this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
352 points (98.1% liked)

Work Reform

10003 readers
102 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
seeCseas@lemmy.world
tintory@lemm.ee
TinMod@lemmy.world
352
Costco Employees Just Voted to Unionize. The Company's Respose is Remarkable (www.inc.com)
submitted 10 months ago by SuperSpaceFan@lemmy.ca to c/workreform@lemmy.world
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some good news for a change, huh?

To avoid the paywall, use this link: https://archive.is/7U3pt

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 100 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

That's nice, but this quote illustrates they still don't get it.

The fact that a majority of Norfolk employees felt that they wanted or needed a union constitutes a failure on our part.

I'm willing to accept that their lack of understanding doesn't constitute any malice; that they do want to do best by their employees. But they, along with most companies in the US and worldwide, do not fundamentally understand unions.

There are so many reasons employees should have a union, and many of them don't have anything to do with the actions of current management. To give them a voice in the company's public face; to protect them from future management actions; to protect them from the actions of the management that comes next, when the company is sold or the current board retires; to allow them to ask for things the company hasn't even currently considered; to take a unified political stance; there's many more.

I don't want management rending their clothes and sobbing over their failures as managers. I just want them to get the hell out of the way.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 25 points 10 months ago

The response they quote from Marianne Williamson is spot on. The response from Costco is pure PR. A really different and admirable response would be “we encourage unions so we can better understand our workers’ needs.”

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean...you said a bunch of pro WORKER things.

The company wishes the workers were happy without ANY additional pro worker things.

Like, it's not malice, it's the nature of capitalism. The company wants to pay the absolute minimum for labor. And that goes for coverage, benefits, talking, thinking whatever.

Conversely the employee wants the very most they can get for their labor.

This is the only logical statement a company can make, wrapped in a nice package.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Generally I agree, but in this case Costco is usually pretty good with compensation. When I worked there 12+ years ago they were paying cashiers $20/hr+. Most places won't even pay $20/hr now.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

If Costco thought they could get or retain staff of the quality they want OR maintain a public image they want AND pay less, they would.

Again not malice.

If I could get someone to pay me double for the exact same work, I'd jump in a heartbeat.

Costco minimize, employee maximize.

[–] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While i agree on a surface level, i think we should put an emphasis to continue the push to unionize if we are ever to move past this system.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Well yeah, I totally agree, I'm just saying everyone is kinda surprised with the company's response. Within the current system the options are either "no unions!" Or what Costco said

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Well said. Makes me wanna shake em and say “it’s not about you it’s not about you it’s not about you”.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

One thing I have always noticed about Costco employees is that they pretty much are always smiling. As best I can tell, it's one of the best companies you can work for. It's only going to get better now.

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It's kind of like drivers getting offended when you put on a seatbelt. It takes two people to get into an accident irrespective of how "well" you drive.

[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 69 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'd say more calculated than remarkable given their long outspoken history with regards to employee relations.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They already have union employees. I didn’t know till this came out a few weeks ago. From what I can tell, Costco doesn’t try to union bust. I’m impressed with their response to the situation

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They don't try to bust unions and they try to offer conditions good enough that the employees don't feel the need for it, which is extremely rare in North America...

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago

Everyone I know who worked for Costco or works for Costco has loved it. That says a lot about the company.

One of my friends has a STEM degree and said if she had stayed at Costco, she'd make more money and have better benefits than she does now.

No company is perfect but we need more Costcos and fewer Walmarts in the world.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Correct, maintaining their image as a “good company” is extremely important to Costco and their success as a business. They don’t even give out a 3.7% cost of living raise to employees that received “excellent” annual reviews, the max is 3% unless you change positions

[–] SuperSpaceFan@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

While that's true, it is good to see ~~a~~ one 'behave'.

[–] Sharpiemarker@startrek.website 27 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Just a heads up, the NLRB has taken an aggressive stance against companies that refuse to allow their employees to unionize.

So when a company has a positive response to unionization, just keep in mind that they don't really have any other option but to "grin and bear it" so to speak.

[–] jasep@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't agree. We've seen many times companies close locations outright after they unionize. At times governing bodies like the NLRB will fine them, and they'll gladly eat those fines and keep them closed.

[–] Sharpiemarker@startrek.website 17 points 10 months ago
  1. The new framework put forth by the NLRB only went into effect in late 2023 (November/December).
  2. It requires a majority of employees to want to form a union.
  3. The NLRB intends to force Starbucks to reopen the 23 stores they closed. This news is from last month, so it's still pretty recent.

I agree that when the penalty is a fine, it's just the cost of doing business, but it appears that the NLRB are attempting to go another route.

[–] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago

If I was reading the NLRB rules change correctly that would be "union busting" activity and would mean they immediately have to recognize and begin bargaining with the union.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Ah yes, as famously evidenced by Elon Musk backtracking on his Tesla unionization opposition

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 25 points 10 months ago (3 children)

"If you have a problem, talk to your manager" shows they don't understand unions. In a manager-employee interaction the employee has a worse bargaining position every time. To balance the power of management you need a union.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Yeah also, when you’re in a union you can talk to your manager and have your rep on the side as referee. Also sometimes union reps are there to be the second sane person in a conversation, often that’s because the manager is a lunatic, but other times it’s to translate a screamed string of profanity into actual actionable complaints for the manager.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is situational, I have had more managers that I feel comfortable going to whenever I had a problem then I have had the other way around.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 months ago

So have I. But I'm in my current job specifically because my last team got taken over by abusive managers. I didn't feel I could talk to anyone in my new chain of command. It also constituted a bullshit office move. I was gone for a promotion in 3 months.

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think they do understand, and that is the point. They want that power imbalance even while being truthful about wanting to provide a good working environment. I would also suggest that you dont need a union to balance the power of management, rather you need the collective power of the majority, in this time and age we call that a Union but the formality is not required.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even the most benign company, while Capitalist in structure, needs Unionization, across all fields of work. Unions are for protection and advocacy for positive change, and prevent backsliding.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Unions are what HR says it is. They collectively argue on behalf of all employees to protect the employees interests.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Marianne Williamson needs to have a seat. That response was classy because the Costco reps clearly said they were disappointed in themselves as management for dropping the ball, not in the workers who voted to be heard, and invited workers to talk to managers about concerns any time. The alternative reply she suggested didn’t include any such recognition of shortcomings by Costco.

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

no, it did not but her response pointed out that the PR response did not include any enthusiasm for working with the union, or indicating any support of other Costco employees joining.

Which makes it clear, they still see unions as threats and would prefer to quash them, even if that means treating people with basic decency which they should be doing anyway.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 8 points 10 months ago (20 children)

I didn’t get any such impression from the Costco response. I got they were disappointed that one was considered necessary due to their management failure.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, unions are a threat to a profit-and-valuation-at-all-costs operation. That's why everyone should be able to have one :)

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 3 points 10 months ago

Also the habitability of the planet. People should consider a union if for no other reason its the most impactful thing they can do to change companies from destroying our planet.

[–] imkali@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This feels like what Linus Tech Tips said, and we saw how that went....

I dont think that makes them bad, but they do need to educate themselves.

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 3 points 10 months ago

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who remembers him saying that kinda shit.

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago

hell yeah

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago

Faith in humanity... restored! :-)

load more comments
view more: next ›