WAL-MART VS. TARGET... UNIONS ARE A DIFFERENCE
Back Home in Chicago... Job Creation Blocked by Unions

Came across this post at The Chapin Nation. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart, but definitely not a fan of most labor unions. Also I clipped a piece of the Chicago Tribune article and posted it afterwards:

Speaking of Wal-Mart. . .
Chicago is currently experiencing its own whoas in battling the behemoth corporation of consumerism. Wal-Mart had plans to open a store on the West Side. For those who don't know, Chicago being the murder capital of the country, the West-Side is the epicenter of that particular problem. Needless to say, the City could have used in no particular order 1) the jobs Wal-Mart would have created, 2) a much needed retail outlet in a blighted neighborhood, 3) the residual retail traffic the store would have most likely created, and 4) the tax revenues.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the City is for job and revenue creation. A group of alderman are against Wal-Mart coming into the City because they employ non-union labor. Guess who funds those aldermaic reelection campaigns? Yup, unions. Oddly, these same alderman have no problem with Target entering the City. Go figure.

Recently, Chicago has experienced a rash of job losses that also resulted in the loss of union jobs, union dues, and ultimately union power. Just yesterday for example, Radio Flyer, the little red wagon people, closed its manufacturing plant in the City that has existed since the company's inception. Ninety union jobs have been lost and sent to Asia. Is this a case of "outsourcing" that is dooming our American economy? No, it's smart business. Unions do two things that are detrimental. One, they create artificial wage inflation which translates into more expensive goods for consumers; and two, they take A LOT of money out of the wage earner's pocket each month through dues that too often go to fund the salaries and political ambitions of the union bosses.

The union jobs in Chicago aren't coming back. That's a sad fact. Unfortunately, it seems that those in the pockets of the unions would rather have people starve than gainfully employed as a result of their dwindling influence.
Posted by CommonSense : 5:31 PM


City loses by rejecting Wal-Mart

Chicago Tribune
Published March 30, 2004

For a city that has lost thousands of jobs in the past decade, Chicago has become awfully picky. Late last year Swedish retailer Ikea ditched plans to build in Chicago and Mayor Daley harrumphed, "It's just another company."

Last week a City Council committee delayed action on a Wal-Mart planned for the West Side, and labor unions would like to deep freeze a Wal-Mart planned for the South Side, because the retailer has a non-union workforce. Others say that Wal-Mart will undercut neighborhood establishments. (full article)