Jump to content

US politics: Rovenber is coming.


Varysblackfyre321
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to 538's model (dangerous words I know), it is now more likely that the Democrats hold the House (29%) than the Republicans take the Senate (28%).  That feels too optimistic to me, I think that right now Democrats have a fairly clear path to 49 seats (winning PA and AZ), but getting to 50 means holding one of GA/NV and both of them feel shaky. I'm still pretty gunshy about assuming that the polling will hold up for Democrats.  The last 4 cycles have been 3 losses and 1 draw on that regard, and that certainly makes me uncomfortable.

But I'm glad that the fundamentals and polling continue to improve for Democrats on the House.  It does seem like the Republicans have nominated a lot of bad candidates and are struggling with messaging generally this cycle.  IF the Democrats hold the House (even with a slim margin) then the Senate is likely to look pretty decent (52+) in which case real action might be genuinely possible. We might even get big things like DC statehood, voting reform, etc. 

 
Is this hope?  I dare not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Longrider when i worked in Nevada I bought 2 (and only those 2) Starbucks, one upon arrival and one upon departure, right there at the McClarens airport kiosk.

Ridiculous overpriced, marginal drink that i could easily concoct to an eerily similar taste for about $1.30 at my neighborhood 7/11, as opposed to the $10 dollars Starbucks would fleece you for.

Seattles Best is a far superior in price, equal in taste option to me.

When people mention our dues its exceedingly laughable. They are a PITTANCE to what we gain back in benefit.

The same idiots complaining over a smallish dues contribution will fall all over themselves about how grateful they are to lose $20K a year in compensation to fund the criminally expensive healthcare working Americans are burdened to fund.

Its simple math yo!!

Edited by DireWolfSpirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yet you pay Starbucks prices?

DireWolfSpirit -- yes, of course; but the price is secondary, otherwise I'd make my own coffee. The primary consideration for me is environment and atmosphere, which is where Starbucks is losing its edge. This is why I go to alternative boutique-style coffee shops when available (go back and reread my posts).

33 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

You are on mighty thin ice to be prattling on about any purchases with questionable  decisions like that. Their prices have been uncompetitve and high for 10 years, long before any employees organized there.

...will now claim the unions are making the Starbucks the overpriced...

...working class, blue collar union folks,  on average would rarely waiste their precious wages on that (Starbucks) overpriced sludge...

...your goto commentary insinuating they would make prices higher.

Unions havent made Starbucks overpriced...

The purpose of unions are to secure higher wages and benefits for employees (e.g., see the recent rail strike aversion, which gained substantial increases in income and some benefits at the expense of the owners and customers). So, yes, they increase prices for customers and decrease profits for owners. These three factors play a role in prices -- labor, capital, and consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

When people mention our dues its exceedingly laughable. They are a PITTANCE to what we gain back in benefit.

The same idiots complaining over a smallish dues contribution will fall all over themselves about how grateful they are to lose $20K a year in compensation to fund the criminally expensive healthcare working Americans are burdened to fund.

Its simple math yo!!

Totally agree, plus job protections that most of the emps don't even realize they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

DireWolfSpirit -- yes, of course; but the price is secondary, otherwise I'd make my own coffee. The primary consideration for me is environment and atmosphere, which is where Starbucks is losing its edge. This is why I go to alternative boutique-style coffee shops when available (go back and reread my posts).

The purpose of unions are to secure higher wages and benefits for employees (e.g., see the recent rail strike aversion, which gained substantial increases in income and some benefits at the expense of the owners and customers). So, yes, they increase prices for customers and decrease profits for owners. These three factors play a role in prices -- labor, capital, and consumer.

Wrong!

Many labor impasses are over working conditions, wages are only sometimes an issue, many times the contract disputes are over trying to end management breaking our contracts and trying to force poorly planned working conditions on the employees.

More often than not the disputes are defensive efforts to stop management attacks on our work forces. Its wages AND WORK CONDITIONS that we bargain for, not just wages and oft times not wages at all that are in dispute.

When management becomes a den of theives we will act to protect ourselves.

Edited by DireWolfSpirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I wonder how the latest Starbucks strat of paying non-union workers more than unionized employees is going to pan out. At what point does our government hold Starbucks accountable for union busting?

Centrist Simon Steele -- as long as it's useful, until capital regains leverage over labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

When management becomes a den of theives we will act to protect ourselves.

We have to, because no matter what happy talk management comes up with, it's a big bag of bullshit.  

Edited by LongRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just stop drinking coffee you drug addicts.

And anytime someone shits on unions in your presence, just say, "Yeah, weekends suck too." 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

DireWolfSpirit -- yes, of course; but the price is secondary, otherwise I'd make my own coffee. The primary consideration for me is environment and atmosphere, which is where Starbucks is losing its edge. This is why I go to alternative boutique-style coffee shops when available (go back and reread my posts).

The purpose of unions are to secure higher wages and benefits for employees (e.g., see the recent rail strike aversion, which gained substantial increases in income and some benefits at the expense of the owners and customers). So, yes, they increase prices for customers and decrease profits for owners. These three factors play a role in prices -- labor, capital, and consumer.

There were studies done about pro sports strikes/unions, and what was discovered was that ticket prices were set by the teams in accordance with their economic projections of maximum return, regardless of the price of labour. All labour does is reduce their profits; companies charge as much as they can get away or with consideration for market competition. Unless you are talking about really small businesses, no union has ever directly affected the price of the product EXCEPT in cases in the US where someone is (briefly) trying to make a point in order to kill burgeoning unionization. 
 

ie, it’s a sham, part of the ongoing war to kill unions. Are you telling me that if a company thought it could charge 85X and people would buy it, but they don’t have a union so their labour costs are lower they would, out of the kindness of their generous hearts, charge 70X?

TL/DR: if a company determines that you will pay $7.50 for a cup of coffee, they will charge $7.50 for that cup of coffee regardless of whether they are paying minimum wage or +/-30%.

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Wrong!

Many labor impasses are over working conditions, wages are only sometimes an issue, many times the contract disputes are over trying to end management breaking our contracts and trying to force poorly planbed working conditions on the employees.

More often than not the disputes are defensive efforts to stop management attacks on our work forces. Its wages AND WORK CONDITIONS that we bargain for, not just wages and oft times not wages at all that are in dispute.

When management becomes a den of theives we will act to protect ourselves.

DireWolfSpirit -- au contraire, higher wages (et al.) is exactly what the Starbucks unionizer want. And this isn't just the stated goal, but a matter of common sense especially under conditions of Covid-19, which we haven't entirely recovered from.

 

Higher wages. So, what exactly is the union pushing for? Eater says that the union has not formally made any demands, but one worker told the outlet that he hopes the union will be able to negotiate a higher minimum wage for baristas. CNBC reported that Starbucks had planned to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour by summer 2022, but some union organizers want to push for $25 an hour.

Higher wages. At Starbucks, unionized baristas want a boost to the current starting salary of $15 per hour, more staffing where it’s needed and more say over their schedules. They also want better benefits.

Higher wages. Pay increases have kicked in at Starbucks cafes around the United States, and the workers’ union wants the company to extend the same benefits to unionized stores without going through the bargaining process.

Higher wages“With a pay raise that’s actually significant, that can actually ensure that people only need one job to survive — that would be incredible,” Hernandez said. “Financial security is everything.”

Higher wagesPay is one reason for unionizing, workers told cleveland.com. Currently baristas at the downtown location make $12-an-hour as a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Sorry to say Dire, but you would lose that bet where I have worked.  For some things, costs aren't what sways people. The working-class folks I worked with (working class myself) love Starbucks.   (not me though, if I buy coffee, I get it from McDonalds on independent coffee places).

LongRider -- the target demographic is middle and upper class people, but there's a collateral market for lower income aspirationals.

As you said, there's a large minorty of sub-middle class customers, something like 40% considering age demographics and the fact that coffee is a stimulant that captured the market when there were few alternatives offering the same environment and atmosphere (who wants to do nomadic skilled work at a Dunkin' Donuts when Starbucks is so much more inviting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

Just unfortunately got my first email from the Ron Johnson campaign, which blames the Democrats' fundraising success on "radical billionaires." As if there really were any such people.

I have been getting emails from him (and Rubio) for months. Johnson in particular is sounding increasingly desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Week said:

"Wages are sometimes an issue."

"Sometimes?? Let me post a bunch of articles from workers and reps from ONE union to prove it's always about higher wages"

Wtf? What's your point?

Week -- it's pretty simple: to confirm the truth. Starbucks unionizers want higher wages (et al.), and Starbucks Workers United facilitates this (or at least tries to; Starbucks seems to hold leverage). In fact, it's a core purpose for unions in general, to secure fair wages and wage increases. Denying or undermining this fact would be dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Overpriced executive compensation is a factor you conveniently left out.

DireWolfSpirit -- oh, no; I consider them a part of the equation. And they deserve their current pay as much as the barristas do theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Week -- it's pretty simple: to confirm the truth. Starbucks unionizers want higher wages (et al.), and Starbucks Workers United facilitates this (or at least tries to; Starbucks seems to hold leverage). In fact, it's a core purpose for unions in general, to secure fair wages and wage increases. Denying or undermining this fact would be dishonest.

"A" not "the". DWS is not the one being dishonest here.

6 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

DireWolfSpirit -- oh, no; I consider them a part of the equation. And they deserve their current pay as much as the barristas do theirs.

No, they don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...