new Starbucks coming to lower Brownsboro Rd.

[Robin Garr]

Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but if a company pays at least a fair/living wage or better, provides good or better benefits, good working conditions, ethical policies, and the employees are happy, why would the employees need a union?

The same legitimate question could be asked about why the people who live in a colony under benign rule - India under the British, say - should want independence.

It's all about the right to speak for one's self, to organize and bargain collectively, as opposed to depending on Massa for a handout, no matter how kind Massa may be.

It's all about the right to speak for one's self, to organize and bargain collectively, as opposed to depending on Massa for a handout, no matter how kind Massa may be.

One could argue that one doesn't need a union to not "depend on (sorry, can't make myself type that word) for a handout." One could merely pursue one's self interests unilaterally and succeed without a union or some other structure that, in my opinion, is failing its members today and has been for years.

ouch! I guess that somewhere amongst my liberal personna, I'm also pretty anti-union.

But back to coffee!

Louisville has a lot of coffeehouses and more seem to be springing up all the time. I've noticed the new building for Starbucks at Central Station is nearing completion.

Is the market reaching saturation?

[Robin Garr]

One could argue that one doesn't need a union to not "depend on (sorry, can't make myself type that word) for a handout." One could merely pursue one's self interests unilaterally and succeed without a union or some other structure that, in my opinion, is failing its members today and has been for years.

Certainly the Right has been doing everything in its power to break the American and international union organizing movements since the 1980s, but isn't what you're saying pretty similar to saying, "George W. Bush and his gang of morons have really screwed up the country, so let's give up on our democratic republic"?

Of course the companies - even the benign Binghams in their time - would MUCH rather negotiate with employees one at a time than deal with an organization. But organizing levels the playing field.

[Robin Garr]

Also, analysts don't actually have a fiduciary responsibility, but I know what you mean...

I may have worded that inscrutably.

What I meant, obviously, is that (as I understand it), some analysts have not merely advised Costco to lower labor costs but argued that fiduciary responsibility imposes a duty on Costco to do so.

but isn't what you're saying pretty similar to saying, "George W. Bush and his gang of morons have really screwed up the country, so let's give up on our democratic republic"?

Uhm, no, not exactly. What I'm saying is that it has been decades since unions were effective. I'm not talking about democratic rights, I'm talking about economic realities. Just take a look at the failure of the heavily unionized industries and tell me the unions are currently effective.

But, I really didn't intend to debate unions. I really just meant to say we'd all be a lot better off if we used our own talents to succeed in life without waiting for anyone else to motivate us, represent us or speak on our behalf.

Also, analysts don't actually have a fiduciary responsibility, but I know what you mean...

I may have worded that inscrutably.

What I meant, obviously, is that (as I understand it), some analysts have not merely advised Costco to lower labor costs but argued that fiduciary responsibility imposes a duty on Costco to do so.

Got it. However, I'll stick with my previous thought that Costco probably places very little weight on analysts' arguments. I'm also not sure that management has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Many companies behave as if they do (Berkshire Hathaway comes to mind, even though Warren refuses to pay a dividend), but most certainly do not.

[Robin Garr]

I really just meant to say we'd all be a lot better off if we used our own talents to succeed in life without waiting for anyone else to motivate us, represent us or speak on our behalf.

Oh, I agree with that, of course. And for the record, I've never worked in a union shop, although I was involved in an effort to bring The Newspaper Guild into the CJ in anticipation of the Gannett takeover. (You never read about that in the CJ, and the benign Binghams and evil Gannett banded together to stop it, even though Gannett had no legal stake at that pre-purchase point. I know for certain that all sorts of federal laws were left shattered on the floor during that episode, but nothing came of it, obviously.)

Anyway, my point is that the noble sentiments you raise don't represent an either-or situation: It's entirely possible for individuals to use our own talents to succeed and not wait for anyone else. I've certainly done that, and I'm sure you have too. But that doesn't alter the level playing-field issue: An individual negotiating his own contract is in a much weaker position than a union negotiating for the group ... and that, of course, is why management is so frightened of labor organizing.

But that doesn't alter the level playing-field issue: An individual negotiating his own contract is in a much weaker position than a union negotiating for the group ... and that, of course, is why management is so frightened of labor organizing.

A position with which no reasonable person can disagree.

I have personal experience with a union and, without going into great detail, it was a worthless experience. Even though I still write an annual check for my local dues, I have never "gotten anything" from the union - rather, I have been tied up by silly work rules that are needlessly overreaching.

Putting the personal experience aside, I stand by my previous statements that in recent decades the unions have damaged some American businesses. We need only look to the auto industry, where health care costs add thousands of dollars to the cost of each auto, and see the sort of "uncompetetiveness" that a union can create.

But, that's the last thing I'll say about unions. I'm just disappointed you didn't comment on my ability to upload a chart! I'm getting pretty good with this board (although I generally refuse to use emoticons and, heaven knows, there are already enough going around on this board!).

Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but if a company pays at least a fair/living wage or better, provides good or better benefits, good working conditions, ethical policies, and the employees are happy, why would the employees need a union?

The same legitimate question could be asked about why the people who live in a colony under benign rule - India under the British, say - should want independence.

It's all about the right to speak for one's self, to organize and bargain collectively, as opposed to depending on Massa for a handout, no matter how kind Massa may be.

Unions have played their role in justice for workers in the U.S. Vital at points in our history.

But the "Massa" comments are a bit over the top for Costco employees who can work their or not, choose to because of pay, benefits, and working conditions, and (I believe) often have a stake in the company itself (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). That is, if a company can treat its employees in such a way that a union is not required, isn't that better for everyone. For as much good as unions have done and as good as pro-union rhetoric sounds, in practice they often drain as many resources off as they create. The union corporation is often as corrupt as the standard corporation.

"Massa's" may sometimes have been charitable, but they still owned you. There have been businesses that virtually owned their employees--can't see Costco in that category.

[Robin Garr]

I'm just disappointed you didn't comment on my ability to upload a chart!

Sorry! I must have been struck speechless with awe. It was a great moment in the history of Internet discourse.

I'm getting pretty good with this board (although I generally refuse to use emoticons and, heaven knows, there are already enough going around on this board!).

Used judiciously, emoticons aren't bad. They can serve to replace the missing visual cues in face-to-face conversation and soften potential rough edges in forum discussions.

Used in excess, they're just about as stupid as failing to use spell check.

Sorry! I must have been struck speechless with awe. It was a great moment in the history of Internet discourse.

Hey, was that an emoticon for sarcasm?!

[Robin Garr]

Hey, was that an emoticon for sarcasm?!

No, that is this one:

Or maybe this one:

[Robin Garr]

"Massa's" may sometimes have been charitable, but they still owned you. There have been businesses that virtually owned their employees--can't see Costco in that category.

The "Massa" comment was intentionally provocative, of course, but I'll argue that the premise holds. Remember that I opened this digression with the observation that <i>even</i> relatively benign corporations like Starbucks, Whole Foods and Costco lose their liberalism when the union organizer comes calling. And the fact of the matter remains, when a corporation refuses its employees the right to organize and bargain collectively, a plantation mentality is in play. "We'll take good care of you, but do not try to organize to negotiate with us" is fundamentally paternalistic, no matter how decent the company's other personnel policies may be.

Having worked for Whole Foods I would argue that while unions may or may not 'help' their members, it's an employees right to organize.

The fact that companies pay a 'living wage' and offer benefits does not mean that they 'treat' employees fairly.

I have seen cases at Whole Foods and personally felt the effects of management vendettas against employees. Without any organization such as a union the employee is left to sink or swim on his/her own.

I have seen people refused transfers, promotions and terminated based on the slimmest of reasons. While other employees are promoted and nurtured by management based on nepotism and favoritism.

Whole Foods 'shadow' as a do-good company is far larger than the reality of their actions.
I have seen hundreds of pounds of food thrown away instead of allowing employees to take it home with them.
I have seen raises handed out and promotions handed out without interviews or any kind of review. I have seen people demoted and fired after years of hard work and passion for the company and products.

It's a complex situation. Whole Foods does good but like anything else there are more than two sides to the story.

As for why there are more and more local coffee outlets cropping up as Starbucks grows it is because the US coffee market has not reached saturation.

Saturation in the coffee market is defined by Italy where there are some 40,000 specialty coffee shops (espresso bars). 40,000 in a place about the size and population of California. To put things into perspective the USA has about 15,000 coffee shops according to the data I saw when researching the market prior to opening up DCE.

The market is not saturated and it is diversifying. Just because there are 10,000 MickeyDs and Buger Kings doesn't mean there isn't room for authentic hamburgers.

Starbucks is to Wal-Mart, Heine Bros is to Trader Joe's, Sunergos is to Rainbow Blossom.