3 ms·

I get the "more money is better" concept :) There's also the no free lunch concept. Chosing to be in the union means you want the negotiated salary, and you wa

I get the "more money is better" concept :) There's also the no free lunch concept. Chosing to be in the union means you want the negotiated salary, and you want to be shielded from the outcome of your work a bit (we all make the same regardless of how we perform, short of being so bad that you get fired) The stability of compensation implies... Stability of compensation. You get the negotiated rate. Tips are the opposite of that. Tips are performance based and someone providing great customer service (individual or on store level) is going to get more. That's not in line with the union mindset so I don't see why that would be expected. I also don't see why SBUX should go out of its way to benefit the union. The unions explicit mission is to insert itself between SBUX and the employees, where the employee relationship is now more with the union rather than the company. There's no expectation of the company giving the union more power if it doesn't need to. I guess this case will come down to whether this is really illegal or not. We'll see.

FireBeyond 4y ago
> I also don't see why SBUX should go out of its way to benefit the union. The unions explicit mission is to insert itself between SBUX and the employees, where the employee relationship is now more with the union rather than the company. I take issue with this framing. This has some implication of a malicious, or rent-seeking, third party, interfering with SBUX and its employees. Except that it's a union -of- employees. And the union wants a better/equal salary. But SBUX wants to pay a tip-dependent wage and then remove tipping options from those stores. You can't say, objectively, "Well, the union wants everyone paid equally/fairly, and they've got that now, what's the big deal?" when the wages being paid equally/fairly are predicated on tip income. By your logic, if a restaurant workers union wanted to have everyone on equal wages and remove tipping from the equation, they should be happy to have tips removed and have everyone making $2.13/hr (well, it'd have to be $7.25/hr) because hey, it's equal, and all they need to do now is negotiate that rate up, right?
- xyzelement 4y ago
  The issue is framed at the top of the article - SBUX is not removing tipping options, it is not adding them. Meaning whatever the union has negotiated is still in place exactly. I am not prepared to argue the details of the barista labor market but SBUX has a reputation for taking good care of their employees, compared to other places that hire that type of talent (401k, tuition coverage, etc.) Meaning, it expects employees to work hard/go above and beyond and tries to do the same for them - at least in their own assessment and I bet many employees agree. The employees who chose to unionize presumably didn't like what the company was offering them on its own and decided to lever up their demands. That changes the relationship from "taking good care of each other" to bounds by rigid rules. Once you bind me by rigid rules, I am not giving you anything extra (if for no other reason as I can use that as leverage in our next negotiation which is what you're forcing me to do)
jayd16 4y ago
>Tips are the opposite of that Since when? You're just making up arbitrary nonsense. Every business transaction with a tip is negotiated rate + tip.

FireBeyond 4y ago

> I also don't see why SBUX should go out of its way to benefit the union. The unions explicit mission is to insert itself between SBUX and the employees, where the employee relationship is now more with the union rather than the company. I take issue with this framing. This has some implication of a malicious, or rent-seeking, third party, interfering with SBUX and its employees. Except that it's a union -of- employees. And the union wants a better/equal salary. But SBUX wants to pay a tip-dependent wage and then remove tipping options from those stores. You can't say, objectively, "Well, the union wants everyone paid equally/fairly, and they've got that now, what's the big deal?" when the wages being paid equally/fairly are predicated on tip income. By your logic, if a restaurant workers union wanted to have everyone on equal wages and remove tipping from the equation, they should be happy to have tips removed and have everyone making $2.13/hr (well, it'd have to be $7.25/hr) because hey, it's equal, and all they need to do now is negotiate that rate up, right?

xyzelement 4y ago
The issue is framed at the top of the article - SBUX is not removing tipping options, it is not adding them. Meaning whatever the union has negotiated is still in place exactly. I am not prepared to argue the details of the barista labor market but SBUX has a reputation for taking good care of their employees, compared to other places that hire that type of talent (401k, tuition coverage, etc.) Meaning, it expects employees to work hard/go above and beyond and tries to do the same for them - at least in their own assessment and I bet many employees agree. The employees who chose to unionize presumably didn't like what the company was offering them on its own and decided to lever up their demands. That changes the relationship from "taking good care of each other" to bounds by rigid rules. Once you bind me by rigid rules, I am not giving you anything extra (if for no other reason as I can use that as leverage in our next negotiation which is what you're forcing me to do)

jayd16 4y ago

>Tips are the opposite of that Since when? You're just making up arbitrary nonsense. Every business transaction with a tip is negotiated rate + tip.