Wal-Mart

[andyfox]

From today's L.A. Times:

Wal-Mart vs. Inglewood a Warm-Up for L.A. Fight

Tuesday’s balloting will hold lessons for a battle pitting the mega-retailer against the megalopolis.
By Jessica Garrison and Sara Lin
Los Angeles Times April 2, 2004

With Inglewood voters set to decide Tuesday whether Wal-Mart can build a Supercenter in town, the battle over the chain’s expansion throughout California may soon shift to Los Angeles, where officials are laying plans to effectively ban the megastores in much of the nation’s second-largest city.

From Calexico to Contra Costa County, the retail giant has successfully fought efforts to keep out the centers, which combine the trappings of a normal Wal-Mart with aisles of groceries.

But in Inglewood, Wal-Mart has employed a new strategy.

The world’s largest company has put an initiative on the ballot that would sideline local officials and allow the development without the usual traffic studies, environmental reviews and public hearings.

“The stakes in Inglewood are the highest they have ever been anywhere,” said Madeline Janis-Aparicio, executive director of the Los Angles Alliance for a New Economy, a community organization that is trying to rally residents against the initiative. “They want to throw out all the local planning laws and make themselves a little Wal-Mart city.”

In Inglewood, Los Angeles and elsewhere, many labor and community groups are opposed to the nonunion Wal-Mart stores because they say they depress wages, drive out existing businesses, create traffic problems and actually reduce the total number of jobs in the surrounding area.

Wal-Mart officials say they are only trying to give consumers what they want: low prices, jobs for young people and sales tax revenue for cash-strapped cities.

“It’s important that Inglewood consumers have the same shopping that many of the neighboring communities have had for yeas,” said Wal-Mart spokesman Peter Kanelos. “Wal-Mart and our customers are tired of being bullied by the unions. If the unions and the local politicians they put in office want to attack Wal-Mart, they can rest assured that we’ll fight back.”

In the city of Los Angeles, where officials are putting the finishing touches on an ordinance that would effectively prohibit the Supercenters in much of the city limits, political and labor leaders say they are watching Inglewood closely for clues to the kind of fight the company may wage against them.

Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Ed Reyes introduced a motion more than a year ago that would prohibit stores with more than 100,k000 square feet that devote more than 10% of their inventory to nontaxable food and drugs in areas of the city designated as economic assistance zones, which cover about 60% of the city. A Supercenter can run 200,000 square feet.

The proposal still must go before the city’s Planning Commission and the City Council could vote on it as soon as this summer. Mayor James K. Hahn has said he supports the idea, as does City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

Garcetti said the ordinance is necessary to “maintain small businesses and protect decent-paying jobs.”

“We’ve seen the record of the Supercenters throughout this country in shutting down main streets . . . and in replacing good-paying jobs with poverty-level jobs that take billions out of the local economy,” he said.

But some local leaders take issue with blanket prohibitions against Wal-Mart Supercenters.

Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard C. Parks has opposed Garcetti’s and Reyes’ proposed ban. A traditional Wal-Mart store opened in his district last year in Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza, and has proven to be tremendously popular, Parks said. “Certain communities like the 8th District . . . should not be restricted from having access to those willing to come in to the community,” Parks said.

Ever since Wal-Mart announced plans to build 40 Supercenters throughout California, their impending arrival has triggered changes in the grocery industry and sparked skirmished between the company and organized labor and their allies.

The specter of the Supercenters fueled the longest supermarket strike in Southern California history last fall and winter. About 70,000 grocery workers, who earn an average of $19 an hour, walked picket lines for 4-1/2 months to protest proposed reductions in health benefits that the supermarkets said they needed to hold their own against Wal-Mart. The strike was settled in February with a two-tier system under which the stores will pay new hires les in wages and benefits than veteran workers.

With the strike over, organized labor, including the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents grocery workers, has turned its attention to mobilizing local communities to keep the Supercenters out.

In some communities, such as Bakersfield and Hemet, residents, often backed by union money, have sued to block construction. In others, such as Oakland and Turlock, city and county leaders have enacted laws that would prohibit them.

Wal-Mart has been fighting them every step of the way—and has not yet lost a Supercenter battle. In Calexico and Contras Costa County, for example, the company has persuaded voters to repeal prohibitions against Supercenters. In other instances, the retailer has filed lawsuits against cities.

Wal-Mart is using a new strategy in Inglewood. Instead of launching a campaign to repeal an ordinance, the company is pushing for a more sweeping initiative that would allow construction of a shopping center the size of 17 football fields without normal city input. It would be built on an empty lot between the Hollywood Park racetrack and the Forum.

Inglewood officials and Wal-Mart have been tussling over the development, which could include a Supercenter, for more than a year. The first volley came in October 2002, when the Inglewood City Council adopted an emergency ordinance to prevent construction of retail stores larger than 155,000 square feet that sell more than 20,000 nontaxable items, such as food and drugs.

Within a month, Wal-Mart had enough petitions to force a public vote on the ordinance. At the same time, the company threatened to sue the city for alleged procedural violations.

Inglewood officials backed down, rescinding their Supercenter ban. Outraged at the retreat, the United Food and Commercial Workers union successfully backed its own candidate for City Council. Faced with the possibility that the new council would revive attempts to block its plans, Wal-Mart backed a group called “Citizens Committee to Welcome Wal-Mart to Inglewood” and quickly gathered a new batch of signatures for an initiative.

Both sides are pushing hard in the working-class town, which is roughly split between African Americans and Latinos. Wal-Mart has spent more than $1 million on an election in which fewer than 10,000 people are expected to vote. The company has flooded the icy with television commercials and mailers depicting happy African American families and calling the development “good news for everyone in Inglewood”

Other fliers trumpet the project as a boon for Inglewood youths who need entry-level jobs and say that $3 million to $5 million in new sales tax revenue could boost the police force and “fix up our street and sidewalks.”

Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn, who says the Wal-Mart development would create 2,00 construction jobs and more than 1,000 permanent jobs for residents, is the only Inglewood elected official who has endorsed Measure 04-A.

The other side, meanwhile, is trying to make the point that the development would not only hurt Inglewood’s established businesses and bring in the wrong kind of jobs, but would set a dangerous precedent.

“Beyond the question of do you like Wal-Mart or not, the real issue is, is it appropriate for them to bully their way into the city and not comply with local laws . . .state environmental law . . . and public input into the process,” said Assemblyman Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood).

A broad spectrum of community leaders have come out against the initiative, including city, county and state officials, clergy form the Nation of Islam, the Catholic Church and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

But they acknowledge that they are facing an uphill fight—especially because they have far less money. The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy has spent less than $20,000, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor-Backed Voter Improvement Project has budgeted $125,000 for the fight.

“We don’t have the kind of funds to be on television like they are,” said Miguel Contreras, the labor federation’s executive secretary and treasurer “Well be outspent 10 to 1.”

Still, California is giving Wal-Mart a run for its money. “The political obstacles set up by our competitors and the unions have made it a challenge,” said Robert McAdam, the company’s vice president for state and local government relations.

Harley Shaiken, a professor of geography at UC Berkeley who studies labor and the political economy, said the retailer’s victories may be coming at a price here. “Wal-Mart is winning,” he said. “But it is a costly victory. It’s expensive I dollar terms . . . but it is also expensive in image terms. No retailer wants to be constantly fighting a battle about its image in the community.”

But labor leader Contreras predicts an intense fight in Los Angeles. “Well do the battle royale in Los Angels,” he said. “This will be a battleground, a national battleground.”

Note that Wal-Mart, the biggest corporation in history, which who now sells more than Sears, JC Penney, Target and K-Mart combined, says they're being "bullied." This despite spending over ten times what they unions will spend.

Those who see corporations as only economic entities, and not political entities, need to look again. The "battle royale" between Inglewood, or Los Angeles, is a joke. Wal-Mart, as it always does, will chew up its opponents and spit them out.

[Phat Mack]

Fascinating. I've seen Wal-mart wipe out small to medium size Texas towns, but didn't know anyone was fighting them before they got in. There was an article in the NYT a year or two ago about what happens when a Wal-Mart goes into a town, wipes out the small business, then decides it's not making enough money and leaves. You end up with rural/small town residents driving 70 miles for groceries. Very interesting economic force.

[GWB]

Grocery stores and discount stores have a limited productive lifespan because of unions.

They start as competitive chains that take an area by storm. Then over the course of 2,3,4 decades the unions unionize their employees and start to suck the chain dry with excessive frills. The profit margins in the industry are such that the chain slowly becomes unprofitable and eventually dies. Then all the employees complain about losing their great jobs - having to now work for a newer chain.

Wal-Mart is just now starting to be taken over by unions, so they have a couple decades to survive. KMart has already been hit, likewise Safeway, Service Merchandise, Ames, (and department stores like JC Pennies & Sears) etc. For those at least 35 years old, think back to your childhood - are the big chains of that era still going strong? Dozens of regional grocery and discount chains have been killed by unions.

Just something to think about.

W

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't think the unions will ever get ahold of Walmart. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if they expand throughout California and then start closing stores because they see their workman's comp claims skyrocket.

[Cyrus]

"The unions unionize their employees and start to suck the chain dry with excessive frills."

Like your name sake, that idiot who's currently occupying the White House, you have no idea what you are talking about. And that's putting it mildly.

I am aware of the many abuses of union power. But check the literature and check the data for pete's sakes, Mr Prezident! There is no shred of evidence for what you are saying - at all.

I assume you are ignorant, like so many other things, of the studies showing the better performance of corporations within the same industry that, for various reasons, pay their employees generally higher wages. I would refer you to Thaler but you would not know where to look.

Thank you for listening, Mr Prezident.

(Mr Prezident? Mr Prezident?? He's asleep goddamn it.)

[Rushmore]

Honest question for Cyrus:

How do you feel about the teachers unions, in particular?

Just sincerely curious.

[whiskeytown]

Wal-mart is the epitome of corporate greed gone foul...

they have lawsuits filed vs. them in over 25 states for mandatory overtime - when they come into a community, they destroy 3 real wage jobs for every 2 part time jobs they create - (technically, full time to them is 28 hrs a week) -
no health plan for 2 yrs - and then the premiums are so high you couldn't afford it anyways..

if a union does form (like one did in a meat packers division) - people are rerouted and drummed out for inane reasons -

don't take my word for it...read Frontline's expose of Walmart for yourselves

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...t_walmart.html

BTW, Jim Hightower has a great section on this in his book "They've Stolen Our Country and it's Time to Take it Back" - many communities HAVE successfully fought Wal-mart from coming into their communities...of course, more then a few have had to deal with some exceptionally unsavory tactics from Walmart flacks... - (in one town, after trying to unsuccessfully sneak in, Wal-Mart petitioned for a town referumdum, and then managed to write the ballot in such a way where a No vote brought Walmart in, and a Yes vote turned it down...puts what happened in Florida in 2000 to shame

luckily enough people were able to educate the masses in time regarding the initative where it was soundly defeated - by people voting yes [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12962

I will never shop at Walmart - ever - ever - ever -

RB

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
if a union does form (like one did in a meat packers division) - people are rerouted and drummed out for inane reasons -



[/ QUOTE ]

This just shows that Wal-Mart knows its days are numbered, and they are trying to make it last as long as possible. Meanwhile, the unions are trying to crush Wal-Mart and the image of Wal-Mart (note the spin of the quote above).

From reading this thread, it appears the unions are well on the way to succeeding (like they did with KMart et al.).

W

[adios]

Point well taken about being a political force but there are also political forces lined up against Walmart as well. The reality is that denying Walmart the right to sell it's products to support higher wages at competitors and higher prices amounts to subsidization of those higher wage workers through an extra tax on those who have to buy the higher priced goods. Are there any cost-benefit analysis available that would provide insight? I hate shopping at Walmart and rarely do I enter one btw.

[whiskeytown]

a community may decide it wishes to invest dollars within itself rather then allow them to flow outwards - (in the same way a country may decide to sell us less oil and keep more for itself)

a local economy supports itself, provides living wages, and keeps some money/goods/resources within the community.

Wal-mart, On the other hand, doesn't do those things...it pays for no local advertising dollars, pays no living wages, and rather then reinvesting/spending some of the money taken in back within it's own community, it decides to siphon it all back to Bentonville -

the question isn't whether an artifical tax on local businesses is being created - the issue is do you wish your local dollars to be reinvested in the local community, or taken away to make the Waltons top the richest people in the world again for another year. - On one hand, the goods are cheaper...on the other hand, the income in the community goes down, because wal-mart jobs are McJobs -

A community does have the right to decide whether to allow certain businesses within it's city limits (for example, adult bookstores or liquor establishments) - the same should apply to stores that come in and use their monopolistic influence to destroy competition.

in addition, a community should have the right to decide whether it chooses to allow an employer to come into it's community with a tremendously large history of worker violations and human rights abuses both on the local level (cheating workers out of wages) and foreign (pressuring customers to manufacture equipment in sweatshops in China)

you can subsidize your local economy, or you can subsidize multi billionaires...

RB