Costco workers in Norfolk have unionised and Costco are seething.
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
405 points (86.0% liked)
IWW and syndicalism
703 readers
39 users here now
Community for union related stuff, with focus on the IWW.
Chat room (not mine, belong to a fellow syndicalist):
https://matrix.to/#/%23anarchycommunism:matrix.org
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm super pro-union, and strongly support the unionization of the Norfolk workers, but I should acknowledge that this looks like a pretty reasonable response from Costco that's far cry from the whiny, hostile, threatening responses we're seeing from the likes of Amazon and Tesla. (absent any other information about the situation).
If you don't want your employees to unionise, you should give them great conditions, minimising the benefit of unionization, then not sook about it if they unionize anyway - which is exactly what appears to be happening here.
That said, I'm open to being corrected.
I only know marginally more but I think you're right.
Costco is known for being a good corporate citizen to its members and employees.
Costco at least tries to appear to be the pinnacle of "just" Capitalism, with generous benefits and wages in comparison to the market and intentionally low margins for profit, reinvesting everything else.
This response is 100% expected, though never trust a corpo to be willingly benign. Corpos will always do what's best for those with the power to influence their direction.
Sure it sounds reasonable because if they took the mask off there would be an epidemic of other stores realizing they need to unionize too. It doesn't matter how disarming upper management acts because ultimately the role of the capitalist to employees is that of an oppressor. At least with a union you have a VERY limited means of pushing back against that dynamic.
It might seem like a good statement on the surface, but the whole idea of "We don't think our workers need a union because we're already willing to listen" is just a blatant lie. A company that truly wants it's labor to feel heard would want an employee union so that they can communicate and negotiate in an honest, straight forward manner. Telling employees that they shouldn't need a union is a manipulation tactic.
What I was saying was more along the lines of "Make things so good your employees won't see a benefit to unionisation" than "We already listen". One is outcomes focused, the other vaguely 'effort' focused, and easy to lie about.
Company-run unions tend to be pointless - at best, acting as a bit of an advisory body that'll back down the moment push comes to shove.
It's better, but still childish. "We're not angry, we're disappointed".
If you are really taking care of your employees, you don't have to worry about a union, and would support your employees to form one.
To be fair, the disappointment is directed at themselves, not the employees. If they'd said they were disappointed in the employees for unionising then I would agree with you, but this to me at least reads like "we haven't been doing enough and need to do better".
I thought the same. I applaud them for recognizing their need for change.
I don't know, man. The wording of that still paints the act of having a union as a bad thing.
You wouldn't say, "I'm disappointed that my son only has a 3.9 GPA, but actually I'm disappointed in myself for letting that happen" If it's not truly a bad thing, no one needs to be disappointed at all. Unions are good for everyone, except literally the people at the very top who might only make 7 digits instead of 8.
The framing matters, and this is still worded like a backhanded framing of "unions bad" from corporate like they're saying "Yeah, the dog shit in the bed but we should be responsible as owners"
That coupled with the cookie cutter anti-union advice to just talk to your manager if you're unhappy (so they can unfailingly steer you away from a union) makes this whole thing just sound like an HR guy framed it to be as inoffensive as possible while still painting the union itself as bad.
I'd say that it paints requiring a union as a bad thing. In a perfect world, with both workers and management valuing each other appropriately, a union shouldn't be necessary because there is established trust and respect. I think a completely appropriate response is "We thought we had that trust, but if we created a situation where our employees felt they needed a union, then obviously we didn't earn that trust. We should have done better."
That’s why I love the letter. It’s we failed since you felt the need to do this. I can’t find where Costco has tried to bust unions like Starbucks or other companies. I have found cares where they suspended suppliers who were trying to union bust. All and all they seem to be an ethical company.
In a perfect world, everything is fair and power imbalances don't exist. In a perfect world capitalism may not exist. In a perfect world is not a good tool for analysis, here, and doesn't excuse the tone-deaf response from Costco.
In our actual world, where virtually every other corporation is what it is, why would Costco think they are completely immune from the distrust that sows? Why would Costco think this doesn't come off as manipulative? Why didn't they emphasize "we apologize and we will do better"?
No, I think the under-handed tone of doom and gloom was very deliberate. I think they want the effect it had: reinforcing their stance that unions are bad, to let the employees know that they should still fear retribution of some vague type, if only to slow down employees at other stores following suit, while they devise a strategy to deal with it.
Not necessarily, I would agree with you in a lot of cases but there is such a thing as a bad union org.