What power would a union have if the company is willing to close the unionized location? If they were required to keep the store "open" but the union strikes, the union is basically closing the location for the company.
As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
(Unionize all the stores in an area, and if Starbucks shuts them all down, just open a new coffee shop)
Furthermore, Starbucks shouldn't be forced to sell its proprietary assets. like ovens, espresso machines, technology, etc.
Most employees appreciate that they are getting paid whether or not the location performs well. They don't get an equal share of the profit, but they also don't pay an equal share to cover losses if the business is not profitable for a season. If a Starbucks locations were closed for a month during peak Covid, would the employees be happy to (a) not get paid, but also happy to (b) still help carry the cost of the lease, utilities and other operating expenses?
If I start a business and my employees are willing to put their name on the loan (backed by their homes as collateral), then this is a different discussion.
They are more common that one may think. They have quite a foothold in e.g. European agriculture and even finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation.
Now go ask the bank for a credit line to do this and you will understand why the privatisation of money creation impedes worker-owned co-ops (or any ownership structure other than the standard capitalist one).
It is possible it is hard to find a co-op because it's harder to collect on a delinquent loan. Or perhaps data shows that they fail more frequently.
You argue elsewhere that changing jobs is easier than Starbucks closing all of their stores. The point is that this is one store, not all of them, and Starbucks can absolutely afford to close one or a few. They are betting that labor will back down before store closures start to hurt their business.
Network effects for me, but none for thee.
> Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Enacted during the early stages of the Cold War, the law required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.
Seems like it should be at least partly unconstitutional on first amendment grounds, but I don't know if it's ever been challenged.
To be frank, it's a shining example of why every legislation needs a sunset date. One and done legislation is just a tyranny happening in slow motion without active efforts to measure and assure continuing assent to the status quo by the governed.
The companies, on the other hand, have to know the risk of strike is real, or else they can easily ignore the union entirely. To avoid a strike, the company needs to give the unionized workers just enough to make it not worthwhile to strike, but not nothing.
However, all of this is beside the point, because companies close stores in order to avoid the union even forming. Once the vote doesn't go their way, boom. They don't even wait to hear the proposals, they shut down to send a clear signal that they don't want the workers to have any power whatsoever, at that location or any other.