• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Starbucks, abortion benefits, and unions

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Depends on what you’re doing.
Also pretty sure they still needed parental/guardian consent before filming
Yes, that might be true, even in the 70th. These things go in waves, now we have quite a tight wave, maybe in 50 years people get more relaxed again...or maybe first a bit more tight even (I think it will be this one, for the coming decennia)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
10 years from now, a video will fall thru a wormhole
in time, arriving here on RF. This is our future.....
All will be Tommies...might be

That 10 years you just made up, so you maybe can see it happen, right?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The hate is unjustified. The pledge doesn’t include union employees because that employer-employee relationship is absolutely governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Starbucks cannot offer the abortion travel benefit as a matter of contract law. Next time the CBA is up for negotiating, the parties can choose to include that benefit.
You think that "contract law" prohibits one party to a contract doing more for the other party than what is absolutely required? o_O

As for the benefit being tied to healthcare plans, I’m unsure of the reasons or details, but suspect it’s for administrative ease. In other words, Starbucks is using a system already in place to administer the benefit rather than trying to reinvent something.
Yes, I get all that. My issue is mostly with Starbucks' messaging: I think it's deceptive for them to say that they're providing a benefit to employees generally when they know a significant percentage of their employees will be ineligible.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
In the context of a CBA and the current scenario, yes.

I’m curious. Why did you put contract law in quotes?
Because I was referring to what you're calling "contract law" and not actual contract law.

Parties to a contract can do more than the minimum. The only reason that an employer wouldn't do that unilaterally out of the goodness of their heart is because then they'd lose a bargaining chip they could use in their next negotiation to get some concession from the union.

There's nothing in contract law that would stop Starbucks from doing for unionized staff what they're doing for non-unionized staff: give them a new benefit at no additional cost to the employee and with no changes to their existing benefits.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Because I was referring to what you're calling "contract law" and not actual contract law.

Parties to a contract can do more than the minimum. The only reason that an employer wouldn't do that unilaterally out of the goodness of their heart is because then they'd lose a bargaining chip they could use in their next negotiation to get some concession from the union.

There's nothing in contract law that would stop Starbucks from doing for unionized staff what they're doing for non-unionized staff: give them a new benefit at no additional cost to the employee and with no changes to their existing benefits.
That’s a short sighted legal view. I’m curious…what are your qualifications?

First, employers generally cannot step outside the CBA, even to be more generous.

Second, if they do, they risk a variety of EEO complaints.

Third, it opens the door to the argument that the employer should provide other, non-negotiated benefits, which could also affect situations where state law and the CBA conflict.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Every definition of the term "human being" I quickly googled excludes fetuses, sperm and eggs.
That's odd. Most of them are "man, woman, or child of the homo sapiens species" or "member of the homo sapiens species". Both of which include fetuses and exclude sperm and eggs.
 
Top