The mantra I heard, over and over, while I was there was "Hire good people, treat them well, and the rest takes care of itself."
There were some people I thought were lazy, but many people on my night shift were hard and proud worker.. not like that day shift though!
Arbitrarily set and static point of reference can solve it e.g. a bible or a well though out system. I don’t think the former is the CostCo’s thing so I’m wondering what would be.
And the quality advantage, and even parity on selection. And the grocery chains don’t know why they keep losing money in their race to the bottom.
Advocating for/against gay rights is a spectrum, and you need to see where they fall on it.
Tolerance is a 2-way street.
Additionally, it's not that they don't advocate for gay rights, it's the they actively fight against them. I think this changed very recently, but it has been the case most of their history.
That said, I'm of the mind that most large corps do stuff that is against human rights in one way or another - sweat shop abuse, crushing of labor unions, among many others - and purchasing from Chickfila isn't much different from drinking Coke or buying Nestle. It's part of society. If you avoid corps with rights abuses you must avoid nearly everything.
Not advocating FOR gay rights isn't a moral failing. But that's irrelevant for what Chick-Fil-A are accused of (and frankly a straw man).
Advocating AGAINST someone else's rights or freedoms, even when those rights have no impact on your beliefs, is a moral failing. That's what Chick-Fil-A is doing.
So, no, it isn't a "2-way street" when one side is just asking to be treated equally and the other is asking that OTHER PEOPLE are treated like a sub-class of people.
It’s a wedge issue used to whip conservative voters, not a moral issue. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must fight to prevent heathens from filing taxes jointly.
Is "should pedophiles be legally allowed to have sex with and marry the people they are attracted to" a moral issue to you? I mean, the kid consented!
Yes, most of us would say that's different. But why it's different is a moral position - and so to some people, it's really not different.
(Also, "the correct answer isn't a moral position, while the incorrect answer is an immoral position" is a bit of a contradiction. If "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" is an immoral thing to believe or act on, then you're acknowledging the choice of positions as being a moral one. "I should be able to kill all the people I see" is also a moral position, of course)
The reason men must be able to marry men is not a moral rationale, it’s a legal one. There is a well established legal doctrine that says you can’t make laws that discriminate on the basis of sex without some sex-based reason.
There’s no sex-based reason for why I should be able to have a woman at my side in the hospital but not a man. You don’t need a womb or breasts to to speak to the doctor on my behalf. That’s ridiculous. If my sister can choose to have a man by her bedside, so should I be allowed to. That’s equal protection.
There is no similar protection for children. Literally no one is able to choose a random 12 year old boy to make decisions for them in the hospital. And that’s fine because there is no equal protection for kids. Nor should there be. They are legally wards of their parents, not adults. They very intentionally do not have the same protection under the law that their parents do.
None of this has anything to do with morality, it has to do with equal protection under the law.
Morals and legality are different. Marijuana is federally illegal - does that make it immoral to produce/distribute/possess/consume? I would say no, and a large part of the country would say the same. Similarly, I think a ton of people would freak the fuck out if the supreme court legalized marrying prepubescent children - it might now be legal, but that doesn't make it moral.
The moral position that people fighting gay marriage have is that the current caselaw is wrong, and that equal protection shouldn't be interpreted that way.
I've been trying to explain how it's a moral position for some people, in response to this statement of yours. I'm not sure how to make that argument in a way that would be convincing to you, in large part because it's not convincing to me.
And I suppose we may be getting some wires crossed - for a lot of people in the world, there doesn't have to be a justification for a moral belief - or at least not one you would accept. "My religious authority told me" or "my parents told me" might not be as acceptable in the society we live in today, but they've all been extremely successful throughout history.
When I say that being against gay rights is an immoral position, it does not mean that a person is immoral, because that is an ill-defined phrase. It means that in the context of their speech and actions on the topic of gay rights, they are behaving immorally.
I agree that there is a spectrum of beliefs, and that it is necessary to meet somebody where they are. Each step is an important one, and beliefs change slowly.
Where I grow angry is when it is implied that Christianity is inherently and irrevocably against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that all Christians must be similarly against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that my faith must be a tool for bigotry, rather than an instrument of community.
There are many denominations that LARP as Christian, Jew, or Muslim while advocating for gay rights, but they accomplish this by discarding large parts of their holy texts.
[1] For purposes of this discussion when I say "choose to be homosexual" I mean to choose to perform homosexual acts, get married to someone of the same sex, etc. I don't mean it in the sense of whether or not feeling homosexual desire is a choice.
- One could believe that, by making man in his own image, God desired that men be able to make their own decisions even if those decisions sometimes displeases him and/or they will eventually answer for.
- One could believe that a free society ultimately allows one to better accomplish God's will even if it also means that people are free to do things that you don't agree with.
- One could feel that, since humans are imperfect, it is possible that they will misinterpret scripture or apply it unjustly. Therefore, it may not be safe to force people to follow a given way of life.
- One could feel that judgement is the sole domain of God and therefore human law should not seek to enforce purely moral issues.
There is a bizarre social situation going on where it seem Christians who only _morally_ oppose LGBTQ are being targetted uniquely.
And the argument that you have some exception that proves the rule but you can’t name it is bogus. Either you know deep down that it is false and/or propaganda and nobody will buy it or you are making it up and there is no such example.
Google for group, country or religion that kills homosexuals today. Now compare those groups to who you criticize.
If all of them are Christian groups, I stand corrected.
If any of them are non-Christian, will you openly name condemn that group/religion/country/race? I doubt it, you will be voted down to oblivion here.
Edit: Just _mentioning_ that someone else besides Christians are attacking homosexuals gets you a downvote.
This is a topic worthy of open discussion, so why can't it?
LGBTQ are being _killed_ in many places around the world, and will continue until the focus is properly adjusted to the real culprits.
Personally I believe Christianity is an oppressive religion that needs to go away. It does more evil than good in the world, especially in the US and Easter Europe. That does not preclude me from condemning groups like ISIS or Saudi Arabia’s government for their actions.
Every religion is oppressive if you don't agree with the tenents of the religion.
The fact that you aren't against all religions reveals your true motives.
Even something as seemingly universal as the Golden Rule is incompatible.
Just because an individual or a company is perceived as disagreeing with your personal beliefs doesn't make it 'bad'.
CF happily sells its delicious chicken to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Knowing which day you’re off lets you plan.
You may have 2 days off but your friends and family are likely working during the days and in "nothing too exciting" mode in the evenings.
The benefit of everyone having Sunday off means that (for the most part) the rest of the world also has Sunday off and you get to enjoy time off with your friends and family.
To imply something is 'tainted' by its religious inception is a kind of bigotry, moreover, it misses the point entirely: it's the very reason the company is ethical, or communitarian in many ways. Of course, even the very nation, or more broadly 'The West' is fundamentally Christian (or better described as mostly 'secular Christian'). Everyone has healthcare in Canada due to the 'Agrarian Left' which is essentially a brand of Christian Democracy. The same goes for the vast majority of Western institutions that were created more than a generation ago, including most Universities etc.. Consider that there might be more complexity concerning social issues in this world such that anyone with a voice mightn't be always playing favour specifically to you or your version of the 'morality'.
No.
I'm always amazed by how many places cut corners on employee benefits and pay and then spend endless effort dealing with turnover and the results of poor employees.
Excrement flows downhill.
Most employer-employee relationships [in the US, anyway] are akin to serfdom, or some other weird form of drastically-out-of-whack power structure. Employees often aren't treated as equals, they're not given agency or power, their needs and desires aren't understood, and they aren't inspired by a common cause. So unless an individual takes it upon themselves to suddenly do the best job they can possibly do, they will flounder in their own little world, being largely ignored by management (until they're not meeting some ridiculous arbitrary yearly goals that are mostly designed to cull the completely apathetic) and never having any interaction with executives other than the way a king would give proclamations to the townspeople.
To me, "treating people well" means treating them like people who have a say in what they do and how they do it, by helping them do the things they want to do, by connecting them to their work, giving them pride and purpose, feeling valued and compensated. After that, the rest takes care of itself. But getting to that point is impossible if management treats them like cattle.
That is, in my experience, how a lot of brick&mortar commodity stores - grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. - run in my home town (Kraków, Poland). The infinite source of disposable workers is the population of fresh undergrads that come to the city to study.
Someone has to hire the bad people.
It seems almost obvious this holds true for any job, including Costco, where perhaps someone isn't fast or personable enough to be a checker, but they'd be great driving the forklift. Find the right environment and suddenly they shine. There will always be a percentage of the population that is unemployable for some reason, but my personal experience is that it isn't as large as is often believed.
That said, this is not a random distribution. Some people have serious character flaws (evil, lazy, angry), or are just not very competent at anything. If all organizations only hire "good people", these will be left unemployed.
And here's the thing:
Those unemployed underskilled "bad people" are then an underused resource, and a reasonably functioning labor market will find way to make use of them.
I think of things like fast-food restaurants as a real triumph in this area! That industry has found a way to run a well functioning business using barely competent people who often quit within months.
And that's pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote my tongue in cheek comment.
BTW, my apologies to current and former fast food workers. I know you're not bad people :) But when you argue about those left out "good people" policy, you kind of have to use that term...
Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physical disabilities.
Why? People shouldn’t be rewarded for being disagreeable, unwilling to get along with people, and unwilling to work. If they are literally disabled and can’t work at all, that’s one thing. But even people with mental disabilities can be great employees. Rewarding anti-social behavior with “looking after” incentivizes such behavior. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it. Case in point, all of the fake disability people who have unverifiable soft tissue “injuries” that collect disability as a life choice.
That said, there is still an element of will there, and we should also still try align incentives to give these individuals the best chance of productive engagement with society. The disability scamming is real (though somewhat complicated by the fact that long term unemployment can result in chronic pain symptoms).
I don't think just cutting people a check is necessarily a good idea. I kind of wonder if the problem of unemployable people would be reduced if we removed minimum wage laws.
And where is the role of the employer and the overall culture in fostering a work environment that isn't miserable?
How many will decide not to contribute?
I don't want to work with people who are working just because they are coerced to work. They get in my way and it debases all of us.
On the other hand, since failure to participate in this model - again, wherein a given individual hardly contributes directly to his own survival, but instead supports the society which provides the rest for him, usually far below the value of his work for it - is an existential danger, I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.
Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force.
On the other hand, using the state to force a productive minority to slave away for a willfully unproductive majority does actually involve the use of force.
You are literally inverting the meaning of "coercion". Hence the apt description "Orwellian".
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Of course it does. What are the various exigencies, used to secure hoarded property for an individual against a deprived public, but force? You're unable to see it as such, because it's the status quo, but it's not a necessity for a civilized society, even this civilized society.
Given that I find what you propose to be so anathema, I feel compelled to clarify what your position is, in case our disagreement is resulting from a misunderstanding rather than a conflict of visions.
What I hear you as saying is that given the wealth available in our society, those who do not wish to work (even if they could) should not have to. The minority who do wish to continue working shall hopefully be productive enough to continue to provide this wealth (and indeed, increase the wealth available) and gladly share it with everyone. If the productive minority are less than willing to share the bulk of the fruits of their labor, It is acceptable to take it by force and without offering them something of value in exchange.
Such a system not merely immoral but nonsense. It assumes our great wealth as a given, when it should be obvious that such is not the case. History has shown many other times of great wealth and surplus, only to be followed by collapse. There is no magic line of societal wealth that, once surpassed, renders us immune from disaster. In such a case, those in who lived in a state of dependence will only hasten the collapse by trying ever harder to extract from those they depended on.
Now, if you were a Marxist concerned about workers not being compensated fairly for their labor, or a Christian concerned for those who could not care for themselves (the elderly, the infirm, orphans, etc.) then I would at least understand. But neither Marx nor the Apostles envisioned a society that supported people who were merely indolent.
Furthermore, that you would equate the use of force to steal another's property with the force used to defend said property is dishonest and abhorrent. And let's be clear: if you appropriate someone else's property when you have the choice not to (i.e. if you could work to provide it for yourself or offer something of value in exchange) then it is theft.
And for those people who's labor is pointless, the solution is to have more meaningful work, not idleness.
I can think of no more pointless form of labor that to toil away for whatever bureaucracy that would be responsible for administering this harebrained scheme.
W. Edward Deming and the Toyota model he inspired demonstrate that it’s more about empowering workers, treating them with respect and autonomy, and respecting their contributions for what they really are, as opposed to ascribing them to management. Go read about what Toyota did at the NUMMI plant if you need further evidence of this.
https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09...
Maybe we should have them take a shot at running the DMV, who have the most miserable.
Minnesota is the complete opposite. Walk in, wait an hour, every employee hates their job, then wait a month for the new license to come in the mail.
Costco employees, honestly, not helpful at all and almost always disdainful of being asked any question. I guess that's not their model.
I suppose Costco employees can be happy with the company, but not happy and friendly to the customers, in which case, that holds up.
That said, they aren't a tech company so...
I've worked in IT for the retail sector and I'd never, ever do it again. I was a Dev/System Admin/System Engineer/DBA/Network Engineer & Help Desk person. I needed a job rather desperately and took the first one that was available to me which at initial view I thought was promising.
As an example, if you worked on call which was restored 1 in 3 weeks, you didn't earn anything extra in wages on the days you were on call. But instead I earned 0.5 hours of TOIL for every hour that I was restored on which was from memory. 07:00-20: 00 Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays. And 07:00 -> 09:00 and 18:00 - 20:00 Monday to Friday.
I would get calls at all hours because we supported retail stores in New Zealand, Australia, US & Canada. We had local staff in those areas but for the gaps in follow the sun support we had the on call person fill that role.
This might have been a good deal if you didn't get many calls. But for the larger part it was a full time day of work on Saturda, Sunday and Public Holiday when _no one was working_ except the on call person. And on an evening and first thing in the morning for shop close and open you frequently got calls before and after your shift started. All for 0.5 hours for every hour worked!
This doesn't even begin to cover the problems we had with retaining staff (understandably) and an absolutely awful work environment. My manager did his best to foster a positive work environment but the C levels clearly had no desire to do anything but bleed their staff dry.
Wrapping up my tirade, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the standard across the retail industry for IT staff and developers. Based on those I've spoken to outside of my own personal experience, this seems to be close to true. For all the glory that Costco holds for paying higher than average wages, I'm certain their IT department fucks over it's staff in a way that closely resembles my own.
Also, to be clear, your experience was working in IT at another retail company, not Costco? I'm not sure why you would expect these to be the same: as the article explains in detail, Costco's model lets it do some things very differently from, say, Walmart.
I didn't work in either of those chains. I'm replying to a comment directly above mine where OP says, they knew some one who worked in IT for Costco and their conditions were terrible. As was mine for another large, multinational retail chain.
Costco are great in comparison to say, WalMart or Kmart/Target/BigW in Australia. But I assume they're under the same pressure to penny pinch as any other retail organisation because of their incredibly small margins for profits.
That's an old myth.
Because of COLA (and on top of that, pensions), the public sector in California pays more than private jobs now, aside from FANG.
I once asked my dental billing technician (yeah that's really a thing in the USA), "Who got the best benefits?"
Answer: "Oh, public employees are royalty."
As an example here's a senior (1043) network engineer position with the SF Dept of Technology:
https://www.jobapscloud.com/SF/sup/bulpreview.asp?R1=PEX&R2=...
Salary is listed as:
$59.49 - $74.83/hour; $10,311.00 - $12,970.00/month; $123,734.00 - $155,636.00/year
I can tell you that a few years ago at megacorp (not FANG) my base pay for principal ops monkey was more than the top end of the 1043 and 1044 scales. We were not known for above average compensation. In general while we hired into the principal role I think the city tends to aim more for senior (1043) than principal (1044).
Here's the SF pay scale database:
Principal programmers (1064) top out at $149k. Infosys managers (1071) top out at just under $200k. That's not particularly competitive.
Megacorp also provided me with the best 401k I've seen (Vanguard with access to institutional shares), 401k match, stock options, and decent insurance.
I once asked my dental billing technician (yeah that's really a thing in the USA), "Who got the best benefits?"
Answer: "Oh, public employees are royalty."
This still matters so much more for unskilled labor. Working in tech you're already going to have access to heavily subsidized health insurance. 401k vs pension is a matter of debate. I'd prefer a defined benefit situation like a pension, but a 401k with a decent match (we got up to $7k or so) isn't really a deal breaker
The city (due to some combination of local, state, and federal laws) will dock 2% for retiree health care, and 7.5% for your pension.
http://citidex.sfgov.org/cgi-bin/dhr/findClass.cgi?class=&ti...
[0] https://www.thestreet.com/technology/costco-thanksgiving-day...
Trying to opt out was futile. Each message had an unsubscribe link. The landing page worked, but whatever was supposed to handle the form time out or 500'd each time. Hold time at the Costco call center was 10+ minutes... to unsubscribe from opt-out garbage. Unsubscribing from the membership itself was a bit of a comedy routine where the manager kept suggesting I keep the membership and patronize their warehouse (instead of the one I signed up at).
It's fair to say I agree that Costco would reap benefits by investing in their IT infrastructure.
I would absolutely believe that they don't want to try and compete with the tech sector for talent, and their management doesn't have the same understanding of tech that they do of running a warehouse business.
In-N-Out, Costco, and Chick-fil-a employees all seem to work really hard and are unfailingly good with customers. I had a problem in a Target once, talked to an employee about it and he went to 'check on it' and never came back. Just left me standing there.