Paul F. Clark, Penn State

Whole Foods workers at the Philadelphia flagship store in the city’s Art Museum area voted to unionize on Jan. 27, 2025. They are the first store in the Amazon-owned grocery chain to do so.

Paul Clark, a professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University, talked to Kate Kilpatrick, The Conversation U.S. Philadelphia editor, about why this is happening – and why in Philly.

The Whole Foods workers in Philadelphia voted 130-100 in favor of unionizing. What do we know about their grievances?

From what I understand, these workers have felt that compensation, benefits and work conditions were not what they should be. Some are long-standing employees and say they struggle to afford their basic necessities.

Why did the union drive effort succeed now, and in Philly?

In the last five years, there has been a surge in union organizing. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the labor market. Low unemployment emboldens workers to take the risk of organizing a union. If workers feel their employer can’t replace them or that they can easily get a similar job, they are less fearful of angering the employer by trying to organize.

The second reason is that the Biden administration was a labor-friendly administration – perhaps the most in history. The U.S. president appoints a majority of members to the National Labor Relations Board, which interprets and enforces the labor law that governs organizing. Under Biden, the NLRB regularly issued decisions that provided greater protection to workers and held employers accountable when they violated workers’ rights. During Republican administrations, the board’s decisions are generally pro-business and provide less protection to workers. So workers had the wind at their back in that regard.

Advertisement

Also recent polling shows that 70% of Americans approve of unions, compared with less than half of Americans just 15 years ago. The generally favorable view of unions creates a more supportive environment for organizing.

And the last factor is that Generation Z, the youngest group of workers, clearly wants more out of their work and employment than previous generations. So we see a lot of young workers across the country organizing at Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Apple and now at Whole Foods and other stores.

Why Philadelphia? Philadelphia is a relatively strong union town. The percentage of the workforce that is represented by a union is higher in Philadelphia than in most cities and areas of the country. So when workers express interest in organizing in Philadelphia they get a lot of support. Other unions might turn out members for their rallies, pressure the company to not oppose the organizing drive and offer other aid and assistance.

The starting wage at the Philadelphia Whole Foods store is US$16 an hour. Is that considered low when the city’s minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour?

The minimum wage in Philadelphia is $7.25 because that is the federal minimum wage. States can institute a higher minimum wage if they choose to, but Pennsylvania is one of the few Northeast states that hasn’t adopted a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. The minimum wages in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, for example, are $15 or above.

But the minimum wage in Pennsylvania is almost irrelevant because of today’s labor market. Unemployment is low, and many employers have to offer significantly more than the minimum wage to get workers.

And the minimum wage is supposed to be a starting wage for workers with little experience or seniority. What workers want is a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a single person in Philadelphia needs to earn around $24 per hour to cover the basic costs of living. And Whole Foods is a profitable business. It’s part of Amazon, one of the most profitable, largest companies in the world. I think workers at these companies believe that they play an important role in generating those profits because of the work they do. And they think they should get a fair share of those profits.

Advertisement

How might the Whole Foods workers expect the company to fight back?

When employees win an organizing election as the Whole Food workers have, they have won a battle but not the war. The purpose of forming a union is to improve wages and benefits and working conditions, and you do that by negotiating a contract with the company. That is the next step in the process. But the law only requires employers to bargain with employees – to meet at reasonable times and exchange proposals. It doesn’t compel them to agree to anything.

The typical strategy of companies that aggressively oppose their workers having a union is to drag their feet in bargaining and not sign a contract. That is technically illegal, but labor law in the U.S. is relatively weak, and with good legal advice you can drag out bargaining for a very long time.

We’ve seen this with the Starbucks campaign. The first Starbucks store unionized in 2021. Over 540 stores have organized since then. And Starbucks workers at those stores still do not have a contract.

Could the new Trump administration have any impact on how this plays out in Philly?

The fact that the Trump administration has taken over gives companies more confidence that the standard delay strategy will work.

On Jan. 28, 2025, President Donald Trump fired Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the NLRB. The general counsel is the official at the board who basically enforces the National Labor Relations Act. Abruzzo was very aggressive in holding employers accountable if they violated the act and in protecting the rights of workers who tried to organize.

Advertisement

Trump’s approach to labor law in his first four years in office was at the other extreme. He appointed as general counsel Peter Robb, who was seen as far less aggressive in protecting workers’ rights and his interpretations of the law were much more pro-business.

Under the Biden administration, if a company was coming to the bargaining table month after month and not agreeing to anything, the NLRB would eventually step in and cite the employer for not bargaining in good faith. The NLRB could find the employer guilty of unfair labor practices and genuinely put pressure on it to bargain a contract.

Based on the board’s actions during the first Trump administration, the board in the next few years will be more likely to allow companies to delay and delay in reaching a contract.

What leverage do the Whole Foods employees have?

They can go on strike. But Amazon has the resources to put up with a strike at one Whole Foods store forever.

Other Whole Foods stores may be considering union drives. The more stores that organize, the more momentum the Philadelphia store will have. But for now, these workers in Philly are going to have their work cut out for them.

That said, they won’t be alone. The Whole Foods workers organized with the UFCW Local 1776, which is basically a statewide union that’s been around for decades. It has a lot of resources and experienced and knowledgeable leaders, plus the resources of the national UFCW. So it’s going to lean into this fight, and these workers will also have a lot of support from the rest of the labor community in Philadelphia.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, three Congressional representatives from Pennsylvania wrote a letter to Jason Buechel, the Whole Foods CEO, and to Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, that expressed their concerns about efforts to suppress the union drive. Is that support typical?

It’s not unusual. But there is no legal basis for elected officials to intervene in a labor-management dispute. I’d put that under the heading of community support.

You have a lot of progressive elected officials in Philadelphia who are supportive of unions, and that’s true in Pennsylvania right up to the governor.

Paul F. Clark, Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Jeb Card, Miami University

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

“Investigating the Paranormal”

What prompted the idea for the course?

My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

What does the course explore?

The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

Advertisement

In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

Why is this course relevant now?

Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

Advertisement

The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

What will the course prepare students to do?

This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Najmedin Meshkati, University of Southern California

The Los Angeles fires are a national disaster of epic proportions. City officials, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President-elect Donald Trump have traded accusations about what caused this crisis. But as an engineering professor who lives in Los Angeles and has studied extreme events and natural and human-caused disasters for over 40 years, I believe an event with so many lives lost and damages estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars demands a more substantive response.

Many problems have been cited as alleged root causes of this massive wildfire outbreak. They include mismanaged water resources, misallocation of firefighting resources, fire department funding cuts, poor risk management, reignition of past fires, and climate-driven dry conditions. Rumors and conspiracy theories have also abounded. https://www.youtube.com/embed/E2_KvbLgHlY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Damage from the Los Angeles wildfires, estimates at $135 billion or more as of mid-January, could affect homeowners insurance rates across the U.S.

I have served as a member or adviser to national- and state-level investigations of events including gas leaks, oil spills, nuclear reactor accidents, refinery explosions and, most recently, aviation mishaps.

In my view, the Los Angeles fires call for a similar investigation that is technically sound, multidisciplinary, unbiased, apolitical and independent. U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff of California has called for convening such a review.

To quote a saying often attributed to Albert Einstein: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

Natural events + human responses

Natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis often serve as triggers. Devastating on their own, these events can have far more catastrophic aftermaths that are shaped by human choices. Nature delivers the initial blow, but a complex interplay of human, organizational and technological factors can either mitigate or worsen the consequences.

I believe human operators and first responders constitute society’s first and the very last layer of defense against death and destruction in the crucial moments following natural disasters and technological systems failures – serving as our immediate shield, intermediate mitigator and ultimate savior.

Advertisement

I saw this when I served on a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The explosions and radioactive releases at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, but a Japanese high-level review concluded that this event was a “manmade disaster” – one born of human and organizational failure at the utility and governmental levels.

The fate of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station, just 39 miles from Fukushima, was also notable. Although Onagawa was closer to the earthquake’s epicenter and faced an even more powerful tsunami, the reactors there – which were identical in type and age to Fukushima’s and subject to the same regulations – emerged almost unscathed. This stark difference demolished any argument that Fukushima’s failure was inevitable, an act of God or purely nature’s fault.

High-level commissions have reviewed similar disasters in the United States. For example:

– The President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 produced the landmark Kemeny Report, which concluded that the accident was primarily caused by human factors, including inadequate operator training and confusing procedures, rather than equipment failures alone. The report strongly criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear power industry, and recommended a complete restructuring of the agency. It also called for better safety measures, operator training and emergency preparedness in the nuclear industry.

– Independent commissions investigated the explosions of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle in 2003. They identified similar systemic issues behind these incidents, even though they occurred 17 years apart, and provided overlapping recommendations to improve NASA’s safety culture and decision-making processes.

– Two national reviews – one by a blue-ribbon commission and the other by the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council – investigated the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. This disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured 16 others and released an estimated 134 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Both reports concluded that BP’s poor safety culture and practices, along with technical failures, lax regulation and inadequate inspections, had contributed to the well blowout. Both commissions made recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling. https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9aSUQmwUgA?wmode=transparent&start=0 President Barack Obama announces the formation of an expert commission to analyze causes and lessons from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, May 21, 2011.

Analyzing the Los Angeles fires

Based on my research and experience, I believe only a high-level independent investigative commission can fully unravel this disaster’s interconnected causes. Government agencies, regulatory bodies and legislative committees inevitably fall short in such investigations. They are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and bureaucratic interests. Their efforts remain too narrow and inward-focused. And, crucially, they lack true independence.

Advertisement

Gov. Newsom has directed the Los Angeles water and public works departments to review why hydrants ran dry, which hampered firefighting efforts. But this inquiry focuses narrowly on water supply issues in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood. It does not address other blazes like the Eaton fire near Pasadena, which has caused even more damage.

The most straightforward way to set up a high-level review of the Los Angeles wildfires would be for the Trump administration and Congress to direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Research Council to establish an independent commission. The National Academies are private, nonprofit organizations created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to provide the nation with independent, objective advice on complex problems. The National Research Council is the National Academies’ operating arm.

Typically, such studies are led by a prominent person of national distinction or a renowned scholar, and are carried out by a panel of national experts from academia, business, the public sector and nongovernmental organizations.

The National Academies have a reputation for producing independent, rigorous and nonpartisan studies. They screen members thoroughly for technical expertise and conflicts of interest. All of their studies go through formal peer review, which helps ensure that they are scientifically accurate and credible.

When the federal government requests a study from the academies, Congress provides funding through a relevant federal agency. For the Los Angeles fires, the federal sponsor might be the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Could a study proposed and sponsored by Congress and the Trump administration be balanced and nonpartisan? In my view, if the National Academies produced it, the answer is yes. The academies have a strong track record of reviewing complex issues, including disaster planning, response and recovery, risk assessment and wildfires. And their recommendations have improved public policy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/raMmRKGkGD4?wmode=transparent&start=0 In a televised 1986 hearing, physicist Richard Feynman, a member of a presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, demonstrates the commission’s finding that critical seals on the shuttle became brittle at low temperatures. The report showed that NASA and its key contractor knew this flaw existed and could cause a catastrophic failure, but still approved the launch. The explosion killed all seven crew members.

Lessons for future disasters

I see the Los Angeles fires as a stark warning to communities nationwide. There is a widening gap between intensifying climate-induced extreme events that are becoming Earth’s new normal, and municipal planning, preparedness and response capabilities.

Advertisement

Meeting these unprecedented challenges requires a paradigm shift in public policy. To protect public safety, officials and planners will have to proactively confront scenarios that may recently have seemed unthinkable.

For example, while Southern Californians are accustomed to wildfires, Los Angeles County agencies were unprepared to fight several major fires simultaneously. Flooding in North Carolina from Hurricane Helene in September 2024 is another example. Rainfall totals across the southern Appalachians reached levels that would only be expected once in 1,000 years based on past records.

To be prepared for such events, government agencies at all levels will need to reimagine their approaches to hazard assessment, risk management and emergency response. I believe a balanced and thorough investigation of the Los Angeles fires could help communities across the U.S. reframe their thinking about planning for emergencies.

Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement