10 ms·

First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. Second: (1) any change to the con

First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. Second: (1) any change to the contract has to be approved by the union. That includes raises and the like, yes. (2) that can literally be an email from Starbucks to the union's lawyer saying "we're making these changes" and an email back from the union lawyer saying "cool, sounds good". (3) union lawyers work for the union members. They almost never have a reason to reject a purely positive change, and turn-around for simple positive changes can be 24 hours easily (4) if the union wants more, they'll still accept the positive change and then separately negotiate an even larger change. If there's an active strike negotiation going on, the company may not want to give an intermediate positive change because it weakens their bargaining power. If the change is a mix of positive and negative, things may go differently.

vuln 4y ago
> First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. Do you have anything to back this up? It appears to just be your opinion presented as fact. While I’d love to take your word on your opinion presented as a fact; I would prefer to see some data or documentation to back it up. Thanks!
- ahepp 4y ago
  I dunno. Where does the burden of proof lie on this? Starbucks seems to be the one claiming they can’t give arbitrary raises to union workers. The union seems to be saying “you can!” It seems to me that Starbucks is pulling a “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” here. On one hand I can see why they’d do that, on the other hand they still need to operate within federal employment law and it sounds like the NLRB says they aren’t. Presumably they can challenge that in court if they disagree?
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that literally any statement that contradicts his argument is malicious propaganda.
- alasarmas 4y ago
  You’re right, it is an opinion. There is probably no easy way to substantiate the statement “any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm”. On the other hand, the entire job of a union busting consulting firm is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about unions. The claim that unions would take actions, or fail to take actions, to make it less likely for their members to receive a pay raise, is the kind of claim that a union busting consulting firm would likely make. This is Public Relations 101.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    And the whole point of a union bureaucracy is to justify its existence and paint all employers as great villains. Your biased here. It’s not this black and white.
    - xracy 4y ago
      coming off of close to 50 years of anti-union sentiment as well as fewer unions and more union busting. We're as close to black and white as we can get in any discussion about current events. Is the claim defendable, probably not, but the NLRB just found that Starbucks is trying to discourage stores from unionizing (which sounds like something they would do...) So I'm much more inclined to believe they're being unhelpful in union negotiations than a newly minted union is.
      - vuln 4y ago
        > newly minted union The union does not appear to be new at least to me. It seems like the StarBucks union is apart of a larger organization of unions. So this isn’t a _new_ union or a union _moving fast and breaking things_ it’s a conglomerate of other much veteran unions. > Starbucks Workers United is a national collective of Starbucks Partners who help organize workplaces alongside Workers United Upstate, a union with members across many industries, including the coffee industry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/19/starbucks-union-why-are-workers-unionizing-now-what-do-unions-really-mean-to-investors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/19/starbucks-union-...
- equalsione 4y ago
  All described here but there's lots more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/starbucks-anti-union-tactics https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/starbucks-a...
sokoloff 4y ago
> They almost never have a reason to reject a purely positive change, and turn-around for simple positive changes can be 24 hours easily This isn't obviously a purely positive change. Maybe some employees would prefer a current cash-only tip policy (maybe they think the tips are larger in cash; maybe less than 100% of those cash tips find their way onto income tax forms; maybe their paychecks are garnished or subject to a income sharing/alimony/child support arrangement while folding cash isn't; maybe they like getting the tip immediately and using it to buy lunch or gas that day rather than getting it later via payroll). These are things that a union representing the employees must be consulted on and the story paints this as a purely positive change, but there are times in my life where I'd rather have gotten $10 in cash before lunch than $12 two weeks later in my paycheck.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  A lot of people, including myself, are cashless. The service industry will have to change with the times.
- cwmma 4y ago
  Naw none of those things really apply, previously people who paid with credit card would be unable to tip unless they have cash, by turning this on your capturing tips that might not have been able to have been received earlier. Also you didn't take tips home directly after the shift you'd get it later as they usually shared tips across shifts so closing the store or working any other slow shift wouldn't hurt financially.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    "none of those things really apply"? Meaning you believe that 100% of cash tips are reported as income? (I don't.)
    - cwmma 4y ago
      Probably not at every store but I guarantee you that at the union stores it was because not reporting the tips would be an immediately fire-able offense and corporate would have been looking for any excuse to fire people at those stores.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> that can literally be an email from Starbucks to the union’s lawyer saying “we’re making these changes” and an email back from the union lawyer saying “cool, sounds good”. No, it can’t. If it requires a contract amendment, it has to be ratified by the membership, not “union lawyers” (who probably wouldn’t be in the direct chain of contact; contract changes would usually go through the unions bargaining staff, who might consult with lawyers, as the main contact.)
HardlyCurious 4y ago
That union lawyer isn't going to unilaterally say ok. It has to get socialized and a consensus opinion needs to be found. That takes time. And like you pointed out, the union might not want to accept a modest increase because it can weaken their bargaining position. So, despite your claim the union doesn't make this more difficult, it absolutely objectively does make it more difficult than he company being able to make a decision without these restrictions. That doesn't mean unions are bad or that this process isn't worth it, but don't poison the well with unneeded dishonesty.
n8cpdx 4y ago
The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. If you know that you will be in a knock-down drag-out fight every time the contact is renegotiated, why would you ever give a single solitary inch that you’re not forced to? The business is always n days away from another strike negotiation because that is the entire reason the union exists (to threaten strikes). I don’t understand why people expect labor to be able to play hardball while also trying to benefit from a cooperative relationship with the adversarial partner.
- iso1631 4y ago
  employees and the business are adversaries without a union. The business is always n days away from an employee leaving for better terms elsewhere A union meanwhile has a strong incentive to keep the company viable, otherwise they have a lot of out of work members
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  It would be so much easier if those damn peasants would just shut up and follow orders. Look we know why unions got started and the human condition hasn't changed. There are people out there who would reintroduce child labour if they could get away with it. Guess who makes sure that they can't?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Legislators.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Clearly not based on Iowa and Arkansas legislators.
- whitemary 4y ago
  To put my cards on the table, I am a Marxist. I also agree with every part of your comment. This is why (disciplined) Marxists oppose the NLRB and other aspects of Americanized union arrangements, and it's why we support right-to-work. The NLRB and the slew of anti-labor laws enacted in the US in the late forties have effectively weakened unions to the point that they cannot fight for anything without navigating the NLRB's bureaucratic maze of anti-labor regulations. Realize these laws were enacted in direct response to soldiers returning from WW2 and not taking shit from anybody. They made demands, fought for them, and won, and capital passed these laws in response. So...the question now becomes: How do you feel about illegal wildcat strikes? Would you support abolishment of the NLRB? Would you support reversal of the Taft Hartley act? Which side are you actually on?
edgyquant 4y ago
> First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. This is a lie and is peddled by pro union lawyers and activists. It goes both ways. Anyone who’s worked for a union or with one knows that they most certainly make negotiating directly harder. This is one of the main points of a union.

vuln 4y ago

> First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. Do you have anything to back this up? It appears to just be your opinion presented as fact. While I’d love to take your word on your opinion presented as a fact; I would prefer to see some data or documentation to back it up. Thanks!

ahepp 4y ago
I dunno. Where does the burden of proof lie on this? Starbucks seems to be the one claiming they can’t give arbitrary raises to union workers. The union seems to be saying “you can!” It seems to me that Starbucks is pulling a “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” here. On one hand I can see why they’d do that, on the other hand they still need to operate within federal employment law and it sounds like the NLRB says they aren’t. Presumably they can challenge that in court if they disagree?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that literally any statement that contradicts his argument is malicious propaganda.
alasarmas 4y ago
You’re right, it is an opinion. There is probably no easy way to substantiate the statement “any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm”. On the other hand, the entire job of a union busting consulting firm is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about unions. The claim that unions would take actions, or fail to take actions, to make it less likely for their members to receive a pay raise, is the kind of claim that a union busting consulting firm would likely make. This is Public Relations 101.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  And the whole point of a union bureaucracy is to justify its existence and paint all employers as great villains. Your biased here. It’s not this black and white.
  - xracy 4y ago
    coming off of close to 50 years of anti-union sentiment as well as fewer unions and more union busting. We're as close to black and white as we can get in any discussion about current events. Is the claim defendable, probably not, but the NLRB just found that Starbucks is trying to discourage stores from unionizing (which sounds like something they would do...) So I'm much more inclined to believe they're being unhelpful in union negotiations than a newly minted union is.
    - vuln 4y ago
      > newly minted union The union does not appear to be new at least to me. It seems like the StarBucks union is apart of a larger organization of unions. So this isn’t a _new_ union or a union _moving fast and breaking things_ it’s a conglomerate of other much veteran unions. > Starbucks Workers United is a national collective of Starbucks Partners who help organize workplaces alongside Workers United Upstate, a union with members across many industries, including the coffee industry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/19/starbucks-union-why-are-workers-unionizing-now-what-do-unions-really-mean-to-investors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/12/19/starbucks-union-...
equalsione 4y ago
All described here but there's lots more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/starbucks-anti-union-tactics https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/starbucks-a...

sokoloff 4y ago

> They almost never have a reason to reject a purely positive change, and turn-around for simple positive changes can be 24 hours easily This isn't obviously a purely positive change. Maybe some employees would prefer a current cash-only tip policy (maybe they think the tips are larger in cash; maybe less than 100% of those cash tips find their way onto income tax forms; maybe their paychecks are garnished or subject to a income sharing/alimony/child support arrangement while folding cash isn't; maybe they like getting the tip immediately and using it to buy lunch or gas that day rather than getting it later via payroll). These are things that a union representing the employees must be consulted on and the story paints this as a purely positive change, but there are times in my life where I'd rather have gotten $10 in cash before lunch than $12 two weeks later in my paycheck.

WeylandYutani 4y ago
A lot of people, including myself, are cashless. The service industry will have to change with the times.
cwmma 4y ago
Naw none of those things really apply, previously people who paid with credit card would be unable to tip unless they have cash, by turning this on your capturing tips that might not have been able to have been received earlier. Also you didn't take tips home directly after the shift you'd get it later as they usually shared tips across shifts so closing the store or working any other slow shift wouldn't hurt financially.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  "none of those things really apply"? Meaning you believe that 100% of cash tips are reported as income? (I don't.)
  - cwmma 4y ago
    Probably not at every store but I guarantee you that at the union stores it was because not reporting the tips would be an immediately fire-able offense and corporate would have been looking for any excuse to fire people at those stores.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> that can literally be an email from Starbucks to the union’s lawyer saying “we’re making these changes” and an email back from the union lawyer saying “cool, sounds good”. No, it can’t. If it requires a contract amendment, it has to be ratified by the membership, not “union lawyers” (who probably wouldn’t be in the direct chain of contact; contract changes would usually go through the unions bargaining staff, who might consult with lawyers, as the main contact.)

HardlyCurious 4y ago

That union lawyer isn't going to unilaterally say ok. It has to get socialized and a consensus opinion needs to be found. That takes time. And like you pointed out, the union might not want to accept a modest increase because it can weaken their bargaining position. So, despite your claim the union doesn't make this more difficult, it absolutely objectively does make it more difficult than he company being able to make a decision without these restrictions. That doesn't mean unions are bad or that this process isn't worth it, but don't poison the well with unneeded dishonesty.

n8cpdx 4y ago

The Union sets the employees and the business up as adversaries and guarantees that there will be a contract negotiation. If you know that you will be in a knock-down drag-out fight every time the contact is renegotiated, why would you ever give a single solitary inch that you’re not forced to? The business is always n days away from another strike negotiation because that is the entire reason the union exists (to threaten strikes). I don’t understand why people expect labor to be able to play hardball while also trying to benefit from a cooperative relationship with the adversarial partner.

iso1631 4y ago
employees and the business are adversaries without a union. The business is always n days away from an employee leaving for better terms elsewhere A union meanwhile has a strong incentive to keep the company viable, otherwise they have a lot of out of work members
WeylandYutani 4y ago
It would be so much easier if those damn peasants would just shut up and follow orders. Look we know why unions got started and the human condition hasn't changed. There are people out there who would reintroduce child labour if they could get away with it. Guess who makes sure that they can't?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Legislators.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Clearly not based on Iowa and Arkansas legislators.
whitemary 4y ago
To put my cards on the table, I am a Marxist. I also agree with every part of your comment. This is why (disciplined) Marxists oppose the NLRB and other aspects of Americanized union arrangements, and it's why we support right-to-work. The NLRB and the slew of anti-labor laws enacted in the US in the late forties have effectively weakened unions to the point that they cannot fight for anything without navigating the NLRB's bureaucratic maze of anti-labor regulations. Realize these laws were enacted in direct response to soldiers returning from WW2 and not taking shit from anybody. They made demands, fought for them, and won, and capital passed these laws in response. So...the question now becomes: How do you feel about illegal wildcat strikes? Would you support abolishment of the NLRB? Would you support reversal of the Taft Hartley act? Which side are you actually on?

edgyquant 4y ago

> First, for the record, any claims that unions make this process harder is a lie designed by a union busting consulting firm. This is a lie and is peddled by pro union lawyers and activists. It goes both ways. Anyone who’s worked for a union or with one knows that they most certainly make negotiating directly harder. This is one of the main points of a union.