Union job-killing arrogance

wal-mart-chicago.jpg

Where does it say that taxpayers should be doing (i.e. paying for) union organizing. Apparently, in Chicago, that's a given. Organized labor is said to have indicated that they might withdraw their long-standing opposition to job-producing Wal-Mart stores in Chicago if the retailer would agree to certain wage and work rule demands. 

Here's the story.

[Ald. Anthony[ Beale [9] said union leaders have indicated during private negotiations that they would not oppose Wal-Mart if the company agreed to pay workers at least $11.03 per hour and build the stores using all union labor.

Give Mayor Richard M. Daley credit for doing what is right by calling for approval of the store in a South Side neighborhood that badly needs the jobs, and whose alderman Ald. Howard Brookins Jr., (21) is fighting for it.

But the Chicago Federation of Labor thinks it should have veto power over jobs that it doesn't control. You know, if the CFL wants to organize workers (and they certainly should), it ought to be on their own dime, instead of trying the city government into doing its organizing for it.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I commented on Clout Street, which apparently doesn't post most of its comments, that as I understood labor law, as Bernard Meltzer taught it, the process was that someone opens a business and hires employees, and the union then tries to organize it. I have never heard that a union has a right to insist that an employer negotiate terms and conditions of employment before the union is recognized by the NLRB as representing a majority of the workers.

    Hence, my complaint is not so much about the supposed use of city money (property owners and shoppers in Chicago are paying Burke's and Mell's salaries, anyway) is that the City Council didn't get the message the federal court tried to send Fioretti, that the Supremacy Clause preempts alderpersons from interfering in labor relations in the private sector.

    While this would be a slam dunk lawsuit for Walmart, I suppose that it really doesn't need the Chicago locations compared to the litigation costs, as customers will still go to Evergreen Park, Niles, and Hammond. Remember, Quinn, Daley and Stroger don't collect sales taxes from the last location.

  • In reply to jack:

    Slight update. Clout Street got it up, about 18 hours later.

  • In reply to jack:

    Walmart will never agree to any type of pay scale rules or anything that even remotely resembles it. Any type of concession would be a chink in there armor and open the door to other concessions nationwide. Its the same reason in reverse the CFL is fighting them in Chicago.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Categories

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: