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

61–70 of 303 posts

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

#61

Post by AnthonyMouse »

nerdponx wrote: post #19
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.

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…

> 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.

Each location is differently situated. One might have higher real estate costs or taxes or more competitors or fewer customers or antagonistic local politicians etc. There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then what do you do, have a rule that you can never close a store with a union?

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

#62

Post by gruez »

pessimizer wrote: post #18
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.

Companies don't own their employees. edit: There's an equivocation on "association" here. As an individual, I don't have the right to "disassociate" people from myself. I can't demand that my sister not refer to me as her brother, or that she stop doing things because she is known to be my sister and those things would be "associated" with me. Freedom of association is about a person being able to choose who they wis…

>Freedom of association is about a person being able to choose who they wish to interact with

...like companies choosing not to negotiate (ie. "interact") with unions?

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by amurthy1 »

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.

I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:

- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job

- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs

All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

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

#65

Post by techsupporter »

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.

> licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble

FWIW, Barnes and Noble operates its own brand, Barnes and Noble Cafe, that isn't a licensed Starbucks.

Licensed stores have full branding and, these days, accept stars as discounts and purchases there accrue stars. The third category (corporate and licensed being the first two) is "We Proudly Serve", meaning the business isn't a Starbucks but has an agreement to sell some or all of the 'bux product line.

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

#66

Post by gruez »

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 using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.

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

#67

Post by adorton »

amurthy1 wrote: post #64

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…

The company is supposed to negotiate with the union. That's the whole idea behind unions.

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

#68

Post by Supermancho »

skee8383 wrote: post #26

The food service industry in America is about as corrupt as it gets, They don't pay a fair wage, they rely on extortion tactics (tipping) to float the cost of wages to the customer and the customer must pay for his meal and half the staffs wages as well or be labeled a bad person or in the customers mind, maybe even face a retaliation of some sort by the staff, i.e spitting in food, added to a blacklist etc. and they…

> The food service industry in America is about as corrupt as it gets

I think that title is still held by politics.

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

#70

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

amurthy1 wrote: post #64

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…

I'm not really going to answer this satisfactorily but the union doesn't have work if the employer doesn't exist. It's in the best interests of the union to negotiate in good faith to find the optimal arrangement for both parties. A successful, growing business means a growing union.

The idea is that it should be a win-win. It's perfectly possible for a union to be unreasonable and for both parties to ultimately walk away with nothing. This has happened countless times and is somewhat inevitable for unsustainable businesses (or businesses which rely on another industry to be in a growth phase).

Post reply on HN