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.
Does it sound like I’m mad at them? I’m trying to sound like I’m suspicious of them doing the softest union busting corporations can do, which means they’re being among the nicest of the bunch. I’m also saying that if people (those who work for them and those who wish to work for them, and those who ask for higher wages by comparing to them) want the nice to continue, they better not get complacent and deunionize. I think learning to recognize anti-union tactics, no matter how nice is essential to keeping good wages long term.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Does it sound like I’m mad at them? I’m trying to sound like I’m suspicious of them doing the softest union busting corporations can do, which means they’re being among the nicest of the bunch. I’m also saying that if people (those who work for them and those who wish to work for them, and those who ask for higher wages by comparing to them) want the nice to continue, they better not get complacent and deunionize. I think learning to recognize anti-union tactics, no matter how nice is essential to keeping good wages long term.
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.
He fired the head of the NLRB. Our unions are in great peril. I’m thinking it might be time to buy some red handkerchiefs.
Profit growth, not merely profit. 📈