Chicagoist: Making a New Deal

Kevin

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:37:41 -0600

MIKE: All of that is well and good (I am all for jobs, like Wal-Mart and Target going to youth in the community). Unfortunately, these aldermen, and the mayor, are touting Wal-Mart and other big box retail jobs as a solution to chronic unemployment in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in my post, the real solution in wards that are suffering from under employment isn't forcing unions out, depressing wages and benefits even more; if Daley and his henchmen really cared about economics, they would call the building trade unions out on their bullshit, force their hand, and require more access to union cards and better jobs for residents by offering better development projects. Grafting a Wal-Mart into a city neighborhood is hardly a solution to underemployment, and certainly not a ticket to a middle-class future.

MIKE

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:23:53 -0600

THE ONLY THING UNIONS ACCOMPLISHED BY SUPPORTING THESE LESS ATTRACTIVE CANDIDATE WAS TO KEEP THE POOR WARDS POOR BY RUNNING BIG BOX RETAILERS OUT OF A COMMUNITY IN DEPERATE NEED OF JOBS, WAL-MART JOBS ARE DESIGNED FOR YOUTH, NOT A CAREER, AND THE UNIONS KNOW THIS!!!!!!!!!

Kevin

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:59:55 -0600

The problem with the "Social Darwinism" concept, and really the entire economic model of production moving to the lowest bidder (be it lax environmental oversight, weak labor laws, or low taxes) is that is relegates people to simply being "economic man". While it's true that businesses need to turn a profit, and the people that put up the risk and funding for a business venture, and put in the time and effort operate the business have a reasonable expectation to see a return on their investment, this entire model is predicated getting the maximum return on that investment at the expense of everything else. Even when a businessperson wants to do something moral, and put his or her money back into the community, this kind of anti-union pro-business method puts those business people at a competitive disadvantage. Having to choose between making a living by doing something you don't agree with and going out of business is a pretty shitty option. Getting back to my original point, however, these aldermen that are renouncing the labor movement in a bid to retain their waning power in their wards completely negates the work that the labor movement has done, not only in Chicago, but around the nation, to bring equality and social justice to the workplace and the community. As I noted above, while the building trades unions haven't really been the vanguard of progressive politics, certainly the industrial and service-sector unions have. The UAW, the Steelworkers, the Meatpackers, SEIU, and many others have historically fought for racial, economic, and gender equality and justice, not only at work, but also in the community. People like Cardenas, Tillman, Coleman, and Haithcock would be well-advised to remember those lessons, as the people they are trying to get to vote for them wouldn't have the opportunity to vote for them, or to choose to live in those wards without the past gains of the labor movement. Asking their constituency to choose between Wal-Mart or no job is a bogus and cynical choice, and people that live in those wards, as well as the rest of the city should be mightily pissed off that they aren't being given the choice to work in a factory, office, or on a construction site rebuilding and renovating their own community.

Mikey

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:44:26 -0600

Darwinism is not only in nature, but all aspects of life. That's your opinion. I think most people prefer to live their lives in a manner defined by ways other than "kill or be killed" or "survival of the fittest." And I think given the opportunity, most people would choose to help the down-and-out and less fortunate than they... Or maybe I'm just a soft, naive sap. But I'm doing just fine in this life, and I didn't have to step on anyone's fingers on the way up the ladder to get there...

dm

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:05:18 -0600

who said life was fair ? Darwinism is not only in nature, but all aspects of life.

Mikey

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:55:51 -0600

And regarding Wal-Mart and forcing them to pay a "living wage", it is not my fault those people chose not to take advantage of the educational opportunities afforded to all americans (and illegals too) and are now trying to scramble to support a family on Wal Mart wages. Wal mart jobs are not intended to support a family. If you cannot make it in this world, shame on you. Spoken like a true trust fund baby...

notfrommichigan

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:39:01 -0600

The unions aren't effective anymore for a reason. Cheap labor. I am not in favor of the big boxes any more than any union members, but the fact is, the genie is out of the bottle and the Targets and Wal-Marts of the World will take their business elsewhere. The city needs to take advantage of this. They're also willing to go into blighted areas on the South and West Sides, which is cost-prohibitive for all businesses, save for the guy who has the corner store and charges you 75 cents on a 25 cent of Flaming Hot Cheetos. The gap between CEO and common man is no different than the days of when the unuons were mobbed up (they still are today, but to a lesser extent). The unions like Carpenters, Electricians, et al, basically all in the construction business, are being wiped by immigrants (and others) who will do the job for dimes on the dollar. They don't require the health benefits or oversight of OCHA-related issues like safety, breaks, et al. Basically, if an immigrant (illegal) is injured or dies on the job, they are much easier to dispose of. They're either lost or the person over-seeing a site can just say "okay, well, come back when you're ready to work." The guy either comes back out of the sheer need for immediate survival, or he sits at home and doesn't work. If he opts for the latter, he is not going to the hospital or anywhere else that he has even the slightest chance of being picked up and deported. The biggest problem in all of this is the legal system and by that, I am not saying "deport every one of these illegal motherfuckers." It's the legal system which allows frivelous lawsuits that drive up the cost of healthcare, which in turn, make people who have an option to say "I will use an alternative to union help." It's simply cost-prohibitive to supply benefits for 90% of the businesses in this country. If Wal-Mart starts proving benefits, their whole business model runs into the red (ink). I really wish we lived in a more simpler time when CEO's were CEO's, but didn't squander the life out of a workforce living so frugally that they are so fearful of losing their jobs. But let's face it, lawsuits are a big contributor to corporate greed and until they stop, we will lose our best doctors to the cost of malpractice insurance, we'll lose our best jobs to those overseas (irreversible at this point, if you ask me) and health benefits will be a thing of the past, causing a catostrophic series of events that may actually cause a collapse of our economy and reform in the favor of a shitty, third-rate socialized form of medicine we hear people in Canada and the UK griping about. Unfortunately, our socialized health-care system will be worse because, hey, we're Americans and we've been asleep at the wheel for the last half-Century, what's the point in waking up now?

notfrommichigan

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:34:15 -0600

dm

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:17:56 -0600

Unions are killing the economy. It makes no sense to pay a man $30 and hour to dig a hole in the ground or to turn a screw on an assembly line. And regarding Wal-Mart and forcing them to pay a "living wage", it is not my fault those people chose not to take advantage of the educational opportunities afforded to all americans (and illegals too) and are now trying to scramble to support a family on Wal Mart wages. Wal mart jobs are not intended to support a family. If you cannot make it in this world, shame on you.

bush is the greatest amerikan

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:54:20 -0600

Yes that’s a big phrase us Bush loving 4th generation republican multi millionaires born on third base that know we hit a triple. We don’t have to know it all, all we have to do is be able to hire accountants and lawyers to count our trust fun money for us. Thank god for the Regan’s and the Bush’s. We had a few million but now with the tax cuts and our oil company stock we have a lot more and we don’t feel sorry for the rest of you all. Once you get to our status you will become part of the Republican club, well if you are smart enough and we let you in. Until then you will be working for our high dollar accountants and lawyers bitching about how much you don’t have while we are trying to figure out what the Cubs is really worth and not pay too much so we don’t have to use all of Grandads money he left us for our simple life.

bike messenger

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:22:42 -0600

ad-homiwhat?? if you could dumb it down a tad, that'd be great.

navin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:40:58 -0600

Remember a million dollars isn't what it used to be. It's nothing to be a millionaire today. I am sure it is hard for you bike messengers to figure that out on your salary. Yep, a sweeping, nonsensical generalization / ad hominem attack always follows the incoherent argument.

Alex

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:36:47 -0600

No worries. When the pendulum finishes swinging back the other way -- when the bulk of the worforce is pulling 16-hour days alongside their children, in unsafe conditions, for starvation wages, unions will become "effective" again.

unions no longer effective

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:34:28 -0600

Well as long as shareholders keep investing in these companies and don't act up about the CEO/Exec pay then it will continue. If you don't like what a ceo is getting paid don't invest in the company. No one holds a gun to your head to force you to invest in a company. The Ford family themselves have lost 500 plus million over the last few years btw. No I don't have time to read these damn blogs closely or pay that much attention to my writing because I have good job that is far more important than everyone on this damn blog bitching about Chicago and Chicoago politics. You are probable the same ones that never vote or are so far left or rigth on issues no one hears you.

Mikey

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:48:20 -0600

Remember a million dollars isn't what it used to be. It's nothing to be a millionaire today. I am sure it is hard for you bike messengers to figure that out on your salary. It's not the dollar amounts that are necessarily the problem, so much as the ever-widening gap between CEO and employee salaries (not to mention the disservice to shareholders). I thought that was made fairly obvious by the Forbes and Business Week excerpts I referenced above, but then I should have remembered that you should write for the lowest common denominator whenever you post in a public forum...

unions no longer effective

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:19:53 -0600

You don't see anything wrong with this, "unions no longer effective"? If unions were sucessful then you won't have the divid between the CEO and common workers. Unions haven't been effective since the days of them being completely mobbed up. Remember a million dollars isn't what it used to be. It's nothing to be a millionaire today. I am sure it is hard for you bike messengers to figure that out on your salary.

Mikey

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:06:30 -0600

...so anyone with a business brain is not to shocked at 24 million. I'm not shocked, just disgusted that any CEO makes that kind of money... From a Forbes magazine article dated 10/13/05: Over the past two decades, we've seen an increasing disparity between the interests of C-suite executives and the companies they lead. In the early 1990s, chief executive officer salaries averaged 85 times that of the average blue-collar worker, and by the end of the decade, CEO salaries had increased to 475 times that of the average blue-collar worker. The lack of alignment between executive compensation packages with the company's long-term best interests has become increasingly evident and engendered a great deal of acrimony--and even legal action... and from an about.com article on management: According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker... You don't see anything wrong with this, "unions no longer effective"?

scorekeeper

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:25:05 -0600

Isn't brookins' wife the realtor for a bunch of the new housing going in to his ward? And didn't Chicago Tonight mention that the new housing is way too expensive for most of the existing residents when Brookins was on this week?

scorekeeper

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:17:07 -0600

NSH

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:59:24 -0600

Paul makes a great point, especially in Howard Brookins' ward where he is BOTH a developer and alderman.

unions no longer effective

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:59:06 -0600

hey all you union workers get back to work quit blogging btw- the ford ceo gave up compensation to come from Boeing so anyone with a business brain is not to shocked at 24 million.

Paul or the Giant Rabbit

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:43:56 -0600

These particular alderhumans apparently have no shame. It's "outrageous" that unions should fund their opponents - for reasons absolutely related to an ordinance they voted against - but it's perfectly fine for them to take as much money as they can from developers, who generally have to get their individual permission to operate in their wards. I'd rather see the union contributions encouraged, and the developer contributions banned outright.

Ferdy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:37:36 -0600

And wages have stagnated. Union busters like Reagan made unions "no longer effective." Well, the worm has turned.

Chris

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:16:37 -0600

Anyone see the 3rd ward debate last night on Chicago Tonight? The Hat came off as just plain crazy... I know she must have been talking about her "team", but it really seemed she was eschewing the singular in favor of the royal "we". Unions no longer: Oh, companies treat their employees better now... I see... that's why all those union employees are leaving in droves to take jobs at Walmart.

navin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:09:18 -0600

Yeah exactly, that and the whole ugly ass oversized cars with poor design thing. But sure it's the unions if that works for you 'union no longer effective'.

Mikey

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:19:39 -0600

...or that Ford, after coming off their worst loss in history leading to imminent plant closings and mass layoffs, still managed to pay their new CEO $24,000,000 for his first 4 months on the job...

Kevin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:01:35 -0600

union no longer effective: I thought GM and Ford's biggest problem was that they made cars nobody wanted to buy?

jerry 101

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:57:54 -0600

So, I assume that these same aldermen are going to clean up the big corporate and developer contributions that are mucking up city hall far more than the union money, right? Union money has meant a good thing this time around. Change. New aldermen. I don't hear a peep out of city hall over the underhandedness of Walmart dropping $100,000 into the incumbency protection racket's accounts. Or all the developer money. The money that big developers pay aldermen like Matlak to get those oh-so-desireable zoning variances so that they can put up 50 foot tall 3 flat towers in residential neighborhoods, crowding out the long standing, and much shorter, existing 3 flats. This bill is all about protecting the incumbents. Putting a stop to Democracy. They're scared of losing their jobs, so they want to stamp out the only large-scale, organized opposition in the City. Its strange that in a city controlled by Democrats, that unions are the force for change, and they've got to fight big business's influence. You'd almost think that the Mayor and the city council was run by Republicans. Well, really it is. They just don't call themselves that.

union no longer effective

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:54:51 -0600

Unions are no longer effective in this country and are driving growth for non union companies such as Toyota. Most companies today treat their employees better than Unions do in order to stay competetive and attrack a good workforce. Right now GM, Ford and Chryslers biggest problem in building and selling cars is the union contracts that they can't break in order to become competitive with Honda and Toyota. In the end these companies with fail because of the unions.

matty

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:42:19 -0600

It's a hard decision. On the one hand unions provide an essential service for workers - particularly SEIU which employes thousands of hispanic workers in the service sector - on the other hand they keep costs high for development and and have strong arming tactics that can hurt economic development. Still, this seems to all be a backlash from the unions not supporting daley during his campaign (not that he needed it) and the unions are now being supplanted by walmart who according to an article posted here has been giving 100k donations to daley supported candidates. In the end, if I had to choose wal-mart or a union i would always support the union.