no, it did not but her response pointed out that the PR response did not include any enthusiasm for working with the union, or indicating any support of other Costco employees joining.
Which makes it clear, they still see unions as threats and would prefer to quash them, even if that means treating people with basic decency which they should be doing anyway.
I didn’t get any such impression from the Costco response. I got they were disappointed that one was considered necessary due to their management failure.
Its in what they are not saying, not what they are saying that is her point. They could have embraced and encouraged the Union. Dont get me wrong, as long as its not cynical this is a great response but it could be better by actually being pro employee by supporting the union and encouraging it.
Dont be, I was just trying to clarify that im not unhappy with the Costco response, I think its good and I wish more people would look in before blaming their workers. I was just trying to help explian the context for Williamson’s statements. Its possible for both things to be true, where the Costco response was classy, and where Williamson can be critical of what they were not saying.
Ok, it’s good that you’re happy with their response.
I still think Williamson’s response is asinine.
And I see this part of their statement as being supportive of the union
and that their main regret is failure to address needs before one was needed.
edit: as far as I’m concerned, Williamson’s reply is only relevant because she’s up for election and thought being critical would win her points. That’s it.
Classy would have been, "We respect the decision made by Costco workers toforma union, and we look forward toa mutually constructive relationship."
You are entitled to your opinion, though I would say that there is some hyperbole to your phrase and word choices and given its directed at a woman it may not be having the effect you intended regardless of how you mean it (I am chronically guilty of this so speaking from I hope experience).
Williamson is only being critical of what they are not saying, and not doing, she is not being critical of what they are saying and are doing. Again both can be true.
Costco clearly highly values taking care of employees. They were masterful in accepting responsibility, though it still has to be proven in their long term actions (which I fully expect it will be).
Williamson is also correct that the response did not go far enough to welcome and encourage the union or more people to join the union. That is the criticism, and as far as I can tell only that.
Costco has a very carefully crafted message by saying “has never been the result of any union” its interesting wording because its designed to get people to react by saying well if a union did not get me the great treatment I already have, then how is this new union going to make things even better.
It subtly delegitimatizes the value of the union while not explicitly attacking it and lets Costco claim a victory when the original conflict was of their own creation and they lost not won. That line pivots from look what a union can do, to you dont need one because we always put you first, ignore that we just owned up to not doing that.
Also the habitability of the planet. People should consider a union if for no other reason its the most impactful thing they can do to change companies from destroying our planet.
no, it did not but her response pointed out that the PR response did not include any enthusiasm for working with the union, or indicating any support of other Costco employees joining.
Which makes it clear, they still see unions as threats and would prefer to quash them, even if that means treating people with basic decency which they should be doing anyway.
I didn’t get any such impression from the Costco response. I got they were disappointed that one was considered necessary due to their management failure.
Its in what they are not saying, not what they are saying that is her point. They could have embraced and encouraged the Union. Dont get me wrong, as long as its not cynical this is a great response but it could be better by actually being pro employee by supporting the union and encouraging it.
I’m sorry they didn’t word it to your exact liking.
Dont be, I was just trying to clarify that im not unhappy with the Costco response, I think its good and I wish more people would look in before blaming their workers. I was just trying to help explian the context for Williamson’s statements. Its possible for both things to be true, where the Costco response was classy, and where Williamson can be critical of what they were not saying.
Ok, it’s good that you’re happy with their response.
I still think Williamson’s response is asinine.
And I see this part of their statement as being supportive of the union
and that their main regret is failure to address needs before one was needed.
edit: as far as I’m concerned, Williamson’s reply is only relevant because she’s up for election and thought being critical would win her points. That’s it.
to quote Williamson’s words:
Classy would have been, "We respect the decision made by Costco workers to form a union, and we look forward to a mutually constructive relationship."You are entitled to your opinion, though I would say that there is some hyperbole to your phrase and word choices and given its directed at a woman it may not be having the effect you intended regardless of how you mean it (I am chronically guilty of this so speaking from I hope experience).
Williamson is only being critical of what they are not saying, and not doing, she is not being critical of what they are saying and are doing. Again both can be true.
Costco clearly highly values taking care of employees. They were masterful in accepting responsibility, though it still has to be proven in their long term actions (which I fully expect it will be).
Williamson is also correct that the response did not go far enough to welcome and encourage the union or more people to join the union. That is the criticism, and as far as I can tell only that.
Costco has a very carefully crafted message by saying “has never been the result of any union” its interesting wording because its designed to get people to react by saying well if a union did not get me the great treatment I already have, then how is this new union going to make things even better.
It subtly delegitimatizes the value of the union while not explicitly attacking it and lets Costco claim a victory when the original conflict was of their own creation and they lost not won. That line pivots from look what a union can do, to you dont need one because we always put you first, ignore that we just owned up to not doing that.
Great job deep diving and explaining this, I was already on board and this has opened even more of it up.
Funny how double speak and what not exist irl
Just so you know, writing increasingly longer replies doesn’t sway me. I didn’t bother with most of that.
sway you from what? I am not trying to change your opinion or position.
You read as ignorant for ignorance sake
A union is always a positive for employees. Company’s won’t acknowledge this as any poor treatment can go unchecked for the most part.
Even if the company is as compassionate as costco would like us to believe having a union is still a risk that Costco would see as cheaper to avoid.
I mean, unions are a threat to a profit-and-valuation-at-all-costs operation. That’s why everyone should be able to have one :)
Also the habitability of the planet. People should consider a union if for no other reason its the most impactful thing they can do to change companies from destroying our planet.