3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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 agoMy 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 agopretty 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 agoAnd 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 agoIt'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.