r/news
•
u/claire0
•
8d ago
•
1
2
1
Starbucks used "array of illegal tactics" against unionizing workers, labor regulators say
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/starbucks-union-workers-nlrb/#app3.4k
u/KrookedDoesStuff 7d ago
I keep seeing how Starbucks and Amazon are breaking the rules with unions but nothing is happening and they keep breaking them.
1.5k
u/Vargasa871 7d ago
Didn't Amazon get hit with a 200 million dollar fine for it's anti union practices??
Haha nope. Not one consequence comes up on Google but about 30 articles of how Amazon is actively breaking the law.
1.2k
u/KrookedDoesStuff 7d ago
Even then, what’s a $200 million fine to a company that makes $638 million a day?
907
u/vickera 7d ago
It is a fee for doing business. Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
320
u/KrookedDoesStuff 7d ago
It was a sad day when I found out we’re no longer classified as a Democratic Republic. We’re officially a “Corporate Oligarchy” with our government
→ More replies34
u/FlavDingo 7d ago
Corporatocracy is here!
All hail the oligarchs who graciously allow us to exist on their crumbs so we can run their corporate machines!
Thank you Howard Schultz, please advise as to how you would like me to fellate you?
→ More replies80
21
u/CaesarZeppeli_ 7d ago
They should make fees get exponentially bigger.
First it’s 200mil then it’s 400mil then its 800mil so on and so on.
And maybe some of those fines go to the employees who were fuck over
→ More replies→ More replies39
u/Busterlimes 7d ago
Its called Corporate Oligarchy, get it right. The US an Russia are very close to being the same.
→ More replies→ More replies17
u/WestSixtyFifth 7d ago
Exactly. It's like hitting the average person with a $50 fine. Inconvenient, sure, far from a deterrent for the behavior.
→ More replies15
u/sluglord2 7d ago
Actually I once got a $50 parking ticket and I’ll never illegally park again, $50 is more than just inconvenient for me
6
63
u/AcadiaApprehensive24 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yea they got hit with a 200 million dollar fine and then received 10 billion dollars worth of taxes in free money from the federal government.
→ More replies→ More replies18
u/Busterlimes 7d ago
Yeah, thats like a speeding ticken to a millionaire, you think they are going to slow down?
→ More replies97
128
u/MacDerfus 7d ago
Why wouldn't they break them? Like literally, what is the negative consequence they face? Maybe a bit of lost business to local stores? Maybe Dunkin does better than them in areas they overlap?
→ More replies75
u/Indercarnive 7d ago
Like literally, what is the negative consequence they face
Seriously, the punishment for a company using illegal tactics in the lead-up to a union vote is that the vote happen again. Which is a win for the company anyway.
→ More replies62
u/Busterlimes 7d ago
Because we dont live in a democracy, we live in a corporate Oligarchy. At most, companies are fined an insignificant amount.
→ More replies7
→ More replies23
u/Fatty_krueger 7d ago
When the punishment for breaking the law is a fine, that law only applies to poor people.
→ More replies7
u/KrookedDoesStuff 7d ago
Yup. In that same vein, when the punishment of a crime is never enforced, it isn’t actually a crime.
670
u/spaghettimiilk 7d ago
Starbucks opposes the unionization effort, arguing the company runs better when dealing directly with its employees.
Runs better for people at the top.
133
u/SgtArpin 7d ago
That has been used as a reason against unions even before the first union. Of course the company runs better without a union. Without one, they do do whatever the fuck they want within legal limits. Any benefits you have to force a company to provide is going to be bad for your company. On the other hand, if the company was freely and preemptively providing them, the company would be known to be an awesome company, and they'd have no problems finding great candidates.
→ More replies86
u/krakatak 7d ago
Yeah, for a very specific and personally advantageous definition of "better".
→ More replies18
u/dropbear_airstrike 7d ago
"The relationships just works better when you do everything I say, never question me, and don't have any friends, family, or support aside from me and our relationship. If you just agreed with me, I wouldn't have to hit you – you made me do this, you know that right?" – said the toxic, abusive partner to their victim
→ More replies16
u/MacDerfus 7d ago
Well yeah. That's the entire point. To make money for the people at the top. The coffee stuff is just a tool for that. If they could pivot to plumbing profitably, those espresso machines would be swapped out for plungers and pipe wrenches in a heartbeat
976
u/Space__Goblin 8d ago
I am shocked, flabbergasted even, who would have seen this coming
417
u/BeardMilk 7d ago
Until these crimes start resulting in jail time for the executives who orchestrate them they aren’t going to stop. The fines are a joke to these companies and have zero repercussions for the people carrying out the actions.
44
u/toomuchtodotoday 7d ago edited 7d ago
Just start posting the names of the direct people performing the illegal acts. It’ll work itself out.
Posting names of people committing crimes isn’t illegal. It’s a public service really. How else do you know whom to avoid for your own safety and well being?
Don’t do anything illegal of course! But start naming these people instead of just “Starbucks.” Tell us who the monsters are, no more hiding behind the corporate veil.
→ More replies→ More replies148
u/toastymow 7d ago
Meh. Jail time might be effective, but I'm actually more of a fan of just fining them into bankruptcy. Make these violations so expensive even a Fortune 100 company would shit their pants when they learn they're being investigated. Make the fines be based on share value, or quarterly earnings report. IE successful companies actually get punished for abusing their workers.
Jail time for CEOs is ... alright I guess? But realistically jail should only be a punishment for violent crimes where its clear the criminal is a menace to society. That's just IMO tho.
44
u/blackpharaoh69 7d ago
A massive company can and will absorb fines no problem to suppress any influence labor may want to gain.
Targeting leadership would be more effective than having the wealthy serial speeder pay their 100 mph in a residential area tax.
And union busters are already a proven menace to society
44
u/toastymow 7d ago
A massive company can and will absorb fines no problem to suppress any influence labor may want to gain.
A massive company deserves a massive fine. Fine them 10 billion dollars, and tell them they need to pay in a lump sum, no payment plans. Tell them you will seize and auction company shares or property to pay the debt if necessary, tell them you will garnish the board of directors wages or put liens on their properties until the fine is settled.
You know, squeeze them like the working class get squeezed.
→ More replies23
134
u/MrBunqle 7d ago
Not sure I agree with you. The Enron heads all needed jail time and their personal assets seized. I think it was like 8 guys that caused a global economic downturn because they just wanted to make a few dollars. Fuck fining the company. Real justice is them never seeing the light of day again. THAT would keep people from abusing their power.
I know my facts are off, but I'm on the shittter and I don't have time to look everything up
→ More replies70
u/Caitian_Captain 7d ago
I'd argue the Enron crimes were violent, just not physically violent. Destroying someone's livelihood and assets and leaving them homeless isn't much different than setting fire to their home.
17
u/gointothiscloset 7d ago
They literally killed people who either overheated or who depend on powered medical equipment to live.
43
u/Ryoukugan 7d ago
Class warfare is indirect violence. They might not be directly physically harming people, but there’s for goddamn sure blood on their hands.
→ More replies27
u/blackpharaoh69 7d ago
It's also direct violence. In the US they'll sic modern Pinkertons and cops on union organizers and outside of the imperial core organizers are beaten and assassinated.
6
→ More replies10
u/SCP-173-Keter 7d ago edited 7d ago
but I'm actually more of a fan of just fining them into bankruptcy.
This doesn't make sense. Bankruptcy is a classic mechanism used by corporations to dodge fines and court judgements.
It is FAR more effective for executives and board members (yes 'piercing the veil' is possible if the board can be proved complicit in illegal actions by management) to face personal civil and criminal penalties for corporate misbehavior. Just look at how much fear Sarbanes Oxley put into the hearts of C-Level managers when it was first passed (since gutted).
→ More replies77
u/peon2 8d ago
They're just trying to protect their own union. It's called the Local C-Suite Union Workers of Coffee
→ More replies17
→ More replies72
u/thisismadeofwood 7d ago
Anti-union “consultants” advise companies to use illegal tactics because the penalty if caught is just a new vote, and statistically the probability of a subsequent vote succeeding is exponentially smaller. There is only upside to companies breaking the law to prevent unions. It’s pretty shitty. Maybe a penalty of $10,000 per yes vote per illegal tactic discovered would make it less appealing for companies. I mean sure a huge multinational corporation wouldn’t be hurt so much by fighting unionization for any one location, but say if 10-50 Starbucks stores did it back to back the penalties would really add up.
→ More replies44
u/Mathmango 7d ago
Percentage of revenu or profit should be the penalty a flat amount would just be a fee to multi-million dollar companies
→ More replies6
u/supergeeky_1 7d ago
A percentage that has a real chance of causing bankruptcy. And jail time for the people involved starting with the person that made the decision to perform illegal actions all the way up to the CEO.
211
u/Grogosh 7d ago
You expect ANY business to play right when it comes to unions? If they played right unions wouldn't be needed.
→ More replies86
1.2k
u/Enjolras55 8d ago
I just landed myself a union job. I can see why companies hate it - it actually requires you to be paid well and treated like a human being.
254
u/Kichae 8d ago
Honestly, as much as they care about the first, companies seem to care so much more about the second.
→ More replies→ More replies112
u/BuritoBell 7d ago
I have a buddy who refuses to work for the union for that reason funny enough. He's not aloud to work more than 60 hours. Bugs him to hell. It's kind of funny
120
u/PM_Me_Your_Poem_s 7d ago
Sounds like a work addict. Who in their right mind wants to work more than 9 hours 7 days a week? (8.5 hrs + 30 min lunch break)
56
u/gage117 7d ago edited 7d ago
In my experience, depressed people who have a stigma against mental illness and refuse to believe they're depressed so they attempt to be distracted 100% of the time in order to ensure that they don't have to deal with their own thoughts and the possibility that they may be one of those people they consider "weak".
I had to deal with this myself coming from a stereotypically machismo rural area. Even had a buddy admit to me this year that the only reason he comes home from his job and goes immediately to working on broken laptops all night wasn't the money but really more because he was depressed and didn't wanna deal with the way his mind worked against him anytime he wasn't distracted.
Not that I haven't run into the occasional person who just loves feeling like he's always making a buck so he's gotta always be productive, I definitely don't want to project my experience onto everyone, it just seems pretty dang common to be doing it behind a veil of depression denial.
ETA: They may also be fully aware of their depression and just need the coping mechanism; I admit it's pretty nice to get paid to distract yourself from your thoughts sometimes.
→ More replies→ More replies73
u/GarbagePailGrrrl 7d ago
Someone who’s trying to fill a void in their lives
22
u/gooblaster17 7d ago
This is what hobbies are for, friends. Much healthier than working that much overtime.
→ More replies→ More replies11
u/BuritoBell 7d ago
He has a very expensive hobby and he really enjoys it. So he works 12 hours shifts Monday through Friday night shifts.
14
u/theth1rdchild 7d ago
Is his hobby cocaine
→ More replies11
u/BuritoBell 7d ago
Well, it's magic the gathering. So in essence it's cardboard cocaine
→ More replies→ More replies25
u/checker280 7d ago
I always ask these workaholics to think back to high school math class - when they were looking at the clock waiting for the day to end - what was it that they wanted to do? Or were they wishing they could leave to work a 60 hour work week?
I watched my dad refuse to give into a work injury and retire at a reasonable age because he wanted to achieve that one last government promotion that alluded him for reasons. He always claimed racism - many of the workers he trained and mentored were promoted but they always held him back. I learned that if you make yourself irreplaceable you will never get promoted.
By the time he finally retired his injuries progressed to where he was confined to a wheel chair. He spent his last 10 years on earth going in and out of surgeries and physical therapy under the promise that this time will be the one that will give him back his quality of life. And despite all the hard work and dieting, he died because of an unrelated aneurysm.
→ More replies
254
u/duggtodeath 7d ago
But no ones going to jail.
→ More replies71
u/vezol 7d ago
Because of money.
→ More replies66
u/cplforlife 7d ago edited 7d ago
Strictly an academic question. When the state no longer works to enforce its own laws. When does the state lose it's monopoly on violence?
At what point does this come to pass?
45
u/flyingscotsman12 7d ago
The state has a monopoly on violence as long as it has a monopoly on violence. The violence is used to protect the monopoly on violence, and the only ways to defeat it are a peaceful transition of government or a bloody revolution/invasion.
→ More replies→ More replies11
u/Your_People_Justify 7d ago edited 7d ago
The state has a monopoly on violence so long as it secures consent of the governed. If people do not consent, there is only so much you can actually get done with the violence.
The state can only be pushed aside if there is (1) sufficiently organized and class conscious people and (2) a severe crisis weakens the state, allowing a sufficiently organized class conscious minority to explode into a majority, revoke consent of the governed, and make a regime change.
You need both. One or the other gets nothing.
When it comes to abortion, gun reform, unions, warmongering, climate change - I see no other road to get these things done.
→ More replies
285
19
120
u/TheSouthernCassowary 7d ago
News flash; if a company says “we work better without unions”, you need a union.
→ More replies
15
107
u/rufotris 7d ago
They were always super anti union when I worked there. They even bring it up in training which I feel they aren’t supposed to. But they mention there is NO unions at Starbucks when I got hired they made a stink about it. My old manager was also very outspoken against unions or union talk. Once I got a warning because I explained what a union is to a coworker who was new and asked cause they were like 16 and had no idea. I “warned” my boss back that’s that’s illegal and I could sue. I was fired for “other” reasons they couldn’t prove the claims of… they can eat my Shhhhh…
→ More replies32
u/MacDerfus 7d ago
That warning taught you a valuable lesson about interrupting your opponent when they are making a mistake.
36
u/BoringWebDev 7d ago
Boycott starbucks grocery products in areas where they are pulling these illegal tactics. I'm talking about what you buy on the shelf for at-home use. All coffee beans, grounds, and pods (which you shouldn't be using anyway (get an aeropress for quick single serve coffee, a kettle and coffee grinder; thank me later)).
→ More replies21
u/cplforlife 7d ago
I stopped buying their products a few months ago when their union busting started.
I will not buy again until Starbucks is a unionized coffee shop. I suggest others use thier wallet as well, it's the only say we actually get.
→ More replies
10
43
u/chargernj 7d ago
If the penalty is just a fine, it's not really illegal. It's just a fee.
→ More replies
9
37
9
u/Sharkvarks 7d ago
This union wave is 100% good. Shows workers they have rights and the means to enforce them, shows the pampered condescending owners that times can change and shows the public what kind of goonish bullying and desperate image bids a company like Starbucks will attempt to fight worker rights
10
21
u/RenegadeSteak 7d ago
My wife recently stopped by one location that was trying to unionize and they took the floor mats away from the employees as punishment.
→ More replies
19
18
u/Inthenameoftaco 7d ago
I’m honestly not shocked. I used to be a category manager for Starbucks licensed stores for a grocery chain that’s unionized. The SB District Managers I dealt with were always shocked when I wouldn’t just fire an employee who was underperforming. In reality I couldn’t, nor did I want to. I’d either reassign the employee to a different department, or help them get better at their job. I used to get so much schtick for helping my employee’s because the SB DM’s would think it was a waste of time.
Honestly, being a barista for Starbucks is probably the hardest retail job. You’re expected to be perfect after a short amount of training, and from trainers who have a million other things on their plate. So training isn’t always the best. There’s hundreds of drinks you’re expected to memorize, and menu’s that rotate. Don’t get me started on what they call “sequencing” because it’s a confusing nightmare at first. And to top all of it off, you deal with angry customers, with nitpicky orders, that you’re expected to be nice to. During my time doing this job, all of the employees I gave my personal attention to, ended up becoming really good baristas. Others I moved to different departments, ended up doing well at their jobs. The culture at Starbucks from top down is definitely toxic. If you work there you have to pray to god you have a patient DM and manager.
→ More replies
56
u/ArkadiusMaximus 8d ago
I’m sure the punishment will make them think about doing it again…
→ More replies
30
6
6
6
u/Shadowman-The-Ghost 7d ago
I went to high school with “Howie” Schultz. He’s a fascist, narcissistic asshole. “I will never sell The Supersonics and I will never let them leave the state of Washington!” Lies. Lies. More lies. The arrogance of this miserable prick knows no bounds. “Character is Destiny!” - Heraclitus (Ancient Greek Philosopher).
7
u/No_Musician2499 7d ago
If Starbucks went union, I’d start going back. Till then, there’s too many options for coffee from local companies that are good to their employees, at least where I’m at.
As long as people don’t give a shit and keep going there it really won’t matter. They have 10k stores because people keep going.
→ More replies
4
5
u/SucksTryAgain 7d ago
When the fines don’t mean shit to a corp your countries laws are against you.
4
u/dominator051 7d ago
Capitalist like to play capitalism until their employees start using capitalism against them.
4
u/leenvironmentalist 7d ago
They parade themselves as open and fun but when it comes to basic rights to organize, watch out!
6
u/Eriklano 7d ago edited 7d ago
Then fine them their entire profit for the year and distribute it to their workers. Problem fucking solved. Don’t make it worth it for these shitty fucking companies to break the law
→ More replies
5
u/ElleIndieSky 7d ago
Nothing ever happens to these companies. We have to start fining based on a percentage of revenue.
Billion-dollar Starbucks or Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about a $200,000 fine. Hit them with a cool billion and watch their tune change.
4
u/IntermetallicAM 7d ago
Starbucks, like Amazon and every other employer, is using tried and true union busting methods pioneered by the corporate thugs over 120 years ago
5
u/ucatione 7d ago
Wait, Starbucks did that? What happened to the "corporations are not people" ethic? I am pretty sure some actual people did this. Who the fuck are they?
6
u/Teethdude 7d ago
Workers' rights were and still are painted in workers' blood, then eventually the business owner's blood when things didn't improve. So is this what the corporate leaders are wanting? Do they want workers to grow violent? I would hope for more peaceful demonstrations first, but the longer it's ignored, the less likely it is.
5
u/ChernoAlpha_Mk1 7d ago
The fact they corporations would rather shut down a store completely and lose sales than pay their workers slightly more and have them be treated better is awful.
4
u/jcooli09 7d ago
My daughter posted a comment in a FB thread about Starbucks stores unionizing. The next week they cut her back to 11 hours per week.
→ More replies
5
u/VaguelyArtistic 7d ago
When I was in high school in the early 80s I worked in a movie theatre in Westwood. What you should know about movie theatres is that when you buy fountain drinks and popcorn you're not paying for the food or drink, your paying for the cups. So when we'd take inventory we'd only count the cups, not the popcorn kernels.
One day I guess the inventory didn't quite add up, and two assistant managers ie 18-yo UCLA students wrongly blamed a friend and I for stealing the cups. I was also accused of eating Junior Mints behind the counter. (The boxes weren't wrapped in plastic back then.) We were fired.
We were part of a union, and every week they'd deduct 25¢ or so for union dues. In light of this my friend's dad suggested we call the union. A union rep brought me, my friend, and our parents to meet with the theatre manager, and since there was obviously no proof my friend was offered her job back. I wasn't, because of the Junior Mints. Mom mom got mad and said, "I know my daughter didn't steal Junior Mints because she hates mint." (Note she didn't say that her daughter would never steal, just that I didn't steal that lol.) I took a job another Westwood Theatre.
Fast forward a few months, and as I'm working to working I see a friend from work. She tells me shes's really sorry, and when I asked her why she told me that my name had been crossed out on the schedule with a big, black marker. Even then I knew that wasn't how you were supposed to fire someone so I called my union rep and she got me two week's m severance lol.
And all this was for a couple of kids who threw in dollar a month in dues. More important than the severance, or the vindication, it taught me to fight for myself and know my rights.
5
u/SevenButSpelledOut 7d ago
It's amazing how far Starbucks has fallen. I don't know how many times I was told in college to work at Starbucks, because they "are so good to their employees!"
→ More replies
12
251
u/jiminyhcricket 8d ago
Good, I hope the union destroys this soulless corporation, and we get more small coffee shops.
327
u/weirdkidomg 8d ago
Although I like the idea of more small coffee shops, I don’t agree with the phrasing “union destroys this corporation”.
Unions are a good thing and we should use positive messaging to encourage more unions.
176
u/Bluestreaking 8d ago
As a union guy I love the idea of unions destroying corporate power. A union represents the workers, not the corporate bosses. If the corporate bosses refuse to treat their workers with dignity it’s then the job of the union to push back in the face of corporate power not join with it and go, “maybe you can screw over the workers just a little less.”
→ More replies36
u/kent_nova 7d ago
Could you tell that to my union?
→ More replies58
u/Morat20 7d ago
Depends on your union. Some unions -- mostly public ones that aren't "police" (police unions are, apparently, more powerful than fucking god) are neutered to fuck and back.
In Texas, the teacher's technically have a union. Except they can't strike, can't negotiate as a group, and the union basically reports to the governor. It exists to manage a pension plan (no SS for Texas teachers), handle benefits (they're utter shit) and give Republicans something to hate, and it doesn't even do the pension well because did I mention it basically reports to the State?
Texas teacher's don't have tenure, btw. Their benefits are so shit that, bluntly, nobody uses their benefits if they have a choice.
→ More replies10
u/Painting_Agency 7d ago
That's called a "house union"... although it sounds like the state of Texas could simply say "fuck you, work for us" and there'd be nothing to do about it.
6
u/Morat20 7d ago
That's pretty much, you know, exactly what Texas has done.
Every year the GOP runs an anti-teacher platform based heavily on union bashing, while fellating the police unions who -- as we've all learned -- will happily let kids die rather than do their job.
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/colieolieravioli 7d ago
But also if unions destroy the company, that's still just the company failing. In a roundabout way the creation of the unions says they're failing. Not failing at profits, but if they need to involve a 3rd party to be made.to treat their employees well, then they deserve to die.
This is my only "objection" to unions. I know it's far easier said than done to "gEt A bEtTeR jOb" but we should just not work for places that can't treat you appropriately without a union. I fully understand why thats not possible.
It's just frustrating. I wouldn't want to work somewhere that only behaved under threat, union or not.
→ More replies7
u/jbeezcrazy 7d ago
They recently fired 5 employees at the Starbucks in the mall where I work for trying to unionize. I know my coworkers and other mall employees are not going to make a difference in boycotting them but I cannot, in good conscious support that company. Those employees (and the coffee) were the reason I enjoyed going there. I wish they could find a way to open up their own shop. We need more options.
→ More replies39
u/GentlemenBehold 8d ago
A union is designed to protect the workers. Leaving the workers without a company to work is not in their agenda.
→ More replies
52
u/earhere 8d ago
Since corporations are people now, can Starbucks get arrested for their illegal activity?
26
u/angurth 8d ago edited 7d ago
That ruling said that spending money is free speech, it did not declare corporate personhood, but said a corporation has the right to free speech as much as a person does in so many words to oversimplify it. Therefore the corporate entity gets to spend its money with first amendment protections of where that money goes, as the spending of money on certain things (such as a political cause) counts as free speech. Do I agree with that ruling as it pertains to corporations or large anonymous funds? No. Does it make a corporation a person? Also no. so the entity gets first amendment protections but not the personhood, and for better or worse, what this means is they get the benefits of the first amendment, and the restrictions on unprotected speech (such as inciting violence) however as an entity, no it is not itself criminally liable, but a violation could breach the corporate veil (I.E. Limited Liability protections pertaining to executives and officers and large shareholders), this however, has not yet been tested as far as I know.
→ More replies23
u/Deadwing2005 7d ago
Since they have the advantages of being a person without the consequences or liability, I'd say they're above people now.
4
u/Fancy-Pair 7d ago
Well. Is it going to cost them more than having a union? No? Then it’s as designed
3
4
u/TheCrashNebula 7d ago
You mean a Fortune 500 company isn’t actually the socially and financially progressive place they claim to be?
In other news: Florida sucks.
→ More replies
4
5.3k
u/Fritzed 8d ago •
In other news, Starbucks just reassigned a bunch of employees from their flagship store to other locations without warning. Coincidentally, the store is working towards a union vote in the next month and some or all of the leaders in that effort were themselves reassigned.