Kroger looks like an awful job

[desura]

Worse than Walmart.

For starters, I believe Walmart pays more than Kroger. Around $10/hr starting. Kroger pays $8.75 starting.

And then there is the union. It takes like $20 a week? If you're working 30 hours a week at $8.75 that's like 1/10th of your take home pay after taxes.

It just seems lousy that people making under $10/hr pay union dues. It would make sense if the wage were over $15, but it is actually less than other retailers.

And reading about it, the only time I've ever found a positive testimonial about the union is when some guy wanted to slack off and watch videos in the office instead of bagging groceries. Thanks to the union...he didn't have to bag groceries.

 

[edro]

The workers are brain washed into thinking the unions are good.
That's why you only see 2 types of workers at Kroger.
1. Desperate full timers who are disillusioned into thinking it is a good secure job, by the unions
2. High school kids who don't give a crap.

 

[Exterous]

The ones near me had some signs up early this year or sometime last year about various high placed rankings of Kroger in terms of 'best places to work' and 'most charitable companies'. They recently won 'top company to work for in IT' or something like that. Might not be super amazing but I get the impression it could be a lot worse

 

[Miramonti]

Dues are <$10 week and cashiers get paid a lot more around here than walmart lol. The union has its plus and minuses, but mostly pluses. How's that health insurance going for part time walmart workers? $15/wk for couple over here for a solid policy.

 

[Sonikku]

The workers are brain washed into thinking the unions are good.

If only workers would understand they truly are safer and better off just trusting the company to hold their interests at heart.

 

[edro]

If only workers would understand they truly are safer and better off just trusting the company to hold their interests at heart.

If the company doesn't, the employee leaves to another company; Capitalism at work.

 

[OutHouse]

Worse than Walmart.

For starters, I believe Walmart pays more than Kroger. Around $10/hr starting. Kroger pays $8.75 starting.

And then there is the union. It takes like $20 a week? If you're working 30 hours a week at $8.75 that's like 1/10th of your take home pay after taxes.

.

1 correct the pay sucks
2 my kid works at Kroger (bakery) and is not part of a union nor was it even brought up.

 

[twinrider1]

I know a few Kroger employees. Around here at least, you start out as part time. You might get 40 hours, you might not. It's generally a full year before they'll call you full time and commit to giving you 40 hours/wk.
Another friend has an office job with them, updating prices in the computer system. He does alright. It's not ATOT money, but it's a living wage

 

[darkswordsman17]

Just about all retail is fairly shitty but there's some really crazy companies to work for (look up working for Lululemon).

I've known people that worked for Wal-Mart and it really depends on the store. I briefly worked at a Kroger brand (Dillons) and it was pretty standard retail (so kinda shitty in that you get minimum wage pay and have to deal with usual retail crap).

Part of the problem is that a lot of stores are used to shitty employees, ones that don't even really do minimum wage level work or steal.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Part of the problem is that a lot of stores are used to shitty employees, ones that don't even really do minimum wage level work or steal.

That's not what they're used it, it's what they can get. If you're offering a crappy job for crappy pay you get crappy workers. And the crappy workers don't give a damn if they get fired because there's another crappy job across the street. And for the employer you might as well keep the crappy workers because you're not going to replace them with anything better and you'll lose productivity hiring somebody new who needs to be trained and will still be crappy when done training.

 

[Aharami]

If the company doesn't, the employee leaves to another company; Capitalism at work.

right, but what if it's a small town and there are no other jobs? Oh right, uproot your family and move, right? All the while taking a loss on your home and moving to an area with a higher CoL.

Do you see how it's not so simple for most families?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Unions make sense for "real" career jobs, but for a minimum wage job, seems kinda odd. Unions are definitely a good thing though. You cannot actually trust a company to be fair and decent towards employees, they will do the bare minimum, because capitalism. It's also why we have things like OSHA, because without that people would be forced to do very dangerous stuff. Again, capitalism. Cheaper to deal with the odd ball person dying than to buy everyone proper safety gear or have procedures that may impede on business (such as shutting down a piece of equipment to work on it).

What sucks is that there are indeed lot of people that abuse the concept of unions to become lazy, knowing that it's hard to fire them. My city's public work dept has a huge issue with that right now.

 

[cbrunny]

Worse than Walmart.

For starters, I believe Walmart pays more than Kroger. Around $10/hr starting. Kroger pays $8.75 starting.

And then there is the union. It takes like $20 a week? If you're working 30 hours a week at $8.75 that's like 1/10th of your take home pay after taxes.

It just seems lousy that people making under $10/hr pay union dues. It would make sense if the wage were over $15, but it is actually less than other retailers.

And reading about it, the only time I've ever found a positive testimonial about the union is when some guy wanted to slack off and watch videos in the office instead of bagging groceries. Thanks to the union...he didn't have to bag groceries.

around here union dues are a tax creditable. So for people in unions, their dues are actually paid by non-union workers elsewhere in the province. I currently have no sympathy for those paying union dues and nor should anyone else.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Kroger managers make 70,000+
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kroger-Manager-Salaries-E386_D_KO7,14.htm

Raise your expectations.

 

[Scarpozzi]

OSHA and minimum wage basically made unions obsolete.

 

[Miramonti]

Kroger managers make 70,000+
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kroger-Manager-Salaries-E386_D_KO7,14.htm

Raise your expectations.

Maybe at corporate, lol.

OSHA and minimum wage basically made unions obsolete.

Maybe on mars, lol.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

OSHA and minimum wage basically made unions obsolete.

Unless you suck at your job. If you do honest work, give your job your best effort and show up on time every day with a decent attitude, any company will be happy to have you. You don't need a union, the job market is Darwinian. Only people who suck at their job need special protection.

 

[NoTine42]

Raise your expectations.[/QUOTE]

Kroger managers make 70,000+
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kroger-Manager-Salaries-E386_D_KO7,14.htm

Raise your expectations.

Sounds quite low for a major retail store manager (I thought those were generally 100k, but you worked 60+ hours a week, including weekends and holidays and put up with the worst customers and moved to whatever small or big town the company wanted)
Might be right for an assistant manager.

 

[Miramonti]

At kroger, there are store managers and there are store directors. The store directors are the top cheese at the store, ie chief manager abuser. I know the store managers do not make nearly $70k, but store directors might. In fact, I know a few union workers who became managers, then said f-u and went back to the union position, because they did not want the countless hours (no o/t), minimal pay increase, and general abuse that managers get.

If you want to ask Kroger ee's anything, head over to http://17527.activeboard.com/ (which used to be called krogersucks.com lol.)

 

[MrDudeMan]

Only people who suck at their job need special protection.

This. So much this. As a person who employs other people, I go above and beyond to make sure I keep the people who don't suck and/or make it obvious that they try hard and care regardless of their level of skill. A person who is reliable, honest, and able to handle constructive criticism is worth their weight in gold to me. I will find a way to keep them employed if at all possible even if they can't do the job I hired them to do. People who suck, act entitled, or make it obvious that they're lazy would need the protection of a union to keep their job at my company.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's not what they're used it, it's what they can get. If you're offering a crappy job for crappy pay you get crappy workers. And the crappy workers don't give a damn if they get fired because there's another crappy job across the street. And for the employer you might as well keep the crappy workers because you're not going to replace them with anything better and you'll lose productivity hiring somebody new who needs to be trained and will still be crappy when done training.

Well yeah, but its their own fucking fault. Saying that's all they can get is bullshit as if they weren't so stupid about their policies (pay rates, hours, promotions, etc) they'd be able to get decent workers that would meet or exceed the pay level productivity. Not sure why you think finding better replacements will make that worse, as crappy workers have high turnover rates so they're constantly having to waste productivity on finding and training people.

Unless you suck at your job. If you do honest work, give your job your best effort and show up on time every day with a decent attitude, any company will be happy to have you. You don't need a union, the job market is Darwinian. Only people who suck at their job need special protection.

Sorry don't agree at all (and in fact, unions came about because of job markets being very much Darwinian as corporations didn't care about workers health or lives). Without unions, a lot of corporations would abuse the shit out of low level employees. You don't even have to have a union for it to have an affect either, as the threat of the workers unionizing also keeps companies at least somewhat more in line.

Unions aren't all good and often exhibit the negative aspects of any institution. Unfortunately that's what it takes to deal with other institutions though.

 

[darkswordsman17]

This. So much this. As a person who employs other people, I go above and beyond to make sure I keep the people who don't suck and/or make it obvious that they try hard and care regardless of their level of skill. A person who is reliable, honest, and able to handle constructive criticism is worth their weight in gold to me. I will find a way to keep them employed if at all possible even if they can't do the job I hired them to do. People who suck, act entitled, or make it obvious that they're lazy would need the protection of a union to keep their job at my company.

That's good, but surely you realize there's a lot of companies that don't operate that way, right? Especially in decent sized corporations. There are even plenty of them that do try to keep good workers but have their hands tied by upper management policies. And unions are one of the few ways they can do anything about that.

I'm baffled how some of you act like its always the unions that are shit, when they're just like the companies in that there's all manner (good and bad, as usual its a broad spectrum and can even change depending on the specific issue). There's unions that will handle shitty workers themselves (either try to help them improve, or boot their ass for making the rest of the workers look bad, as shitty employees compromises unions too). And there's ones that are corrupt and fuck the workers they're representing over.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Without unions, a lot of corporations would abuse the shit out of low level employees. You don't even have to have a union for it to have an affect either, as the threat of the workers unionizing also keeps companies at least somewhat more in line.

No they wouldn't. They couldn't. There are laws that protect workers far more than unions ever dreamed of. There are safety standards, laws covering OT and pay and breaks and equipment and everything else under the sun. There are a gazillion retail jobs filled by low level employees who are not unionized. Please explain in detail how the employees at Wal-Mart or The Gap are having the shit abused out of them compared to Kroger employees who are union.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That's good, but surely you realize there's a lot of companies that don't operate that way, right?.

Spoken like a person who's never run a business or employed anyone. You are utterly clueless about the job marketplace. While it might be hard to get a $200K position as a chemical engineer, lower level jobs, the ones most apt to be unionized, are filled with the dregs. Any person who shows up and tries and puts in a tiny bit of effort at doing their job well is a valued employee and will be protected and promoted.

 

[NoTine42]

At kroger, there are store managers and there are store directors. The store directors are the top cheese at the store, ie chief manager abuser. I know the store managers do not make nearly $70k, but store directors might. In fact, I know a few union workers who became managers, then said f-u and went back to the union position, because they did not want the countless hours (no o/t), minimal pay increase, and general abuse that managers get.

If you want to ask Kroger ee's anything, head over to http://17527.activeboard.com/ (which used to be called krogersucks.com lol.)

Wow, that is very low.

Compared to:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Menards-General-Manager-Salaries-E2895_D_KO8,23.htm