Submitted by Sorin61 t3_yftzcf in technology
jeffinRTP t1_iu5d92f wrote
If they become unionized and either company changes the benefit package they would not get it as any change will need to be negotiated by the union.
Pseudoboss11 t1_iu5hcjb wrote
If they unionize and the union negotiates a different benefit package, they will get it, as the union will negotiate that change.
jeffinRTP t1_iu5pqkm wrote
If they change the benefits or wages of nonunion workers the union workers would not automatically get the same benefits. Yes, the union would have to negotiate with the company for the benefits. Exactly what I said.
Im1Thing2Do t1_iu8u02b wrote
So everyone gets higher wages and better benefits than before. That’s good, isn’t it?
jeffinRTP t1_iu8va8a wrote
Still waiting to see someone show me where the union workers received the same increase.
Im1Thing2Do t1_iu9683v wrote
But that is not the issue? Unionized workers negotiated higher wages and better benefits for them, corporate doesn’t like that they do that so they pay non-union employees higher wages than the union employees to discourage union activity. Outcome: everyone gets either higher wages, better benefits or both. It’s not about everyone always being paid equal, it’s about everyone being paid more than before the union contract, because without the union corporate wouldn’t have an incentive to pay non-unionized workers more
jeffinRTP t1_iu9bt00 wrote
But that had nothing to do with my comment. All I said was that Starbucks gave nonunion employees a raise that it didn't give union employees. I never said anything about the good or bad points of unions, whether what they did was legal, etc.
mabrul_squeen t1_iu5nwae wrote
"You don't need a dedicated organization whos goal is to stop your employer from fucking you. Yes, they've been fucking you for multiple years with no sign of slowing down. But what if one day they decide they don't want to fuck you any more? Thered be an extra signature needed on a piece of paper for them to stop fucking you, which would never happen anyway without the leverage provided by the union. The horror."
Multinational megacorps don't just randomly wake up and go "let's double employee wages and give them chairs behind the register and fair amounts of PTO because we feel like it", they have to be forced to do so or they will operate in the way that generates max profits at the expense of the employees.
The "but if you have a union, it prevents your employer from doing nice things for you!" argument is nonsense.
No union would ever say "oh, you want to give our guys better bennies? No, we won't sign that"
But the employer isn't going to just give them better pay or benefits spontaneously out of the goodness of their hearts
You're coming off goofy af rn bro
jeffinRTP t1_iu5q94o wrote
Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said. If the company changes benefits or wages for nonunion workers union workers do not automatically get them.
Prove me wrong.
"Starbucks will raise wages again — but not for unionized workers - CNN" https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/03/business/starbucks-union-schultz/index.html
mabrul_squeen t1_iu5vd3x wrote
You have to realize that the raises in the article you linked were only offered BECAUSE of the unions, right?
Starbucks could easily have given the same raise to union workers. Would have been a simple contract amendment that any union rep would instantly sign.
But STARBUCKS chose not to do that, because they want unionizing to look like a bad idea.
This isn't starbucks saying "we want to give EVERYONE raises" and the unions saying "not without our approval you dont!"
This is starbucks intentionally giving raises they otherwise wouldnt have to non union employees, in order to make them want to stay non union.
If the unions give up, starbucks no longer has any reason to try and play nice like this, and can go back to a "you'll take what we give you or we'll replace you" model.
Any problems employees experience from being in a union are problems that starbucks intentionally creates for union employees, because they want to kill the union.
And it saddens me that your response to that, as a presumably intelligent, adult human being, is "well, we should just give in to the corporate overlords, remove any potential checks and balances against their ability to exploit their workers, and just trust that they care more about being good people to their workers than they do about profits"
Rednys t1_iu6iva9 wrote
I'll take lies for 100 Alex.
jeffinRTP t1_iu6r1c1 wrote
minus_minus t1_iu82qiv wrote
The NLRB begs to differ.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/24/starbucks-raises-nlrb-complaint/
jeffinRTP t1_iu8w5ir wrote
My statement was simply that when Starbucks gave the pay raise to nonunion workers they didn't give it to unionize workers. Your link just proves I was right.
Starbucks illegally withheld raises from union workers, labor board says
Rednys t1_iu7cw8x wrote
Any change in benefits to non union workers is a slam dunk easy negotiation for the Union. Your lie is simply stating "they would not get it".
jeffinRTP t1_iu7hrl8 wrote
Yes or no, when they gave it to the nonunion workers did the union workers also get it? Is there any evidence that the union renegotiated the contract to bring the union workers to the same level?
You are telling me that they have gotten the same increase at the same time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments