The real question to ask is: What will stop Woodmans from dropping wages and benefits when the union is gone? The same thing that stops Wal-Mart. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Is it a fair comparison? Sure it is, unless Woodman’s operates outside of conventional business practices OR you don’t believe competition is playing a role here.
And don’t believe the union busters who say competition will force Woodmans to pay higher wages. It’s a completely phony argument. Competition to sell more goods, increase sales and profits overrides all others and will force Woodman to pay less and less for products and employees against an adversary such as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, Woodmans or GM are not in the worker business, unless you haven’t noticed, they’re selling something else. If they can earn more profits by paying less with fewer employees they would. It’s fundamental.
Many in Janesville have predicted that competition from the double-headed Wal-Mart/ Sam’s Club development would have an effect on nearby and long established grocery stores and mom and pop businesses. The latest episode with Woodmans seems to emanate from more and more evidence that its ownership is behind the drive to expel union representation. Together, this could be just the beginning of the clashing fronts evolving into the perfect storm for Janesville’s economy.
JG Excerpt:In the heavily promoted global economy, perhaps American labor unions have it all wrong. Maybe they should be recruiting and representing workers who want to work harder, put in more hours and earn even less without retirement pensions, safety regulations or health benefits. Only then it seems would they get some support from the community and grow in this Wal-martized economy.
For that, Bandemer lays the blame on the family’s patriarch, Phil Woodman, and his “union-busting interloper.” The pair is working hard to rid the Woodman’s stores in Janesville, Beloit and Madison of union representation, Bandemer and others said Thursday at a rally in Janesville.
2 comments:
I do not have any inside information about what is going on within the workforce at Woodman's -just speculation and a lifetime in the labor movement. My first union membership was in the Retail Clerks. That union, which eventually consolidated into the current union, had a habit of punishing younger workers to the benefit of longer seniority members. At that time it was putting a higher union dues burden on the employees making less money and working fewer hours.
The same process is happening today in the UAW. Long term employees are not asked to sacrifice and new workers will be hired at much lower rates. This of course runs counter to what should be a union trademark - shared sacrifice and benefit for the long term betterment of all and solidarity within the union. The UAW is throwing new employees under the bus to protect the status quo for high seniority folks. The fair way would be to share the sacrifice and for the longer term employees to accept wages and benefits more equitable with newer hires. The union can get away with this short term but it threatens the union's very existence long term. Why would autoworkers at a transplant assembly plant join the UAW? They will hire in at a higher level than at GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
My sense, right or wrong, is that this self serving attitude of union leaders is the root cause of what is happening at Woodmans. Unfortunately, the newspaper article shed absolutely no light on whay so many would sign a decertification petition.
I don't know of any business sector, even retail, that pays and treats long-time workers equitable with new hires. It contradicts merit pay and raises based on experience and performance. But that is about to change without unions.
Who needs a union if the union allows the employer to throw a 20 year employee under the bus? So the company could hire two new workers at half the price?
We can't get people to understand the obvious shared sacrifices in paying taxes, but we expect people to understand shared sacrifice by accepting lower wages while EVERTHING is going up?
The bottom line is there has been a war going on against unions since Reagan, and unions have been losing. They are adjusting to the threats of lower wages and no benefits. Some attribute global economic expansion and low unemployment to it.
Despite high gasoline prices, I expect Wal-Mart to do extremely well during this downturn - being that's the only place our wages will allow us to shop.
You know Rich, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to please all of the people all of the time. The alternative to "No unions" offers no chance for equitable pay and treatment.
Post a Comment