We don't represent all of Costco's shipping and warehouse personnel, but we do represent a lot of them and are always looking forward to the opportunity to represent more of them should they want us to. We'd love to represent Sam's Club workers as well but with the way Wal-Mart fights unionization drives we really don't have much of a shot unless workers begin to see themselves in a collective struggle against the Wal-Mart style race to the bottom.
The main difference (in terms of labor relations) between Sam's and Costco is that the latter sees money as better spent on wages and benefits as opposed to anti-union consultants and of course market backlash, whereas the former has some sort of an "over my dead body" stance against any unionization. I guess I'm saying that their opposition seems out of balance to the "threat" posed by unionization: from the numbers (estimates) I've seen it would appear that Wal-Mart would stand to lose very little even presuming full unionization of all of its inside personnel (the bulk of employment), yet they spend an inordinate amount on anti-union "education" and legal battles which don't seem to match even the loftiest of expectations regarding unionization levels.
Remember that even if someone could wave a magic wand and have ALL of Wal-Mart's workers magically unionized that alone wouldn't cost Wal-Mart anything, as wages and benefits would then be negotiated between the parties. Wal-Mart would very likely give a few concessions on pay and benefits, but they have a strong negotiating position as well, and would most likely wind up paying very little extra - and would save money in other areas by not requiring Jackson-Lewis's services. I'm not sure it'd be a wash, but the profit hit would be slight and may be recoverable as employees spent their earnings locally, thus encouraging more Wal-Mart shopping as the money gets spread around.
There's a weird bell-shaped curve that - if you can just imagine a bell curve - more or less predicts both how many concessions a union can extract AND what the potential profit hit will be to a company upon contract agreement: basically the smallest companies lie on the far left-hand side of the curve (too small from which to extract many demands owing to revenue issues), and the enormous companies like Wal-Mart lie on the other end, too vastly powerful for the union to bargain with in terms of striking some form of equilibrium of power. So any CNBC talking head who suggests that unionization would damage Wal-Mart's profits is either knowingly lying or woefully ignorant of just how union contract negotiations typically pan out, as the days of mass strikes (successful ones, especially) are long gone, thus the union's bargaining power is vastly diminished.
I didn't mean to ramble, there. Thanks again for supporting unionized workers, we all thank you!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks for doing your part! 
