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

231–240 of 303 posts

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

#231

Post by nerdponx »

kazen44 wrote: post #226
salawat wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's worse than you think. Quoth Wikipedia:

> Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.

Seems like it should be at least partly unconstitutional on first amendment grounds, but I don't know if it's ever been challenged.

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

#232

Post by Oxidation »

spacephysics wrote: post #191
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,…

Much "journalism" isn't journalism at all, it's just content aggregation and maybe a paraphrasing. In the case of anything remotely technical, this will probably also include dumbing down to the point of uselessness, if not outright incorrectness.

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

#233

Post by undersuit »

slackdog wrote: post #215
GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point with no evidence to support it: > 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? Is this just an elaborate sealioning attempt?

[flagged]

What insult?

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

#234

Post by kazen44 »

Alupis wrote: post #227
quantumquetzal wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

and how would we get the lawmakers in this country to actually propose regulation that would fix non-competes? Mind you, corporations have an absolute amount of influence in politics compared to the average worker. A union is also a political force which looks after political interest of workers.

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

#236

Post by WalterBright »

oofta-boofta wrote: post #190
WalterBright wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They'd have to rename the store, sure.

> Stop being obtuse.

LOL

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

#237

Post by sojsurf »

ryan93 wrote: post #168
waynesonfire wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe the union can open a coffee shop then! and hire employees and give them union protection. what a concept.

I support unions no question. Kind of weird though that there is no overlap pretty much between those who can start companies and those who want companies to share the wealth. There are millions of companies and basically none split profit equally.

If you split profit equally, you should also split investment and risk equally. Many folks who start a small business owners put their home and other assets on the line to fund their company.

Most employees appreciate that they are getting paid whether or not the location performs well. They don't get an equal share of the profit, but they also don't pay an equal share to cover losses if the business is not profitable for a season. If a Starbucks locations were closed for a month during peak Covid, would the employees be happy to (a) not get paid, but also happy to (b) still help carry the cost of the lease, utilities and other operating expenses?

If I start a business and my employees are willing to put their name on the loan (backed by their homes as collateral), then this is a different discussion.

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

#238

Post by WalterBright »

kemayo wrote: post #198
WalterBright wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Starbucks can always sublease it. Leases are expensive to let sit vacant.

> it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty

There's an easy way to test that theory. Have the union make them an offer.

Besides, there's no particular reason the union has to set up shop in that store. They can pick anyplace else. As I mentioned before, people open coffee shops all the time. It isn't rocket science.

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

#239

Post by kazen44 »

notch898a wrote: post #49
jonathankoren wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no one should cross a picket line.

It sounds nice in practice but there are desperate people out there. A strike provides those people with opportunities. Prisoner's dillema keeps them from sacrificing themselves for a union that sees them as the out-group.

one could argue that those people, in the end would be better off by actually joining the union and demanding better rights.

There is a reason socialism is inherently internationalist. Capitalistic society is not bound by national borders, and thus the exploitation of labour is a class issue that tranceeds national boundaries. Workers in different places are far more similar then people from different class in the same place.

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

#240

Post by JKCalhoun »

zabzonk wrote: post #165
JKCalhoun wrote: post #155

Earlier 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"?

I am in fact a little reluctant to use "progressive" since it is becoming overloaded and meaningless these days, but that was the term used by the OP so I'm going with it.
Post reply on HN