http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_ ... iving_wage


CHICAGO - Mayor Richard Daley vetoed an ordinance Monday that would have required mega-retailers to pay their workers more than other employers after some of the nation's largest stores including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warned the measure would keep them from opening their doors within the city's limits.

Supporters said the measure would guarantee employees a "living wage," but in a letter to City Council members released Monday, Daley said the ordinance would drive businesses from the city.

"I understand and share a desire to ensure that everyone who works in the city of Chicago earns a decent wage," Daley wrote. "But I do not believe that this ordinance, well intentioned as it may be, would achieve that end."

The ordinance was approved by the council in late July and requires so-called "big box" stores to pay workers at least $10 an hour plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The rules would only apply to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.

The minimum wage in Illinois is $6.50 an hour and the federal minimum is $5.15.

Chicago has been at the epicenter of a debate about the wages at large retailers ever since the city rejected a proposal by Wal-Mart to open a store on the South Side, prompting the company to open a store just outside the city limits.

Monday's veto — the first-ever for Daley in his 17 years as mayor — will like set up a showdown during Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting.

It takes 34 votes to override a mayoral veto. The measure passed 35-14, but some aldermen have since indicated they might be open to changing their votes and acting against the ordinance.

**********
Yay for Chicago! Boo to artificial inflation and wage control!

You can't really raise a family of twelve aspiring rappers on $10/hour any more than you can $6/hour.

that was gold

It's true though. How the fuck can someone live on $10/hr unless they are single with a 1 bedroom apartment and a 1994 geo prizm?

I don't understand why you would raise the wage on some employers, but not others.

If you work at Wal-Mart, you can't live on $6 an hour, but if you work for Jimmy's Chicken Shack ... surely you can do it.

This was my first thought.

This ordinance was preposterous to begin with. The alderman who passed it were pandering to the electorate because, on paper, it sounds like a great idea. After all, the likes of Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target are multi-billion-dollar corporations that can afford to pay their employees more than the federal minimum wage.

What they don't consider is:

(1) the State of Illinois already had a minimum wage law that is higher than the federal minimum wage;
(2) they are selecting businesses that must comply while exempting others;
(3) these businesses are sorely needed in the neighborhoods with the very people that they would affect the most. The South-side of Chicago needs a Wal-Mart. The people there shouldn't have to travel 15 miles to the suburbs to buy things that are offered at cheaper prices. Also, these businesses provide on average 1,500 jobs to the communities that they serve.

With this stupid law, these businesses won't build in Chicago. Right now there are zero Wal-Marts open in Chicago. Why, because of retarded labor laws such as this one.

Peeps?

As an effort to not completely fuck over the small businesses who cannot afford it.

Can I chime in for him?

If so, here's my solution: raise the federal or state minimum wage. Don't tax private businesses to compensate for the government's inaction.

So you consider businesses that have $999 million in annual revenue "small businesses that can't afford it?"

Gotta draw the line somewhere I suppose.

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to exist in this country."
- Franklin Roosevelt

Interesting tidbit (off topic) about FDR was his use of Hoover's own economic plans to help combat the depression. In the 1932 election, the Roosevelt camp charged Hoover with leading the country down the path of socialism. Then, once in power, FDR's administration instituted the most socialist policies America had ever seen up until that point. FDR was a great leader in many ways, but he was an even more adept politician.

Well sorry, but FDR is pretty dead fucking wrong in this case. Market-based salary, not government mandated salary.

Are you serious? You do realize that we have a Federal minimum wage, don't you?

As far as what FDR was driving at - I couldn't agree more. People who work 40 hour/week jobs should be able to survive on a minimum salary, and 5.15 per hour is a joke. What complicates the matter is that the cost of living in one area of the country is different from another. That being said, I'm sure that economists could come up with a solid figure for a living wage (which is far from the present Federal minimum wage...the latter now being thousands below the poverty line).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Federal government should force companies to pay people $20/hour so everyone can have a plasma tv....but the fact that so many people in this country have to work 60-80 hours per week (and that's single people, no dependants) just to have such things as health insurance and heat is a disgrace. But then again this is why nothing has been done about illegal immigration - companies love that cheap labor.
What gets me the most is that our congress has seen it's salary (described as an annual "cost of living" increase in the legislation passed about 10 years ago) jump 30% since the last time the Federal minimum wage was increased. I think its safe to say there is a disconnect there - don't force companies to pay a living wage, but justify the need for an increase in your own salary.

Completely.








Government instituted wage control only leads to inflation. It's a vicious cycle. You pay people $15 an hour to work at 7-11 and suddenly a bottle of Coke costs $3.
I feel our Senators and legislators are ridiculously underpaid, btw.

"No worker who depends upon getting a living wage to obtain food and shelter has any right to exist in this country."
-Eric