[toomuchtodo]

If you’re curious, simply reach out to the Starbucks Workers United org and ask.

https://sbworkersunited.org/

https://sbworkersunited.org/new-page-2

I’m unsure if your comment is genuinely curious; I’ve tried to assume positive intent. Unions are the only way for workers to get purchase against abusive, unchecked capitalism.

(disclosure: I have provided financial and technical support)

Edit: @savanaly

The author of the comment I replied to has a most recent Ask HN asking why not smaller government and more privatization. Their comment language and format, when viewed for only a moment, is easy to distill as not genuinely curious, but as condescending: “what could these workers possibly ask for that they’d deserve from Starbucks?”

I’m happy to act as Google and stick the result in a reply for them (this is what they’re asking for), but I’m also going to politely call out their disingenuous behavior.

[peyton]

Just read through the site. It sounds like a naked call for power? I didn’t see any specific demands. Why can’t they form their own coffee company?

[toomuchtodo]

Starbucks is their company. It could not exist without their labor. By unionizing, they obtain that power. You may feel different, but this is what labor regulations and the NLRB is for: to protect workers’ organization rights.

[djbebs]

Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story.

If unions hadn't seized political power to grant themselves unjust power these leeches, which is what they undoubtedly are, would be where they deserve, fired.

They are suppliers of labor, and should be treated like any other supplier of any other good or service, rather than being privileged by the force of law.

[klyrs]

> Starbucks belongs to its shareholders, end of story.

Not even close. Workers have rights, among them the freedom of association up to and including forming associations centered around collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions.

[CogitoCogito]

It was through political power that the rights of shareholders were created as well. It’s just a legal construct after all. Are shareholders leaches too?

[savanaly]

>I’m unsure if your comment is genuinely curious; I’ve tried to assume positive intent.

This part of your comment is unnecessary and degrades the discussion. The first half was helpful.