I think quitting can also have the effect of making work better for your colleagues. Starbucks will either have to be continually training new hires(however minimal that might be) or deal with less than ideal employees. That is until they improve benefits to remedy their situation. Which they will assuming it hits their bottom line.

This one is an interesting point that I have a couple of (unanswerable) questions about. She cared enough to want improvement, did she ask for some of the things she mentioned as perks of unionizing (like the music change)? She mentions that she was in the process (?) of a raise when she was fired, so presumably they saw some value in her (or just wanted to push her out of unionizing). I wonder what sort of options were available for a single store in a large, franchised company.

For some of the "location issues," what sort of things would she have wanted the company to provide? What benefits with unionizing would help with (e.g.) the OD issue? It seems like this store was going to be a non-ideal location with or without a union, perhaps seeking out some sort of "hazard pay" arrangement would have made it worthwhile for the employees.

My real question, I guess, is whether this was something that could have been worked out, as a group, with the employer, rather than unionizing. A company will in almost all cases be hostile towards a move toward unionization, but I wonder if there could have been, or was, any negotiation that would have been satisfactory for both parties.