>
> The non-union Whole Foods certainly doesn't pay as well
> as the
> unionized Giant or Safeway.
[WS:] I doubt there are any significant wage differences, but even if they were, it is only one element of what makes a good job. There are other, equally if not more important elements - autonomy, respect, flexibility, recognition etc.
Reskin & Roos argue that work conditions (pay plus non-monetary aspects) are shaped by expectations abot the social status of the job holder. Higher status employees get better working conditions. These culturally determined expectations are mutual - both employees and bosses have them.
Whole Foods is not just a supermarket but a "hip" place to shop, comparable to hippie stores, coffee shops, etc. People who work there tend tohave very different social status than those who work, say, at Walmart. Their pay may not be different than industry average (and probably beter than that in hippie stores or indepenedent coffee shops), but the whole work atmospere is catering to the sensibilities of the typical clientele, which tends to be younger, better educated, professional, and somewhat liberal.
In oher words, you need to look at the whole rewards system and its correlation with the social status of typical employee and a typical client. Th ehigher the social status, the higher the overall reward. You can see that in professional jos as we, e.g. in the academic pay. It is structured by the social status of a particular discipline, with the social sciences and humanities on the bottom of the heap, and lawyers and economists on the top.
Wojtek