Target threatens to close Chicago stores if wage proposal passes

[conflictgirl]

I guess big box retailers don't take kindly to being required to pay a living wage to their employees...

CHICAGO -- Target Stores is threatening to close all of its stores here if City Council passes a proposed new minimum wage ordinance.

The ordinance, which could force big box retailers like Target and Wal-Mart to pay employees at least $10 an hour plus $3 an hour for benefits, is expected to be voted on at a July 26 City Council meeting. It would apply to stores with at least 90,000-square-feet and annual sales of $1 billion across all operations.

If passed, a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour plus $1.50 an hour in benefits would take effect on July 1, 2007, with increases every year until 2010. A $10 wage and $3 benefit minimum would become effective then, after which annual cost-of-living increases would apply.

http://www.progressivegrocer.com/progressivegrocer/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002840924

[gratuitous]

1. Target's usually one of the gooder guys

I know that they give a portion of their profits to local schools (shoppers can designate who they want the profit from their purchases to go to), and are involved in a lot of community building events. Surprising to me that they'd make such a threat rather than working with the Chicago city government to work something out.

[conflictgirl]

10. That's what I thought too.

I usually shop at Target because I've always viewed them as better than Walmart. I'm disappointed by this.

[Lefty-Taylor]

14. You're right, and I was surprised too. But

"gooder"???? (smiling)

[gratuitous]

17. Avoid some argument

I figured that if Target had some skeletons clattering around in its corporate closet, someone would be sure to take exception to characterizing them as "good guys" (Rule 37 at DU: Always argue*). By call them one of the "gooder" guys, I figured I would short-circuit that argument. I, of course, failed.

*No, "always argue" is rule number 1 gratuitous, you jackass!

[Lefty-Taylor]

36. Well, what an eloquent reply to my harmless, teasing remark. Very classy.

[Straight Shooter]

37. gratuitous was making a very tongue-in-cheek self-deprecating comment.

Read it again. There was nothing offensive aimed at you. gratuitous is one of the well-known "gooder" guys on DU.

Welcome to DU.

[Lefty-Taylor]

38. You're right. Thanks. And for the record,

I've been on DU, under a different name, for years. But thanks for the welcome. It's always "gooder" to welcome than not to welcome. :)

[SharonAnn]

41. Maybe the phrase should be "less bad"?

[HopeFor2006]

39. Target is strongly anti-union. EOM

[mopinko]

55. some of target's "charity"

i know that one part of their "charitable giving" consists of donating unsellable stock to salvation army. so, instead of sullying their stores with clearance racks, they give it away.
the school thing is mostly a gimmick to get people to use their credit cards. not that it doesn't go to a good cause, but they get a big benefit from it as well.

[Skink]

2. What about Walmart?

Or are they not in that market?

[XNASA]

6. There are no Walmarts in Chicago.

There are in the suburbs, but not in the city.

[Susang]

57. Not for long, pookie

You're behind in your news. They're opening a store on the west side later this year.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html
http://walmartwatch.com/reports/shameless/shameless_chicago

Then there's this Wal Mart, one block outside the city limits in Evergreen Park: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html

[ladjf]

3. That's the oldest business threat there is. Call their bluff. If they

are willing to close their doors over this, they are on the verge of going out of business anyway. Nothing to lose.

[redqueen]

22. Exactly!

Which side are you on?

[ladjf]

33. I'm on the side of the hard working people who are so fatigued

that they scarcely have time or energy to think. I want those middle and lower income people to have the best wages possible and to have some free time in order to develop their quality of life.

I want good businesses to make a profit from their efforts and risks. I just don't want them to be as greedy as what I am seeing all over the world from business leaders. The CEOs are particularly greedy with their compensation packages.

[redqueen]

34. oops... not really a question

was only echoing the labor rallying cry :)

[ladjf]

35. Oh well. It gave me an opportunity to make my rant on that subject.

[HopeFor2006]

40. They are on the verge of going out of business?

I believe that statement is inaccurate.

[kysrsoze]

53. The Target on Elston Ave is probably one of the busiest in the nation

They get an obscene amount of customers all day. I think they can afford to pay higher wages, considering all the cheaply made Chinese crap they're selling.

[napi21]

4. Idle threat IMO! I don't know how many stores are there, nor

how many employees they currently have making under $10.00, but I can't believe Target would give up the profits to their stores just because of a demand for a slight increase in wages! It costs a LOT to close down a store!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

15. I don't exactly side with Target on this one

However, it should be noted that this is NOT a "slight increase" in wages. I'm not sure what Target pays their employees, but when the federal minimum wage is still $5.15/hr, of course businesses will leave if you make them pay $13/hr. That's nearly triple what they would pay anywhere wlse in the country (even just a 1/4 mile down the road in some parts of the suburban hell that rings Chicago.)

The real problem here is that the federal Congress is doing absolutely nothing to keep the minimum wage in line with a living wage. If the federal minimum were more like $8 or $9/hr (which is where I feel it should be), then the raise up to $13 probably wouldn't be that big of an issue for Target.

[conflictgirl]

16. Minimum wage is $6.50/hr in Illinois, I think.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

23. Still, I think my point is valid

The proposal is still requiring them to more than double the salaries for all their employees. (On edit: or those making the minimum, anyway).

[bluestateguy]

5. They're bluffing

In any event, if Target does not want to obey the law in exchange for the privilege of doing business in the city then they can go elsewhere.

[iconoclastic cat]

7. Call their bluff. Target just recently built a bunch of new stores,

and they haven't opened yet. No f'ing way do they pull out.

[msongs]

8. these wage laws should apply to everybody...or nobody

either this wage is needed for people to live or it's not. penalizing one set of businesses at the expense of the other is not so good.

AND it also tells people who work at smaller companies paying less that they are not as deserving.

msongs
www.msongs.com/demfest1.htm

[conflictgirl]

12. I think the argument is that big box stores are better able to afford it.

Also, I would guess that in the city, there are probably more employees at big box type stores than small retailers.

[RangerSmith]

29. agreed.. it's brown shirt control of..

businesses they don't like.

[Vinca]

9. So tell 'em to go . . . as if they would.

The big threat is how much smaller a mansion the CEO might have to purchase if they give a living wage to the employees.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Don't pinch your fingers in the door when you lock them.

Another bluff from big business.

Call 'em.

[insane_cratic_gal]

13. Perhaps if they were not paying their CEO

40 million they'd be able to keep those stores open easily.

I will NEVER understand the greediness of people.

When Ulrich makes 3 million a month

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/ODFF.html

[redqueen]

25. the federal government needs to address this issue

it's WAY past time!

shame on clinton and the dem congress for not doing so in the early 90's

we can just forget all about repubs doing anything about it... they're all for protecting the wealthy at the expense of the working class

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. $40M is 2700 full time jobs.

To put it in perspective.

[xxqqqzme]

18. I have curtailed my target shopping - they are HUGE

schwartzeneggar contributors! They were a major contributor/supporter of his Nov. '05 'special elections'.

[lonestarnot]

19. So close them already!

If you can't pay your workers you don't belong in business!

[benddem]

20. Target contributes heavily

to Pro-Life causes. I won't shop there either.

[Bridget Burke]

21. I'd like to see the source of that information. n/t

[insane_cratic_gal]

26. Not sure about Pro Life but I am sure about

their heavy donations to republicans, they are worse then walmart in that field.

$36,380 to Democrats
$181,060 to Republicans
$0 to Others
$217,439 in Total Contributions

83% of donations made went to repukes

Walmart was 78%

http://www.buyblue.org/node/1963/view/summary

[redqueen]

27. nothing about anti-choice stuff, but...

http://www.buyblue.org/node/1963/view/summary

the blue/red ratio is not good

[insane_cratic_gal]

28. Jinx girl! you owe me a beer

;)


:toast:

[redqueen]

30. heh...

i love that site!

:hi:

[benddem]

45. Target support of Pro-Life

Target stops giving to Planned Parenthood

The Target Foundation has stopped giving to Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota (PPM/SD), following a decade-long boycott promoted by Pro-Life Action Ministries. Every Year since 1977, the Target Foundation (formerly the Dayton Hudson Foundation) had made annual grants of $18,000 to PPM/SD. The grant money came from profits derived from the corporation’s stores, which included Target, Dayton’s, Mervyn’s, Marshall Field’s and Hudson’s.

“This is a solid victory for the pro-life movement,” said Brian Gibson, executive director of Pro-Life Action Ministries. “After so many years of boycotting, rallies and informational leafleting, Target has removed Planned Parenthood from its giving list. If only the state of Minnesota would do the same.”

Life Decisions International (LDI), which organizes the nationwide boycott of companies that donate to Planned Parenthood, announced on February 21 that Target had been removed from the boycott list. In an e-mail to supporters, Douglas Scott, LDI president, wrote that finally, after more than a decade as a boycott target due to its support of Planned Parenthood, Target corporation has been removed from the boycott list.

In a subsequent conversation with our Pro-Life Action Ministries, Scott said that Target officials had stated to him that Planned Parenthood no longer qualified for funds under the current criteria established by the newly re-organized Target Foundation. (In January 2000, the Dayton Hudson Corporation became the Target Corporation.)

Pro-Life Action Ministries kicked off its boycott of Dayton Hudson stores with a large picket outside the Midway Target store in St. Paul on September 29, 1990. About 1,500 people showed up to express their displeasure with the Dayton Hudson Foundation for succumbing to the demands of abortion supporters. A month earlier, the foundation had decided to stop giving to Planned Parenthood because of the controversy involved, but when pro-abortion activists applies intense pressure and threatened a boycott unless Planned Parenthood received the money, the foundation reneged and started giving to PPM/SD again.

[HopeFor2006]

43. A number of the members of the Board of Directors

Are avidly prolife. They will not support Planned Parenthood or any prochoice charities.

[noonwitch]

51. Are you sure about that? When they were Dayton-Hudson, they gave to PP

I had a catholic friend who was always boycotting Hudson's and Target in the early 90s, before Target sold Dayton-Hudson to Fields. He said that they gave money to Planned Parenthood.

Target has to compete. Retail is not the best-paying field to work in, not at discount stores. Ordinances like this are trying to make retail take up the slack for lost manufacturing jobs, when what those folks that used to work manufacturing jobs need is to be retrained for jobs that pay well that we are currently hiring people from outside this country to move here and work at.

I worked at K-Mart in my college years, when they were still doing well as a company. I made minimum wage, got a .25 raise every 6 months or so. I was part time, so I didn't have any benefits (my parents still covered my insurance, anyways, plus, the University had a health center if I was really desperate). I would work 38 hour weeks, because I liked making extra money and they didn't have to pay me benefits. I could fill in for the full time people when they were on vacation without costing the store extra money. Retail is flexible in that way. Laws like this would make it tough to do business.

[Solly Mack]

24. Mouth overloading butt disease

call their bluff

[bennywhale]

31. Fuck em. Let them leave. In Britain we had exactly the same threats

from greedy bastard capitalist fatties before our minimum wage introduction. They screamed of job losses (like they give a shit) and said they'd have to close.

What happened was our productivity rose massively and the economy grew at a faster rate than at any time in a hundred years.

Don't belive a word these tiny elite say. They are hoarding your money like squirrels

[UCLA Dem]

32. Straight to hardball it is then.

[toopers]

42. I think this is wrong for the city council to do.

eom

[hayu_lol]

44. When you consider the volume of business these 'big box' stores...

in Chicago, then the raise is not a problem. Washington State and Oregon have found out that the raise in minimum wage helps the state, the counties, the cities and towns...and sure as heck helps the workers.

If your business is so marginal that you can't pay your help a living wage...then close and go work at McDonalds...you don't have a viable business anyway.

Minimum wage, according to my son who lives there, is 5.15/hr.

[toopers]

46. But it should be applied across the board . . .

not selectively.

[LostinVA]

49. I think this is great for the City Council to do

And wish more nationwide would do so.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

50. They want to improve the quality of life for their citizens

That's a laudable thing to do. Raising people up out of drudgery and poverty is certainly not "stupid," even if you disagree with it. Other cities have had resounding success with this. Boo to Target for acting like a spoiled baby ala Wal-Mart.

I'm emailing them about it now.

[prolesunited]

58. What do you have against a living wage?

People who work full-time should be able to have housing, food and medical care. You think you would be happy that these workers would be able to get off the government dole and place the burden back on employers. If employers don't pay, you do.

[truthisfreedom]

48. target has taken a turn for the worst. it's horrible here now in MPLS.

right in their home town, most employees are lackluster and shelves are beginning to look like k=mart in 1975. horrifying.

[w4rma]

52. Stronger competition, willing to pay decent wages, will replace Target.

No worries. That's how competition works.

[mopinko]

54. absolutely bluffing

they just built a huge super target by me, and another in the south loop. best buy is doing the same. i do not know what they are paying, but i know it is already above minimum.
chicago needs decent jobs. federal policy has hurt the economy here left and right. not just minimum wage, and outsourcing, but policy on sugar has killed candy making here, which used to be a big sector. lots of other things like that.
and the reason big box stores are being targeted is to do a little to protect the small businesses that these guys are crushing. this idea started when walmart started talking about coming to town. it scared them off. which is good, imho.

go, go, city council.