Why does anybody go to Starbucks? They've been union busters for years.
And their coffee is shit.
Because they love coffee infused hot milkshakes.
So many people on the Internet say "Ugh, Starbucks is shit," like they are proud about it. Truth is, a LOT of people drink at Starbucks. The one near my house had a drive through line so long, they redid part of the shopping center parking lot to accommodate it. It's been renovated twice in ten years. Starbucks sells more than just "coffee that is shit," they sell a service that few can compensate without having to set up something in your own house. Frankl;y, half of the stuff out of there is caffeinated milkshakes of varying consistency. Starbucks is a service that sells coffee, and that convenience is what draw so many people.
The average person doesn't care about unions, good coffee, or any of that. They want to get a nummy candy treat packed with caffeine to drive to work. That's it. It's really just that simple. And until it gives people instant massive diarrhea or some other personally-affecting scandal, they will just keep doing it out of habit. habit is a strong motivator, especially when you're fucking tired and just want to get to work that you hate anyway.
The average person doesn't care about unions, good coffee, or any of that. They want to get a nummy candy treat packed with caffeine to drive to work. That's it.
That's a bingo.
Starbucks has managed to capture exactly what the masses desire: caffeinated sugary drinks that are consistent and conveniently available at a price that they'll pay. Half of which, they aren't necessarily paying for the product, but more the service coupled with a fashionable brand. It's fashionable to religiously go to Starbucks every morning (nevermind caffeine addiction, which is a whole other deal in itself). Also, for what it's worth, they are reasonably quick compared to a local coffee house that is more designed for relaxing in-house. They're the fast food of coffee, designed for mass production (see the drive-thru; all of their stores with a drive-thru are optimized for them). They are by no means a premium coffee supplier, but that's not their target market; their market is convenience-oriented mass production.
Still shi*
Also, unless you live somewhere really weird, there is always another option to Starbucks
Going to Starbucks says two things about you, I have no taste, I am too lazy to seek something better
So yeah, seeing how many people actually drink that slop, makes those of us that don’t drink that slop proud of ourselves for not being tools
"Another option" meaning what? Drive thru coffee? We do have Dunkin's here, but none of them are drive-through. This may be different the further north you go, however.
Going to Starbucks doesn't mean I have to look down on people. Life's too short for that. I judge people on the complexity of content of character, not "Oh look, a 'basic bitch' with Starbucks and Ugg boots. How droll." Having "no taste" and "too lazy" are classist statements anyway, "no taste" according to what standard? Lazy compared to what? What standard are you adhering to to "be proud of not being a tool?" Anyway, independent of your personal judgement of people just trying to get through their day, they are going to keep doing it and not caring about any of the complexities.
Starbucks is a service. You don't have to like the service. I don't get my legs waxed, but I don't look down on those who do. Same thing. People are more than just their personal choices of our selective judgement. I recognize that Starbucks is popular, even if I don't care for it. My reasons are basically I am cheap, and have to watch my sugar intake, so most of those milkshakes-posing-as-coffee are off limits. But if I am on a Starbucks run with someone, I am not going to patronize them like somehow I am some intellectual balloon rising above the mists of their complacency. Life is too short for that nonsense.
I think history will show that the average American doesn't care about where their stuff comes from.
major
IIRC from earlier skimming when I saw news about this, about 500 Starbucks in the US are unionized, out of about 16,000 locations, so about 97% of their locations are not unionized.
kagis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks_unions
As of October 2024, over 11,000 workers at 500 Starbucks stores in at least 40 states in the United States have voted to unionize, primarily with Workers United.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/218360/number-of-starbucks-stores-in-the-us/
Globally famous coffeehouse chain, Starbucks, accounted for 10,158 company-operated and 6,777 licensed stores in the United States in 2024. The number of Starbucks stores has steadily increased over the past decade.
So the strike might be major for a given location, but my expectation is that it'd be fairly limited from the standpoint of corporate headquarters. From the article, which has quotes from the Starbucks organization as a whole, it sounds to me like they're negotiating with the organization as a whole, not individual locations.
Is there an easy way past the paywall on this piece of shit website?
Dunno about this article/site, but the gist I heard on NPR this morning is that the union members voted to authorize a strike but there is not an impending strike because they are still in negotiations.
Alerta! Alerta! I'm a barista!
Lemmy on suicide watch
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.