4 ms·
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
by 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.