NationStates Jolt Archive

My kids have all worked at Starbucks. It seems like a family ritual. Anyhow, Starbucks is incredibly nice to their employees. The wages are a few dollars above minimum wage, raises are programmed on a sort of seniority basis, working conditions are good, and part time employees are eligible for benefits. Starbucks seems to bend over backwards to accomodate schedule requests and treat their workers fairly.

Recently, a Starbucks fired a fellow for organizing a union. That's where the IWW comes in. Apparently, they have it in for any business that actually turns a profit. I guess that's why they have red union cards, huh? They want to work at jobs where the company loses money.

Anyhow, what the Starbucks store did is probably illegal, assuming what the IWW alleges happened to their comarade. That's fine. The store will be fined, the manager will probably be fired and that's the way it should be.

My question is different. Why would a union think that it has the need to protect workers in such a benign workplace? I believe the phrase goes, "A company gets the union it deserves", doesn't it? Starbucks seems like one of those companies that just doesn't deserve any union.

My question is different. Why would a union think that it has the need to protect workers in such a benign workplace? I believe the phrase goes, "A company gets the union it deserves", doesn't it? Starbucks seems like one of those companies that just doesn't deserve any union.
It's there just in case the company ceases to be benign. You know, like the Second Amendment. :D

I think what starbucks did is perfectly legal. It depends upon the contract. I always thought the best unions are those localised only by the company at which its members work. Unions which span whole industries, in regard to corruption, make the mafia look downright civic.

My question is different. Why would a union think that it has the need to protect workers in such a benign workplace?

A workplace that fires workers for organising a union isn't one that I'd call benign.

It's there just in case the company ceases to be benign. You know, like the Second Amendment. :D
The union will certainly protect the company from any unforseen growth and windfall profits, that's for sure.

A workplace that fires workers for organising a union is one that I'd call benign.
Rather it's not benign, right?

I always wonder what the rest of the story is. It's easy to fixate on the fact that a union organizer was fired, but you've got to wonder what would make a manager do that. I'm sure all fast-food type managers are trained in handling this sort of thing, and I doubt it means that firing a union organizer is acceptable.

The union will certainly protect the company from any unforseen growth and windfall profits, that's for sure.
There needs to be a trade-off. If the unforseen growth and windfall profits come on the back of labour exploitation, then they must not be allowed to take place. A good company will make a conscious trade-off between employee welfare and profits, sacrificing a couple of percent of its margin where necessary, never going for the cash at all costs. A good company will have a sense of responsibility beyond its obligations to shareholders.

I think what starbucks did is perfectly legal. It depends upon the contract.
That's true, of course. The question is, is it ethically justifiable?

I personally think there to be nothing wrong with unions. Corporate bodies rely on their employees, and if their employees aren't happy then they should have at least some way of officially airing their grievances. In larger industries, Trade Unions are often the best way of doing this.

Whether or not they are the most productive method with regards to smaller franchise workers, on the other hand, is another question. I certainly wouldn't think there to be any justification for the employers to shut it down, but in close-knit working environments like that, employees are far better off simply having a chat with their line manager.

starbucks has already been found to be in violation of a bunch of labor laws by the nlrb over the course of this multiyear wob unionization campaign.

It's easy to fixate on the fact that a union organizer was fired, but you've got to wonder what would make a manager do that.

orders from corporate to go union-busting

There needs to be a trade-off. If the unforseen growth and windfall profits come on the back of labour exploitation, then they must not be allowed to take place. A good company will make a conscious trade-off between employee welfare and profits, sacrificing a couple of percent of its margin where necessary, never going for the cash at all costs. A good company will have a sense of responsibility beyond its obligations to shareholders.
Present day labor laws protect workers much better than they were in the past. On top of that, Starbucks is one of the most socially conscious companies I've ever seen. Unions can only hurt. Let's say a Starbucks is organized and the starting wage goes from $8 per hour to $10. Even for a full time employee, that's just $80 per week, before taxes. Now, subtract the union dues. When I was a millwright apprentice in 197?, I paid the union $20 every week for the privilege of being represented. I figure the unions now-days want more.

Are the marginal gains made by unionization worth the loss of individuality? Especially in a workplace that doesn't treat their workers all that badly to begin with.

Let's say a Starbucks is organized and the starting wage goes from $8 per hour to $10. Even for a full time employee, that's just $80 per week, before taxes.

"Just" $80 is a lot of money when you make $320 a week. Union membership would be extremely beneficial in the above scenario.


Are the marginal gains made by unionization worth the loss of individuality?

What good is individuality in an entry level position?

Present day labor laws protect workers much better than they were in the past.

when and if they are meaningfully enforced. they aren't.

Now, subtract the union dues. When I was a millwright apprentice in 197?, I paid the union $20 every week for the privilege of being represented. I figure the unions now-days want more.

The dues rate for the IWW is as follows:

* Minimum Dues = $6.00 (US) per month - if you make less than $1,000.00 (US) per month;
* Regular Dues = $12.00 (US) per month - if you make between $1,000.00-$2,000.00 (US) per month;
* Maximum Dues = $18.00 (US) per month - if you make more than $2,000.00 (US) per month.

Are the marginal gains made by unionization worth the loss of individuality?

wtf?

That's where the IWW comes in. Apparently, they have it in for any business that actually turns a profit. I guess that's why they have red union cards, huh? They want to work at jobs where the company loses money.
Why would anyone want to work at a company that loses money? That's just stupid.

My kids have all worked at Starbucks. It seems like a family ritual. Anyhow, Starbucks is incredibly nice to their employees. The wages are a few dollars above minimum wage, raises are programmed on a sort of seniority basis, working conditions are good, and part time employees are eligible for benefits. Starbucks seems to bend over backwards to accomodate schedule requests and treat their workers fairly.

Recently, a Starbucks fired a fellow for organizing a union. That's where the IWW comes in. Apparently, they have it in for any business that actually turns a profit. I guess that's why they have red union cards, huh? They want to work at jobs where the company loses money.

Anyhow, what the Starbucks store did is probably illegal, assuming what the IWW alleges happened to their comarade. That's fine. The store will be fined, the manager will probably be fired and that's the way it should be.

My question is different. Why would a union think that it has the need to protect workers in such a benign workplace? I believe the phrase goes, "A company gets the union it deserves", doesn't it? Starbucks seems like one of those companies that just doesn't deserve any union.

I would turn that question around.

If Starbucks treats its employees so well, then why would they worry about a union.

A union is not the business destroying force that most right wingers would like to pretend it is. If the union demands wages that would drive the company out of business then the business is free to lay off all its workers. A union can't make a company do what it doesn't want to do. All they do is strengthen the hand of the workers. Any union that has unreasonable demands (demands more than a profitable company can pay) will quickly find itself broken.

Look at the professional athletes. Some people complain that sports stars don't deserve the money they make, but are the team owners particularly deserving of the money that the athletes wouldn't get?

Any group of laborers needs unions because otherwise they will get taken advantage of. The fact that it doesn't necessarily go to outright exploitation and wage slavery doesn't mean that they aren't being taken advantage of.

Present day labor laws protect workers much better than they were in the past.

Such progressive legislation is almost always the result of populist action having forced the hands of the business interests that fought such legislation tooth and nail.

Even when it isn't, it's usually because some other force has made it a reality anyway. Even seatbelt legislation. It was only made law because car companies had to make military vehicles with seatbelts by presidential fiat. So then the car companies figured there wasn't a significant savings in not installing seatbelts, so they did it on their own. Then congress passed laws requiring seatbelts.

Unions forcing businesses to make concessions to their workers are what made (and make) it possible for congress to pass legislation requiring it. Once the financial interest in opposing such legislation is gone (because non-legislative measures made it a reality) the legislation happens. When that interest returns, the legislation goes away.


On top of that, Starbucks is one of the most socially conscious companies I've ever seen. Unions can only hurt. Let's say a Starbucks is organized and the starting wage goes from $8 per hour to $10. Even for a full time employee, that's just $80 per week, before taxes. Now, subtract the union dues. When I was a millwright apprentice in 197?, I paid the union $20 every week for the privilege of being represented. I figure the unions now-days want more.

With $5 cups of coffee, those franchises could afford to pay a lot more than an extra $2, and if the people there want a union those union fees are theirs to pay.


Are the marginal gains made by unionization worth the loss of individuality? Especially in a workplace that doesn't treat their workers all that badly to begin with.

If you gave a shit about individuality you wouldn't be advocating taking away their choice to have a union. Starbucks treats their employees the way they do because it's in their financial interest. If they truly treated their workers well out of social conscience then they wouldn't be firing them because of pro-union sentiments, would they?

It's there just in case the company ceases to be benign. You know, like the Second Amendment. :D
And you don't have to get rid of it until the union starts fucking the economy to pieces like the UK in the early 1980s.

There needs to be a trade-off. If the unforseen growth and windfall profits come on the back of labour exploitation, then they must not be allowed to take place. A good company will make a conscious trade-off between employee welfare and profits, sacrificing a couple of percent of its margin where necessary, never going for the cash at all costs. A good company will have a sense of responsibility beyond its obligations to shareholders.

No it won't. A company has no sense of anything other than what its shareholders want unless forced to. They can't because shareholders are allowed to sue if corporations do things like pay workers more than the prevailing wage, are more environmentally friendly than legally mandated, or give medical benifits beyond what's required to intice minimum labor requirements.

Four things make (or allow) corporations to demonstrate social conscience.

1) Legally mandated standards. Minimum wage, environmental protection laws, etc.

2) Threats of lawsuits. Exxon/Valdese (sp) and products that malfunction and kill people. Corporations can point to possibilities of future lawsuits to justify raising saftey and environmental standards to their shareholders.

3) Negotiation with labor. Self Explanitory

4) P.R. Companies that are hired to make companies look more socially consious than they are.

Other than that, shareholders can, and probably will, force corporations to exploit all resources, including people, to lower costs and increase revenue. Often using short-sighted methods of appraisal that will cost a company revenue for the sake of reducing costs, such as our rejection of the Kyoto treaty which seems to be saving signatory countries money and benifiting their economies. Penny wise/pound foolish as the English say.

This is the big problem with electing politicians who "will run this country like a business." They're supposed to leave business to the businessmen and run the country like it's a country.

No it won't. A company has no sense of anything other than what its shareholders want unless forced to.

Wrong.

I work at a company that goes far beyond what shareholders ask for.

We know that the people who work at our company are the essence of the company. Not the desks, computers, tables, offices, etc. Not even the programs we write on contract for others (which are really property of our clients). Not our management consulting documents (which also are sent to the clients).

It's our people that make our company a success. Why we have a 3 percent per year turnover rate in a company of 150 people. Why we have massive institutional knowledge of how to run software and management projects very very successfully. Why we deliver results when some consulting firms lowball and deliver crap.

Why clients always ask us back. Every one.

Why? Because we give better management, better independence for every person, a radically compact hierarchy (only three levels from bottom to top), and we are encouraged by agile software practices to apply agile concepts to everything we do. We're very, very, very happy people - because the company treats us right. Great benefits. Good salaries. Fun projects - a new one every few months if you like. You choose whether or not to take a travel project (I went to London for three months).

And we DON'T have a union. The government DOES NOT force our management to operate this way. Neither do the shareholders.

Maybe, just maybe, treating people right is good for business.

Wrong.

I work at a company that goes far beyond what shareholders ask for.

We know that the people who work at our company are the essence of the company. Not the desks, computers, tables, offices, etc. Not even the programs we write on contract for others (which are really property of our clients). Not our management consulting documents (which also are sent to the clients).

It's our people that make our company a success. Why we have a 3 percent per year turnover rate in a company of 150 people. Why we have massive institutional knowledge of how to run software and management projects very very successfully. Why we deliver results when some consulting firms lowball and deliver crap.

Why clients always ask us back. Every one.

Why? Because we give better management, better independence for every person, a radically compact hierarchy (only three levels from bottom to top), and we are encouraged by agile software practices to apply agile concepts to everything we do. We're very, very, very happy people - because the company treats us right. Great benefits. Good salaries. Fun projects - a new one every few months if you like. You choose whether or not to take a travel project (I went to London for three months).

And we DON'T have a union. The government DOES NOT force our management to operate this way. Neither do the shareholders.

Maybe, just maybe, treating people right is good for business.
Then your company should have no problems allowing a union to organize. Free association.

Unions can only hurt. Let's say a Starbucks is organized and the starting wage goes from $8 per hour to $10. Even for a full time employee, that's just $80 per week, before taxes. Now, subtract the union dues. When I was a millwright apprentice in 197?, I paid the union $20 every week for the privilege of being represented. I figure the unions now-days want more.

The dues rate for the IWW is as follows:

* Minimum Dues = $6.00 (US) per month - if you make less than $1,000.00 (US) per month;
* Regular Dues = $12.00 (US) per month - if you make between $1,000.00-$2,000.00 (US) per month;
* Maximum Dues = $18.00 (US) per month - if you make more than $2,000.00 (US) per month.


The Wobblies are pretty reasonable, due-wise.

I work at a company that goes far beyond what shareholders ask for.

We know that the people who work at our company are the essence of the company. Not the desks, computers, tables, offices, etc. Not even the programs we write on contract for others (which are really property of our clients). Not our management consulting documents (which also are sent to the clients).

It's our people that make our company a success. Why we have a 3 percent per year turnover rate in a company of 150 people. Why we have massive institutional knowledge of how to run software and management projects very very successfully. Why we deliver results when some consulting firms lowball and deliver crap.

Why clients always ask us back. Every one.

Why? Because we give better management, better independence for every person, a radically compact hierarchy (only three levels from bottom to top), and we are encouraged by agile software practices to apply agile concepts to everything we do. We're very, very, very happy people - because the company treats us right. Great benefits. Good salaries. Fun projects - a new one every few months if you like. You choose whether or not to take a travel project (I went to London for three months).

And we DON'T have a union. The government DOES NOT force our management to operate this way. Neither do the shareholders.

Maybe, just maybe, treating people right is good for business.

If only all managers understood that, and all managers and employees agreed on what being "treated right" means.

Some companies have decent management, many do not, and a few are downright awful.

Some companies follow labor laws strictly, some moderately so, and some almost not at all.

The company I work for is at the lower end of the mid-range, and they are considered one of the best employers in the sector (which says something abouit the particular sector). I've worked for the company 6 1/2 years, and have seen management make a visible downhill slide in that time. Which is one reason why I did join the union.

I pay roughly US$260 in yearly dues, and in the last 6 months. Among the things I've gotten from that:
enrolled in the legally required national health and pension plan (local equivilant to social security)
stoppped the company from making roughly US$600 in illegal salary deductions
roughly US$ 800 in back payment for unpaid overtime fo the past 2 years
stopped the company from illegally passing on personal data to 3rd parties w/o permission

Next on the agenda is a silly dresscode change. (No, I don't need to be wearing a suit to teach English to 3 year olds.)

Maybe, just maybe, treating people right is good for business.

Oh, it is, when they're skilled enough to not be expendable, replaced by some other sucker after 3 hours training.