we had a chevy bolt, lived in condo, parked in a parking garage in Cow Hollow in SF. Had no problems charging either at work, or at a charging station down by the marina. We drove it to Yosemite a couple times, drove to Paso, and Napa all for fun. Got rid of it because we didn't need a car while working from home.
Long story short, it was useful and viable even though we didn't have charging.
Stores have thought of this, and know the effects already. Apparently putting products behind glass causes almost a 50% drop in sales( because people don’t want to bother), so stores would prefer not to put anything behind glass or a counter, but they do because the alternative is 100% loss from theft.
I read the article. It tries to give a balanced view of both the good and the bad, including details, but if your read the article closely, it doesn't say exactly what the union is trying to do.
Also read the 2 links provided above, because I was interested. On the second page 'what will the union do" the answer is 'its up to us', so I tend to agree, it's not clear what they are asking for yet.
The union is trying to do good for employees. In a better climate, Starbucks would be working with its unions to make sure that things for ALL employees are better.
Starbucks is not a coal mine. They’re located on street corners with other restaurants, and the employees can freely move from one unskilled role to the next. Unionization exists solely to extract additional wages that wouldn’t have been given willingly. They’re effectively extorting Starbucks. Same as any con trying to extort protection money from a shop.
So if you say to your employer "oh hey I've found a new job that's offering me $20k more than I'm making right now" and offer them a chance to match that offer, is that also extortion in your mind?
No, but if you say, hey, we’re all going to burn down the store if you down pay us $20k more… that’s more like what a union is threatening.
There’s practically no limit on what a union can extort from a company. If a company invests in capital to make its employees more efficient (faster coffee grinders - if we’re keeping with the Starbucks theme), then the union can demand that savings in their wages.
Unionization makes it less likely for businesses to make these capital investments.
My theory is that’s why almost no airlines have ever been profitable. All the gains in cost/passenger seat mile gets taken by the pilot unions.
The warranty is irrelevant. If Sony (or whoever it was) sent an employee to your house to break your TV, you would sue them. The fact that they broke your TV via the internet doesn’t change that. The size of the loss would probably be the price of a new TV, so you would qualify for small–claims court rather than the normal civil court.
Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.
I like that Elon is asking for specific outcomes, even if the wording isnt exactly accurate. I imagine he runs his companies the in similar ways. You can see how defensive the UN is getting when asked for detailed outcome based plans, vs lofty statements with vague outcomes like ‘prevent geopolitical instability’.
Long story short, it was useful and viable even though we didn't have charging.