part the 3423th.
Debate on Big Box wages shifts to subsidies | Chi-Town Daily News Supporters of Chicago's new living wage ordinance upped the ante in their showdown with big-box retailers Tuesday, charging that accepting public money obligates a company to pay its workers a living wage.The argument is based on a report released Tuesday by the Living Wage Coalition, an umbrella group of 35 organizations pushing for minimum wage increases, that showed Target Corp. has received $9.9 million of taxpayer money to open stores in Chicago.
“If you take the subsidies, at least give something back,” said Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) activist Denise Dixon, who compared Target's wages policy to redlining, a discriminatory practice of economic subjugation.
...
Target's reported squeamishness to do business in Chicago could derail plans for a $90 million shopping center, of which Target was to be the prime tenant, at 119th Street and Marshfield Avenue. As well, a $130 million commercial-residential project in Uptown would be threatened, even though company is on track to receive $53 million in city subsidies between the two locations, according to the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group.
A. living wages
or
B. no more box stores in Chicago.
Either result, I'm for the ordinance. Probable result, though:
C. lawsuit against the City of Chicago that drags on for a couple years, with Wal-Mart and Target eventually winning. Bleh. Spend the money earmarked for corporate lawyers instead on wages for employees.
(from Eric Zorn's frequently retitled weblog, currently called Change of Subject, I think. Titles are hard, I know I despise the title of my webzine, but my idea pool is far to shallow at the moment to come up with a better one.)
Tags: Business
