Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 303 posts

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#41

Post by voidfunc »

tedivm wrote: post #37
voidfunc wrote: post #15

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.

Yes, but that's not exactly what's been happening. In some cases they're closing one store and opening another nearby. This has been blocked by the courts before- Chipotle got into trouble for opening one store a few miles away from where they closed another one, as an example.

Chipotle got in trouble for closing a store and blacklisting the workers from applying to jobs at the new and other store. That's different.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#42

Post by otikik »

itisit wrote: post #29

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

Which ones, in particular, do you find petulant or counterproductive?

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#43

Post by brandonmenc »

londgine wrote: post #40
itisit wrote: post #29

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

this is probably the worst https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/15777335343487590... they want to give priority based upon seniority.

This is standard for union shops, and imo it makes sense in a job where the labor is fungible.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#44

Post by jonathankoren »

currymj wrote: post #7
Overtonwindow wrote: post #6

This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions. It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.

Supreme Court ruled that public sector employees can't be required to pay union fees as a condition of employment, on First Amendment/free association grounds.

Yeah, it the these workers get all the benefits too. Phunny how that happens.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#45

Post by jonathankoren »

klyrs wrote: post #23
Overtonwindow wrote: post #6

This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions. It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.

In British Columbia, unions have a really interesting precedent in free association: union members do not cross picket lines. Not just their own picket line, but anybody's picket line.

Actually, no one should cross a picket line.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#46

Post by PuppyTailWags »

ensignavenger wrote: post #38
pwinnski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.

It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can have.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#47

Post by notch898a »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #46
ensignavenger wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.

It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can hav…

The low-level retailer worker can change jobs much easier than a store can be opened/closed.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#48

Post by RyanHamilton »

londgine wrote: post #40
itisit wrote: post #29

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

this is probably the worst https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/15777335343487590... they want to give priority based upon seniority.

Assuming all other factors are almost identical, how would you want to prioritise amongst similarly qualified staff members?

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#49

Post by notch898a »

jonathankoren wrote: post #45
klyrs wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In British Columbia, unions have a really interesting precedent in free association: union members do not cross picket lines. Not just their own picket line, but anybody's picket line.

Actually, no one should cross a picket line.

It sounds nice in practice but there are desperate people out there. A strike provides those people with opportunities. Prisoner's dillema keeps them from sacrificing themselves for a union that sees them as the out-group.

Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules

#50

Post by dmix »

infamouscow wrote: post #9
freediverx wrote: post #2

Does the NLRB have any teeth? Can they impose fines? I’ve yet to see any of these rulings result in any meaningful changes.

Why would politicians bite the hand that feeds them?

It still happens if there's enough political capital at play. Florida just punished one of their state's biggest tax benefactors over a social policy.

Whether the union question drives enough voters to care or a politician willing to stand up for the issue will be the central question.

Post reply on HN