Starbucks workers at 150 stores launch strike over Pride décor
The coffee chain denies allegations that some stores banned or restricted decorations commemorating LGBTQ+ rights
I haven't got time to summarize the entire article, but I don't know about this, guys.
[Run-on sentence alert:]
When you're complaining about something extraordinarily vague -- they can put up Pride decorations but maybe not the ones they wanted to??? or as many as they wanted???? or????? -- alleged to have been done by a company that seems pretty progressive, particularly where LGBT people are concerned. (The company extended full healthcare to same-sex partners in 1988 and added coverage for gender-reassignment surgery in 2013.) And one of your chief complainers identifies as “asexual” -- are asexual people being denied rights, jobs or housing? -- and admits he hasn’t experienced any of what’s being alleged, it’s hard not to see these “queer” (whatever that means) workers as being guilty of refusing to take yes for an answer.
Don't get me wrong. I’m pro-labor and don't support the company’s attempt to prevent unionization. But I’m also pro-rationality.
Are these young people sure they're not just misguidedly "envious" of the activists who came before them, who fought actual discrimination, and that they're not trying to look for trouble where little exists? Because at the rate we're going, I don't think we can afford to alienate any more allies.
In a letter to employees posted Friday on Starbucks’s website, CEO Laxman Narasimhan noted that a Pride flag is currently flying over the company’s Seattle headquarters, just as it has in past years.
“We want to be crystal clear: Starbucks has been and will continue to be at the forefront of supporting the LGBTQIA2+ community, and we will not waver in that commitment,” Narasimhan said. “As such, we strongly disapprove of any person or group, seeking to use our partners’ cultural and heritage celebrations to create harm or flagrantly advance misinformation for self-interested goals.”
8 comments:
I thought the same thing about this “issue,” even before seeing the “asexual” dude quoted in the Post story. Seems clear to me the union is making this an issue to support its unionization efforts, which disgusts me. Attack our staunchest allies?
Plus, I think individual stores SHOULD have the right to display or not display fucking Pride flags in windows! When did that become mandatory for businesses?!
The fact is, unions are as fucking corrupt as corporations, they just don’t have as much money. And we like the fact that their intent is to support workers. But they’re still corrupt.
I've never heard of anyone being thrown out of their family, beaten up, or killed for being openly asexual - or fired or denied housing. Or even not invited to parties (maybe not invited to orgies, but that's fair).
If Starbucks was replacing pride flags with crosses or confederate flags, yes indeed, this would be justified. But as it is - I just don't see it. But then, I'm old and I've seen the horrors I and my fellow LGBT people have endured, so maybe I'm being influenced by grim reality.
At the one near where I work, I think every single barista is LGBTQ+. Maybe one is not. And that story headline - along with others - almost represent it that they're striking because they have to show Pride colors
I am telling you - this 16 to 26 generation are out of control, self indulgent and consumed with the me first, I am oppressed because today I feel like this mentality, They are destorying the rights we older gay people fought for. Just as we won the war these idiots are starting the battle for nothing but complete selfishness. They have no idea of the common good
Small town usa here, southern Illinois. Local tv news ran a story about the local Starbucks being closed for strike. Showed workers with their signs, only one had rainbow colors and referred to something akin to Proud Union. They were all striking to be part of the union. The interview was all about becoming unionized and getting higher wages and benefits, nothing about lgbtq+ issues. The tv station regularly covers any gay events, so it wasn't just omitting due to that. I wonder if the article is just focusing more on lgbt that union for its own emphasis.
BTW my fave line of your run on is "“queer” (whatever that means)". I think that every time I hear the term being used to describe a group and think even worse things when I see it being used to refer to a historical group. I had the "normalization" of this word.
Starbucks coffee sucks. If you're not getting your coffee from a local, independent shop, you're part of the problem.
We’ve complete lost the reins on our community. I have no common cause with 80% of it. Instead of ensuring people can’t be fired or evicted we’re obsessing over drag queens reading books and pronouns on Starbucks mugs.
Oh great. I’ve been in several upstate Starbucks and the pride stuff is there
Post a Comment