[amurthy1]

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.

I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:

- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job

- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs

All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

[xyzzy_plugh]

I'm not really going to answer this satisfactorily but the union doesn't have work if the employer doesn't exist. It's in the best interests of the union to negotiate in good faith to find the optimal arrangement for both parties. A successful, growing business means a growing union.

The idea is that it should be a win-win. It's perfectly possible for a union to be unreasonable and for both parties to ultimately walk away with nothing. This has happened countless times and is somewhat inevitable for unsustainable businesses (or businesses which rely on another industry to be in a growth phase).

[hellotomyrars]

We don’t know what they asked for or what Starbucks thinks it will cost them. EDIT: I saw the list of the demands and they are incredibly reasonable. Like, this is how a human being deserves to be treated reasonable.

The real point of Starbucks doing this isn’t to avoid having to cut into their profit margins a bit in that location but to suppress unionization in their other locations.

They have to shut it down early and often, or they’ll actually have to go to the table with a Union and that idea makes them crap their pants.

They would rather lose all profit from that location and send the message that unionization will get you fired.

[genocidicbunny]

> If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

There's a difference between shutting down a business because some employees are starting to unionize, and shutting down a business because its financially non-viable due to extended negotiations.

If the business is somehow stupid enough to sign a contract with a union that makes them fail (and frankly, the union stupid enough to propose -- if the business fails, they still all lose their jobs) then that's really on the business, not the union. At that point they can go to court to try to fight the contract, or close up shop.

[cool_dude85]

>Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your business unprofitable. That's what the company is supposed to do.

[xur17]

> Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your business unprofitable. That's what the company is supposed to do.

But if they don't sign a contract, at some point they don't have labor, right? Which means they have to shut down..

[mplewis]

If a business can't come to a basic working agreement with its workers, then of course it has to shut down.

[s1artibartfast]

They don't have to come to an agreement with the Union. They can come to an agreement with other workers.

[arrosenberg]

> Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job

Won't happen without workers having bargaining power.

> Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

Won't happen without workers having bargaining power.

> Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs

Won't happen without workers having political power.

Legally protected worker rights are how you get all of these solutions. Please explain how we get there without it.

[adorton]

The company is supposed to negotiate with the union. That's the whole idea behind unions.

[s1artibartfast]

Companies don't have to negotiate, they can Hardball if they want

[schwartzworld]

> All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

Won't happen without unions. Capital would gladly have you work 12 hour days without weekends, and we know this because it was true until people advocated for their own rights. https://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/workday/weekend/8hourday.html Capital will gladly have you work in unsafe or inhumane conditions if it means profits.

Maybe unions aren't the ideal solution, but the wealthy (i.e. the employers) have outsized influence in government. Who is going to speak for the people, if not a union?

[advisedwang]

If negotiations with a union break down and the union strikes, then the company can hire replacement workers.

[drewcoo]

> if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable

What a strange hypothetical! That's certainly never happened, and given the current power dynamic, incredibly unlikely to happen today.

Whatever regulations there are to protect workers were created because of unions, not instead of them. If employers had been given the choice, there wouldn't be unions or regulations.

[refurb]

Sure it has. Look up the auto unions in Detroit.

The company caved to union demands back in the 70’s (if you're laid off you get 100% free health care for life).

I knew families where guys were laid off at 30 and had amazing health insurance plans for the rest of their life.

Something like 60% of labor costs were retiree benefits.

[CapstanRoller]

Which parts of this do you consider to be unreasonable?

[JKCalhoun]

> Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

I'm sure you're right but you didn't mention wages, health plans, or retirement, at all.

Apart from establishing a minimum wage, how is government regulation to address any of these also common reason employees decide to unionize?