6 ms·

I am not sure I get the logic here. Labor unions create more structure and rigidity in the employer employee relationship, where everything is negotiated rather

I am not sure I get the logic here. Labor unions create more structure and rigidity in the employer employee relationship, where everything is negotiated rather than ad hoc. Presumably the employees in unionized stores got some benefits from the union (higher wages, stability? Otherwise what's the point of the union.) So they must already have some baseline they negotiated and have been happy with. Starbucks is rolling out a different model to it's not structured employee situations, this is both their right since the rigidity of the union isn't there, and perhaps it's needed there more. As a layperson that "not relying on tips" is a goal that a union should provide (else what's the point?) So it's weird that they now want those too. Totally get why the union doesn't like it but it's kinda one sided. You are either married or you okay the field.

rootusrootus 4y ago
This is just facilitation of customer tips to employees, not an additional benefit paid to employees by Starbucks.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Why does that matter? It still requires (a) SBUX to do work and (b) has impact on SBUX. What I mean by later : if I am someone who didn't tip before the CC system but now I do because it's easy, my cup of coffee has gone up by a buck. On the margin at some point it's going to just be the same as a price raise (coffee is 5 bucks rather than 4) which obviously impacts business at least somewhat.
  - tssva 4y ago
    Your logic that the cost of a cup of coffee has effectively gone up by $1 because you have voluntarily given a $1 tip which you didn't but could have given prior is completely illogical.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      It's tightly logical but you are failing to follow. Credit card integration obviously generates more tipping, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. This is because once they see the prompt, many people think of the tip as mandatory (vs may not have thought about it) - or they don't have cash but now can tip. A good thing. I always tip well. Now coffee becomes a thing you tip for, for these people. Totally voluntary. For those people, this raises the effective price of a cup of coffee. Getting Starbucks now becomes a costlier habit. At the margins this can drive someone to go elsewhere, skip, etc (basic supply and demand.) This may not apply to some given individual but across millions of customers over a long time price including tip obviously affects quantity demanded.
FireBeyond 4y ago
The union's goal can be to get to a place where tips are not required in terms of wages, but that doesn't mean they should be required to abstain from receiving tips until they get there. And doubly so when in the midst of doing all this, Starbucks moves up the wages of their workers, but much less so if you're in the union. i.e. Now you have a situation where unionized workers are being paid less than non-unionized workers, AND being denied access to tips. I'm not sure how you can look at that scenario and say "I don't understand the union's grievance". I think it's more than "doesn't like it". Which is why the NLRB sided with them on all points of the issue. Starbucks is only union-hostile and petty about it too - around here they also got in trouble for removing padded foam mats behind counters (for reducing fatigue/foot pain), but only from the unionizing stores, and then tried to claim it was done for "safety" reasons (and had no real answer why, if so, it wasn't being done across the board).
likeraindrops 4y ago
Starbucks stores only started attempting unionizing in the past year or two, and the first store to unionize did so in Dec 2021. [1] So this is all pretty brand new. The union, I presume, wants ALL stores to be unionized, and wants ALL stores to have CC tip options, and for ALL stores to have those other union-negotiated benefits. Rolling out the ability to accept CC tips as a strictly non-union perk is 100% a union-busting power play. [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22825850/starbucks-union-first-organizing-vote-nlrb https://www.vox.com/recode/22825850/starbucks-union-first-or...
jayd16 4y ago
How can you see it as anything but targeted attacks? You don't just roll out a change like this and forget to negotiate with the union. Adding a tip line is something unions are very familiar with and would not object to. SB wanted it this way. >As a layperson that "not relying on tips" is a goal [...] So it's weird that they now want those too. The goal is to benefit the worker. Tips are culturally embedded and a significant amount of money. It's weird to think the union wouldn't want that for their members. Would guaranteed higher pay be better? Yes. Is that an actual either/or option? No. >Totally get why the union doesn't like it but it's kinda one sided. You are either married or you okay the field. What does this even mean? What are the arbitrary rules you think should apply? Being in a union shouldn't mean its OK to be screwed with by SB management at every opportunity.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  But isn't the point of the union that they negotiate as a group separately from non-union employees? So it sounds like what is going on is if the union gets a better deal, then they're like "see, you should join the union because we get a better deal," but if the union negotiates a worse deal they say "that's not fair, you're screwing over the union." Just sounds to me like they don't actually have the leverage they promised their members to extract better pay, and are now whining "no fair" for having to sleep in the bed they made.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    That sounds exactly right. You can have a fluid or rigid relationship between employees and the company, but it then goes one way. If employees get "hardcore" about creating limits on how the company can hire/pay/whatever, it obviously changes how the company engages with those employees as well. To wit, if you force me to sign in blood for everything I have to give you, I am not going to give you anything else.
  - danaris 4y ago
    You're almost there. This isn't the union failing to negotiate a good deal, or being sticklers about procedure and thus preventing union employees from getting what non-union employees are being given. Starbucks is deliberately using this as a way to sabotage the union, by refusing to even offer them the same terms as non-union employees. This is illegal.
sangnoir 4y ago
This is text book retribution for a employees engaging in protected activity: one manager was dumb enough to say it out loud. Tgis kicked this issue out of the legal gray area Starbucks would love to occupy. Think of it as firing a whistleblower for poor performance: it's never a good look and ought to impose a supersized burden of proof on the employer even in the rare cases where it's true. There is no need to perform mental gymnastics when Occam's razor perfectly applies.

rootusrootus 4y ago

This is just facilitation of customer tips to employees, not an additional benefit paid to employees by Starbucks.

xyzelement 4y ago
Why does that matter? It still requires (a) SBUX to do work and (b) has impact on SBUX. What I mean by later : if I am someone who didn't tip before the CC system but now I do because it's easy, my cup of coffee has gone up by a buck. On the margin at some point it's going to just be the same as a price raise (coffee is 5 bucks rather than 4) which obviously impacts business at least somewhat.
- tssva 4y ago
  Your logic that the cost of a cup of coffee has effectively gone up by $1 because you have voluntarily given a $1 tip which you didn't but could have given prior is completely illogical.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    It's tightly logical but you are failing to follow. Credit card integration obviously generates more tipping, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. This is because once they see the prompt, many people think of the tip as mandatory (vs may not have thought about it) - or they don't have cash but now can tip. A good thing. I always tip well. Now coffee becomes a thing you tip for, for these people. Totally voluntary. For those people, this raises the effective price of a cup of coffee. Getting Starbucks now becomes a costlier habit. At the margins this can drive someone to go elsewhere, skip, etc (basic supply and demand.) This may not apply to some given individual but across millions of customers over a long time price including tip obviously affects quantity demanded.

FireBeyond 4y ago

The union's goal can be to get to a place where tips are not required in terms of wages, but that doesn't mean they should be required to abstain from receiving tips until they get there. And doubly so when in the midst of doing all this, Starbucks moves up the wages of their workers, but much less so if you're in the union. i.e. Now you have a situation where unionized workers are being paid less than non-unionized workers, AND being denied access to tips. I'm not sure how you can look at that scenario and say "I don't understand the union's grievance". I think it's more than "doesn't like it". Which is why the NLRB sided with them on all points of the issue. Starbucks is only union-hostile and petty about it too - around here they also got in trouble for removing padded foam mats behind counters (for reducing fatigue/foot pain), but only from the unionizing stores, and then tried to claim it was done for "safety" reasons (and had no real answer why, if so, it wasn't being done across the board).

likeraindrops 4y ago

Starbucks stores only started attempting unionizing in the past year or two, and the first store to unionize did so in Dec 2021. [1] So this is all pretty brand new. The union, I presume, wants ALL stores to be unionized, and wants ALL stores to have CC tip options, and for ALL stores to have those other union-negotiated benefits. Rolling out the ability to accept CC tips as a strictly non-union perk is 100% a union-busting power play. [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22825850/starbucks-union-first-organizing-vote-nlrb https://www.vox.com/recode/22825850/starbucks-union-first-or...

jayd16 4y ago

How can you see it as anything but targeted attacks? You don't just roll out a change like this and forget to negotiate with the union. Adding a tip line is something unions are very familiar with and would not object to. SB wanted it this way. >As a layperson that "not relying on tips" is a goal [...] So it's weird that they now want those too. The goal is to benefit the worker. Tips are culturally embedded and a significant amount of money. It's weird to think the union wouldn't want that for their members. Would guaranteed higher pay be better? Yes. Is that an actual either/or option? No. >Totally get why the union doesn't like it but it's kinda one sided. You are either married or you okay the field. What does this even mean? What are the arbitrary rules you think should apply? Being in a union shouldn't mean its OK to be screwed with by SB management at every opportunity.

fallingknife 4y ago
But isn't the point of the union that they negotiate as a group separately from non-union employees? So it sounds like what is going on is if the union gets a better deal, then they're like "see, you should join the union because we get a better deal," but if the union negotiates a worse deal they say "that's not fair, you're screwing over the union." Just sounds to me like they don't actually have the leverage they promised their members to extract better pay, and are now whining "no fair" for having to sleep in the bed they made.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  That sounds exactly right. You can have a fluid or rigid relationship between employees and the company, but it then goes one way. If employees get "hardcore" about creating limits on how the company can hire/pay/whatever, it obviously changes how the company engages with those employees as well. To wit, if you force me to sign in blood for everything I have to give you, I am not going to give you anything else.
- danaris 4y ago
  You're almost there. This isn't the union failing to negotiate a good deal, or being sticklers about procedure and thus preventing union employees from getting what non-union employees are being given. Starbucks is deliberately using this as a way to sabotage the union, by refusing to even offer them the same terms as non-union employees. This is illegal.

sangnoir 4y ago

This is text book retribution for a employees engaging in protected activity: one manager was dumb enough to say it out loud. Tgis kicked this issue out of the legal gray area Starbucks would love to occupy. Think of it as firing a whistleblower for poor performance: it's never a good look and ought to impose a supersized burden of proof on the employer even in the rare cases where it's true. There is no need to perform mental gymnastics when Occam's razor perfectly applies.