12 ms·

No argument that these workers have a right to unionize, but I find many of their demands petulant and counterproductive. Have a look: https://sbworkersunited.

by itisit 4y ago

No argument that these workers have a right to unionize, but I find many of their demands petulant and counterproductive. Have a look: https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals

tokai 4y ago
Which ones? Most of it reads like things european unions have implemented.
flimsypremise 4y ago
pretty much all of these seem very normal and i'm actually shocked starbucks doesn't already have them in place. you can work 32 hours at a starbucks and not be considered full time? starbucks doesn't supply fresh aprons to everyone every shift?
- tstrimple 4y ago
  Small point, but aren't aprons handed out and treated like uniforms in other companies? Employees take them home and launder them themselves? In any job I've had where I had to wear a specific company shirt, they were given to me and up to me to maintain.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    In my works this is usually as you describe. But at the same time it is also one of the top issues workers complain about and ripe for change. If your boss demands you wear specific clothes, and demands you should keep those clothes clean in your own time, they are effectively making you do more work after hours using tools and utilities that you also have to pay for. It is perfectly reasonable for a union to try to negotiate either: a) laundry pay and utility compensation, or b) for the company to do this work instead. In this case the union is demanding the latter.
    - tstrimple 4y ago
      I think it’s a reasonable request for workers to come to work in clean clothes. Especially with regards to food service. Even if you have a company supplied apron fresh every day, the moldy hoodie (extreme example) is still a nonstarter. Where I would absolutely support the company being on the line for laundry service is if they have some cleanliness requirement that goes above and beyond what is reasonable. If you’re expecting your auto mechanics or industrial maintenance workers to start their day in spotless attire, that’s far more onerous due to the nature of their jobs and I would be much more supportive of company provided laundry services in those cases. I think there could be an argument made for food service staff when it comes to hygiene regulations as well so I’m certainly not against it the proposed Starbucks changes. I just don’t know if or what regulations would come into play here. Another variable for me would be how many company provided outfits there are. If they just give them one apron and expect it to be washed daily, that would fall under an onerous requirement in my opinion and would justify a laundry service. When comparing it to the company provided footwear, their example was a woman who went through three sets of shoes and being told three different times the shoes weren’t suitable for arbitrary reasons. If they are going to be that picky, they should absolutely foot the bill to ensure the uniform fits their standards.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hezralig 4y ago
    You need a clean apron for each shift and I believe they only hand out one or two at the time of hiring from what I recall chatting with a barista.
- krapp 4y ago
  Full time is 40 hours. Many, many businesses will hire part time then work employees up to the legal limit just to avoid paying benefits.
londgine 4y ago
this is probably the worst https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/1577733534348759040 https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/15777335343487590... they want to give priority based upon seniority.
- brandonmenc 4y ago
  This is standard for union shops, and imo it makes sense in a job where the labor is fungible.
- RyanHamilton 4y ago
  Assuming all other factors are almost identical, how would you want to prioritise amongst similarly qualified staff members?
  - londgine 4y ago
    by assuming that all other factors are not almost identical
  - gruez 4y ago
    By using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      I think this has been studied and tested in real work places. It’s been a minute since I had a peek in the literature of workplace psychology (not since my B.S. degree in 2011) so I might be misremembering, but I think I remember the results are not in favor of market based solutions. I encourage you browse the web and see for your self, workplace psychology is an interesting study.
      - gruez 4y ago
        Why didn't it work? The problem I see with seniority based schemes is that they totally fail to take into account degree of preferences. If you have enough seniority to have top dibs when picking shifts, and you marginally prefer the afternoon shift over the morning shift then that's the shift you'll get dibs on. Meanwhile, the less senior worker who have kids and therefore must get the afternoon shift (so they can take their kids to school in the morning) gets shafted. Some sort of system that allows less flexible workers to compensate more flexible worker would solve this.
otikik 4y ago
Which ones, in particular, do you find petulant or counterproductive?
MapsSlaps 4y ago
Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7) Reimbursement for necessary equipment, limits on dress code 8) Full time for 32+ hours, benefits for 20 hours 9) New work cannot be added to job descriptions without negotiation 10) Schedule guarantees 11) Seniority will be used to prevent unfair working conditions 12) Workers in a store will have a committee to oversee working conditions in their store 13) No reduction in wages or benefits without negotiation 14) Unions have a place set up in the break room for union comms 15) The right to wear union pins/swag Absolutely zero of these are "petulant", and we can argue about whether any of them are "counterproductive", but they all seem absolutely baseline reasonable to me.
- hguant 4y ago
  ...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal. #4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" is national laws in many jurisdictions. You’ll have to provide some reason for why it doesn’t make sense, many national assemblies and labor boards seem to think otherwise.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    Are you okay with the other 14 then? I understand how you can find issue with one of their proposals but then Starbucks ought to handily agree with all but the one and offer to negotiate #4.
thwayunion 4y ago
The companies are petulant as well. Punishing and retaliating against union organizers is petulant and childish. Hiring someone for 32 hours a week, and then refusing to schedule them for the last 8 hours to avoid turning them into a "full time" employee, is petulant and petty. Harassment/intimidation is petty and petulant. Punishing someone off the clock is petulant. Requiring company-branded aprons while on the clock and then requiring employees to purchase and maintain the aprons is petty. Antagonism is what you get when you treat workers antagonistically.
tristor 4y ago
What about these is petulant and counter-productive? All of these seem like standard union demands (seniority rules) or stronger adherence to what are already legally required (anti-harassment). The only one that stood out to me as being unusual, but not in any way counterproductive or petulant, was a demand that the company support workers who act in self-defense against aggressive customers. You can search my HN comment history, I'm the furthest thing from pro-union, and nothing in here stood out to me as being inappropriate.

by itisit 4y ago

tokai 4y ago

Which ones? Most of it reads like things european unions have implemented.

flimsypremise 4y ago

pretty much all of these seem very normal and i'm actually shocked starbucks doesn't already have them in place. you can work 32 hours at a starbucks and not be considered full time? starbucks doesn't supply fresh aprons to everyone every shift?

tstrimple 4y ago
Small point, but aren't aprons handed out and treated like uniforms in other companies? Employees take them home and launder them themselves? In any job I've had where I had to wear a specific company shirt, they were given to me and up to me to maintain.
- runarberg 4y ago
  In my works this is usually as you describe. But at the same time it is also one of the top issues workers complain about and ripe for change. If your boss demands you wear specific clothes, and demands you should keep those clothes clean in your own time, they are effectively making you do more work after hours using tools and utilities that you also have to pay for. It is perfectly reasonable for a union to try to negotiate either: a) laundry pay and utility compensation, or b) for the company to do this work instead. In this case the union is demanding the latter.
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    I think it’s a reasonable request for workers to come to work in clean clothes. Especially with regards to food service. Even if you have a company supplied apron fresh every day, the moldy hoodie (extreme example) is still a nonstarter. Where I would absolutely support the company being on the line for laundry service is if they have some cleanliness requirement that goes above and beyond what is reasonable. If you’re expecting your auto mechanics or industrial maintenance workers to start their day in spotless attire, that’s far more onerous due to the nature of their jobs and I would be much more supportive of company provided laundry services in those cases. I think there could be an argument made for food service staff when it comes to hygiene regulations as well so I’m certainly not against it the proposed Starbucks changes. I just don’t know if or what regulations would come into play here. Another variable for me would be how many company provided outfits there are. If they just give them one apron and expect it to be washed daily, that would fall under an onerous requirement in my opinion and would justify a laundry service. When comparing it to the company provided footwear, their example was a woman who went through three sets of shoes and being told three different times the shoes weren’t suitable for arbitrary reasons. If they are going to be that picky, they should absolutely foot the bill to ensure the uniform fits their standards.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hezralig 4y ago
  You need a clean apron for each shift and I believe they only hand out one or two at the time of hiring from what I recall chatting with a barista.
krapp 4y ago
Full time is 40 hours. Many, many businesses will hire part time then work employees up to the legal limit just to avoid paying benefits.

londgine 4y ago

this is probably the worst https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/1577733534348759040 https://twitter.com/SBWorkersUnited/status/15777335343487590... they want to give priority based upon seniority.

brandonmenc 4y ago
This is standard for union shops, and imo it makes sense in a job where the labor is fungible.
RyanHamilton 4y ago
Assuming all other factors are almost identical, how would you want to prioritise amongst similarly qualified staff members?
- londgine 4y ago
  by assuming that all other factors are not almost identical
- gruez 4y ago
  By using a market? ie. allowing people to bid on slots directly. I know that the context for this is "non-economic proposals" so market based solutions doesn't count, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a market based proposal in this case.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I think this has been studied and tested in real work places. It’s been a minute since I had a peek in the literature of workplace psychology (not since my B.S. degree in 2011) so I might be misremembering, but I think I remember the results are not in favor of market based solutions. I encourage you browse the web and see for your self, workplace psychology is an interesting study.
    - gruez 4y ago
      Why didn't it work? The problem I see with seniority based schemes is that they totally fail to take into account degree of preferences. If you have enough seniority to have top dibs when picking shifts, and you marginally prefer the afternoon shift over the morning shift then that's the shift you'll get dibs on. Meanwhile, the less senior worker who have kids and therefore must get the afternoon shift (so they can take their kids to school in the morning) gets shafted. Some sort of system that allows less flexible workers to compensate more flexible worker would solve this.

otikik 4y ago

Which ones, in particular, do you find petulant or counterproductive?

MapsSlaps 4y ago

Their demands: 1) The right to unionize without intimidation 2) Commitment to non-discrimination based on legal classes 3) Discipline happens on the clock and is free from harassment and abuse 4) Right to self-defense, covid safety, disaster/emergency pay raises, and zero tolerance for harassment 5) All firings should have a Just Cause 6) Allow workers to pick up shifts in non-union stores, transfer to them, etc. 7) Reimbursement for necessary equipment, limits on dress code 8) Full time for 32+ hours, benefits for 20 hours 9) New work cannot be added to job descriptions without negotiation 10) Schedule guarantees 11) Seniority will be used to prevent unfair working conditions 12) Workers in a store will have a committee to oversee working conditions in their store 13) No reduction in wages or benefits without negotiation 14) Unions have a place set up in the break room for union comms 15) The right to wear union pins/swag Absolutely zero of these are "petulant", and we can argue about whether any of them are "counterproductive", but they all seem absolutely baseline reasonable to me.

hguant 4y ago
...this is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the stated proposal. #4 alone isn't "covid safety", it includes a reinstatement of COVID benefits and pay. "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" also doesn't really make sense in an _hourly_ work environment.
- runarberg 4y ago
  "Protecting pay for store closures...and for workers who leave early or are sick" is national laws in many jurisdictions. You’ll have to provide some reason for why it doesn’t make sense, many national assemblies and labor boards seem to think otherwise.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Are you okay with the other 14 then? I understand how you can find issue with one of their proposals but then Starbucks ought to handily agree with all but the one and offer to negotiate #4.

thwayunion 4y ago

The companies are petulant as well. Punishing and retaliating against union organizers is petulant and childish. Hiring someone for 32 hours a week, and then refusing to schedule them for the last 8 hours to avoid turning them into a "full time" employee, is petulant and petty. Harassment/intimidation is petty and petulant. Punishing someone off the clock is petulant. Requiring company-branded aprons while on the clock and then requiring employees to purchase and maintain the aprons is petty. Antagonism is what you get when you treat workers antagonistically.

tristor 4y ago

What about these is petulant and counter-productive? All of these seem like standard union demands (seniority rules) or stronger adherence to what are already legally required (anti-harassment). The only one that stood out to me as being unusual, but not in any way counterproductive or petulant, was a demand that the company support workers who act in self-defense against aggressive customers. You can search my HN comment history, I'm the furthest thing from pro-union, and nothing in here stood out to me as being inappropriate.