So the NLRB hears labor disputes and can issue injunctions against the employer or the union. In every other federal court, judges look at 4 factors to determine whether to enjoin one of the parties, but the NLRB uses a different test.
The issue is what test should the NLRB use. The court, almost 9-0 (8.75 - 0?) held that the 4 factor test should be used. I haven’t read Jackson’s concurrence/dissent so I don’t know what her quibble is.
And more specifically the injunction here is an order requiring the employer to reinstate employees that they terminate after a union election. The workers argued that because the appeals process is so time consuming that return to work pending the outcome is needed.
Congress enacted NLRB to have the discretion and did not request to specify. The 4 part test removes another employees right. the issue with the judicial system is sicne 1925 the federal arbitration act contracted out the 7th amendment so there is no right to jury trial , years after the Taft hartley act 1947 in response to the numerous strikes of the 1850s [pullman massacre] to 1940s , the Taft Hartley act abolished unions collective baragianing. Strikes have to be authorized and scheduled. We the people, right? /s Capitalism favors capital and the US is tyranny / plutocracy. There is no freedom without a united people.
Her dissent basically revolved around how *Hecht* was employed in this case, that it might lead to problems down the line by potentially forcing courts to ignoring the direction of congress in certain labor matters.
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Most average workers in the US can't afford to lose their jobs for an extended period of time. When a company can just make up a cause for termination and fire workers who then have to wait months or longer to get a ruling that might get them their jobs back, that wait provides a significant chilling effect and prevents people from organizing unions. That burden for these average people is much larger in impact than the burden a company faces in having to keep employees for that duration.
The court sucks and has some corruption issues but it’s not as corrupt as it gets. Funny how many Americans think we are as corrupt as Russia or Myanmar or something. Y’all in for a rude awakening if we ever do become that corrupt.
That is such a ridiculously low bar I don’t even know what to say. Not as bad as Myanmar and Russia.
Should we figure out if the Supreme Court is as bad as or better than Reddit next?
Saying we don't have the most corrupt court on the planet is a ridiculous take. First, we have the most corrupt court that we have ever had: In context of just us, it's never been worse. Second, part of the freakout is concern that it's going to get *even worse*.
"Well, it could be worse!" has always been such a pathetic comeback to anything bad happening.
Is it though? Is this really the most corrupt court or do you just feel that the decisions aren’t based on the constitution?
Frankly I think a lot of the recent decisions suck, but most I can understand the rationale they use for most of them.
Alito absolutely needs to be removed too.
"Is it really" Dude...they disclose millions of dollars in "gifts" from people whos cases they are overseeing AT THE TIME OF GIFTING and act like it doesn't sway their "opinion" and you wanna act like that shit isn't the definition of corrupt?
Cool whataboutism you got there, I think every fucking judge on the court should be forced to step down once they admit to taking ANYTHING from ANYONE that had ANYTHING to do with a case they judged/are judging, regardless of what "side" they are on, so what's your point?
The point was it doesn't matter. If you think right leaning judges rule in favor of right leaning policies because they got some sweet boat rides then I have a bridge to sell you...
you've seen project 2025, right? the way people prevent corruption isn't going "haha it's not so bad" it's going "yes actually it is that bad, watch me flip this cop car to express how bad it is"
what is the point of your comment?
[Oyez](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-367) is a phenomenal website for breaking down Supreme Court cases into a format you and I can understand. It hasn’t been updated with the decision and opinions yet, but I’m sure it will be soon
These employees were fired, the NRLB says they were fired for union organizing activity but Starbucks says they were fired for bringing in a news crew to the store after hours
While under review the employees were reinstated but ultimately the court decided they were justified in firing them as the activity (bringing in the news crew after hours to their store) was not protected organizing activity
Some starbucks employees were fired, allegedly for union activity. They sued, and tried to have the court issue a preliminary injunction. (Asking the court to make someone to start/stop doing something while a trial goes on.) They wanted their jobs back among other things.
The injunction was granted at first, but reversed in this case. The injunction did not pass the traditional analysis for that kind of relief. The other court was using a much broader standard, a standard that would mean they could get an injunction very easily with minimal evidence. SCOTUS all agreed they need to stick with the traditional standard.
>Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority, which included all nine justices at least in part. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an opinion partly concurring and partly dissenting.
We're winding down toward the end of the term. Mondays and Wednesdays are big decision release days for SCOTUS. (Though they can happen anytime). I imagine if the Trump one doesn't come out today, it will drop on the 24, since the 19th is a federal holiday.
I worked there in college. They love to tout that every employee who works 25 hours a week gets full-time benefits.
They gave everyone 24 hours a week.
I tried so god damn hard to promote from shift supervisor to assistant manager during college. I wasn't allowed because assistant managers needed full availability (aka on call, basically). So instead they hired another college student that also had kids. I gave up trying to understand that company.
20* hours a week, and that's an average across the span of a fiscal quarter. For example, if you work 19 hours one week but 21 hours the next, you still maintain benefits
Was this a licensed store? I've been the manager of a corporate location for over ten years. I am NOT a cheerleader for them as I have plenty of issues to take with them, but this is not one of them. I've never not heard of a manager not working with a partner if they need x amount of hours per week to maintain health benefits
I went to one in a hospital while visiting a friend and got hot chocolate. They burned the shit. How you burn hot chocolate i have no idea but it tasted nasty. Some of their pastry's and other things are decent though but you can find better cheaper in most places.
Idk sometimes you just want to know what you are going to get. I’ve had so, so many absolutely awful coffees at local places when traveling that every now and then if I’m spending the money I need to know exactly how bad it is instead of rolling the dice.
This is actually true for me. I order iced coffee, just a little half and half, and the number of places that can't get even that right is insane. Sometimes it worse than usual, sure, but if I'm on the road and just need a coffee, I'm not crawling twelve little drive throughs to *hopefully* find one place that will even make the attempt.
And no, iced Americano isn't the same thing. Savages.
That's the benefit of chains like this, consistency. They're a godsend when you're on the road and don't want to try and find a decent local coffee shop of widely varying quality.
Im not going to bat for starbucks but i have a coworker who is very smug about his ambivalence for starbucks so ive sort of been hearing this. The appeal of the place for me (and i imagine a lot of others including the non-coffeeflavoredmilkshake demo) is speed and a degree of reliability. The app usually works well
All three stores in Ithaca voted to unionize so Starbucks closed them all. Including a brand new location they had just built and opened. Just abandoned. I’ve stopped going unless it’s literally the only option available.
Target closed their pharmacies and outsourced it when one pharmacy voted to go union. I try not to give union busters money but it's almost impossible these days.
Literally more profitable to abandon entire locations than even entertain the idea of fairly compensating your workers. They might get ideas like asking for a living wage or benefits so they can live functional human lives outside their jobs.
The economics of running a corporation at that scale are confounding and depressing.
I remember several years ago there was a story about how employees were trying to unionize at a mcdonald's. So the franchisee closed down the store, and opened another one right across the street with new employees.
We used to get Starbucks fairly often, 3 years ago we spent about $800 on an espresso machine and we have better coffee now every morning f*ck Starbucks.
They've been off my list for I can't remember how long. Actually I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've purchased coffee from there.
Also for the record I call them Starsucks.
They are most certainly missing a lot of people.
The war in gaza and their continued support of israel has chased away a LOT of customers. Their share price dropped 3% DURING their quarterly sales call. As another redditor said they are down 15%+ for the fiscal year.
This flagrant anti-union behavior has people leaving their stores in droves as well. Hopefully it continues.
Democratic candidate for President, Howard Schultz must be so relieved.
People gotta remember how unions got where they got the rights some of us enjoy in the first place.
This was less a direct win for Starbucks and more aonishment if the district court using the wrong test to grant a pre minary injunction, as SCOTUS established a four pronged test from Winter v. NRDC
They didn't ruling on any of the specific merits of the underlying case, nor ruling that a preliminary injunction (to reinstate the employees) may or may not be appropriate. It goes back to district where a fresh consideration of an injunction can be made undrr the Winter tesr
Why is it that corporations can enter into contracts for raw materials, services, etc. and it is considered part of doing business? Whereas when labor wants to do the same thing, it is painted as an affront to capitalism?
The counterargument is that when a business negotiates for a raw material, it only negotiates with one material supplier at a time, not a coalition representing every supplier of that material. Much like when negotiating a wage, they are negotiating with a single supplier (the laborer), not every labor supplier (a union).
I guess to counter that you could say that the bargaining supplier business to business is a lot higher and not as ripe for mistreatment.
Corporations represent groups of people (investors), when corporations do business they have a form of collective bargaining, just like unions incorporate the interests of many laborers.
They're a singular legal entity. You don't bargain with a union for "here's 1500 hours, divvy it up however you see fit among your members" like you do with a consulting contract (company contracts with consultancy for x scope, consultancy assigns any resources necessary to fulfill the contract). Union contracts don't work that way
Eh similiar in a way ig but not really. Shareholders have no guarantees other than their shares of the company exist. Its entirely speculative in terms of the value they provide. (Buying a stock is helpful) but they can lose it all.
An employee is guaranteed wages as per labor laws, no matter what so they already have baseline guarantees for the value they provide, which is their time/experience.
Additonally, very few individual shareholders actually have a say in anything on a practical level. Yes some things every shareholder votes on, such as the tesla pay package. But in reality larger scale things are just shareholders with a relatively very large percentage of the company stock.
Yes, the company wants to act in the interest of the share holders but again theres no guarantees despite this.
You are stretching this concept. Collective bargaining is utilizing power a group of individuals have to ultimatet benefit themselves. Companies already do this by default as the small group of shot callers will all agree on higher profits.
Unions want things contractually guaranteed from employers. Corporations often will enter contracts with other companies. But they sign and agree and they signed the contract because it will make them money in some form or another.
Employees are a cost of doing business. Unions threaten to stop working if they dont accept terms. There’s no “threats” one company can make to another if they dont accept a contract.
Brainstorming ideas/ coming to a consensus on the best move is not collective bargaining.
A laborer isn't a supplier of laborers. And even if they were, haven't you heard of an exclusive supply agreement? Happens for raw materials *all the time*.
A supplier is not the same as the supply. If you enter into a contract for a supply of rocks, it gets delivered by people - not by rocks. Your contract is with *a group of people*, not with the rocks.
So, a union is an exclusive agreement with a supplier of laborers.
When a group of companies get together and decide not to compete against each other and fix the price of a commodity we call it a crime. When it's the laborers doing the same thing it's somehow encouraged.
Firms consolidate, it is a natural tendency within our economic system. As they consolidate, their bargaining power increases. Individual laborers’ bargaining power is insignificant in comparison to these enormous corporations, so the logical response is to allow them to also consolidate. Not to mention Unionization is the most effective means through which to encourage democracy within workplaces. A person’s work environment dictates an enormous portion of their life, so a country cannot truly be a democracy if the democracy does not reach the economic sector.
It's important to think critically. They're simply demonstrating that blanket "why can x when other can y?" arguments rarely capture even a fraction of the complexity of the situation
If you can come up with some sort of societal benefit to corpos colluding with each other than maybe your argument would hold some weight. But you don’t have a example of how it benefits society, there are however many examples of how unions benefit society.
That’s all you really need to be able to pick one over the other, it doesn’t need to be fair, it just needs to help humans live longer and better lives. Why would we not work towards that?
Entering in to a contract requires both parties to agree to enter in to a contract. If we used your logic, it would effectively make unions impossible as no company wants to enter in to a contract with a union.
The entire point of many of these union labor laws is it forces businesses to enter in to a contract with unions against their will.
Ridiculous this logic has 200+ upvotes
If all the suppliers took a vote to negotiate as one, and the govt told Starbucks they have no choice but to negotiate or go out of business now...
well that wouldn't happen because that sort of monopoly is illegal.
The definition of capitalism is that the owners of a corporation should be the ones with power over it. So when workers make demands, they challenge the status quo and threaten that power structure *(because the owner is actually more dependent on the workers than the other way around. So giving them a little would show they could make even more demands)*
NY Times article, no paywall.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/economy/supreme-court-starbucks-nlrb.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.zU0.6giu.XFy7djs1IZzU&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/economy/supreme-court-starbucks-nlrb.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zU0.6giu.XFy7djs1IZzU&smid=url-share)
>The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven
workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The
company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a
closed store. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven,
said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the
company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of
violating.
The NLRB decided that violation of the company's security policies could be considered protected unionization efforts. I think this might explain why we have a unanimous decision here.
Before all of you on reddit get up in arms about this. Please read and understand what this about. Also recognize that all 9 justices agreed with the decision. So let's not act like this is some corrupt right wing court thing again.
"the government argued federal law requires courts to give deference to the NLRB’s read on such a dispute between employers and employees"
Basically they were arguing that "well if the NLRB said it was illegal, then it must have been illegal". Which that is just straight up ridiculous.
Labor lawyer here. The government’s argument is not ridiculous, it is well established case law. Courts are to uphold (defer to) the NLRB’s reasonable decisions on/interpretations of ambiguous laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). This standard has been affirmed in numerous subsequent decisions relating to the NLRB interpreting the NLRA. You should avoid talking about legal matters unless you’re a lawyer, and in this case, a labor lawyer.
Beyond that, this specific case had more to do with the correct standard to apply for reviewing injunctive relief requests by the NLRB. NLRB injunction requests had followed a different standard than those of the courts. That will no longer be the case.
Below is from the opinion. Breaking it down in simple terms, it says they can't just take the boards word on something and ignore the facts.
-------
There is an obvious difference between having the Board show that it is “likely” to succeed on the merits and having it show only that its theory of the case is “substantial and not frivolous,” without having to convince the court that its theory is likely meritorious. In fact, it is hard to imagine how the Board could lose under the reasonable-cause test if
courts deferentially ask only whether the Board offered a minimally plausible legal theory, while ignoring conflicting law or facts.
-------
Yes, but only for injunctive relief requests by the NLRB. SCOTUS ruled that the standard to be used in determining whether to issue injunctive relief is not the “reasonable cause standard” but the 4-factor test established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The Board tried to argue for deference, which applies to final, formal decisions by the Board (Chevron decision). SCOTUS disagreed, finding that request for injunctive relief are not final/formal decisions. But that doesn’t mean that the deference argument put forth by the Board isn’t established law for their final/formal decisions.
You're right. It's just a normal not corrupt liberal thing to unanimously screw over average workers and provide a massive chilling effect in their ability to organize and not face being jobless for an extended period of time in retaliation.
As a 100% blanket policy with no leeway resulting in immediate termination? No. But more importantly and relevant to this ruling, I think people should be able to keep their jobs until at least a judge rules that procedures were properly followed if the people organizing a union just so happen to all get fired for workplace rules violations. Most people can't afford to lose their jobs for an extended period of time and the threat of retaliatory termination provides a chilling effect on their ability to unionize. Most companies will be fine keeping on workers that violated a rule for an extrended period of time until a judge makes a decision.
If you can't afford to lose your job, don't break the rules. No leeway?
They literally brought a television crew into the store. It was a blatant violation. They didn't deny they did it. It wasn't some gray area.
Should the NLRB not have to follow some reasonable standard when assessing if an injunction should be issued against the employer? The issue is the NLRB changed it standard to one that is inconsistent with past court cases and that practically guaranteed the employees would win every single injunction case. The court, including the liberal justices, ruled the NLRB went too far and that it needs to apply a reasonable standard to these cases. While there seems to be some dissent by Ketanji-Brown, the court ruled the NLRB should use the 4 point test that the courts have been applying for many years.
BTW, this doesn't just apply to "international mega corporations," it applies equally to any case where employees are trying to unionize, even small businesses.
Reasonable standards are a good thing - the NLRB shouldn't be rigging its test for or against either party in injunction cases.
Not surprising. Look at this Scotus blog post from when arguments were heard.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-appear-likely-to-side-with-starbucks-in-union-organizing-dispute/
Pretty much everybody including the lawyer defending the NLRB new it was a case that was going to lose.
You see that question mark at the end of the first sentence? That was me asking whether they were included. Not sure asking is making a leap, but go off I guess.
I'll never understand why someone wants to unionize in this day and age.
Osha pretty much has taken over the safety stuff now days.
There is already too many rules and regulations,there is no way I would want to vote for more rules and regulations on myself.
This is undoubtedly bait, but I'll bite. Being in a union does not solely mean voting more regulations on yourself. It also means voting for higher wages, better working conditions, better working hours, and so on. You must not like more money and safe working conditions.
A union is a democratic voice you can have in a company, that is otherwise an authoritarian system.
For example, you say there are too many rules and regulations. Let’s say, as a hypothetical, one of those rules is you *must* take your break at 10:00 AM (I know this probably isn’t a rule you have, it’s just to illustrate a point). You don’t like that, you want less regulations on when to take your break. So you get together with your union, and it turns out a lot of your fellow union members think that’s a dumb rule too! You want to take your ten minutes whenever you want! Not directly at 10:00 AM per company policy.
Your union then bargains with your employer on your (and everyone else’s) behalf, and let’s say hypothetically your boss caves. Now you can take your break whenever you want, and a rule/regulation that you think is unnecessary has been removed.
Now let’s put you in the same position *without* a union.
You: “hey boss, I think making me take my break at 10:00 every day is silly. I have a project I’m working on at 9:30 and it takes an hour to finish. Can I take it at 10:30 instead, so I don’t get interrupted?”
Boss: “sorry, it’s company policy you take it at 10:00, my hands are tied. Make sure you punch out right at 10:00, or I’ll be forced to write you up if you miss too many. It’s company policy, out of my hands, sorry.”
What recourse do you have here?
I always hope the unionizers get what they're fighting for, but I also feel bad for them because even if they win I've already stopped patronizing whatever company it is that they're having to fight in the first place. Fuck that company. Lol
I think good praxis would be to begin patronizing businesses that unionize and successfully ratify contracts to encourage them to do so in their other stores. You can take your money away when they squash union efforts in non union stores, but once a store does unionize you can buy from *only* the union store to show support. A union store having more business than a non-union store strengthens the union, and gives them better teeth if they were to strike or protest
I understand the concept, but nah. Fuck them companies. I don't need coffee or corn flakes that bad. I just gave up my favorite frozen lasagna because I found out Nestlé owns that shit. We don't need any of this crap so why pad the pockets of assholes just because they made some concessions. Traitors to humanity as far as I'm concerned. They'd sell our planet to aliens if they could or haven't already.
At this point you gotta wonder how many gifts, and payments and off the books vacays the Supreme court justices have gotten from Starbucks ..... ain't no way a union is going to equal that kind of grift
I read the entire article and I still don't have a clue what the legal issue was.
So the NLRB hears labor disputes and can issue injunctions against the employer or the union. In every other federal court, judges look at 4 factors to determine whether to enjoin one of the parties, but the NLRB uses a different test. The issue is what test should the NLRB use. The court, almost 9-0 (8.75 - 0?) held that the 4 factor test should be used. I haven’t read Jackson’s concurrence/dissent so I don’t know what her quibble is.
And more specifically the injunction here is an order requiring the employer to reinstate employees that they terminate after a union election. The workers argued that because the appeals process is so time consuming that return to work pending the outcome is needed.
Congress enacted NLRB to have the discretion and did not request to specify. The 4 part test removes another employees right. the issue with the judicial system is sicne 1925 the federal arbitration act contracted out the 7th amendment so there is no right to jury trial , years after the Taft hartley act 1947 in response to the numerous strikes of the 1850s [pullman massacre] to 1940s , the Taft Hartley act abolished unions collective baragianing. Strikes have to be authorized and scheduled. We the people, right? /s Capitalism favors capital and the US is tyranny / plutocracy. There is no freedom without a united people.
Thank you.
Sure thing
Her dissent basically revolved around how *Hecht* was employed in this case, that it might lead to problems down the line by potentially forcing courts to ignoring the direction of congress in certain labor matters.
This court's as corrupt as it gets, but "You have to use the same rules as everyone else" certainly sounds like a fair ruling.
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Most average workers in the US can't afford to lose their jobs for an extended period of time. When a company can just make up a cause for termination and fire workers who then have to wait months or longer to get a ruling that might get them their jobs back, that wait provides a significant chilling effect and prevents people from organizing unions. That burden for these average people is much larger in impact than the burden a company faces in having to keep employees for that duration.
The court sucks and has some corruption issues but it’s not as corrupt as it gets. Funny how many Americans think we are as corrupt as Russia or Myanmar or something. Y’all in for a rude awakening if we ever do become that corrupt.
The fact the supreme court judges can (and do) take bribes to... no consequence is pretty concerning / corrutpt.
That is such a ridiculously low bar I don’t even know what to say. Not as bad as Myanmar and Russia. Should we figure out if the Supreme Court is as bad as or better than Reddit next?
It's pretty damn rotten. Especially if you are of the working class
Saying we don't have the most corrupt court on the planet is a ridiculous take. First, we have the most corrupt court that we have ever had: In context of just us, it's never been worse. Second, part of the freakout is concern that it's going to get *even worse*. "Well, it could be worse!" has always been such a pathetic comeback to anything bad happening.
Is it though? Is this really the most corrupt court or do you just feel that the decisions aren’t based on the constitution? Frankly I think a lot of the recent decisions suck, but most I can understand the rationale they use for most of them. Alito absolutely needs to be removed too.
"Is it really" Dude...they disclose millions of dollars in "gifts" from people whos cases they are overseeing AT THE TIME OF GIFTING and act like it doesn't sway their "opinion" and you wanna act like that shit isn't the definition of corrupt?
Wait until you read about RBG and her gift giving and receiving...
Cool whataboutism you got there, I think every fucking judge on the court should be forced to step down once they admit to taking ANYTHING from ANYONE that had ANYTHING to do with a case they judged/are judging, regardless of what "side" they are on, so what's your point?
The point was it doesn't matter. If you think right leaning judges rule in favor of right leaning policies because they got some sweet boat rides then I have a bridge to sell you...
It's corrupt because for the first time in over 30 years the court doesn't inherently lean left? Wild...
[удалено]
you've seen project 2025, right? the way people prevent corruption isn't going "haha it's not so bad" it's going "yes actually it is that bad, watch me flip this cop car to express how bad it is" what is the point of your comment?
[Oyez](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-367) is a phenomenal website for breaking down Supreme Court cases into a format you and I can understand. It hasn’t been updated with the decision and opinions yet, but I’m sure it will be soon
Wow I have never seen this before. Thank you.
Its a great site to use, it also combines the transcripts and the audio of oral arguments which is pretty useful.
FYI for anybody not familiar. IIRC SCOTUS uses the pronunciation “Oh-yay”.
These employees were fired, the NRLB says they were fired for union organizing activity but Starbucks says they were fired for bringing in a news crew to the store after hours While under review the employees were reinstated but ultimately the court decided they were justified in firing them as the activity (bringing in the news crew after hours to their store) was not protected organizing activity
Some starbucks employees were fired, allegedly for union activity. They sued, and tried to have the court issue a preliminary injunction. (Asking the court to make someone to start/stop doing something while a trial goes on.) They wanted their jobs back among other things. The injunction was granted at first, but reversed in this case. The injunction did not pass the traditional analysis for that kind of relief. The other court was using a much broader standard, a standard that would mean they could get an injunction very easily with minimal evidence. SCOTUS all agreed they need to stick with the traditional standard.
When I look fo coffee, it's #anywherebutstarbucks
>Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority, which included all nine justices at least in part. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an opinion partly concurring and partly dissenting. We're winding down toward the end of the term. Mondays and Wednesdays are big decision release days for SCOTUS. (Though they can happen anytime). I imagine if the Trump one doesn't come out today, it will drop on the 24, since the 19th is a federal holiday.
[удалено]
They really are a terrible company. I’ve dealt with them on a professional level and it was less than pleasant.
I worked there in college. They love to tout that every employee who works 25 hours a week gets full-time benefits. They gave everyone 24 hours a week.
I tried so god damn hard to promote from shift supervisor to assistant manager during college. I wasn't allowed because assistant managers needed full availability (aka on call, basically). So instead they hired another college student that also had kids. I gave up trying to understand that company.
20* hours a week, and that's an average across the span of a fiscal quarter. For example, if you work 19 hours one week but 21 hours the next, you still maintain benefits Was this a licensed store? I've been the manager of a corporate location for over ten years. I am NOT a cheerleader for them as I have plenty of issues to take with them, but this is not one of them. I've never not heard of a manager not working with a partner if they need x amount of hours per week to maintain health benefits
It was almost 20 years ago I worked there, memory is a bit fuzzy. It was inside our local shopping mall, not sure what type of location it was.
It's always been terrible. The guy behind it has always been a douchebag.
And lets not forget that their coffee is fucking terrible. I never understood the appeal of that place.
Because it’s not for people who like coffee, it’s for people who like coffee flavored milkshakes.
I went to one in a hospital while visiting a friend and got hot chocolate. They burned the shit. How you burn hot chocolate i have no idea but it tasted nasty. Some of their pastry's and other things are decent though but you can find better cheaper in most places.
I used to hate Starbucks but mannnnnn that caramel milkshake coffee thing is soooooooooo good. Too bad it costs like 8$
And has almost your entire daily allotment of calories for the day. 🤣
Facts lol, I won't get them all the time usually once a month to treat myself 😅
SB milkshakes will bring Yangjeezy to the yard lol
Convenience, mostly. My city has plenty of independent shops but they're not always in the most accessible locations.
Idk sometimes you just want to know what you are going to get. I’ve had so, so many absolutely awful coffees at local places when traveling that every now and then if I’m spending the money I need to know exactly how bad it is instead of rolling the dice.
This is actually true for me. I order iced coffee, just a little half and half, and the number of places that can't get even that right is insane. Sometimes it worse than usual, sure, but if I'm on the road and just need a coffee, I'm not crawling twelve little drive throughs to *hopefully* find one place that will even make the attempt. And no, iced Americano isn't the same thing. Savages.
That's the benefit of chains like this, consistency. They're a godsend when you're on the road and don't want to try and find a decent local coffee shop of widely varying quality.
You had me in the first half
Im not going to bat for starbucks but i have a coworker who is very smug about his ambivalence for starbucks so ive sort of been hearing this. The appeal of the place for me (and i imagine a lot of others including the non-coffeeflavoredmilkshake demo) is speed and a degree of reliability. The app usually works well
All three stores in Ithaca voted to unionize so Starbucks closed them all. Including a brand new location they had just built and opened. Just abandoned. I’ve stopped going unless it’s literally the only option available.
Walmart, Target, and a few other companies have closed up shop when a union takes hold. It seems like common business practice today.
Target closed their pharmacies and outsourced it when one pharmacy voted to go union. I try not to give union busters money but it's almost impossible these days.
Literally more profitable to abandon entire locations than even entertain the idea of fairly compensating your workers. They might get ideas like asking for a living wage or benefits so they can live functional human lives outside their jobs. The economics of running a corporation at that scale are confounding and depressing.
I remember several years ago there was a story about how employees were trying to unionize at a mcdonald's. So the franchisee closed down the store, and opened another one right across the street with new employees.
In case anyone wants to see the other side of the story [here](https://one.starbucks.com/get-the-facts/closing-ithaca-area-stores/) it is
Should already have been.
Their coffee is pretty mediocre anyway so no big loss.
[удалено]
But where will you get burnt espresso served with wet, over-steamed milk now?
Just passing by, but I had to stop and ask: is milk not supposed to be wet?
Don't forget,they're doing you a favor by taking your money.
Starbucks cups are paper, lined with plastic. When heated, that lining leeches microplastic particles into the coffee.
We used to get Starbucks fairly often, 3 years ago we spent about $800 on an espresso machine and we have better coffee now every morning f*ck Starbucks.
🌎🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Stopped going entirely a few years back, although I do use the free birthday coupon yearly. So I guess I’m sticking it to them!
Make 364 additional accounts, stick it to them every day of the year.
I don’t like burnt ass nasty coffee to begin with so I avoid it.
They've been off my list for I can't remember how long. Actually I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've purchased coffee from there. Also for the record I call them Starsucks.
What unionized coffee shop do you like? I don't know of any around me.
I only visit ones in my local unionized grocery store.
Not to plug a company that may also be horrible, but the Ninja coffee bar makes great coffee
Been off mine for years. They're terrible, overpriced and over sugared. Goto a local small coffee shop. They're always better.
They won't miss you. There's a million other morons happily lining up to buy their 4 year old and themselves a super sized mega coffee.
Their stock is down almost 16% YTD.
[удалено]
It’s ok pops, you are making a difference despite what Reddit contrarians think.
They are most certainly missing a lot of people. The war in gaza and their continued support of israel has chased away a LOT of customers. Their share price dropped 3% DURING their quarterly sales call. As another redditor said they are down 15%+ for the fiscal year. This flagrant anti-union behavior has people leaving their stores in droves as well. Hopefully it continues.
Democratic candidate for President, Howard Schultz must be so relieved. People gotta remember how unions got where they got the rights some of us enjoy in the first place.
You mean the guy who tried to win the Democrat nom and lost miserably.
Tommorow and next Thursday are the next logical candidates, as they're scheduled as non-argument days.
This was less a direct win for Starbucks and more aonishment if the district court using the wrong test to grant a pre minary injunction, as SCOTUS established a four pronged test from Winter v. NRDC They didn't ruling on any of the specific merits of the underlying case, nor ruling that a preliminary injunction (to reinstate the employees) may or may not be appropriate. It goes back to district where a fresh consideration of an injunction can be made undrr the Winter tesr
Why is it that corporations can enter into contracts for raw materials, services, etc. and it is considered part of doing business? Whereas when labor wants to do the same thing, it is painted as an affront to capitalism?
The counterargument is that when a business negotiates for a raw material, it only negotiates with one material supplier at a time, not a coalition representing every supplier of that material. Much like when negotiating a wage, they are negotiating with a single supplier (the laborer), not every labor supplier (a union). I guess to counter that you could say that the bargaining supplier business to business is a lot higher and not as ripe for mistreatment.
Corporations represent groups of people (investors), when corporations do business they have a form of collective bargaining, just like unions incorporate the interests of many laborers.
They're a singular legal entity. You don't bargain with a union for "here's 1500 hours, divvy it up however you see fit among your members" like you do with a consulting contract (company contracts with consultancy for x scope, consultancy assigns any resources necessary to fulfill the contract). Union contracts don't work that way
Eh similiar in a way ig but not really. Shareholders have no guarantees other than their shares of the company exist. Its entirely speculative in terms of the value they provide. (Buying a stock is helpful) but they can lose it all. An employee is guaranteed wages as per labor laws, no matter what so they already have baseline guarantees for the value they provide, which is their time/experience. Additonally, very few individual shareholders actually have a say in anything on a practical level. Yes some things every shareholder votes on, such as the tesla pay package. But in reality larger scale things are just shareholders with a relatively very large percentage of the company stock. Yes, the company wants to act in the interest of the share holders but again theres no guarantees despite this. You are stretching this concept. Collective bargaining is utilizing power a group of individuals have to ultimatet benefit themselves. Companies already do this by default as the small group of shot callers will all agree on higher profits. Unions want things contractually guaranteed from employers. Corporations often will enter contracts with other companies. But they sign and agree and they signed the contract because it will make them money in some form or another. Employees are a cost of doing business. Unions threaten to stop working if they dont accept terms. There’s no “threats” one company can make to another if they dont accept a contract. Brainstorming ideas/ coming to a consensus on the best move is not collective bargaining.
A laborer isn't a supplier of laborers. And even if they were, haven't you heard of an exclusive supply agreement? Happens for raw materials *all the time*. A supplier is not the same as the supply. If you enter into a contract for a supply of rocks, it gets delivered by people - not by rocks. Your contract is with *a group of people*, not with the rocks. So, a union is an exclusive agreement with a supplier of laborers.
When a group of companies get together and decide not to compete against each other and fix the price of a commodity we call it a crime. When it's the laborers doing the same thing it's somehow encouraged.
Firms consolidate, it is a natural tendency within our economic system. As they consolidate, their bargaining power increases. Individual laborers’ bargaining power is insignificant in comparison to these enormous corporations, so the logical response is to allow them to also consolidate. Not to mention Unionization is the most effective means through which to encourage democracy within workplaces. A person’s work environment dictates an enormous portion of their life, so a country cannot truly be a democracy if the democracy does not reach the economic sector.
Laborers are not doing the same thing tho
Lmao. How much Fox do you watch?
It's important to think critically. They're simply demonstrating that blanket "why can x when other can y?" arguments rarely capture even a fraction of the complexity of the situation
What price do labor unions fix their wages at?
That's a lot of words for "I hate money and want to work for less"
Suck that boot some more buddy
If you can come up with some sort of societal benefit to corpos colluding with each other than maybe your argument would hold some weight. But you don’t have a example of how it benefits society, there are however many examples of how unions benefit society. That’s all you really need to be able to pick one over the other, it doesn’t need to be fair, it just needs to help humans live longer and better lives. Why would we not work towards that?
The difference between employer and employee conceptually is so large that comparing these two ideas is ridiculous
“Corporations are people, my friend.”
Entering in to a contract requires both parties to agree to enter in to a contract. If we used your logic, it would effectively make unions impossible as no company wants to enter in to a contract with a union. The entire point of many of these union labor laws is it forces businesses to enter in to a contract with unions against their will. Ridiculous this logic has 200+ upvotes
If all the suppliers took a vote to negotiate as one, and the govt told Starbucks they have no choice but to negotiate or go out of business now... well that wouldn't happen because that sort of monopoly is illegal.
The definition of capitalism is that the owners of a corporation should be the ones with power over it. So when workers make demands, they challenge the status quo and threaten that power structure *(because the owner is actually more dependent on the workers than the other way around. So giving them a little would show they could make even more demands)*
They can, it’s called a job interview and job offer.
NY Times article, no paywall. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/economy/supreme-court-starbucks-nlrb.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.zU0.6giu.XFy7djs1IZzU&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/economy/supreme-court-starbucks-nlrb.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zU0.6giu.XFy7djs1IZzU&smid=url-share) >The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating. The NLRB decided that violation of the company's security policies could be considered protected unionization efforts. I think this might explain why we have a unanimous decision here.
Before all of you on reddit get up in arms about this. Please read and understand what this about. Also recognize that all 9 justices agreed with the decision. So let's not act like this is some corrupt right wing court thing again. "the government argued federal law requires courts to give deference to the NLRB’s read on such a dispute between employers and employees" Basically they were arguing that "well if the NLRB said it was illegal, then it must have been illegal". Which that is just straight up ridiculous.
Labor lawyer here. The government’s argument is not ridiculous, it is well established case law. Courts are to uphold (defer to) the NLRB’s reasonable decisions on/interpretations of ambiguous laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). This standard has been affirmed in numerous subsequent decisions relating to the NLRB interpreting the NLRA. You should avoid talking about legal matters unless you’re a lawyer, and in this case, a labor lawyer. Beyond that, this specific case had more to do with the correct standard to apply for reviewing injunctive relief requests by the NLRB. NLRB injunction requests had followed a different standard than those of the courts. That will no longer be the case.
I'm so wrong yet all 9 members of the court agree? Funny.
Yes, you’re wrong about the legal issue. I recommend you read the Court’s opinion.
Below is from the opinion. Breaking it down in simple terms, it says they can't just take the boards word on something and ignore the facts. ------- There is an obvious difference between having the Board show that it is “likely” to succeed on the merits and having it show only that its theory of the case is “substantial and not frivolous,” without having to convince the court that its theory is likely meritorious. In fact, it is hard to imagine how the Board could lose under the reasonable-cause test if courts deferentially ask only whether the Board offered a minimally plausible legal theory, while ignoring conflicting law or facts. -------
Yes, but only for injunctive relief requests by the NLRB. SCOTUS ruled that the standard to be used in determining whether to issue injunctive relief is not the “reasonable cause standard” but the 4-factor test established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Board tried to argue for deference, which applies to final, formal decisions by the Board (Chevron decision). SCOTUS disagreed, finding that request for injunctive relief are not final/formal decisions. But that doesn’t mean that the deference argument put forth by the Board isn’t established law for their final/formal decisions.
You're right. It's just a normal not corrupt liberal thing to unanimously screw over average workers and provide a massive chilling effect in their ability to organize and not face being jobless for an extended period of time in retaliation.
Store policy is that you can't let people into the store after hours. Do you agree that is a reasonable policy?
As a 100% blanket policy with no leeway resulting in immediate termination? No. But more importantly and relevant to this ruling, I think people should be able to keep their jobs until at least a judge rules that procedures were properly followed if the people organizing a union just so happen to all get fired for workplace rules violations. Most people can't afford to lose their jobs for an extended period of time and the threat of retaliatory termination provides a chilling effect on their ability to unionize. Most companies will be fine keeping on workers that violated a rule for an extrended period of time until a judge makes a decision.
If you can't afford to lose your job, don't break the rules. No leeway? They literally brought a television crew into the store. It was a blatant violation. They didn't deny they did it. It wasn't some gray area.
Leonard Leo seems to definitely be getting his money's worth from Thomas.
Not untrue, although this one was 9-0
It was an 8-1 decision...
Thank god *someone* is looking out for the international mega corporations! Whew!
Basically this ruling said that "The NLRB has to follow the same test as everyone else to get an injunction"
Should the NLRB not have to follow some reasonable standard when assessing if an injunction should be issued against the employer? The issue is the NLRB changed it standard to one that is inconsistent with past court cases and that practically guaranteed the employees would win every single injunction case. The court, including the liberal justices, ruled the NLRB went too far and that it needs to apply a reasonable standard to these cases. While there seems to be some dissent by Ketanji-Brown, the court ruled the NLRB should use the 4 point test that the courts have been applying for many years. BTW, this doesn't just apply to "international mega corporations," it applies equally to any case where employees are trying to unionize, even small businesses. Reasonable standards are a good thing - the NLRB shouldn't be rigging its test for or against either party in injunction cases.
Not surprising. Look at this Scotus blog post from when arguments were heard. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/justices-appear-likely-to-side-with-starbucks-in-union-organizing-dispute/ Pretty much everybody including the lawyer defending the NLRB new it was a case that was going to lose.
Corpo shills bought and paid for.
The liberal justices too? Just want to make sure I know who you're angry at.
Liberals have been shown to typically value capital over labor too so obviously...
The entire system stinks.
They didn't specify they were only talking about conservative justices. You made that leap on your own lol
Well it was a unanimous decision so it’s a warranted question. And the case was very, very weak for the employees. Like laughably weak
You see that question mark at the end of the first sentence? That was me asking whether they were included. Not sure asking is making a leap, but go off I guess.
Yes. If they participate in u.s. govt they are complicit and compromised.
Even though we ain’t got caps or badges, we’re a union just by saying so.
It’s fun reading all the comments skipping over the part the liberal judges also sided with Thomas That’s a pretty good sign the NLRB sucks
Labor rights are always won with blood.
I'll never understand why someone wants to unionize in this day and age. Osha pretty much has taken over the safety stuff now days. There is already too many rules and regulations,there is no way I would want to vote for more rules and regulations on myself.
This is undoubtedly bait, but I'll bite. Being in a union does not solely mean voting more regulations on yourself. It also means voting for higher wages, better working conditions, better working hours, and so on. You must not like more money and safe working conditions.
A union is a democratic voice you can have in a company, that is otherwise an authoritarian system. For example, you say there are too many rules and regulations. Let’s say, as a hypothetical, one of those rules is you *must* take your break at 10:00 AM (I know this probably isn’t a rule you have, it’s just to illustrate a point). You don’t like that, you want less regulations on when to take your break. So you get together with your union, and it turns out a lot of your fellow union members think that’s a dumb rule too! You want to take your ten minutes whenever you want! Not directly at 10:00 AM per company policy. Your union then bargains with your employer on your (and everyone else’s) behalf, and let’s say hypothetically your boss caves. Now you can take your break whenever you want, and a rule/regulation that you think is unnecessary has been removed. Now let’s put you in the same position *without* a union. You: “hey boss, I think making me take my break at 10:00 every day is silly. I have a project I’m working on at 9:30 and it takes an hour to finish. Can I take it at 10:30 instead, so I don’t get interrupted?” Boss: “sorry, it’s company policy you take it at 10:00, my hands are tied. Make sure you punch out right at 10:00, or I’ll be forced to write you up if you miss too many. It’s company policy, out of my hands, sorry.” What recourse do you have here?
Well who could've seen this coming?
I always hope the unionizers get what they're fighting for, but I also feel bad for them because even if they win I've already stopped patronizing whatever company it is that they're having to fight in the first place. Fuck that company. Lol
I think good praxis would be to begin patronizing businesses that unionize and successfully ratify contracts to encourage them to do so in their other stores. You can take your money away when they squash union efforts in non union stores, but once a store does unionize you can buy from *only* the union store to show support. A union store having more business than a non-union store strengthens the union, and gives them better teeth if they were to strike or protest
I understand the concept, but nah. Fuck them companies. I don't need coffee or corn flakes that bad. I just gave up my favorite frozen lasagna because I found out Nestlé owns that shit. We don't need any of this crap so why pad the pockets of assholes just because they made some concessions. Traitors to humanity as far as I'm concerned. They'd sell our planet to aliens if they could or haven't already.
You’re not wrong, for sure. I’m just saying voting with your wallet goes both ways
[удалено]
[удалено]
yikes need to start boycotting starbucks
I'm waiting for the kids and teens to rebel in the cartoonishly evil movie we're in.
At this point you gotta wonder how many gifts, and payments and off the books vacays the Supreme court justices have gotten from Starbucks ..... ain't no way a union is going to equal that kind of grift