"All my experience shopping at grocery chains in the US and elsewhere has impressed upon me that these workers represent the absolute classic, textbook case for unionization."

Why?

"...an industry that needs a union.."

Why?

"...more union-friendly in the coming years"

Why?

Nothing you said is grounded in any actual analysis or verifiable facts.

I'd argue that undifferentiated skills that require little education make this an industry poorly suited to unions; Even if you unionize you have little chance of success since most workers are easily replaced by scabs or increased automation. Many workers are also kids in school (speaking from experience -- I used to work in a produce department while studying),and so would not join a union regardless due to the temporary nature of their employment. Butchers and bakers may be an exception, but these are the minority compared to checkout workers, stock boys, or produce workers.

So maybe they'd benefit significantly from the fruits of unionization as experienced in more technically complex industries...but they are highly unlikely to receive those fruits.

Speaking from the perspective of working unions (Scandinavia) what makes unions work and be relevant are the protections they enjoy. The unions fought for these protections. Without being able to unionize you can't improve your position as a union either. You have to start somewhere.

So: first: employers can't choose (freely) who to lay off. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily.

Second: "proper" union strikes have a very protected status. An employer who would hire scabs would be quickly taken out of business. They'd switfly be blockaded by other unions in sympathy. So for example: a store hiring scabs to replace striking union store workers would quickly find that their trash isn't picked up, that the cleaners don't show up, that no electrician fixes their fridges, and so on (Also: these type of measures are also protected).

Without having these two protections (can't fire, can't hire scabs) unions are very weak compared to employers. I'd argue that with these protections, unions and employers have a pretty equal playing field.

Note also that these protections didn't come free: the employers' share of the deal was that there is no minimum wage and you can't have protected strikes during the agreement periods which are typically 1-3 years. So the strikes will occur at known intervals if negotiations for the next agreement stalls.

First-in-last-out is an objectively terrible way to hire and fire though. As an employee I feel personally invested in the success of the business I work for. I don't want to work with less competent employees because of an arbitrary rule. I want the weaker people to eventually be let go. I do want a safe secure workplace. I don't want people fired on a whim. I want training opportunities to be provided first. I want people's performance to be judged over the whole course of their employment not just the last quarter. But at crunch time I want the less well performing people to be let go rather than just the newest.

EDIT Re-reading this I realised I missed some perspective. A key ingredient related to hiring and firing in the society I want to (and do) live in is that when someone loses their job they have unemployment benefits that cover a significant fraction of their salary. This gives them time to find another job and makes losing your job a much less traumatic event.

As an aside, Let go is such an interesting term. It's such a well accepted piece of corporate doublespeak.

It's like they want to go, and their employer is letting them. They're straining at the leash to be unemployed, and the employer graciously releases them from the burden of their contract.

They're being fired.

I get an uneasy feeling every time I hear it. It twists the situation around, like you said, to make it seem like they are doing a great benefit to the employee.

My all time favorite ridiculous doublespeak is "we reached out to the employee and let them go". I heard that once from a company's pr dept. after firing a worker due to some public scandal.

It’s more like they are dangling over an abyss and the person holding them up lets go.

Fired implies that the employee did something wrong.

Let go is a euphemism for made redundant/laid off. I do agree that it is a euphemism.

In my experience, let go is a euphemism used to avoid saying if they were fired or made redundant.

It honestly reminds me of The Giver. They're being released.

The parent comment does allow for a way to let incompetent people go:

> if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily

That makes it less attractive to fire an employee, but still potentially worth the business' while in some cases. It feels like it's tipping the balance slightly more in favour of the workers, and doesn't inherently seem wrong to me.

First-in-last-out isn't a good solution, it's just one of the bad solutions to the problem of firing replacable workers. The idea is that it's the starting point of negotiation, and the employer has to compensate to go around it, and that added cost to the employer is what gives more security with longer employment. It's important to note that it's very common for employers to still keep newer employees and use the compensation workaround.

Also, some people may not be aware that many countries have plenty of restrictions around layoffs, totally separate from the unions.

For example I work in a non-union company, and if I have children and you have none, you get laid off before I do. Regardless of who's "better" and who's been there longer. That's in Germany; I would assume, say, France and Spain have much stricter rules around layoffs.

> employers can't choose (freely) who to fire. It's first in last out, or if you want to sidestep that, you'll have to compensate the employee quite heavily

Do you mean "lay off"? Employers should be able to fire anyone with cause regardless of when they were hired.

Sorry yes I mean "lay off" (edited). With cause obviously you can fire anyone.

'layed off' means different things in the US versus Europe.

In the US, an employer may 'lay off' as much staff as they want and then hire new people into those positions.

In France, for example, a 'lay off' must close the position and not hire a new body into that role for 12-24 months.

This may be difficult to prove, but the laws exist.

Wow, I actually really like the French policy. It would make employers actually distinguish between a temp position and a full hire up front. Too many small businesses try to optimistically hire in good times, only to suddenly realize a few months later that they would collapse under the new payroll when business is normal.

Yes, and I've been "laid off" before after having compensation discussions with management. The employer dodges a lot of liability they would have if they fired me after asking for a pay raise. But for me the end result was I still lost my job.

I like the 12-24 month waiting period as it would help reduce lay off abuse.

Does Scandanavia suffer from the same stigma as French companies? In the States, working with anyone in France is absolutely terrible because its near impossible to fire anyone and they never work due to labor laws. Do you think Scandanavia still encourages productivity enough? The problem of having workers rights and encouraging productivity seems a fine line to walk

People keep saying things like this, while France remains a technologically advanced society with nuclear powered 200mph trains, chip fabs, aerospace industries etc. Nominal GDP per capita has just overtaken the UK. It's not clear that it produces less work, just less presence in the office.

You mean that the guys who are in front of the praised Germans, largely in front of your English cousins, and rocking the EU average, are “never working due to labor laws”? Your post reeks of crawling xenophobia.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/02/25/french-workers/

When I got a job at the local Stop 'n Shop, union dues were part of the gig.

Why shouldn't Whole Foods workers form a union as well? I remember I was 5 minutes late once at a mom and pop health food store and the boss put up a very public and angry note about the behavior. It was rude and embarrassing. I was probably making $5/hour, if that. I guess the job was easy... but appeasing the very particular clientele was NOT.

You don't need verifiable facts to know that retail and warehouse workers are wage slaves. Thats why unions are needed. Need a verifiable fact? Try living on $10/hr and tell me how that works out for you.

It worked well enough for me when I was younger, though I wasn't living in SF.

younger is the key word there.

Not really. Everyone else who worked their longer, or had more experience elsewhere, got paid more, typically with a different job title.

Another job that was more uniform was in a factory, where I was making roughly $12 / hour. Not only was it unskilled labor, but those jobs were slowly disappearing as lines were being replaced with fully automated systems that only needed a third, at most, of the people to run them. Any effort to raise wages or unionize would merely ensure that the remaining lines were replaced sooner rather than later.

Therein lies the problem with trying to "solve" unskilled work. It's easier to automate, and there's more people capable of doing it. Given that often means that supply exceeds demand, wages are inevitably going to stay low, or the jobs will simply evaporate.

What's wrong with providing low wage entry level jobs for young people? It gives them experience. Rising wages would incentivize employees to stay in low-skill jobs for longer instead of moving to higher-skill-higher-pay jobs and letting other young people get those low skill jobs.

One of your examples, Trader Joe’s, does not have a union and their employees seem to be relatively content.

Smaller stores, less diverse customers, in the upscale area of the city and the company respects their employees. That’s why they are content. Needless to say, they would also benefit from unionization

Just FYI, everyone calls Whole Foods Whole Paycheck.

I disagree. Before today, I'd never heard of this terminology, and I'm next to a WF each workday.

People have a lot of "clever" diminutives for things they don't like for nebulous reasons they can't actually articulate.

It makes me question the thoughts of anyone who consistently uses them in an argument or rant. It feels as if the speaker is more interested in scoring laughs than making any point.

> People have a lot of "clever" diminutives for things they don't like for nebulous reasons they can't actually articulate.

I shop at Whole Foods quite frequently. There isn't some conspiracy or nefarious intent in calling Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck" -- it's usually used amongst Whole Foods shoppers between themselves when they describe their shopping experience (...in my experience)

If it is still tough for you to grasp, I will break it down for you really simply.

Whole Foods sells the same shit you can now find at most any other grocery stores (even Food Lion and Walmart in some markets) at stupid high prices. It's colloquially referred to as "Whole Paycheck" because yes, it is a funny jab at the fact that you spend much more shopping for groceries there than any other grocery store. That's basically the end of the story. I can buy organic milk, eggs, bread, coffee, apples, bananas, some vegetables, and coconut water from Whole Foods and also Kroger (or Harris Teeter in my market) and I will easily spend at least 10 more dollars for those items at Whole Foods.

That's why it's called "Whole Paycheck" -- yes not by "everyone" but by enough people that random internet strangers that never have met before are agreeing that is what it is referred to at times.

I know the superficial reason why it's called that.

It's done in either self-deprecating jest or as an insult.

To consistently use the diminutive rather than the actual name is to signal to others that you are "in" somehow. That you are "the same". Depending on the manner in which you use it, indicates which group you're looking to belong to. Using these terms and also going full alphabet soup, which happens when people talk shop, isn't for the purpose of disseminating information, but to tell people you are informed.

If you want people to understand you, you should be clear and simple.

"Whole Paycheck" isn't a diminutive, perhaps you were thinking of pejorative? Either way, I think you're reading a bit much into it.

Whole Wallet as well.

I agree conditions could be improved, and that we are probably near the peak of anti-union sentiment. I don’t agree unionization will transform these stores. Many grocery store chains are unionized and the jobs are still loathed. I understand the fear is that Amazon will make the job worse than merely loathed and perhaps the status quo union is enough to prevent that. I don’t think a union can change that impression you’re getting when you shop.

> Many grocery store chains are unionized and the jobs are still loathed.

Unions aren't about undoing alienation under Capitalism, they're about making Capitalism survivable for laborers.

That may be, but the person to which I responded said that they can tell people need unions when they shop. They wouldn’t be able to tell if people are making their budgets meet at home, just whether they seem to enjoy their jobs.

[0]: Whole Foods goes by this nickname in California. Because you spend your...

Try their sale items, particularly if you live in an area that already has the Amazon Prime 10% discount on sale items. The sale prices were then usually lower than any other store in the area (SF) where I lived. For people who want specialty items (dietary choices, health conditions, etc.) I haven't really found a better option.

Depending on what you buy, Whole Foods is sometimes cheaper than the “regular” grocery stores. Between sales and the Amazon card we have, it’s kinda silly for us to shop elsewhere.

well you're a software engineer living in California, a fortunate life.

maybe you can help America's wage slaves see how "silly" it is to shop somewhere besides Whole Foods

It’s silly for me to go to Vons and spend more.

Try reading comprehension before you try snark.

One of your examples, Trader Joe’s, does not have a union and their employees seem to be relatively content.

Just because they are content now, doesn't mean they will be in the future. Union is prep for when shit hits the fan.

>> the US is going to become once again more union-friendly in the coming years.

It sometimes surprises people that, as a Libertarian, I applaud workers attempts to unionize. It's really the only way for those who just want to put in an honest days work to combat continually living under a cloud of worry their job/benefits will not be taken from them and given to those with equal skills but who are more desperate to survive.

In a truly free market, individual workers should be allowed and, in some cases, encouraged to organized.

Safeway is unionized. Lucky is unionized. Why not Amazon Whole Foods?