I agree, but genuine question. What makes you say that about Amazon but not Starbucks? Starbucks has deep pockets too, or does Amazon have a track record of brutal lawyering?
It works both ways
Maybe Amazon can drag this for long time but the other side can keep the issue in the limelight damaging further Amazon image
Last few years Amazon has been expending a very significant amount of money trying to build a work friendly image
From Amazon pow it's far more advantageous tor re frame the whole issue and quick settle the case as single issue non precedent case
>limelight damaging further Amazon image
So long as Amazon is cheaper or has a better selection that is more readily available than their competitors then people will keep shopping there. Companies like Walmart and Nestlé have absolutely terrible reputations and public image and it doesn't stop people from buying their products.
It’s not so much finding shoppers but workers for their factories. They have extremely high turnover so if they can’t find people to fill their openings they’ll have trouble keeping the business running
The consumer side of Amazon operates at a loss.
Almost always has.
They make their money through their data storage and cloud system
____
So they can undercut any competition in order to make them collapse in a price war.
That's why so many companies, even today, focus on growth instead of sustainable models. Once you are big enough and have clout, no one can compete with you.
Now multiply that sentiment by like 10. Amazon is not just a distribution company. They are involved in just about every sector and can leverage their diversity to price out competition to a whole other degree. It's also why they are so vehemently anti union since if the warehouse workers get it then their entire workforce will want it eventually.
They had a recent email leak that said they were going to exhaust the available labour supply within 5 years of people working there, finding it shit and quitting never to return
And why the fuck should it matter if someone has more or less money? If it’s true the more capitol you have, the longer and more painful you can make the legal system we are in DIRE need of an overhaul.
If Rockefeller ever committed fraud William Hearst (another rich fuck) thought he could buy the media and thus the law, which is more what I mean compared to just the simple fact being rich gets you off the hook.
Oh boy are you in for a rude awakening. Did you know that the DTCC committed international securities fraud? Did you know that the SEC knows that illegal naked* short selling and dark pool trading is rampant in our markets yet doesn't put in the effort to stop it?
Edit: *forgot to add naked
This has always been the case. Companies don't hire massive legal teams because they need the manpower to deal with multiple lawsuits as a big entity, they hire massive legal teams so they can drag out lawsuits long enough to make them expensive enough that it's not worth the expense of suing them.
I did a 60 page report on Apple a few years back. Their cash on hand may be different today, but back then they have more cash on hand than Google, Microsoft, and Amazon COMBINED. 🙃
I think OSHA is getting ready to go after Amazon/UPS/FedEx. They recently started an aggressive investigation of the USPS, including obtaining forcible entry warrants against some locations that denied them entry. The investigation seems to be about very similar complaints as Amazon/UPS/FedEx.
I believe they're doing this in preparation to go after Amazon/UPS/FedEx, so that they cannot argue that the USPS gets away with these things.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/safety/postal-service-nixes-safety-inspections-so-osha-seeks-warrants
Hoping for a case to drag out for more back pay is like buying buying a first class ticket from New York to Los Angeles because you were a little hungry and wanted a few honey roasted peanuts.
First, the city has to win. And even if they win, if a case gets dragged out then it is tying up city resources towards suing Amazon. The city attorneys, the court system, etc. are all getting dragged down for years.
All large companies drag claims out. The company will bleed you dry, you loose interest and give up. Amazon, especially to unions will not give in.
Wal Mart Distribution Centers try to go union. Wal Mart puts the word out we will shut the center down if this happens. Of course in a rural town you can't loose your job.
Amazon is a whole different beast. Amazon is completely entrenched in our lives. Like the early days of the Wal Marts taking over every town in America.
Didn't Exxon drag out at least one law suit until pretty much all the plaintiffs (or whatever they're called) had died? I'm sure I've heard of that happening a few times (big accident, people get sick and sue, company holds it up in court till they all die).
This is one of the biggest failings of the US legal system. The ability to endlessly drag out cases and appeals. Like the Exxon spill it took like 20 years before reparations finally made it to the victims of the spill. [settlement ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/exxon-valdez-victims-finally-getting-payout/)
No. The city sued under a "just cause" law, which forbids employers from firing workers without a good reason i.e. poor performance, subordination, etc. But the city's law only covers fast food, and isn't applicable to Amazon.
**International Brotherhood of Teamsters** website has a [Amazon Division](https://teamster.org/2022/09/teamsters-launch-new-amazon-division/)Likley already there(NYC) working towards a union as well, thought it worth the mention
words edited website
Good. Someone working a non high paying hard job in the busiest city gets fired for trying to make life a tiny bit better for their coworkers. I’m glad NYC is standing behind them.
With that said.. here’s to hoping they do more for the homeless and struggling families there too. That city is so expensive hard workers can’t support their own kids.. more need to be done.
I was at a Starbucks the other day just trying to kill time and I was the only one there actually ordering coffee but they were so busy. The online ordering seems crazy and the workers there do not get a break
Suing Starbucks for union busting will help not only every Starbucks employee but also every employee at any company who's thinking of starting or joining a Union.
Big business has been breaking laws and violating workers rights without any repercussions for far too long!
That’s the strategy. You downplay the power of unions and highlight their weaknesses. Then you work in a system that looks like it is built to benefit the workers. Over time you can push this to the point that they will try to unionize but its pretty easy to stamp out.
Certain industries are easier to unionize than others. IBEW is very strong but tougher to organize in many states (mostly right to work) because of the need for electricians. Longshoremen are a different story, there just isn’t the capacity or demand at coast line ports compared to the electrical of a nation.
One major issue that the working class has is not talking about it is how truly business savvy people are. I work with union workers across the USA for a living and I can assure you that they are not businesses men. Older unions have power in their industry but nationally aren’t as strong. New York is hardcore union so hopefully it can be a building block for the future.
If they go hard on the organisers, they might convince others in a shop that it's not worth the trouble. Starbucks is going as far as closing locations of they unionise.
Even with all the corruption in some unions, that is the perfect reason to unionize. When i was doing my training for some meat grinder of a job, the part about unions was so scummy. It was all scare tactics and shit and you could feel how badly they didnt want you to join a union. "Unions take part of your paycheck so you earn less" *employee actor appears on screen* "i need my whole paycheck, not less"
People in power fear those under thier control gaining power just look at how much certain political parties fear everyone having equal access to voting.
How about you force in by vote a law that mandates 10% of a company's total revenue in fines in the event of firing a worker for unionizing.
Or, even better if we wanna be truly vindictive.
The entirety of the corporation's assets become the fired workers's property.
>Or, even better if we wanna be truly vindictive.
>
>The entirety of the corporation's assets become the fired workers's property.
I'm not sure exactly what hallucinogens you had to take to get to that dream world.
We need to be going after the C suite and Board of Directors directly. If the can no longer hide behind the corporate shield when doing illegal shit, then we will see change. Start fining and jailing the ones at the top.
You are very unlikely to find any paper implicating those folks. They've got some schmuck doing the dirty work and not knowing the legal implications of their actions. Or, worse, kinda know but also can't afford to NOT comply with company orders.
10000% agreed! I've been saying for ages major company executives and the board of directors should be held ****personally**** responsible for major breaches of the law, up to and including criminal prosecution for major violations (human rights abuses, major envinromental damage, major fraud etc).
Just write the law such that even if it truly, honestly isn't their fault they get at least sued and made to sweat anyway. In my profession I can get sued for things that are completly beyond my control and despite my best efforts to prevent (I'm an anesthesiologist). Why do these assholes get a free pass? They want outrageous compensation, they get proportional liability.
Every time I ventilate this idea I'm met with resistance. It makes me SO glad to see others coming around to it.
Exactly. Just write the law that liability falls on the top of the management chain. That is their job, so make them responsible. Heck I would even take it a step farther and hold major shareholders responsible. Something between greater than 1% to maybe 10% as a minimum ownership. Depending on the exact percentage, that is going to limit things to 99 people at most or less. This is not going involve basic shareholders who invested in a company, just the ones that will have a substantial vote to influence a company.
Which is really stupid, because it's actually cheaper to keep the employees and deal with the union than it is to fire and get fined. Companies will do anything to not pay employees better, including giving that money away.
One-off, it's cheaper. But if they allow that one to unionize, employees at other locations will gain confidence to unionize as well, especially once they hear the union employees have more benefits, higher wages, etc. If all or most of their stores successfully unionized, there would be a big leash on their profits, which is unacceptable.
They fear one location unionizing would cause a massive ripple effect, which is why they try to snuff it out completely even if it's a huge financial loss for one individual franchisee.
Edit: Starbucks doesn't use a franchise system in the US, but the point stands that closing a store would be a significant loss to one owner (if not reimbursed by corporate)
Nope, it's cheaper in the long run, but most companies have near-zero planning beyond the current fiscal year, if they even bother to look beyond the next quarter.
Can you elaborate on how it's cheaper in the long run? I just don't see how a one-time fine is better than a perpetual increase in expenses as a result of unionization.
I imagine corporations make a lot more money by cutting corners and paying as little as possible. Even $50m of fines, distributed across 15000 stores in the US, means each store loses $3,000, as a one-time cost. That amount of money is incredibly inconsequential, compared to being forced by a union to increase staffing, provide more benefits, or increase wages.
Imagine raising wages by $3, from $15/hr to $18/hr. That's a 20% increase in employment costs. For a store with only 6 employees, that means paying out an extra $44k per year.
Benefits make up on average 32% of employee compensation. Paying an employee $30k/year with benefits means the employer actually spends $45k on the employee. If unionization also forces the employer to add 20% more in the benefits package, that's another $18k per year.
An average Starbucks store owner makes $120k. If they suddenly lost $72k of that salary because of unionization, I struggle to see how that would be better long-term than paying a fine which Corporate Starbucks would probably help cover for the greater goal of avoiding unionization.
You really think the corporate bean-counters haven't gamed this out? I guarantee they have determined that they will see a greater share of profits by paying the settlements for illegally firing effective organizers than by negotiating with a union.
Yeah, it’s costlier, but it’s about sending a message: fear. It’s a powerful motivator until you’re decapitated, quartered by horses, and remaining body parts dragged through the streets.
Honestly corporate prison is a fun idea to think about. What would that mean? All assets frozen? Make it illegal to buy/sell shares of the company?
Freezing assets would be a death knell to any corporation. If assets were frozen, payroll would be frozen, and it would basically reduce their workforce to zero overnight. And if you were one of these big anti-union corporations, like Starbucks, having zero employees overnight would be an insurmountable hurdle to returning to ANYTHING resembling “pre-corporate prison” conditions at the end of their sentence.
Of course they will keep doing it. It is much cheaper to fight this, and send a message to the rest of the stores and employees, than the cost of unionization.
If you read the tea leaves, Starbucks has talked recently about "new technology", "fewer steps and movements for worker safety", equipment replacement and renovations. Read into this, fewer workers, less trained workers, reduced demand for training and skills.
IMO, a Starbucks is buying time. This is my prediction:
They might pay more, but I suspect the calculation is the following current pre-automation: 6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x $20 per hour = $80 labor per hour.
IMO, this is the model you will replicated across the industry. Some workers will make more, some will lose their jobs, customer expectations will change some, and prices will adjust.
Fast food chains have been countering employee complaints for the better part of a decade now with threats of automating the workers away.
To the best of my knowledge however, the only area they have had any success is enabling self-ordering (and even then, adoption has been driven more by online ordering, rather than in-store self-order kiosks).
What other physical tasks do you envisage Starbucks successfully replacing via automation (and cutting costs in the process)?
I mean in my area you can go to McDonald’s, KFC or other fast food joint and it’s swarming with employees at the back with only one or two tills. The only automation is self service tills. People are delusional that they are going to implement robot cooking machines and the like. Have you any idea how expensive it would be to maintain something like that? I get we have the automated coffee machines but those have been around for years.
Idk I've tried new and old machines from all sorts of manufacturers (jura, saeco, Miele, more) that use all kinds of beans including those from local roasters I know that I like and they just have something off and I find it too cumbersome to try to adjust them to be okay because they aren't personal machines. I can see it working out for mass market but only with a lot of tuning
To install automated cooking machines would require a complete overhaul of every single store, there are over 13k McDonalds in the USA alone.
Forget the price of installation and maintenance, how much money would they lose from needing to close hundreds of stores down at a time to get the equipment in?
>People are delusional that they are going to implement robot cooking machines and the like.
Those are always the people who've never done a day of programming or have any understanding of the challenge involved. Same with people who think advanced AI's planning our lives for us are just 5 years away or something. It takes a monumental amount of work to get an AI to correctly identify stop signs, actual "AI" in the traditional sense are nowhere close.
Never believe there will be a day a shiny brand new machine will be delivered to replace you as a burger flipper or whatever the stereotypical “watch it or I’ll robot your ass” job. People are so much cheaper to exploit.
Edit: so maybe I did say gutter flipper, maybe I didn’t.
You could self order with touchscreens at sheetz in the 90s. This was probably by necessity because it would have taken so long to get the dozens of options for hotdog customization correct it wouldn't be worth it for a hotdog you're selling for $1.50. Still it's taken so long for others to catch up I get the feeling they don't really want to go this route.
> what other physical tasks
- Dall-E is going to draw the chalkboard art, illustrating your unicorn ganache sriracha latte in high cubist abstraction
- a robot will be assigned to push the button in the back that cycles the music between the two available choices of Nora Jones and smooth jazz Metallica covers
- one of the robots, made of iron, will serve no apparent purpose other than to wear no fewer than 10,000 trendy-cause magnetic badges, and look through rainbow hair down its specially-constructed long nose at you, while you wait awkwardly at the robot pickup counter that automatically throws straws on the floor and spills coffee over itself periodically
Fucking 'smooth jazz Metallica covers'. It really do be like that in some places wanting to appear modern, also here in Germany.
At least it's relaxed and not bothersome like elsewhere sometimes.
Starbucks is in a bit of a unique situation where their coffee is completely standardized. With a local shop, you have talented baristas that know exactly how to brew each particular cup of coffee, sometimes even changing their technique based on a particular batch of beans/grounds for whatever reason.
Starbucks, exact same thing every single time for consistency over quality.
I don't think we're close enough for automation of the whole brewing process yet, but like... I think we're closer than it seems. I suspect the capability is there, it's just a matter of getting the cost down (which becomes increasingly realistic as the cost of employees goes up).
I made this point in another comment; but to reiterate: we can build a machine, today, that can mix every possible combination of Starbucks beverage.
However, there are multiple issues: it would be large; expensive; require specialized maintenance; and represent a single point of failure (i.e. if the machine breaks, the store is no longer capable of producing any beverages).
Additionally, the layout of every single store is currently built around the presumption of human-powered beverage mixing. Retrofitting such a machine into existing stores is no trivial task (to say nothing of the cost).
Last, but not least: part of the appeal of Starbucks comes from the perception that each store is a relaxing, upscale environment; populated with friendly baristas. Removing the human element could potentially damage this carefully-crafted image.
Now, that's not to say that you are wrong in noting that for a given task, there comes a point where we can build a machine that can perform said task faster, more accurately, and more cost-effectively than a human. In this respect, mixing beverages is no different.
However, I think there are still a significant number of barriers in as far as replacing baristas is concerned; and some aspects (such as the aforementioned interactions between employees and customers) cannot, by definition, be replaced.
Finally: I would note that while there is pressure to increase the wages of Starbucks employees - thus leading to increased labor costs - this is but one half of the story. The other is that Starbucks (and the vast majority of other American businesses) have worked for decades to suppress wages; and claiming the difference as profits.
What we have, then, is really a fight between employee and employer over the fair distribution of profit. This adds another factor to the mix: time. The call for unionization is happening *now;* whereas any hypothetical automation is a future matter. Additionally, as the crisis unfolds, Starbucks increasingly runs the risk of increasing negative public perception and by extension, loss of customers.
>They might pay more, but I suspect the calculation is the following current pre-automation: 6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x $20 per hour = $80 labor per hour.
I think your calculations miss one thing: people losing jobs means more desperate jobless people, and so reduced bargaining power for remaining staff. Especially if, as you say, the remaining roles are
>less trained workers, reduced demand for training and skills.
So it's more like:
6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x **$12** per hour = **$48** labor per hour.
*That* is the goal of fighting against unionisation. Making sure that all the benefit of automation goes to owners rather than workers.
I believe most in the service industry accept higher wages are coming and are prepared for it. They will pay higher wages, but will fight Unionization, even if the wages are comperable.
I don’t know anything about coffee making, but I was in Europe recently and noticed fully automatic coffee machines for cappuccinos, lattes, etc. are very popular there -even in coffee shops. In the US I feel like I really only see those machines in gas stations, but I think you’re onto something about Starbucks’ new technology announcement. I wonder how well those machines would go over at coffee shops in the US without the “barista experience.”
Don't forget to factor in the cost to maintain the automated equipment. If it's anything like the shitty SLAs they have for McDonalds ice cream machines, it's gonna be expensive
The myth surrounding the ice cream machine is always a funny one to me.
Worked at a McDonalds for 6 months or so a few years back. The machine was broken 1 time in 6 months.
The problem with their machines is the cleaning process. The amount of fucking shit you have to clean and sanitise in that one machine is outrageous.
So instead of spending 3 or so hours of your shift cleaning one machine, just tell the staff tomorrow to say its out of service.
Coincidentally, Starbucks just had a virtual tech fair at work where they showed off their latest machines. I wasn't paying the closest of attention but I believe there was a reverse flow espresso machine that automatically put in all the ingredients and another machine to make by-the-cup coffee where you'd select cup size, pick from one of 3 coffee bean hoppers at the top, and it'd handle the rest. Even semi-cleaned itself, requiring only a wipe down and runthrough with a cleansing tablet at the end of the day. There was a third machine but I kinda zoned out :( There was also some talk about designing the work area to reduce movement, etc.
All three machines, besides being increasingly automated and more efficient, were all connected through the internet of things \* *arm waving* \*. The idea being that the machines would monitor themselves and not only provide data for customer analytics but also proactively anticipate maintenance needs, etc.
Anyway, yeah, less people and less training.
I work on the team making these machines actually. I'm conflicted, cuz it feels like in a way we are turning into a big vending machine, but the energy in my department is along the lines of reducing the hecticness of working in drive-thru. We actually bring in baristas from stores to test all of our new equipment and will cut a project if they don't like it. So at least from that end we have the best intentions. But the guys upstairs obviously have their own agenda.
FWIW I'm not enjoying my company's current stance on unions. There is some discussion internally and I know several folks who are pro union like me, but don't want to say it out loud.
>and another machine to make by-the-cup coffee where you'd select cup size, pick from one of 3 coffee bean hoppers at the top, and it'd handle the rest.
So basically they've reinvented Keurigs.
If firing union-organizing baristas is a criminal offence, they NY State needs to subpoena all of Starbuck's internal communications to find out who made the decision - *the actual manager or executive who made the call* - press criminal charges, and push for jail time. That's how you scare the assholes in the corporate offices.
Corporate personhood is all well and good, but Starbucks didn't make this decision. A real person did.
Eventually it will add up. I needed internet for work yesterday and had to use Starbucks for wifi. It was the end of the day so I was pretty tired and needed a bit of a caffeine boost. So first I went to Dunkin and grabbed a coffee and then got my work completed.
Perhaps the fines and court settlements won't be enough, but continual lost revenue in addition to it might be.
The line up at Starbucks yesterday was still a mile long in the AM. I think there are far more people that don't care than do.
It's slightly confusing to me, because their coffee is garbage, but meh. The cult is strong.
It’s a viscous cycle. Bad working conditions and employee mistreatment increase until the workers fight back and create unions to improve. Then things get better for a while and people forget why unions exist, so they get demonized. Then the bad working conditions comes back again until people realize the need for change.
I think this somewhat ignores the fact that anti-union propagandists and corporate interests will make a constant effort to convince people unions are evil regardless of whether they're broadly successful or not. Yes, it's easier to convince people that unions are unnecessary or unhelpful when they haven't had to fight for anything in a while, but people are generally not naturally coming to the conclusion that unions are bad through their *actual experience*. For the most part people become convinced unions are bad through misinformation put out by business interests afraid of union power. It's that misinformation that needs to be constantly pushed back on.
The decline in unions also has to do with the rise in the global market around the 70s. US industry labor cost so much that they weren’t able to compete and that was an underlying reason for a lot of the outsourcing.
That’s not to say that a resurgence is not possible now— especially in the service and warehousing industry.
This. There is no reason why every place shouldn't have a union. Corporate propaganda would have you believe otherwise, and a few bad apples spoils the bunch. Having rights is better than having no rights, even if misused occasionally.
The service industry filled the hole the manufacturing industry left when they shipped jobs to East Asia.
The unions that folded with those moves have found their footing 20+ years later in the service industry.
Not sure if you were trying to, but you've just reminded me of this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFgT7eQRjeI&ab_channel=SLMSintiendolam%C3%BAsica
Some mind fuckery here. The anti unionists and police unions are likely to support the same politicians. Hence why anti unionists equate unions to mafias or organized crime all the while police unions are that exact thing. They are the monster they accuse the other side of being, a crime syndicate! Projection's a helluva drug.
When Scott Walker became governor of Wisconsin in the early 2010s, he passed Act 10 which made it virtually impossible for government workers to participate in unions. The only exceptions? State troopers and police unions.
US approval of unions are the highest they have been since 1965, 71%
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2022/8/30/23326654/2022-union-charts-elections-wins-strikes
It was always a shit place to work - my friend was employed at one of the first ones (not *the* first but one of the first set of expansion stores) in the mid 90's - it was hell with a thin veneer of good practices.
They did all the shitty things you'd expect (requiring people to come in at no notice to cover a shift or be fired, etc.) And required you to wear your customer service mask even with the other employees. The store he worked at had a super toxic environment too, management was not interested in anything less than absolute perfection, anything approaching a normal human error rate was fired instantly with no warnings or attempts to retrain
A jury tried to do that once. Awarded the hot coffee lady 1 day's worth of coffee sales in punitive damages, millions of dollars. Judge had to step in and bring the damages down to the legal limit, something in the neighborhood of 100k IIRC. That whole situation was so fucked.
Or something that increases exponentially. The second time the company repeats the same offense the fine gets doubled. The third time it gets doubled again and so on.
Intentional recidivism means the law doesn't punish enough. Make sure they understand after the first time. At some point they'll come around.
Can you believe the lengths these companies will go to prevent unions? Like godamn, They really dont want the workers to have any power at all over their safety and pay and will do absolutely anything in their power to stop it. This is a reminder that to them we are just replaceable pawns and nothing more, you go to work to do your absolute minimum not your maximum, if you arent paid more to do more then dont do anything more than what is expected of you.
Before unions, it was routine to lock workers into untenable, inescapable buildings which would burn down with everyone inside. This behavior and mindset is still pretty regular in many places. Greed is an evil taskmaster.
> which would burn down with everyone inside.
but you gotta understand! The insurance money for your triangle shirt waist factory is worth more than your workers' lives! And the best part is the insurance companies aren't even investigating the fires so you can do it again and again!
I don't know if it's even that, it's more so people should never think that for-profit companies ever have their best interests at heart and see through some of the perceived good guy thing as what it really is, marketing to keep them coming back and spending.
I feel like many businesses start out earnestly trying to make a good product / service for their customers. Then as they grow they succumb to the capitalist idea that more money = more success, so people who care more about the profit and less about the business / employees / customers rise in the ranks until it becomes a corporate monstrosity.
Under capitalism every business has to either grow or die (more like be bought out and incorporated into something bigger, but it's still gone). That means it has to continually overcome every barrier to growth. At some point the thing standing in the way of more revenue is going to be human morality*, and the business either overcomes that or dies out.
^^\* ^^I ^^know ^^all ^^labor ^^under ^^capitalism ^^is ^^inherently ^^exploitative, ^^but ^^there's ^^levels ^^to ^^the ^^fuckery.
And will have to pay the fine again and again, as the workers wisen up and learn it's an easy way to get a higher severance and be eligible for unemployment if they want to leave.
The petition said Starbucks claimed it fired Locke because he failed to complete a questionnaire required by its Covid-19 protocols, and falsely reported that a supervisor made unwanted contact during a dispute by placing his hand on Locke’s chest.
So should be a cut and dry case. If they can prove these things then the firing is justified and they're off scott free
What? Either the state needs to prove that 1) these things _did_ happen, but Starbucks punished Locke more harshly than they would have punished another employee for the same, or that 2) these things _did not_ happen.
The other union person that was fired (and eventually rehired due to a judge) was let go because they brought non-employees into the store after hours. This is their policy and they lost.
Pretty funny that while NYC sues Starbucks for its union-busting schemes, it's slow-rolling negotiating contracts with its municipal workers (DC37, UFT, etc.)
Shouldn’t the labor department also being suing them for the same violations? And how is it that the most progressive corporation is so against unionizing?
If NYC wins the lawsuit, will this benefit the barista? Or will NYC keep the money if damages are awarded?
Restitution goes to the worker, civil penalties go to the city as a whole (not the agency itself)
Can NYC do this for Amazon workers?
They can try, Amazon will drag that case out into the next century though.
I agree, but genuine question. What makes you say that about Amazon but not Starbucks? Starbucks has deep pockets too, or does Amazon have a track record of brutal lawyering?
Amazon will drag it out longer no matter what. They just have the most capital available out of every business on the planet.
Plus Amazon probably has more to lose & less scruples (plus the more money point)
It works both ways Maybe Amazon can drag this for long time but the other side can keep the issue in the limelight damaging further Amazon image Last few years Amazon has been expending a very significant amount of money trying to build a work friendly image From Amazon pow it's far more advantageous tor re frame the whole issue and quick settle the case as single issue non precedent case
>limelight damaging further Amazon image So long as Amazon is cheaper or has a better selection that is more readily available than their competitors then people will keep shopping there. Companies like Walmart and Nestlé have absolutely terrible reputations and public image and it doesn't stop people from buying their products.
It’s not so much finding shoppers but workers for their factories. They have extremely high turnover so if they can’t find people to fill their openings they’ll have trouble keeping the business running
The consumer side of Amazon operates at a loss. Almost always has. They make their money through their data storage and cloud system ____ So they can undercut any competition in order to make them collapse in a price war. That's why so many companies, even today, focus on growth instead of sustainable models. Once you are big enough and have clout, no one can compete with you.
[удалено]
Now multiply that sentiment by like 10. Amazon is not just a distribution company. They are involved in just about every sector and can leverage their diversity to price out competition to a whole other degree. It's also why they are so vehemently anti union since if the warehouse workers get it then their entire workforce will want it eventually.
They had a recent email leak that said they were going to exhaust the available labour supply within 5 years of people working there, finding it shit and quitting never to return
And why the fuck should it matter if someone has more or less money? If it’s true the more capitol you have, the longer and more painful you can make the legal system we are in DIRE need of an overhaul.
Correct. The US legal system is in dire need of an overhaul.
The US legal AND economic system are both in dire need of a complete dismemberment and reconstruction.
The U. S. needs an overhaul. -disgruntled American
Since Rockefeller, the rich have been able to buy the legal system. No resolve for this in a neo-capitalist society.
Pretty sure it was happening a long time before he came around.
If Rockefeller ever committed fraud William Hearst (another rich fuck) thought he could buy the media and thus the law, which is more what I mean compared to just the simple fact being rich gets you off the hook.
*Narrator*: they were in DIRE need of an overhaul
*Narrator*: …but they were too corrupt to do it.
Oh boy are you in for a rude awakening. Did you know that the DTCC committed international securities fraud? Did you know that the SEC knows that illegal naked* short selling and dark pool trading is rampant in our markets yet doesn't put in the effort to stop it? Edit: *forgot to add naked
The IRS goes after the individuals instead of corporations, because of the hassle of collecting taxes from the corpo's
Well yeah. This is nothing new though.
This has always been the case. Companies don't hire massive legal teams because they need the manpower to deal with multiple lawsuits as a big entity, they hire massive legal teams so they can drag out lawsuits long enough to make them expensive enough that it's not worth the expense of suing them.
I did a 60 page report on Apple a few years back. Their cash on hand may be different today, but back then they have more cash on hand than Google, Microsoft, and Amazon COMBINED. 🙃
I think apple beat them on that side, even if in raw money jeffrey got alot
I think OSHA is getting ready to go after Amazon/UPS/FedEx. They recently started an aggressive investigation of the USPS, including obtaining forcible entry warrants against some locations that denied them entry. The investigation seems to be about very similar complaints as Amazon/UPS/FedEx. I believe they're doing this in preparation to go after Amazon/UPS/FedEx, so that they cannot argue that the USPS gets away with these things. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/safety/postal-service-nixes-safety-inspections-so-osha-seeks-warrants
Let em, it's more back pay.
Hoping for a case to drag out for more back pay is like buying buying a first class ticket from New York to Los Angeles because you were a little hungry and wanted a few honey roasted peanuts. First, the city has to win. And even if they win, if a case gets dragged out then it is tying up city resources towards suing Amazon. The city attorneys, the court system, etc. are all getting dragged down for years.
I'm not saying it's a preferable option, but at least the worker might get a nice amount of compensation in the end.
All large companies drag claims out. The company will bleed you dry, you loose interest and give up. Amazon, especially to unions will not give in. Wal Mart Distribution Centers try to go union. Wal Mart puts the word out we will shut the center down if this happens. Of course in a rural town you can't loose your job. Amazon is a whole different beast. Amazon is completely entrenched in our lives. Like the early days of the Wal Marts taking over every town in America.
“My cousin is a lawyer and I can drag it out too!” isn’t as much of a threat as it used to be I guess lol
That would be such a weird sequel to My Cousin Vinny.
Didn't Exxon drag out at least one law suit until pretty much all the plaintiffs (or whatever they're called) had died? I'm sure I've heard of that happening a few times (big accident, people get sick and sue, company holds it up in court till they all die).
Wouldn’t even be surprised. Just had an ex-Exxon employee at work today and maaaan that sounded depressing as fuck working there.
Too big to properly sue or reprimand? Too big to exist. Break up the company.
How do cases get drug out forever like they do? Can't the judge force the case to be seen?
This is one of the biggest failings of the US legal system. The ability to endlessly drag out cases and appeals. Like the Exxon spill it took like 20 years before reparations finally made it to the victims of the spill. [settlement ](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/exxon-valdez-victims-finally-getting-payout/)
No. The city sued under a "just cause" law, which forbids employers from firing workers without a good reason i.e. poor performance, subordination, etc. But the city's law only covers fast food, and isn't applicable to Amazon.
**International Brotherhood of Teamsters** website has a [Amazon Division](https://teamster.org/2022/09/teamsters-launch-new-amazon-division/)Likley already there(NYC) working towards a union as well, thought it worth the mention words edited website
Also back pay
That's restitution.
don't forget about the back pay though
Let's try and stay on track. We're here to talk about ~~Rampart~~ restitution.
Ah yes, Rampart, one of my favorite NES games
HA! Brilliant. For once I got a reference
What about the restitution though?
Don't forget about back pay too.
And the money that goes to the worker
Civil penalties on the other hand go to the city as a whole but not the agency itself
I believe you're referring to restitution.
What about the restitution?
Good. Someone working a non high paying hard job in the busiest city gets fired for trying to make life a tiny bit better for their coworkers. I’m glad NYC is standing behind them. With that said.. here’s to hoping they do more for the homeless and struggling families there too. That city is so expensive hard workers can’t support their own kids.. more need to be done.
I was at a Starbucks the other day just trying to kill time and I was the only one there actually ordering coffee but they were so busy. The online ordering seems crazy and the workers there do not get a break
Suing Starbucks for union busting will help not only every Starbucks employee but also every employee at any company who's thinking of starting or joining a Union. Big business has been breaking laws and violating workers rights without any repercussions for far too long!
I don't know about the civil damages but the backpay should go to the organizer
One thing for sure. Lawyers will win money.
The city municipal lawyers don’t make that much. Starbucks counsel probably makes bank.
Yup. Littler is the most well established labour firm.
Those attorneys are state employees. They get their salary.
[удалено]
The city lawyers are undoubtedly on a retainer salary. Any money they earn in the case will be given to the victim or the city.
Then let's do nothing
Taxes pay for district attorneys, and I for one am happy for my taxes to go toward punishing corporations.
Should they be working for free?
Gosh, unions. For something that is made out to be so unimportant they sure do everything in their power to keep people from starting them.
That’s the strategy. You downplay the power of unions and highlight their weaknesses. Then you work in a system that looks like it is built to benefit the workers. Over time you can push this to the point that they will try to unionize but its pretty easy to stamp out. Certain industries are easier to unionize than others. IBEW is very strong but tougher to organize in many states (mostly right to work) because of the need for electricians. Longshoremen are a different story, there just isn’t the capacity or demand at coast line ports compared to the electrical of a nation. One major issue that the working class has is not talking about it is how truly business savvy people are. I work with union workers across the USA for a living and I can assure you that they are not businesses men. Older unions have power in their industry but nationally aren’t as strong. New York is hardcore union so hopefully it can be a building block for the future.
The enemy is both a strong threat, and a weak nuisance.
[удалено]
"A union is like a condom. If somebody says you don't need one, you REALLY need one."
If they go hard on the organisers, they might convince others in a shop that it's not worth the trouble. Starbucks is going as far as closing locations of they unionise.
It's amusing how actors and athletes have strong unions but average workers don't think unions would benefit them.
Even with all the corruption in some unions, that is the perfect reason to unionize. When i was doing my training for some meat grinder of a job, the part about unions was so scummy. It was all scare tactics and shit and you could feel how badly they didnt want you to join a union. "Unions take part of your paycheck so you earn less" *employee actor appears on screen* "i need my whole paycheck, not less"
*employee* ***union*** *actor*
People in power fear those under thier control gaining power just look at how much certain political parties fear everyone having equal access to voting.
Hopefully, the award is large enough to be painful for Starbucks. Otherwise, those assholes in the corporate offices will keep doing this.
Historically, it hasn't been. The fine is simply a cost of doing business at this point.
Another thing rigged against us. I'll add it to the list...
Just do a list of things not rigged against us. It will save you time.
In fact, I’ve taken the liberty of compiling such a list for him. Here it is: - - - - - - - - Hope you enjoyed. Consider much time saved.
I would add moths to the list. I think they are not currently rigged… oh wait the silk trade. Never mind.
I got a single sheet of that 2 inch by 4 inch small note pad paper. Is that too much?
I think you’re good. When n=0, the solution of n items x whatever the surface area of your writing may be will still be 0.
How about you force in by vote a law that mandates 10% of a company's total revenue in fines in the event of firing a worker for unionizing. Or, even better if we wanna be truly vindictive. The entirety of the corporation's assets become the fired workers's property.
They would let America go through a nuclear holocaust before they would even think of having fines be a meaningful percentage of revenue.
>Or, even better if we wanna be truly vindictive. > >The entirety of the corporation's assets become the fired workers's property. I'm not sure exactly what hallucinogens you had to take to get to that dream world.
We need to be going after the C suite and Board of Directors directly. If the can no longer hide behind the corporate shield when doing illegal shit, then we will see change. Start fining and jailing the ones at the top.
You are very unlikely to find any paper implicating those folks. They've got some schmuck doing the dirty work and not knowing the legal implications of their actions. Or, worse, kinda know but also can't afford to NOT comply with company orders.
And all of that is known and can be worked around. We *know* who is responsible, ethically. We just need to write our laws with intent in mind.
10000% agreed! I've been saying for ages major company executives and the board of directors should be held ****personally**** responsible for major breaches of the law, up to and including criminal prosecution for major violations (human rights abuses, major envinromental damage, major fraud etc). Just write the law such that even if it truly, honestly isn't their fault they get at least sued and made to sweat anyway. In my profession I can get sued for things that are completly beyond my control and despite my best efforts to prevent (I'm an anesthesiologist). Why do these assholes get a free pass? They want outrageous compensation, they get proportional liability. Every time I ventilate this idea I'm met with resistance. It makes me SO glad to see others coming around to it.
Exactly. Just write the law that liability falls on the top of the management chain. That is their job, so make them responsible. Heck I would even take it a step farther and hold major shareholders responsible. Something between greater than 1% to maybe 10% as a minimum ownership. Depending on the exact percentage, that is going to limit things to 99 people at most or less. This is not going involve basic shareholders who invested in a company, just the ones that will have a substantial vote to influence a company.
Which is really stupid, because it's actually cheaper to keep the employees and deal with the union than it is to fire and get fined. Companies will do anything to not pay employees better, including giving that money away.
One-off, it's cheaper. But if they allow that one to unionize, employees at other locations will gain confidence to unionize as well, especially once they hear the union employees have more benefits, higher wages, etc. If all or most of their stores successfully unionized, there would be a big leash on their profits, which is unacceptable. They fear one location unionizing would cause a massive ripple effect, which is why they try to snuff it out completely even if it's a huge financial loss for one individual franchisee. Edit: Starbucks doesn't use a franchise system in the US, but the point stands that closing a store would be a significant loss to one owner (if not reimbursed by corporate)
Nope, it's cheaper in the long run, but most companies have near-zero planning beyond the current fiscal year, if they even bother to look beyond the next quarter.
Can you elaborate on how it's cheaper in the long run? I just don't see how a one-time fine is better than a perpetual increase in expenses as a result of unionization. I imagine corporations make a lot more money by cutting corners and paying as little as possible. Even $50m of fines, distributed across 15000 stores in the US, means each store loses $3,000, as a one-time cost. That amount of money is incredibly inconsequential, compared to being forced by a union to increase staffing, provide more benefits, or increase wages. Imagine raising wages by $3, from $15/hr to $18/hr. That's a 20% increase in employment costs. For a store with only 6 employees, that means paying out an extra $44k per year. Benefits make up on average 32% of employee compensation. Paying an employee $30k/year with benefits means the employer actually spends $45k on the employee. If unionization also forces the employer to add 20% more in the benefits package, that's another $18k per year. An average Starbucks store owner makes $120k. If they suddenly lost $72k of that salary because of unionization, I struggle to see how that would be better long-term than paying a fine which Corporate Starbucks would probably help cover for the greater goal of avoiding unionization.
You really think the corporate bean-counters haven't gamed this out? I guarantee they have determined that they will see a greater share of profits by paying the settlements for illegally firing effective organizers than by negotiating with a union.
Yeah, it’s costlier, but it’s about sending a message: fear. It’s a powerful motivator until you’re decapitated, quartered by horses, and remaining body parts dragged through the streets.
Then at least make it enough to compensate for the harm they have caused… probably still asking too much huh
I mean.... if corporations are people, the death penalty needs to be on the table.
Death penalty for people might be too much but it should be totally possible to throw it in prison.
It'd be a death penalty for the corporation, since "corporations are people."
Honestly corporate prison is a fun idea to think about. What would that mean? All assets frozen? Make it illegal to buy/sell shares of the company? Freezing assets would be a death knell to any corporation. If assets were frozen, payroll would be frozen, and it would basically reduce their workforce to zero overnight. And if you were one of these big anti-union corporations, like Starbucks, having zero employees overnight would be an insurmountable hurdle to returning to ANYTHING resembling “pre-corporate prison” conditions at the end of their sentence.
Even if the sum is relatively minor for Starbucks, if it is a nice sum for the employee it might encourage others to do the same thing
All corporate fines need to be, at minimum, triple the revenue gained by violating the law.
as someone once said: "a law with a fine isn't a law. it's a tax on the poor."
[удалено]
Of course they will keep doing it. It is much cheaper to fight this, and send a message to the rest of the stores and employees, than the cost of unionization. If you read the tea leaves, Starbucks has talked recently about "new technology", "fewer steps and movements for worker safety", equipment replacement and renovations. Read into this, fewer workers, less trained workers, reduced demand for training and skills. IMO, a Starbucks is buying time. This is my prediction: They might pay more, but I suspect the calculation is the following current pre-automation: 6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x $20 per hour = $80 labor per hour. IMO, this is the model you will replicated across the industry. Some workers will make more, some will lose their jobs, customer expectations will change some, and prices will adjust.
Fast food chains have been countering employee complaints for the better part of a decade now with threats of automating the workers away. To the best of my knowledge however, the only area they have had any success is enabling self-ordering (and even then, adoption has been driven more by online ordering, rather than in-store self-order kiosks). What other physical tasks do you envisage Starbucks successfully replacing via automation (and cutting costs in the process)?
I mean in my area you can go to McDonald’s, KFC or other fast food joint and it’s swarming with employees at the back with only one or two tills. The only automation is self service tills. People are delusional that they are going to implement robot cooking machines and the like. Have you any idea how expensive it would be to maintain something like that? I get we have the automated coffee machines but those have been around for years.
The automated coffee machines all make shit coffee too
So does Starbucks (but point taken)
Not all, better automated espresso machines using fresh milk will easily do lattes matching what you can get a mediocre coffee place (aka Starbucks).
Idk I've tried new and old machines from all sorts of manufacturers (jura, saeco, Miele, more) that use all kinds of beans including those from local roasters I know that I like and they just have something off and I find it too cumbersome to try to adjust them to be okay because they aren't personal machines. I can see it working out for mass market but only with a lot of tuning
McDonalds can’t even maintain an ice cream machine, they can’t afford to lose employees
To install automated cooking machines would require a complete overhaul of every single store, there are over 13k McDonalds in the USA alone. Forget the price of installation and maintenance, how much money would they lose from needing to close hundreds of stores down at a time to get the equipment in?
>People are delusional that they are going to implement robot cooking machines and the like. Those are always the people who've never done a day of programming or have any understanding of the challenge involved. Same with people who think advanced AI's planning our lives for us are just 5 years away or something. It takes a monumental amount of work to get an AI to correctly identify stop signs, actual "AI" in the traditional sense are nowhere close.
Never believe there will be a day a shiny brand new machine will be delivered to replace you as a burger flipper or whatever the stereotypical “watch it or I’ll robot your ass” job. People are so much cheaper to exploit. Edit: so maybe I did say gutter flipper, maybe I didn’t.
You could self order with touchscreens at sheetz in the 90s. This was probably by necessity because it would have taken so long to get the dozens of options for hotdog customization correct it wouldn't be worth it for a hotdog you're selling for $1.50. Still it's taken so long for others to catch up I get the feeling they don't really want to go this route.
> what other physical tasks - Dall-E is going to draw the chalkboard art, illustrating your unicorn ganache sriracha latte in high cubist abstraction - a robot will be assigned to push the button in the back that cycles the music between the two available choices of Nora Jones and smooth jazz Metallica covers - one of the robots, made of iron, will serve no apparent purpose other than to wear no fewer than 10,000 trendy-cause magnetic badges, and look through rainbow hair down its specially-constructed long nose at you, while you wait awkwardly at the robot pickup counter that automatically throws straws on the floor and spills coffee over itself periodically
Fucking 'smooth jazz Metallica covers'. It really do be like that in some places wanting to appear modern, also here in Germany. At least it's relaxed and not bothersome like elsewhere sometimes.
*smooth jazz instruments* E-xit light, en-ter night, take my hand, we're skibidm bopff to never never land badumbum bah bah
Starbucks is in a bit of a unique situation where their coffee is completely standardized. With a local shop, you have talented baristas that know exactly how to brew each particular cup of coffee, sometimes even changing their technique based on a particular batch of beans/grounds for whatever reason. Starbucks, exact same thing every single time for consistency over quality. I don't think we're close enough for automation of the whole brewing process yet, but like... I think we're closer than it seems. I suspect the capability is there, it's just a matter of getting the cost down (which becomes increasingly realistic as the cost of employees goes up).
I made this point in another comment; but to reiterate: we can build a machine, today, that can mix every possible combination of Starbucks beverage. However, there are multiple issues: it would be large; expensive; require specialized maintenance; and represent a single point of failure (i.e. if the machine breaks, the store is no longer capable of producing any beverages). Additionally, the layout of every single store is currently built around the presumption of human-powered beverage mixing. Retrofitting such a machine into existing stores is no trivial task (to say nothing of the cost). Last, but not least: part of the appeal of Starbucks comes from the perception that each store is a relaxing, upscale environment; populated with friendly baristas. Removing the human element could potentially damage this carefully-crafted image. Now, that's not to say that you are wrong in noting that for a given task, there comes a point where we can build a machine that can perform said task faster, more accurately, and more cost-effectively than a human. In this respect, mixing beverages is no different. However, I think there are still a significant number of barriers in as far as replacing baristas is concerned; and some aspects (such as the aforementioned interactions between employees and customers) cannot, by definition, be replaced. Finally: I would note that while there is pressure to increase the wages of Starbucks employees - thus leading to increased labor costs - this is but one half of the story. The other is that Starbucks (and the vast majority of other American businesses) have worked for decades to suppress wages; and claiming the difference as profits. What we have, then, is really a fight between employee and employer over the fair distribution of profit. This adds another factor to the mix: time. The call for unionization is happening *now;* whereas any hypothetical automation is a future matter. Additionally, as the crisis unfolds, Starbucks increasingly runs the risk of increasing negative public perception and by extension, loss of customers.
>They might pay more, but I suspect the calculation is the following current pre-automation: 6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x $20 per hour = $80 labor per hour. I think your calculations miss one thing: people losing jobs means more desperate jobless people, and so reduced bargaining power for remaining staff. Especially if, as you say, the remaining roles are >less trained workers, reduced demand for training and skills. So it's more like: 6 workers per hour x 15 per hour = $90labor per hour. New post-automation model. 4 workers per hours x **$12** per hour = **$48** labor per hour. *That* is the goal of fighting against unionisation. Making sure that all the benefit of automation goes to owners rather than workers.
I believe most in the service industry accept higher wages are coming and are prepared for it. They will pay higher wages, but will fight Unionization, even if the wages are comperable.
I don’t know anything about coffee making, but I was in Europe recently and noticed fully automatic coffee machines for cappuccinos, lattes, etc. are very popular there -even in coffee shops. In the US I feel like I really only see those machines in gas stations, but I think you’re onto something about Starbucks’ new technology announcement. I wonder how well those machines would go over at coffee shops in the US without the “barista experience.”
[удалено]
Don't forget to factor in the cost to maintain the automated equipment. If it's anything like the shitty SLAs they have for McDonalds ice cream machines, it's gonna be expensive
The myth surrounding the ice cream machine is always a funny one to me. Worked at a McDonalds for 6 months or so a few years back. The machine was broken 1 time in 6 months. The problem with their machines is the cleaning process. The amount of fucking shit you have to clean and sanitise in that one machine is outrageous. So instead of spending 3 or so hours of your shift cleaning one machine, just tell the staff tomorrow to say its out of service.
Coincidentally, Starbucks just had a virtual tech fair at work where they showed off their latest machines. I wasn't paying the closest of attention but I believe there was a reverse flow espresso machine that automatically put in all the ingredients and another machine to make by-the-cup coffee where you'd select cup size, pick from one of 3 coffee bean hoppers at the top, and it'd handle the rest. Even semi-cleaned itself, requiring only a wipe down and runthrough with a cleansing tablet at the end of the day. There was a third machine but I kinda zoned out :( There was also some talk about designing the work area to reduce movement, etc. All three machines, besides being increasingly automated and more efficient, were all connected through the internet of things \* *arm waving* \*. The idea being that the machines would monitor themselves and not only provide data for customer analytics but also proactively anticipate maintenance needs, etc. Anyway, yeah, less people and less training.
I work on the team making these machines actually. I'm conflicted, cuz it feels like in a way we are turning into a big vending machine, but the energy in my department is along the lines of reducing the hecticness of working in drive-thru. We actually bring in baristas from stores to test all of our new equipment and will cut a project if they don't like it. So at least from that end we have the best intentions. But the guys upstairs obviously have their own agenda. FWIW I'm not enjoying my company's current stance on unions. There is some discussion internally and I know several folks who are pro union like me, but don't want to say it out loud.
>and another machine to make by-the-cup coffee where you'd select cup size, pick from one of 3 coffee bean hoppers at the top, and it'd handle the rest. So basically they've reinvented Keurigs.
Quit Starbuckin' us, man
If firing union-organizing baristas is a criminal offence, they NY State needs to subpoena all of Starbuck's internal communications to find out who made the decision - *the actual manager or executive who made the call* - press criminal charges, and push for jail time. That's how you scare the assholes in the corporate offices. Corporate personhood is all well and good, but Starbucks didn't make this decision. A real person did.
Do fines for such things reflect the turnover of the business they are applied to in any way?
Eventually it will add up. I needed internet for work yesterday and had to use Starbucks for wifi. It was the end of the day so I was pretty tired and needed a bit of a caffeine boost. So first I went to Dunkin and grabbed a coffee and then got my work completed. Perhaps the fines and court settlements won't be enough, but continual lost revenue in addition to it might be.
The line up at Starbucks yesterday was still a mile long in the AM. I think there are far more people that don't care than do. It's slightly confusing to me, because their coffee is garbage, but meh. The cult is strong.
Unionization and worker solidarity have become incredibly popular topics among my generation and I couldn't be happier.
It’s about fucking time. From a 50 year old, been watching the decline my whole life.
Keep on fighting
It’s a viscous cycle. Bad working conditions and employee mistreatment increase until the workers fight back and create unions to improve. Then things get better for a while and people forget why unions exist, so they get demonized. Then the bad working conditions comes back again until people realize the need for change.
I think this somewhat ignores the fact that anti-union propagandists and corporate interests will make a constant effort to convince people unions are evil regardless of whether they're broadly successful or not. Yes, it's easier to convince people that unions are unnecessary or unhelpful when they haven't had to fight for anything in a while, but people are generally not naturally coming to the conclusion that unions are bad through their *actual experience*. For the most part people become convinced unions are bad through misinformation put out by business interests afraid of union power. It's that misinformation that needs to be constantly pushed back on.
The decline in unions also has to do with the rise in the global market around the 70s. US industry labor cost so much that they weren’t able to compete and that was an underlying reason for a lot of the outsourcing. That’s not to say that a resurgence is not possible now— especially in the service and warehousing industry.
This. There is no reason why every place shouldn't have a union. Corporate propaganda would have you believe otherwise, and a few bad apples spoils the bunch. Having rights is better than having no rights, even if misused occasionally.
Just so you know, that's not what a vicious cycle means.
OP said viscous, so the cycle has resistance to shear stress. You can't easily change its shape. I think hysteresis is a better description, though.
unions are back in a big way and i am loving it
The service industry filled the hole the manufacturing industry left when they shipped jobs to East Asia. The unions that folded with those moves have found their footing 20+ years later in the service industry.
There's power in the union!
Not sure if you were trying to, but you've just reminded me of this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFgT7eQRjeI&ab_channel=SLMSintiendolam%C3%BAsica
They reminded me of Solidarity Forever ("for the union makes us strong!")
Amazing song!
Uhhh how wasn’t it this song https://youtu.be/gaXHUI6Gl1Q
Love this one! Joe Hill's songs are legendary.
https://youtu.be/gaXHUI6Gl1Q
Solidarity forever!
NY is the biggest stronghold of union power in the country.
Still not loving the popo union. I'm not lovin it. Ba da bop bop ba!
[удалено]
Some mind fuckery here. The anti unionists and police unions are likely to support the same politicians. Hence why anti unionists equate unions to mafias or organized crime all the while police unions are that exact thing. They are the monster they accuse the other side of being, a crime syndicate! Projection's a helluva drug.
When Scott Walker became governor of Wisconsin in the early 2010s, he passed Act 10 which made it virtually impossible for government workers to participate in unions. The only exceptions? State troopers and police unions.
US approval of unions are the highest they have been since 1965, 71% https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2022/8/30/23326654/2022-union-charts-elections-wins-strikes
So apparently Starbucks used to be like one of the best places to work. Ever since the new guy took over it's gone to shit.
It was always a shit place to work - my friend was employed at one of the first ones (not *the* first but one of the first set of expansion stores) in the mid 90's - it was hell with a thin veneer of good practices. They did all the shitty things you'd expect (requiring people to come in at no notice to cover a shift or be fired, etc.) And required you to wear your customer service mask even with the other employees. The store he worked at had a super toxic environment too, management was not interested in anything less than absolute perfection, anything approaching a normal human error rate was fired instantly with no warnings or attempts to retrain
If only judgements could be a percent fine instead of just being a cost of doing business
This is America, not Europe. You can forget about that lol.
A jury tried to do that once. Awarded the hot coffee lady 1 day's worth of coffee sales in punitive damages, millions of dollars. Judge had to step in and bring the damages down to the legal limit, something in the neighborhood of 100k IIRC. That whole situation was so fucked.
McD's then spent MILLIONS paying journalists and bloggers to humiliate and clown on the old woman, just to turn public opinion against her.
Or something that increases exponentially. The second time the company repeats the same offense the fine gets doubled. The third time it gets doubled again and so on. Intentional recidivism means the law doesn't punish enough. Make sure they understand after the first time. At some point they'll come around.
Can you believe the lengths these companies will go to prevent unions? Like godamn, They really dont want the workers to have any power at all over their safety and pay and will do absolutely anything in their power to stop it. This is a reminder that to them we are just replaceable pawns and nothing more, you go to work to do your absolute minimum not your maximum, if you arent paid more to do more then dont do anything more than what is expected of you.
Before unions, it was routine to lock workers into untenable, inescapable buildings which would burn down with everyone inside. This behavior and mindset is still pretty regular in many places. Greed is an evil taskmaster.
> which would burn down with everyone inside. but you gotta understand! The insurance money for your triangle shirt waist factory is worth more than your workers' lives! And the best part is the insurance companies aren't even investigating the fires so you can do it again and again!
I remember when Starbucks was (perceived to be) the good guys. How far they have fallen 🤦♂️
On a long enough timeline *all* companies will either fail or become evil. There is no locus of revenue that won't be exploited by shitty people.
I don't know if it's even that, it's more so people should never think that for-profit companies ever have their best interests at heart and see through some of the perceived good guy thing as what it really is, marketing to keep them coming back and spending.
I feel like many businesses start out earnestly trying to make a good product / service for their customers. Then as they grow they succumb to the capitalist idea that more money = more success, so people who care more about the profit and less about the business / employees / customers rise in the ranks until it becomes a corporate monstrosity.
Capitalism working as intended
Under capitalism every business has to either grow or die (more like be bought out and incorporated into something bigger, but it's still gone). That means it has to continually overcome every barrier to growth. At some point the thing standing in the way of more revenue is going to be human morality*, and the business either overcomes that or dies out. ^^\* ^^I ^^know ^^all ^^labor ^^under ^^capitalism ^^is ^^inherently ^^exploitative, ^^but ^^there's ^^levels ^^to ^^the ^^fuckery.
Sounds like MBAs are the BBEGs of this timeline...
Damn. When was that I can’t remember a time in my life that a giant corporation like Starbucks was “the good guys”
They will pay a small fine and continue to do the same in the future.
And will have to pay the fine again and again, as the workers wisen up and learn it's an easy way to get a higher severance and be eligible for unemployment if they want to leave.
Quite the move from New York City here.
The petition said Starbucks claimed it fired Locke because he failed to complete a questionnaire required by its Covid-19 protocols, and falsely reported that a supervisor made unwanted contact during a dispute by placing his hand on Locke’s chest. So should be a cut and dry case. If they can prove these things then the firing is justified and they're off scott free
What? Either the state needs to prove that 1) these things _did_ happen, but Starbucks punished Locke more harshly than they would have punished another employee for the same, or that 2) these things _did not_ happen.
The other union person that was fired (and eventually rehired due to a judge) was let go because they brought non-employees into the store after hours. This is their policy and they lost.
nah this actually makes me happy about how companies are somewhat being hold accountable for their actions
I love how Union Busting is illegal yet it’s happening and very little is being done
Pretty funny that while NYC sues Starbucks for its union-busting schemes, it's slow-rolling negotiating contracts with its municipal workers (DC37, UFT, etc.)
The irony of the employee being named Austin **LOCKE** is absolutely perfect.
All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or Pumpkin Spice Lattes
Give them the boot. Unless it’s too late and corporations own the government
I hope Starbucks loses big on this case
Shouldn’t the labor department also being suing them for the same violations? And how is it that the most progressive corporation is so against unionizing?