Monday, March 01, 2010

200 Chicago Ministers Back South Side Wal-Mart

I've been following the South Side Chicago Wal-Mart controversy since last summer, summarized very well here in this editorial:

"If there’s ever an illustration of how “progressive” elites and organized labor are keeping the very people they supposedly care about locked up on the plantation, it’s their consuming opposition to a new Wal-Mart store on the South Side (of Chicago).

The impoverished, unemployed, blacks, seniors, teens—they’ve all been getting a good frigging by the organized campaign by white liberals and powerful unions to block the construction of only the city’s second Wal-Mart, at 83rd Street and Stewart Avenue."

Here's a new development in the controversy from today's
Chicago Business:

"A coalition of Chicago ministers is readying a campaign for more Wal-Mart stores in Chicago — and preparing another against aldermen who stand in the way. The alliance of just over 200 ministers, representing more than 100,000 congregants, will first demand that Mayor Richard M. Daley grant administrative approval to begin construction of a Wal-Mart at the Chatham Market shopping center, saving that project from falling into foreclosure. The group also will pressure aldermen to approve that store and others in retail-starved neighborhoods such as Englewood and Pullman.

If, as appears likely, more Wal-Marts don't get the green light this year, the ministers say they'll mount a campaign against aldermen who oppose the big retailer's expansion. Taking a page from union groups that have held Wal-Mart back, the ministers say they will support candidates in favor of the store with political advertising and urge their congregants to vote against dissenters."

23 Comments:

At 3/01/2010 12:27 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

I wonder whether the mainstream media will pick up this story. For too long, the Democratic Party has been taking for granted the support of black Americans. It will be interesting to see whether black political leaders join with black ministers in holding the aldermen (alderpersons?) accountable.

 
At 3/01/2010 1:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good news. Maybe they will take on the unionized education monopoly next.

 
At 3/01/2010 2:12 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

This is one battle that Wal-Mart needs to lose in some fashion. How about instead of pulling a Jonquiere, actually try to work with a union? That is, do everything in its power to make it succeed versus trying to undermine it. South Chicago gets a Wal-Mart, unions get a chance, and Wal-Mart gets another store.

Those ministers act like they've been paid.

 
At 3/01/2010 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about instead of pulling a Jonquiere, actually try to work with a union?

For the same reason that no one actually tries to work with the mob, they're parasites. Unions bring absolutely nothing of value to businesses. Unless, of course, you count the potential for a taxpayer bailout once the union has cannibalized your business as something of value. Unfortunately, almost all of the benefits in a bailout accrue to the unions at the expense of the business owners and taxpayers, so, scrap that too.

Why don't you start your own business and invite the unions in, that would give you the opportunity to show us all the added value associated with unionization.

 
At 3/01/2010 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name a single industry that unionization has benefitted, improving it's competitiveness and profitability.

 
At 3/01/2010 2:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Carpe Diem post is about a state-of-the-art factory that Ford would like to have built in the U.S., but the UAW's rules made it impossible. Why didn't the union "actually try to work with" the company?

 
At 3/01/2010 2:54 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Anonymous:
Wal-Mart has more than enough capacity to kill it off. They also have enough of a size to offset the damage. Perhaps they could show a new direction in labor relations not seen in the last 30 years(versus just kill, kill, kill).

 
At 3/01/2010 2:57 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

This Carpe Diem post is about a state-of-the-art factory that Ford would like to have built in the U.S.

...but Brazil was easier to bribe.

 
At 3/01/2010 3:39 PM, Blogger QT said...

"interesting to see whether black political leaders join with black ministers"

Jet Beagle,

A very insightful comment. The split in the black community is one of the most fascinating elements about this saga.

 
At 3/01/2010 4:10 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

sethstorm: "South Chicago gets a Wal-Mart, unions get a chance, and Wal-Mart gets another store."

Why would Wal-Mart or its customers want to "give unions a chance"?

Wal-Mart doesn't need the revenues that a South Chicago location would bring so much that it will put up with the headache of a union.

The unemployed workers they would hire need jobs, not unions.

That WalMart has dominated American retailing is clear evidence that America doesn't give a damn about unions anymore.

 
At 3/01/2010 4:15 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Why would Wal-Mart or its customers want to "give unions a chance"?

Cost of doing business in Chicago.

You would have your case if Sam was still running it and not the Benedict Arnolds that are now.

 
At 3/01/2010 4:29 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Ahhh, apparently sethstorm is all for parasitism: "Cost of doing business in Chicago"...

"You would have your case if Sam was still running it and not the Benedict Arnolds that are now"...

What does this nonsense mean?

 
At 3/01/2010 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Cost of doing business in Chicago.'

Guess sethstorm knows how the 'corrupt' Chicago system works.

 
At 3/01/2010 5:13 PM, Anonymous InfoManiac said...

I find it quite amusing that the very people that the community elected are the ones that are their biggest enemies.

Union people, elected officials, even the mighty Barack Obama, for some reason think that the widespread power of unions is more important than reasonably priced goods and services.

The poor can continue to starve, not afford decent clothing, and remain unemployed as long as the unions remain powerful.

What these poor saps in Chicago are just now beginning to understand is that the unions are not their friends....they are their enemies. Wait until they find out the ugly truth about the radical they sent to live in the white house.

 
At 3/01/2010 5:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...but Brazil was easier to bribe.

Yes, Brazil needed to be bribed to take millions of dollars of investment and thousands of good paying jobs.

What color is the sky in your world?

 
At 3/01/2010 7:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the editorial used suprisingly racial terms like "white liberals" and plantation. Last time I checked, unions have a VERY vocal black population.

Perhaps Chicago is different? But I doubt it.

This is not about race, this is simply a union issue with Walmart.

And I hate (with a passion of a 1000 white hot suns) both since both are anti-competitive constructs in my eyes.

 
At 3/01/2010 9:36 PM, Blogger misterjosh said...

Unions wouldn't be so bad if they weren't granted legal monopolies on labor.

 
At 3/01/2010 10:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sethstorm is right. What we need is for govt. bureaucrats and union members to get together and manufacture good products and sell them through special govt. stores to the public who can fill out forms and stand in lines to get their daily needs fulfilled.

 
At 3/01/2010 10:48 PM, Blogger Sam said...

Unions bring absolutely nothing of value to businesses.

No, they bring value to the workers. That's the point, isn't it? To help workers not get screwed by greedy corporations like MallWart?

 
At 3/02/2010 5:15 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


What these poor saps in Chicago are just now beginning to understand is that the unions are not their friends....they are their enemies.

Then they discover that the groups that combat unions aren't their friends either. Upon killing the unions, the natural progression is to abuse immigration law.

 
At 3/02/2010 11:17 AM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

sam: "To help workers not get screwed by greedy corporations like MallWart?"

It's not Walmart which refuses to pay retail workers high wages. It's Walmart's customers - the American consumer.

If American consumers believed that Walmart's retail workers deserved higher wages, unions could very easily force Walmart's hand. But the American consumers who shop at Walmart do not care that Walmart workers "only" earn $11.61 an hour (Chicago area average). American consumers are steadily rejecting the higher labor costs of Kroger and Safeway for the lower labor costs of Walmart.

 
At 3/02/2010 3:59 PM, Anonymous WestWright said...

I find it interesting that the ChiTown Leftist Politicians and their big Union supporters are dead set on denying their other poor & minority supporters any relief on costs of basic food products as provided by a Walmart. And yet these 3 entities are thick as fleas when it comes to voting the Social Justice aka Collectivist Party line. Give it a year or two and I think Chicago will resemble Cuba and so will Detroit. I hope all good Americans will manage to get out of the Blue Metros, they will become even more of a battleground as the welfare state collapses!

 
At 3/03/2010 1:14 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Jet Beagle:
You just want to hide behind the indirection and not consider that Wal-Mart might actually be to blame.

You almost sound like one of their PR consultants.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home