
Whole Foods is tracking and scoring stores it deems at risk of unionizing - smacktoward
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-with-heat-map-2020-1
======
rdiddly
_" We agree with the overwhelming majority of our Team Members that a direct
relationship"_ [lengthy justification] _" is best."_

OK so if it's not the employees, I'd like to know, in the universe of this
quote, what people or entities are promoting a union and creating this "risk"
of uninionization? Out of this whole story this is the most disingenuous bit
that annoys me the most. If the majority of employees were against the union,
they would stop it themselves without company help, wouldn't they? Still, it's
very generous of them to look out for employee interests like that, large
eyeroll.

~~~
ngold
That seems to be the crux of the issue. If management was great, and everyone
loved their wages a union wouldn't be alluring. Since corporate management is
the default union.

~~~
thulecitizen
> corporate management is the default union

Such a great way of saying it. Also the quote from the original comment:

> "We agree with the overwhelming majority of our Team Members that a direct
> relationship" [lengthy justification] "is best."

With 'direct relationship', they mean: unmoderated control over employees
through corporate management

------
SN76477
Strange that companies would rather invest in fighting unionization than
actually raise the work standards, and treatment of their employees.

~~~
grumple
Not strange. It's cheaper to bust the union and fire those involved, and pay
out for the ensuing lawsuits (whether just to lawyers or lawyers + settlement)
than to pay higher wages and provide better benefits. Or at least, that's what
they think, and I'm sure someone has done some sort of math to validate this
course of action (whether or not it's correct).

And companies rarely care about their employees or anything other than profit
/ bonuses they get from that profit.

~~~
lotsofpulp
The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly
make changes in reaction to changing market conditions.

~~~
ardy42
> The big advantage of not having to deal with unions is being able to quickly
> make changes in reaction to changing market conditions.

You could say similar things about authoritarian governmental forms. Like
democracy, unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to
stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes.

~~~
syshum
>>>Like democracy,

Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice, many
many studies have proven this.

>>unions give a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders
outside of privileged leadership classes.

In theory that is true, but that largely depends on the size of the union, and
the size of the company the union is negotiating with. I have seen more than a
few companies put completely under by unions that believed the economic health
of the company was better than it really was and those "privileged leadership
classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for was just out to "get the
workers". The conflict lead to an economically unsustainable business

~~~
ardy42
> Well that is 100% not true. Democracy in no way gives the people a voice,
> many many studies have proven this.

Citation most certainly needed. While democracy is admittedly imperfect, it
sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more
political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North
Korea, which is obviously false.

The only plausible theory that supports your claim is that all decisions in
democracies are made to benefit some corporate/financial elite, but the
election of Trump rather than Clinton (which _none_ of these elite groups
wanted) is pretty strong and straightforward evidence against that.

> I have seen more than a few companies put completely under by unions that
> believed the economic health of the company was better than it really was
> and those "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain
> for was just out to "get the workers". The conflict lead to an economically
> unsustainable business

Maybe it was true _that_ union was wrong in _that_ case (your story is _far_
too vague to verify), however it's plausible other unions were right in other,
similar cases. Typically, management's priority is to be as generous as
possible to the shareholders, not the workers.

> "privileged leadership classes. " that you clearly have a disdain for

My comment was a pretty straightforward observation that people with power
tend to make decisions that benefit themselves, tend put far less weight on
the interests of those without the political power to influence them, and a
solution is to spread political power more widely. How exactly did you jump to
that conclusion that I have "disdain" for "leadership classes"? You're reading
in emotions that aren't there, and if you're going to to that, you're not
worth talking to.

~~~
syshum
>Citation most certainly needed.

One of the More Recent and referenced ones I am aware of

[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
poli...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-
and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)

They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact
on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on
a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to
pass.

>it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more
political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North
Korea, which is obviously false.

Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments
are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you
will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact
this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom
people really have. If people in a democracy were really free what control we
see today would not even be possible. It is but with the grace and consent of
the government do people have freedom. That is inverse of how it is suppose to
be, where by the government is formed on the consent of the governed.

When we have teenagers in Wisconsin being threaten with arrest for disorderly
conduct for an Instagram post I think we can safely say we have transitioned
into an Authoritarian form of governance, that is just one of 1000's of
examples I can cite

> How exactly did you jump to that conclusion that I have "disdain" for
> "leadership classes"? You're reading in emotions that aren't there

I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the
context around your comments.

~~~
ardy42
> They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact
> on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent
> on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing
> to pass.

I read the abstract, and that doesn't seem to contradict what I said, which
was "...democracy, ...give[s] a bigger seat at the decision-making table to
stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes." I didn't say it'd
_always_ give the people the biggest seat, just a _bigger_ one than they'd
have otherwise. Furthermore, even if that study is correct, it would have a
big blind-spot, since I can't imagine that it covers policy that "economic
elites and organized groups representing business interests" would want but
was never pursued by the government because it would be so contrary to public
desire (and thus would never show up in any empirical data set). It's quite
plausible that elite/business interests dominate certain areas of policy most
of the time (probably the smaller and more technical types), but are
overridden occasionally but in a big way by the public when it comes to
certain large policy changes.

>> it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more
political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North
Korea, which is obviously false.

> Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic
> governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over
> society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to
> pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power
> is, and how little freedom people really have.

Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-
home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever
dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom."

> I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the
> context around your comments.

Don't do that, please.

~~~
syshum
>>Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-
at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever
dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom."

so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or
is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting
millions out of work?

Do believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to
the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1%
can tell the 49.9% what to do?

I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer
Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the
excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual.

History has shown the majority can not be trusted to rule over others any more
than dictators can

>Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get
it in their head to do because "freedom."

In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a
danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the
stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public
protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a
clear violation of natural human rights

But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your
rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because
in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not
and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not
rights at all but privileges

Of-course a democracy does not have to be a free society, most people
associate democracy with freedom though

~~~
ardy42
> so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken,
> or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting
> millions out of work?

Who knows? That's a pretty overbroad corpus of material you're citing. That
said, I'm pretty comfortable with the state-level responses so far, given the
federal government response has been so inept that it required such drastic
corrective measures from the states. It would be insane to knowingly choose to
sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands on the altar of the economy.

> Do [you] believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or
> more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just
> pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do?

There are, but those limits also cannot be understood to require a
dysfunctional response to a crisis. Ultimately, the government has to be able
to do the _reasonable_ thing. And yes, "reasonable" is something that requires
judgement and often cannot be mechanically predefined.

> I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer
> Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the
> excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual.

It's pretty clear that we haven't been talking about some fantasy unchecked
majoritarian direct democracy, so it's a bit of a straw man to start injecting
that in.

> In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably
> a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of
> the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public
> protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are
> a clear violation of natural human rights

Eh, I disagree. Also those arguments that the government should only be able
to order confirmed cases to stay home are pretty unreasonable, given the fact
of asymptomatic carriers and woefully inadequate testing capability.

> But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your
> rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all,
> because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever,
> right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can
> they are not rights at all but privileges

See that's where you're misunderstanding things. Those rights are meaningless
if the system that secures them is so rigid that it invites total rejection.
You're right that a crisis can be a risky time, but fundamentalism is not
necessarily the safest response.

~~~
syshum
>>on the altar of the economy.

Well that tells me some of my earlier assumption are infact going to end up
being correct in that your political and economic positions lean pretty close
to Authoritarian Socialism vs my Libertarian Free Market views

I completely reject this idea that the economy should be ignored in a time of
crisis, and I also believe that if the lock down extends beyond the 2nd week
of may the actual death rate due to economic loss will be higher than that of
the virus. Unemployment does direct cause death, both due to increase rates of
suscide, property crime, homelessness and other conditions.

This idea that the economy is some religion that we want to " sacrifice people
lives on" is a completely disingenuous comment and appears you are the one
making assumptions now about my beliefs

I think there was and is a better way to handle pandemics. Better than simply
shutting down the entire economy, locking people in their homes, putting
millions out for work, shutting permanently thousands of business, destroying
Families, etc all the while expecting fiat currency printing and debt to get
us through.

The economy does matter, livelihoods do matter, that is not a alter for people
to be sacrifice on, it is reality. Ignore it at your own peril. I suspect
given the general user base on HN, that your job (like mine) is insulated from
the economic effects of this, I may see a 4-8% reduction in income this year
over last. Where we differ is I recognize that not everyone is as lucky as I
am, I am not about to scream "let me eat cake" and ignore their economic
hardship like you seem to be able to do easily

~~~
ardy42
> Well that tells me some of my earlier assumption are infact going to end up
> being correct in that your political and economic positions lean pretty
> close to Authoritarian Socialism vs my Libertarian Free Market views

LOL! You're funny!

> I think there was and is a better way to handle pandemics. Better than
> simply shutting down the entire economy, locking people in their homes,
> putting millions out for work, shutting permanently thousands of business,
> destroying Families, etc all the while expecting fiat currency printing and
> debt to get us through.

There could have been, but many groups without foresight worked to fuck it up.
You can thank them for your stay at home order, which is now necessary and
reasonable:

How Tea Party Budget Battles Left the National Emergency Medical Stockpile
Unprepared for Coronavirus ([https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-
medical-stoc...](https://www.propublica.org/article/us-emergency-medical-
stockpile-funding-unprepared-coronavirus))

The U.S. Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed.
([https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/business/coronavirus-
us-v...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/business/coronavirus-us-
ventilator-shortage.html))

> Government officials and executives at rival ventilator companies said they
> suspected that Covidien had acquired Newport to prevent it from building a
> cheaper product that would undermine Covidien’s profits from its existing
> ventilator business.... In 2014 ... Covidien executives told officials at
> the biomedical research agency that they wanted to get out of the contract,
> according to three former federal officials. The executives complained that
> it was not sufficiently profitable for the company.

Before Trump’s inauguration, a warning: ‘The worst influenza pandemic since
1918’ ([https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-
inauguration-...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-
warning-scenario-pandemic-132797))

‘It’s Just Everywhere Already’: How Delays in Testing Set Back the U.S.
Coronavirus Response ([https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-
testing-de...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-
delays.html))

Not to mention the inept response and denialism at the federal level that
wasted the lead time the US could have used to prepare for this pandemic, and
that have continued to the present.

------
rb808
I had a friend who worked for a union supermarket chain. It went bankrupt as
it had trouble competing with non-union chains like Whole Foods who pay their
staff half of the old chains but somehow get a reputation for treating
employees well. It would be good to know which stores are union and which ones
aren't because it isn't obvious.

~~~
taurath
Meanwhile Safeway and Kroger are both unionized and seem to be doing just
fine. Unions alone aren't the issue, though it can definitely be a cost. I
wish everything in the US wasn't a race to the bottom.

~~~
smooth_remmy
Keep in mind that Amazon pays their blue collar workers far more than
Kroger/Safeway

~~~
mcguire
Amazon: $12.71 avg.
[https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Cashier/Hourly_Rate...](https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Cashier/Hourly_Rate/f872cd2e/Whole-
Foods-Market-Inc).

Kroger: $8.93 avg.
[https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Cashier/Hourly_Rate...](https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Cashier/Hourly_Rate/9b7eed77/The-
Kroger-Company)

~~~
filoleg
Looks like they are being paid roughly 42% more hourly.

I had no idea until now, but with this in mind, I imagine unionization at
Amazon will be an incredibly hard sell that is unlikely to happen unless that
42% gap shrinks significantly.

------
OrangeMango
Sometimes I wonder if we will ever reach the point at which the people that
Amazon would never employ combined with the people who would never agree to be
employed by Amazon leaves them with fewer people than they need.

~~~
paxys
Amazon makes the front page because of a variety of reasons, but there are
thousands of large employers that are worse in every way. We have a loooong
way to go before Amazon's policies are an actual disqualifier for people who
work these jobs. Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public
assistance. Many large chains still won't employ you based on your sexual
orientation. So many small and large employers steal wages, deny benefits, pay
under the table and more. All of that and unemployment is hitting record
numbers right now.

~~~
ummonk
> Walmart is still training employees on how to file for public assistance.

Out of curiosity what is wrong with this? It seems akin to e.g. my employer
providing Deloitte tax consultation as a benefit.

~~~
michaelt
Imagine my business is feeding wood into chipping machines, and I train every
employee in how to apply a tourniquet if they chop their own hand off.

For an employer with a great safety record, that would be slightly unusual,
but safety training covers the unlikely all the time. Nothing wrong with that!

On the other hand if three of the hundred guys I employ have lost a hand, the
same training takes on a completely different tone: It would evince an
acceptance the same accidents will happen again, and an unwillingness to
improve safety.

~~~
ummonk
Presumably, prospective Walmart employees are well aware that they aren't well
off people, and that getting public assistance would be of substantial benefit
to them. I don't think they'd find it an issue in the same way that they would
for example an employer where a bunch of people lose their hands in accidents.

------
ummonk
Clickbait title. They aren’t tracking employees, just stores.

As to what they’re actually doing, it seems like a good thing if they
proactively find stores with potentially larger employee resentment and find
ways to make conditions there better, but it’s rather unseemly that they would
only do that with the purpose of preventing unionization efforts.

~~~
dang
Ok, we've replaced the title with the heading below it. Thanks.

------
hirundo
If unionization is a significant risk to a business's share price, it is
malpractice to fail to assess it and plan accordingly. This sophisticated
approach seems like a positive signal to investors. It's like tax avoidance,
financially and ethically.

~~~
elicash
I'd have more patience for "hey these are the laws, corporations just live by
them" if corporations stayed out of lobbying for anti-worker laws.

So yeah, I agree it's like tax avoidance. Legal, but still a sign of a corrupt
system.

~~~
nickff
You call them "anti-worker laws", but they are just lobbying for laws which
they believe will further their interests, which is exactly what unions do on
the other side. Perhaps Whole Foods should not be permitted to lobby for
favorable legislation and regulation, but the same restriction should be
applied to their counter-parties (the unions).

~~~
bjelkeman-again
Union represent people, a company represents invested capital. It is not a
given that these should be treated equally.

~~~
nickff
The company represents people too; those people just happen to be
shareholders, and not employees. There is also a spectrum of companies, from
mom-and-pop corporations and sole proprietorships and worker-owner co-
operatives through member-owned co-operatives, all the way to publicly-traded
corporations.

~~~
elicash
Worth noting that there's not some Law of the Universe that says corporations
SHOULDN'T represent the workers. In the United States, we've made political
decisions that they shouldn't, and should instead only represent shareholders.

But other countries have decided differently. And there are calls, for
example, to have workers represent 40% of many corporate boards.

[https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/10/18/warren-workers-
co...](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/10/18/warren-workers-corporate-
board-members-germany)

------
sarah180
I wonder why they suggest that racial diversity has an inverse relationship
with union formation. Is this because of a broader range of employee
perspectives on work? Are employees in diverse environments less comfortable
talking to one another? Both? Something else?

~~~
munificent
If I've learned anything from growing up in the South, it's that having both
poor white people and poor black people makes it much easier for those in
power to convince both groups that the other is the source of all of their
problems instead of it being the rich and powerful.

Classic divide and conquer.

~~~
toomuchtodo
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored
man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to
look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” — Lyndon B. Johnson

~~~
erdos4d
This is still 100% true today, especially in the US south.

------
anticristi
Me living in Sweden, reading this article: W.T.F.?!?!?

~~~
chrisseaton
Unions don't have the same reputation in all countries. They're viewed very
differently by much of the general population in the UK and US than they are
in continental Europe.

~~~
padraic7a
There is an Anglo-American consensual on a lot of things but I don't think
Trade Unions are one of them.

~~~
chrisseaton
I didn't say the US and UK viewed them in the same way - I said that both the
US and the UK viewed them differently to continental Europe.

------
fedups
"If you put Amazon in the headline, they will come." Interesting call that the
story isn't compelling enough if it "just" involves Whole Foods.

~~~
kevincrane
Amazon has a recent history of union-busting, it's very relevant if their
subsidiaries are also union-busting.

~~~
morelisp
Whole Foods had a history of union busting even before Amazon, too.

[https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/whole-
foods-...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/whole-foods-market-
john-mackey-interview-conscious-capitalism/)

I can't imagine how much worse it's gotten since an even less "conscious
capitalist" took over.

------
BubRoss
The article directly contradicts its title. They aren't "heat mapping
employees" they came up with a scoring system to estimate the most likely
stores to unionize.

"The scores are based on more than two dozen metrics, including racial
diversity, employee loyalty, "tipline" calls, and violations recorded by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration."

Whatever they are doing to avoid employees unionizing, it isn't "heat mapping"
them. It isn't even heat mapping stores. That would imply some sort of
density+value combination. This is a ranking based on weighting various data
points into a single score.

~~~
happytoexplain
Personally, I consider this heat-mapping, since I think of heat-mapping as any
value over area, regardless of how the value is derived. What specifically
makes you feel this case doesn't qualify? Also, do you think there is
something nefarious about the term "heat-mapping"?

~~~
filoleg
While I agree that "heatmapping" can be interpreted the way the article used
it, I don't think that this is what comes to people's minds when they hear
that phrase, so I would call it misleading at best.

But saying that they are "heatmapping employees" is blatantly wrong. They
aren't heatmapping individual employees, they are scoring/heatmapping stores.

~~~
jonathankoren
yeah, but what are they measuring? The building? The profit-loss statements?
No. They're measuring the attitudes of the employees in the store. If you're
measuring the employees in a store, it is perfectly reasonable to say you're
measuring the employees. Sure you could change policies and affect P(union),
but you'd still be measuring the effect on employee attitudes.

~~~
filoleg
>but what are they measuring?

>They're measuring the attitudes of the employees in the store.

You answered your own question here. This is the exact same thing all
corporate surveys and evaluations are measuring.

When a company does performance reviews, annual surveys to get employees
feedback on things, re-evaluates what kind of candidates they need to attract
and how to adjust their recruiting efforts appropriately (e.g., "we hire too
many people from target schools, we need to start reaching out more to the
talent pool outside of those"), etc. It is all the same thing, and every
single company over a certain size does it.

You don't think McDonalds or Home Depot or Kroger do a similar kind of
"heatmapping" to evaluate the state of their branches and the employee
feedback? Even at tech companies, it is a thing. My employer does an annual
company-wide (anonymized) survey, asking all employees for their opinions on
their work engagement, fairness of compensation, etc. And from what I heard
from my friends working at other tech companies, they all have something
similar.

~~~
jonathankoren
I’m really confused now. Is it “blatantly wrong” to say they’re measuring
employees or not? Because it sounds like you’re trying to split a hair, but
there’s no hair to split.

~~~
filoleg
>Is it “blatantly wrong” to say they’re measuring employees or not?

Yes, because they are not measuring each employee individually. At no point in
the decision-making process individual employee data is used. They are
obtaining and using the data as an anonymized aggregate and then draw
conclusions based on it.

Which is very different from what "heatmapping employees" would imply. If it
was "heatmapping stores" in the original post title (which was changed since I
posted my first comment in this thread), then I would have no issue with it
whatsoever.

------
jdkee
Amazon is getting to the point that anti-trust scrutiny should be invoked.

