tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post115314096397126755..comments2023-05-30T05:16:03.894-04:00Comments on The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, proprietor: In search of employmentDennis Byrne...http://www.blogger.com/profile/12684119518936854024noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1156950878096182042006-08-30T11:14:00.000-04:002006-08-30T11:14:00.000-04:00And how is this working in Detroit, the city that ...And how is this working in Detroit, the city that evacuatesgasparuttohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16765013964645605601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153494029119882392006-07-21T11:00:00.000-04:002006-07-21T11:00:00.000-04:00To All of you who support the Big Box Wage Ordinan...To All of you who support the Big Box Wage Ordinance:<BR/><BR/>Do you understand that this law would only effect stores with 90,000 square feet or more? Do you know how stupid that is? Walgreens has well in excess of 100 stores in the City alone and billions of revenues. They would not be effected. McDonald's can continue to pay whatever they want. Starbucks, CVS, Bed, bath % Beyond can pay whatever they want, and on and on.<BR/><BR/>PLEASE READ: Did you know that Wal Mart has a new format they are trying out in the U.S. that is about 50,000 square feet? If rolled out in Chicago, it would be exempt?????? <BR/><BR/>It is ludicrous to tie this wage requirement to the size of one store. I personally have nothing against trying to raise wages. The City Council could try this, across the board, and then they could see what the impacts were, positive or negative.<BR/><BR/>This 90,000 square feet version is so arbitrary I am personally embarrassed to live in a City that is considering it....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153278469164552122006-07-18T23:07:00.000-04:002006-07-18T23:07:00.000-04:00Mr. Byrne:Ex-cons, having paid their debt to socie...Mr. Byrne:<BR/><BR/>Ex-cons, having paid their debt to society, deserve a second chance. If they are denied jobs, their only recourse is to return to a life of crime to support themselves.<BR/><BR/>As for Wal-Mart, they have committed a host of crimes for which they must be held accountable. On the home front, they have been convicted of predatory pricing, used eminent domain to force people to sell their property, and engaged in union busting. Overseas, they claim they do not use child labor, yet they refuse to allow auditing of their records to confirm it. Are jobs really worth such a steep price?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153233725336767802006-07-18T10:42:00.000-04:002006-07-18T10:42:00.000-04:00What findings, and from what sources, have you com...What findings, and from what sources, have you come across that lead you to believe that the Wal-Mart's of the world won't continue to open stores in places like Chicago because they have to pay what will still be below a "living wage?" <BR/><BR/>You should also thank your nearest "union member" for the sacrafices the he/she and all those who came before them have made that have secured a 5-day work week, employer sponsored health insurance plans, work place safety requirements, etc. etc. etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153174198614252902006-07-17T18:09:00.000-04:002006-07-17T18:09:00.000-04:00Funny that a suburbanite would be so obsessed over...Funny that a suburbanite would be so obsessed over a Chicago issue. You might enjoy your sea of parking lots and Wal-Marts but that is not what Chicago is about.<BR/><BR/>Also, you are very naive if you think that big boxes will bring more employment and taxes to Chicago. <BR/><BR/>1) Employment- Wal-Mart and its ilk are hyper-productive companies meaning they employ less people per revenue than other companies currently located in Chicago. Therefore for every dollar transfered to these stores there is less employment.<BR/><BR/>2) Taxes- Due to lower prices taxes will also decrease as Wal-Mart lower priceses are substituted for stores currently in Chicago.<BR/><BR/>If you like your big boxes so much keep them. We do not want them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153147419440034282006-07-17T10:43:00.000-04:002006-07-17T10:43:00.000-04:00You fail to address the real reason why aldermen s...You fail to address the real reason why aldermen seek to raise the wages of employees in the first place: namely that 'Bix Box' companies have tendencies to staff their workers just under full-time so they're not eligible for benefits. Instead you say that their motivation is to: <BR/><BR/>"To placate organized labor, which wants government to do the union's work for it by enforcing wage and work rules that it can't bargain into place by itself. "<BR/><BR/>To that I ask you, "What Union?" Walmart doesn't have a union. (check out their own webpage at:<BR/> http://www.walmartfacts.com/wal-mart-union.aspx<BR/><BR/>"Due to our amicable relationships between our associates and managers and executives, we believe there is no need for third-party representation."<BR/><BR/>Somehow the 1.5 million women, who formed the largest class action discrimination suit against managers didn't get that message. (Check out http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/22/cz_mf_0722wmt.html)<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, your attempt to portray this matter between the aldermen and the 'big box' retailers, as completely obvious and lacking in "good sense," is not an effective method for convincing a public about your weak argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-1153145615068059772006-07-17T10:13:00.000-04:002006-07-17T10:13:00.000-04:00Mr Byrne: I could not agree with you more. I thi...Mr Byrne: I could not agree with you more. I think the big-box proposal is even worse than you suggest though. The substitute version on Joe Moore's (Alderman) home page seems to indicate that the ordinance kicks in for stores that have both 90,000 sf facilities AND $1Billion in revenues. This completely excludes Walgreens, McDonald's, Starbucks, etc..notwithstanding the fact that in the case of Walgreens, that store alone probably has over 100 outlets in the City - clearly more than a million square feet of space. Limiting this proposal to the size of one store is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. If City Council wants to try to raise local wages they should do it across the board, like San Francisco does, and see where the chips fall....This version must go....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com