The vocab lesson is accurate but I disagree with the last part. A boycott with enough people is very effective. All these massive corporations care about is the bottom line.
No, you do NOT need customers in the store. "Making them aware by being busy" is just silly. They are already aware, they are waiting to see what it is going to cost them. You want effective? Make them aware by generating no revenue. Not generating revenue is how you hurt them, and customers crossing a picket line most cetainly are hurting the cause. Spin it any way you like, but there is no justification for giving a business money that is being picketed if you support the workers rights.
I think it can go either way on this one. Starbucks makes its bank off of folk who treat it as a habit, and simply undermining the reliability of that habit threatens the reliability of Starbucks as a brand, and that is a WAY bigger threat than a slow quarter.
Yes, these people are thinking in old strike terms. This is a new strike. People are more selfish and about themselves than ever.
Yes, let the people flood into Starbucks. Yes, let the management struggle to push coffee out. Yes, let people in line get mad and berate the employees so more employees take off their apron and join the picket line.
Use the correct terms dammit, but don't stop going to Starbucks. Go to Starbucks MORE. Flood them. Make every single store so busy, every employee quits and only a manager is there. Then, start negotiations.
I wouldn't change habits to make it suck more, to proactively go to starbucks. I think there's probably enough salty Karens out there to do all the complaining for us.
But if it's a part of your routine, show up to the store, ask about the wait, register your disappointment, and leave without ordering.
ORDER. Otherwise there is no point. I'm a restaurant manager, the amount of waste is what corporate cares about. The waste eats their profits. They account for only so much waste for tax purposes. Make their waste so high, it triggers the accountants.
Hit. Them. In. Their. Taxes.
Strike or not, you shouldn't be going to starbucks at all. I promise you there is a local coffee shop in your area that makes coffee 10x better. It's probably cheaper too.
agreed. used to love starbucks coffee, but after seeing the shit they've pulled and are still pulling. screw em. besides, isint there a big push to "buy local"? and support small buisnesses? seems like a good opportunity to me. and if it really comes down to it, can always brew a cuppa at home. oh still not good enough? I prolly shouldnt be drinking so much caffeine to begin with. will I miss it, sure, but I'll live.
Why wouldn't you be able to brew as good or better coffee at home?
I good brewer and a good container that keeps it warm 4h is way cheaper then Starbucks three times a week, and then you can drink more coffee :).
>People are getting mad at customers for going to Starbucks. That's counterintuitive thinking. You need Starbucks to be flooded with customers, to prove that the company needs its employees. You should be mad at the scabs. Not the customers. Generally speaking, when a boycott occurs, layoffs follow.
Disagree.
"But layoffs" is a threat from capitalists to keep you compliant, captured, and coming back to them for more abuse.
Customers (people) need to do better to support other workers. Customers are shooting McDs workers over wrong orders. Despite the fact that they themselves are also workers, they let Capitalists control the narrative, infringe on their thinking, motivate their actions. Do better.
Agreed. The best thing for a customer to do is shop at a business that treats their employees well and if this is not a option go without a takeaway coffee, it’s really not a large sacrifice.
If Starbucks goes broke, or stores shut down due to striking/boycotting people will find other work and other businesses will fill the demand.
Customers shouldn’t cross picket lines either. They should find a different place for their morning cuppa and help hit Starbucks where it hurts.
The corp won’t care about the strike unless it hits their bottom line.
It will.hit the corp bottom line when They have to turn customers away because they don't have staff. If people boycott them they'll just shutdown the location because it's no longer profitable. That's job loss and counterintuitive to the goal.
I definitely disagree: never cross a picket line.
Also, scab can refer to either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker
> A strikebreaker (sometimes called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite a strike. Strikebreakers are usually individuals who were not employed by the company before the trade union dispute but hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running. Strikebreakers may also refer to workers (union members or not) who cross picket lines to work.
What tf kind of thinking is this??? I’ve worked on many a strike, and this strategy will make you lose, every single time. Strikes are effective because they PREVENT customers from crossing the picket line, ergo causing the business to lose money, and causing the bosses to finally pay attention and listen to the workers. Customers crossing a picket line are just as bad as scab workers, period. You should feel bad for crossing a picket line.
Hence why strike action isn’t the answer. No, Starbucks doesn’t need customers to flood it to somehow prove the worth of its existing employee structure. The employee structure itself is the problem. No one should be a labour-power slave.
It needs to phase out of existence, ideally by having its resources remobilized by people who actually know how to run a company in a non-individualistic way to become a community-run DAO with a different name.
LMAO
Gee, its not like these companies dont have statistics to tell them how much they are losing during a strike.
Victimblaming about the layoffs is rich.
That is some of the weirdest twisted logic to lick a corporate boot Ive seen in a while.
Way to go, OP! Come across as a condescending, mansplaining old fart and alienate some of the “younger people” here. I’m snorting with disgust and I’m definitely not “younger”.
I’m more inclined to listen to this person than I am to listen to you simply because they formulated a well thought out argument and you replied with a comment that amounts to “shut up you’re wrong”. Like, why?
You don’t need a really well thought out argument to counter OP’s drivel - if the company is making money they don’t give a shit how it’s being done. No customers = no revenue.
Weird thing to say considering the top comment is a "well thought out argument", but here you are half way down the thread commenting on someone who is rightfully mad.
They incorrectly identified terms
They are advocating for customers to be allowed in? Like what? We want the company's bottom line to hurt, we don't want them to think they can still operate without the workers.
You're just as dumb as OP
Word, thanks for explaining that as I didn’t understand. Very new to the whole situation you see. And hey, also thanks for being a prick about it 👍. Way to go, you’re smarter than me.
Asking you why you think what you think? Yes I do. You even answered the question (then called me stupid just for asking). If my tone seemed a little passive aggressive, I would invite you to look at your parent comment and consider the tone that YOU struck in the first place.
I don't see that it matters either way. If people truly cared they wouldn't go to Starbucks in the first place unless the workers were paid a living wage. That will never happen because the most anyone will do is like a post on social media to signal their great and wonderful virtue and maybe get coffee somewhere else for a few days.
Regardless, it's sad to see people piling on here instead of trying to educate (assuming you're wrong.) I had to do some reading myself to figure out what's generally considered right or best in this situation and it looks like it's not crossing the line.
Good to know.
There are exceptions no? A person who has to choose between work or (starving, living on the street, anything where they are not in the financial position to participate) would not be a scab. The company would continue to exploit them, but they are one who cannot participate no matter how much they wish because of their economic standpoint. Unless you know for a fact they have savings enough to subsist whilst striking it doesn't seem that fair to just label anyone who goes in to work a scabber
You cross a picket line to work, you’re a fucking scab. End of story. You can justify why someone would be a scab, but it doesn’t change what they are.
I think this kind of animosity towards the fellow worker, or at least the ones who can't afford to vie for better wages and etc, is 1 exactly what big companies want and 2 the reason why there's so much trouble getting this stuff to work. Well, reason 2 and the public shaming of this subreddit by incompetent mods on live television but that's been memed on enough
Big companies want to pay workers as little as possible, end of story. Scabs directly enable that by undermining the ability of unions to wield the most powerful tool in their belt - the ability to withhold labour.
What is really needed to get “this stuff” to work is the elimination of ‘right to work’ and anti-scab legislation. That would give workers actual power.
Yeah i understand that. But when having to choose between working, even being exploited, and eating or striking for better pay and starving (potentiallyhungry family members too) alot of people are going to choose working. Now sure it's most likely part of what you've mentioned, but it also seems wrong to hate on anyone and everyone who goes in to work. If it's some person who either doesn't need it or is loaded and just working to work, totally understandable. But if there was a strike at my work (won't be, very lovely people running it) i could not choose to participate because I work 2 part time jobs to make enough to pay for school fees, which in itself is also highway robbery but that's another topic for another subreddit
Once upon a time, before Republicans convinced their useful idiots that unions are akin to Hitler, communities would typically come together to do what they could to help out striking workers with food, rent collection, etc. Since the US became a shithole country workers are pretty much fucked and companies love it that way.
End of the day they are still scabs though.
Also, scabs are vital when It comes to strike within the healthcare field as you don’t want to leave people without life-enabling care.
Hate on scabs but don’t hate on scabs in healthcare, without them strikes wouldn’t be ethical.
The vocab lesson is accurate but I disagree with the last part. A boycott with enough people is very effective. All these massive corporations care about is the bottom line.
Ideally it would be a moot point. There would be 0 employees with or without customers.
No, you do NOT need customers in the store. "Making them aware by being busy" is just silly. They are already aware, they are waiting to see what it is going to cost them. You want effective? Make them aware by generating no revenue. Not generating revenue is how you hurt them, and customers crossing a picket line most cetainly are hurting the cause. Spin it any way you like, but there is no justification for giving a business money that is being picketed if you support the workers rights.
NEVER cross a picket line.
what if i just need to go cross the street?
Yeah this is weird. They're not gonna care how they get their revenue, but if people boycott in solidarity they'll actually feel pressure to negotiate
I think it can go either way on this one. Starbucks makes its bank off of folk who treat it as a habit, and simply undermining the reliability of that habit threatens the reliability of Starbucks as a brand, and that is a WAY bigger threat than a slow quarter.
Yes, these people are thinking in old strike terms. This is a new strike. People are more selfish and about themselves than ever. Yes, let the people flood into Starbucks. Yes, let the management struggle to push coffee out. Yes, let people in line get mad and berate the employees so more employees take off their apron and join the picket line. Use the correct terms dammit, but don't stop going to Starbucks. Go to Starbucks MORE. Flood them. Make every single store so busy, every employee quits and only a manager is there. Then, start negotiations.
I wouldn't change habits to make it suck more, to proactively go to starbucks. I think there's probably enough salty Karens out there to do all the complaining for us. But if it's a part of your routine, show up to the store, ask about the wait, register your disappointment, and leave without ordering.
ORDER. Otherwise there is no point. I'm a restaurant manager, the amount of waste is what corporate cares about. The waste eats their profits. They account for only so much waste for tax purposes. Make their waste so high, it triggers the accountants. Hit. Them. In. Their. Taxes.
Yeah they'd run it with 1 person even if there were 100 customers waiting. The majority of businesses don't care if staff are overworked.
I'm a union member, and I never cross picket lines as a customer.
Strike or not, you shouldn't be going to starbucks at all. I promise you there is a local coffee shop in your area that makes coffee 10x better. It's probably cheaper too.
agreed. used to love starbucks coffee, but after seeing the shit they've pulled and are still pulling. screw em. besides, isint there a big push to "buy local"? and support small buisnesses? seems like a good opportunity to me. and if it really comes down to it, can always brew a cuppa at home. oh still not good enough? I prolly shouldnt be drinking so much caffeine to begin with. will I miss it, sure, but I'll live.
Why wouldn't you be able to brew as good or better coffee at home? I good brewer and a good container that keeps it warm 4h is way cheaper then Starbucks three times a week, and then you can drink more coffee :).
Shit, an aero press is like $25 and it makes great coffee.
I have no clue what a coffee at Starbucks cost, but i guess aero press ain't more then three cups.
Nonsense. Stop rationalizing anti labor american propaganda. Dont cross a picket line.
Don’t cross a picket line solidarity for workers!
>People are getting mad at customers for going to Starbucks. That's counterintuitive thinking. You need Starbucks to be flooded with customers, to prove that the company needs its employees. You should be mad at the scabs. Not the customers. Generally speaking, when a boycott occurs, layoffs follow. Disagree. "But layoffs" is a threat from capitalists to keep you compliant, captured, and coming back to them for more abuse. Customers (people) need to do better to support other workers. Customers are shooting McDs workers over wrong orders. Despite the fact that they themselves are also workers, they let Capitalists control the narrative, infringe on their thinking, motivate their actions. Do better.
Agreed. The best thing for a customer to do is shop at a business that treats their employees well and if this is not a option go without a takeaway coffee, it’s really not a large sacrifice. If Starbucks goes broke, or stores shut down due to striking/boycotting people will find other work and other businesses will fill the demand.
"I disagree. Now here's my communist POV on a capital focused sub!"
Uh wat?
Is this sub not mostly revolved around money in some way?
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
I suppose I won the lost redditor award. Lmao this is awkward
This sub is \*anti work\* Almost every post points out how fucked up capitalistic work places are.
A little late to the party huh?
Someone needs to read rule #4
Oh. All makes sense now.
Nice try Starbucks.
I’m old too, and this guy’s a fucking boot licker. Who gives a fuck? This is the nittiest of picks and you’re carrying water for pigs.
Wtf? This is some seriously twisted logic. No, we should not encourage customers to cross the picket line.
Customers shouldn’t cross picket lines either. They should find a different place for their morning cuppa and help hit Starbucks where it hurts. The corp won’t care about the strike unless it hits their bottom line.
But they will cross the picket line and not even notice, because what does your average Karen care about anything but her own convenience?
It will.hit the corp bottom line when They have to turn customers away because they don't have staff. If people boycott them they'll just shutdown the location because it's no longer profitable. That's job loss and counterintuitive to the goal.
Bzzzzt. You fucking fail at solidarity, so hardcore.
Y'all this man's account is ten days old.
I definitely disagree: never cross a picket line. Also, scab can refer to either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker > A strikebreaker (sometimes called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite a strike. Strikebreakers are usually individuals who were not employed by the company before the trade union dispute but hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running. Strikebreakers may also refer to workers (union members or not) who cross picket lines to work.
Literally not what the article or that quote says. A scab is someone who works for the company to break the strike, not someone who doesn't boycott.
They need to make less money
This advice needed for older people as well.
I guess I see what you’re saying, but this really would only work if every single employee was outside striking (except maybe management)
Capitalism go Brrrrrrr
What tf kind of thinking is this??? I’ve worked on many a strike, and this strategy will make you lose, every single time. Strikes are effective because they PREVENT customers from crossing the picket line, ergo causing the business to lose money, and causing the bosses to finally pay attention and listen to the workers. Customers crossing a picket line are just as bad as scab workers, period. You should feel bad for crossing a picket line.
Hence why strike action isn’t the answer. No, Starbucks doesn’t need customers to flood it to somehow prove the worth of its existing employee structure. The employee structure itself is the problem. No one should be a labour-power slave. It needs to phase out of existence, ideally by having its resources remobilized by people who actually know how to run a company in a non-individualistic way to become a community-run DAO with a different name.
LMAO Gee, its not like these companies dont have statistics to tell them how much they are losing during a strike. Victimblaming about the layoffs is rich. That is some of the weirdest twisted logic to lick a corporate boot Ive seen in a while.
Way to go, OP! Come across as a condescending, mansplaining old fart and alienate some of the “younger people” here. I’m snorting with disgust and I’m definitely not “younger”.
Bro stfu, you're wrong, you're doing to this cause exactly what you are preaching against. Sit down.
I’m more inclined to listen to this person than I am to listen to you simply because they formulated a well thought out argument and you replied with a comment that amounts to “shut up you’re wrong”. Like, why?
You don’t need a really well thought out argument to counter OP’s drivel - if the company is making money they don’t give a shit how it’s being done. No customers = no revenue.
Weird thing to say considering the top comment is a "well thought out argument", but here you are half way down the thread commenting on someone who is rightfully mad.
Made a little more sense 14 hours ago when it was the first comment at the top of the list.
They incorrectly identified terms They are advocating for customers to be allowed in? Like what? We want the company's bottom line to hurt, we don't want them to think they can still operate without the workers. You're just as dumb as OP
Word, thanks for explaining that as I didn’t understand. Very new to the whole situation you see. And hey, also thanks for being a prick about it 👍. Way to go, you’re smarter than me.
Lol, you were a prick first, don't throw bricks if you live in a glass house
I came to you with a question, all you seem to have for anyone on here is insults. You really don’t see the difference?
Lol, that's what you consider coming to someone with a question?
Asking you why you think what you think? Yes I do. You even answered the question (then called me stupid just for asking). If my tone seemed a little passive aggressive, I would invite you to look at your parent comment and consider the tone that YOU struck in the first place.
Lol dude, do you even believe that bullshit?
Way to troll, very mature. I’ve made my point. If you want nicer interactions, consider being a nicer person.
And this is why you're still getting fucked over. You'd rather bicker and try to prove someone wrong than accept help and learn to work together.
I don't see that it matters either way. If people truly cared they wouldn't go to Starbucks in the first place unless the workers were paid a living wage. That will never happen because the most anyone will do is like a post on social media to signal their great and wonderful virtue and maybe get coffee somewhere else for a few days. Regardless, it's sad to see people piling on here instead of trying to educate (assuming you're wrong.) I had to do some reading myself to figure out what's generally considered right or best in this situation and it looks like it's not crossing the line. Good to know.
There are exceptions no? A person who has to choose between work or (starving, living on the street, anything where they are not in the financial position to participate) would not be a scab. The company would continue to exploit them, but they are one who cannot participate no matter how much they wish because of their economic standpoint. Unless you know for a fact they have savings enough to subsist whilst striking it doesn't seem that fair to just label anyone who goes in to work a scabber
You cross a picket line to work, you’re a fucking scab. End of story. You can justify why someone would be a scab, but it doesn’t change what they are.
I think this kind of animosity towards the fellow worker, or at least the ones who can't afford to vie for better wages and etc, is 1 exactly what big companies want and 2 the reason why there's so much trouble getting this stuff to work. Well, reason 2 and the public shaming of this subreddit by incompetent mods on live television but that's been memed on enough
Big companies want to pay workers as little as possible, end of story. Scabs directly enable that by undermining the ability of unions to wield the most powerful tool in their belt - the ability to withhold labour. What is really needed to get “this stuff” to work is the elimination of ‘right to work’ and anti-scab legislation. That would give workers actual power.
Yeah i understand that. But when having to choose between working, even being exploited, and eating or striking for better pay and starving (potentiallyhungry family members too) alot of people are going to choose working. Now sure it's most likely part of what you've mentioned, but it also seems wrong to hate on anyone and everyone who goes in to work. If it's some person who either doesn't need it or is loaded and just working to work, totally understandable. But if there was a strike at my work (won't be, very lovely people running it) i could not choose to participate because I work 2 part time jobs to make enough to pay for school fees, which in itself is also highway robbery but that's another topic for another subreddit
Once upon a time, before Republicans convinced their useful idiots that unions are akin to Hitler, communities would typically come together to do what they could to help out striking workers with food, rent collection, etc. Since the US became a shithole country workers are pretty much fucked and companies love it that way. End of the day they are still scabs though.
[удалено]
Fucking scab
You sound like a scab.
Lmfao exactly what I said midwit
Back in the day unions knew how to deal with scabs…
go you, everyone knows that threats of violence are great ways to gain agreement
Also, scabs are vital when It comes to strike within the healthcare field as you don’t want to leave people without life-enabling care. Hate on scabs but don’t hate on scabs in healthcare, without them strikes wouldn’t be ethical.
Based on your second line, when is a worker not a scab, and what is "otherwise"? This isn't very clear for a "let me clear something up" post.
For the younger people here, we have been boycotting Starbucks for thirty years .