Alan Murray writes that Wake-Up Wal-Mart is not to be ignored:
Shrugging off "Wake-Up Wal-Mart" would be a mistake, for two reasons. First, the breakup of organized labor may have a rejuvenating effect on unions like the UFCW, which will need to show success. Just as competition sharpens the focus of business, it is likely to do the same for labor.Second, the new campaign marks a sharp change in strategy for organized labor -- one that could increase its effectiveness. The unions have been losing on the shop floor for decades, and in recent years, their political clout has waned as well. Now they are borrowing a page from media-and-Internet-savvy groups that have scored surprising David-and-Goliath successes by attacking companies where they are most vulnerable: their public reputations. Whether it is Greenpeace going after the oil companies, Médecins Sans Frontières targeting pharmaceutical companies or the Rainforest Action Network banging on big banks, these scrappy "nongovernmental organizations" have shown that big, global corporations will go to surprising lengths to keep their images clean. The unions hope Wal-Mart will do the same.
Posted by Kevin on August, 10 2005 at 12:19 AM
Steve Lee wrote:Why have unions been able to organize only one of thousands(!) of stores? Is WUW-M a National campaign? They have been a success at organizing highly educated workers: city employees, fire and police, nurses and teachers. Why not with people who have less formal learning?
If the INet organising method is used will it be effective with employees whose only contact with computers is the training sessions (CBL) in the stores?
-- August 10, 2005 02:32 PM ∞
Brandon Berg wrote:They have been a success at organizing highly educated workers...
That's a cute way of spinning it. Unions haven't been successful at organizing scientists or engineers, who are as educated or more so than people in any of the professions you listed.
The real common thread among the professions that you listed is that they all work for organizations sheltered from competition.
-- August 10, 2005 10:04 PM ∞
Steve Lee wrote:I didn't mention the University of California Professional and Technical Employees, AIDS and cancer researchers, because there are only 10,000 of them. They are "sheltered from competition" because the "for profit" majority of organizations in our economic sytem generally do not provide these services (on the scale that is required by the magnitude of our population.)
What I was looking at was the unlimited supply of workers for W-M to chose employees from and perhaps that what unions have done in the past won't work in these circumstances.
-- August 11, 2005 02:21 PM ∞
Roy W. Wright wrote:...the "for profit" majority of organizations in our economic sytem generally do not provide these services (on the scale that is required by the magnitude of our population.)
You should probably examine your definition of "required."
-- August 12, 2005 01:23 AM ∞
Brandon Berg wrote:So...basically, you concede my point: That it's much more accurate to say that unions have been successful at organizing workers in fields where they are shielded from non-union competition than that they've been successful at organizing highly educated workers.
And since when are police officers and firemen "highly educated" as a rule? Is there any department in the country that requires more than a high school diploma and 6-12 months of training?
-- August 13, 2005 12:10 AM ∞
jon wrote:Or could it be that Unions cannot guarantee anything? If Wal-mart workers organized in a union...the store would close. Canada anyone?(the only organized store that closed if i recall right) Retail profit margins are so low that really what benefits are offered as well as wages is the best that can be expected! Wal-mart paid out 4.2billion in benefits last year with roughly 9bil profits...there are investors..the backbone of any public company that want results..up the wages, profits plummet...investors look elsewhere..prices go up to compensate,people stop shopping, employees lose their jobs..its a delicate balance.
-- August 26, 2005 10:15 AM ∞
