David Banks, who blogs at Cyborgology, let us know that Gawker has posted an anti-union video Target shows to new hires. Apparently as some Target stores have started carrying groceries, some grocery workers’ unions have made efforts to unionize some stores, a move that Target, along with its larger big-box sibling, Wal-Mart, finds very threatening. The video includes a lot of common arguments — we’re all a family here, the union just wants your dues, etc. — along with some I found more unusual:
Full transcript here.
What I found especially striking was the segment starting at about 3:10, where they argue we don’t need unions because, basically, they were so effective in the past, they already fixed everything! There’s no more child labor, you can get worker’s comp if you’re injured…what more could you need a union for? So on the one hand, today unions are useless, empty organizations that just take your money and give you nothing, but in the past, they were great. Presumably employers only had to be told once to clean up, and then for all time everything is fixed.
I also liked David’s point about the video’s use of the idea of communal vs. individual action. On the one hand, the video repeatedly stresses the rights of the individual and suggests that unions interfere with an individual’s ability to make their own choices (and implying that all union contracts are identical and will be imposed on workers, rather than the outcome of negotiations). But as David points out, the video includes rather contradictory messages about individual and collective action, with the union presented as the bad collective but Target as the good, familial, happy collective:
The video manages to seamlessly contradict itself: the company is a communal entity while simultaneously granting each individual total autonomy. The union does the opposite- it pressures you into collective action while you’re trying to be a neoliberal individual, and it makes you break away from the “Target Family” when they’re trying to be communal.
Target has often avoided the negative publicity aimed at Wal-Mart about labor practices, treatment of workers, and anti-union activity; I know when I was an undergrad back in the ’90s, and anti-Wal-Mart activism was one of the topics of the day, some of my friends and I thought that shopping at Target instead of Wal-Mart meant we were really doing something meaningful in terms of opposing bad labor practices. But as this video illustrates, Target has fairly similar labor policies to Wal-Mart, whatever you think of them, just with less global market power to throw around.
Comments 85
Ted — June 15, 2011
Honestly, Target, not that nice of a store. I don't shop there, and I certainly wouldn't buy groceries there.
Yrro — June 15, 2011
Yes, and I'm sure that the grocery workers union only cares about the well-being of Target's employees, and not the increased dues or political clout that gaining access to their stores would give them.
Both unions and corporations are large organizations whose primary goal is to increase their power and available cash. Workers are just stuck in the middle.
Faith — June 15, 2011
I'm confused- target already has a union for their employees- how would there be 2 unions?
withoutscene — June 15, 2011
This is disgusting. This makes me feel physically ill. Non-ironic infomercial style + Fox News logic = soul crushing.
Niki — June 15, 2011
"So on the one hand, today unions are useless, empty organizations that just take your money and give you nothing, but in the past, they were great. Presumably employers only had to be told once to clean up, and then for all time everything is fixed."
This sounds familiar! It's often a charge lobbed at modern-day feminism. In the 60's and 70's, it was important and earned women rights we desperately needed. Now, we have all the rights one could possibly want and feminists are just hateful angry bitches with too much time and too many forums to complain about insignificant crap.
In both cases, it makes me wonder: fifty years from now, will employers and anti-feminists be looking back at today and saying "sure, unions and feminism were still relevant in 2011, but now?"
Allen — June 15, 2011
I used to be a manager at a Target store and spent several entire day-long sessions watching this video and doing anti-union workshops to train managers on how to dissuade people from joining unions. It was repulsive, and one of the primary reasons I eventually quit to go be a social worker who works with homeless youth.
Henry — June 15, 2011
This is transparent and disgusting. Target don't have the interests of their workers at heart in attempting to dissuade their employees from joining unionised - what a joke. They are clearly acting in their own interests.
YRRO:
"Both unions and corporations are large organizations whose primary goal is to increase their power and available cash. Workers are just stuck in the middle."
Do you realise how stupid that sounds when you compare the overall goal of unions (promoting workers rights) with that of corporations (P R O F I T)...
Amadi — June 15, 2011
Given what we know about the political leanings of the current owners and board of Target, vis-a-vis their funding of far right wing Republicans including now presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, I don't know why anyone is surprised that there's a concerted anti-union perspective within the company.
I think the only surprise is how horridly ham-handed and poorly done this video is. I am honestly embarrassed for anyone involved in its making, it's such trash, and not just because of its onerous and repulsive message.
Linda — June 15, 2011
Wow... I would have thought that it was a hoax if I just saw it on Youtube. Are companies in the States really allowed to pressure their employees not to join unions? (I thought it was very threatening, the way they stressed that NO ONE EVER has joined a union.)
Is the way they are talking down to the viewer typical? That was amazing - it seems to me like they are addressing themselves to an audience of five-year-old children or people who are severely mentally handicapped.
"I hereby accept membership...."
"When you sign one of THOSE, you may be joining the union."
No, really?!
I would feel affronted if my employer showed me a video like that.
Does anyone have similar examples from other companies?
Walton — June 15, 2011
I seriously doubt Target employees are stupid enough to buy this transparent rubbish.
Kobe — June 15, 2011
I worked for Target and was shown an anti-union video in Jan. 2009 (I left in March 2009). They must have just rolled at the video at that point b/c every "team member" had to watch it. We watched it in groups, with a salaried manager present the entire time. I'm sure this was done to discourage talking about the film. I was enraged that we were forced to watch this video with its misleading information. At the q&a at the end, I questioned some of the things the video had said and used my own experience as someone who had worked in a union store (Costco) to make points. This wasn't received well.
People really don't understand unions or the benefit of unions and these videos are detrimental. Also, Target's treatment of its labor force is just as bad as Walmart, in my opinion, and I get annoyed when people don't shop at Walmart but frequent Target. In some ways, it's more insidious because Target has an undeserved good reputation.
Look at what's possible with Costco -- even their non-union stores enjoy the residual benefits. Costco prides itself on that and would post articles that mention its higher pay, better vacation, etc, and contrast it with BJs and Sams (Costco performs the best)... When people feel more appreciated, they work harder.
Anyway, Target sucks. I had a very negative experience working there the almost 2 years that I did and I see that negative experience reflected by my coworkers at the time who are also unhappy or have left.
GabyK — June 15, 2011
I'm not an expert but I think this would be illegal in the UK. But maybe not, after all they have the creepy disclaimer in the middle.
md — June 15, 2011
A little (okay, a lot) off topic, but Target are now calling their customers "GUESTS"..?! At least it is reasonably accurate to call hotel customers "guests".. but guests in a retail store?... it's absurd!
Customers are guests!
Employees are family members!
Unions are evil businesses!
AlgebraAB — June 15, 2011
"So on the one hand, today unions are useless, empty organizations that just take your money and give you nothing, but in the past, they were great. Presumably employers only had to be told once to clean up, and then for all time everything is fixed."
Social conditions and social hierarchies do change over time, however. The idea that comes to my mind is that of Zionism. Many pro-Israel arguments rest on the idea that Jews are a beleaguered and oppressed minority group, with the obvious reference being to the Holocaust. Yet, in my mind at least, there is a huge difference between the Jewish population in Central/Eastern Europe circa 1932 (i.e. a group of stateless refugees, most of whom were agrarian serfs with few or no civil rights) and the Jewish population in Israel circa 2011 (i.e. a wealthy, First World economy with one of the largest military forces on the planet at its service). The same could be said of various Arab states. U.S. funding of Arab military forces in 1915 (at a time when Arab society was pre-industrialized and politically dominated by Turks) carries radically different implications than U.S. funding of Arab military forces in 2011 (when most Gulf states enjoy some of the highest GDP-per-capita rates and field a very high-tech and advanced military).
When it comes to unions, I see a very stark qualitative difference between the struggle to abolish child labor and the struggle to get Target workers more paid sick days or a 2% pay raise or what have you. The fact is that the position of the American working class within the global wealth hierarchy has radically changed over time. A child miner in the Pennsylvania in 1880 could very well have been among the poorest individuals on the planet. In contrast, today, all U.S. workers who make above the federal poverty limit for an individual (roughly $10,000 a year) are in the top 15% of global income earners on the planet (as per Oxfam). When we account for access to infrastructure, the stratification is even more intense and U.S. workers are even closer to the apex of the pyramid. There is also the issue of the nature of the work. U.S. workers are privileged in that the U.S. economy is dominated by the service sector, which requires much less intensive manual labor and is much less physically stressful than the industrial and agricultural work performed in, say, India or Brazil.
So I see American workers as quite privileged in a global perspective. And I do think a social group's relative privilege has a lot to do with whether or not their economic struggles are seen as worthwhile. If it was just a matter of remunerating workers for their labor (i.e. cutting out profit margins) then we would expect to see leftists struggling for pay raises for professionals like attorneys or bond traders, since their employers often make huge profit margins off of their labor. We don't see that because we tend to see individuals who make six-figure salaries as too privileged to deserve a campaign on their behalf. Blue-collar workers are seen as comparatively much less privileged and are therefore deemed worthy of support. However, the class analysis of most leftists ends at the U.S. border because, if we look at class in a global perspective, the cashier at a Target who takes home $16,000 a year and has access to free public education and emergency room medical care is *extraordinarily* privileged compared to the majority of human beings alive on the planet. Keep in mind that there are more people in India living on less than a dollar a day than there are people total within U.S. borders.
I think this economic recession is forcing people to reevaluate both the sources of American wealth and also the limits of growth. We have an economic situation where many major corporations like Target (but not necessarily Target itself) are only able to remain in business thanks to emergency financing. It's likely that several major corporations would be out of business if not for 0% loans and liquidity injections from the Federal Reserve. It's also likely that many more government employees would be out of work if not for the U.S. federal government floating massive debts. So, I think it's debatable whether these blue-collar workers are really exploited or whether they're welfare recipients living on the largesse of Chinese workers (via Chinese banks using their savings to buy U.S. Treasuries) and the Federal Reserve. Also, the modus operandi of most unions is only feasible in an environment of perpetual growth. These unions were unprepared to deal with a scenario where the whole "pie" is getting smaller instead of bigger. In fact, many of them continue to believe that this secular recessionary trend is cyclical rather than structural, when all evidence points to the opposite.
Sally — June 16, 2011
Wal-Mart shows a very similar video to new employees, as well.
Maverynthia — June 16, 2011
First Target hates gay workers and can discriminate against them, now they are taking away the very thing that might keep them employed :P
m — June 16, 2011
Oh. My. God. And note how lamost none of their arguments are arount workers - they're basically saying outright that it's all about their company and that they don't want the freedom of treating their employees any way they want taken away. The "none of our members have ever been in a union" looks like a threat.
renee — June 16, 2011
Turns out the video was made using union actors!
http://www.salon.com/news/the_labor_movement/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/16/target_anti_union_ad_starring_union_member
Personally, I don't think it's a conflict for the actors to make the video--they do what they're hired to do. (I will confess that I didn't actually watch the video--I can't stream video at work--so I don't know if there's a disclaimer that makes clear that these are actors, not actual Target employees.) But it's kind of hypocritical of Target to use AFTRA actors, basically acknowledging that you get better work from the union. Or maybe they just couldn't find any actual employees who would spout the anti-union company line?
LC — June 16, 2011
What I found especially striking was the segment starting at about 3:10, where they argue we don’t need unions because, basically, they were so effective in the past, they already fixed everything! There’s no more child labor, you can get worker’s comp if you’re injured…what more could you need a union for? So on the one hand, today unions are useless, empty organizations that just take your money and give you nothing, but in the past, they were great. Presumably employers only had to be told once to clean up, and then for all time everything is fixed.
I've been hearing this exact argument a lot lately in Canadian discussions on Unions. (Basically, Unions should not exist because the laws cover these things now.)
decius — June 16, 2011
Some individual unions are good, some individual unions are bad. Bad, like 'If you are laid off for no reason after making a safety complaint, and two other people are hired to the same job description in that week, we'll ignore it'.
I'm mostly satisfied with my current union, despite the fact that I have lower seniority than the two people who came to my location after me. I still have the least choice in schedule, but my schedule cannot be changed without a full week's notice or my consent. I never had any upwards communication problems attributed to unions, but I have worked nonunion positions where upward communication simply didn't happen.
The last line, however, (Refuse to sign and keep Target union free.) crosses the law in many (all?) states. Everything else can be passed off as informative, and if it was actual information it would be a good thing, but an imperative sentence 'Don't join a union.' coming from an employer just isn't cool.
There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
-Henry Ford
The best companies, from both a moral and financial point of view, need to find the best people and then pay them what they're worth. One proper role of a union in modern times is to find the best people and negotiate their worth with the employer, but those unions normally don't target established retail outlets.
Any unionized retail folks out there care to discuss what their union representatives do on a daily basis?
Links of Great Interest: Safe! FOR NOW — The Hathor Legacy — June 17, 2011
[...] Charles RB warns against mind control viruses coming down from the North. Winter is coming, readers. Beware the White Walkers. [...]
Josie — June 17, 2011
My favorite part is how they complain about how unionizing would take away their ability to outcompete other grocery stores and cost people their jobs. Did other people notice that? If unionizing all grocery stores means a hold up on profits and job stability for hundreds of workers...as far as I'm concerned, there's no downside. But, Oh, right, corporations don't give a shit about anyone making under six figures.
JUST — December 2, 2011
Target used to be a part of Dayton Hudson Corp., which was also the parent company for a department store called Hudsons, in Detroit. They attempted to change the way workers on commission were compensated and would drastically cut the pay of many. A drive to unionize began and one store was successful. But then Dayton Hudson (Target) brought in very highly paid union busting consultants and formed "Vote No" committees, showed this kind of video to employees and had managers talk to employees individually (illegal). The threats started: If you vote for the union, we will close the store. People were strong armed and threatened personally. Target is by no means a labor friendly corporation. I know that from personal experience.
Private-Sector Unions: Walmart, Target, and Hostess: Part 1 « Bakka's River — December 12, 2012
[...] In contrast, Target tries to have it both ways. They paint for-profit businesses of the past as evil, while making for-profit businesses of the presents into benign entities. So they are not daemonizing unions, you see. Just modern not-for-profit unions (businesses), who are “out of step” with the evolving and competitive modern for-profit businesses. Here is Gwen Sharpe on this issue: What I found especially striking was the segment starting at about 3:10, where they argue we don’t need unions because, basically, they were so effective in the past, they already fixed everything! There’s no more child labor, you can get worker’s comp if you’re injured…what more could you need a union for? So on the one hand, today unions are useless, empty organizations that just take your money and give you nothing, but in the past, they were great. Presumably employers only had to be told once to clean up, and then for all time everything is fixed. (source: Sharpe) [...]
Rattivirinder — March 5, 2013
without unions you work on minimum wages and no benifets.