Clickbait.

[Do not bypass obscenity filters -- Staff]

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

This is the holy grail of the unions. Not a chance in hell that the government can ultimately force an employer to operate, but they'll try.

---

This. It's effectively nationalizing the company and handing it over to DNC operatives

---

Soooo many federal laws about notice before layoffs. Saw that with Elon when he bought Twitter. He was firing them but gave a crap ton of benefits for the time required by law.

(I have always disagreed wih this, BTW.)

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

And Atlas keeps a shruggin'

---

True that. She didn't write that as a HowTo manual.

But damn if that hasn't become the unintended result. Reading that book when I was in college at A&M turned my head around. Not in the Linda Blair form with pea soup but I had to think about a lot of things about what actually made our country great and how it worked for the benefit of the entire country, even when some had hard times.

Quote:

---

Soooo many federal laws about notice before layoffs. Saw that with Elon when he bought Twitter. He was firing them but gave a crap ton of benefits for the time required by law.

(I have always disagreed wih this, BTW.)

---

Different statutory scheme and only applies to single sites of employment with a certain number of employees - WARN is the federal statute. Many states have what are called baby WARNs with a lower employee threshold requiring notice. I doubt a Starbucks location has enough employees to trigger either. But the union is arguing that Starbucks had a duty to bargain with the union over the closings even though there was no contract in place. Regardless, the NLRA doesn't give the Board the authority it seeks.

They should picket outside the vacant storefronts

Here's a reason to never invest in airlines again. Good f'ing lord.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Soooo many federal laws about notice before layoffs. Saw that with Elon when he bought Twitter. He was firing them but gave a crap ton of benefits for the time required by law.

(I have always disagreed wih this, BTW.)

---

Different statutory scheme and only applies to single sites of employment with a certain number of employees - WARN is the federal statute. Many states have what are called baby WARNs with a lower employee threshold requiring notice. I doubt a Starbucks location has enough employees to trigger either. But the union is arguing that Starbucks had a duty to bargain with the union over the closings even though there was no contract in place. Regardless, the NLRA doesn't give the Board the authority it seeks.

---

You mean the Biden admin and the NLRB are doing something they're not allowed to do? NOOOOOO....I can't believe that.

YouBet said:

---

Here's a reason to never invest in airlines again. Good f'ing lord.

---

Because....you might...fly to somewhere with a Starbucks???

Big Brother says drink your Victory Coffee!

People who pay 7 bucks for a cup of coffee are morons.

UAS Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Here's a reason to never invest in airlines again. Good f'ing lord.

---

Because....you might...fly to somewhere with a Starbucks???

---

No, because it gives their buddies at the NMB even more Marxist ideas. POTUS campaigned on killing Right to Work and unionizing all states. Anytime these ****bags push an incrementalist change like this is a loss for America.

oldarmyjess66 said:

---

People who pay 7 bucks for a cup of coffee are morons.

---

Not even that good of coffee. I have had diner coffee better, cheaper, and with free refills.

Starbucks is a lib/status branding that is damned near comical.

Agwinner03 said:

---

[Do not bypass obscenity profanity filters -- Staff]

---

fify

The NLRB should be eliminated from the federal government immediately. They serve no functional purpose other than to prop up unions and convince the union members to vote democrat.

Quote:

---

Different statutory scheme and only applies to single sites of employment with a certain number of employees - WARN is the federal statute. Many states have what are called baby WARNs with a lower employee threshold requiring notice. I doubt a Starbucks location has enough employees to trigger either. But the union is arguing that Starbucks had a duty to bargain with the union over the closings even though there was no contract in place. Regardless, the NLRA doesn't give the Board the authority it seeks.

---

Let me add - the NLRB has its own Administrative Law Judges. As they are employees of the Board, they are anything but neutral. You can expect the ALJ and then the Board to rule against Starbucks - that will take 18 months. Starbucks will then be able to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals of their choice - expect the 11th or 5th. The Board will get reversed.

A Supreme Court case to watch is SEC v. Jarkesey which is challenging the constitutionality of the ALJ scheme. The 5th Circuit ruled against the SEC. Though I doubt the USSC will affirm b/c it will throw the entire area of administrative law into chaos (a good thing in my mind) there is hope that the employment of ALJs by the agencies they are supposed to be judging may get altered.

David Happymountain said:

---

Big Brother says drink your Victory Coffee!

---

And be happy!

JamesPShelley said:

---

Agwinner03 said:

---

[Do not bypass obscenity profanity filters -- Staff]

---

fify

---

YouBet said:

---

UAS Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Here's a reason to never invest in airlines again. Good f'ing lord.

---

Because....you might...fly to somewhere with a Starbucks???

---

No, because it gives their buddies at the NMB even more Marxist ideas. POTUS campaigned on killing Right to Work and unionizing all states. Anytime these ****bags push an incrementalist change like this is a loss for America.

---

But, why just airlines? You are giving me the confuse...

It boggles my mind you can "illegally" close a store. I bet that's not illegal in China.

UAS Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

UAS Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Here's a reason to never invest in airlines again. Good f'ing lord.

---

Because....you might...fly to somewhere with a Starbucks???

---

No, because it gives their buddies at the NMB even more Marxist ideas. POTUS campaigned on killing Right to Work and unionizing all states. Anytime these ****bags push an incrementalist change like this is a loss for America.

---

But, why just airlines? You are giving me the confuse...

---

Because they are heavily unionized.

Muktheduck said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

https://komonews.com/news/local/starbucks-complaint-union-seattle-everett-washington-workers-united-unionized-closed-stores-closure-national-labor-relations-board-nlrb-coffee-giant-king-snohomish-county-retaliation-illegal-behavior-jobs#

Eight previously shuttered Seattle-area Starbucks stores could be reopening soon following a complaint from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which alleges that the coffee giant unlawfully closed 23 union and non-union stores nationwide.

As part of the complaint, the board counsel is seeking an order for Starbucks to reopen the stores, offer union workers their jobs back and other remedies to compensate employees for their financial losses. Seven of the stores are in Seattle and one is in Everett.

An NLRB spokesperson said in an emailed statement to KOMO News that Starbucks closed the unionized stores without giving the union a chance to bargain that decision.

KOMO News covered Starbucks' closure of six Seattle-area locations due to safety concerns, but employees claimed it was retaliation for union organizing. Four of those closed locations are listed in the complaint filed Wednesday.

---

Well this is a tough one...Feds corrupt...and Starbucks is a liberal cesspool. Who to root for? Or just get the popcorn?

---

Nah, Starbucks has earned every bit of this

---

Feds it is.