• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Starbucks employees on strike because they have to wear a uniform. LOL.

I

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
34,613
Reaction score
16,556
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow! You have a job, you wear the uniform, you don't like it go get another job. This is far left progressive cry babies whining again. This is amazingly stupid but it does show how weird the left really is. You get a job, you wear the uniform standard required. This is more craziness. I've have 3 coffees in my life from Starbucks, and yes they were good, but not worth $7-$10 for a cup of coffee. So police wear uniforms, firmen wear uniforms, nurses, even teachers have a dress code. Mechanics wear uniforms. What makes these goofballs special? What to dress your way, do it on your time or start your own business.
 
I figured without a link it was just "angry old man shouts at clouds" thread.

"I DON'T EVEN BUY THEIR PRODUCT BUT OMFG I'MA GONNA RAAAAAAAGGGE AT THESE DAMN KIDZ NOW GIT OFFA MAH LAWN"
 
Integrityrespec said:
Wow! You have a job, you wear the uniform, you don't like it go get another job. This is far left progressive cry babies whining again. <>
Click to expand...

The only whining I see here is yours.

Is it some twisted vicarious power thing? As in, you feel more powerful relative to a Starbucks barista if Starbucks forces them to wear a uniform?

'Cause I certainly wouldn't give a rat's ass if they weren't in a uniform. And if they want to suffer the consequences of striking in their bid to assert a bit of autonomy against Starbucks, that's their business, not yours.




Or maybe you were treated like dirt by employers but never stood up for yourself, and these workers standing up for themselves in some way shames you?

Whatever it is, I'd suggest you let it go. It's a lame look.
 

How does this impact you at all?

Speaking of business, maybe it's best to mind your own? We get it, you hate lefties, you don't have to bore the shit out of us with non-story threads about things that don't matter in the slightest to anyone but those directly involved.

Besides, there are far more interesting / impactful things happening to bitch about, most of which are a direct result of the way you people voted. Do you think anyone actually gives a **** what Starbucks employees are striking over? Pretty soon a Starbucks coffee will be out of reach for most Americans, they way your economy is currently being run.

But, hey, by all means, work out your ugly over a Starbucks strike...lol FFS.
 
Or maybe I understand employers set dress codes. If you don't like it, quit and go find another job. Most places I worked in my life had some type of dress code. Live with it. Cry babies.
 
From the link in post #3

 
Integrityrespec said:
Or maybe I understand employers set dress codes. If you don't like it, quit and go find another job. Most places I worked in my life had some type of dress code. Live with it. Cry babies.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's exactly what I thought. A combination of shame for not having ever stood up for yourself, and on the other hand, a perverse sense of vicarious power on your part at the thought of employees being made to wear a uniform.

Same shit with you people going on about how certain jobs only "deserve" a slave-level minimum wage.



The most pathetic thing here is that the strike might blow up in their face. They're putting money on the line to stand up for themselves. And you're yelling at the sky over it? Is there anything about MAGA that doesn't have to do with making things happen to people who don't want those things to happen to them?
 
30 bucks an hour to serve coffee? Coffee costs me about $0.12 per cup to make at home, a couple years ago just over 10 cents a cup, but with inflation still reasonable. At a coffee shop they charge about 30 cents a cup
 


This is approximately what I thought the protest would look like.
 
Can't say I really care too much what a barista is wearing.

If it is a union environment - Starbucks should have negotiated with the union before making changes. That's how it works. If they didn't reach an agreement, the employees can strike.

Sounds like there isn't an agreement - because employees want Starbucks to address real issues, like understaffing - instead of focusing on what a uniform shirt is.

They'll do their thing and eventually come to an agreement.



But, get all faux raged about it. Chase that faux rage dopamine!
 
Individual said:
30 bucks an hour to serve coffee? Coffee costs me about $0.12 per cup to make at home, a couple years ago just over 10 cents a cup, but with inflation still reasonable. At a coffee shop they charge about 30 cents a cup
Click to expand...
Point?
 
Padlock the doors, hire in a cleaning crew for a few days, fire all the staff, begin taking applications, and insist the next crop of employees understand their role as unskilled baristas at a ****ing coffee shop.
 
Here's the deal Starbuck's boys and girls: unless the uniform design is written into your current collective agreement it is entirely the right of the employer to set standards.

The collective agreement is the Bible everyone works from. All other rights cede to the employer.
 
BirdinHand said:
If it is a union environment - Starbucks should have negotiated with the union before making changes. That's how it works. If they didn't reach an agreement, the employees can strike.
Click to expand...
It's actually the reverse. Rights not outlined in the CA cede to the employer.

This is an illegal strike.
 
Allan said:
It's actually the reverse. Rights not outlined in the CA cede to the employer.

This is an illegal strike.
Click to expand...
My mistake, thank you.

Well, then it will get resolved even sooner.
 
BirdinHand said:
My mistake, thank you.

Well, then it will get resolved even sooner.
Click to expand...
It's a common misunderstanding. Employees feel if it's not in the CA then employers can't do it.

The union understands this and should have put the brakes on this.
 
VanceMack said:
Padlock the doors, hire in a cleaning crew for a few days, fire all the staff, begin taking applications, and insist the next crop of employees understand their role as unskilled baristas at a ****ing coffee shop.
Click to expand...
The store would lose all profitability within 1-2 months for the entire year.

Baristas take about 3 months from walking in the door to becoming fully proficient.

If they fired an entire staff and closed the store for 3 months, that store becomes a net loss for the year.



So...they may not want to take your brilliant business advice on this.
 
Allan said:
It's a common misunderstanding. Employees feel if it's not in the CA then employers can't do it.

The union understands this and should have put the brakes on this.
Click to expand...
I've never dealt with a union environment where a uniform was involved...so outside of my scope for sure.

Learned something today!
 
BirdinHand said:
I've never dealt with a union environment where a uniform was involved...so outside of my scope for sure.

Learned something today!
Click to expand...
Where the employees might have a case is that CAs that include uniform requirements usually dictate that the employer provides it.

If an Arbitrator determines that the dark pants and shirt are a uniform then Starbucks would have to pay for it.
 
Allan said:
Where the employees might have a case is that CAs that include uniform requirements usually dictate that the employer provides it.

If an Arbitrator determines that the dark pants and shirt are a uniform then Starbucks would have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
I saw somewhere that Starbucks promised each employee 2 shirts and has not yet provided them.

So, that might be a "legitimate" cause for a strike - even though the true underlying issue is the understaffing.
 
BirdinHand said:
I saw somewhere that Starbucks promised each employee 2 shirts and has not yet provided them
Click to expand...

That's what I refer to as "labour relations accident prone".

If they promised them they should have provided them.

Sheesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…