4 ms·

What is so difficult about quitting and finding work elsewhere? Genuine question.

dfxm12 4y ago
Off the top of my head, first, quitting a job means losing benefits that are tied to employment. Second, Starbucks is not unique with these issues. Third, the fed is raising rates, in part to try and slow down hiring. Also, please understand, finding another job means someone else walks into that same bad situation. Some people are OK with that, others see the bad situation and want to take an active role in fixing it. Organizing labor is fighting for a cause larger than yourself. Unions have earned us 40 hour work weeks, an end to child labor and other safety regulations. It's not about finding work for yourself, it's about making work better for all your colleagues.
- jshzglr 4y ago
  Right but you would only quit assuming those benefits don't outweigh the duties of the job. I think quitting can also have the effect of making work better for your colleagues. Starbucks will either have to be continually training new hires(however minimal that might be) or deal with less than ideal employees. That is until they improve benefits to remedy their situation. Which they will assuming it hits their bottom line.
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  > It's not about finding work for yourself, it's about making work better for all your colleagues. This one is an interesting point that I have a couple of (unanswerable) questions about. She cared enough to want improvement, did she ask for some of the things she mentioned as perks of unionizing (like the music change)? She mentions that she was in the process (?) of a raise when she was fired, so presumably they saw some value in her (or just wanted to push her out of unionizing). I wonder what sort of options were available for a single store in a large, franchised company. For some of the "location issues," what sort of things would she have wanted the company to provide? What benefits with unionizing would help with (e.g.) the OD issue? It seems like this store was going to be a non-ideal location with or without a union, perhaps seeking out some sort of "hazard pay" arrangement would have made it worthwhile for the employees. My real question, I guess, is whether this was something that could have been worked out, as a group, with the employer, rather than unionizing. A company will in almost all cases be hostile towards a move toward unionization, but I wonder if there could have been, or was, any negotiation that would have been satisfactory for both parties.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > My real question, I guess, is whether this was something that could have been worked out, as a group, with the employer, rather than unionizing. This is exactly what a union is. Employees negotiating with their employers as a group rather than individually.
    - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
      In an ideal sense, yes. Unions as we know them (including in this case[0]) tend to operate as separate entity / business. There are the employees, the employer, and the union. The three often have little or no overlap, so it just becomes another layer of communication / cost of business. They will likely be able to negotiate the things the employees wanted, but it comes at a non-zero cost to both sides. By contrast, if the organizing group had gone directly to the store management, what would the outcome have been? It's entirely possible it would have worked out the same, and it's possible they did that first - it's not mentioned in the article if their concerns were first voiced to management, or if they went straight to unionizing. [0] https://sbworkersunited.org/ https://sbworkersunited.org/
  - jjj123 4y ago
    To some people (myself included), forming a union contract is an improvement in itself, even without any immediate changes. If conditions are already good for workers, unions can help keep them good.
    - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
      Could you expand on why you feel this is the case? If conditions are "good," in my opinion, adding a union would likely add tension between employer / employee and add costs to both sides. I guess if nothing immediately changed, it would likely only add cost to the employees in the form of union dues, I'm not sure if a company typically pays for the pleasure of having a union.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Not always possible. Unions have a great history of improving employee safety and pay. Why shouldn't people try to form unions? Not everything has to be for the benefit of the bottom line of a business. Business owners live in a society and enjoy its benefits as well. A healthy middle class is a good thing, although I'm sure there are certain economic theories that don't favor the wellbeing of the many over the profit hoarding of the elite. I am a moderate capitalist. I don't believe in capitalism at any cost like a lot of HN participants I suppose.

Off the top of my head, first, quitting a job means losing benefits that are tied to employment. Second, Starbucks is not unique with these issues. Third, the fed is raising rates, in part to try and slow down hiring. Also, please understand, finding another job means someone else walks into that same bad situation. Some people are OK with that, others see the bad situation and want to take an active role in fixing it. Organizing labor is fighting for a cause larger than yourself. Unions have earned us 40 hour work weeks, an end to child labor and other safety regulations. It's not about finding work for yourself, it's about making work better for all your colleagues.

jshzglr 4y ago
Right but you would only quit assuming those benefits don't outweigh the duties of the job. I think quitting can also have the effect of making work better for your colleagues. Starbucks will either have to be continually training new hires(however minimal that might be) or deal with less than ideal employees. That is until they improve benefits to remedy their situation. Which they will assuming it hits their bottom line.
shortstuffsushi 4y ago
> It's not about finding work for yourself, it's about making work better for all your colleagues. This one is an interesting point that I have a couple of (unanswerable) questions about. She cared enough to want improvement, did she ask for some of the things she mentioned as perks of unionizing (like the music change)? She mentions that she was in the process (?) of a raise when she was fired, so presumably they saw some value in her (or just wanted to push her out of unionizing). I wonder what sort of options were available for a single store in a large, franchised company. For some of the "location issues," what sort of things would she have wanted the company to provide? What benefits with unionizing would help with (e.g.) the OD issue? It seems like this store was going to be a non-ideal location with or without a union, perhaps seeking out some sort of "hazard pay" arrangement would have made it worthwhile for the employees. My real question, I guess, is whether this was something that could have been worked out, as a group, with the employer, rather than unionizing. A company will in almost all cases be hostile towards a move toward unionization, but I wonder if there could have been, or was, any negotiation that would have been satisfactory for both parties.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > My real question, I guess, is whether this was something that could have been worked out, as a group, with the employer, rather than unionizing. This is exactly what a union is. Employees negotiating with their employers as a group rather than individually.
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    In an ideal sense, yes. Unions as we know them (including in this case[0]) tend to operate as separate entity / business. There are the employees, the employer, and the union. The three often have little or no overlap, so it just becomes another layer of communication / cost of business. They will likely be able to negotiate the things the employees wanted, but it comes at a non-zero cost to both sides. By contrast, if the organizing group had gone directly to the store management, what would the outcome have been? It's entirely possible it would have worked out the same, and it's possible they did that first - it's not mentioned in the article if their concerns were first voiced to management, or if they went straight to unionizing. [0] https://sbworkersunited.org/ https://sbworkersunited.org/
- jjj123 4y ago
  To some people (myself included), forming a union contract is an improvement in itself, even without any immediate changes. If conditions are already good for workers, unions can help keep them good.
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    Could you expand on why you feel this is the case? If conditions are "good," in my opinion, adding a union would likely add tension between employer / employee and add costs to both sides. I guess if nothing immediately changed, it would likely only add cost to the employees in the form of union dues, I'm not sure if a company typically pays for the pleasure of having a union.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Not always possible. Unions have a great history of improving employee safety and pay. Why shouldn't people try to form unions? Not everything has to be for the benefit of the bottom line of a business. Business owners live in a society and enjoy its benefits as well. A healthy middle class is a good thing, although I'm sure there are certain economic theories that don't favor the wellbeing of the many over the profit hoarding of the elite. I am a moderate capitalist. I don't believe in capitalism at any cost like a lot of HN participants I suppose.