I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location and the Boylston Starbucks location. It seems like that's the new corporate tactic to try to discourage unionizing.
Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make money, but in the meantime it seems like it's an intimidation tactic and that should probably be illegal.
Walmart closed a number of stores in 2014-2016, many for as short a time as 6 months, some for over a year. Officially, they claimed that they were being remodeled or that they had plumbing issues that needed fixing (it was only 5 at the time of this article[0]). Employees claimed that they were closed to block unionization moves. Conspiracy theory minded people claimed that they were being turned into prison camps for Jade Helm [1]. Previously, Walmart had stopped cutting meat in stores because meat cutters had unionized in a couple of locations[2][3].
SCOTUS has said it is okay to close a place of business to avoid unionization of workers. Frankly I think this is fine, you can't compel someone to operate a business.
I go to the Milk Bar location sometimes, and while I’m not a giant fan of how sweet things are there, it’s very very hard to pay rent at that location and stay profitable. You need to sell a lot of cookies and it always seemed like a ghost town in there.
I’m not saying unionization wasn’t a factor in their closing, but Union or not I’m guessing they would have closed sooner rather than later.
Is this a US thing? Unions/store. In Australia the union negotiation is organisation wide and covers all of Australia. The agreements are lodged, certified by Fair Work Australia and publicly searchable. In that case closing one store has no effect.
To this, it seems like a mechanism by which they are firing workers that are organizing and is just a scale motion over the same underlying illegal action.
Closing the store is an opportunity for the union. They can take over the location and open it as their very own union shop, and pay themselves as they see fit.
People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard.
(Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)
Can news articles/reporters ever quote the actual original court ruling that they use to source their stories? I find it amazingly rare that journalists feel that they should show people where they get the key finding of their story, and rather lazily present their story as if they were the controlling authority and only source of information.
Given how rich the original information is to link to (like, a 200 page PDF ruling), this is a bit of journalistic travesty to leave it out. Compared to how much hearsay they seem to accept as a source in day to day stories, yet go to lengths to name the person's name.
And "For more information on this breaking issue, go to KABC.com!"
Yeah, thanks a lot for that in-depth reporting!
Does anyone know where to find the PDF of this one?
Your first mistake was considering them journalists.
Many who create click bait drool are like WIX “developers” calling themselves custom frontend engineers.
Even a junior journalist would do something as simple as quote the actual case. Time and time again I see these articles and even basic things are factually incorrect.
Even today I think there was a HN post about salesforce layoffs, quoted at 10k when it was 8k, and that wave happened in January when it was written as if there’s another wave coming.
> Can news articles/reporters ever quote the actual original court ruling that they use to source their stories?
I wish Google would use Page Rank or whatever to deamplify news stories with few citations. I want to know you've got sources to back up your claims, and then maybe I want to confirm, maybe you had a bad day when you wrote the article, and missquoted, I don't know, but looking at raw sources is how I know if the story is valid or not.
[email protected]
I'll send you a parent comment from a hacker news post called "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules", remember it
Okay, I will keep that in mind.
[email protected]
Can news articles/reporters ever quote the actual original court ruling that they use to source their stories? I find it amazingly rare that journalists feel that they should show people where they get the key finding of their story, and rather lazily present their story as if they were the controlling authority and only source of information.
Given how rich the original information is to link to (like, a 200 page PDF ruling), this is a bit of journalistic travesty to leave it out. Compared to how much hearsay they seem to accept as a source in day to day stories, yet go to lengths to name the person's name.
And "For more information on this breaking issue, go to KABC.com!" Yeah, thanks a lot for that in-depth reporting!
Does anyone know where to find the PDF of this one?
Thank you for sharing the parent comment from the Hacker News post titled "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules." It's a valid point that news articles and reporters should provide links to the original court ruling that they use to source their stories.
In many cases, news articles do include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. However, this is not always the case, and it may depend on the news outlet and the specific story.
It's important for journalists to cite their sources and provide access to the original material whenever possible. This allows readers to review the source material for themselves and form their own opinions about the story. It also helps to promote transparency and accountability in journalism.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this specific case, I recommend checking the website of the court where the ruling was issued. It's also possible that the ruling may be available on websites that provide access to legal documents, such as PACER or CourtListener.
[email protected]
Now write a reply for that parent comment. Make it sounds like what a comment from hacker news sound
I completely agree with your point that news articles should include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. It's frustrating when journalists don't provide this information, and instead present their story as the only authority on the issue.
Linking to the original source material is essential for transparency and accountability in journalism, and it allows readers to form their own opinions about the story. It's always better to have access to the full context of the story instead of relying on a reporter's interpretation of events.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this case, you might want to check out the website of the court where the ruling was issued, or search for it on legal document websites like PACER or CourtListener. Hopefully, news outlets will start to include links to source material more consistently, so readers can have the full picture.
Its funny to watch "progressive" mega corporations like Starbucks, Apple, Amazon + more skirt around unions. Essentially they use PR to say we are all for these corporate safe progressive topics... but any topics of worker rights, unions.. nope.
There's no such thing as a progressive company. They do it for marketing reasons, only after a movement made up of many people taking risks "normalised" a particular form of social progress.
Those apparent progressive values are actually corporate values. Corporate values and progressive values can at times come to the same conclusion about a matter for completely different reasons. In these cases it may seem as though the corporation is championing progressive values, but that's not actually what's going on.
For instance, a progressive value is having a diverse workforce because discrimination and prejudice are immoral. A corporate value is having a diverse workforce because it makes labor organization harder. The corporate messaging about diversity initiatives this will appear to be progressive political messaging, but really isn't. Progressives support workplace diversity to combat prejudice, while corporations support workplace diversity to exploit prejudice.
Around 2015 (still under Schultz), I got the impression Starbucks actually cares about its partners. They paid above-market wages to attract good people and provided good benefits.
It’s how we end up with the incoherent “progressive” marketing of a chocolate company that is currently being sued for using child slave labor to source the chocolate that the trans woman celebrating women’s month wants me to buy.
Starbucks and Amazon are hardly "progressive". Most folks I know would describe them as pretty much bog standard big capitalist companies. Sure, they slap a rainbow logo on their twitter during June, but so does Raytheon.
I'm less sure about Apple, which might actually have more of a progressive streak in it (I'm simply not knowledgable), but the other two are pretty much standard exploitative mega corps.
Just a tangent that it's strange this is a local story for me (Rochester NY) and there is no local coverage - had to go all the way to the UK to learn about this!
That's kind of wild, and a little concerning. 13 WHAM doesn't seem to have even a mention of this on their website. Is ABC connected to anti-labor interests?
Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.
If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.
I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:
- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job
- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place
- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs
All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.
They closed the Starbucks in my city rather than recognize the union. Probably they'll reopen it later with all new people. It's purely an intimidation tactic. They are hoping to make an example of those workers who get out of line to strike fear into the hearts of the rest. My heart goes out to all the young, financially struggling workers who really just wanted some paid sick days and better treatment.
This article made me curious, has any business tried to defend antiunion activities through a desire for free association? As in the business does not want to associate with unions.
It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.
I make it a point to try visit the unionized store in my area. I'd love to see a comparison of pay/benefits of a typical US Starbucks vs the ones I see in say Munich.
As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary. When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.
It’s all well and good until it impacts your wallet. The hypocrisy is depressing but not surprising.
It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders.
Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of his excuse.
I'm surprised we don't have a unionization app. With the technology we have today we should be able to do zero trust organizing. There should be a way to square the app with the NRLB so that some protections can get established before a hostile employer acts.
The food service industry in America is about as corrupt as it gets, They don't pay a fair wage, they rely on extortion tactics (tipping) to float the cost of wages to the customer and the customer must pay for his meal and half the staffs wages as well or be labeled a bad person or in the customers mind, maybe even face a retaliation of some sort by the staff, i.e spitting in food, added to a blacklist etc. and they are actively fighting any attempts at unionization to boot.
Judge is a strong word here. This was an NLRB admin judge/bureaucrat which means this whole thing will be appealed to a real judicial branch court and tried.
Honestly curious - is there any available data that demonstrates Unions are a net-benefit in modern times?
Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for?
In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is there good-doing I'm missing?
Take Starbucks for example - already known for higher-than-average wages, college tuition sponsorship programs, management tracks and more - what is left to fight for? It's still nearly zero-skilled labor at the end of the day.
Problem is that people even take these jobs seriously. Starbucks job was something to do part-time for a couple of years while you are in school. Why would you spent time unionizing for that? It's never going to pay enough to live on.
Companies shouldn't forced to permit the creation of unions. Unions are a tumor and it only makes sense for a company to remove it. If employees want to be able to threaten to quit employers should be able to threaten to fire them. The negotiation power should go both ways.
Governments shouldn't be forced to permit the creation of political parties. If citizens want the right to kick out the government, the government should have the right to kick citizens out of the country.
See the flaw in both of these arguments is that governments and corporations aren't people and only exist to provide some societal benefit. the measure of what we should allow governments and companies to do is what makes for the best functioning society, not some random principal of symmetry.
Seriously, I’m interested to know why you think that. I am a member of a union and without it I would be significantly less well off. Am I a bad person because I want to be treated like a human instead of a replaceable cog in a machine?
I think you fundamentally misunderstand unions and the worker-corporation relationship. Historically, and through to today, corporations have most/all of the power. Which is why things like child labor, 16 hour work days, etc. were very common, until workers unionized, effectively pooling their power in order to negotiate with corporations. If you didn't have to work as a child, or don't have to work longer than 8 hours, thank a union.
[+] [-] nerdponx|3 years ago|reply
Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make money, but in the meantime it seems like it's an intimidation tactic and that should probably be illegal.
[+] [-] Tangurena2|3 years ago|reply
0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-consp...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori...
2 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/w...
3 - https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-reco...
[+] [-] voidfunc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elbigbad|3 years ago|reply
I’m not saying unionization wasn’t a factor in their closing, but Union or not I’m guessing they would have closed sooner rather than later.
[+] [-] softveda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outside1234|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|3 years ago|reply
People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard.
(Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)
[+] [-] supernova87a|3 years ago|reply
Given how rich the original information is to link to (like, a 200 page PDF ruling), this is a bit of journalistic travesty to leave it out. Compared to how much hearsay they seem to accept as a source in day to day stories, yet go to lengths to name the person's name.
And "For more information on this breaking issue, go to KABC.com!" Yeah, thanks a lot for that in-depth reporting!
Does anyone know where to find the PDF of this one?
[+] [-] odensc|3 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-285671
[1]: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45839c9e8e (file download warning)
[+] [-] spacephysics|3 years ago|reply
Many who create click bait drool are like WIX “developers” calling themselves custom frontend engineers.
Even a junior journalist would do something as simple as quote the actual case. Time and time again I see these articles and even basic things are factually incorrect.
Even today I think there was a HN post about salesforce layoffs, quoted at 10k when it was 8k, and that wave happened in January when it was written as if there’s another wave coming.
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|3 years ago|reply
I wish Google would use Page Rank or whatever to deamplify news stories with few citations. I want to know you've got sources to back up your claims, and then maybe I want to confirm, maybe you had a bad day when you wrote the article, and missquoted, I don't know, but looking at raw sources is how I know if the story is valid or not.
[+] [-] gnicholas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Waterluvian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clircle|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Weirdfuture|3 years ago|reply
[email protected] I'll send you a parent comment from a hacker news post called "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules", remember it
Okay, I will keep that in mind.
[email protected] Can news articles/reporters ever quote the actual original court ruling that they use to source their stories? I find it amazingly rare that journalists feel that they should show people where they get the key finding of their story, and rather lazily present their story as if they were the controlling authority and only source of information. Given how rich the original information is to link to (like, a 200 page PDF ruling), this is a bit of journalistic travesty to leave it out. Compared to how much hearsay they seem to accept as a source in day to day stories, yet go to lengths to name the person's name.
And "For more information on this breaking issue, go to KABC.com!" Yeah, thanks a lot for that in-depth reporting!
Does anyone know where to find the PDF of this one?
Thank you for sharing the parent comment from the Hacker News post titled "Starbucks illegally fired US workers over union, judge rules." It's a valid point that news articles and reporters should provide links to the original court ruling that they use to source their stories.
In many cases, news articles do include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. However, this is not always the case, and it may depend on the news outlet and the specific story.
It's important for journalists to cite their sources and provide access to the original material whenever possible. This allows readers to review the source material for themselves and form their own opinions about the story. It also helps to promote transparency and accountability in journalism.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this specific case, I recommend checking the website of the court where the ruling was issued. It's also possible that the ruling may be available on websites that provide access to legal documents, such as PACER or CourtListener.
[email protected] Now write a reply for that parent comment. Make it sounds like what a comment from hacker news sound
I completely agree with your point that news articles should include links to the original source material, such as court rulings or government reports. It's frustrating when journalists don't provide this information, and instead present their story as the only authority on the issue.
Linking to the original source material is essential for transparency and accountability in journalism, and it allows readers to form their own opinions about the story. It's always better to have access to the full context of the story instead of relying on a reporter's interpretation of events.
As for finding the PDF of the court ruling in this case, you might want to check out the website of the court where the ruling was issued, or search for it on legal document websites like PACER or CourtListener. Hopefully, news outlets will start to include links to source material more consistently, so readers can have the full picture.
[+] [-] roody15|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontlaugh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slackdog|3 years ago|reply
For instance, a progressive value is having a diverse workforce because discrimination and prejudice are immoral. A corporate value is having a diverse workforce because it makes labor organization harder. The corporate messaging about diversity initiatives this will appear to be progressive political messaging, but really isn't. Progressives support workplace diversity to combat prejudice, while corporations support workplace diversity to exploit prejudice.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo...
[+] [-] dehrmann|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glonq|3 years ago|reply
It is not possible to be a progressive mega corp.
[+] [-] nemo44x|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MapsSlaps|3 years ago|reply
I'm less sure about Apple, which might actually have more of a progressive streak in it (I'm simply not knowledgable), but the other two are pretty much standard exploitative mega corps.
[+] [-] nemo44x|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] binarymax|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolfgang42|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deburo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freediverx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amurthy1|3 years ago|reply
If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.
I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:
- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job
- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place
- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs
All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.
[+] [-] fallingfrog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|3 years ago|reply
It made me curious because I've not seen that argument before, in the function of a union seems like it wants to force the company to associate with it whether the company wants to or not.
[+] [-] gregors|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallingfrog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellotomyrars|3 years ago|reply
It could also be argued, )I hate the argument but it is true) that he has to oppose any and all unionization efforts because as a publicly traded company they are required to look out for the interests of their shareholders.
Which comes back to the same place ultimately. And I have no sympathy for him regardless of his excuse.
[+] [-] cwkoss|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nielsbot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theGnuMe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skee8383|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prasadjoglekar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olliej|3 years ago|reply
No.
It has made those changes in response to union activity. No changes happened until it became apparent the unionization was actually happening.
[+] [-] Alupis|3 years ago|reply
Many of us have fond thoughts regarding Unions and the struggles they went through decades ago to achieve sane, safe, rewarding working conditions. What is left to fight for?
In the past couple years, we have had story after story of Unions abusing power and harming companies and the public in the process. Is there good-doing I'm missing?
Take Starbucks for example - already known for higher-than-average wages, college tuition sponsorship programs, management tracks and more - what is left to fight for? It's still nearly zero-skilled labor at the end of the day.
[+] [-] stefap2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itisit|3 years ago|reply
https://sbworkersunited.org/noneconomic-proposals
[+] [-] gwatch|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] charcircuit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] advisedwang|3 years ago|reply
See the flaw in both of these arguments is that governments and corporations aren't people and only exist to provide some societal benefit. the measure of what we should allow governments and companies to do is what makes for the best functioning society, not some random principal of symmetry.
[+] [-] hellotomyrars|3 years ago|reply
Seriously, I’m interested to know why you think that. I am a member of a union and without it I would be significantly less well off. Am I a bad person because I want to be treated like a human instead of a replaceable cog in a machine?
[+] [-] ssklash|3 years ago|reply
I think you fundamentally misunderstand unions and the worker-corporation relationship. Historically, and through to today, corporations have most/all of the power. Which is why things like child labor, 16 hour work days, etc. were very common, until workers unionized, effectively pooling their power in order to negotiate with corporations. If you didn't have to work as a child, or don't have to work longer than 8 hours, thank a union.