3 ms·

It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising. It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is tr

It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising. It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of his excuse.

cool_dude85 4y ago
>It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Anything could be argued, but this argument is not true. Plenty of publicly traded companies have unionized workforces and do not face shareholder lawsuits for it. Can you find an example of a publicly traded company losing a shareholder lawsuit for not running underhanded and illegal union-busting tactics?
- hellotomyrars 4y ago
  How many publicly traded companies had their workforce unionize without protest in the last 30 years or maybe longer? The model also helps make a difference. Starbucks can kill a store to prevent unionization from taking up, but not all business make this a valid method of squashing unionization. To be clear, it is obvious and plain to see that Starbucks and other corporations view their workforce unionizing as a bad thing for them. The reason they are that is because they believe, reasonably or otherwise, that it will impact their bottom line. The money is what the care about. It is the only thing they care about. Their natural incentive structure of being a publicly traded company is specifically about the pursuit of the almighty dollar. I work for a non-profit and when unionization occurred there was no pushback about it. My industry is also not traditional in so far as our funding is almost exclusively from federal and state health agencies. But the increase in wages and quality of life for the members was measurable, and the demand for home health care only continues to rise as the population ages, as well as social/economics factors around the expectation and realities of family members taking care of family members as they age.
genocidicbunny 4y ago
> they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. There is an incredible amount of leeway here; He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits. But that further solidifies your last point.
- peanuty1 4y ago
  > He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits. Except they're not just seeking "slightly" higher wages. Those hypothetical benefits of unionization to Starbucks sound like bullshit to me. Since when are unions good for businesses? Detroit's auto companies send their regards.

cool_dude85 4y ago

>It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. Anything could be argued, but this argument is not true. Plenty of publicly traded companies have unionized workforces and do not face shareholder lawsuits for it. Can you find an example of a publicly traded company losing a shareholder lawsuit for not running underhanded and illegal union-busting tactics?

hellotomyrars 4y ago
How many publicly traded companies had their workforce unionize without protest in the last 30 years or maybe longer? The model also helps make a difference. Starbucks can kill a store to prevent unionization from taking up, but not all business make this a valid method of squashing unionization. To be clear, it is obvious and plain to see that Starbucks and other corporations view their workforce unionizing as a bad thing for them. The reason they are that is because they believe, reasonably or otherwise, that it will impact their bottom line. The money is what the care about. It is the only thing they care about. Their natural incentive structure of being a publicly traded company is specifically about the pursuit of the almighty dollar. I work for a non-profit and when unionization occurred there was no pushback about it. My industry is also not traditional in so far as our funding is almost exclusively from federal and state health agencies. But the increase in wages and quality of life for the members was measurable, and the demand for home health care only continues to rise as the population ages, as well as social/economics factors around the expectation and realities of family members taking care of family members as they age.

genocidicbunny 4y ago

> they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders. There is an incredible amount of leeway here; He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits. But that further solidifies your last point.

peanuty1 4y ago
> He could argue that having employees that are unionized and happier means they will be more productive, and improve the brand image which is more valuable in the long run than having to slightly raise wages and pay a few more benefits. Except they're not just seeking "slightly" higher wages. Those hypothetical benefits of unionization to Starbucks sound like bullshit to me. Since when are unions good for businesses? Detroit's auto companies send their regards.