4 ms·

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.
      - gruez 4y ago
        > No it’s a word that the a party terminates an agreement because of workplace organization. Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564 >I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them. I'm not sure why property owners are being singled out here when the statement is applicable to basically everyone. Who doesn't love free government services but hate taxes?
  - ihateyouall123 4y ago
    I will never understand this concept of power imbalance. You are working because you don't have power, so you rely on others with power to give you power (money in this situation). If the power was even, why would I need to work in the first place?
    - jrgoff 4y ago
      I don't think the point is to have equal power between the parties, but that the party with more power should be prevented from wielding that power abusively.
      - kazen44 4y ago
        Also, the reason all of this is regulated into law in most countries is because the alternative is usually violence. People seem to forget labour rights have been won by blood, not some benevolence of companies in a capitalistic society.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      What don't you understand? Workers want more bargaining power and the only leverage they have is the ability to stop the money hose for Howard Schultz. If they stop his profits for long enough, he will have to accede to their demands in order to make money again.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  The problem is that "having a union" isn't a bad deal that you can just legally refuse, any more than following health and safety rules, or overtime rules, is a "bad deal" that Starbucks can refuse if they want. Having a union at the store costs Starbucks nothing, or maybe a little bit of the manager's time here and there. An individual contract might not be financially viable for a given Starbucks location, but nobody is arguing that they will be forced to sign such a contract.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > The problem is that "having a union" isn't a bad deal that you can just legally refuse, any more than following health and safety rules, or overtime rules, is a "bad deal" that Starbucks can refuse if they want. Having a union at the store costs Starbucks nothing, or maybe a little bit of the manager's time here and there. This feels trivial to work around. All they have to do is let the union form, refuse to meet their demands, and if they strike they close the store. That way it wouldn't be "closing a store because it has a union", but the end result is the same.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. Edit: To elaborate, companies seem to want it both ways. They want a large consumer base with a lot of disposable income that will buy their stuff, but they also want to treat their own employees like shit and pay them the minimum they can get away with. This can't work forever. If you push to shrink/eliminate the middle class, eventually there will be no one left to buy your overpriced "beverages" and you'll go out of business. Unfortunately modern business practice is to limit your thinking to the next quarter.
  - gretch 4y ago
    >pay them the minimum they can get away with This is what everyone in society does, with the exception of tipping culture. When your pipes break and you get a plumber who quotes you for $400, do you think, we’ll I’m gonna pay him $500. People make deals about exchanging labor for cash and those deals should be honored. It’s as simple as that.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. This is non-sequitur that fails to address my original question.

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.
    - gruez 4y ago
      > No it’s a word that the a party terminates an agreement because of workplace organization. Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564 >I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them. I'm not sure why property owners are being singled out here when the statement is applicable to basically everyone. Who doesn't love free government services but hate taxes?
- ihateyouall123 4y ago
  I will never understand this concept of power imbalance. You are working because you don't have power, so you rely on others with power to give you power (money in this situation). If the power was even, why would I need to work in the first place?
  - jrgoff 4y ago
    I don't think the point is to have equal power between the parties, but that the party with more power should be prevented from wielding that power abusively.
    - kazen44 4y ago
      Also, the reason all of this is regulated into law in most countries is because the alternative is usually violence. People seem to forget labour rights have been won by blood, not some benevolence of companies in a capitalistic society.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    What don't you understand? Workers want more bargaining power and the only leverage they have is the ability to stop the money hose for Howard Schultz. If they stop his profits for long enough, he will have to accede to their demands in order to make money again.
cool_dude85 4y ago
The problem is that "having a union" isn't a bad deal that you can just legally refuse, any more than following health and safety rules, or overtime rules, is a "bad deal" that Starbucks can refuse if they want. Having a union at the store costs Starbucks nothing, or maybe a little bit of the manager's time here and there. An individual contract might not be financially viable for a given Starbucks location, but nobody is arguing that they will be forced to sign such a contract.
- gruez 4y ago
  > The problem is that "having a union" isn't a bad deal that you can just legally refuse, any more than following health and safety rules, or overtime rules, is a "bad deal" that Starbucks can refuse if they want. Having a union at the store costs Starbucks nothing, or maybe a little bit of the manager's time here and there. This feels trivial to work around. All they have to do is let the union form, refuse to meet their demands, and if they strike they close the store. That way it wouldn't be "closing a store because it has a union", but the end result is the same.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. Edit: To elaborate, companies seem to want it both ways. They want a large consumer base with a lot of disposable income that will buy their stuff, but they also want to treat their own employees like shit and pay them the minimum they can get away with. This can't work forever. If you push to shrink/eliminate the middle class, eventually there will be no one left to buy your overpriced "beverages" and you'll go out of business. Unfortunately modern business practice is to limit your thinking to the next quarter.
- gretch 4y ago
  >pay them the minimum they can get away with This is what everyone in society does, with the exception of tipping culture. When your pipes break and you get a plumber who quotes you for $400, do you think, we’ll I’m gonna pay him $500. People make deals about exchanging labor for cash and those deals should be honored. It’s as simple as that.
- gruez 4y ago
  >If operating in a country that protects unions is a bad deal, they should move their operations somewhere else. What's that? They still want the money the consumers in those countries bring in? Well then, the deal doesn't seem so bad after all then. This is non-sequitur that fails to address my original question.