I'm surprised we don't have a unionization app. With the technology we have today we should be able to do zero trust organizing. There should be a way to square the app with the NRLB so that some protections can get established before a hostile employer acts.
Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
181–190 of 303 posts
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are companies though with a progressive image that appeals to their progressive customers. Whether Corporate™ are progressive or not, they best beware when they offend their customer base. To that end they are forced to behave progressively — so I don't think there's much of a distinction with regard to whether the company truly is or is not "progressive".
"progressive customers" are not the same as "social media influenced dimwits with more money than sense". or may be they are! and what the heck do you mean by "progressive"?
The term is well understood and has its origins in the contrasting positions and approaches of "Progressive" and "Revolutionary" Marxists.
It has come to mean anyone who is generally left-liberal and favors achieving those policy goals through gradual reform rather than sudden reform, or direct action.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#183Earlier 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.
Yes, and? I'm not seeing what you are trying to say here.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#184Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times?
Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for?
In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is there good-doing I'm missing?
Take Starbucks for example - already known for higher-than-average wages, college tuition sponsorship programs, management tracks and more - what is left to fight for? It's still nearly zero-skilled labor at the end of the day.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
In the context of discourse in American politics -- and increasingly Canadian ones as well -- "left wing" has been rewritten to be almost exclusively about cultural politics. This is the only way one can decode everyday conversations when people talk about "the left"; they clearly don't mean what it meant "classically": socialist politics / economic policy, working class politics. It's basically a marginal position a…
Every socially conservative pro-labor movement in the USA is rapidly labeled as "fascist" in America, usually because they promote economic protectionism by reducing immigration and raising barriers to cheap imports from countries that don't protect their workers to the degree the US does.
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#186Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times? Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for? In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is th…
At minimum, you can argue it's game theoretical insurance.
If Starbucks is so magnanimous towards their employees today, they may not be that way tomorrow.
Corporate advocates for itself. Unions advocate for the employees.
Ideally, they strike a balance so that nobody's satisfied and the best compromise is reached.
Discarding unions leaves the door open for an imbalance of corporate power. (And, since corporations tend toward monopoly these days, that's a lot of corporate power.)
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#187Earlier 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 summary is disingenuous. Take for example: "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…
This is pretty basic negotiation though, ask for more than you think you can get to have something you can give up in the discussion.
I expect the compromise to be something like, "there's a dress code but I'm not forced to buy anything other than basic black T-Shirts that the company wants me to wear, and the company buys me 1 pair of shoes a year."
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
"progressive customers" are not the same as "social media influenced dimwits with more money than sense". or may be they are! and what the heck do you mean by "progressive"?
The term is well understood and has its origins in the contrasting positions and approaches of "Progressive" and "Revolutionary" Marxists. It has come to mean anyone who is generally left-liberal and favors achieving those policy goals through gradual reform rather than sudden reform, or direct action.
> The term is well understood and has its origins in the contrasting positions and approaches of "Progressive" and "Revolutionary" Marxists.
well-understood by marxists (are there any of them around any more?) but not i suggest by the rest of us.
and of course apple, starbucks and co are all "progressive" and not out to gouge you for all you have?
or is this just another part of mad usa politics and wokeness?
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#189Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times? Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for? In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is th…
There sure is! Here's a recent review:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29522
It's a pretty consistent finding among labor economics researchers that firms have monopsony power over workers.
> What's left to fight for?
The issue isnt whether they're well paid according to your subjective criteria. It's the ratio between how much the worker is paid and how much they produce for the firm.
I talk about the "bargaining power ratio" concept here[1], but the microeconomics 201 concept is the ratio between marginal product of labor and pay can be thought of as the bargaining power ratio.
If across the board workers have a low ratio, then they have a systematically low bargaining power, and unions would improve that.
[1] https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/02/21/why-you-should-not-hi...
Re: Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> it used to be a very very busy Starbucks 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.
Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand.
Stop being obtuse.