Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
UPDATE: City To Remove 14 Blocks Of Bike Lanes On Bedford Ave.
Hamster Rides The 4 Train
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Obama's Afghanistan Plans: 30,000 More Troops, Withdraw By July 2011
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn showed her anti-Wal-Mart colors during a Crain's business breakfast forum. Though she may be overruled, should zoning allow the retail behemoth to move in, Quinn said:
"I don't want Wal-Mart in the City of New York unless they change their corporate behavior...It is well documented across the country that Wal-Mart frequently uses the public insurance programs of the cities they are in as their own health insurance programs. We can't put that additional strain on our Health and Hospitals Corp., which is working as hard as it can to take care of uninsured New Yorkers."Of course, there were Wal-Mart executives in the audience, who said their health benefits were competitive and that "New Yorkers want the option to [shop] at Wal-Mart." According to Crain's, Quinn said she wouldn't "take the same position" against Kohl's, Gap, or Home Depot since they're in NYC anyway and "Wal-Mart is the worst offender in terms of employee benefits and gender discrimination." Gothamist would like to see a City Council rumble with Wal-Mart - maybe it'll happen in 2007, but not for now.
Other bulletpoints from her speech, via the Daily News: Quinn thinks Governor Pataki's "leadership" at Ground Zero sucks, she'll support a Javits Convention expansion, and she hasn't stepped into the Brooklyn Nets arena fray - yet.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i heart colleen quinn
I think this anti-WalMart sentiment is completely misguided. So it's ok for Costco, another big box retailer to be in NYC and CHARGE people to shop there while WalMart, which saves people a TON of money, can't come into the city. It makes no sense. There's a high unemployment rate in NYC, so having WalMart would create jobs and take people off welfare. Christine Quinn needs to go back and do her homework.
I'm glad that Christine Quinn is brave enough to express her opinions. She's not afraid of pissing politicians off. I wish more of our public officials had her guts.
What a joke. Democrats are always complaining about discrimination, fascism and loss of freedoms. But it's ok to single out one company and deny them the same rights as all other companies. Wouldn't the right thing to do be to pass stricter laws and apply them to all companies evenly?
This is ridiculous. Walmart became a favorte target of the polititians willing to show how they "care" about the common man's rights. I bet people in the city would love to have Walmart here, just like we now have Target, Home Depot, Costco and many other large stores.
There is a very large anti Walmart sign right as you leave the Staten Island Ferry on the Island side. Not sure who paid for it though. Probably NASCAR.
costco has a pretty good benefits package for both their full and part time employees. Wal-Mart does not. Wal -mart employees and their kids are often forced to go on some form of public assistance, even when they are working full time, to make ends meet. as far as the GAP goes, that cow has already left the barn, Quinn can't stop them from coming to NY. She can, however, do something about wal -mart.
so what if a lot of people would LOVE to have wal mart here, a lot of people would HATE to have them here.
Wal-Mart makes a lot of money selling down-market merchandise and treating their employees like shit. This is documented fact. And you know what? In a capitalist system and a free country that's their right.
So ask yourselves, which choice: a) let an operation that works that way into your community with open arms, b) slam the door in their face, or c) pass a lot of laws telling them how to do their business?
If you do a), then you're complicit in their immorality; if you choose b) then you miss a chance to get them to alter their behavior; and if you choose c) then you're being anti-capitalist.
Personally, I'd choose D) and burn the store down (kidding, people, kidding...)
Kudos to Quinn for this.
Lets just stop to think about this for once second. Suppose all Walmart truly does is hire marginally employed or unemployed people and give them "poor" compensation and no health care benefits. Aren't those the exact same people that were previously being covered by the state and other forms of public insurance/health care anyways?
In other words, Walmart is not stealing employees from better paying jobs that already had health coverage and putting them in the situation where they don't. It is taking people who likely already had no insurance and giving them a job at likely more income than they were making previous to walmart (otherwise there being no incentive to switch jobs and work at walmart, if they had something "better" going on), and increasing their income.
So how is this "protecting the common man" again?
Why are so many Gothamist readers so balls-to-the-wall Republican?
Way to go, Christine! She understands why we need a city council: to keep legitimate businesses out of the city. So what if lower income families benefit from Wal Mart prices? Better to get them on food stamps. And who cares about the people who want to work at Wal Mart? They would be better off working at Jorge's Bodega - they offer great benefits!
Some people might accuse the city council of being in the pocket of the unions that hate Wal Mart. But I'm sure she is just acting out of the goodness of her pure heart. I'm going to send her a big box of dental dams right now.
Yeah - because anyone who questions any irrational hatred of any of the un-PC corporations (Walmart, McDonalds, any oil company) is definitely Republican. They also eat heads off little babies I hear.
Perry, what you're saying is that we ought to welcome a shitty company, rather than trying to attract companies that would actually benefit the area.
I think some of you need to read Nickel and Dimed.
Nola, you and the food stamps... jees! (And cheap lesbo humor, dude... c'mon...)
I personally despise WM, so I don't shop there, and I try to remind friends/family that do what they're all about. And I guess that's the bottom line, you don't like it, don't shop there, and the market will take care of itself.
The problem is a lot of their practices are exploitive. While I believe in the capitalist system, I also believe there's a time and a place for a referee. Yes, it can be a slippery slope, but given the options (and discounting "D", see above) a law that says you can't lock your workers in after hours and force them to work hours that you're not going to pay them for and fire them if they want to exercise their right to unionize wouldn't be too far out in the stratosphere. Because looking at all of that, I think I'd rather work in my uncle's bodega... no benefits there either but at least I might get some cold cuts on the arm.
Damn, these conservatives are a-holes. A lot of anger out there coming from the keyboards of Republicans and wanna-be redstaters. You people need to get laid, or stoned, or something. Or better yet, get out of NYC and move to Arkansas.
There are many bigger-picture reasons to oppose Wal-Mart's expansion into every goddamn corner of America, beyond its reprehensible treatment of employees (including illegally locking people in stores overnight) and its determination to pay the least amount of benefits it can get away with. The company also buys its goods from China and other countries where manufacturing is super cheap, and hence it has contributed to the closing of manufacturing plants in America and, consequently, the loss of high-paying jobs. The low-income jobs it creates do not balance that out. In addition, the presence of Wal-Marts makes it harder for small businesses to stay afloat. Wal-Mart may hire people who previously didn't have jobs, but they inevitably put a lot of other people out of work.
Besides the political considerations in evaluating whether a Wal-Mart should be built in the city, downtown Brooklyn (for one example, as I live near there) is already looking too much like a damn suburban mall, with Target and Chuck E. Cheese and an Applebee's. If the city wants to provide people with more shopping and dining opportunities, they should fund small-business loans for local people to set up shop, not keep encouraging the homogenization of NYC by faceless, soulless nationwide chains. That should be reserved for the second- and third-tier cities that crowd the landscape of this increasingly corporate-controlled country.
Frontline did an exploration of how Wal-Mart's policies affect the U.S. economy on a large scale. Here's the verdict of one economist: "If people were only consumers, buying things at lower prices would be just good. But people also are workers who need to earn a decent standard of living," says economist Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute. "The dynamics that create lower prices at Wal-Mart and other places are also undercutting the ability of many, many workers to earn decent wages and benefits and have a stable life."
Of course, conservatives see it differently, because they worship the free market and don't give a damn about people. As long as those at the top are getting richer and richer (by exploiting the rest of us), the market is working the way it should! But if you have an interest in the connection between Wal-Mart and job losses in this country, check it out.
Here's a link to the PBS site, where you can read about it and watch video clips or the whole program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/
Tim - Sorry to continue the food stamp theme but it is very relevant. Certain left wingers seem to prefer that poor people stay on welfare rather than have an opportunity to work their way up the ladder. More Wal Marts would mean fewer people on public assistance - despite what some of the dishonest critics say. Nobody is leaving Goldman Sachs to work at Wal Mart. The people who take those jobs are getting their foot in the door and will have opportunities to make more money and get better benefits than they would at some bodega.
And say what you will, but if you had to choose between a Wal Mart or one of the little businesses it is competing with you would choose Wal Mart. Unlike the bodegas, there is genuine opportunity for advancement and that is why whenever one opens up there are thousands of people lining up for jobs.
Quinn Defender - What a perfectly sanctimonious fraud you are. I love the McCarthy-ite technique you clowns employ: all Wal Mart defenders are Republicans! I certainly am, but I'll bet most other posters here are not. And the Arkansas reference - perfect. If only those poor people could be as hip as you.
Every single criticism you make about Wal Mart can be made against practically every large business in the US, including many here in NYC. And I'll bet half the stuff in your crummy little apartment were made in China or other third world countries, you hypocrite.
If you are too cool to live near an Applebee's, move. Or open your own business, instead of telling the world where it should shop and eat.
What ladder does Wal-Mart have?
Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't have access to low prices, or that any job will benefit some people on welfare. We do object to this particular company...why are some of you so focused on Wal-Mart? There ARE other chains that provide low prices, but most importantly are a little better in their benefits.
People love to make fun of transplants, but take it from a transplant that you DO NOT want a Wal-Mart in your backyard. We know our chain companies, and which ones are less offensive. We can also call which chain stores will fall victim to the "NYC beating." You know, how formerly clean aisles and a big, shiny selection are replaced by dirty floors, and 3 broken packages of what you don't want within 2 weeks of opening in the 5 boroughs (see Altantic Center Chuck E Cheese as a prime example, and don't ask why I was there). Just think of the how broken, tired, and filthy a Wal-Mart would be after the honeymoon period!
If you're so "concerned" about jobs, support businesses that will provide jobs that allow people to make a LIVING wage with health benefits, whether it is a large scale operation or a mom and pop storefront. If you really want to help people get back on their feet and the economy in general, think quality as opposed to quantity.
Wal Mart is evil in so many ways, from the way they destroy small business and small towns, to the way they treat workers, to the censorship, to the driving of companies out of business, to the fact they are one of Red China's biggest trading partners. What good are they doing?
It is better that we keep out Wal-Mart and instead pander to Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Bankers with eight to ten figure salaries do so much to create jobs - jobs like office cleaner, bus boy, and stripper.
New York City has the worst income inequality in the country and Wal-mart has nothing to do with it. A large cloud of smug just blew in.
I shop at Walmart only if I have no alternative, such as in some rural areas. It never is a good experience despite lower prices for certain things. The employees are surly and you know they are unhappy and can't wait to leave their shift.
Nola, you sound like a Wal-Mart public relations flack.
You're completely inaccurate in claiming that it's only "dishonest critics" who point out that Wal-Mart employees across America are on public assistance. It's a fact.
Because of the mounting expense for the state created by Wal-Mart's nonpayment of benefits, the Maryland state senate was even driven to pass a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits or contribute that money to the state's Medicaid program.
And take it from someone who actually worked for the company: "On a Dec. 19, 2003 broadcast of NOW with Bill Moyers, former 10-year Wal-Mart manager Gretchen Adams said managers kept 'a list of the state agencies so that we could have some place to send these associates…for Medicaid, for well-baby care, for whatever it is that they need.'"
Add to this the fact that governments across the U.S. have given Wal-Mart billions of dollars in subsidies to set up stores, and it's hard to deny (even for Republicans like you [who oddly seem offended to be called on what you are: a Republican]) that the company is a blight.
It is a well known fact that many Wal Mart employees make use of social services. But what do you think these people were doing before they came to Wal Mart? Trading foreign currency? And what kind of medical benefits do you think the bodegas offer? People work at Wal Mart by choice - and unlike the beloved mom and pops, Wal Mart does offer people the opportunity to mvoe into better paying jobs with medical benefits, college tuition plans, etc.
Every single criticism made against Wal Mart can be made against hundreds of other American businesses. And if it were such a bad place to work, people wouldn't be lining up for jobs there.
By the way, what makes you think I'm uncomfortable to be labeled a Republican? I identify myself as such all the time. I merely pointed out that you clowns utilize the McCarthy technique of calling someone a name in lieu of argument. But I suspect this is all way over your head...
Hm, resorting to name-calling in lieu of an argument? Kind of how you called me a "hypocrite" and "fraud" (both made me laugh)? And what about your absurd allegation that Democrats want to keep people on welfare and foodstamps? Not to mention the silly "I suspect this is all over your head" comment. Belittling and mischaracterizing your opponents, yeah that's way more enlightened than name-calling.
Let's keep in mind that McCarthy was a Republican like you. His paranoia, jingoism and viciousness tend to go along with the conservative mindset (I went to a college where the student body was about 95% Republican, so I'm somewhat of an expert on that point).
You're right that many of the complaints that people have made against Wal-Mart in these comments and other venues could be made against many other American businesses. But in a case where there's a head-to-head comparison of competitors to be made -- Costco vs. Wal-Mart -- one company comes out way ahead in terms of the way it impacts communities. And the old "everybody is worthy of criticism" argument is such a cop-out. Instead of saying, 'Well, all American companies treat employees like shit and sap up economic resources that we all provide,' more people should be speaking out and trying to hold all companies to higher standards. Wal-Mart is worthy of being picked on, and made an example of, because it's so damn huge and so damn profitable. Getting it to change its policies might have a positive impact vis-a-vis some of those many other companies you've spoken of.
You have every right to lobby for socialist economic policies. But while most Americans do not worship the free market, they realize it provides better products and prices than some frustrated hipsters in Brooklyn ever will. If you don't think it should be legal to sell products manufactured in China you can lobby for new laws. But right now it is legal to sell these products so Wal Mart has every right to sell them.
You can pretend to care about the poor, but the poor who want to work are lining up for jobs at Wal Mart. If you keep Wal Mart out they either remain unemployed or take jobs in bodegas that offer less pay, less benfits and less opportunity for advancement.
Unlike you, I know people who have worked at Wal Mart. None of them had college degrees and WM offered opportunities that they never would have had at most other companies. There are also many lower income people who benefit from their lower prices. So you want to deny these people jobs and affordable products? Funny how the "idealists" on the left love talking about the poor but would rather give them food stamps than let them work and shop where they want.