The story gives the CVS side that explains that the labor organization's action was a result of the campaign to have union elections. The threat of showing this policy was used to try to get compliance with seeking elections for union representation. The condoms were locked to keep them from being shoplifted, but there is a small supply kept in the open for purchase. The story notes the labor issues.
Indeed, the Change to Win coalition of unions includes the United Food andThe labor group says the CVS has a policy of locking up condoms in the stores located on the "Eastside" but they are not locked in the "Westside" CVS stores. The very quick view on this, coming from observation of how things are in different neighborhoods in different stores, is that maybe since condoms are in very small packages, they are easily shoplifted. If you look around to lots of other types of stores that are located in assorted different neighborhoods, just go to the Home Depot and you will see some of the merchandise is locked up in one store but is not locked up in another store. I don't see the connection to health issues, so this appears clearly an economic choice by the stores.
Commercial Workers, which has been attempting to organize CVS workers.
Shoplifting is a reality and in low-income, and especially now in this recession, the choice of spending or shoplifting for somebody with little money can tip towards stealing an item. I think we have seen things in store shelves, opened packages on hooks without the product, usually small, or boxes opened with the contents less than full. If a store wants to lockup stuff so it won't be stolen, let it. Have you ever gone to the nearby 99 Cents Only Store in the same areas? You really have a problem when there's shoplifting at the 99 Cents Stores, so what can you say?
If you don't like that bit of free choice you can exercise your own choice and go somewhere else. In Lincoln Heights, for a refresher if you've been away for awhile, the Rite-Aid, formerly Thrifty's, is still at the 5-Points at Daly St., at least 50 years now, just 2 blocks away.
If the labor group uses the "exposure" of the practice for leverage to get their way, what does that tell you about the whole picture? Let's assume CVS' response is correct, that they were being given the choice by the labor organization, an action that some might call "extortion." Would the labor group have "kept it secret" if CVS complied with the demand for election concessions? Then WHO is in the "wrong" in that case? Or would the labor group get their way and then "expose" the practice since they consider it "wrong" and could not be party to hiding the "wrong," regardless of any agreement?
It's all a lot of manipulation of the situation for getting some leverage. That's what a demonstration is all about and the news gathering organizations pass along the story, depending on the "newsworthy" assessment of what's there. A "slow news day" gets more tame items presented but a busy news day will have even big stories put on the back burner for shifting coverage. A very big example of this resurfaced with some developments this year. Do you remember when Congressman Gary Condit was accused of having knowledge of the disappearance of Chandra Levy? The affair Condit had with the 23-year old intern was exposed during the investigation and he looked like he was connected to the disappearance. Then, as that story continued to be big in the news in 2001, the 9-11 attacks struck and it dominated all news for weeks. The story of Chandra Levy was really never heard from again as a major topic until earlier this year. The D.C. police and FBI announced they had the killer, a 27-year old illegal alien from Nicaragua who was already an inmate in California and had been earlier convicted of assaults on women in the same park where Levy's remains were found.
The story reaching the news is really a good vehicle for giving CVS some payback for not coming around on the labor issue. There was comparison made to the policy of Walgreens drug stores that does not lock up condoms. That may be so, but then I don't see a Walgreens located in Lincoln Heights for one thing. A store-by-store decision of the local management is more likely the reason to keep certain merchandise behind lock and key, and not some corporate policy to promote AIDS and HIV. Others might have a different opinion, but this is a demonstration that got the publicity that it wanted and things still will be shoplifted from store shelves, unchanged by social policies or real-life business decisions. Another choice if a store is heavily affected by shoplifting is to move out of the area. In these poor economic times, lots of chain stores are closing outlets and it all comes to finances.
There are underlying reasons for shoplifting, but maybe tacit approval of the practice by family, friends and groups would have some affect. In any event, doing that is wrong and it's hurting business operations and inconveniencing customers by the responsive measures taken- like what's really to be seen as the case here.
What should we do? Coming from the teaching background, my view is that getting educated helps-the earlier the better. For older students, I'd say add another topic to be covered in high school "life skills" courses and something for all parents to give attention in helping their children know the difference between "right" and "wrong." Most students do have a notion of that anyway, but the idea is not impressed enough on them to actually be absorbed by all for them to apply to their decision-making. They will always make decisions, but it's the "right" ones that we would all benefit from. That was a small but important element left out of the education of many young persons. It was something that I found was absent in many cases, too many cases. It sure couldn't hurt things any more than what we have now.
Posts
