Are Starbucks and Whole Foods Union Busters?
Inside the secret anti-union meetings, and how the companies plan to rewrite the labor-friendly Employee Free Choice Act.
Shortly before the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the manager of a Whole Foods grocery store in the San Francisco Bay Area gathered his employees in a conference room for a chat about labor organizing. “This is not a union-bashing thing whatsoever,” the manager began, adding, however, that he’d called the meeting because Whole Foods believed Obama would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation intended to ease unionization that was opposed by the company’s lobbyists. According to a tape of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones, the manager went on to imply that joining a union would lead to reprisals: “It’s interesting to note that once you become represented by the union,” he said, “basically everything, every benefit you have, is kind of thrown out the window, and you renegotiate a contract.”
"I think it’s probably fair to construe [that comment] as a threat,” concluded Tim Peck, a representative of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in San Francisco, after Mother Jones read him quotes from the meeting, one of several anti-union trainings held by the company in recent months. Peck pointed out that labor law bars employers from threatening to strip benefits from workers in retaliation for unionizing. “The ‘flying out the window’ [comment] kind of suggests that the benefits are gone,” he noted. Legally, “that wouldn’t pass muster.”
-
Whole Foods vs. Unions
-
Union Organizing 101
UNION ORGANIZING 101....Over at the Washington Monthly, T.A. Frank tells the story of workers at a Rite-Aid distribution center in the Antelope Valley, about 70 miles north of Los Angeles. At first, things were great. Then new management came in,...
-
FTC Continues Whole Foods Fight
As we blogged last week, the Federal Trade Commission's injunction to stop Whole Foods' $565 million merger with fomer competitor, Wild Oats, was denied. Whole Foods was set to merge with Wild Oats as early as today. Not so fast. Friday, the FTC appealed the denial and requested that the judge delay the merger. Whole Foods is "confident that the merger will be allowed...
That Whole Foods stands accused of union busting comes at an inconvenient time for the company, which late last month unveiled the Committee for a Level Playing Field for Union Elections, a partnership with Starbucks and Costco that aims to rewrite the Employee Free Choice Act. This year’s top priority for organized labor, EFCA would allow employees to form a union automatically if a majority of them sign pledge cards—a plan known as “card check”—instead of requiring them to vote in secret elections that unions say employers can manipulate. Whole Foods opposes card check, yet has rankled business interests by suggesting other ways to make it easier for workers to unionize, such as guaranteeing union campaigners access to workers and boosting enforcement and penalties for labor law violations. “This is a third way,” says Whole Foods’ attorney Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and self-described “pro-labor, liberal Democrat.”
Unlike Costco, where 20 percent of workers are represented by the Teamsters, Whole Foods and Starbucks stores haven’t been organized by traditional unions. And yet their cultures are steeped in the language and norms of the labor movement. Starbucks calls its workers “partners” and Whole Foods dubs them “team members.” A “Business Conduct Helpline” allows Starbucks baristas to a report workplace issues anonymously, and special committees of Whole Foods workers and managers resolve disputes. Both companies offer employees relatively generous wages and health benefits and routinely make Fortune’s list of “Best Companies to Work For.”
The firms’ granola reputations could give Democrats political cover to support a compromise on EFCA, averting a likely Republican filibuster. Yet the stores’ unique, do-gooder mentality paradoxically has left little space for actual unions. In 1997, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote that he wanted workers “to believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.” Whole Foods’ avowedly libertarian CEO, John Mackey, has compared the prospect of having unions at his stores to “having herpes.” An internal Whole Foods document listing “six strategic goals for Whole Foods Market to achieve by 2013,” obtained by Mother Jones, includes a goal to remain “100% union-free.”
Meeting that goal could be especially tough for Whole Foods and Starbucks if the economic downturn begins to reverse a decades-long decline in labor organizing. Consumers’ move toward cheaper food and drink is pressuring the chains to cut wages and hours. Starbucks baristas from the East Coast and Midwest have held raucous labor protests; cuts in shifts at some Whole Foods stores have prompted employees at one Bay Area location to seriously discuss unionizing.
Mackey “is not opposed to giving union organizers a fair shot to persuade his team members” to unionize, Davis says. But the reality is that both companies, neither of which would comment in detail for this story, have repeatedly resorted to tough union-busting tactics—often breaking the law along the way. In recent years they fired union organizers or packed worker rolls with anti-union employees in efforts to prevent workers from forming unions or winning union contracts, government records show.
Starbucks' and Whole Foods’ anti-union, pro-worker stance "is the essence of benevolent paternalism," says Kim Fellner, whose book, Wrestling With Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Capuccino, praises many of the company’s other employment practices. “These are companies that want to do good by their workers, but want to decide what that good is, rather than letting the workers decide for themselves. And that’s a problem.” She calls the companies’ approach to EFCA "entirely consonant with the way that they have acted towards unions over the long haul. It’s the place where their social responsibility really broke down.”
The Skinny on Starbucks
In 2004, faced with the first serious effort in decades to unionize one of its stores, Starbucks launched what a former worker calls “a scorched-earth campaign” against pro-union employees. The effort resulted in more than a dozen violations of the National Labor Relations Act, a judge found in an 88-page ruling last year. “The union busting has just been absolutely relentless,” says the worker, Daniel Gross, who set out to organize the company’s store on the east side of midtown Manhattan before Starbucks fired him in 2006.
Gross and other workers, unhappy with the refusal of the Manhattan store to guarantee any full-time shifts, had planned to vote on whether to be represented by the Industrial Workers of the World. As the election neared, Starbucks brought in a manager, Fabian Vera, whose only job was to oppose the union, Gross says. Vera took workers on walks around the block to assess their positions and argue his case. Three pro-union workers were discriminatorily fired at three New York stores, the labor judge later ruled, while anti-union workers were rewarded with free gym passes and Mets tickets. In recent years Starbucks has settled five labor complaints in connection with similar practices in New York City, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This is not a few bad apples,” Gross says. “This is a company really undermining the right to organize.”
Despite the union’s legal victories, its effort to unionize the Manhattan store fizzled. Starbucks challenged a 2004 ruling that had required the union election, thereby stalling the vote for the duration of the appeals process, which can drag on for up to three years. Rather than see the appeal adjudicated by a Bush-controlled NLRB, the union canceled the vote that summer. “To compare this to a fair election process just defies all credibility,” says Gross, who must wait to be compensated by Starbucks for being illegally fired until another appeal is resolved. “It’s almost impossible to describe how unlevel a playing field it is.”
Union organizers say Starbucks’ and Whole Foods’ behavior illustrates why card check, the cornerstone of EFCA, is so important. Allowing employees to sign cards to authorize union representation lets them organize below the radar of employers, preventing bosses from retaliating against pro-union workers and stalling a vote. “The choice about whether and how to form a union is something that belongs to workers,” says Ari Yampolsky, a campaign coordinator for the Service Employees International Union. “Employers should have about as much say in that as workers do about whether and how employers join the Chamber of Commerce.”
Page 1 of 2 
Unions
-
tagged as:
- result
If you like Socialist Fascism, you don't like America. The companies are the ones that provide jobs to the people. If they are coerced and blackmailed into working for unions, those companies will lose their competitive edge, much like the unions brought down General Motors and Chrysler. Then being forced to give unwarranted, luxurious pay and other benefits that the people don't need will force the gifted CEO's that are in charge out of the company because their pay will get cut. This will lead to the end of American business.
Parody?
The comment above has to be a parody. No one this backward really exists, right? No doubt people do share this poster's beliefs, but the way it was written sounds like a caricature of a conservative. If this is not satire then I am really worried about people in this country.
Parody?
Regis,
You are backwards believing that union are still needed. U.S. salaries and wages are completely off scale compared to the rest of the world and we have lost the competive edge. I guess you don't mind being underemployed in the service industry. By the way, your remarks are not supported by facts, what is your highest educational level?
Wolverine
Unions and competition?
Unions cause us to be not competitive...?
Mainstream media doesn't talk about the fact that most workers in countries that are out competing us from Europe and Japan are union organized. Executives don't make extreme salaries. Health care is paid for from the common fund - the country is SELF INSURED, not corporate insured.
So we get comments like this that are parroted comments from corporate talking points.
Unions are not the problem.
-
tagged as:
- solution
Unions are not the problem. The problem in respect to the auto industry is quality product and cutting edge design. The pay of an employee wouldn't be a question if product was on par and relevant. However since greed has been the currency and stupidity as principle than we, societally, have to get back to what makes America run and that is ingenuity and guts. Unions and companies are both to blame because both got caught up in the battle for cash.
Wolverine, I have received
Wolverine,
I have received an MA "with distinction," in Political Science. Unions are still needed. What is YOUR highest educational level?
The car companies were
The car companies were brought down because they can't make a decent product, yet you're not barking about the failure of the leadership there.
Socialism protects the lower and middle classes to some degree and it's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Unions can be helpful or exploited like anything else and in the face of this kind of action from Starbucks and Whole Foods what other options do workers have then to unite?
I suppose that the labor
I suppose that the labor unions created the credit-default swaps that have ruined our economy, forced GM to make more gas guzzlers as gas was hitting $5/gallon and to buy up European and Asian car manufacturers even as their profit was disappearing? Come on, fool. I am third generation GM. My present middle class is owed to my grandfather and his kind organizing in the UAW.
Do some research before you make arguments like this and you would find that Union wages and benefits are not sinking these companies. These companies are sinking these companies, not the hard-working employees who deserve what they are paid.
Copy and paste
It seems every article on EFCA has these anti-union screeds that have nothing to do with the article being commented on. My guess is Deane and others like him just copy and paste, and don't even read what they're commenting on.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Unions
-
tagged as:
- solution
I sure hope that people who take the time to read these comments will research claims made by posters. #1, the union has not 'brought down' the auto industry or any other industry. (Try overpaid CEO's and poor managers) #2, there is no 'unwarranted, luxurious pay' for union workers. These workers certainly earn their wages by being better trained than many others. When I hear comments like these, it sounds like jealousy; much like the homely girls try to discredit the pretty ones. We are one of the best educated societies in the world. Lets keep it that way.
unions
-
tagged as:
- result
We built both the USA and Canada and always got the blame when things went wrong. Never mind those whose greed almost upset the entire monetary system. Unlike those folks, at days end we can show the results oh our labor. And they make in a week what we earn in a year and it is our fault. Use your brain and you might see that it is our right to unite and earn a living wage. We can pull together or we can pull apart.
You must be young
I actually thought a bit like you when I began working on Wall Street 30 years ago.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Fascist Business leaders have brought down the U.S. economy through their greed. I happen to believe that most Union leaders are as corrupt as management, but at least provide a counter-balance.
When N.Y. Medical College in Valhalla fired every security union worker about four years ago, the union did nothing to stop them. I ended up jobless after ten years of sevice. I lifted myself up by my bootstraps, however, something I assume you are all in favor of, by shorting the hell out of all the Bank Stocks and Wall Street firms from which I was "downsized" from decades before. Using 0% cash advances from Citi to load up on Puts in anticipation of a crash which multi-millionaire Capitalists could not even conceive of was sweet revenge. I intend to use the proceeds from the REAL crash (3-24 months from now) to help all the homeless/jobless souls left in the wake of the Bankers TREASONOUS spree.
You too may make the journey from unthinking free-marketeer to Revolutionary. George Washington will be proud of you.
from free-marketer to Revolutionary
Everyone is sleeping in front of the TV while the waters are rising.
Our pockets are being picked.
Snore on, guys, while rights for workers go down the drain, and middle class people are duped into thinking that corporate greed is love.
No revolution as long as everyone sleeps.
I really doubt that any of
I really doubt that any of that is true.
Are you a rep from the GNAA?
GM killed the electric car.
GM killed the electric car. They killed their own baby because oil companies had their hands in GM's pockets.
EFCA
Deane said: "If you like Socialist Fascism, you don't like America. The companies are the ones that provide jobs to the people. If they are coerced and blackmailed into working for unions, those companies will lose their competitive edge, much like the unions brought down General Motors and Chrysler. Then being forced to give unwarranted, luxurious pay and other benefits that the people don't need will force the gifted CEO's that are in charge out of the company because their pay will get cut. This will lead to the end of American business. "
This crap is right out of the union busting handbook of companies like Wal Mart & Starbucks. The people who " ... brought down ..." GM & Chrysler are their CEO"s, Board of Directors & Managers who made ridiculous money while letting their companies fail. A CEO who gets a $50 million bonus while his company is being bailed out is the one to blame, not the Union workers making $20.00/hour. How absurd !!! AS far as "... unwarrented, luxurious pay ..." I guess that's o.k. for the CEO and his wife but not for the workers who actualy do the freaking work of the company. "This will lead to the end of American business" how ridiculous !! The end of American business is coming right now because of the outright greed, usury, corruption and utter dis-regard for any kind of decency by CEO', VP's, Boards of Directors, etc. etc.
ANOTHER REASON WHY WORKERS NEED A UNION
As the debate over this new federal law shows, a handful of wealthy businesses can spend millions on lobbyists and political contributions to influence lawmakers. Often driven by pure greed, the interests of the wealthy few are not always aligned with the majority of working Americans. Unions provide a counter, representing the interests of working people in the federal and state governments. Take away unions, and you take away the voice of the regular working people. Who else represents working people in Washington?
I have worked for Whole
I have worked for Whole Foods(not in management) for almost ten years and have to say I really enjoy the company. I have great health insurance, I'm well paid, and am respected by my bosses and coworkers. I also speak my mind freely about policy changes, management, and corporate behavior. I have called my regional vice president directly several times to ask questions about what was happening within the company and received straightforward answers. I also attended that "anti-union meeting" and was merely informed of the changes to the Employee Free Choice Act, asked a few questions, and went back to work.
Unions are a business with their own interests to protect and their own bills to pay. Frankly, I don't want another group of people involved fighting for their piece of the pie. I've heard horror stories from my coworkers who used to work at union stores and now work for Whole Foods because it's not union. We have the power to organize ourselves and go to management with our grievances and affect change in the workplace. I've seen it work many times over the last ten years. Why would we even need a union?
Why not let us that want a union free environment work at Whole Foods, and let the people who want a union go work for union stores. That sounds like
free choice for everybody.
Whole Foods meeting
As someone who also attended the meeting. Whole Foods has been deceptive in both its presentation and insulting to peoples intelligence. First of all the meeting was mandatory, or you would be written up. Then you're forced to listen to one-sided propaganda, lies, distortions and a false presentation in whole. Most came out of it angrier with Whole Foods, then with siding with the company. When you use double-speak (we're not anti-union, we're an non-union company), you have problems.
The last part of the
The last part of the article, regarding Madison employees leaving after voting in the union, is absolutely true and was critical to the failure of the unionization effort. Of the original fifteen-member union organizing committee, presumably the staunchest supporters of working for a unionized Whole Foods, eleven quit of their own accord, willingly and voluntarily. Most were college students in Madison and had simply decided to move on to the next chapter of their lives, in different parts of the country. They did not leave bitter and angry, wrongfully forced to quit their job due to an oppressive anti-union management structure. They just quit. Three were terminated for cause, and only one remains employed at the store.
And this is the foundation for the failure of the entire effort. It was very difficult for employees to get behind unionization when the leaders themselves weren't even behind it--unwilling to actually work under the union contract they were trying to convince everyone else was some sort of panacea. Under those circumstances, Whole Foods had a relatively easy time reversing union support that, as the old saying goes, was a mile wide but only an inch deep.
This goes to the biggest problem with the original "card check" proposal. Union support that is shallow but broad, like in Madison, can result in a union contract being imposed upon all workers by a federal arbitrator if the two sides can't agree during bargaining. And the support does not even have to be that broad--only 50% plus one need to sign the card in order for this to happen, leaving the rest of the 49+% out to dry, held hostage to a process that they may have known absolutely nothing about. No information, no election, no voice. Free choice indeed.
John Mackey already doesn't
John Mackey already doesn't take pay.
Correct, John Mackey doesn't
Correct, John Mackey doesn't take pay, although seemingly altruistic, it's likely he's living well on stock options. In any case, I doubt very much he's concerned about making his mortgage payments or wondering where his next meal is going to come from or whether or not he can get 40 hours.
I work for Whole Foods and granted, as far as corporations are concerned, they are the lesser of evils. But their image is a marketing gimmick and a successful one at that. As sales have increased exponentially, wages at the store have remained relatively the same. And it's not always easy to get those 25 cent raises through the "job dialogue" process. I'm not advocating disproportionate pay, but I would like better pay and better benefits and a contract designed by workers that allow for these things to be possible. Is that asking too much? I think not. We, the workers, are what keep this company profitable.
Maybe certain unions are not right for Whole Foods. But if you think this company, whose sole purpose is to make profit, has the worker's best interest in mind, then you have been sorely misled, indeed, you've been duped by their slickly marketed image. The goals of upper management and the goals of workers are diametrically opposed and will not be reconciled, no matter how pretty they make the break room, no matter what crumbs they throw our way.
The bottom line is: workers need representation. And it cannot come from within the company.
Workers should represent themselves.
Businesses do not have my interests at heart. I do not expect them to. Why should I? I don't have their interests at heart. If a company is not paying me what I am worth, then I am free to leave that company and find an employer that will pay me what I am worth. If I can not find an employer to pay me what I believe is my worth, then perhaps my expectations are not realistic. Like any other service, my labor is only worth what someone will pay for it. Forcing a company to pay more through regulation and arbitration doesn't seem fair to me.
Unions aren't just for industries
The comment from the Whole Foods employee was typical from those of his ilk -- they perceive unions as an entity for blue-collar ethnics, out of date with 21st-century. Wrong. Unions are for all of us.
" Maybe certain unions are
" Maybe certain unions are not right for Whole Foods. But if you think this company, whose sole purpose is to make profit, has the worker's best interest in mind, then you have been sorely misled, indeed, you've been duped by their slickly marketed image. The goals of upper management and the goals of workers are diametrically opposed and will not be reconciled, no matter how pretty they make the break room, no matter what crumbs they throw our way.
The bottom line is: workers need representation. And it cannot come from within the company."
If you think the union is representing your best interests you're the one who's been duped. They have their own best interests at heart and are not interested in representing the workers. they represent the union and the union's interests.
There was an effort to bring the union into my store a few years ago. Brought about by people who wanted a union no matter what. I went to some secret meetings and was really disappointed. The union rep knew nothing about WFM
and the way it works and kept making promises that they would make it better but wouldn't give any real answers as to how it would be better. I saw the benefits package they provide and it's crap. I caught the union rep in bold faced lies more that once and when I questioned him about them I was treated as if I was the party crasher. And I was not invited to anymore meetings. Around the same time
when the workers at my store were unhappy with our pay and raises and the way we were ebing treated we held meetings our regional management and store management and policies was changed on a regional level to be more in line with what the workers wanted. If this isn't self representation, I don't know what is. The workers need to learn to stand up for themselves and speak their minds and stop thinking that if we only had a union things would be great. I know I don't want the fate of my job in the hands of another special interest group who have their own agenda.
the IWW
-
tagged as:
- result
I looked at your IWW web site. I saw all I had to see. Why is the web page in red? Could it be that it is one of the Socialist-Fascism organizations that is a front for the communitst party? If Unions are not stopped, with their secret ballot measures that diabolically hide union voters from eachother, they will take over American Industry and ruin the life of the entrupeneur which is the backbone of our culture and national power.
America is not powerful because of the workers. They can be replaced easily. It is the business owner who creates jobs for Americans and keeps our standard of living and health system and education the #1 in the world. If it wasn't for the CEO's and Owners in this great nation, there would be no jobs for unions to hijack with their illegal strikes and gross demands for overrated benefits and pay.
Very insightful response to
Very insightful response to the IWW website. (please note facetious tone). Perhaps you should analyze your definitions of "socialist-fascism" and the role of the worker in our society.
Either you are a company CEO or a disillusioned worker who has, unfortunately, chosen to align him/herself with the interests of the capitalists.
Good luck "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and avoiding the effects of the current "bust" cycle of our "boom-bust" system.
If you were simply ignorant
If you were simply ignorant I wouldn't be responding, but you are one of the willfully ignorant who is proud to not be bothered with facts. YOU and your associates are the reason the U.S. is in the mess it currently faces.
Your lack of fact based reasoning should be proof enough that Amerca's educational system is not what it once was.
In 1996 the OECD ranked the U.S. health care system 26th among industrialised nations. In 2006 it ranked the U.S. 35th in mathematics and 10th overall. As far as our standard of living is concerned that is truly a red herring. What about quality of life? Do you even want to go there?
Average Life span of United States Citizen is 76.9 years.
Average Life Span of a European citizen is 78.01 years.
18 European countries have less income gaps between rich and the poor while the Unites States have more poor people living in United States than 16 European nations.
The Homicide Rate is 4 times higher than that of any European Nation.
The Unites States has higher rates of childhood homicides, suicides, and gun related deaths than any of its 14 European Countries.
The Unites States have 685 prisoners per 100,000 vs. their European Counterparts 87 prisoners per 100,000 people. In fact, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Unites States workers get two weeks of paid vacation vs. their European counterparts of 6 weeks of paid vacation pay.
Bottom Line: Europe is beating the United States' way of life in virtually every category and they're doing it with the help of STRONG UNIONS. This is the reality. And it will only get worse in the U.S. as long as people like you ignore it.
Good luck with that attitude!
Yea, I can see it all now, CEO's in their Armani suits running cash registers, or out on the line building cars.
I can tell you could run an entire store or assembly line all by your lonesome. No, entire industries could run just fine without bloated executives salaries.
But you just keep on thinking things can run just fine without workers.
You should be proud.
k.b.
Wow! A real person?
Sometimes scanning the comment section after an interesting article pays off. Thanks Deane for the reassurance there are still brain dead victims of corporate propaganda out there.
There are good unions and bad unions, just like there are good companies and bad companies to work for which is exactly why people need to have the free informed choice.
majority rule and collective
majority rule and collective bargaining are the tools of satan
Mean spirited Liberals
-
tagged as:
- result
I simply looked at the Union web site and gave a balanced assessment of it, and this is the mean spirited and unfair return for my effort. But that is what we come to expect from union people, unfair and unaccurate attacks on people's rights to speech. I doubt that you realize what you and your kind are doing to our Great Nation with your taking over and destroying the system of equality and economic benefit that is capitalism. The economic downturn would not have even happened if Obama hadn't been pulling the strings so that he would have an excuse to spend.
We are the union...
There are a lot of very strange comments here about unions, and in reality unions aren't perfect and neither are those who take them away from what they are supposed to be. A union is supposed to be controlled by the workers. Union members should be the ones making decisions about their contracts and who their leadership(stewards, staff)is. So many people seem to disconnect the union members from the union, even some corrupt unions in the U.S. do this.
I have had many experiences through the years with different jobs in Fresno and the Bay Area, and the only time that things really changed for folks was when we organized together in a union and bargained our contract collectively. A good example of this was the victory we eventually had at Berkeley Bowl. We lost the election because the owners violated almost every one of our rights in the book, but we were able to when the legal battle and negotiate our contract together. Nobody gave up and we made sure to continue to struggle to involve as many workers as possible in the negotiations, and now there is a strong union at Berkeley Bowl that seems to be getting better all the time.
Its not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than the alternative...Which was ultimately a false marketing front that told the community that everything was great...A lot like the way that Whole Foods, Starbucks, and a lot of other companies are
I've only worked at 1 union
I've only worked at 1 union job. During HS I was getting paid minimum wage, no paid time off, no health coverage and lost ~1 hour of pay per week to union dues. With that said, Deane is clearly an idiot.
Unions are basically a company. They will do whatever they can to expand their business. Some are bloated and blatantly self serving and those seem to be the ones that get the most publicity. I'm sure there are some good unions out there.
Good Article
It is kind of funny that a corporation such as Whole Foods would adopt an anti-union approach. If labor cannot organize itself then it means that the leadership of the firm is not responsible—because it is in denial in regards to why labor needs to organize itself. If the leadership will deny its own employees fundamental rights such as organizing themselves then it means that the products being sold by Whole Foods must also be placed in doubt in regards to the “quality” and in regards to the authenticity of the product—in the sense of ecological credibility. (If they’ll screw those who work for them then just imagine what they will do to the suckers who will actually buy their products)
If the corporation can’t care for their employees and the marketing stamp of the firm is built around the image of being ecologically whole (as in being wholesome) then there is no reason to believe that their products can in fact be sold as ecological—because they view their employees in same light as a slave owner would view indentured servants. The slave owner most likely views the indentured servant as a kind of threat—preferring the idea that the slave is their property—while the indentured servant is bound only by a contract—“how will I ever discipline my servant if I can’t starve him because I am bound by contact to feed him three meals a day”. Whole Foods expects its workers to take their labor conditions on “good faith” and those who challenge this faith are then black balled.
If the employee is not taken care of in responsible fashion and offered a wage that is always in touch with the reality of the economy then the firm is not ecologically sound—people also represent ecology! It isn’t enough that a apple was grown and cared for without the use of pesticides—but equally the person who picked it, the person who packaged it, the person who drove it to the shop, the person who unpacked it and the person who placed on the shelf were all dealt with as “ecologically sound contributors to the whole product—all the way from the planting of the seed until it arrives on a consumers plate—all details are meticulously dealt with in a manner where no one ends up short changed. Otherwise Whole Foods must be viewed as gimmick trying to ride on image of “wholesome” when what they are pushing is appropriation.
What truly amazes me in the US today is that given the utter decadence that pervades the country—a nation where if a person has been a vegetable for 10 years, hooked to a machine will can incite such a stir from the so-called pro-life people but where people who cannot pay for their health care are dumped on the street to die (here we are talking about real murder) we will not even hear a peep from the pro-life-Jesus crowd. But the point in the US is that the overriding majority of people no longer even have a permanent job—they are all temps and work under no protection whatsoever—they are literally “indentured servants” and yet the idea to organize is out of the question. Organized labor was one of the direct consequences of 1930’s—because unregulated business is irresponsible—that is in fact the history of the firm. The firm was made responsible due to organized labor and via control of political machinery firms were forced into the position of acting responsibly—this history is what has been systematically undermined—in particular by the Republican Party but we also see this aspect within the Democratic Party as well. Organized labor is the only means to hold corporations in check or you can with 100% guarantee expect to get screwed—I mean take a look at around—save the criminals on Wall Street but screw Main Street—that is what leads the nation!
The election of Obama is remarkable in terms of organizing. Now people merely need to use this new found skill to support people who will support them and we might actually return to a democracy.
oh, that's not attractive...
just one more reason to support your local businesses & neighbours!
Think globally, LIVE locally...
==
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Meth
Unions
-
tagged as:
- result
It seems without unions companies prefer to exploit worker; with very few exception. By paying workers a liveable wage Whole Foods still make good profits. It seems upper management is always aware that without representation workers do not have a chance of being treated fairly on the job. What Whole Foods and Starbucks should look at is how many of their customers work at Wal-mart?
Unions of Not
I have worked for both Starbucks & Whole Foods. When I was working for Whole Foods, the store was still called 'Bread & Circus', as that's a small chain they bought out in the North East, and the standards certainly went way down when so-called 'Whole' Foods came in.
'Whole' Foods is in business to make money, and they exploit the organic/earthy crunchy market to do so. I agree with an earlier comment on how they have a very effective marketing campaign, despite not being as 'whole' and green as they endlessly claim to be. And how nice to be like John Mackey and not receive a weekly paycheck from your company. Trust me, that man is NOT living under some bushes in the woods and foraging for roots and berries. While my pay was OK when I worked for them, it was not terrific. It was just a dollar or 2 over minimum wage.
The same was true at Starbucks. That pay was $2 over minimum wage, though minimum wage has not been kept current with inflation for the past 30 years. The best part of that job was the free pound of coffee a week and the reasonably priced Healthcare.
If you work somewhere with a not great Union, see about changing the Union. It should be responsive to the workers. Find out why it's not good, and work to change it.
Hopefully the Corporate Scare Tactics won't work and the EFCA will pass soon without draconian changes.
John W Beck
www.veganjohn.com
Unions
-
tagged as:
- result
I am neither pro nor con union organizing or representation. In my life I have helped organize a union within the venue where I worked and have been active in keeping a union from attempting to organize my workforce. I once worked in an underground coal mine that was surrounded by union mines. Ours was non-union and the union wanted, in the worst way to get us under their "wing". We worked for a company that paid our salaries based on the profitability of the company and the company was very open about profitability and bonuses, in which everyone shared. Benefits were much better than union benefits and we would likely have taken a pay cut if the union had won a vote to unionize. Hence, they could not even get enough people to sign cards to authorize a vote!
I acknowledge that there are times when it makes sense for unions to watch over worker's rights; however, I have witnessed the excesses that union "leaders" take when acting as stewards of their members dues. I've seen union members at the same level of management as me travel first class and stay in five star hotels and spend excessive amounts on meals while traveling to the same events that I attended while traveling in a more frugal yet comfortable manner.
I believe that many of the unions today have lost touch with their real purpose. At the same time, many employers lose sight of their most important asset, that being their employees, and take unfair advantage workers, through poor benefits, working conditions and pay.
Sadly, I'm not sure that passing more legislation is the answer to this potentially serious situation. Maybe, in this current difficult economy, it is time for unions to step back and take a look at the roots on which they were founded and focus more on helping those in need instead of posturing for more power over employers and hoping for government to further limit employers rights to run their businesses without the strong armed union tactics that are so often used in today's union environment. At the same time employers need to wake up and take better care of their best assest before their lack of care causes them to be saddled with legislation that will limit their ability to run their businesses.
I know there are many very good and concerned union organizations that I have inadvertently lumped into my rant against what I see as a few "bad" unions. There are plenty very good employers that do not deserved to be forced to live with what, for them, would be unfair labor laws. I do feel there needs to be change, but it must come from both sides and more government legislation is not the answer in my opinion.
My father has worked for a
My father has worked for a union my whole life and complains just as much about his job as non-union workers. The union he is with has agreed to cut jobs, has cut benefits and has been really looking out for themselves (not the union members) for many years. He does not even know if his retirement will be what it should be when he retires (sounds like everyone else). Unions were good before there were companies that would hold THEMSELVES accountable to their employees, now employees must step up and ask their companies for what they want and need but understand that all demands cannot be met (because it is a business). With a union there to "fight" for you, you are paying one additional person to do something that workers should be getting from their companies directly. And just like with govt workers, sometimes unions protect the wrong people from losing their jobs. It is just another level of politicalness that most workers do not need to deal with. I know that not everyone can work for a company that tries to look out for not only the company's best interest, but understands that looking out for their employees interests is in the company's best interest but everyone should look for this job or demand this from their current company. Our voices can be heard if done properly.
I personally think Union's
-
tagged as:
- result
I personally think Union's are a sham. I worked at a bakery one summer when I was in college, I was only going to be working 3 months and my boss' knew that. The union leader came in everyday to the store demanding I join the union and pay all these high fees to join when I wouldn't be getting anything out of it. He called and harassed me at home even. I never paid but that experience put me off from unions completely; they can harass and intimidate people themselves. The Falletti Foods in San Francisco had the unions out protesting every day because they wanted them to join. I asked the people working there what they thought and none of them wanted to join because they were being paid very well and had great benefits. The union members proceed to yell and say really nasty mean things at me while I was shopping in the fruit/vegetable area. So the issue can be with the unions just as much the employers.
Reality...
It seems fairly ridiculous to debate unions in the theoretical, especially considering that most anti-union advocates, particularly in the media, belong to some union themselves or represent businesses that have organized into collectives in order to increase their leverage and interests. Strength in numbers is simple and sound...
Coincidentally, my sister is a conservative who was traditionally against unions. Years ago, she worked for Whole Foods (while it was still known as Fresh Fields) here in suburban D.C. Feeling wholly unsatisfied with the compensation that she and the other employees (many of whom were the immigrants from El Salvador, Ethiopia, etc.) were receiving for their work, she put aside ideology, faced reality, and attempted to organize within the store herself. When the union representative arrived at the store for a meeting, management called the police to have him removed as a trespasser. Unfortunately for Fresh Fields, the Montgomery County police were affiliated with the same union and refused to remove the union rep from the premises. In the end, the employees, especially the immigrants, felt uncomfortable and insecure about "causing trouble" and joining a union, so the endeavor soon lost steam...
If unions were so ineffective, I don't think every repressive regime in the world would be using the full weight of their state securty apparatus to violently crush their labor movements. Unions work, so the only real discussion is whether you believe workers deserve any rights or not...
correct
Correct, unions work. They worked in US for the last few decades and as a result we have many laws in place to protect our employees. Unions however are not what will take this country and its employees in to the successful future. Not in their current incarnation. There needs to be a major changein how unions do business in order for them to work and work correctly both for the employer and the employee if this country is to remain successful and take care of its workers.
IWW Slighted
"Unlike Costco, where 20 percent of workers are represented by the Teamsters, Whole Foods and Starbucks stores haven’t been organized by traditional unions."
I must take offense at the fact that the author says this so early in this article. He does eventually mention the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) but fails to mention that the NLRB actions that were won against Starbucks were won by the IWW's Starbucks Workers Union (SWU.) How can you call a union that is over one hundred years old not traditional.
The IWW has a rich tradition, is growing today, and it's members continue to fight for workers rights without the big pockets, fancy offices, and big officer paychecks of the "traditional" unions that I would assume the author has in mind.
Let's not forget - while waiting for the EFCA - minority unionism. Any two or more workers have the right to band together to represent, and demand recognition for, themselves. Another idea to remember is that another name for unionism is Industrial DEMOCRACY.
Settle down there, Deane
Deane, your lack of understanding the big picture is obvious. The standard of living of the United States and most industrialized nations is due to a unionized workforce. And the power of America will truly be diminished by the business owners who do “replace their workers” by sending jobs overseas.
When you claim America’s health care system is the best in the world; you really need to do the research. America may have the best doctors and the most advanced equipment; but the “health care system” isn’t within the top twenty in the world.
Oh by the way, don’t you have a rush Limbaugh radio show to get back to?
seriously
Seriously? I have been in management for 30 years, 10 in asia, 20 in the US. Contrary to these comments, Asia is not mostly unionized and unions are NOT why labor gets shipped from here to over there. Two reasons, it's cheaper and more productive. I can tell you from a managers perspective, and i took great strides to take care of my employees in asia and ensured they were safe and well compensated, but we would pay them a fraction of what we would pay an employee in the states and get twice as much production in the same 8 hour period. The sad fact is that most americans feel entitled and therefore it is very difficult to find someone here that has a strong work ethic. Instead what you get is the sense of entitlement, when what you should get is the attitude of, "I am going to work hard for what i want and have pride in what i do.
A Sense of Entitlement is what brought this country and the economy down, and is what makes us the most hated country around the globe. wake up...
here's what worries me
as a discloure, I've never worked for these 2 companies, but as a PR person I have produced non-union materials for clients. See where my lack of support for the easy unionization comes from with this quote from near the end of the article:
"...but say that their rights are still subject to the whims of the men in charge. Mackey is pushing ahead with plans to build two new stores in San Francisco even as an existing store is cutting back hours, freezing hiring, and asking employees to do the same amount of work in less time, the workers say. “My opinion is, you shouldn’t open a new store if you can’t take care of what’s going on at the ones you already have,” says a worker, who asked that his name and the exact location of his store not be used for fear of reprisals. “But they are going to take the opposite approach. If they can cut costs at our level and then open up a new store, that’s what shareholders want.”
Since when are worker's right infringed by corporate growth/marketing campaigns or plans? Since when can't management try to maximize worker efficiency?
I support the concept of group worker representation in negations with management/owners for the employee's benefits and wages. In a limited scope, a union could be a very good thing in most companies and many industries. But when the employee as a group wants to be part of corporate planning and feels they get a vote on the board of directors my opposition to unions arises. So do many others who would be likely to support stronger worker rights. I don't support the "Easy-Up Union" Bill because it will not be productive in the end for either workers or companies. I think one needs to think of the Law of Unintended Consequences before acting.
Right now, for less money than we will waste on bailouts, we could save the auto industry by instituting single-payer National Universal Health Care and nationalizing ALL retirement benefits packages. That "Hidden" cost is what has made the 21st century union car too expensive. There would have been more development too with less cash drain to legacy benefits.
hmmm
Why would a union organizer use the fact that Mackey is opening two new stores as a negative? Wouldnt that increase how many jobs their are open at the company by two more stores, and would that increase the hours and positions and room for advancement?
seems like they would be hurting their cause of unionizing by saying that...
