- Sep 4, 2005
- 26,621
- 16,217
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
And like I mentioned before, what sets this apart from other strikes is that the service being offered is something that a person could replicate relatively easily at home.If Starbucks plays this well the union is toast.
Paying $5+tip to have someone else make and pour a person's coffee for them is the ultimate "yeah, I could do without that for a while" sort of service.
It's not the same as even a full-service restaurant where, even though I could technically prepare a dinner with 3 fancy sides and a dessert if I REALLY wanted to, the effort trade-off is much bigger...we're talking about hours of effort and prep there. (I can make my own coffee and put it in a travel mug in under 5 minutes)
Or like a necessity-based service, like a sanitation workers strike, where I couldn't even tell you where the nearest dump is, much less be able to fit 5 bags of garbage in my car and drive it there. (Nor would I want my car to reek of garbage for the next two weeks even if I could fit it in there).
I would say union leverage is two-faceted. There's "labor vs. management" and there's "labor vs. consumer market", I think they need to have a decent amount of leverage in both facets in order to get the kind of results they're looking for. They *might* have a little of the former in this instance, but they don't have much of the latter.
Certain industries just don't lend themselves well to having that type of leverage. The elevator operator's union (right around the time the push-button automated elevator came out) comes to mind or the Doorman's union comes to mind. "Unless we get what we want, we're striking" "Oh, you mean I have to push my own buttons and/or open a door for myself -- like 99% of the population already does?"
Upvote
0