Meijer rehabs space for new stores. Walmart builds new. The problem at Deerbrook is the teeny tiny dirty little Jewel. Lease clauses prevent another grocery chain from opening in Deerbrook. Otherwise, The Wonder space would be perfect for a Meijer. Northbrook should embrace the Walmart and be thrilled with the tax revenue!

Very true!

Note that in Michigan, the lame duck GOP just rammed through "Right to Work" FOR LESS, legislation, which was brought to you by the Koch bros., ALEC, and the great restauranteurs of this nation like Dominos, Pizza Hut and Dennys. Sure there will be workers, because there are people desperate for any job. I hope the north suburbs snub Wal-mart if they move in , but that's just my wishful thinking.

Actually it was "Right to Work" WITHOUT being forced to pay a union dues if you don't want to. The amount bandied about was about $1500/yr that the worker would save by not being forced to join or pay tribute to the union.

I've always said if the union wants members, they need to provide value. If they're not, no one should be require to pay them a dime.

Debra You should read the article. SHES QUOTING YOU.

Dave....wrong wrongwrong... Unions provide safety, betterpay, and some minimal rights for workers versus their overlords. Check the stats. So called "Right to Work" States have a one-third higher work related fatality rate, about $6000 less per family and little job security. Unions don't provide any value my a^&.

average worker—unionized or not—of working in a right-to-work state is to earn approximately $1,500 less per year than a similar worker in a state without such a law.

D'skidoc: Safety is overseen by OSHA and the requirements are quite extensive (I have been OSHA safety-certified so I'm familiar with the regs.), if an employer isn't following the OSHA rules, there's anonymous hotlines to report that, and OSHA will investigate. Granted, Unions likely had an effect on getting OSHA implemented, but even w/o Unions I don't see OSHA getting abolished.

Better pay: Yes, but only because the Union demands more pay under threat of slowdown, or strike. I've never seen it happen when it was tied to actual, achievable performance metrics for an individual employee. More typical is the "Everyone gets a raise for continuing to be on the job. Performance or not."

Minimal Rights: Federal and State laws cover these rights. What else are you referring to?

Also, regarding the allegedly higher fatality rates and $6K less/family - where did you get those stats from? I'd be interested in reviewing the study/studies and their methodologies.

Lucas: The amount bandied about is that Union dues run $1500/yr. So if someone's in a Unionized state - they're giving that money right to the Union, so they're not making anything more. If they're making $1500 less in a right-to-work state, then they're essentially making the same as a worker in a forced-to-pay State. So it seems like a wash to me.

dave, OSHA is all well and good, but most minimum wage, unskilled workers are eitther ignorant of those details, or would be more easily intimidated than might you, for instance, with your education and experience. And they desperately need the job. One third higher fatality rate in states with right to work.

OSHA can't help you after you're dead. These laws were really designed to gut the Unions ability to fight back politically. No Union dues. No Union political power. Power flows back up to the top/right. Rich guys get richer on the backs of cheap labor.

I agree, the typical unskilled (and even some skilled) workers may not know their rights, that's why States mandate that employers post signage in the break room or by the time clock that contains the information employees need to know about their rights. The signs are inexpensive, the fines are expensive, so the only employers that don't post them are probably sweatshops that chain the doors anyway...

After that, it's up to the employee to read the signage and take action if they want.

Regarding the 1/3 higher fatality rate in right-to-work States, where'd you get that stat from?

As for OSHA not being able to help after you're dead - to some extent that's true. They may have an investigation after a death that tends to help others, but for help after you're dead, you have to call "James Sokolove Law" (totally tongue in cheek for the late night commercial impaired).

Dave, your problem is that you're an intelligent, educated guy who can't relate at all to the fact that a huge proportion of this country is not in your fortunate position. It's not that I don't think you have empathy, I just don't think you get it. These are folks who, through no basic fault of their own come to adulthood with the reading and writing, and evaluative skills we here in the bubble would expect from a 5th grader. The cycle repeats itself when the jobs that these folks qualify for don't pay enough to house and feed and nurture the next generation. Take away food stamps and the kids go to school hungry, they can't learn effectively, etc...And you think folks like that can or would call OSHA or any other agency. No clout, no friends who are lawyers with a little free advice. No other job prospects and rent and gas and other bills that are all taxed at a far higher rate than income so as to be regressive. Screwed those people are, and you expect them, as individuals, to be able to speak up against the corporate overlords. Yeah right! That's why Unions won hard fought battles and represent workers both in the workplace and politically. Without the Unions it's a very one-sided fight.

Sorry Dave, I was off by a bit.
Right-to-work states and workplace fatality rates

28Dec10

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with right-to-work laws.

Does this mean that employees in right-to-work states are somehow clumsier, or more accident-prone? Not likely! But it does allow employers to ignore worker input about their working conditions…

One of the most egregious offenders in recent news are the mines in West Virginia. As opposed to some news reports, the companies with the highest workplace injuries and fatalities are those without union contracts.

If you think your employer probably values money more than your health, you might be right. Especially if you work for one that does not have any union contracts at all.

"...your problem is that you're an intelligent, educated guy who can't relate at all to the fact that a huge proportion of this country is not in your fortunate position. It's not that I don't think you have empathy, I just don't think you get it."

Actually, that's not true. I 'get it' - I've known and I'm proud to know people from all strata in life, and I respect those who work to better themselves and their families - even if it takes generations to do so.

Simply because someone doesn't have a college-degree (or maybe even high school in some cases) doesn't mean that the taxpayers now have a dependent that has to be coddled for life. Quite the contrary - we need to give these persons a fighting chance, but we need to make it crystal clear that it's limited and won't be renewed, so they need to do what's necessary to move forward. We've already seen the problems that occur when we feed, clothe, and house people who have zero motivation to better themselves or their families. And simply because they're making minimum wage doesn't mean they can't get out of a rut - is it easy? Hell no. But it can be done. Millions have done it over time. Millions more can continue to do so.

Once upon a time Unions served a purpose, but I believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the Unions and they've now become what they fought against - to the detriment of the rest of us.

Cadillac-Rolls-Bently-Wal-mart...I can see how those fit together.

That's it!!! Starve them out of existence.

I'm talking about hungry children here b g. Poor nutrition plus poor schools plus crappy jobs for the parents equals another generation of less productive adults. Make sure kids today have a good meal, a good school, a living wage for their caregiver, and the next generation will be better able to take care of itself.

How long should the taxpayer be required to feed someone else's child? Or children?

Having kids is expensive. If you want to have kids, make sure you can afford them first. If you can't - don't have them. But don't have them and then expect the taxpayers to feed them, clothe them, and house them forever. That's a lousy solution.

So I suppose you disavow the GOP fight against contraception, since that's how most people (Catholics included) do that family planning thing. What is your solution? Let the kids go to a shitty school (cheap labor w/o Union) with an empty stomach. Can't learn, can't possibly succeed. Repeat. How about camps? Debtors prisons? Where are those job creators you guys all talk so much about? I'll tell you where. They're offshoring and banking their cash and not investing in the US because it's not a good investment right now. Politically unstable, I'd say with this debt ceiling threat and fiscal cliff crap. Rich guys invest to make money, not to create jobs, and that's fine, but what happens when the rich guys take most of the money and stop playing. Do you just let everyone else starve, Dave? What's your answer, since you always seem to have a smart one?

I believe that contraception is up to the parties involved in having sexual intercourse. No one else should get to tell them what to do. Schools without a Union don't necessarily = a bad school. There's plenty of schools that don't have unions and provide a quality education. Empty stomach? Again, where did the taxpayers inherit a dependent that they have to feed? At what point does parental responsibility factor into the equation? At what point do we tell people to 'do the math' before having kids?

The 'job creators' create jobs because they want to INVEST their money and make more. When you have a bunch of politicians who put uncertainty into the market, businesses will tend to hoard their cash to weather a storm. If someone doesn't like what's offered - they're free to start their own business, risk their own capital. If they can't get it from a bank, they're free to get a number of persons together, pool their funds, and go from there - then perhaps they'll gain some insight into just how difficult it is to own/operate a business. So long as there's money to be made, people will invest - but confiscatory tax rates, onerous regulations, and extortionist groups such as Unions demanding ever more $$$ when they don't add value isn't going to spur investment.

If Unions want to demand more money, they need to prove the value to the employer and the employee. If they don't, they operate at their own peril.

Capitalism works for the rich cause they can hold onto all the money until everyone else has none.

Skidoc,
Capitalism combined with free markets has created the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known. It is that engine which makes it possible for a large segment of the population to rise out of poverty into the middle class. A free market economy is the only economic system that does not involve coercion.

You keep referring to "corporate overlords", but Walmart does not force anyone to work at their stores. They do not enslave anyone. Are you saying there are thousands of workers per year dieing at Walmart stores due to the hazardous conditions and callous management? No.

Who should we be afraid of?
Walmart : Who offers safe jobs to people who willingly accept them, while providing low cost goods which raise the standard of living for those who have the least to spend. Essentially Walmart is a win-win for poor people. They can get a job there, and they can shop there.
... or ...
State and Federal governments who take trilllions of dollars from the private sector and use it to pay off their political friends while making trillions of dollars of unfunded promises to be paid in the future which will leave our children toiling as slaves under the crushing burden of our debt.

If you check your history you'll find that capitalism is the only system that works for everyone.

Gary, if capitalism worked for EVERYONE we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If capitalism didn't work, we wouldn't have this country.

So what you just said is that if Walmart didn't give these people jobs, then they'd be out on the street drawing a welfare check, because according to you they have no place else to go. Do you stand by that?

you forgot to mention the BILLIONAIRIES that are Dems

He thinks they would all be better off sitting at home watching Dr Oz, and walking to their mailboxes once a day to pick up checks funded by the Kochs. For him the oligarchs are anyone who tries risks by attempting to meet a market need by becoming a business owner, unless they pay the worker equal to their own take. After all they didn't build it.

Gary, the problem isn't capitalism. As you say, we woudn't be where we are without it. But capitalism is an economic system, not a governmental one. I object to the notion that because folks have been successful economically, they should then have more influence over the government. You know that pesky, "of the people, by people, and for the people" thing. Not just the rich and powerful people. Luke, the rich and powerful Dems advocate for that "for the people" thing. The ultrarich GOPers advocate for their own personal agendas more often than not. But I don't suppose you see the distinction. And McC, you don't have a clue what I really think, and the ridiculous hyperbole and insults only hurt your cred.
C

Wal-mart is just the example..we're talking about a huge segment of the economy. Low wage, no full time hours so no benefits, no advancement potential, subsistence level at best. If it's not Wal-mart it's fast food, or Disney (they pay just above min wage) Service sector, cheap labor. And get fired at the will of your employer for cause, or no cause at all. Don't get me started on the "for profit education industry" scam either.

If these jobs are so awful, then why does anyone accept the position?

It sure is a good thing our teachers' unions are a non-profit enterprise.

Regarding Henry Ford - you may wish to read this article and know your thoughts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/

NON Union

Although I'm no fan of Jewel or their parent company it's not just them, it's across the industry - a lot to do with the price of food is derived from the price of corn. And ever since some genius decided it'd be a great idea to turn food (corn) into fuel, we've been dealing with the fallout. Add in the recent drought this past summer which adversely affected corn crops and you've got more pressure.

Then add in fuel costs - they've been sky high, so you have increased costs for delivery and transportation.

Google for "grocery shrink ray" and discover even more grocery store pricing craziness.

Sarcastic, but I'll continue the comparison. You're all for the free market healthcare system and if the Grocery stores charged like the medical providers....everyone would pay a different price, and the poorer people would pay more for their groceries than other people....just like the McCloud healthcare system.

if Wal-Mart paid for this poll I didn't get a cut. I don't shop Wal-Mart because there isn't one close enough. think most of the haters claim they wouldn't either haven't for sililiar reason, or actually do and don't want to admit. Most claim everything comes from china I doubt that but most stuff I looked to purchase came from other countries other then this one