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

311–320 of 415 posts

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#311

Post by biztos »

alkonaut wrote: post #272
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…

First-in-last-out isn't a good solution, it's just one of the bad solutions to the problem of firing replacable workers. The idea is that it's the starting point of negotiation, and the employer has to compensate to go around it, and that added cost to the employer is what gives more security with longer employment. It's important to note that it's very common for employers to still keep newer employees and use the c…

Also, some people may not be aware that many countries have plenty of restrictions around layoffs, totally separate from the unions.

For example I work in a non-union company, and if I have children and you have none, you get laid off before I do. Regardless of who's "better" and who's been there longer. That's in Germany; I would assume, say, France and Spain have much stricter rules around layoffs.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#312

Post by zero_intp »

xg15 wrote: post #310
spacehome wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. This meaning of 'maternity leave' is not a legal requirement of employment in the US, though some empl…

> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights: So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neithe…

America is known for practicing social darwinism as though it were a positive thing.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#313

Post by zero_intp »

alkonaut wrote: post #273
everdev wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> employers can't choose (freely) who to fire. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily Do you mean "lay off"? Employers should be able to fire anyone with cause regardless of when they were hired.

Sorry yes I mean "lay off" (edited). With cause obviously you can fire anyone.

'layed off' means different things in the US versus Europe.

In the US, an employer may 'lay off' as much staff as they want and then hire new people into those positions.

In France, for example, a 'lay off' must close the position and not hire a new body into that role for 12-24 months.

This may be difficult to prove, but the laws exist.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#314

Post by zero_intp »

stephengillie wrote: post #282
pxlpshr wrote: post #184

A lot of finger pointing at Amazon but most of the employment demands from the 'union' have been characteristics of Whole Foods since looonnngg before the aquisition. For example, unpaid paternity/maternity leave, no recognition of any holiday including federal - just 3 weeks of PTO used at your discretion, below market compensation, crappy benefits, calcified management, and the list goes on. Most people work there…

> 3 weeks of PTO Having been in the UFCW Local 367, it takes 3 years to get 3 weeks PTO - it's 1 week the first year. And you get "sick days", but you had to call in sick for 2 days (and lose that pay) and have a doctor's note, to start getting sick pay. If you do call in sick, you have to explain to the manager that they'll be short a person all day, and customers will find the store that much busier and harder to s…

Thank you for the realism without any snark.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#315

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

#316

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#317

Post by candu »

xg15 wrote: post #310
spacehome wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. This meaning of 'maternity leave' is not a legal requirement of employment in the US, though some empl…

> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights: So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neithe…

Hell, most less-developed countries see that differently.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#319

Post by smileysteve »

fma wrote: post #230
smileysteve wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, you'd have to recognize it as earned income; and you'd have to pay self employment taxes on it; making the donation cost you money. -- OR -- You file it as income to your sole proprietorship or llc; you "sponsor" something charitable as an expense. Either way, the deduction and the income are at best 0 sum. Though, if it's less than $600; they may not file a 1099 and you may "forget" to report it.

I'm a little confused on your comment? Is this in regards to how to deduct a donation post-Trump tax law? I'm a regular salaried employee, all my income is reported on a W2. Pre-Trump, if I donated $ to my favorite charity...it's deductible if I exceed standard deduction.

Pre 2018 or post are the same for how the deduction is a deduction and not a credit.

That is to say that on w2 income you will pay payroll tax and on 1099 you may pay self employment tax -- in addition to income tax. You then get to deduct the income tax only. So the presented case, to get paid a small sum as a contractor that either you or the company will donate to a charity; it's going to be a net 0 or net negative to take the income and then donate it 100% compared to letting the company donate it.

The relevant changes were to the standard deduction and the % cap (if you're donating >50% of your income). Technically, the standard deduction doesn't matter here at all, that's a choice, it would be a net negative for the filer to choose itemized over the standard if they don't exceed the standard.

The 2018 changes also effect the pass through rate, so there is a small possibility that if you took payment in your pte, you'd be taxed at 21% cap, your business didn't make enough to pay self employment tax, and then you donate the money from your normal earned income at the 22 or 24% rate.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#320

Post by coldtea »

skrebbel wrote: post #281
sequoia wrote: post #197

"In a statement provided to TechCrunch, a representative of Whole Foods said they respect the “ individual rights of [their] team members.”" Ha... now there's a carefully chosen phrase. “[We] have an open-door policy that encourages team members to bring their comments, questions and concerns directly to their team leaders,” I'd refer to this gif[0] but I know they're not serious. If anyone believes individual cashie…

> If anyone believes individual cashiers asking for maternity leave is a good way to get it I recognize that your comment is dripping of cynicism so I'm not entirely sure which parts are true. You're saying that you can't get maternity leave at Whole Foods (or in the entire USA maybe? I don't know whether this is national or just that Whole Foods is somehow a horrible, terrible, no good employer) when you ask? How ab…

>I recognize that your comment is dripping of cynicism so I'm not entirely sure which parts are true. You're saying that you can't get maternity leave at Whole Foods (or in the entire USA maybe?

Generally not, unless if you're some hot shit or in a well unionized job. Heck, in tons of jobs people are lucky to get their toiler breaks...

>I don't know whether this is national or just that Whole Foods is somehow a horrible, terrible, no good employer)

Of course it is national.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/05/the-w...

>How about with a doctor's note that says that yes indeed, you're pregnant?

Usually such a leave concerns the period after you've given birth.

>Isn't there laws about that sort of stuff?

In lower paying fire-at-will jobs, laws don't mean much. They can find 100 ways to fire you in ways that don't break the letter of the law if you ask for something the law supposedly guarantees.

https://www.babygaga.com/15-times-bosses-fired-women-on-mat-...

>And wasn't Whole Foods supposed to be the upmarket, organic, do-goodery, happy happy joy joy supermarket?

Public image doesn't mean anything for how a business operates. Apple was supposed to be "in the intersection of fine arts and technology" but has people in horrible working conditions, Google was supposed to "not be evil".

You say that the parent is "dripping of cynicism", but I can't make heads or tails of your questions. Are you from abroad, and have no contact whatsoever with the USA (friends, etc)? Are you from a nordic country and are astonished that such things are possible? Or maybe you're from the US, but have too much wealth to ever be involved in working people's concerns? Because they sound dripping with out-of-touch, and I'm not even American (I just have many friends there).

Post reply on HN