Target says forget it to Chicago. We ain't going to pay a living wage here

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bigbox03.ht...

Boxed out: Target says forget it
August 3, 2006

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter


Chicago's controversial big- box ordinance has produced its first casualty: Target has pulled out of a 32-acre shopping mall at 119th and Marshfield and will likely cut and run from the North Side's Wilson Yards project as well, city officials said Wednesday.

Target's decision to follow through on its threat to avoid Chicago comes just one week after a bitterly divided City Council defied Daley by requiring retailing giants to pay their employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.

At 119th and Marshfield, Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) was counting on Target to anchor a development that has already nailed down a $23 million city subsidy.


Buh, bye, Target. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. I will shop at Wal-Mart if they hang around here and abide with the new ordinance. If they don't I will shop elsewhere.

[gorbal]

1. Hmmm I was under the weird impression that Taget paid people well

I guess the people who work there look like they are paid better. Oh well, Chicago is a great city that can do well enough without them

[ixion]

2. retail doesn't pay squat... and 'mega' retail

is even, uh, squatier, so to speak.

[rpannier]

3. That's the thing.

Cities like Chicago, San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles don't need stores like target. They can attract real stores that pay real money.

***Screw Target***

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Target's progressive rep is undeserved.

They've contributed plenty to Gooper campaigns. I think they picked up some leftish sympathies a couple years back when they stopped allowing the Salvation Army to fundraise on their premises... the sympathies arose when some religious righties gave Target hell for it, threatened to boycott, yadda yadda.

But mostly Target's just another corporate giant, and as evidenced by this latest thuggishness, no real friend of ours.

[mod mom]

4. Wow maybe this should be used as a strategy to rid the country of these

big box retailers who drive out small businesses. All we have to do is have cities/municipalities pass living wage requirements.

[Sherman A1]

8. Perhaps

A bit more complex than that, but this is a huge start. I will be used by the those that oppose a minimum wage hike as an example of "I told ya so" , but that's just plain false. Target pulled out because they are just like Wal Mart with cleaner stores. One bets that the store managers and upper echelon's make more than the "living wage". It's all about screwing the folks at the bottom to make their numbers.

[Sammy Pepys]

19. Sure..

..but clearly you can see the consequences associated with that.

[HereSince1628]

6. Let them show what they are made of.

They're free to make that choice. It would never have come to this if they weren't so friggin greedy.

[kysrsoze]

17. Time to stop shopping at the Elston, Addison and Roosevelt Stores

With the business those stores pull in, I think Target is shooting themselves in the foot by pulling out of new developments. I guess no profit is better than less to them. I'll continue to shop at Costco instead.

[marions ghost]

7. Does anybody know

if this is a precedent?

Congratulations to the Chicago City Council for their vision and humanity. This makes good business sense also and will create a healthier city in many ways. Rather than letting an exploitative situation continue unchallenged, they have taken a stand against big box slavery. Loss of Target is no loss in this case.

[Cobalt Violet]

9. If they can't do business without slave wages ....

Then they shouldn't be in business.

[dogfacedboy]

12. Exactly.

It's always my stance that if a business can't pay a decent wage, they need to run a better business.

Some people don't understand a very simple concept-- While one has every right in the US to make a go of it in business, and to TRY to succeed, nobody has the right to guaranteed success.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. Dupe.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Goodbye, Target. Who cares about your stuff, anyway?

Nothing you have can't be bought elsewhere.

[the observationist]

13. Good grief people

I have a family member that works at Target and she makes about $14 per hour. She lives in a small town in Iowa and she also has health insurance through their program.

Why would Target pay $10 an hour to an employee that doesn't show up on time and is generally unreliable? That doesn't make any business sense. These huge retailers are businesses that have to look at the bottom line. You start people out at a lower wage until they can prove themselves. If an employee works hard and is dedicated to the company then you increase their pay and benefits.

Most employees are lazy and the City of Chicago is going to run retailers out of town. Good for them I guess, but in my city if Wal-Mart and Target were thrown out I really don't know where I'd buy my consumables.

So Congratulations Chicago. Good job in screwing the people once again. You gotta love politicians and their stupidity.

[Gato Moteado]

14. huh?

your post is bizarre in so many ways.

but, regarding your comment about how if "walmart and target were thrown out of town you don't know where you'd buy your consumables": how about shopping at locally owned businesses? chicago won't suffer without trash like walmart and target. in fact, the small businesses will prosper.

[zalinda]

16. You need to take a look at Costco

They start at $10 an hour. If you pay low wages, you will get low wage employees. If you pay better wages, you get better employees. Come on........haven't you bought a cheap toaster and it lasts only a year, but buy a better one and it lasts longer?

This is what some people don't understand, these "stores" treat people as they are disposable. My son worked for JC Penney, and saw and overheard it. He worked parcel pickup, so he was invisible to most people. He only worked "full time" for a couple of months, then they started to cut his hours to where he was 2 hours under "full time", so he couldn't get any benefits, and there wasn't much to begin with. This was a person who was never late, and was only sick once where he couldn't go to work. They gave him hours where he couldn't take the bus (his shift ended after the last bus left the mall). They would change his hours or days, so he couldn't even look for a second job. Then they "fired" him. Well, corporate decided to close his department. They offered him 20 hours a week, janitorial.

These stores complain that their workers don't work, but then they treat them like shit and expect them to be loyal. I am campaigning to get a Costco here in CNY. I've seen what these chains have done here, and it makes me sick.

Pep Boys bought an art deco theater, tore it down, put a mom & pop auto parts store that was across the street (and had been there for 25 years)out of business. And within less than 2 years the ugly cement box that they built is empty and they moved on.

zalinda

[Lance_Boyle]

18. 'Most employees are lazy'

That's a fascinating observation.

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. I'm a retail manager, and your post is bunk.

"Why would Target pay $10 an hour to an employee that doesn't show up on time and is generally unreliable?"

First of all, paying people under $10 does not make them automatically unreliable. I know. Most of my staff gets paid under $10. However, if we paid more, we might be able to get more qualified and dedicated workers.

"You start people out at a lower wage until they can prove themselves."

At my big box company, employees who start out at $8 and prove themselves are eligible for a raise of up to 5% once a year. At that rate, it would be three years before an excellent employee makes $10. True, there might be a promotion, but very few people in upper management are getting fired or quitting.

"Most employees are lazy and the City of Chicago is going to run retailers out of town."

I don't even know where to start with this. My employees are not lazy. They're young, hard-working, and they have to deal with people who have attitudes like yours all day long.

"Good for them I guess, but in my city if Wal-Mart and Target were thrown out I really don't know where I'd buy my consumables."

Maybe a small business, where you might have to pay a little more, but you get better service and the money you spend actually goes back into the community?

"You gotta love politicians and their stupidity."

I've seen a lot of stupidity, and I have to admit, I'm not a fan of it.

[sendero]

15. One thing I don't get...

... if there is a city ordinance, EVERYONE has to pay the new wage. There is no real competitive disadvantage here, everyone just raises their prices a couple percent and done deal.

Sounds to me like a company throwing a temper tantrum hoping to fend of this sort of legislation in other areas.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Only the "big box" stores are covered by the ordinance....

Other retailers are free to offer smaller salaries & fewer benefits.

[sendero]

24. Yes...

... but wouldn't it be fair to say that the big boxes are competing with each other and not with the mom and pops?

There is really no way for a small retailer to compete with the big box stores, for reasons that are pretty obvious.

[warrens]

22. Not everyone...only big box stores

Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and the large department stores are affected. I'm surprised at Target; they probably pay that much anyway. I think their point is that they shouldn't be discriminated against. But $10 an hour in Chicago is basic starting pay, give or take a buck. The City Council here is getting out of control; it's unfair that Target should have to pay a certain wage, while a smaller store only has to pay the Illinois minimum wage, which I think is about $6.15. I have no idea how someone could live on that, but I guess high school kids or kids still living at home could get by.

[AngryAmish]

23. Not everyone has to pay the wage

Just big box retailers with over 9000 or 90000 (I forget) square feet of store plus so many billions in sales.

Dollar stores are not effected nor are grocery stores.

I am opposed to this ordinance.

The primary reason is that more people shop at these stores than work there. People get more stuff cheaper. The Super Walmarts have driven down grocery prices in every market they enter.

In many disadvantaged neighborhoods the residents and the aldermen both wanted the stores. Why? The grocery stores in many poor neighborhoods are terrible if they exist at all. Corner groceries and convenience stores are more expensive than a regular supermarket. If a resident has to drive out to the burbs the extra gas is a hidden tax on disadvantaged people. There was an article recently called "The Hidden Cost of Poverty" that points out this very fact.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. It Won't Last

They will not concede that large a market share to other stores because of a couple dollars per hour for clerks and cashiers. Target will have their bluff called, and they'll open new stores in Chicago, just like everyone else.
The Professor