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

51–60 of 303 posts

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

#51

Post by tstrimple »

flimsypremise wrote: post #36
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

pretty much all of these seem very normal and i'm actually shocked starbucks doesn't already have them in place. you can work 32 hours at a starbucks and not be considered full time? starbucks doesn't supply fresh aprons to everyone every shift?

Small point, but aren't aprons handed out and treated like uniforms in other companies? Employees take them home and launder them themselves? In any job I've had where I had to wear a specific company shirt, they were given to me and up to me to maintain.

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

#52

Post by Retric »

notch898a wrote: post #47
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations.

As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.

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

#53

Post by runarberg »

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.

I’m not a fan of seniority rules, but if this is the worst you could find, than I don’t think you should worry.

Honestly I don’t think I’ve ever worked in a workplace (unionized or otherwise; service work, manual labor, tech, or otherwise) which didn’t employ some sort of senior rule (mandated or organic). I’m personally not a fan of this practice and I think there are better ways to partition benefits and organize schedules, but there are also certainly worse ways.

An example of way more petulant practice is management cutting benefits or arbitrarily giving workers they don’t like for some reason worse shifts (which happens aplenty in ununinized small shops), and an example of way more counterproductive measure is a hard systematized schedule (e.g. a 2-2-3 12 hour shifts) which bigger shops with long opening hours love hard systems like these, but are really hard on workers, and bleeds a tonne into their free time.

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

#54

Post by jackson1442 »

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.

In my experience working in front-line jobs, this is very typical even in non-union shops. All this appears to do is prevent retaliation against specific employees by setting up an objective pay scale for each store.

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

#55

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aaomidi wrote: post #20
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.

I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.

If $Duration is months, the company just waits that long and closes it anyway. If it's longer then store closures have to be top secret fly by night activities or the employees file for a union just to delay it for years, and then nobody gets any notice they're about to be unemployed and employers start closing marginal stores or not opening them because of the huge cost of getting stuck in that situation.

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

#56

Post by elbigbad »

nerdponx wrote: post #5

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…

I go to the Milk Bar location sometimes, and while I’m not a giant fan of how sweet things are there, it’s very very hard to pay rent at that location and stay profitable. You need to sell a lot of cookies and it always seemed like a ghost town in there.

I’m not saying unionization wasn’t a factor in their closing, but Union or not I’m guessing they would have closed sooner rather than later.

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

#57

Post by wolfgang42 »

binarymax wrote: post #10

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!

At 3:50: https://www.wxxinews.org/podcast/rochester-local-news/2023-0...

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

#58

Post by londgine »

RyanHamilton wrote: post #48
londgine wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

by assuming that all other factors are not almost identical

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

#59

Post by everybodyknows »

brandonmenc wrote: post #35
enraged_camel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.

Starbucks does not franchise. 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.

How does licensing differ from franchising?

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

#60

Post by gruez »

aaomidi wrote: post #20
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.

I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.

> I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case.

Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?

Post reply on HN