this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2022
18 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7176 readers
1588 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I smell a carefully plotted PR stunt. People pay billions for the amount of free advertisements and name placements Starbucks gets from this, "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Screaming someone's brand name and making their CEO a household name, doesn't have the worst effect on their stock price. Reading this article I'm not being asked to vote for anything, or donate anywhere, all I've learned is that Starbucks gives away free red holiday cups or something, every year. I just want a free cup now that's all.
I think you might be conflating union actions with reporting on union actions. The union is representing its members, but the reporting starts by focusing on the free cup. Vice definitely isn't a worker forward publication. The union is asking for support they would like right at the top of their home page: https://sbworkersunited.org/
Also, unions don't end at corporate boundaries. Read the FAQ on the above link to see how the Starbucks union fits into the local union landscape.
I see, so it's like vaguely connected to the SEIU?... but so many red flags right away, like this:
why?
why?
that's so sad
wouldn't you just prefer seniority?
who talks like this?
I'd much rather prefer it go bankrupt
Are you saying the entire unionization effort is a set up for publicity?
it makes sense doesn't it? a completely inept union that can be gotten rid of at anytime, that anyone can either be promoted from or fired from? Starbucks' first union effort was in 1985 almost 40 years were later we've got one whole store. Look at the spook in charge of this new one too. Jaz Brisack, a rhodes scholar and oxford grad who goes to work for minimum wage at starbucks? All these articles saying "starbucks" millions of times over and over, and what happens? maybe they get a small cost of living raise? if that?
? There are about 250 stores that have approved unionization across a large area impacting 6500 employees. It did start with one store though.
No. I believe that Starbucks is trying to make the most of the situation, but they would dissolve the union or would've blocked it in the first place if they could.
back in 1985 not only did the CEO openly support the union, but tried claim the original unionization efforts were his idea in the first place, then once the story left the headlines about how everyone at one starbucks has healthcare now, they gutted the union and it dissolved. Why do I feel that will happen again and again throughout starbucks lifetime?
Not exactly how I'd frame it but that is something vice news would do frankly. Starbucks doesn't want a union but they can make the most of it.
Starbucks is fighting this tooth and nail, and they've shut down stores that managed to unionize. I highly doubt companies are encouraging unionization.
franchises open and close stores on a whim all the time, they also fire people for no reason all the time, 99% of employees don't last a year at any of these corporate mega chains. I don't see them fighting tooth and nail I see them continuing on with business as usual, while posting record profits
I guess we see things differently here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm far more interested in the ongoing railroad strikes in the US, hardly ever hear a word about them, if I didn't go out of my way to google it every now and then I wouldn't even know it's going on. Granted it's in the US so its not a real union, or a real strike those are highly illegal, and considered an act of treason, but its interesting to watch. Especially considering how much the transportation industry is being automated, driverless trucks, hyperloops, at home deliveries skyrocketing etc
Sure, railroad strikes have much more potential, but it all adds up in my opinion. As I said earlier, I think the key part is that workers are recognizing the need to organize and act collectively. Every such effort should be encouraged, and when these efforts are misguided then efforts should be made to help steer people in the right direction.
I call it cheerleaderism, your intentions are all that matter, you're on our team so we just say "rah rah sis boom bah goooo ummm.... checks notes the starbucks corporate union rah!"
As I said, people need to be educated. This is literally why the concept of the vanguard party exists.
what is to be learned from "rah rah sis boom bah"?
I've explained my point above several times already, I don't see the point of repeating myself.
this is what I mean by cheerleaderism, either for or against, either we say, yay starbucks union or boo starbucks union, and no critical analysis is ever made, nothing is learned. its as if the outcome is based on positivity, and that if we can shield the fragile starbucks babies from any and all criticism they'll grow up to be big and strong.
"just support them" as if me having positive or negative thoughts about them in my head, by myself in my house will effect anyone's life. I think it comes from the internet, so its not surprising to see these strange unions-by-tweet where it's just random people who work for the same megacorp just saying "let's a do a union like in the movies woohoo" and then kind of do some union like stuff at maybe 5 stores and then nothing happens and the union dissolves a few years later. It's like a new trendy hashtag. I imagine any real union activist or leader who approaches them, would be greeted with boos immediately as he would not be all totes mcgoats super supportive right off the bat, and say every little thing they did was awesome and special and wonderful and how great they all are for breathing air and drinking water
I've repeatedly explained that I think it's important to educate workers who are organizing ineffectively, and you just keep ignoring that. It's pretty clear we're talking past each other here. Have a good day.
hey sorry don't it take it so personally, I know you post lots of leftist news stories on here, and we all appreciate it. I'm not asking you stop posting about starbucks, I'm more interested hearing everyone else's thoughts on the subject, not asking you to personally defend them or even stop posting about them. You should be able to criticize them, or criticize what I'm writing about them, if you can't do either, you could always ask me questions, or you could always just assume I'm a complete idiot and not worth your time and ignore me
I'm not taking it personally, I just disagree with your assessment and I don't think we're getting anywhere. I agree with being able to criticize misguided efforts at organizing, I'm just saying that I see the drive to do so as a positive, and the way to really improve things is by educating people. If we simply dismiss the effort then it's just going to be wasted. If the people organizing get help to steer them in the right direction then there's a chance it'll grow into something better.
If a Vanguard existed it could work towards bringing together these union workers and coffee farmers. The problem is that it does not seem like something a Starbucks union would even find interesting or empowering.
This is part of the problem. Some workers rely on the exploitation of other workers. How can this be reconciled? This is why I yawn when the news about Starbucks unions gets around. No one has the answers. I've even asked Starbucks workers about this specifically. They just want a better wage. They aren't looking to leverage the political power of their labor to promote solidarity much less consequencial action.
minimum wage, universal healthcare, and affordable housing would be way better for these people than any dumb corporate union