> 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

> 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.