Whole Foods Is Reportedly Using a Heat Map To Track Stores At Risk of Unionization (businessinsider.com) 134
According to Business Insider, Amazon-owned Whole Foods is tracking and scoring stores it deems at risk of unionizing through an interactive heat map. From the report: The heat map is powered by an elaborate scoring system, which assigns a rating to each of Whole Foods' 510 stores based on the likelihood that their employees might form or join a union. The stores' individual risk scores are calculated from more than two dozen metrics, including employee "loyalty," turnover, and racial diversity; "tipline" calls to human resources; proximity to a union office; and violations recorded by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The map also tracks local economic and demographic factors such as the unemployment rate in a store's location and the percentage of families in the area living below the poverty line.
The stores' scores on each metric are fed into the heat map, which is a geographic illustration of the United States peppered with red spots to indicate high-risk Whole Foods stores. The heat map reveals how Whole Foods is using technology and data to help manage its vast workforce of more than 95,000 employees. It also provides a rare look into corporate labor-tracking activities, a common practice among large companies but one rarely discussed publicly. In a statement provided to Business Insider, the company said an "overwhelming majority" of its employees prefer a "direct relationship" with the company over union representation. "Whole Foods Market recognizes the rights of our Team Members to decide whether union representation is right for them," the company said. "We agree with the overwhelming majority of our Team Members that a direct relationship with Whole Foods Market and its leadership, where Team Members have open lines of communication and every individual is empowered to share feedback directly with their team leaders, is best."
"Our open-door communication policy allows us to understand and quickly respond to the needs of our workforce, while recognizing, rewarding, and supporting the goals of every member of our team," the statement continued. "At Whole Foods Market, we're committed to treating all of our Team Members fairly, creating a safe, inclusive, and empowering working environment, and providing our Team Members with career advancement opportunities, great benefits, and competitive compensation, including an industry-leading starting minimum wage of $15/hour."
The stores' scores on each metric are fed into the heat map, which is a geographic illustration of the United States peppered with red spots to indicate high-risk Whole Foods stores. The heat map reveals how Whole Foods is using technology and data to help manage its vast workforce of more than 95,000 employees. It also provides a rare look into corporate labor-tracking activities, a common practice among large companies but one rarely discussed publicly. In a statement provided to Business Insider, the company said an "overwhelming majority" of its employees prefer a "direct relationship" with the company over union representation. "Whole Foods Market recognizes the rights of our Team Members to decide whether union representation is right for them," the company said. "We agree with the overwhelming majority of our Team Members that a direct relationship with Whole Foods Market and its leadership, where Team Members have open lines of communication and every individual is empowered to share feedback directly with their team leaders, is best."
"Our open-door communication policy allows us to understand and quickly respond to the needs of our workforce, while recognizing, rewarding, and supporting the goals of every member of our team," the statement continued. "At Whole Foods Market, we're committed to treating all of our Team Members fairly, creating a safe, inclusive, and empowering working environment, and providing our Team Members with career advancement opportunities, great benefits, and competitive compensation, including an industry-leading starting minimum wage of $15/hour."
Bullllshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't be surprised if we find a reason to fire you shortly after.
Right to work or to be selfish? (Score:2)
Really? For that tidbit you got "Insightful" moderation? I tried to see the details, but Slashdot doesn't feel like revealing them. Just an empty box.
I actually think it was rather cunning how the new corporate barons used "right to work" laws to destroy unions. Essentially it turns the altruism of workers against them. Even in the limited altruism of trying to negotiate for a wage that would allow you to support your family, you can't compete against a single worker who will gladly do your job for much les
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish i had mod points - agreed Unions are not bad, most are very good - forced Unions are not good, and most are bad.. there is a big difference.
Re: Bullllshit. (Score:2)
no one can be forced to join a union, and no one can be barred from any job if they aren't member of a union.
In the US we call that "Right to Work." Usually States which have Right to Work laws also prevent Unions from gathering Dues from non members.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Closed shops have been illegal nationwide in the United States since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act [wikipedia.org]. The Chamber of Commerce has been engaging in a decade-long, highly effective PR campaign suggesting that only Right-to-Work states forbid closed shops. This is a lie.
Right-to-Work states prohibit unions from charging non-members an agency fee. An agency fee is a fee lower than the membership fee which only covers contract negotiation, administration, and grievance; services which non-members receive full access t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a nice window there. Want to make a voluntary donation to keep stones out of it?
"Voluntary"! Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:2)
Its the United States of Corporations now. Most workers who have a retirement plan have it totally tied up in corporate stocks. And therefore their retirement value goes high if wages go low and unemployment is higher, which leads to a lot of counterintuitive behaviors at times where citizens act against their own self interests. Banks get bailed out so that reitirees aren't left penniless, and even the most fiscally conservative politicians will put their ideals to the side to vote for corporate welfare
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The average unionized worker pays ~$600/year in dues. Even on
It really would not take much to 'gain' $600 per year in 'benefits'. Do you really have trouble understanding this?
Here's a counter-argument you might be able to understand:
Everything the workers "gain" is at the expense of the employer right?
If the workers gain so little from unionizing, that their dues more than eat up the gains, then it must ALSO cost the employer very little to cover those gains.
Since it your argument implies it costs the employer so little, then why are they paying 3rd party consulting companies to monitor their employees and go into full-union-busting-mode-this-side-of-legal the minute they get a whiff of union talk?
Perhaps the employers, unlike you, correctly recognize that unionized employees enjoy on average *markedly* better wages, better annual wage increases, more health benefits, more vacation and personal days, higher job security, than non-union equivalents... all adding up to FAR FAR more than the average union dues. I mean, if WholeFoods thought unionized employees would cost them 0.5% more/annum in labor costs, they really wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.
False premise. Bad ideas are bad all around (Score:5, Insightful)
GP mentioned the union dues and other costs to workers and your reply was:
> Everything the workers "gain" is at the expense of the employer right?
> If the workers gain so little from unionizing, that their dues more than eat up the gains, then it must ALSO cost the employer very little to cover those gains.
No, as the post you replied to pointed out, it's not a zero-sum game. It is NOT true that everything that's bad for the employer is good for the employee and vice-versa. So no, "it's not that great for the employee" does not imply that it's not bad for the employer. It can be bad for both, and sometimes is bad for both, and bad for customers too.
For example, under the union system you get the union wage. You can't earn more by doing a good job. You get paid exactly the same amount as your stoned-off-his-ass co-worker. Doing a good job, being polite to customers and fellow employees can't benefit you at all - you get exactly the same treatment as the guy who is always an asshole to everyone.
That's bad for employees, bad for the company, and bad for customers. It's just bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Good workers tend to get kept, promoted and valued, unlike the stoned or arsehole employees.
Dunno about your unions, but where I'm from ('straya) our unions don't spend too much effort defending the indefensible.
Re:False premise. Bad ideas are bad all around (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm from the "public sector" in a state where peoples ambitions go to die, because of the union. When I started, I was forced to join the union. Here's how your " good workers" get "promoted".
The good workers get all the work, and usually the more difficult stuff. The lazy, the senior workers sit and do almost nothing, and then the good workers get to clean up the mess. I watch it every day, now I watch it online... You can't fire the bad workers, they will "bump" someone else out of their position. You can't fire the workers, because the union WILL defend them. Everyone knows who is a good worker and who is not. The managers, directors, everyone! What happens is everyone knows who gets things done (good workers) and they get all the work, until they get tired of it and move to another position. The same bad people are left to do nothing, and they you hire someone new. The real problem is when an entire group is full of bad workers. The group is screwed. The real only way to get rid of them is for them to die or retire.
Re:False premise. Bad ideas are bad all around (Score:5, Insightful)
That's interesting (Score:2)
That's very interesting. Here in the states it the union motto is "equal pay for equal work" - everybody gets the same. The only exception I've seen is star footballers and actors.
That's not True (Score:3)
The Union leadership does support equal pay for women doing the same work though, so that might have been where you picked it up. But even the leadership doesn't make it a priority. It's just something they agree with. e.g. you can find a section of their website that mentions it but it won't come up much if at all in contract negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know your friends, so I can't comment on what they say to you in casual conversation. What I can do is look at what the unions themselves say, such as the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America:
https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_t... [ueunion.org]
"basic principal of unionism is "equal pay for equal work." This means that people doing the same or comparable job should receive the same hourly or salaried pay. "
https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_f... [ueunion.org]
'All Union people know that a basic way to achieve fairness
You don't get the "Union Wage" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many unions will get you more money by doing a good job. It just was not typical in the US union system. And when it did happen it was fought against. There is not just one model of a union, all a union really needs is a collective bargaining power and after that point how it bargains is up to each one.
For instance, I used to have a Saturn car, a brand from GM. The union they had was different (and the factory, design, everything). You got bonuses based upon quality, not seniority. When the factory did
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a US union employee, and I get paid above union minimum. My union contract sets a floor, if you get more than that, the union is happy for you. In fact, my employer gives their union employees more than the union required vacation days and other perks that aren't required by contract.
I'm also an at-will employee, so if I goof off, slack on the job, etc, they can get rid of me. (At most, there's some paperwork and procedures because of corporate reasons more than union rules)
Re: (Score:3)
If this were true, the economy would never have expanded to become larger than the first cavemen trading an axe for a spear.
The economy grows when both sides of a financial transaction benefit. The employee cannot produce money, but can produce work. The employer lacks the manpower to produce work, but has money from selling goods or services. The two agree to swap that which they have to their mutual benefit. The employee accepts
Re: (Score:3)
Everything the workers "gain" is at the expense of the employer right? If the workers gain so little from unionizing, that their dues more than eat up the gains, then it must ALSO cost the employer very little to cover those gains.
No. That's not true at all. The first part is, the gain of the worker must come from the loss of something and that's mostly from the employer, but the loss from the employer does not exclusively translate to a gain for employees. Your statement is only true in raw salary, the reality is the loss to the employer is far larger in intangibles not relating to the salary of employees. Protectionism of under-performing workers, loss of efficiency, massive waste in union negotiations that could be put more to pro
Re: (Score:2)
The more I read about unions in the USA the more I think that USA unions are doing it WRONG.
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:4, Informative)
why are they paying 3rd party consulting companies
Because in addition to the good points made in other replies, even if Union membership results in just half its fees being returned to the employees as benefits, that's $300 per year times 95000 employees. $28.5m buys a lot of third party consultancy.
Except that it's not $28.5m, it's far more than that. There's also the wages for union officials, the management overheads of dealing with the union, the loss of productivity from staff, the loss of staff morale due to union agitators trying to stir up trouble and the increased difficulty in recruiting good staff because capable people stay the fuck away from unions.
unionized employees enjoy on average *markedly* better wages, better annual wage increases, more health benefits, more vacation and personal days, higher job security, than non-union equivalents
Then why are they always so fucking unhappy. Why does the Government need to keep bailing out highly unionised businesses? Why do so many people refuse to ever join another union after making that mistake the first time?
Re: (Score:3)
"Then why are they always so fucking unhappy."
Good question. Perhaps the ability to be unhappy with your job is a luxury that comes from having it protected. :) I'm actually more than half-serious here. I do think that's part of it.
I also think unions attract people who are predisposed to being difficult, precisely because it protects them, and that affects everyone else too.
But, mostly, I think its primarily the same reason as I give below.
"Why do so many people refuse to ever join another union after maki
Re: (Score:2)
Because lots of unions, like lots of corporations, are very poorly run.
You do indeed take a risk on your employer when agreeing to a new job.
Even more reason not to also take a risk on a union. Twice as many organisations to go wrong, and a relationship between them that can break too.
Much more risk. Enough that even if you don't join the union, companies that are heavily unionised are unattractive just from that risk perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
"You do indeed take a risk on your employer when agreeing to a new job."
But you can leave anytime you like.
"companies that are heavily unionised are unattractive just from that risk perspective."
And yet government jobs around here are considered highly desirable, and a big 'get' if you land one. And my friends who got into the oil fields were racing to get in. So apparently the attractiveness is far from universal.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, you *can't* go and find a better job with better pay and better benefits. The union provides that by providing a collective bargaining power than an individual does not have and never will have. If you go in as an individual and try to negotiate higher hourly pay you will lbe out of a job. You are probably mistaking situations where you have a distinctive and rare sets of skills combined with the set of skills for negotiation and the hubris to think they can find a new job quickly. But if you
Re: (Score:3)
Because the only thing that's changed in the last 250 years is that some people have unionized. No other technological, legal, cultural changes have taken place.
Re: (Score:3)
If they get no benefit at all, then there's no point in unionizing. But it wouldn't be surprising to see their salary double after unionizing.
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think Whole Foods will double their $15 an hour wage to $30 an hour for stocking shelves?
Because we all know that no numbers exist between 15 and 30.
Because there is nothing unions fight for except money.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You are obviously illiterate, even if you happen not to be innumerate. The post you replied to was replying to the following:
But it wouldn't be surprising to see their salary double after unionizing.
Emphasis added.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there is nothing unions fight for except money.
This! Unions fight to fight. It doesn't matter if it's for more money, better holidays, the ability to slack off on the job, to protect that horrid employee who broke rules but whose son plays football with the son of the union leader, or simply because they can. Hell my favourite ones are where they fight to roll back the rules they fought to put in place in the last round of negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for that promised cost of living increase. Raises have continued to follow the company policy from before unionization, a policy that hasn
Re: (Score:2)
Selection bias. The places that have unions are probably the ones where it's easiest to create and maintain a union, and part of that is being a net benefit to the members.
In other words, the cost/benefit situation for a grocery store worker isn't the same as the one for someone in an auto
Re:Bullllshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
For lower-skilled, easily replaceable labor, they can each individually negotiate with the professional negotiators at a large company, or they can form a union and have professional union negotiators negotiate with company negotiators. They get a better deal with the latter.
For rare, high skill labor, perhaps there is limited benefit from unionization or even net costs. But that's not what this article is talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, don't tell me. Tell the minimum wage earners that keep bleating "Union == socialist == baaaaaad", as if they suddenly became the spokespeople for their corporate overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Said employee would own them if they did that.
After years of hearing "That person would end up OWNING that company after they sued them!" for whatever evil a corporation has done, I've yet to hear any heartwarming stories of victim ownership of a corporation.
Typically, they pay enough "fuck you" money to the victim that they walk away happy and it is less than a rounding error on the bottom line.
Truly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
America is hell.
Only in the dark orange areas of the heat map. The blue areas represent Elysium. Green is Midgard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Truly dystopian, late stage capitalism. America is hell.
Indeed. The fact they need unions just shows how backwards the country is. Why not join the west and actually regulate employers, offer employees legal protections, and build an agency to advocate for employees like a normal modern nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because FREEDOM!!!
Apparently?
I've never been to the USA and the more I read about it and their strange ways of doing stuff, the less I want to visit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not join the west and actually regulate employers, offer employees legal protections, and build an agency to advocate for employees like a normal modern nation.
Doing so would require an organization of workers fighting for a fairer share of revenue, building on their success in key industries, and finally force legislation making those changes normative across all industries -- just as happened in other western industrialized countries. You could call it a "Rebel Alliance" or something if you're a south
Re: (Score:2)
How dare workers look out for themselves, their employers and society as a whole! They should only be looking out for their personal/individual gain.
Re: (Score:2)
and? (Score:2)
Whole Foods has turned to shit anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know if you've not been back?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know if you've not been back?
You're not keyboard deep into this thread discussing how awesome Whole Foods is, or their response to a global pandemic that's putting their workers lives at risk.
That's "how".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. You got it from the internet. Must be true then.
And to think... (Score:5, Interesting)
They could have taken all that money spent on these anti-union efforts, and instead given every employee a small raise. Instead, they use the money to justify a narrative of "We can't let them get raises, because they'd get too much power."
This is the problem with money. Money corrupts. Let someone, or some entity, get too much of it, and it just goes to their heads. I know. Long ago, I lived for a year in Cairo, Egypt. Egypt is a class society, with an average annual income of around $3,000. At the time, I was earning ten times as much. On my arrival there, I was groomed by those in close social circles to "Know what things are worth," and "Don't let the locals take advantage of you." For example, my third day in Cairo, I took a 5-minute taxi trip. I paid $5 in local currency, because that's what the driver asked for. After telling this to a coworker, she frowned and said, "You realize you should have only paid $2, right? When you pay more, they're stealing from you." Fast forward nine months, and I have a friend's wedding I'm planning to attend in a nearby country. The flight's at 2am, so I get ready to leave at midnight. I wait ten minutes for a taxi driver, who wants $8 for a taxi ride to the airport. I tell him it's only worth $5. After ten minutes of negotiations, he agrees to $6, leisurely drives me to the airport 30 minutes away, and drops me off outside the parking ramp to avoid paying $1.50 for a parking ticket and tells me to walk the last block. I arrive at the airport five minutes after they close the gate. I miss my flight and my friend's wedding, all because I was stupid enough to haggle with the only taxi driver in the neighborhood at midnight. When I told the travel agent this story the next morning, she said, "Sounds like you got what you paid for."
I spent a whole year in Egypt thinking I had to keep the workers in their place, because otherwise, they'd take advantage of me. And by taking advantage of me, they will continue to take advantage of every other American that follows. By the end of my trip, I learned the hard way that I was the one taking advantage of them. Allow anyone to obtain a ridiculous amount of wealth, and it will go to their heads that they've earned it, are entitled to it, and need to keep it away from everyone else, because no one else deserves it.
Re:And to think... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the problem with money. Money corrupts.
If you're concerned about your money corrupting you, I'm happy to help by taking it off your hands.
Re: (Score:3)
The largest problems with unions (in the US at least) is that they never recovered from their mob connections.
Re:And to think... (Score:5, Interesting)
The largest problems with unions (in the US at least) is that they never recovered from their alleged mob connections.
FTFY
Go and read history books about what it was like during the industrial revolution before and after unions. Perhaps consider some very basic principles of mathematics - how higher the % of money that goes to the top of the tree, the lower the % gets to the supporting trunk and roots. Consider the stability or functionality of anything - tree, bridge or building where the majority of it is up high. The tree would fall over in a stiff breeze, the bridge would make the Tacoma Narrows look solid and the house would collapse as soon as it rained.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely appreciate what they did. But at least over here, the large unions mutated into some yes-saying-organisations and the small ones negotiate crazy raises for a minority of specilized trades on the back of their colleagues in less exclusive unions. So it's a different problem then in the US but no matter where they need to live up to their successes again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada, "fighting Communism" led our government to create some of the connections between unions and the mob. From the classic book about Canada's Prime Ministers, "Fifteen Men":
Re: (Score:2)
I've traveled overseas and noticed that seasoned travelers are always worried about being overcharged. I've also experienced the 'rich tourist' mind-set myself a few times.
I've discovered that everyone believes 'I have more rights than you'. While the American dream that everyone can be a millionaire by selling widgets to their neighbours is corporatism propaganda, I've seen that poor people don't perceive a helping hand as protecting their dignity but as teaching them to dump their bad choices on someone
Re: (Score:2)
>that seasoned travelers are always worried about being overcharged
Not me. I figure if the price is not out of whack for me, I don't begrudge it for the recipient. Getting to travel a lot is a huge privilege and not acting like a dick is one way to avoid appearing to be a dick. Enjoy your time traveling. Most people don't get to.
Re: (Score:2)
Many poor people don't think of money as stored labour with the power to change the future (by investment, education, or debt relief) but as material that must be consumed, like fresh milk.
That's because money changes its character depending on the total accumulated buying power.
There's this insultingly patronizing advice that constantly crops up saying, "If only poor people could learn to save $10/month instead of spending it on a latte, they would be better off," implying they wouldn't be poor anymore. This happy bullshit ignores literally everything else about the reality of their situation. At that savings rate, it only takes a decade to finally save up the $1000 benchmark commonly talk
Re: (Score:2)
They could have taken all that money spent on these anti-union efforts, and instead given every employee a small raise.
The fact that you think this would prevent a union movement from rising rather than accelerating it shows you have little idea of the concepts at play here.
Re: (Score:2)
Money doesn't corrupt. Money attracts the corrupt. There are plenty of counter-examples of fantastically wealthy, upstanding individuals. Buffet and Gates come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Buffet I won't argue against, Gates seems more like he's trying to right the wrongs he did in the past.
TIFTFY (Score:2)
"Whole Foods Market recognizes the rights of our Team Members to decide that union representation isn't right for them,"
There, I fixed that for you.
BREAKING: Business uses pie chart. Film at 11. (Score:4, Informative)
n/t
Seriously, though. The fact that they're using a heat map is not especially relevant. (Unless you're one of those progressive types who don't understand that software and analytical concepts can be used by people you disagree with.)
Re:BREAKING: Business uses pie chart. Film at 11. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Heat maps are very useful to determine which workers are humans (hot) or vampires (cold).
Or infected with COVID-19 (very hot) though they may be confused with very good looking employees (also very hot depending on how the map is made).
And that's *really* useful! (Score:2)
Heat maps are very useful to determine which workers are humans (hot) or vampires (cold).
Which means the bosses and CEOs don't show up on it, which makes a heatmap even more useful!
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, though. The fact that they're using a heat map is not especially relevant.
It sounds nefarious and sell eyeballs. What else uses heat map to track? Pandemic.
Would you even look at the headline if it was:
"Whole Foods Is Reportedly Analyze Data To Track Stores At Risk of Unionization"
In fact, "analyze data" is redundant since "track" also implied data analysis, so
"Whole Foods Reported Track Stores At Risk of Unionization"
There. No one would take a second look at it now.
Some basic IT ethics here. (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they're using a heat map; the problem is they're potentially misusing some of the data used to build it, e.g., calls made to HR.
Here's something anyone who administers a database with sensitive information ought to know: having legitimate access to data for one purpose does not automatically give you the right to use it for other things.
The government may well soon collecting location data from phones to do contact tracing during the COVID-19 epidemic. If they used that data to make a
How dare they (Score:3, Insightful)
use data visualization tools to help them understand the labor situation at their stores.
They also used a bar chart. Can you believe it?
How willfully obtuse (Score:2)
As long as you don't have a problem with those employees using guillotines, everything is reasonable all around, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
How would that be? They are tracking the likelihood of a group of employees trying to unionize, not commit crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Union efforts also track _very_ strongly with age, gender, religion, nationality, and medical condition, sll of which are illegal to discriminate for in many districts. It's partly why metadata can be so very useful. It's discoverable without leaving a paper trail that indicates illgal bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Preventing organized collective action (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of the things a lot of people in power want AI for. That includes governmental power of course. This is what the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence is about.
Detect in an early stage any form of organized opposition and break it up. Take preventive measures to reduce the chance for any clusters to arise. Use the same mechanisms the other way round in other countries, for adversaries.
Now in smaller businesses it can be done manually but as things scale up they need AI to scale up the monitoring and analysis. AI is all about scaling up.
Unions are a form of organization for small players to be in a stronger position of negotiation. As any organisation it can have troubles representing the interests of its members . It is a very weird feature of american society to despise unions. As if they've been indoctrinated not to pursue their own interests.
Re:Preventing organized collective action (Score:5, Interesting)
" As if they've been indoctrinated not to pursue their own interests."
If you look at their voting patterns you'll see a lot of evidence supporting your hypothesis.
Re: (Score:3)
Point taken. Although I have to correct myself and say it's not just about interests, also about values. It's ok if people vote for their values and against their personal interests. If they are aware of it.
This is an example of how far we've descended already:
https://www.thewrap.com/facebo... [thewrap.com]
'smart' censorship for citizens is fully implemented and taken for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really pro or anti union, but I just want to pick up one thing you mentioned in your post. About the only thing I'm semi-against is public sector unions, as that's just too much power in the hands of something that is a guaranteed monopoly.
"As if they've been indoctrinated not to pursue their own interests."
I would personally be against any unionization, not because I oppose my own interests, but because of it. I work in the private sector. In the global free trade world we live in, unless every cou
Re: (Score:2)
I agree pretty much with what you are saying. In my other reply that interests are too limited and that values also matter.
There is a link to a common ideology, represented by neoliberalism but broader, which assumes that if everyone acts as a psychopath working for their own interest then the result will somehow be good.
Where unions are concerned instead of trying to judge them head on I look at shifts in power balance.
After WW2 unions mattered and they were considered as such. Since the seventies wages fo
Visualisation (Score:2)
I don't think the form of the data visualiisation is the actual problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont get it. (Score:2)
so empowered (Score:2)
"every individual is empowered to share feedback directly with their team leaders"
Yeah ... I mean ... wow. That is empowering. You can share feedback?!?!?!! Just watch it go! That feedback is gonna to change the world baby!
Window dressing (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a hint.... (Score:3)
A clue for big companies everywhere:
If you are afraid of your employees unionizing against you, it's because they NEED a union against your greed.
OMG NOT A HEAT MAP!?!? (Score:2)
You know a heat map is just a graphical way of displaying information?
It works particularly well with geographic information because it displays one spectrum of information - intensity, quantity, some scaling value - simultaneously with other 2d information (ie a map), and is often employed for things where proximity might suggest connectivity of causality.
It is not particularly high tech, except insofar as our ability to display pretty graphics has allowed us to show it algorithmically with a lovely gradat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the new narcissism? "Everyone that disagrees with me MUST be a TROLL!"
Shouldn't you be declaring me a Russian hackerbot or something?
Nice B.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
When you weed out people who would support a union it's very easy to arrive at that sentiment.
It's also easier to engage in wage discrimination that way.
I don't blame them (Score:4, Insightful)
Same old anecdotes and confirmation biases (Score:2)
Just the "my brother's kindergarten teacher's ex boyfriend's great aunt Petunia once saw a lazy union worker back in the Carter Administration" with different words.
Uh huh. And you think that the negotiators for years long contracts with millions or even billions are on the line should be paid peanuts? Or just when those negotiators involve workers.
feedback (Score:2)
Who's surprised? Not me... (Score:2)
Especially in semi-skilled, non-rare labor classes like grocery clerks -- a union is pretty much the best chance any worker is going to have any power. Now that Amazon owns Whole Foods, I assume there's huge pressure to get rid of any differentiation between their clerks and their warehouse workers. I'm sure Amazon wants all their service-level workers making minimum wage and rushing around the stores for their entire shift. The clerks and cashiers are just trying to get ahead of it.
I work in IT in a non-un
Making Mud (Score:2)