Unionization of restaurant employees

[storewanderer]

https://komonews.com/news/business/star ... west-coast

A Starbucks in Seattle has now voted to unionize. 6 other locations in Seattle (including their Reserve Roastery) are in the process of filing paperwork to unionize as well.

I find it interesting the union is going after fast food businesses to unionize yet hasn't been able to successfully organize various retailers over the past 20-30 years. I suppose it is easier to convince a group of 20 fast food employees to unionize than a group of 400 mass merchandise store employees (and I'm talking either the red polo shirts or the other mass merchant).

[Alpha8472]

The unions may end up killing themselves. Starbucks would start closing down stores for other reasons such as "poor performance." Then the union membership would go down.

If the union gets too many Starbucks stores to unionize, Starbucks may go the route of McDonald's and start franchising out their stores. Then you would have Starbucks becoming like McDonald's where franchise owners would pay their employees not much higher than minimum wage and no health care. Starbucks spends a huge amount of money on Healthcare for employees because Starbucks stores are corporate owned.

The union may end up causing Starbucks workers to make even less and lose their healthcare benefits.

[storewanderer]

The unions may end up killing themselves. Starbucks would start closing down stores for other reasons such as "poor performance." Then the union membership would go down.

If the union gets too many Starbucks stores to unionize, Starbucks may go the route of McDonald's and start franchising out their stores. Then you would have Starbucks becoming like McDonald's where franchise owners would pay their employees not much higher than minimum wage and no health care. Starbucks spends a huge amount of money on Healthcare for employees because Starbucks stores are corporate owned.

The union may end up causing Starbucks workers to make even less and lose their healthcare benefits.

I am still confused what has caused conditions at Starbucks to get so bad for employees that this is happening. They have always paid way above industry wages and way above industry benefits packages for their store employees.

I am not sure if there is a huge disconnect between what the company can realistically provide to the employees and what the employees want or if there is a real communication problem between employees and management.

It would be interesting to see how Starbucks franchises would work. I wonder if they'd work like a certain large convenience store chain that will franchise units out to families and basically the family/family members run the place all day and all night with few to no non-family employees. I suppose that is a great way to keep a union out.

[Brian Lutz]

It seems that the stores that have voted to unionize so far have all been in very blue parts of already very blue cities, so it seems that the unions are primarily targeting stores where they know they can get a majority of employees to vote in their favor.

[storewanderer]

It seems that the stores that have voted to unionize so far have all been in very blue parts of already very blue cities, so it seems that the unions are primarily targeting stores where they know they can get a majority of employees to vote in their favor.

The employees have to have some kind of issue with how they are being paid/work conditions to entertain the idea in the first place though. We don't see the Chipotle employees (another all corporate operated chain often present in these large cities) doing this, so why Starbucks employees? Almost feels like Starbucks is being unfairly targeted and organized. Or are the employees being paid off under the table to vote in the union? Might be pretty cheap to buy off the votes of 15 employees who know they may or may not even be working there in another few months. Given Starbucks already has the highest pay rate and benefits in the industry what exactly is it they want to bargain about? We keep hearing about "better working conditions." I am not sure where this is going. The typical issue is always pay/benefits.

Thing is Starbucks if they really wanted to could basically automate the entire drink making process. Already a high percentage of customers order via app so no labor for order taking. So at that point the only labor you'd need would be to assist the few who want to order in person then a couple others to hand off orders/keep the automated machines working. Given they are downplaying eat in and have stores with long standing "drive through only" policies not much labor is going to be needed to maintain the interiors. The average customer is so far removed from everything at this point that I'm not even sure the customer would care if their $5+ drink came out of what would be a glorified 80's coffee vending machine as long as the taste met their expectations.

[veteran+]

Paid under the table by the Union?

THAT would be an epic legal scandal!!!!

[storewanderer]

Paid under the table by the Union?

THAT would be an epic legal scandal!!!!

I don't think the Union is paying them under the table. I think it is someone else/some other special interest group(s). Or something. We will see if these unions are successful. I think they should target locations in states where the employee must join into the union to work in the location (like California). These union votes don't mean a whole lot in right to work states.

Again this is Starbucks. Highest in industry wages and full health benefits (a pretty good package too) to even part time employees in the locations. If we heard this was some, I won't name names, but some chain that was notorious for hiring at minimum wage, not offering anyone but a couple of salaried managers health benefits hiding behind the "we have an all part time work force," hiding behind franchisees, etc. it would not surprise me to see employees organize. But Starbucks... I am really trying to get to the "why" here. What exactly is the problem. We hear poor working conditions. Okay, what are the conditions?

It is very obvious the attitude of the people in Starbucks has turned in the wrong direction in recent years. I am not denying that there is clearly a problem and the employees do not have the positive attitude they once did and turnover seems to keep increasing. I am just not clear what is wrong and why this has happened.

[pseudo3d]

It seems that the stores that have voted to unionize so far have all been in very blue parts of already very blue cities, so it seems that the unions are primarily targeting stores where they know they can get a majority of employees to vote in their favor.

The employees have to have some kind of issue with how they are being paid/work conditions to entertain the idea in the first place though. We don't see the Chipotle employees (another all corporate operated chain often present in these large cities) doing this, so why Starbucks employees? Almost feels like Starbucks is being unfairly targeted and organized. Or are the employees being paid off under the table to vote in the union? Might be pretty cheap to buy off the votes of 15 employees who know they may or may not even be working there in another few months. Given Starbucks already has the highest pay rate and benefits in the industry what exactly is it they want to bargain about? We keep hearing about "better working conditions." I am not sure where this is going. The typical issue is always pay/benefits.

Thing is Starbucks if they really wanted to could basically automate the entire drink making process. Already a high percentage of customers order via app so no labor for order taking. So at that point the only labor you'd need would be to assist the few who want to order in person then a couple others to hand off orders/keep the automated machines working. Given they are downplaying eat in and have stores with long standing "drive through only" policies not much labor is going to be needed to maintain the interiors. The average customer is so far removed from everything at this point that I'm not even sure the customer would care if their $5+ drink came out of what would be a glorified 80's coffee vending machine as long as the taste met their expectations.

There's a certain type of people that Starbucks tends to hire, so I can imagine them trying to unionize, and just asking for "better pay and benefits" without the nuances or understanding how unions work (especially in terms of seniority) make me think that there is not any connection to modern unions. And unions aren't all-powerful, Mafia-connected entities anymore.

Like storewanderer said, it's almost certainly not unions, though almost certainly there's some shenanigans going on.

[storewanderer]

There's a certain type of people that Starbucks tends to hire, so I can imagine them trying to unionize, and just asking for "better pay and benefits" without the nuances or understanding how unions work (especially in terms of seniority) make me think that there is not any connection to modern unions. And unions aren't all-powerful, Mafia-connected entities anymore.

Like storewanderer said, it's almost certainly not unions, though almost certainly there's some shenanigans going on.

And to that point if these "types" being hired are voting in unions and the unions do not get them the promised result ("better working conditions"), that will also land the unions in some choppy water because then these "types" will turn on the unions.

I think the unions are walking a fine line trying to organize Starbucks. There are many places in this space they could go organize where they would truly be able to get the employees higher pay/actual benefits packages... but let's see how this plays out and what the union brings to the table for the Starbucks employees.

I suppose one benefit with Starbucks is given it is already the gold standard in the industry for wages/benefits, whatever packages Starbucks ratifies, could be used as the basis from which to negotiate with other chains in this sector. But I don't expect it to get that far; if they had been able to successfully organize other chains they would have years ago.

[Brian Lutz]

The Starbucks union organizing effort has a website here: https://sbworkersunited.org/

Not a lot to go on from the info on the website, but the info on the page seems to frequently use the words "overworked and underpaid," which is likely a symptom of the current high turnover and short staffing of many restaurants. It also states that union dues are around $11 per week for full time employees, half that for part time. It also doesn't seem to be affiliated with any existing union that I can see.