Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   A tale of two coffee shops. One unionized, the other not. Guess which one has employees making more per cup   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, Coffee, Trade union, Starbucks, Coffeehouse, union shop, Espresso, Scott Lucey, Labor spies  
•       •       •

2042 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Jul 2022 at 5:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



48 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-07-02 1:29:31 PM  
The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.
 
2022-07-02 2:28:15 PM  

Thoreny: The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.


Adding that apparently shop 2's owner spent his days with his fingers in his ears going la la la la instead of dealing with problems in his shop.

I find it weird that a 6 employee shop can unionize in a 3-2 vote with one abstention.
 
2022-07-02 3:51:47 PM  
"I need to be having conversations with people about a contentious topic? No thanks! I'll pass. I want to brew coffee and dial in espresso," he thought at the time.

Wow. Pretty shocking that employees didn't feel heard in your cafe.
 
2022-07-02 3:52:54 PM  
Just the threat of unionization is enough to improve the situation at many places. Getting the boss to listen is the hardest part.
 
2022-07-02 6:32:40 PM  
This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.
 
2022-07-02 6:44:31 PM  

adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.


Third stream is a form of music. Third way is politics.
 
2022-07-02 6:49:55 PM  

adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.


Yep. This article is trash. One mini chain threatened to unionize so owner 'listened' and, 4 months later, did 'something'? Another shop unionized and was sold? So what? What were the gains or losses? And any gains were from pro-unionization efforts apparently.

But the implication is 'unions bad' for some reason?
 
2022-07-02 7:12:26 PM  

adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.


Sure, it was largely written from the owners perspective and depicted 2 owners and their personal mind set of "I cherish my wages slaves, seriously" is what they share with the article writer. You didn't actually expect them to tell the article writer how they really felt or treated their workers do you?

It's pretty clear both places had a similar problem. They weren't listening. One boss actually made an attempt and did the bare minimum to solve their employees issues, was seemingly willing to provide some transparency and was rewarded with not having them unionize. The other literally refused to talk with his employees because he didn't want to talk about contentious topics... anyone who can't nut up and listen to criticism or uncomfortable topics is a terrible boss.

Then he complains about contract terms he himself accepted... why a super small business owner like a coffee shop would accept restrictions on how many hours he could spend behind his own counter is bind boggling and the fact that his workers insisted on it should tell you a lot about what it was like to work with him. Either he's terrible to work with and they wanted him there as little as possible or he had a habit of using his time behind the counter to fark over his workers on their own time or job duties. Either way since he's the only one voicing the topic in the article it's written about as if he's being treated unfairly. The one employee there seems to be holding him to the letter of the contract, so that it self should tell you exactly what you need to know about the issue. We're talking about a coffee shop that seemingly has 6 employees. If he wasn't a huge dick most of them wouldn't care if he took an extra hour behind the counter to give them help during a busy hour or a break.
 
2022-07-02 7:26:22 PM  
Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.
 
2022-07-02 7:51:45 PM  
That was not necessarily a pro-union article...
 
2022-07-02 7:54:49 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.

Yep. This article is trash. One mini chain threatened to unionize so owner 'listened' and, 4 months later, did 'something'? Another shop unionized and was sold? So what? What were the gains or losses? And any gains were from pro-unionization efforts apparently.

But the implication is 'unions bad' for some reason?


Yeah, it did have quite the sense of "Oh, these poor beleaguered business owners just want to live their dream and unions turned them upside down!"  Like, if your employees are threatening to unionize there must be a reason. Most people aren't going to go out of their way to engage in that sort of bureaucracy if everything's going hunky-dory.
 
2022-07-02 8:18:34 PM  

adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.


Eh, the point was that you have to treat workers with respect and pay them well. Workers usually organize a union because working conditions are the opposite of that.

The guy with the union shop still seems to be at odds with his employees. And with his griping about a 50 cent annual COLA, he probably didn't make any concessions but he acts like they're taking advantage of him.
 
2022-07-02 8:23:51 PM  
What does the official narrative say about this?  Union shop good, non union shop bad?  Or non union shop good, union shop bad?

We should have Biden nationalize all coffee shops and have all employees part of the federal union.
 
2022-07-02 8:32:40 PM  
There is a lot not said.  I was in a Union for over 20 years, there is a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things about it.  Never forget, the Union isn't free, you have to pay to be a member.  I would not be surprised if the union shop closes sooner or later, the Union often blocks any attempt at changes , innovation, and flexibility, which is often death for a place with only 6 employees.
 
2022-07-02 8:36:10 PM  
The moment the company says "You don't need a union" is when you needed a union 3 years earlier.
I've only worked in 1 place that was unionized and the union was weak as piss.
It was just on paper really and the company did whatever it wanted anyways.
I don't like how Unions protect Dog Farkers who are complete pos employees and how unions *seem to* screw things up more than they solve problems now a days.
However without unions we'd still have child laborers and working for 10 cents a day 6 days a week 16 hours a day.
 
2022-07-02 8:45:33 PM  

caljar: There is a lot not said.  I was in a Union for over 20 years, there is a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things about it.  Never forget, the Union isn't free, you have to pay to be a member.  I would not be surprised if the union shop closes sooner or later, the Union often blocks any attempt at changes , innovation, and flexibility, which is often death for a place with only 6 employees.


Wisconsin is a Right to Work state. So some of the baristas could just not pay dues.
 
2022-07-02 8:56:21 PM  

thornhill: adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.

Eh, the point was that you have to treat workers with respect and pay them well. Workers usually organize a union because working conditions are the opposite of that.

The guy with the union shop still seems to be at odds with his employees. And with his griping about a 50 cent annual COLA, he probably didn't make any concessions but he acts like they're taking advantage of him.


He doesn't want to actually manage the place; he just wants to brew coffee. If that's what he wants to do then he needs to bring someone else in to do the job. He can just be the Steve Jobs of coffee, dream up the next big thing in roasts, and let someone who enjoys management and administration do the work.
 
2022-07-02 8:59:51 PM  
Lesson 1: if someone you work for tells you "you don't need a union, we're like a family", that's bullshait.
 
2022-07-02 9:34:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: Lesson 1: if someone you work for tells you "you don't need a union, we're like a family", that's bullshait.


FTFY.  The spoken part is "we all care for one another", but the implication is "you're obligated to go above and beyond for the company to the detriment of your personal life."

I already have one family, with all the benefits and drawbacks that come with it.  I don't need another one where I work.
 
2022-07-02 9:46:39 PM  
A true Gen Z article.   Fark the guy putting up the money, taking all the risk and likely making next to nothing to pursue his passion.  He's a selfish monster asking his hourly employees to actually work and not first worry about providing comfort circles and thumb sucking time.  Pathetic.
 
2022-07-02 9:53:22 PM  
If all 6 employees work 24 hours a day and all stay for a year, his payroll rises 6 x .5 x 24 = 72 bucks a day, or roughly 15 lattes.

If it's a less stupid breakdown (maybe he only has to replace 2 employees every year, and only stays open 18 hours a day, and they don't all work at the same time), his costs rise less.

Anyway, if 30-50 bucks a day is the difference between success and ruin, might I posit that it's not the employees' wages driving you to ruin?
 
2022-07-02 10:55:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: If all 6 employees work 24 hours a day and all stay for a year, his payroll rises 6 x .5 x 24 = 72 bucks a day, or roughly 15 lattes.

If it's a less stupid breakdown (maybe he only has to replace 2 employees every year, and only stays open 18 hours a day, and they don't all work at the same time), his costs rise less.

Anyway, if 30-50 bucks a day is the difference between success and ruin, might I posit that it's not the employees' wages driving you to ruin?


You know how I know you've never employed someone (on the books)?

This article highlighted 2 things:
1) A well run, well capitalized chain vs a poorly run shop with complex ownership
2) Unions aren't a panacea
 
2022-07-02 11:14:10 PM  
Reach took four months to ponder what he'd heard from employees. Then he got to work.

So he made a bunch of promises about how he was going to fix everything if the staff refused to unionise. And then he spend nearly half a year sitting on his hands and not doing much of anything to live up to any of those promises.

And he's apparently the hero of this tale.

Christ, small business owners are such assholes.
 
2022-07-03 1:11:47 AM  

Dr Dreidel: If all 6 employees work 24 hours a day and all stay for a year, his payroll rises 6 x .5 x 24 = 72 bucks a day, or roughly 15 lattes.

If it's a less stupid breakdown (maybe he only has to replace 2 employees every year, and only stays open 18 hours a day, and they don't all work at the same time), his costs rise less.

Anyway, if 30-50 bucks a day is the difference between success and ruin, might I posit that it's not the employees' wages driving you to ruin?


The biggest problem with American business is not the American government, it's the American businessman.
 
2022-07-03 2:02:19 AM  

keldaria: adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.

Sure, it was largely written from the owners perspective and depicted 2 owners and their personal mind set of "I cherish my wages slaves, seriously" is what they share with the article writer. You didn't actually expect them to tell the article writer how they really felt or treated their workers do you?

It's pretty clear both places had a similar problem. They weren't listening. One boss actually made an attempt and did the bare minimum to solve their employees issues, was seemingly willing to provide some transparency and was rewarded with not having them unionize. The other literally refused to talk with his employees because he didn't want to talk about contentious topics... anyone who can't nut up and listen to criticism or uncomfortable topics is a terrible boss.

Then he complains about contract terms he himself accepted... why a super small business owner like a coffee shop would accept restrictions on how many hours he could spend behind his own counter is bind boggling and the fact that his workers insisted on it should tell you a lot about what it was like to work with him. Either he's terrible to work with and they wanted him there as little as possible or he had a habit of using his time behind the counter to fark over his workers on their own time or job duties. Either way since he's the only one voicing the topic in the article it's written about as if he's being treated unfairly. The one employee there seems to be holding him to the letter of the contract, so that it self should tell you exactly what you need to know about the issue. We're talking about a coffee shop that seemingly has 6 employees. If he wasn't a huge dick most of them wouldn't care if he took an extra hour behind the counter to give them help during a busy hour or a break.


With regards to how much time the manager spends behind the counter, isn't that part of the union rules? That the manager doing labor is taking someone's job? That was the situation with a bakery operation I knew of. The supervisor couldn't pitch in to make sure production got done unless it was classified as training. I haven't worked union myself, but the people I know that do all complain about the union protecting dirtbags.
 
2022-07-03 2:13:38 AM  
As a local and spouse of an avid coffee drinker I can say both places are kinda meh.  Although with the second the business issues explain why they changed their name for the third time in the past year or so.

/Personally I like Valentine 'round here
 
2022-07-03 3:48:03 AM  

Thoreny: The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.


Don't join a union, and remain at starvation wages. Join a union, earn 20USD per hour.

If you got anything else out of the story, then you fell for it.
 
2022-07-03 3:49:33 AM  

adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.


The non-union one was 8.25USD.

If they increased wages, I am sure the article would have mentioned it.
 
2022-07-03 3:51:49 AM  

CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.


It did.

8.25 vs 20.
 
2022-07-03 3:55:00 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: Thoreny: The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.

Don't join a union, and remain at starvation wages. Join a union, earn 20USD per hour.

If you got anything else out of the story, then you fell for it.


Yeah, but employees at the first shop felt like their boss was really listening to them. Isn't that worth more than money?
 
2022-07-03 3:55:50 AM  

Marshmallow Jones: A true Gen Z article.   Fark the guy putting up the money, taking all the risk and likely making next to nothing to pursue his passion.  He's a selfish monster asking his hourly employees to actually work and not first worry about providing comfort circles and thumb sucking time.  Pathetic.


Can't you read?

Both persons were portrayed as heroes, whilst the union was portrayed as evil.
 
2022-07-03 4:01:56 AM  
Of course NPR is writing anti-union trash pieces..  that's right, the capitalists own everything in this country...
 
2022-07-03 5:26:56 AM  

Likwit: Ketchuponsteak: Thoreny: The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.

Don't join a union, and remain at starvation wages. Join a union, earn 20USD per hour.

If you got anything else out of the story, then you fell for it.

Yeah, but employees at the first shop felt like their boss was really listening to them. Isn't that worth more than money?


Weird that noone ever bothered to ask them. But I'll take his word for it.

I am sure they're cool knowing the other shop employees earn twice their salary as well.
 
2022-07-03 5:46:31 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: Likwit: Ketchuponsteak: Thoreny: The first guy showed his workers respect. He listened to them and actually used the feedback to make his place a better working environment. He showed them respect, so they returned the favor.

This is not what happened in the second shop. It appears that the owners there just didn't give a shiat about how the workers really felt. So they did what they had to do and unionized.

Lesson learned: treat your workers good, and they'll treat you the same.

Don't join a union, and remain at starvation wages. Join a union, earn 20USD per hour.

If you got anything else out of the story, then you fell for it.

Yeah, but employees at the first shop felt like their boss was really listening to them. Isn't that worth more than money?

Weird that noone ever bothered to ask them. But I'll take his word for it.

I am sure they're cool knowing the other shop employees earn twice their salary as well.


That's what's really important. Not making a living, but feeling like someone who lords over you kinda knows that you feel shiat upon 👍
 
2022-07-03 6:59:31 AM  
Guess which one is $5 a cup, and which is $1. Go ahead, you'd never guess.

Of course you would. Once again unskilled labor, people who choose not to be productive, decide to band together to harm the public.

So laudable.
 
2022-07-03 7:46:20 AM  

zgrizz: Guess which one is $5 a cup, and which is $1. Go ahead, you'd never guess.

Of course you would. Once again unskilled labor, people who choose not to be productive, decide to band together to harm the public.

So laudable.


Nah. There's no public being harmed here. Not when it's something as frivolous and ubiquitous as coffee.
 
2022-07-03 8:00:18 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.

It did.

8.25 vs 20.


The only time 20 appears in the article is here. Twenty does not appear in the article at all.

A $20 monthly wellness stipend to cover things like yoga classes and bike share fees.

I don't doubt that you saw it, but possibly Starbucks hacked the site and removed it. So when do you plan on notifying NPR that their site has been hacked?
 
2022-07-03 9:44:29 AM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: As a local and spouse of an avid coffee drinker I can say both places are kinda meh.  Although with the second the business issues explain why they changed their name for the third time in the past year or so.

/Personally I like Valentine 'round here


Alterr- er, Collectivo is fantastic, too.

I recently moved, but neither of the businesses in the article ever impressed me. Stone Creek in particular just felt like Starbucks with different branding, which now makes sense with the owner's backstory.
 
2022-07-03 10:21:38 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.

It did.

8.25 vs 20.


Not a chance they are making $20 per hour.  Quote where it says that.
 
2022-07-03 10:25:50 AM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Ken VeryBigLiar: As a local and spouse of an avid coffee drinker I can say both places are kinda meh.  Although with the second the business issues explain why they changed their name for the third time in the past year or so.

/Personally I like Valentine 'round here

Alterr- er, Collectivo is fantastic, too.

I recently moved, but neither of the businesses in the article ever impressed me. Stone Creek in particular just felt like Starbucks with different branding, which now makes sense with the owner's backstory.


At least Collectivo's name change was from getting what I imagine to them was a buttload of money from M&M/Mars for the Alterra name. They're usually my second choice since Valentine only has a few locations.
 
2022-07-03 10:36:24 AM  
The older I get, the more I believe that workers need to control the means of production.
 
2022-07-03 10:47:46 AM  

knbwhite: keldaria: adamatari: This article was pretty blatantly an anti-union piece in my opinion. They spent a lot of words talking about the owners and very little about the baristas. And they never did make clear what the pay thing settled out to - I suspect it's still crap at the mid sized chain, but better than before. While the tiny but union shop they managed to get stable raises. Starting pay is still unmentioned in the article.

This is basically what third stream liberals think of as a "pro-union article" - thinly veiled pro-owner propaganda.

Sure, it was largely written from the owners perspective and depicted 2 owners and their personal mind set of "I cherish my wages slaves, seriously" is what they share with the article writer. You didn't actually expect them to tell the article writer how they really felt or treated their workers do you?

It's pretty clear both places had a similar problem. They weren't listening. One boss actually made an attempt and did the bare minimum to solve their employees issues, was seemingly willing to provide some transparency and was rewarded with not having them unionize. The other literally refused to talk with his employees because he didn't want to talk about contentious topics... anyone who can't nut up and listen to criticism or uncomfortable topics is a terrible boss.

Then he complains about contract terms he himself accepted... why a super small business owner like a coffee shop would accept restrictions on how many hours he could spend behind his own counter is bind boggling and the fact that his workers insisted on it should tell you a lot about what it was like to work with him. Either he's terrible to work with and they wanted him there as little as possible or he had a habit of using his time behind the counter to fark over his workers on their own time or job duties. Either way since he's the only one voicing the topic in the article it's written about as if he's being treated unfairly. The one employee there seems to be holding him to the letter of the contract, so that it self should tell you exactly what you need to know about the issue. We're talking about a coffee shop that seemingly has 6 employees. If he wasn't a huge dick most of them wouldn't care if he took an extra hour behind the counter to give them help during a busy hour or a break.

With regards to how much time the manager spends behind the counter, isn't that part of the union rules? That the manager doing labor is taking someone's job? That was the situation with a bakery operation I knew of. The supervisor couldn't pitch in to make sure production got done unless it was classified as training. I haven't worked union myself, but the people I know that do all complain about the union protecting dirtbags.


This is typically where larger unions go but it's not so much about keeping the owner out as it is about keeping the union role well defined and keeping other roles that aren't from that particular union or even a non union role out of the way. It's most common a concern on construction sites where you have carpenter unions, labor unions, masonry unions, steel worker unions, electrical unions, operator unions, etc, all running around the same job. Labor unions (general labor) get the most scrutiny because they are typically working hand in hand with the other trades and it's easier for them to "cross the line" and pickup a tool under the thought of just trying to help. Under most situations that might ordinarily be appreciated by the other workers but contractors were purposely understaffing some trades with the purpose of over staffing labors which typically have lower rates. It can also go the other way too where the contractor overstaffs skilled trades to keep their key people working (or some other reason) and laborers lose out, so in those instances these clauses hit pretty heavy and there is normally a worker designated to look for infringing workers.

They also hit heavy in large shops where there are multiple labor categories and there is concern they will manipulate those workers to their benefit by understaffing others.

However in this instance the guy runs a coffee shop with 6 employees and only 3 of them wanted to unionize and they negotiated a contract (with help from the teamsters union). During the contract negotiations literally everything is on the table. If the coffee shop owner didn't like this restriction he could have asked to have it removed and offered something else in its place but they apparently kept it, either because the owner didn't think they would hold him to it, the owner didn't think it would be a problem to not be behind the counter as much or the employees insisted, likely more of the last given how the employees are holding him to that. Again it's 6 employees, only 3 of which actually actively wanted to go down this road, if the guy wasn't a huge dick, I'd be surprised they would hold him to it providing he's not farking over his employees somehow when he does it (like only spending a half hour that day and taking an equal share of the daily tips).

He also might have entirely been using his time behind the counter for the exact reason you mentioned, to short his own staff their own hours potentially keeping them part time when they wanted full time. However, for a new union, it's not a common thing to seek unless there is a reason to seek it as compared to other more direct benefits to workers like higher wages, fringe benefits etc. Most new unions might throw it out along with a other "demands" as a traditional starting point but it's something quickly traded away if the owner wants to... lots of owners might not care because they don't want to work like one of their wage slaves, but if this owner wanted to work behind the counter it would've been a specific point of negotiation.
 
2022-07-03 11:10:05 AM  
I'm not sure that the Union is responsible for a 30% reduction in the sales of the Coffee shop. I'm pretty sure there is a much more likely issue called the person who owns it.
 
2022-07-03 11:20:47 AM  

zgrizz: Guess which one is $5 a cup, and which is $1. Go ahead, you'd never guess.

Of course you would. Once again unskilled labor, people who choose not to be productive, decide to band together to harm the public.

So laudable.


There's no coffee at 1$ a cup.
Sure some delis serve blackish liquid they call coffee and charge you 1$ for.
That's not coffee.
You've not had coffee if you're still satisfied with instant (even the disgusting polluting pods brew better cups)
 
2022-07-03 12:26:09 PM  

caljar: Ketchuponsteak: CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.

It did.

8.25 vs 20.

Not a chance they are making $20 per hour.  Quote where it says that.


TFA.

20USD + a 50 cents raise per year.

No, I'm not reading it for you. Find it yourself.
 
2022-07-03 12:33:02 PM  

CCNP: Ketchuponsteak: CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.

It did.

8.25 vs 20.

The only time 20 appears in the article is here. Twenty does not appear in the article at all.

A $20 monthly wellness stipend to cover things like yoga classes and bike share fees.

I don't doubt that you saw it, but possibly Starbucks hacked the site and removed it. So when do you plan on notifying NPR that their site has been hacked?


No, I don't see it either.

I gather I must have seen the numbers, then just filled it into the story I thought was there.
 
2022-07-03 12:34:04 PM  

caljar: Ketchuponsteak: CCNP: Sadly, the article did not discuss which baristas earned more.

It did.

8.25 vs 20.

Not a chance they are making $20 per hour.  Quote where it says that.


I did reread it. No, it does not say 20USD.

I guess I mixed the numbers up.
 
2022-07-03 12:56:45 PM  

Dangl1ng: The older I get, the more I believe that workers need to control the means of production.


You would be surprised to learn that employee owned companies and cooperatives do exist in the United States, like Publix supermarkets. Nothing stops employees from buying ownership in corporations in America.
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

Some people advocate seizing the means of production, instead of buying the companies. That's theft, and it has an extremely chilling effect on investment.

This is why investment is almost non-existent in Zimbabwe, Somalia or Venezuela. Would you invest in a country where your investment is not secure from theft?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.