In addition, Starbucks has submitted emails showing NLRB members were working behind the scenes with union representatives. Too funny.
The irony is rich. Starbucks is all about the leftism until it starts to eat away at their bottom line. They ran the cops away and created an ‘inclusive’ environment until the grifters and homeless started using their stores as flop houses. Now the most expensive place to get coffee, evah, is being threatened with extinction if unions are established nationwide because it will cause their prices to rise even higher.
Apparently this country has to go through a cycle every few decades where we have to learn the hard way that leftism looks good only on paper. In practice it’s a road to ruin.
(08-16-2022, 07:32 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]In addition, Starbucks has submitted emails showing NLRB members were working behind the scenes with union representatives. Too funny.
The irony is rich. Starbucks is all about the leftism until it starts to eat away at their bottom line. They ran the cops away and created an ‘inclusive’ environment until the grifters and homeless started using their stores as flop houses. Now the most expensive place to get coffee, evah, is being threatened with extinction if unions are established nationwide because it will cause their prices to rise even higher.
Apparently this country has to go through a cycle every few decades where we have to learn the hard way that leftism looks good only on paper. In practice it’s a road to ruin.
Right? Its like the cosmos are trying to tell us all something...
I'm noticing that some of the newer Starbucks here in Jax are going the strip mall route, where they can operate under the 'no loitering' policies of the collective property, while still claiming the spirit of 'wokeness'. Thus passing the buck while keeping out the undesirables and still protecting their bottom line.
You guys are misreading this.
Starbucks management is being duplicitous.
They just want no unions at any Starbucks, and they will lie and cheat to make that happen.
They are complaining that the NRLB disclosed to the organizers which employees had and had not voted.
Whether or not someone has voted is typically a matter of public record.
There is nothing wrong with the government disclosing to either side of an election who has voted and who has yet to vote, as long as how they voted remains secret.
Starbucks would be better off expending their efforts to change the NRLB's regulations and legislation, that would help all employers. But they only care about themselves and they have no scruples.
(08-16-2022, 10:13 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]I'm noticing that some of the newer Starbucks here in Jax are going the strip mall route, where they can operate under the 'no loitering' policies of the collective property, while still claiming the spirit of 'wokeness'. Thus passing the buck while keeping out the undesirables and still protecting their bottom line.
They’ve painted themselves into a woke corner. They completely underestimated the left’s proclivity to push things to the extreme.
(08-16-2022, 10:29 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are misreading this.
Starbucks management is being duplicitous.
They just want no unions at any Starbucks, and they will lie and cheat to make that happen.
They are complaining that the NRLB disclosed to the organizers which employees had and had not voted.
Whether or not someone has voted is typically a matter of public record.
There is nothing wrong with the government disclosing to either side of an election who has voted and who has yet to vote, as long as how they voted remains secret.
Starbucks would be better off expending their efforts to change the NRLB's regulations and legislation, that would help all employers. But they only care about themselves and they have no scruples.
It’s not the vote reporting Starbucks has the issue with, it’s the real-time reporting because they were monitoring the number of people who showed up. Were they also taking tabulation of names? Perhaps they were so they could pass on who the union could lean on.
I went to a Starbucks a long time ago.. Wasn't impressed at all.. The coffee tasted burnt and the people in there were huge feminine hygiene products. One guy in a corner in the back, sipping his feminine latte, pretending to be some high class business guy, on his phone and laptop at the same time, just drowning other people out with his loud obnoxious voice.. It just reeked of pretentiousness..
The old Dinger woulda taken his hot coffee and poured it on his laptop.. Hate people like that and that dump of a "coffee shop" is full of those types.. Haven't been back since and I refuse to.. Starbucks can kiss my [BLEEP]..
(08-16-2022, 11:25 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I went to a Starbucks a long time ago.. Wasn't impressed at all.. The coffee tasted burnt and the people in there were huge feminine hygiene products. One guy in a corner in the back, sipping his feminine latte, pretending to be some high class business guy, on his phone and laptop at the same time, just drowning other people out with his loud obnoxious voice.. It just reeked of pretentiousness..
The old Dinger woulda taken his hot coffee and poured it on his laptop.. Hate people like that and that dump of a "coffee shop" is full of those types.. Haven't been back since and I refuse to.. Starbucks can kiss my [BLEEP]..
I agree, the hot coffee sucks.. The cold drinks are pretty good, but that's all I can tolerate from them.
(08-16-2022, 11:40 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 11:25 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I went to a Starbucks a long time ago.. Wasn't impressed at all.. The coffee tasted burnt and the people in there were huge feminine hygiene products. One guy in a corner in the back, sipping his feminine latte, pretending to be some high class business guy, on his phone and laptop at the same time, just drowning other people out with his loud obnoxious voice.. It just reeked of pretentiousness..
The old Dinger woulda taken his hot coffee and poured it on his laptop.. Hate people like that and that dump of a "coffee shop" is full of those types.. Haven't been back since and I refuse to.. Starbucks can kiss my [BLEEP]..
I agree, the hot coffee sucks.. The cold drinks are pretty good, but that's all I can tolerate from them.
I like the Venti Vanilla Bean, but not enough to get more than a couple per year.
I like Starbucks, hot and cold. Even their food. Their prices? Not so much.
(08-16-2022, 11:02 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 10:29 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are misreading this.
Starbucks management is being duplicitous.
They just want no unions at any Starbucks, and they will lie and cheat to make that happen.
They are complaining that the NRLB disclosed to the organizers which employees had and had not voted.
Whether or not someone has voted is typically a matter of public record.
There is nothing wrong with the government disclosing to either side of an election who has voted and who has yet to vote, as long as how they voted remains secret.
Starbucks would be better off expending their efforts to change the NRLB's regulations and legislation, that would help all employers. But they only care about themselves and they have no scruples.
It’s not the vote reporting Starbucks has the issue with, it’s the real-time reporting because they were monitoring the number of people who showed up. Were they also taking tabulation of names? Perhaps they were so they could pass on who the union could lean on.
Of course, but this is what happens in every election. There's an election going on right now. I'm getting hit with texts and mailers because the public records indicate I have a mail in ballot that hasn't been turned in yet. Why is that a problem for a union election when it's not a problem for any other kind of election?
(08-16-2022, 12:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 11:02 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]It’s not the vote reporting Starbucks has the issue with, it’s the real-time reporting because they were monitoring the number of people who showed up. Were they also taking tabulation of names? Perhaps they were so they could pass on who the union could lean on.
Of course, but this is what happens in every election. There's an election going on right now. I'm getting hit with texts and mailers because the public records indicate I have a mail in ballot that hasn't been turned in yet. Why is that a problem for a union election when it's not a problem for any other kind of election?
One is in the public domain, one is not.
One has a very small and definable voter base, the other does not.
It is not the business of the unions or Starbucks if, or how, an employee casts their vote. Telling the union how many, and possibly who, has not voted reeks of intimidation. But we know union organizers would never stoop to such tactics.
And for all we know, it may be illegal.
(08-16-2022, 12:25 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 12:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but this is what happens in every election. There's an election going on right now. I'm getting hit with texts and mailers because the public records indicate I have a mail in ballot that hasn't been turned in yet. Why is that a problem for a union election when it's not a problem for any other kind of election?
One is in the public domain, one is not.
One has a very small and definable voter base, the other does not.
It is not the business of the unions or Starbucks if, or how, an employee casts their vote. Telling the union how many, and possibly who, has not voted reeks of intimidation. But we know union organizers would never stoop to such tactics.
And for all we know, it may be illegal.
They're both public domain. A union election is always overseen by the government, specifically the NLRB. It's been this way since 1935.
"If" you voted always needs to be public knowledge. "How" you voted should never be public knowledge. This is civics 101, bro. Foundations of our system of government. Why are we having to review so much lately?
(08-16-2022, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 12:25 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]One is in the public domain, one is not.
One has a very small and definable voter base, the other does not.
It is not the business of the unions or Starbucks if, or how, an employee casts their vote. Telling the union how many, and possibly who, has not voted reeks of intimidation. But we know union organizers would never stoop to such tactics.
And for all we know, it may be illegal.
They're both public domain. A union election is always overseen by the government, specifically the NLRB. It's been this way since 1935.
"If" you voted always needs to be public knowledge. "How" you voted should never be public knowledge. This is civics 101, bro. Foundations of our system of government. Why are we having to review so much lately?
So anyone of voting age in the area of this Starbucks can vote for unionization?
(08-16-2022, 12:58 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]They're both public domain. A union election is always overseen by the government, specifically the NLRB. It's been this way since 1935.
"If" you voted always needs to be public knowledge. "How" you voted should never be public knowledge. This is civics 101, bro. Foundations of our system of government. Why are we having to review so much lately?
So anyone of voting age in the area of this Starbucks can vote for unionization?
What is wrong with you?
We've had government supervised union elections for 87 years.
You think the NRLB has been letting non-employees vote in union elections?
(08-16-2022, 01:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 12:58 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]So anyone of voting age in the area of this Starbucks can vote for unionization?
What is wrong with you?
We've had government supervised union elections for 87 years.
You think the NRLB has been letting non-employees vote in union elections?
What is wrong with you for trying to draw a parallel between voting for public office and voting in a union election?
(08-16-2022, 01:10 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 01:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What is wrong with you?
We've had government supervised union elections for 87 years.
You think the NRLB has been letting non-employees vote in union elections?
What is wrong with you for trying to draw a parallel between voting for public office and voting in a union election?
Be honest. 3 hours ago, did you know that the federal government always supervises union elections? Even if you did, did you have any strong opinion on how they should handle that role?
(08-16-2022, 01:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-16-2022, 01:10 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]What is wrong with you for trying to draw a parallel between voting for public office and voting in a union election?
Be honest. 3 hours ago, did you know that the federal government always supervises union elections? Even if you did, did you have any strong opinion on how they should handle that role?
Of course I did. I have no strong opinion. It’s a government bureaucracy which is, and has been, susceptible to corruption like any other.
The one and only time that I have had Starbucks coffee was when my boss and I were on the way to a job-site (either Maryland or Virginia). He asked me what I wanted (he was buying as usual) and my response was "a cup of coffee". I have no idea if he ordered a "venti latte with a gymnastic twist" or what, but the cup of coffee was pretty good.
Later on I asked him how much the cup of coffee was. He didn't blink an eye and said that it was "around $6". This was back in or around 2013/2014. Who in the hell back then would pay $6 for a cup of coffee? We are talking maybe 8oz. or so.!
As far as the employees trying to unionize... good luck. A business like that can find anyone with a pulse to pour over-priced coffee. The employees there have no real skill. In my opinion they are probably paid way too much.
I am guessing that many locations are franchise owners. If they have to pay mindless employees who spend more time on their phones larger wages, they probably will fold.