Closing the store is an opportunity for the union. They can take over the location and open it as their very own union shop, and pay themselves as they see fit.
People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard.
(Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)
I doubt the lease is up. That location will sit vacant for months or years, with nobody able to open a coffee shop there: Starbucks, former Starbucks employees, or otherwise.
It is prime real estate for a coffee shop. Blue Bottle and George Howell already have locations just up the street. But in theory it could be a great opportunity for one of the other established chains in the area, or a new company able to capitalize on the foot traffic generated by the fact that it used to be a very very busy Starbucks.
They said why: because Starbucks holds the lease on the space. Just because the space is now empty, so long as Starbucks is paying their rent nobody else can take it.
That does cost them money, but if we assume they're fucking with the union then it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty -- because they probably do just want to reopen the same location once the union has dissipated. (Also, breaking a commercial lease often doesn't save you very much money, so...)
Starbucks can always sublease it. Leases are expensive to let sit vacant.
> it's very much in their interest to not break the lease and instead leave the location empty
There's an easy way to test that theory. Have the union make them an offer.
Besides, there's no particular reason the union has to set up shop in that store. They can pick anyplace else. As I mentioned before, people open coffee shops all the time. It isn't rocket science.
People open coffee shops all the time. It isn't that hard.
(Though it is hard to make money running a coffee shop. Source: I know people that do)