In this section you'll find manifestos, articles and other documents written by Borders employees.
People are the cornerstone of the Borders Union movement. People who want Borders to live up to its mission statement goals of being the world leader in selection, service, innovation, ambiance, and community involvement. People who will not accept the gradual decay of the Borders Culture, who want professional respect at work, who don't want to live in fear of the next restructuring, and most of all, who want a fair wage for an honest day's work.
Borders stores are not mere bookstores: the stores also operate to some degree as community centers, entertainment venues, research libraries, and coffeehouses. Borders stores are as busy as supermarkets, but supermarkets where the customers and the company expect superior and informed service from educated and literate clerks. Borders owes its success to the expertise and reputation of its hourly-wage book and music sellers. A college degree is not a prerequisite for employment at Borders, but it is common.
Some people believe there is something about retail which dooms its employees to a substandard level of compensation. What are the most common low wage jobs? Waiting on customers, cleaning up after people, cooking food, and looking after small children. What do all these jobs have in common? Traditionally, they have been women's work.
No one at Borders would knowingly devalue traditionally female occupations. But unless someone can explain why these jobs should carry a stigma, it's reasonable to assume that a sexist outlook of the past is coloring our perceptions today. People talked about teaching the same way, but the simultaneous infusion of male teachers and unionization have resulted in better wages and higher status. When labor organizes, the market for labor changes. Old perceptions die off and new middle class jobs emerge.
Why is it right for anyone to work full-time at less than a living wage? Some industries will always be able to afford better wages than others, but in Germany, Australia, Great Britain, and most other western democratic countries, booksellers earn much more there than here. Why? Trade unions.
It is possible you might stay longer at Borders than you think. Does anyone plan to work on an assembly line their entire life? Or at a grocery store? Of course not; we would all rather be artists. Wouldn't it be nice if those of us who do stay at Borders could make a decent living? Then if we wanted to buy homes and raise families, we could afford to. That was the choice that autoworkers took decades ago and several raised children whom later became the same executives who say we do not need a union.
In a recent article in Ann Arbor Magazine, Tami Heim, President of Borders, stated that as a sixteen-year-old in 1974 she earned $2.10 per hour for her labor as a retail worker in a department store. Today that $2.10 an hour translates into $8.18 of spending power. How much did you make when you started at Borders? How long before you reach over $8.00 per hour? Borders will tell you that they operate in a highly competitive retail environment and can�t afford to pay their workers more. How does profit-sharing, nine paid personal days per year, eighty hours unused personal time rolled-over to the next year, merchandise credits for employees after only one month of service, and paid-down unused vacation time sound? Borders used to offer this and more to its employees, and they can again
There are other troubling issues, apart from the compensation: understaffing, invasive anti-theft procedures, increasingly complex and redundant sales floor operating procedures, the lack of an effective grievance procedure for store employees; an expensive health benefits plan, questionable, divisive anti-union tactics; the effect of category management on the title base; and, in general, a promulgation of new policies and procedures that seem divorced from the day-to-day reality of running a bookstore. Some stores experience a few of the above, some experience all and more. To the corporation, most of preceding are economic issues, but to the employees they are issues of trust and of the quality of our working lives.
The most effective way to approach these issues of pay, benefits, and working conditions is to form a union. Even a progressive company like Borders can't help but to see its employees, sometimes, as mere bottom-line expenses. That's why you can't always trust an employer, even an enlightened employer, to do the right thing. There's no guarantee that a union will get you a raise, more benefits, greater respect, and more control over your work life, but that's exactly what a union is meant to do -- that's its reason for being.
Updated: 03/27/2002
Borders executives are quick to assert that funds aren't available for across-the-board improvements to wages and benefits, but those assertions are backed with the sketchiest of explanations. Shopworn homilies are offered: discourses on the value of employee-ownership, entrepreneurial culture, and the limitations of retail economics.
These explanations of the "realities of retail economics" are apt to omit as much relevant information as they contain: when justifying the outlay of company profits towards the creation of new stores, little mention is made of alternative sources of financing, like the company's credit facility; when presenting the profit limitations of fixed-price products, little mention is made of the operational efficiencies that result from fixed-pricing; and with regard to the company's budget, it is presented as if it were a closed system, with a fixed income derived entirely from sales, and little mention is made of stock market capitalization, accounting depreciations, cash flows, or credit facilities.
Within stores that have conducted union campaigns, and in broader company-wide communications, store clerks have repeatedly been challenged to provide details regarding budgeted sources of wage and benefit improvements. These questions are meant as rhetorical traps: store clerks are not expected to possess the "expertise" or the relevant documentation to make informed judgments regarding corporate finance, and any clerk who attempts to argue on this unfamiliar ground is at a distinct disadvantage. It is impossible to prove or disprove--within the context of a mere discussion--that BGI can afford a wage increase. The only remedy to Borders credibility gap in this regard is the financial disclosure mandated by law during union contract negotiations.
Nevertheless, with those conditions in mind, a foolish and/or intrepid clerk may choose to tangle with corporate finance on its own terms. What follows are a few guidelines for clerks who are called upon to come up with budget allocations:
Year 2001 Performance
As reported Jan. 31, 2002, Borders Group achieved record annual consolidated sales in 2001, of $3.39 billion, an increase of 5.1% over the comparable period in fiscal 2000.
Net income more than doubled for the full year. The company's overall financial position strengthened materially because of strong cash flow. Net cash on hand at the end of 2001 was $106.9 million compared to net debt a year ago of $85.3 million, which represents an improvement of $192.2 million.
Profits --The Borders Group achieved a 3.2% profit margin ("excluding unusual items" - according to BGI's press release) in 2001--that is, for each $100 dollars in sales, the company kept $3.20 (or $109,000,000 total) after it paid wages, bought books, paid taxes, opened stores, etc.
Loans--Borders Group finances its operation and expansion with loans made from two credit agreements: a $472.8 million multicurrency credit agreement, and a $175 million lease financing agreement. While Borders won't use these loans to pay its employees, it can and does direct them towards new store openings and other expenses, freeing sales income for other expenses.
Cash Flows--Profits aren't the whole picture. Another important measure of a company's strength is the cash generated by its operations. Cash flows are generated by a complex interaction of profits, expenses, taxes, inventories, depreciation credits, amortizations, and restructuring provisions. Borders Group's net cash provided by operations in 2001 was $106 million, compared to a net debt of $85 million in 2000.
The Stock Market --The Borders Group is authorized to issue 200,000,000 shares of common stock. As of this writing, 81,000,000 shares are outstanding. Borders can sell more shares to raise money.
Budget Emphasis--It has been suggested that an increased allocation to wages and benefits entails the elimination of other areas of the budget, like advertising, store openings, etc. That is hyperbole. As noted above, corporate finance is rather complex. There are many ways to slice a $3.4 billion pie. You don't have to toss entire slices away. Less money for a budget expense is not the same as no money for it. Incremental adjustments can be made to each of the expenses.
That's plenty of room for intelligent people to apply their training and come up with new solutions.
Some business expenses are fixed and aren't amenable to adjustment. Also, there are restrictions on what Borders can do with its loans and with its stock. For the most part, however, both expenses and income are flexible, and in some cases volatile. When BGI claims that its financial hands are tied, don't believe it until they show you the rope.
by Jason Chappell
Fall, 1997
Jason Chappell was a lead clerk and was one of the main organizers at the World Trade Center store.
We have heard the consistent knee-jerk reaction for months that the book industry is not like other industries, in that BGI doesn't reserve the right to raise prices on the products we sell to increase labor costs (i.e. wages). Of course, that just about marks the beginning and end of the discourse on this subject, for if we look further into this argument, we can watch it dissolve like sugar in water.
In the book publishing industry, products are marked with a publisher-set price. Granted. Stores operate gross margins, therefore, on discount agreements set with each publisher or through book distributors. The standard BINC argument is that this fixed-pricing system of the book industry denies the company the ability to raise "labor costs." If The Gap wanted to do so, we are told, they could boost the price of each Tshirt 5% and then dole the extra money out in higher wages. THIS ARGUMENT IS A COMPLETE SHAM.
In the 1980's, The Gap and other retailers responded to growing competition not by raising prices, but by keeping prices low. How did they do this? They cut labor costs. They moved their production facilities to some of the most repressive areas of the world. By moving production plants to China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and other areas of southeast Asia, these companies fought each other in the market by keeping their T-shirts cheap at $19.99. Instead, however, they were able to boost profits by producing a twenty dollar garment at a labor cost of as low as 6 cents per shirt.
The next time you hear this inane argument presented, ask the person spouting it why it is that stores like The Gap have this amazing luxury of being able to raise their prices in order to pay their workers more, yet they have never, ever done so? The Gap operates in a competitive (yet conforming) market, just like Borders. The fact that both stores operate on profit margins is unchanged whether that margin comes from wholesale mark-up from a base price or wholesale discount from a set price. In addition, Borders and ~N~both enjoy the largest discounts in the industry, due to their size and market strength.
In fact, we as retail workers should be very glad for the publisher set price. For if Borders and B&N had the opportunity to alter book prices, what would the outcome most likely be? Does anyone really think Borders and B&N would compete for market-share by raising their prices so they could in turn raise their wages? Of course not. They would discount. Just like The Gap. And where would these lost revenues be offset? lower labor costs, just like The Gap. The issue here isn't about the ability to raise book prices. That is a classic instance of smoke and mirrors. The issue here is about distribution of revenues and irresponsibility during rapid expansion to those who make that expansion possible.
How does all of this relate to us?
We are seeing, or rather, participating, in one of the new trends of corporate structures throughout the world. In the old traditional corporate model, the sharpest division in the company rested between shareholders and everyone beneath them (everyone from the executive suite to the shop floor). One of the most important developments in recent years is that those on the executive level have been usurped into the upper category. Many CEO's and members of Upper (11Q) Management now work under formal employer contracts, and compensation has become more and more based on rapidly increasing long-term stock rewards (not that their salaries have suffered, however, for they haven't. Salaries for execs have skyrocketed in the past decade, while lower-worker's wages have been in steady decline when adjusted for inflation.)
The most dramatic result of this new trend is that workers on the bottom rung of the ladder now bear the brunt of market volatility more than upper management. This is the sad and frightening between the lines understatement when we hear "Look, if you don't like it here, you can always get another job. What's actually being said here is that you can always pullout and sell your labor elsewhere in the labor market. The saturated labor market in most urban areas (thanks to downsizing, high turnover, higher unemployment, lack of job security, and other "forces" in the labor market) is one of the biggest contributors to decreasing real wages. It's no coincidence that the unemployment rate in NYC is now twice that of the national average. It's also no coincidence that fast-food retailers in midwestern suburbs are beginning to pay higher wages and benefits than Borders in NYC.
So as we bookstore workers are forced to survive by competing in an ever-nastier labor market, the two tigers of the book industry, and their top brass and large shareholders, are thriving in a booming (yet still competitive, no doubt) book-superstore capital market. Through formal contracts, company executives (including our own) now enjoy fmancial protections against the risks of job loss and related risks associated with restructuring, as well as specifications in legal terms of exactly what is expected of them. This has given executives extraordinary financial stakes in the long term success of the organization and its bottom line - a bottom line that necessitates tightly controlled labor costs.
In Change At Work (ISBN 0-19-510327-0) author Peter Cappelli and other contributors go to great lengths in describing this new development in corporate structures. They conclude: "These new compensation arrangements do seem to be successful in ensuring the commitment of executives to the goals of shareholders. The downside is that they have created a new and important division within organizations. While there still may be tensions between front-line workers and supervisors, the real division now is between executives and everyone else. Employees clearly understand that their company's leadership is playing a very different game than they are, one with very different rules. It is difficult for the leadership to persuade employees that 'we are all in this together' and to motivate them to get behind the executive's goals for the company when the employees understand how different the stakes for meeting those goals are for them and for the brass."
We have seen this difficulty of persuasion a great deal recently at Borders. When you hear boasts to booksellers that employees now own 20% of BGI stock, don't forget to remind yourself that the top two executive officers are also Borders employees, and between the two of them alone fall a hefty portion of that 20%. This is not an employee~owned company and certainly never will be (especially on our wages, and even with petit-option grants), but that doesn't stop the tired old line that "we're all in this together." And with three dozen Borders stores on the "union critical" list today, the
cornpany's power of persuasion is being stretched to the limit. But Borders is not alone. Barnes & Noble is seeing it own "union critical" list grow all over the country as well. Watch for their own website soon.
What can unionizing do for you
As it stands now, we are the pawns in the growing bookstore war. It's easy for those at the top to define the battle-lines via "pride in the company" as us vs. the competition (B&N). In reality, this is a battle being played out like all economic conflicts - between those at the top and those at the bottom. When it comes to wages, job security, collective bargaining, and "at-will" clauses, we have everything in common with fellow wage earners (both at B&N and Borders) and very little indeed with those far fewer making millions from the work we do.
By unionizing, we can cover our tails both collectively and individually. And in doing so, we can say to those at the top: "Go ahead, fight it out. Just don't use us as the cannon-fodder." This "fodder-ization" can come in many forms. Whether it be an increase in workload without your approval, an outright unjust action taken against you, an unfair review based on vague and tenously defined work standards, consistently depressed wages, consistently less-affordable health care options, and more. Fortunately, we as workers still have rights in this country, and we have the union vote to change our situation and better our standing.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the standard response from those at the top when those at the bottom try to come together to protect their common interests. Divide and conquer. First, set those on the second-tier against those at the bottom. No, store management is not comprised of "corporate puppets." But I must ask, does any store manager do the required research (much less have the time to, as their workloads are increasing, too) to prepare them to carry out scare tactics like presenting out-of-context information on a union's LM financial report? Or is this information provided by company lawyers and Human Resources Dept's to fight off worker organization? The reasoning is very clear, and presented in a very straightforward manner in the Borders "Union Avoidance" Handbook distributed to all store management by the home office. To quote, "We must be consistent with our message, which can be difficult if you personally believe that unions are generally a good thing or if you tend to feel sympathy towards the reasons behind unionizing in our environment. ft is not inconsistent to explain that you may feel that unions serve a necessary and valuable role in society, but that they will not be compatible with our management style. Providing a consistent message that meshes with the general management principles of Borders reiterates our desire for open and unhindered communication between us and our employees." Open and unhindered communication, right from a document marked not to he seen by non-salaried employees. Three cheers for the internet.
By unionizing, the only individual right we give away is the right to be taken advantage of as isolated individuals at the bottom of a very tall hierarchy. We are curiously being told over and over that we will only be putting a straightjacket on our individual freedom. I still can't get over the absurdity of that argument. We all know what it is that rolls downhill, and what we are trying to do is erect an umbrella for protection from that unwelcomed substance.
by Fran Ryan
from the February 14, 1997 issue of "Down in Front", the newsletter published by Bryn Mawr Borders employees
A few months ago, Cass explained that traditionally, retail jobs do not compensate as well as jobs in the legal, business, and industrial fields. There are reasons for this, reasons which can be traced back to an earlier period of our nation's history, long before Borders was established.
Recent feminist and social historians have looked at the rise of retail labor in the early 1900s as an important point in the history of American women. With the rise of the modern city in the 1880s, department stores, such as Macy's in New York and Wanamakers in Philadelphia, emerged as new, vital areas of commerce where people came to shop and meet. These stores were different because they encouraged shopping as a form of social interaction.
You did more than just buy shoes at Macy's, it provided social opportunities as well: you met your friends, ate lunch in the restaurant, drank coffee, flirted with someone on the sales floor or merely walked around. The new stores were envisioned as more than just stores and people were more than just customers. Customers were guests, and treated as such, from the time they walked through the door to the time they left. The shop floors, perfume counters, hat sections, and shoe areas were staffed almost exclusively by women workers, whose job was not only to sell you items, but also to make you feel at home. These women workers, according to historian Susan Porter Benson, were almost exclusively unmarried and between the ages of 18 and their late 20s. Women were seen as ideal workers in these settings because the shop floor was viewed as an extension of the home in which women could perform their so called "natural abilities" to be caregivers, service providers, and to take care of people's emotional needs. Managers in these stores were, in contrast, almost exclusively male, providing the kind of patriarchal guidance all Victorian "households" required. Indeed, this dynamic was supported by the cultural stereotypes and myths about men and women which were predominant in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The most significant way in which these cultural stereotypes were manifested was in the pay scale allotted to retail work. Retail workers, who were generally female, made less than males in other jobs. Why? One argument continually given throughout the twentieth century has been the "family wage" response which argues that the male is the primary breadwinner, while the female works only for "extra money" to add to her husband's wages. This argument is a gross distortion of the realities women have faced throughout our history. Despite what some may say, not all women who work do so merely to add to the checks of their husbands. There have always been single parent families, headed by mothers who have had to provide for their children, and there have always been women who have chose not to marry and needed to support themselves. Women who have had to do this have fought against tremendous odds, due to the stereotypes which have dominated our society. Historians who have studied women workers who perform service and retail work have termed them not blue or white collar workers, but pink collar workers. Pink collar workers traditionally include hotel and restaurant workers, waitresses and all retail workers.
American history shows that women workers have fought against employment and wage discrimination throughout this century. On the job, they have stood up for each other, vented their common frustrations and consoled each other on bad days (just as we do for one another.) they have also gotten together and organized to protect themselves and defend their financial independence. One place this was done earlier in the century was in the supermarket chains along the east coast. Next time you go over to Acme to get your tuna or Ramen, ask a clerk who has been there a few years about their wages and benefits. Or better yet, stop in at the Wynnewood Superfresh some morning and ask for Kathy. Ask her how after 15 years of dedicated service, she can afford to go to school, make car payments, and take a vacation to the shore every year. Or ask Marcia, on night shift register, how she is going back to school this year and how, thanks to the UFCW, it is not costing her anything.
Women who work in our local supermarkets have economic independence. They are members of The United Food and Commercial Workers union, Local 1776. Everyone with the UFCW receives tangible benefits: they have security and financial mobility if they chose to stay with their jobs. Because of the tangible benefits their full and part-time workers receive, such as free gym membership, standard raises, full dental and eye care, legal service and $1000 yearly tuition allowance, they are free to do more and explore more if they choose. They don't skip washing their contact lenses because they cannot afford saline solution; they don't buy groceries on their credit cards; they don't have to decide between basic car maintenance and health insurance coverage.
If Superfresh can afford to give its workers fair, standardized wages, why can't Borders? Surely, as a national chain, Borders' capital goes far beyond that of Acme, I. Goldbergs, or Metropolitan Life Insurance, all of which are represented by the UFCW. Borders did not create the problems of economic gender stereotypes which shaped the wage scale we work under, but everyday you and the men and women you work with deal with its consequences. We can change it, and by doing so, smash through the glass ceiling that has held retail workers, both men and women, in economic inferiority.
Unionization in the retail workplace is economic feminism. It is no theory, it is not an intellectual exercise. It is something tangible. A union will work at Borders!
From the February 26, 1997 edition of "Down in Front", the Bryn Mawr employees' newsletter.
I know what Bob means about the loving environment here. I do believe that the people in this store would go pretty far out of their way to help and support each other during times of need; I see this kind of mutual concern even during routine activities. And, as Bob said, I do not think these characteristics come from BINC (progressive though the company may be), but from us. They are a result simply and entirely of the trust, compassion, and respect we feel for each other as individuals; a commitment that we have made, consciously or unconsciously, to have a genuine, caring relationship with our co- workers, be they staff or management. This is a choice we make, and it is nothing that BINC can mandate. Similarly, I don't think that it is something that a union can take away. However, the union can help us make an impact on the facets of the job that BINC does control.
Every day, we deal with working conditions that can seem, and may be, irrational and arbitrary. Depending on our personalities, we cope with this in different ways: some people take everything in stride, some people complain, some people accept or agree with the premise behind the conditions, some people go to management and argue about why certain conditions aren't good or appropriate. But the bottom line is, as individuals at the lowest step on the corporate ladder, we have a limited impact on the direction of this company and its effect on the store. I know this from my own experience; I have also seen count less numbers of employees come and go, and most whom I have taIked to have had strong feelings of disillusionment about the increasing contradiction between Borders' presentatlon of itself as an employer and the reality of working here; of sadness about the increasingly "corporate" nature of the company; and, quite frankly, of anger about the degree to which they feel exploited, both as college graduates and as workers.
Given my sense that these feelings are, to some degree, common among the staff, I find it surprising that more people aren't enthusiastic about the idea of unionizing. Then again, I think for many people (and I include myself in this, not being a natural-born political radical), the idea of a union is extremely danger ous. when I first started hearing about the union, I was suspicious; it seemed to threaten my sense of autonomy, my ability to define and control my identity. Of course, the reality is that my ideal of a completely self-sufficient personality is an iIlusion ; am always reacting to people and events external to myself, and my "identity" develops as a result of the interaction of these events with my innate being. If I am to be completely honest with myself, and as much as I don't like to admit it, I have to face the fact that I have been influenced by Borders, Inc. as I have been inflenenced by , all of the institutions that I have encountered in my Iife. Including, now, the union. But what makes the union more threatening is that it forces me to explicitly acknowledge and confront the forces that are contributing to my development as a person, when it is much easier to pretend that they don't exist, or hope that if they do, they will continue to "ignore" me, as they generally seem to (providing I behave acceptably).
Indeed, if I truly believe that I have any power to form myself, I would have to believe that I could continue to be myself and follow the good in myself regardless of the environment in which I existed. If I thought that the union could come in and dictate my behavior at work, my ability to make decisions and do the right thing, I wouldn't vote for it. But I don't think this will happen, because I trust my co-workers, who will form the bargaining committee, and I trust the union (as least as much as I trust Borders. Also, having taken a step towards a more activist work environment, I trust my own ability to stand up and question any clauses in the contract of which I don't understand the purpose. And if regulations that I don't like get passed, well, then I guess I'll have to continue with the minor civil disobedience that I occasionally engage in currently; or else quit.
The point is that nothing the union comes up with will be any more arbitrary than what BINC comes up with. Take the issue of shelving, which caused so much conflict during negotiations in Chicago, and is representative of the type of division of labor which we are told the union will be promoting. Let us imagine for one moment that it suddenIy becomes advantageous to BINC for managers not to be involved in the shelving of books. A communication comes down from headquarters outlining the change, and, as a non-union store, we comply, despite the inconvenience. Everyone would agree that, regardless of the negative impact on us, it is completely within the rights of BINC to make decisions of this sort; some people would be frustrated, and might send complaints up to Ann Arbor; but most would simply shrug, and accommodate. In this case, increased division of labor and the resulting stratification between management and staff would be promoted by BINC as beneficial, even though the disadvantage to the store's employees would be just as great.
There is no doubt that changes which are either inconvenient, inefficient (for us, hot for BINC), or a betrayel of the employees' sense of the store have happened over the four years that I have been here. However, when the idea of change is linked to a union, it seems to becomes much more menacing. The reality is that any change that is initiated by the union is negotiated change, not unilateral change that comes from above; and if we don't like what the union brings to the table, we have an opportunity to negotiate with them as well. If anything, I find this reassuring, although I recognize that it will take a great deal more effort on our part to make it work. I think that Local 1776 has significant benefits to offer us; benefits which I would ideally like to see extended to managers, who, in my opinion, are even more overworked and exploited than the rest of us. Even if we all act out of love for the store and for each other, as Bob does, those who benefit from our acts (in this case, BINC) should feel a moral compulsion to honor our commitment appropriately, instead of siniply seeing what additional duties they can compel our sense of love to feel responsible for.
The bottom line is that, if we vote to go union, I hope and expect that I will put as much effort into being a fair and compassionate unionized employee as I try to put into being a fair and compassionate non-unionized employee. If I don't, if my behavior changes, then it will be because I, and no one else, have decided to let it change.
-Jessica Booth