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

251–260 of 303 posts

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

#251

Post by mustacheemperor »

Alupis wrote: post #216
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?

I have personal experience with three unions in my area. All of which fit my description very accurately. > You keep repeating this old and worn out talking point There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion. I asked for evidence, and received complaints that cannot be addressed by unions and links to pro-union think tanks that unsurprisingly argue unions are a net-positive force. A Union isn't…

>There has been zero evidence produced that counters this assertion

From what I can read a user provided you with evidence, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, fulfilling your original request for data showing unions are a net benefit in modern times. This evidence counters your assertion that unions are a net negative, so it does come across as "pro-union" in the extent it disagrees with your stated anti-union viewpoint. You have dismissed that evidence entirely on the basis that it is "a link to a pro-union think tank". That link goes to a 16 page PDF summarizing abstracts from a wide body of industry research, so I guess you have also dismissed all of those papers.

So on one hand you bring 3 examples of anecdotal evidence, and on the other hand a user provided a summary document itself linking many additional sources of research. You have declared the source non-credible by default, and then insisted nobody will provide evidence to disagree with you.

Reading this thread to try and grow my own perspectives, as I do on hackernews, I have to say I have gained little to no material information about why your view on this issue is justifiable. I don't think you're being fair to the users who are engaging you on your points, either, and I think that's costing this discussion any chance at producing useful insight.

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

#252

Post by pwinnski »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #248
pwinnski wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 NL…

Ah yes, so you just wait interminably for a hearing and spend thousands on lawyers before you can close your store.

If it's clear that you have good reason to close the store, then you close the store. If you're closing a profitable store to avoid unionization, then you don't close the store. There's no need to wait, just don't close profitable stores in retaliation for union activity.

It's just like now: if an employee is bad, then you document it and fire them. If you're firing them to avoid unionization, then don't fire them. There's no need to wait, just don't fire employees in retaliation for union activity.

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

#253

Post by hellojesus »

pwinnski wrote: post #24
voidfunc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.

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…

Unionization could drive up costs making the business unprofitable. It is absolutely allowable to shut down a business in response to your workforce unionizing.

The Wagner Act itself is terrible and forces businesses to negotiate collectively even if they don't want to. And it cuts both ways.

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

#254

Post by hellojesus »

andrepd wrote: post #180
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.

Glad you agree! I also think that's how things should run. Now go ask the bank for a credit line to do this and you will understand why the privatisation of money creation impedes worker-owned co-ops (or any ownership structure other than the standard capitalist one).

You can fund from non bank sources. There are private money lenders too.

It is possible it is hard to find a co-op because it's harder to collect on a delinquent loan. Or perhaps data shows that they fail more frequently.

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

#255

Post by Alupis »

kazen44 wrote: post #234
Alupis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somehow California did it...

If the people of your state don't think it's important enough to make into a law, then it's not important enough to the people in your state. You are free to disagree, but apparently most of the people in your state do not.

Change it at the State or Federal level. Everything else accomplishes nothing. Unions aren't a magic bullet, and do not apply across different businesses.

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by hezralig »

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.

You need a clean apron for each shift and I believe they only hand out one or two at the time of hiring from what I recall chatting with a barista.

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

#258

Post by hezralig »

peanuty1 wrote: post #210
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.

This isn't necessarily true. I have also asked a couple of baristas what their pay was like, and it seems like they do not give raises as frequently or pegged to CoL. Over COVID, I chatted with a barista that had been with Starbucks for 7-8 years who was telling me that he made .20 more than a new hire.

It was interesting to get his point of view on the unionization details even though his location wasn't organizing.

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

#259

Post by hezralig »

peanuty1 wrote: post #208
dehrmann wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't necessarily true although it is parroted quite a bit due to SBs excellent PR and marketing.

One of the complains perusing the SB subreddits discuss how pay doesn't keep up with cost of living and that the benefits are difficult to qualify for due to the company scheduling hours under qualifying threshold for them in a 6 month period.

It is also interesting to hear that these locations are running skeleton crews while overhiring just to be able to schedule each worker fewer hours.

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

#260

Post by refurb »

drewcoo wrote: post #130
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…

> if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable What a strange hypothetical! That's certainly never happened, and given the current power dynamic, incredibly unlikely to happen today. Whatever regulations there are to protect workers were created because of unions, not instead of them. If employers had been given the choice, there wouldn't be unions or regulations.

Sure it has. Look up the auto unions in Detroit.

The company caved to union demands back in the 70’s (if you're laid off you get 100% free health care for life).

I knew families where guys were laid off at 30 and had amazing health insurance plans for the rest of their life.

Something like 60% of labor costs were retiree benefits.

Post reply on HN