341
Starbucks is really trying hard to ruin the reputation they built over the last 30 years. This is the reason i don't go to Starbucks anymore.
That and a business model that essentially ran every mom and pop shop out of business
Yep they’ve always been dystopian. The Walmart of coffee
Eh, I don't think this really tracks all that well. While it may vary by location, there are countless independent and small cafés in pretty much every city I've ever lived in. They generally have focus on having actually good coffee over the Starbucks style of ash water with syrup, but those are pretty distinct markets anyway.
It's probably more true in small towns/villages than in larger areas.
America really needs to create policies that make it harder for big businesses to compete against small businesses.
Reputation? Haven't they always been the McDonald's of caffeinated milkshakes?
They had a reputation for years of being a decent company. This was a decade ago though. They must have hired a new PR firm since then.
Could it have been more than two decades ago?
No, it was during the mid 2000 era. I remember it as being one of the few part time jobs that would offer health benefits, and most of my friends who worked there were head over heels about it. I think they also had other perks that some employees enjoyed, like free bags of coffee.
We had a local coffee shop where high school students hung out and had local bands play. I was there most weekends in the late 90s, and I remember people complaining about how Starbucks had shitty coffee and what a chode the manager was. I never worked at either Starbucks or the local places, but I had friends that did, and that probably colored my perception of the company.
Union members will get whatever increases were locked in last year, which vary. That means that many workers will get the 3% or 4% hike, and some the 5%, even if they are unionized. But the company will not offer new increases in pay, or vacation accrual benefits, to unionized workers — unless it is forced to concede those based on collective bargaining negotiations.
Not to be mean, but a 5% increase on a $15 an hour job is like an extra $0.75.
Did they think this was bargain power? What the people who are non-unionized every year get a free soda? And that was supposed to make them jealous?
I think they are poking a bear, they should be leaving alone.
I hope they poke harder. This seems to be the year of unions rising up. Let the Starbucks union gain some more power and maybe the effect snowballs some more.
It's a cultural issue, and all the discussions we've been having for years are finally starting to have an effect.
That's about the annual raise I get at my job and it's an office job. Why yes, it does suck.
That amount doesn't even keep up with inflation. We're all getting pay cuts every year.
Exactly. I am on FMLA right now, so I am not even getting paid. But I'm using the time to look for another job.
I'm not sure why Starbucks is fighting this so hard. The ones that did unionize only got slightly better things and they've never striked before. People are too comfortable being marginalized.
Because management fucking hates unions. It's not about making a rational strategic decision; it's about being enraged at being forced to give up even the tiniest bit of power.
This, its about the principle about not having complete power.
Also that corporate media pushes anti-union hard 24/7 and has done so since the inception of unions.
It is probably about more than wages. Unions can enforce a lot of additional standards and practices, like requiring minimum staffing or preventing the scheduling of clopens.
If SB concedes to unions, that will set a precedent for every other big company, and billionaires have better solidarity than workers do.
Do you want strikes? Because that’s how you get strikes.
So everyone should remain upset about the illegality of this, and how it’s anti-union.
But it’s also good news because they’ve shifted focus. They’re focused on disincentivizing unions rather than directly shutting down unionized locations. They probably can’t afford to shut down unionized locations anymore.
This is quite the de-escalation. This will continue on this trend, which is why all current and further anti-union activity must be challenged.
ok? I mean that’s how unions work. does starbucks think they won or something?
Starbucks employees are getting more pay and new benefits, but some are only going to baristas that haven’t unionized.
I think this is the important part. They're trying to incentives non-unions.
right, this is the pizza party. it’s a short term benefit that is not likely going to be maintained in order to pull people from the union. but with a union, you can just negotiate for those things. which is.... why they unionized in the first place. starbucks is dangling a carrot trying to save the farm.
Yes, that's probably it, but also I think unions have to negotiate any change to the contract collectively. Even giving a union member more money is breach of contract. Starbucks would be exposed to union action if they did so. Of course, this depends on how the contract is written. This certainly seems anti-union but it's also a smartass CYA on behalf of Starbucks. The union will raise hell immediately as they should.
Union contracts can set minimum wages and minimum rules for raises and allow individual negotiations above that. Far from all union contracts require exactly equal pay
Also that's probably illegal to do
JC capitalism, are you trying to eat yourself?
Glad the workers are getting more pay.
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
341 points (99.1% liked)
News
23267 readers
3308 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS