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

261–270 of 303 posts

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

#261

Post by VHRanger »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #251
Alupis wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Also, the 2nd author on the NBER paper is David Card [1] a Nobel laureate for his work in empirical labor economics research, for what that's worth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Card

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

#262

Post by pmoriarty »

gretch wrote: post #172
pnutjam wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's full of it. I was unemployed last year. It took me 6 weeks to land an in-demand tech job; mostly because of the layer of interviews. I think it was an average of 3 interviews for each job. I eventually had 6 or 7 similar offers and a couple bad ones. I also cut short several processes because I knew they were a month away from an offer. Meanwhile, my wife tried to land a part time retail job. She got 3 o…

I don’t think he’s full of it. Maybe some of it is time/place depending? I was a teenager in 2005 looking for summer work. Over 3 years I worked at a couple different retail places and some fast food (not Starbucks but similar). It really wasn’t that hard to find a job like that, even with my crappy under 18 understanding of the world

Consider that age discrimination is prevalent in the workplace. It's often a lot easier to find jobs line that when you're young and wet behind the ears because many employers see young people as easily exploitable and malleable, think you'll work longer and harder than older people, and because they have various biases and preconceptions about older folk.

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

#264

Post by hellotomyrars »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #132
hellotomyrars wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising. It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of hi…

>It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Anything could be argued, but this argument is not true. Plenty of publicly traded companies have unionized workforces and do not face shareholder lawsuits for it. Can you find an example of a p…

How many publicly traded companies had their workforce unionize without protest in the last 30 years or maybe longer?

The model also helps make a difference. Starbucks can kill a store to prevent unionization from taking up, but not all business make this a valid method of squashing unionization.

To be clear, it is obvious and plain to see that Starbucks and other corporations view their workforce unionizing as a bad thing for them. The reason they are that is because they believe, reasonably or otherwise, that it will impact their bottom line. The money is what the care about. It is the only thing they care about. Their natural incentive structure of being a publicly traded company is specifically about the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

I work for a non-profit and when unionization occurred there was no pushback about it. My industry is also not traditional in so far as our funding is almost exclusively from federal and state health agencies.

But the increase in wages and quality of life for the members was measurable, and the demand for home health care only continues to rise as the population ages, as well as social/economics factors around the expectation and realities of family members taking care of family members as they age.

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

#265

Post by user3939382 »

stefap2 wrote: post #263

Problem is that people even take these jobs seriously. Starbucks job was something to do part-time for a couple of years while you are in school. Why would you spent time unionizing for that? It's never going to pay enough to live on.

Tell that to people counting on their job there to feed their kids, that it’s their fault they have the wrong job.

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

#266

Post by peanuty1 »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #143
hellotomyrars wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising. It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of hi…

> they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. There is an incredible amount of leeway here; He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits. But that further solidifies your last point.

> He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits.

Except they're not just seeking "slightly" higher wages. Those hypothetical benefits of unionization to Starbucks sound like bullshit to me. Since when are unions good for businesses? Detroit's auto companies send their regards.

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

#267

Post by AshamedCaptain »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

They are more common that one may think. They have quite a foothold in e.g. European agriculture and even finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation.

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

#268

Post by angelbar »

chasd00 wrote: post #214
notch898a wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon in Washington/Oregon to find a coffee shop that's just like a port-a-potty sized booth and one or two employee-owners. Some of them are quite popular. Probably <30k to startup, anybody with several years work experience could probably max out a bunch of credit cards and do it.

pretty soon you need a couple helpers. Then a couple more. Then they form their own union and you're back to square one.

And they will be happy to have one, because unions are great to workers/s. So there are no solutions? There are no competitive unionized business? Why not? Maybe if all the Business need to be unionized, so there will be no advantage one over the other?

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

#269

Post by Waterluvian »

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…

I used to be friends with a whole indictment of lawyers on Twitter and this was a running joke.

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

#270

Post by CapstanRoller »

refurb wrote: post #260
drewcoo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which parts of this do you consider to be unreasonable?
Post reply on HN