Becoming a Union steward in my store

[Kevin Rudd]

Judging by the TS's posts it seems like they signed a bad contract that let's the company get rid of the older workers without significant legal backlash.

I'm also curious to know exactly what the TS and some of these older workers do. I've worked in a retail/grocery setting. I've done everything from handle the cartrail to cashier to assistant grocery manager. I want to know what job TS feels is not fairly compensated.

TS is a butcher.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

Judging by the TS's posts it seems like they signed a bad contract that let's the company get rid of the older workers without significant legal backlash.

I'm also curious to know exactly what the TS and some of these older workers do. I've worked in a retail/grocery setting. I've done everything from handle the cartrail to cashier to assistant grocery manager. I want to know what job TS feels is not fairly compensated.

TS said they were able to marginalize older workers, give them crap hours so they'd quit, I believe.

It's pretty unreal all you guys laughing about "menial" jobs and how they don't deserve better pay. Why isn't some stockboy who's had years of work stocking shelves more valuable to the bottom line than training new people constantly who keep dropping out and have no incentive to stock shelves and not dick around?

I've gone to Wegman's in the middle of the night for years and always see this one guy with fatigue pants stocking shelves like a maniac. This guy's clearing pallets and Wegman's is one of the highest payers in the Northeast and near the top of the favorite companies to work for list. I go to Walmart late at night too and there's always kids being trained to stock shelves and there's a million of them just limping around waiting out the clock.

Take an even more training intensive job like meat, bakery, even deli. The shittier chains are always begging for these positions. The re-training costs and inefficiency far outweigh the cost of labor and benefits. Walmart right now is learning this lesson the hard way. Fuckin' finally. Costco, Wegman's, Trader Joes, Whole Foods have the same squeeze on trade partners that Walmart dominated for so long. So, what's the difference now? Certain stores are paying their workers better and opening new stores while other stores are destroying their labor and threatening to close stores.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/10/3271221/walmart-downgraded-understaffing/#

 

[MisterT]

TS said they were able to marginalize older workers, give them crap hours so they'd quit, I believe.

It's pretty unreal all you guys laughing about "menial" jobs and how they don't deserve better pay. Why isn't some stockboy who's had years of work stocking shelves more valuable to the bottom line than training new people constantly who keep dropping out and have no incentive to stock shelves and not dick around?

I've gone to Wegman's in the middle of the night for years and always see this one guy with fatigue pants stocking shelves like a maniac. This guy's clearing pallets and Wegman's is one of the highest payers in the Northeast and near the top of the favorite companies to work for list. I go to Walmart late at night too and there's always kids being trained to stock shelves and there's a million of them just limping around waiting out the clock.

Take an even more training intensive job like meat, bakery, even deli. The shittier chains are always begging for these positions. The re-training costs and inefficiency far outweigh the cost of labor and benefits. Walmart right now is learning this lesson the hard way. Fuckin' finally. Costco, Wegman's, Trader Joes, Whole Foods have the same squeeze on trade partners that Walmart dominated for so long. So, what's the difference now? Certain stores are paying their workers better and opening new stores while other stores are destroying their labor and threatening to close stores.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/10/3271221/walmart-downgraded-understaffing/#

I'm well aware of the benefits of keeping long term employees vs constantly training new ones (hence why I said "assuming there's no major adverse impact on the overall business" in my OP).

That being said, you gotta consider the trade-off that occurs when older employees demand unreasonable raises for doing the same job that could be done by newer ones albeit after a certain training period. That's why I'm curious to know what TS thinks is "fairly compensated".

I don't mind giving one of my older employees a raise as long as its not to the point where I'd be better off just hiring a new employee instead.

It's pretty unreal all you guys laughing about "menial" jobs and how they don't deserve better pay. Why isn't some stockboy who's had years of work stocking shelves more valuable to the bottom line than training new people constantly who keep dropping out and have no incentive to stock shelves and not dick around?

Again, what do you think is fair pay for that menial stockboy job? Older employees are more valuable to the bottom line but only to a certain breakeven point. Stocking shelves and putting out pallets is hard. I've done it for years as a student. But it's not something that takes specialized knowledge. All you need is a willing employee with a good attitude and certain amount of training time (things that aren't readily found in new Walmart hires. Seriously, compare the new stockboy at Walmart to the one in ShopRite/Kroger/Publix/Wegman and it's a world of difference. Granted, those stores pay more than Walmart does but they also don't hand out major raises just cause you've been doing simple shit for a long time). At the end of the day it all comes back to what the breakeven point is. If I can keep you around without having you asking for more than you're worth, we're good.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

I'm well aware of the benefits of keeping long term employees vs constantly training new ones (hence why I said "assuming there's no major adverse impact on the overall business" in my OP).

That being said, you gotta consider the trade-off that occurs when older employees demand unreasonable raises for doing the same job that could be done by newer ones albeit after a certain training period. That's why I'm curious to know what TS thinks is "fairly compensated".

I don't mind giving one of my older employees a raise as long as its not to the point where I'd be better off just hiring a new employee instead.




Again, what do you think is fair pay for that menial stockboy job? Older employees are more valuable to the bottom line but only to a certain breakeven point. Stocking shelves and putting out pallets is hard. I've done it for years as a student. But it's not something that takes specialized knowledge. All you need is a willing employee with a good attitude and certain amount of training time (things that aren't readily found in new Walmart hires. Seriously, compare the new stockboy at Walmart to the one in ShopRite/Kroger/Publix/Wegman and it's a world of difference. Granted, those stores pay more than Walmart does but they also don't hand out major raises just cause you've been doing simple shit for a long time). At the end of the day it all comes back to what the breakeven point is. If I can keep you around without having you asking for more than you're worth, we're good.

The old guys who've been there for years aren't stockboys, cashiers, and cart pushers. You're talking assistant managers, all the departmental mini-manager types that never get real promotions. The ones that have to track stock and order, have the butchering, baking skills that take years to develop. Anyway, these are all jobs that did once pay a living wage and give full-time hours for single individuals in most regions of the US and now they don't because most companies see no long-term investment value in anyone under store/grocery/nonperishable manager.

It's fine having turnover in cart pusher, stock boy, cashier world -- you're just going to lose money if you're unable to get that full year to eighteen months out of a kid and have to train three kids to get eighteen months of work. The major problem is having stores understaffed and inefficient because of the turnover in the first and second layers of those who organize the functioning of the store. That is when you lose sales and your stores get the reputation for not having the items people want, not getting the service people want.

Unionization used to protect the career grocery people, keep their hours up and health benefits so they stayed with a store for a decade. In return for that stability and increasing wage the store got an efficient worker who understood sales and stock patterns for that specific store, knew the customers and could clear a pallet quickly and send a milk order.

The latest fad of the computerized ordering for perishables is amazingly terrible at anticipating the needs of any individual store at any time. They're relying on these dumb computers to manage meat, dairy, even bread -- but they're still in there constantly messing with the orders because they're so off. Stuff that can't sit on the shelf for more than a week. It's comical, the belief in these systems, the need they have to replace intelligent full-time workers with a system that is probably still ten years away from being viable.

It's the same in all retail. The need to have a future computer system to replace the years people put in studying store-specific sales patterns as workers assisting customers and making sales. It just shows how inexperienced so many people in management positions are, that they actually buy the idea from corporate that you need to juggle 20 part time workers and constant turnover just to keep full-time labor down. You could have less bodies in the store if you give them full-time work and pay them decent. JC Penny learned the hard way regarding computerizing their labor force/cutting full-time and hasn't come around, Walmart is starting to come around, at least their analysts are.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

I'm well aware of the benefits of keeping long term employees vs constantly training new ones (hence why I said "assuming there's no major adverse impact on the overall business" in my OP).

That being said, you gotta consider the trade-off that occurs when older employees demand unreasonable raises for doing the same job that could be done by newer ones albeit after a certain training period. That's why I'm curious to know what TS thinks is "fairly compensated".

I don't mind giving one of my older employees a raise as long as its not to the point where I'd be better off just hiring a new employee instead.




Again, what do you think is fair pay for that menial stockboy job? Older employees are more valuable to the bottom line but only to a certain breakeven point. Stocking shelves and putting out pallets is hard. I've done it for years as a student. But it's not something that takes specialized knowledge. All you need is a willing employee with a good attitude and certain amount of training time (things that aren't readily found in new Walmart hires. Seriously, compare the new stockboy at Walmart to the one in ShopRite/Kroger/Publix/Wegman and it's a world of difference. Granted, those stores pay more than Walmart does but they also don't hand out major raises just cause you've been doing simple shit for a long time). At the end of the day it all comes back to what the breakeven point is. If I can keep you around without having you asking for more than you're worth, we're good.

The meaning of " worth" is where the problem is. To some ( the WalMarts of the world) a job is only worth whatever amount someone is willing to tolerate the job for. To others worth is a wage the the allows the employer to remain viable , the stakeholders to see a profit and the employee to be happy with their compensation and have incentive to do more than just enough to not get fired , to want to stick around and be productive. Worth is not always automatically the bare minimum that is required to get fill a position. You'd better be ready to deal with high turnover and unreliable employees if you apply this philosophy.

I was at Costco last weekend and noticed that they had a wall with a picture of all the 20+ year employees,there were probably 15 or so just at that location.......ive yet to see one of those in walmart.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Judging by the TS's posts it seems like they signed a bad contract that let's the company get rid of the older workers without significant legal backlash.

I'm also curious to know exactly what the TS and some of these older workers do. I've worked in a retail/grocery setting. I've done everything from handle the cartrail to cashier to assistant grocery manager. I want to know what job TS feels is not fairly compensated.

If someone has devoted years of their life to a firm he/she should be compensated well enough to live comfortably. My uncle was a meat manager at winn dixie. Worked there for almost 20 years, and is one of the hatrdest working people i know. What did the store do in return? Tell him he needed to sell more while cutting the number of hours he had for scheduling workers, and if he couldnt do it, he'd get yelled at like a child. That's exploitation. Unions exist so that workers get treated the way they deserve to be treated as human beings.

 

[MisterT]

If someone has devoted years of their life to a firm he/she should be compensated well enough to live comfortably.

Regardless of the relative value of their job (i.e. a 10 year stockboy has the same entitlement as a 10 year asst manager)? And what exactly do you consider to be "enough to live comfortably"?

My uncle was a meat manager at winn dixie. Worked there for almost 20 years, and is one of the hatrdest working people i know. What did the store do in return? Tell him he needed to sell more while cutting the number of hours he had for scheduling workers, and if he couldnt do it, he'd get yelled at like a child. That's exploitation. Unions exist so that workers get treated the way they deserve to be treated as human beings.

Out of curiosity, what was the case for the other meat managers? Was his performance benchmarked against how well he did against his peers or was is solely compared to the performance targets upper management cooked up?

 

[SODACKER]

It's funny seeing all the great management and substanability advice sherdoggers are giving some of the most successful companies in the world.

If we all banded together and started a grocery store chain how quickly could we be the greatest store ever! Watch out Kroger and Walmart.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Regardless of the relative value of their job (i.e. a 10 year stockboy has the same entitlement as a 10 year asst manager)? And what exactly do you consider to be "enough to live comfortably"?

How many 10-year stockboys are there? Doing manual labor for 10 years though? I'd say someone doing that deserves at least 18.50 an hour.

[Quoute]
Out of curiosity, what was the case for the other meat managers? Was his performance benchmarked against how well he did against his peers or was is solely compared to the performance targets upper management cooked up?[/QUOTE]

The latter

 

[djacobox372]

In a few years half of the current jobs in the grocery industry will be automated. It's already started with the checkers, soon it will be robot stockers, and even automated delivery trucks.

Capitalism fails in the face of automation.

 

[PrettyRicky]

In a few years half of the current jobs in the grocery industry will be automated. It's already started with the checkers, soon it will be robot stockers, and even automated delivery trucks.

Capitalism fails in the face of automation.

Where is the failure? That automation will only lead to lower prices and leave the public with more money to spend on other stuff.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

In a few years half of the current jobs in the grocery industry will be automated. It's already started with the checkers, soon it will be robot stockers, and even automated delivery trucks.

Capitalism fails in the face of automation.

Automation takes the manual lifting out of the equation, it doesn't carry any of the load in terms of problem solving inventories and purchasing patterns. The latest Amazon state of the art aka "fully-automated" facilities still employ a ton of people to operate the machines, organize and send the orders to drivers.

You might imagine a time when machines will be able move inventory from warehouse to front door, but then you're still a chasm of innovation away from when a machine can anticipate a run on snow shovels, rock salt, bottled water due to back to back snow storms during a harsh winter.

Also, at Walmart this past week I attempted to use the automated lanes while the manned lanes were full. Literally no one attempting to use these machines, they'd rather wait in line for whatever reason. So I scan my item, follow the directions and it says I have two of an item. I have to wait two or three minutes for someone to appear and cancel the first order, then I have to repeat the transaction.

So, you have your automatic machines and you still need a cashier or two to oversee the transactions because in the year 20 + 14 automated checkout is still a joke if you have more than a handful of items. Maybe we're retarded, or maybe customers like having person-to-person contact during transactions.

 

[crowded]

Also, at Walmart this past week I attempted to use the automated lanes while the manned lanes were full. Literally no one attempting to use these machines, they'd rather wait in line for whatever reason. So I scan my item, follow the directions and it says I have two of an item. I have to wait two or three minutes for someone to appear and cancel the first order, then I have to repeat the transaction.

So, you have your automatic machines and you still need a cashier or two to oversee the transactions because in the year 20 + 14 automated checkout is still a joke if you have more than a handful of items. Maybe we're retarded, or maybe customers like having person-to-person contact during transactions.

I avoid those things like the plague due to my belief that on average it will take me longer to get through them. The wife has historically taken the other approach. I've never heard her insist that mine was incorrect.

 

[saugeye killah]

I think I burned myself out on this topic the first day of posting was a little too intense.

I have to think about this shit at work all the time so generally I try to avoid thinking about it when I'm home, lest my brain melt completely. I do appreciate the feedback from everyone though, it's honestly good to hear some of your opposing views as well as other angles from a pro labor standpoint.

 

[MicroBrew]

so your employer hates you so in order to fuel that hate you want to take up a non paid union steward role in order to cause them more grief?

I don't see what could possibly go wrong with that idea. Go for it!!

His employer alreadly has it in for him because he is on an older contract, so as far as he is concerned what benefit is he going to see by not taking the Steward position?

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

You should go for it, TS.

I've seen your other thread and you obviously have beef with management so you might as well take this union position and learn as much as you can. See what comes of it. And I'm not generally a "union guy."

Good luck.

 

[RSmith47]

Go for it. You're working at a company with lazy management that reaches all the way to the top. The easiest and laziest way a company can make a quick buck is by getting rid of it's older employees that make more money. Then they bring in less educated/lower paid workers that do a half assed job. In the beginning it works because customers don't notice. In the end you end up fucked sideways like Home Depot was under their last CEO.

Why on earth companies pay millions of dollars so a CEO can say "Get rid of the higher paid workers and hire lower paid workers" is beyond me. It's the laziest shit I've ever heard of. You really need a business degree for that?