Starbucks to give employees new benefits, but not at unionized locations

[lfromnj]

This is a new low for capitalism. Absolutely scummy.

We live in a world where there is child labor, de facto slavery, fraud, unmitigated industrial pollution, and many other terrible things, not to mention what happened in the past. Yet Starbucks giving workers new benefits is a new low?

No somehow if unionized workers get more thats a good thing, but if non unionized workers get more thats terrible. Its like people are so attached to just the idea of a union.

The issue here is that the company is punishing members for unionizing - they won't receive a pay increase because they are supposed to be part of a union contract, even though the union has not existed long enough to negotiate one. It's a clear scare tactic meant to discourage other locations from unionizing.

Fortunately, Howard Schultz is an utter loser and this sort of dog sweat is unlikely to sway anyone.

No they are rewarding members for not unionizing. Why is it only acceptable to have union workers "earn more" Why can't non union workers earn more?

Lol

I'm fine with the company giving workers a base pay raise (though 5% for members who have worked there for 2+ years is rather meager), but this is clearly meant to head off mass unionization. Fifty locations have already unionized and the company risks this movement achieving critical mass if they don't act.

Absolutely and non unionized workers are less ruly so they get rewarded accordingly. Win-Win.

[Devout Centrist]

Absolutely and non unionized workers are less ruly so they get rewarded accordingly. Win-Win.

Think you mean 'unruly', sir. And in any case, this is more an indictment of Starbuck's policies towards its workforce more than anything else.

[Badger]

This is a new low for capitalism. Absolutely scummy.

We live in a world where there is child labor, de facto slavery, fraud, unmitigated industrial pollution, and many other terrible things, not to mention what happened in the past. Yet Starbucks giving workers new benefits is a new low?

No somehow if unionized workers get more thats a good thing, but if non unionized workers get more thats terrible. Its like people are so attached to just the idea of a union.

And 88% of workers are non union, so unions =/= workers anymore.

Which is a bad thing because workers have been increasingly s*** on the last several decades in no small part to the decrease of unionization.

what is the evidence for this?  Wages have more than kept up with inflation in your time frame, yet we work fewer hours.  Have the jobs that have stayed union gotten SOOO much better than non-union jobs?  Seems to me they have not with as much as people bitch about how poor teachers are and how much cops suck.

Yeah, it sucks that dumb assholes in rust belt don't have over paid jobs to do poorly anymore, but it's at least partly their own stupid fault.  If one is getting paid $16/hr in 1979 to put cars together, why did they do such a horrible job at it?  You'd think you would want to keep that job...oh, that's right, it was a union job and like cops and teachers they couldn't get fired for poor performance.  Well, they might not have been able to get fired for it, but the factory sure as sh**t can get shut down if nobody buys the sh**tty cars....which is exactly what happened over and over.  Sure, some of the blame goes to non-union engineers that designed sh**tty cars and those greedy exec fat cats skimming off the top.  But no blame for the consumer who refused to buy union made garbage no matter how many Made in America labels the racist nationalists put on the product or advertise for on TV (though I will give the American consumer some sh**t for always wanting bigger and softer cars.  Idiots.).  It's kind of telling that cars made in American factories are nearly as good as cars made in Japanese factories now that cars are made by robots and non-union workers.

Pretty rich speaking to somebody whose job my understanding is basically sit babysit missile silos for the government all day long.

I don't know what world you grew up in, but just because 1950 through 79 Blue Collar jobs paid enough to afford a modest home in the suburbs and sending its way State College without result of Decades of debt doesn't mean they didn't have to work hard to get there.

Posts like this are why the term libertard was invented

[Badger]

This is a new low for capitalism. Absolutely scummy.

We live in a world where there is child labor, de facto slavery, fraud, unmitigated industrial pollution, and many other terrible things, not to mention what happened in the past. Yet Starbucks giving workers new benefits is a new low?

No somehow if unionized workers get more thats a good thing, but if non unionized workers get more thats terrible. Its like people are so attached to just the idea of a union.

The issue here is that the company is punishing members for unionizing - they won't receive a pay increase because they are supposed to be part of a union contract, even though the union has not existed long enough to negotiate one. It's a clear scare tactic meant to discourage other locations from unionizing.

Fortunately, Howard Schultz is an utter loser and this sort of dog sweat is unlikely to sway anyone.

No they are rewarding members for not unionizing. Why is it only acceptable to have union workers "earn more" Why can't non union workers earn more?

Don't be obtuse. You are well on record of text to do Ed working-class folks like you denied in order to earn a living wage, but don't try to claim this isn't anything short of blatant anti-Union intimidation. You aren't that stupid.

[Badger]

This is a new low for capitalism. Absolutely scummy.

We live in a world where there is child labor, de facto slavery, fraud, unmitigated industrial pollution, and many other terrible things, not to mention what happened in the past. Yet Starbucks giving workers new benefits is a new low?

No somehow if unionized workers get more thats a good thing, but if non unionized workers get more thats terrible. Its like people are so attached to just the idea of a union.

The issue here is that the company is punishing members for unionizing - they won't receive a pay increase because they are supposed to be part of a union contract, even though the union has not existed long enough to negotiate one. It's a clear scare tactic meant to discourage other locations from unionizing.

Fortunately, Howard Schultz is an utter loser and this sort of dog sweat is unlikely to sway anyone.

No they are rewarding members for not unionizing. Why is it only acceptable to have union workers "earn more" Why can't non union workers earn more?

Lol

I'm fine with the company giving workers a base pay raise (though 5% for members who have worked there for 2+ years is rather meager), but this is clearly meant to head off mass unionization. Fifty locations have already unionized and the company risks this movement achieving critical mass if they don't act.

Absolutely and non unionized workers are less ruly so they get rewarded accordingly. Win-Win.

"Less ruly"(sic).

The 19th century called. They want their undeserved elitist arrogance back.

[dead0man]

Pretty rich speaking to somebody whose job my understanding is basically sit babysit missile silos for the government all day long.

I don't know what world you grew up in, but just because 1950 through 79 Blue Collar jobs paid enough to afford a modest home in the suburbs and sending its way State College without result of Decades of debt doesn't mean they didn't have to work hard to get there.

Posts like this are why the term libertard was invented

just so we're clear, you have no argument, just insults?  Classic Badger!

[Joe Republic]

https://twitter.com/the_g_genie/status/1522706763056922625?s=21

Always fascinating to see big companies thinking they're aiming their best shots, just for them to ricochet right into their own foot.

[Badger]

Pretty rich speaking to somebody whose job my understanding is basically sit babysit missile silos for the government all day long.

I don't know what world you grew up in, but just because 1950 through 79 Blue Collar jobs paid enough to afford a modest home in the suburbs and sending its way State College without result of Decades of debt doesn't mean they didn't have to work hard to get there.

Posts like this are why the term libertard was invented

just so we're clear, you have no argument, just insults?  Classic Badger!

See my signature. Your post was nothing more than a paragraphs worth of meaningless screed and stereotypes little rooted in reality. You get what you deserve.

[free my dawg]

'Member Hillary? I 'member.

[dead0man]

Pretty rich speaking to somebody whose job my understanding is basically sit babysit missile silos for the government all day long.

I don't know what world you grew up in, but just because 1950 through 79 Blue Collar jobs paid enough to afford a modest home in the suburbs and sending its way State College without result of Decades of debt doesn't mean they didn't have to work hard to get there.

Posts like this are why the term libertard was invented

just so we're clear, you have no argument, just insults?  Classic Badger!

See my signature. Your post was nothing more than a paragraphs worth of meaningless screed and stereotypes little rooted in reality. You get what you deserve.

which part do you think isn't accurate?  And even if everything I said wasn't true (certainly some of it is true, I looked it up), you've still done nothing to explain why you think employees are so much worse off than several decades ago (they aren't by any measure I can find) and that they are worse off because of a lack of union.


Also, you said union workers in the 1950s-70s worked hard, do you think they worked harder that non-union people in that time frame?