There are many right to work states that don't force union membership.
I do not shop at starbucks but if they ever open a fully automated one I might...
If this is not what you're trying to say please clarify?
I know the working conditions, and pay package offered by Starbucks, no one is suffering from systemic abuse there, they have more than enough benefits, and frankly their benefits priced Starbucks out for me, because I am not paying $7 for sugar water...
I have also worked at a Starbucks and I disagree.
I never felt degraded. Their shift scheduling was and probably still is crazy inconsistent by default which is the only problem with them. For me it wasn’t that bad since as a student I simultaneously had lots of time on my hands, while also needed flexibility to not be at work whenever something school related comes up.
This would have been a big deal, had I a family to feed or if I required a set amount of money instead of just extra income. Starbucks isn’t really employment, it’s more like a gig like working an Uber.
If you need a flexible gig, it’s great.
I have never contempt nor solidarity for any workers. I reject all forms of collectivism on principle and support forms of Voluntarism (philosophy), and Individualism.
I do have contempt of lazy, or entitled people that believe just because they were born they are entitled to things and should not have to work for food, housing, etc. That "necessities" should just be provided as if by magic.
Working in a Starbucks is extremely easy compared to programming. You may find you enjoy programming and many of us are lucky to enjoy work that is in fact quite difficult, but take 100 people at random off the street and you will find that 100 of them can work in Starbucks given a few days training, no problem. The only ones who will be able to do any programming after a few days training are the ones who were already programmers.
Judging by your comments upthread, you’ll be happy to pay $7 for sugar water, as long as that money stays out of the middle class. What, you though they’d lower prices when they automated?
[1] https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-retirement-surge...
China is rapidly decelerating economically because it got old so fast [3], and most of the world outside of India and Africa isn't far behind [4] [5]. TLDR Capitalism is running out of young productivity to squeeze for profits.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052550
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-...
[3] https://www.axios.com/2023/08/26/chinas-slow-moving-economic...
[4] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-...
[5] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Anal...
Cheap labor benefits consumers - primarily older people who are using savings (workers get higher prices as well, but they also get higher wages, so they're likely to win on net). Tariffs benefit domestic industries at the expense [primarily] of the people on savings/fixed incomes.
That said, NLRB/FTC/FCC/CFPB/etc regulatory rules are typically quickly reversed after presidents from opposing political parties take office. They are extremely weak on moderate timescales, compared to statutory legislation, which tends to stick around more often between shifts in power between parties.
0: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/walmart-nation-largest-empl...
Sell a store to an independent operator who in turn hires workers, then sell goods to the independent operator, something like that.
Some might argue prices might increase due to an additional corporate layer, but then the question I would have is why wouldn't Walmart just raise the prices themselves and take those extra available profits for themselves? I'd assume Walmart is already doing what they can to maximize net profit.
Not-Walmart is a different company that doesn't have a union, and if they should get one, actual Walmart can start selling goods to some different Not-Walmart who doesn't. Then Not-Walmart #2 drives Not-Walmart #1 out of business by offering lower prices if the union manages to increase Not-Walmart #1's labor costs.
After people have seen this happen they realize the union can't actually secure them more than the wages available in the free market without causing them to lose their jobs, so when they take a job at Not-Walmart #2 they wonder why they would want to spend time organizing another union and paying dues.
> Some might argue prices might increase due to an additional corporate layer, but then the question I would have is why wouldn't Walmart just raise the prices themselves and take those extra available profits for themselves?
These kinds of operations often have minimal overhead. Existing Walmart pays a salary to a store manager. Not-Walmart is owned by the person who would have been the store manager and makes "profit" equal to what Walmart would have had to pay in salary.
NLRB has recently ruled that in these cases you're still _employee of the parent company_ when it comes to companies using this as an anti-union tactic. It's very obvious to anyone when a company is actively using this as an anti-union tactic.
Maybe it is when they turn the store they're "closing" into an "independent" store "owned" by the previous store manager who then enters into an exclusive purchasing contracts with the previous owner. But then they'll do the nearest thing which is less obvious.
How does a rule like that even work? If an independent store makes wholesale purchases from both Walmart and Target, are its employees supposed to be employees of Walmart or employees of Target?
This is why ideally, this is supposed to have a few judges look at the realities of the case and the various (yes, including circumstantial) evidence to make a determination here.
The rules are don't try to get out of having a unionized employee base using _business tactics_. The example you gave is obvious that its not anti-union.
Does what? Make any change to their operations whatsoever?
Suppose they want to close the store while this is happening. Then they no longer have a local store, but they still have a logistics operation capable of supplying a store, so they solicit some other local store that wants to be supplied. That's exactly what you'd expect anyone to do who has a regional warehouse and no longer has a local store, regardless of anything happening with a union.
Is "it" supposed to be closing the store? Their underlying business model is to operate with low margins to keep prices down and make it up on volume. If their costs increase as a result of a union it could easily make the store unprofitable, or less profitable than the market value of the real estate (currently quite high), because then a competitor could undercut them on price. Are they obligated to keep operating an underperforming store forever?
I honestly don't get it. There is a prevailing local wage for retail workers, and customers are price sensitive. A union that only secures the prevailing wage is collecting dues and accomplishing nothing. A union that tries to non-trivially increase the labor costs at that store makes the store uncompetitive, so either the company finds a way to avoid that or they close the store. Neither of those is the union doing the workers any good.
1. Automation.. More Self Checkouts, more Kiosks, etc
2. Reduce local services. Many of them would become unprofitable anyway. This would be Deli, Custom Meat cutting, Fresh Meals, etc etc. This would be either outsourced or replaced with Regional Service servicing many stores to reduce head count
3. More Outsourcing. Manufacturers will stock their products on the shelfs not Walmart employees, Contractors will clean the stores not Walmart employee's, etc etc. Walmart will quickly become not the largest employer, and 100's of new small businesses that are likely under the threashold to be covered under these new laws will popup up to supply walmart with labor.
Some of this is already happening today as labor costs raise in the market, increase unionization will accelerate this.
Politics are rarely mentioned, but everyone knows there’s better work “up north”.
I follow quite a few of the subreddits for trades (r/trades, r/electricians, etc) and I can say that GP's comment rings true there. But I work primarily in TX/Louisiana/Mississippi, and the sentiment among tradespeople here is highly variable. There's a lot keeping people where their families and friends are, and there's a great amount of distrust for any information which leads to a decision they don't want to make.
Generally in TX I've had better experiences in the Union facilities, but in Louisiana I've had better experiences in the non-union facilities. I haven't interacted with union labor at all in Mississippi.