>>>t doesn’t help Starbucks or Costco to have millions more people out of work.
I can understand Costco’s reason: they want to put Wal-Mart out of business. Wal-Mart fights unions and will be hurt more by unionization. Costco is a higher end store and probably pays their people more. I can’t figure out Starbucks reasons, nor Whole Foods... other than run-away liberalism/socialism.
QUESTION: If you have a small coffee shop or machine shop (say 15 employees), is it economical for some union to come out to organize your miniscule number of workers?
QUESTION: If you have a large company like Starbucks with many locations and only 15 workers at each location, does the union have to organize each one? Or, is the effect company-wide if the union gets the 70 percent?
If I owned Wal-Mart, I’d immediately out source each department to two different companies (spun off to stockholders). Two for the pharmacy, two for the groceries, two for the automotive supplies, etc. Give them unique branded names and their own identities. Let them bid on each locations location.
If I owned a manufacturing firm or energy company with world-wide operations, like ExxonMobil, I’d immediately spin off the international operations to a Swiss based company. Move the people to Switzerland, leave the shares trade on NYSE, but go for some kind of dual-listing in another developed country.
Money goes where it’s treated best. What a mess!
Yes, but then you’ll run afoul of the “traitor corporation” legislation and have 105% marginal tax rates or whatever they think of.