http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101220/OPINION/101229955?Title=GUEST-OPINION-Memorial-hospital-and-right-to-organize
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Closer to Home
Memorial Hospital and the Right to Organize
by Martin J. Bennett
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), passed by Congress in 1935. That legislation extended basic labor rights to American workers, including the rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to strike for fair wages, benefits, and workplace safety.
However, as the recent attempt to organize a union by workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital demonstrates, Americans have little cause to celebrate. Today, American workers are systematically denied their basic labor rights. In a 2000 study, Human Rights Watch reported that, "worker's freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States and the government is often failing its responsibility under international human rights standards to deter such attacks and protect worker's rights."
The organizing campaign by Memorial workers is representative of how labor law is failing American workers. What are the facts?
In December 2009, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducted an election at Memorial Hospital, owned and operated by St Joseph's Health System, to determine if nearly 700 employees desired union representation. The election was the culmination of a six-year grassroots campaign led by an organizing committee of several dozen veteran Memorial employees.
After a review of contested ballots, the NLRB declared, this past January, that the National Union of Health Care Workers (NUHW) had received a solid majority of the votes cast. Management appealed this decision and requested that the labor board nullify the results because of alleged unfair labor practices by the union. In April, the NLRB regional office conducted a four-day hearing. Witnesses were questioned by attorneys for both sides about alleged intimidation of voters and improper campaigning near polling places by the union.
In May, administrative law judge William Schmidt dismissed management's objections, declared NUHW the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees, and directed management to begin contract negotiations with the union. Instead, St. Joseph's has chosen to appeal this decision to the five-member national NLRB appointed by the president. It may be more than a year before the board can review the judge's decision. If the national NLRB rejects the unfair labor practices charges, management can then delay union recognition for several more years by appealing to the federal courts.
What is going on here? Over the last two decades Cornell University Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner has studied the gradual erosion of labor protections for American workers. She has documented the legal and illegal tactics of employers to thwart unionization. Brofenbrenner found in her most recent 2009 study, "No Holds Barred: the Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing," that the NLRA no longer prevents intimidation, surveillance, retaliation, and firings faced by workers who attempt to organize a union. More than 20,000 workers are illegally discharged or disciplined each year for union activity.
Furthermore, she reports that in 37 percent of the successful organizing campaigns, workers fail to win a first contract within two years. There are no effective penalties for intransigent employers like St. Joseph's, who refuse to recognize a union chosen by majority vote and who resist negotiating a first contract.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has recognized the inadequate federal protections for worker's rights. In June 2009, the Bishops released principles for Catholic health care institutions, "Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Healthcare and Unions," intended to guide labor relations and to safeguard worker's rights. These principles state that the "union and the employer will honor the results of an election" and that both parties after the election will "immediately begin working in good faith to reach a collective bargaining agreement." The Santa Rosa Catholic Diocese has adopted these principles. Why can't St. Joseph's?
These delaying tactics by management are part of a systematic campaign to deny Memorial workers their basic human and constitutional right to form a union. Further delay will erode trust and good will between labor and management, undermine effective communication at the workplace, and contribute to declining employee morale.
St. Joseph's should immediately drop all legal appeals and commence bargaining with NUHW. Management should join other major employers in the region, such as PG&E, Kaiser Permanente, and the Council on Aging, that have built partnerships with unions to develop a high-performance workplace characterized by increased productivity, high levels of employee morale--and most importantly, an improved quality of services.
As Melissa Bosanco, a Memorial oncology care partner and NUHW activist stated, "We voted NUHW because we wanted a voice to make our hospital a better place to work and a better place for our community to get care."
Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College, and serves as Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition. He served on the Fair Election Oversight Commission, a group of community leaders that monitored the 2009 NLRB elections at Memorial Hospital.
http://sonomacountygazette.blogspot.com/2010/11/walmart-rohnert-park-superstore.html
Sonoma Gazette
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Rohnert Park Wal-Mart Supercenter Approved and Opponents File Lawsuit
by Martin J. Bennett
Rohnert Park is now the epicenter for the battle against sprawl and big box development in the North Bay.
In April, the Rohnert Park Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposal by Wal-Mart to enlarge its existing discount store into a 167,000 square- foot supercenter. Wal-Mart appealed the decision to the city council and in July the council voted to approve the project. Council member Jake Mackenzie was the lone dissenting vote.
A broad coalition of labor, environmental, and community organizations from across the county organized a grassroots campaign against the supercenter. This year-long effort included canvassing most households in the city, tabling at local supermarkets, and phone banking city residents. Hundreds of opponents packed both the planning and city council meetings, and the coalition delivered more than 4000 signatures to the city council from residents opposed to the project.
Following the city council vote, Sonoma County Conservation Action and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit challenging the approval of the EIR and the project.
The coalition is continuing to make the case to the community that the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits.
The economic and environmental impacts of the proposed supercenter are regional and extend far beyond Rohnert Park. The controversy raises fundamental questions about future growth and the necessity for proactive city and regional planning to promote equitable and sustainable development.
Development in Sonoma County is inevitable. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the population of Sonoma County will increase by twenty-three percent over the next twenty years. In 2008, voters approved a landmark initiative to meet this challenge, creating the two-county SMART train that will run on tracks adjacent to Highway 101 from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The build-out of the train system provides the opportunity for city-centered 'transit-oriented development' (TOD) around the fourteen SMART train stations--development that could accommodate ninety percent of the projected population growth.
TOD is densely-built, mixed-use development within one-half mile of transit stations, accessible by bicycle and foot, and with a variety of retail, office, and small businesses. Through land-use planning and public funding, municipalities can promote development near transit stations that includes good jobs paying family-supporting wages, affordable housing for all income groups, open space, and walkable neighborhoods.
The Wal-Mart supercenter will be located a quarter of a mile from the site of the planned Rohnert Park SMART train station and is a direct threat to such careful and appropriate planning.
Opponents of the Wal-Mart supercenter believe it undermines compact and equitable development in Rohnert Park, and violates the city's general plan, which mandates access by residents to neighborhood supermarkets. The project undercuts transit-oriented development's efforts to reduce low-wage work, support local business, tackle global warming, and lay the foundation for a robust regional economy.
Nearly one third of the workforce in Sonoma County are currently 'working poor' and do not earn a self-sufficiency, or 'living wage.' According to the Insight Center for Community and Economic Development in 2008, two parents working full-time to support two children in Sonoma County must each earn $14.90 an hour or $62,940 a year to pay for food, housing, medical care, child care, and transportation.
Sonoma State University economist Robert Eyler reports that the supercenter will contribute to job quality decline and increase the problem of working poverty. According to his analysis, the county will lose 105-211 jobs--mostly good jobs that pay hourly wages for full-time workers ranging from $17.67 per hour at Pacific Market, a local independent grocer, to $23.36 at Raley's and Safeway. The Wal-Mart supercenter will employ 450 workers, and, according to the company, the typical full-time worker at Wal-Mart earns $12.10 an hour.
With regard to global warming, the supercenter will have adverse effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In order to comply with AB 32, a 2006 state legislative measure, all nine cities and the county have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions twenty-five percent by 2015. However, the Eyler report notes that Pacific Market will close if the supercenter is built, and its 8,000 customers will drive an extra 28,400 miles each week to shop for groceries.
Further, Stacy Mitchell, author of Big Box Swindle, reports that vehicle miles driven per customer will increase because a supercenter draws shoppers from a greater distance than a discount store. Indeed, since Wal-Mart's rapid expansion in the late 1970s, miles traveled per household to shop has skyrocketed by three hundred percent, while total household driving increased by seventy--five percent.
As for local business, there are sixty local suppliers that provide produce and merchandise to Pacific Market, and more than seventy supply Oliver's, the largest grocery in nearby Cotati. Wal-Mart suppliers, on the other hand, are nearly 100 percent national and global firms.
The 'Go Local' movement has demonstrated that patronizing local businesses ensures that more dollars remain in the community. Studies by Civic Economics demonstrate that locally-owned firms produce two to three times more economic activity within the local economy than national chains --including locally-retained profits, wages paid to local residents, purchases from local suppliers, and contributions to local nonprofits.
The Wal-Mart supercenter will undermine transit-oriented and equitable development in the North Bay. To accommodate population growth and to promote sustainable development, all cities along the 101 corridor in Marin and Sonoma counties must prioritize the creation of good jobs and affordable housing near SMART train stations.
A favorable outcome of the lawsuit could force the City of Rohnert Park to revisit the decision to approve the Wal-Mart expansion. Two planning commissioners, John Borba and Amy Ahanotu, who voted against the Wal-Mart project ran for the city council this past fall. Ahanotu was elected and Borba was narrowly defeated. The battle to halt the supercenter is far from over.
Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College and is a Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100915/articles/100919679
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
September 15, 2010
Groups Sue to Block Rohnert Park Wal-Mart Expansion
By Jeremy Hay
Foes of a Wal-Mart Supercenter have sued Rohnert Park, challenging the City Council's approval in August of the company's application to expand in its Redwood Drive location.
In the lawsuit, the Sierra Club and Sonoma County Conservation Action argue that the council's decision effectively violated the land use policies outlined in the city's general plan, which calls for encouraging supermarkets to be "close to where people live."
The general plan is "essentially a legally binding document, it's almost like a constitution for the city, and the City Council doesn't have the right to abrogate it," said Rick Luttmann, a Sonoma State University professor and a Sonoma County Conservation Action member.
The suit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, also charges that the council decided incorrectly that the project's environmental impacts were offset by its benefits.
The council's decision, on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Jake Mackenzie opposed, overturned an earlier unanimous vote in which the city's Planning Commissioner rejected the application.
"We felt that the Planning Commission was on the right track when they denied the project," said Denny Rosatti, executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, an environmental advocacy group.
"We just feel that the City Council did not do the citizenry justice," Rosatti said. "So we're going to take it to the courts and see if they agree with us, we feel pretty confident that we feel our case is strong."
Wal-Mart, which has been in Rohnert Park at its present location for close to 20 years, wants to add a 32,000 square foot grocery.
Lawyers for the city did not respond to phone calls seeking comment Wednesday. But Vice-Mayor Gina Belforte said she wasn't surprised.
"It was anticipated only from the standpoint that someone had e-mailed me before we even voted saying there would be one if we didn't vote to uphold the Planning Commission's decision," she said.
Wal-Mart representatives said they were disappointed in the action by opponents and that consumers will suffer as a result.
"It's unfortunate that the opposition has filed a lawsuit to delay the project and us from moving forward with the project that the community wants and needs," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Angela Stoner.
"The project meets all requirements by the city and we've done everything that's legally required of us," Stoner said.
She said that under the company's agreement with Rohnert Park, it will fund the city's legal fees.
The plaintiff's legal services are being provided by lawyers retained by the San Francisco-based California Healthy Communities Network, a community organizing group that was active in efforts to convince the council to reject Wal-Mart's application.
Phil Tucker, the group's project director, said stores such as Wal-Mart have a ripple effect on local economies, putting smaller competitors out of business, and, by increasing traffic, on the environment.
"Many of these big box stores are intruding into areas that are very fragile," he said. "We're very, very concerned about general plans, urban sprawl, and also about things that can weigh on creating blight, urban decay," he said.
In 2009, a coalition of groups opposed to a Wal-Mart planned for Roseland won a courtroom challenge of the Santa Rosa City Council's approval of the environmental impact report on the project, leading the company to end its bid five years after announcing its plans.
Wal-Mart Watch
August 2, 2010
Rohnert Park California: City Council Approves Wal-Mart Supercenter
Wal-Mart Opponents Called "Un-American"
by Al Norman
On May 10, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that a newspaper poll in Rohnert Park, California indicated that the public is losing enthusiasm for big box stores.
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported that its readers were "generally opposed to many of the pending big-box plans in Sonoma County, including a proposed Lowe's in Santa Rosa and a Wal-Mart expansion in Rohnert Park."
54% of readers opposed a plan by Wal-Mart to expand its Rohnert Park store on Redwood Drive by 32,000 s.f., and another 12% were unsure. Only 34% supported Wal-Mart's expansion plans. "Please, we do not need an expanded Wal-Mart in Rohnert Park," wrote a Rohnert Park resident. "I never go to that store."
68% of those who took the survey said they were willing to pay more for an item if they knew they were supporting a locally owned business. 56% said they "frequently" or "always" made their shopping decisions based on whether the store is locally owned. "For every dollar spent, only 15 cents are recirculated locally when a purchase is made at a national chain," wrote a resident of Windsor, California. "Forty-five cents are recirculated when that same dollar is spent at a locally owned chain. National chains rob us of economic sustainability."
At a Planning Commissioners hearing in late April, Wal-Mart couldn't scrape up one vote in support of super-sizing its current discount store in Rohnert Park. According to the Sonoma State Star newspaper, Wal-Mart got whiffed 4-0 by the Planning Commissioners, who cited the project's environmental impact report as the reason to reject the expansion.
A large crowd filled the city council chambers, as members of the public raised concerns about traffic congestion, about impact on existing grocers like Pacific Market, and the loss of local jobs. Other opponents focused on the wisdom of buying local, reducing green house gas emissions, and supporting local agriculture. A major concern was the traffic congestion that a larger store would generate---an outcome that even Wal-Mart admitted was unacceptable, the State Star said.
An economic impact report paid for by Pacific Market, and conducted by Sonoma State College's Center for Regional Economic Analysis, concluded that the Wal-Mart expansion would lead to a net loss of 105 to 211 jobs. A Wal-Mart spokesman insisted that the store expansion would "create" 85 new jobs.
After the Planning Commission vote a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart told the Press Democrat that the result was "a great disappointment" to Wal-Mart. Opponents of the project said at the time that Wal-Mart would appeal the Planning Commission decision to the Rohnert Park City Council. The Chair of the Commissioners, John Gorba, told the crowd that the large turnout of the public was "a great lesson in democracy."
But the democracy lesson wasn't over. Wal-Mart did appeal the Planning Commission vote, and this week the Rohnert Park City Council reversed the unanimous vote of their own Planning Commission, and gave Wal-Mart a green light to expand.
On June 29, 2010, the Council slammed the vote of the Planning Commission. "The Planning Commission didn't do their job, and shame on them," Councilman Joe Callinan told the large crowd of several hundred people at the evening hearing.
In a 4-1 vote, the City Council said the superstore's benefits outweighed its negative impacts. Even though the city's general plan says that grocery stores should be located near to shoppers, the Council saw no inconsistency.
One City Councilor even suggested that to stop Wal-Mart would be unpatriotic. "We need to uphold the law, we need to apply the law and we need to allow this project to move forward. I believe that not to do so would be un-American," said Councilwoman Amie Breeze.
Rhonert Park Mayor Pam Stafford voted for the expansion, claiming that the addition of a grocery component to Wal-Mart would help the local economy, but offered no economic evidence to back up her theory.
After the vote, the Planning Commission chairman told the media, "I think they made the wrong decision."
The 'lesson in democracy is still not over. Opponents have pledged to continue the battle. "We have not seen the end of this by any means," said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the Living Wage Coalition, one of the groups opposing the project. Wal-Mart lost a court challenge by opponents in the Roseland neighborhood of nearby Santa Rosa, California.
On August 29, 2008, the court agreed with anti-Wal-Mart residents that the environmental review done for the southwest Santa Rosa location was flawed. The lawsuit was brought by five Santa Rosa residents in 2007, seeking to overturn the 2006 approval of the Wal-Mart in the Roseland neighborhood of the city.
During the hearings on the project, residents criticized Wal-Mart's "predatory business and labor practices," its low pay and employee benefits, and its impact on other businesses in Santa Rosa. Judge Robert Boyd said the study of parking and noise from the project were "especially problematic." That Santa Rosa defeat cost Wal-Mart five years of delay before the project was scrubbed.
So a Rohnert Park lawsuit has Wal-Mart nervous. "It will be very unfortunate if special interests did delay the process even further," a spokesman for the retailer said. "They've planned for economic development in Rohnert Park, and they want the project to move forward as quickly as possible."
Wal-Mart has directed its future growth plans to converting its existing discount stores into larger supercenters, or, more recently, doing "in-box conversions," in which the store's interior is shifted from a discount store to a supercenter---without adding a single square foot in size.
Most big box projects today are being opposed by local residents, and this opposition can be very costly to developers and chain stores. What might be a three month permitting process can devolve into a three year battle, if citizens decide to challenge the big developers. As in the Rhonert Park case, the City Council's vote overturning its Planning Commission had led to a courtroom, not a ribbon-cutting.
Readers are urged to email Rohnert Park Mayor Pam Stafford at pstafford@rpcity.org with the following message: "Dear Mayor Stafford, Your vote for Wal-Mart expansion was regrettable, and the implication by Councilor Breeze that trying to stop a Wal-Mart was 'un-American' is truly over the top.
Something is wrong when a City Council ignores its own General Plan, and the unanimous vote of its Planning Commission. The Redwood Drive Wal-Mart doesn't need to be expanded. The fact is, Wal-Mart could remodel its interior floor area to do what it wants to do, without adding a single square foot to its building. This expansion just wastes more land, and could result in a net loss of jobs, according to the Center for Regional Economic Analysis study. This is not economic development, but economic displacement.
Your statement that adding a grocery story to Wal-Mart would help the local economy is absolutely unfounded. The consultant Retail Forward concluded in a 2003 study that for every one Wal-Mart superstore that opens, two local grocery stores will close. The city will witness a net job loss, and in return get traffic congestion that costs more money to fix, more police reports to investigate, more air pollution, and more money leaving the local economy.
Your Planning Commissioners were right to reject this expansion--and no one on the Commission supported it. You can expect to see this issue in court---and don't be surprised if you have another Roseland decision on your watch.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Rohnert Park Community Voice
July 30, 2010
Walmart OK Sets Up Grocery Battle Lines
by Nicholas Grizzle
Council Overturns Planning Commission Decision to Deny 35,000 sq. ft. Expansion Into Super Center
Onlookers peer into council chambers through locked doors at Thursday night's special meeting of the Rohnert Park City Council. The council met to decide the fate of Walmart's expansion into a super center, drawing hundreds of people to the meeting, most of whom spoke to the council on the issue.
The Rohnert Park City Council approved Walmart's expansion into a super center at a special meeting Thursday night.
"People say, 'Don't be afraid to do what's the right thing,' and unfortunately you could hear here tonight, this is a very divided issue," said Mayor Pam Stafford. "There was no overwhelming feeling one way or the other, but even if there was one overwhelming feeling over the other, that's not how we get to decide this issue... we have to do it based on the law.
"All our legal and staff reports have told us this is consistent with our General Plan."
With that, the council voted to repeal the planning commission's decision, thereby allowing Walmart to expand into a super center, adding 35,000 sq. ft. and including a full grocery store.
"I can't see where the benefits will not outweigh the significant impacts. I think the benefits are much greater," said council member Joe Callinan.
"We have been preaching economic development, and we have one of our biggest sales tax companies in Rohnert Park wanting to expand, I think we would look really silly if we didn't agree with that."
Reading from a paper, council member Amie Breeze said, "Both of these businesses are part of our community, by my definition, this makes them both local." She added, "I feel confident that from the reports we have read... there are benefits to this project that do outweigh the significant environmental impacts."
Council member Jake Mackenzie, the city's longest standing council member, was the single naysayer in the votes. "I would like to have seen... actual evidence that supports that there will be sales tax revenue increases to this city... or any overall increase in jobs to Rohnert Park."
His lone "no" echoed in the otherwise silent city hall.
After recollecting the vote regarding the proposed casino just outside city limits, during the vote Thursday night he said, "I would like to point out to this council that I personally believe there are grounds for legal action to be taken in this matter."
Vice-Mayor Gina Belforte said she did not appreciate the tactics used to sway public opinion in this debate, citing a flyer saying the council was "bulleyed" into voting for the expansion and her personal cell phone number distributed for residents to call with their comments. She stressed, however, that this did not sway her vote.
"I do believe this will drive economic development," she said. "I do see this as a benefit for the city as well." She continued, "I don't think the city council should, in any way, decide which businesses we choose and which businesses we don't choose."
Before public comment, which was extensive at the five-hour meeting, representatives from Walmart were given 15 minutes to present their case. They touched on sales tax revenue, the potential closing of Pacific Market and interpretation of the city's General Plan, which was cited in the planning commission's denial.
According to Angie Stoner, spokeswoman for Walmart, the Rohnert Park store generated $600,000 in sales tax revenue last year. If this is a total number, which Walmart was unable to confirm before deadline, Rohnert Park's share would be about 11 percent of that, or $66,000. The share of sales tax revenue increases to about 16 percent after a voter-approved sales tax increase goes into effect in October.
Regarding a possible increase in sales tax revenue from the grocery expansion, Stoner said, "According to the California Board of Equalization, our American Canyon store experienced an increase of 35.4 percent in taxable retail sales since a Walmart store with groceries opened there in 2007."
A 35 percent sales tax revenue increase coupled with Rohnert Park's sales tax increase would mean about $127,000 annually, or almost double the revenue the city currently revieves. But the expansion will not be complete for a couple years and Measure E, the sales tax increase, expires in five years. Stoner did not supply data or say where her sales tax figures came from.
With about 80 extra seats in the lobby and 40 outside, police were keeping a strict count on the number of people inside city hall. Standing room only would be an understatement. A speaker was set up outside for overflow attendance. One city employee estimated 100 speaker cards turned in, each given two minutes to say their peace.
Many were from out of town, but a significant portion were RP or Cotati residents. Many were objecting to or agreeing with Walmart based on ideological principals.
Marty Bennett, Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County said before the meeting, "Walmart would like to put a super center in every county," but the impact to local markets would be detrimental. "One super center equals all retail wages in the county going down by 1 percent."
The organization, "the leading opponent of the project," Bennett said, would oppose the same project in any city in the region. "The regional impact will go far beyond Rohnert Park," he said.
Steve Butler, a Santa Rosa attorney representing Pacific Market, said, "I do believe (the Walmart expansion) is contrary to your General Plan... (which) states 'maintain land use patterns that maximize residents' accessibility to neighborhood shopping centers.' I would respectfully submit that this project would clearly violate that policy as well as other transit and air quality policies of your General Plan."
City Engineer Darrin Jenkins confirmed after public comment, however, that the project "is consistent with the city's General Plan policies."
Pacific Market employees, and owner Ken Silveira also spoke to the council, describing their bleak situation. Silveria wrote a letter to the city stating his store would close if Walmart was allowed to expand. A study sponsored by the market also showed the job loss and economic blight would be significant if Pacific Market were to close, which was likely if Walmart expanded to include a grocery section roughly the size of Pacific Market.
But Stoner responded to these claims, saying, "We've met with the owner of Pacific Market and proposed multiple ways that we can assist in getting their business on more solid ground over the next couple years before an expanded store would open. They have responded with silence.
Save for a request to be bought out."
She added, "Though it is convenient to blame Walmart, it is simply not true that our expansion will ultimately determine the fate of their store here." Some comments from the public were emotional.
"I'd like to be able to buy my milk at a grocery store a short distance to my house, I don't want to be standing in line next to some guy buying a gun at Walmart," said Suzanne Sanders of Rohnert Park.
Shirley Slack of Santa Rosa cited a list of items currently available at Walmart for less than other RP stores, saying, "In this economy, we need this Walmart expansion."
Crystal Robert, of Santa Rosa said she shops at the Rohnert Park Walmart. "I just think that there should be more opportunities for us lower income families to be able to go to Walmart and find everything that they need there."
Jan Ogrin, who owns a business in Santa Rosa but lives in RP, was awaiting the council's decision as a factor in where she would continue to locate her business. "The decision you're making tonight is really a very major policy decision, and is speaking of where your loyalty lies."
She concluded, bluntly, "I'm here to find out if it would be safe for me to consider moving my business to Rohnert Park or should I stay in Santa Rosa."
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Daily Censored
July 21, 2010
Go Local vs. Wal-Mart and Super-sized Chains
By Will Shonbrun
On July 29 the Rohnert Park City Council will decide if it will approve a proposal by Wal-Mart to expand its Rohnert park store by more than 40,000 square feet, becoming a super center selling both groceries and retail. Rohnert Park's Planning Commission voted to turn down Wal-Mart's proposal in April, but the company appealed the decision to the city counsel.
There are pros and cons regarding this massive project though the negatives far outweigh the positives. What can be said in favor of the proposal, and has been in a number of letters to the Press Democrat, is that it will provide a place for inexpensive foods and goods to many people on very limited incomes. It can also be said that it will provide more jobs in the community though these are very low-paying ones, most with no health benefits.
Counter to the argument for jobs gained is the potential for jobs lost by local businesses that might well be forced to close; good jobs paying decent wages and providing benefits, such as Pacific Market, Oliver's and other groceries, and the 50-60 local and regional businesses that would be affected by their closure. Just a few of these local suppliers are Amy's Organics, Alvarado Street Bakery, Wildwood Natural Foods, Redwood Hill Farms, Kozlowski Farms and La Tortilla Factory. Nationally Wal-Marts has wiped out thousands of local businesses and their suppliers leading to an urban decay in neighborhood shopping centers where stores like Pacific Market are the anchor and draw for other small businesses.
Therefore the potential for jobs lost would far surpass jobs gained. Finally, in favor of the expansion it's argued that it will increase tax revenue for the city, but this is debatable. Most of the expansion will be for nontaxable food items, and what the super center might provide in increased tax revenue may well be offset by decreased tax money from affected local businesses.
Wal-Mart has become a retail behemoth by keeping costs low: wages, health benefits, reducing full timers to part time, keeping unions out and buying cheap goods from foreign sources. Giants like Wal-Marts have closed tens of thousands of local independent businesses nationally, including pharmacies, hardware stores, bookstores, groceries and other retailers.
According to a University of Missouri report that examined 1,749 counties where Wal-Mart located and the resulting loss of jobs were taken into account, "The superstores contributed just 30 jobs on average" Furthermore, most of the dollars that go to Wal-Mart stores leave the local economy. A policy study authored by Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, cites a report by the firm Civic Economics, which found that, "Every $100 spent at an independent store generates $23 more in local economic activity than $100 spent at a chain."
In addition local businesses tend to be much more community involved than large out-of-state chains when it comes to charitable contributions and participation in community services and neighborhood organizations. Profits generated from Wal-Marts go back to corporate headquarters in Arkansas, whereas locally generated business revenue stays primarily in the community.
_________________________________________________________________________________
California Progress Report
July 26, 2010
Opposition to Wal-Mart Supercenters Building Across the Bay Area
By Martin J. Bennett
The San Francisco Bay Area has become the epicenter for contentious battles in California to halt proposed Wal-Mart supercenters that sell both general merchandise and groceries.
Both the City of Antioch in Contra Costa County and the City of Rohnert Park in Sonoma County will consider supercenter proposals this week. The outcome could derail Wal-Mart's strategy to build at least one supercenter in each county of the state.
In April, the Rohnert Park Planning Commission unanimously denied the Wal-Mart proposal to enlarge its existing discount store into a supercenter. Wal-Mart has appealed the decision to the city council.
The economic and environmental impacts of the proposed supercenter are regional and extend far beyond the City of Rohnert Park. The controversy raises fundamental questions about future growth and the necessity for proactive city and regional planning to promote equitable and sustainable development.
Development in Sonoma County is inevitable. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the population of Sonoma County will increase by twenty-three percent over the next twenty years. In 2008, voters approved a landmark initiative to meet this challenge, creating the two-county SMART train that will run on tracks adjacent to Highway 101 from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The build-out of the train system provides the opportunity for city-centered 'transit-oriented development' (TOD) around the fourteen SMART train stations--development that could accommodate ninety percent of the projected population growth.
TOD is densely-built, mixed-use development within one-half mile of transit stations, accessible by bike and foot, and with a variety of retail, office, and small businesses. Through land-use planning and public funding, municipalities can promote development near transit stations that includes good jobs paying family-supporting wages, affordable housing for all income groups, open space, and walkable neighborhoods.
The proposed 170,000 square-foot Wal-Mart supercenter located one-quarter mile from the site of the planned Rohnert Park SMART train station is a direct threat to such careful and appropriate planning.
Opponents of the Wal-Mart supercenter believe it undermines compact and equitable development in Rohnert Park and violates the city's general plan that mandates access by residents to neighborhood supermarkets. The project undercuts transit-oriented development's efforts to reduce low-wage work, support local business, tackle global warming, and lay the foundation for a robust regional economy.
Nearly one-third of the work force in Sonoma County are the 'working poor' and do not earn a self-sufficiency or 'living wage'. According to the Insight Center for Community and Economic Development in 2008, two parents working full-time in Sonoma County must each earn $14.90 an hour or $62,940 a year to pay for food, housing, medical care, child care, and transportation.
Sonoma State University economist Robert Eyler reports that the supercenter will contribute to job quality decline and increase the problem of working poverty. According to his analysis, the county will lose 105-211 jobs---mostly good jobs that pay hourly wages for full-time workers ranging from $17.67 per hour at Pacific Market, a local independent grocer, to $23.36 at Raley's and Safeway. The Wal-Mart supercenter will employ 450 workers, and according to the company, the typical full-time worker at Wal-Mart earns $12.10 an hour.
The loss of good jobs in the grocery industry and the increase of poverty-wage jobs will contribute to the growing mismatch between jobs and housing in the region. There is already a significant shortage of affordable housing in Sonoma County and particularly for Rohnert Park. According to the Sonoma County Housing Coalition, from 1999-2006 Rohnert Park produced just one -third of the lower income housing need as determined by ABAG.
Many Wal-Mart workers will be forced to commute to more affordable housing markets outside the city and the county.
With regard to global warming, the supercenter will have adverse effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In order to comply with AB 32, a 2006 state legislative measure, all nine cities and the county have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions twenty-five percent by 2015. However, the Eyler report notes that Pacific Market will close if the supercenter is built, and its 8,000 customers will drive an extra 28,400 miles each week to shop for groceries.
Further, Stacy Mitchell, author of Big Box Swindle, reports that vehicle miles driven per customer will increase because a supercenter draws shoppers from a greater distance than a discount store. Indeed, since Wal-Mart's rapid expansion in the late 1970s, miles traveled per household to shop has skyrocketed by three hundred percent, while total household driving increased by seventy- five percent.
As for local business, there are sixty local suppliers that provide produce and merchandise to Pacific Market, and more than seventy supply Oliver's, an independent grocery in nearby Cotati. Wal-Mart suppliers, on the other hand, are nearly 100% national and global firms (and that means increased truck traffic into the county). The 'Go Local' movement has demonstrated that patronizing local businesses ensures that more dollars remain in the community. Studies by Civic Economics demonstrate that locally-owned firms produce two to three times more economic activity within the local economy than national chains ---including locally-retained profits, wages paid to local residents, purchases from local suppliers, and contributions to local nonprofits.
The proposed Wal-Mart supercenter will undermine transit-oriented and equitable development in the North Bay. To accommodate population growth and to promote sustainable development, all cities along the 101 corridor in Marin and Sonoma counties must prioritize the creation of good jobs and affordable housing nearby SMART train stations.
Other Bay Area cities are lining up against Wal-Mart -- and this has national significance: Wal-Mart has targeted the region for expansion given it's limited market share compared to other major metropolitan regions. The City of Milpitas in the South Bay recently rejected a similar proposal to expand an existing discount store to become a supercenter.
Elsewhere in the Bay Area, the cities of Santa Clara in 2009, and Dublin in 2008, completely banned superstores. These battles against the giant retailer over the last few years may foreshadow an emerging regional coalition of labor, faith, environmental, and local business organizations to halt the development of all new supercenters.
Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College, serves as Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, and is on the board of Sonoma County Conservation Action. For more information about the Wal-Mart superstore campaign go to: http://www.livingwagesonoma.org.
_________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/07/cities/is-courtoom-next-stop-in-wal-mart-fight/
Is Courtroom Next Stop in Wal-Mart Fight?
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
July 31, 2010
by Jeremy Hay
A day after the Rohnert Park City Council gave the go ahead for the controversial expansion of Wal-Mart, divisions remained razor sharp over the proposed supercenter.
The council late Thursday overturned - and sharply rebuked - an April vote by the city Planning Commission, which had unanimously rejected the application by Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, to add a grocery to its Redwood Drive store.
"The Planning Commission didn't do their job and shame on them," Councilman Joe Callinan said in supporting the supercenter near the end of a 5 ?-hour meeting that drew hundreds of people to City Hall. The commission had worried about the effect on other Rohnert Park grocery stores and said the expansion would be inconsistent with a section of the city's general plan that calls for encouraging supermarkets to be "close to where people live."
But the council, in a 4-1 vote with Councilman Jake Mackenzie opposed, said the project's benefits were greater than its potential negative impacts and the project was consistent with city land use policies.
"We need to uphold the law, we need to apply the law, and we need to allow this project to move forward. I believe that not to do so would be un-American," said Councilwoman Amie Breeze.
Mayor Pam Stafford and Vice Mayor Gina Belforte also voted in favor, saying the law compelled them to approve the project and the store would boost the city's economy.
In reacting to the decision, Rohnert Park residents and county labor leaders, as well as Wal-Mart's own representatives, echoed the wide philosophical chasm evident at Thursday's meeting. John Borba, the Planning Commission chairman, said Friday, "I think they made the wrong decision." Responding to Callinan's comment, he said, "Look, Joe's my friend, and he's a good guy, and he's entitled to his opinion, but I completely disagree.
Wal-Mart critics promised to continue their opposition.
"We have not seen the end of this by any means," said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the Living Wage Coalition, part of a loose coalition of groups that opposed the project. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said opponents trying to still block the project would be acting against the city's best interests.
"It will be very unfortunate if special interests did delay the process even further," said spokeswoman Angela Stoner. "They've planned for economic development in Rohnert Park, and they want the project to move forward as quickly as possible."
Foes of a Wal-Mart planned for Roseland won a courtroom challenge of the Santa Rosa City Council's approval of the store, leading the company to end its bid in 2009, five years after announcing its plans.
Opponents of the Rohnert Park expansion said legal action was being considered.
"All options are on the table, including a lawsuit, and what we're going to be doing is huddling to decide on the next step," Bennett said.
It will happen, Borba predicted. "I fully expect someone will appeal the decision of the City Council to the Superior Court," said Borba, who has said he will be a candidate for the council in November. He said he would support such a lawsuit.
Mackenzie on Thursday said the environmental impact report prepared for the project did not show it would significantly increase sales tax revenues for the city, because groceries are not taxed, or provide a "diverse array of jobs to city residents," as the general plan calls for.
Such benefits were among those the report cited as considerations that the council should take into account when deciding whether the project's benefits would outweigh its potential negative impacts.
If the report does not include actual evidence of those benefits, Mackenzie said, opponents may be able to challenge the council's decision in court.
"I personally believe that there are grounds for legal action to be taken in this matter," he said.
Other responses to the council vote might include a push for a citizen referendum to overturn the decision or a campaign in November's election to punish council members who voted for Wal-Mart, Bennett said.
Mayor Pam Stafford and Councilwoman Amie Breeze are up for re-election. Stafford has said she will run; Breeze has not yet announced. Wal-Mart's Stoner would not say whether the company expects or is preparing for a legal challenge.
While Wal-Mart had said it hoped to open the 32,000-square-foot grocery in 2012, Stoner was unwilling Thursday to confirm that. "We will just have to wait and see if the opposition does delay us in starting the expansion," she said.
Perhaps the only player in the Wal-Mart drama to have cleared its agenda is the city.
"The city has completed its work," said Interim City Manager John Dunn. "There's some more detailed plans to be prepared and submitted, but essentially the city has given its approval for proceeding."
________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100730/news/7301126
Wal-Mart Debate Heats Up: Hundreds show up at City Hall to Weigh In On Proposal To Add Grocery to Rohnert Park Store
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
July 30, 2010
by Paul Payne
A bid by Wal-Mart to open what would be Sonoma County's first Supercenter by adding a grocery to its Rohnert Park store was hanging in the balance late Thursday night as opponents and supporters argued their case before the City Council.
"The only way Wal-Mart could conceivably offer any monetary benefit to Rohnert Park would be by cannibalizing the economies of the surrounding communities," Healdsburg resident Robert Neuse said.
Thomas Thunderhorse, a Rohnert Park resident who described himself as a low-income senior, said the council's decision would have political consequences. "If this council votes for the expansion of Wal-Mart, it will show those people in need that you care for them," he said. "If you vote against it, you will be remembered by them."
As hundreds of people flooded City Hall, the world's biggest retailer called on the council to overturn the planning commission's rejection of its application. Commissioners had expressed concern about the impact on other grocery retailers and said the project would be inconsistent with a section of the city's general plan that calls for encouraging supermarkets to be "close to where people live."
Wal-Mart attorneys on Thursday argued that the commission and opponents were legally in the wrong. "The law does not require you to be consistent with every aspect of the general plan, it requires you to be in harmony with the general plan," said Miriam Montesinos, a San Francisco attorney representing the Bentonville, Ark.-based company.
"If you interpret those policies the way they are asking you to, basically you would have a mandatory prohibition on new development in Rohnert Park," she said.
Wal-Mart representatives also said that the expansion would allow the store to broaden the low-cost shopping alternative it offers residents of the city and surrounding area. "We've helped families stretch their dollar by providing access to a wide range of affordable, quality goods," said Angela Stoner, a Wal-Mart spokesman.
Opponents argued that the expansion would, among other ill effects, cause neighborhoods to decay by forcing competing businesses to go under. "It's going to change the nature of the north part of Rohnert Park, and we don't want it," said Nancy Atwell, a Rohnert Park resident who lives near the Mountain Shadows Shopping Center on Golf Course Drive.
The anchor tenant of that center, Pacific Market -- one of a three-store Sonoma County grocery chain -- is at risk of going out of business if the Wal-Mart expansion goes through, according to the environmental impact report prepared for the project. That, project opponents said, would drive other tenants of the center out of business, too.
"If this happens, Pacific Market will surely close, and it will be like a deck of cards with one after another beginning to close," said Steven King, a nearby resident. Before the meeting, a 10-piece band played bouncy tunes to rally opponents of the project, and Pacific Market employees offered deli sandwiches for free.
But once the proceedings got under way, the mood turned deadly serious.
Rohnert Park resident Suzanne Dewey said the council should overturn the commission's decision in order to support residents who voted for Measure E -- the half-cent sales tax measure city voters approved in June -- and are struggling to get by in a touch economy.
"Our residents voted to increase our taxes to help Rohnert Park, now we expect our City Council to help our residents gain more purchasing power," she said. Another Rohnert Park resident, John Knapp, said that Wal-Mart, because of its sheer size and business practices, undermines the nation's small-business backbone.
"When Wal-Marts move into a community, they suck the life out of it," Knapp said. "Mom-and-pop places built America, and Wal-Mart destroys them by sucking the prices so low nobody can compete."
Perhaps 250 people attended the special meeting, crowding the City Council chamber, the City Hall lobby where it was being televised, and outside the building, where it was being broadcast as well.
By 11 p.m., the crowd had not diminished. The argument was framed, often passionately, in several ways:
+As a battle to endorse American principles of free market competition and consumer choice;
+A referendum on the council's support of lower income residents;
+As a fight in support of an economy built more around local businesses than giant corporations;
As a choice between developing businesses and housing along the planned SMART line alongside Highway 101 or contributing to increased traffic and greenhouse gases by forcing people to drive farther to meet their shopping needs.
"I believe as Americans we need to extend to Wal-Mart the privilege of expanding as they want to do," said Bunny Kimball of Rohnert Park. "The decision you're making tonight is really a very major policy decision, and it's speaking of where your loyalty lies," said Jan Ogren, a Rohnert Park resident who said she wants to know that the city supports local businesses before moving hers there from Santa Rosa.
Crystal Roberts of Santa Rosa told the council: "Those that are opposed to it can probably very well afford to go to those other stores," mentioning Pacific Market, Raley's, Safeway and Oliver's Market.
Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, one of a loose coalition of activist groups opposing the project, said the expansion would hinder efforts to develop small businesses, affordable housing and bicycle and foot traffic along Highway 101 on the planned SMART route.
"The more you expand that site (Wal-Mart's Redwood Drive location) the less likely it will become that we can transform that site in the long haul," he said. The expanded store, as proposed, would be about 167,000 square feet. Most of the addition would be groceries, but some more general merchandise also would be sold, according to the company.
In its campaign for the support of the council and residents, Wal-Mart said the expansion would add 85 new full- or part-time jobs to its existing payroll of 300. Opponents, citing a study commissioned by Pacific Market and prepared by Sonoma State University's Center for Regional Economic Analysis, countered that those jobs would be low-wage jobs and that the expansion would cost between 105 and 211 jobs.
Staff Writer Jeremy Hay can be reached at 521-5212 and jeremy.hay@pressdemocrat.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Wednesday, May 5th, 2010
Wal-Mart Takes Another Run at Rohnert Park Expansion
By Jeremy Hay
Wal-Mart, the giant retailer whose bid to supersize its Rohnert Park store by adding a grocery section was rejected by the city's Planning Commission, has appealed that decision to the City Council.
The appeal states that the project is "fully consistent with the General Plan" and argues that the commission was wrong to turn down the project.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Angela Stoner, who represented the Arkansas-based company at the commission's decisive April hearing, did not respond Wednesday to calls seeking comment.
Opponents quickly vowed to mount an assault on the application similar to the one that succeeded in April - arguing the expansion will push more workers out of jobs than it will create, and that any jobs that might be created at Wal-Mart would be low-paying jobs.
"We definitely are going to do a major mobilization for the hearing, and not just in the city but in the county," said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition, which campaigns for wages that pay workers enough to be able to live in the area.
The company's environmental impact report said that the bulk of Supercenter shoppers would be "captured" from nearby competitors. Sonoma County-based Pacific Market, with a store about the size of the proposed Wal-Mart expansion, would be most threatened by the expansion, the report said.
The expansion would add about 32,000 square feet to the existing store, which sits on the west side of Highway 101.
The Rohnert Park council has 60 days to hear the appeal - unless both parties agree to an extension - and it can review only the same application and materials as the commission did, said Marilyn Ponton, the city's planning and building manager.
She said the staff report to the council to be prepared to accompany the appeal will also analyze the correctness of the commission's decision.
"We will discuss what their discussion was and what they voted on to deny and go back to assess how that relates to our code and discuss that with our city council," Ponton said.
The planning commission, in rejecting Wal-Mart's application, expressed concerns that the Supercenter would displace employees of competing groceries.
The commissioners, who unanimously turned down the application, concluded that the store would not conform to the city's general plan, which supports grocery stores in neighborhoods and says "...Rohnert Park's residential population can support only a limited number of supermarkets."
___________________________________________________________
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100428/OPINION/100429478
The Hidden Costs of Wal-Mart's Plans for a Rohnert Park Store
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Closer to Home
April 28, 2010
The Wal-Mart in Rohnert Park wants to expand by 35,000 square feet primarily for the purpose of selling groceries. On April 22, the plan was rejected by the Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote.
By Robert Eyler
On the surface, the expansion of Rohnert Park's Wal-Mart into a supercenter is alluring.
This expansion adds a grocery component, and the Rohnert Park's City Council, which will soon review the plan, will likely focus on the assumed sales tax generation and job creation such an expansion will provide.
It is important to recognize that an expansion of mainly grocery items will not generate a large amount of additional sales tax revenue, and the assumed loss of Pacific Market could lead to fewer jobs, reduced tax revenues, less consumer choice and create a significant vacancy problem at Mountain Shadows Plaza.
The issue for Rohnert Park decision makers is whether the environmental impact report has adequately assessed the cost/benefits of this expansion. Our evaluation shows there will be many hidden costs.
The EIR included an economic analysis of how such an expansion would affect existing grocery stores in Rohnert Park, Cotati and south Santa Rosa. The EIR concluded that Pacific Market would close when Wal-Mart adds groceries. At the request of Pacific Market, I was asked to look at the EIR to determine if their assumptions and perceived benefits were sound.
Since the EIR states the Wal-Mart expansion will add 85 new full-time and part-time jobs, we felt it was important to also consider the potential for job losses. Our analysis concludes that between 105 and 211 jobs will be lost by local employers, and the quality of these jobs, in terms of pay and benefits, will also decline.
On the issue of selection, our analysis found that, except for Wal-Mart's private-label brands, almost all grocery products carried by Wal-Mart are available at existing grocery stores. However, because this expansion will close Pacific Market in Rohnert Park, and perhaps another grocery store, this will actually reduce product selection among Rohnert Park grocery stores as Pacific Market carries many unique products, including many locally produced goods.
Further, because Pacific Market is the only "anchor" tenant in the Mountain Shadows Plaza it is likely that other shops in the plaza will either fail or relocate to another center.
A key issue is whether there is currently an unmet demand (called "retail leakage") of grocery sales from the defined trade area of Rohnert Park, Cotati and south Santa Rosa. The EIR estimates the unmet demand for groceries totals $8.8 million. In reviewing the methodology used to support this assumption, we found several errors; when corrected, the conclusion is reversed from a "leakage" into an "injection" of $3.5 million. This means that most, if not all, of Wal-Mart's estimated increased sales following the expansion will come at the expense of existing local retailers, which will increase the potential for store closures.
Also, since food sales are typically non-taxable (except for cleaning aids and health and beauty products already carried at the existing Wal-Mart), and because the increase in Wal-Mart's sales will come from a transfer of sales at existing grocery stores, the Wal-Mart expansion will not generate any new sales tax dollars. In fact, to the extent Wal-Mart forces other retailers to lower prices in order to compete, there may actually be a net reduction in sales taxes.
The city's general plan has goals that call for Rohnert Park to "maintain land use patterns that maximize residents' accessibility to ... neighborhood shopping centers," and to "ensure that ... supermarkets are located close to where people live and facilitate access to these on foot or bicycle." Pacific Market, for example, operates in a true neighborhood (as opposed to regional) shopping center at a location that has existed since 1985. The closure of Pacific Market is contrary to these policies, as it will significantly increase grocery shopping travel time for residents within one mile of the store and preclude travel on foot or bicycle.
It is also inconsistent with Rohnert Park's general plan objectives that focus on preserving and protecting local firms and neighborhoods.
Wal-Mart's expansion is not a "go-local" strategy. There is a general belief that most projects are beneficial and retailers such as Wal-Mart provide economic stability to a community. This project will clearly have many specific and unintended consequences that will cancel out the perceived benefits.
Elected officials need to be fully informed about the consequences of this project.
Robert Eyler is chairman of the Economics Department and director of the Center for Regional Economic Analysis at Sonoma State University.
To download a copy of the report please click here.
________________________________________________________________________________
January 22, 2010
Copperfields Books
Santa Rosa
To view the presentation by UC Santa Barbara Historian Nelson Lichtenstein at Copperfields Books in Santa Rosa on Friday, January 22 about his new book: The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created A Brave New World of Business please click here:
http://empirereport.org/reports/20100127-the-brave-new-world-of-business
________________________________________________________________________________
Rohnert Park Community Voice
Friday April 23, 2010
Walmart Expansion EIR Rejected by Rohnert Park Planning Commission, 4-0
Expansion plans for Rohnert Park's Wal-Mart were denied at Thursday night's Planning Commission meeting.
By Jud Snyder
By a 4-0 vote, Rohnert Park's Planning Commission turned thumbs down on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from Walmart to add another 35,256 sq. ft. to their existing store so they could sell grocery items and produce.
City Council chambers in City Hall were filled to capacity before the meeting started at 7pm Thursday April 22. A TV screen high up on the wall in the lobby displayed the action and folding chairs crammed in the lobby filled that space. It was SRO everywhere. Several police officers barred admission to the council chambers unless attendees already had a seat guarded by their seatmate.
The commission (Greg Nordin was absent) tackled a few questions they had for Pacland Co., a consulting firm hired by Walmart. Then they began the public hearing at 8:20 pm
Chairman John Borba had more than 60 speaker cards from the audience and confined comments to three minutes. The parade of public speakers didn't end until 10:55 pm.
Those against Walmart's expansion were 35 and those in favor were 19. About 7 speakers provided mixed answers.
Little was said that hasn't already been said in print, e-mails and other Internet connections. Prominent among them was Ken Silveira, general manager for three Pacific Market supermarkets in Rohnert Park, Sebastopol and Santa Rosa.
"Our expectations for growth were not met," he said. "The homes planned for areas east of us were not built and the economic recession hurt us. Rohnert Park does not need another grocery store. All three of our stores will be affected if Walmart expands."
Marty Bennett of the Living Wage Coalition said, "Walmart plans to add 85 new full- and part-time employees, but the urban decay of shopping centers like Pacific Market could mean the loss of 105 to 120 good jobs."
Jeff Clark of Rohnert Park said, "I see a lot of empty stores in this city. It needs a bigger Walmart."
Burk Webb, a longtime Pacific Market employee, said, "I know of towns in Oklahoma that were completely decimated when Walmart moved in.
Randall Scott, a 15-year Walmart employee said, "There's room for all of us here."
But Phil Jehly, a Raley's market employee said, "There's no need for another supermarket here. All of the markets will be affected."
John Kramer, longtime Sonoma State U professor, said, "The SSU Faculty Senate and the Academic Senate, both passed resolutions opposing Walmart. They have the reputation of cutthroat competition driving other stores out of business."
The packed audience came from all over Sonoma County, from Petaluma to Healdsburg. Many wore badges signifying there they stand and it was apparent Walmart employees from Santa Rosa were encouraged to attend the meeting and speak in favor of it.
The planning commission had a dilemma on their hands. The Walmart EIR satisfied most of the the rules of the city's General Plan, but it was the threat of Pacific Market closing its doors and the dark cloud of "urban decay" it could possibly engender.
Borba called for comments and a motion to decide the next step. There was a long silence.
Then David Armstrong made a motion to deny the EIR with Mark Nilson seconding it. Comissioner Amy Ahanotu was cautious. "We cannot deny Walmart the right to expand," he said.
"Urban decay will likely occur," said Nilson.
"Tonight was a great exercise in democracy," said Borba. "We're not here to talk about corporate practices. I'm in favor of denying the EIR."
He gaveled the end of the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Walmart could appeal the decision to the RP City Council where it could be upheld or reversed. The company has 10 days to do so, according to RP municipal code.
________________________________________________________________________________
Author Presentation -
The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business
By Nelson Lichtenstein
(Metropolitan Books, Hardcover, 320pp.)
The definitive account of how a small Ozarks company upended the world of business and what that change means
Wal-Mart, the world's largest company, roared out of the rural South to change the way business is done. Deploying computer-age technology, Reagan-era politics, and Protestant evangelism, Sam Walton's firm became a byword for cheap goods and low-paid workers, famed for the ruthless efficiency of its global network of stores and factories. But the revolution has gone further: Sam's protégés have created a new economic order which puts thousands of manufacturers, indeed whole regions, in thrall to a retail royalty. Like the Pennsylvania Railroad and General Motors in their heyday, Wal-Mart sets the commercial model for a huge swath of the global economy.
In this lively, probing investigation, historian Nelson Lichtenstein deepens and expands our knowledge of the merchandising giant. He shows that Wal-Mart's rise was closely linked to the cultural and religious values of Bible Belt America as well as to the imperial politics, deregulatory economics, and laissez-faire globalization of Ronald Reagan and his heirs. He explains how the company's success has transformed American politics, and he anticipates a day of reckoning, when challenges to the Wal-Mart way, at home and abroad, are likely to change the far-flung empire.
Insightful, original, and steeped in the culture of retail life, The Retail Revolution draws on first hand reporting from coastal China to rural Arkansas to give a fresh and necessary understanding of the phenomenon that has transformed international commerce.
Nelson Lichtenstein is one of the country's leading experts on labor and politics and the editor of a much-cited collection of essays on Wal-Mart. A professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and Democracy, he is also the author of several highly regarded books on American history, including the award-winning 'Walter Reuther: The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit' and 'State of the Union: A Century of American Labor.'
Excerpts from Reviews:
-The New York Times Book Review "Surely the best account we have of Wal-Mart's metamorphosis from a backwater chain to the nation's dominant corporation... The rise of Wal-Mart, and the national economy it has shaped in its image, is a story that Lichtenstein is eminently suited to tell."-The American Prospect "Usefully comprehensive The Retail Revolution offers the best account yet of the myriad problems that Wal-Mart employees endure."
-The Big Money "Comprehensive socioeconomic history Lichtenstein paints a convincing portrait of a multinational conglomerate willing to dehumanize people in the pursuit of profit, even as it tries to convince us that people are its No. 1 concern. A definitive survey of Wal-Mart and the company's worldview."
-Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed "America's wisest historian of business and labor has produced a masterpiece of reportage and analysis about the self-service country store that grew into the biggest merchandiser in the world. The Retail Revolution is far more than the best book ever written about Wal-Mart. It is a landmark work about the history of our time."
http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/01.20.10/news-1003.html
North Bay Bohemian
1/20-1/26 2010
Building a Bigger Box
Wal-Mart's proposed Rohnert Park expansion is just part of the usual plan, says UC history professor
By Kylie Mendonca
Nelson Lichtenstein can sound like someone with important news to share when he starts talking about Wal-Mart's contributions to the American and global business worlds. Not one for a pregnant pause or lulls in conversation, Lichtenstein moves seamlessly between his thoughts, fast as they come. For all his excitement over the mega-retailer, Lichtenstein is not singing the praises of cheap products and cheaper labor.
This University of California Santa Barbara history professor, as they say, "wrote the book" on Wal-Mart-literally-penning some 300 pages of history, criticism and personal journey on the company ranging from its sweatshops in China to its corporate home in Arkansas. Lichtenstein will speak and sign copies of his new book, The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business, on Jan. 22 in Santa Rosa.
His arrival has local resonance. In the coming weeks, Rohnert Park city officials will be talking about Wal-Mart, too. The proposed 24-hour Wal-Mart supercenter project will go before the planning commission for review this winter, a proposal to expand the city's current Wal-Mart into a full grocery store. The only other such supercenter in the North Bay is located in American Canyon, though the company is said to have plans to construct one in each California county. Locally owned grocers are concerned, and opposition in Napa County stalled the American Canyon project for three years before it was finally approved.
Under the current proposal, the shopping center could grow by more than 40,000 square feet, ballooning from its current 131,532-square-foot footprint to almost 171,800 square feet. According to the environmental impact report, finalized Jan. 15, the space will bring locals new job opportunities, new shopping convenience-and plenty of new traffic congestion, too.
While neighbors worry that the expansion could put local grocery stores out of business, Lichtenstein focuses on the ripples left by the retailer across the global business landscape. The problem with Wal-Mart, he argues, is not so much found in the trail of small-town retail wreckage it leaves but in the example it sets for other major retailers and their employees. Wal-Mart is less important as a Wal-Mart, Lichtenstein says, "than it is important for what it teaches."
The Wal-Mart model, Lichtenstein says, is low prices bought on the backs of workers. Sure, the consumer saves a buck, but that buck has to come from somewhere, and Lichtenstein argues it comes from the workers in the form of lower wages, scanty benefits and minimal job security. "In general," Lichtenstein says, "they are pulling down the wage level for millions of people"
For Lichtenstein, this trend was underscored some five years ago when a group of grocery store workers in Southern California held massive demonstrations against their corporate bosses. In response to market pressures, he writes, corporations such as Safeway and others asked workers to take pay cuts. The unions, of course, were not keen. Lichtenstein identified this request as a sort of "Wal-Mart effect."
Several local business groups have latched on to Lichtenstein's message. The Living Wage Coalition on Sonoma County, Go Local Sonoma County and the North Bay Labor Council, are among the groups sponsoring Lichtenstein's upcoming talk.
Martin Bennett, co-chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, is among those who oppose the proposed expansion. "The decision by the Rohnert Park city council will be closely watched and, if affirmative, highly controversial, particularly given the rejection by the Santa Rosa city council of a proposed Lowe's Home Improvement store earlier this year," he says. For Bennett, the construction of a supercenter is about more than low wages and what some see as unfair grocery store competition. In addition to an EIR, the Living Wage Coalition consistently seeks community impact reports for such large businesses, looking to measure how the overall quality of life is affected when a big-box retailer comes into town or, as in this case, grows even bigger.
In 2006, Wal-Mart approached the city of Santa Rosa to take over an idle lot in the unincorporated southwest part of town. The corporation finally dropped efforts to build last February after activist groups successfully pressed a lawsuit against the corporation over its environmental impact report. The store's loss meant a half a million dollar estimated loss in Santa Rosa sales tax revenue.
But being sued is part of the Wal-Mart story, according to Lichtenstein. He writes: "When Wal-Mart locates one of its grocery-selling supercenters in metropolitan America, it asserts the legitimacy and power of a brand of capitalism that is antithetical to the regulated marketplace. . . . The company is therefore constantly defending itself against a set of class-action lawsuits." In other words, it's par for the course.
Nelson Lichtenstein appears at Copperfield's Books on Friday, Jan. 22, at 7pm. 2316 Montgomery Drive, Santa Rosa. Free. 707.578.8938.
________________________________________________________________________
Petaluma Argus Courier
December 25th, 2009
Target and Low-Wage Jobs: What Are the Costs?
by Martin J. Bennett
On January 4th the Petaluma City Council will consider the proposal by Regency Centers for a shopping center on East Washington Street near the fairgrounds. A 140,000 square-foot Target store is the anchor tenant for the project that will include other major retailers and possibly a Friedman's Home Improvement store.
Last April, the City Council reviewed a Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment for the project completed by a consultant, Bay Area Economics (BAE). However, Target and other proposed tenants in the project would not provide BAE with their wage and benefit data as the city requested.
BAE attempted to estimate the wage levels for the 200 employees at Target (two thirds part-time) and for other tenants. The projected total employment is 331 part-time and 390 full-time. BAE claims the average hourly wage will be $14.00 an hour for jobs created by the project. The Living Wage Coalition believes this estimate is inaccurate and that BAE underestimates the costs of the project to the taxpayer and the community.
We commissioned a peer review of the BAE report by Dr. William Lester, a researcher at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. He found that nine out of ten employees at Target are in three occupational categories that include retail sales, stock clerks and cashiers. Based upon California Employment Development Department data, Dr. Lester calculates that the median wage for these occupations in 2008 ranges from $9.91 to $11.60 an hour---considerably less than BAE's estimate.
The wages for Target employees and other tenants fall well below the current rate of $13.64 an hour without benefits that the Petaluma Living Wage ordinance (passed in 2006) mandates city contractors pay their employees. Moreover, the wages for most workers employed at the shopping center are substantially less than the self-sufficiency standards for the county. The Insight Center for Community and Economic Development estimates that in 2008 a self-sufficiency, or 'living wage,' for Sonoma County was $14.90 an hour for two parents working full-time to support two children and to pay for housing, transportation, health care, child care and food.
Further, William Lester estimates, based upon U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2008, that 47 percent of the workers employed by Target and other department and general merchandise stores in the project will not have health care benefits. UCLA researcher Chris Tilly investigated large retailers in California and found that annual employee turnover rates are 40-80 percent, depending on the type of retail firm. High turnover and lengthy wait period for health benefits, particularly for part-timers, combined with high co-pays and deductibles, drive down health coverage rates for workers in the retail sector.
The project will generate sales tax revenue, but what are the hidden costs of poverty-wage jobs?
First, in 2002 the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education reported that each year California state and local government provide $10.1 billion in public subsidies to families with at least one low-wage worker who are eligible for federal and state programs such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, Earned Income Tax Credit, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, and Food Stamps.
California counties alone spend $1.8 billion annually to provide health care for 1.3 million uninsured adults according to a 2006 report by the New American Foundation. Low-wage workers without health benefits will turn to hospital emergency rooms and public health clinics for their health care.
Second, adding hundreds of low-wage jobs to our local economy will contribute to the growing mismatch between jobs and housing in the region, given the stagnation of wages and the relative rise of housing costs over the last decade. According to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, between 1996 and 2005 rents increased by 29 percent in Sonoma County, but median household income declined by 2 percent.
A 2004 study by the Mendocino Council of Governments concludes "the dramatic increase of housing prices within the North Bay region has far exceeded wage gains and have left housing unaffordable to the majority. Long distance work trip commutes will be inevitable if current patterns persist." How can we encourage smart growth and transit-oriented development if workers cannot afford to live near their work places or the downtown SMART train station?
Finally, part-time and temporary workers comprise nearly 30% of the work force and, since the 1970s, part-time and temporary employment has increased faster than that of the overall work force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has acknowledged that the official unemployment rate is significantly higher if part-time workers seeking full-time jobs were counted as unemployed. What is the impact on family life, educational achievement for children, and citizen involvement in politics and civic life if more and more workers must work two or three jobs to make ends meet? (84 words)
The jobs new jobs at the proposed project do not conform to section 9-P-1 of the General Plan that states that the city should attempt to attract employers "who pay wages commensurate with the cost of living in Petaluma." The Living Wage Coalition urges the council to reject this project.
Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College and serves as Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County and on the Executive Board of the North Bay Labor Council.
______________________________________________________________________
California Progress Report
September 7, 2009
Down the Wal-Mart Low Road: What Are the Costs of a Supercenter?
by Martin J. Bennett
Wal-Mart recently announced plans to convert its existing discount store in Rohnert Park to Sonoma County's first 'supercenter.' Many cash-strapped cities are tempted to hastily approve retail projects that can generate- substantial sales tax revenue given the current economic downturn. However, we should pause to consider, not only the benefits, but also the costs of the proposed supercenter for Rohnert Park and Cotati. In late March the Rohnert Park City Council will consider Wal-Mart's application to expand the existing Wal-Mart discount store in that city to a supercenter. A supercenter is a 200,000 square foot store that sells both general merchandise and groceries. Since 1988, Wal-Mart has opened 2300 supercenters nationwide. Wal-Mart announced in 2002 that it would build more than forty of these megastores in California. By 2008 thirty-one were built, with organized grassroots opposition and environmental lawsuits blocking the others.
Wal-Mart is now the nation's largest grocer and pharmacy, with sales exceeding the combined total of major competitors, including Target, Safeway, Albertsons, Kohl's, and Kroger. How did Sam Walton develop a rural, southern discount store into the planet's largest retailer and the nation's largest employer?
According to UC Santa Barbara historian Nelson Lichtenstein in his new book, The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created A Brave New World of Business, the main reason for Wal-Mart's phenomenal success is containment of labor costs by a relentless downward pressure on wages and benefits, and a near-perfect record thwarting unionization.
Most Wal-Mart workers are the 'working poor' in America. According to the company's own reports, the average wage for a full-time Wal-Mart worker in 2007 was $10.51 an hour. The average wage of a Wal-Mart employee is 26 percent less than other large merchandise stores, and 18 percent less than large grocery stores, according to the New York University Brennan Center.
Kaiser Family Foundation reports that less than 50 percent of Wal-Mart employees receive health-care benefits. Full-time workers must wait six months to receive medical benefits, and part-time workers wait two years. Half the work force turns over annually. As a result, part-time employees, who are more than one third of the work force, rarely receive benefits. For others, high deductibles, copays, and coverage limitations make the company-provided health plan unaffordable.
Wal-Mart ensures that wages and benefits remain low by a systematic, company-wide policy to suppress unions. A report by Human Rights Watch about Wal-Mart concluded, "while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus."
Between 1998-2003 the National Labor Relations Board issued 94 complaints and found that Wal-Mart illegally fired workers for union activity, forced workers to attend anti-union meetings and video screenings, spied on workers who supported unionization, and claimed workers would lose pay raises and benefits or the store would shut down if the employees voted for a union.
Not one Wal-Mart store is unionized in the U.S. When Quebec workers voted for representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers in 2005, the company closed the store.
What are the costs when a Wal-Mart supercenter opens in a community?
First, good middle-class jobs are replaced by poverty-wage jobs. Grocery prices at Wal-Mart are 15 percent lower than those of competing firms, and half of these major grocery chains, like Safeway, Raley's, and Albertsons, are unionized. The 'union premium' for combined pay and benefits is 30 percent more than nonunion. In Southern Nevada, Wal-Mart opened sixteen supercenters, and by 2002 1400 union jobs were lost when Raley's closed eighteen stores. According to Nelson Lichtenstein, 13,000 traditional supermarkets were closed and twenty-five regional chains forced into bankruptcy from 1992-2003 due to Wal-Mart.
Second, the taxpayers end up providing public assistance for Wal-Mart workers. A 2004 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, "The Hidden Costs of Wal-Mart," concludes that uninsured Wal-Mart employees in California rely on programs like Medi-Cal and Healthy Families at a cost of $32 million a year to the taxpayer. The report also demonstrates that Wal-Mart workers earning poverty wages rely on federal and state programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Section 8 subsidized housing, and child-care assistance to make ends meet, at a cost of $54 million per year.
Third, local merchants are hurt when Wal-Mart enters a community. In 1995, economist Kenneth Stone found that, a decade after the opening of a Wal-Mart in rural Iowa, 60 percent of the retail sales captured by Wal-Mart came from existing retailers. Hundreds of grocery, apparel, hardware, and drug stores closed. University of Missouri economist Emek Basker examined county-level employment impacts of Wal-Mart from 1977-1998. She demonstrated that, for every one hundred new jobs created by Wal-Mart, fifty retail jobs and twenty wholesale jobs were lost over the next five years.
Moreover, a 2007 study by UC Berkeley economists Arin Dube and T. William Lester calculated that, "every new Wal-Mart in a county reduced the combined or aggregate earnings of retail workers by around 1.5 percent" as competition from Wal-Mart decreases both average pay rates and total employment in the local retail sector.
Sonoma State students employed in grocery and retail will be directly affected by a new Wal-Mart supercenter: stores nearby such as Pacific Market will certainly close, as the draft EIR notes. Raley's and Oliver's will face stiff competition from the supercenter while employee earnings will decline across the retail sector in Rohnert Park and Cotati.
This is an appropriate moment for an informed public dialogue, and a county -wide mobilization to oppose the megastore proposed for Rohnert Park. A coalition of community organizations and concerned citizens has formed to oppose the Wal-Mart supercenter that includes: Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, Go Local Sonoma County, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Sierra Club Sonoma Group, Sonoma County Latino Democratic Club, Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, North Bay Labor Council, California Healthy Communities Network, California Faculty Association Sonoma State chapter, and the Sonoma State University Academic Senate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Wal-Mart Drops Santa Rosa Store Plan: Roseland Store Critics Included New City Council Majority
By Mike McCoy
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
The decision is a setback for those who eagerly awaited creation of 300 jobs, the mega-chain's low consumer prices and an estimated $500,000 in annual sales tax revenues for beleaguered City Hall. But it is a victory for critics who claim the world's largest retailer damages communities by engaging in questionable labor and predatory business practices. Months after Wal-Mart lost an environmental lawsuit financed by labor and social advocacy groups and neighbors of the proposed Roseland-area project, sources say company representatives have told Santa Rosa officials they do not plan to appeal the judge's decision. It was unclear Monday whether Wal-Mart's pullout is being shaped primarily by the court's rejection of its environmental impact report, or to the fact that the new council has a majority of members who have opposed Wal-Mart and been critical of big-box retailers. Company officials did not return several phone calls Monday seeking comment. But the situation poses potential hurdles for another big-box chain, Lowe's, which is planning a home improvement center on Santa Rosa Avenue. Lowe's environmental impact report will be up for review Thursday night by the city Planning Commission. Councilwoman Jane Bender said Wal-Mart's intention was disclosed several weeks ago at an Economic Development Committee meeting. Other sources said they've also received word the company is giving up its Santa Rosa proposal. "My guess is it wasn't worth the fight, that they saw there was a huge contention against it," said Bender, among the council's minority of Wal-Mart supporters. City Attorney Caroline Fowler declined to discuss the Wal-Mart matter, noting that the appeal period has not expired. Conceivably, Wal-Mart could prepare a new envronmental assessment, but it spent five years and several hundred thousand dollars on the current one. Longtime Roseland resident Margot Piccinini said Monday she's disappointed, particularly since efforts to find other businesses to locate in the half-vacant shopping center at Stony Point and Sebastopol roads have been unsuccessful. "I don't think the unions have the right to stop something because of the hiring practices and rate of pay Wal-Mart offers," she said. "With the culture in this area we needed something like Wal-Mart. The Hispanic moms could go to work part-time. Wal-Mart is known for entry level jobs, and it has the prices people out here could afford," she said. Wal-Mart, which has stores in Windsor and Rohnert Park, has been a lightening rod for debate in Santa Rosa. That intensive opposition is expected to resurface Thursday when the Planning Commission considers approving the environmental study for Lowe's proposal for a 155,000-square-foot outlet at the northeast corner of Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues. That 10.5-acre project, two years in the planning stages, is expected to generate 175 jobs, $50 million in annual sales and $500,000 in annual sales tax revenues for the city, said Lowe's spokeswoman Maureen Rich. Many of the same forces that fought Wal-Mart are gearing up to take on Lowe's, citing its impact on traffic and concerns it would drive locally owned home improvement stores out of business. The nearest local home improvement competitor, Friedman Brothers, is two miles south on Santa Rosa Avenue. Tax revenue generated by that store goes to the county because it is outside Santa Rosa's city limits. Mayor Susan Gorin, who along with fellow council members Veronica Jacobi, Gary Wysocky and Marsha Vas Dupre, have voiced opposition to Wal-Mart's corporate model, said Wal-Mart's advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. "I'm looking at both the impacts on our community and potential benefits," Gorin said. "Anything of that size and scale has the opportunity to provide jobs and sales tax and we would welcome that," she said. "But look at Wal-Mart's business model. Does it equal out? What are the salaries they pay, can those with jobs there afford to live in Santa Rosa or must they commute? Will they force others out of business? And their impacts will further congest our streets resulting in the need for more traffic signals, road widening and school crossing guards," she said. "We as a city are having a hard time providing services, but I'm not sure Wal-Mart is worth it," she said. As for Lowe's, Gorin said "I haven't heard much other than there are thoughtful people in the community raising objections to their environmental impact report," she said. Bender, however, called Wal-Mart's decision to leave "a setback." "When you look at Wal-Marts across the nation they are doing better than other stores. This one would have brought in revenue that everyone knows we need, and it would have been a place for those in Roseland where they could go and shop and at prices they could afford," she said. The opposition Wal-Mart faced and the city's recent move to impose tougher development standards on big-box stores did not go unnoticed by Lowe's The company mailed more than 12,000 brochures to Santa Rosa homeowners several weeks ago, providing details of what it planned and attached a postcard supporters could return to show their support. "It was an opportunity to educate residents and inform them of a great opportunity," said Lowe's spokeswoman Maureen Rich. "In this economic climate it's a proposal that will bring jobs, sales tax revenues and increase property tax values, all factors that should be considered by residents," she said. Among the leading critics of Lowe's is the Accountable Development Coalition, a group of labor, environmental, housing and neighborhood groups. It's chairman and vice chairman are Michael Allen and Nick Caston, both members of the city Planning Commission. Despite those ties, city attorney Fowler said both can vote on Lowe's "if they believe they can be unbiased." Allen, president of the North Bay Labor Council, one of the groups that funded the Wal-Mart lawsuit, and Caston both said they plan to vote on the matter. Caston, who's been on the commission since 2006, said he avoids coalition issues that deal with Santa Rosa planning matters. Allen said he has avoided discussing Lowe's since he was appointed to the commission two months ago. "I have to make it (decision) independently based on the planning documents and evidence submitted," Allen said. One source indicated Friedman's is financially assisting those battling the Lowe's project. Friedman's chief financial officer, David Proctor, however, denied the charge. "We are obviously very concerned. We think it's a bad move for Santa Rosa," he said. While his company has hired local political consultant Herb Williams to monitor Lowe's planning progress, Proctor said "We are not funding any oppositional element of an anti-Lowe's group." You can reach Staff Writer Mike McCoy at 521-5276 or mike.mccoy@pressdemocrat.com. The Living Wage Coalition was part of the coalition that opposed the Santa Rosa Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart's Giant Plan for Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
April 23, 2009
A Proposed Expansion of the Rohnert Park Wal-Mart Would Give it all the Features of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Though No Name Change is Planned.
By Kevin McCallum
If approved, the 35,000-square-foot expansion would increase the store's footprint to 167,000 square feet, edging out Lowe's in Cotati as the largest big-box store in Sonoma County.
The world's largest retailer has submitted plans to expand its Redwood Drive location by 28 percent, adding the larger grocery section the company says customers have been clamoring for.
"We've been a part of the Rohnert Park community for many years, and we're hearing from them that they want these additional offerings," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Angela Stoner.
The proposal is almost certain to open a new front in the long-running battle that has pitted large corporate retailers against local merchants protecting their turf and activists advocating better wages and benefits.
The plan already is drawing criticism from the local grocery industry and activists who derailed Wal-Mart's plans to build a store in Santa Rosa.
The Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County vowed Thursday to push for Rohnert Park to study economic and social effects of the project, not just environmental ones.
"We're going to to take a very serious look at this," said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the coalition.
Tom Scott, manager of Oliver's Market, expressed concern about the wages and health benefits Wal-Mart pays workers - issues that likely will be raised by critics as the project makes its way through the city approval process.
"Wal-Mart is able to cut costs out of the system, but there is a price paid for that," Scott said. "It doesn't show up on the receipt, but it shows up in the community."
Wal-Mart already sells a limited selection of groceries at its Rohnert Park store. The new grocery would be at the southern end of the expanded store and would include a bakery, produce and deli, Stoner said. An expansion of the garden center to the north and new bathrooms also are planned.
The expansion would bring to the store all of the features of a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter, although its name won't be changed, Stoner said.
Wal-Mart shopper Betty Beckman, a retired Rohnert Park resident who lives on a fixed income, said she would welcome the expansion. Because the store carries only a small selection of groceries, she said she must make additional trips to area supermarkets to complete her shopping.
"With the economy the way it is, we need to do everything we can do to keep our shopping dollars down," Beckman said, rolling her cart past loaves of bread selling for $1.26 and Fetzer wine for $5.97 a bottle.
Wal-Mart's application is still in its early stages.
Last week, the City Council hired consulting firm Michael Brandman Associates to create an environmental impact report for the project. Wal-Mart will pay $343,000 for the study and city administrative costs.
The city Planning Commission will hold a meeting in late May or June to give the public the opportunity to express what it wants to see studied by the environmental report, said Maureen Rich, senior senior city planner.
Wal-Mart began the application process in January, nearly four months after its plans for a store in Santa Rosa bogged down in court.
In September, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Robert Boyd ruled that the environmental study for a proposed, 106,000-square-foot store in the Roseland neighborhood was flawed. Wal-Mart officially abandoned its four-year effort in February.
Stoner said the death of the Santa Rosa project had no effect on Wal-Mart's decision to expand the Rohnert Park store.
"Those projects are completely unrelated," she said.
The heart of the Rohnert Park project involves pushing the building's southern wall 95 feet toward the nearby Home Depot. The expansion would cover what is now a row of parking and would eat into a grass buffer between the buildings.
The bulk of the increased space, about 32,000 square feet, will be devoted to the grocery area. That's nearly the size of a nearby Pacific Market in Rohnert Park, but smaller than the typical Safeway or Albertson's supermarkets, which average 50,000 to 60,000 square feet.
Smaller expansions would be made in the front of the store to add space for bathrooms and to the north of the store by renovating the garden area.
Wal-Mart plans to take advantage of the expansion to modernize the look of the building, with new signs bearing its redesigned logo and more attractive exterior features, such as archways to eliminate "long continuous blank walls," according to the application.
The store, Sonoma County's first Wal-Mart, opened in 1992. A second Wal-Mart opened in Windsor in 2000.
The expansion plans call for "many green and sustainable features" used in new Wal-Marts around the nation.
"This is something that is a priority for us all across the country," Stoner said.
Skylights in the expanded area will allow for "daylight harvesting" that will reduce lighting use by 75 percent. Wal-Mart expects to install one skylight per every 1,000 square feet of new space. Dimmable florescent lights will allow the store to dim the lights by 25 percent in the evening.
Other proposed energy-saving features may include a white roof that reflects heat, reducing cooling costs by an estimated 8 percent and low-flow automatic sinks and toilets.
Plans are not finalized, and significant changes could occur through the permit process. Wal-Mart representatives sat down late last year with Rohnert Park officials to discuss the project and seemed committed to designing a "green" addition, said Peter Bruck, the city's building official.
"They have been very forthcoming and very reasonable," Bruck said.
The company is required to incorporate sustainable building practices on such a project. Under the city's 2007 green building ordinance, such a significant expansion requires the builder to adhere to the latest green standards, Bruck said.
The project calls for four signs on the exterior of the building, the largest being a 9-foot-high, 35-foot long illuminated sign over the main entrance. It would replace the existing sign with the company's new logo, "Wal-mart" in blue letters followed by a yellow flower.
The company plans to eliminate 33 of the 813 parking spaces. The hours of the store, now 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., would be expanded to 24 hours.
The number of employees is expected to jump from 300 to 450, with 70 percent working full time and the rest part time.
Bennett of the Living Wage Coalition doubted that percentage of employees will be full time. He said Wal-Mart is known for having a high percentage of part-time workers to avoid paying health benefits. The result is that taxpayers bear additional costs for medical services to uninsured Wal-Mart employees and their families, he said.
Wal-Mart denies this, saying most of its 1.4 million U.S. employees work at least 34 hours a week. It also says 92.7 percent of its employees report having some form of health insurance through Wal-Mart or another source.
Even so, the company is running into opposition across California for its push to the grocery business.
Ken Silveria, owner of Pacific Market, said independent grocers have reason to be fearful. He recently visited a Wal-Mart grocery in Oakland on a Sunday night and the place was packed.
"It's absolutely unbelievable the amount of volume they generate," Silveria said.
Scott of Oliver's said whatever sales the expanded store generates will be sucked out of competitors' pockets. Wal-Mart's claim that it's just acting to help its customers is "fantasy," he said.
"I think Wal-Mart takes care of Wal-Mart," Scott said.
You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com.
Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County Newsletter - Winter 2008
Wal-Mart Stalls in Santa Rosa
by Scott Stegeman A high point for economically and environmentally sustainable planning in Sonoma County was the Superior Court ruling overturning a proposed new Wal-Mart Store in Santa Rosa. Wal-Mart's applied in 2004 to demolish two empty buildings in an existing shopping center in southwest Santa Rosa, and replace them with a new Wal-Mart store. Early local opposition appeared within weeks and went into high gear with the release of an environmental impact report (EIR) in late 2005. Much of the EIR took a "don't worry, be happy" approach offering up mitigations for noise and traffic impacts where feasible, and justifying unmitigated impacts by pointing to the new jobs to be created, the new vibrancy to the shopping center, and of course the new revenue stream to the City. A coalition of labor, environmental, and community based organizations formed (many of these organizations later joined the Accountable Development Coalition) and testified to the Santa Rosa planning commission in February 2005 about the economic and environmental costs of Wal-Mart. The flash points ranged from the very broad to the extremely localized. A number of social equity and labor groups attacked the very basis of giving Wal-Mart a foothold, in terms of predatory business practices, anti-unionism and hiring practices, off-shore manufacturing and the danger of creating civic dependency upon a globally dominant corporation. Local residents and businesses in the southwest of Santa Rosa objected to significant traffic and parking problems that would compromise the shopping center and the neighborhood. Residents pointed out that approving the Wal-Mart at that location would undercut the effort to redevelop an abandoned shopping center a few blocks away. Merchants that would be neighbors in the same center complained that Wal-Mart planned to meet its parking demands by laying claim to parking spaces directly in front of existing small merchants, displacing their customers and employees. But the strangest and ultimately most damaging issue was that Wal-Mart and its consultants could never get on the same page as to what the project really was. Different sections of the Draft EIR showed conflicting building sizes, conflicting numbers of parking spaces, conflicting internal circulation plans and so on. Maps provided by the property manager for the shopping center did not match Wal-Marts. Wal-Mart's response to the barrage of specific and substantive objections was to bus in employees and customers to a city council meeting to praise job creation and cheap goods. The project was approved by split decisions by both the Planning Commission and City Council. To add more controversy, the city delayed seating newly elected Council members in December of 2006 so that the lame duck (and more favorable) City Council could take the vote. As a final accent the City later became confused and could not clearly show which version of the project had been approved. A lawsuit was immediately filed charging violations of local planning/zoning regulations and an inadequate and inconsistent EIR. And after months of legal back and forth, Superior County Judge Boyd cut through thousands of pages to focus on some essential truths when he rule in mid 2008 that the EIR was so fundamentally flawed as to be almost useless, and overturned the City approval of Wal-Mart. And in his ruling Judge Boyd noted that the most fundamental flaw was the inability to explaining the amount of parking vehicles, or buildings that would exist if the Wal-Mart were approved. Since the EIR was inconsistent on the most b basic description of the project and the project setting, it made it impossible to really understand any of the impacts that might result. Six months later the November 2008 City Council election produced a new Council with five of the sever Council member opposed to Wal-Mart and supportive of a living wage ordinance for the city --leaving Wal-Mart little hope of a successful repeat approval. The community now waits to see if Wal-Mart will appeal to the Appellate Court. Scott Stegeman is a land-use and planning consultant who has worked with community coalitions on numerous big box and large commercial development projects in the North Bay and elsewhere in California.
_________________________________________________________________________
The Petaluma Sheraton Story
Petaluma Argus Courier
May 9, 2007
The Sheraton Petaluma Hotel recently hosted a much-acclaimed Artisan Cheese Festival attracting more than a thousand visitors. The Sheraton story is an important chapter in the emergence of a new labor movement in California, which is seeking to organize low-wage and immigrant workers and to create partnerships for career mobility in traditionally low-wage industries.
A recent report," The Limits of Prosperity," by New Economy, Working Solutions (NEWS) analyzed the dramatic increase of income inequality in the North Bay over the last two decades and the emergence of an 'hourglass economy,' with job growth concentrated at the top and bottom of the labor market while the middle is contracting--particularly as the crash of the telecommunications industry led to the loss of 5000 tech jobs between 2001-2004 as firms moved manufacturing abroad.
The NEWS report emphasized that more than 30 percent of the workers in the North Bay do not earn an hourly 'living wage' sufficient for two parents working full-time to support a two-child family. A living wage in 2003 was $13.25 an hour for Sonoma and $14.50 an hour for Napa, after adjusting for the cost of living in each county. Latino workers who are clustered in agriculture and the low wage service sector experience higher rates of working poverty: in both counties nearly 45% do not earn a living wage. Most alarmingly, the report indicates that 62% of the jobs created in the North Bay between 2001-2008 will pay an entry wage of less than $12.00 an hour.
As a consequence of this dramatic polarization of wealth and incomes, business, labor, and local government are developing new models to upgrade traditional low wage work, particularly service sector jobs that can't move to nations with lower labor costs.
'Responsible' or 'accountable' development is one of the most promising policy initiatives gaining momentum in California. In 2001 state and local government provided $11 billion in tax abatements, redevelopment assistance, and infrastructure subsidies to private business. Usually firms that receive public funding are not held responsible for the quality of jobs including wage rates and benefits, or the opportunities for career mobility.
Over the last decade, in response to advocacy and organizing by labor, faith, and community organizations, many California cities and counties have mandated that new development projects receiving public funding create good jobs and provide other 'community benefits' such as affordable housing, parks, and child care services.
The Sheraton Petaluma is a local example of such responsible development. In 2000, the Living Wage Coalition and the North Bay Labor Council successfully lobbied the Petaluma City Council to mandate labor standards for the hotel. In return for $2.75 million in redevelopment loans and tax breaks, the owner-developer of the Sheraton agreed to pay a living wage to the workers at the hotel, to abide by federal and state labor law and to remain neutral if hotel employees sought an election for union representation.
In 2005 the workers at the Sheraton voted for representation by UNITEHERE Local 2850. Last fall the union and management signed a three-year contract. All non-tipped employees such as housekeepers, janitors, and dishwashers will receive total wage increases of $1.30 an hour over three years. Employees who work as few as 16 shifts per month will now qualify for medical benefits, paid time off, and retirement benefits.
Employee co-payments for medical were cut significantly, and each year will decline further. Housekeepers, who experience high rates of work related injuries, also received a workload reduction. The hourly wages at the Sheraton are substantially better than the industry norm, and at nonunion hotels company-provided medical benefits, particularly for part-time workers, are out of reach.
In San Francisco, 11 Class A hotels, UNITEHERE Local 2, and the City College of San Francisco established the San Francisco Partnerships Project in 1994 that today provides classes to 5000 hotel workers, from ESL and basic skills to culinary arts and hospitality management. Funded by business and labor contributions, this program boosts productivity and creates career ladders that enable dishwashers to become chefs, housekeepers to become banquet waiters, and busboys to become wine stewards. NEWS and the Living Wage Coalition are working with Sheraton management, the Petaluma Adult School, and Santa Rosa Junior College to establish a similar workforce training program.
Since the first contract was signed many businesses, nonprofits, and unions have moved their conferences, annual dinners, and trainings to the Sheraton. Everyone concerned about the growing economic divide in the region should support this hotel!
Martin J. Bennett teaches American history at Santa Rosa Junior College and serves as Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County (Note: the above is an unedited version of the Guest Commentary printed by the Argus).
Patronize the Sheraton!!
The Living Wage Coalition urges all members, supporters and and affiliatedorganizations to patronize the Sheraton!! This is the only union hotel inthe North Bay and an excellent facility for conferences, meetings, andfamily events!! Contact the Director of Sales and Marketing Matt Andress at:
707-283-2931
matthew.andress@sheratonpetaluma.com
745 Baywood Drive Petaluma
http://www.sheraton.com/petaluma
Don't miss the terrific "Early Bird Special" between 4-6 pm Sunday-Thursday, $15 per person at their award winning Tolay restaurant featuring local and regional cuisine!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Petaluma Sheraton Workers Sign First Contract!!
Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County Newsletter - Winter 2006
by Eileen Morris
Seven years after they began their struggle, workers at the Petaluma Sheraton negotiated a three-year union contract this September.
The Sheraton is the first union hotel in the North Bay, and the contract,which covers 95 employees, includes life-changing provisions for health coverage, retirement accounts, vacations, increased earnings, job security,better working conditions, and recognition of seniority-including provisions that will allow workers tangled in Immigration andNaturalization red tape to return to their jobs when issues are resolved,and provisions to allow part time workers to qualify for health coverage and other benefits.
The union movement for workers at the Sheraton began even before the hotel had begun construction. The hotel's developers approached the city of Petaluma for financial assistance (a loan of up to $2.75 million) to help them meet construction and on-going operating expenses. Members of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition began to educate the Petaluma City Council and the Petaluma community about some of the unintended consequences implicit in the proposed deal. Yes, a Sheraton would bring increased tax dollars to the city's General Fund and increased patronage of many Petaluma businesses, but unless workers were paid well and had benefits, the public sector would end up subsidizing Sheraton operations:Sheraton workers would find it necessary to access a variety of assistance programs, including the Healthy Families Program, affordable housing programs, food stamps and other programs for the poor.
After much negotiation and concerted lobbying by the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition and a variety of local labor and religious leaders, the Petaluma Council agreed to make the loan, but as one of its conditions, the city required hotel management to remain neutral if employees organized.Nevertheless, the road to union representation was bumpy. An arbitrator ordered a new election, judging that management had interfered in the first election in 2004. The hotel changed hands and came under the management of Rim Hospitality, which was at first reluctant to abide by the city-imposed union-neutrality provision, but did in the end comply.
Both management and union negotiators say they are happy with the working relationship they forged in the 10-month negotiation period.
While Sheraton employees will earn significantly more than most of their nonunion counterparts ($11.50 per hour for Sheraton housekeepers versus the county industry average wage of $9.67, for example), they will still be challenged by Sonoma County's high cost of living. Cooks, for example, can expect to earn $13.30 by the end of the 3-year contract. That's a wage that will provide sufficiently for a single person but will prove inadequate for a single parent with one child in this county, according to Wider Opportunities for Women, a research and advocacy organization dedicated to empowering poor people and improving their standard of living. However,unlike may of their non-unionized counterparts, Sheraton employees will have health insurance, and will therefore not have to deal with catastrophic emergency health care costs.
In addition to better pay, the Sheraton employees will have better job protection and better working conditions. Most significantly, the housekeeping department, when making cleaning assignments, will recognize the great difference in work load between rooms where guests have checked out and rooms where guests are staying over and between large suites and regular rooms.
Seniority will figure mightily in scheduling. Employees now have a grievance policy and protections from unfair disciplinary actions and termination.
In recognition of how important immigrant labor is to the hospitality industry and how snarled the immigration process can be, hotel management agreed to allow employees who have to stop work because of immigration issues to return once those issues are resolved. Similarly, the union is proud of the concessions it won for part-time employees who account for a large number of the hotel employees.
Management, local educators, and the Living Wage Coalition are also exploring ways to create employment ladders within the hotel by providing ESL and adult education classes to the workers.
Eileen Morris is a member of the Living Wage Coalition
________________________________________________________________________
Union Contract Negotiations to Begin at the Petaluma Sheraton
by Eileen Morris
North Bay Progressive
January 2006
After a long and hard-fought battle, workers at the Petaluma Sheraton voted to join the UNITEHERE Local 2850 (a merger of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union) last month-a first for the Sonoma County hotel industry. But will the 95 employees get a contract? Nationally, some 30 percent of successful union elections never result in a contract because negotiations break down.
Those in the know say that the Sheraton employees have a greater chance than most.
"You aren't alone in this," Stephanie Ruby, Organizing Director for HERE, told workers as they sat down Dec. 15 for their first discussion of contract negotiations. "You've got yourselves-the strong bonds and the great relationships you developed in this campaign. You've got the strength of this great union structure. And you've got the support of the community. That's a lot of people who have your back."
Community support for a union work force at the Sheraton first took shape in late 1999 when the hotel's developers approached the city of Petaluma for financial assistance to help them meet construction and on-going operating expenses. Petaluma's City Council was interested in working with the hotel because it looked like the Sheraton would bring much needed revenue to city coffers in the form of increased property taxes and bed taxes. Additionally, local businesses would benefit from the hotel's conference facilities and the money that guests would spend at local businesses during their stays.
It was Marty Bennett, Co-Chair of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition and Executive Director of the North Bay think tank New Economy Working Solutions who first pointed out to the Council that a Sheraton could also result in additional and unintended public sector subsidies to the hotel owners. He described the low wages workers could expect to receive and those wages' inevitable corollary in expensive Sonoma County: Sheraton workers would have to access a variety of assistance programs-a truth since born out. In the three years' they've been working without a union contract, many Sheraton employees have been forced to use the Healthy Families Program, affordable housing programs, food stamps and other programs for the poor said Ruby. "This hotel's on welfare. We want to stop that. And that's not outrageous," Ruby told workers.
Numerous voices from labor and the religious community-most notably, parishioners from St. Vincent's Catholic Church in Petaluma-joined the Living Wage Coalition's initial call for accountable development.
The council in 2000 agreed that it was unfair to support low-wage employment with public funds. They agreed (6-1) to loan the hotel up to $2.75 million, but a condition of the loan was that union labor would play an important role in the hotel's construction, and that the hotel management would remain neutral in any election among hotel employees. Some $750,000 of the loan paid for parking lot construction. The rest of the money was to be borrowed monthly over a number of years, to offset operating expenses.
Workers' advocates in the community and in city government remained firm supportive throughout the last three years. When the hotel changed hands and management in 2003, continuation of the financial agreement with the city, loan repayment and labor neutrality seemed in peril, with the new owners declaring they didn't have to abide by provisions worked out by the previous owners. Dropping the labor neutrality provision might make eventual loan repayments more likely, the new owners suggested to the city, and, in that case, hotel owners would be happy to keep borrowing money every month. But after public outcry and negotiations with the city, new management agreed to both abide by the labor neutrality provision and shoulder the financial agreement.
However, in 2004, an arbitrator determined that the hotel had not remained neutral in an election campaign and ordered a new election. (Workers in the first election voted for the union, but many ballots were challenged, prompting the arbitrator to call for the new election).
By all accounts management did remain neutral for the current election. "This time around the process was as good as it could have been," said Ruby.
Petaluma City Council member Mike Healy, the only remaining Council member who voted for the Sheraton deal, concurs: "This was about as positive as we could have hoped for," he said about the election this week. "It could very well set a precedent for the rest of the county. I've told the union folks this is their opportunity to show that a union can be a benefit to management. If they do that, others in the future might not be so resistant."
Bennett agrees. "Our preferred alternative is to make this a win-win situation for everyone. Arriving at a contract and having a union work force is going to make the Sheraton a very attractive venue for large labor and progressive organizations. We really want to make that happen." At the same time, he said, "Our base is stronger than ever now, and our infrastructure is much more developed. We are willing to bring moral suasion to bear to make sure the hotel does the right thing and negotiates a fair contract."
Union structure and worker strength. Workers meeting with Ruby asked her what protections the union could extend to them if management attempted to punish them for their stand.
"What's different in your situation today is this," she said. "Before the election, you could have been fired at any time. Now, they can still fire you, but if they violate your rights, it will be exposed." One of those rights is to be free from discrimination no matter what your stand on the union had been, Ruby said.
A cook and a restaurant hostess both mentioned that their supervisors had been miffed about the election. "It's like they're trying to guilt us out," the hostess said.
"Management's job is to make you nervous, to make you afraid," said Ruby. "But with this election, you've moved beyond a patriarchal relationship. You're now equals, and we're going to negotiate from a position of strength."
Throughout the last six weeks of the election campaign, HERE flooded the area with unionized workers from hotels all over the state to inform Sheraton workers of the benefits of union contracts. One such worker, Anna Gutierrez, is a housekeeper at the Holiday Inn in Emeryville-a hotel which is managed by the same group that manages the Petaluma Sheraton.
"There were a lot of fears [among the Sheraton employees]," Gutierrez said, "but they were very excited to hear about my contract, and they are very excited to make their own."
Health care and higher wages are top priorities among Sheraton workers, but there was also a call for English as a Second Language course. Interestingly, the Sheraton's first owners had been eager to create partnerships with the junior college and the Petaluma Adult School to offer basic skills, ESL and hospitality industry training. "Those partnerships could come back quickly," said Bennett. "There are already models in place that could enable workers to go from the back of the house to the front. That's a huge benefit to everyone."
The union provides a structure that individual workers have to inhabit, Ruby said. "You've taken the first step. Now, the second step is to stay involved. This contract has to be about things you want for yourselves and your co-workers. That's going to give you the strength to stand up not just for yourself, but for them."
Ruby expects negotiations with hotel management to begin in mid-January.
Eileen Morris is a member of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition. ________________________________________________________________________________
Statement on Wal-Mart DEIR
by Ben Boyce, Coordinator, Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County to Santa Rosa Planning Commission Feb 9, 2006
The entrance of Wal-Mart in Santa Rosa is touted as a cure for blight in the Southwest Area and a boon to the city in the form of creation of new jobs. A substantial body of research done by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education demonstrates that the entrance of a Wal-Mart in an existing market merely displaces other retail jobs, through the closure of competing stores. The net effect is to replace other retail jobs with lower quality Wal-Mart jobs that pay, on average, 30% less. In addition to the substantial Wal-Mart wage penalty, Wal-Mart employees are 23% less likely to have job-based health insurance. When the planning commission reviews the suitability of Wal-Mart's application, the impact of these wage policies on the need for affordable housing and the burden on public health services must be taken into account.
The economic impact report in appendix A of the DEIR states that average wage of Wal-Mart employees in the Bay Area in 2004 was $11.08 per hour. This is a misleading figure, most likely arrived at by including managerial salaries into the aggregate wage totals. A more accurate figure would be the average wage of non-managerial workers, which is calculated at $10.38/hr, with more than 50% of employees earning under $9.50/hr, based on inflation-adjusted 2001 wage numbers, which is the only year for which public information was available, due to a national class-action sex discrimination lawsuit. Wal-Mart's claim that their wages are "almost identical" to unionized workers is contradicted by the evidence. Bay Area union retail workers (non-managerial) have an average wage of $15.31/hr as opposed to Wal-Mart's average stated wage of $11.08/hr. This represents a 28% drop from the union wage.
These are not living wage jobs that will sustain the economic health of the community, which is a stated goal of the Southwest Area Plan. According to the research done for the Living Wage Coalition by the UC Berkeley Institute for Labor and Employment, the conservative living wage figure for Sonoma County in 2006 is $13.25/hr. The proposed Wal-Mart jobs fall well short of that basic baseline.
The Sedway Group, who prepared the economic impact report, attempt to dismiss the well-publicized report by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research which demonstrated that Wal-Mart cost the taxpayers of California $86 million in one year for public healthcare costs alone. The Sedway Group makes the claim that "only" 11% of Wal-Mart employees will be eligible for public assistance programs, such as Medi-Cal, Section 8 housing, SonomaWorks, Food Stamps, and subsidized school lunches. This assertion is contradicted by Wal-Mart's own internal report, which was released to the press. This memo states that 46% of Wal-Mart associates children are either uninsured or on Medi-Cal or enrolled in subsidized Children's Health Insurance Plan. The same leaked memo states that 24% of Wal-Mart associates nationally are on Medicaid or uninsured. The national cost to taxpayers is $456,000,000 annually, and rising. This shows that Wal-Mart is a net deficit for the communities it occupies.
Contrary to some rosy reports in the regional paper, Wal-Mart is not being welcomed to Santa Rosa, and stiff opposition to the predatory business model of this company is rising up all across the country. The well-documented role that Wal-Mart plays as a relentless engine driving down living standards in the U.S., as it shifts its labor costs on to the public sector, should give the planning commission pause before routinely approving this application.
________________________________________________________________________________
Unions drum up support in SR Labor activists at town hall meeting accuse local businesses of trampling on workers' rights By Jeremy Hay, The Press Democrat
Santa Rosa Press Democrat June 19, 2005 Some of Sonoma County's biggest businesses are trampling on their employees in a way that reflects a nationwide political agenda to place corporate rights over workers' rights, labor activists, workers and politicians said Saturday. "A credo is now being preached to let capitalism be completely unfettered," said Michael Allen, former general manager of the county's biggest union, Service Employees International Union 707. "As citizens we cannot let that happen," said Allen, now president of the North Bay Labor Council. He called for a "Sonoma County rapid response network" to engage in demonstrations and political action in support of workers. E&J Gallo Winery, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital and Empire Waste Management were among businesses that workers and labor organizers cited as workplaces where employees who want to start or strengthen unions have been the target of "union-busting" campaigns and intimidation. Ensign Group, a Southern California company that owns four skilled nursing homes in Sonoma County, was also singled out for similar complaints. Representatives of each company have denied the charges. At Gallo, Empire Waste and Ensign - where management and employee relations have deteriorated the most markedly amid contract negotiations that have stalled for more than two years - company officials say the unions have not bargained in good faith. This week, on the same day the United Farm Workers union called for a boycott of Gallo wines, state labor regulators filed a complaint saying the union has refused to cooperate in negotiations. About 100 people attended Saturday's town hall meeting, "Workers' Rights are Human Rights," at Finley Community Center. The event had the temper of a high-season political rally, with denunciations of President Bush and Gov. Schwarzenegger and calls to oppose two ballot measures in the state's November special election, including one that would bar public employee labor unions from making political contributions unless their members provide written consent. "I haven't seen an initiative requiring corporations to get permission from their shareholders before making contributions," said Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who said the policies of Bush and Schwarzenegger have weakened workers' rights and labor protections, said: "America is strong because of its middle class. We can't have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement." The six-term representative, who received a standing ovation, is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would it make easier for employees to organize unions and stiffen penalties for labor law violations. Priscilla Yaeger, a patient financial counselor at Memorial Hospital, where the SEIU is campaigning to begin representing technicians and clerical workers, said supervisors told her not to talk about union activities and made her attend mandatory meetings where unions were portrayed as duplicitous. Mary Borrelli, spokeswoman for St. Joseph Health System - which includes both Memorial and Petaluma Valley hospitals and is the county's largest health care provider - said such charges were baseless. "I can tell you that would never happen from any executive at St. Joe's," she said. "It would never happen - I'll stake my job and mortgage on it." On Saturday, the sympathies at the Finley Center were with people like Maria Echaveste - a daughter of Central Valley farmworkers and former deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. Labor rights, she said, must be tied to immigration overhauls that give legal status to illegal workers already in the country and that impose sanctions on businesses that hire and mistreat undocumented workers. "The American dream that allowed me and my family to succeed is evaporating for so many people," she said, "and we cannot let these people, Bush and Arnold, take our country away from us. ________________________________________________________________________________ Workers rights still getting squeezed By Ben Boyce
June 18, 2005 Santa Rosa Press Democrat Closer to Home/Opinion Right here in Sonoma County, a silent war is being fought, out of sight of the general public. Community supporters of labor rights have witnessed heartbreaking real-life dramas in which workers' aspirations for living wages, decent benefits and respect at work have been smashed by immoral tactics whose perpetrators go largely unpunished: Members of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthworkers West at Sonoma Healthcare Center have been attempting to get a contract after a three-year struggle, only to be subjected to a vicious, systematic elimination of the union leadership. The United Farm Workers has had to launch a national boycott against Gallo after exhausting all other remedies in an unsuccessful two-year campaign to get a new contract for the Sonoma Gallo workers. The Bush administration's National Labor Relations Board, which is generally hostile to labor rights, was compelled to levy a $100,000 fine against WG Investment Group, owners of the Petaluma Sheraton, organized by Unite Here Local 2850, for blatant violations of the neutrality agreement signed with the city of Petaluma. The health care workers at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital were forced to abort their recent union drive in the face of a sophisticated "astro-turf" strategy, in which the hospital's anti-union consultants sponsored employee front groups claiming to represent the rank-and-file. Empire Waste Management refuses to bargain in good faith with the sanitation workers represented by Operating Engineers Local 3, failing to conclude a first contract after over a year of delay tactics - even after being directed by the Petaluma City Council to settle. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the landmark legislation that guarantees the right of American workers to join a union, free of interference. There is little to celebrate, however, because this basic right has been essentially stripped from the American populace through a sustained attack by the corporate sector over the last 25 years. The right of workers to freedom of association, the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, is a civil right that is recognized internationally. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests." When workers attempt to organize a union in America, they routinely run into a buzz saw of threats, intimidation and coercive tactics orchestrated by highly paid union-busting consultants. This is a pernicious, billion-dollar a year industry whose sole purpose is to deny a fundamental human right. Human Rights Watch, an internationally respected human rights organization, released a major report that condemned the current state of workers' rights in the U.S.: "Loophole-ridden laws, paralyzing delays, and feeble enforcement have led to a culture of impunity in many areas of U.S. labor law and practice. Legal obstacles tilt the playing field so steeply against workers' freedom of association that the United States is in violation of international human rights standards for workers." Labor law is broken, and as a result every year the percentage of Americans who enjoy union benefits and protections decreases. To address this systemic social injustice, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been introduced in Congress, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Representative George Miller, D-Martinez. The EFCA will restore the original intent of the NLRA by clearing away the thicket of legal impediments to union recognition and providing meaningful penalties for violations of labor law. The bill has three primary components: (1) democratic majority sign-up (also known as card-check), which requires the employer to recognize and bargain with the union when a majority of employees sign a union authorization; (2) first contract mediation and arbitration, which permits either party to request mediation if agreement has not been reached in 90 days; (3) stronger penalties for labor law violations, including swift relief for unlawful firings, treble back pay and civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. The measure will be discussed at a forum today. See box for details. Restoring the civil rights of workers to organize will lead to higher living standards, a healthier economy and sustain a critical political counterweight to unchecked corporate power. ______________________________________________________________________________ Empire Waste treating people like garbage? By Ellen Bicheler
North Bay Progressive June 2005 On May 16, the Petaluma City Council voted 5-1 with Councilmember, Karen Nau dissenting to extend their garbage contract another six months with Empire Waste Management. City Manager, Mike Bierman advised the council to go with the extension to allow enough time to work out franchise agreements with the city and for Empire Waste Management and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 to "resolve their differences." At stake is a $50.5 million dollar ten-year garbage contract. Two weeks earlier the council unanimously voted on an ultimatum to Empire Waste Management to work out their labor disputes with the union or lose the contract. Empire Waste Management and the union have been working on their contract for over two years. Greg Gunheim, District Representative of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 said, "The council gave clear direction on May 2. Empire Waste didn't listen. They didn't even meet with us until May 13 they're a bad corporate citizen they're union busting they don't want the workers to have a voice." Although the council approved the extension, Mayor Dave Glass and councilmembers Pam Torliatt and Keith Canevaro suggested looking at other haulers like Green Waste while trying to negotiate the Empire Waste contract. Several council members expressed concern about allegations of mistreatment and racial discrimination. "This is not about union or non-unions. It's about the way the company treats their employees," said Torliatt. Councilmember Mike Healy said, "Allegations of racial discrimination need to be looked into with Empire Waste Management." Those allegations were made by William E. Scott, Jr., a former Waste Management labor relations expert who was sent out from the Houston headquarters two years ago to help fight the unionization vote. Scott was fired after the union won. In a phone interview with NBP, Scott said, "Corporate has a good diversity program, however Rob Zakoor (District Manager) is a racist." Scott reported that when Zakoor laid off a Hispanic supervisor with over thirty two years of seniority, he wanted to give him only three months of severance pay. When Scott advised giving him a year of severance pay, Zakoor told Scott, 'Screw him. I don't like wetbacks anyway.' Rob Zacoor introduced me to the word wetback," said Scott, "and then twisted my use of the word to get me fired." Heather Browne, spokesperson for Empire Waste said, "This statement purportedly comes from a disgruntled former employee, who was himself terminated from Waste Management, in part for his use of racial epithets in describing Hispanic employees His assertions are malicious and without foundation or merit." Alicia Sanchez, one of many union supporters who filled the Petaluma City Council Chambers, said, "The workers took a great deal of abuse and discrimination before they decided to unionize. They realized that by coming together they could have some say with their bosses the union contract gives them security." Not everyone at the company agrees. A contingent of anti-union proponents from Empire Waste voiced their objections to the union and spoke highly of Empire Waste Management. Employee Ricardo Elias said, "Sixty percent of the company has signed a petition saying they don't want a union." Elias said there's been vandalism he attributes to union members, and non-union supporters have been labeled, 'company pansies.' Santa Rosa Attorney, Michael Fiumara is convinced of that there has been discrimination against union members. "From interviewing at least twelve employees," said Fiumara, "I would opine that there is clear and convincing evidence that these employees interviewed have been impermissibly terminated for their union activities." Fiumara said he "has cases where several union organizers were assigned unfamiliar and difficult routes with the aim of punishing them. It took so much longer to complete the route and to return to the yard to dump the load that the employee exceeded his hours of service and forced the employee to violate the DOT regulations. This self fulfilling prophesy and set-up for failure discourages union organizing especially if the employees are fired for doing what the company tells them to do." According to Gunheim, two points of conflict remain in dispute, the cost-of-living raises and management of a 401K plan (currently only employees pay into it). Gunheim urges the public to continue to voice their support of the workers and the union to both Empire Waste and the Petaluma City Council. "I pray that the contract will be resolved." ________________________________________________________________________________ Sonoma Nursing Home Workers Under Attack North Bay Progressive May 2005
By Ben Boyce, Living Wage Coalition Coordinator The lobby outside the Department of Health Services (DHS) office in Santa Rosa was packed to capacity with workers from the Sonoma Healthcare Center (SHC), their children, local clergy, social justice advocates, union activists, and the press. This action, on April 14th, was convened by the bargaining committee for the workers at SHC, who are represented by SEIU UHW. The large delegation was there to deliver a letter to the DHS demanding that the state agency drop pending investigations against the union activists at SHC. Last month, six employees at SHC received notices from the DHS that they were under investigation for complaints that had been filed against them by an unnamed source. The staff at the DHS office was a bit nervous about this unusual gathering at the normally quiet state government office, but the office manager accepted the letter, and promised to forward the request to the head office in Sacramento. The workers were adamant that the DHS investigations are part of an ongoing anti-union campaign by the owners of the SHC, Ensign Corporation, based in Mission Viejo. Eulalia Gonzalez, a nursing assistant at SHC, stated that "When all of us who are being investigated also happen to be union activists, I think it's pretty obvious that something strange is going on". Three of the six union members under investigation are on the five-member bargaining committee, which is attempting to reach their first contract with SHC, following a long and bitterly contested union election campaign. The union campaign began almost three years ago, when a group of nursing home workers at the SHC approached SEIU 250 (now SEIU UHW) requesting union representation. Ensign reacted vehemently to the prospect of a union at one of their facilities, which are all non-union, and hired a law firm, the Newport Beach based Labor Relations Services, which specializes in neutralizing union drives for their clients. Ensign is a large corporation which owns 25 other facilities across the western states. The firm received 2.6 million dollars in state funding in 2000 to operate Sonoma Healthcare Center. The workers are mainly Latino nursing aides, food preparers, and janitors. The average hourly rate for the nursing aides is $9.75. Other full-time workers make as little as $13,000 a year and must work two jobs. All these workers lack affordable medical benefits and face heavy workloads due to cuts in staffing levels, which union officials describe as a key feature of Ensign's business plan. In an attempt to thwart unionization, consultants from this company held mandatory anti-union meetings with the workers up to three times a day. Local clergy and city council members who supported the workers were refused permission to attend the meetings. Even in the face of this hostile work environment, the workers still voted 2-1 for union representation. The company then filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The board rejected all of these unfair labor practices charges and ordered immediate recognition of the union. Ensign again appealed the NLRB decision, and the final decision from the NLRB was not rendered until last fall, more than two years after the initial vote. In the interim, according to members of a community support group affiliated with St. Leo's Peace and Social Justice Committee, several of the key leaders of the union drive at SHC were fired, or quit under pressure, after trumped up personnel complaints were issued against them. Even after this initial loss of some of the key union leaders, a determined group of Latino employees have carried on with the campaign, hoping to win a first contract and improve their wages, benefits, and conditions of work. When the DHS charges against the union activists surfaced, the union members saw them as part of Ensign's attempt to crush the union before a first contract is signed. SHC worker Alejandra Recendiz stated, "Ensign is using the state to get back at the workers". The attorney for Ensign, Greg Stapely, denies that the corporation had any part in registering the DHS complaints. SEIU UHW organizer Nell Hirschman-Levy counters that, "Ensign is simply not credible here. According to a DHS investigator, the reports were made by a SHC administrator. Every indication is that Ensign is stalling at the bargaining table, with the intention to try to de-cert the union in August, one year after the worker's union was initially certified." On Thursday, April 21st, a delegation of community members, workers, and union organizers will present a letter to the managers of the Ensign facility in Sonoma to demand that they withdraw the DHS complaints. ________________________________________________________________________________ Petaluma Issues Ultimatum To Garbage Hauler, Union By Jose L. Sanchez
Santa Rosa Press Democrat May 3, 2005 Get it done or else. The Petaluma City Council told its garbage hauler and a union Monday to come to terms with each other on a contract or face the loss of a 10-year franchise agreement worth $50.5 million. The council unanimously issued an ultimatum to Empire Waste Management and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, which have been unable to reach a contract despite 18 months of talks. If the two sides have not signed an agreement by 9 a.m. May 16, the City Council will abandon its attempt to negotiate a franchise deal with Empire Waste and will begin to discuss picking a replacement that evening. Councilman Mike Healy, who until recently has been Empire Waste's chief proponent, said the company's treatment of pro-union employees and its dealings with the Operating Engineers strongly suggest its aim is to break the union. "There's a pattern here that's consistent with the company doing everything to get rid of the union," he said. Healy and Mayor David Glass said during the meeting that if the city cannot get a deal with Empire Waste, it should consider negotiating a franchise agreement with Green Waste Recovery of San Jose, one of three companies that last year submitted proposals to the city. Councilwoman Pam Torliatt also said her second choice would be Green Waste. The failure of the city to conclude a deal with Empire Waste would have significant consequences for Petaluma ratepayers. While Empire Waste would raise rates by 11 percent over three years, Green Waste would raise them by 26 percent over the same period. Another possibility is that the council could go with San Francisco-based Norcal Waste Systems, which would raise rates by 140 percent. Four members of the council voted for Norcal earlier this year but Councilman Mike Harris changed his mind after a public backlash. The council issued its ultimatum after hearing from speakers on both sides of the issue in a chamber overflowing with about 200 people. "It's never been about the money," said Carlos Martinez, a member of the union's negotiating team. "We make pretty decent money," he said. "We're not asking for a Cadillac. We are asking for respect." Other employees spoke for the company and against the union. "I'm 100 percent Mexican and I've never been discriminated against," said Naomi Rivas. After 18 months of talks, the issues that remain unresolved are: * How many members of the bargaining unit will have a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase granted in April included as part of their base pay. * Whether the company will pay to administer a 401(k) plan for employees that would not include any company contributions. * Whether the union can have a bulletin board on company premises without having to submit material to the company first for approval. Several council members said the issues are insignificant and should be able to be resolved. "Hopefully, everyone could be locked in a room and get this resolved," Harris said. Tensions between the company and the union rose last week when the Operating Engineers declared a three-day strike Wednesday. On Thursday, the company struck back, locking out the strikers. Empire Waste brought in employees from its other Bay Area operations to avoid interruptions in service. Greg Gunheim, a district representative for the union, said the five-day lockout was typical of the company's tactics, which he says have included dealing out harsher discipline to union sympathizers and promoting three attempts to get the union decertified as the employees' representative. Empire Waste spokesman Jim Landa denied the union's accusations and said the company is negotiating in good faith. He said Empire Waste's drivers are among the top-paid drivers in the area, with salaries exceeding the $70,000 to $75,000 range. Empire Waste has 130 employees who serve Petaluma, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Cloverdale and parts of unincorporated Sonoma and Marin counties. Union officials said 42 employees walked off the job Thursday, but company officials put the number at 32. You can reach Staff Writer Jose Sanchez Jr. at 762-7297
Big-Box Boom: Big-Boxes Are Coming, Bringing Low Wages with Them to Sonoma County
By Bruce Robinson
North Bay Bohemian
March 30, 2005
In the coming months, three huge new retail stores--all major national chains--are preparing to erupt on the Santa Rosa cityscape, their combined 350,000 square feet of relentless consumerism bringing the city millions in future sales-tax revenues--along with hundreds of low-wage jobs.
Santa Rosa is not alone. The boom in retail construction will continue south to Rohnert Park, Cotati and Petaluma, where an additional million-plus square feet of new building is moving through the planning process.
Retail construction in Sonoma County "is poised to expand dramatically," Bill McCubbin, president and CEO of Orion Properties told the annual North Bay Economic Outlook conference in Santa Rosa earlier this year. Several area cities are currently "under-retailed" and looking for additional sales tax revenues, he noted. Based on projects already under consideration or known to be in the planning pipeline, southern Sonoma County can expect another 1.4 million square feet of retail construction in the next few years, with roughly two-thirds of that arising as big boxes.
For Santa Rosa alone, the anticipated arrival of three new big boxes translates into an additional $1 million or more in annual sales-tax revenues, money that has already been factored into the city's long-term budget projections. However, critics charge that this revenue figure is grossly misleading, as it ignores the considerable--and quantifiable--social costs that arrive along with the huge stores.
Leading the procession has been Kohl's, a Wisconsin-based retailer that sought and won approval for a 100,000-square-foot store at the northern gateway to Santa Rosa, on Airway Drive north of Hopper Avenue, though not without some wrangling over the building's design, which has evolved from a one- to a two-story structure. It is now expected to open in time for the Christmas selling season.
Scattered objections to the Santa Rosa Kohl's store were raised as it sailed through the city's review process, but no concerted opposition emerged, perhaps because the area immediately surrounding its site is still largely undeveloped, and traffic concerns there are minimal. That will not be the case for the other two big boxes that have Santa Rosa in their sights.
Give Wal-Mart credit; it had to know it would face a fight over a third huge store in Sonoma County, so it shrewdly set out to remake an existing eyesore--the vacant former HomeBase store that dominates an aging neighborhood mall just south of Highway 12 on Stony Point Road. The world's biggest retailer plans to demolish the old structure and rebuild a slightly reconfigured new 101,000-square-foot store on the same site.
And while Santa Rosa considers Wal-Mart's impact, Ken Jacobs, deputy chair of the Center for Labor Research and Education at UC Berkeley is more blunt. "Wal-Mart does not create new jobs," he says, citing the results of numerous studies. "For everyone hired by Wal-Mart, another job is lost elsewhere in the retail sector."
Those jobs disappear because smaller businesses can't compete with the retail giants, leaving shuttered storefronts in the surrounding neighborhoods. That's a blow to the local economy on several fronts, and it falls hardest when Wal-Mart hits town. "The stores that go out of business tend to pay more than Wal-Mart pays and tend to provide better benefits," Jacobs says, adding that Wal-Mart pays about 31 percent less than other large retailers (those with more than 1,000 employees) and provides 23 percent fewer workers with health insurance coverage.
But the main number the city is looking at is the one that will plug into the municipal budget. City finance director Bill Mushallo anticipated that the proposed Wal-Mart could add $300,000 to $350,000 to the city's coffers each year, noticeably more than the $200,000 to $250,000 Kohl's is expected to generate. But the biggest plum, in terms of sales-tax revenues, is the additional $500,000 per year that could come from the proposed new Home Depot store at Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda.
Having been turned away in its 1998 bid to build a superstore near the county jail (where locally based Yardbirds prevailed atop the still-unstable "moving mountain" instead), Home Depot has come back with plans for a 101,000-square-foot store adjacent to the sprawling "Marketplace" shopping center that supplanted the colorful El Rancho Tropicana complex on Santa Rosa Avenue. Already the subject of some skeptical neighborhood meetings, the Home Depot proposal must also overcome the city's reluctance to sacrifice the high-density housing that is due to go on part of the site under its current general plan.
"We would not entertain a proposal that eliminated the multifamily housing at that location," says Goldberg, "so they would either need to modify their proposal or provide for the housing component at some other location in the city not currently designated for multifamily." Approximately 45 units could be built on the residentially zoned land under its current zoning.
For the neighborhood, traffic concerns top the list, as more than 32,000 cars already cruise past the intersection of Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues every day. That number will shoot upward when the planned Farmers Lane extension connects Yolanda directly to Bennett and Rincon valleys. Meanwhile, Home Depot officials estimate their planned store will attract some 4,700 customers every day. And neighborhood groups opposed to the new big-box hardware store have an ally with deep pockets in Yardbirds owner John Headley, who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the unsuccessful fight to keep Lowe's out of Cotati. He now appears prepared to take the battle to both south Santa Rosa and Petaluma.
There is some small irony in the location of this new battleground, separated as it is by a few acres of asphalt from the first big box erected in the area: Costco. The quintessential no-frills shopping outlet also defines boxiness in its physical plant, but they differ from most other big-box stores in some important if largely invisible ways.
"Costco is an example of a big-box outlet that does pay living wages and offers good benefits to their employees," notes Ben Boyce, a leader and spokesman for the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition. But even with that upside, Boyce adds that Costco, like most other big boxes, follows "a business model that typically involves getting tax subsidies or redevelopment monies from the municipalities." Thanks in considerable part to the legacy of Proposition 13, cities are "starved for sales tax revenue," Boyce observes. "They'll prostitute themselves for sales tax revenues even if the total economic impact of the project is negative."
To combat what some see as a shortsighted rush to receive new retailers, some cities have begun to develop a new mechanism called a community impact report. Modeled on the well-established environmental impact reports required for virtually all major construction projects, the CIR encompasses a broader range of indicators, including wage rates, impacts on existing businesses and pressures on social services, such as healthcare, which can be heavily burdened when low-wage workers lack health insurance for themselves or their families.
When massive retailers like Wal-Mart enter a community trumpeting lower prices, "it's clear that they also shift major costs onto the public," says researcher Ken Jacobs. "And to the degree that the people know and understand that, they can develop responses, to have a kind of public policy that says this is the kind of development we want in our communities."
Los Angeles and San Jose are among the California cities already experimenting with some kind of a community impact report. However, Petaluma planning director Mike Moore is not convinced the concept is ready for prime time. "The concerns I'm familiar with in community impact reports--things like the balance between jobs and housing or wage differentials--are issues that local government doesn't necessarily have a lot of control over," Moore offers.
At the same time, he says, "people have seen that the analysis communities typically go through to evaluate major development projects doesn't usually include social or economic impacts. So it wouldn't be surprising to see something like this gain some ground."
But that could come too late. All available land for major retail development in Marin County has already been built out (with one modest exception in Novato), and Wal-Mart is flexing its political muscle in American Canyon southeast of Napa. With huge projects quietly moving forward in Rohnert Park, Petaluma and, the voters have decreed, even on the edge of Cotati, big boxes will be springing up along the freeway like mushrooms after the spring rains.
"I look at them like introducing pike into a trout lake," the Living Wage Coalition's Ben Boyce says grimly. "The big-box model, left unchecked, will eventually consume most retail activity in this country.
"It's already well on the way."
In addition to being a regular 'Bohemian' contributor, Bruce Robinson is news director for KCRB-FM.
Nursing Home Workers Get Union Representation Sonoma Valley Sun Thursday, September 16, 2004
by Tim Omarzu About 70 workers at a Sonoma nursing home now have union representation.A federal board certified on Aug. 31 that workers at Sonoma Health Care Center voted in May, 2002 in favor of unionizing by a 38-to-22 margin. The vote had been contested by Ensign Group, the parent company that owns the Sonoma nursing home along with 43 other nursing homes in four states.The unionization effort became a local cause with clergy members and citizens joining workers' picket lines at the nursing home at 1250 Broadway Street. Poster-board signs in favor of unionization were placed in some Sonomans' front lawns. Rosa Aparicio, a certified nursing assistant at the nursing home who currently is on maternity leave, said "We've been waiting for a long time for this and we got a good result." Aparicio said she earned $11 an hour at the nursing home. "I hope they give us a good raise," she said. The Aug. 31 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board means that the employer must begin negotiations for a new contract with the Oakland-based Service Employees International Union, Local 250, a union statement said. The union will represent nearly 70 full-time and part-time employees including certified nursing assistants, restorative nursing assistants, and staff that helps with activities, food, laundry and maintenance, the statement said. The election dispute was centered on comments made by labor board agent conducting the election in the presence of a union observer and the employer's observer."During a break in polling, union observer Juan Lopez asked the National Labor Relations board agent conducting the election why 'companies don't like unions'. The board agent replied, 'Companies don't like unions because they cannot fire or hire anyone, and they cannot take benefits from the staff.'" "Later Lopez mentioned to the board agent that the employer had paid $60,000 to 'the consultant' to which the board agent responded, "Whoa, $60,000." The remarks 'were only heard by two election observers and could not possibly have affected the outcome of election,' said a decision written by two of the four labor board members who voted to certify the election. A fifth labor board member wrote a dissenting opinion, saying the vote should be tossed because, in his opinion, "the board agent did not observe the quintessential element of strict neutrality." Russ Cobb, who's been administrator of Sonoma Health Care Center for about six months, said that "many of the staff who originally voted, have moved on." Cobb wouldn't disclose what the affected workers currently earn, but said, "It's very competitive. The market, really, in the last five to seven years (has been) very competitive." David McCracken, a retired minister from First Congregational Church of Sonoma, was among those who picketed in support of the unionization effort. "I don't think $11 an hour for a nurse's wage is a living wage or generous," said McCracken. He said the labor board's decision is "good news for the workers who've waited a very long time for the response."
Wal-Mart: Race to the Bottom or Corporate Responsibility?
Should the nation's largest employer provide decent wages and good benefits to its workers?
By Marty Bennett
Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Monday, September 4, 2004
Closer to Home
It is appropriate this Labor Day weekend that we consider the actual costs and benefits of Wal-Mart, which plans to build a third store in Sonoma County located in Southwest Santa Rosa, and to place in Napa County a super center that combines retail, grocery, and pharmacy.
Wal-Mart claims "Always lower prices" but the slogan really means "Always lower wages and benefits" for Wal-Mart workers and "Always fleece the taxpayers" to subsidize the company's exploitative labor practices. According to "The Hidden Costs of Wal-Mart," a study just released by the UC Center for Labor Research and Education, there are 44,000 Wal-Mart workers in California and 75 percent earn less than $10 an hour, while less than half receive health benefits.
In the Bay Area, the average non-managerial Wal-Mart worker earns $9.40 an hour, significantly below self-sufficiency standards for this high-cost region. According to the California Budget Project, a living wage in the Bay area for a family with two children and two parents working full-time is $16.88 an hour just to cover the basics including housing, childcare, health care, transportation and food.
How do Wal-Mart employees make ends meet?
The UC study documents that Wal-Mart employees who lack health care rely on programs like Medi-Cal and Healthy Families at a cost of $32 million a year to the taxpayer. Thousands of uninsured Wal-Mart employees depend on public emergency medical services and the cost of uncompensated care, mainly to the counties, is $5 billion a year. Wal-Mart has slashed its health care costs to a stunning 60 percent of the average for comparable large firms.
The UC report also notes that Wal-Mart workers earning poverty wages rely on other programs such as CalWorks (or welfare), Food Stamps, Section 8 subsidized housing, and child care assistance at a cost of $54 million to the taxpayers. Staff for Democratic Congressman George Miller found that the taxpayers pick up public assistance costs of $420,750 a year when a typical Wal-Mart with 200 employees opens in any California community.
Ultimately, unionization will thwart these "low-road" employment practices. Wal-Mart is now the nation's largest grocery retailer, and here the union advantage is clear: unionized grocery workers in the Bay Area are paid $15.31 an hour, or 39 percent more than the average non-managerial Wal-Mart employee, and 95 percent of union grocery workers receive health benefits.
However, Wal-Mart is aggressively anti-union. To organize Wal-Mart will take years, and will require enormous resources and substantial public support.
Since 1995, the National Labor Relations Board issued more than 60 complaints, and found that Wal-Mart has prevented employees from distributing union literature, threatened workers with the loss of bonuses or closure of a store if they unionized, and illegally disciplined or fired pro-union workers. The company faces the largest class action suit in history on behalf of 1.6 million past and present female employees for wage discrimination and promotion gender-bias. Thirty other suits are pending for violation of labor rights including a suit on behalf of 200,000 California employees that claims Wal-Mart managers denied work breaks to employees and forced employees to work uncompensated overtime.
By exploiting its workforce and preventing unionization, Wal-Mart is able to increase market share, depress wages, and eliminate good union jobs. Wal-Mart's entrance into the grocery market has forced 25 supermarket chains to close or file bankruptcy and 12,000 union jobs have been lost. According to the Orange County Business Council, the spread of Wal-Mart super centers could cost Southern California 2.8 billion in lost wages and benefits alone.
Wal-Mart's success has meant extraordinary wealth for the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and his family. His widow and four children are the largest stockholders and have personal assets of more than $100 billion. The Walton kin account for five of the top ten wealthiest Americans. With less than 1 percent of their wealth, the Walton's could provide health insurance for every Wal-Mart employee. Sadly, Wal-Mart will spend millions fighting unionization rather than pay a living wage and provide benefits to their workers.
Immediately, government can regulate big business to protect the public interest and to stop companies like Wal-Mart from shifting their true costs onto unwitting taxpayers. Last year the state legislature passed the Health Insurance Act (SB 2) which requires firms with more than 50 workers to provide affordable health care benefits to all employees. Over one million uninsured workers and their children will receive health benefits as a result. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Chamber of Commerce have placed a proposition on the ballot in November intended to repeal this legislation.
If Californians vote yes on Proposition 72 to retain the new law, this could indicate changing values and a shift in public mood. The race to the bottom and destruction of middle-class jobs initiated by Wal-Mart could end, and a new era of corporate responsibility and increased economic security may begin.
Marty Bennett teaches history at Santa Rosa Junior College, serves on the Executive Board of the North Bay Labor Council, and is Co-Chair of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County.
|
LIVING WAGE COALITION OF SONOMA COUNTY