• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    I have a feeling this is some anti union move, given it’s happening during negotiations with the Teamsters. Perhaps it’s a smaller increase than what the union members want, meant to weaken their resolve?

      • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Right now… it’s “one of the most pro worker employers in the US” right now.

        If they have no problem with being such, then they shouldn’t mind a few collectively bargained contacts which ensure they stay that way.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Representing 10% of Costco’s workforce. The new agreement Costco announced doesn’t cover the unionized workers.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          And that’s the thing, from what I read, they’ve been difficult during the ongoing negotiations.

          • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            Yep. Most companies are being huge fucks about labor relations; bigger than they’ve been in quite a while. The post-WWII “gentlemen’s agreement” between labor and capital (as pathetic as it was) has been completely abandoned. They’re back on some gilded age bullshit… sounds likely we’re gonna have to do a general strike.

    • CatLikeLemming
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you read the actual article, there are two things that stand out:

      The changes apply to employees at non-union locations.

      and

      Other benefits for non-union workers include an additional week of vacation after 30 years of employment and vacation for new employees during their first year.

      So from my understanding you may very well be correct, instead of trying to block unions through negative reinforcement, they try to block them by rewarding you for not joining one.