3 ms·

maybe the union can open a coffee shop then! and hire employees and give them union protection. what a concept.

Firmwarrior 4y ago
If anyone's organizing a movement to help do this to force Starbucks' hand, I'll donate a few bucks (Unionize all the stores in an area, and if Starbucks shuts them all down, just open a new coffee shop)
lazyasciiart 4y ago
Perhaps you actually could create some kind of right-of-assumption. If Starbucks wants to close, fine, but the existing employees must be given the right to buy out the lease and base hardware at cost. People would leap at the chance for an insta-coffee-shop in the high traffic locations starbucks abandoned in Seattle.
- notch898a 4y ago
  It's not uncommon in Washington/Oregon to find a coffee shop that's just like a port-a-potty sized booth and one or two employee-owners. Some of them are quite popular. Probably <30k to startup, anybody with several years work experience could probably max out a bunch of credit cards and do it.
  - ticviking 4y ago
    My wife and several of my friends have worked in those. Depending on the area they are insanely competitive, and you need good local industry contacts to get supplies and know the market. But it's absolutely a low cost path to owning your own coffee shop.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    pretty soon you need a couple helpers. Then a couple more. Then they form their own union and you're back to square one.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - angelbar 4y ago
      And they will be happy to have one, because unions are great to workers/s. So there are no solutions? There are no competitive unionized business? Why not? Maybe if all the Business need to be unionized, so there will be no advantage one over the other?
- relbeek2 4y ago
  It's not Starbucks' decision to lease the building to someone else, it is the building owner which in most cases is not Starbucks. Furthermore, Starbucks shouldn't be forced to sell its proprietary assets. like ovens, espresso machines, technology, etc.
ryan93 4y ago
I support unions no question. Kind of weird though that there is no overlap pretty much between those who can start companies and those who want companies to share the wealth. There are millions of companies and basically none split profit equally.
- sojsurf 4y ago
  If you split profit equally, you should also split investment and risk equally. Many folks who start a small business owners put their home and other assets on the line to fund their company. Most employees appreciate that they are getting paid whether or not the location performs well. They don't get an equal share of the profit, but they also don't pay an equal share to cover losses if the business is not profitable for a season. If a Starbucks locations were closed for a month during peak Covid, would the employees be happy to (a) not get paid, but also happy to (b) still help carry the cost of the lease, utilities and other operating expenses? If I start a business and my employees are willing to put their name on the loan (backed by their homes as collateral), then this is a different discussion.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative They are more common that one may think. They have quite a foothold in e.g. European agriculture and even finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation.
andrepd 4y ago
Glad you agree! I also think that's how things should run. Now go ask the bank for a credit line to do this and you will understand why the privatisation of money creation impedes worker-owned co-ops (or any ownership structure other than the standard capitalist one).
- hellojesus 4y ago
  You can fund from non bank sources. There are private money lenders too. It is possible it is hard to find a co-op because it's harder to collect on a delinquent loan. Or perhaps data shows that they fail more frequently.

If anyone's organizing a movement to help do this to force Starbucks' hand, I'll donate a few bucks (Unionize all the stores in an area, and if Starbucks shuts them all down, just open a new coffee shop)

lazyasciiart 4y ago

Perhaps you actually could create some kind of right-of-assumption. If Starbucks wants to close, fine, but the existing employees must be given the right to buy out the lease and base hardware at cost. People would leap at the chance for an insta-coffee-shop in the high traffic locations starbucks abandoned in Seattle.

notch898a 4y ago
It's not uncommon in Washington/Oregon to find a coffee shop that's just like a port-a-potty sized booth and one or two employee-owners. Some of them are quite popular. Probably <30k to startup, anybody with several years work experience could probably max out a bunch of credit cards and do it.
- ticviking 4y ago
  My wife and several of my friends have worked in those. Depending on the area they are insanely competitive, and you need good local industry contacts to get supplies and know the market. But it's absolutely a low cost path to owning your own coffee shop.
- chasd00 4y ago
  pretty soon you need a couple helpers. Then a couple more. Then they form their own union and you're back to square one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - angelbar 4y ago
    And they will be happy to have one, because unions are great to workers/s. So there are no solutions? There are no competitive unionized business? Why not? Maybe if all the Business need to be unionized, so there will be no advantage one over the other?
relbeek2 4y ago
It's not Starbucks' decision to lease the building to someone else, it is the building owner which in most cases is not Starbucks. Furthermore, Starbucks shouldn't be forced to sell its proprietary assets. like ovens, espresso machines, technology, etc.

ryan93 4y ago

I support unions no question. Kind of weird though that there is no overlap pretty much between those who can start companies and those who want companies to share the wealth. There are millions of companies and basically none split profit equally.

sojsurf 4y ago
If you split profit equally, you should also split investment and risk equally. Many folks who start a small business owners put their home and other assets on the line to fund their company. Most employees appreciate that they are getting paid whether or not the location performs well. They don't get an equal share of the profit, but they also don't pay an equal share to cover losses if the business is not profitable for a season. If a Starbucks locations were closed for a month during peak Covid, would the employees be happy to (a) not get paid, but also happy to (b) still help carry the cost of the lease, utilities and other operating expenses? If I start a business and my employees are willing to put their name on the loan (backed by their homes as collateral), then this is a different discussion.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative They are more common that one may think. They have quite a foothold in e.g. European agriculture and even finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation.

andrepd 4y ago

Glad you agree! I also think that's how things should run. Now go ask the bank for a credit line to do this and you will understand why the privatisation of money creation impedes worker-owned co-ops (or any ownership structure other than the standard capitalist one).

hellojesus 4y ago
You can fund from non bank sources. There are private money lenders too. It is possible it is hard to find a co-op because it's harder to collect on a delinquent loan. Or perhaps data shows that they fail more frequently.