4 ms·

There is a recurring pattern where companies fight any kind of worker representation and unionization as hard as they can, paint vivid doomsday scenarios why it

There is a recurring pattern where companies fight any kind of worker representation and unionization as hard as they can, paint vivid doomsday scenarios why it's actually bad for workers - and create the impression that it is futile because the company will never "play along" and just sabotage forever or even close locations etc. And when the organizing succeeds, the company often actually accepts it and lives with it, trying to make the best out of it (rather than keeping on fighting a losing war) and it turns out to not be so horrible after all. If you are ever involved in organizing - expect this pattern.

benguild 2y ago
same with third-party App Stores or any other thing like that
itake 2y ago
maybe this is just a small sample size, but Seattle and Orlando have lost a few local businesses months after the employees unionized. - Homegrown: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-sandwich-chain-homegrown-to-close-10-cafes-cut-workers/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-sandwich-chain... - Dandelions: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/food-drink/dandelion-community-cafe-closes-doors-permanently-after-worker-lock-out-27795390 https://www.orlandoweekly.com/food-drink/dandelion-community... - Starbucks (multiple locations): https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/22/business/starbucks-closure-union/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/22/business/starbucks-closur...
- lelandfe 2y ago
  It is illegal to close a store for unionizing. It can be devilishly hard to prove that’s the case, but if the workers do, the NLRB has the power to force a store to reopen.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  Starbucks is a great example because it seems like they gave up now: https://jacobin.com/2024/02/starbucks-workers-united-master-contract-bargaining https://jacobin.com/2024/02/starbucks-workers-united-master-... The other two are examples of relatively small businesses that look like they either decided to burn everything to the ground and go out of business rather than accept a union for ideological reason or were failing independently of that.
  - itake 2y ago
    Completely shutting down a successful business for ideological reasons is odd. I can't imagine someone building a profitable business for years and then suddenly shutting it down b/c he disagrees with the staff he hired. If he is unhappy, he can at least sell it. As far as, "independently failing" I'm also skeptical that staff at a visibly failing business would feel comfortable to unionize.
    - consteval 2y ago
      If the company was not competitive enough to meet the unions suggestions, it was probably not a successful business. As the parent implies here, typically union standards are incredibly generous. They're not difficult or costly to meet. Often it is painted as though a union is asking for the world and then some, and then you read the print and its... a COL adjustment. Which 90% of businesses do, anyway. Or something of that nature. I'm being presumptuous here but from what I've seen, its trivial for a company to flourish with a union. Ideologically though, most American companies are opposed just because.
      - itake 2y ago
        > it was probably not a successful business. yes, that is exactly the anti-union rhetoric: if you form a union, we can't continue business and you will lose your job. Restaurants have famously thin margins. If the profit margins are 5%, then a 1% increase in expenses (due to union demands) results in a 20% reduction of profits. Unions can drastically increase operating costs for a business. When I was at a trade show in las vegas a few years ago, I had to work with a "lighting guy", "setup guy" and a "cleaning guy" to plug in a couple lamps for our display, b/c each role was unionized.
        consteval 2y ago
        The problem with profit margins is that they're often artificially low in order to fuel business expansion, which may not be necessary. I actually managed restaurant business. Our labor cost target was 15%, and food cost 30%. Then operating expenses like electricity, water, rent... I'd estimate there's 20% of revenue left over. Was our profit margin then 20%? No, because we were constantly buying new stores and random things we don't need. For example, a 16,000 dollar automated flattop grill that barely works, when we already have a flattop. I'm often dubious of the "capital" that businesses purchase. Point being, profit margins are not really a good measurement of much. I can burn money and have low profit margins, if I wanted.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> There is a recurring pattern where companies fight any kind of worker representation and unionization as hard as they can, paint vivid doomsday scenarios why it's actually bad for workers - and create the impression that it is futile because the company will never "play along" and just sabotage forever or even close locations etc. Ex- used to work at Target. Watching anti-union videos was part of onboarding and quite regularly required at store meetings.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Idk, this is the decade of history in the making every week. And companies have long since stopped hiding under a mask of politeness. I wouldn't trust past trends to determine this decade's fate.

benguild 2y ago

same with third-party App Stores or any other thing like that

itake 2y ago

maybe this is just a small sample size, but Seattle and Orlando have lost a few local businesses months after the employees unionized. - Homegrown: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-sandwich-chain-homegrown-to-close-10-cafes-cut-workers/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/seattle-sandwich-chain... - Dandelions: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/food-drink/dandelion-community-cafe-closes-doors-permanently-after-worker-lock-out-27795390 https://www.orlandoweekly.com/food-drink/dandelion-community... - Starbucks (multiple locations): https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/22/business/starbucks-closure-union/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/22/business/starbucks-closur...

lelandfe 2y ago
It is illegal to close a store for unionizing. It can be devilishly hard to prove that’s the case, but if the workers do, the NLRB has the power to force a store to reopen.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Starbucks is a great example because it seems like they gave up now: https://jacobin.com/2024/02/starbucks-workers-united-master-contract-bargaining https://jacobin.com/2024/02/starbucks-workers-united-master-... The other two are examples of relatively small businesses that look like they either decided to burn everything to the ground and go out of business rather than accept a union for ideological reason or were failing independently of that.
- itake 2y ago
  Completely shutting down a successful business for ideological reasons is odd. I can't imagine someone building a profitable business for years and then suddenly shutting it down b/c he disagrees with the staff he hired. If he is unhappy, he can at least sell it. As far as, "independently failing" I'm also skeptical that staff at a visibly failing business would feel comfortable to unionize.
  - consteval 2y ago
    If the company was not competitive enough to meet the unions suggestions, it was probably not a successful business. As the parent implies here, typically union standards are incredibly generous. They're not difficult or costly to meet. Often it is painted as though a union is asking for the world and then some, and then you read the print and its... a COL adjustment. Which 90% of businesses do, anyway. Or something of that nature. I'm being presumptuous here but from what I've seen, its trivial for a company to flourish with a union. Ideologically though, most American companies are opposed just because.
    - itake 2y ago
      > it was probably not a successful business. yes, that is exactly the anti-union rhetoric: if you form a union, we can't continue business and you will lose your job. Restaurants have famously thin margins. If the profit margins are 5%, then a 1% increase in expenses (due to union demands) results in a 20% reduction of profits. Unions can drastically increase operating costs for a business. When I was at a trade show in las vegas a few years ago, I had to work with a "lighting guy", "setup guy" and a "cleaning guy" to plug in a couple lamps for our display, b/c each role was unionized.
      - consteval 2y ago
        The problem with profit margins is that they're often artificially low in order to fuel business expansion, which may not be necessary. I actually managed restaurant business. Our labor cost target was 15%, and food cost 30%. Then operating expenses like electricity, water, rent... I'd estimate there's 20% of revenue left over. Was our profit margin then 20%? No, because we were constantly buying new stores and random things we don't need. For example, a 16,000 dollar automated flattop grill that barely works, when we already have a flattop. I'm often dubious of the "capital" that businesses purchase. Point being, profit margins are not really a good measurement of much. I can burn money and have low profit margins, if I wanted.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> There is a recurring pattern where companies fight any kind of worker representation and unionization as hard as they can, paint vivid doomsday scenarios why it's actually bad for workers - and create the impression that it is futile because the company will never "play along" and just sabotage forever or even close locations etc. Ex- used to work at Target. Watching anti-union videos was part of onboarding and quite regularly required at store meetings.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Idk, this is the decade of history in the making every week. And companies have long since stopped hiding under a mask of politeness. I wouldn't trust past trends to determine this decade's fate.