this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023

592 points (99.8% liked)

News

22561 readers

5487 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.

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

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

592

Judge: Starbucks violated federal labor law by withholding pay hikes from unionized workers (www.cnn.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Starbucks violated federal labor law when it increased wages and offered new perks and benefits only to non-union employees, a National Labor Relations Board judge found Thursday.

The decision is the latest in a series of NLRB rulings finding that Starbucks has violated labor law in its efforts to stop unions from forming in its coffee shops.

“The issue at the heart of this case is whether, under current Board law, [Starbucks] was entitled to explicitly reward employees,” for not participating in union activity, “while falsely telling its workers that the federal labor law forced it to take this action,” wrote administrative law judge Mara-Louise Anzalone. “It was not.”

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 108 points 10 months ago (2 children)

In Thursday’s decision, Anzalone recommended that Starbucks offer the benefits and higher pay to excluded employees, starting from the date when they went into effect for non-union workers, among other remedies.

Starbucks should also post a notice in its cafes telling workers that the NLRB found Starbucks had violated federal labor law, and detailing employee rights, she said.

This is the part that pisses me off the most - the only punishment is that Starbucks has to pay the unionized employees what they are owed and post a piece of paper correcting their earlier lies. There’s no fine, so they risked nothing by breaking the law.

This isn’t even enough to be considered a slap on the wrist. Other companies will take note and try any creatively dishonest policy they can come up with to prevent unionization.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago

There really should be jail time for C-levels.

Anything less is being soft on crime.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

While I do agree that there should be more of a fine, the judge has torn Starbucks' anti trust efforts wide open by having them admit to their lies in writing to their employees. The implications for Starbucks can easily be severe here as employees start to doubt the bullshit they got indoctrinated with by anti trust wankers.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

My old job had quite a few of these legally mandated “whoopsie we crossed the line a bit and got our hands slapped by the NLRB” posters around. The print was tiny and it covered the whole corkboard, basically just quoting the exact text of labor laws all written in impenetrable legalize. They weren’t exactly causing a wave of class consciousness among the workers.

Oh also there were cameras watching the posters.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Tbh, I'm betting more on the news than on the posters. Starbucks workers will see this shared via social media and such. Or so I hope. This is not at all certain, yet I think it might damage Starbucks more than some fine that will not change anything for the workers either.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Surely concrete, actual monetary damage is more discouraging than some kind of class solidarity revelation that has yet to spark from a news article being shared. It’s not like doing this precludes them also getting a fine. Being unable to do this without serious repercussions would harm them a great deal more, in my opinion.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Oh no, severe implications! That will teach them a lesson for sure 🙄

[–] Gerbler@lemmy.ml 84 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How about an investigation into precisely whos idea the union busting was and subsequently prison sentences for those responsible?

Fines don't hurt the rich like they do us. But we all have the same (give or take) lifespans. 5 years in prison hurts a billionaire more than any fine you could levy.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 52 points 10 months ago

They weren't even fined, they just had to pay what they owed. But if an employee stole $100 from a register they'd go to jail and be unemployable for life.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's why I have no problem believing Epstein killed himself. He knew what he was facing and what he had lost.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

It wouldn’t be hard to believe if he didn’t have broken neck bones. People don’t break their neck vertebrae when purposefully hanging themselves, let alone multiple, unless they fall a great distance, which Epstein did not. That’s what has always made me suspicious of the official cause of death.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Man, I remember a time when Starbucks gave decent pay, great benefits, and employee stock to even part time employees.

How things change when you can only see short term quarterly profits.

[–] millie@lemmy.film 5 points 10 months ago

I worked at Starbucks back in like 04-06 or something like that and it was a great job for what it was at the time. The pace was reasonable, the hours were genuinely flexible, the pay was decent, and the benefits were actual. I was in the highest volume store in the metro area I was living in and I loved working there. It was busy, but the line kept it reasonable, we'd mark drinks ahead of time on cups, and half the time by the time people got to the counter we'd have their drink ready.

After unemployment ran out from COVID I went back for about a year, and it was a completely different beast. Where one line used to create a bottleneck at the register and allow us plenty of time to mark and make drinks, we now had to deal with the drive-thru and mobile ordering all at the same time, which shifts the bottle neck to drink preparation by a wide margin. Working at Starbucks now is essentially standing in the middle of the narrow point of a labor funnel. They've also added a lot more tasks and spread them out all over the place, so the footwork is way more than it used to be. Floor mat coverage also tends to be insufficient because of this, and there isn't really time to slow down to a reasonable pace. Doesn't help when you're scheduled until 15 minutes before the hour in order to avoid having to give you another break.

Pay is basically what it was the last time I worked there plus a couple of dollars. Benefits and stock options are still left dangling as bait, but management seems to try to ensure that as few employees as possible actually get enough hours to qualify. Where previously corporate, in my experience anyway, supported positive managers who had their crews backs, they now seem to love slimy corporate boot-lickers who will rake back every bit of benefit and extract as much labor as possible.

With the drive-thru model it's hardly surprising to see it getting worse, but it is disappointing. What was once a boon to the working class has become just another exploitative company. Not only that, but an exploitative company that's taken their market share and has moved on to cost cutting and labor squeezing. Replacing nice little local cafes first with a polished corporate cafe and slowly turning it into an expensive McDonald's.

I do hope the nice little cafes see the opportunity to capitalize on selling a better product and treating their employees better and take back a bit of that market share.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I didn’t even know they stopped doing those things until this made the news, and it’s just another reason why I hate the dystopia that we’re currently trapped in.

[–] TheGoodKall@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Oh sure lets withhold pay increases from the group of workers most willing to take action that impacts the business in order to get pay increases. Beyond being illegal that is also just a incredibly stupid strategy

[–] cryball@sopuli.xyz 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean if the goal was to discourage union membership, then I can understand why they did that. Obviously that backfired...

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Treat a company telling you you don't need a union the same way you'd treat a cop who insists you don't need a lawyer to "answer a couple of questions"

With the utmost suspicion

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Except the "punishment" is a joke, so it seems the strategy was successful.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 10 points 10 months ago

So now they're going to revoke the pay raises for the non-ynion employees, and tell them it was the Union's fault

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Let me guess, we fined them 2 sugars and a cream.