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

261–270 of 415 posts

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#261

Post by Kephael »

yurishimo wrote: post #177
rossdavidh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Texas, anyway (where WF started), other grocery chains have been passing them by. A big part of why WF sold to Amazon is that they are getting squeezed between co-ops and chains like HEB's "Central Market" stores, which have lots of organic produce at better prices and with better public image. Trader Joe's is another chain that has been encroaching on their space. I think WF was pushing the envelope on healthier…

As a small side note, Central Market is also pushing into the online shopping model and using open source software to do it. A friend here in Dallas worked on their WooCommerce integration.

WooCommerce vs the largest e-commerce platform in the world? I've been to the Amazon Go store and took a close look at the camera arrays, these toy retailers are whistling past the graveyard.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#262

Post by forapurpose »

chrissnell wrote: post #219
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…

We're in the middle of the best economy in years. Why would a worker put up with that? Go someplace else. Whole Foods doesn't put stores in small towns. Anyone who works there has plenty of other options.

> We're in the middle of the best economy in years.

Best economy for whom? The U.S. economy as a whole has expanded greatly since the 1980s, but it's the individuals' economies that matter, and they haven't expanded much.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#263

Post by Kephael »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #49
imagiko wrote: post #38

I have noticed that the cashier's have gotten pushy about asking about a Prime account, and very recently about a charity donation. It's a good way to 'make' people donate when asked upfront. I'm sure the probability of people donating increases. When I denied, I was asked if I'd like to round off my payment and have the balance donated. Honestly, it's very annoying. Whole foods is unfortunately becoming an REI store…

That's the new trend in many grocery stores. Someone on HN or Reddit mentioned that grocery charities are actually a tactic to estimate the sign of the derivative of e the customer base's grocery-discretionary income, as a hint of when to raise prices.

I never donate via proxy, I don't want to give some corporation a tax deduction on my behalf. I am sure they are doing this for PR purposes.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#264

Post by alkonaut »

FighterMafia wrote: post #232
biztos wrote: post #193

All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization. Yes, including Whole Paycheck[0] as well as Trader Joe's and Safeway and Von's and everybody else. While I can imagine Amazon having a loathing of unions, if they really want to be in this space they will sooner or later have to contend with the…

"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization." Why? "...an industry that needs a union.." Why? "...more union-friendly in the coming years" Why? Nothing you said is grounded in any actual analysis or verifiable facts. I'd argue that undifferentiated skills that require little education make…

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 compensate the employee quite heavily.

Second: "proper" union strikes have a very protected status. An employer who would hire scabs would be quickly taken out of business. They'd switfly be blockaded by other unions in sympathy. So for example: a store hiring scabs to replace striking union store workers would quickly find that their trash isn't picked up, that the cleaners don't show up, that no electrician fixes their fridges, and so on (Also: these type of measures are also protected).

Without having these two protections (can't fire, can't hire scabs) unions are very weak compared to employers. I'd argue that with these protections, unions and employers have a pretty equal playing field.

Note also that these protections didn't come free: the employers' share of the deal was that there is no minimum wage and you can't have protected strikes during the agreement periods which are typically 1-3 years. So the strikes will occur at known intervals if negotiations for the next agreement stalls.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#265

Post by bashallah »

krustyburger wrote: post #254
biztos wrote: post #193

All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization. Yes, including Whole Paycheck[0] as well as Trader Joe's and Safeway and Von's and everybody else. While I can imagine Amazon having a loathing of unions, if they really want to be in this space they will sooner or later have to contend with the…

One of your examples, Trader Joe’s, does not have a union and their employees seem to be relatively content.

Smaller stores, less diverse customers, in the upscale area of the city and the company respects their employees. That’s why they are content. Needless to say, they would also benefit from unionization

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#266

Post by bashallah »

chrissnell wrote: post #219
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…

We're in the middle of the best economy in years. Why would a worker put up with that? Go someplace else. Whole Foods doesn't put stores in small towns. Anyone who works there has plenty of other options.

Yeah, why work a dead end low paying job? Just go get more money!

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#267

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

alkonaut wrote: post #264
FighterMafia wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization." Why? "...an industry that needs a union.." Why? "...more union-friendly in the coming years" Why? Nothing you said is grounded in any actual analysis or verifiable facts. I'd argue that undifferentiated skills that require little education make…

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 people's performance to be judged over the whole course of their employment not just the last quarter. But at crunch time I want the less well performing people to be let go rather than just the newest.

EDIT Re-reading this I realised I missed some perspective. A key ingredient related to hiring and firing in the society I want to (and do) live in is that when someone loses their job they have unemployment benefits that cover a significant fraction of their salary. This gives them time to find another job and makes losing your job a much less traumatic event.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#268

Post by everdev »

alkonaut wrote: post #264
FighterMafia wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization." Why? "...an industry that needs a union.." Why? "...more union-friendly in the coming years" Why? Nothing you said is grounded in any actual analysis or verifiable facts. I'd argue that undifferentiated skills that require little education make…

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…

> 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.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#269

Post by chii »

krustyburger wrote: post #255
biztos wrote: post #193

All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization. Yes, including Whole Paycheck[0] as well as Trader Joe's and Safeway and Von's and everybody else. While I can imagine Amazon having a loathing of unions, if they really want to be in this space they will sooner or later have to contend with the…

One of your examples, Trader Joe’s, does not have a union and their employees seem to be relatively content.

Just because they are content now, doesn't mean they will be in the future. Union is prep for when shit hits the fan.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#270

Post by aerotwelve »

cliffordthedog wrote: post #116
s3r3nity wrote: post #15

My concern with this is that this will only accelerate the probability that Amazon Go merges with Whole Foods to have a cashier-free experience. >Shoppers, however, have saved millions as a result of the shake-up. This is why you're going to have a tough time getting sympathy from the public, and why I think (for better or worse) Amazon will win the PR battle. The average person now has access to healthier grocery /…

Amazon will do that the minute the math works out anyway. Encouraging workers to put up with worse and worse conditions out of fear of automation is just a race to the bottom that inevitably ends with automation anyway.

This is exactly it. Fast food companies have spent the past decade trying to scare everyone to death whenever the thought of raising the minimum wage comes up. We'll be forced to build self-checkout lanes and self-serve order kiosks if you raise it! You don't want that, do you?

The scare tactics worked in much of the country; the federal minimum wage hasn't budged since 2009 and most states are at the same level. What did we get in exchange for that act of kindness towards the service sector? More self-checkout lanes and kiosks.

Post reply on HN