If a Chicago Wal-Mart is the lesser of two evils…
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
… then how abysmal must the other be? That’s the question City Hall and citizens alike find themselves facing after Mayor Daley re-opened a bitter debate today over whether mega-chain Wal-Mart can expand its presence in Chicago–a highly controversial issue, given the city’s historic roots as a union stronghold.
Citing the need for job creation, Daley “called on aldermen, union leaders and Wal-Mart to broker an agreement that would pave the way for a major Chicago expansion by the world’s largest retailer,” according to an article in today’s Sun-Times:
“I understand that, by discussing the issue, I’m raising a political hot potato,” Daley said, recalling the millions spent by organized labor in 2007 to elect aldermen opposed to Wal-Mart expansion.
But the mayor said today’s economic climate is “completely different” from three or four years ago.
“People are getting laid off,” Daley said. “There’s no future jobs. People can’t get jobs. They’re not only being laid off, they’re being eliminated out of their companies. So I’m calling upon everyone — both the aldermen, the community, all the unions involved and Wal-Mart — to sit down and come up with some common ground as quickly as possible.”
via Mayor Daley reopens debate on Wal-Mart :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State.
No crap, this is a “hot potato,” and one to watch at that–who knows if a successful Chicago expansion could give steam to Wal-Mart’s campaign to build stores in big cities like New York and Boston that don’t currently have them. To catch you up to speed on Chicago’s apparent mayoral flip-flop on the Wal-Mart issue (Daley sidelined the issue while Chicago was running for host-city designation for the 2016 Olympics, when labor unions were a much-needed ally) here’s a snapshot of the debate when it was raging here this summer:
Make no mistake: At least in Chicago, the driving issue isn’t mere queasiness at Wal-Mart’s reputation (which let’s admit, isn’t so stellar anyway thanks to documentaries like this). Instead, the battle for a Chicago Wal-Mart is a clash of titans, pitting organized labor in this vehemently pro-union town against South Siders (many of whom flee to nearby suburban Wal-Marts anyway) desperate for jobs and economic development in their own community. And let’s not forget about the politicians looking to swell city tax coffers by placing a mega-store within city limits.
Now, I’ve got my fair share of biases when it comes to Wal-Mart–after all, I grew up in one of those Western locales where the word “Wal-Mart” is more often than not prefaced with an honorary “the,” and bored teenagers spend as much time there hanging out with friends and playing free demos of Guitar Hero as they do shopping.
So T/S readers, I want your take. In Wal-Mart’s Chicago showdown, what should prevail? Should unemployment and economic development in an area infamous for its “grocery deserts” take precedence over the right to organize? Would allowing Wal-Mart in Chicago set the city’s workers down a slippery slope towards below-living wages, or is a sub-par wage better than none at all?
If there’s one thing I know I can rely on T/S readers for, it’s smart viewpoints and productive conversation. Message me in the comments section, and let’s get one going.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wal Mart, LeeAnn Maton. LeeAnn Maton said: If a Chicago Wal-Mart is the lesser of two evils… http://tinyurl.com/ydr8fzw @trueslant [...]
hi!
yes, things are really crappy in the economy right now. yes, many many many people are looking for jobs. yes, something needs to change. i don’t think, however, that walmart is the answer. the jobs people are generally looking for are ones that can lead to some sort of advancement: the opportunity for promotions, job stability, health insurance, child care, and flex time are all things that people fight for that walmart is not known for giving. additionally, chicago needs to consider how a walmart will impact the overall environment. where the store is actually located, who is hired to build it, what local leaders think, and what will be sacrificed in order to build the store will impact how much harm or help it can do.
i personally dislike walmart. i also personally believe in the advancement of people. but one super-store is not going to end poverty and joblessness. almost all the systems in chicago and illinois need to be revamped in order to truely solve anything.
If Target and Home Depot and Best Buy and Barnes and Noble can plant themselves all around the city, why not? Certainly, if there are city laws that Wal-Mart’s corporate policies violate, they should be required to change the policies.
On the other hand, why isn’t a Target or K-Mart opening in a place where a Wal-Mart might otherwise go? If it means Wal-Mart will only be willing to move in if it’s permitted to screw its employees, and Target and K-Mart have long ago agreed not to, it seems like a non-starter for Wal-Mart. But if a Target isn’t filling that gap, it just sounds like a poor business decision on their part.
And let’s not forget that Target, Kmart and Walmart all pay pretty much the same wages and Walmart actually has more benefits than the other two.
I think lesser of two evils is just about right. The truth is, the ability to choose not to shop at Walmart is a luxury that those of us who have jobs, transportation and other options can afford. Alderman Brookins has tried hard to get other corporations in that shopping center to no avail. Try telling the jobless in Chatham that a job is not good enough, when they’re relying on welfare and foodstamps to feed their family. It’d be nice if we could all shop at Whole Foods and work in pretty offices, but many communities have more basic needs.
That being said, we should be on Walmart like a duck on a June bug about treating their workers right.
At the end of the day, this clash of the titans shouldn’t be political – it’s about jobs and eradicating Chicago’s south side food desert.
I get that unions have their own job to do – increase membership. And the non-union Walmart is the crown jewel of that mission. But if there was ever a time to put people ahead of power, it’s now.
For those who really want to see how Walmart impacts the local economy, workers, etc., they can look no farther than Chicago’s west side Walmart.
Visit the store and you’ll see the workers are happy. Competitor stores, restaurants, banks and pharmacies have popped up in what was once an economically depressed neighborhood. The average wage is nearly $11 an hour! and all employees – part time & full time – have access to healthcare.
And all this is bad for Chicago.. how, exactly?
What about the impact of surrounding communities? IIRC Chicago metro sales taxes are the highest in the USA? Also, didn’t the last failed Walmart attempt within Chicago city limits end up just being built in a nearby suburb?