This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
It's barely been a month since the NLRB said it's illegal to do what Starbucks did again today:
11/6/23: Starbucks increases US hourly wages and adds other benefits for non-union workers
[Original link]
9/30/23: NLRB judge: Starbucks violated labor law in offering pay raises, benefits to nonunion workers
[Original link]
Preface: I support unions and the drive towards more unionization of employees
Unionized workers bargained for a specific contract. They can negotiate a new one when the current one expires to include the benefits that others receive.
Starbucks is right, you can't just go around changing the terms of employment to be in breach of a contract. If you're ok with it to gain benefits, the pendulum swings both ways, next time against you to have compensation stripped away.
They bargained for a contract for a reason.
Edit: Starbucks is wrong from the perspective of the ways they actively used this to discourage unionization.
Edit 2: Starbucks was not acting in good faith, which is essential from both parties to have a healthy relationship
You're going to ignore the NLRB ruling? This is very nearly a rerun of Starbucks actions that the NLRB has ruled illegal.
The illegal action was expanding benefits and actively promoting that it was only for non-union employees purposefully to discourage unionization.
And... ?
If the circumstances are the same, I would expect the consequences to be the same.
Is Starbucks required to change the compensation of non-union employees only during times of bargaining with their union employees?
If the company is again adding to the compensation package for non-union staff as method to discourage the unionization efforts of the non-union staff, then they should be rightfully punished.
I will buy you a cup of coffee, anywhere but Starbucks. :)