271–280 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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..
If a business can't come to a basic working agreement with its workers, then of course it has to shut down.
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…
The company is supposed to negotiate with the union. That's the whole idea behind unions.
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…
nico@nico-dev.me I'll send you a parent comment from a hacker news post called "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules", remember it
Okay, I will keep that in mind.
nico@nico-dev.me 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 PDF ruling), this is a bit of journalistic travesty to leave it out. Compared to how much hearsay they seem to accept as a source in day to day stories, yet go to lengths to name the person's name.
And "For more information on this breaking issue, go to KABC.com!" Yeah, thanks a lot for that in-depth reporting!
Does anyone know where to find the PDF of this one?
Thank you for sharing the parent comment from the Hacker News post titled "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules." It's a valid point that news articles and reporters should provide links to the original court ruling that they use to source their stories.
In many cases, news articles do include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. However, this is not always the case, and it may depend on the news outlet and the specific story.
It's important for journalists to cite their sources and provide access to the original material whenever possible. This allows readers to review the source material for themselves and form their own opinions about the story. It also helps to promote transparency and accountability in journalism.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this specific case, I recommend checking the website of the court where the ruling was issued. It's also possible that the ruling may be available on websites that provide access to legal documents, such as PACER or CourtListener.
nico@nico-dev.me Now write a reply for that parent comment. Make it sounds like what a comment from hacker news sound
I completely agree with your point that news articles should include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. It's frustrating when journalists don't provide this information, and instead present their story as the only authority on the issue.
Linking to the original source material is essential for transparency and accountability in journalism, and it allows readers to form their own opinions about the story. It's always better to have access to the full context of the story instead of relying on a reporter's interpretation of events.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this case, you might want to check out the website of the court where the ruling was issued, or search for it on legal document websites like PACER or CourtListener. Hopefully, news outlets will start to include links to source material more consistently, so readers can have the full picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
Exactly. They union is trying to prevent a race to the bottom!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
>I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case. Because a market requires certain conditions to be true: equal access to information, many buyers and sellers, and that the products being exchanged are comparable. It's possible that requirements 1 and maybe 3 can be met, but 2 completely kills the possibility of an efficient market in this proposal because there are far more sellers of time t…
To be clear, the things being exchanged here are the shifts themselves. I don't see why you can't have a healthy market between the few dozen or so people that work at a starbucks location.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
I think this has been studied and tested in real work places. It’s been a minute since I had a peek in the literature of workplace psychology (not since my B.S. degree in 2011) so I might be misremembering, but I think I remember the results are not in favor of market based solutions. I encourage you browse the web and see for your self, workplace psychology is an interesting study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
> Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. Edit: To elaborate, companies seem to want it both ways. They want a large consumer base wit…
This is non-sequitur that fails to address my original question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
The problem is that "having a union" isn't a bad deal that you can just legally refuse, any more than following health and safety rules, or overtime rules, is a "bad deal" that Starbucks can refuse if they want. Having a union at the store costs Starbucks nothing, or maybe a little bit of the manager's time here and there. An individual contract might not be financially viable for a given Starbucks location, but nobo…
This feels trivial to work around. All they have to do is let the union form, refuse to meet their demands, and if they strike they close the store. That way it wouldn't be "closing a store because it has a union", but the end result is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "retaliation" is just the word for when the party with more power terminates an agreement?
No it’s a word that the a party terminates an agreement because of workplace organization. I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them. If we don’t want the government interjecting itself into “contracts” then let’s have that. Courts and cops should not be enforcing contracts. People should not be going to prison for breaking…
Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564
>I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them.
I'm not sure why property owners are being singled out here when the statement is applicable to basically everyone. Who doesn't love free government services but hate taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this has been studied and tested in real work places. It’s been a minute since I had a peek in the literature of workplace psychology (not since my B.S. degree in 2011) so I might be misremembering, but I think I remember the results are not in favor of market based solutions. I encourage you browse the web and see for your self, workplace psychology is an interesting study.
Why didn't it work? The problem I see with seniority based schemes is that they totally fail to take into account degree of preferences. If you have enough seniority to have top dibs when picking shifts, and you marginally prefer the afternoon shift over the morning shift then that's the shift you'll get dibs on. Meanwhile, the less senior worker who have kids and therefore must get the afternoon shift (so they can t…
As for seniority rules, I don’t remember reading anything about those, but from my experience, I’m not a huge fan, I think there are better systems, particularly those which are based around consensus. However, given Starbucks’ huge corporate management, I’m guessing that seniority is miles ahead of the system they have now, which is probably management arbitrarily picking which is wide open for abuse such as retaliation. They probably picket seniority because it is very hard for management to abuse it.