coach is not from Bainbridge (Isle)
a Wealthy Enclave due West of Seattle
(look due West from Seattle and there it is!)
'christians' prolly not even Close to a majority
but from Bremerton the little
Navy city that 'could'
right Behind B.I. &
even tho it's like
maybe a mile apart*
at their closest point
*a pretty Brisk swim
mind the Tides!
'Starbucks released a memo stating that they couldn't "guarantee" that union members would get the benefit, arguing that the union could possibly bargain it away for something else.'
Of course, Starbucks released this statement for utterly self-serving reasons. That self-serving intent does not make this statement any less true -- or any less relevant.
If the employees are represented by a union, and the union has a contract with the employer, then the employer cannot unilaterally change employees' compensation. While this traditionally means workers get to keep their hard-won pay and benefits, it also means the employer (Starbucks, in this case) can't unilaterally add a benefit, such as travel for medical reasons. For any union-represented employees, the union would have to approve this benefit, and union leadership may indeed decide to bargain this new benefit for something else. (Depending upon the union, leadership may be bound by the union's charter, or by a vote of members, not to do this.)
The Back-Alley Butchers worked for fifty years to eliminate a woman's right to choose. Starbucks is risking the wrath of these heartless fanatics, who have often used outright terrorism. Starbucks should be applauded for standing up to them. (I have no connection to Starbucks; heck, I don't even drink coffee.) Everyone can be both pro-choice and pro-union, and if Starbucks is aggressively pro-choice, we should support that.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.