Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Politics / Clout City / News As City Council Vote Approaches, Walmart and Unions Still Haven't Met
Posted by Hunter Clauss on 06.01.10 at 06:43 PM
The countdown to another Walmart showdown in the City Council is under way.
The council’s Committee on Zoning is scheduled Thursday to take up the Pullman Park development project, which has generated a lot of controversy because it includes what would be the city’s second Walmart store. The committee was originally expected to vote on the far south side development last month, but chairman Daniel Solis, the 25th Ward alderman, held off on a vote, saying he wanted to give representatives from Walmart and labor unions more time to hash out some sort of agreement on wages and benefits.
But Walmart officials canceled a meeting scheduled for today because of their "travel schedules," and a company spokesman says there are no plans to sit down with unions before Thursday. "We’re open to a continued dialogue when circumstances merit it," Steven Restivo told me.
Solis’s stall tactic was intended to take the City Council off the hot seat. Some aldermen aren’t exactly thrilled about having to vote on Walmart with municipal elections less than a year away, and Solis’s plan gave them some hope that the big-box retailer and unions could forge a compromise.
“There are a lot of people who don’t want to get involved with this,” says Ed Smith, the 28th Ward alderman. Smith, who sits on the zoning committee, says he’s not sure how he’ll vote on Thursday, but thinks that most aldermen will side with unions unless Walmart makes a concession on wages.
That's not likely. Restivo said Walmart believes it already offers a good wage.
None of this is likely to go over well with aldermen already under pressure from unions and Walmart critics. Even before the meeting cancellation, some union leaders and City Hall insiders were predicting that the Pullman project wouldn't win enough votes to pass the zoning committee.
Rev. Booker Vance, chairman of Good Jobs Chicago, which opposes the new Walmart store, was among those planning to meet with Walmart officials today. He said he learned on Friday that the meeting had been scrubbed.
Nick Kaleba, a spokesman for the Chicago Federation of Labor, said Walmart hasn't made time to sit down with union leaders since last month.
There's always a chance that Walmart's allies at City Hall, starting with the mayor, will prevent a vote on the Pullman Park project if they don't have winning numbers. Stephen Stults, a legislative assistant to Solis, said the alderman is currently expecting to go forward with Thursday’s zoning committee meeting.
“There may or may not be a decision to defer again,” Stults told me. “It’s up to the members of the committee.”
Meanwhile, a group of Pullman residents hopes to meet Tuesday evening with the project’s chief promoter in the City Council, Ninth Ward alderman Anthony Beale. But that might also not happen, as Beale’s ward office says the alderman only accepts “walk-in” visits on Monday.
In 2004 the City Council gave Walmart the green light to open its first Chicago store on the West Side, but aldermen also passed the so-called “living wage” ordinance, which would have required big-box retailers to pay at least $10 an hour plus $3 in benefits. Mayor Daley ended up vetoing the living wage ordinance, and aldermen couldn’t get enough votes to override it. That set off a backlash from unions, who funneled money and resources to sympathetic candidates during the 2007 City Council elections.
Comments (58)
Showing 1-50 of 58
"Restivo said Walmart believes it already offers a good wage"
And they do. Wal-Mart offers wages that are comparable with all retail positions of the same skill levels. For quite a few reasons, this controversy really makes me mad. Much needed new jobs are being prevented from being offered. People are being exploited in order for labor unions to attempt to score some cheap talking points. But I don't feel like getting mad right now. Instead, I'll just point out the absurdity of this particular statement apparently being made, literally, on the 1st of the month: "Nick Kaleba, a spokesman for the Chicago Federation of Labor, said Walmart hasn't made time to sit down with union leaders since last month."
like
dislike
"Much needed new jobs are being prevented from being offered."
How do you know that it won't effectively be a labor transfer from stores that won't be able to compete with Wal-Mart for various reasons?
OK are there ANY people out there that feels that they deserve a Living Wage? What happened to the belief that a person can work 1 job and make ends meet? The kind of jobs that Walmart offer will do absolutely NOTHING to combat unemployment. You can not afford to pay rent let alone a mortgage on a Walmart salary! Keep in mind folks that in the time it took me to type out this post Walmart made more money then 90% of us makes in a year and they can't afford to pay $11.03 per hour?! I can't speak for you but me & mine deserve better! BTW I am not in a union I am a member of the community that actually bothered to look pass the headlines & propaganda put out by Walmart & it's henchmen.
Marissa J
"WHY does Walmart have to meet with ANY union?"
Says the man who previously touted the Green Party.
FGFM,
That has not been the experience that has occurred when Wal-Mart opens stores throughout the country. There are not massive closings of stores as a result of a Wal-Mart opening. In fact, many businesses are helped. The new jobs as well as lower prices compared to other retailers mean there is more money for people to spend. And much of this money is spent on other businesses. Also keep in mind that one of Wal-Mart's biggest competitors is Amazon.com. Amazon.com offers zero direct jobs here and virtually no indirect jobs. That is right, zero. When a Wal-Mart opens up in an area underserved by retailers it causes a lot of people to buy products from them instead of internet retailers like Amazon. And every time that happens it clearly is a 100% win for jobs.
Marissa,
For information about why your arguments fail, I suggest you look at my posts on this previous Wal-Mart thread: http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archi… I don't feel like going over that again.
"That has not been the experience that has occurred when Wal-Mart opens stores throughout the country."
Citation? And say, do you think that Best Buy previously dumping compact discs below wholesale price (Nirvana titles at $8.88, for example) had anything to do with most of the record stores in this town going out of business even before the iPod/MP3 revolution?
"Amazon.com offers zero direct jobs here and virtually no indirect jobs. That is right, zero."
Yeah, because no one has to deliver, manufacture, or act as a third-party vendor for all those items they sell. Ever hear of this local firm called Motorola?
http://amzn.to/bpkuKi
OK IAC I read the blog your referenced and TOTALLY understand why you didn't feel like recapping it; it was pretty long winded. But now I get you! You are obviously a Walmart plant.
There is no way you can convince me that the average blogger interested in the current events of Chicago and wish to have their opinion heard could repeatedly rant and rave... least of all on behalf of America's largest corporation. Who does this?
I have ran into your kind (or you!) before on other blogs & postings. It is tragic that you never directly answer any of the real issues.
I'm not talking about Jewel, Costco, Target, or any other retailer. The simple fact is NONE of them can compare to Walmart... take that how you want to.
The biggest problem with having Walmart is that they are NOT enhancing any community they enter... it's just not the Walmart way IAC.
"You are obviously a Walmart plant."
Sigh. And once again my response will be to refer you to what I stated on that other thread. Specifically, when someone accused me (or people in general) of being a paid operative I stated:
"Needless to say, if there are any paid operatives on this thread (which I doubt) I would not be one of them. If you look at my post history you will see that I have made 148 posts about numerous topics just since the current comment system was introduced last fall (and there was another 50 to 100 prior to that). So if I am a paid operative I would have to be paid by quite a few people over a very broad range of areas."
"There is no way you can convince me that the average blogger interested in the current events of Chicago and wish to have their opinion heard could repeatedly rant and rave... least of all on behalf of America's largest corporation. Who does this? "
1. I am not a blogger.
2. What exactly about anything I have said about Wal-Mart consists of me "ranting and raving"? Please be specific. I am just responding to what other people are saying and explaining why I believe they are wrong. And I give specific reasons why I believe that Wal-Mart will benefit the community (and the city in general). Nobody, by the way, responding to my post on the other thread to give specific counter-reasons as to why I was wrong. Not you. Not anyone else. By my definition, "Ranting-and-raving" involves angrily stating something in a less than rational way. There may be people who have done this about Wal-Mart here. But it wouldn't be me.
"I have ran into your kind (or you!) before on other blogs & postings. It is tragic that you never directly answer any of the real issues. "
Translation: "Never answer any of the real issues" to you means "does not agree with my opinion".
To respond to FGFM,
I'm just going by my own anecdotal observations about what occurs after a Wal-Mart (or any big-box store, for that manner) opens. I think we have all seen big-box stores open across various parts of the Chicago area and we are aware of what competitors exist. Do we then generally see a large number of these competitors go-under? No. Can you think of any competitors near the Wal-Mart on the west-side that closed once that opened? How about near the Target on Roosevelt? That's fairly new. Can you point to any stores that have seemed to close as a result of that? I can't. The Home Depot on Halsted got a lot of media attention when it opened five or six years ago. Did it put anybody out of business? There is a True-Value just a few blocks south that remains. I could go on-and-on. I'm not saying that there are not times when the opening of a new store doesn't hurt some of its competitors. But I think the clearest evidence, at least from anecdotal observations, is that overall it helps all businesses more than it hurts. More jobs means more people are making money and there are more people travelling through the area. And like I said earlier, in many cases (certainly with a Wal-Mart) the new store causes prices to fall which causes more left-over money for people to spend at all businesses in the area. And this is before we even get into the benefit from sales tax as well as all the contractors who will work on the store. I could, of course, do some research and cite a study which provides emperical evidence of what I just said. But I'm disinclined to waste a lot of time doing that. Do you have a cite that says the opposite? No doubt you can find something. There are always studies that say everything about everything. I don't think it is generally productive to spend that much time comparing studies. Many people always have the interests to skew the methodology to support their point of view. But if one were to spend time comparing everything that has been published about this, I'm pretty sure it would support my side.
The reason why Best Buy (and Wal-Mart and Target and Circuit City, for that matter) sold their new release CDs below wholesale prices was not to put independent shops out-of-business. It was to encourage people to come into the store so that they would buy other items along with these CDs. Sometimes people would end up buying big ticket electronic items that they otherwise would not have purchased at the chain. It made business sense for them. Some independent stores did go out of business because of this. But those that had something good to offer remained strong. You are incorrect that most of the record stores in this town went out of business between the time that Best-Buy and others began this strategy and the digital revolution began (this, of course, is something for which you simply use anecdotal observations but that probably won't stop you from critisising me for using anecdotal observations to support the fact that new big-bog stores increase the overall business environment). Four or five years ago, there were still many record stores. Seven or eight years ago, there were even more. All this was well after Best-Buy and others were discounting their new release CDs. By the way, I believe at one point the record companies wanted to set minimum prices in order to discourage this practice. Ironically, had the four liberals on the Supreme Court had their way there would have been absolutely no circumstances where the FTC could use its discretion to say that minimum prices could be set: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2… That's somewhat strange considering it is liberals who are generally are the most vocal that this type of practice can have benefits (and I don't even disagree with them). But that gets us off-topic.
"I'm just going by my own anecdotal observations about what occurs after a Wal-Mart (or any big-box store, for that manner) opens.""
Thanks for admitting that you can't back up your claim. I couldn't find a real good cite in the five minutes I spent reviewing the matter, but here are some claims contrary to the big-box paragraphs of bullshit that you typically spout.
http://www.briancuban.com/is-the-walmart-d…
A study of small towns in Iowa revealed a loss of over 7,300 businesses from 1983 to 1993 due to a radical shift in consumer spending to chain stores like Wal-Mart. Five years after a superstore opens, small towns within twenty miles experience a 19% decline in business. For every 100 Wal-Mart jobs created, it is estimated another 150 jobs are lost.
---
And it's obvious that you are not a Walmart plant because they have the money to hire competent propagandists. For example:
"Four or five years ago, there were still many record stores."
Tower Records went bankrupt for the 2nd time in 2006.
And, by my math, that was five years ago. A few blocks away from Tower's Lincoln Park location there was Hi-Fi Records. Dr. Wax had three locations at that time. There was also Evil Clown Records on Lincoln, there was Record Emporiam just west of the Paulina brown line station. There was Rock Records in the loop. And, of course, there was Virgin Records. I'm sure I could list around a dozen or more if I wanted to spend time thinking about it (or searching the internet). And, of course, there also were nearly all the record stores that still exist. So at that time there very much were still many record stores. Besides, Best Buy came on the scene with their discount strategy years earlier. So I'm not sure what your point is anyway.
And like I said, you are going to find studies to support both sides. You can with every debate. For example, here is one that supports the fact that Wal-Mart has an overall long-term positive effect on jobs: http://economics.missouri.edu/working-pape… This article mentions a study by the Federal Reserve (which is, of course, non-ideological) that finds that Wal-Mart has positive effects: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22719054/ This study, which focuses on rural communities, finds some things that would support your point of view but also finds that a new Wal-Mart increases the amount of restaurants that operate in the area: http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/ston… I'm sure we could both spend several hours looking up studies and each find hundreds to cite our point of view. The fact of the manner is that it is very difficult to tell the exact effect a Wal-Mart has on everything. An area's economy is always effected by numerous factors. You cannot assume that everything that generally occurs after a Wal-Mart opens up is a result of Wal-Mart opening up. Besides, there are factors that cause Wal-Mart to decide to open a store in a given area. Sometimes these factors may cause specific effects to specific parts of the economy rather than the actual opening of the store itself. So it is very difficult to draw conclusions from these types of studies. And most of these studies focus on rural areas. The effects on an urban area with its more dynamic population is likely to be very different.
Another thing worth mentioning is that most previous studies focused on time periods prior to the time of e-commerce(or at least the time when e-commerce was this prevelent). So if a purchase was made at Wal-Mart it either was a purchase that would have not been made otherwise or would have been made at another retail store in the area (with a handful of rare exceptions not worth mentioning). Now that is not the case. The purchase may instead be made online. When this occurs, there is normally essentually no positive effect on the economy. The retailer that the person purchasing from may not have a presence here at all. Amazon.com, by far the largest online retailer, has zero employees in the state of Illinois. Unless the product was in some way designed or manufactured here (which is as likely to occur when purchased in a store), a purchase of a product at Amazon provides no benefit to employment in the area at all. There is just the rather small pittance that someone might add if they were to count the fact that it is delivered by a mailman or delivery driver. So every purchase made at a Wal-Mart instead of Amazon or most other online merchants results in an enormous percentage increase in the amount of money that flows into the community. And that it even BEFORE you take into account the fact that the area government's receive no sales tax revenue from purchases at Amazon.com. So this is something that has changed the game tremendously in the past 10 to 15 years. Retailers are no longer competing other brick-and-mortar retailers in a given area. They are competing with the whole world. I cannot emphasize this enough. The result is that there is now a much higher percentage of sales at a new retailer that otherwise would not have been spent in the area. And there is a lower percentage that would have gone to existing area businesses.
"This article mentions a study by the Federal Reserve (which is, of course, non-ideological)"
Stop it, you're killing me.
Kudos and a big Thank You to IAC...I've read your posts and you're one of the few on this topic that actually speaks sensibly...meaning, take your heart out of the debate and use your head. This isn't feely-good class, it's the real f-cking world and people need jobs and they need to be able to purchase goods for as little as possible with their very limited dollars. Period.
As you note, you can find support for the pro and anti WM positions on EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of WM, jobs, wages, putting or not putting other stores out of business, etc... My alderman, King of the Anti WM Faction, Joe Moore, forwarded me a study that was very nicely written about whether or not the West Side WM was a net gain or detractor for Chicago. Guess what the findings were, after being statistically crunched...no significant findings either way for the most part. And the paper was never peer-reviewed which is the Gold Standard for research publications.
Accepting this reality, why NOT give WM the chance? And so what if some stores go out of business? Are you people serious that for some reason a store that can't compete for customers' dollars should STAY in business? Why? That is not capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system that, proven throughout human history, provides the most good for the most people. There are winners and losers in this system, but in the end most people win. Nary a SINGLE economist will disagree with that. WM is not to be blamed because they put some people out of business. It will suck for those small business owners, but is it worse to deny tens of thousands of citizens the opportunity to save thousands of dollars a year at WM...dollars that can be spent on a mortgage payment, a medical bill, a college education, just so a few mom and pop stores can continue charging more for the same products? This is insanity. It's not heartless to say that, it's accurate. Insanity.
And exactly, WHY should they have to meet with unions? That is patently ridiculous. WM ALREADY pays well above the minimum wage (and Marissa J if you think that $11.03 is enough to raise a family on you are wrong). No one said that you are guaranteed a job that pays enough to raise a family on in this country. Come on, people.
The unions did excellent work in the past, I am glad they existed and fought for some important things. However, now they drive jobs from the US and they serve ONLY to support their membership (which is 12% of American workers...meaning 88% of us are NOT in a union at our jobs), at the cost to everyone else. It's unfortunate.
IAC, your points are entirely valid but arguing them here is a waste of time. These are people that I bet you a million bucks do not have to shop at WM deciding for those that do, the conditions of whether or not they'll be able to. I find it outrageous.
"As you note, you can find support for the pro and anti WM positions on EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of WM, jobs, wages, putting or not putting other stores out of business, etc."
Therefore, we should support Wal-Mart without reservations. QED.
"No one said that you are guaranteed a job that pays enough to raise a family on in this country. Come on, people."
No one said that you have an unlimited right to operate a business in Chicago. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
@FGFM - by "unlimited right" do you mean the right to open a business that complies with federal and state laws, employs people that choose to work there and sells legal products and/or services to consumers that choose to buy them? That's what WM wants to do. If working there was untenable for some reason people would not apply in droves each time a new store is opened, regardless of the state of the economy.
You mean that type of right? You're opposed to that right? Wow. You'd be quite a business leader.
"do you mean the right to open a business that complies with federal and state laws"
Why did you leave out municipal laws and zoning?
"You'd be quite a business leader."
Perhaps, but would you be kind enough to share your professional and academic credentials with us since you are passing judgment on me? Aside from being a right-wing crank on the Internet, that is.
Sure, FGFM, though I don't see how it's relevant. I have an MBA and work in health care. I'm not right wing at all, have never voted for a GOP candidate, and don't have a crank that I am aware of.
Does this make you feel better now about not answering my question?
"Sure, FGFM, though I don't see how it's relevant. I have an MBA and work in health care."
Funny how you previously described yourself as a "regular schmoe," but it doesn't look like you'll be in the position of fighting for one of those wonderful $11/hr. jobs at Wal-Mart, particularly given the amount of gov't money that sloshes around the medical business.
"I'm not right wing at all"
Aside from the fact that you are anti-gun control and anti-labor.
"Does this make you feel better now about not answering my question?"
I'm not obliged to respond to your loaded questions, but it is interesting that you ignored my observation that you and IAC take a pro-Wal-Mart position in response to supposed contradictory studies along with the fact that Wal-Mart must conform to municipal laws and zoning and it's not enough to be in compliance with state and federal laws.
Uh oh. Someone skipped their meds again. Do yourself a favor and reach into the medicine cabinet and take your medication. We would all be relieved.
"Funny how you previously described yourself as a "regular schmoe," but it doesn't look like you'll be in the position of fighting for one of those wonderful $11/hr. jobs at Wal-Mart, particularly given the amount of gov't money that sloshes around the medical business."
First of all, I don't know what a "regular Schmoe" is. It is one of those weird phrases like "common people" "everyday people" and "the average Joe six-pack" that don't have any apparent meaning. There is no such thing as a "common person" or "regular person". Everybody is different from each other. In my experience, these phrases are often uttered by people who don't realize this. In many cases, they consider themselves to be of an elite class and have very little experience interacting with those in different income classes. So they generalize and consider them to be homogenious enough to label them with such things as "regular Schmoe" or "everyday people". (By the way, I've always wondered what the opposite of "everyday people" is. Multi-day people? Some day people? ) I also don't see where you are getting that Lamprey "described" himself/herself "as a 'regular Schmoe'". I don't see any statement in his/her posts.
Second, if you are going to decide that Lamprey shouldn't be stating his opinion when he apparently isn't interested in a Wal-Mart job then I would have to assume that you bring these same weird rigid standards of when it is appropriate to express an opinion on yourself. Apparently, you only think someone should express a view if he or she has a very steep personal interest in a manner. So what is your own personal interest in this controversy? Surely, if you think Lamprey shouldn't argue why he believes Wal-Mart should be permitted to build a store if he is not a perspective employee then you wouldn't be stating your views if the outcome of this controversy didn't affect you at least as much. I also find your statement ironic considering that the people who are most against this Wal-Mart generally don't live in the community. Joe Moore certainly doesn't. The majority of people who live in the area where the store will be built are for it. That is what the polls have said. Their alderman is for it.
The city of Chicago allows basically every other retailer to open where and when they want to. Nearly every part of the country except Chicago and a handful of other urban cities have no problem at all with Wal-Mart coming to town. The onus is on those in Chicago who don't think a Wal-Mart should be approved to explain why it shouldn't. Simply stating "why shouldn't they have to comply with our laws" doesn't work. You must explain why you want to use the zoning laws to keep them out.
"Uh oh. Someone skipped their meds again. Do yourself a favor and reach into the medicine cabinet and take your medication. We would all be relieved."
Stalker keeps stalking.
'First of all, I don't know what a "regular Schmoe" is.'
I was quoting Mr. MBA from a previous thread, so go ask him.
"In many cases, they consider themselves to be of an elite class and have very little experience interacting with those in different income classes."
I'm from Uptown.
"Second, if you are going to decide that Lamprey shouldn't be stating his opinion when he apparently isn't interested in a Wal-Mart job then I would have to assume that you bring these same weird rigid standards of when it is appropriate to express an opinion on yourself."
He can express his opinion all he wants and I can mock it all I want, same as with you.
"You must explain why you want to use the zoning laws to keep them out."
No one is obliged to explain anything to your satisfaction because you are always going to take the other side. You and Mr. MBA act like life's a mystery and since there are supposedly two sides to every story, we should just blindly follow your political agenda.
No one is obliged to explain anything to your satisfaction because you are always going to take the other side. You and Mr. MBA act like life's a mystery and since there are supposedly two sides to every story, we should just blindly follow your political agenda. - FGFM
Son, pot meet kettle.
Haha, Mr MBA. I like that! I busted my ass four years in college and 2.5 in grad school for that degree, so thanks! Clearly you're using it as a way to belittle or mock me for getting as much education as I can, but that's cool. Based on your understanding of economics and plain facts, I'm not surprised you find educated people frightening. (And, for your edification, I work in health care quality improvement; not a whole lot of money there, sorry.) I am a regular schmoe. You live in Uptown? Nice. I live in Rogers Park. As if that makes ANY difference. And no, I am not planning to seek a job at WM just like you are not planning on seeking a job there.
As for my positions on WM and gun control (you took the time to read other things I've said, that's sweet)...they are based on fact, on science, on reality. How's the gun control scheme in Chicago working out in your opinion? A success? You probably think so, but again, whatever, 'tis your right to be misinformed and revel in your ignorance.
And as for name calling or passing judgment (as you accused me of doing) I went back too buddy! Here's a gem from another thread on this topic that you uttered after IAC provided several reasonable, non-inflammatory, fact-filled posts that you happened to disagree with: "IAC is a long-winded scab who abuses superlatives." You're a hypocrite.
So, if you wish to debate WM on the facts, I would enjoy it. If you want to continue refusing to answer questions then, well, that speaks for itself. I predict that's the path you'll choose, prove me wrong!
Let's start with this very simple question, FGFM:
WalMart pays nationally on average $11.75 an hour. In Chicago that is about what they will pay as well...that is over three dollars more per hour than they have to. What is your issue with that? Can you tell us what IS a "living wage" and why aren't you up in arms about all the smaller, "better", stores that WM would supposedly displace that are NOT paying ANYWHERE near that (and that's from Joe Moore's WM study I mentioned earlier)?
Here's some breaking news! File under the WalMart is Evil section. Comments, anyone? Anyone else around Chicago who employs millions of Americans doing this. Here's the take home part of the article for those of you who can see from the headline that this will likely be a pro-WM story and thus will not read it:
"Even so, because of its size, Wal-Mart’s internal changes often turn into industry standards, as with its efforts involving environmental sustainability. And with 1.4 million employees in the United States, even an employees-only program could have widespread implications.
“If 10 to 15 percent of employees take advantage of this, that’s like graduating three Ohio State Universities,” said Sara Martinez Tucker, a former under secretary of education who is now on Wal-Mart’s external advisory council. “It’s a lot of Americans getting a college degree at a time when it’s becoming less affordable.”
Those bastards in Arkansas.
NYTimes
June 3, 2010
Wal-Mart to Offer Its Workers a College Program
By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD and STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Now on sale at Wal-Mart: college degrees for its employees.
The purveyor of inexpensive jeans and lawnmowers is dipping its toe into the online-education waters, working with a Web-based university to offer its employees in the United States affordable college degrees.
The partnership with American Public University, a for-profit school with about 70,000 online students, will allow some Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees to earn credits in areas like retail management and logistics for performing their regular jobs.
The university will offer eligible employees 15 percent price reductions on tuition, and Wal-Mart will invest $50 million over three years in other tuition assistance for the employees who participate.
Executives at Wal-Mart, the nations’ largest retailer, said the company was not interested in entering the online-education field in a broader way. The point of the program, they said, was to help employees get more education and to build a better work force.
Even so, because of its size, Wal-Mart’s internal changes often turn into industry standards, as with its efforts involving environmental sustainability. And with 1.4 million employees in the United States, even an employees-only program could have widespread implications.
“If 10 to 15 percent of employees take advantage of this, that’s like graduating three Ohio State Universities,” said Sara Martinez Tucker, a former under secretary of education who is now on Wal-Mart’s external advisory council. “It’s a lot of Americans getting a college degree at a time when it’s becoming less affordable.”
Wal-Mart estimates that about 50 percent of its employees in the United States have a high school diploma or the equivalent but have not earned a college degree. With the average full-time employee being paid $11.75 an hour, it was unclear how many of them will be able to take advantage of the new program. With the work credits and tuition discount, an associate’s degree for a Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club cashier would cost about $11,700 and a bachelor’s degree about $24,000.
Wal-Mart made the announcement at an early morning meeting at the Bud Walton arena here, where about 4,000 employees were invited to attend events scheduled around the chain’s shareholders’ meeting on Friday.
“It’s important because it reflects the kind of company we are,” Eduardo Castro-Wright, who heads Wal-Mart’s operations in the United States, told the employees. “A company that says, ‘Anyone who wants to learn, who wants to grow with us, who is willing to work hard to get a college degree, can do that.’ ”
The employees clapped and nodded as Mr. Castro-Wright explained the program (though cheers seemed to be louder earlier, when Mr. Castro-Wright said that gas prices finally seemed to be dropping).
Jaymes Murphy, 24, a wireless salesman in a Wal-Mart based in Victoria, Tex., said he had been trying to take college classes while working, but found the scheduling difficult. But he said the program “gives me the confidence that I can go and not have to worry about sacrificing one thing or another.”
“I can get my education,” he said, adding that he would pursue his bachelor’s degree online. “The way the economy’s working, the way all the companies are working, you’ve got to go bachelor’s.”
The program will initially allow about 200,000 employees in positions like cashier, department manager and distribution center unloader to accrue credits for training they already receive in their jobs.
For instance, a department-level manager, who receives training from Wal-Mart in areas like pricing, inventory management and ethics, would be eligible for 24 on-the-job credits, at no charge, toward a 61-credit associates’ degree. A cashier would be eligible for six credits toward a 61-credit associate’s degree or a 120-credit bachelor’s degree.
“It came out of an awareness that the jobs in our stores are really good jobs,” Tom Mars, executive vice president and chief administrative officer of Wal-Mart U.S. said in an interview, “but if we want to make them great jobs, we really have to do something different to distinguish those jobs and our company from everyone else in retail.”
When asked if Wal-Mart wanted to enter the online-education industry Mr. Mars said “no, no.”
Even so, Wal-Mart appeared to acknowledge its wide influence in a letter about the program to the secretary of education, Arne Duncan.
“While there is broad agreement about the need for more Americans to attain college degrees, we recognize that there is a healthy discussion under way about the best way to get there,” wrote Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for corporate affairs and government relations. “One of our aims with this program is to try some innovative approaches that seem promising, grounded in what is already known in the field.”
He added: “We hope in this way to expand the education and employer communities’ knowledge of what works most effectively, so that policy makers, other companies and other stakeholders can continuously improve such offerings.”
Wal-Mart executives said it decided to work with an online university instead of a brick-and-mortar school after surveying more than 32,000 of its employees and learning that most of them wanted the scheduling flexibility afforded by online classes.
American Public University, which is based in Charles Town, W.Va., is reviewing all jobs at Wal-Mart to determine which ones will qualify under the agreement. By January 2012, some 70 percent of United States employees will be in jobs that have been reviewed by the university, Wal-Mart said.
To be eligible for the program, employees must have been in the job at least one year full time, or three years part time, and must also score “on target” or “above target” on their most recent evaluation.
"Based on your understanding of economics and plain facts, I'm not surprised you find educated people frightening."
I guess that's why I had to settle for working in finance with people who have PhDs in hard sciences. And I'll have you know that I was in the honor society at Truman College!
"Wal-Mart to Offer Its Workers a College Program"
Very generous of Wal-Mart to offer a discount to attend Close Cover Before Striking University for employees in good favor, but it's not very nice of you to violate the Times' copyright by cutting and pasting an entire article on the Reader's web site. The general rule-of-thumb for that is to limit quotes to 5 paragraphs. And since you and IAC believe that there are two sides to every story, even if one side is supposed to be disregarded for political reasons, I'll link to the Wal-Mart criticism article at Wikipedia and people can draw their own conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_…
Honey, you're the one disregarding the other side of the story by talking about copyrights and still not being able or willing to answer the simple question I have posed twice now.
Why don't you ask some of the PhDs you "work with" how you answer questions without re-directing to another topic?
I would like an answer from your perspective FGFM...you got it in you to be growed up in this debate? Otherwise, meh.
"Honey, you're the one disregarding the other side of the story by talking about copyrights and still not being able or willing to answer the simple question I have posed twice now."
Did they teach you that "honey" stuff on the debating team at American Public University? In any event, that Wikipedia page did not mention that Wal-Mart is apparently engaged in price dumping of groceries in an attempt to pressure the competition. I assure you that prices will go up after other chains are driven out.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I3…
Walmart has used aggressive pricing in grocery and other units to bring shoppers into its stores. The grocery business is particularly pressured by such pricing, as its profit margins are already low.
Lamprey, my son will tell you that he doesn't have to answer to anyone. He's been like that since he was 5 years old and I blame myself for it. He's turned into a spoiled brat.
He pretends to be a grown up, but I'm still supporting him. I'm his mother and I can't bear the thought of his wife kicking him out of the house because he won't pull his own load.
"Lamprey, my son will tell you that he doesn't have to answer to anyone. He's been like that since he was 5 years old and I blame myself for it. He's turned into a spoiled brat."
Stalker keeps stalking. Say, any idea why this article disappeared from Uptown Update?
http://twitpic.com/1tv4g7
Answer the question FGFM. Stop re-directing to something else (though, if WM or any other company has done something illegal I am confident in our legal and justice system to hold them to account).
You obviously think WM treats their employees poorly by not paying enough for them to stock shelves or pass products past a scanner and concurrently raise an entire family of four on those wages, so...
What is a living wage (the dollar amount and must be greater than $11.75 which is what WM pays on average) and why does WM paying three bucks over minimum draw your ire and not the myriad other businesses in Chicago that pay nothing near that in terms of actual salary or benefits?
Mother of FGFM...you should have kept up with his studies more closely. He knows nothing at all about economics and can't stay on topic when challenged. It's tough to be a parent, I know, I am one too.
"You obviously think WM treats their employees poorly by not paying enough for them to stock shelves or pass products past a scanner and concurrently raise an entire family of four on those wages, so..."
I can't say that I think that they are treating them particularly well, even if you think that suckering staff into spending tens of thousands for a worthless online degree is a great benefit. Every place I've worked at for the last couple of decades has offered tuition reimbursement to any school I would have cared to attend.
"What is a living wage (the dollar amount and must be greater than $11.75 which is what WM pays on average) and why does WM paying three bucks over minimum draw your ire and not the myriad other businesses in Chicago that pay nothing near that in terms of actual salary or benefits?"
I never said that it particularly drew my ire. I merely pointed out that Wal-Mart opening a store might not really result in a net increase of jobs along with depressing wages in general, etc. You and the other maniac took it from there. All the same, labor is allowed to get the best deal it can within law just like capital does.
"He knows nothing at all about economics"
Given that you are such an expert in economics, can you tell me the best way to hedge 100 shares of IBM through the end of the year without spending any money out of pocket?
Hmmm.
So by WM paying nearly 50% higher wages than minimum wage - and higher than most of the smaller stores in the area they compete with for customers and workers - they are depressing wages? That's what I mean when I say you don't understand economics.
But you still have not answered the question "what is a living wage?" What is it, man? Is it $11.03 as someone here already mentioned...? They pay higher than that. Is it $14.00 an hour? $23.00 an hour? Why not $100 an hour? Why do you, and others, refuse to answer this question? Seriously. Myself and the other "maniac" are using data and facts while you dance around the subject, offering neither except your own personal opinions about things which is like an argument with my kindergartener, to be honest.
FWIW: Online college and graduate programs, like many, many other services and things, are being increasingly offered entirely online. I doubt the thousands (tens of thousands?) of people who have received their bachelor's or associate's degrees through these accredited programs would appreciate your calling the results of their efforts "worthless". Not surprising that you would find fault with this program, though, since WM instituted it for the largest work force in the country. Those poor employees being "suckered" into getting a college degree to increase their earning power. For shame.
And your challenge to me has little to do with economics and everything to do with finance. You "work with" all these PhDs...ask them if you don't know. Finance and economics are not the same discipline.
"So by WM paying nearly 50% higher wages than minimum wage - and higher than most of the smaller stores in the area they compete with for customers and workers - they are depressing wages? That's what I mean when I say you don't understand economics."
Whatever you say, champ.
http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/walmar…
Retail workers in the U.S. are making $4.5 billion less each year due to Wal-Mart's presence, according to a new study by the University of California's Center for Labor Research and Education.
*But you still have not answered the question "what is a living wage?" What is it, man? Is it $11.03 as someone here already mentioned...? They pay higher than that. Is it $14.00 an hour? $23.00 an hour? Why not $100 an hour?*
Why not cut the minimum wage to zero?
*Those poor employees being "suckered" into getting a college degree to increase their earning power*
That school is garbage and Wal-Mart workers would be much better served by going to a state college.
"And your challenge to me has little to do with economics and everything to do with finance."
I guess that's why I work on LaSalle Street and you get to live in beautiful Rogers Park.
And since you claim that finance has nothing to do with economics, here's a little Nobel Prize update for you.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economi…
Robert C. Merton
Born: 31 July, 1949
Affiliation at the time of the award: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Field: Financial economics
My decision to leave applied mathematics for economics was in part tied to the widely-held popular belief in the 1960s that macroeconomics had made fundamental inroads into controlling business cycles and stopping dysfunctional unemployment and inflation. Thus, I felt that working in economics could "really matter" and that potentially one could affect millions of people.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economi…
Myron S. Scholes
Born: 01 July, 1941, Canada
Affiliation at the time of the award: Long Term Capital Management, Greenwich, CT, USA
Field: Financial economics
...
Through my parents and relatives I became interested in economics and, in particular, finance.
Ah...okay, now we're getting into it, huh? I thought you said you lived in Uptown, Mr LaSalle Street. But you're gonna dis on Rogers Park? That's amusing. For your enlightenment, Mr MBA here works in a not-for-profit health care facility on the South Side that treats more under-served Chicagoans than virtually all other facilities save Cook County. So mind your veiled accusations that I am some elitist while you're commuting to Chicago's version of Wall Street and all your PhD colleagues...while you have...no PhD? Aww. Brings to mind to ask what it is you do there, but that would be childish. It's nice that you have an "interest" in economics and finance compliments of your family and friends, but that does not mean you have a clue what you're talking about.
Jeeze, I can't believe you suckered me into that playground taunting session. We were discussing WM and the living wage, right?! Thanks for the education on how somehow knowing how to buy IBM shares for no cost is "economics" and your unintelligible links to Nobel prize winners as support of that proposition, but again, what is the living wage? If you're going to have any success in your crusade against this one company you better at least be able to answer that very obvious question about what you're fighting for.
Have a nice weekend Mr LaSalle Street! I look forward to more nonsense next week!
"Ah...okay, now we're getting into it, huh? I thought you said you lived in Uptown, Mr LaSalle Street."
No, I'm originally from Uptown and my immediate family still lives there. I, however, moved the Hell out of there at the first opportunity. Why do you think I went to Truman College?
"But you're gonna dis on Rogers Park?"
Yo. (crosses arms)
"For your enlightenment, Mr MBA here works in a not-for-profit health care facility on the South Side that treats more under-served Chicagoans than virtually all other facilities save Cook County."
You bleeding hearts deserve what you get.
"So mind your veiled accusations that I am some elitist while you're commuting to Chicago's version of Wall Street and all your PhD colleagues...while you have...no PhD? Aww."
Makes it all that more entertaining when I find flaws in their models.
*Brings to mind to ask what it is you do there, but that would be childish. It's nice that you have an "interest" in economics and finance compliments of your family and friends, but that does not mean you have a clue what you're talking about.*
How come I'm the guy who knows how to hedge a stock position and you don't?
"Thanks for the education on how somehow knowing how to buy IBM shares for no cost"
You didn't even understand the question, but I expected that.
"Have a nice weekend Mr LaSalle Street! I look forward to more nonsense next week!"
See you in the funny papers.
"In any event, that Wikipedia page did not mention that Wal-Mart is apparently engaged in price dumping of groceries in an attempt to pressure the competition. I assure you that prices will go up after other chains are driven out.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I3…
Walmart has used aggressive pricing in grocery and other units to bring shoppers into its stores. The grocery business is particularly pressured by such pricing, as its profit margins are already low."
OK. Can you please name me one portion of the country where Wal-Mart has driven-out all of their competition in the grocery area? Or, for that manner, can you name me an area of the country where Wal-Mart has decreased the market share of so-called "traditional supermarkets" by more than 30% over the period of a few years? And can you name me an area of the country where so-called "traditional supermarkets" do not have a major presence? The fact of the matter is that it has been clearly shown that regular supermarket chains have more than enough ability to survive after Wal-Mart opens up supercenters in their area. They are challenged. That is what occurs in a capitalist economy. Some have to close a few stores. But there is clear empirical evidence that if they focus on differentiating themselves from Wal-Mart they will continue to thrive. S
So your suggestion that Wal-Mart is engaging in price dumping in order to rid themselves of their competition in groceries is ludicrous. They have never been able to do that in the past. And you certainly cannot point to me an instance where they have eventually raised prices in a particular area as a result of decreased competition. Every grocery chain has come out with promotions that involve lowering prices. You might have seen some of this at Jewel and Dominick's. To jump to the conclusion that this is "price dumping" in order to drive out competitors is ludicrous.
" Retail workers in the U.S. are making $4.5 billion less each year due to Wal-Mart's presence, according to a new study by the University of California's Center for Labor Research and Education."
Just to state the obvious, anything with the title of "center for labor research and education" is not going to be an objective organisation. Clearly, they have a bias. So I doubt I am going to take the time to read any studies they conduct.
Ah, things now clearer.
FGFM is one of those folks who make a really nice living, move "the hell out" of the lower income areas of the city "at the first opportunity", feel superior knowing the particulars of a hedge fund (hahaha...wow, who the f cares about that), but is also comfortable casting dispersions on others and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - knows what's good for all the poorer people he left behind - in Uptown - from his condo downtown.
You're a gem, buddy.
*OK. Can you please name me one portion of the country where Wal-Mart has driven-out all of their competition in the grocery area? Or, for that manner, can you name me an area of the country where Wal-Mart has decreased the market share of so-called "traditional supermarkets" by more than 30% over the period of a few years? And can you name me an area of the country where so-called "traditional supermarkets" do not have a major presence? *
I could attempt it to answer your cavalcade of questions, but you claim that a study could always be found to contradict it, so why bother? Life's a mystery.
"Every grocery chain has come out with promotions that involve lowering prices."
Of course, and Binny's (in the liquor realm) was able to drive Sam's out of business (helped by Sam's apparent managerial incompetence) by selling 12 packs of Bud for $5.99 and raising prices back up once they were the only big liquor store chain left in town.
*Just to state the obvious, anything with the title of "center for labor research and education" is not going to be an objective organisation. Clearly, they have a bias. So I doubt I am going to take the time to read any studies they conduct.*
No, we wouldn't want to do that. It's best to stick to studies written by "objective" organizations like the Federal Reserve.
*FGFM is one of those folks who make a really nice living, move "the hell out" of the lower income areas of the city "at the first opportunity", feel superior knowing the particulars of a hedge fund (hahaha...wow, who the f cares about that), but is also comfortable casting dispersions [sic] on others and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - knows what's good for all the poorer people he left behind - in Uptown - from his condo downtown. *
I don't know why I have to stay in a crappy neighborhood in a fruitless attempt to keep people like you happy, but you can keep sticking up for capital and I'll keep sticking up for labor. But I'll tell you what: if I'm fortunate enough to gain control of the family real estate in the future, I'll do my best to put Section 8 housing on it.
Whoo! I must say that if one were to ask me which retail chains came closest to having a near monopoly in certain aspects of their business I don't think that Binny's would have even came into my head for the slightest bit of consideration. My God! For the example you give, 12 packs of Bud, they probably don't even have higher than 5% market share in the area. They may not even have more than 5% market share of all packaged liquor sales. For Christ's sake, there is a 7-Eleven or another conveneince store on most major street corners. All grocery stores have an extensive liquor section. CVS sells liquor. Walgreen's is starting to. If you think that Binny's has any type of significant market concentration (especially for the specific example you gave) then you clearly don't understand the simplest things about the subjects you have been talking about for the last two or three days. .
"If you think that Binny's has any type of significant market concentration (especially for the specific example you gave) then you clearly don't understand the simplest things about the subjects you have been talking about for the last two or three days."
Like I said, life's a mystery.
http://www.tradenewsonline.com/content/sho…
The acquisition will boost Binny’s store count to 24 and cement its leadership in the Chicago liquor retailing business, with annual sales exceeding $200 million. Johnson Ho, owner of the single-unit Pantheon Wine Shoppe in north suburban Northbrook, said the combination would lead to “an unhealthy concentration of distribution and market share.”
Yes, that of course would be a quote from an objective source who has no incentive to do anything but analyze Binny's from a completely unbiased perspective. Seriously, give me a break. If you are not going to find anything convincing to support your suggestion that Binny's is in a monopolistic position (I really have to laugh thinking about this) then why bother? Here's an idea. Why don't you mention exactly where you live and explain exactly why it is that Binny's is one of the only choices you have to purchase a six-pack of Bud (the example you gave). I know I can think of at least ten seperate retailers (not including more than one location of the same chain) within about a mile and a half of where I live that I can purchase a six pack of Budweiser and none of them are Binny's. The nearest Binny's is a few miles away.
"Yes, that of course would be a quote from an objective source who has no incentive to do anything but analyze Binny's from a completely unbiased perspective."
It's obvious that you know a lot more about the liquor business than the man who owns a wine store.
"Here's an idea. Why don't you mention exactly where you live and explain exactly why it is that Binny's is one of the only choices you have to purchase a six-pack of Bud (the example you gave)."
I actually mentioned a 12-pack.
My son does not work on LaSalle Street and never did. He goes to LaSalle Street to pick up his allowance from his father. That kid of mine has been an uppity spoiled brat early on which never made much sense to me given that his alma mater was a community college.
Son, I know you believe you're being stalked, but if you take your medication, all that paranoia will go away. It might even give you a better attitude. Oh well, who am I kidding.
Related Stories
-
What Else You Should Know About Walmart
It's not just the low wages or the near-scientific union busting. It's the preference for poverty, the business model built on turnover, the manipulative PR. Is this really the best way to bring jobs and food to the south and west sides?
- Jul 1, 2010
