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

191–200 of 303 posts

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

#191

Post by spacephysics »

supernova87a wrote: post #133

Can news articles/reporters ever quote the actual original court ruling that they use to source their stories? I find it amazingly rare that journalists feel that they should show people where they get the key finding of their story, and rather lazily present their story as if they were the controlling authority and only source of information. Given how rich the original information is to link to (like, a 200 page PD…

Your first mistake was considering them journalists.

Many who create click bait drool are like WIX “developers” calling themselves custom frontend engineers.

Even a junior journalist would do something as simple as quote the actual case. Time and time again I see these articles and even basic things are factually incorrect.

Even today I think there was a HN post about salesforce layoffs, quoted at 10k when it was 8k, and that wave happened in January when it was written as if there’s another wave coming.

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

#192

Post by runarberg »

next_xibalba wrote: post #179
JKCalhoun wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"...if a worker's religious belief prohibits handling of pork, they would be exempt from being assigned to food warming and won't be discriminated against." 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…

Supposing a religion that doesn’t exist as a counter example to a religion that does, is a bad faith argument which shouldn’t really be answered. But I’m enjoying this so I’ll answer it anyway.

First of all, there are plenty of developer that don’t use keyboards. Perhaps they have some eccentric tools which they believe are superior, but more realistically they have a disability or injury and can’t use keyboard. Usually they have other tools at their disposal and are able to do their work just fine. It is in fact illegal to discriminate against them on those grounds in most jurisdictions, and employers are able to accommodate just fine. I’m sure your fictional religion will do just fine as well.

Secondly, if you’ve worked in the service industry, or even manual labor, you should know that situations arise all the time where a worker is unable to perform a task. Reasons range from religion and ideology, but also disability injury, sensory issues, neurodiversity, and even just a lack of skill and confidence. What usually happens is that workers are nice to each other and accommodate the worker’s inability, usually by rotating tasks among them selves. In many cases their bosses don’t even know about this, but more commonly their immediate manager knows this and hands out tasks according to their worker’s abilities.

Now this is ripe for abuse. So codifying this in a labor contract makes perfect sense. While this is just unofficial a bad manager could force a worker to perform a task they are unable or unwilling to do, effectively forcing them to either suffer or quit. Codifying this in the union contract is a protection against this kind of abuse.

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

#193

Post by pwinnski »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #119
nerdponx wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of these situations are always adjudicated by a government bureaucracy that's often more inclined to side with companies than workers, in this case the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). So it would work in that case exactly like it worked in this case: workers start trying to unionize, company lets workers go, workers appeal to the NLRB, saying they were let go because of the unionization efforts, and the NLRB investigates.

If the company produces documentation showing other reasons for having let the workers go, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win. In this case, the workers were very clearly singled out because of their organization activity, and the company had no complaints at all about their performance before the organization activity started, so the ruling went in favor of the workers.

Instead of firing workers, if the company had closed the store and the USSC hadn't ruled poorly, it would work exactly the same way. If the company produces documentation showing that the store was losing money more than other stores that remain open, the company wins. If they can't, the workers win, and presumably in that case the company could choose to either re-open the store (since leases tend to be long-term) or move the employees to other stores. More likely is that after a few of these cases, companies would be less quick to close stores to stop collective activity.

In any case, it wouldn't be complicated or a new thing at all, and wouldn't be easy to fool by starting unionization action at an already-closing store.

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

#194

Post by dfxm12 »

Alupis wrote: post #184

Honestly 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…

I think you're reading biased publications if they failed to report on OSHA violations in Amazon warehouses (which are so bad, the DOJ had to step in), or about starbucks workers' issues around scheduling, firings, etc. You don't have to rely on articles though, maybe there's a Starbucks or other place near you that's in the midst of unionization. If so, go talk to the people involved.

In the general sense, according to the DOL, unionized workers earn more than non-unionized workers, have more paid sick leave, are more likely to take vacation days, have better retirement plans, better scheduling, etc.: https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/union-advantage#:~:te...).

Also, the fact is, unionization is a right, and it is illegal to fire workers for trying to unionize. Even if you think your employer is good, they can always be better and employers are not going to go out of their way to improve your working conditions, pay or benefits, and it's easier to fight for these as a group rather than alone.

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

#195

Post by ok_dad »

Alupis wrote: post #184

Honestly 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…

> What is left to fight for?

- Non-competes being used for fast-food workers

- Tech employees asked to work on military projects (at places that aren't traditionally servicing the military)

- Minimum wages are still like $8 in some states, which is redicuous today

- Companies only giving workers 29.5 hours of work when the minimum for "full time benefits" is 30 hours

- Workers being fired for saying/doing things outside of work

- Companies laying off massive numbers of employees without doing the legally-required steps

- etc.

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

#196

Post by xur17 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #129
amurthy1 wrote: post #64

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…

>Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your busine…

> Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your business unprofitable. That's what the company is supposed to do.

But if they don't sign a contract, at some point they don't have labor, right? Which means they have to shut down..

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

#197

Post by pwinnski »

ensignavenger wrote: post #38
pwinnski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Similarly, if the court so desired, they couldn't compel someone to start a business out of the blue, but they could definitely compel a company to not shut down an operating business in retaliation for unionization efforts. This court? Never happen. But this is…

What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.

That is how strikes work, they are a last resort action unions don't like to take because they negatively impact everyone, including the workers who aren't paid. Still, strikes hurt the workers more because the workers end up living on savings and credit cards in a way the company doesn't. So the unions are already motivated not to strike, which is why strikes are rare.

The companies, on the other hand, have to know the risk of strike is real, or else they can easily ignore the union entirely. To avoid a strike, the company needs to give the unionized workers just enough to make it not worthwhile to strike, but not nothing.

However, all of this is beside the point, because companies close stores in order to avoid the union even forming. Once the vote doesn't go their way, boom. They don't even wait to hear the proposals, they shut down to send a clear signal that they don't want the workers to have any power whatsoever, at that location or any other.

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

#198

Post by kemayo »

WalterBright wrote: post #178
nerdponx wrote: post #170

Earlier 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.

They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it.

That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)

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

#199

Post by pwinnski »

notch898a wrote: post #80
jfim wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An employee whose store closes goes from $n income to 0, while Starbucks goes from $x to (34999/35000)x.

During the worst recession of the US at one point I was changing shit retail jobs at like 1 a week trivially for the hell of it. To do it now you practically only need a pulse. You don't need to lose income to change jobs, you just don't show up to one and show up to the next. Starbucks would be crushed if they had to close all their stores but the laborer can close up all their labor to a company and change jobs muc…

That is very time-and-place-and-worker-dependent, but yes, for a young person with no significant attachments, a cheap or free place to live, and a car, it's often still very easy. Many of those jobs don't come with Starbucks-level benefits, or pay, but some do.

Of course, if you have a kid, or rent is due, or other entanglements, things are more complicated.

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

#200

Post by enraged_camel »

asah wrote: post #34
enraged_camel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.

FALSE: Starbucks is famously company-owned. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franc...

Yeah, sorry, they are franchises where I'm from (Turkey). I guess it's different here.
Post reply on HN