this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2022
18 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7176 readers
1618 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 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.