Why would anyone support entry-level (i.e. fast food, retail, etc.) unions?

[Nakura Chambers]

I have worked as a cashier at Walmart and two different union grocery stores, so I have a fair amount of experience regarding entry-level work. With all of this experience dealing with both non-union and unionized entry-level jobs, I can say that Walmart treats their people the best. Not only do they offer better pay ($8 at Walmart, %7.35 at the union grocery stores)and better benefits (15% match on employee stock purchases, healthcare, 401k, free counseling, employee discount, etc.), but there is also a lot more opportunity for advancement in the company. Promotions at Walmart are almost always based on actual skill, knowledge and competency, rather than seniority (which is what most unions go by).

Entry-level unions don't care about workers at all and exist for nothing more than to make the top union dogs rich through what is effectively extortion. To make matters worse, you cannot refuse to join the union, it would result in you being fired (or not hired in the first place). The union didn't make any serious efforts to notify their "members" of when union meetings would be held and the only contact they had with their "members" was a monthly union newspaper that was little more than propaganda for the Democratic Party and President Obama (this was when he was running in 2008). Not only that, but in one of my two jobs, the union sold out their workers completely by banning all pay raises for cashiers, cartpushers and sales/stocking associates (and we only got paid minimum wage to begin with).

Am I saying that Walmart is a better company to work for than Costco? Absolutely not, but I am saying that they're a pretty good entry level company and having been a part of two unions, I've seen first hand that entry-level unions are nothing more than racketeering schemes. Obviously not all unions are bad either, but one thing is for certain, unions for unskilled labor are just exploitation rackets and that is something everyone should be opposed to, liberals and conservatives alike. I wouldn't dare let a union start at my work, because I know that they would exploit the workers and violate our rights.

So here is the question, why would anyone (other than the top union handlers) push for unionization of entry-level fields? I've seen plenty of people on forums like this claim that if McDonald's employees were unionized, that they would be "making bank" and all of the bad things associated with the job would disappear. This isn't true at all, there are always going to be things you like and dislike about every job. A union will just make your job far worse, while stealing your hard-earned money. So why would anyone, regardless of political affiliation, ignore the reality of entry-level unions and push for them in unskilled labor sectors?

[cityguy193]

Even if the claim that entry level unions exist solely for the purpose of making the union leaders rich, which is stupid to claim only that, a union still has benefits for workers.

You do not honestly think that walmart is going to make an effort to treat their lower workers better than a union will, you are just flamebaiting here.

[Independent voter]

Would I still get $1 hamburgers and fries at McDonalds? I know that price is a little obscene but I like $1 hamburgers and fries.

What I'm saying is, how much will it raise the prices?

[Nakura Chambers]

Even if the claim that entry level unions exist solely for the purpose of making the union leaders rich, which is stupid to claim only that, a union still has benefits for workers.

You do not honestly think that walmart is going to make an effort to treat their lower workers better than a union will, you are just flamebaiting here.

Do I expect Walmart to pay me $15 an hour? No. First off, I'm an unskilled laborer at the moment, so why would they pay me $15 to do something a monkey can do? Not to mention it would be impossible under their retail business model, not unless consumers wanted to pay ridiculous prices and a union isn't going to change that. Besides which, Walmart already pays their people better than most entry-level unions do, not to mention their better benefits.

If you want to criticize Walmart for something, criticize them for not paying Sam's Club workers more. Sam's Club's business model does allow for them to pay workers more, though probably not nearly as much as Costco. This is because Costco strikes deals with suppliers to carry only certain products, giving them more negotiating power and lower prices. Costco also participates in a number of other initiatives, such as only accepting reusable bags (not plastic bags), sky-light lit warehouses and only accepting American Express (whom they have a low interchange rate with), letting them cut costs even lower (thus letting them pay workers better and lower prices). By cutting costs in other areas, Costco is able to pay their workers more, who in turn work far harder and provide better customer service than normal retail employees. Their more competitive pay rate also means that Costco has a lower employee turnover rate (Costco's rate is 5%, retail overall is 40%), thus cutting down on training costs. Costco isn't unionized, by the way.

[Kujako]

Perhaps we need some kind of chart that shows how much money one has to make before being afforded human dignity.

[Deleted]

Do I expect Walmart to pay me $15 an hour? No. First off, I'm an unskilled laborer at the moment, so why would they pay me $15 to do something a monkey can do? Not to mention it would be impossible under their retail business model, not unless consumers wanted to pay ridiculous prices and a union isn't going to change that. Besides which, Walmart already pays their people better than most entry-level unions do, not to mention their better benefits.

Even if you decided to undervalue yourself, you still aren't entitled to deny the right for others to gather up and ask fair working conditions.

You can decide to waive your own rights, not the rights somebody else has.

[Gheld]

Aren't entry level workers already unionized in a lot of very successful European nations?

EDIT: Also, non anonymous poll. You do realize that the moment anonymity is removed from an opinion poll it loses every shred of scientific and statistical validity right?

[Wells]

I'm kind of confused on how low wages should mean they don't need a union.

[Gheld]

I'm kind of confused on how low wages should mean they don't need a union.

Because Reaganomics. If business owners aren't forced by the evil unions to pay higher wages and provide better working conditions they will do it on their own because reasons.

[Deleted]

Aren't entry level workers already unionized in a lot of very successful European nations?

EDIT: Also, non anonymous poll. You do realize that the moment anonymity is removed from an opinion poll it loses every shred of scientific and statistical validity right?

I can't think of a line of work that doesn't have a Union in the UK tbh.

[Dezerte]

In Sweden unions are very important (e.g. we don't have nor need a minimum wage law), so perhaps this is more of an issue with US job ethics rather than unionising.

[Sole-Warrior]

Would I still get $1 hamburgers and fries at McDonalds? I know that price is a little obscene but I like $1 hamburgers and fries.

What I'm saying is, how much will it raise the prices?

To increase the minimum wage to 15 dollars in US, a bigmac's price will go up by 10%. So you will still get your cheap shit.

[Jester Joe]

Because security? Walmart plans huge layoff, workers push for a union to try to prevent that?

*Shrug*

[Rukentuts]

Perhaps we need some kind of chart that shows how much money one has to make before being afforded human dignity.

While we are at it, procure numbers on the % of Wal-Mart employees that get these amazing benefits because they're actually allowed to get enough hours.

[Gheld]

In Sweden unions are very important (e.g. we don't have nor need a minimum wage law), so perhaps this is more of an issue with US job ethics rather than unionising.

The Labour movement in North America almost came to blows, but after reading about European aristocrats dangling from lamp posts business leaders in North America opted to "give the dog a bone".

So we ended up with a McDonalds version of labour rights. Just enough appeasement of the masses to keep their lives and their empire of inequity alive and well. But the religion of Reagan has slowly been undermining those compromises and things like the 40 hour work week and statutory holidays are the punch line to a bad joke for a lot of people now.

[Captain N]

I'm not aware of other unions who possess this but mine has something called "Can Insurance" - Basically you pay a premium each month (In my case it's $200) and if you get pulled out of service for any reason and are out of work for an extended period of time the insurance pays you the basic rate of your chosen plan for up to 180 days. Since most of our disciplinary investigations can go up to 60 days it's a wonderful way to keep your bills paid while you're waiting to go back to work.

If this policy was incorporated into more Unions and more so major corporations who have a history of terminating employees for making too much money I would be all for the unionization of every company in America. I look at a Union Leader and a Corporate CEO like this - The Union Leader is going to take your dues and give you a cost of living increase, decent benefits, and mostly go up to bat for you in a disciplinary situation. A Corporate CEO is going to take your hours, keep your wages as low as possible to maximize his bonus check, and will fire you at the first chance he gets to replace you with someone who will do the same job for cheaper.

I'd rather my $2400 yearly dues (Like my Can Insurance I pay $200/month) translate into a 3%-4% or better yearly raise. A low wage worker would pay far less and if backed by a decent Union would see better wage increases since a good negotiator would pull the companies payroll records and demand back pay for previously performed labor.

[Elegiac]

I support it because unionization evens out the power disparity between employers and employees.

[Incredibale]

Healthcare? Walmart? A bloo bloo bloo. Since when?

[Kujako]

Healthcare? Walmart? A bloo bloo bloo. Since when?

Since they were required to under Obamacare. However, they get around it by not having many employees work enough hours to qualify and by hiring veterans who already have VA coverage.

[Mihalik]

1, Because the labor market doesn't guarantee access to better then entry level jobs to everyone. A large number of people for a variety of reasons many of which are not in their control are forever stuck in those jobs.

2, At what arbitrary point do workers gain rights not to be abused, mistreated and exploited? Work is work, may it be burger flipping or flying planes or designing software. All work deserves compensation and all workers have rights. Unionizing is a human right in my opinion.

And I am saying all this as a small business owner who hates Unions with a passion. But just because they don't do the trick for me, and just because they cause their own fair share of problems, the benefits of having them are greater then the consequences of not having them.

Guess what, if McD would lose 3% of its profits to raise wages for its employees to livable levels, the money that would feed back into the economy would upset the balance by itself. Almost none of the companies that pay their workers a minimum wage would actually have to raise their prices if they paid slightly better. Also there is almost no relation between hiring and the minimum wage. Companies hire based on demand. If they need workers they'll hire, if not they won't.