Starbucks Closing Some Stores Nationwide Due To Safety

[storewanderer]

Frankly I am frustrated by the fact that this union organizer had enough attendance issues that she gave Starbucks reasons to fire her for cause. I mean, come on... was that just done on purpose or what? We will see what the next step is but I am suspicious this was a calculated move by this union organizer.

As far as the unions go, I know I've said it before but at the end of the day to me their function is to fight for better wages and better benefits directly for the employees they represent. In the same way employers need to compete for employees, I think the unions also need to compete for employees. So for instance if I am working in a Right to Work State and I go work at a place with a union and I have an option to either join the union or not join the union, given that the union charges dues, I expect the union is going to do something to earn those dues from me. That means the union better be getting me a better compensation package (combination of pay and/or benefits- talking total package here, not necessarily just wage) than I'd be getting if I worked at said workplace as a scab. But what I see happening is the established unions actively screw over newer employees with lower wage scales, lesser benefit packages, etc. so then what happens in these Right to Work states is the unionized employees tend to be a small group of long term employees and everyone knows those folks are paid more and get better benefits than they ever will and so it creates a nasty workplace politics situation. Then in states where everyone is forced to join a union to work in said workplaces, where the unions continue to screw over new employees with low wage scales, the employees get frustrated with the union dues, feel they do not get enough in return for said dues, and end up quitting and working at some place that does not have a union and pays more. So I don't think forcing a union down the employee's throats is the answer either, in fact, I think it is making it even more difficult to attract employees in some cases in some industries particularly retail.

So what is this Starbucks Workers Union? Who are they, where is their funding from? Do they truly intend to operate a union that fights for wages/benefits for folks to do a 40 year career at Starbucks units? Or do they hope to collect dues from Starbucks employees many of whom don't work there more than a couple years and then siphon those dues either to union management or to political movements?

This is why I question the motives here. At least the unionized Chipotle joined Teamsters...

Also why is someone forming a Starbucks-only union? Why not a single union that focuses on the entire fast food industry? This would also provide mobility options to employees to go to different chains as years go on and keep paying in and keep on a benefit package as fast food chains come and go. Similar to the UFCW situation. I can go into Sacramento area and find people who were 90's Albertsons employees, divested to Ralphs, then when Ralphs closed they were fired from Ralphs but they picked up a job at Safeway or Raleys and since they stayed under UFCW they were able to at least keep working toward their retirement and in some cases kept seniority/wage even if they got the same position. This is the type of benefit I am talking about where the union really does "work for its dues."

[veteran+]

ALL valid points!

The tier system was very destructive. Unions piss me off all the time!

These mini Unions are not very effective (and kinda stupid) but they serve a purpose. Keeping the "topic" alive.

There are signs that previous levels of cooperating with employers and believing those comical promises that are offered but never materialize do NOT work.

But not having even an ineffective Union is like jumping out of the frying pan directly into the fire. Historically, look at where we are. How's the "real" middle class doing? Not well and disappearing. How have wages and benefits and working conditions kept up with the times? Not good with the widening pay disparities between the incompetent "chiefs" and stake holders and the lowly employees. GREAT job HR team and benefit managers.

People have to be constantly jumping from one employer to another. Employment tenure continues to nose dive.

[storewanderer]

ALL valid points!

The tier system was very destructive. Unions piss me off all the time!

These mini Unions are not very effective (and kinda stupid) but they serve a purpose. Keeping the "topic" alive.

There are signs that previous levels of cooperating with employers and believing those comical promises that are offered but never materialize do NOT work.

But not having even an ineffective Union is like jumping out of the frying pan directly into the fire. Historically, look at where we are. How's the "real" middle class doing? Not well and disappearing. How have wages and benefits and working conditions kept up with the times? Not good with the widening pay disparities between the incompetent "chiefs" and stake holders and the lowly employees. GREAT job HR team and benefit managers.

People have to be constantly jumping from one employer to another. Employment tenure continues to nose dive.

I just think at the end of the day these unions will not benefit anyone in high turnover environments. All they will do is seek to add red tape to everything that is happening, and add a situation where union dues are paid by employees to support causes, political or otherwise (activist groups, random non profits, etc.) that the employees may not necessarily individually even want to support, but have little say in the matter if they want to keep their job.

I've always said the union SHOULD benefit the employee and employer by reducing turnover. And while some unions do seem to accomplish that, their tract record in recent years on that front is just not good. Look at the quality of service/operation in the unionized grocers now vs. 20-25 years ago. Serious decline across the vast majority of chains (some smaller chains like Gelson's or Stater have maintained a decent consistency of operational standards over this time period). This is the corporation getting together with the union and literally attacking the employees making the old ones miserable and retiring ASAP and causing turnover among the newer ones on an ongoing basis due to whatever reasons, two tier wage system, too low of pay, etc. Meanwhile you have non union grocery operations like Whole Foods or WinCo or Trader Joe's where there has not been nearly the operational deterioration in the past 20-25 years as there has been at many of the unionized grocers.

Those pay discrepancies you note are a big problem. But keep in mind, the union management is also very well paid in most cases. The unions are basically like a big corporation in how they operate too.

I am also a little... how do I put it... with regards to the working conditions. Let's go at grocery again. Go back to the 90's in grocery and you had front ends with heavy item per minute metrics, stockers with heavy case per hour metrics, people had to meet these metrics or be fired. People had to show up to work in neat uniforms that were clean and unwrinkled or be sent home. Now today there does not seem to be much pressure on items per minute at the front end, and night crews are so desperate for employees nobody says a word about cases per hour. You have large chains like Kroger that no longer have a dress code to speak of and tell the employees to wear whatever and throw their apron on when they get there. I think the rigid/tight ship nature of grocery stores made them a tougher environment to work in 20-25 years ago than, say, a Wal Mart or some other retailer. Today as the standards have gotten so much lower I have the impression the grocery environment is no longer so tense or metric based as it once was. Being bugged about metrics all the time is not fun (I think that may be some of the complaining the Starbucks people have is about the service time metric measurement) and grocery stores losing that culture may make the working environment less stressful (I don't think it is better because I think a more disciplined efficient work environment is better but many would disagree with me).

As far as wages and benefits go, outside government employees especially Federal (a lot of states have pretty bad pay/benefits situations for state employees and it gets worse for city/county), that is a problem all around and not one I see unions solving effectively (they keep saying they'll solve it...). I see a lot of unionized employees complaining about pay/benefits non stop and getting nowhere improving things.

[veteran+]

Well, you have many broadstroke ideas there (which you are entitled to have).

It is a complicated issue but that knee jerk pointing the finger mostly at the "imperfect" Union is the same old story that has been used for many decades.

HR/ER/EAP are comically not helping the employee and companies and most managers are there to exploit employees to the max in order to garner profits to the max. Companies exist to maximize profits for the owners and stakeholders, Full Stop. Their authentic mission is not for the employee or the customer.

Most everyone here can not stand the Unions and that's okay. They piss me off all the time. Trusting a company and its "advocates" is way worse than trusting a Union.

I do not know how many studies have been done, that everyone ignores, that make clear what has happened in the USA regarding the decline of Unions and the decline of the middle class. Like it or not it is irrefutable. History also provides many learnings on what Unions did for employees. This included many if not most of the laws that govern employment.

The vilification (however deserved) of the Unions does not and will never serve the employee BUT will make happy the Company.

[Brian Lutz]

Recently I was in South Carolina house hunting, and along the side of the road I saw a number of union-sponsored billboards around the Columbia area (state capitol) calling for repeal of the state's Right to Work laws. I can't imagine they'll ever get much traction with that since SC has had Right to Work laws on the books since 1954, but that type of thing seems to suggest that the unions would rather mandate participation by law than convince the workers that they're getting their money's worth out of the dues they pay.

[storewanderer]

Well, you have many broadstroke ideas there (which you are entitled to have).

It is a complicated issue but that knee jerk pointing the finger mostly at the "imperfect" Union is the same old story that has been used for many decades.

HR/ER/EAP are comically not helping the employee and companies and most managers are there to exploit employees to the max in order to garner profits to the max. Companies exist to maximize profits for the owners and stakeholders, Full Stop. Their authentic mission is not for the employee or the customer.

Most everyone here can not stand the Unions and that's okay. They piss me off all the time. Trusting a company and its "advocates" is way worse than trusting a Union.

I do not know how many studies have been done, that everyone ignores, that make clear what has happened in the USA regarding the decline of Unions and the decline of the middle class. Like it or not it is irrefutable. History also provides many learnings on what Unions did for employees. This included many if not most of the laws that govern employment.

The vilification (however deserved) of the Unions does not and will never serve the employee BUT will make happy the Company.

HR exists to minimize legal losses from employment related litigation. HR does not exist to make things better for employees. Yet they can't even get things as simple as overtime pay right and get these companies subject to class action lawsuit after class action lawsuit. Oh and I guess HR exists to do layoffs when companies need to do downsizing.

But I am afraid too many unions also exist not to make things better for the union members but to enrich the union management and serve as a funding stream to various political causes. This is the real problem I have.

Going way off topic here but I want to call attention to one small business with a long-term union in place. This is a small restaurant in San Francisco called Tommy's Plyce. This business was sold by its decades-long owners a few years ago. One of the terms of the sale was keep the union in place. One of the reasons for this was to take care of the employees and ensure their positions, seniority, and benefits stayed in place. This is exactly why I see you bring a union into a workplace. You bring it in so your employees can have a package of benefits you cannot provide. This gets you long term employees and stabilizes your business.

Now in the case of a big corporation your concern seems to be management and HR will screw over the employees and the union serves as a "check" on that. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to work somewhere that I felt management and HR were trying to screw me over because those are who I am working for and those are who I am making money for, not the union. I don't want to work at that type of a place union or not... the union may make it somehow more tolerable until I eventually leave but in the end I am still leaving that kind of work environment.

[veteran+]

Most people do not have the luxury of choosing a better boss because there is a scarcity of better bosses (companies). Thank vertical and horizontal consolidation of all kinds of businesses (choice? what choice?).

That restaurant is an amazing and wonderful exception.

My question is: If Unions suck and companies can not be trusted and government is unreliable, then who will be the advocate for the employee? Because the solo act of employees has not worked. Employees who speak out get terminated or don't get raises or promotions. Whistleblowers are realistically not protected.

We have become so inured to all this, backed by union busting and propaganda, and to that American destructive work ethic of success at the cost of quality of life while you are actually alive to enjoy it. This imbalance is only worse in a few Asian nations.

We question the messed up Union all the time (their agenda, greed, corruption, efficacy, etc). Yet with the Company? Oh well, that's the way it is (you have to put up with it to be "successful").

Frankly, I believe Europe has the right attitude (especially France) with all their melodramatic striking at the drop of a feather.

Anyway...........we should probably drop this tangent. I would humbly suggest some deep dive research (historical & current) into what companies give themselves and what they do not want to give to their employees.

[storewanderer]

The employee has to advocate for themself in ALL cases. They can't rely on the union any more than they can rely on management. Now, I will give you that if you have a completely toxic manager who is way out of line the union employee can go file a grievance against that manager and maybe something will happen... but that toxic manager would have dug their own grave at some point on their own anyway.

At the end of the day the most powerful message an employee can send is to quit. As I have seen the past few years with grocery stores that can't operate their perimeters during normal hours, fast food places that can't hold normal hours, hotels that can't offer daily housekeeping, always due to "staff shortages" - it has become increasingly clear that employees DO advocate for themselves and DO walk if they are not satisfied with their work environment. The local post offices (all unionized) can't hire either, despite being union, they are not able to retain employees. They also try to hire contract employees to get out of paying the union wages/benefits. Funny the union even allows them to operate with contract employees. Also the school districts (all unionized) are having major staff problems. These unionize employees all have the same complaint- wages too low, work conditions poor, on and on.

I suggest these unions work on satisfying their current membership before trying to add additional members.

Wages have also been increasing as a result of employees becoming fed up with wages too low and there has been no union involvement to get these wages to increase, that has strictly been the labor market at work. Now, again, in my ideal union, once wages are established, they do not fall. That also means no two tier wage system. The fast food franchise paying $14/hr today but sitting there hoping the labor market tightens and they can shift the wage back to $10/hr next year for new hires (and figure they can run off the $14/hr employees next year) is the type of thing I would expect to see a union step in and prevent from happening. However thanks to the unions embracing these two tier pay structures I do not trust that they would step in and prevent the above scenario from occurring; they'd act like they wanted to protect the $14/hr employees but in the end cave in and sign a two tier wage contract as they've done with so many employers I am afraid.

I still think what the unions can really bring to the table for employees is better benefits access. But Starbucks already had strong benefits access, so why did the union go after them?

As long as the economy continues to promote small business and create an environment where new people are willing to start businesses, new doors open for employees. The days of career employment/pensions with the same company after 30-40 years of employment are pretty much over outside certain units of government. I do not see these new up-start unions trying to sell themselves on "make a career out of working at Starbucks; we want to set up our union to get a wage and benefit structure that will allow you to build a career with Starbucks, have quality benefits, retire with a solid retirement plan after 30-35 years of service with qualification to take retirement as early as age 62, and we will ensure by having these well trained career employees that Starbucks units will operate in the most efficient manner possible which will result in increased stability and profitability for Starbucks shareholders." I see these new up-start unions making vague promises and I think they are nothing more than political organizations disguising themselves as unions to support certain political interests.

I can tell you there has been a real shift in attitude on work and quality of life thanks to COVID. Many "professional" (not entitled to overtime) sectors where people screwed around in "salaried" jobs working 60-70-80 hour weeks regularly (sure they were getting paid $150k but is it worth it? not to me)- these people are simply not playing that game anymore. They may be willing to do a 50 hour week sometimes, but the 80 hour weeks are over. Some managements like to refer to that as "quiet quitting." I refer to it as employees taking work-life balance and quality of life into their own hands. No union necessary if enough employees take a stand.