote. If you campaign and get others to vote, then that makes a difference. If you sit at home and go cast your vote in November, then you aren’t making a difference. But regardless, we are arguing about Wal-Mart here, not voting opinions.

“Be careful TL. You’re walking a very fine line there. What about being morally responsible. There are a lot of people who do morally reprehensible things and try to defend their actions by claiming they were acting in a financially responsible way.” – Danny

You know what, that is a ridiculous argument. Danny, do you drive a car? Shouldn’t you be “morally responsible” and refrain from polluting the environment? Do you recycle every substance you use, or does it end up at the local landfill? Do you make sure that the clothes you buy aren’t made in horrible conditions in sweat shops in Asia?

Here’s my point. If you want to be “morally responsible” in this world, then you’d better move to the wilderness and eat nuts and berries the rest of your life. Here in the real world you will understand that there isn’t anything that isn’t tainted with some stain of immorality. Am I committing an illegal act by shopping at Wal-Mart? No. I may not agree with their employment practices, but I’m also not the one enforcing them.

We aren’t going to bankrupt Wal-Mart on our own. We can’t force them to raise wages or increase health care on our own. All we can do as a nation is to elect people to Congress and the White House that will raise the minimum wage.

Sorry TL, you’re copping out.

TL,

I agree with Mr. Furious. I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of people to sympathize with you here at TCR.

“And you dare to imply that workers should be willing to live in poverty just so the beneveolant corp can give them a job” – Al B Tross

No, but it has been mentioned that “if you can not run your business by paying the heart of your business a descent wage, then you should pack it up”. I just think that it is important to remember that a minimum wage that a company can afford employs a lot more people than a minimum wage that puts a company out of business. I’m not saying that a fair living wage isn’t appropriate, I’m just saying that it’s better to be employed than unemployed. I think I’ve expressed several times now that I’m not disagreeing with a fair living wage, I’m just confused as to why small buildings are exempt.

“Don’t you see that these “managers” can manage to pay themselves 10-400 times what they pay their workers, but can’t “manage ” to pay a better wage?” – Al B Tross

Yes, I see this. What I don’t see is why businesses that happen to use small buildings shouldn’t be held to the same responsibility of paying a fair living wage.

“Eisner got 400 million of that. You think that is fair?????” – Al B Tross

I never said I did. But Disney doesn’t own any retail outlets in Chicago with more than 90,000 sq. ft. This proves my point. Disney DOES own retail outlets in Chicago, but this legislation won’t require them to pay their employees the $10 per hour.

“Stop defending these jerks.” – Al B Tross

I’m not defending them, I’m just saying that you can’t expect them not to whine if you take some of their money away. They don’t look “really stupid”, just really greedy.

Read Richard Korten- “When Corporations Rule the World” and you might get a clearer picture of you lack of economic reality. – AL B Tross

I have to admit that I haven’t read that, but somehow I doubt that Korten argues that business with small buildings shouldn’t have to pay the same minimum wage as businesses with big buildings.

Idiot! – Al B Tross

Come on now. Republicans use name calling when they can’t get their point across intelligently. Democrats don’t need to lower themselves to such petty behaviours. I think most of us here are able to carry on an intelligent debate without resorting to schoolyard insults.

TL, for the record, Target pays better then Walmart, not much, but better. Where they really differ is insurance. I don’t have the stats, but it’s something like 5% of full time Walmart employees have insurance, and 75% or Target employees have insurance. Add that to their wage and Target is better. Plus Target doesn’t:
– Help their employees file forms for public assistance
– Refuse to pay overtime
– Hate women
– Lock people in the building until they are done cleaning
– And a zillion other really terrible things.

Danny, to answer you question, why just the big guys.
Cause the big guys are the ones who are responsible for most of the exploitation. They come in and run mom and pop out of town because mom and pop actually pay a reasonable wage. Then they pay their workers the absolute minimum the law allows. They are definitely targeting certain stores, but only because the stores have shown through time that they are incapable of policing themselves. If Walmart could get away with paying someone $2/hr they would. Other businesses do not operate like that so there is no reason to focus the law on them.
Sorry that you don’t feel it’s fair, but the big guys took fair off the table a long time ago. If you want fair, get Walmart to treat people like humans and not some expendable resource. And that is exactly what Chicago and hopefully many other jurisdictions are trying to do.

A side note. I find it beyond disgusting that a family with as much wealth as the Walton’s can not find it in their blackened hearts to treat their employees with the smallest degree of humanity. While they are deciding on buying their 100th vacation home, children of their employees do not even have the most basic health coverage.

“Cause the big guys are the ones who are responsible for most of the exploitation. . . .they pay their workers the absolute minimum the law allows.” – TL

Every company that pays less than a fair living wage is equally responsible no matter how big their building is. Companies with big buildings are not the only employers that pay the absolute minimum that the law allows. I don’t have any statistics available at the moment, but I’ll paypal $5 to the first person who can find statistics that show that the total number of employees earning minimum wage working in buildings larger than 90,000 sq. ft. is greater than the total number of employees earning minimum wage working in buildings smaller than 90,000 sq. ft. For that matter, I’ll paypal $5 to the first person that can find statistics that show the opposite.

“They are definitely targeting certain stores, but only because the stores have shown through time that they are incapable of policing themselves.” – TL

If it is decided that $10/hr is a fair living wage, then EVERY company that pays minimum wage has shown through time that they are incapable of policing themselves. For that matter, EVERY company that pays less than $10/hr has shown through time that they are incapable of policing themselves. The businesses with small buildings that fail to police themselves, and continue to exploit their employees should be required to treat people like human beings and not some expendable resource as well. For some reason, bad companies with big building need to be forced to be good, but bad companies with small buildings are acceptable.

“They come in and run mom and pop out of town because mom and pop actually pay a reasonable wage. – TL

And because you and others like you care more about the money in your pocket than you do about the mom and pop stores and the employees that they pay a reasonable wage to. These “big guys” can only get away with it because you and others like you help them. The money in your pocket is more important to you than the people who are being forced to live on less than a fair living wage. Sounds a bit like the owners and execs in these companies, doesn’t it?

Danny, this is going now where. If you really don’t see the difference between a company paying $6/hr, yet making millions and mom & pop paying $6/hr just barely hanging in there, we don’t have anything to discuss.

The 90,000 sq/ft rule is not set in stone. They might discover after a year to make it 50,000 sq/ft. So focusing on this or that size is really pointless. Maybe Chicago, like myself just hates big box stores, and maybe they feel like if those said stores want to come into their town, they are going to have to pay.

Before you reply, I concede you are much wiser and definitely more persistent then me.

“Before you reply, I concede you are. . . .definitely more persistent then me.” – ScottW

This I don’t doubt. The other bit you mentioned in this comment is neither relevant nor necessarily true, so I’ve stripped it out. Of course now that you’ve recognized my persistence, you’ll obviously be aware that I’m going to reply.

“If you really don’t see the difference between a company paying $6/hr, yet making millions and mom & pop paying $6/hr just barely hanging in there, we don’t have anything to discuss.” – ScottW

As was mentioned earlier by a wise and intelligent commentor:

“If you can not run your business by paying the heart of your business a descent wage, then you should pack it up.”

You are now coming around to my side of this debate I see. I agree with you now, as I did before. A fair living wage is a moral responsibility no matter how big your building is, and if a mom & pop can not run their business by paying the heart of their business a descent wage, then they should pack it up. If you no longer agree with this statement, then you’re probably right, we probably don’t have anything to discuss. If you think that businesses that treat their employees poorly and pay them an unfair wage are acceptable as long as they operate out of small buildings, then nothing I say will ever convince you that small businesses should be held to the same standard as big businesses.

“So focusing on this or that size is really pointless.” – ScottW

This is what I’ve been saying all along. Any fair living wage legislation should apply to ALL businesses. Focusing on this size or that size is really pointless. Either $10/hr is a fair living wage or it isn’t. The size of the building is not relevent.

Maybe Chicago, like myself just hates big box stores – ScottW
I suspect this is the root of the difference of opinion here. It isn’t that you consider $10 a fair living wage, nor is it that there is some intrinsic difference between big buildings and small buildings that makes $6.50 a fair living wage in small buildings and $10 a fair living wage in big buildings. The argument seems more like, “I hate big box stores, and therefore I want to see them punished.” Of course, if they are punished enough, you may find that you source of fiscal responsibility is gone. If that doesn’t bother you then why shop at stores you hate so much. Another thing to consider is that, while the lack of your one purchase might not be enough to force “big box” stores from paying a higher wage, your one purchase, justmight be enough to keep the mom & pop store afloat. The lack of your one purchase just might be enought to drive the mom & pop out of business. Certainly it wouldn’t take very many people like you to keep the mom & pop around, if you’d just have given them your business.

ScottW,

I’m not trying to weear you down (or “out persist” you), I’m just hoping that you’ll start to recognize that if you aren’t a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem. I also want people to realize that businesses in small buildings that treat their employees poorly are no better than businesses in big buildings that treat their employees poorly. And finally I want people to realize that this isn’t a “small business vs big business” legislation. It’s a “small building vs big building” legislation. There are “big companies” that use small buildings, and there are “small companies” that use big buildings.

Chicago’s new legislation really doesn’t do much to help or stand up for the poor or poorly treated employees, and it most certainly isn’t what I’d consider reasonable, fair, or intelligent legislation. At best I’d consider it a way of punishing companies that the legislature dislikes. I’m not so sure that’s the way legislation should be written.

Danny, you are just about the most irritating person I have went back and forth with. Am I part of the problem and/or solution, can’t quite figure what you were “hoping” for.

I think my sarcasm was missed by your narcissism.

Peace, I am out

“It would stand to reason that we would ring Chicago with Supercenters,” [Walmart spokesman] Lewis said.

“TL,

I agree with Mr. Furious. I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of people to sympathize with you here at TCR.” – Danny

I don’t care whether people sympathize with me or not, nor do I care what you think. I live in a realistic world with real problems, not in a land of idealism as you seem to. Continue boycotting Wal-Mart with the others that choose to. I see that you’ve obviously made huge steps in increasing the wages that they offer…

ScottW,

I owe you a sincere apology. I am trying to maintain 2 debates at once, and I accedentally confused the two.

Of course, if they are punished enough, you may find that you source of fiscal responsibility is gone. If that doesn’t bother you then why shop at stores you hate so much. Another thing to consider is that, while the lack of your one purchase might not be enough to force “big box” stores from paying a higher wage, your one purchase, justmight be enough to keep the mom & pop store afloat. The lack of your one purchase just might be enought to drive the mom & pop out of business. Certainly it wouldn’t take very many people like you to keep the mom & pop around, if you’d just have given them your business.” – Danny

I made this statement because I still had my debate with another commentor in the back of my mind and accidentally confused the two. You have not stated anywhere in the comment section here that you shop at “big box” stores to be fiscally responsible. That was the other commentor I’ve been debating here, and I apologize for confusing the two of you.

As such my followup, “I’m just hoping that you’ll start to recognize that if you aren’t a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem.” doesn’t apply to you either, and was simply a continuation of my mixup. The rest of my post stands, and I still hope that you are begining to see that these two comment are rather contradictory:

and

“If you can not run your business by paying the heart of your business a descent wage, then you should pack it up.” – ScottW

Pick one side or the other, either companies “that can not run their business by paying a descent wage should pack it up”, or “there is a difference in the fairness of the wage to the payee between being paid $6/hr because it’s all your employer can pay, and being paid $6/hr because it’s all your employer wants to pay.”

I state this based on your comment:

“Maybe Chicago, like myself just hates big box stores, and maybe they feel like if those said stores want to come into their town, they are going to have to pay.” – ScottW

Right now your point seems to be “I don’t like companies that use big buildings and so they should be punished more than companies that use small buildings to make me feel better.”

I hope that you and others here will begin to see that:

Businesses in small buildings that treat their employees poorly are no better than businesses in big buildings that treat their employees poorly. And that this isn’t a “small business vs big business” legislation. It’s a “small building vs big building” legislation. There are “big companies” that use small buildings, and there are “small companies” that use big buildings, and many of both fail to pay a fair living wage.

“Danny, you are just about the most irritating person I have went back and forth with.” – ScottW

Irritating because I don’t agree with you? Irritating because you can’t convince me to agree with you? Irritating because I respond to all your responses?

I regret that you find me irritating. I actually thought we were having an intelligent and spirited debate. This issue is important to me, and I thought it was important to you as well. Just because my view is different than yours, doesn’t make yours wrong, I just want some sort of fair and reasonable explanation why a fair living wage is different for businesses that use big buildings than businesses that use small buildings. I’m trying to understand what makes this legislation either great or fair. It seems that if $10 is a fair living wage, then it should be applied to ALL businesses in Chicago, and if $6.50 is a fair living wage, then it isn’t right to punish businesses that use big buildings just because the legislature doesn’t like them. CB has already explained that it won’t keep them away, and all they need to do to avoid the punishment is use a smaller building (or several smaller buildings).

“Am I part of the problem and/or solution, can’t quite figure what you were “hoping” for.” – ScottW

As I said, I apologize for confusing this debate with the other. Obviously it isn’t a matter of being part of the problem, or part of the solution. This debate is about how the size of a building affects the living wage of it’s employees.

“I think my sarcasm was missed by your narcissism. –
ScottW

Nah, the fact that I’m trying to converse and debate the finer points of legislation on a liberal blog doen’t make be a narcissist. Persistent? Definately. Passionate about my beliefs? Probably. A bit obsinate? Maybe. But there are regular commentors here who I suspect can back me up when I say that I’ve got an open mind, and that given facts and proof to back up opposing points or disprove mine, I’m willing to come around to a new way of thinking.

That fact that I disagree with you isn’t an indication of narcissism.

Peace, I am out – ScottW

I’m sorry to hear this. You were the one of the few here who were willing to discuss with me why they thought this legislation was fair or why they thought it was a good thing. Hopefully someone else will pick up where you left off. If not I hope that our conversation has at least given the readers some points to ponder.

If you’ve been reading my other posts perhaps you noticed that this isn’t just a matter of boycotting the “big box” stores, it’s also a matter of failing to give your business to the mom & pop stores. The loss of your business may not be noticed by the “big box” store (although if everyone who cared about a fair living wage participated it most certainly would be noticed), but the loss of your business is most certainly noticed by the small mom & pop business. Your purchases really could make the difference between a mom & pop store closing up or not, certainly it wouldn’t take very many like you to make a HUGE difference for a small mom & pop business.

Perhaps I have, perhaps I haven’t. But the small mom & pop businesses that I shop at are still in business right now. And that might be just as important.

You don’t need to care what I think, nor do you need to care if anyone here sympathizes with your point of view. But you might want to devote a little time to thinking about wether you care about the effects your decisions have on the working poor, and the small businesses. You might not want to end up being too much like the people you dislike. At least not without realizing it.

Danny,
Irritating, because you are condescending and have an aura of superiority.

Narcissistic, because I wasn’t trying to change your mind, you didn’t listen, you read, there is a difference. You weren’t interested in what I had to say because your own thoughts were far more important.
You irritated every person that engaged you, what exactly did you accomplish ? You had preconceived ideas about me, without knowing me, and I suspect that is why your comment about me being part of the problem crept into your replies.

When I state that, “I am out” it means that my work day is done. But you seem to assume it’s because you are so awesome that I had no choice but to slither away, defeated.

And for the record, we hardly had a discussion, I was lectured about why my ideas were inferior to yours.

Comments are closed.