Superstore staff in Alberta vote in favour of strike action

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s interesting to see a thread like this, when at the same time there is a lot of fretting over the rising cost of living and inflation. I’m not saying I’m against this, but if “we” want to see grocery store employees paid more we also have to be prepared to pay more at the till. I think that’s unlikely.

It’s not unlike the childcare costs that people bring up. People think that it’s deplorable how little those caregivers are paid, but on the other hand think the cost of childcare is too high.

I think that's part of the argument, no? That these companies CAN afford to pay people more without it having an impact on how much a customer pays at the cash register, but they just don't? Or they use it as a threat to scare people away from unionizing or supporting it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flamesguy_SJ

I think that's part of the argument, no? That these companies CAN afford to pay people more without it having an impact on how much a customer pays at the cash register, but they just don't? Or they use it as a threat to scare people away from unionizing or supporting it.

Well I think it's naive and romanticized to think that a corporation is going to reduce their profit margin and pay employees more. It sounds good, and people can look at the financials and say "they can afford to that". But in practice, we all know that grocery costs will rise in tandem with their labour costs.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hey if you want to pay more for grocery, then go ahead and advocate for the abolishment of slave-like wages.

Hey I pointed this out 2 pages ago and no one listened.

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I think it's naive and romanticized to think that a corporation is going to reduce their profit margin and pay employees more. It sounds good, and people can look at the financials and say "they can afford to that". But in practice, we all know that grocery costs will rise in tandem with their labour costs.

Why pay them anything at all? Why not just use slaves again? Then we can have unlimited profits!! All hail the corporation!


Or maybe people should be paid a living wage and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to exploit the working class to the benefit of the rich.

It’s almost as if the whole system is set up to take advantage of the working class and exploit their cheap labour while forcing them to prop up the system at the same time.

So why fight it? I don’t want higher grocery costs. I want lower. Fire them all and hire some TFW’s at $5 a day. And if they don’t like it, deport them. What matters is cheap grocery and profits.

Qatar has really impressed me with their World Cup stadium construction methods. They are a shinning beacon of capitalism and should be our blueprint.

[Mr.Coffee]

Slava, we need to bridge compensation gaps. Not claim every penny goes to employees. I invest in stocks too.

It can be distributed better. This isn’t hard. In fact it’s pretty obvious the system is unsustainable so rather than waiting for a bloody revolution in 40-50 years why not fix it now?

I specifically said- shareholders are a stakeholder too. It’s about all stakeholders, not just one. Business schools are currently teaching thousands of people that business is about one stakeholder. It isn’t.

This isn’t hard.

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I think it's naive and romanticized to think that a corporation is going to reduce their profit margin and pay employees more. It sounds good, and people can look at the financials and say "they can afford to that". But in practice, we all know that grocery costs will rise in tandem with their labour costs.

Fair enough.

I guess the distinction lies in the use of "will" vs "should". I agree with you that right now, as things are set up, if a company like Loblaws had to up their workers' pay they would pass that additional "cost" onto the consumer. I guess I just wonder whether they should, and/or whether it's actually justified. They'll still make money - they just won't make *as much* money.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Qatar has really impressed me with their World Cup stadium construction methods. They are a shinning beacon of capitalism and should be our blueprint.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hey I pointed this out 2 pages ago and no one listened.



Why pay them anything at all? Why not just use slaves again? Then we can have unlimited profits!! All hail the corporation!


Or maybe people should be paid a living wage and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to exploit the working class to the benefit of the rich.

It’s almost as if the whole system is set up to take advantage of the working class and exploit their cheap labour while forcing them to prop up the system at the same time.

So why fight it? I don’t want higher grocery costs. I want lower. Fire them all and hire some TFW’s at $5 a day. And if they don’t like it, deport them. What matters is cheap grocery and profits.

Qatar has really impressed me with their World Cup stadium construction methods. They are a shinning beacon of capitalism and should be our blueprint.

Right, I point out that it will lead to rising food costs, ergo I'm in favour of slavery? Quite a jump, and really obvious that we can have a rational conversation here.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Slava, we need to bridge compensation gaps. Not claim every penny goes to employees. I invest in stocks too.

It can be distributed better. This isn’t hard. In fact it’s pretty obvious the system is unsustainable so rather than waiting for a bloody revolution in 40-50 years why not fix it now?

I specifically said- shareholders are a stakeholder too. It’s about all stakeholders, not just one. Business schools are currently teaching thousands of people that business is about one stakeholder. It isn’t.

This isn’t hard.

I'm inclined to agree with you, except the part where you say it isn't hard. I think it's actually quite difficult. If you look at the financials of Loblaws, it's not exactly amazing. Revenues over the past 5 years are actually negative, and if you look at their net income from 2019 to 2020 it's an increase of about 2.5%.

I'm not talking about this as a pure "think of the shareholders" issue though. I think that there is a reckoning where people have to either accept that they'll pay more for all kinds of things, with food and groceries being one of them, or that these corporations are paying these employees less than other jobs. You really can't have it both ways, unless I'm just missing something?

[Mr.Coffee]

I believe that culturally we need a systemic shift in how we think about how businesses interact as a pillar of society. We can improve businesses. What if the $1.19B in Loblaws 2020 profits got split evenly between employees and shareholders? That’d be roughly a $4,000 bonus for every employee. Well deserved in my opinion.

Pensions for large businesses may take a hit yes however people across the country generally in jobs would need less pension as they could save more on their own. There would be other ancillary societal spin offs that are positive too. People would need to work less, improve health, improve standards of living today. Now mom and dad don’t have to work 3 jobs to keep pace with rising costs of living if they are paid more, etc. Maybe they can save more on their own now.

We have a mentality that is cultural that business needs to be all about shareholders. This isn’t absolute. It also is already shifting in my opinion broadly across western societies. This is why capital is being largely directed to companies that do more than exclusively focus on shareholders. With that in mind it’s not even in Loblaws best interest to not pay it’s employees properly. If you ran a model of negative publicity for this story against the cost of paying the employees a small raise / lump sum bonus will it all even be worth it? Don’t your stores get more productive by paying people properly (answer is yes and there’s a #### ton of evidence for this). Maybe now your stores are cleaner, better managed, have better customer experiences, which will reduce the spill to the competition.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I believe that culturally we need a systemic shift in how we think about how businesses interact as a pillar of society. We can improve businesses. What if the $1.19B in Loblaws 2020 profits got split evenly between employees and shareholders? That’d be roughly a $4,000 bonus for every employee. Well deserved in my opinion.

Pensions for large businesses may take a hit yes however people across the country generally in jobs would need less pension as they could save more on their own. There would be other ancillary societal spin offs that are positive too. People would need to work less, improve health, improve standards of living today. Now mom and dad don’t have to work 3 jobs to keep pace with rising costs of living if they are paid more, etc. Maybe they can save more on their own now.

We have a mentality that is cultural that business needs to be all about shareholders. This isn’t absolute. It also is already shifting in my opinion broadly across western societies. This is why capital is being largely directed to companies that do more than exclusively focus on shareholders. With that in mind it’s not even in Loblaws best interest to not pay it’s employees properly. If you ran a model of negative publicity for this story against the cost of paying the employees a small raise / lump sum bonus will it all even be worth it? Don’t your stores get more productive by paying people properly (answer is yes and there’s a #### ton of evidence for this). Maybe now your stores are cleaner, better managed, have better customer experiences, which will reduce the spill to the competition.

I've been a proponent of ESG investing for years, where you take into account Environmental, Social and Governance factors along with the pure financial and business metrics. I think that it's sensible and better for everyone. There's no doubt in my mind that over the longer term we will move in that direction to a greater degree, and that will be a positive for all of us.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, I point out that it will lead to rising food costs, ergo I'm in favour of slavery? Quite a jump, and really obvious that we can have a rational conversation here.

No, that’s missing the point.

The point is that you can’t pretend that the system isn’t broken. If your first reaction to people getting a raise is “what about the profits and shareholders?” Or “this is bad because they need to raise prices to keep their profit margin” Then clearly there is a problem with your mindset. You said yourself you think it’s good the company makes billions off the backs of their workers, who we all know make #### money. No one should be saying that maintaining profit margin to keep the share price high is the core goal of a corporation. That’s evil. It’s how we find ourselves dehumanizing people in the name of profits.

All I did was take your position to the extreme to a place where you’d stop and go “well that’s not ok”. That’s how a lot of people, myself included, feel about your position. Putting share price and corporate profits above the health and well-being of the workers is exactly the problem.

The answer should be that the business is not viable because they’re not paying their employees a living wage and making the rich richer off the backs of the poor should be seen as abhorrent. Instead all people think about is “oh but now my stock portfolio won’t go up by 7% this year”. It’s disgusting.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I can’t think of a single entry level job that doesn’t have the potential to have at least some growth. Managing a grocery store isn’t entry level, and you don’t need a degree to do it.

So I took a cursory look at the grocery/retail management positions for Loblaws/Coop/Lucky.

Lucky - Bachelors Degree plus experience and computer competency
Loblaws/Coop - 3 years retail management/supervisory experience and computer competency

So the ‘growth’ path for these ‘entry level’ cashier/clerk positions is, at best, a few years in the base role before a highly competitive ‘supervisor’ opportunity, then after 3 years you might meet minimum requirements for management.

You could complete an apprenticeship in less time. You could get a masters degree in less time.

Hell, you could get an entry level position in an industry with actual potential, develop enough skill and experience then go work elsewhere. That would be a true ‘entry level’ job - where you’re hired and compensated based on having nothing of value and you progress consistently with your skill and ability, with compensation increased accordingly.

What these companies offer is not ‘entry level’, calling it such allows them to justify paying the minimum to start because ‘there’s room to grow!’. Funny, I’ve been going to the same three grocery stores for the last 10 years and it’s remarkable the folks I see a still doing the same thing behind the till.

These ‘entry level jobs’ offer next to nothing for transferable skills, little real opportunity for growth, and routine and menial task structure that allows for the lowest possible pay for the longest possible time. It’s unskilled work by any other name. Calling it such at least holds companies accountable to the belief that ANY type of job demands AT LEAST a livable wage.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hey if you want to pay more for grocery, then go ahead and advocate for the abolishment of slave-like wages.

Plus nobody on CP shops at superstore. That place is for poor people and immigrants who like expired meat.

That's not actually how prices tend to work in a market economy.

Prices are set at a level where the most money can be extracted from customers, AKA supply and demand.

Costs only enter into the equation by setting a minimum level on which the company can operate, but typically costs like paying your workers more mostly just eat into the profits and have a relatively small effect on the optimum price level. Which is exactly why companies fight so hard to pay so little. If they could just move extra costs to the customers by raising prices, they would have done that already.

(Although this is more true at higher price points than groceries.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's not actually how prices tend to work in a market economy.

Prices are set at a level where the most money can be extracted from customers, AKA supply and demand.

Costs only enter into the equation by setting a minimum level on which the company can operate, but typically costs like paying your workers more mostly just eat into the profits and have a relatively small effect on the optimum price level. Which is exactly why companies fight so hard to pay so little. If they could just move extra costs to the customers by raising prices, they would have done that already.

(Although this is more true at higher price points than groceries.)

Tell that to the oil industry. When it comes to necessities, people will pay and the companies will still make record profits.

Wage Push Inflation is a real thing.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w...-inflation.asp

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/27/wage...t-pay-cut.html

Of course, there are more pieces to the puzzle, but corporations will always find a way to leverage more out of the consumer, creating a spiral of increase wage demand and increasing prices.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not talking about this as a pure "think of the shareholders" issue though. I think that there is a reckoning where people have to either accept that they'll pay more for all kinds of things, with food and groceries being one of them, or that these corporations are paying these employees less than other jobs. You really can't have it both ways, unless I'm just missing something?

We don’t have to muse about hypotheticals. In countries with a higher floor on wages, goods and services cost more. Workers in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc who stock shelves and work cash registers get paid more than in Canada, and have better benefits. Consequently, groceries etc are more expensive.

That’s what an egalitarian system looks like. Everyone pays more to ensure a basic standard of living for their fellow citizens. And it demonstrably and practically works. Which has some merit when we’re talking about these things.

[Azure]

On another note, instead of dealing with a strike and crappy working conditions, why not give notice and walk across the street and work at Costco? The skills are transferable.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

On another note, instead of dealing with a strike and crappy working conditions, why not give notice and walk across the street and work at Costco? The skills are transferable.

Maybe Costco isnt hiring?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Tell that to the oil industry. When it comes to necessities, people will pay and the companies will still make record profits.

Wage Push Inflation is a real thing.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w...-inflation.asp

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/27/wage...t-pay-cut.html

Of course, there are more pieces to the puzzle, but corporations will always find a way to leverage more out of the consumer, creating a spiral of increase wage demand and increasing prices.

If I remember from Econ 101, fuel is one of the nearly perfect inelastic goods because you don't have a choice if you need to fill up in order to drive to work, take your kids to school, etc. Obviously covid has changed that paradigm a little but it is still faily inelastic in demand.

This is something I often relate to medicine. Proponents for private healthcare in the US don't seem to understand that the demand for medical treatment when you have an emergency is also inelastic. It doesn't matter if you have free market choice when you absolutely need to pay or you die. You can't shop around for a bargain.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

On another note, instead of dealing with a strike and crappy working conditions, why not give notice and walk across the street and work at Costco? The skills are transferable.

Maybe they’d rather fight to improve what they have before giving up their seniority, wage and vacation entitlements to start at the bottom with a different company?

Just a guess.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Maybe they’d rather fight to improve what they have before giving up their seniority, wage and vacation entitlements to start at the bottom with a different company?

Just a guess.

Don’t forget that Costco has unlimited open positions and unlimited stores that are all close to the Superstore workers’ houses.

Oh wait, no it’s the exact opposite. What an absurd suggestion.

[Azure]

Its not absurd at all.

Costco has a ton of open positions, and not everyone needs to work walking distance from their house as you suggest, rather ignorantly I might add.

These rich families that own the grocery store chains in Canada are not going to change anything. They've been caught pulling this crap over and over again.

So why not go work for a company in the same sector, with the same job opportunities who actually provides you with better conditions, pay and potential for future growth?