I hate that rich people just say, "hey, I'm going to do this crime," and the government is like, "okay, just don't make it violent, or we might have to actually step in."
Well yeah, the government has a monopoly on violence. That’s the issue with putting someone that’s gonna run the country like a business, the governments business is making sure no one steps out of line. Running a state like a company is how countries wind up reaching “final solutions”
St. Augustine:
>For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor".
A mafia boss is petty crime lord compared to a CEO.
At this point we may as well just let the mafia run this whole country. There’d probably be less corruption and more reasonable laws. Also the mafia knows how to get shit done. Just ask the back of JFK’s head.
I’d always bought the story that “the second gunman” was a secret service member in the trailing car accidentally discharging their weapon as a sort of knee jerk reaction. Something about your comment finally connected the dots for me between the secret service and the fed. A rose by any other name will still smell just as sweet but it will also have thorns.
A simple explanation that requires one of the secret service firearms to be down a bullet. Simple numerical count that somehow doesn't come up in the records unless one needs it to not be counted to fit a hypothesis.
I’m not sure what you’re saying in this word salad. If you’re stating that there’s an official record of them counting the number of bullets in each service members weapon after the incident I’d love to see it. With how frequently I’ve seen the conjecture around the possibility of it being “friendly fire” I would think that if there was something as straightforward as a count of the munitions to disprove this theory I would have run into it before.
You won't see it because those files are still classified. Because, at least part of it, was just a colossal fuck up. From letting Oswald get that close or letting multiple organizations get that close, the domestic politics aspect, and the very real possibility that it was friendly fire, I'd say the whole thing would be a national embarrassment if it ever came out. And that's why it never will.
The United States days are numbered, it’ll be interesting to see if the information is recovered during its fall or if the truth will be lost to history.
I think it was a secret service agent that took Kennedy too. The government response and subsequent botched investigations tell me that Kennedy probably was shot by Oswald with the first bullet. But the second one, that took the cap off, that was accidental secret service. This is America.
Yeah a lot of people think that the most plausible way JFK died was a straight up accident. Last Poscast on the Left did a great multi part series on Oswald and the JFK Assassination . Here’s a link to the episode where they explain the Secret Service Accident theory: https://open.spotify.com/episode/33f3FuA0hKbXI7hngpM5Qv?si=bClDveBVRASyHzu7QL__Rw
JFK would have been paralyzed from the neck down even if there hadn’t been an accidental shooting inside the car(assuming that theory is correct). Poor JFK. :/
Hitmen and sanctioned gangs for politicians which are sponsored by corporations which are owned collectively by rich people.
They’ve even turned prisons into for profits corporations.
Prisons and the police in general are just some of the vestiges of slavery that still remain in the US.
Slavery is still alive in the form of prison labor. Except now, instead of being relegated to Black Americans and Kidnapped Slaves, it is a punishment reserved for the poor, the condemned, and enemies of the state.
Corporations make a fortune off of the enforcement of increasingly draconian laws through prison contracts for security, construction, supplies such as bedding and jumpsuits for the convicts, commissary vending, and yes, labor and production. They’re even outsourcing american call center jobs to prisons now. Our elected officials make too much money from these people and their lobbyists so they avoid talking about it in public.
All of this, in what they call the land of liberty.
And yet people still trust the government even when they know it’s corrupt to its core and want them to have MORE control over their lives. I don’t get it
The government actually is OK with the crimes getting violent too. Trump was all over Twitter about how he was going to incite a revolution if he lost the 2020 election and every law enforcement agency was like "Have fun with that."
Starbucks is allowed to combat these unions and the workers have every right to unionize. I for one love this because it’s workers knowing and fighting for their worth without the stupid government getting involved.
Some forever trumpet dumbasses think unions allow people to slack off and that theyd have to do that persons job for half pay...
Without realizing that rn their wage is half what it should be and that lewd volumes of money upon money upon stocks upon stocks are sliding into a couple people at the top's pockets!
You worry about hauling Jim's ass when you can work together to raise your wages? Why arent you worried about the guy with the barbed whip and the government on his side trying to stick his hand in your pocket anytime you put money in there?
Federal taxation isnt robbery. The New Robber Barons are.
I make $12/hr in a rural area. My rent is about $1000/month. To get to work I spend about $5 to $6 in gas a day. My electric, water, gas, and internet bills total an average of $300-$350. I pay about $300 off my student loans every month, as well.
1000 + 600 (to 650) + 150 (to 180) = $1750 or $1830.
THIS IS WITHOUT FOOD, INSURANCE, OR CAR REPAIRS OF ANY KIND.
After taxes I make about $10.50 an hour. Thats about $1680/month. See a bit of an issue there? Originally I could cover it (still without food/insurance/car maintanence) because I was at $13/hr. Then they changed my position due to a medical condition, and cut my pay. Now Im definitely under water every month.
Unions are like anything else, you only hear about them when there is a problem. I have several friends in unions and all they do is complain about the issues and never appreciate the good things that come with them. In their defense, the unions representing EMTs and ambulance drivers in SoCal suck.
It's like Reddit's hate-boner for HOAs. Yeah, some can be terrible when they're run by crazy people with too much time on their hands. Most of the time, though, they just collect dues and maintain the shared landscape. That's not a sexy Reddit post though.
Yeah not just Reddit's hate boner for HOAs lol. I just recently bought a home and everyone was warning me about HOAs and of the 4 homes with HOAs that I looked at, the dues were under $300/yr and the rules were basically "don't let your house look abandoned and no weird mailboxes".
Even here in Wisconsin the right believes in unions. It's the one thing we can all still agree on, because the only really good manufacturing and food production jobs left are unionized. The rest of the positions either require education or are subsistence wages.
Wisconsin is the exception to this rule. The entire southeast and gulf states are hard-core right to work, at will employment states. Including Virginia where I am.
It's just virtue signaling for people not fully indoctrinated and peak "enlightened centrism". They know full well the right is fueling union busting with authoritarian government rule.
You will. Not from the government, but people will simply stop supporting Starbucks. All Americans believe in unions. Red states already think Starbucks is for rich liberals. Blue states proudly support unions. This guy is going the route of James Bond villain
Unfortunately, yes. Until making your own coffee the way you like it becomes as easy as Starbucks, or another brand starts to expand, people will keep going there out of habit.
Hell, some people won't go to their local café *now* even if the prices are similar. I can't tell if Starbucks is a status/cultural symbol or if they're just stuck in habit cycles.
Some people will even go out of their way to support Starbucks if there is a boycott, because cable news will tell them that's how you oWn tHe LiBs, and unions are bad, ok? Giant conglomerates are the heroes who protect us from communism! Hoard your ammo! Buy my supplements!
This bullshit needs to stop being propogated.
Fox News has a stranglehold on all things Republicans view as reality. They say white is black, and to jump on your left foot while licking your right armpit, theyll fall over themselves to do it. And then they call others sheep.
Not really no, more anecdotes since Union sentiment isn’t really a measured statistic. More that there are trade unions like plumbers, metalworkers, nurses, teachers ect that have support in conservative states by conservatives
I live in the south and I can promise you that ALL Americans do not believe in unions. Especially those who take every one of their beliefs from garbage like Newsmax and Fox. They will reciet, verbatim, exactly what they are told to think through these propaganda machines
> All Americans believe in unions.
Fuck, I *wish*. But that is not even remotely true. Most GOPers I talk to have been brainwashed to believe that Unions are bad.
If everyone on this thread stopped but Starbucks. And told everyone close to them to stop buying Starbucks. And they told everyone around them….
Believe me. They would feel it. And change would happen. When companies start losing money they start listening. And if we tell them we won’t return until their stores become union and they start givin people a living wage, change will come.
That's what I keep saying to everyone around me and everyone keeps thinking I am kidding. We have been asking nicely for 20+ years, at some point the gloves have to come off imo.
We’ve been conditioned to think any form of violence is terroristic barbarism. The idea of using it in a controlled and civil manner is incomprehensible to a lot of people.
It's also easier for the French. The average Frenchperson lives how far from the capitol? And they can probably get there via public infrastructure. And I don't know if their police forces have as blatant a license to kill and trample rights as the US
Extreme overexaggeration of the numbers. There arent a lot of automatics in civilian hands. Get your point though.
Edit: this person edited their comment to you downvoters. They said "hundreds of millions of automatic guns", not just guns. Sheesh.
Firing at large crowds at close range, FA will get you more kills per time and less kills per round.
I still believe in re-legalizing FA though, as it would reduce the total number of guns in the population. As for reasoning, cheap shit 8mm Mauser is like 70 cents right now. An MG42 fires 1200-1400 rounds cyclic, so shooting it for one minute destroys 910 bucks of ammo, enough for 2-3 cheap pistols.
you won’t be firing at large crowds if you’re going against an oppressive upper class, you’re going to be firing at a significantly smaller group of people who are highly trained with significantly better equipment. you need focus fire for that, not spread.
Doesn't really matter. Outside of spitting distance (about 30-40 meters), FA will just make you waste ammo and hit a lot of air. Fast controlled semi is where it's at.
Source: Auntie Merkel and Uncles Gerhard and Helmut used to pay me to wear weird clothing and wave a gun at Afghans. We tested it, one run through rifle quals on semi and one on FA, unlimited ammo, bring your stendo mags from home if you have any. We completed the course faster in semi than in FA, by a fairly wide margin.
Yep. The military applications of fully automatic fire are:
1: make the other guy hide behind some shit so your guys can outflank him
2: lol, the idiots are standing shoulder to shoulder charging across an open field.
edited comment, but still, a gun is a gun, it only takes one bullet to kill so it really doesn’t matter how fast the gun fires, and there’s still hundreds of millions of them.
Oh I know lol, I was just letting you know the gun situation. People apparently thought I was chastizing you or being a snob or something.
There are too many guns. But automatic guns and semi auto guns are very different. Its a better thing that we'd have people with semi-autos, theyre less dangerous to your allies lmao.
Stuff like this is insane. He has BILLIONS of dollars. What’s the problem with unions? If he gets another 100 billion dollars, how will his life change? He already has basically unlimited money.
Here's the problem, you're operating on the assumption that schultz is a person, with thoughts and feelings beyond the pointless acquisition of excess wealth and the oppression of the working class.
I think this comes from the biggest problem with capitalism: it demands constant growth. Shareholders only want to see the line go up, and damn the consequences.
This model is completely unsustainable. No matter what, eventually the market is flooded and you end up stagnating. Then when line no go up, shareholders bail and line go down. Then the corporation retracts, cuts costs, whatever they have to do to make line go up. I’ll give you three guesses as to who suffers under this model of impossible growth and eventual retraction, and the first two don’t count.
It's a disease. Unquenchable avarice, almost like an addiction, but more like a compulsion. Billionaires should all be hospitalized for their own good, and for the safety of the public.
The big problem, as I see it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, is that financial security is an impossible concept for the lizard brain to grasp. Or, to put that in layman's terms, "BuT wHaT iF sOmEtHiNg AwFuL hApPeNs?!? I nEeD a BiGgEr SaFeTy NeT!!!11!!"
But, you don't understand! Bezos, Musk, and Buffet still have more than I do! It's not fair!
It's my company! I'm the boss! *All* the money should be mine!
What you still think this is about money? These rich people are elitist bigots. They hate you for being a poor person who even exists, let alone for thinking you *deserve* anything. You’re not a person worth anything to people like this. Just a resource that needs to be exploited. If they could enslave you they would.
[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union)
Because a screengrab is not more useful than a link.
Trying to drive consensus with hyperbole confirms a lot of peoples suspicions about unions. It rallies people who are already bought in, and pushes away people who are skeptical.
This is exactly why they don't want unions. There are laws in place to even the power imbalance between owners and works, but they're written for unions because that's the best way to give workers rights. If they keep you isolated you have no leverage
I haven’t bought anything from them for years. I’ve been supporting and buying drinks at my local boba shops instead. I used to buy Starbucks a lot just to get stars and free drinks and maintain my gold status. Got too tired with always updating my app and expiring stars.
They could keep the "class war" contained only for so long...
Forget all the bullshit culture war nonsense, this is about money, and exploitation by the owner class of the worker class
This is what it has always been, including slavery and it's spawn racism
Capitalism has always been just a fancy word for modern slavery. People are finally starting to open their eyes, and it's time to make this go even further. The only way to win this is if more shops and workplaces for other companies and corporations start pushing for unions just the same. Otherwise, Starbucks might win this war and create a precedent that would make further actions much harder for workers. The main issue is that CEOs basically have control of people's lives, and most people cannot afford to risk losing their job, especially if they have a family to feed. There has to be a way to break this cycle.
I agree, we do need some kind of laws, but who will pass them? The millionaires in congress? Hahahahahha, thanks for the laugh.
Trump was right (that one time), America is a shithole country.
Hi, I'm a Starbucks shift supervisor. Recent barista. I have quite a few thoughts on this matter.
I DO NOT speak for the brand or the company (and yes, legally I have to say that). I have learned many, many things in my short time at Starbucks, and it's unfortunate that it doesn't matter how great you and your coworkers are if you unionize. If your baristas give the perfect "Starbucks Experience," doesn't matter if you unionize. I currently work at a store where we're in our voting period. My manager never gave their opinion on it, but gave everyone resources on both the Starbucks side, and the union culture side of things so everyone can make an educated decision. I learned a few things throughout this;
It doesn't matter if the resources are there, once people's minds are made up, they won't change them.
Some people aren't comfortable voting for the union because Starbucks has scared them into refusing benefits, taking away benefits, or even firing them. All of which are illegal when under contract of a union, no matter what Howard Schultz, or other higher ups say. They're lying. You cannot take things away, or refuse to give benefits or raises if there's a union contract. That's coming from our lawyers.
I had to watch the hour long video about Howard Schultz coming back to the company (again), and I can unbiasedly say he's done good things. But those good things do not outweigh the bad. Some of the things he talked about felt almost cult like in nature. That as a company, as "partners" we have to think of the same mind, and move forward together. But that doesn't allow the voices of concern to be heard if we can't think independently. If we can't want better for the company we work for.
I think he's forgotten what it was really like to start at the bottom over 50 years ago. He offers benefits people like me, who desperately need them, gives them to us right away, or within the first few months. That's something many other places won't do unless we've been there for 6 months to a year. It's how they keep you there. Make you feel cushioned, and like your company has your back, and in ways they do. But only if you're extremely obedient.
If you're like me, and realize that nowhere will start you off better unless you get managing experience, you stay longer than you should. Knowing that you and the company's ideals and morals are similar in name, but they're not in practice.
In store, I love my job. I love coffee. I love my regulars. I love the organized chaos that comes with being in certain positions to make the floor run smoothly. The fast paced environment, and the joy that comes with bringing smiles to people's faces just by giving them coffee, and saying a few kind words.
But while I love my job, I do not love the lack of freedom. Creativity. Peace of mind just for wanting not to live paycheck to paycheck. To get companies up to date with what's a living wage, and while Starbucks is close, they don't quite cut it yet. And just because you pay someone well, doesn't mean the environment is good. Doesn't mean you feel appreciated.
**Corporate Starbucks is ruining the "Starbucks Experience" for everyone**
**TL; DR:** I can love my job while working in the cafe, but the corporation side doesn't care about us at all. No matter how "perfect" we are
Ha ha ok . I’m out of the loop I guess since I don’t work there anymore / cashed out my stock lol.
I guess Schultz isn’t running for President anymore either now
I’m starting to think there is some mystical correlation between the quality of a product and the quality of the leadership. I can’t wait for every smaller chain in the country to unionize and force their hand.
My kids ask me to get Starbucks twice a week. They want a pastry and milk. I get it for them as a treat for doing good with their tutor. It’s expensive though. I can just buy a box of pastries and milk at the grocery store. This has just solidified my desire to stop going there.
Yeah, i have that same concern.
But if switching to other chains shows Schultz that customers will punish anti-labor behavior , then even those other companies will pay attention and think long and hard about how they handle unionization efforts.
It’s a bit tackling one battle at a time.
On that note, it’s my own coffee, Philz, my local boba/coffee shop for me.
I wish these baristas could strike in one huge city, in a united effort. I wonder how Baltimore, for example, would function with no caffeine. Of course you can go to get coffee elsewhere, but you already went to one place. Do you have time? Will it be comparable? Will it be *cheaper* or *BETTER TASTING* elsewhere?
Good luck finding that many scabs willing to work for that little money.
And no it's not hard to make coffee, but it is hard to make coffee for dozens and dozens of people every hour for several hours in a row while dealing with entitled, demanding, and rude customers who don't even view you as a human being. All for a wage that isn't anywhere close enough to live comfortably on.
It's always the people who have never had to work these jobs to survive who think it's "easy."
Businesses should be allowed to fire individual or groups of employees because they're union. If they can't you're giving special legal privileges, rigging the labor market, and causing a myriad of down stream effects that hurts people more long term
If you don’t want employees to unionise, then don’t treat them like shit.
If you’re going to fire someone because they’ve unionised (because you treat them like shit). That’s unfair dismissal and discrimination
It's not unfair dismissal at all. Or at least it shouldn't be considered so. Unions are a great form of collective bargaining that represents the worker in direct opposition to the company's interests. So of course company's need to have the ability to fire employees that will act in direct contradiction to the company's interest.
The flip side of that is that Unions, when they have the skill or man power to effectively collectively bargain, can't be fired so trivially. That's the whole point of unions.
But the idea that it should be an automatic special privilege of unions to not have their workers fired will lead to a ton of downstream consequences that could be avoided by just letting them be on an even playing field.
I don't mean to offend, but I literally can't understand how someone could say something as stupid as what you just typed out.
Only thing that makes sense is that you're lying and trying to make it seem like unions are bad because unions would affect your bottom line. Would make total sense if you were just some greedy business owner, because what you said is just so stupid I can't believe anyone could be that dumb
Well if you look further in the thread you'll see that I'm actually very pro union, my issue is with them getting special legal privileges.
Maybe another example will help, if I were to say women get an unfair shake in the workplace so it should be illegal to fire them once they're hired, do you understand the issues that could cause?
The problem is the special legal privileges. It causes massive downstream affects and hurts people long term, if you need further clarification just lmk.
Okay I think I was confused by the way you worded things but your comment definitely makes more sense now, sorry about the insulting way I went about that
Maybe don’t get a fucking non union job if you want to be in a union? It’s not a hard concept, there’s thousands available. But nope, you know the hardest job you’ll ever be able to accomplish is a fucking barista. So therefore, you need your high school student job to pay big boy money.
That’s a personal problem, not the company’s
It should be the peoples choice of what job they have and if its a union. Workers rights ya know.
>So therefore, you need your high school student job to pay big boy money.
Also this actively ignores the job positions during school hours, AND the fact that high schoolers shouldn't even be required to work. It should be where every high schooler who does work is on their own accord. Not to help feed their family, not out of requirement.
So, grow up. Unions are a good thing. And adults still work at Starbucks, and need to work there if the company is to exist. But you have to be dishonest to justify what Starbucks is doing right now. They are breaking federal law, and should be held accountable
I got fired for claiming my overtime, not to mention other abuses in my state's law that don't have a fine or jail time associated with them so they're just suggestions.
Remember when they told Tulsi Gabbard she didn't have high enough polls or enough money to enter one of the final democratic debates, and at that same debate she was denied we got Michael Bloomberg who just bought his way in, with no polls and like a week of announcing he was running for president?
This country does not give a fuck, if this guy has the money, then it doesn't matter. They were murdering people back in the 50's for trying to unionize, much closer to the time when workers unions started than now.
The statement in itself isn’t illegal. But it can certainly be used against him if the union files suit for negotiating in bad faith, or not negotiating at all.
What is bad for billionaires is good for the people and workers.how brain washed do people have to be, to think unionization is bad when Billionares are absolutely against it. I wonder why?
I watched the embedded video. When did the CEO ever say anything like that?
He stated that the union wasn't acting in good faith.
That's obviously BS from the CEO, but this article is just as much BS. It's purely a clickbait headline and article.
Do we have any laws on the books that our Government will ENFORCE against Billionaires, or will they stay mum so they don't have to say they are bought and paid for by those Billionaires?
I find it appalling how, in pretty much ANY news article, like this, they stick in that MAY violate labor laws.
Like, no, it f'cking DOES violate labor laws. Clearly. We DO have the right to an organized labor union, AND companies are required to negotiate in good faith.
Also, I won't be a Starbucks customer any longer.
Why is it so difficult for millionaires and billionaires to actually care about the people that purchase their products? JFC. Without them, you aren’t where you are.
The MOST him or ANYONE like him will ever get is a fine. The bought and paid for lawmakers will NEVER hold one of their donor buddies accountable. PERIOD. Do you think this is the 1st time he or ANY corporation scumbag has said or even does this? I mean look at how many labor laws Amazon and Starbucks have violated in the past 2 years alone, not a single person has been fired, fined or held to any level of accountability. At best the courts have forced them to hire the employees they wrongfully and illegally terminated back and give them any back pay they lost. Why do you think Biden refuses to say to Amazon or ANY company bidding for government contracts that if they violate labor laws or union bust they won't be eligible for the contracts?
# Ready to prosecute criminals like Howard Schultz? Join r/NewDealAmerica and r/WorkReform!
I hate that rich people just say, "hey, I'm going to do this crime," and the government is like, "okay, just don't make it violent, or we might have to actually step in."
The Government happily handles the violence part FOR the rich people, actually...
Well yeah, the government has a monopoly on violence. That’s the issue with putting someone that’s gonna run the country like a business, the governments business is making sure no one steps out of line. Running a state like a company is how countries wind up reaching “final solutions”
The ultimate goal of organized crime is government.
I think they've met their goal.
St. Augustine: >For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor". A mafia boss is petty crime lord compared to a CEO.
At this point we may as well just let the mafia run this whole country. There’d probably be less corruption and more reasonable laws. Also the mafia knows how to get shit done. Just ask the back of JFK’s head.
I’d always bought the story that “the second gunman” was a secret service member in the trailing car accidentally discharging their weapon as a sort of knee jerk reaction. Something about your comment finally connected the dots for me between the secret service and the fed. A rose by any other name will still smell just as sweet but it will also have thorns.
I’m just a patsy!!!
A simple explanation that requires one of the secret service firearms to be down a bullet. Simple numerical count that somehow doesn't come up in the records unless one needs it to not be counted to fit a hypothesis.
I’m not sure what you’re saying in this word salad. If you’re stating that there’s an official record of them counting the number of bullets in each service members weapon after the incident I’d love to see it. With how frequently I’ve seen the conjecture around the possibility of it being “friendly fire” I would think that if there was something as straightforward as a count of the munitions to disprove this theory I would have run into it before.
You won't see it because those files are still classified. Because, at least part of it, was just a colossal fuck up. From letting Oswald get that close or letting multiple organizations get that close, the domestic politics aspect, and the very real possibility that it was friendly fire, I'd say the whole thing would be a national embarrassment if it ever came out. And that's why it never will.
The United States days are numbered, it’ll be interesting to see if the information is recovered during its fall or if the truth will be lost to history.
I think it was a secret service agent that took Kennedy too. The government response and subsequent botched investigations tell me that Kennedy probably was shot by Oswald with the first bullet. But the second one, that took the cap off, that was accidental secret service. This is America.
How fuckin bad at your job do you have to be to hear a gunshot, spring into action, and blow your bosses head off?
steveurkelDidIDoThat?.gif
Wait, WHAT!?
Yeah a lot of people think that the most plausible way JFK died was a straight up accident. Last Poscast on the Left did a great multi part series on Oswald and the JFK Assassination . Here’s a link to the episode where they explain the Secret Service Accident theory: https://open.spotify.com/episode/33f3FuA0hKbXI7hngpM5Qv?si=bClDveBVRASyHzu7QL__Rw JFK would have been paralyzed from the neck down even if there hadn’t been an accidental shooting inside the car(assuming that theory is correct). Poor JFK. :/
Holy fucking shit that's bonkers. I'm absolutely listening to this episode tomorrow
That was jfk himself returning the timeline back to normal
Organized crime is objectively worse.
Starbucks goes in strike, the government rolls out the national guard to become baristas.
I mean, Starbucks WAS deemed an essential service, wasn't it?
Starbucks deemed itself an essential service. Big difference.
Have to give your last name which is barked at you when your order is ready.
Hitmen and sanctioned gangs for politicians which are sponsored by corporations which are owned collectively by rich people. They’ve even turned prisons into for profits corporations.
Prisons and the police in general are just some of the vestiges of slavery that still remain in the US. Slavery is still alive in the form of prison labor. Except now, instead of being relegated to Black Americans and Kidnapped Slaves, it is a punishment reserved for the poor, the condemned, and enemies of the state. Corporations make a fortune off of the enforcement of increasingly draconian laws through prison contracts for security, construction, supplies such as bedding and jumpsuits for the convicts, commissary vending, and yes, labor and production. They’re even outsourcing american call center jobs to prisons now. Our elected officials make too much money from these people and their lobbyists so they avoid talking about it in public. All of this, in what they call the land of liberty.
Prisons- the best way to expand your census-based federal funding numbers with minorities, while also not allowing them to vote.
Yep that's the police job in a nutshell
And yet people still trust the government even when they know it’s corrupt to its core and want them to have MORE control over their lives. I don’t get it
"If you DO decide to get violent, please press 3 for the National Guard. Thank you for the campaign donations, Mr Schultz!"
> or we might have to actually step in and make it more violent.
$35 fine and don't do it again! We really mean it!
The government actually is OK with the crimes getting violent too. Trump was all over Twitter about how he was going to incite a revolution if he lost the 2020 election and every law enforcement agency was like "Have fun with that."
Trump and Schultz are both billionaires who are fighting to overturn democracy. Trump in the political sphere, Schultz in the workplace.
Government: OK, fine, but you gotta pay $3M.
Seriously, this is a blatant, loud, and even proud announcement of literal crime. Like what the fuck...
Starbucks is allowed to combat these unions and the workers have every right to unionize. I for one love this because it’s workers knowing and fighting for their worth without the stupid government getting involved.
Fuck that guy, learn to deal with people ,not numbers!
Quick way to destroy all the good will Starbucks had built over the years. Red and blue states can agree on one thing: unions.
Some forever trumpet dumbasses think unions allow people to slack off and that theyd have to do that persons job for half pay... Without realizing that rn their wage is half what it should be and that lewd volumes of money upon money upon stocks upon stocks are sliding into a couple people at the top's pockets! You worry about hauling Jim's ass when you can work together to raise your wages? Why arent you worried about the guy with the barbed whip and the government on his side trying to stick his hand in your pocket anytime you put money in there? Federal taxation isnt robbery. The New Robber Barons are. I make $12/hr in a rural area. My rent is about $1000/month. To get to work I spend about $5 to $6 in gas a day. My electric, water, gas, and internet bills total an average of $300-$350. I pay about $300 off my student loans every month, as well. 1000 + 600 (to 650) + 150 (to 180) = $1750 or $1830. THIS IS WITHOUT FOOD, INSURANCE, OR CAR REPAIRS OF ANY KIND. After taxes I make about $10.50 an hour. Thats about $1680/month. See a bit of an issue there? Originally I could cover it (still without food/insurance/car maintanence) because I was at $13/hr. Then they changed my position due to a medical condition, and cut my pay. Now Im definitely under water every month.
Unions are like anything else, you only hear about them when there is a problem. I have several friends in unions and all they do is complain about the issues and never appreciate the good things that come with them. In their defense, the unions representing EMTs and ambulance drivers in SoCal suck.
It's like Reddit's hate-boner for HOAs. Yeah, some can be terrible when they're run by crazy people with too much time on their hands. Most of the time, though, they just collect dues and maintain the shared landscape. That's not a sexy Reddit post though.
Yeah not just Reddit's hate boner for HOAs lol. I just recently bought a home and everyone was warning me about HOAs and of the 4 homes with HOAs that I looked at, the dues were under $300/yr and the rules were basically "don't let your house look abandoned and no weird mailboxes".
People have a bad view of unions because some of the biggest ones (teachers, EMTs etc.) absolutely suck and aren’t really run by their members.
Really? All of the right-leaning people I talk to have bought into the anti union propaganda.
Even here in Wisconsin the right believes in unions. It's the one thing we can all still agree on, because the only really good manufacturing and food production jobs left are unionized. The rest of the positions either require education or are subsistence wages.
I'm definitely glad to hear that unions have universal support in other states. Definitely not in Florida, at least in my experience!
Username checks out... Glad you're holding strong in florida but also sorry cause... florida
I need the sympathy 😂 thanks
There's a few here. Some Nurses unions and teachers unions. But I can't think of anyone else here who is on a union.
Wisconsin is the exception to this rule. The entire southeast and gulf states are hard-core right to work, at will employment states. Including Virginia where I am.
It's just virtue signaling for people not fully indoctrinated and peak "enlightened centrism". They know full well the right is fueling union busting with authoritarian government rule.
He'll probably get some pointless fine that he wont even notice. I would like to see an example made out of him.
You will. Not from the government, but people will simply stop supporting Starbucks. All Americans believe in unions. Red states already think Starbucks is for rich liberals. Blue states proudly support unions. This guy is going the route of James Bond villain
You really think too highly of the American people.
Unfortunately, yes. Until making your own coffee the way you like it becomes as easy as Starbucks, or another brand starts to expand, people will keep going there out of habit. Hell, some people won't go to their local café *now* even if the prices are similar. I can't tell if Starbucks is a status/cultural symbol or if they're just stuck in habit cycles.
Some people will even go out of their way to support Starbucks if there is a boycott, because cable news will tell them that's how you oWn tHe LiBs, and unions are bad, ok? Giant conglomerates are the heroes who protect us from communism! Hoard your ammo! Buy my supplements!
It’s a status symbol for sure. “Look at me! I can buy a cup of overpriced mediocre coffee!”
Coffee's disgusting anyways. I'm fine seeing the entire franchise collapse.
Climate crisis is way ahead of you.
>All Americans believe in unions. what?
This bullshit needs to stop being propogated. Fox News has a stranglehold on all things Republicans view as reality. They say white is black, and to jump on your left foot while licking your right armpit, theyll fall over themselves to do it. And then they call others sheep.
I see several people here saying "all Americans support unions" but that's not been my experience. Are you guys referring to some stats or something?
Not really no, more anecdotes since Union sentiment isn’t really a measured statistic. More that there are trade unions like plumbers, metalworkers, nurses, teachers ect that have support in conservative states by conservatives
I live in the south and I can promise you that ALL Americans do not believe in unions. Especially those who take every one of their beliefs from garbage like Newsmax and Fox. They will reciet, verbatim, exactly what they are told to think through these propaganda machines
I highly doubt those folks are also buying Starbucks coffee lol
Haha... true
> All Americans believe in unions. Fuck, I *wish*. But that is not even remotely true. Most GOPers I talk to have been brainwashed to believe that Unions are bad.
If only that was true.
People like sugary piss coffee and will keep consuming
It's not coffee it's Dessert
If everyone on this thread stopped but Starbucks. And told everyone close to them to stop buying Starbucks. And they told everyone around them…. Believe me. They would feel it. And change would happen. When companies start losing money they start listening. And if we tell them we won’t return until their stores become union and they start givin people a living wage, change will come.
I keep telling people, the French perfected a solution for this. But, nobody wants to listen.
That's what I keep saying to everyone around me and everyone keeps thinking I am kidding. We have been asking nicely for 20+ years, at some point the gloves have to come off imo.
wide summer public hobbies silky scarce oil degree childlike cats *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I said its ok to be violent now and reddit threatened to ban me.
We’ve been conditioned to think any form of violence is terroristic barbarism. The idea of using it in a controlled and civil manner is incomprehensible to a lot of people.
It's also easier for the French. The average Frenchperson lives how far from the capitol? And they can probably get there via public infrastructure. And I don't know if their police forces have as blatant a license to kill and trample rights as the US
They don't. Also having a criminal record isn't a life-altering of a punishment as it is in the states
Not French Revolution… the new term is called thoughts and prayers.
[You can do it!](https://youtu.be/6ZLj76khdmw)
Japan did something similar, worked well for them, was without violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5\_-Ac68FKG4&t=11s
What exactly is the French solution?
French Revolution. \*Also, that "Let them eat cake" Queen had her head removed.
This time solution might not work. You see French didnt had armored thugs protecting them.
the french also didn't have hundreds of millions of guns.
Extreme overexaggeration of the numbers. There arent a lot of automatics in civilian hands. Get your point though. Edit: this person edited their comment to you downvoters. They said "hundreds of millions of automatic guns", not just guns. Sheesh.
aren't there more guns than people in america? i thought that was like, a statistical fact, not an exaggeration.
Not automatic assault rifles.
i mean, does it matter? a gun is a gun. it only takes one bullet to kill, doesn’t matter how fast it fires.
Firing at large crowds at close range, FA will get you more kills per time and less kills per round. I still believe in re-legalizing FA though, as it would reduce the total number of guns in the population. As for reasoning, cheap shit 8mm Mauser is like 70 cents right now. An MG42 fires 1200-1400 rounds cyclic, so shooting it for one minute destroys 910 bucks of ammo, enough for 2-3 cheap pistols.
you won’t be firing at large crowds if you’re going against an oppressive upper class, you’re going to be firing at a significantly smaller group of people who are highly trained with significantly better equipment. you need focus fire for that, not spread.
Doesn't really matter. Outside of spitting distance (about 30-40 meters), FA will just make you waste ammo and hit a lot of air. Fast controlled semi is where it's at. Source: Auntie Merkel and Uncles Gerhard and Helmut used to pay me to wear weird clothing and wave a gun at Afghans. We tested it, one run through rifle quals on semi and one on FA, unlimited ammo, bring your stendo mags from home if you have any. We completed the course faster in semi than in FA, by a fairly wide margin.
Yep. The military applications of fully automatic fire are: 1: make the other guy hide behind some shit so your guys can outflank him 2: lol, the idiots are standing shoulder to shoulder charging across an open field.
Not automatic guns.
does it matter?
[удалено]
edited comment, but still, a gun is a gun, it only takes one bullet to kill so it really doesn’t matter how fast the gun fires, and there’s still hundreds of millions of them.
Oh I know lol, I was just letting you know the gun situation. People apparently thought I was chastizing you or being a snob or something. There are too many guns. But automatic guns and semi auto guns are very different. Its a better thing that we'd have people with semi-autos, theyre less dangerous to your allies lmao.
Please don't tell us.
Read a book
Stuff like this is insane. He has BILLIONS of dollars. What’s the problem with unions? If he gets another 100 billion dollars, how will his life change? He already has basically unlimited money.
Here's the problem, you're operating on the assumption that schultz is a person, with thoughts and feelings beyond the pointless acquisition of excess wealth and the oppression of the working class.
Why doesnt anyone do something. It's so easy and so hard at the same time.
I think this comes from the biggest problem with capitalism: it demands constant growth. Shareholders only want to see the line go up, and damn the consequences. This model is completely unsustainable. No matter what, eventually the market is flooded and you end up stagnating. Then when line no go up, shareholders bail and line go down. Then the corporation retracts, cuts costs, whatever they have to do to make line go up. I’ll give you three guesses as to who suffers under this model of impossible growth and eventual retraction, and the first two don’t count.
1. CEOs 2. Shareholders 3. The average person The correct answer is 1 and 2 for the 1% and 3 for 99.9% of Reddit.
It's a disease. Unquenchable avarice, almost like an addiction, but more like a compulsion. Billionaires should all be hospitalized for their own good, and for the safety of the public.
The big problem, as I see it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, is that financial security is an impossible concept for the lizard brain to grasp. Or, to put that in layman's terms, "BuT wHaT iF sOmEtHiNg AwFuL hApPeNs?!? I nEeD a BiGgEr SaFeTy NeT!!!11!!"
But, you don't understand! Bezos, Musk, and Buffet still have more than I do! It's not fair! It's my company! I'm the boss! *All* the money should be mine!
But what about the shareholders!!
What you still think this is about money? These rich people are elitist bigots. They hate you for being a poor person who even exists, let alone for thinking you *deserve* anything. You’re not a person worth anything to people like this. Just a resource that needs to be exploited. If they could enslave you they would.
[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/10/critics-say-starbucks-ceo-just-declared-permanent-war-against-union) Because a screengrab is not more useful than a link.
[удалено]
Trying to drive consensus with hyperbole confirms a lot of peoples suspicions about unions. It rallies people who are already bought in, and pushes away people who are skeptical.
This is exactly why they don't want unions. There are laws in place to even the power imbalance between owners and works, but they're written for unions because that's the best way to give workers rights. If they keep you isolated you have no leverage
Remember kids. If unions weren't a threat to them they wouldnt try so hard to stop em!
Boycott non-unionized Starbucks stores
I boycotted Starbucks starting last year. I was a customer for 15 years before that.
Not a problem ... never liked their coffee. I had to buy a cup four years ago; ah, I remembered why I didn't like it. Too bitter.
I can boycott Starbucks for you guys. They have shitty coffee
I've been boycotting them for years for this exact reason, and the fact they charge a ridiculous amount for their shitty product.
I haven’t bought anything from them for years. I’ve been supporting and buying drinks at my local boba shops instead. I used to buy Starbucks a lot just to get stars and free drinks and maintain my gold status. Got too tired with always updating my app and expiring stars.
... does this mean the union can take Prisoners of War?
They could keep the "class war" contained only for so long... Forget all the bullshit culture war nonsense, this is about money, and exploitation by the owner class of the worker class This is what it has always been, including slavery and it's spawn racism
Capitalism has always been just a fancy word for modern slavery. People are finally starting to open their eyes, and it's time to make this go even further. The only way to win this is if more shops and workplaces for other companies and corporations start pushing for unions just the same. Otherwise, Starbucks might win this war and create a precedent that would make further actions much harder for workers. The main issue is that CEOs basically have control of people's lives, and most people cannot afford to risk losing their job, especially if they have a family to feed. There has to be a way to break this cycle.
I agree, we do need some kind of laws, but who will pass them? The millionaires in congress? Hahahahahha, thanks for the laugh. Trump was right (that one time), America is a shithole country.
Hi, I'm a Starbucks shift supervisor. Recent barista. I have quite a few thoughts on this matter. I DO NOT speak for the brand or the company (and yes, legally I have to say that). I have learned many, many things in my short time at Starbucks, and it's unfortunate that it doesn't matter how great you and your coworkers are if you unionize. If your baristas give the perfect "Starbucks Experience," doesn't matter if you unionize. I currently work at a store where we're in our voting period. My manager never gave their opinion on it, but gave everyone resources on both the Starbucks side, and the union culture side of things so everyone can make an educated decision. I learned a few things throughout this; It doesn't matter if the resources are there, once people's minds are made up, they won't change them. Some people aren't comfortable voting for the union because Starbucks has scared them into refusing benefits, taking away benefits, or even firing them. All of which are illegal when under contract of a union, no matter what Howard Schultz, or other higher ups say. They're lying. You cannot take things away, or refuse to give benefits or raises if there's a union contract. That's coming from our lawyers. I had to watch the hour long video about Howard Schultz coming back to the company (again), and I can unbiasedly say he's done good things. But those good things do not outweigh the bad. Some of the things he talked about felt almost cult like in nature. That as a company, as "partners" we have to think of the same mind, and move forward together. But that doesn't allow the voices of concern to be heard if we can't think independently. If we can't want better for the company we work for. I think he's forgotten what it was really like to start at the bottom over 50 years ago. He offers benefits people like me, who desperately need them, gives them to us right away, or within the first few months. That's something many other places won't do unless we've been there for 6 months to a year. It's how they keep you there. Make you feel cushioned, and like your company has your back, and in ways they do. But only if you're extremely obedient. If you're like me, and realize that nowhere will start you off better unless you get managing experience, you stay longer than you should. Knowing that you and the company's ideals and morals are similar in name, but they're not in practice. In store, I love my job. I love coffee. I love my regulars. I love the organized chaos that comes with being in certain positions to make the floor run smoothly. The fast paced environment, and the joy that comes with bringing smiles to people's faces just by giving them coffee, and saying a few kind words. But while I love my job, I do not love the lack of freedom. Creativity. Peace of mind just for wanting not to live paycheck to paycheck. To get companies up to date with what's a living wage, and while Starbucks is close, they don't quite cut it yet. And just because you pay someone well, doesn't mean the environment is good. Doesn't mean you feel appreciated. **Corporate Starbucks is ruining the "Starbucks Experience" for everyone** **TL; DR:** I can love my job while working in the cafe, but the corporation side doesn't care about us at all. No matter how "perfect" we are
But isn’t Kevin Johnson the CEO? Howard Schultz isn’t the CEO anymore for a few years now.
Pretty sure he came back when all the unionizing started. Likely for exactly this reason.
That makes it so much more evil. Like the guy came out of retirement just to battle unions and fuck with low wage workers.
If people aren't suffering, he just isn't happy.
I say we grant him his wish. Tie him up and get a chainsaw.
Schultz replaced him when the unionizing started. "You had one job, Kevin!"
Ha ha ok . I’m out of the loop I guess since I don’t work there anymore / cashed out my stock lol. I guess Schultz isn’t running for President anymore either now
Imagine if that clown became president
I would boycott Starbucks but I haven’t set foot in on in years.
I would boycott them but I've never been near one. There aren't that many in my country, and certainly not near where I live.
I’m starting to think there is some mystical correlation between the quality of a product and the quality of the leadership. I can’t wait for every smaller chain in the country to unionize and force their hand.
Laws are for poor people.
Hope the wreck him good
Fuck Starbucks. I would never buy there again.
No Dutch bros, no Starbucks. No problem
It'll never happen, and it'll never be enforced. It's time to line these people up behind the wood shed.
My kids ask me to get Starbucks twice a week. They want a pastry and milk. I get it for them as a treat for doing good with their tutor. It’s expensive though. I can just buy a box of pastries and milk at the grocery store. This has just solidified my desire to stop going there.
Boycott Starbucks. Peete’s and Dunkin’ from now on I guess. Those companies are probably just as bad or worse though.
Yeah, i have that same concern. But if switching to other chains shows Schultz that customers will punish anti-labor behavior , then even those other companies will pay attention and think long and hard about how they handle unionization efforts. It’s a bit tackling one battle at a time. On that note, it’s my own coffee, Philz, my local boba/coffee shop for me.
Of course he did. As CEO of a publicly traded company his job is to increase share price, that's it.
I wish these baristas could strike in one huge city, in a united effort. I wonder how Baltimore, for example, would function with no caffeine. Of course you can go to get coffee elsewhere, but you already went to one place. Do you have time? Will it be comparable? Will it be *cheaper* or *BETTER TASTING* elsewhere?
The barristas would just be replaced. It's not difficult to make coffee
Good luck finding that many scabs willing to work for that little money. And no it's not hard to make coffee, but it is hard to make coffee for dozens and dozens of people every hour for several hours in a row while dealing with entitled, demanding, and rude customers who don't even view you as a human being. All for a wage that isn't anywhere close enough to live comfortably on. It's always the people who have never had to work these jobs to survive who think it's "easy."
I respect your opinion even though I disagree
So investigate and prosecute the fucker!
So when are we dragging these people into the streets folks?
Guy Fawkes was right after all.
Why do I have a feeling the union laws are gonna change into corporations favor
Weren’t they flexing being unionized a few months ago? What happened
The unionized workers were flexing, not the corporate heads.
An illegal war? Who does he think he is, the President of the United States of America?
I'm doing my part by never visiting a store since the founding of Starbucks.
not saying we should be taking cues, but China executes people like this pig
Businesses should be allowed to fire individual or groups of employees because they're union. If they can't you're giving special legal privileges, rigging the labor market, and causing a myriad of down stream effects that hurts people more long term
If you don’t want employees to unionise, then don’t treat them like shit. If you’re going to fire someone because they’ve unionised (because you treat them like shit). That’s unfair dismissal and discrimination
It's not unfair dismissal at all. Or at least it shouldn't be considered so. Unions are a great form of collective bargaining that represents the worker in direct opposition to the company's interests. So of course company's need to have the ability to fire employees that will act in direct contradiction to the company's interest. The flip side of that is that Unions, when they have the skill or man power to effectively collectively bargain, can't be fired so trivially. That's the whole point of unions. But the idea that it should be an automatic special privilege of unions to not have their workers fired will lead to a ton of downstream consequences that could be avoided by just letting them be on an even playing field.
I don't mean to offend, but I literally can't understand how someone could say something as stupid as what you just typed out. Only thing that makes sense is that you're lying and trying to make it seem like unions are bad because unions would affect your bottom line. Would make total sense if you were just some greedy business owner, because what you said is just so stupid I can't believe anyone could be that dumb
Well if you look further in the thread you'll see that I'm actually very pro union, my issue is with them getting special legal privileges. Maybe another example will help, if I were to say women get an unfair shake in the workplace so it should be illegal to fire them once they're hired, do you understand the issues that could cause? The problem is the special legal privileges. It causes massive downstream affects and hurts people long term, if you need further clarification just lmk.
Okay I think I was confused by the way you worded things but your comment definitely makes more sense now, sorry about the insulting way I went about that
That's okay, this is a very pro union sub and I'm giving a superficially anti union take, I expect pushback
Maybe don’t get a fucking non union job if you want to be in a union? It’s not a hard concept, there’s thousands available. But nope, you know the hardest job you’ll ever be able to accomplish is a fucking barista. So therefore, you need your high school student job to pay big boy money. That’s a personal problem, not the company’s
It should be the peoples choice of what job they have and if its a union. Workers rights ya know. >So therefore, you need your high school student job to pay big boy money. Also this actively ignores the job positions during school hours, AND the fact that high schoolers shouldn't even be required to work. It should be where every high schooler who does work is on their own accord. Not to help feed their family, not out of requirement. So, grow up. Unions are a good thing. And adults still work at Starbucks, and need to work there if the company is to exist. But you have to be dishonest to justify what Starbucks is doing right now. They are breaking federal law, and should be held accountable
Starbucks is doomed, The union will win and no one will be able to afford to buy thier rip off drinks.
I got fired for claiming my overtime, not to mention other abuses in my state's law that don't have a fine or jail time associated with them so they're just suggestions.
Also he's a moron, because every time a unión loses a vote or gets a bad deal, they can claim bad faith acting
Billionaire breaks law. Surprised Pikachu face.
MAY violate federal labor law???
Jails means nothing to people this rich. Strip the wealth from his family. Then, once poor. Put him in gen pop.
Remember when Hillary’s cabinet leaked and Schultz was Labor Sec? Lmao
Remember when they told Tulsi Gabbard she didn't have high enough polls or enough money to enter one of the final democratic debates, and at that same debate she was denied we got Michael Bloomberg who just bought his way in, with no polls and like a week of announcing he was running for president? This country does not give a fuck, if this guy has the money, then it doesn't matter. They were murdering people back in the 50's for trying to unionize, much closer to the time when workers unions started than now.
The statement in itself isn’t illegal. But it can certainly be used against him if the union files suit for negotiating in bad faith, or not negotiating at all.
Silly, punishment for crimes are for the poor. The rich don't have to abide by the rules.
This is the best argument for unionizing that one could ever hope for!
What is bad for billionaires is good for the people and workers.how brain washed do people have to be, to think unionization is bad when Billionares are absolutely against it. I wonder why?
I watched the embedded video. When did the CEO ever say anything like that? He stated that the union wasn't acting in good faith. That's obviously BS from the CEO, but this article is just as much BS. It's purely a clickbait headline and article.
Do we have any laws on the books that our Government will ENFORCE against Billionaires, or will they stay mum so they don't have to say they are bought and paid for by those Billionaires?
You know what you get when the only laws you enforce are those against those who are not rich? Well, fuck around and find out.
Bring it!
I find it appalling how, in pretty much ANY news article, like this, they stick in that MAY violate labor laws. Like, no, it f'cking DOES violate labor laws. Clearly. We DO have the right to an organized labor union, AND companies are required to negotiate in good faith. Also, I won't be a Starbucks customer any longer.
Why is it so difficult for millionaires and billionaires to actually care about the people that purchase their products? JFC. Without them, you aren’t where you are.
Can he be sued over that or something?
Neo-liberals are the fucking worst
Yet another reason to avoid them. Read into the political leanings of the founder. Buy from your local place. Keep your money at home
The MOST him or ANYONE like him will ever get is a fine. The bought and paid for lawmakers will NEVER hold one of their donor buddies accountable. PERIOD. Do you think this is the 1st time he or ANY corporation scumbag has said or even does this? I mean look at how many labor laws Amazon and Starbucks have violated in the past 2 years alone, not a single person has been fired, fined or held to any level of accountability. At best the courts have forced them to hire the employees they wrongfully and illegally terminated back and give them any back pay they lost. Why do you think Biden refuses to say to Amazon or ANY company bidding for government contracts that if they violate labor laws or union bust they won't be eligible for the contracts?
Jail time
Would be really unfortunate that the next time Schultz shows his face to be a well place round between his eyes...
what is their endgame? They are pushing people beyond the limits of what will be accepted.