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

201–210 of 303 posts

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

#201

Post by salawat »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #46
ensignavenger wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

This is why the Taft-Hartley Act was a stroke of genius and a huge gift to the capital wielding class in that it took Secondary striking off the table for workers/labor.

Network effects for me, but none for thee.

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

#202

Post by runarberg »

tstrimple wrote: post #51
flimsypremise wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretty much all of these seem very normal and i'm actually shocked starbucks doesn't already have them in place. you can work 32 hours at a starbucks and not be considered full time? starbucks doesn't supply fresh aprons to everyone every shift?

Small point, but aren't aprons handed out and treated like uniforms in other companies? Employees take them home and launder them themselves? In any job I've had where I had to wear a specific company shirt, they were given to me and up to me to maintain.

In my works this is usually as you describe. But at the same time it is also one of the top issues workers complain about and ripe for change.

If your boss demands you wear specific clothes, and demands you should keep those clothes clean in your own time, they are effectively making you do more work after hours using tools and utilities that you also have to pay for. It is perfectly reasonable for a union to try to negotiate either: a) laundry pay and utility compensation, or b) for the company to do this work instead. In this case the union is demanding the latter.

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

#203

Post by Alupis »

VHRanger wrote: post #189
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…

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…

I don't know how we can be confident a Union will just solve the problems you point out.

I'm also not sure we can be confident that most agree these are problems at all - if you are low-skilled or no-skilled, then it does not matter how much value you bring to a company, you are too easily replaced. The solution isn't to fleece the company, but improve the average person's ability to obtain valuable skills, no?

Additionally, Union shops are notoriously poorly run, poorly organized and inefficient. The Union does things to benefit the Union, not the workers, business or public. How do we keep that in check?

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

#204

Post by advisedwang »

theGnuMe wrote: post #181

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.

The core of unionizing is getting the word out that unionizing is possible, beneficial and worth the risk. There are some places that tech can help, but largely it's a human-interaction problem.

As an example, consider how to let someone know you're even considering unionizing. An app isn't able to find out who the people you need to reach out to are - that's work you'd have to do either way. It could automatically send a text or email when you've done that, but both of those are far inferior to just talking to the person. First of all nobody likes automatic messages and they're easy to ignore. Secondly it loses the ability to sound someone out slowly, which allows you to avoid dropping the U word and potentially tipping off management until you know the person. If its anonymous, the person is likely to ignore a message. Finally and most importantly, just info dumping union benefits comes across as a sales pitch and is very ineffective; it's better to have a conversation that gets to your co-workers needs at work and from there games out whether a union would help them.

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

#205

Post by lukewrites »

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'm not sure what you mean by "harming companies and the public"; however we can come up with concrete examples of companies harming working people in the US.

Wage theft in the US alone costs working people billions of dollars annually; by some estimates employers stealing from employees results in "three times as much economic loss as all other types of theft combined". (https://www.edelson-law.com/blog/2022/10/wage-theft-outpaces...)

EPI has done work around this:

> in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages

https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...

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

#206

Post by Alupis »

ok_dad wrote: post #195
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 outs…

> Non-competes being used for fast-food workers

Non-competes are illegal in California. This is a state or Federal issue, not a Union issue.

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

This is an ideology issue, and does not belong in the workplace at all.

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

This story is much deeper than headlines would lead you to believe. For starters, the cost of living in majority of this country is low. Companies pay market rates, and the government sets minimum wages.

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

Most companies are not required to offer any benefits - full time or not.

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

Yet we routinely cancel people for things they said 15 years ago...

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

And the courts take care of that already.

Practically none, or none, of the issues you brought up can be solved by a Union.

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

#207

Post by slackdog »

roody15 wrote: post #69

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.

Those apparent progressive values are actually corporate values. Corporate values and progressive values can at times come to the same conclusion about a matter for completely different reasons. In these cases it may seem as though the corporation is championing progressive values, but that's not actually what's going on.

For instance, a progressive value is having a diverse workforce because discrimination and prejudice are immoral. A corporate value is having a diverse workforce because it makes labor organization harder. The corporate messaging about diversity initiatives this will appear to be progressive political messaging, but really isn't. Progressives support workplace diversity to combat prejudice, while corporations support workplace diversity to exploit prejudice.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo...

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

#208

Post by peanuty1 »

dehrmann wrote: post #113
roody15 wrote: post #69

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.

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.

AFAIK, they still do pay high wages and provide excellent benefits compared to other fast food chains.

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

#210

Post by peanuty1 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #102

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.

Starbucks already pays higher than market wages and provides excellent benefits like tuition reimbursement.
Post reply on HN