Boone Starbucks

[Appst86]

The incredible amount of dollars and effort that large corporations will go through to stop workers from unionizing should be the answer as to whether unions beneficial to the low and middle class workers.

In Asheville the for-profit owner of the Western North Carolina hospital system spent tens of millions of dollars to try to block the nurses from unionizing. The healthcare industry is so messed up now they pay travel nurses five to eight times per shift what they will pay an employee living in their own community.

In 1960 60% of corporate income went to employee wages and benefits. It currently stands at 20% today. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Yes there is inflation but we're being scammed with inflation and shortages of materials being the scapegoat to reap higher and higher profits.

Corporations are owned by stockholders who demand higher return on their investments. If you own a 401K, which most people who work for large corporations do, you are a stockholder and benefit from profitability. Evil corporations are a myth and profit is good. Wages fall as a percentage of corporate income because of outsourcing, increased productivity and automation. The worker is better off today than he was in the 60's.

CEO pay has increased by around 900% in the last 50 years. CEO's are typically paid 350X what average workers make, in the 1960's it was 20X. The profits flow to the top executives while workers may get thrown a bone now and again, doesn't seem right.

You need a refresher in accounting. Profits don't go to the top executives. The execs get salaries and bonuses. These are expenses. Profit is what is left after expenses are paid.

[HighlandsApp]

Imagine how much better this whole internet thing would be had Cisco, Microsoft, AOL, Google, etc. been unionized...

That's not a correlation at ALL. You are actually comparing the tech industry; an industry with unbelievably high paying jobs to the original posters notation and praise of the hourly employees at a freaking Starbucks working together?

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I have seen unions ruin good paying jobs and I think they most likely hurt innovation and overall productivity.

It has been a few years but the last time I saw some numbers unionized jobs were more productive. There tends to be less turn-over, which is a big part of the higher productivity I think was part of the explanation, but it also pushed for a better level of management in allocating resources.

At the time, the one exception was the banking industry and non-union banks, and that is just about every bank out there, did have higher productivity.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Imagine how much better this whole internet thing would be had Cisco, Microsoft, AOL, Google, etc. been unionized...

That's not a correlation at ALL. You are actually comparing the tech industry; an industry with unbelievably high paying jobs to the original posters notation and praise of the hourly employees at a freaking Starbucks working together?

I am willing to bet a ticket to an App football game those Cisco switches were made overseas in a factory that had no unions and possibly made by little kids. And some of those workers were working in conditions that led to suicide. And did I mention them likely being non-union.

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

Expresso News for me and Local Lion next. Starbucks only if I’m too hungover to get out of the car. Chic Filet is nasty, Bojangles all the way for this guy.

[Appst86]

Imagine how much better this whole internet thing would be had Cisco, Microsoft, AOL, Google, etc. been unionized...

That's not a correlation at ALL. You are actually comparing the tech industry; an industry with unbelievably high paying jobs to the original posters notation and praise of the hourly employees at a freaking Starbucks working together?

Correct- it is not a direct correlation but yet tech industry workers are unionizing. Read the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/tech ... union.html
No collective bargaining rights yet (minority union), but the camel has it's nose inside the tent.

[mike87]

The incredible amount of dollars and effort that large corporations will go through to stop workers from unionizing should be the answer as to whether unions beneficial to the low and middle class workers.

In Asheville the for-profit owner of the Western North Carolina hospital system spent tens of millions of dollars to try to block the nurses from unionizing. The healthcare industry is so messed up now they pay travel nurses five to eight times per shift what they will pay an employee living in their own community.

In 1960 60% of corporate income went to employee wages and benefits. It currently stands at 20% today. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Yes there is inflation but we're being scammed with inflation and shortages of materials being the scapegoat to reap higher and higher profits.

Corporations are owned by stockholders who demand higher return on their investments. If you own a 401K, which most people who work for large corporations do, you are a stockholder and benefit from profitability. Evil corporations are a myth and profit is good. Wages fall as a percentage of corporate income because of outsourcing, increased productivity and automation. The worker is better off today than he was in the 60's.

CEO pay has increased by around 900% in the last 50 years. CEO's are typically paid 350X what average workers make, in the 1960's it was 20X. The profits flow to the top executives while workers may get thrown a bone now and again, doesn't seem right.

There's always a bad apple(s) in the bunch that skews the numbers. Most corporations, like mine, are not evil. Most CEO's are not overpaid. Class warfare is misguided. And Local Lion makes better coffee than Starbucks.

[Saint3333]

Timely podcast from WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journa ... e182c7aa6d

Some interesting stats in here:

- 70% of workers have been employed by Starbucks less than one year. Hard to imagine this type of transient workforce could have a potential impact to the direction of a company.

- Starbucks offers benefits to workers that work over 17.5 hours a week, including tuition reimbursement, healthcare, mental health.

Tell people to stop ordering a coffee with a dozen ingredients and variations from the menu, people are insane.

[BambooRdApp]

Timely podcast from WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journa ... e182c7aa6d

Some interesting stats in here:

- 70% of workers have been employed by Starbucks less than one year. Hard to imagine this type of transient workforce could have a potential impact to the direction of a company.

- Starbucks offers benefits to workers that work over 17.5 hours a week, including tuition reimbursement, healthcare, mental health.

Tell people to stop ordering a coffee with a dozen ingredients and variations from the menu, people are insane.

Been a while so nice I worked retail (college 25 years ago). The places I worked did not provide the benefits with only 17.5 hours. Am curious if managers are trained to manage hours so part-timers are not exceeding 17 hours...so employees do not achieve benefits status. I am not a Starbucks customer as I do not drink coffee.

[HighlandsApp]

Timely podcast from WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journa ... e182c7aa6d

Some interesting stats in here:

- 70% of workers have been employed by Starbucks less than one year. Hard to imagine this type of transient workforce could have a potential impact to the direction of a company.

- Starbucks offers benefits to workers that work over 17.5 hours a week, including tuition reimbursement, healthcare, mental health.

Tell people to stop ordering a coffee with a dozen ingredients and variations from the menu, people are insane.

Been a while so nice I worked retail (college 25 years ago). The places I worked did not provide the benefits with only 17.5 hours. Am curious if managers are trained to manage hours so part-timers are not exceeding 17 hours...so employees do not achieve benefits status. I am not a Starbucks customer as I do not drink coffee.

Most of those is for years have definitely made sure to keep workers at a point where they aren't considered full-time so they don't have to give them any benefits. Lowe's Walmart all of those companies have always had 80% of their workforce be part-time low wage workers. Most of them pretty much exploit older people.

Interestingly target in the last year has gone to almost all full-time high wage employees and is one of the few places that hasn't had labor shortages in had plenty of employees over the last holiday season. Their average starting wages in the $20 range and up with benefits. In addition they offered hourly wage bonuses for employees who would work during the holiday weekends to be paid as a bonus after Christmas.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

https://portside.org/2022-04-19/why-hea ... cks-unions

[appvette]

The only way to define a "fair" wage is based on supply and demand. Anything else is arbitrary and emotion based. Expecting a company to pay their employees more than the market rate is asking them to be unethical towards their shareholders.

[NewApp]

The only way to define a "fair" wage is based on supply and demand. Anything else is arbitrary and emotion based. Expecting a company to pay their employees more than the market rate is asking them to be unethical towards their shareholders.

Looking out for the shareholders over the welfare of and fairness to the employees.

[Blackshirt68]

Elections have consequences. How does a 5% raise stack up to 8.5% inflation?

[Appst86]

The only way to define a "fair" wage is based on supply and demand. Anything else is arbitrary and emotion based. Expecting a company to pay their employees more than the market rate is asking them to be unethical towards their shareholders.

Looking out for the shareholders over the welfare of and fairness to the employees.

The Board of Directors of a publicly held company has fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

[appvette]

The only way to define a "fair" wage is based on supply and demand. Anything else is arbitrary and emotion based. Expecting a company to pay their employees more than the market rate is asking them to be unethical towards their shareholders.

Looking out for the shareholders over the welfare of and fairness to the employees.

What I described is fair to both employees and shareholders which is why it is the only viable solution. You think it is unfair to pay employees market value? At what level above market value do you think is fair?

[Saint3333]

Isn't the internet a great place to display ignorance of how businesses work.

Thanks Al Gore!

[BallantyneApp]

I have seen unions ruin good paying jobs and I think they most likely hurt innovation and overall productivity.

It has been a few years but the last time I saw some numbers unionized jobs were more productive. There tends to be less turn-over, which is a big part of the higher productivity I think was part of the explanation, but it also pushed for a better level of management in allocating resources.

At the time, the one exception was the banking industry and non-union banks, and that is just about every bank out there, did have higher productivity.

i'm not up on industry wide standards, but in my experience its the opposite. I work in the Aerospace manufacturing industry, one of the few where the US is the world leader in manufacturing still. My largest customer is an Engine OEM. Their non union shops ALWAYS outperform their union shops in nearly every metric.

In my own company, we have two locations, one is union one isn't. The non union shop laughably outpaces the union shop. In fact, we just had some C-level turnover because our parent company found out our leadership was transferring profits from the non union location to the union location to hide how bad they were doing. This isn't entirely because of the union, but they are woefully behind the non union shop on productivity metrics. As an example, in our union shop, if there is an obstruction (like a piece of metal) in the way of a forklift, the operator has to call the guy who removes obstructions. This is a huge warehouse so sometimes it can take 10 or 20 minutes for the guy to get to the obstruction, while the forklift operator plays on his phone. This would take 30 seconds for the operator to get out and pick up the piece of metal and move it out of the way. Meanwhile, the entire process is held up for half an hour waiting for a guy to pick up a piece of trash. Rinse and repeat all along the process chain and you have a ton of wasted productivity.

[Stonewall]

The historic ties between Unions and organized crime is an interesting subject for study.

[wb247]

I have seen unions ruin good paying jobs and I think they most likely hurt innovation and overall productivity.

It has been a few years but the last time I saw some numbers unionized jobs were more productive. There tends to be less turn-over, which is a big part of the higher productivity I think was part of the explanation, but it also pushed for a better level of management in allocating resources.

At the time, the one exception was the banking industry and non-union banks, and that is just about every bank out there, did have higher productivity.

i'm not up on industry wide standards, but in my experience its the opposite. I work in the Aerospace manufacturing industry, one of the few where the US is the world leader in manufacturing still. My largest customer is an Engine OEM. Their non union shops ALWAYS outperform their union shops in nearly every metric.

In my own company, we have two locations, one is union one isn't. The non union shop laughably outpaces the union shop. In fact, we just had some C-level turnover because our parent company found out our leadership was transferring profits from the non union location to the union location to hide how bad they were doing. This isn't entirely because of the union, but they are woefully behind the non union shop on productivity metrics. As an example, in our union shop, if there is an obstruction (like a piece of metal) in the way of a forklift, the operator has to call the guy who removes obstructions. This is a huge warehouse so sometimes it can take 10 or 20 minutes for the guy to get to the obstruction, while the forklift operator plays on his phone. This would take 30 seconds for the operator to get out and pick up the piece of metal and move it out of the way. Meanwhile, the entire process is held up for half an hour waiting for a guy to pick up a piece of trash. Rinse and repeat all along the process chain and you have a ton of wasted productivity.

Just need to renegotiate the contract so that they get paid double time any time they have to do someone else's job... if they're playing on a phone anyway, they might as well be logging their actions. Of course, you'll need more legal staff to handle the grievances in addition to the union rep needing more staff.... job creation?