When the Tribune Attacks: Union Bashing isn’t a Substitute for Discussing the Issue

The Tribune’s latest piece of trash about Chicago’s Wal-Mart battle begs the question: Why is it so hard for the Tribune to admit that people in Chicago really want Wal-Mart to pay a living wage?

At least 5 separate times, the editorial accuses Aldermen of being stooges of labor or being out of step with their constituents. But the polls and referendums taken in Chicago show a much different story.

I don’t doubt the Tribune’s poll that 68% of Chicagoans would take another Wal-Mart in Chicago, although I suspect that just about any other national retailer would score higher numbers.

What the Tribune can’t bring itself to mention is this: People can want a Wal-Mart and want to require Wal-Mart to pay a living wage before it opens up shop in Chicago. In fact, in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, the idea that large, rich corporations have a duty to pay employees a living wage is the norm, not the Trib’s laissez-faire economic policies.

If the Tribune wants to stop shilling for Wal-Mart and start a reasoned discussion on the issue of Wal-Mart, it could start by reminding its readers of the following five facts before it attacked Chicago Aldermen of being union drones:

1. “Results of a referendum in 21 Chicago wards in support of the big-box living wage ordinance that Daley vetoed: Yes: 12,823. No: 3,163.” Reports the Beachwood Reporter.
   
   
2. Over 80% of Chicagoans surveyed during the Big Box Living Wage fight in 2006 wanted Wal-Mart to pay a living wage. “The ordinance, co-signed by 33 aldermen, has 90 percent support from African Americans,” according to the Sun Times.
   
   
3. A second poll, taken after a massive public campaign by Wal-Mart and Mayor Daley to convince Chicagoans that the Big Box Living Wage ordinance would drive retailers out of Chicago showed support by 71% - almost 3 out of every 4 Chicagoans.
   
   
4. A referendum in the 35^th Ward recorded 84% support for the idea of making Wal-Mart and other large retailers pay a living wage. In the 12^th ward, the referendum passed with 83% of the vote, and in the 49^th ward, it passed with 77% of the vote.
   
   
5. Despite Wal-Mart contributing $285,000 to anti-living wage Aldermen, 6 Aldermen who voted against the Living Wage law lost their re-election bids in the 2007 elections. Four were replaced by candidates that ran on a pro living wage platform, and one of the leaders of the Big Box Living Wage campaign, Toni Foulkes was elected Alderman.
   

Frankly, the Trib’s a proudly, openly Republican paper and I think it’s clear that they can’t see past their ideology on this one.