In an interview with the New York Times, Scott denounced the city for its obstacles to his firm\'s plans for stores and super-centers in several boroughs, including Queens and Staten Island. "It\'s not worth the effort," Scott said. He added "the glue is the unions" of the coalition that blocked Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart\'s ouster from New York is one of many recent defeats of the monster retailer\'s expansion into central cities. The firm, headquartered in the right-to-work state of Arkansas, needs the central cities as its same-store sales--in rural areas and suburbs--are flagging. Wal-Mart has turned to opening overseas, notably in China, but it also tried to attract cities through the lure of jobs in minority areas and "always low prices."
It hasn\'t worked in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, among others.
"New York\'s action sends a powerful message" to Wal-Mart "that its values are not our values," Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers Union President Stuart Appelbaum said in a telephone interview. "Unions and community groups did a great job of educating the public" about Wal-Mart\'s negative impact.
But Wal-Mart should not be the sole target, even if, as the largest private employer in the U.S., its decisions influence others to a large degree, he added. Other retailers have cited the threat of Wal-Mart\'s low wages and no benefits in arguing for pay cuts and dropping health care for their workers.
"I think what we have to do is not relax right now," Appelbaum added. "Wal-Mart sets the standard for others; that\'s why they\'re such a target. But we can\'t pretend they aren\'t alone. We\'re campaigning against other retailers in New York, not just Wal-Mart," that underpay and mistreat their workers.
And since retail work now accounts for one of every five jobs in the U.S., and since retailing now performs the function of providing first, entry-level jobs to the labor force that manufacturing used to do, the campaign to improve retail workers\' voice on the job, pay, benefits and working conditions is extremely important, Appelbaum explained.
Unions, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers nationally and RWDSU in New York, responded to Wal-Mart\'s expansion drive into cities by pointing out the costs of those "low prices": Poverty-level wages, sexual and racial discrimination, rampant labor law-breaking and Wal-Mart company policy to force 46 percent of its workers to use public programs for health care.
The result has been Wal-Mart\'s loss in New York, decisions last weekend by four San Francisco Bay-area municipalities to throw it out, and the defeat at the ballot box of some pro-Wal-Mart aldermen in Chicago, among other things.
In Livermore, Calif., the City Council voted 5-0 on March 26 for a new "big box store" ordinance. It bans any superstore larger than 90,000 square feet if at least 5 percent of its sales floor goes to groceries and other nontaxable goods. Wal-Mart, whose grocery sales far exceed 5 percent of its floor space, wanted a 200,000-square foot super-center in Livermore.
"A big box store, in this community, does not create an even playing field," Livermore Vice Mayor John Marchand said, according to the Contra Costa Times. "We have to ask ourselves, \'What kind of competition do we want?\'" Concord, Antioch and Hercules, Calif., also all bounced Wal-Mart-centered projects in recent days.
In Chicago, the City Council last year passed its own "big box" ordinance mandating any such store over 90,000 square feet had to pay a living wage--something Wal-Mart did not promise at super-centers on the South and West Sides, and does not do. One of the two super-centers made it, but Wal-Mart pulled the other.
When Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed the ordinance and convinced enough council members to reverse course and uphold him--by two votes--city unions responded by campaigning against council members who backed Wal-Mart. Several lost in the municipal election there just over a month ago.
And Daley\'s pro-Wal-Mart veto was the last straw that led to a notable decision by the Chicago Federation of Labor: For the first time ever when an incumbent Daley was on the ballot--both Richard M. and his father, the legendary Mayor Richard J. Daley--the local federation did not endorse him. That\'s the first such denial to an incumbent Daley in more than 50 years.
Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.
For more information
Visit www.wakeupwalmart.com
Share
In an interview with the New York Times, Scott denounced the city for its obstacles to his firm\’s plans for stores and super-centers in several boroughs, including Queens and Staten Island. "It\’s not worth the effort," Scott said. He added "the glue is the unions" of the coalition that blocked Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart\’s ouster from New York is one of many recent defeats of the monster retailer\’s expansion into central cities. The firm, headquartered in the right-to-work state of Arkansas, needs the central cities as its same-store sales–in rural areas and suburbs–are flagging. Wal-Mart has turned to opening overseas, notably in China, but it also tried to attract cities through the lure of jobs in minority areas and "always low prices."
It hasn\’t worked in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, among others.
"New York\’s action sends a powerful message" to Wal-Mart "that its values are not our values," Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers Union President Stuart Appelbaum said in a telephone interview. "Unions and community groups did a great job of educating the public" about Wal-Mart\’s negative impact.
But Wal-Mart should not be the sole target, even if, as the largest private employer in the U.S., its decisions influence others to a large degree, he added. Other retailers have cited the threat of Wal-Mart\’s low wages and no benefits in arguing for pay cuts and dropping health care for their workers.
"I think what we have to do is not relax right now," Appelbaum added. "Wal-Mart sets the standard for others; that\’s why they\’re such a target. But we can\’t pretend they aren\’t alone. We\’re campaigning against other retailers in New York, not just Wal-Mart," that underpay and mistreat their workers.
And since retail work now accounts for one of every five jobs in the U.S., and since retailing now performs the function of providing first, entry-level jobs to the labor force that manufacturing used to do, the campaign to improve retail workers\’ voice on the job, pay, benefits and working conditions is extremely important, Appelbaum explained.
Unions, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers nationally and RWDSU in New York, responded to Wal-Mart\’s expansion drive into cities by pointing out the costs of those "low prices": Poverty-level wages, sexual and racial discrimination, rampant labor law-breaking and Wal-Mart company policy to force 46 percent of its workers to use public programs for health care.
The result has been Wal-Mart\’s loss in New York, decisions last weekend by four San Francisco Bay-area municipalities to throw it out, and the defeat at the ballot box of some pro-Wal-Mart aldermen in Chicago, among other things.
In Livermore, Calif., the City Council voted 5-0 on March 26 for a new "big box store" ordinance. It bans any superstore larger than 90,000 square feet if at least 5 percent of its sales floor goes to groceries and other nontaxable goods. Wal-Mart, whose grocery sales far exceed 5 percent of its floor space, wanted a 200,000-square foot super-center in Livermore.
"A big box store, in this community, does not create an even playing field," Livermore Vice Mayor John Marchand said, according to the Contra Costa Times. "We have to ask ourselves, \’What kind of competition do we want?\’" Concord, Antioch and Hercules, Calif., also all bounced Wal-Mart-centered projects in recent days.
In Chicago, the City Council last year passed its own "big box" ordinance mandating any such store over 90,000 square feet had to pay a living wage–something Wal-Mart did not promise at super-centers on the South and West Sides, and does not do. One of the two super-centers made it, but Wal-Mart pulled the other.
When Mayor Richard M. Daley vetoed the ordinance and convinced enough council members to reverse course and uphold him–by two votes–city unions responded by campaigning against council members who backed Wal-Mart. Several lost in the municipal election there just over a month ago.
And Daley\’s pro-Wal-Mart veto was the last straw that led to a notable decision by the Chicago Federation of Labor: For the first time ever when an incumbent Daley was on the ballot–both Richard M. and his father, the legendary Mayor Richard J. Daley–the local federation did not endorse him. That\’s the first such denial to an incumbent Daley in more than 50 years.
Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.
For more information
Visit www.wakeupwalmart.com