7 ms·

"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for

"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization." Why? "...an industry that needs a union.." Why? "...more union-friendly in the coming years" Why? Nothing you said is grounded in any actual analysis or verifiable facts. I'd argue that undifferentiated skills that require little education make this an industry poorly suited to unions; Even if you unionize you have little chance of success since most workers are easily replaced by scabs or increased automation. Many workers are also kids in school (speaking from experience -- I used to work in a produce department while studying),and so would not join a union regardless due to the temporary nature of their employment. Butchers and bakers may be an exception, but these are the minority compared to checkout workers, stock boys, or produce workers. So maybe they'd benefit significantly from the fruits of unionization as experienced in more technically complex industries...but they are highly unlikely to receive those fruits.

Timmah 8y ago
You don't need verifiable facts to know that retail and warehouse workers are wage slaves. Thats why unions are needed. Need a verifiable fact? Try living on $10/hr and tell me how that works out for you.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  It worked well enough for me when I was younger, though I wasn't living in SF.
  - u-r-a-scab 8y ago
    younger is the key word there.
    - therealdrag0 8y ago
      What's wrong with providing low wage entry level jobs for young people? It gives them experience. Rising wages would incentivize employees to stay in low-skill jobs for longer instead of moving to higher-skill-higher-pay jobs and letting other young people get those low skill jobs.
    - zdragnar 8y ago
      Not really. Everyone else who worked their longer, or had more experience elsewhere, got paid more, typically with a different job title. Another job that was more uniform was in a factory, where I was making roughly $12 / hour. Not only was it unskilled labor, but those jobs were slowly disappearing as lines were being replaced with fully automated systems that only needed a third, at most, of the people to run them. Any effort to raise wages or unionize would merely ensure that the remaining lines were replaced sooner rather than later. Therein lies the problem with trying to "solve" unskilled work. It's easier to automate, and there's more people capable of doing it. Given that often means that supply exceeds demand, wages are inevitably going to stay low, or the jobs will simply evaporate.
justinator 8y ago
When I got a job at the local Stop 'n Shop, union dues were part of the gig. Why shouldn't Whole Foods workers form a union as well? I remember I was 5 minutes late once at a mom and pop health food store and the boss put up a very public and angry note about the behavior. It was rude and embarrassing. I was probably making $5/hour, if that. I guess the job was easy... but appeasing the very particular clientele was NOT.
alkonaut 8y ago
Speaking from the perspective of working unions (Scandinavia) what makes unions work and be relevant are the protections they enjoy. The unions fought for these protections. Without being able to unionize you can't improve your position as a union either. You have to start somewhere. So: first: employers can't choose (freely) who to lay off. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily. Second: "proper" union strikes have a very protected status. An employer who would hire scabs would be quickly taken out of business. They'd switfly be blockaded by other unions in sympathy. So for example: a store hiring scabs to replace striking union store workers would quickly find that their trash isn't picked up, that the cleaners don't show up, that no electrician fixes their fridges, and so on (Also: these type of measures are also protected). Without having these two protections (can't fire, can't hire scabs) unions are very weak compared to employers. I'd argue that with these protections, unions and employers have a pretty equal playing field. Note also that these protections didn't come free: the employers' share of the deal was that there is no minimum wage and you can't have protected strikes during the agreement periods which are typically 1-3 years. So the strikes will occur at known intervals if negotiations for the next agreement stalls.
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  First-in-last-out is an objectively terrible way to hire and fire though. As an employee I feel personally invested in the success of the business I work for. I don't want to work with less competent employees because of an arbitrary rule. I want the weaker people to eventually be let go. I do want a safe secure workplace. I don't want people fired on a whim. I want training opportunities to be provided first. I want people's performance to be judged over the whole course of their employment not just the last quarter. But at crunch time I want the less well performing people to be let go rather than just the newest. EDIT Re-reading this I realised I missed some perspective. A key ingredient related to hiring and firing in the society I want to (and do) live in is that when someone loses their job they have unemployment benefits that cover a significant fraction of their salary. This gives them time to find another job and makes losing your job a much less traumatic event.
  - 8y ago

Timmah 8y ago

You don't need verifiable facts to know that retail and warehouse workers are wage slaves. Thats why unions are needed. Need a verifiable fact? Try living on $10/hr and tell me how that works out for you.

zdragnar 8y ago
It worked well enough for me when I was younger, though I wasn't living in SF.
- u-r-a-scab 8y ago
  younger is the key word there.
  - therealdrag0 8y ago
    What's wrong with providing low wage entry level jobs for young people? It gives them experience. Rising wages would incentivize employees to stay in low-skill jobs for longer instead of moving to higher-skill-higher-pay jobs and letting other young people get those low skill jobs.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    Not really. Everyone else who worked their longer, or had more experience elsewhere, got paid more, typically with a different job title. Another job that was more uniform was in a factory, where I was making roughly $12 / hour. Not only was it unskilled labor, but those jobs were slowly disappearing as lines were being replaced with fully automated systems that only needed a third, at most, of the people to run them. Any effort to raise wages or unionize would merely ensure that the remaining lines were replaced sooner rather than later. Therein lies the problem with trying to "solve" unskilled work. It's easier to automate, and there's more people capable of doing it. Given that often means that supply exceeds demand, wages are inevitably going to stay low, or the jobs will simply evaporate.

justinator 8y ago

When I got a job at the local Stop 'n Shop, union dues were part of the gig. Why shouldn't Whole Foods workers form a union as well? I remember I was 5 minutes late once at a mom and pop health food store and the boss put up a very public and angry note about the behavior. It was rude and embarrassing. I was probably making $5/hour, if that. I guess the job was easy... but appeasing the very particular clientele was NOT.

alkonaut 8y ago

Speaking from the perspective of working unions (Scandinavia) what makes unions work and be relevant are the protections they enjoy. The unions fought for these protections. Without being able to unionize you can't improve your position as a union either. You have to start somewhere. So: first: employers can't choose (freely) who to lay off. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily. Second: "proper" union strikes have a very protected status. An employer who would hire scabs would be quickly taken out of business. They'd switfly be blockaded by other unions in sympathy. So for example: a store hiring scabs to replace striking union store workers would quickly find that their trash isn't picked up, that the cleaners don't show up, that no electrician fixes their fridges, and so on (Also: these type of measures are also protected). Without having these two protections (can't fire, can't hire scabs) unions are very weak compared to employers. I'd argue that with these protections, unions and employers have a pretty equal playing field. Note also that these protections didn't come free: the employers' share of the deal was that there is no minimum wage and you can't have protected strikes during the agreement periods which are typically 1-3 years. So the strikes will occur at known intervals if negotiations for the next agreement stalls.

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
First-in-last-out is an objectively terrible way to hire and fire though. As an employee I feel personally invested in the success of the business I work for. I don't want to work with less competent employees because of an arbitrary rule. I want the weaker people to eventually be let go. I do want a safe secure workplace. I don't want people fired on a whim. I want training opportunities to be provided first. I want people's performance to be judged over the whole course of their employment not just the last quarter. But at crunch time I want the less well performing people to be let go rather than just the newest. EDIT Re-reading this I realised I missed some perspective. A key ingredient related to hiring and firing in the society I want to (and do) live in is that when someone loses their job they have unemployment benefits that cover a significant fraction of their salary. This gives them time to find another job and makes losing your job a much less traumatic event.
- 8y ago