for all the talk about how awful Wal-Mart is ,and how they abuse their employees, when it actually comes down to a vote to organize the majority of hourly employees don't what or need a union....
Some people believe that the unions will be able to negotiate better pay for all the employees. What unions do is negotiate pay that ensures everyone both the mediocre employee and the super employee get exactly the same pay. It is required by the contract, thus no reason to work better or faster than your peers. Without a union the company can reward the better employees with higher wages while not rewarding the poor employees.
Unions also ensure that discipline is handed out consistently, meaning if the contract calls for 3 strikes and you are out... that is exactly how it happens regardless of whether or not a good employee might not deserve to be fired. I know this first hand as I have been a CEO of a unionized dairy and on more than one occasion I have had to terminate a decent employee in order to ensure that when a bad employee screwed up I could get rid of him and not have to keep him because they claimed prior practice.
Union's ensure equal pay regardless of performance, so if you are an exceptional employee a union will hold back your ability to increase your wages. If you are a slacker you will be rewarded with equal pay when compared to the better employees.
Also unions do no guarantee that you will get higher wages. My company had union employees and non-union employees and I always ensured that my non-union employees were paid better. I never accept a negotiated contract that would give union employees more rights, benefits or wages when compared to my non-union employees.
The question you need to ask yourself do you want someone to speak for you and represent you and your rights or do you feel you can do it better.
1) higher wages based on other union retailers
2) better benefits based on other union retailers
3) better working conditions and work rules
So they can get better pay and benefits.
