2005-09-13

Union hires non-union workers to protest working conditions

This is a classic. From the article:
They're not union members; they're temp workers employed through Allied Forces/Labor Express by the union—United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). They're making $6 an hour, with no benefits; it's 104 F, and they're protesting the working conditions inside the new Wal-Mart grocery store.
Is union labor too expensive to use to protest and picket? Does it matter if the people you hire to picket believe in what their picketing for? Apparently not:
But standing with a union-supplied sign on his shoulder that reads, Don't Shop WalMart: Below Area Standards, picketer and former Wal-Mart employee Sal Rivera says about the notorious working conditions of his former big-box employer: "I can't complain. It wasn't bad. They started paying me at $6.75, and after three months I was already getting $7, then I got Employee of the Month, and by the time I left (in less than one year), I was making $8.63 an hour." Rivera worked in maintenance and quit four years ago for personal reasons, he says. He would consider reapplying.
Understanding unions is right up there with understanding airline prices and solving Fermat's equation thingy...

5 comments:

Jennifer said...

I was all ready to hate you for your anti-labor stance (and to direct my hate appropriately) but wow, that was possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Donny Baseball said...

wow jennifer is prepared to hate people are anti-labor. Seems pretty rash to me. Even my union boss uncle didn't hate people because they were anti-labor.

Jennifer said...

Don-

My hate is often capricious. Luckily for me it is also meaningless.

Donny Baseball said...

Jen-
Good to see you are self-aware.

Jennifer said...

Mike--

Though it's probably no surprise to you, I scored "Socialist" on this (mostly useless) quiz.

Curious what you & the brothers Paci get.

Don--

Self-awareness is key; frankly I've been more worried I'm self-involved.