7 ms·

I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location a

I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location and the Boylston Starbucks location. It seems like that's the new corporate tactic to try to discourage unionizing. Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make money, but in the meantime it seems like it's an intimidation tactic and that should probably be illegal.

outside1234 4y ago
To this, it seems like a mechanism by which they are firing workers that are organizing and is just a scale motion over the same underlying illegal action.
voidfunc 4y ago
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  That makes sense for smaller businesses, where "closing" might mean closing the entire business. But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutting down a business entirely.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.
    - asah 4y ago
      FALSE: Starbucks is famously company-owned. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franchised https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franc...
      - enraged_camel 4y ago
        Yeah, sorry, they are franchises where I'm from (Turkey). I guess it's different here.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        They have lots of franchise-like agreements, it just isn’t their preferred model. American airport locations are run by Marriott I think, QFC and Safeway run their own locations in grocery stores, many locations in China are JV owned, etc…
    - brandonmenc 4y ago
      Starbucks does not franchise. There are licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble, hospital, or on a college campus. These do make up a significant ~40% of total locations.
      - everybodyknows 4y ago
        How does licensing differ from franchising?
        throwaway1777 4y ago
        Basically they sell Starbucks coffee but they aren’t an actual Starbucks and therefore don’t usually have all the promotions, products, marketing that the corporate Starbucks do.
      - techsupporter 4y ago
        > licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble FWIW, Barnes and Noble operates its own brand, Barnes and Noble Cafe, that isn't a licensed Starbucks. Licensed stores have full branding and, these days, accept stars as discounts and purchases there accrue stars. The third category (corporate and licensed being the first two) is "We Proudly Serve", meaning the business isn't a Starbucks but has an agreement to sell some or all of the 'bux product line.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. Each location is differently situated. One might have higher real estate costs or taxes or more competitors or fewer customers or antagonistic local politicians etc. There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then what do you do, have a rule that you can never close a store with a union?
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      >There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then why did Starbucks, no doubt availing themselves of very well-paid labor lawyers, lose this case to the NLRB? For these examples at least they were not able to provide plausible pretexts.
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        They did not lose this case for want of a plausible reason to close a store.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    If $Duration is months, the company just waits that long and closes it anyway. If it's longer then store closures have to be top secret fly by night activities or the employees file for a union just to delay it for years, and then nobody gets any notice they're about to be unemployed and employers start closing marginal stores or not opening them because of the huge cost of getting stuck in that situation.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
    - richbell 4y ago
      That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different. To quote another commenter: > Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971
      - gruez 4y ago
        So "retaliation" is just the word for when the party with more power terminates an agreement?
        aaomidi 4y ago
        No it’s a word that the a party terminates an agreement because of workplace organization. I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them. If we don’t want the government interjecting itself into “contracts” then let’s have that. Courts and cops should not be enforcing contracts. People should not be going to prison for breaking contracts. It’s unfair to have it both ways. The government is currently protecting employers against employees - and not really the other way around. So maybe let’s balance government influence in contracts? It’s perfectly fine for the government to force a company to keep a store open because they unionized. In the grand scheme of things these companies still have a huge advantage.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Similarly, if the court so desired, they couldn't compel someone to start a business out of the blue, but they could definitely compel a company to not shut down an operating business in retaliation for unionization efforts. This court? Never happen. But this isn't clear-cut, and the same anti-retaliation impulse ought to apply, in my opinion. If a company shuts down a store in which a unionization effort is underway, and wants to claim it was for some other reason, the cost of the inevitable lawsuit ought to be included as a factor.
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can have.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        The low-level retailer worker can change jobs much easier than a store can be opened/closed.
        Retric 4y ago
        Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
- tedivm 4y ago
  Yes, but that's not exactly what's been happening. In some cases they're closing one store and opening another nearby. This has been blocked by the courts before- Chipotle got into trouble for opening one store a few miles away from where they closed another one, as an example.
  - voidfunc 4y ago
    Chipotle got in trouble for closing a store and blacklisting the workers from applying to jobs at the new and other store. That's different.
    - tedivm 4y ago
      Honestly digging into the case a bit more I think the original claim that the store can shut down is actually wrong. The case (United Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Co) said that it was okay for the business to close their entire business, but it also said they'd violate labor law by shutting down part of their operations to chill union activity. It seems like that's exactly what's happening in these cases- it's not like Chipotle or Starbucks is completely going out of business. * https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedTextileWorkersvDarlingtonMfgCo380US26385SCt99413LEd2d82758L?doc_id=X5C65J https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedT...
    - richbell 4y ago
      Isn't that functionally the same though? They're acting in bad faith by closing a store to avoid fair negotiations. It's a move that's meant to punish the workers for unionizinf and have a chilling effect for unionization efforts at other locations.
elbigbad 4y ago
I go to the Milk Bar location sometimes, and while I’m not a giant fan of how sweet things are there, it’s very very hard to pay rent at that location and stay profitable. You need to sell a lot of cookies and it always seemed like a ghost town in there. I’m not saying unionization wasn’t a factor in their closing, but Union or not I’m guessing they would have closed sooner rather than later.
Tangurena2 4y ago
Walmart closed a number of stores in 2014-2016, many for as short a time as 6 months, some for over a year. Officially, they claimed that they were being remodeled or that they had plumbing issues that needed fixing (it was only 5 at the time of this article[0]). Employees claimed that they were closed to block unionization moves. Conspiracy theory minded people claimed that they were being turned into prison camps for Jade Helm [1]. Previously, Walmart had stopped cutting meat in stores because meat cutters had unionized in a couple of locations[2][3]. 0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-conspiracy-theory-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-consp... 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori... 2 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/wal-mart-ends-meat-cutting-jobs/acdb8f7c-d7c2-4e31-aad7-8f690ba3b35b/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/w... 3 - https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-recognize-the-union/ https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-reco...
WalterBright 4y ago
Closing the store is an opportunity for the union. They can take over the location and open it as their very own union shop, and pay themselves as they see fit. People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard. (Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees, or otherwise. It is prime real estate for a coffee shop. Blue Bottle and George Howell already have locations just up the street. But in theory it could be a great opportunity for one of the other established chains in the area, or a new company able to capitalize on the foot traffic generated by the fact that it used to be a very very busy Starbucks.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > it used to be a very very busy Starbucks Then it's an ideal spot for the union to open their union shop. I don't really understand why you think it would sit vacant.
    - oofta-boofta 4y ago
      Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand. Stop being obtuse.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        They'd have to rename the store, sure. > Stop being obtuse. LOL
    - kemayo 4y ago
      They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it. That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)
softveda 4y ago
Is this a US thing? Unions/store. In Australia the union negotiation is organisation wide and covers all of Australia. The agreements are lodged, certified by Fair Work Australia and publicly searchable. In that case closing one store has no effect.

outside1234 4y ago

To this, it seems like a mechanism by which they are firing workers that are organizing and is just a scale motion over the same underlying illegal action.

voidfunc 4y ago

SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.

nerdponx 4y ago
That makes sense for smaller businesses, where "closing" might mean closing the entire business. But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutting down a business entirely.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  One factor that might be relevant is that a lot (most?) Starbucks locations are franchises.
  - asah 4y ago
    FALSE: Starbucks is famously company-owned. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franchised https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franc...
    - enraged_camel 4y ago
      Yeah, sorry, they are franchises where I'm from (Turkey). I guess it's different here.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      They have lots of franchise-like agreements, it just isn’t their preferred model. American airport locations are run by Marriott I think, QFC and Safeway run their own locations in grocery stores, many locations in China are JV owned, etc…
  - brandonmenc 4y ago
    Starbucks does not franchise. There are licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble, hospital, or on a college campus. These do make up a significant ~40% of total locations.
    - everybodyknows 4y ago
      How does licensing differ from franchising?
      - throwaway1777 4y ago
        Basically they sell Starbucks coffee but they aren’t an actual Starbucks and therefore don’t usually have all the promotions, products, marketing that the corporate Starbucks do.
    - techsupporter 4y ago
      > licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble FWIW, Barnes and Noble operates its own brand, Barnes and Noble Cafe, that isn't a licensed Starbucks. Licensed stores have full branding and, these days, accept stars as discounts and purchases there accrue stars. The third category (corporate and licensed being the first two) is "We Proudly Serve", meaning the business isn't a Starbucks but has an agreement to sell some or all of the 'bux product line.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations. Each location is differently situated. One might have higher real estate costs or taxes or more competitors or fewer customers or antagonistic local politicians etc. There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then what do you do, have a rule that you can never close a store with a union?
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then why did Starbucks, no doubt availing themselves of very well-paid labor lawyers, lose this case to the NLRB? For these examples at least they were not able to provide plausible pretexts.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      They did not lose this case for want of a plausible reason to close a store.
aaomidi 4y ago
I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  If $Duration is months, the company just waits that long and closes it anyway. If it's longer then store closures have to be top secret fly by night activities or the employees file for a union just to delay it for years, and then nobody gets any notice they're about to be unemployed and employers start closing marginal stores or not opening them because of the huge cost of getting stuck in that situation.
- gruez 4y ago
  > I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
  - richbell 4y ago
    That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different. To quote another commenter: > Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34997971
    - gruez 4y ago
      So "retaliation" is just the word for when the party with more power terminates an agreement?
      - aaomidi 4y ago
        No it’s a word that the a party terminates an agreement because of workplace organization. I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them. If we don’t want the government interjecting itself into “contracts” then let’s have that. Courts and cops should not be enforcing contracts. People should not be going to prison for breaking contracts. It’s unfair to have it both ways. The government is currently protecting employers against employees - and not really the other way around. So maybe let’s balance government influence in contracts? It’s perfectly fine for the government to force a company to keep a store open because they unionized. In the grand scheme of things these companies still have a huge advantage.
pwinnski 4y ago
The courts can't compel a company to hire someone out of the blue, but they can compel a company to not-fire someone in retaliation for unionization efforts. Similarly, if the court so desired, they couldn't compel someone to start a business out of the blue, but they could definitely compel a company to not shut down an operating business in retaliation for unionization efforts. This court? Never happen. But this isn't clear-cut, and the same anti-retaliation impulse ought to apply, in my opinion. If a company shuts down a store in which a unionization effort is underway, and wants to claim it was for some other reason, the cost of the inevitable lawsuit ought to be included as a factor.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    It's a power imbalance. Starbucks can close one trying-to-unionize location because they have 3 others in a few block radius in some cities, and in doing so ensure the other 3 stores are too scared to unionize. If all 4 stores in a town unionized, Starbucks can withdraw from the town because they have 16 stores in a neighboring city, so and in doing so intimidate them. There is no equivalent behavior a worker can have.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      The low-level retailer worker can change jobs much easier than a store can be opened/closed.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
tedivm 4y ago
Yes, but that's not exactly what's been happening. In some cases they're closing one store and opening another nearby. This has been blocked by the courts before- Chipotle got into trouble for opening one store a few miles away from where they closed another one, as an example.
- voidfunc 4y ago
  Chipotle got in trouble for closing a store and blacklisting the workers from applying to jobs at the new and other store. That's different.
  - tedivm 4y ago
    Honestly digging into the case a bit more I think the original claim that the store can shut down is actually wrong. The case (United Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Co) said that it was okay for the business to close their entire business, but it also said they'd violate labor law by shutting down part of their operations to chill union activity. It seems like that's exactly what's happening in these cases- it's not like Chipotle or Starbucks is completely going out of business. * https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedTextileWorkersvDarlingtonMfgCo380US26385SCt99413LEd2d82758L?doc_id=X5C65J https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedT...
  - richbell 4y ago
    Isn't that functionally the same though? They're acting in bad faith by closing a store to avoid fair negotiations. It's a move that's meant to punish the workers for unionizinf and have a chilling effect for unionization efforts at other locations.

elbigbad 4y ago

I go to the Milk Bar location sometimes, and while I’m not a giant fan of how sweet things are there, it’s very very hard to pay rent at that location and stay profitable. You need to sell a lot of cookies and it always seemed like a ghost town in there. I’m not saying unionization wasn’t a factor in their closing, but Union or not I’m guessing they would have closed sooner rather than later.

Tangurena2 4y ago

Walmart closed a number of stores in 2014-2016, many for as short a time as 6 months, some for over a year. Officially, they claimed that they were being remodeled or that they had plumbing issues that needed fixing (it was only 5 at the time of this article[0]). Employees claimed that they were closed to block unionization moves. Conspiracy theory minded people claimed that they were being turned into prison camps for Jade Helm [1]. Previously, Walmart had stopped cutting meat in stores because meat cutters had unionized in a couple of locations[2][3]. 0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-conspiracy-theory-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-consp... 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori... 2 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/wal-mart-ends-meat-cutting-jobs/acdb8f7c-d7c2-4e31-aad7-8f690ba3b35b/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/w... 3 - https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-recognize-the-union/ https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-reco...

WalterBright 4y ago

Closing the store is an opportunity for the union. They can take over the location and open it as their very own union shop, and pay themselves as they see fit. People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard. (Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)

nerdponx 4y ago
I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees, or otherwise. It is prime real estate for a coffee shop. Blue Bottle and George Howell already have locations just up the street. But in theory it could be a great opportunity for one of the other established chains in the area, or a new company able to capitalize on the foot traffic generated by the fact that it used to be a very very busy Starbucks.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > it used to be a very very busy Starbucks Then it's an ideal spot for the union to open their union shop. I don't really understand why you think it would sit vacant.
  - oofta-boofta 4y ago
    Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand. Stop being obtuse.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      They'd have to rename the store, sure. > Stop being obtuse. LOL
  - kemayo 4y ago
    They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it. That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)

softveda 4y ago

Is this a US thing? Unions/store. In Australia the union negotiation is organisation wide and covers all of Australia. The agreements are lodged, certified by Fair Work Australia and publicly searchable. In that case closing one store has no effect.