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

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#401

Post by tekknik »

acomar wrote: post #392
xg15 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Medieval nobles called themselves 'aristocrats', aristo meaning 'the best' Interesting, I didn't know that. Sounds suspiciously similar to today's "meritocracy"...

Three men own the majority of wealth in the US by themselves. It's exactly the same kind of thing. Except instead of "ennoblement", we tell ourselves that we can strike it big and join those at the top.

and instead of trying to strike it big we sit on comment boards and make comments about why these supposed 3 individuals aren’t required to divide up their gains.

These are whole foods workers. they are not rocket surgeons, they can be easily replaced by stepping outside and finding the next person that walks by. These are the types of jobs that will be automated away in the near future due to stuff like this. Your average skillless worker won’t have a job to go to if they keep making themselves more and more expensive.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#402

Post by krapp »

tekknik wrote: post #400
krapp wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm going to guess that a very small portion of WFMs employees have the ability to successfully negotiate their employment terms A very small portion of all employees have that ability, much less an opportunity to attempt to negotiate the terms of their employment. I think a lot of people here overestimate the leverage that the average employee - including tech industry employees - actually have with their employers…

Maybe it’s because those average employees are, well average? if you’re worth a damn in your field you most definitely can define the terms of your employment or find a company that will let you

>if you’re worth a damn in your field you most definitely can define the terms of your employment or find a company that will let you

But this thread is about those average employees, and even exceptional employees in most fields have little to no power to set terms.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#403

Post by 1123581321 »

2bitmachine wrote: post #244
1123581321 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree conditions could be improved, and that we are probably near the peak of anti-union sentiment. I don’t agree unionization will transform these stores. Many grocery store chains are unionized and the jobs are still loathed. I understand the fear is that Amazon will make the job worse than merely loathed and perhaps the status quo union is enough to prevent that. I don’t think a union can change that impression…

> Many grocery store chains are unionized and the jobs are still loathed. Unions aren't about undoing alienation under Capitalism, they're about making Capitalism survivable for laborers.

That may be, but the person to which I responded said that they can tell people need unions when they shop. They wouldn’t be able to tell if people are making their budgets meet at home, just whether they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#404

Post by noobermin »

pluto9 wrote: post #378
noobermin wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been umpteen articles how wages have not kept up with inflation. It's a tough sell telling parts of the country that swapped the first black president for man with a less than stellar morality record that this is the best economy in history.

> swapped the first black president for man with a less than stellar morality record This is a weird juxtaposition. You appear to be implying that "first black president" and "less than stellar morality" are moral opposites.

Walking into changing rooms of teenage girls isn't indicative of moral character, or is being the focus of multiple sexual assault allegations.

And if that's just "fake news" given it has been reported in multiple sources, then I suppose I can just call any retort you make as "fake news" as well.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#405

Post by 2bitmachine »

1123581321 wrote: post #403
2bitmachine wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many grocery store chains are unionized and the jobs are still loathed. Unions aren't about undoing alienation under Capitalism, they're about making Capitalism survivable for laborers.

That may be, but the person to which I responded said that they can tell people need unions when they shop. They wouldn’t be able to tell if people are making their budgets meet at home, just whether they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Respectfully, I think you might be conflating your own class perspective with those of these workers. Most people in low-wage jobs aren’t giving much thought to whether they enjoy them. They’re meanial and unfulfilling, the people working them are aware of this. They’re generally focused on whether or not they can get through the day without too much abuse and make enough to survive. If they seem consistently unhappy, the answer to that is probably no.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#406

Post by hannasanarion »

conanbatt wrote: post #363
mulmen wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to work unless conditions improve.

Then they all get fired, or progressively fired and replaced with non-unions.Not-working is not much of a leverage as much as non-selling is not a leverage for a company.

This is only true in an environment where non-union work is allowed to thrive, ie, pretty much just the US.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#407

Post by xg15 »

tekknik wrote: post #398
xg15 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

getting pregnant or remaining pregnant is a choice. it’s not a disease you just contract without choice. why should an employer be forced to pay for your decision?

Because if not, you end up in a situation where only wealthy people can have kids -> ergo, population control.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#408

Post by xg15 »

spacehome wrote: post #395
Frondo wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is what a society is; we all work to support one another in one way or another. The only real question is what that support looks like. For most of the Western world, it includes things like paying women for maternity leave, and not complaining or acting like this is a big controversial idea.

That's what you want it to be. Not everybody wants to live in that world.

If the goal of a society if not to provide security, then what exactly is it?

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#409

Post by xg15 »

tekknik wrote: post #401
acomar wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three men own the majority of wealth in the US by themselves. It's exactly the same kind of thing. Except instead of "ennoblement", we tell ourselves that we can strike it big and join those at the top.

and instead of trying to strike it big we sit on comment boards and make comments about why these supposed 3 individuals aren’t required to divide up their gains. These are whole foods workers. they are not rocket surgeons, they can be easily replaced by stepping outside and finding the next person that walks by. These are the types of jobs that will be automated away in the near future due to stuff like this. Your a…

So the solution is that we just all become the next Steve Jobs?

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#410

Post by pluto9 »

noobermin wrote: post #404
pluto9 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> swapped the first black president for man with a less than stellar morality record This is a weird juxtaposition. You appear to be implying that "first black president" and "less than stellar morality" are moral opposites.

Walking into changing rooms of teenage girls isn't indicative of moral character, or is being the focus of multiple sexual assault allegations. And if that's just "fake news" given it has been reported in multiple sources, then I suppose I can just call any retort you make as "fake news" as well.

Were you trying to reply to a different comment? Because your response makes absolutely no sense.

> Walking into changing rooms of teenage girls isn't indicative of moral character, or is being the focus of multiple sexual assault allegations.

Congrats on inventing this never-before-seen grammatical construct, though.

Post reply on HN