Well, it’s official. Chicago’s first Wal-Mart opened today to cheers and boos after Mayor Richard Daley vetoed the so-called big-box ordinance. The law would have required large retailers like Wal-Mart to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by mid-2010.
One number leaps out of today’s Tribune story about the opening: the lowest pay scale at the West Side store is $7.25 an hour, and only two workers are paid that (what’s up with those two guys?). That’s higher than the federal ($5.15) and Illinois ($6.50) mimimum wages, and not too far from the $10 requirement when you consider inflation and the length of the phase-in.
Some might wonder what all the fuss was about. The crux of the issue for retailers wasn’t really pay or benefits or job creation, but the role of government and the principle that it has a part to play in the welfare of workers. From child-labor laws to the 8-hour work day to OSHA regulations, every legislative measure that improves workers’ lives is opposed by at least some business interests on principle, usually with the refrain that it will “cost jobs.” Studies are always on hand to prove that environmental regulations, onerous workplace safety rules, and benefits and wage requirements cost jobs. These studies don’t usually consider the larger societal costs of a minimum wage whose buying power has declined 25 percent over the last 20 years.
Measures like Chicago’s big-box ordinance might be flawed, but they’re a step in the right direction given the vacuum Congress has left on this issue. Agree? Disagree? Give us your take in our retail forum.
It looks like we’re all worn out with this issue – or at least the generally low level at which the debate is conducted.
Just out of curiosity – all you Wal-Mart bashers out there – what are the prevailing wage levels at Nordstrom’s and Bloomingdale’s?
And for each of you who doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart to protest its low pay levels, shouldn’t you make a point of having that info before shopping at any store? Do you tip generously enough to ensure that the guys who bus your tables and deliver your pizzas are taken care of?
I’m glad this discussion appears to have petered out – the stench of preening hyprocisy had become overwhelming.
I agree Joe. And for the record, I stand behind Daley: they are going to set up shop somewhere. It may as well be here. Why let them go places like Evergreen Park and Cicero and drain the residents when they can just come here. What’s more, a job’s a job to the people who really need them.
WoodlawnChuck,
I held many a minimum wage job when I was younger ($1.60 an hour!). What concerns me is that many of our readers seem to think there’s something wrong with having a low-wage job.
They don’t seem to have an appreciation for what we used to call the “dignity of labor” which was nothing more than recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of the people who hold those jobs. There’s an undercurrent of snobbishness in the Wal-Mart discussion that betrays a very undemocratic attitude.
I’ll say this very, very slowly.
I have no problem with a company paying low wages in the abstract. Indeed, in some business models (i.e., those in which the majority of employees are full-time students or otherwise need the job only to supplement their discretionary), it’s probably for the best.
HOWEVER, in Walmart’s case, there are all sorts of externalities that make what they do worse than merely paying low wages to their employees. First, they demand such low prices from their suppliers that ultimately they effectively force the same law wages on these suppliers’ employees, too. Second, they control such a high market share in such a price-sensitive industry that if they can use dirt poor wages to lower their own prices 1-2%, then they can effectively force that on their competitors as well–many of whom (Target, Costco) actually pay a living wage with benefits in the absence of this coersion.
Third, Walmart takes massive advantage of the government subsidized healthcare system. They refuse to offer affordable health plans (http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/09/walmart_elimina.html#more) to their employees, effectively forcing the vast majority of them into Medicaid or worse. This is bad (sometimes catastrophic) for the employees and their families, it’s bad for taxpayers who pick up the slack, and it’s bad for Walmart’s competitors who are forced to either cut healthcare themselves or cede a significant competitive advantage to Walmart. And no, Walmart isn’t the only company that does this–but they are clearly the biggest, they clearly have the most impact, and they are at least arguably the most egregious transgressor.
The thing that probably gets my goat the most is that the response to all of this (all of it undeniable, by the way) is usually “that’s capitalism, and if we don’t let them do it here, they’ll do it somewhere else.” Well, poppycock. They’re playing by the rules that they had a huge hand in writing themselves. The rules should be changed. And while it’s a travesty that we (so far) haven’t been able to change them everywhere, that is no reason to throw up your hands. It’s utterly immoral to allow Walmart to take advantage of the public and the government as they have been allowed to so far, and I don’t want them doing it in any political division in which I am a voting member. And yes, this may mean that Walmart carries through on its threat to blackmail the city, and some city residents lose their low-paying jobs. I don’t care. Sometimes refusing to give in means that the kidnappers shoot the hostages. It’s a shame, and I feel awful for everyone involved–and lord knows it’s easy enough when I’m not one of the hostages–but what is the other option?
Joe –
– You can say it as slow as you want. You’re very passionate about your position on the issue, and that is commendable. However, no amount of passion can ever compensate for an absence of logic. Case in point, in your own words: “And while it’s a travesty that we (so far) haven’t been able to change them everywhere, that is no reason to throw up your hands.”. In fact, that is exactly what you are doing, when you focus your attention on municipalities as a place to wage this battle. Just like the unions, instead of doing the difficult, painstaking and monumental work of continuing to fight this battle where it should be fought – at the national and state level, you have thrown in the towel and decided to place the future of cities (that compete intensely with neighboring suburbs, towns and other cities for jobs, tax revenue, services and amenties) such as Chicago at stake. Well, guess what – many Chicagoans, myself included, are not going to just sit around while well-meaning but ultimately very misguided and economically ignorant folk like yourself would rather roll the dice on the city’s economic and social health. Bottom line – this city needs big business, and big business needs predictability and a fair playing ground. The big box ordinance promoted neither. With his veto, the Mayor nearly guaranteed himself a lifetime of additional votes from me and hundreds of thousands of other Chicagoans who have completed a course in Economics 101 and who wish to not see our city jeopardized by those who have not. This type of union-driven, far-leftist legislative nonsense belongs in cities like Boston or San Francisco, but certainly not in a much more balanced and moderate town like Chicago. Learn this lesson and move on please.
Sam – I agreed with most of what you said, but you definitely lost me on the Boston/San Francisco comment. Just because these cities aren’t nearly as homophobic compared to other areas of our country doesn’t equate to them being “economically ignorant”.