Daley Veto's Big Box Ordinance
A lot of pundits complained when it took George Bush over five years to issue his first veto as president. Well he's got nothing on Mayor Daley of Chicago, who issued his very first veto after 17 years in office yesterday.
Daley vetoed the so called "living wage ordinance" that only targeted major retailers in the city, saying it's a bad idea for attracting business to the city. He's most likely right, since 3 major projects have been put on hold since the city council passed the original measure.
When the original vote was taken on the measure the majority was "veto proof", but by filing early enough to hold a sustaining vote at Wednesdays meeting of the city council Daley is taking advantage of the absence of a few alderman who supported the vote but are away traveling now.
He's also lined up 2-3 others who plan on switching their votes, signalling the probable death of the ordinance for now, though some alderman have promised a new incarnation of the bill later on.
The AFL-CIO folks and other unions are understandably dismayed that a democrat fell off the "living wage" bandwagon and issued such a veto. While they have threatened through back doors to withhold support for Daley and some alderman in February's city wide election the truth is Daley needs unions like fish need bikes. There are few, if any local politicians who have a chance of surviving a race against him, and he knows it. The truth is, he's got enough power in Chicago to keep the folks on the council he'd like, and defeat pretty much any union backed hacks who are tossed on the ballot.
Because of his coattails I doubt you see any incarnation of this ordinance come back until after the election next year. The alderman who supported it can rightfully tell the unions who bullied them they did their best, but they won't push Daley hard on it with voters going to the polls.
Thanks to John over at Marathon Pundit for some info on the issue.
Technorati Tags: Unions, Chicago, Living Wage, Big Box Retailers
Daley vetoed the so called "living wage ordinance" that only targeted major retailers in the city, saying it's a bad idea for attracting business to the city. He's most likely right, since 3 major projects have been put on hold since the city council passed the original measure.
When the original vote was taken on the measure the majority was "veto proof", but by filing early enough to hold a sustaining vote at Wednesdays meeting of the city council Daley is taking advantage of the absence of a few alderman who supported the vote but are away traveling now.
He's also lined up 2-3 others who plan on switching their votes, signalling the probable death of the ordinance for now, though some alderman have promised a new incarnation of the bill later on.
The AFL-CIO folks and other unions are understandably dismayed that a democrat fell off the "living wage" bandwagon and issued such a veto. While they have threatened through back doors to withhold support for Daley and some alderman in February's city wide election the truth is Daley needs unions like fish need bikes. There are few, if any local politicians who have a chance of surviving a race against him, and he knows it. The truth is, he's got enough power in Chicago to keep the folks on the council he'd like, and defeat pretty much any union backed hacks who are tossed on the ballot.
Because of his coattails I doubt you see any incarnation of this ordinance come back until after the election next year. The alderman who supported it can rightfully tell the unions who bullied them they did their best, but they won't push Daley hard on it with voters going to the polls.
Thanks to John over at Marathon Pundit for some info on the issue.
Technorati Tags: Unions, Chicago, Living Wage, Big Box Retailers
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:11 AM
1Comments:
The unions still see themselves as all powerful and one day they will realize that they have grown powerless over the last couple of decades. I say "no loss". The DEMs are beginning to realize it already, but still want the union cash even if the union can't supply the votes.
Post a Comment
<< Home