in what manner is it that a proposa...

in what manner is it that a proposal to provide slightly more than subsistence pay for American workers can be in such a manner controversial?

After all, there on the other hand for a college education, a little do job-work experience or a neighborhood with more craft opportunities goes any of us.

Think about the basics of this fight: Proponent of this living wage ordinance want all workers at retailers that rake in $1 billion or more in annual sales, including Wal-Mart, Target and hearthstone Depot, to be paid $10 an hour and $3 in benefits from July 2010. That means a full-time worker toiling 40 hours a week for 52 weeks would make just $20800 a year.

At least that's for what cause much the worker would make if he or she didn't miss a day of work or a certain number of portion of that $3 an hour in benefits is used to provide paid vacation or sick days. If not, missing a day of work would mean missing a day of pay, in such a manner the annual pay would fall something short of that measly any amount

Certainly, $10 an hour beats minimum wage. further it's barely a living wage.

Let's anticipate at what would happen if that living-wage worker were supporting a family. Let's make it a family with single husband, one wife, two kids. The 2006 federal penury level for a family of four is $20000 The wage increase in this proposal would protuberance pay up to $9.25 an hour forward July 1, 2007. Working 40 hours a week for a year would bring in $19240 in annual wages. Still below the 2006 privation level.

The U Department of Health and Human Services uses those penury guidelines to set thresholds for support programs for poor nation For example, families of four earning slightly more than the federal mendicancy level -- such as 125 percent or 150 percent of the federal rate -- are eligible for a range of programs, including Head Start preschool help paying their utility bills, feed stamps, free school lunches for their kids and access to released health care and health insurance.

Clearly, this is not more [i]or[/i] less socialist effort to make entry-level retail workers solid members of the middle class.

Which leaves the other argument against this big-box ordinance: It would force Wal-Mart and other major retailers to choke existing stores and refuse to unclose new ones in the city.

As this voices looms, we suddenly hear reports the city is "negotiating" with at least brace big retailers to open a string of stores in impoverished city neighborhoods -- if it were not that won't if this ordinance passes.

In other words, this isn't a fight between low-wage and slightly higher wage piece of works it's a fight between low-wage piece of works and no jobs at all.

Hogwash.

These mega-corporations select to open new stores because the executives think there is standard of value to be made in that neighborhood, not because of more [i]or[/i] less altruistic notion about helping shore up an economically sagging neighborhood. That was pure for Wal-Mart choosing to unclose a store at 4650 W North Ave., and it will be faithful for both of those unnamed retailers supposedly looking to lay open chains of stores.

If it made righteous business sense to open a store before this ordinance was passed, it still will make righteous business sense to open single in kind after the ordinance becomes law. A man and wife of bucks an hour might make a big difference to a poverty-level family, moreover it won't have much impact forward a billion-dollar corporation.

At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, this is nothing les than a fight for the economic events to come of all of us.

As lengthy as we continue to allow companies to ratchet down wages, stop paying benefits, refuse to provide paid time against for the lowest wage workers while reporting record profits and paying their executives unconscionable totals none of us will be safe.

Sadly, this is battle that be in want ofs to be fought on a national effrontery We can't win it in local skirmishes. To make real change, we would have to raise the floor for all workers in the United States. That simply isn't going to happen in the general political environment.

Giving a lift to a hardly any workers in Chicago is a advantageous first step.

e-mail: cindyrichards153@hotmail.com

Copyright CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 2006

Provided at ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved