Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 415 posts

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#291

Post by morsch »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #144
nathansobo wrote: post #68

I miss the old Whole Foods. I feel like the shopping experience has gone downhill in a variety of ways.

Almost overnight following the acquisition, security at my local Whole Foods turned from the usual couple people wandering the store with walkie talkies to a team of "tacticool" guys in sunglasses staring down the aisles and muttering to each other with earpieces and lapel mics. It's creepy.

Security people at the supermarket? What are they, worried the peas are going to start a fight with the turnips?

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#292

Post by n4r9 »

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…

The parent comment does allow for a way to let incompetent people go:

> if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily

That makes it less attractive to fire an employee, but still potentially worth the business' while in some cases. It feels like it's tipping the balance slightly more in favour of the workers, and doesn't inherently seem wrong to me.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#293

Post by skrebbel »

bengale wrote: post #287
skrebbel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. You're pregnant! You're entitled to maturity leave right? Isn't that normal? Why do you need "leverage"? I'm not kidding, so I'll ask again, even clearer. Does America not have the concept of maturity leave by law? Is it like considered a perk or something? I'm so confused because, well, where I live when you're pregnant, tell the boss is exactly what you'd do ! And then you get maturity leave. And the GGP says…

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

I bet they are (Netherlands). I seriously don't get how anyone can interpret my comments on this thread as sceptical about unionization.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#294

Post by fnatreq »

morsch wrote: post #291
tomjakubowski wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost overnight following the acquisition, security at my local Whole Foods turned from the usual couple people wandering the store with walkie talkies to a team of "tacticool" guys in sunglasses staring down the aisles and muttering to each other with earpieces and lapel mics. It's creepy.

Security people at the supermarket? What are they, worried the peas are going to start a fight with the turnips?

As I see in your profile, you don't live (yet) in a country with a high % of black people.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#295

Post by awiesenhofer »

bengale wrote: post #287
skrebbel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. You're pregnant! You're entitled to maturity leave right? Isn't that normal? Why do you need "leverage"? I'm not kidding, so I'll ask again, even clearer. Does America not have the concept of maturity leave by law? Is it like considered a perk or something? I'm so confused because, well, where I live when you're pregnant, tell the boss is exactly what you'd do ! And then you get maturity leave. And the GGP says…

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

He could live almost anywhere in the world:

"The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and several island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#296

Post by awiesenhofer »

skrebbel wrote: post #293
bengale wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

I bet they are (Netherlands). I seriously don't get how anyone can interpret my comments on this thread as sceptical about unionization.

How are you inferring that from GPs comments? He just couldn't believe that the US doesn't have mandated parental leave - you know, like the rest of the world.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#297

Post by Khol »

bengale wrote: post #287
skrebbel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. You're pregnant! You're entitled to maturity leave right? Isn't that normal? Why do you need "leverage"? I'm not kidding, so I'll ask again, even clearer. Does America not have the concept of maturity leave by law? Is it like considered a perk or something? I'm so confused because, well, where I live when you're pregnant, tell the boss is exactly what you'd do ! And then you get maturity leave. And the GGP says…

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

Whilst it's likely that from a historical perspective unions (or other collective action) fought for rights for workers, in many (most?) modern societies there is now legal basis for them.

I have found myself in the same position as the parent as a non-US resident who ended up in discussions where the assumptions made by those from the US and those not from the US about the rights of workers are so wildly different it stalls the conversation.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#298

Post by maimeowmeow »

fma wrote: post #188
nerfhammer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, WF prices are often cheaper for the exact same products vs. other stores, it's just that they also carry a more expensive organic natural chemical-free locally sourced indie niche upgrade of the same thing next to it.

I beg to differ. Below is my source that (I took the photos). $4 at Asian grocery store vs $10. Regular price at Asian store is $5 It's coffee from New Orleans, nothing exotic. http://imgur.com/gallery/BrHhzVx

The coffee you posted is arranged in a aesthetically pleasing manner which justifies a higher price for the yuppies who don't have the time to cross shop.

The higher price may make people think they are buying a premium quality product, and derive additional pleasure of consuming luxury goods even while not knowing it was marked up peasant food.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#299

Post by brennebeck »

bengale wrote: post #287
skrebbel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. You're pregnant! You're entitled to maturity leave right? Isn't that normal? Why do you need "leverage"? I'm not kidding, so I'll ask again, even clearer. Does America not have the concept of maturity leave by law? Is it like considered a perk or something? I'm so confused because, well, where I live when you're pregnant, tell the boss is exactly what you'd do ! And then you get maturity leave. And the GGP says…

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

Likely EU or UK, if I had to guess. Maybe CA.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#300

Post by justin66 »

jimmy1 wrote: post #228
simonsarris wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no added hormones in WF meat. There are no hydrogenated oils in any of their products. There are no phthalates in any of their beauty/wash products. Obviously you can define health however yo want, and you can scan the shelves of other stores for these same things. Maybe you can find a couple phthalate-free shampoos in Target, read a bunch of articles and memorize the good brands and hope they don't change.…

Or EarthFare, or Sprouts, or Trader Joes, or a bunch of other grocery stores that do what WF does. Whole Foods is just an expensive grocery store to me these days. It's uniqueness of being an "organic grocery store" has long faded.

Trader Joe's doesn't sell exclusively organic. With their product placement they do an admirable job of putting organic and standard products next to each other and letting the customer decide between the two based on price, without a lot of deception based on item count or weight or whatever.
Post reply on HN