What could be a bigger social justice issue than paying working class people proper wages and benefits? It just screams out to me how hollow and PR driven their support of social justice organizations and initiatives is. And more importantly, the silence from these same social justice initiatives is deafening.

I strongly suspect that paying working class employees more money would have a far higher positive impact on black communities than donating money to activist organizations.

Compared to Walmart, Target is absolutely abysmal on many fronts. The amount of wasted fuel caused by their horrifically inept logistics makes Walmart look like the Sierra Club. And they were the model for substituting low-impact inclusion messaging in place of actually treating workers decently.

I live near Boulder, Colorado, and it was infuriating seeing friends of mine protesting and proudly stopping the construction of a Walmart, while happily shopping at Target and Amazon. People are absolute lemmings when it comes to "feel-good" activism. Hearing my rather hippyish and moralistic friend talk about "Walmart destroys small businesses" while noticing the pile of Amazon packages at her door is absolutely infuriating.

1. Prices are slightly higher that Walmart, which keeps away the most budget conscious shoppers (ie, couponers & low-income people will go to walmart to stretch their money). Because lower-class shoppers are less visible at Target, middle-class shoppers flock to it, and even non-middle class people who can swing it may prefer it because it confers higher social status. (This is also why the common nickname for Target is "Tar - Jhey", aka, "Target" with a fake french accent to mock the aspirational bougieness of the brand).

2. Target has fairly aggressive policies about how long customers should have to wait in line (if there's more than 3 people waiting, the manager is supposed to call a sales floor person up to assist) + a policy on how long checkouts should take to complete (they actually give the cashier a pass/fail score that everyone can see after each checkout, and if the average is too low, it's grounds for dismissal). For the customer, this does mean a faster checkout. For the employees - it means more work interruptions and ultimately more work to do at closing.

3. Target doesn't even attempt to provide certain products and services that are culturally associated with rural/poor America. They don't sell guns, they don't cash checks, they don't have gardening centers.

Walmart will have one cashier at the special register line where they sell cigarettes, during the dinnertime rush when there are 30 people up front wanting to check out.

Then there will be somebody telling you that if you don't need cigarettes, go wait in the massive line at self checkout.

I don't mind paying a couple percent more for goods if they are paying cashiers with that cash so I can go home sooner.

If those same couple bucks are what is keeping the store and parking lot less crowded... I'll take it. Walmart is a hellhole over here.

I suppose this explains why my orders from target.com always seem to come in an absurd number of separately shipped boxes. Once I ordered a small set of nonperishable grocery items and they were delivered in maybe 7 boxes - including one toasted sized box that held only a single can of tomato paste and an air pillow. It seems to me like they must lose money on many orders.

1. Walmart provides as much data as possible to it's suppliers, and expects the suppliers to use this data to then advise Walmart on projected sales and inventory in a collaborative manner. Target, on the other hand, has a data feed for it's suppliers, which is VASTLY inferior, unreliable, and the data isn't nearly as complete. A few years ago, they switched this feed from one system to another, and didn't think it was a big deal that the new system barely worked. This made the suppliers/CPG companies I advised scramble and have extreme difficulty in planning. The buyer teams at Target didn't care, and still expected the suppliers to do the same analysis.

2. Walmart has a religion of keeping items in stock and on the shelves. It's not easy to achieve, and they drop the ball at many stores on this, but it's CLEARLY not a priority at Target. They just don't have logistics as a core focus there, and it shows. My wife's experience of expecting a core item that was on the shelf last week at Target to be out of stock is typical.

3. Hearing trucking companies describe what it's like to ship goods to Target vs. WM is sad. Truckers charge extra for Target because they frequently find themselves waiting hours, sometimes days, at Target distribution centers to get their cargo offloaded. This NEVER happens at Walmart DCs. When trucking companies negotiate contracts with Target, this is something they have to "bake in". It's horrible when you hear stories from mom and pop truckers who get suckered into doing business with Target.

4. Target coporate vs. Walmart corporate: Walmart corporate has a shocking number of very high ranking executives (often in their 30s) who never went to college and worked their way up from working in stores. Bentonville, Arkansas is filled with these folks. They have a real "gut level" understanding of the stores/DCs and this is probably the only reason Walmart hasn't collapsed into gross mismanagement. Their worst executives have always been external hires. At Target, it's rare to see people who worked their way up internally in high-ranking roles. Much more typical corporate environment there.

Well, wrote a novel anyway. But yeah, that sums it up.

> Data collected in the heat map suggest that stores with low racial and ethnic diversity, especially those located in poor communities, are more likely to unionize.

Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.

I don't understand how this situation could come to be. What if there were no employers? That situation can only occur if there are enough jobs to maintain gainful employment of every citizen of the state. In such a situation I would likely only remain around as long as there was work willing to pay me what I need to maintain a lifestyle to which I was attracted.

I left Kamloops, BC in 2001 because the only jobs available there sucked (in my eyes). I was frowned upon as a snob because I turned down 3 union jobs which appeared to be the pinnacle of success in Kamloops at the time. I couldn't understand why that seemed to be the height of ambition there. I moved to Vancouver Island in the hope of better. I loved it there, but I left there in 2004, because again the only jobs available had shit pay and I couldn't afford any kind of enjoyable lifestyle. Now I live outside Toronto and enjoy a much more financially comfortable lifestyle... at the cost of an almost complete lack of scenery admittedly. I've never been one to stick around when the economic situation wasn't viable. I couldn't see myself sticking around in a "right to work" state if that's what it meant. I don't really see how it would change my opinion either.

It’s Doublespeak. It’s a union-busting law. Effectively, it means the opposite — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

There's debate over what the impact of "right to work" is, and of course, what role unions should play.

Another term that might interest you is "at will employment". This one means that your employer can fire you at any time for any reason that isn't illegal; and, you can leave your employer at any time for any reason that isn't illegal. This one is also argued intensely as to whether it is more favorable to the employer, employee, or neither.

> Right-to-work means that you can work in a union trade without joining the union. Otherwise you have to join and pay the union to work in your profession. Why should you have to pay to work as a <insert profession here>? Support right-to-work!

That's how I often see it sold. In the end, it means unions get weaker in industries that need them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#Arguments_fo...

“In the context of U.S. labor politics, "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which force employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.”

So, in such states, the (union, employer) combo cannot force every employee to pay the union (employees can choose not to become a member, but still would have to pay them)

I don’t understand how that fits in the story, though. I guess the OP meant “at will”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment): “In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal.”

Honestly, I'd say you're being more hyperbolic and misleading. At-will employment is "just an anti-slavery law?" I'm pretty sure that was already illegal before these laws, and at-will employment wasn't the mechanism for its abolition.

My understanding is that the actual effect of at-will employment laws wasn't to free employees from jobs they didn't want, but to make their positions more precarious (e.g. previously employers had to give a good reason for termination or it was invalid, or at least give notice).

It's the opposite! It means you can be fired for any reason whatsoever.

Genuine question, because I don't understand the issue. If they want to join a union and pay the associated fees, they are welcome to. If they just wanna work a job without joining a union and paying their fees, they can do that as well. How is it a bad thing, unless you consider forcing those employees who don't care about unions to still contribute fees a good thing?

"Right to work" is literally the right to work for any employer who will have you regardless of whether you're in a union or not in a union.

You should question where you got the misleading definition of "right to work" and cui bono? by feeding you that misinformation.

The definition of US gun laws isn't "you can have most semi-auto rifles unless you've gone to jail, you live in California and the rifle looks scary, or the barrel is too short", but it's probably how someone would explain the practical outcome.

Does Amazon really see unionization as an existential threat? Surely at some point, a company as large as Amazon or Walmart can handle a worker's union.

What other perceived "existential threats" are they handling with these kinds of tactics, that we just don't know about because it's not as public?

(Disclaimer: I benefit substantially off of Walmart's continued ability to make money.)

Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.

Look, here’s how it goes:

1) you have no job

2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money

3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive

4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job

Understand?

This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.

Searching for a job that is _mechanically better_ (think office job versus min-wage retail) is significantly more challenging than finding a min-wage job. For example, most salaried or otherwise higher paying jobs require multiple rounds of interviews while many min-wage jobs will hire you on the spot to fill a staff position.

You're saying they should keep the Walmart job and get rid of the other, and spend the time freed up searching for one that's full time and paid enough to replace both, right? But if you can't support yourself and your dependants on the Walmart job alone, then that's risky.

It's just shy of full-time (to withhold benefits), but not exactly the same thing as a side gig. And you're bent over a barrel.

This is the core issue. Would a federal level solution work? Maybe then people won't feel like the only solution is to form a union.