I've often wondered about the viability of this tactic.
There are piles of rules protecting workers rights to collectively bargain, preventing businesses from interfering with unionization, and forcing them to deal only with the union selected by the employees. But what, if anything, prevents a business from simply offering a better deal to non-union members to disincentivize union membership?
I can't speak for all businesses, but all the ones I've dealt with you didn't have an option. You joined the union or you didn't have the job. So it wasn't a viable tactic because it didn't have any comparison because there either was no union, all union, or only union in a completely different section of the business with such different pay/benefits it didn't matter.
I've seen some where people can become worker/managers, where on days they're working as a grunt, they're unionized, but on days they're working as managers, they're non-unionized. But those are generally worst-of-both-worlds, not best.
Yeah my old job was one of those. Luckily our specific building voted the union out years ago, but every other location the manager was non-union while all the workers were.
My buddy who xferred over said it was the worst possible position to try and manage in.
Unions are good on paper, but they generally always end up being run by someone incompetent or corrupt. Every sing one I was forced in to was a total scam. Sometimes I wonder if half of them are mock unions secretly being run by the company itself.
It really is a rock and a hard place, because at times you do need to wield the collective power of the employees to keep corporate/management from pulling some bullshit.
But it always just becomes a "choose which boot steps on you" instead, often with less money due to dues.
That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's one thing to get stepped on by someone who is clearly the bad guy. It's a whole different level of fucked when the "bad guy" is acting like they are doing it for your own good and you know they are full of shit, but everyone around you is completely oblivious to it.
To be fair, Starbucks wouldn’t have done this without the specter of Union presence somewhere. They’re doing what they should be doing anyway as an anti-Union bribe, which you could argue is an indirect benefit of unionization.
Why do you need a union to organize a strike? If your bosses are unfair to you, you can all agree to stop working without any need to be paying union fees to some commie union boss.
I'm fine with unions being just that. If a large group of employees wants to organize for collective bargaining, go ahead. You get no special legal recognition, and you cannot compel other employees to join you if they don't want to.
But that is in fact the point, to force everyone to join.
I'm not pro or anti union, but I will say that unlike women, trying to get men together to collectively do something, even it's something that benefits them, is kind of hard. Every man would have to be on the same page for it to work, and most men are in a "do my own thing" mode as a default.
I've often wondered about the viability of this tactic.
There are piles of rules protecting workers rights to collectively bargain, preventing businesses from interfering with unionization, and forcing them to deal only with the union selected by the employees. But what, if anything, prevents a business from simply offering a better deal to non-union members to disincentivize union membership?
I can't speak for all businesses, but all the ones I've dealt with you didn't have an option. You joined the union or you didn't have the job. So it wasn't a viable tactic because it didn't have any comparison because there either was no union, all union, or only union in a completely different section of the business with such different pay/benefits it didn't matter.
I've seen some where people can become worker/managers, where on days they're working as a grunt, they're unionized, but on days they're working as managers, they're non-unionized. But those are generally worst-of-both-worlds, not best.
Yeah my old job was one of those. Luckily our specific building voted the union out years ago, but every other location the manager was non-union while all the workers were.
My buddy who xferred over said it was the worst possible position to try and manage in.
And their lattes taste like ass. I'm not a coffee snob but they really are bad.
Unions are good on paper, but they generally always end up being run by someone incompetent or corrupt. Every sing one I was forced in to was a total scam. Sometimes I wonder if half of them are mock unions secretly being run by the company itself.
It really is a rock and a hard place, because at times you do need to wield the collective power of the employees to keep corporate/management from pulling some bullshit.
But it always just becomes a "choose which boot steps on you" instead, often with less money due to dues.
That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's one thing to get stepped on by someone who is clearly the bad guy. It's a whole different level of fucked when the "bad guy" is acting like they are doing it for your own good and you know they are full of shit, but everyone around you is completely oblivious to it.
lmao
That's what you fucks get for unionizing.
Starbucks the ultra progressive organization.
I would liquidate a business and fire everyone rather than employ communist union thugs.
There's a decent opening to pit labor movement-type leftists against the woke left globohom corporations. That pot needs stirring.
To be fair, Starbucks wouldn’t have done this without the specter of Union presence somewhere. They’re doing what they should be doing anyway as an anti-Union bribe, which you could argue is an indirect benefit of unionization.
This should be the top comment.
I don't understand the point of unions.
Why do you need a union to organize a strike? If your bosses are unfair to you, you can all agree to stop working without any need to be paying union fees to some commie union boss.
I'm fine with unions being just that. If a large group of employees wants to organize for collective bargaining, go ahead. You get no special legal recognition, and you cannot compel other employees to join you if they don't want to.
But that is in fact the point, to force everyone to join.
Yuri was right again.
I'm not pro or anti union, but I will say that unlike women, trying to get men together to collectively do something, even it's something that benefits them, is kind of hard. Every man would have to be on the same page for it to work, and most men are in a "do my own thing" mode as a default.
Well this is a good example the benefits of unions. Company sees the benefit of paying non-union members more to not join the union.