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 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.
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.