Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

Post by ionised » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

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.

Post by fredsanford » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 10:20 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #227

chrissnell wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post by gaius » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 10:27 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 rdtsc » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 10:44 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 [deleted] » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

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?