I make it a point to try visit the unionized store in my area. I'd love to see a comparison of pay/benefits of a typical US Starbucks vs the ones I see in say Munich.
Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
111–120 of 303 posts
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#112No 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
Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7)…
...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal.
#4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#113Its 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.
Around 2015 (still under Schultz), I got the impression Starbucks actually cares about its partners. They paid above-market wages to attract good people and provided good benefits.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#114Its 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.
Starbucks and Amazon are hardly "progressive". Most folks I know would describe them as pretty much bog standard big capitalist companies. Sure, they slap a rainbow logo on their twitter during June, but so does Raytheon. I'm less sure about Apple, which might actually have more of a progressive streak in it (I'm simply not knowledgable), but the other two are pretty much standard exploitative mega corps.
Specifically in the case of Starbucks, they absolutely think they are.
Does anyone besides me remember that CEO Howard Schultz thought he should be president back in 2016? This whole thing just makes me want to shout from the rooftops: We do not have a left-wing party in the United States! The Democrats are anti-union and pro-austerity. We have a center-right party and a far-right party, that's it!
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7)…
...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal. #4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.
"Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" is national laws in many jurisdictions. You’ll have to provide some reason for why it doesn’t make sense, many national assemblies and labor boards seem to think otherwise.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
Because a market requires certain conditions to be true: equal access to information, many buyers and sellers, and that the products being exchanged are comparable. It's possible that requirements 1 and maybe 3 can be met, but 2 completely kills the possibility of an efficient market in this proposal because there are far more sellers of time than buyers.
All capitalist economies (that I know of, please correct me if I'm wrong) employ regulation of market activity to compensate for imbalances in one of more of the three areas above. The theory for doing so is not based on goodwill to all people or something like that, but because distorted markets are inefficient and waste value.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#117Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#118The 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.
[deleted]
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that would open a whole new can of worms. It would set a precedent that a business cannot stop operating in response to a law, which would mean the business may have to run itself into the ground rather than close if a law made the business unviable.
Shutting down one store out of thousands is not equivalent to a business ceasing operations.
If it worked that way, then if a company was going to shut down any unprofitable store, the workers could unionize as a trick to keep their jobs.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different. To quote another commenter: > Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971
I will never understand this concept of power imbalance. You are working because you don't have power, so you rely on others with power to give you power (money in this situation). If the power was even, why would I need to work in the first place?