442

Costco workers in Norfolk have unionised and Costco are seething.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 227 points 10 months ago

I'm super pro-union, and strongly support the unionization of the Norfolk workers, but I should acknowledge that this looks like a pretty reasonable response from Costco that's far cry from the whiny, hostile, threatening responses we're seeing from the likes of Amazon and Tesla. (absent any other information about the situation).

If you don't want your employees to unionise, you should give them great conditions, minimising the benefit of unionization, then not sook about it if they unionize anyway - which is exactly what appears to be happening here.

That said, I'm open to being corrected.

[-] triclops6@lemmy.ca 53 points 10 months ago

I only know marginally more but I think you're right.

Costco is known for being a good corporate citizen to its members and employees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hagdos@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

It's better, but still childish. "We're not angry, we're disappointed".

If you are really taking care of your employees, you don't have to worry about a union, and would support your employees to form one.

[-] Drusenija@lemmy.world 105 points 10 months ago

To be fair, the disappointment is directed at themselves, not the employees. If they'd said they were disappointed in the employees for unionising then I would agree with you, but this to me at least reads like "we haven't been doing enough and need to do better".

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

I thought the same. I applaud them for recognizing their need for change.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't know, man. The wording of that still paints the act of having a union as a bad thing.

You wouldn't say, "I'm disappointed that my son only has a 3.9 GPA, but actually I'm disappointed in myself for letting that happen" If it's not truly a bad thing, no one needs to be disappointed at all. Unions are good for everyone, except literally the people at the very top who might only make 7 digits instead of 8.

The framing matters, and this is still worded like a backhanded framing of "unions bad" from corporate like they're saying "Yeah, the dog shit in the bed but we should be responsible as owners"

That coupled with the cookie cutter anti-union advice to just talk to your manager if you're unhappy (so they can unfailingly steer you away from a union) makes this whole thing just sound like an HR guy framed it to be as inoffensive as possible while still painting the union itself as bad.

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

I'd say that it paints requiring a union as a bad thing. In a perfect world, with both workers and management valuing each other appropriately, a union shouldn't be necessary because there is established trust and respect. I think a completely appropriate response is "We thought we had that trust, but if we created a situation where our employees felt they needed a union, then obviously we didn't earn that trust. We should have done better."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sure it sounds reasonable because if they took the mask off there would be an epidemic of other stores realizing they need to unionize too. It doesn't matter how disarming upper management acts because ultimately the role of the capitalist to employees is that of an oppressor. At least with a union you have a VERY limited means of pushing back against that dynamic.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 192 points 10 months ago

This doesn't read like seething to me.

Like, it's great that people are unionizing, because even if there's the best possible relationship between businesses and labor, the union still makes that relationship more equitable.
But that doesn't mean that the creation of the union has to be viewed as hostility between labor and business.

I'll be interested to see if their good reputation holds up to pressure,but as of right now I haven't heard anything that makes me want disbelieve their statement.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But that doesn’t mean that the creation of the union has to be viewed as hostility between labor and business.

Of course it does. The IWW isn’t a yellow union. It understands that this is a class war, not a class “collaboration.” The capitalists certainly think it’s a class war.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 32 points 10 months ago

My question would be "what's the win condition"?

A business that tangibly treats labor better is better than one that does not.
A union lessens the power imbalance, but it's still better to start from a place where cooperation is possible.

So if the relationship must be hostile, what's the win condition?

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 19 points 10 months ago

The win condition is the workers owning the means of production. In the meantime, it’s a struggle to take as much of our labor’s value from our employers as possible, because we’re entitled to all of it.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 23 points 10 months ago

Sure, and that's great. I'm in favor of that. But how does viewing cooperation as collaboration in a class war further those objectives?

"Fuck you for trying to be better" isn't a viable strategy for the midterm goal of "more fairness".

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] LowlandSavage@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Why would an employer ever employ someone if there is no net gain to the employer? You are not entitled to all the value of your labor unless you are self employed and that sounds like a lot more difficult than showing up to work for 40 hours of work that's been organized by someone else.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago

You are only entitled to all the value of your labor

That's exactly the problem: workers are not getting the value of their labor.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] zbyte64 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hell, labor and business is already a hostile relationship even without a union, which is why unions exist. Any boss that doesn't act as if it's class war is a chump who won't be able to get funding from traditional institutions (banks, shareholders, etc).

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

Do these downvoters work for the Pinkertons? 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 179 points 10 months ago

I feel Ike most people don't realize how Costco workers are treated which is important context for this letter. Costco literally looks like a union job on its surface, good pay, full benefits, good time off accrual rates. Like yeah i understand what the letter is saying. They already treat their workers as good as most unions are able to negotiate, I'd feel a little upset about it too if i was in that leadership. Not because they joined a union but because they felt like they needed to. Would make me wonder if there were poor conditions i wasn't aware of.

[-] skydivekingair@lemmy.world 125 points 10 months ago

They couldn’t have worded this letter any better. It puts the responsibility on them (leadership) it says they did not think it was necessary but obviously they have some blind spots. It acknowledges the value of unions, and in no way demonizes them or the employees.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

Welcome to Costco we love you.

-Honestly that's the most direct corporate statement I've seen so far, it feels real.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Costco does have that ethos, but it's still essentially a benevolent dictatorship without the power dynamic of a union

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

It’s also a bit of a farce, Costco hide behind their ethos while handing out no more than 3% raises a year and that’s for exceptional work. They just paid out a dividend to shareholders too

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

If you get 3% every year you're above average inflation over a career's length.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Tosti@feddit.nl 16 points 10 months ago

Nah, this time is exactly the right time to unionize. This way the company does not have to fight the Union and they can cooperate properly.

However, if under new management the company where to ever change her tune..........

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 96 points 10 months ago

I think this is a classy response. I'd love to see more about the fight if one took place .

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It definitely is, but taking their statement at face value, I still don't think they should feel bad. The only way to find out what your employees want and need is for them to unionize. Unless labor is organized on its own terms, labor cannot really express itself to corporate leadership. And not everything workers want or need is selfish; believe it or not, most workers are proud of the work they do, and want the company to thrive for everyone - ownership, management, labor, customers, environment. Ownership only thinks of ownership, management only exists to enforce ownership dictates. A fuller picture which includes the rest will result in a strong and stable business that has a long, long future.

Unions are good for everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] loopgru@slrpnk.net 64 points 10 months ago

Echoing others, Costco is a solid employer and I actually believe their sentiment.

HOWEVER

The difference between union and non-union is the difference between asking your employer pretty please to treat you well and telling your employer how you will accept being treated.

Even if the union yields no improvements whatsoever for the workers, it's worth it just to have that express and clear leveling of the playing field.

[-] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

Hey, serious question here, I own a small business with 8 employees. All profits for the business go back to employee bonuses / incentives. I pay myself $1/year and $0 in profit distributions. We cover medical benefits.

It seems like the sentiment amongst Lemmy is to unionize the employees, which I'm fine with, but am I allowed to pay their union dues?

My only qualm is it means less profit sharing for them, but if it improves morale to have that representation, I'm all for it. Ultimately, it is what they want.

I'm union dumb. I want to do right by the employees. But I also don't want to get screwed to their detriment (e.g. Personnel Concepts, fuck that company).

In before anyone asks, I work contract gigs in a completely separate industry to pay my own bills. I own this business to create jobs and be part of the community.

[-] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

There will always be an underlying adversarial relationship between employers and employees in a traditional capitalist framework.

Unions help even the playing field and are very important, but if you truly are interested in supporting the rights of your workers as much as possible, you must accept the fact that they cannot remain "your" workers.

What does that mean for you and your business? You should talk to your employees and the relevant orgs in your state/city about beginning the transition into a worker-owned co-op.

Depending on the business structure, state and local laws, and the industry you serve, the pathway to that is complicated. Look up worker cooperatives in your state and find organizations that specialize in helping businesses navigate that transition. There are legal, monetary, ethical, logistical, and emotional concerns that are all critical to address and understand, but it can be done. Businesses far larger than yours have successfully made the transition.

That would be my advice. But aside from that ultimate goal, unionize your workplace and place as much power in the hands of your employees as possible. Let them decide how they want to structure pay, dues, etc, that's the whole point of worker empowerment.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 59 points 10 months ago

Idk how you read that letter and interpret it as "seething". I read nothing of the sort.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CryptidBestiary@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago

I understand where the Costco management is coming from, since I've heard they do, in fact, strive in putting their employees with great pay and benefits. But they got to realize that employees need to unionize so that their good pay and benefits continue in the future. There are no guarantees that Costco will continue to do so unless they have unions.

[-] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 49 points 10 months ago

The best any Capitalist firm can offer to its employees is a "benevolent" dictatorship. Unions provide an actual change to the underlying power dynamic, which is why capitalist firms oppose them so much.

Super happy for the workers in Norfolk, let's keep this kind of collective action rolling forward!

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 40 points 10 months ago

Based on what I've heard about Costco, they're literally the only company that I could read this letter and think "yeah, they're probably genuine about their sentiment".

Unionizing is ALWAYS a good idea, just in case, but as far as companies go, Costco has always gone out of its way to make sure their people are taken care of.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/the-costco-model

The above is a study from the University of Texas. The conclusion seems to be that yes...it's still retail, with all the usual crap that comes with it, but the company actually tries to mitigate it as much as possible.

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

For real. The kicker for me is that I recognize almost every worker at my local Costco. They aren't just new faces every week. I worked retail for years and I've never seen a retail place retain so many people for so long.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Costco has a reputation for treating workers well and compensating fairly, union or not.

That said, it's still great news for those workers as they have greater assurance and say on their working conditions and no longer need to rely on the goodwill of Costco's management because who knows if or when financial headwinds will change their practices.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

People credulously taking corporate speak at face value. You have to understand that this letter was crafted by a committee that included whichever anti-union consulting firms they have on retainer. The persona that a corporation projects is created and maintained by its public relations machine. It’s Edward Bernays-level propaganda to manipulate their employees, their customers, the government, and the public.

[-] Empathy@beehaw.org 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I used to work at Costco, although only for a summer.

Every time I shared my experience working at Costco to friends and family, they were quick to jump to Costco's defense, as if I was insulting a dead relative. Countless times, if not every single time, I heard "it's probably only the Costco you worked at".

For comparison, I also worked at Walmart, and my experience there was neutral, but I've had some people try to dig for bad experiences. There were some bad experiences, but at the end of the day, when I clocked out, I was done working (unlike Costco).

Don't put too much trust into these corporations.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

I'm quite surprised because it's been one of the things the company has been proud of for a long time, offering conditions so good that people didn't feel the need to unionize as they felt they were treated fairly... As someone else said it really just looks like an honest answer...

As others in this thread have stated, Costco is probably the only big company whose word I'd trust on this letter. Never heard anything bad about them and I genuinely believe their continued success is hedged entirely on their relationship with customers and employees.

But the "if you don't feel like we care enough, talk to a manager" always sounds bad because if lower management is the issue then that's a non-answer. Would be better to have a "reach out anonymously at this inbox" or something, otherwise they may as well tell it to the union rep.

[-] heaiser@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago

Just last night I watched the season 1 finale to Superstore and the "joke" message they were making was exactly what this letter is saying. Seriously guys you don't need a union because we care! 🤣

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Floon@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 months ago

Yeah, Costco has always been hated by Wall Street for how well it treats its workers, and how well they're compensated. They're always dinged for being able to send more profits to shareholders than they do, because they treat their workers too well.

They are pretty much the only large company that would send a letter like this that I would believe. Good for Norfolk, but no one should lump Costco in with, say, Walmart, as far as big box retailers go. They really do cleave to a higher ethical standard.

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, if working for Costco is anything like what I've heard I wouldn't expect the union to change very much. Even if things are good there I think unionizing is a good idea to make sure it stays that way. Or maybe this specific location had some problems?

Anyway, seems like a pretty tame letter and of course they have to say something about it. But I support whatever the workers decide to do next.

Sincerely, Some uninformed speculative internet commenter.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We're not anti-union, but...

[-] Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

If the union won’t make things better for your employees, then it won’t make anything worse for you, either.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Unions are, to employers, what HR is to employees.

If employers need to have HR, it's only natural that employees must have a union

[-] drdabbles@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Well, now there's collective bargaining to ensure employees are treated fairly. You don't join a union for the good times, you join it during the good times to help in the bad times.

Time will tell if management stands behind what they've said in this letter. I hope it does, but greed is greed and I don't survive on hope.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"If you have questions about this, talk to your manager"

... so we can fire your ass

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] redhydride@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago

Good news. Let's see it accelerate and expand to other stores and competitors

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
442 points (100.0% liked)

IWW and syndicalism

702 readers
41 users here now

Community for union related stuff, with focus on the IWW.

Chat room (not mine, belong to a fellow syndicalist):

https://matrix.to/#/%23anarchycommunism:matrix.org

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS