31–40 of 303 posts
No argument that these workers have a right to unionize, but I find many of their demands petulant and counterproductive. Have a look: https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals
Just a tangent that it's strange this is a local story for me (Rochester NY) and there is no local coverage - had to go all the way to the UK to learn about this!
That's kind of wild, and a little concerning. 13 WHAM doesn't seem to have even a mention of this on their website. Is ABC connected to anti-labor interests?
Does the NLRB have any teeth? Can they impose fines? I’ve yet to see any of these rulings result in any meaningful changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes sense for smaller businesses, where "closing" might mean closing the entire business. But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutt…
One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes sense for smaller businesses, where "closing" might mean closing the entire business. But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutt…
One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.
There are licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble, hospital, or on a college campus. These do make up a significant ~40% of total locations.
No argument that these workers have a right to unionize, but I find many of their demands petulant and counterproductive. Have a look: https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals
I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location and the Boylston Starbucks location. It seems like that's the new corporate tactic to try to discourage unionizing. Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make mon…
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Similarly, if the court so desired, they couldn't compel someone to start a business out of the blue, but they could definitely compel a company to not shut down an operating business in retaliation for unionization efforts. This court? Never happen. But this is…
Does the NLRB have any teeth? Can they impose fines? I’ve yet to see any of these rulings result in any meaningful changes.
No argument that these workers have a right to unionize, but I find many of their demands petulant and counterproductive. Have a look: https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals