71–80 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
To quote another commenter:
> Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations.
Its funny to watch "progressive" mega corporations like Starbucks, Apple, Amazon + more skirt around unions. Essentially they use PR to say we are all for these corporate safe progressive topics... but any topics of worker rights, unions.. nope.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
This seems deliberately obtuse.
The point is that employees only have one or two jobs. If they had 35,000 jobs that that they spent 4 seconds a week at each, then yeah losing that 4 seconds (job) wouldn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The case (United Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Co) said that it was okay for the business to close their entire business, but it also said they'd violate labor law by shutting down part of their operations to chill union activity. It seems like that's exactly what's happening in these cases- it's not like Chipotle or Starbucks is completely going out of business.
* https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedT...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
An employee whose store closes goes from $n income to 0, while Starbucks goes from $x to (34999/35000)x.