6 ms·

Now do the same for the constructive dismissals of Starbucks union organizers.

by kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

throwntoday 4y ago
- wmeredith 4y ago
  It's probably quite large, as it would include those who support the rule of law.
- jrockway 4y ago
  Firing people for organizing a union is explicitly encoded in law as being illegal. Refusing to publish people's content on your website is covered by no such law; instead, there are laws to the contrary.
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    If it's illegal how do corporations get away with it? Genuine question.
    - NikolaNovak 4y ago
      People and companies get away with illegal stuff until / unless caught, prosecuted and punished. You indicate its a genuine question, but I feel you'd have to have just landed on this planet for that to be the case. In kindergarten there are rules, and not everybody who doesn't follow them gets caught. Or if you have siblings, surely you've noticed they would sometimes get away with stuff - unfairly and agonizingly so. And onward it goes with life.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        This is poetic, well put.
      - throwntoday 4y ago
        I don't get the hostility. It was a genuine question because my assumption is any sufficiently large corporation is aware of the legal implications, and are a bigger target for litigation. I know that corporations break laws, there's no need to be flippant.
        NikolaNovak 4y ago
        It was not hostile; but, both questions still seem either disingenuous, or naive (noting that your original question as stated was "how do they get away with it", not "how come some corporations break the law"). As I think Patio11 recently said on another topic - unless you can name a person or role, we should challenge our internal assumptions that "somebody somewhere is keeping track | investigating | doing something about it". There is SO much going on in the world. And unfortunately, a lot of people / companies try to get away with a lot of stuff all the time. So an unbelievable amount slips through. Some of it gets noticed eventually. I'm increasingly saddened by my awareness of how much (vast majority) does not. Maybe I'm too cynical without knowing it, but based on cursory reading of virtually any news, companies (and/or their leadership, depending on one's framework) do frequently engage in questionable or clearly illegal behaviour, based on their values, needs, priorities, and assessment of risk vs reward.
    - a4isms 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      Same way I was able to jaywalk yesterday - lack of enforcement.
- klyrs 4y ago
  What you perceive as a contradiction is non-absolutism with regards to the freedom of association. In the collision of two rights, balance is found in nuanced consideration of the particulars of a situation. Here, you're contrasting the rights of workers with the rights of shitposters.
- msla 4y ago
  I wonder what the overlap is between people who hate Starbucks for shitting on unions and people who want to be able to get other people fired over Twitter outrage. Really, the whole reason outrage mobs can get companies to fire people is because the people who were fired don't have a strong enough union. And, no, a union which caves to social media pressure isn't strong.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think a better analogy is whether Starbucks is allowed to kick customers off of their private property. Last time I checked they are.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I never considered the two in such light as I deem them completely separate issues, in law and morally. I suppose I'm one of those? I believe it's illegal to fire people for attempting to unionize, and I don't believe there's a law that prohibits social networks from banning arbitrarily (in addition, I suppose, to the law-required bans). Should there be? Maybe! That'd be a very interesting separate discussion :)
- croes 4y ago
  There is a difference between a free user and a paid employee
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Counter question, I wonder what is the intersection who believes that it's ok that protestors are violently thrown out of Trump rallies, but think it's a violation of free speech if Twitter bans a post.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
If you meant the store closings in Seattle, even if Starbucks is acting in bad faith, it is such a horrible situation with how the city council and SPD are handing and responding to crime that it would be impossible to prove anything in court.
- simfree 4y ago
  It's gotten so much worse since Bruce Harrell has gotten into office. Wild to see the Seattle Chamber acting like he is making things better in Downtown when 2 blocks down the hill from City Hall 7-Eleven closed up shop due to all the tweakers. Go towards Pioneer Square and the London Plane Coffee Shop there is closing permanently this month, leaving that block of Occidental mostly devoid of foot traffic.
  - skorpeon87 4y ago
    > Wild to see the Seattle Chamber acting like he is making things better in Downtown when 2 blocks down the hill from City Hall 7-Eleven closed up shop due to all the tweakers. This apparent contradiction is easy to explain. Forcing people into rehab is considered inhumane. Tweakers are deemed to be victims of society, and therefore the 'correct' solution is to have more tolerance for tweakers. More tweakers out on the street is evidence that the tweakers feel tolerated, which must mean that it's working. This won't change until you vote out the local politicians who believe these premises: that forcing people into rehab is inhumane. That tweakers are victims of society's intolerance, and that tweakers wouldn't be a problem if we had more tolerance for them.
    - simfree 4y ago
      You have me laughing my ass off right now. I know one person who is in involuntary detox currently (then onto court ordered rehab). The King County Municipal Court is dishing these out left and right, but that still doesn't prevent relapse 6 months after getting out of rehab. Then we get all the suburbs dumping their druggies in Pioneer Square and Chinatown. It's a neverending pipeline of addicts the Eastside and south end is dumping on us. We need to start tracking all non-city LEOs entering Seattle and turn them around if they are giving courtesy rides. Called 911 on one from Bothell yesterday and started filming the occupant and cop. They raced off right quick but I still filed a complaint with Bothell PD.
pigsinzen 4y ago
Allegedly this is the reason that the only Chipotle in/near the Capital of Maine was permanently closed.

Now do the same for the constructive dismissals of Starbucks union organizers.

throwntoday 4y ago

wmeredith 4y ago
It's probably quite large, as it would include those who support the rule of law.
jrockway 4y ago
Firing people for organizing a union is explicitly encoded in law as being illegal. Refusing to publish people's content on your website is covered by no such law; instead, there are laws to the contrary.
- throwntoday 4y ago
  If it's illegal how do corporations get away with it? Genuine question.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    People and companies get away with illegal stuff until / unless caught, prosecuted and punished. You indicate its a genuine question, but I feel you'd have to have just landed on this planet for that to be the case. In kindergarten there are rules, and not everybody who doesn't follow them gets caught. Or if you have siblings, surely you've noticed they would sometimes get away with stuff - unfairly and agonizingly so. And onward it goes with life.
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      This is poetic, well put.
    - throwntoday 4y ago
      I don't get the hostility. It was a genuine question because my assumption is any sufficiently large corporation is aware of the legal implications, and are a bigger target for litigation. I know that corporations break laws, there's no need to be flippant.
      - NikolaNovak 4y ago
        It was not hostile; but, both questions still seem either disingenuous, or naive (noting that your original question as stated was "how do they get away with it", not "how come some corporations break the law"). As I think Patio11 recently said on another topic - unless you can name a person or role, we should challenge our internal assumptions that "somebody somewhere is keeping track | investigating | doing something about it". There is SO much going on in the world. And unfortunately, a lot of people / companies try to get away with a lot of stuff all the time. So an unbelievable amount slips through. Some of it gets noticed eventually. I'm increasingly saddened by my awareness of how much (vast majority) does not. Maybe I'm too cynical without knowing it, but based on cursory reading of virtually any news, companies (and/or their leadership, depending on one's framework) do frequently engage in questionable or clearly illegal behaviour, based on their values, needs, priorities, and assessment of risk vs reward.
  - a4isms 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Same way I was able to jaywalk yesterday - lack of enforcement.
klyrs 4y ago
What you perceive as a contradiction is non-absolutism with regards to the freedom of association. In the collision of two rights, balance is found in nuanced consideration of the particulars of a situation. Here, you're contrasting the rights of workers with the rights of shitposters.
msla 4y ago
I wonder what the overlap is between people who hate Starbucks for shitting on unions and people who want to be able to get other people fired over Twitter outrage. Really, the whole reason outrage mobs can get companies to fire people is because the people who were fired don't have a strong enough union. And, no, a union which caves to social media pressure isn't strong.
AlexandrB 4y ago
I think a better analogy is whether Starbucks is allowed to kick customers off of their private property. Last time I checked they are.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I never considered the two in such light as I deem them completely separate issues, in law and morally. I suppose I'm one of those? I believe it's illegal to fire people for attempting to unionize, and I don't believe there's a law that prohibits social networks from banning arbitrarily (in addition, I suppose, to the law-required bans). Should there be? Maybe! That'd be a very interesting separate discussion :)
croes 4y ago
There is a difference between a free user and a paid employee
cycomanic 4y ago
Counter question, I wonder what is the intersection who believes that it's ok that protestors are violently thrown out of Trump rallies, but think it's a violation of free speech if Twitter bans a post.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

If you meant the store closings in Seattle, even if Starbucks is acting in bad faith, it is such a horrible situation with how the city council and SPD are handing and responding to crime that it would be impossible to prove anything in court.

simfree 4y ago
It's gotten so much worse since Bruce Harrell has gotten into office. Wild to see the Seattle Chamber acting like he is making things better in Downtown when 2 blocks down the hill from City Hall 7-Eleven closed up shop due to all the tweakers. Go towards Pioneer Square and the London Plane Coffee Shop there is closing permanently this month, leaving that block of Occidental mostly devoid of foot traffic.
- skorpeon87 4y ago
  > Wild to see the Seattle Chamber acting like he is making things better in Downtown when 2 blocks down the hill from City Hall 7-Eleven closed up shop due to all the tweakers. This apparent contradiction is easy to explain. Forcing people into rehab is considered inhumane. Tweakers are deemed to be victims of society, and therefore the 'correct' solution is to have more tolerance for tweakers. More tweakers out on the street is evidence that the tweakers feel tolerated, which must mean that it's working. This won't change until you vote out the local politicians who believe these premises: that forcing people into rehab is inhumane. That tweakers are victims of society's intolerance, and that tweakers wouldn't be a problem if we had more tolerance for them.
  - simfree 4y ago
    You have me laughing my ass off right now. I know one person who is in involuntary detox currently (then onto court ordered rehab). The King County Municipal Court is dishing these out left and right, but that still doesn't prevent relapse 6 months after getting out of rehab. Then we get all the suburbs dumping their druggies in Pioneer Square and Chinatown. It's a neverending pipeline of addicts the Eastside and south end is dumping on us. We need to start tracking all non-city LEOs entering Seattle and turn them around if they are giving courtesy rides. Called 911 on one from Bothell yesterday and started filming the occupant and cop. They raced off right quick but I still filed a complaint with Bothell PD.

pigsinzen 4y ago

Allegedly this is the reason that the only Chipotle in/near the Capital of Maine was permanently closed.