Friday, July 23, 2010
Politics / Clout City Walmart Number Three?
Posted by Hunter Clauss on 07.23.10 at 01:10 PM
When union leaders revealed the details of a so-called deal that would allow Walmart to open a store in the far south side neighborhood of Pullman, they warned the big-box retailer that they would keep an eye on them.
“There’s going to be 21 more stores,” said Dennis Gannon, who was the president of the Chicago Federation of Labor at the time. “We’re going to hold Walmart accountable at every zoning and every TIF hearing on every step of the road to make sure that they’re living up to their side of our agreement.”
Well, they'd better be ready to move, because Mayor Daley is ramming through a plan that would allow Walmart to open its third store in the city.
Daley told reporters yesterday that he wants the City Council’s finance committee to take a vote on a proposed Walmart for the Chatham neighborhood at today’s meeting. If the store passes that hurdle, it could go up for a vote at next week’s full City Council meeting. It's not unusual for the mayor to pressure aldermen to approve what he wants at breakneck speed, as was the case with the parking meter lease and the the city's new handgun law. It took two months for aldermen to approve the Pullman Walmart, but Daley doesn’t seem to want the City Council to take its time on the Chatham store, even though he says there’s room for debate.
“As everyone knows, the issue of whether Walmart should be allowed to build or open new stores in the city was debated for a long time, and it was a good debate,” Daley told reporters. “There’s nothing wrong with a debate like that.”
The Chatham store is the ugly stepsister in the Walmart saga. In 2004 the council rejected it even as it approved a Walmart for Austin, and the store’s chief proponent in the City Council, 21st Ward alderman Howard Brookins, has been trying to get his fellow aldermen to revisit it ever since.
But aldermen technically don’t have to vote on the store in order for it to move forward. Daley could have his top city planner sign off on the project. Instead he's letting the City Council take any heat for the store.
“Why the rush?” says 49th Ward alderman Joe Moore, who’s openly criticized Daley and Walmart. “If the mayor wants it to go in, he can wear the jacket for it.”
Meanwhile some aldermen are becoming increasing skeptical that Walmart will pay starting salaries of $8.75, as unions have claimed. Walmart spokesman Steve Restivo says there are no binding documents showing Walmart will pay those rates.
“All I can say is that we will offer a competitive wage,” Restivo told me.
Comments (4)
Showing 1-4 of 4
"Meanwhile some aldermen are becoming increasing skeptical that Walmart will pay starting salaries of $8.75, as unions have claimed. Walmart spokesman Steve Restivo says there are no binding documents showing Walmart will pay those rates.
'All I can say is that we will offer a competitive wage,' Walmart spokesman Steve Restivo told me."
Those last three sentences have been picked up by a liberal blog and has even ricocheted back to another writer at the Reader. I think it is extremely important that this not be sensationalized. I'm just going to go at this from a non-ideological perspective that has nothing to do with my opinion about Wal-Mart or the labor unions and others opposing them. Those three sentences seem to me to be rather incomplete and leave one with more questions than answers. There is not a clue in the world as to what context the quote from Restivo was made. Did he say this directly after you asked if Wal-Mart was going to do what it said and pay starting workers $8.75 an hour? Did he refuse to answer this question and instead make this statement about there not being any binding documents? Obviously, if that were the case the quote would be in its most damaging light. That seems to be the context that is assumed by the liberal blog Progress Illinois.
But if that is what occurred, the question arises as to why you didn't say so explicitly. Why would you not make clear that Restivo was evading your specific questions about whether Wal-Mart will actually do what it has said and has been widely reported that it will do? That would be something that would be quite extraordinary. But if this was not in context in which Restivo made the quote than the obvious question is what the hell context it was. Perhaps he actually said something like "of course we will pay what we said we will pay" and then you asked "is there anything that prevents you from changing your mind? Have you made agreements that bind you to that?" And he said "no, there are not binding documents". The difference between those two contexts are huge. And there are numerous other possible ways in which that statement could have come about. You don't give any indication as to how it did. It strikes me as extremely important that this be clarified so that people don't go around making baseless conclusions about what Restivo means.
I do not see the analogy between approving a third store and the manner in which the parking meter lease deal and the gun ordinance was approved. The proposal for a third store does not bring forth new issues that need to be heavily debated before one can make a decision. The question of whether Wal-Mart would be good or bad overall for the city is one that has been debated for years. Everyone on both sides who has wanted to express opinions about this has done so and the aldermen have all listened (at least I assume they all did, if any has decided to ignore all these passionate discussions they aren't going to change now). When the second Wal-Mart was approved it was part of the deal that other stores would open. The proposal is just a formality. Everything has already been debated extensively and there isn't anything that has changed since then.
like
dislike
And let me just make sure this is all put into perspective. The minimum wage in the state is $8.25 an hour. In a previous post you were complaining that the agreement to pay starting workers $8.75 an hour (along with promised raises of about $1 an hour after working for around a year) didn't amount to much. Now you are acting as if this would be such a huge burden for Wal-Mart that they might renege on this promise, despite huge media coverage reporting it. My God! They did not become one of the most profitable companies in the country by being extremely stupid. That's what they would have to be if they were to spend so much time and money on public relations convincing everybody that they are not evil monsters and that they provide good jobs but then renege on widely reported statements to pay certain wages. Jesus!
The idea that Wal-Mart isn't going to do what they say strikes me as being close to the level of conspiracy theories that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States or that 9/11 was an inside job planned by the U.S. government. It really isn't necessary for the Reader to report on silly theories by some aldermen about this. For one thing, I doubt they actually believe what they are saying. They most likely are trying to impress their union base (And couldn't you have at least said something like "meanwhile some aldermen are expressing increasing skepticism that Walmart will pay starting salaries of $8.75" instead of "meanwhile some aldermen are becoming increasing skeptical that Walmart will pay starting salaries of $8.75". You cannot read inside their minds).
Another reason that this whole thing is so silly is the fact that I don't think there is any evidence that there is anything monumental about Wal-Mart paying its starting workers 50 cents above minimum wage with a raise after around a year. Why would this be something that Wal-Mart has so much of an incentive to back-off well-publicized promises of these wages that it is so vitally important that the union and aldermen aggressively make sure that the retailer is keeping its word. What has Wal-Mart been paying the workers in its west side store? What has it been paying people in the suburbs? If it isn't anything different than the 50 cent above minimum plus whatever the increase is after a year then why is there a need to make a huge deal out of this?
Why not get to the bottom of what it is paying others? This might somehow fit into your paradoxical articles about the agreement essentially being a sham that didn't cause Wal-Mart to do anything new as well as the agreement being something that everyone must stand on their toes and be ready to call the retailer out if it were to be violated. Ask Restivo what they pay to most of their workers. If he doesn't answer (or if you are not sure whether you believe him) than head over to the Wal-Mart on the west side and some Wal-Marts in the suburbs. Talk to some employees there. Say "Hi. I'm Hunter Clauss. I'm writing an article for the Chicago Reader about Wal-Mart's pay practices. Can you tell me how much they pay you? What did they pay you when you started and have you gotten a raise since then?" Make sure you talk to at least one newly hired worker so you know how much the starting pay is now. It really isn't difficult. That would provide some useful illustration about whether there really is any difference between Wal-Mart's supposed agreement with the unions and their normal practices. And the other thing it would do is it would mean the Reader, after close to a dozen articles about whether Wal-Mart is a good employer, would have finally actually talked to someone employed with it (they also haven't talked to anyone considering a job there, any former employees, or any employees with competitors).
I should have mentioned that there is, of course, the exception of the Wal-Mart spokespeople.
