I was going to say... how would that work for stores located in right-to-work states (like mine)?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
GC employees unionizing...
- Thread starter chicago_mike
- Start date
I was going to say... how would that work for stores located in right-to-work states (like mine)?
In the interest of clarity......"right to work" means there is a law prohibiting the 'closed' union shop. In some states, there are workplaces where union membership is required as a condition of working there. In other states, union membership is (nearly) always optional to the worker. Those are called "right to work" states.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
You can invest in a quality, skilled sales staff and by paying them living wages hire and retain the best employees.
Almost +1. Closed shops and agency shops are illegal via Taft-Hartley, regardless if a state has right-to-work laws. However, a non-right-to-work state may have a union shop.
This is also further complicated in that employees on a federal enclave are not subject to right-to-work laws; therefore, a federal enclave in say, Alabama, can still have a union security agreement in its CBA.
Non-union members are still covered under the CBA if they are part of the bargaining unit and the union is still required under the NLRA to fairly represent these employees (Disclaimer: None of this is legal advice).
As far as implications, in general, right-to-work states are generally less union-friendly. It's been a while since I've looked at the stats, but unions generally win less elections in right-to-work states.
Retail and sales are not unskilled professions. To be good at it requires extensive knowledge of your products, your competitors products, and the general goings-on of your industry. It requires you to have the ability to express value to a consumer, to figure out what a consumer's exact needs and wants are so you can best service them, and it requires you to have good old fashioned people skills (which isn't something you can teach in school).
When you pay poor wages you can only attract and retain employees who do not possess the needed skills to be effective in such positions. As a result, we end up seeing 100s of new threads each month on music forums expressing disappointment in their shopping experience. There's a reason why sales professionals often command 6 digit salaries, and while I doubt we'd see such individuals on a GC's showroom floor there is no reason why GC couldn't up their pay and benefits a bit, hire better employees, lower their employee turnover rate, lower employee training costs, and provide better service to their customers. Heck, they might even be able to hire less part timers, more full timers, and begin to provide a sort of mom and pop feel to their stores that many consumers say they lack. They can build personal relationships with customers, and help turn the company's image (and profit margins) around.
Interesting, what about UPSers? Highly unionized, yet unskilled. Many are part time.
GC is just another victim of progress. When you have as much of the mega warehouse, mail order only competition as GC does it's a wonder they are still above ground. They could survive by closing all but one or two of their retail outlets and going head to head with the same business model as the Sweetwaters and Musicians Friends of the world, but if they try to maintain a huge string of retail outlets it's just a matter of time before we will be lamenting their demise.
The same thing is happening in the hobby industry. Local retail outlets for non essential consumer items are an outdated concept in the age of point, click, swipe, and sit by the mailbox.
The same thing is happening in the hobby industry. Local retail outlets for non essential consumer items are an outdated concept in the age of point, click, swipe, and sit by the mailbox.
Here's what's not clear to me. GC owes a lot of money, but to whom? If you consider GC, GC Holdings, and Bain Capital to be the same basic entity, then is this just a matter of them owing money to themselves? The interest payment may simply represent Bain sucking the blood out of GC before dumping the chain.
GC also owes a lot of money to Fender. I suspect that Fender and GC will go down together. Fender will always be a brand, but it might become a more specialized brand under new owners.
GC also owes a lot of money to Fender. I suspect that Fender and GC will go down together. Fender will always be a brand, but it might become a more specialized brand under new owners.
Retail employees in a large retail sales environment like GC (or Wal Mart) are typically unskilled. You don't hire experienced employees to sell Ibanez to high schoolers.
We shall see. They're both unhealthy festering debt heaps at the moment, but I suspect Fender's core business is profitable once you take away what's likely a massive debt to service from the Kayman takeover. They really bit off more than they should have with that one.
Here in Alabama it's called right to work but it would be better characterized as a right to fire at will state.
An employer can run you off if they got up on the wrong side of the bed or for no other reason than they don't care for the cut of your jib, and the state will back them to deny you if you apply for unemployment bennies or sue to get your job back.
If you have a legit sexual or racial bias suit, along with plenty of ironclad proof of same, you might have a good day in court. Otherwise you might as well just pick yourself up, wipe off the blood and start looking for a new job.
Who? The loaders? They are at least working towards something if they are doing a good job.
That's cool. But then, does a high level of "debt" necessarily mean that the company is doing poorly?
Something to think about....privately-held companies have little reason to show a profit.......profits equal taxes.
Right to work and employment at will are two different things. However, you are correct that racial discrimination is illegal due to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (proving discrimination is another matter though).
Discriminating against an employee for his or her union or protected concerted activities is an unfair labor practice, though, regardless if it's done in a right-to-work state.
Unless those profits can be sequestered in foreign tax havens or given out to executives in the form of equity.
