Hacker News Reader

Comment by ok_dad | Hacker News Reader

I get it, I’m sure he thinks he’s for the common man because of his upbringing. He might even believe it and want to help his employees. Unfortunately, it sounds like he lost their trust by letting another hack run the company for a few years, and now they want unions. Too bad for him, but does he truly think the second he dies there aren’t some greedy MBAs hovering around ready to squeeze as much profit from it as possible? He should probably be working with the new union and trying to cement his legacy of being the good guy he thinks he is by ensuring that Starbucks and the union are intertwined culturally at that company so that this never happens again.

View on HN

curious

why do starbucks workers want to unionize? do they feel underpaid/overworked? are they mad the company earns billions in profit (do they?) and they only make $15-18/hr + some paid tuition perk/benefit/or whatever?

what could starbucks give these workers to not want to unionize? $25/hr? breaks every 15 minutes? what is the union promising to negotiate for the workers that they don’t currently have now?

Good questions for the CEO of Starbucks to be asking. I assume the workers like the benefits they think the union will give them and that’s why they want it.

If you’re curious, simply reach out to the Starbucks Workers United org and ask.

https://sbworkersunited.org/

https://sbworkersunited.org/new-page-2

I’m unsure if your comment is genuinely curious; I’ve tried to assume positive intent. Unions are the only way for workers to get purchase against abusive, unchecked capitalism.

(disclosure: I have provided financial and technical support)

Edit: @savanaly

The author of the comment I replied to has a most recent Ask HN asking why not smaller government and more privatization. Their comment language and format, when viewed for only a moment, is easy to distill as not genuinely curious, but as condescending: “what could these workers possibly ask for that they’d deserve from Starbucks?”

I’m happy to act as Google and stick the result in a reply for them (this is what they’re asking for), but I’m also going to politely call out their disingenuous behavior.

>I’m unsure if your comment is genuinely curious; I’ve tried to assume positive intent.

This part of your comment is unnecessary and degrades the discussion. The first half was helpful.

Just read through the site. It sounds like a naked call for power? I didn’t see any specific demands. Why can’t they form their own coffee company?

Starbucks is their company. It could not exist without their labor. By unionizing, they obtain that power. You may feel different, but this is what labor regulations and the NLRB is for: to protect workers’ organization rights.

Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story.

If unions hadn't seized political power to grant themselves unjust power these leeches, which is what they undoubtedly are, would be where they deserve, fired.

They are suppliers of labor, and should be treated like any other supplier of any other good or service, rather than being privileged by the force of law.

> Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story.

Not even close. Workers have rights, among them the freedom of association up to and including forming associations centered around collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions.

It was through political power that the rights of shareholders were created as well. It’s just a legal construct after all. Are shareholders leaches too?

You’re not curious. You’re being disingenuous.

If you were actually curious, you’d read the article, which goes into a lot of detail about the unsafe work conditions, the equipment breakdowns, the unstable hours, the student debt making the unstable hours even more precarious, and so on.

I read the article. It tries to give a balanced view of both the good and the bad, including details, but if your read the article closely, it doesn't say exactly what the union is trying to do.

Also read the 2 links provided above, because I was interested. On the second page 'what will the union do" the answer is 'its up to us', so I tend to agree, it's not clear what they are asking for yet.

Would you agree with the comment you are replying to that on average, Starbucks is a place of "unsafe" working conditions?

One thing that somewhat comes to mind is their 'Just say yes' policy. It tends to make it difficult for baristas to deal with customers that harass them, I know when credit card -> gift card conversion fraud was a big problem in my area my colleagues intimated that they weren't allowed to deny or even question obviously fraudulent transactions being asked for (really? you need 1000$ in starbucks gift cards? and keep trying different cards when one is denied?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com