171–180 of 303 posts
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.
It is not possible to be a progressive mega corp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was so universally easy, why aren't more people doing it?
Because he's full of it. I was unemployed last year. It took me 6 weeks to land an in-demand tech job; mostly because of the layer of interviews. I think it was an average of 3 interviews for each job. I eventually had 6 or 7 similar offers and a couple bad ones. I also cut short several processes because I knew they were a month away from an offer. Meanwhile, my wife tried to land a part time retail job. She got 3 o…
I was a teenager in 2005 looking for summer work. Over 3 years I worked at a couple different retail places and some fast food (not Starbucks but similar).
It really wasn’t that hard to find a job like that, even with my crappy under 18 understanding of the world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot "free association" your way out of legally required actions. You can't, say, refuse to deal with the IRS because it's your right not to associate with them.
That's different. IRS is an extension of the U.S. Government itself, and as a Citizen/resident, you are required to work with them. You are absolutely free to never associate with them as an employee, however. Important distinction.
You do not have that freedom in the USA. The Constitution is very clear on this question: Congress has the right to demand your forced employment. Congress hasn't seen fit to do so for many decades, but it has every right to do so and you have no de jure right to refuse employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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…
Here in the Bay Area I see help wanted signs in pretty much every shop I walk into.
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
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)…
"7) Reimbursement for necessary equipment, limits on dress code"
Whereas the actual text reads:
"We propose that workers will not be held to a dress code, except for where local, state and federal health/safety standards are enforced. We propose that Starbucks will provide or reimburse each worker 2 pairs of non-slip shoes each year, as well as fresh aprons for partners every shift. We also propose Starbucks provide visors for workers who cannot comfortably use Starbucks-provided hats."
So they're not proposing limits on dress codes. They want to do away with the dress code entirely. This is absolutely petulant. Maybe some employees will show up in tuxedos, but my money would be on more and more employees showing up in less and less professional attire. Adding distraction, eroding the customer experience, and reducing the professionalism.
On another note, seniority is a toxic, irrational policy. If you want to see how corrosive it is, go talk to any honest member of a teacher's union. Seniority allows low performers with bad attitudes to hang around indefinitely with little consequence.
Earlier 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?
> Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. Edit: To elaborate, companies seem to want it both ways. They want a large consumer base wit…
This is what everyone in society does, with the exception of tipping culture.
When your pipes break and you get a plumber who quotes you for $400, do you think, we’ll I’m gonna pay him $500.
People make deals about exchanging labor for cash and those deals should be honored. It’s as simple as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you actually could create some kind of right-of-assumption. If Starbucks wants to close, fine, but the existing employees must be given the right to buy out the lease and base hardware at cost. People would leap at the chance for an insta-coffee-shop in the high traffic locations starbucks abandoned in Seattle.
It's not uncommon in Washington/Oregon to find a coffee shop that's just like a port-a-potty sized booth and one or two employee-owners. Some of them are quite popular. Probably <30k to startup, anybody with several years work experience could probably max out a bunch of credit cards and do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Closing the store is an opportunity for the union. They can take over the location and open it as their very own union shop, and pay themselves as they see fit. People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard. (Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)
I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees, or otherwise. It is prime real estate for a coffee shop. Blue Bottle and George Howell already have locations just up the street. But in theory it could be a great opportunity for one of the other established chains in the area, or a new company able to capit…
Then it's an ideal spot for the union to open their union shop. I don't really understand why you think it would sit vacant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...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.
Are you okay with the other 14 then? I understand how you can find issue with one of their proposals but then Starbucks ought to handily agree with all but the one and offer to negotiate #4.
Perhaps they just shouldn't be working at a restaurant that serves pork? What a ridiculous idea. I'm going to found a religion in which the main belief is that I should not be required to type on a keyboard. As someone working in tech who uses a keyboard non-stop, this is not my problem. Rather, my employer should be obligated to offload that work onto others and only assign me work that does not require the use of a keyboard.
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.
maybe the union can open a coffee shop then! and hire employees and give them union protection. what a concept.
Now go ask the bank for a credit line to do this and you will understand why the privatisation of money creation impedes worker-owned co-ops (or any ownership structure other than the standard capitalist one).