Chicago is a big union town, but at the same time there's a lot of backlash against unions. Witness the current struggle to bring two Wal-Marts to town. The media has run with the theme that it's a union deal. Since Wal-mart is anti-union that's why so many people don't want to see a Wal-mart in town.

Well I'm here to tell ya that I could give a flying fuck if the workers are union. This battle is NOT just a pro or anti-union debate. It's a human rights issue.

I've mentioned before that Wal-Mart is a NOW Merchant of Shame and I felt like I knew a lot of the evilness that oozes out of the Walton family business. HELL NO! I found out a few more tidbits for you kiddies:

* Wal-Mart takes out life insurance policies on elderly workers. God Bless Texas!
* Wal-Mart lowers prices until competition is driven out. I guess that this works better in rural America than it could in urban Chicago, but then again we do still have a few mom & pop stores.
* Wal-Mart strong arms manufacturers (since Wal-Mart controls 8% of the market) into lowering & lowering prices. If you wonder why off-shoring is occurring in manufacturing, Wal-Mart has a good chunk of the blame.
* While the commercial of the dad thanking Wal-Mart for the health insurance that assisted the family when the son was sick is a tear-jerker, that's all it is. Wal-Mart's insurance is so expensive that it's only good for catastrophic events.
* A Georgia study of the state's KidCare health insurance found that 1 in 4 of the kids enrolled, one of their parents worked for Wal-Mart. As far as I know, only Georgia & California track employers of parents well enough for a study like this.

The unions here in Chicago aren't holding a zero-tolerance position with Wal-Mart either. It's not union jobs or no jobs. They are attempting to get Wal-Mart to agree to a community benefits agreement where Wal-Mart agrees to 1) not sell produce in the city limits; 2) be union neutral; 3) agree to pay a living wage.

And while the feminist in me says no to Wal-mart (see the Merchant of Shame link above), if the unions can get Wal-Mart to adhere to those three points, I'd be ok with it. I'd still be out there protesting their lack of respect towards female workers and not carrying emergency contraception, but the reality is that we do need jobs on the west and south side of town. But we don't need jobs that will cost us more in the long run. If one Wal-Mart job costs us one manufacturing job, tax-payers subsidize health care, and we lose one small business, it will cost us too much. Wal-Mart can afford to pay decent living wages and still sleep on a bed of money.

The media is giving the public the shaft by focusing the story on union vs. non-union issues. It really comes down to what Wal-Mart will do to our community. And by looking around the country, I'd say they'd only bring trouble.