America’s an amazing place sometimes. In Europe, 6+ weeks of vacation, family leave, universal health care, one year warning of layoffs and similar things are common place and accepted. In the US you can get fired for almost any reason, apparently including shopping where you want.
I’m not sure if this is a factor, but mass immigration arrived here either in cabins or steerage. The economic and social differences between the two was immense. I assume those in the middle were happy with their lot and remained in their homeland.
I am, of course, generalizing.
This actually made me laugh. Apparently, you don’t know my son-in-law.
The whole situation really wasn’t about whether my daughter wants to shop at the place she works. I think she does a majority of her shopping there. But for them to require it just seems so wrong.
I have a really heightened sense of “fair play”, and cannot stand to see someone punished unfairly. Consider a scenario where my daughter is is loyal to George’s Grocery, shops there all the time, and absolutely needs to get a particular type of baby formula for my granddaughter. She goes to George’s Grocery to get it, but they are out of that type, and won’t have any in for another few days. She goes to Walter’s Market to get the formula, and her boss sees her and fires her.
To even think that a company could pull that kind of BS makes my blood boil.
Thanks for the lively discussion, though.
This is “little l” liberty.
I’m old, so old I remember “privacy”. My blood used to boil, now it merely simmers.
I’ll retire soon, so I can stay (medically) stoned All The Time and leave all this shit to you youngsters. 
Thank you,
mangeorge
When I was a teen in way rural North Dakota…there was a grocery store that forced employees to shop there. I found out about it because the aunt of one of my friends worked there and was fired when the owner saw her coming out of another grocery store.
The problem was…that she was a single mom and the owner paid minimum wage, no benefits. She said she HAD to sneak shop elsewhere because the grocery store whe worked at was more expensive (it was a bit more upscale) than the other grocery store.
She also knew she was in trouble because the owner had just fired another employee for suspecting she was shopping elsewhere…she wasn’t buying ‘enough’ groceries for a family of 3 (her and 2 kids).
So…enforce? Just keep track of how much they buy. If not enough, fire em…
Yes…nice guy. However, he was the norm…not unusual in any way. There is a reason when I was younger I was a flaming Socialist and why, even to this day, I don’t cry any tears for ‘small, home town businesses’ forced out of business by the evil big businesses.
Another of the great things about living in rural America. I’ve been there. No thanks, give me the city life. I feel the same about working at a small business.
But Walmart is a special exception. :mad:
Agreed…I do have an informal boycott of Walmart…Haven’t been there in eons. It’s not a militant boycott. I don’t think much about it…I just don’t shop there.
The margins on alcohol are probably high enough to support a discount, but state liquor laws might prohibit any discount. One reason a state might have such a law is to discourage employees from buying at a discount then reselling…prohibited as “bootlegging” in most places, another might be tax reasons…the state is losing it’s sin tax on the discounted amount. If this is the case in just one state where a store operates, they might make it a blanket policy just for consistency sake.
Liquor laws can be weird. In New Mexico, for example, Costco must sell alcohol, at member’s rate, to non-members if they press the point. The store won’t tell you that though.
I hope they enjoyed defending tortious interference and antitrust claims.
Doing this to your employee is one thing - attempting to bind third parties is another.
I’m fairly sure unions can not discriminate based on protected categories, either. Consider closed shops where all the employees must be a member of the union. If the union will not allow a protect class to join, then the company will be in violation of the law, since it can’t hire anyone of that class.
I just don’t understand why a union would make their people shop at their place of employment. If they had to form a union in the first place, that implies the employer was screwing them over. So let’s all go give them our money!
Yeah, it’s very simplistic thinking. It just seems wrong for unions to be fighting to keep their employer in business. Perhaps it’s a negotiation? We’ll shop here, if you’ll not overwork us? (Again, really stupid, cause it means we’re getting less money, but hey.)
Generally, in closed shops, an employee is hired first, then if they make it through their probation period, they are required to join the union. And the union pretty much has to take them as members, or mess up their closed shop status.
There are sometimes contracts between unions & employers that have semi-temporary jobs, that they will only hire people from the union list. For example construction companies – when they need to hire electricians for a job, they have agreed to hire ones from the union list of available electricians. If the electricians union refused to let blacks join, then this could lock blacks out of union electrician jobs. (But they don’t – anybody who passes the required tests & gets an electricians license is welcome (even encouraged) to join the union. Though that may have been different pre-Civil Rights era.)
And union members are often urged to ‘shop union’ – that is, buy from companies that employ union workers. Including their own company. But I don’t think there is any requirement to do so. There can be peer pressure: a UAW worker at a Ford plant who drive a new Chevy into the parking lot will get some comments from his fellow workers. But it won’t result in any formal action against him from the union.
Even if it were technically illegal, it’s very easy to fire someone, and very difficult to take a local grocery company to court to force them to give you your job back. Is it worth it?
Incorrect. You can choose to pay the agency fee and not join the union. No state has closed shops. The agency fee is typically lower than the dues as it represents only the amount attributable to the costs of collective bargaining and excludes costs stemming from other union activities. And of course, in so-called right-to-work states, even the union shop is prohibited.
Furthermore, unions have a duty of fair representation of anyone within the bargaining unit they represent. Obviously, who occupies those positions is determined by the employer, typically without any input from the union. Thus I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at when you say “at least to the same extent that unions can.”
ETA: Oh, hahahaha. I see now that I am, like, a week late.
My husband worked at a brokerage that required this, except that I refused to transfer my stuff.
Colorado is not a community property state, this is my money, and my husband doesn’t even know how much it is–so why should his employer know?
They weren’t happy about it but they didn’t fire him. It was a hassle every year he worked there.
The union’s goal isn’t to kill the business; that’s just often the end result.
If she is an at will employee, the store can’t force her to shop at their store. Period. A contract requires both sides to benefit, so what is your daughter getting for being forced to shop at this store? And, employment doesn’t count.
Have your daughter contact the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations about the legality of the whole mess.
Yes it’s legal. They can’t physically stop her from shopping somewhere else, but they can fire her for doing so.
Generally you get an an employee discount which encourages you to shop there. The big 3 have special plans that allow an employee to get better prices on cars for example.Then it is un-needed to be draconian.
Come on, I can’t be the only one who wondered what the bounty was…