By John DeSio

It’s no secret that union membership has been on a steady decline for years. Department of Labor statistics show that the percentage of union workers nationwide at the end of 2006 was just 12 percent, down from 12.5 percent in 2005 and 20.1 percent in 1983. When the numbers of any interest group decline, it would make perfect sense if their influence declined as well. But in New York City that has not been the case. Over the past few years, elected officials—especially members of the City Council—have waged a union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, in an effort to prevent the company from spreading its reach into the five boroughs.

Last week, that campaign bore fruit. Lee Scott, president and CEO of Wal-Mart, implied to The New York Times that the company was giving up on its quest to move to the city. “I don’t care if we are ever here,” Scott told the Times’ editorial board last Tuesday. “I don’t think it’s worth the effort. It’s too hard to make money here.”

A Wal-Mart spokes-person was quick to right the ship, stating that Scott was only stating his personal opinion and that the company would still just love to bring a store to NYC. But the message is clear: New York City has become such a hassle for the company that they will probably never bother to open here.

The main argument against Wal-Mart has been the company’s failure to provide health insurance to its workers, though the company has multiple health insurance plans that employees can purchase. Unions could help bring that insurance to those employees, but Wal-Mart is so anti-union that it has even gone so far as to close a location in Canada after its employees voted to organize. Plenty of companies reject unionism, but few are as open about it as Wal-Mart. And since they are such a big target, the company has become a favorite talking point for Democratic politicians: Hate Wal-Mart and win votes, especially union votes. The City Council took this advice to heart, and has moved at every turn to block the company from hanging up its shingle, be it passing a bill to force any establishment selling groceries to provide health insurance to its employees or blocking the opening of another non-union retailer in the Bronx through the land use process, ostensibly sending a message to Wal-Mart about its own future fate.

Labor leaders are overjoyed that Wal-Mart has given up on NYC. “New Yorkers decided a long time ago that we do not want Wal-Mart here in New York City. When Wal-Mart opens, communities suffer,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, adding that Wal-Mart’s lack of health insurance for its employees means they are forced onto the public dole. “Wal-Mart’s lack of respect for their employees drives down standards for all retail workers. It is a race to the bottom that New York does not want to be a part of. Wal-Mart’s values are not New York’s values. Wal-Mart will not be welcomed in New York until they change the way they operate. It’s about time they recognized this fact.”

If you do not have a job, chances are you have to rely on the government for health care anyway. And when Wal-Mart comes to town, people cannot fill out the application fast enough: The most notable example being the mad rush for employment when a Wal-Mart opened in Kearney, N.J., last year and 8,000 applicants showed up for 350 jobs. Though they lack union protection, Wal-Mart jobs are still jobs, and the city’s unemployed would almost certainly be happier working at a Wal-Mart than not working at all.

Why not drop the opposition to Wal-Mart, allow the stores to open, and then push to unionize their employees? Then the city could not only have the jobs, but the unions would have their opportunity to make their pitch directly to the employee, rather than wage a war with Wal-Mart’s corporate headquarters in the media. That scenario could still be in the cards, as Wal-Mart is assuring the city that, though they have no dreams of ever opening in Manhattan, the outer boroughs are still in consideration, regardless of what Scott told the Times.

“At Wal-Mart, we save people money so they can live better,” said Steven V. Restivo, Wal-Mart’s director of corporate affairs in the northeast region. “Wal-Mart’s Real Estate division continues to examine sites in the four boroughs outside of Manhattan in an effort to provide NYC customers more convenient access to the savings that our stores provide.”

And since customers from the five boroughs already spend an estimated $125 million at local Wal-Marts according to the company, why not bring the Wal-Mart closer to the customer? “New York City residents have the right to choose where they shop and work and many already choose Wal-Mart,” said Restivo.