Target and Unions

[BillyGr]

I mean any job. Let's say I go to work for Starbucks for 5 years. Then I am done with that and I decide okay now I want to go work in a hotel. Then after 5 years I am tired of the hotel and I say okay now I want to go work in the road construction industry turning around the "stop" and "slow" sign at the side of the road. I'd like to see a benefit program that would basically take payroll deductions to me at every one of those jobs that I could move around with, and have consistent benefits. Like I said- basically like a union, but not tying me to a specific employer or specific industry.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the best way of implementing that would simply be to provide benefits like health care and retirement through the government rather than through employers. This would also promote competition in the labor market because switching jobs wouldn't mean having to find a new doctor or moving your retirement savings to a new fund. But this won't happen, because Americans don't trust the government, apparently they trust their employers more.

You wouldn't have to change doctors, just give the current one your new insurance card.

[HCal]

You wouldn't have to change doctors, just give the current one your new insurance card.

Possibly, but not every doctor is part of the network of every insurance company.

[storewanderer]

You wouldn't have to change doctors, just give the current one your new insurance card.

Possibly, but not every doctor is part of the network of every insurance company.

Doctors, employers, and pharmacies change insurance networks somewhat frequently. Even if you have the same employer you may have to make changes to what providers you use for a variety of reasons.

This is part of how CVS has become so dominant in the pharmacy business. Many people are pushed into using them...

[BillyGr]

You wouldn't have to change doctors, just give the current one your new insurance card.

Possibly, but not every doctor is part of the network of every insurance company.

Doctors, employers, and pharmacies change insurance networks somewhat frequently. Even if you have the same employer you may have to make changes to what providers you use for a variety of reasons.

This is part of how CVS has become so dominant in the pharmacy business. Many people are pushed into using them...

Or you just make a change to what INSURANCE you use and stay with whatever doctor you want to see No reason you need to "start over" with something that could be important just to satisfy someone who cares nothing about your health, just wants to take your money.

[storewanderer]

Or you just make a change to what INSURANCE you use and stay with whatever doctor you want to see No reason you need to "start over" with something that could be important just to satisfy someone who cares nothing about your health, just wants to take your money.

You are correct. And if more people would do that, it would teach the insurance companies that yes, you do need to provide people a choice. People do not want to be forced to go to CVS. People want a choice of some other pharmacy too and if you don't give them that choice they will switch to another insurer. But for many folks insurance is so daunting and intimidating it is easier to just comply and go to CVS. Or they just don't have the time to switch (yet that 30 minute CVS line every month is quite a time eater... when you could go to a low volume grocery store pharmacy with no line).

[HCal]

Or you just make a change to what INSURANCE you use and stay with whatever doctor you want to see No reason you need to "start over" with something that could be important just to satisfy someone who cares nothing about your health, just wants to take your money.

That isn't always possible. You might want to see a certain dermatologist, but if you change your insurance plan to one that includes his office, then that plan doesn't include your opthalmologist. Maybe you find a plan that covers both your doctors, but then it doesn't work with your preferred pharmacy chain.

And then you have to consider the cost. The more flexibility a plan gives you, the more you have to pay.

[ClownLoach]

I have to question how much of this is just media driven where young people think that if they unionize magically corporate is going to be forced to add thousands of labor hours, change standard operating procedures to let the employees do whatever they want to do, and give everyone massive pay increases.

I read a post on another site about a retailer I spent a lot of time at. The company was taken private a couple of years ago and has struggled under increasing debt and has had to lay off many people and cut labor. The employee is very upset about a recent announcement that labor will be cut further after Memorial Day weekend. Apparently they were very transparent to the employees (they can be since they're a private company) and bluntly stated that the stores will not be profitable during Summer vacation season which is why such labor reductions had to be made, and that the company must minimize the losses because of their heavy indebtedness. I know this is the lowest volume time of the year at that company and sales do not improve until Back to School - and I could easily see the stores losing money now that they're paying extra in debt. Yes, bad decisions were clearly made at the executive office by people who are long gone which lead to this, but they're all in the boat now and have to keep it afloat while paddling back to shore where maybe changes can be made to prevent a future money crisis like this next year.

This is where it goes sideways. The employee, after they acknowledged the fact that the company is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY, said that it is just plain unacceptable to put workers through this kind of treatment just because they are not making a profit! She demands that they restore full staffing levels to this dead time of year, that they also give pay raises to everyone, and then states that she has been in contact with a labor union and she wants to unionize her store. If there was a union none of these budget cuts would be necessary. (I guess the union magically adds profits from the sale of fairy dust on the side?)

So let's see if we have this straight... Company literally loses money for the summer quarter (their business is very seasonal in nature). But if they unionize magically the employees are going to get all those summer hours back, plus raises? No, if they all unionized and forced either scenario obviously it would put the entire company out of business.

Somehow these kids must be under the delusion that these companies have secret piles of cash stuffed under the rug in the CEO's office somewhere and if they just bring in a union they're going to vacuum up all that money and give it to the employees.

It just isn't the way things work. (Not to mention the little detail of who pays for the union dues? You, the employee). I think the news media really needs to stop making a union vote amongst 7 baristas and 5 cashiers at Starbucks Store #726492776 a national headline. They're creating the illusion that there is a massive national movement to unionize everything, and that a union will solve every problem in the workplace, when neither is true.

[jamcool]

Ask Detroit how increasing union demands helped the auto industry.
Note to Starsuks barista who demands a union…all you do is make fancy coffee, something a machine can/will do.

[pseudo3d]

So let's see if we have this straight... Company literally loses money for the summer quarter (their business is very seasonal in nature). But if they unionize magically the employees are going to get all those summer hours back, plus raises? No, if they all unionized and forced either scenario obviously it would put the entire company out of business.

This is one of the places where unions get a bad reputation, trying to negotiate another raise when the company is on the ropes. A strike killed Interstate Bakeries (Hostess Brands in its last few years) and the union's insistence at the bargaining table hurt any chance of A&P's chance of survival in its second bankruptcy.

This in turn leads to the idea that the unions had slowly strangled the life out of the company, and such an accusation is very difficult to disprove in the public's mind, even if the reality was a lot more complicated than that. The answer isn't to try to absolve unions of any responsibility for a company's failure but realize that unions need to work with the company, not against it.

[veteran+]

So, let's see.....................................the employees should just roll over (like they always do) and take it because this company is not doing well?

Compromise and sacrifice and get rewarded later? (but before the shareholders and executives).

Yeah.................................riiiiiiiiight.



Unions don't cause companies to fail. Company leadership does. But popular Union narrative is so much more fun to blame.