"Still, as word spread throughout City Hall that Chicago's six-year Walmart stalemate was coming to an end, one group didn’t appear to be as thrilled as Gannon or Beale—the Ninth Ward residents who'd been working in conjunction with unions to oppose the retailer. "

And from what I understand, these people are hugely outnumbered compared to the ninth ward residents who want the Wal-Mart store to be built. From my recollection, that is what polls have said. On the news, we see numerous residents passionately engaging in demonstrations in support of a Wal-Mart. This is a community in desperate need of jobs. And there are food deserts all over portions of the city where people do not have access to reasonably priced quality food. Wal-Mart is going to alleviate that. In my opinion, the residents who have been campaigning against the store are either naive or they have their own selfish interests for opposing it. The person you quote heads "The Pullman Business Association". I would assume that organization includes businesses who would be (or at least are concerned they would be) hurt by the store opening. I am guessing that all of the small grocery/liquor stores that advocates often complain are the only option for poor people who live in these food deserts are part of this organization. We often hear that these stores have very little healthy foods and are overpriced. That is what the argument always is when people complain about food deserts. Some of these businesses will probably be hurt. Like I said on earlier threads, the opening of the store will help some businesses and hurt others (and like what often happens with uncertainty there probably are business owners who are opposing this store because they fear it will hurt them when it actually will end up helping them). The lower prices at the store compared to what people are now paying (as well as the lower gas costs) means they have more money to spend. And there will be people who drive into the neighborhood to come to the store. So businesses who have differentiated products from Wal-Mart will be helped. Businesses that do not provide anything sufficiently better than Wal-Mart will likely be hurt if they are close enough to the store.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about these residents who you admit are aligned with the unions. For the next article, perhaps it might be useful to provide some in-depth profiles of some of them. What is their occupation? What made them decide to actively oppose the store? Did someone convince them to do so? Are there biographical details that some of these residents share that is different from those who support the store? Maybe a lot of them came from families with a history of union membership, for example, and they are fighting for a type of job that they feel is going away. Others perhaps are more formally connected with unions (by which I mean more than simply being a union member) or with specific businesses. There have been news reports, including a Tribune article a few days ago, that major grocery store chains have had a history of whipping up opposition to Wal-Mart and creating organized efforts to have residents engage in demonstrations and to call politicians in order to express their opposition to the building of the store. I wonder if some of this is going on here.

And you should also interview some of the people who support the store. Find out a little about them and why they feel a Wal-Mart would improve the community. When these people are in the majority (not just from polling but also apparently among those passionately expressing their opinions) it really seems you should mention them if you are going to talk to some of those opposed to the store. My recollection is that all of your articles so far have basically treated this as if it were the unions (and those aligned with it) vs. Wal-Mart. You have quoted those who oppose the store and you have quoted Wal-Mart. Remember that there is also this huge body of residents who are screaming that they want a store in the neighborhood and that the jobs are needed. I also think it would be a good idea (and this a major opperatunity as none of the other media outlets have pursued this angle as of yet) to walk into a current Wal-Mart and talk to some of its employees about how they feel about their job. The entire premise of the argument of those opposed to the store is that the company pays poorly and people cannot live on the compensation. Is that really the case? I think it would be useful to ask some of these associates about this. Wait for them to leave the store and catch them in the parking lot if you are worried about them not being candid (and, of course, let them speak anonomously). Obviously, many will complain about their pay as well as other things about their employer. But that is true with every job. I'm sure that's probably even the case with the Reader. But I think if you really get down to the nitty-gritty of whether they feel their job has been good for them at this point in their lives you will find that most will say that it has. It also might be interesting to also talk to employees at other retailers to see if there feelings about their employer are any different. It seems to me that a major premise of the opposition to allowing Wal-Mart to open is that they are somehow so completely different than everyone else with regard to how they compensate and treat their employees. So it might be worthwhile to spend a day or two talking to employees from not just Wal-Mart but also Target, Walgreens, CVS, Best Buy, Jewel, and elsewhere to see if there really is a difference in how they feel they are being treated and whether they like their job.

I do agree with one of the points of your article. It is doubtful that the unions actually gained very much (if anything) in this negotiation. The "agreement" was clearly an effort to save face. As Wal-Mart says, it isn't anything new for them to pay these particular wages. They didn't give an inch to the unions. I think that is a good think. I suspect that you don't.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike