[deleted]
I’d say more calculated than remarkable given their long outspoken history with regards to employee relations.
[deleted]
Submitted 11 months ago by SuperSpaceFan@lemmy.ca to workreform@lemmy.world
Comments
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 11 months ago
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
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 11 months ago
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…
cmbabul@lemmy.world 11 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
Sharpiemarker@startrek.website 11 months ago
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 11 months ago
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 11 months ago
- The new framework put forth by the NLRB only went into effect in late 2023 (November/December).
- It requires a majority of employees to want to form a union.
- 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 11 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 11 months ago
Ah yes, as famously evidenced by Elon Musk backtracking on his Tesla unionization opposition
Sunforged@lemmy.ml 11 months ago
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 11 months ago
"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 11 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.
infinitevalence@discuss.online 11 months ago
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.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
the majority can try to hold on but without the protections a formal union affords, they’ll be torn to pieces.
NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 11 months ago
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 11 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.
mateomaui@reddthat.com 11 months ago
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.
infinitevalence@discuss.online 11 months ago
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 11 months ago
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.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
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 :)
match@pawb.social 11 months ago
hell yeah
Raphipod@lemmy.world 11 months ago
More like Costno.
OpenStars@startrek.website 11 months ago
Faith in humanity… restored! :-)
xantoxis@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That’s nice, but this quote illustrates they still don’t get it.
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 the existence of unions. I just want them to get the hell out of the way.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 11 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 11 months ago
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.
BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
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.
Asafum@feddit.nl 11 months ago
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.
moistclump@lemmy.world 11 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 11 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.