Quote:
Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods team up on labor bill
Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:30pm EDT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Starbucks, Costco Wholesale Corp and Whole Foods Market are joining forces to propose alternatives to a bill that makes it easier for workers to unionize but is strongly opposed by U.S. corporations.
The three retail giants said on Saturday they sought a "third way" as big business and labor unions face off over the Employee Free Choice Act, backed by President Barack Obama.
The "card check" legislation would let workers form a union when a majority of employees sign authorization cards. That would change the current practice in which workers usually vote on unionizing, although the bill would leave the election option open for workers to choose.
Passing the bill is a top priority of labor unions, which in November helped Obama win the White House and the Democrats increase their hold on Congress. Unions, which suffered decades of declining membership, argue that elections allow anti-union managers to intimidate and harass employees.
U.S. businesses and investors oppose the legislation, with analysts saying retail names from Wal-Mart to Target would face higher labor costs and greater unionization risks. Wal-Mart said last week it was confident the legislation would be defeated in Congress.
Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods, which invited other corporations, unions and public interest groups to join them, proposed instead that unions be given more access to meet with workers, stricter penalties for labor violations and a guaranteed right to request secret ballots in all circumstances.
"We believe in and trust our employees, which is neither anti-union nor pro-status quo," said Costco CEO James Sinegal.
The three companies will provide more details of their proposals on Sunday.
"Given the severe economic crisis facing America, it is time to avoid the polarization that has occurred on both sides of this issue, and instead, come together to find a productive approach," said Lanny Davis, an attorney with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who was cited in the statement.
(Reporting by Edwin Chan; Editing by Peter Cooney)
|
Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods team up on labor bill | U.S. | Reuters
Basically what we have here is a proposed change to how unions are formed. Currently, employees have to get a majority vote. The new bill wants to see a majority of employees signing authorization cards instead. This ostensibly avoids a vote -- elections can often be affected by managerial bullying or coercion.
So we have three major corporations teaming up to present a "third way," which includes more union access to employees and a guarantee for secret ballots. But a concern of theirs was that unions would increase costs. So is this "third way" merely more union-busting?
- What do you think of the bill?
- How deserving of unions are the employees of Starbucks, Whole Foods, Costco, and even Wal-mart?
- If these corporations get their "third way," does this benefit employees or is this yet another weak position for unions?
The bill would seem necessary if unions indeed have seen declining memberships as a direct result of managerial meddling. I don't know the history in the U.S., so I can't really say much about that.
If there are problems of poor management, employee mistreatment, etc., then a union would seem a last resort. From what I've heard of Wal-mart's labour practices, they should damn well have a union by now.
I'm not pro-union by default. But I am pro-union in certain cases. I believe that a labour force forming a union is a direct result of poor management. Why else would a union be formed? It's not like it's an easy thing to do.