Is Home Depot responsible for who the developer of building distribution center hires?
01 Dec 2009
That is one of the basic questions the story reported on WTVG, Home Depot controversy creates. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are protesting out of state workers being used for the new distribution center in Hancock County. Home Depot’s position is that the developer is the one who handled the contracts.
The protest began on Black Friday, as covered by WTOL.
Back in August, the Courier covered the tax abatement aspect. There was also a short story when the construction began in September.
Even though I’m a supporter of local business, IBEW needs to get over themselves.
There are a number of reasons why this area is struggling not the least of which because of strong arm tactics by unions like the IBEW.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am(In my opinion) Leaches and blood suckers, just like their brothern, the SEIU.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pmI understand their concern, if tax dollars are going to be impacted by the abatement, it’s logical to expect that the local community should benefit from a project.
That written, it does not appear there was any agreement that local workers or even a percentage of local workers would be hired for this project, let alone that they be union workers.
That would mean part of the responsibility would lie with the governmental bodies who approved the abatement without those conditions. Which then leads to the question of should there be set demands in place that if local or state tax dollars are going to be used that the local workforce should benefit?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pmLisaRenee Says:
“…Which then leads to the question of should there be set demands in place that if local or state tax dollars are going to be used that the local workforce should benefit?”
Not if you want to be business friendly and grow jobs, such as Findlay.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pmI am always torn on this issue. When my tax money gets used, I want it to be used like I would spend it. When I spend my money, I look for the best deal considering quality and price. I don’t spend it to help others, that is what charity is for. Unions should not be charity cases.
So do I think we should exclusively use a local workforce? No, I think what we should do is require that local workforces get a chance to bid and if thier quality and price is right, then they win like anyone else.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:09 pmAs an addition to my above note, I’m not sure if it is already a law but if tax money is used then all bidding should be made public after the fact so we can see how our tax money was spent and why.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pmFunny how it’s less of an issue of tax money going to a corporation then it is tax money going to a union.
Also – Here is Not Again from another Thread –
Solar cells have been around “for almost 50 years now (from #17)” and they still are not a viable source of electricity. One that can stand on its’ own without government interference.
Can’t HomeDepot stand on it’s own?
All this hand ringing whether green energy can stand on it’s own without the tax payer, but we don’t think twice about handing out our tax money to a big box store. How many Ace hardware stores and other small mom and pop hardware stores are going to go out of business because of this?
December 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pmI love the premise that seems to be accepted – that these protests actually affect a business.
Protestors have been at Walmart for God knows how long, They walked the sidewalks at Walgreens this summer – think it got too cold to continue that practice – but it didn’t stop me from running into Walgreens to pick up something quick.
Still gonna go to Home Depot because because of proximity, and the other local hardware store has a poor selection and closes earlier than Home Depot.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pmSensorG Says:
“All this hand ringing whether green energy can stand on it’s own without the tax payer, but we don’t think twice about handing out our tax money to a big box store.”
tax credits not tax payer dollars. Besides it is to get a viable company to set up shop (competition), not to keep a non-viable one alive on the backs of the the people, silly.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pmGiving a tax credit is the same as giving tax money away in this case, the money has to be made up from some where. Example – if the government is giving an $8K tax credit for home buyers or $1500 for new furnaces do you consider that tax payer money?
In this case –
If you have say an established mom and pop Ace hardware paying full taxes to the school system and county and a Home Depot that doesn’t have to pay taxes or reduced taxes for X years, how is that fair competition?
Now the Home Depot gets to drive out the Ace store because lower over head, taking how may jobs with it? Also the Ace wouldn’t be paying taxes to the school system or county any more and we all have to pick of the slack; all except Home Depot.
Give tax breaks to big box stores so they can compete against smaller retailers is insane. It’s a race to the bottom and it’s the little guy who has to pay.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pmSensorG is right. We shouldn’t cherry pick who gets tax deals. We should have a set low and predictable tax rate that applies to everyone equally.
Tax abatements to companies amount to corporate welfare while the government picks who the winners and losers will be.
Many corporations suck on government largess just as much as unions do.
Both use the government/law to get the upper hand on their competition.
For instance, casino gambling in Ohio, the federal health care reform bill, living/minimum wage legislation, utility companies, license requirements, the federal reserve, wall street, car companies, and so on are all ways/examples. They restrict entry into a business, drive-up prices, drive-out competition, or have created legal monopolies/cartels.
It’s much easier to beat your competition if you can pass a law crippling their competitive advantage.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pmSensor is right, if you are against abatements, grants, etc., then it should be across the board and giving abatements to help chains does impact the local economy and drive small businessmen out of business.
This was done to create new jobs in Hancock County. But if it creates 100 new jobs but in the end helps put more family owned hardware stores out of business, the real net job gain could be called into question just as it is for solar jobs.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pmLisaRenee Says:
“This was done to create new jobs in Hancock County. But if it creates 100 new jobs but in the end helps put more family owned hardware stores out of business, the real net job gain could be called into question just as it is for solar jobs.”
The jobs created in hancock county are warehouse/distribution jobs so your concern for the loss of family hardware store jobs there is unfounded.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pmWriting on the origins of the Federal Reserve, Murray Rothbard discussed the philosophy which helped produce it and which still dominates our political discourse today: progressivism.
Rothbard writes:
“The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, was part and parcel of the wave of Progressive legislation on local, state, and federal levels of government that began about 1900. Progressivism was a bipartisan movement that, in the course of the first two decades of the 20th century, transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism.
Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who…surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late 19th century…
In contrast, what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late 19th century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J. P. Morgan and Company, tried desperately to establish successful cartels on the free market. The first wave of such cartels was in the first large-scale business — railroads. In every case, the attempt to increase profits — by cutting sales with a quota system — and thereby to raise prices or rates, collapsed quickly from internal competition within the cartel and from external competition by new competitors eager to undercut the cartel…
It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion, in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism.”
Government happily seized the opportunity to expand its powers, and this fraud helped put us in our current position with business and labor both using the power of law to secure their economic dominance at the expense of Joe Taxpayer.
You can read the rest here if interested: http://mises.org/story/3823#progressive
December 1st, 2009 at 5:55 pmCorrection – they are still walking in front of Walgreens at Secor and Monroe all bundled up.
A good point has been made on this thread – the tax abatement to Home Depot is just an example of our corporatist – NOT CAPITALIST – society.
Give the tax abatement to anyone bringing in jobs, not just the big companies with the deep pockets and influence.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pmAs a quick aside, if you write “Hancock” County the spam filter picks up the word “cock” in it so if your comment is held in moderation, that’s why.
Not Again, helping Home Depot become more financially successful by giving them an abatement in return for jobs does impact small hardware owners because they can’t compete and they are not being given the same tax abatement, so I feel that is a valid point.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pmTom Mo Says:
“Give the tax abatement to anyone bringing in jobs, not just the big companies with the deep pockets and influence.”
I think that is the message the Hancock county and Allen township leaders are presenting in this article, link copied from above.
http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2009/Aug/19/ar_news_081909_story1.asp?d=081909_story1,2009,Aug,19&c=n
December 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm“A lot of major developers, a lot of major companies nationally have been following this (Home Depot situation),” Dahar said. “By voting yes … that is like saying we want jobs, we want development. Hancock County is business friendly … It sends out the completely opposite message that was being sent before. This will help attract additional development, good development.”
That’s also from the same article, you’ll note that does not reference businesses currently there…which means basically what some of you were saying in reference to the solar issue, taking the money from others to provide corporate welfare…It’s really hard to have it both ways…
December 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pmI think the lesson to take for this is less taxes mean more jobs. We are all over taxed, the folks that actually pay taxes, I mean. That is why we are struggling.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pmPerhaps but if less taxes are coming into a community because of abatements who really pays for that in the end?
December 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pmThe jobs created equal payroll taxes, along with sales taxes related to consumption by the new employees.
I don’t necessarily agree with these abatements, but it is better than totally funding an industry, i.e., solar on the backs of the taxpayer. Money that has been taken from pockets, not an abatement to entice a viable business to invest in a community. There is a very big difference in the two scenarios.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pmThe solar industry has not been solely financed by taxpayers, individuals have invested, as well as companies like BP and many others. Abatements are money taken from pockets, since it is money that could have been collected and is not collected. It’s basically the same principal as a grant, there is no repayment.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pmIt should be pointed out that it is not just the IBEW who is protesting, but the entire Northwest Ohio Building Trades representing about a dozen different trades. The IBEW just happened to be at the store they showed up at.With thousands of skilled construction workers out of work for many months, I hardly think we need to bring workers in from Georgia,etc. to build this $34m facility. As for the developer, this is a standard ploy for co’s to hide behind. It is built to HD Specs. Not a good neighbor.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pmThat’s true Don, the WTOL news piece references the Building Trades, the WTVG news piece references the IBEW.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pmIt is sad that Home Depot didnt hire local contractors union or not to man the construction of the electrical work. The workers they did hire will pay taxes as in sales tax and possibily income tax to the local coffers, but it would be a better investment to also assist those local contractors as well.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pmIBEW is only worried about their general fund, since many unemployed union workers of northwest ohio have been collecting unemployment, thus not paying their dues.
My experience with unions, they rarely helpful to the workers, and a drain on workers and business alike.
#14 – a couple of sincere suggestions.
If you are really trying to educate people on the federal reserve, people who have not studied nor unraveled the deception that surrounds that non-governmental entity… you would likely have been better served to post the link, and then explain what you were getting at – something like the following:
(post link for people to read) and then briefly summarize in language an 8th grader could understand. That’s not an insult – it’s one of the best writing tips I ever got.
I would have summarized some of Rothbard like this: The banksters who eventually snuck the “fed” past an unsuspecting American public in 1913, actually liked the guilds & later unions, and Rothbard, in the linked article explains why. THEN people would take a look at the linked article to see what you were talking about.
Again – just a suggestion. You most likely know personally what Rep. Ron Paul is currently doing in Congress against the (so-called) “Fed”, and is at least putting Bernanke on the defensive. Most taxpayers don’t. Most people don’t even know that the “Fed” is not a governmental agency, and further, is owned by 7 or 8 INTERNATIONAL banking families. You have to start with basics – and you can’t write any higher than an 8th grade reading comprehension level (well, what used to be 8th grade comprehension level up through the 1960’s).
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm