[HN Gopher] A barista fought to unionize her Starbucks. Now she'...
___________________________________________________________________
A barista fought to unionize her Starbucks. Now she's out of a job
Author : mirthlessend
Score : 22 points
Date : 2023-06-17 19:20 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| a_shovel wrote:
| Honestly, not surprised. Starbucks's strategy on unions seems to
| be to union-bust as viciously as possible with the thinnest of
| pretenses, and trust that the federal government will let them do
| it with a slap on the wrist (if anything), as it always has.
|
| > _It's against the law to fire workers for organizing. But as
| Rizzo and the other Starbucks workers were learning, there's also
| little to stop companies from doing it. The National Labor
| Relations Board, the federal agency that oversees union elections
| and protects workers' rights, has struggled to hold on to staff
| members amid deep budget cuts. Since 2010, it is down about 520
| employees, or 30 percent of its workforce. The primary penalty
| that it can impose on companies for dismissing pro-union
| employees -- reinstatement with back pay -- has been a paltry
| deterrent, labor advocates said._
|
| This punishment is so tiny it fails to qualify as a penalty at
| all.
| sneak wrote:
| Make it a criminal offense for the person doing the firing, and
| then you'll see some changes.
| houseatrielah wrote:
| The margins are so good on coffee (its a morning ritual, its a
| drug, and so on), and yet the employees are still driven to
| unionize -- why? Is it because all profits accrue to
| shareholders? Are there other reasonable explanations?
| allset_ wrote:
| > Is it because all profits accrue to shareholders?
|
| Yeah.
| malfist wrote:
| There is no amount of money that you could give a billionaire
| to make them want to pay their employees more.
|
| There is no cap on wealth, nothing is ever enough for them.
| Aside from external forces they'd hire as few people as
| possible and as cheaply as possible
| operatingthetan wrote:
| It would be nice if we could collectively stop worshiping
| them and realize they represent a sickness in our society.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| In my opinion, instead of trying to unionize these low margin
| retail jobs, an alternative approach is to encourage younger
| people to go into the trades. The economics of service jobs make
| it an uphill battle for the employers to ever pay living wages.
| Jobs in trades on the other hand pay very well and are in high
| demand. It's not a bad thing overall for barista jobs to be part
| time or starter jobs, while people prepare for careers that do
| pay well.
| mft_ wrote:
| > The economics of service jobs make it an uphill battle for
| the employers to ever pay living wages.
|
| And yet in some countries, low-end service workers receive
| reasonable (i.e. meaningfully higher than the US) salaries,
| paid vacations, and a pension scheme. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-workers-
| denmark/
| [deleted]
| t-writescode wrote:
| I would still argue that anyone who works a living number of
| work hours deserves a living wage. Anything less is taking
| advantage of another person to make the recipient of that
| benefit more comfortable.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| That's noble of you, but the economics don't work for all
| types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many entry-
| level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go away.
| Among other things, this will increase youth unemployment and
| negatively impact people with poorer backgrounds who are
| trying to work their way up to a good career.
| autoexec wrote:
| > That's noble of you, but the economics don't work for all
| types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many
| entry-level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go
| away.
|
| If a business requires someone to spend 40 hours a week
| doing something, but cannot afford to pay them a living
| wage then that business should close. They are a failure
| and should get out of the way so that a competent business
| owner can replace them. Exploiting workers should not be
| keeping failed businesses afloat. Starbucks does not have
| this problem. They're just exploiting workers to stuff
| their own pockets and could easily ensure that their
| employees are all able to afford to live on their wages.
|
| There was a time, not very long ago, when a single person
| could support themselves and a family on their wages.
| Paying a full time employee so little that they can't even
| support themselves should be illegal.
|
| All this "think of the children" nonsense ignores the fact
| that most jobs paying minimum wage are not held by
| children, and that most kids don't need full time hours
| (and arguably shouldn't work that long anyway since they
| have school) and anyone, even someone in an entry level
| position, still absolutely deserves a living wage for their
| time.
| fnimick wrote:
| Why does it work in other countries then?
| Master_Odin wrote:
| Because other countries are not so filled with
| temporarily embarrassed millionaires as the US and they
| need to maintain the status quo in case they ever
| accidentally stumble back into "their" wealth.
| [deleted]
| fzeroracer wrote:
| The economics already don't work. For example there are
| many jobs currently where they struggle to find workers
| because the pay is so low and no one wants to do it. Rather
| than raise wages, they're instead hiring children, often
| illegally and lobbying to get the regulations lessened.
|
| Companies will do anything to avoid raising wages so they
| need to be forced to the table to do so.
| kazen44 wrote:
| or the people working the jobs need govermental handouts
| to basically survive. Which actually means the business
| isn't competitive and can only exist by socializing it's
| losses.
|
| If the goverment needs to provide food stamps for your
| employees so they don't get into financial trouble, and
| your bussines cannot or will not provide them with a
| living wage. The bussiness should simply cease to exist.
| mft_ wrote:
| That a higher minimum wage causes job losses is a long-held
| but unproven economic theory, and attempts to study it have
| suggested it might be wrong.
|
| _"...that have deepened the amount of data that shows the
| original theory about the minimum wage causing job losses
| is likely wrong. "_ [0]
|
| [0] https://theconversation.com/does-raising-the-minimum-
| wage-ki...
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| You seem to have conflated the minimum wage discussion
| with the living wage discussion.
| t-writescode wrote:
| Per my argument, anyone working a living amount of time
| should earn a living wage. Since someone working 2, 20
| hour a week jobs is working a living amount of time, they
| should also be paid a living wage.
|
| Since those two jobs won't know about each other, the
| exact number of hours should not have an impact on your
| per hour wage.
|
| Therefore the minimum wage should be the living wage.
| mft_ wrote:
| No conflation.
|
| The living wage is a concept --a wage level required to
| achieve a certain standard of living-- rather than an
| instrument.
|
| You wrote: _" If all jobs must pay a living wage..."_ -
| and it therefore follows that if all jobs pay a wage
| level at least that of a 'living wage', then the living
| wage becaomes the effective minimum wage paid by all
| jobs.
|
| Therefore evidence regarding the effects of a higher
| minimum wage are entirely relevant to a discussion of
| paying everyone _at least_ a (higher) living wage.
| klyrs wrote:
| Starbucks' revenue in 2022 was $33B. Their profit was $22B.
| That is an incredibly high margin for retail. These jobs
| wouldn't evaporate if Starbucks was paying a living wage.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| Where did you get those numbers from?
|
| Obviously Starbucks has massive margins but I can't
| imagine that massive!
| dakial1 wrote:
| >According to the document, she had been "1 minute late" to a 6
| a.m. shift.
|
| In Brazil this kind of argument for dismissal would not hold in
| labour court at all.
|
| Specially when employers report hours in what the Brazilian
| justice call "british timing", where employees clock-in and
| clock-out at the exact hour. Brazilian Justice expects a natural
| 10 to 15 minute range (to both sides) here...
| klipklop wrote:
| Believe it or not being slightly late is commonly used to fire
| union employees in the US as well.
|
| Usually the union and business come to an agreement on such
| policies. These are then enforced with no exceptions. Even for
| 20 year employees.
|
| There is zero flexibility or nuance for special situations. If
| your employer does not like you in the US they will do petty
| things like fire you for being 1 minute late. The best the
| union can do is make it so you have to be 1 minute late several
| times before you are canned.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-17 23:01 UTC)