I'm a regular Starbucks customer but am NOT going there while there is a nationwide strike called. (Note that i think there are picket strike lines only in certain cities, which don't include DC.)

I think some of the issues have to do not just with compensation but with things like scheduling and staffing.

But this particular strike is an "unfair labor practice strike" which means its not really about the economic issues, but rather about Starbuck's union busting practices. The union can't force Starbucks to pay higher wages -- the law only requires good faith bargaining, not concessions to the union. But Starbucks is breaking the law by refusing to bargain with the union, and otherwise taking actions to crush union organizing efforts. So they aren't playing fair, and that's what the strike is about.

https://aflcio.org/press/releases/afl-cio-stands-solidarity-striking-starbucks-workers

https://nycclc.org/news/union-starbucks-baristas-launch-unfair-labor-practice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Or they want the company to deliver on what it promised when it hired them.

Big corporations seem to have tons of money to throw at their top executives, but then they cry poverty when the people actually creating the company's product want a liveable wage.

This is nonsense. Employees knew their salary and benefits when they started their employment. Those were not reduced retroactively while the employees were handcuffed to their jobs, unable to leave for greener pastures. They weren't reduced at all. If they wanted different compensation they could have found a different employer to begin with, if anyone else valued them more highly. Or they can become self-employed, if they're so valuable. Accepting offered compensation and then later declaring it inadequate rings hollow. If an employee has second thoughts, they know where the door is. If an employee is worth more than they are being paid, they're completely at liberty to find another employer who recognizes their worth. Trying to extort more compensation from an employer by measures meant to damage the employer's business is disgusting, childish petulance, nothing more.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Or they want the company to deliver on what it promised when it hired them.

Big corporations seem to have tons of money to throw at their top executives, but then they cry poverty when the people actually creating the company's product want a liveable wage.