Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

Post by alkonaut » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 6:57 AM UTC

gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #267

alkonaut wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking from the perspective of working unions (Scandinavia) what makes unions work and be relevant are the protections they enjoy. The unions fought for these protections. Without being able to unionize you can't improve your position as a union either. You have to start somewhere. So: first: employers can't choose (freely) who to lay off. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to comp…

First-in-last-out is an objectively terrible way to hire and fire though. As an employee I feel personally invested in the success of the business I work for. I don't want to work with less competent employees because of an arbitrary rule. I want the weaker people to eventually be let go. I do want a safe secure workplace. I don't want people fired on a whim. I want training opportunities to be provided first. I want…

Post by chii » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 6:59 AM UTC

batiudrami wrote: post #249

whb07 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sarcasm does not move the discussion forward. There’s a number of things a person can do in the U.S to pick up a skill from a trade to medicine. With grants, loans, or any number of free/paid courses. Also, it is truly impressive to see people work and succeed going from “not very much” to “boy he’s a force”. Just takes effort, go figure.

Acquiring a skill takes money (if there's any kind of accreditation) and time. If you're living paycheque-to-paycheque and looking to change employers, chances are you don't have much of either. Not everyone has a safety net.

Post by gdfasfklshg4 » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 7:07 AM UTC

bopbop wrote: post #271

gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First-in-last-out is an objectively terrible way to hire and fire though. As an employee I feel personally invested in the success of the business I work for. I don't want to work with less competent employees because of an arbitrary rule. I want the weaker people to eventually be let go. I do want a safe secure workplace. I don't want people fired on a whim. I want training opportunities to be provided first. I want…

As an aside, Let go is such an interesting term. It's such a well accepted piece of corporate doublespeak. It's like they want to go, and their employer is letting them. They're straining at the leash to be unemployed, and the employer graciously releases them from the burden of their contract. They're being fired.

Post by nickthemagicman » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 7:23 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #167

nickthemagicman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quit donating to charity after I found out that Red Cross only gives a small fraction of its donations to charity the rest is spent on Administration costs. Just like colleges and the healthcare industry. Got to pay all those vp's of vp's of vp's.

You quit donating to charity because one specific charity is egregiously bad? Isn't that a bit like ceasing to eat because you had something yucky once?

Post by nickthemagicman » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #198

ceejayoz wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quit donating to charity because one specific charity is egregiously bad? Isn't that a bit like ceasing to eat because you had something yucky once?

... one specific charity was accused of doing something bad. The Red Cross is frequently accused of having excessive management costs and mismanaging funds; if you do a little research (a) they appear to have reasonable overhead (b) a lot of the accusations seem to come from competing charities with higher overheads.