• Investing
  • Stock
Round Table Thoughts
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Home Economy Why Don’t You Go Somewhere Else?
Economy

Why Don’t You Go Somewhere Else?

by January 6, 2023
by January 6, 2023 0 comment
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

“If you hate Starbucks so much, why don’t you go somewhere else?” In Michael Hiltzik’s Los Angeles Times article, “Why Starbucks has become a huge unionization target–and why the company is in a panic,” that is what Howard Schultz, head of Starbucks, reportedly told  Madison Hall, a barista and union organizer at a Long Beach Starbucks, when Schultz did not want to discuss Hall’s allegations of unfair labor practices.

Hiltzik used that quote to demean Starbucks as a company that has “undervalued their [workers’] contributions to business success,” and is “an employer so cold to the welfare of its workers that they’re spurred to organize.” Such sentiments have only grown with the Starbucks union drive, as reported by Dee-Ann Dubin in a recent Los Angeles Times article , which quoted barista Micah Lakes about “what we need from the company,” which Lakes said was “better pay, more consistent schedules and higher staffing levels.” While both narratives fit the typical union-supporting and left-leaning scripts, Schultz’s alleged statement does not deserve condemnation.

With increasing numbers of Starbucks in California now unionized, and similar changes in some other states, “Why don’t you go [work] somewhere else?” deserves more serious consideration rather than being dismissed as only an ad hominem attack of pique. It is a legitimate question, worth thinking about more carefully.

If Hall or any of the other disgruntled employees were recognized as being more valuable to some other businesses’ success than at Starbucks, they would have been able to attract better compensation offers from those potential employers. That, in turn, would allow them to better achieve whatever their ultimate goals were in another job. They would advance their interests by taking that job. So why not do that? “Why aren’t you choosing to do what would advance your self-interest?” is a question worth considering. 

Alternatively, if no better offers were forthcoming, then there is no reason to conclude that dissatisfied employees are being undervalued at Starbucks compared to other employers. Consequently, they are better off in their current circumstances than they would be elsewhere, all things considered. That is, Starbucks benefits them more than any other potential employer, in the employee’s own judgment. 

Even if Hall decided that “I just couldn’t just walk away from a job that I love without trying to make it better,” that would not justify trying to force Starbucks to benefit employees even more. For an employer not to pay a worker more than they add in value to an employer’s output is not “cold to the welfare of its workers,” and such choices don’t make employers into organizational orcs hostile to workers.

We all make similar benefit versus cost tradeoffs in our nearly uncountable market arrangements whenever we are allowed to make our choices voluntarily.  

Even employees who know they benefit from their relationship with Starbucks, revealed by the choice to continue to work there, might well still be “spurred to unionize.” Why? Because government has endowed unions with special powers allowing them to coerce others, extracting more from others than would result from voluntary arrangements.

Unionized workers effectively form a cartel that would be illegal under antitrust laws as an obvious “restraint of trade” if unions had not been specifically exempted from the rules. By way of government coercion and government-granted special privileges, they restrict others’ ability to compete for “their” jobs, giving themselves leverage to force overpayment for their services. So even if a worker was in what he considered the best job available without coercion, the coercive power government has created for unions could make him still better off at the expense of others. Those producers targeted (like Starbucks) are not the only losers. Everyone not part of the union must pay more for products which makes calling such efforts ‘pro-worker’ a real stretch. 

This was made quite clear by Danielle Echeverria in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article entitled “First California Starbucks to unionize becomes the first to go on strike.” The union gave workers the power to shut down the Santa Cruz Starbucks, but only because government gave the union the power to keep others from competing for those jobs, which workers do not otherwise have. Workers’ demand that Starbucks negotiate “in good faith” (often code for “give us what the union demands or else”) made it clear that what they wanted was what Samuel Gompers wanted: “More.” 

When a group of current workers form a union, government grants them power over their employer which none of them had when they accepted an offer of employment. The initially voluntary arrangement with their employer, whose continuation was subject to both sides’ ongoing agreement, is transmuted into effective ownership of the job, that the employer would not have voluntarily agreed to. The employer has lost his right (the union has infringed on) employers’ right to decide who they will associate with, and on what terms, a right they clearly had when they entered the voluntary employment relationship. 

Hiltzik, writing in the LA Times, indicts Starbucks for using what he called “the canonical corporate anti-union playbook,” which asserts that American unions often seriously “disrupt the smooth working of the company” and that they “make it impossible for workers to deal directly with management.” But saying that such claims are common does not mean they are untrue, since all such arrangements must go through unions, and the very substantial dues often overcharge workers for those union-provided “services” (including spending millions electioneering for a party whose policies many workers oppose). And once a union is formed, there are huge impediments to doing anything about it, regardless of worker dissatisfaction.

In contrast, pro-union articles say nothing about the fact that prospective unionizers also follow their long-term playbook, with its host of misrepresentations. They ignore that unions’ Democratic patrons have been pushing to massively expand the special privileges unions already have and punish non-union workers and employers, such as the proposed PRO Act at the federal level, and the FAST Act in California.  

As an entreaty from an employer to a worker, “Why don’t you go somewhere else?” deserves more respect. It is not callous nor uncaring. In many areas of our lives, to exit (to other opportunities) is often a more effective mechanism than to negotiate (talking others into adopting your point of view). You are not a cold-hearted curmudgeon every time you take your business elsewhere, when unsatisfied with your current arrangements. It is why America’s Founders thought “voting with your feet” was a core protective feature of federalism. Advocates of unionization efforts, who utilize exit opportunities to their advantage throughout their lives, would deny similar exit protections to employers and unwilling workers, forcing them to abide after a one-time majority vote to unionize.

You Might Also Like
  • UN chief slams Israeli offensive, says Gaza deaths show something is ‘clearly wrong’
  • IRS policy allowing surprise visits on taxpayers limited after Judiciary Republicans’ probing, report says
  • Morning Glory: No Border Wall, no deal on Israel and Ukraine
  • Super Micro Computer (SMCI) Stocks Volatility: 9% Rally 
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

previous post
Labor Market Shows Early Signs of Loosening
next post
Quectel Continues to Drive Digital Transformation With Advanced Smart Module, Edge Intelligence and Machine Vision Technologies at CES 2023

You may also like

Biden admin questioned over abortion pill push without proper environmental...

May 29, 2024

WATCH: Israel’s four-legged soldiers uncover Hamas tunnel in Gaza City

December 23, 2023

Former Santos campaign fundraiser charged with wire fraud, identity theft

August 17, 2023

Gold Price Surge Hits $3,385 Amid Trade Tensions

April 21, 2025

Trump drops major hint on his running mate, and timing...

July 9, 2024

Trudeau torched as ’embarrassment,’ Canada’s House speaker faces growing calls...

September 27, 2023

White House silent after John Kerry laments Ukraine war’s carbon...

July 17, 2023

New Hampshire Gov. Sununu unveils $14.9B budget plan

February 15, 2023

Top Republican demands Biden admin block Iranian foreign minister’s visit...

April 17, 2024

Trump announces to crowd he ‘just took off the last...

July 27, 2024

Biden admin questioned over abortion pill push without proper environmental...

May 29, 2024

WATCH: Israel’s four-legged soldiers uncover Hamas tunnel in Gaza City

December 23, 2023

Former Santos campaign fundraiser charged with wire fraud, identity theft

August 17, 2023

Gold Price Surge Hits $3,385 Amid Trade Tensions

April 21, 2025

Trump drops major hint on his running mate, and timing...

July 9, 2024

Trudeau torched as ’embarrassment,’ Canada’s House speaker faces growing calls...

September 27, 2023

White House silent after John Kerry laments Ukraine war’s carbon...

July 17, 2023

New Hampshire Gov. Sununu unveils $14.9B budget plan

February 15, 2023

Top Republican demands Biden admin block Iranian foreign minister’s visit...

April 17, 2024

Trump announces to crowd he ‘just took off the last...

July 27, 2024

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Boeing to resume airplane deliveries to China next month, ramp up Max production, CEO says

      May 29, 2025
    • Nuclear Power Trio: OKLO, SMR, and CCJ in Focus

      May 29, 2025
    • Analyzing SIL, USO, and NVDA: Could These Bullish Patterns Trigger?

      May 29, 2025
    • E.l.f. Beauty to acquire Hailey Bieber skin care brand Rhode in up to $1 billion deal

      May 29, 2025
    • Dick’s Sporting Goods stands by full-year guidance — even with tariffs looming

      May 28, 2025

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be...

      June 27, 2024 2,763 views
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as...

      August 9, 2024 2,470 views
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese...

      June 25, 2024 2,449 views
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful...

      July 10, 2024 2,428 views
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility...

      August 29, 2024 2,305 views

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,103)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,578)

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be revived under new House GOP bill

      June 27, 2024
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts ‘lying’ critics

      August 9, 2024
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese businesses to Delaware: ‘Longtime friends’

      June 25, 2024
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful of Chinese spy threats

      July 10, 2024
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility that collaborated with ‘Chinese military company’

      August 29, 2024

    Latest News

    • Boeing to resume airplane deliveries to China next month, ramp...

      May 29, 2025
    • Nuclear Power Trio: OKLO, SMR, and CCJ in Focus

      May 29, 2025
    • Analyzing SIL, USO, and NVDA: Could These Bullish Patterns Trigger?

      May 29, 2025

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,103)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,578)

    Disclaimer: RoundTableThoughts.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 RoundTableThoughts.com. All Rights Reserved.

    Round Table Thoughts
    • Investing
    • Stock
    Round Table Thoughts
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    GOP lawmakers file amicus brief backing...

    August 10, 2023

    Israel threatens direct attack against Iran...

    April 10, 2024

    Allies urge Trump to minimize DEI...

    July 23, 2024
    Sign In

    Keep me signed in until I sign out

    Forgot your password?

    Password Recovery

    A new password will be emailed to you.

    Have received a new password? Login here