Target, a retail outlet known for its aggressive anti-Union practices, has been in the news a lot this week. A recent attempt to unionize a Target in Stream Valley, New York failed by a 137-85 vote. The election, however, was overturned this week by the National Labor Relations Board. After a 10-day trial, the NLRB found that Target Corporation used unfair labor practices in order to interfere with the process for the vote, including threatening their employees:
“supervisor Nicole Barrett “pulled” [employee Tashwna Green] into the men’s accessories department and told her that she saw an article [Green wrote] in which Green...[wrote] that management was not listening to what the workers had to say...Barrett asked her “what management” she was referring to. Green...[said] “management overall"...Barrett [said] “I’m not here to tell [you] what to do; it’s [your] decision on how [you] want to vote. Just be careful of what you do cause you never know what could happen" (David).
Workers in the retail sector have long been considered a transient workforce, an argument which lent itself to the lack of attempts to organize at such outlets. The Stream Valley case is yet another sign that this is simply not the case. Instead, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the main driver behind a lack of employee based organizing is because of the aggressive attempts to intimidate these workers.
Retail employers like Target and Wal-Mart are some of the world's largest employers. Wal-Mart, in fact, is the world's largest private employer with 2.2 million employees. Target follows not too far behind as the fifth largest employer in the U.S. with 365,000 employers working at more than 1,700 locations (Form 10-k). These companies generate enormous revenues. When you do the math for Target's numbers, employees tend to generate more than $170,000 per capita even though they are only paid $6 - 7 an hour. Meanwhile, Target's CEO, Robert J. Ulrich, has been paid by the company more than $100 million dollars over the past 5 years (Forbes). The conflict here is clear: Target wants to reward its top executives with huge payouts while simultaneously decreasing the quality of life for its hardest workers.
Though the efforts to unionize a Target in Stream Valley might seem like a black swan, the case is by no means isolated and is in fact high stakes. The case smashes the illusion that Target Co. can practice unfair labor practices while still flying under the radar. For some time now, it has long been the opinion of many business analysts that Target's labor practices were altogether unimportant compared to the monolithic Wal-Mart Stores Inc. which dominates the industry (Bhatnagar). Yet, Target is the second largest employer in an industry which employs millions of worker.
Most importantly, the largest service employers, including Target but also Wal-Mart and McDonalds have never certified a union. Ever. Imagine how many millions of workers are employed in these industries who are vastly underpaid and have few benefits. A successful organizing campaign at such a significant employer like Target would definitely be a game changer as the sudden presence of employee based organizing began to affect workers in other labor sectors connected to the industry.
These large implications in the actions of such a small group of workers is astounding. With an NLRB ordered mandate for a second election, there is still a chance that a very important domino in the U.S. workforce is about to be toppled, that is, the domino that represents the intransigence of large retail multinationals and the impending return of labor in the vocabulary for millions of workers.
Target is afraid. Very afraid.
Tyler Crawford, May, 2012
Sources
Bhatnagar, Parija, Just Call it ‘Teflon Target,’ April, 2011, CNNMoney. <http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/20/news/fortune500/target_walmart/>
D’Innocenzio, Anne, “Labor Judge Overturns Union Election at Target,” 5/21/2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47512787/ns/business/t/labor-judge-overturns-union-election-target/?fb_ref=.T7v6-bxMe1y.like&fb_source=profile_multiline#.T72YEEXY-VT>
Form 10-k, Target Corporation, <http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/000104746912002714/a2207838z10-k.htm>
Forbes.com. <http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/ODFF.html>
Davis, Steven. Target Corporation v. United Food and Commercial Workers, May 21, 2012, <http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4580a0138e
I brought this up in another post. The industrial work places of the early 1900's had an avantage over these retail stores. In manufacturing you see exactly how much labor you put into a good and how much it sales for. The exploitation from being paid less then you produce is in your face daily. But for retail workers you are not producing wealth. Your job is for the realization of profit, not the production of it. Not to say that these people don't need a union. I think the UFCW are doing a kick ass job here.
ReplyDelete