I have a feeling this is some anti union move, given it’s happening during negotiations with the Teamsters. Perhaps it’s a smaller increase than what the union members want, meant to weaken their resolve?
Everything is cool right now for them because they got good management. But at some point, some MBA grad gets elected to lead and drain Costco out of all good will.
Oh yeah, that’s a big one. I hope they’re learning some theory so they are able to do the right restructuring. A hand picked leader could work, transferring ownership to Valve’s employees and reforming it as a worker co-op along with that would be more resilient.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not so I’m gonna say it - yes offering higher wages to obsolete a union is literally a strategy to get rid of the union. It’s just the least reprehensible strategy. Once the union’s gone, the pay increases can get less steep or disappear altogether. If there’s nothing for workers to hold over the firm’s head and the labor market in their sector isn’t tight (it isn’t) then the firm sets the wages.
If I’ve learned anything about corporations over the last few years it’s that nothing stops them from seeking profit growth and the long term trend is that anything is fair game, even previously great employee compensation. There might be people in Costco’s exec/shareholder layer who are ideologically driven to pay workers well. They aren’t going to stay there forever. If you want to glean at how things are likely to change, just look at how most other firms are operated. Chances are the next exec layer would come from there.
Yeah, was gonna say, this is 100% Anti-Union Tactics 101. Literally get warned about this kind of stuff while organizing and there’s a history of it dating back to the beginnings of labor organizing.
The trap is laid out thusly: promise unionizing workers a pay rise without a collective bargaining contact. The workers reject unionization because the wages are “fair.” A year to two years later, after all talk of unionization has died down and they’ve had a chance to fire or layoff the organizers, the company will then walk back all wage hikes citing “needed” cost cutting measures and the workers get screwed.
Remember folks, you have a right to collectively bargain and unionize (at least right now; who knows what Trump and this SCOTUS might do over the next four years)… without a legally binding labor contract, every benefit and every red cent of your pay is at the whim of the company (and lobbyist addicted politicians). Companies only have one directive: profit. They’ll do anything (including taking a wash on twelve to eighteen months of wage hikes) to ensure profits. Do not ever forget that united we bargain, divided we beg.
I have a feeling this is some anti union move, given it’s happening during negotiations with the Teamsters. Perhaps it’s a smaller increase than what the union members want, meant to weaken their resolve?
Costco is one of the most pro worker employers in the US
Until they’re not.
Everything is cool right now for them because they got good management. But at some point, some MBA grad gets elected to lead and drain Costco out of all good will.
Same with Steam.
Yeah I’m scared of what will happen to steam when Gabe retires. I hope he’s hand picked a really solid successor
Oh yeah, that’s a big one. I hope they’re learning some theory so they are able to do the right restructuring. A hand picked leader could work, transferring ownership to Valve’s employees and reforming it as a worker co-op along with that would be more resilient.
Right now… it’s “one of the most pro worker employers in the US” right now.
If they have no problem with being such, then they shouldn’t mind a few collectively bargained contacts which ensure they stay that way.
And that’s the thing, from what I read, they’ve been difficult during the ongoing negotiations.
deleted by creator
Bold move, increasing employee salaries to fight unions!
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not so I’m gonna say it - yes offering higher wages to obsolete a union is literally a strategy to get rid of the union. It’s just the least reprehensible strategy. Once the union’s gone, the pay increases can get less steep or disappear altogether. If there’s nothing for workers to hold over the firm’s head and the labor market in their sector isn’t tight (it isn’t) then the firm sets the wages.
If I’ve learned anything about corporations over the last few years it’s that nothing stops them from seeking profit growth and the long term trend is that anything is fair game, even previously great employee compensation. There might be people in Costco’s exec/shareholder layer who are ideologically driven to pay workers well. They aren’t going to stay there forever. If you want to glean at how things are likely to change, just look at how most other firms are operated. Chances are the next exec layer would come from there.
Yeah, was gonna say, this is 100% Anti-Union Tactics 101. Literally get warned about this kind of stuff while organizing and there’s a history of it dating back to the beginnings of labor organizing.
The trap is laid out thusly: promise unionizing workers a pay rise without a collective bargaining contact. The workers reject unionization because the wages are “fair.” A year to two years later, after all talk of unionization has died down and they’ve had a chance to fire or layoff the organizers, the company will then walk back all wage hikes citing “needed” cost cutting measures and the workers get screwed.
Remember folks, you have a right to collectively bargain and unionize (at least right now; who knows what Trump and this SCOTUS might do over the next four years)… without a legally binding labor contract, every benefit and every red cent of your pay is at the whim of the company (and lobbyist addicted politicians). Companies only have one directive: profit. They’ll do anything (including taking a wash on twelve to eighteen months of wage hikes) to ensure profits. Do not ever forget that united we bargain, divided we beg.
Profit growth, not merely profit. 📈