Hacker News Reader

Comment by caskstrength | Hacker News Reader

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.

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

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.

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