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

221–230 of 303 posts

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

#221

Post by quantumquetzal »

Alupis wrote: post #206
ok_dad wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My personal feelings on unions aside, I think some of these points a union COULD address.

- Non-competes. Your rationale for non-competes is a non sequitur here. A union can represent workers and negotiate against signing non-competes if it is legal in a state, which would make a union desirable in that case.

- Military contracts. Whether it belongs in the workplace is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are many tech employees who are averse to working on certain projects, and a union representing them would be able to negotiate what kind of contracts their members would work on.

- Benefits - A union certainly is viable here.

- Outside of work - a union would certainly be able to defend their members’ right to not be terminated for reasons irrelevant to their work, expressing their opinions on a controversial matter being one of those potential reasons.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

chasd00 wrote: post #214
notch898a wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

pretty soon you need a couple helpers. Then a couple more. Then they form their own union and you're back to square one.

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by olliej »

I like how the article states that "In recent months [Starbucks] has raised pay and made other changes in response to the discontent."

No.

It has made those changes in response to union activity. No changes happened until it became apparent the unionization was actually happening.

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

#224

Post by slackdog »

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…

[flagged]

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

#225

Post by tstrimple »

runarberg wrote: post #202
tstrimple wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it’s a reasonable request for workers to come to work in clean clothes. Especially with regards to food service. Even if you have a company supplied apron fresh every day, the moldy hoodie (extreme example) is still a nonstarter. Where I would absolutely support the company being on the line for laundry service is if they have some cleanliness requirement that goes above and beyond what is reasonable. If you’re expecting your auto mechanics or industrial maintenance workers to start their day in spotless attire, that’s far more onerous due to the nature of their jobs and I would be much more supportive of company provided laundry services in those cases. I think there could be an argument made for food service staff when it comes to hygiene regulations as well so I’m certainly not against it the proposed Starbucks changes. I just don’t know if or what regulations would come into play here.

Another variable for me would be how many company provided outfits there are. If they just give them one apron and expect it to be washed daily, that would fall under an onerous requirement in my opinion and would justify a laundry service.

When comparing it to the company provided footwear, their example was a woman who went through three sets of shoes and being told three different times the shoes weren’t suitable for arbitrary reasons. If they are going to be that picky, they should absolutely foot the bill to ensure the uniform fits their standards.

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

#226

Post by kazen44 »

salawat wrote: post #201
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #46

Earlier 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…

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.

what, secondary/solidarity striking is not allowed in the US? I wonder how long this is viable, especially considering the ever increasing inequality in most western societies.

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

#227

Post by Alupis »

quantumquetzal wrote: post #221
Alupis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My personal feelings on unions aside, I think some of these points a union COULD address. - Non-competes. Your rationale for non-competes is a non sequitur here. A union can represent workers and negotiate against signing non-competes if it is legal in a state, which would make a union desirable in that case. - Military contracts. Whether it belongs in the workplace is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there…

Specifically regarding non-competes - No, a Union negotiating for no non-compete does nobody any good. The moment you go to a different company that is not serviced by that same Union (or perhaps the Union did not negotiate this), then you are back at square one - signing a non-compete or finding a different job.

The only solution to non-competes is at the State and Federal level. Anything less solves nothing, but sounds good...

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

#228

Post by whyenot »

dontlaugh wrote: post #121
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.

There's no such thing as a progressive company. They do it for marketing reasons, only after a movement made up of many people taking risks "normalised" a particular form of social progress.

> There's no such thing as a progressive company

Patagonia.

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

#229

Post by kazen44 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #156
pnutjam wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's also the emotional impact of losing a job and the psychological toll of looking for work and possibly not finding it. Just interviewing by itself can be mentally and emotionally grueling. Corporations have none of these stressors.

Also, it does nothing to prevent bringing balance to the massive imbalance between employer and employee power in the US.

mind you, employers in the US are protected by a massive amount of governmental support, both legislative as well as financial. Workers have very little protection in comparison, and most of those got seriously reduced after the end of world war 2.

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

#230

Post by kazen44 »

jrgoff wrote: post #142
ihateyouall123 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think the point is to have equal power between the parties, but that the party with more power should be prevented from wielding that power abusively.

Also, the reason all of this is regulated into law in most countries is because the alternative is usually violence.

People seem to forget labour rights have been won by blood, not some benevolence of companies in a capitalistic society.

Post reply on HN