When H&M, the highly successful “cheap chic” Swedish clothing retailer, opened its first Chicago store on fashionable North Michigan Avenue, some things went as planned: Young, attractive clerks dressed in black cheered and danced to music as a long line of youthful customers walked [RETURN TO ARTICLE]
FOLLOW US
Also by David Moberg
-
Wal-Mart Warehouse Workers Move Ahead in Fight for Justice
Warehouse workers from Wal-Mart distribution centers in metropolitan Chicago and southern California took two big...
MORE » -
Chinese Policies—and U.S. Companies—Threaten American Auto Parts Jobs
Just as the American auto industry is bouncing back from near-death—in large part thanks to the...
MORE » -
For Reasons Unclear, Union Membership Changed Little in 2011
With all-too-few exceptions over the past three decades, each annual report on union membership from the Bureau...
MORE »
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA
Invest in the news you need. In These Times is a nonprofit, reader-supported magazine and website.
subscribe today for $19.95!
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
MOST READ
- Why Conservatives Can’t Fix Poverty
- The Girl’s Guide to Staying Safe Online
- Siri and the High-Tech Gender Gap
- It’s the Stupid Republicans, Stupid
- True Crime Finance Stories
- Is the Federal Government Helping to Bust Unions?
- Anger Sowing Seeds of a New Consumer Movement
- What Can Labor Learn?
- Marching Off the Cliff
- New Eden, Old Devils

Reader Comments
Just out of curiosity… have Swedish media been contacted re: H&M’s unwillingness? In my opinion, being a former resident of Sweden, the most effective way of dealing with H&M would be to publicise the story in Aftonbladet (http://www.aftonbladet.se) or Dagens Nyheter (http://www.dn.se) - the two largest newspapers in Sweden.
The last thing H&M would want, would be to have their precious image tarnished on the home market…
So what’s going on here?
the union is attempting to encourage the workers to form a union through proselytizing.
The company is attempting to discourage the same in the same way.
What is wrong with that?
The problem with employers discouraging unions is that employers have tremendous leverage over their workers. Workers can be easily intimidated because their livelihoods depend on their employers. Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically, but in the absense of that we need absolute neutrality on the part of the owners re: whether workers should join unions.
“Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically”
Why does this seem to be the right thing to you?
How can workers own a business that requires 100s of millions of dollars in investments which are currently obtained through stockholder ownership?
Have you any examples of such a practice ever working?
First, because people should always have a say over the decisions that affect them. If we believe in democracy in politics, the same should hold for our work lives.
Second, because democratic businesses are much more likely to provide fulfilling employment, adequate compensation, and an enjoyable work environment.
Third, because removing profit as the ultimate arbiter of business decisions allows you take into account the effects that business has on the community, the environment, and other workers.
Fourth, because democratic businesses are more efficient. Instead of the waste produced by alienated workers and conflict between management and employees, they have workers with a real stake in the business. Sociological studies back this up.
A democratic economy would require much smaller businesses, but the economies of scale that are lost would be much less once you factored in the massive negative externalities that are part of the current system.
please boycot this company all together.
register a new account »Posting Security