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

101–110 of 303 posts

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

#101

Post by antisthenes »

notch898a wrote: post #71
Retric wrote: post #52

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]

> You're telling me it's harder for a worker to change their working time or productivity by 4 seconds a week than to close a store?

I'm not sure what that bit is about 4 seconds of productivity, but if you are asking whether it's harder for a worker to change jobs than for a franchise to close a location staffed by maybe 4-5 workers, then yes.

Yes, absolutely, it is easier for the company and I seriously wonder what combination of events in your life made you think the opposing viewpoint is valid in any way or form? Can the concept of power imbalance be really so hard to grasp?

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

#102

Post by fallingfrog »

They closed the Starbucks in my city rather than recognize the union. Probably they'll reopen it later with all new people. It's purely an intimidation tactic. They are hoping to make an example of those workers who get out of line to strike fear into the hearts of the rest. My heart goes out to all the young, financially struggling workers who really just wanted some paid sick days and better treatment.

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

#103

Post by PuppyTailWags »

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.

Actually, it depends: can the low-level retailer afford however long it takes to set up new payroll? Can the low-level retailer commute to a new location, or afford to take the time off to do the job search to begin with? Can they afford the extra overhead if they're working multiple jobs to make ends meet, have dependents, etc?

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

#104

Post by runarberg »

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?

There a few ways. I’m a big fan consensus driven approaches, and equal pay for equal work. A higher payed worker should have other justification for the inequality than just seniority. E.g. if they use their experience to train other workers, that in and of it self is a good justification for higher pay (as they are doing more). In a well managed workplace getting consensus for higher pay with this justification should be rather easy.

Likewise a well managed company shouldn’t have many collisions on PTO slots etc. as they would hire extras when PTO is in high demand, but if a collision occurs there should be systems in place to resolve those (seniority could be one of these systems, but should not be the only one) other systems could be some points based systems (e.g. where a worker that has previously not been favored, will get priority in collisions), or even just lottery.

As for promotions, a consensus is absolutely favorable to seniority. If a consensus is unreachable other systems could take over, but in a well managed workplace, failure to reach consensus in a promotion scenario should be really rare (and honestly a worrying sign of an unhealthy work environment).

EDIT: I want to make clear that I’m speaking general here. In the Starbucks scenario, seniority is a perfectly cromulent practice to prevent their bosses from practicing retaliation by allotting worse shifts to workers they don’t like. A consensus driven approach is probably an overkill in a workplace with such a large corporate management.

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

#105

Post by fallingfrog »

As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary. When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.

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

#106

Post by notch898a »

nerdponx wrote: post #84
notch898a wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The behavior of individual low-level retail workers has very very little effect on Starbucks. That's literally the point of unions, and why it is (and should remain) illegal to obstruct them. You argue elsewhere that changing jobs is easier than Starbucks closing all of their stores. The point is that this is one store, not all of them , and Starbucks can absolutely afford to close one or a few. They are betting that…

I also argue it's easier than closing/opening a single store. If that is true, it must be true it's easier than closing all the stores. Weird indictment, why wouldn't you attack the stronger and harder to defend of my arguments which was the single store?

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

#107

Post by thwayunion »

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

The companies are petulant as well.

Punishing and retaliating against union organizers is petulant and childish.

Hiring someone for 32 hours a week, and then refusing to schedule them for the last 8 hours to avoid turning them into a "full time" employee, is petulant and petty.

Harassment/intimidation is petty and petulant.

Punishing someone off the clock is petulant.

Requiring company-branded aprons while on the clock and then requiring employees to purchase and maintain the aprons is petty.

Antagonism is what you get when you treat workers antagonistically.

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

#108

Post by hellotomyrars »

fallingfrog wrote: post #105

As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary . When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.

It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising.

It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders.

Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of his excuse.

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

#109

Post by fallingfrog »

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.

But can they force the employees to not associate with each other?

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

#110

Post by nielsbot »

fallingfrog wrote: post #105

As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary . When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.

Both parties are with the capitalists. The Dems have been Neoliberal for quite some time, so I don't find this actually that surprising.
Post reply on HN