All Over Albany

So the workers collectively select the board, who collectively picks management, who then turns around and negotiates compensation with the same collective workers? Seems like a bit of conflict.

What they really should do is just get rid of the working requirement to vote rule, then it wouldn't be such an issue.

... said Jackers on Mar 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM | link

@Jackers -- The Board is voted on by the "working members" that are approx. 1,000 working members, the vast majority being the unpaid labor who work weekly or monthly for 3 hours or so to earn their discounts. The paid staff are a small minority of these voting working members (I've heard there are about 75 full time workers) and could not hold sway over any decision put to a vote. Also, it's unclear whether the Board itself would be negotiating with a union, or the "Leadership Team," the 3-person management team hired by the Board to actually run the store operations. But, you are right, that the ultimate budget for the co-op, which includes salaries and benefits, has to be approved by the working membership that includes the staff.

Yes, there are a lot of details that would have to be worked out, but there are other co-ops that are unionized that might serve as a model.

... said chrisck on Mar 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM | link

As a ten year union member (UUP at UAlbany) and ten year HWFC Co-op member worker (Cheese Counter) I’ve been very disappointed at the union-busting stance taken by the misguided Leadership Team. Based on what I’ve heard and seen, they have been treating the paid workers at HWFC very poorly in recent years: subverting long-standing policies and practices, hiring large #s of workers on a temporary basis so as not to pay full benefits, and neglecting to respond to real concerns raised by staff. It was very disappointing to see that as the co-op moved to its new location (built by non-union workers, mind you) the treatment of the paid workers deteriorated.

The drive for a union is a legitimate response to the very real problems created by the Leadership Team. Rather than cast aspersions at the union effort, the LT should be improving the conditions of the workers. Since they refuse, the workers are rightly looking to organize collectively.

One wishes the HWFC existed outside the capitalist economy that places people in labor/management relations, but it doesn’t. The people who work there deserve the right to have a say in the conditions of their labor. Since the LT is denying them this right, I applaud their effort to unionize.

Fair Trade starts at home.

... said Barry Trachtenberg on Mar 18, 2014 at 5:43 PM | link

@chrisck True, the are many unionized coops throughout the country, but non with a governance structure whereby only workers can vote. It's the combination that creates the conflict, not the unionized workers. It's also true that there may be a greater number of eligible voters than paid employees, but I'm fairly certain that most votes take place with only a slim percentage of non-employed workers. Contrarily, paid workers' voter turn out is likely to be near 100% if their vote would be determining their next contract agreement.

@Barry As a member-owner I too was concerned when the new store was constructed with non-union labor...until I found out that no unioned contractors bid on the project. At that point it kind of becomes an unfair criticism.

... said Jackers on Mar 18, 2014 at 6:58 PM | link

Had HWFC mandated that the selected General Contractor use all union labor the building would never have been constructed, the costs would have been entirely prohibitive. The difference in costs between union work and non union work is substantial. I bet coop management used to be pro union but this is a clear case of when faced with actually having to be on the paying side of the union equation, you change your tune quickly. A guy like Barry will never have to pay for a union wage so of course he's in favor of someone else paying them.

Legitimate union discussion starts when you actually have to pay the wage.

... said Parma Ham on Mar 18, 2014 at 9:13 PM | link

In all of the coverage, I don't see any of the reasons for why the workers want to unionize. Is there some issue or lack of input they are concerned about?

My initial thought would be that of all places, HWFC would be more inclusive and open to worker input. Further, HWFC functions under a unique and delicately balanced cooperative structure. I'm not surprised that they'd be concerned about inserting an external third party into their operations.

... said Jay on Mar 18, 2014 at 10:34 PM | link

Well said, Barry.

@Parma Ham: One might ask you if you prefer to *work* with a union wage, or without one. Legitimate union discussion starts when you actually have to work and live without a union wage and benefits.

@Jay: Are you carrying water for the "leadership team?" Asking about the grievances is an attempt to distract and criticize the particulars and misses the general point: the law guarantees workers the right to unionize, unimpeded by management.

As a matter of principle, every workplace should be organized in some way, shape, or form so as to protect the workers--who produce the wealth no less!--from the management/bosses who, by the nature of the relationship, exploit them.

... said Vincent on Mar 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM | link

@Vincent - Yikes, with rhetoric!

I'm not carrying water for anyone at HWFC. I'm not part of the leadership team and, in fact, am not even a member. I do, however, shop there frequently and really love the COOP. (I know, I need to become a member...)

That being said, I'm truly curious as to what's currently wrong at the COOP that makes staff want to unionize. As I said in my comment, I would think that the cooperative environment at HWFC would be among the better environments for employees - with meaningful employee input and good compensation and benefits.

I'm not trying to distract, I'm just curious if there are legitimate issues the COOP's strucutre and leadership team are truly failing to address.

I also worry that this is the typical case of progessives canabalizing themselves. I worry that a union will be brought in (at a very delicate time) for reasons that haven't been articulated and may not be so severe they warrant a third party's involvement. I worry this "principled" decision will hurt the COOP and that we will potentially lose a great progressive business in our area.

... said Jay on Mar 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM | link

@Jay: Are you going to meaningfully address what I wrote or try to dismiss it as "rhetoric?" You do understand that workers are paid less than the value of the goods and services they produce, the difference being controlled by the management/owners/bosses/individual(s) in charge, don't you? That isn't rhetoric; it is a matter of fact. At any rate, you are displaying all the characteristics of a "concern" troll, so forgive me for mistaking you for one.

I will return to my point: the workers at the co-op--just like workers anywhere else--have the right to organize themselves and form a union (Jay, you can stop all references to it as a "third party" now) free from managerial (to call it a "leadership team"--I'm rolling my eyes now--is a prime example of Thomas Friedman-esque, corporate re-branding) interference, as prescribed by law. The grievances--whatever they may be and however valid or invalid you find them--have no bearing on this right.

But moving on to grievances, let's use a bit of common sense: do you think that the workers at Honest Weight would go to all of this trouble--and this letter is only the *public* beginning of that trouble; no one can seriously doubt that all sorts of things have likely been going on in-house beyond the public's eye--because of something trivial?

Jay, I think the problem is that you and I use the term "progressive" differently, and as a result may misunderstand each other. For you, it seems that "progressive" excludes the right of workers to organize to improve their collective lot if you believe it *may*--with no evidence--interfere with your ability to obtain organic food (the latter is something else I would consider valuable in its own right, by the way). The difference for me is that the two are not mutually exclusive; there is enough room under the sun for a well-compensated, meaningful job, organic food, bike lanes, and hybrid cars, too!

... said Vincent on Mar 19, 2014 at 1:47 PM | link

Jeez Vince, way to beat up on Jay.

I'm also interested in learning about why the workers want to unionize, and I haven't seen any media covering this issue. As Barry mentioned above, he is a member, and has seen the workers not be treated well by management, and gave specific examples. Are these their reasons, or just what he's seen?

I don't think that by being curious about this means I don't feel they have a right to unionize. And yes, it is disappointing that the management is speaking out against/trying to impede unionization. Still I don't see the need to go off on people for wanting to know what's doing on behind the scenes. That's just human nature.

... said Jessica R on Mar 19, 2014 at 2:46 PM | link

@ParmaHam

"The difference in costs between union work and non union work is substantial."

READ: Union institutions/employers pay their workers fair wages for their labor. Non-union institutions/employers pay low, unfair wages for the same labor. There's a name for that: exploitation.

... said Kim D. on Mar 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM | link

@Jessica R: Shall I chalk it up to "prurient" interest on Jay's part? My fault with Jay does not lie with his curiosity, but with what he surrounds his alleged curiosity with: the implication that somehow the grievances or, rather, his or anyone else's evaluation of the grievances, somehow matter in this situation and had bearing upon the workers' right to unionize. They do not.

... said Vincent on Mar 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM | link

@Jay @JessicaR At bottom, the "grievances" of the workers are completely irrelevant to their right/desire to form a union. Any workers who wish to unionize - even if they have NO grievances whatsoever - can and should be allowed the opportunity to do so. Continuing to focus on the specifics of the workers' complaints sends the message that "if they've been treaded badly enough by management, they should have the right to unionize. If they haven't been treated "badly" enough (who quantifies this?), then they shouldn't form a union." That is dangerous territory and runs contrary to the notion that any workers, anytime they wish to do so, should be allowed to unionize, regardless of how well or poorly they are treated at their workplace.

It seems as though many people do not understand the purpose(s) of the union - it's not simply to rescue workers when they are being *treated badly.*

... said Kim D. on Mar 19, 2014 at 5:59 PM | link

Many AOA readers are members at HWFC or do some of their shopping there. Here's how you can help:

The union organizing committee is appealing to the Capital District community for support with their efforts. They are urging supporters to speak with the paid workers at the co-op (different from "member volunteers") to express their backing for unionization and how unions "bring benefits to workers and the broader society." Co-op members are urged to contact the Co-op Board (board@honestweight.coop) and management (LT@honestweight.coop) to press management to CEASE its interference with the union representation drive.

I have stopped by the co-op a number of times in recent weeks to express my support and encouragement to workers I spoke with. I've also contacted members of the board to express my disapproval & disappointment with management's anti-union campaign. If you support the HWFC workers and their efforts, I encourage you to do the same!

... said Kim D. on Mar 19, 2014 at 7:33 PM | link

@ Vincent: While I don't want to hijack this thread, I do think this is an important discussion to have.

I agree all workers need the right to unionize and most should. I'm just not so dogmatic that I would demand all workplaces be unionized. I'm surprised a more progressive organization like HWFC is being targeted as anti-union when there are far worse offenders in the food market industry itself. Further it is a third party because the union they will bring in is larger than the group of employees at HWFC and has its own distinct interests. That makes it a third party, because it brings to the table a third perpective.

As for the leadership team, I took that phrasing from your post. But please be reasonable, we're not talking about the Walton family here. I'm not worried about losing my ability to buy organic food because I can do so at many places. I'm worried about losing HWFC, which is something far greater than the goods and services it provides.

My version of "progressive" is just simply less rigid and inflexible than yours. I don't see the world through the black and white lens of class struggle. This allows me the freedom to question why a local, progressive treasure like HWFC is being portrayed as if it's Walmart.

... said Jay on Mar 19, 2014 at 9:00 PM | link

@ Kim D - The grievances are only irrelevant in an abstract sense. However, you must recognize there are practical implications to consider, too. I don't think anyone (including the leadership team, despite their poorly prepared letter) thinks the workers should not have the right to organize, the question is whether that makes strategic sense here.

Further, the accusation that there is a disconnect between employees of HWFC and the Board/Management indicates more than just a break down in labor relations - it points to a fundamental failure of itsgoverning structure. This is a very serious accusation and it would be helpful to understand how the cooperative arrangement is failing. Have the employees lost their ability to state grievances or vote on the direction of HWFC? If so, that calls into question the whole cooperative arrangement.

If we were talking about plans to organize at Price Chopper or Walmart, I'd be screaming my support with you. However, by its very nature, HWFC should have the structures in place for workers to voice their opinions and participate in directing the mission of the organization. I'd like to see this work out within the cooperative process, rather than through the introduction of third parties that will only cause both sides to get more entrenched and combative. The whole point of the cooperative is for all sides to work together as one. An external union will not do that.

As I stated originally, I get nervous when I see the progressives canabalize themselves and I'd hate to see HWFC be damaged because of a blind adherance to class struggle dogma.

... said Jay on Mar 20, 2014 at 9:50 AM | link

While specific grievances of the workers are irrelevant to their right to unionize, knowledge of their reasons for the interest can help co-op members to know how, as partial owners of the co-op, they should respond. We can support unionization efforts while ALSO working to change the environment that has led to them. If the leadership team and board have behaved badly, for example, we may want to vote to oust the current board and change the management structure of the c-op. Regardless of whether workers choose to unionize, other methods can be used to fix problems as well.

... said Sarah Rain on Mar 20, 2014 at 11:07 AM | link

@Jay "If we were talking about plans to organize at Price Chopper or Walmart, I'd be screaming my support with you."

I believe **wholeheartedly** that you would! As a matter of fact, I've stated as much to those I've spoken with about this issue. However it's a different story when it's a beloved "progressive" institution engaging in the very same practices. Reminds me of that classic Phil Ochs song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw&feature=kp

More later on your invocation of the Big Bad Walmart. Precious HWFC and Wally are not as different as many lead themselves to believe.

... said Kim D. on Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM | link

@Jay - "It would be helpful to understand how the cooperative arrangement is failing. Have the employees lost their ability to state grievances or vote on the direction of HWFC? If so, that calls into question the whole cooperative arrangement."

I'm not a member of HWFC but I do shop there and recognize its importance to the community. I've been critical of the co-op in the past, but that's only because I would like to see it be the best version of itself, in part because of the increasing competitive threats.

That said, I think we saw a distant early warning about the disintegration of the cooperative arrangement in December. If you'll recall, chrisck (who is a member-worker) explained her concerns after she learned about the Leadership Team's decision to expand into the Empire State Plaza on AOA. By that time the decision had been made and the membership had neither been consulted nor notified.

The below is a link to her full comment:
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2013/12/16/honest-weight-food-co-op-cafe#comment-506518

... said Daniel B. on Mar 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM | link

It looks like some folks are confusing the collective ownership of the enterprise (members) with the workers that sell their labor to the collective (whether or not they are also members). Most corporations are "collectively" owned by stockholders, not unlike the co-op. At stake, here, is the absolute right of those who sell their labor to organize in a union, new or existing. There is no conflict between those two things. And, yes, absolutely, they should bring in an outside third party to negotiate their salaries and benefits. This not only guarantees an impartial negotiation, but it safeguards the workers against the possibility of broader factions within the membership being built and voting against the best interests of those who sell their labor. This is what irritates me about so-called "progressives" -- progressivism stops where self-interest takes over.

... said Joe A on Mar 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM | link

If my husband and I own a grocery store, but choose someone to manage it's only employees (my husband and I), should we unionize? Keeping in mind that if at any time the collective employees have grievance they can simply change management..

I think if the employees want to unionize, we need to fundamentally change the way that voting and board selection occurs - given that member-workers currently have the only say in the decisions about the co-op. As a member-owner who does not have the bandwidth to work most months - I am not given a right to vote. Workers can't be the only ones with a vote on either side of the table. I am a union member, I am pro-union, but only when the group *needs* a union. I don't get a vote in the administration of my institution, so I have a union to protect my interests. Oddly, I also don't have an avenue to protect my own interests as a non-working member owner (and the vast majority of member-owners are non-working).

... said JLau on Mar 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM | link

Daniel B. is astute in seeing the union drive as symptomatic of broader concerns about the leadership of the co-op as the store and organization has gotten bigger and more complex.

The membership has voiced similar concerns about not being heard. Literally not being listened to: at a June 2013 membership meeting, the members REJECTED a proposal from the Leadership Team to expand the meat policy (which currently allows only locally or regionally sourced meat) to allow nationally (and potentially internationally) sourced meat and meat products. Despite that very clear vote by the membership against selling non local/regional meat products,, the Leadership Team made a decision around Thanksgiving to stock a national brand chicken broth in the store because of customer demand. That might sound reasonable if the co-op was a ordinary profit-driven store, but it's a co-op with major policies decided on by the member-owners. (The co-op's Governance Review Council ultimately ruled that the selling of national brand meat broth was a violation of co-op policies.) I personally wrote to the Leadership Team at the time to voice my concern that they had ignored a democratic vote by the membership, but got no reply.

There are other examples, such The Coop Scoop going from being a largely member-produced newsletter to becoming the product of the store's marketing department without any discussion with the membership before this decision was made. There may be good reasons for the switch, but the member-owners were not brought into the discussion.

Full disclosure: I am a working member, but I am now part-time staff (as a sub) so my views are informed by both roles. Don't get me wrong -- I love the co-op. I love the expanded product lines and services, I love the teaching kitchen and classes, I love the better parking. I wouldn't shop or work there if I didn't love the place. I wouldn't even bother to write this post if I didn't love the place. And the Board and Leadership Team get all due respect for shepherding the planning and opening of the new store to fruition. It was an amazing feat and the store seems to be thriving. But a democratically run organization can get off track if the members passively allows decision making power be concentrated at the top. It's a delicate balance to not micro manage the managers, but to maintain the democratic, collective spirit of a cooperative.

Lastly, as a long time union activist in my previous career with the state, I personally feel there is a benefit to unions and collective bargaining even in a co-op environment. But that will be up to the majority of the staff to decide if that is what they want.

Christine Kleinegger

... said chrisck on Mar 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM | link

@Christine The problem is that no vote is a 'democratic vote by the members' they are all votes by the *working* membership, and at that - only the ones who happen to have the time to physically make it to a meeting. There are virtually no other co-ops nationwide who allow only working members to vote on policy. I truly believe if these votes were put to the entire membership, there would not be nearly as much opposition to things like national-brand organic chicken broth. The current policies aren't working and if we are looking at inequity and lack of representation, we need to look at THAT issue first.

... said JLau on Mar 20, 2014 at 4:41 PM | link

@Jay: You admit that you would come out in support of workers attempting to unionize at Walmart. Interesting - as if WM and HWFC are starkly different in their management styles. Labor411.org has posted a Walmart anti-union "training video" intended for management - they use almost the EXACT same language as the Co-Op in their letter to employees.

http://labor411.org/411-blog/484-an-anti-union-video-that-will-make-you-cringe

And here is a similar video from Target that was just posted online today:

https://aattp.org/wow-targets-new-anti-union-propaganda-may-be-worse-than-walmarts-video/

Much of the language (*rhetoric*) used in BOTH of these corporate anti-union campaign videos is almost exactly like the letter sent to HWFC employees. There's a simple reason for this: companies working to dissuade workers from joining a union almost always hire a trained, third party consultant to draft letters, create videos, etc. etc. They *pay* a third party to keep the union out, then they criticize employees for trying to involve a “third party” - the union.

This place is a "cooperative" in name only. Don't be fooled. Talk to some of the workers. They initiated this union-drive because of dysfunction and mistreatment at their workplace. The union did not approach workers in any way prior to this organizing campaign. This is not a worker-owned, worker-run institution in any real or meaningful way. As we see now clear as day, the Board and Management can and do act completely independently of the workers. But then maybe you also consider Walmart to be a "progressive" institution - they sell organic food too!!!! (That's what makes them "progressive," right?) As disturbing as HW's response has been, it is TRULY entertaining to see the hypocrisy of Albany's liberals on full display!

... said Kim D. on Mar 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM | link

Where and with whom should I begin?
@Jay: Did you listen to Phil Ochs yet? That was good. Qualitatively speaking, the tactic employed by Honest Weight is the same as those employed elsewhere, Walmart included. Unless the workers run the firm themselves, and have the ability to democratically remove their management and/or make collective decisions about their conditions and wages, a union is, without a doubt, necessary. As you know, Honest Weight doesn't run that way, and so a union is, without a doubt, necessary.

At any rate, you probably should have done your homework before invoking the Waltons.

@Sarah Rain: yes, knowing those grievances are good, and the union being formed will see to it that the interests of the people who work there are better respected than if the union wasn't there.

@JLau: you are wrong. It isn't your place--or mine or anyone else's--to decide if the workers' have a "need" for a union. Only they can answer that.

@everyone who is critical of the workers' desire to organize at Honest Weight: take a deep breath and deal with it. In fact, get used to it going forward in the coming years. It is 2014, and the past four decades have shown the destruction wrought on middle and working class people in this country without their being organized in some way, shape, or form, including but not necessarily limited to.unions. If you think class isn't real, you haven't been paying attention or are relatively affluent and in denial of the privilege that brings. You object to the growing inequality and corporatization of our world at a safe, polite, "reasonable" distance, thinking that by voting for Obama the second time you were meaningfully opposing these things when instead, in the words of Machiavelli, you were "drowning a plant by watering it" (i.e. helping these things along rather than stopping them). So here we are now and it is in your face. "Which side are you on?"

... said Vincent on Mar 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM | link

I must concede that while a Co-op member, I’ve checked out on my democratic responsibilities as a member over the past few years, relying on working-members to bear that responsibility and the Co-op management to sheppard the policies. Most times, I’ve supported the policies adopted and accepted those that I wasn’t fully behind. However, between posts like these and anecdotal conversations I’ve heard at the Co-Op, it does sound like that an increasing number of decisions are being made with lack of member buy in (i.e. a vote) and this is a real issue that needs to be addressed both by the membership and the leadership. I for one am going to pen a letter to the leadership calling for a general meeting that will allow us to discuss all these issues in an open venue and point by point decide what policies need to be modified (by vote).

I’m going to ignore providing any comments at this point on the union issue, largely because anyone reading my comments will probably seize up on that issue alone and ignore my thoughts on the greater issues at hand (allowance or disallowance of a union is just one component of the greater mechanics of the stores cooperative nature). However, as a member I have a genuine concern if paid staff are facing real issues from leadership, and union or not, these issues need to be aired out in open for the membership to rectify.

In terms of comments by those like JLau on the issue of only “working members” getting a right to vote, I tend to disagree, but do see-saw on the issue. I’m guilty of letting life get the best of me and not finding time to work my hours in order to vote, but when an important vote does come, I put those hours in to make sure I can enter a vote. I think this feature encourages one to put more skin in the game beyond buying a mere share, just like members in general put more skin in the game by purchasing a share versus non-members. When I work my hours, I get a better appreciation of how the store functions, the needs of member and non-member customers alike, and a more holistic understanding of how our policies and governance effect the management of our store. I think this is important knowledge to have in order to exercise a vote. However, maybe a weighted vote of sorts could address this issue, where working members votes count twice, yet non-working members are entitle to a vote so as to not discount their possession of the “experience of life” which could help enrich the decision making process.

When the store moved from Quail to Central Ave, kinks developed as the mission evolved and the democratic nature of the Co-Op was able to weather the issues through compromise (as a staunch vegetarian, I was deeply disappointed in meat being allowed, but have conceded to the greater democratic nature of the establishment). I have no doubt that the current issues can be settled through these same democratic processes. It just takes patience and willingness to do so.

... said Rich on Mar 21, 2014 at 9:22 AM | link

Having been around when it was more of a buying club turning into a cooperative it has not failed to become a very complex organization as the intellectual quality of all previous comments indicate, troubles across a broad group will happen when changes are not kept inline with our own self reflective standards. This is why general membership meetings are critical for us to participate in to hear each other concerns in real terms face to face, not in the abstract unfettered world of this fluff electronic. Because it seems that a declining spiral of progress when effort to debate publicly amongst fellow members are not made part of our process. It takes a concerted effort to be present for these affairs as it should be. As it stands now you also need to participate actively with a work requirement. I do not see how a person expressly concerned with the quality of the food choices they desire can get out of this if they want to have a vote. I believe you may attend and voice your opinion should you not have made the work requirement giving your ability to express your ideas a chance to be relevant in the vote.
My first question is can a union be a cooperative? Having worked in a Union in which i had the feeling the leadership was corrupt and self serving it left me feeling i was just a pawn for there own gain, questioning ethics of how leadership needs to be controlled by the membership in some fashion seems a point to ponder for the direction of the paid staff in there union affiliation or creation. Granted a referendum could be called by the membership if a serious concern were to be had with either the Board or the Leadership team of HWFC and is not out of reason should enough members petition for it.
Personally i think it was a sound move to open a site at the Empire Plaza as it has had an appealing success. Good leadership makes things happen that benefit the larger good. Our paid staff need to feel good compensation for there role in making that success happen. This is a unique situation but as a cooperative we have as members a valuable role to play to level the playing field.

... said Lawrence Eger on Mar 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM | link

I would say then to Lawrence and others, in response to the feeling that one should have to work in order to have a say in the running of the co-op that then one should not call those who pay for a membership share member-owners. Instead my money is a donation of sorts, with no real ownership attached. This also means the the governance of the co-op is skewed against those who have multiple jobs, young children, or other family situations that prevent them from donating their time, and those who are not paid workers at the co-op. I would equate this to having some sort of test before one is allowed to vote in national elections, or requiring community service for participation in the democratic process. I agree - requiring those things might create more engaged citizens, but it would also create two tiers of citizenry - those with a say, and those without one.

... said JLau on Mar 21, 2014 at 3:19 PM | link

As someone who works full time at the co-op I'd like to weigh in- I would love to be represented by a union because I feel...
1- A distinct lack of job security. There's huge abuse of the temp and sub status with our many of our new co-workers. Co-op policy allows people to work up to 6, sometimes 9 months before being fired without cause on the last day of their probationary period (no benefits or sick days allowed during that period). This happened recently with no cause given. Many of our policies and procedures were made with good intentions, but the management aren't really bound to follow them, and often don't because there's a lot on their plate running this store during this period of growth and change. If we had a union contract, the policies would clear and fair, everyone would be bound to keep up their end of the bargain.
2-There's been a huge reduction in benefits over the years and I'd like to regain some or at least ensure that we can keep what we have now. A lot of people seem to view working here as some hippie utopia, which is not at all the case. We work hard and do a good job and deserve some protections. We rely on these jobs to raise our families.
3- The "let's just talk about it and work things out" model might work at a company where you have 20 employees who've known each other for 10 years, but we have something like 170 or 180 employees, almost half of which have started since June. No matter what everyone wishes, it's not the same organization it was back in the day. It's great that we have so many more customers now eating healthy food, and shopping at a place which keeps the money in the community, but we've come a long way from Quail St. and we're not going back.
4- I love the co-op, was a working member for many years, and was happy to get a job at a place I believe in. I agree with Christine that we have done great things, and there are a lot of real positives about our new store. Me and many others want to bargain collectively because we want to keep it a good place to work, not have it be another crappy service job where people come for a year or two while waiting for something better.
5- The Co-op is a consumer's cooperative, not a worker's cooperative. We employees are member-owners and get to vote along with about 1500 other people on larger Co-op issues, but not on the conditions of our employment. Did the membership vote on reducing our number of holidays? Or the floor plan of the new store which created unsafe working conditions in the warehouse? Or that new hires should get full time jobs ahead of decade-plus part time workers who wanted those hours and benefits? These things get decided by a very small group of people without any input from us. With a union, we would get a say in specific worker issues, while the larger visioning of the organization would be decided by the membership as a whole.
6- After looking deeply into the issue, including how this specific union (UFCW) has worked at other food co-ops, I'm confident that unionizing will help the employees and make the store better with a steadier workforce and less turnover. It won't further deteriorate the co-operative nature of the place and certainly WON'T eliminate the member program (a rumor that the board has been spreading). The union takes a neutral stance on member work at Co-ops during contract negotiations and anyway, I would never approve a contract that threatens the member program, and neither would my co-workers.

... said hwfc employee on Mar 21, 2014 at 11:53 PM | link

For those of you who remember Gustav Ericson, the longtime cheese monger at the Honest Weight, I've copied below his comment on the issue of staff discontent that I just found on the T.U. thread. (He is responding to Barry Trachtenberg's comment, which you can also read above.) As many of you know, Gustav left the co-op last spring, after 12 years of employment.

Gustav says:

March 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Ah, Barry, you took the words from my mouth, the thoughts from my mind, and the sense of deep disappointment from my heart. Like so many, I lament the demise of the old Honest Weight, where one felt that one really had a valued, or at the very least, considered voice and was not paternalistically and brusquely talked down to. It's particularly telling that a member of the eLiTist (team) was on her way to probably her sixth meeting that day and could only be reached electronically.
Gustav Ericson, Saratoga Springs

... said chrisck on Mar 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM | link