GR Starbucks employee firing triggers global protests

This is about as stupid as stupid is. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the frying pan. If you know your company disagrees with union activity and you continue this pursuit, you should be prepared to take the heat, whether this means a firing from the job or what. There are many others who are unemployed that would like to take that persons place without being involved with union activity.

Starbucks sounds really right now. Anyone for a Cappuccino?

I am sure the minimum wage baristas have a difficult job making coffee all day long. <end sarcasm>

The coffee is FILTH, anyway! So who the heck cares?!

Aren't all the hippies in Rothbury anyway?

As a union member I am not so sure I would want the union. Mine, NEA, MEA, and local is none too strong. Lots of the young people really dislike it. I remember the old daze, but as Janet Jackson once said, "What have you done for me lately?". The global economy has changed union dynamics. UAW another classic case in point. Once very strong, now a mere shell of what it was. Glory daze have come & gone. I give the guy credit, & I have no love for Starbucks, but.......... Until China, India, Brazil unionize, too, the US labor union is none too relevant.

Starbucks announces 600 store closings, they can't afford bloated union practices. Oh am I ever glad I dumped Starbucks stock when I did.

khillard wrote:

This is about as stupid as stupid is. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the frying pan. If you know your company disagrees with union activity and you continue this pursuit, you should be prepared to take the heat, whether this means a firing from the job or what. There are many others who are unemployed that would like to take that persons place without being involved with union activity.

Right. Brilliant. Aside from the fact that firing employees for union activity is illegal, I'm sure you'd be fine if they were firing people due to their race, religion, disability or gender as long as there are some "unemployed" persons to take their jobs.

As for "Get over it" and bloated union practices, it takes two for an agreement. No employer ever got any "bloated" union practice they didn't agree to first. Get a clue.

Starbucks needs to be smacked down hard for this. Unfortunately, the labor board usually doesn't assess much of a punishment for this. That worker will likely win their job back with back pay, or Starbucks will pay them to go away.

Workers have the right to band together for mutual protection and benefit. If this has global attention then it means Starbucks has a record of treating employees somewhere near the level of Wal-Mart. Workers deserve their fair share and often the only way to get it is to unionize.
Firing anyone for their political views, including being pro-union, is as wrong and as illegal as firing someone for their color or religion.

At-will employment. If you don't like it, leave...

This company worked hard to have the best benefits for their socialist dreams. Guess it was not good enough....

Well, if you think their coffee is expensinve now, wait till a union steps in! "Anybody got change for a fifty?" Besides, I didn't think Starbucks was considered a 'make a decent living' level job? What would a union represent with basically part-time workers? Most of them wouldn't stay long enough to get into the union, anyway.

Have to agree with the rest that think this whole Union thing is a big stink. But hey, if they want to have a nice chunk of their wages taken out of their paychecks so that they can have crappy benefits like everyone else in Unions these days, let's let them. After all, a person can get just about the same coffee at McDonalds and gas stations now.

Simple fact: if a company treats their workers fairly (ie: with dignity and respect) they need not ever worry that their workers will attempt to organize.

I agree with the company. I own two businesses and if I even heard a whisper of unionization I would fire anyone involved. I think it's ridiculous that a group of employees feel it is within their right to strike against the very company that employs them because they aren't making $x or getting $x benefits. I believe the term is called Entitlement.

These people ought to be happy they have a job, period. If they don't agree with the pay or the benefits, hey, get another job! If you constantly find that you aren't making the money you feel you should, use your brain and find a way to make more. I believe ANYONE can achieve ANYTHING if they put their mind to it.

I never had a starbucks coffee in my life. And neeeever will......Toooo Pricy anyway.

Screw unions - they have zero value in society.

Lazy union d-bag. Barista, or coffee B!tch..either or, hippy.

People should get their information right before posting erroneous information. Starbucks does NOT pay minimum wage. They pay above, in addition to tips which usually range between one and 3 dollars on the hour and They offer health insurance for part time employees, which is incredibly rare. Baristas at starbucks arent loaded by any means, but a 'decent' living can be made.

Kudos to Starbucks for being proactive in keeping their business union-free. Unions are destroying the American business and it's great that people are finally realizing that and putting a stop to them. If you don't like what you make or what your benefits are, find a job elsewhere.

What the media is not telling you is that Cole was not fired for union activity. He was fired for other reasons, well within the scope of Starbucks business practicies. He has been making a scene for over a year now, harrasing people at different locations about "the union" which doesn't exist. He was a problem from the start and hopefully he gets whats coming to him...absolutly nothing except for everyone to forget his name and get on with their lives.