It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers rights shortage

Re:It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers right... by ljm on Sunday September 05, 2021 @05:53PM (#28428183)

I'm obviously not in the US, but this is a patently absurd perspective as it would then dictate that I am lowering pay to a lineworker by no longer being a customer. Where is the actual business's culpability in that twisted transaction?

I've just impoverished one barista at Starbucks because today I went to Cafe Nero instead! And I'm no longer a regular at my local Italian joint, so I've just deprived a few more people of an income.

For some reason you think this is about sticking it to the man but it's not. The staff get a stable, living wage and the business is charging prices much more in line with reality. I'm also no longer personally liable for the income of whoever served me, because the rightful responsibility for that lies on the employer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It's not a labor shortage – it's a wage and workers right... by smsm42 on Sunday September 05, 2021 @06:00PM (#28428229)

> I am lowering pay to a lineworker by no longer being a customer

As an individual customer, not likely since line workers' pay does not directly depend on the number of customers served (at least until it's so low that the business goes under and they have to move to unemployment benefits instead). Tips depend on each customer though, so if you chose Starbucks over Cafe Nero, and Starbucks barristas don't get tips, but Cafe Nero's ones customarily do, then yes, your choice had influence on the income of Cafe Nero's barrista. Probably a small one, but it's there. If neither barrista gets tips (I've never seen anybody to tip a Starbucks barrista but in smaller shops it happens sometimes, though much less frequent than with waiters) then there's not much difference from a single individual action.

[ Parent | on HN ]