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?
"They should go work at Costco."
it came across as more of an ignorant comment than anything else posted in this thread.
loblaws has 136,00 full and part time employees. didn't look up to see what safeway, save-on etc, have.
how many open positions does Costco have right now?
telling someone to "just get a better job" isn't offering a solution.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
it came across as more of an ignorant comment than anything else posted in this thread.
loblaws has 136,00 full and part time employees. didn't look up to see what safeway, save-on etc, have.
how many open positions does Costco have right now?
telling someone to "just get a better job" isn't offering a solution.
A close friend of mine does front-line hiring at a Costco. The number of applications he gets blew my mind.
Lots of people are already trying to get a better job.
It's not the term itself, or comparing the terms skilled vs unskilled. It's just the way most people use it. It's almost always the same people that are rude to waitresses and talk down to people. Not to mention that many 'skilled' positions hardly require that much skill or work ethic either.
Both terms are dumb that's all.
There are very few "skilled" work jobs that require anything particularly special ability-wise. Exceptions being highly specialized positions that required a decade of intensive education that applies directly to their day to day. If you break most of these jobs down into the basic fundamentals, the tasks are rather trivial and mundane and can be done by any one else that committed themselves to it long enough.
Terms like unskilled are just labels that mostly serve corporate structures as some have said, to justify paying out terrible wages to people who have served us better than anybody through this whole ordeal.
Anybody at any skill level can provide a great service that helps people. And some people do what they do so well because they've finely tuned their process and have found their own ways to be incredibly efficient, that they'd be harder to replace than those in much higher up positions.
it came across as more of an ignorant comment than anything else posted in this thread.
loblaws has 136,00 full and part time employees. didn't look up to see what safeway, save-on etc, have.
how many open positions does Costco have right now?
telling someone to "just get a better job" isn't offering a solution.
Not saying I agree with the sentiment, but its not like all 136k would have to leave. If even a couple of percent of loblaws staff left and they couldn't replace them, they'd be forced to raise wages to keep staffed. That would be way more effective than a strike at improving their wages.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Not saying I agree with the sentiment, but its not like all 136k would have to leave. If even a couple of percent of loblaws staff left and they couldn't replace them, they'd be forced to raise wages to keep staffed. That would be way more effective than a strike at improving their wages.
How would an individual go about forcing the bolded to occur?
How would an individual go about forcing the bolded to occur?
They wouldn't be able to force it. All they could do is upgrade their individual situation where possible. But it seems like a labour shortage is coming, and if enough people are able to find higher paying jobs the superstores of the world will have to raise wages to attract staff.
They wouldn't be able to force it. All they could do is upgrade their individual situation where possible. But it seems like a labour shortage is coming, and if enough people are able to find higher paying jobs the superstores of the world will have to raise wages to attract staff.
If an individual has little to no control over making the scenario you’re describing actually happen I don’t think you can really argue that it is more effective than striking.
Not saying I agree with the sentiment, but its not like all 136k would have to leave. If even a couple of percent of loblaws staff left and they couldn't replace them, they'd be forced to raise wages to keep staffed. That would be way more effective than a strike at improving their wages.
They could trust the whims of the 'free market' or band together and collectively bargin. One has proven to be much more productive in the past.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
I'm 100% on the side of the employees on this one but we'll for sure be seeing increased costs at Superstore if they get their demands. Superstore won't just eat those costs.
90% of the time I shop at Co-op anyway so we're used to the higher prices.
I actually don't understand shopping at Save On and Co-op over Safeway and Lolblaw chains since they share many of the same brands on their shelves but the former charges a couple more dollars for literally the same products.
Location isn't even good justification since there's a Safeway in the vicinity of any Co-op in this city.
Save On does have a bit more variety in their meats section and Co-op specializes more in their bakery goods. But otherwise, I don't see much reason.
I have no interest in paying 6 dollars for the same eggs or carton of milk a loblaw store sells for 3. I went into Save On to switch it up the other day and laughed my way out of their store empty handed cause the prices for basic staple foods were frankly a joke.
If people want to burn their money to shop in a slightly quieter and nicer looking place they're welcome to do that though. I know many do.
I did work at Co-op throughout university so there's a bit of brand loyalty. We'll shop elsewhere if we know there's a good deal on certain items. I also much preferred how Co-op handled the pandemic than the other stores.
Slava has basically captured the essence of the issue. Everyone is virtue signalling about pretty much everything these days, but very few actually put their money (or effort) where their mouth is.
Want the SS workers to earn a better wage? Pay more for groceries. Want to show your disapproval of China? Pay more for everything. Want to support local businesses? Pay more. Talk is cheap.
Lablaws has pretty thin margins. They are not in a position to gouge anyone, given they have to fend off Costco, Walmart and Amazon... So, really, it is about what you are willing to pay...
Slava has basically captured the essence of the issue. Everyone is virtue signalling about pretty much everything these days, but very few actually put their money (or effort) where their mouth is.
Want the SS workers to earn a better wage? Pay more for groceries. Want to show your disapproval of China? Pay more for everything. Want to support local businesses? Pay more. Talk is cheap.
Lablaws has pretty thin margins. They are not in a position to gouge anyone, given they have to fend off Costco, Walmart and Amazon... So, really, it is about what you are willing to pay...
Individual levels of actions are good but the issue with this that every large company just points at each other and try to paint it as a race to the bottom. Perhaps the government does its job and mandates a living wage, it won't be done from me buying products locally. It is the same as countries and corporations trying to download climate change onto the individual. That won't get us anywhere.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
Slava has basically captured the essence of the issue. Everyone is virtue signalling about pretty much everything these days, but very few actually put their money (or effort) where their mouth is.
Want the SS workers to earn a better wage? Pay more for groceries. Want to show your disapproval of China? Pay more for everything. Want to support local businesses? Pay more. Talk is cheap.
Lablaws has pretty thin margins. They are not in a position to gouge anyone, given they have to fend off Costco, Walmart and Amazon... So, really, it is about what you are willing to pay...
Are lawyers gonna be taking a pay cut for the greater good any time soon? Or is it only bad for everyone else when poor people want to be paid more?
Some people don’t mind paying more to support good employers.
Yeah. Employers use that as an out for paying their employees properly.
Besides, most union positions (like grocery stores) don't allow employees to accept tips because it creates inequality between positions that aren't customer facing.
Don't forget avoiding source deductions like taxes, EI, and CPP by transferring labor costs to the consumer. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Are lawyers gonna be taking a pay cut for the greater good any time soon? Or is it only bad for everyone else when poor people want to be paid more?
Some people don’t mind paying more to support good employers.
You can shop around for lawyers and find a cheaper one? I mean really, you could just represent yourself and save all the money. I probably can skip the “fool for a client” line here.
Slava has basically captured the essence of the issue. Everyone is virtue signalling about pretty much everything these days, but very few actually put their money (or effort) where their mouth is.
Want the SS workers to earn a better wage? Pay more for groceries. Want to show your disapproval of China? Pay more for everything. Want to support local businesses? Pay more. Talk is cheap.
Lablaws has pretty thin margins. They are not in a position to gouge anyone, given they have to fend off Costco, Walmart and Amazon... So, really, it is about what you are willing to pay...
Trying to decide which is the better joke here.
Do I go with “nobody wants the SS to earn a better wage, we saw what they did the last time they were well funded” or do I go with “I keep giving superstore more money for my groceries, but they insist on giving back the difference and calling it ‘change’”
Neither are great, so I’m just gonna float both up there. But to your actual point, they’re trying to “fend off” Costco, right? A company that does, in fact, pay better and from what I’m told, does alright by their people. Wonder how that works? How did Costco crack the code?
It might be virtue signalling to you because you’re not willing to pay more, but it’s a bit condescending to suggest people don’t get the equation. People understand, and people are willing to pay more. People do shop local, and go to farmers markets, etc. These aren’t new concepts you’re talking about. Hell, I pay more for eggs and meat in cases where I know the animals are treated better. I’m certainly willing to pay more across the board knowing the actual people are treated better, and I often do.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
