Archived Unionize

[Miguel]

I've always tried to find people with like minds, but you have to get very close to people before they are willing to talk to you about this sensitive topic since Retail America forbids them. Most of just too afraid of being fired for talking about the idea of unionizing, even though that firing reason is illegal.

How have you started the process of unionization at your store Miguel?

 

[Tiemypog]

By the way, it's comments like yours that the Republicans say AGAINST admitting Global Warming, when we all KNOW it exists.

Odd that. The Brits are now stating that there hasn't been any Global Warming since 1997. So it seems the things you KNOW are not exactly true.

 

[commiecorvus]

By the way, it's comments like yours that the Republicans say AGAINST admitting Global Warming, when we all KNOW it exists.

Odd that. The Brits are now stating that there hasn't been any Global Warming since 1997. So it seems the things you KNOW are not exactly true.

If you got that idea from where I think you did here is some follow up information

A UK documentary called the The Great Global Warming Swindle misrepresented the views of several climate scientists and disregarded broadcasting rules on impartiality, according to a review by a regulatory panel.
Many of the high profile scientists who complained of their treatment in the documentary, who included top government scientists and members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say the regulators did not judge the film harshly enough. One of those scientists, Carl Wunsch of MIT, says the film is “a political propaganda film masquerading as a science documentary. The film exaggerates the credentials of its purported ‘experts’, changed published data to suit its own ends, and in general took a complicated scientific problem, over-simplified and changed the evidence, while suppressing all contrary views from the true experts.

Otherwise, Greetings and salutations.
Welcome to the site.

 

[Tiemypog]

Actually, it was from the MET and CRU last week. Can't say as I've seen that documentary. Sounds interesting.

 

[Rock Lobster]

I agree, let's get back to the original topic which was Unionization. You are welcome Rock Lobster, and while I was overly enthusiastic in my comments, it was because I'm trying to get people to see how important it is that we all find a way to get Big Businesses and Corporations to start treating people BELOW Mgmt level ALOT better. The benefits should be the same, the discounts should be the same, the perks should be the same, and while the pay shouldn't be the same, it shoudl DEFINITELY be BETTER =) Unions may not be "perfect" but they couldn't possibly be worse than what we have right now. I've been in all the positions in Target, Kmart, Walmart, Sears that have to do Employee Relations, Let Us Know Program, Benefits.Feedback, Best Team Survey, you name it, so I've been on the receiving end of that feedback, and it's BAD news. MANY employees are VERY angry with Target over their benefit changes this year, over losing Tuition Reiumbursement last year, over losing Pensions the year before that, over losing retirement health insurance the year before that, the list is long of the things the employees call, write, email about. Again, I'm referring not just to my HR experience at spot, but also at Kmart, Walmart, Sears, and Walgreens! This is what is happening at ALL of those places, and MOST employees are NOT at all happy about SO many injustices that exist. Unionizing is truly the ONLY thing that can get back the rights, benefits, fairness for the middle and lower income employees.

My view is this... If unions were so great, then every company would be unionized, and if they were really that terrible they wouldn't exist anymore! Obviously they have a purpose, but if it was a guarantee as a positive or a negative outcome, they wouldn't be around in only some areas! If I had to guess (obviously just a guess I am no expert), I would say that Target isn't lying about a lot of what they say about unions! If we were to be unionized and the wages were to increase, Target would be less profitable! Ultimately, I can't expect Target to do anything that would put its longevity at risk, and if EVERYONE was unionized at Target and got more money (remember, we are talking enough of an increase to give every TM a net GAIN after union dues!) then I would have no doubt that would put them at risk! Let's say 200 TMs per store x 4 (3 normal + 1 union due) dollar raise per TM x 25 hours a week per TM x 52 weeks x 1500 stores = BILLION DOLLAR EXPENSE PER YEAR! We aren't even talking about better healtcare and benefits yet either! Ultimately, that kind of cost increase would mean Target would need to cut somewhere else to stay up, and I would rather we just find a way to make it work without a union at that point...

 

[commiecorvus]

Actually, it was from the MET and CRU last week. Can't say as I've seen that documentary. Sounds interesting.

The MET argues with that ...

The Met office has responded to the article as well, calling out Rose on his misrepresentations:

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

The article goes on the show how the math is incredibly screwed up but that's not what this thread is about so no hijack just the linky.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...e-manipulating-graphs-to-hide-global-warming/

 

[melvin]

My view is this... If unions were so great, then every company would be unionized, and if they were really that terrible they wouldn't exist anymore! Obviously they have a purpose, but if it was a guarantee as a positive or a negative outcome, they wouldn't be around in only some areas! If I had to guess (obviously just a guess I am no expert), I would say that Target isn't lying about a lot of what they say about unions! If we were to be unionized and the wages were to increase, Target would be less profitable! Ultimately, I can't expect Target to do anything that would put its longevity at risk, and if EVERYONE was unionized at Target and got more money (remember, we are talking enough of an increase to give every TM a net GAIN after union dues!) then I would have no doubt that would put them at risk! Let's say 200 TMs per store x 4 (3 normal + 1 union due) dollar raise per TM x 25 hours a week per TM x 52 weeks x 1500 stores = BILLION DOLLAR EXPENSE PER YEAR! We aren't even talking about better healtcare and benefits yet either! Ultimately, that kind of cost increase would mean Target would need to cut somewhere else to stay up, and I would rather we just find a way to make it work without a union at that point...

Actually, if corporations were so great, we wouldn't have any unions. My father ran a business that at one point was facing unionization. He hired the best union-busting law firm in the state. The first thing the attorney stated is that the only businesses that face a having a union have done something to deserve a union, whether that be shabby treatment, salaries/wages that are too low or unreasonable work expectations.

If someone stepped forward after one of the myriad examples of shady corporate monkey business and stated that this proved that corporations had served their purpose and were no longer needed, you would think that person is crazy. Yet when someone here notes the faults of unions, comments along the lines of, "Well, unions served a purpose once..." pass by with hardly a word to the contrary. The simple fact is the one thing that truly scares the hell out of our corporate leaders is the prospect of having to negotiate with a union. It's the one form of leverage the little people have over them. And that's why Target and their competitors foist those ridiculous, propagandist videos on their employees.

The day someone can prevent a better mechanism for establishing justice in the workplace, I will be the first to advocate moving in that direction, away from unions. As of yet, I have not heard any that aren't entirely naive in their assumptions.

 

[talan123]

You think Target would create a union for itself.

Yeah, that's right, you heard me. Why can't a company create it's own union? Have it serve as an advisory role along with enforcement of employees rights and duties. Trust issues would arise almost immediately but with the proper touch, it could work.

That way the process could be better monitored and it would be cheaper for the employees as well. Investors would like it because they would see the leaders doing something to prevent a full unionization. It could work in every state. Any dues could pay for itself. The company could even work with the union to help fund expansion and growth (An example of this would be using the fund to grow and the company has to pay it back with interest so the employees could actually get a much bigger bite at the apple while corporate could have a better cash flow). Let the team members vote for their members and send them away once every six months to communicate directly with headquarters on how things are going and that would reduce the amount of inspections for stores.

Nevermind... It makes too much sense.

 

[Rock Lobster]

Actually, if corporations were so great, we wouldn't have any unions. My father ran a business that at one point was facing unionization. He hired the best union-busting law firm in the state. The first thing the attorney stated is that the only businesses that face a having a union have done something to deserve a union, whether that be shabby treatment, salaries/wages that are too low or unreasonable work expectations.

If someone stepped forward after one of the myriad examples of shady corporate monkey business and stated that this proved that corporations had served their purpose and were no longer needed, you would think that person is crazy. Yet when someone here notes the faults of unions, comments along the lines of, "Well, unions served a purpose once..." pass by with hardly a word to the contrary. The simple fact is the one thing that truly scares the hell out of our corporate leaders is the prospect of having to negotiate with a union. It's the one form of leverage the little people have over them. And that's why Target and their competitors foist those ridiculous, propagandist videos on their employees.

The day someone can prevent a better mechanism for establishing justice in the workplace, I will be the first to advocate moving in that direction, away from unions. As of yet, I have not heard any that aren't entirely naive in their assumptions.

That is what I said... If unions were so great, everyone would have them... If corporations were so great, unions wouldn't exist even today... You can't be black and white and say that a union would or would not help Target's situation because there is a gamble with bringing one in... if it were a guarantee we would either be unionized OR nobody would be talking about unionizing... The question is if it is worth the gamble? I don't think so, there is no guarantee the wages would go up, and then you would be just making less because of union dues! If its worth the gamble, then form a union I guess...

 

[Miguel]

Let me spell this out for the "non-believers" one last time, I'm going to be straightforward and clear as a bell. I have worked in manmy different HR and other classified access positions at ALL the major retailers of the country, and for several other Big Businesses and Corporations too. EVERY retailer FORCES their employees to watch ANTI-union videos? That IN and OF itself says VOLUMES! Secondly, I have had access to Top Secret and Confidential documents that instruct ALL members of HR, Supervisors, and Managers to STOMP OUT ANYYYYYYYYYYYYYY signs to even ATTEMPT to unionize! THAT is why I am SOOOOO Passionate about this topic! Wow Rock Lobster, My Gosh, you are inventing the WORST possible scenario exaggeration preying on people's FEARS to make those claims and comments you have, Wow! I mean to distort and exaggerate the story you concocted about Unions ALL in the name to KEEP the poor and LOW income DOWN, it's absolutely unbelieveable! No offense, but Wow did you COMPLETELY throw scare tactics and worst case scenarios ALL over the place with that story you envisionied!

My view is this... If unions were so great, then every company would be unionized, and if they were really that terrible they wouldn't exist anymore! Obviously they have a purpose, but if it was a guarantee as a positive or a negative outcome, they wouldn't be around in only some areas! If I had to guess (obviously just a guess I am no expert), I would say that Target isn't lying about a lot of what they say about unions! If we were to be unionized and the wages were to increase, Target would be less profitable! Ultimately, I can't expect Target to do anything that would put its longevity at risk, and if EVERYONE was unionized at Target and got more money (remember, we are talking enough of an increase to give every TM a net GAIN after union dues!) then I would have no doubt that would put them at risk! Let's say 200 TMs per store x 4 (3 normal + 1 union due) dollar raise per TM x 25 hours a week per TM x 52 weeks x 1500 stores = BILLION DOLLAR EXPENSE PER YEAR! We aren't even talking about better healtcare and benefits yet either! Ultimately, that kind of cost increase would mean Target would need to cut somewhere else to stay up, and I would rather we just find a way to make it work without a union at that point...

 

[Miguel]

You must be a Republican yourself to make such a statement, ALL of the SCIENTIFIC community is at 100% AGREEMENT that Global Warming NOT only EXISTS, but that it's DESTROYING our planet!!!!

By the way, it's comments like yours that the Republicans say AGAINST admitting Global Warming, when we all KNOW it exists.

Odd that. The Brits are now stating that there hasn't been any Global Warming since 1997. So it seems the things you KNOW are not exactly true.

 

[Miguel]

Very well said melvin! Brilliant! I agree 100%! =)

actually, if corporations were so great, we wouldn't have any unions. My father ran a business that at one point was facing unionization. He hired the best union-busting law firm in the state. The first thing the attorney stated is that the only businesses that face a having a union have done something to deserve a union, whether that be shabby treatment, salaries/wages that are too low or unreasonable work expectations.

If someone stepped forward after one of the myriad examples of shady corporate monkey business and stated that this proved that corporations had served their purpose and were no longer needed, you would think that person is crazy. Yet when someone here notes the faults of unions, comments along the lines of, "well, unions served a purpose once..." pass by with hardly a word to the contrary. The simple fact is the one thing that truly scares the hell out of our corporate leaders is the prospect of having to negotiate with a union. It's the one form of leverage the little people have over them. And that's why target and their competitors foist those ridiculous, propagandist videos on their employees.

The day someone can prevent a better mechanism for establishing justice in the workplace, i will be the first to advocate moving in that direction, away from unions. As of yet, i have not heard any that aren't entirely naive in their assumptions.

 

[Miguel]

INCREDIBLE IDEA TALAN! I LOVE IT! THAT is INGENUITY! =)

You think Target would create a union for itself.

Yeah, that's right, you heard me. Why can't a company create it's own union? Have it serve as an advisory role along with enforcement of employees rights and duties. Trust issues would arise almost immediately but with the proper touch, it could work.

That way the process could be better monitored and it would be cheaper for the employees as well. Investors would like it because they would see the leaders doing something to prevent a full unionization. It could work in every state. Any dues could pay for itself. The company could even work with the union to help fund expansion and growth (An example of this would be using the fund to grow and the company has to pay it back with interest so the employees could actually get a much bigger bite at the apple while corporate could have a better cash flow). Let the team members vote for their members and send them away once every six months to communicate directly with headquarters on how things are going and that would reduce the amount of inspections for stores.

Nevermind... It makes too much sense.

 

[Rock Lobster]

Wow Rock Lobster, My Gosh, you are inventing the WORST possible scenario exaggeration preying on people's FEARS to make those claims and comments you have, Wow! I mean to distort and exaggerate the story you concocted about Unions ALL in the name to KEEP the poor and LOW income DOWN, it's absolutely unbelieveable! No offense, but Wow did you COMPLETELY throw scare tactics and worst case scenarios ALL over the place with that story you envisionied!

First of all, like I said you are basing your argument in absolutes... A union cannot guarantee to the team that they will get every single person a livable wage, better benefits etc! If it was a guarantee then we would have unions already, its a gamble. The "scare tactic and worst case scenario" I pointed out isn't even union related! You said that Target needs to provide a livable wage to all its employees and everyone should be making 10-12 dollars an hour... If they gave everyone (on average) 3 more dollars an hour which is the amount you are suggesting, that is a rough estimation I gave of what it would cost Target! We aren't talking about anything else that a union would enforce either such as benefits (and honestly healthcare is a process that nobody is fixing in our country right now, and is best left to government to determine)! You are suggesting Target increase its COSTS by a multi billion dollar amount every year! Whether a union is involved or not in that decision doesn't matter.

I'll ultimately give you this... if EVERY retailer would have a union, I could see this working but ultimately this would be an extra expense on Target that would make it less competitive! The added cost this would add to Target would hurt it in the long run, payroll would go down (a union can't force Target to give its stores a ton of payroll for everyone), and you may make more an hour but you wouldn't get as many hours a week unless you had been around the longest! Our prices would go up, and we would lose business...

 

[Rarejem]

You think Target would create a union for itself.

Yeah, that's right, you heard me. Why can't a company create it's own union? Have it serve as an advisory role along with enforcement of employees rights and duties. Trust issues would arise almost immediately but with the proper touch, it could work.

That way the process could be better monitored and it would be cheaper for the employees as well. Investors would like it because they would see the leaders doing something to prevent a full unionization. It could work in every state. Any dues could pay for itself. The company could even work with the union to help fund expansion and growth (An example of this would be using the fund to grow and the company has to pay it back with interest so the employees could actually get a much bigger bite at the apple while corporate could have a better cash flow). Let the team members vote for their members and send them away once every six months to communicate directly with headquarters on how things are going and that would reduce the amount of inspections for stores.

Nevermind... It makes too much sense.

Sounds a little scary to me. Target already has its own bank, its own credit union, its own health clinics, its own little Bullseye shop for tms to purchase clothing. Next thing you know they'll be building little tract houses on the land surrounding the stores to house the tm's. Then we could all live and shop in our own little Targetland and visit our friends while we stand in line waiting for our paychecks to be handed out by the Boss. Sounds a lot like "the company store" back in the 30's!

 

[commiecorvus]

From the great Tennessee Ernie Ford:

Some people say a man is made outta mud.
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood.
Muscle and blood, skin and bones;
A mind that's weak and a back that's strong.

You load sixteen tons an' what do you get?
Another day older deeper and debt.
St Peter don't you call me I cause can't go:
I owe my soul to the company store.

Well, I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine.
I picked up a shovel, Iwalked out to the mine.
I loaded sixteen tons of Number 9 coal,
An' the store boss said: "Well, bless my soul."

You load sixteen tons an' what do you get?
Another day older deeper and debt.
St Peter don't you call me I cause can't go:
I owe my soul to the company store.

 

[hatemyjob]

Miguel - I wouldn't waste anymore time trying to advocate for unions here. Apparently some people are happy with $15k per year, which is pretty good money...in 1980.

Target can afford to pay an unskilled warehouse worker $45k a year to throw boxes on a conveyor belt, but to pay a store TM more than $9/hour would put the company out of business.

 

[melvin]

Miguel - I wouldn't waste anymore time trying to advocate for unions here. Apparently some people are happy with $15k per year, which is pretty good money...in 1980.

Target can afford to pay an unskilled warehouse worker $45k a year to throw boxes on a conveyor belt, but to pay a store TM more than $9/hour would put the company out of business.

I don't think they're happy. I think they've bought into propaganda without giving it much thought.

 

[melvin]

What do you think the minimum wage should be then?

You keep comparing anything under $40k to poverty levels. I really don't think we need the minimum wage to be over $19/hour, which it would have to be just for the gross income to reach $40k.

I don't think you must give a specific number to have a valid point. If someone here complains that their taxes are too high, does it invalidate their case if they don't throw out a specific number?

But let me be specific. Let's take retail and use a department manager/team leader of a department that has $800,000 in sales annually. Is it unreasonable to pay that manager/team leader $60 k per year? I don't think so. In fact, that seems rather low, given the responsibility.

In anticipation of the "that's what the free market dictates" argument, fine, but then let the free market of hiring and salaries/wages apply to all within the company. It does not when it comes to CEOs and upper management. If the free market of hiring were applied to the upper levels, we would mostly have management from countries like India and Taiwan who will be younger, generally have higher intelligence quotients, better educations and who will work for less than the retread white meat. Of course, it doesn't generally that way. Quite similar to the "tightening of the belts" that the workers are told they must endure while that same white meat at the top gets to poke a new hole in the belt to let it out a tad.

 

[commiecorvus]

The problem is that Spot has bought into the idea that the only business model is Walmarts.
Sure they've tried to tailor it to a more upscale look but the underpinnings of cutting the TM's hours down to the bone, taking away as much of the benefits as possible, and giving only the bare minimum in terms of raises is certainly there.
Part of the benefits package I got had a flyer in it with the numbers for Medicaid in case I couldn't afford the godawful "health care" they were offering.
Nice to know that the taxpayers are going to be supporting Spot and making sure that it's employee's kids can see a doctor.

Do I have a better approach in my hip pocket?
One that will keep Target in the black and competitive, give the TM's a living wage and decent health care or even steady hours?
Not right now but I'm not being paid the big bucks.
I'd be happy to sit down as part of an organized group representing the workers to help work out a plan though.
How about it Spot, you game?
For that matter I can think of some people on this board who are way smarter than I am who probably would be able to come up with some great ideas.
Lets do this.
You could advertise how well you take care of your people, you wouldn't loose good employees, talented people would fight to work for you, and your signs about how much you help the community would actually be true.

 

[itvgeo]

Unions do not guarantee hours. One time I overheard a Safeway (unionized grocery store) employee complaining he's only getting 25 hours a week. Also, I know of at least two employees who work at Target and at a unionized Kroger grocery market. If they were getting good hours at this Kroger store, why will they be working at Target?

 

[Rarejem]

The problem is that Spot has bought into the idea that the only business model is Walmarts.
Sure they've tried to tailor it to a more upscale look but the underpinnings of cutting the TM's hours down to the bone, taking away as much of the benefits as possible, and giving only the bare minimum in terms of raises is certainly there.
Part of the benefits package I got had a flyer in it with the numbers for Medicaid in case I couldn't afford the godawful "health care" they were offering.
Nice to know that the taxpayers are going to be supporting Spot and making sure that it's employee's kids can see a doctor.

Do I have a better approach in my hip pocket?
One that will keep Target in the black and competitive, give the TM's a living wage and decent health care or even steady hours?
Not right now but I'm not being paid the big bucks.
I'd be happy to sit down as part of an organized group representing the workers to help work out a plan though.
How about it Spot, you game?
For that matter I can think of some people on this board who are way smarter than I am who probably would be able to come up with some great ideas.
Lets do this.
You could advertise how well you take care of your people, you wouldn't loose good employees, talented people would fight to work for you, and your signs about how much you help the community would actually be true.

LOVE the challenge! Wouldn't it be awesome if they would actually do this? I'm afraid it would never happen though. The DTL and other "lower-upper" management don't even stop to talk to tm's on their visits to find out how things are going or call a few in each time to pick their brains as to what's really happening out on the floor. Real upper management? I don't see it happening unless it's with a handful of Minnesotans.

 

[naterstx]

I don't think you must give a specific number to have a valid point. If someone here complains that their taxes are too high, does it invalidate their case if they don't throw out a specific number?

But let me be specific. Let's take retail and use a department manager/team leader of a department that has $800,000 in sales annually. Is it unreasonable to pay that manager/team leader $60 k per year? I don't think so. In fact, that seems rather low, given the responsibility.

In anticipation of the "that's what the free market dictates" argument, fine, but then let the free market of hiring and salaries/wages apply to all within the company. It does not when it comes to CEOs and upper management. If the free market of hiring were applied to the upper levels, we would mostly have management from countries like India and Taiwan who will be younger, generally have higher intelligence quotients, better educations and who will work for less than the retread white meat. Of course, it doesn't generally that way. Quite similar to the "tightening of the belts" that the workers are told they must endure while that same white meat at the top gets to poke a new hole in the belt to let it out a tad.

That depends on a multitude of things, not the least of which is profit. Sales numbers are relevant, profit margin is moreso.

 

[melvin]

That depends on a multitude of things, not the least of which is profit. Sales numbers are relevant, profit margin is moreso.

Yes, gross profit margins can be relevant. Many times, though, your margins are directly affected by factors beyond the control of the manager/team leader. And, indeed, so can sales. The point is that if someone is given responsibility over a department generating hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year, one can justifiably expect to be paid a wage that places them within middle class income levels of this country. Just as I agree that the person given the responsibility for guiding a multi-million dollar corporation should be compensated at a higher level. And, for both, I agree that if they are not meeting reasonable goals for profitability and sales, they should be replaced.

 

[nib]

The point of this discussion isn't that Unions are "perfect" it's that they are much better than without having one. And while some Unions may only achieve 25 hours a week at some times we all know that some employees outside of unions can be knocked all the way down to 10 hours or less a week! There have been several very convincing arguments on here about why unions are good things, maybe read some of those posts.

Unions do not guarantee hours. One time I overheard a Safeway (unionized grocery store) employee complaining he's only getting 25 hours a week. Also, I know of at least two employees who work at Target and at a unionized Kroger grocery market. If they were getting good hours at this Kroger store, why will they be working at Target?