Hacker News Reader

Comment by yati | Hacker News Reader

> A spokesperson for Starbucks said in an email in response to the union organizing drive: “While Starbucks respects the free choice of our partners, we firmly believe that our work environment, coupled with our outstanding compensation and benefits, makes unions unnecessary at Starbucks. We respect our partners’ right to organize but believe that they would not find it necessary given our pro-partner environment.”

I don’t know about the US, but that statement is such a joke in Switzerland Starbucks. “Partners” are fired the moment they declare they are pregnant, the pay is minimum wages (compared to even obscure fast food chains here, that pay significantly above the min) and stressful shifts are the norm due to understaffing.

The “perks”? Your drinks are generously on the fucking house, and you get to take home a bag of coffee beans every week. Source: several people I know well who are baristas.

View on HN

In the US they pay for your college (at Arizona State University) if you work at least 20 hours a week, and offer you stock. Their base wage is well above the competition and minimum wage in most locations here, before tips (another US oddity).

There are always reasons to form a union, but I would be surprised if adoption was particularly high. Starbucks ranks highest in employee satisfaction among national fast food chains. https://www.comparably.com/companies/starbucks/happiness

> are fired the moment they declare they are pregnant

In the US this is illegal and a really easy lawsuit to win. Does Switzerland not have laws protecting workers from being fired for being pregnant?

In San Francisco, with our specific set of labor protections, Starbucks is merely competitive. But so is Union grocery work: which either pays better or worse after dues than comparably easy to get jobs depending on whether you need the insurance or not.

Maybe they are not exactly fired (not familiar with Switzerland myself) but I know of constructions of keeping people (mostly women) constantly on 3-month temporary contracts. Those contracts then don't get renewed if someone is pregnant.

Yes I confirmed, this was what happened. The shitty part is that there was no obligation for this person to declare, they did it to be transparent, and their contract was never renewed. This in a store that is understaffed, constantly hiring with high churn.

edit: I noticed that they hire a lot of expats, and probably also why get away with it: If you're an expat who e.g., followed your (unmarried) partner into Switzerland, boy do you have to jump through hoops to stay. To these people, Starbucks is actually a lifeline.

makes unions unnecessary at Starbucks

Genuine question. When corporate spokespeople say this, and when people hear it, does everyone involved think it's bullshit for appearances, for a kind of collective playacting? Or is there a genuine mindset behind this that truly, honestly thinks that unions couldn't help Starbucks workers; that there's nothing they could do to make things better for Starbucks workers? Or is it stating they're unnecessary because it's not necessary for employees to have a better life; is it a kind of clinical, harsh Chicago school style assessment of the situation?

American Starbucks also throws in tuition (if you're comfortable going to the one school they're partnered with and tying your education to keeping that particular job) and healthcare (while employing a sizable number of people young enough to be on their parent's still.)

Oh, and they'll hook you up with a Spotify subscription and a Lyra subscription.

Basically just a whole bunch of nonsense when all you really want is to see resources thrown into A: staffing more people on the floor, and B: giving your existing staff the hours they need so that they can afford to remain your existing staff.

> Switzerland...minimum wages

The pregnant part surprises me, but the wages don't. Aren't they something like $25 per hour in Switzerland?

Yeah, more like 20 (19 CHF/h). Switzerland is expensive, and Starbucks ensures that their prices reflect that -- "caramel frappuccino" is 8.90 CHF for the big bucket of a cup they have, while the same thing in the US is what, 5? They could easily pay their employees more if they wanted, but they don't and then talk about this "partner fair ethical something something" bullshit. Like I said, there are plenty of fast food/coffee joints here that do pay their employees well.

Re. the pregnant part, I confirmed and it was not technically firing, just not renewing the contract upon learning.

I don't remember the work law being so simplified 20 years ago. Has it been reviewed?

Or was I lucky with the kinds of contracts I had?

Starbucks, rather literally, treats homeless people better than their own employees. Rock on, NY organizers.

Starbucks treats homeless people better than their non-homeless customers.

Can you go into more detail on how Starbucks does that?

It's a matter of perspective. Of course they aren't giving a wage to the homeless. But like many places they are often short staffed and not great paying.

In 2018, Starbucks came under fire for calling the police on 2 black men who were inside but not making a purchase. Starbucks policy at time was that only paying customers could use the facilities. Twitter does what Twitter does, and eventually Starbucks reversed course on their policy (after throwing their own employees under the bus for following policy).

So, stands to reason that a homeless person can come and go as he or she pleases, sleep, use the restroom, eat uneaten food, as they please. Can an employee? Perhaps they can do some of those things, but definitely not as they please due to aforementioned understaffing.

Unions were designed for genuinely dangerous work, like factory and mine work.

The joke is a worker making coffee thinking they need union protection for their job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com