Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local is better. We like Zeke's fwiw.

Not OP but I reject the idea that local is better. The employment practices people are talking about with regards to Starbucks are also common at small, locally owned coffee shops. For instance, the Wydown was a local coffee shop chain (I think just a couple locations) and they shuttered entirely when their employees tried to unionize. Zeke's has the exact same issues with scheduling as Starbucks does -- it's very hard to guarantee people full time schedules with shift work because business fluctuates and profit margins are narrow -- carrying an extra employee on a shift so they can hit 35 hours and qualify for benefits sounds kind, but it can make it impossible for the business to turn a profit, and then everyone loses their jobs. Sometimes businesses like this do better offering mostly part-time roles and then having a few full-time people in management/supervisor positions. Which is what Starbucks does.

Anyway I've also worked for small, locally owned businesses that treated me WAY worse than the few big corporate companies I've worked for. Sometimes big companies offer more worker protections because they actually have HR and legal staff that will make sure they are at least following the law regarding worker treatment, whereas a lot of smaller employers will try to get away with stuff or just not know. The one employer I had who regularly violated basic laws about paying hourly workers was a "small, local business." So much wage theft. They used to schedule me for multiple 2 hour shifts in a 24 hour period, believe this would help them get around having to offer me breaks. Just absolutely awful.

Don't assume local is better, or small is better.

You realize PP may have been talking about the quality of the coffee? Starbucks is not good.

There are so many places to get coffee. It's really easy not to get it from there.

Only some locations are unionized. As to why some are, some employees want more than the company offered when hiring them and when they accept employment, and a strike is an attempt to force the company to provide greater than market compensation.

Strikes don't work because the market, not employees, dictates what labor is worth. If Starbucks didn't pay competitively, nobody would work there. They have no reason to pay beyond what the market requires. It's a business, not a social welfare activity. The would-be strikers are not indentured servants or slaves; they're free to go to other employers who value them more highly, if any exist. The company has the corresponding freedom to offer compensation it deems sufficient, and will suffer the consequences if that turns out to not in fact be adequate.

Anonymous wrote:Local is better. We like Zeke's fwiw.

Not OP but I reject the idea that local is better. The employment practices people are talking about with regards to Starbucks are also common at small, locally owned coffee shops. For instance, the Wydown was a local coffee shop chain (I think just a couple locations) and they shuttered entirely when their employees tried to unionize. Zeke's has the exact same issues with scheduling as Starbucks does -- it's very hard to guarantee people full time schedules with shift work because business fluctuates and profit margins are narrow -- carrying an extra employee on a shift so they can hit 35 hours and qualify for benefits sounds kind, but it can make it impossible for the business to turn a profit, and then everyone loses their jobs. Sometimes businesses like this do better offering mostly part-time roles and then having a few full-time people in management/supervisor positions. Which is what Starbucks does.

Anyway I've also worked for small, locally owned businesses that treated me WAY worse than the few big corporate companies I've worked for. Sometimes big companies offer more worker protections because they actually have HR and legal staff that will make sure they are at least following the law regarding worker treatment, whereas a lot of smaller employers will try to get away with stuff or just not know. The one employer I had who regularly violated basic laws about paying hourly workers was a "small, local business." So much wage theft. They used to schedule me for multiple 2 hour shifts in a 24 hour period, believe this would help them get around having to offer me breaks. Just absolutely awful.

Don't assume local is better, or small is better.

Starbucks is known for crushing unions. So no, I wouldn't cross a picket line there.

Labor unions got you work hours, weekends, worker's comp, paid time off and all the trappings of modern work. Without them, you'd be stuck in a windowless factory breathing toxic fumes being worked to the bone 24/7 and thrown into the gutter as soon as you can't sustain the pace anymore.

I'm a multi-millionaire, but I respect workers' unions.

Anonymous wrote:What are they protesting/striking about specifically? I’ve tried googling and couldn’t find an answer.

Everything any other employee strikes for.

Unions want into Starbucks just like the want into Amazon.

Starbucks is fighting hard to keep unions out what else do you need to know?? This isn’t hard.

I love Starbucks coffee but I won’t go now. I was a great customer.

You aren’t married to someone who knows unions you are a troll

Ethics aside, I hadn't been to Starbucks in ages and ordered a regular nonfat latte there en route to a kid event - it was so bad it was almost undrinkable. Whatever they've done to their espresso beans, it's awful.

But ethically - Starbucks is in line with other companies like Walmart and Amazon that ostensibly offer decent benefits but then don't give employees a regular schedule that meets the minimum hours to qualify for those benefits. Assuming that's a key union organizer demand, I support it wholeheartedly.

Local is better. We like Zeke's fwiw.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t patronize Starbucks because they’re union busters. There are a lot of other places to get coffee, and frankly, much better coffee. Why not patronize a locally owned shop instead?

Starbucks, or I like to call it. Crack for rich people.

I don’t patronize Starbucks because they’re union busters. There are a lot of other places to get coffee, and frankly, much better coffee. Why not patronize a locally owned shop instead?

I would not cross an actual picket line to go to Starbucks, or patronize a Starbucks with actively striking workers. But I don't think there are many Starbucks where that is happening. There was a strike last Thursday and only some locations participated. I was unaware of it until it was over and I went to Starbucks that day (it was the day they give away free reusable cups with purchase of a holiday drink but my barista was nice and gave me one with my regular drink -- I wanted it because my kid likes using them at home).

I am ambivalent about the Starbucks unionizing effort even though I support unions for other workers. The Starbucks workforce is not united in their demands for a union. Some people want it and some don't. Starbucks has successfully satisfied many if not most workers with decent pay and some good benefits, so I think for many of the organizers, it's just a matter of principle that they want to organize the workforce. I'm neutral on that -- if the workers want to organize, go for it, but if they can't get all the workers to participate, then you can't force it.

This is very different than boycotting Amazon for their employment practices in their warehouses, which I do, because they are mistreating workers and lowering standards across the industry as a major employer who doesn't treat employers very well. Starbucks employees are treated fine, and paid a fair wage. There are also lots of options for people who might work at Starbucks (there are lots of coffee shops these ways, both other chains and independent shops) and if the company was terrible, they'd struggle to get employees. Yet they don't.

Most other coffee shops are not unionized.

Starbucks baristas are unionized?

What are they protesting/striking about specifically? I’ve tried googling and couldn’t find an answer.

So get your coffee at another coffee shop nearby if you must. But Starbucks are union busters, and I will not support them in any way shape or form. You either live your values/principles or you don't

My spouse is a union employee so I generally support unions going on strike for fair wages and benefits etc.
My understanding though is that Starbucks employees get paid well for the kind of job it is.
Why exactly are they striking?
I’m torn because I do enjoy their coffee a couple of times a week.

If you hate Starbucks in general feel free to move along and not answer. This post isn’t for you.