Judge Finds Starbucks Guilty of Union-Busting

After a decade of being around and working with/for hypocritical, shrill, bleeding-heart, pretentious yuppies who absolutely fetish Starbucks products, I've felt and still feel that the damn place is only for posers who only feel better when they're seen on the street clutching something—anything—with that logo on it.

How do you think this will affect all the Makeoff investors who now need jobs?

First of all, Starbucks uses a high quality bean and uses fair trade practices when buying its coffee. That's why the cost is so high.

Second, Starbucks treats its employees very well. Partners make decent money plus tips, plus all employees ARE eligible for benefits, including part time employees if they work at least 20 hours a week. And the benefits they provide are excellent.

Third, a union would be kind of silly. At any given time, Starbucks employs a great many individuals. But its turnover rate is also very high for various reasons, so it would be like a revolving door of union membership.

Also, these partners are already trained very specifically to a very specific task that not just anyone can do. It's part of Starbucks' training process.

No, I do not work for Starbucks, but I used to. I know first hand that it does expect a lot from its employees, which generally come from a very flippant pool. But it also gives back a lot and takes care of its partners.

Starbucks is a monopoly with regard to little stores that actually offer coffee as their primary product (e.g. local cafes, etc). Obviously big corporations like Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's can compete, but the little guy cannot.

So it's really not a monopoly.

Did you ever think that maybe Starbucks helps the local coffee shop? Perhaps someone who likes Starbucks grew a fancy for lattes, and now buys the latte from the corner shop because it's better?

The whole mentality that Starbucks is evil has always been absurd to me. People can choose to go wherever they'd like for coffee. Don't blame Starbucks.

Starbucks is a monopoly with regard to little stores that actually offer coffee as their primary product (e.g. local cafes, etc). Obviously big corporations like Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's can compete, but the little guy cannot.

Coffee Prices.

McDonald's, $1.35 decent and moderately strong

Burger King, $1.40 looks like coffee but tastes like hot water

Dunkin' Donuts, $1.65 is weak, watery, and pricier than Starbucks

Starbucks, $1.55 is strong a little burnt tasting but will wake you the fuck up.

You wouldn't want some unskilled person serving you coffee would you? Without the union who knows what these people would serve you. Same goes for building buildings. Unions are needed everywhere if you want democracy to survive and thrive.

It's a tough job where you have to stand on your feet for a long time, but gimme a break. Other than the fancy designs that some baristas do, you or I could learn to make the drinks in a day. Starbucks has the process down pat and the machine is automated.

People like you baffle me. I know you don't own enough Starbucks stock to root for yourself as an owner and against yourself as a consumer.

You are self hating, self destructing individual, who would rather die of hunger and poverty than to admit that you are wrong, and that your ideology is bankrupt.

I would throw the same sentiments back at you: You cannot be honest with yourself and live in this delusional world where the little man deserves everything.

But I cannot take you seriously. Starbucks is a monopoly? Um, what? McDonald's kills in share of market for breakfast items. Little competition? You are just talking nonsense.

Coffee should not cost $4, and it did not before Starbucks.

Coffee, and any good, can be priced at whatever the market equilibrium is or the consumer will buy it at. Water in a plastic bottle probably isn't worth $1.50, but people buy it. Demand is there for it.

You wouldn't want some unskilled person serving you coffee would you? Without the union who knows what these people would serve you.

Um, there are hundreds of thousands of skilled programmer and about 0% are in a union. And since when did union guarantee anything except pension and job security to all baffoons? Look at the teacher's union or the autoworker union for example.

I wouldnt say they need a union. Just give them the health care and sick/vacation pay. Everyone should be entitled to that

Do those slackers really need a union?

You wouldn't want some unskilled person serving you coffee would you? Without the union who knows what these people would serve you. Same goes for building buildings. Unions are needed everywhere if you want democracy to survive and thrive. Of course they did a great job of destroying the auto industry, but that's another story.

Plain old coffee doesn't cost $4.

Just FYI.

Awesome, Starbucks has won me back!

#3:

First of all, everyone knows that Starbucks is almost a monopoly, and that they have been rising the prices, not lowering them.

Coffee should not cost $4, and it did not before Starbucks. They are the ones who are driving the prices higher, because they are so big, and have so little competition (in the entire US, except for lower Manhattan) that they can.

People like you baffle me. I know you don't own enough Starbucks stock to root for yourself as an owner and against yourself as a consumer.

You are self hating, self destructing individual, who would rather die of hunger and poverty than to admit that you are wrong, and that your ideology is bankrupt.

Humans win!

Humans lose. That $4 latte will now be $5, which will lead Starbucks to insolvency.

With one fewer competitor, Dunkin Donuts and the rest of the field can raise prices. Thus, we're all poorer, because some coffee peddlers think their skill is somehow in demand and short in supply.

Humans win!