Potentially the most blatantly threatening thing they've published so far. Outright threatening DACA recipients recipients, makes vague claims about weather payouts that imply people get paid for closures when they don't, vague empty threats about losing legally required benefits in some/most states, it's all just so blatantly intended to be threatening and deter unionizing in the most unethical and untrustworthy way.
I didn't hate Starbucks when I started organizing, I hated the way corporate refuses to listen to baristas. They pay lip service, if they even bother to do that, and then do nothing of value. I still don't hate Starbucks but I sure hate the sheer volume of unethical and often illegal actions they're taking to prevent unionizing.
Rings-of-Saturn11 points1y ago
Honestly glad I’m not at Starbucks anymore
board-certified4 points1y ago
As someone who supports unions and starbucks unionization, i don’t see anything that is illegal or threatening about this published piece. like there’s nothing wrong about it everything is negotiable so nothing and nothing is guaranteed
ethereal_dear [OP]7 points1y ago
There isn't evidence based stuff as to what makes unionization benefits "unclear" and having the national labor laws citation that also states that they cannot stop us from unionizing yet places this propoganda in the workplace is somewhat threatening.... They state the benefits they offer but some of these benefits are things we pay for through our paycheck which are Spotify and ASU tuition yet they are saying that with unions we have to pay a fee when we clearly pay fees with Starbucks benefits.... It may not seem threatening but any anti-union propoganda like this with so many holes that most employees may not recognize... That's threatening...
IzzyIllustrations2 points1y ago
I think it's also interesting that they want to push how awful unions are and how they can't give us the same benefits as unions and ununionized stores are going to have better benefits, but in all actuality it's going to be the other way around. Unionized stores aren't going to let their employees get less, if anything they're going to get better benefits because there's actually someone there fighting for their rights and interests.
You have to look at how Starbucks is trying to deter unions, and how hard their pushing against them. As a multi billion dollar company, they're scary because it means they actually have to start paying people what they're worth.
collinscreen2 points1y ago
Haha, on that timeline, they forgot to mention that in 1986 UFCW secured our part-time benefits. Howard bought the company in 1987 and then union busted.
I forget where I read this, but things that are psychologically categorized as unclear/unresolved are often the scary elements in movies- or here, towing the line of implying the loss of benefits (unfair labor practice)
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large- scale community websites for the good of humanity. Without ads, without tracking, without greed.