The ITT List
Monday Jul 18, 2005 2:52 pm
Warming up for the AFL-CIO Quadrennial
In the spirit of immersing ourselves in the current state of labor before the AFL-CIO Quadrennial kicks off next week here are two divergent articles on the current state of labor:
In the Sunday Business Section of the Times had this mortifying look at labor standards, How Costco Became the Anti-Walmart:
And the rest of the article is about profit margins. Because while its labor practices make Costco look like an odd duck, what really matters is its ability to drive a hard bargin. Cheery reading.
Getting away from the absurdist coverage of the Times (I love when labor is only covered in the "Business" section) is Barbara Ehrenreich's"Tiny Labor" in the August issue of The Progressive:
And this only the beginning of a concise, interesting foray into where labor should head next.
In the Sunday Business Section of the Times had this mortifying look at labor standards, How Costco Became the Anti-Walmart:
But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well.
Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. [...] Emme Kozloff, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, faulted Mr. Sinegal as being too generous to employees, noting that when analysts complained that Costco's workers were paying just 4 percent toward their health costs, he raised that percentage only to 8 percent, when the retail average is 25 percent.
"He has been too benevolent," she said. "He's right that a happy employee is a productive long-term employee, but he could force employees to pick up a little more of the burden."
And the rest of the article is about profit margins. Because while its labor practices make Costco look like an odd duck, what really matters is its ability to drive a hard bargin. Cheery reading.
Getting away from the absurdist coverage of the Times (I love when labor is only covered in the "Business" section) is Barbara Ehrenreich's"Tiny Labor" in the August issue of The Progressive:
... today’s Tiny Labor has to take on class-wide issues now—or risk being the “special interest group” the right always claims it is. The unions should be spearheading the drive for universal health care, subsidized housing, and child care, adequate unemployment insurance, and all the other public benefits that would make low-wage workers’ lives more sustainable. At the local level, this might mean sending organizers into low-income neighborhoods to help people deal with TANF (the replacement for welfare) or the public housing authorities—just as, for example, the Swedish unions do.
And this only the beginning of a concise, interesting foray into where labor should head next.
4 comments ·
Please Login to Comment register a new account »
To participate in discussions, please register an account.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
I agree that the Times coverage is very slanted in its treatmnet of Costco. That article of course does not mention that the company has far lower turnover and training costs than Wal-Mart because employees like working there. In addition, Costco’s employees are more productive than Wal-Mart’s. The subtle rhetorical tools used in that article reflect a pro-corporate bias. Health insurance is not a burden anymore than the cost of flying the top brass around in a private jet is. It seems that conservatives only treat costs associated with the poor or the lower-level employees as burdens while the superfluous expenditures of the execs go unnoticed.
Bud, I think you missed something.the article expressly states that the company has lower turnover and that employees like working at Costco better. If there’s a corporate bias being shown, it’s not by the paper, but by the utterly disgusting and anti-American quotes from the Wall Street types like Emme Kozloff..
Frank,
You are right. The right-wing rhetoric lies in the quote, not the reporter’s own words. However, it is clear through the use of quotes from only one perspective that the reporter is pushing an agenda and giving the reader the impression that Costco’s business model is unsustainable.
I was misquoted in the New York Times. Both Costco management and I agreed a retraction was a waste of time. I would appreciate it if you could make this message known. I believe Costco is one of hte best companies I cover in my industry and my reports reflect that fact.
——-