Hacker News Reader

Comment by CobrastanJorji | Hacker News Reader

I lost one of my most convenient Starbucks because it unionized and shortly after that became suddenly and completely unrelatedly needed to close because it had become unprofitable. I assume it'll be back in a few months because the economy has recovered and it looks like a good place to open a nice, union-free Starbucks.

View on HN

Is it common to have single location unions? Seems to me that this does not add very much negotiation power for the workers.

In my country large unions negotiate for a whole sector, so all café workers regardless of their employer are covered by a collective agreement. You don't even have to be a member for the negotiated benefits (such as minimum wage) to apply: the collective agreement covers everyone in the sector nonetheless.

They're all under Workers United which is under SEIU. It's a big union.

Hopefully it was replaced by a coffee shop selling half decent coffee and owned by a small business owner locally and you got to enjoy some nice coffee

What I don't get is why these unions need to be limited to a single shop/warehouse/whatever. Why not have a statewide/country-wide union instead? That's how you force a company to talk to you, by ensuring they cannot go around you.

I thought the US used to have profession-based unions, such as the teamsters union, who can have members all over the US?

US still have that, but it’s way easier to bootstrap a small union then expand, as intense lobbying resource (money) is required to have a successful union drive.

The union could have bought that closed Starbucks and reopened it, and run it as they saw fit.

You greatly overestimate how much Starbucks pays workers.

Looks pretty good:

https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/benef...

This even includes college tuition.

Besides, the union ought to be able to fund at least one coffee shop, and show Starbucks how to do it right. Banks also offer loans to start businesses, if the applicant has a decent business plan.

The one thing I don't see on that page (on mobile, if that makes a difference?) is the one thing the parent comment talked about:

How much the workers get paid.

Didn't check the page, but it's a $15/hr floor. Some make more.

"Average Starbucks Barista hourly pay in Seattle is approximately $19.26"

-- sez google

> 2023 Minimum Wage

>For Large Employers (501 or more employees)

> $18.69/hour

- https://www.seattle.gov/laborstandards/ordinances/minimum-wa...

(I have no idea where the specific Starbucks upthread is supposed to be, so I don't know how relevant Seattle even is).

Thanks; that seems like a low-paid job by US standards?

Benefits are part of worker compensation. It's things they don't have to pay for themselves, hence money in their pocket.

Based on renewiltord's stated $15/h, if I assume a 40h week, they earn less than half the US mean wages.

> Besides, the union ought to be able to fund at least one coffee shop, and show Starbucks how to do it right.

You're blatantly ignoring the point that they are not paid enough to be able to afford to do that.

I believe you don't need that much money, actually. The SBA has small business loans that you can get at great leverage. If they wanted, they probably could pool together the money and pull it off for a smaller location. But the practice of the matter is that a non-Starbucks coffee shop is a different proposition entirely to a Starbucks.

Access to the installed app base, the brand, the commercial RE management changes the economics of things.

Starbucks started with one store. There are lots and lots of singular coffee shops. Their owners aren't wealthy.

You need more money than barely surviving... Again, you greatly overestimate how much Starbucks pays workers.

Unions have money.

No, they couldn't. Starbucks are not franchises. The corporations owns them, with some complicated exceptions around some Starbucks-branded grocery and bookstores. Starbucks didn't "sell" the business off. It just fired everyone and closed the doors.

And what happens to the retail space with the closed doors? It gets leased to the next business that wants it. (It's also pretty likely that Starbucks outlets are leased space, not owned.) The next outfit leasing it will find it already configured to be a coffee shop - just change the signage, get some equipment, and open as another coffee shop. Starbucks might even cut a deal to take over their equipment.

I've got just the one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0TRpGP8yH4

What if unionization really made it unprofitable for Starbucks to operate?

Then they need to be better at business. In american people are not unionizing to slack off, most of them just want better working conditions. If you're company cannot operate without exploiting people, maybe its time to change the business model.

It seems like did change the business model - they decided to close shops in unprofitable locations.

I hope you are joking because this is the worst take I've seen in forever on this topic. It doesn't even address my original point. If the only profitable Starbucks outlet is the ones with bad working conditions then perhaps they shouldn't exist.

You seem to be moralizing them, eg "then perhaps they shouldn't exist," "maybe its time to change the business model", etc. You said "then they need to be better at business" and when they changed their business model to be "better at business" by closing unprofitable stores, it's like you said, "no, not like that" as it sounds like you don't like how they took your advice. The fact is closing unprofitable branches is how many companies make money, they don't run a charity after all.

You again don't engage with my point. If the only profitable stores are exploitative why would society tolerate this? This is not a market issue, it is indeed a moral issue.

> it is indeed a moral issue.

But corporations don't have morals, so they'll continue to do as they do currently. If you want to change that, you should have legislation that makes them abide by whatever you think is immoral. Don't confuse your moral standard with that of amoral corporations who are incentivized to simply make as much money as possible.

That's always been part of their business model. What they didn't do - because it's illegal - is close shops because they unionized.

Starbucks profit for 2022 was $22 billion. A 7% increase over the prior year. That leaves loads of room for unions to negotiate higher salaries and better benefits before there is any risk of that happening.

And unions tend to not drive companies out of business because then there is no need for the union anymore and no paychecks to take union fees from.

I would assume they didn't made all those billions by running unprofitable shops, didn't they?

The shops are obviously highly profitable. Which is my point. More of that profit could be shared with the workers who generate it. And they would still be profitable. Your scary "unprofitable" is not in sight even after significant raises to workers.

How do you know any of that? Just throwing the word "obvious" in there doesn't make an argument.

It's in their annual and quarterly reports where their profit comes from. They run highly profitable coffee stores around the world.

... and in order to do that they must sometimes close unprofitable ones.

Yes, they have always done that. What's your point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com