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

291–300 of 303 posts

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

#291

Post by dontlaugh »

zabzonk wrote: post #188
ticviking wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term is well understood and has its origins in the contrasting positions and approaches of "Progressive" and "Revolutionary" Marxists. It has come to mean anyone who is generally left-liberal and favors achieving those policy goals through gradual reform rather than sudden reform, or direct action.

> The term is well understood and has its origins in the contrasting positions and approaches of "Progressive" and "Revolutionary" Marxists. well-understood by marxists (are there any of them around any more?) but not i suggest by the rest of us. and of course apple, starbucks and co are all "progressive" and not out to gouge you for all you have? or is this just another part of mad usa politics and wokeness?

There's dozens of us!

More seriously, revolutionary Marxist parties exist in all countries with varying degrees of success. Most of us are involved in the labour movement, often organising within unions.

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

#292

Post by nemo44x »

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.

It’s how we end up with the incoherent “progressive” marketing of a chocolate company that is currently being sued for using child slave labor to source the chocolate that the trans woman celebrating women’s month wants me to buy.

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

#293

Post by schwartzworld »

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…

> All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

Won't happen without unions. Capital would gladly have you work 12 hour days without weekends, and we know this because it was true until people advocated for their own rights. https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html Capital will gladly have you work in unsafe or inhumane conditions if it means profits.

Maybe unions aren't the ideal solution, but the wealthy (i.e. the employers) have outsized influence in government. Who is going to speak for the people, if not a union?

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

#294

Post by ok_dad »

slackdog wrote: post #224
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…

[flagged]

That's the thing about employees: not all of them are you. Other people have different opinions. I personally do not want to do direct work on military or defense projects, so it would be important to me that any place I work has some employee input into the process of customer selection. Feel free to bash me all you want about that, but the fact of the matter is that I and many other people feel differently than you do.

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

#295

Post by ok_dad »

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…

Literally any workplace issues can be solved through collective worker action, if there are enough workers. The trick is to get enough workers into the union to be able to have a say in the things I listed, and more. What do you propose? Politicians are in the pocket of the opposite interest from the workers, they are the capitalists' tools. Companies aren't going to change, because they want more profits above all else. Do you expect to just wait to be given more rights? People keep shooting down unions, but then offer literally zero solutions.

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

#296

Post by MapsSlaps »

next_xibalba wrote: post #175
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 summary is disingenuous. Take for example: "7) Reimbursement for necessary equipment, limits on dress code" Whereas the actual text reads: "We propose that workers will not be held to a dress code, except for where local, state and federal health/safety standards are enforced. We propose that Starbucks will provide or reimburse each worker 2 pairs of non-slip shoes each year, as well as fresh aprons for partners…

> Adding distraction, eroding the customer experience, and reducing the professionalism.

The professionalism of ... Starbucks coffee shops? Are you for real? It's not a bank. Let people wear what they want and what makes them happy. You can still require people cover sufficiently for sanitary and safety reasons.

> On another note, seniority is a toxic, irrational policy

Yes. Agreed. But also, Starbucks has been hiring people specifically to "outcompete" pro union voices. A rush of new hires can destabilize organization efforts. Seniority for the purposes of protecting workers is reasonable. Seniority as the only criteria is not. It's a careful balance.

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

#297

Post by MapsSlaps »

next_xibalba wrote: post #179
JKCalhoun wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you okay with the other 14 then? I understand how you can find issue with one of their proposals but then Starbucks ought to handily agree with all but the one and offer to negotiate #4.

"...if a worker's religious belief prohibits handling of pork, they would be exempt from being assigned to food warming and won't be discriminated against." Perhaps they just shouldn't be working at a restaurant that serves pork? What a ridiculous idea. I'm going to found a religion in which the main belief is that I should not be required to type on a keyboard. As someone working in tech who uses a keyboard non-stop…

Come on. There are billions of people worldwide who have religious prohibitions from pork. This is not a niche population.

Can we really not take a quick moment to say, "Maybe we can help our Muslim and Jewish friends feel more comfortable"? Your solution is really, "No Muslims or Jews in restaurants" rather than "Hey, if needed, we can just ask Kevin to toss the bacon in the oven."

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

#298

Post by MapsSlaps »

ticviking wrote: post #185
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of discourse in American politics -- and increasingly Canadian ones as well -- "left wing" has been rewritten to be almost exclusively about cultural politics. This is the only way one can decode everyday conversations when people talk about "the left"; they clearly don't mean what it meant "classically": socialist politics / economic policy, working class politics. It's basically a marginal position a…

Every socially conservative pro-labor movement in the USA is rapidly labeled as "fascist" in America, usually because they promote economic protectionism by reducing immigration and raising barriers to cheap imports from countries that don't protect their workers to the degree the US does.

Part of the problem is that those organizations allow fascists to enter them. (Like many left wing movements allow authoritarian communists -- tankies -- to enter them.)

If a part of your platform is "No immigration" it becomes very difficult to distinguish that from "No immigration (because I don't like brown people)".

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

#299

Post by dang »

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.

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#300

Post by relbeek2 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #162
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.

Perhaps you actually could create some kind of right-of-assumption. If Starbucks wants to close, fine, but the existing employees must be given the right to buy out the lease and base hardware at cost. People would leap at the chance for an insta-coffee-shop in the high traffic locations starbucks abandoned in Seattle.

It's not Starbucks' decision to lease the building to someone else, it is the building owner which in most cases is not Starbucks.

Furthermore, Starbucks shouldn't be forced to sell its proprietary assets. like ovens, espresso machines, technology, etc.

Post reply on HN