Log in

View Full Version : Mall of America Starbucks go Union (Anarcho-Syndicalist List feed)



Bilan
22nd July 2008, 06:45
Mall of America Starbucks Baristas go Union!*
IWW Baristas protest store closures, demand living wage

Baristas at the Mall of America Starbucks walked off the café floor
today and delivered a demand letter to management calling for just
treatment of all employees affected by Starbucks’ closure of stores
nationwide. The surprise job action comes in the wake of the coffee
giant’s announcement that it will close 600 stores, including 27 in
Minnesota.

The baristas demanded a fair severance package for affected workers.
Starbucks reportedly plans to give workers just one month notice before
laying them off with a paltry two weeks’ pay The company will insist
that some baristas transfer and will revoke severance pay if transfer
offers are refused.

The protesting baristas went public as members of the Starbucks Workers
Union, which is a campaign of the Industrial Workers of the World labor
union. Starbucks previously backtracked on its refusal to disclose which
locations would be shuttered after the union and others condemned the
company for leaving workers in a nerve-wracking limbo.

The store action makes the Mall of America location the first Starbucks
in Minnesota, and the first store in the Mall of America, to have a
public union presence.

Erik Forman, a barista at the store recently fired for union activity,
said, “With the skyrocketing cost of living, workers have no other
choice than to stand up for improvements on the job. The alternative is
a continued decline into poverty and a degraded quality of life for
working families. But this doesn’t have to happen. Our message is hope-
even at Starbucks in the Mall of America, we can organize and fight!”

While portraying itself as a ‘socially-responsible’ employer, Starbucks
pays baristas a poverty wage of $7.60/hr. In addition, all retail hourly
workers at Starbucks in the United States are part-time employees with
no guaranteed number of work hours per week. According to Starbucks
figures released to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 40.9% of its
employees (including managers) are covered by the company health care
package, a lower percentage than the oft-criticized Wal-Mart, which
insures 47% of its workforce.

Since the launch of the IWW campaign at Starbucks on May 17, 2004, the
company has been cited multiple times for illegal union-busting by the
National Labor Relations Board. The company settled two complaints
against it and is awaiting a decision by a judge in New York on more
than 30 additional rights’ violations. Starbucks’ large anti-union
operation is operated in conjunction with the Akin Gump law firm and the
Edelman public relations firm.
.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200
current and former employees at the world's largest coffee chain united
for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members
throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company
and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been
especially active in New York City, Chicago, and Grand Rapids.

Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully
toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and
workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to
co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for
a better life on the job.

###

www.StarbucksUnion.org

From Anarcho-Syndicalism (List)

YSR
23rd July 2008, 02:21
Yeah, sorry I didn't post this first. I used to be roommates with the two primary organizers in this campaign and they're doing a kickass job. This whole thing is so exciting.

Joe Hill's Ghost
23rd July 2008, 05:32
Yeah, sorry I didn't post this first. I used to be roommates with the two primary organizers in this campaign and they're doing a kickass job. This whole thing is so exciting.

Now the question remains, will this hold? We've had difficulty keeping Sbucks shops from collapsing in our neck of the woods. I have high hopes.

Bilan
23rd July 2008, 11:02
What sort of troubles? How? Whats happened?
(Perhaps in the CSU group...) And how've you been overcoming them?

Pawn Power
23rd July 2008, 15:31
What sort of troubles? How? Whats happened?
(Perhaps in the CSU group...) And how've you been overcoming them?

Well, first off, starbucks has closed hundreds of stores within the last year.

Joe Hill's Ghost
23rd July 2008, 22:12
What sort of troubles? How? Whats happened?
(Perhaps in the CSU group...) And how've you been overcoming them?

Hot shops. The job is so horrid that most folks leave after a few months. That and massive firings and intimidation. Of course this is part and parcel of any union campaign, but Sbucks and other fast food places are particularly difficult. They are at the bottom of the production line and thus have the least industrial leverage. Its a lot easier to take action higher up in transit, wholesale and production. Retail outlets have the smallest margins and will fight the hardest. I think the best way to overcome this is to organize more shops. If we had more than a few isolated shops, we could hit Starbucks with more punch, force them to capitulate.

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th July 2008, 01:17
There are a lot of problems with the "Starbucks Union" campaign.

I'm not going to put union business out there, but I can say some general things.

So far the campaign has been limited to retail stores (and originally it was even going to be a "barista union" thus limiting it even within the retail stores). There has been no attempt to organize industrially (roasting plants, etc.), which is what the wobs are supposed to do, per their own strategy. There's also the whole problem of the "minority unionism" strategy... for all the talk of success (and there have been some), the "Starbucks Union" hasn't achieved recognition in a single shop, nor does it plan to.

Joe Hill's Ghost
24th July 2008, 01:51
There are a lot of problems with the "Starbucks Union" campaign.

I'm not going to put union business out there, but I can say some general things.

So far the campaign has been limited to retail stores (and originally it was even going to be a "barista union" thus limiting it even within the retail stores). There has been no attempt to organize industrially (roasting plants, etc.), which is what the wobs are supposed to do, per their own strategy. There's also the whole problem of the "minority unionism" strategy... for all the talk of success (and there have been some), the "Starbucks Union" hasn't achieved recognition in a single shop, nor does it plan to.

Don't want to provide any specifics either so I'll speak in generalities.

NLRB recognition would require a massive number of shops in a given area. It's not feasible for the IWW to organize 80 sbux stores and file for a NRLB election. In my experience solidarity unionism has worked relatively well with the IWW. The warehouse workers campaign has never been based strictly on contractualism. The main issue with Sbucks is the lack of industrial focus, moving up the food chain so we can get more leverage. Its a problem of organizing retail, not minority unionism.

YSR
24th July 2008, 03:51
No offense, NHiA, but if you've got so many suggestions about how the Wobs could organize better, why don't you join the union? Most of your concerns have to do with not having enough organizers, not bad strategy. So you should become one! We could really use the help.

@ Joe Hill's Ghost: True. Hot shops are nearly impossible to maintain. But this is not a hot shop.

Joe Hill's Ghost
24th July 2008, 04:24
No offense, NHiA, but if you've got so many suggestions about how the Wobs could organize better, why don't you join the union? Most of your concerns have to do with not having enough organizers, not bad strategy. So you should become one! We could really use the help.

@ Joe Hill's Ghost: True. Hot shops are nearly impossible to maintain. But this is not a hot shop.

I think NiHiA is a Wob.

I'm really happy that its not a hot shop. All the best on this one.

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th July 2008, 17:32
Yeah, I am a member and have been one for many years.

While the lack of organizers is a problem, a bad strategy is a bad strategy, irregardless of how many organizers we have. Of course, I'm not the only wob that has problems with the way things are being done in the "Starbucks Union."

Bilan
25th July 2008, 15:35
Yeah, I am a member and have been one for many years.

While the lack of organizers is a problem, a bad strategy is a bad strategy, irregardless of how many organizers we have. Of course, I'm not the only wob that has problems with the way things are being done in the "Starbucks Union."

What do you think is a more appropriate one?

YSR
31st July 2008, 04:47
Yeah, I am a member and have been one for many years.

Oh, shit, I'm a huge douchebag. Sorry, FW.

I'm curious to hear what your specific concerns about the strategy of the SWU are. If you feel more comfortable PMing them, that's fine.

Pogue
31st July 2008, 13:52
On the windows of most Starbucks in the UK it says "Voted best place to work 2007" or something. What a load of shite. I think that award was given by The Times, run by Murdoch, who probably plays golf with the head of Starbucks or something. ****.

Nothing Human Is Alien
5th August 2008, 17:33
I mentioned some of the problems before:


So far the campaign has been limited to retail stores (and originally it was even going to be a "barista union" thus limiting it even within the retail stores). There has been no attempt to organize industrially (roasting plants, etc.), which is what the wobs are supposed to do, per their own strategy. There's also the whole problem of the "minority unionism" strategy... for all the talk of success (and there have been some), the "Starbucks Union" hasn't achieved recognition in a single shop, nor does it plan to.

Celtic Leftist
6th August 2008, 00:59
Firstly, as one myself, up the Baristas.

Secondly, the article claims one employee was fired for union activity, is this not totally illegal?

Anyway, good luck to them in their struggle, the money they make for the company is obscene when compared to their wages, but, as usual, the business is always the one portraying itself as the victim.

Nothing Human Is Alien
6th August 2008, 02:29
Of course it is "illegal," but what does that mean under a capitalist state in which the laws, courts, police, etc., all exist to uphold the rule of the exploiters over the working masses?

Anyway, in this case as in many like it, the boss just claims the worker was fired for something else, or for no reason at all.

Schrödinger's Cat
6th August 2008, 06:40
Hot shops. The job is so horrid that most folks leave after a few months. That and massive firings and intimidation. Of course this is part and parcel of any union campaign, but Sbucks and other fast food places are particularly difficult. They are at the bottom of the production line and thus have the least industrial leverage. Its a lot easier to take action higher up in transit, wholesale and production. Retail outlets have the smallest margins and will fight the hardest. I think the best way to overcome this is to organize more shops. If we had more than a few isolated shops, we could hit Starbucks with more punch, force them to capitulate.

I could never imagine working at Starbucks. Customer and employer expectations are off the wall for the pay associates get.

Joe Hill's Ghost
6th August 2008, 07:26
I could never imagine working at Starbucks. Customer and employer expectations are off the wall for the pay associates get.


yeah I'll probably be salting there at some point. Prolly after I graduate uni, since its kinda difficult to work at Sbux when you're a full time student, they want you to be available ALL the time, but will only call you up for 15-35 hours a week. Oh how I hate them.

Celtic Leftist
6th August 2008, 10:36
Of course it is "illegal," but what does that mean under a capitalist state in which the laws, courts, police, etc., all exist to uphold the rule of the exploiters over the working masses?

Anyway, in this case as in many like it, the boss just claims the worker was fired for something else, or for no reason at all.
I'm still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to all this. Although I have experienced a fair share of "exploitation" (working 70 hour weeks etc), the Unions have always been treated with respect and various employees have successfully regained their jobs at unfair dismissal tribunals etc. Anyways, I asked my question because, at the first reading, I thought "union activity" had been the reason for dismissal.

Cheers, by the way.