Talk:Costco/Archive 1

message: The article says the first location opened in San Diego under the Price Club name, and that Costco and Price Club merged in 1993. That tells us where Price Club came from, but where did Costco come from?
I'm fairly certain that Costco started in Kirkland, WA. The article is incorrect in placing Price Club history in the same location. Price Club either merged with the pre-existing Costco, or was purchased by it (I'm not certain), but it definitely was not the sole corporate parent of the current company, which is how the article presents it. --jcleaver
Costco's first warehouse was (and still is) in Seattle. The opening paragraph of the article notes that its "flagship warehouse #1" is in Seattle. Costco had its headquartersin Kirkland for some time before moving it to Issaquah, so perhaps that had you thinking "Kirkland" as its first location. I think thopening paragraph covers the issue, but it could certainly be made clearer if someone wants to expound on the issue somewhat. As to Price Club, the 1993 joining of Price Club and Costco was essentially a merger -- it was described by the company as a "partnership," which, while perhaps logical from a business perspective, is not a legally accurate description of the transaction.Cjkporter 22:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did '''Costco''' start? 

message: This article is absolutely horrid. For one thing, the "Price Club" article should not forward to this page -- Costco is what became of Price Club. Costco was not started in San Diego. I am not too sure where it started, however, Price Club was started in San Diego.
Nowhere in this article is the mention of Sol Price! He was the sole originator of the wholesale idea. James Sinegal and others helped to start Price Club but were not the people that first started the club. This cannot be caleld an article on price club is sol isn't mentioned.
: I agree with you and added Sol Price's name for you :)--Chicbicyclist 06:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is horrible 

message: The Employees section contains a fair bit of NPOV content I just removed. In particular:
* The "many loopholes" claim is weaselly-worded - it claims the company "is able to hold back this option" by various means, without actually claiming whether the company does or not (or providing sources, if the claim is that it does); "this option" is also ambiguous - does it refer to the 401-K benefit, the stock option benefit, or to the entire benefit package?
* The claim that moving workers around is used to prevent them from gaining seniority (or even that it has that effect) is also doubtful. Costco is unionized, and seniority in union shops is typically based on time employed; this needs more than someone's say-so.
* The NYT article mentioned (hard link at the bottom of the page) emphatically does not claim that the $17/hr rate is only "for those who have worked with the company for 6 or more years"; it's simply cited as average pay.
* The claim that part-time employees lose their benefits upon layoff is unexceptional; the claim that there are periodical yearly layoffs of them for 4 to 5 years is not, and is at variance with Federal and many states' labor law. Given that it's also claimed that 50% of the workforce is part-time, such layoffs would trigger the WARN Act.
* It is untrue that the company has high worker turnover; the WSJ article linked at the bottom of the page puts the annual turnover rate in 2004 at 24%.
* The claim that many employees suffer heat exhaustion is also unsupported, and rather unbelievable given the rest of the evidence on Costco's workforce-treatment policies.
* The claim that "So far [good wages reducing employee theft] has been proven wrong. As there are many thefts among the workers." is unverifiable and unsupported.
* Finally, note that this edit came in from 206.63.89.53, and that IP's edits on other articles during the same timeframe are uniformly vandalistic in nature.
-- Ivanski 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Edit on Employees section 

message: what does costco stand for or mean?
The name "Costco" doesn't mean anything AFAIK but it does seem to follow the "mart", "price", "save" word formulas used by many retailers.  Additionaly, though not worthy of inclusion in the article, Costco is occasionally mispronounced "Cosco" which is a Chinese company (I believe shipping). Chris Beckett 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does costco stand for or mean? 

message: In the current "Products" section there is a mention of a $3 pizza coupon.  Perhaps this should be expanded to mention the 2 yearly coupon books that are mailed out?  Coscto mails a "Passport" coupon book and a "Wallet" coupon book.  These mailed coupon books are also suplemented by coupon handouts which are given to member as they enter the warehouse.  For the last several years Costco has also had a coupon strategy to help compete with Post-thanksgiving shopping, a special coupon booklet with coupons valid for the holiday shopping weekend.  The Thanksgiving coupons tend to be on higher end electronics.
There is no mention of Costco's "early in, early out" strategy?  Seasonal merchandise is stocked very early and sold out before many retailers even carry their seasonal products.
Chris Beckett 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products 

message: Suggest merge of Costco cash into Costco.  Costco Cash is just Costco's single-store value card, so it really belongs in the Costco main article. --John Nagle 05:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Takeel 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. --Matt 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After an extended period of time, done. --theSpectator talk 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge of [[Costco cash]] into [[Costco]] 

message: Merge, it's a private-label brand, not really notable by itself. Wl219 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Kirkland Signature]]

message: Should we mention the location of the worlds largest Costco.
Hillsboro, Oregon
By itself, probably not...nothing really noteworthy about a larger than usual building. However, if you work in the fact that the additional 50,000sqft is primarily furniture, kinda a combination of a Costco with a Costco Home, which itself is experimental, and this "mega warehouse" could be an indication of things to come, how the company will look going forward, then it seems noteworthy. Elpablo69 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worlds largest Costco

message: Lunkwill has made a request that an involved editor act as an informal mediator in the dispute regarding the "Working at Costco" section. I am very willing to act in this capacity. If everyone is agreeable, my involvement would be to try and encourage the parties involved towards towards a compromise that is acceptable to all. I would not take sides in the dispute, just help everyone keep discussions calm and on-point so a revert war can be avoided.
I have read the article, focusing on the disputed section and also the discussion above. I believe I understand the nature of the disagreement. However, I think it would be helpful if those with an opinion on the matter could write a brief paragraph below expressing their opinion on whether this section should exist and, if it is to be included, what form it should take. I suggest the following questions be born in mind (liks to relevant Wikipedia policies included):
# Should an article about a major employer include a section about its workers' employment terms?
# How much detail should such a section have?
# Should it mention terms standard in the industry or only those unique to the company in question?
# How should such information be presented- as a paragraph(s) or as a series of bullet points?
# Is a company handbook a reliable source? WP:RS
# If the information is from one source only, should this be mentioned in the text itself?
# Is the use of language in this section appropriate- does it avoid words that convey the opinions of the editors? WP:NPOV
I would appreciate seeing how you apply some of these issues to the matter at hand. Hopefully a middle ground can be found that. I look forward to reading your comments. WjBscribe 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Maybe. My standard would be: is it something an ubiased editor would include if writing the article from scratch?  2. Should be in balance with the rest of the article.  3. Don't care, as long as it's unbiased and in balance.  4. Don't care. 5/6. WP:RS doesn't seem very relevant to this question; I'm uncomfortable with internal company documents, although I might not complain if there were no question of bias. I'm not too worried about our editor lying about the figures, although it is a concern for future editors. 7. The wording itself isn't too horrible, but the selection of facts is biased by emphasizing positive aspects of employment (chosen with respect to competitors) and doing so in a promotional way ("...an employee /cannot/ be fired", "employees are guaranteed X hours", etc.)  They're the things I would expect Costco to tell me if I asked why I would want to work there.  Perhaps Costco also  flogs employees who come in late; an unbiased editor would certainly include that when writing the section, but Elpablo69 admits that his goal was to describe the positive aspects of Costco employment. Lunkwill 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The main problem I have is not with company articles having employment data, it's that you tried to promote your point of view regarding costco, both in your selection of facts and in the way you worded them.  If I have a grudge against some city, and find all the dirtiest parks to take pictures of and the worst things that happen there to describe in the article, then I shouldn't be surprised if somebody reverts it.  Should bad things about a city be mentioned?  Sure.  Should pictures of parks be in a city's article?  Errr, okay, I guess, if they're relevant.  Should the biased data stay until somebody that likes the city comes along and puts up a bunch of pro-city text?  Absolutely not, and I'd revert the pro-city text just as quickly.  I've already pointed out the Abortion article, which is anything but a place for pro- and anti- abortion people to tout their ideas.  Leave that for the newspaper's opinion column.  That exceedingly polarized topic's article is a calm, unbiased description of what Abortion is, and oh, by the way, people also feel strongly about it sometimes.  Lunkwill 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not about having a 50/50 mix of positive/negative.  It's about writing in an unbiased, encyclopedic way. Lunkwill 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: OK, there seems to be a reasonable common ground between you and I think that's helped to narrow down the differences. I suggest the next step is for each party to propose a text they would be happy with (which of course includes endorsing the present text). These can then be discussed and we can try and come up with a suitable compromise. WjBscribe 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I have is not with company articles having employment data, it's that you tried to promote your point of view regarding costco, both in your selection of facts and in the way you worded them.  If I have a grudge against some city, and find all the dirtiest parks to take pictures of and the worst things that happen there to describe in the article, then I shouldn't be surprised if somebody reverts it.  Should bad things about a city be mentioned?  Sure.  Should pictures of parks be in a city's article?  Errr, okay, I guess, if they're relevant.  Should the biased data stay until somebody that likes the city comes along and puts up a bunch of pro-city text?  Absolutely not, and I'd revert the pro-city text just as quickly.  I've already pointed out the Abortion article, which is anything but a place for pro- and anti- abortion people to tout their ideas.  Leave that for the newspaper's opinion column.  That exceedingly polarized topic's article is a calm, unbiased description of what Abortion is, and oh, by the way, people also feel strongly about it sometimes.  Lunkwill 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not about having a 50/50 mix of positive/negative.  It's about writing in an unbiased, encyclopedic way. Lunkwill 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forwards

message: Yeah, I think we've made it fairly clear what we think about the sections.  He wants it there, I think it's biased... Lunkwill 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lunkwill's prefered text

message: I'm not entirely certain what to do here. I'll wait for Lunkwill to get an idea. 
Anything I suggest would be a revision in the pharsing or such, but the main disagreement is whether it should be there at all. If it shouldn't, then such info also shouldn't be in various other company articles (e.g. Meijer), but I don't see anyone flagging down them for some reason.
What about a sub-article (if such a thing exists) on working at Costco? Kinda split it from the main article, like the micropedia vs. macropedia for those of us old enough to recall the paper encyclopedia Brittianica.
If the info stays (either in the main article or "sub article"), would page scans help in terms of citations?
:The main problem I have is not with company articles having employment data, it's that you tried to promote your point of view regarding costco, both in your selection of facts and in the way you worded them.  If I have a grudge against some city, and find all the dirtiest parks to take pictures of and the worst things that happen there to describe in the article, then I shouldn't be surprised if somebody reverts it.  Should bad things about a city be mentioned?  Sure.  Should pictures of parks be in a city's article?  Errr, okay, I guess, if they're relevant.  Should the biased data stay until somebody that likes the city comes along and puts up a bunch of pro-city text?  Absolutely not, and I'd revert the pro-city text just as quickly.  I've already pointed out the Abortion article, which is anything but a place for pro- and anti- abortion people to tout their ideas.  Leave that for the newspaper's opinion column.  That exceedingly polarized topic's article is a calm, unbiased description of what Abortion is, and oh, by the way, people also feel strongly about it sometimes.  Lunkwill 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about having a 50/50 mix of positive/negative.  It's about writing in an unbiased, encyclopedic way. Lunkwill 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ElPablo69's prefered text

message: Although I wasn't the original author of the return policy, I'm going to re-add it because it is relevant. Costco has long been known for its liberal return policy, and a change to 90 days (albeit just for electronics) is indeed something worth mentioning...just as if Nordstrom did something similar. Going from unlimited to 90 days is big news.
===Comment===
Hi, I apologise- I've been rather distracted elsewhere and had forgotten about this issue. Very sorry. Let me read through the above and get back to you. WjBscribe 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return Policy

message: Hi, I apologise- I've been rather distracted elsewhere and had forgotten about this issue. Very sorry. Let me read through the above and get back to you. WjBscribe 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: According to the Costco's own Employee Agreement,Costco Employee Agreement, March 2007. This employee handbook, while distributed only to employees, can easily be obtained from a current or former Costco employee. which sets the rules for all non-union employees, in the United States non-supervisory hourly employees make between $11.00-$19.50 an hour depending upon senority. Specialized employees such as truck drivers, meat cutters, pharmacy technicians and licensed opticians have a different pay scale which is higher than that of regular employees. Costco Employee Agreement, pages 58-61. Hourly employees who have worked over 9,200 hours receive a twice yearly "extra check" of $2,000-$3,500. This is similar to a bonus but is not based upon any profit goals or employee review scores.  Costco Employee Agreement, page 62. Such employees receive time and a half on Sundays.  Costco Employee Agreement, page 29.  
 
Also according to the Agreement, full-time employees are guaranteed 38-40 hours a week, Costco Employee Agreement, page 19. whereas part-time employees are guaranteed 24 hours a week.  Costco Employee Agreement, page 19. Each location maintains a minimum of 50% of full time employees, with the exception that each location may have up to 10 employees who (by mutual agreement) work "limited time," which is described as less than 24 hours a week.  Costco Employee Agreement, page 27.   
  
===Supervisory and managerial salaries===
Costco's Employee Agreement states that most supervisors earn the top rate of pay of $20.50 an hour. Costco Employee Agreement, page 31. Junior (i.e. lower level) managers' salaries start at $56,000 a year, with an exception of bakery or deli managers which can start as high as $62,000 a year depending on sales volume. Managers earn 1-5% raises annually, with 3% being the norm. All general managers earn over $100,000 a year.
===Termination of employment===
Costco policy requires that after 2 years of service, an employee's termination requires the express approval of a Senior Vice President. After 5 years of service, an Executive Vice President's approval is required. Costco Employee Agreement, page 26.   
===Unions===
Several California locations (as well as a handful in the Northeast) are represented by the Teamsters Union. Almost all unionized locations were former Price Club locations.
</blockquote>
Most of the information is retained but with a more encyclopedic feel and the nature of the source for this information is made clear to the reader. WjBscribe 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lunkwill? WjBscribe 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Its probably because I'm a Brit, but I have no instictive idea whether the material above are good employment terms or not (and I'm not going to convert the figures to sterling and consider average cost of living US vs UK). I need  a little more information about what you don't like about the information. We have drawn attention to the fact the information is from one of Costco's own sources. And you seemed to agree above that information about terms of employment was relevant to the article (which a comment on the CEO's nose would not be). If we're to move forward on this, could you identify which bits you find problematic or propose a version you are more comfortable with? WjBscribe 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, could you first please address the notion of bias in a selection of facts (as opposed to the mere phrasing of those facts)?  It bothers me that I described the question of "relevance" as a straw man, and yet you've returned to it without  addressing what I described as the central point of my objection.  If I'm wrong about it being a straw man, we can discuss that.  But it's another one of those cases where the topic of debate is at least as important as how the debate ends.  I don't care about relevance.  I've never cared about relevance.  I care about bias.  I don't care about the phrasing of the "Employment" section because it begs the question of whether an unbiased editor would have thought to put it there in the first place or chosen that set of factoids as its topic. And it's okay that you don't have an instinctive idea of whether it's good or not -- I don't have a particularly good one either -- but he gave away his intentions with his original wording, and confirmed it when asked, and that means it should go.  So I propose we delete the section entirely, and then if you then feel, as an impartial outsider, that you want to revamp the article (God knows it needs it) and it occurs to you to put in an employment section, then feel free to research it and create such a section. If ElPablo69 wants to provide page scans as primary source material, then it can go on wikisource and you can go read it if you feel that's a good use of your time.  But it's folly to argue over the wording of, or selection of a subset of, a set of facts provided by someone pushing a viewpoint. Lunkwill 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See my comments under "Viewpoint". I'd be extremely surprised if the Costco handbook were not horribly biased, being an internal publication, but that wouldn't itself be insurmountable.  (I would expect it to be self-serving but also to contain plenty of facts).  Matt makes a good point below about "if some other public source hasn't already discussed it, it probably doesn't belong here," since WP isn't for investigative journalism or original research.  But as I've said before, I probably wouldn't have complained if the edits themselves had been unbiased and merely happened to cite that as a source.  As I've also said, adding negatively biased statements to a section with positively biased ones doesn't make the section unbiased; it just makes the section biased in both directions.  The goal isn't to take each side of the issue in turn, it's to describe what Costco is.  He created a section that started out as an opinion piece and ended up more like a news segment.  You edited that segment to take the bias out of the wording, but the selection of facts is still biased, some in each direction.  To answer your questions, no, yes, and yes.  But the salient part of the debate is whether it's appropriate for the article to have a section composed of facts chosen specifically to portray the company in both a good and bad way, and placed there to focus the reader on a major talking point for the company rather than as something an unbiased editor would have written to help improve the article's ability to answer the question "What is Costco?".  When I look at the article, I don't think to myself "what this article needs is an emplyment section".  I even tried to write one, and ended up with a one-sentence statement about the controversy that sucked.  Companies want people to think of certain things in connection with them, and not to think about certain other things.  They use a myriad of PR techniques to keep the debate focused on the things they want it to be.  As encyclopedia editors, we have to ignore the shrill voices; we're not here to argue, just to describe what everything is.  People don't come here because they think "gee, I wonder if Costco has changed its return policy on electronics recently, and if rival Sam's club will be doing the same.  Let me look 'Costco' up in an encyclopedia to find out." That's the kind of thing somebody issues a press release about because they want their company to pass through your head, or to get you to think about who's better.  Is it relevant to Costco? Sure. Does the PR blurb belong here?  Hell no. Lunkwill 23:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See comments at the bottom of Viewpoint. Lunkwill 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working at Costco

message: Several California locations (as well as a handful in the Northeast) are represented by the Teamsters Union. Almost all unionized locations were former Price Club locations.
</blockquote>
Most of the information is retained but with a more encyclopedic feel and the nature of the source for this information is made clear to the reader. WjBscribe 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lunkwill? WjBscribe 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Its probably because I'm a Brit, but I have no instictive idea whether the material above are good employment terms or not (and I'm not going to convert the figures to sterling and consider average cost of living US vs UK). I need  a little more information about what you don't like about the information. We have drawn attention to the fact the information is from one of Costco's own sources. And you seemed to agree above that information about terms of employment was relevant to the article (which a comment on the CEO's nose would not be). If we're to move forward on this, could you identify which bits you find problematic or propose a version you are more comfortable with? WjBscribe 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, could you first please address the notion of bias in a selection of facts (as opposed to the mere phrasing of those facts)?  It bothers me that I described the question of "relevance" as a straw man, and yet you've returned to it without  addressing what I described as the central point of my objection.  If I'm wrong about it being a straw man, we can discuss that.  But it's another one of those cases where the topic of debate is at least as important as how the debate ends.  I don't care about relevance.  I've never cared about relevance.  I care about bias.  I don't care about the phrasing of the "Employment" section because it begs the question of whether an unbiased editor would have thought to put it there in the first place or chosen that set of factoids as its topic. And it's okay that you don't have an instinctive idea of whether it's good or not -- I don't have a particularly good one either -- but he gave away his intentions with his original wording, and confirmed it when asked, and that means it should go.  So I propose we delete the section entirely, and then if you then feel, as an impartial outsider, that you want to revamp the article (God knows it needs it) and it occurs to you to put in an employment section, then feel free to research it and create such a section. If ElPablo69 wants to provide page scans as primary source material, then it can go on wikisource and you can go read it if you feel that's a good use of your time.  But it's folly to argue over the wording of, or selection of a subset of, a set of facts provided by someone pushing a viewpoint. Lunkwill 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unions

message: I'm sorry if you don't feel I've managed to see you objection completely, I had understood you to be concerned as to the bias of the source, not that you were worried by another editor's selection of facts from that source also. Elpablo69 seems to have been cooperative in finding less positive information- do you really think it fair to disgard his contributions completely because he made it clear early on that he was supportive of Costco. You seem to feel all his work is tarnished by your first interactions but having declared his bias, I would think Elpablo69 has paved the way for you too move forwards. It would appear that he is acting in good faith. So I guess the important questions are:
# Do you think the information is untrue?
# Do you think the reader has been fully informed of the source of the information (so they can make their own judgment about its accuracy)?
# Are you willing to work with ElPablo69 in editing this article?
I believe the page scans were offered earlier- ElPablo96, are you still willing to make available such page scans? The scans can't be posted to Wikisource because of copyright issues, but could perhaps be emailed to Lunkwill and/or myself? WjBscribe 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments under "Viewpoint". I'd be extremely surprised if the Costco handbook were not horribly biased, being an internal publication, but that wouldn't itself be insurmountable.  (I would expect it to be self-serving but also to contain plenty of facts).  Matt makes a good point below about "if some other public source hasn't already discussed it, it probably doesn't belong here," since WP isn't for investigative journalism or original research.  But as I've said before, I probably wouldn't have complained if the edits themselves had been unbiased and merely happened to cite that as a source.  As I've also said, adding negatively biased statements to a section with positively biased ones doesn't make the section unbiased; it just makes the section biased in both directions.  The goal isn't to take each side of the issue in turn, it's to describe what Costco is.  He created a section that started out as an opinion piece and ended up more like a news segment.  You edited that segment to take the bias out of the wording, but the selection of facts is still biased, some in each direction.  To answer your questions, no, yes, and yes.  But the salient part of the debate is whether it's appropriate for the article to have a section composed of facts chosen specifically to portray the company in both a good and bad way, and placed there to focus the reader on a major talking point for the company rather than as something an unbiased editor would have written to help improve the article's ability to answer the question "What is Costco?".  When I look at the article, I don't think to myself "what this article needs is an emplyment section".  I even tried to write one, and ended up with a one-sentence statement about the controversy that sucked.  Companies want people to think of certain things in connection with them, and not to think about certain other things.  They use a myriad of PR techniques to keep the debate focused on the things they want it to be.  As encyclopedia editors, we have to ignore the shrill voices; we're not here to argue, just to describe what everything is.  People don't come here because they think "gee, I wonder if Costco has changed its return policy on electronics recently, and if rival Sam's club will be doing the same.  Let me look 'Costco' up in an encyclopedia to find out." That's the kind of thing somebody issues a press release about because they want their company to pass through your head, or to get you to think about who's better.  Is it relevant to Costco? Sure. Does the PR blurb belong here?  Hell no. Lunkwill 23:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See comments at the bottom of Viewpoint. Lunkwill 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: In the article it is stated that "most managers make... $20.50 an hour" while it is later stated that salaries for lower-level start at $56,000 a year. Which one is it? If a mangers makes $20.50/hr for 40hr/week X 52 weeks he or she would make $42,640. A salary of $56,000 translates into $27/hr (40hr/week for 52 weeks). So do Costco managers make $20.50/hr or do they have a starting salary of $56,000. Perhaps there is there something I'm missing that should be clarified in the article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managers' Pay 

message: Why is there a public debate section? And how is the info in it related to Costco?!? Should it be removed? Herenthere (Talk) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Debate section 

message: An employee from Canada recently added some info relating to Sunday OT pay. It was removed by another user because the section refres only to non-union Costcos in the USA. However, instead of overtime on Sunday, Canadians only get an extra $4/hr. Also some other stuff isn't as good as for their American counterparts. Anyone with more Canada info may want to add a Canada subsection to the "working at Costco" section. Likewise, anyone with union contract info may want to add some details as well. Elpablo69 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada