In a column posted here yesterday, Amisha Patel recounted the 2006 effort to pass a City Council ordinance requiring Chicago's "big box" retailers to pay a living wage. The measure was ultimately vetoed by Mayor Daley, but as Patel notes, the widespread mobilization around the issue nonetheless spurred "tremendous change," including a statewide minimum wage hike and an electoral backlash against many aldermen who had opposed the ordinance.
Now we have more evidence of the living wage movement's ongoing effect on local policy.
Last Friday, City of Chicago Planning and Development Commissioner Arnold Randall rejected Wal-Mart's request for approval of a second store in the Chatham neighborhood on the South Side. Because of special zoning laws written in 2004, Wal-Mart-sized retailers require city approval before development can begin. In his statement criticizing Randall's decision, 21st Ward Alderman Howard Brookins helpfully spelled out the subtext of this decision: the city doesn't want another fight with the living wage movement. From the Sun-Times:
Brookins accused Mayor Daley of ducking the issue to avoid alienating unions that spent millions to elect a City Council more independent of the mayor.
“You would think that, given the state of the economy, we would welcome 500 new jobs to Chicago. Instead, we’re pushing ’em away because nobody wants to take the heat from certain unions that still have issues with Wal-Mart,” he said.
Following Randall's decision, Brookins and Wal-Mart must decide whether they want to take the proposal to the City Council, where they'll now face even stronger opposition.
But having reached this point, perhaps they'll realize there's another option: to simply raise their wages.
Post new comment