<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> <div> <div> Jim<o:p></o:p> Yeah, retail is a big category.  The BLS doesn't track for just supermarkets.  For density in supermarkets by region you have to ask folks at individual ufcw locals.  The director at the comparatively awesome ufcw supermarket local in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">minnesota</st1:place></st1:State> estimated 80% in their region off the cuff.  But in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Indiana</st1:place></st1:State> for instance it's much lower.  In <st1:place w:st="on">Western pennsylvania</st1:place> it's so high (steelers don't shop scab!) that there was a bitter protracted kroger strike there in the 80s that resulted in kroger walking away from the region entirely.<o:p></o:p> [WS:] You certainly understand the concept of gerrymandering, so you should also understand that you can use the same principle to define a “region” in such a way as to obtain the “majority” of anything you want to be a majority by “carving out” anything that does not fit the picture.  For example, an arbitrarily defined “area” with one big retailer (or perhaps its warehouse) that happen to be unionized and a handful of mom-and-pop stores with little employment that are not.  To convince me, or for that matter anyone who understands the concept of aggregate statistics, you need to produce stats by region that is defined in a standard way (e.g. state, MSA or CSA) and is large enough to make percentage shares meaningful.  <o:p></o:p> In any case, I would be extremely suspicious of any such stats aggregated at a lower than state or, at the lowest, MSA (metropolitan statistical areas encompassing major agglomerations and surrounding areas) level, because industries or establishments are not spread out uniformly, but often concentrate in certain geographical areas.  To illustrate that with the case of Pennsylvania that you quote, which outside Philadelphia is pretty balkanized, consider a “big box” store located in, say, a suburban or exurban township and accounts for the great majority of that township’s employment, unionized or otherwise.  If that big box store happens to be unionized, the majority of workforce in that township is unionized by definition, but this is hardly any indicator of the unionization level of this particular industry in the commonwealth as a whole or even its major part (e.g. Pittsburgh-New Castle MSA which includes six counties: Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland).  First, such unionization is largely due to the policy of the chain that owns that store, rather than to militancy of local labor.  Moreover, if big box stores owned by other chains that happen to be non-union and located in different townships or even counties, one must also take them into account to determine union density in an area.  Hence the need for a rather broad definition of “area.”<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt; margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'> <o:p> </o:p> I think that singling out retailers like Whole Foods has more to do with blue collar anti-intellectualism (your use of vernacular seems symptomatic) and silly resentment and kulturkampf against "yuppies" than any serious effort to advance the cause of labor in this country. Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div> Ha ha ha!  Are you seriously saying this? It's true I find yuppie intellectuals as distasteful as the fancy cheese they overpay for at fancy scab grocery stores.  But I believe my "blue-collar anti-intellectualism" is actually part and parcel of "any serious effort to advance the cause of labor in this country."  wink chuckle   ; )<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] So what it tells me is that you are ready to write off a rather significant part and growing of the labor force because you dislike their life styles and concentrate only on “organizing” those shrinking elements of that labor force whose life styles you approve.  In my view, such an attitude, if representative of an organization or a movement, is a telltale sign of its final implosion, turning inwards and purging all but the most “pure” elements, instead of turning outwards and including as many diverse elements as possible.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I understand that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> unions have been in the doghouse for a while precisely because of this kind of strategy – limiting benefits to narrowly defined members instead of pursuing interests of a broadly defined group of people who sell their work and skills for a living.  As I recall, this list had a rather passionate discussion on this topic some time ago in connection with the recently published Fitch book – so I am as serious as I can be saying this.  It seems to me that “fuck the yuppies, go with the steelers” strategy for labor organizing will ensure that the unions will soon be kicked out even of the doghouse they occupy now.  I am pretty certain that unless unions make a serious effort to attract professional workers in large numbers (as I have been suggesting on this forum for a while,) they will continue to decline in both membership and significance, until they disappear altogether from the radar screen.  But hey, at least they will remain “culturally pure” and “all-American,” and will not allow contaminating their homey beer and chips with imported wine and cheese ;).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>