Agreed 1000%, Jon. Under no circumstances whatsoever do bureaucrats at any level need to involve themselves with the matters of private companies. Here's the way it needs to be: You signed on to work at a private company, and, therefore, you're working for them on their turf. It should be that company's property right to let an employee go for virtually any reason, because, ultimately, they own the turf, and the workers are simply exchanging their services for an agreed-upon wage/salary. It's that easy, and all bureaucracies do is complicate matters, and these long, drawn-out court battles are all it leads to.
Unions are a vestige of a time when workers needed protection from companies whose indifference to health and safety for employees need a stopgap. However, with all the government regulations that protect workers, a union is unlikely to add more safety and protection from exploitation. In fact, we have seen examples where “union bosses” and “union leaders” have done just the opposite. Forcing workers to join a union or face the consequences is not a relic of the past.
A crucial point to be made is that in today’s entitled culture, many young workers see themselves as above the customer. I despise the phrase “No worries.” No it shouldn’t be a worry or concern to accommodate a customer.
I am beginning to think that boycotting by customers might need to become more common. Nothing overt like picking but the use of word of mouth and social media. Fight fire with fire.
I ran my own restaurants for 40 plus years, and have seen most of the bad behavior that’s out there. Got hauled in front of eeoc a couple of times. Most employee issues can be headed off by an astute manager. So much goes into hiring the right people. I was lucky. Funny how luck is bestowed on those that work 70 hours a week! Problem with Starbucks employees is that they are underemployed African history and women’s studies majors. I’d be pissed too…
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and with a very sharp blade.
The remedy for those making secret recordings at work is simple. A secret beating severe enough to require a long convolescence. Preferably, longer than insurance covers.
Is that reality, too real? Is that too violent of a response? Because that is exactly the requisite response.
My cousin was caught in a similar dispute with a food service company in the San Francisco Bay Area. He started a move to unionize the workers (they were underpaid and overworked). Next thing you know (after gathering evidence) he’s fired because his employer claimed bad performance, treating customers badly, Yada Yada. He was met with too much power to fight them.
Since it was established Starbucks management knew about the recordings prior to the firings — then it makes me wonder IF they were actually bad employees? I mean, if they were so bad why weren’t they already fired?
Sounds like it was also well established that they were threatening to file complaints with the NLRB. That's a pretty good chit to have if you don't want to be fired, is that you can bring the arm of the state down on your employer at will, even if you're a miscreant.
A piece close to my heart. During the early ‘90s I was dragged before the NLRB for fighting an organizing attempt by non union employees.
The hearing officer was clearly biased and cut me off every time I tried to correct or counter false contentions by the union’s lawyer.
Eventually, I lost it and let the pasty faced apparatchik have it. My lawyer grabbed me by the arm and pulled me from the room.
As expected, we lost.
What would be interesting is if the state where the recordings were made is a single or two party recording state.
If it’s a two party state, the workers who recorded their supervisors could face criminal charges. Ask Linda Tripp.
Bad experience. But great story.
Agreed 1000%, Jon. Under no circumstances whatsoever do bureaucrats at any level need to involve themselves with the matters of private companies. Here's the way it needs to be: You signed on to work at a private company, and, therefore, you're working for them on their turf. It should be that company's property right to let an employee go for virtually any reason, because, ultimately, they own the turf, and the workers are simply exchanging their services for an agreed-upon wage/salary. It's that easy, and all bureaucracies do is complicate matters, and these long, drawn-out court battles are all it leads to.
Unions are a vestige of a time when workers needed protection from companies whose indifference to health and safety for employees need a stopgap. However, with all the government regulations that protect workers, a union is unlikely to add more safety and protection from exploitation. In fact, we have seen examples where “union bosses” and “union leaders” have done just the opposite. Forcing workers to join a union or face the consequences is not a relic of the past.
A crucial point to be made is that in today’s entitled culture, many young workers see themselves as above the customer. I despise the phrase “No worries.” No it shouldn’t be a worry or concern to accommodate a customer.
I am beginning to think that boycotting by customers might need to become more common. Nothing overt like picking but the use of word of mouth and social media. Fight fire with fire.
I ran my own restaurants for 40 plus years, and have seen most of the bad behavior that’s out there. Got hauled in front of eeoc a couple of times. Most employee issues can be headed off by an astute manager. So much goes into hiring the right people. I was lucky. Funny how luck is bestowed on those that work 70 hours a week! Problem with Starbucks employees is that they are underemployed African history and women’s studies majors. I’d be pissed too…
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and with a very sharp blade.
The remedy for those making secret recordings at work is simple. A secret beating severe enough to require a long convolescence. Preferably, longer than insurance covers.
Is that reality, too real? Is that too violent of a response? Because that is exactly the requisite response.
"A cleved head, no longer plots."
~ Old Norse Aphorism
My cousin was caught in a similar dispute with a food service company in the San Francisco Bay Area. He started a move to unionize the workers (they were underpaid and overworked). Next thing you know (after gathering evidence) he’s fired because his employer claimed bad performance, treating customers badly, Yada Yada. He was met with too much power to fight them.
Since it was established Starbucks management knew about the recordings prior to the firings — then it makes me wonder IF they were actually bad employees? I mean, if they were so bad why weren’t they already fired?
Sounds like it was also well established that they were threatening to file complaints with the NLRB. That's a pretty good chit to have if you don't want to be fired, is that you can bring the arm of the state down on your employer at will, even if you're a miscreant.