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

281–290 of 303 posts

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

#281

Post by CapstanRoller »

gruez wrote: post #62
pessimizer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies don't own their employees. edit: There's an equivocation on "association" here. As an individual, I don't have the right to "disassociate" people from myself. I can't demand that my sister not refer to me as her brother, or that she stop doing things because she is known to be my sister and those things would be "associated" with me. Freedom of association is about a person being able to choose who they wis…

>Freedom of association is about a person being able to choose who they wish to interact with ...like companies choosing not to negotiate (ie. "interact") with unions?

Yes. Companies can refuse to negotiate with unions (and accept the consequences of severely narrowing their access to the labor market)

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

#282

Post by CapstanRoller »

fallingfrog wrote: post #105

As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary . When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.

Why is it "incredible"? The Democratic Party is not left-wing, nor is it even left-leaning by international standards.

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

#283

Post by charcircuit »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #94
charcircuit wrote: post #88

Companies shouldn't forced to permit the creation of unions. Unions are a tumor and it only makes sense for a company to remove it. If employees want to be able to threaten to quit employers should be able to threaten to fire them. The negotiation power should go both ways.

Please explain why they are a tumor? Seriously, I’m interested to know why you think that. I am a member of a union and without it I would be significantly less well off. Am I a bad person because I want to be treated like a human instead of a replaceable cog in a machine?

It adds more risk if people collectively decided to stop working and becomes a headache. It is also less efficient in that you will have to spend more on compensation for people who otherwise would work for less.

>Am I a bad person because I want to be treated like a human instead of a replaceable cog in a machine?

No, but having replacables cogs lowers the risk for businesses.

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

#284

Post by charcircuit »

ssklash wrote: post #149
charcircuit wrote: post #88

Companies shouldn't forced to permit the creation of unions. Unions are a tumor and it only makes sense for a company to remove it. If employees want to be able to threaten to quit employers should be able to threaten to fire them. The negotiation power should go both ways.

> The negotiation power should go both ways. I think you fundamentally misunderstand unions and the worker-corporation relationship. Historically, and through to today, corporations have most/all of the power. Which is why things like child labor, 16 hour work days, etc. were very common, until workers unionized, effectively pooling their power in order to negotiate with corporations. If you didn't have to work as a…

>corporations have most/all of the power.

Not unless there is slavery. People are not forced to work for any corporation and they are free to go work for another or start their own.

>child labor

Good for children who want extra money to spend or families who don't make enough. Childhood is when most people learn the most and there are certain things that can only be learned while on the job.

>16 hour work days

Good for people who want to make more money at the same job.

>If you didn't have to work as a child, or don't have to work longer than 8 hours, thank a union.

I did work as a child and did work 16 hour days and I don't regret doing so as the money I made doing so significantly improved the trajectory of my life.

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

#285

Post by lenkite »

hguant wrote: post #112
MapsSlaps wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7)…

...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal. #4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.

> "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.

VERY, VERY hard disagree.

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

#286

Post by dragonwriter »

hguant wrote: post #112
MapsSlaps wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7)…

...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal. #4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.

> “Protecting pay for store closures…and for workers who leave early or are sick” also doesn’t really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.

Yes, it does. Hourly environments can (and some do) have paid leave for special circumstances based on, e.g., scheduled time during which the special circumstances prevent work. I’ve seen this in both private unionized environments and public sector (union or not) ones.

Some of this (e.g., paid sick leave) may be balance-driven, whereas paid leave for closures, and external events which force early unplanned shift termination often would not be, since these conditions would be decided by management, but the decision would trigger paid leave for individuals impacted.

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

#287

Post by seanmcdirmid »

asah wrote: post #34
enraged_camel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.

FALSE: Starbucks is famously company-owned. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franc...

They have lots of franchise-like agreements, it just isn’t their preferred model. American airport locations are run by Marriott I think, QFC and Safeway run their own locations in grocery stores, many locations in China are JV owned, etc…

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

#289

Post by salawat »

nerdponx wrote: post #231
kazen44 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

It emerged out of backlash to some particularly roughly timed large profile strikes that happened during WWII, and with the Cold War blooming, and no one knowing if it'd ever go hot, Congress shoved that one through to "ensure the U.S. would never be held hostage by communist rabble rousers again."

To be frank, it's a shining example of why every legislation needs a sunset date. One and done legislation is just a tyranny happening in slow motion without active efforts to measure and assure continuing assent to the status quo by the governed.

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

#290

Post by evanb »

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.

https://unitworkers.com/
Post reply on HN