Starbucks target of new-media campaign by union

An ambitious "Stop Starbucks" offensive includes a website (StopStarbucks.com) featuring a four-minute video assailing Starbucks' treatment of workers, and a petition demanding that CEO Howard Schultz “quit following Wal-Mart’s anti-union example." By week's end, almost 12,000 had signed the petition, and nearly 40,000 had viewed the video, organizers said. || Read "Starbucks target of new-media campaign by union"

Comments

[!!!Answer me!!!]

Really, now?

Health Care Response:

A manager schedules someone 20 hours a week, which would be all that they wanted and KNOWING they need 20+ average for health insurance. then for one week they call off sick. SURPRISE. You didn't work enough. Why do you only work 20 hours? If you take ONE day off you can't maintain the 240. Pick up a shift. That was hard. and my Health Coverage is less than $40 a month. Expensive.

Adding to the "schedule less hours at the end of quarter". That is called a bad *manager*. They make the schedule. No manager I have met would purposely do that. District manager? that is called a bad *district manager*. Starbucks itself doesn't say "Hey, Becky in Randomville, Nebraska is almost at insurance qualifications! Schedule her 19 hours!!!11" That's not how it works.

Stop Starbucks? How about a website called StopMeanPeople.com. It's everywhere.

[Jack Smash]

Shame on starbucksgossip.com for promoting this terrible organization.

[Mark]

If I am a business owner and pay my people well, treat them decently, why do I need to have a union demanding my workers organize. This would instantly create a barrier of bad will between me any my employees. Why do I need to have my workers hand over a percentage of their pay to a union, who is in the business of raising money.

Although it may not be the best work environment, creating an artificial barrier between me and my employees robs my business of productivity (strange and strangulating work rules) and my employees of flexibility (once again strange and strangulating work rules). They must pay a percentage of their pay as dues and get very little in return. Most union dues are for political contributions and padding politicians pockets.

I was a member of a union once. never again.

[Limey]

Did you watch the video with the clip of Howie saying "we're in the business of filling souls"? Ha, what a pompous ass! That is totally Starbuckian... Hope they fill souls and their pockets soon, because they are on their way to becoming a B-list brand, amongst the ranks of Dairy Queeen and Sonic... At least DQ and Sonic don't serve over-priced crappy, refrigerator-stale food!

[Batista Ben]

All they want is to take money from my paycheck. If starbucks ever became union I'd have my store become corperate. They do it, so can I. Keep your dirty mits off my paycheck.

[p@ppPP]

First of all We organized the Union, us workers, no Union organized us, get it straight, second my dues cost $9 dollars a month and they do not come out of my pay check. I do not have to be employed to be part of the Union, so back up a little cause you have no idea what your talking about...

[HoratioBucks]

p@ppPP,

If your dues don't come from your paycheck, where are your dues coming from? Who is paying your dues?

[PaPaP@@]

dues are not the issue here, it's Workers Rights so lets discuss that...

Dear Mr. Schultz (Starbucks CEO),

You have repeatedly intimidated and terminated your employees for seeking to unionize, taking a page from Wal-Mart's unethical playbook. That does not foster trust among workers. We insist you allow your workers to organize and stop opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of allowing your workers to unionize and negotiate fairer wages, health benefits, and hours, Starbucks spends millions in legal fees settling labor complaints that would expose your atrocious labor practices. That does not foster trust among workers. Rather than heed workers' pleas, Starbucks has proposed a stripped down version of the Employee Free Choice Act that would make unionization more difficult. That does not foster trust among workers.
Quit following Wal-Mart's anti-union example and give your workers what they want, Mr. Schultz. They will not trust you until you do.

[baristashoe]

Limey, if the food is so horrible DON'T GO!! No one forces you to go to Starbucks, you have choices. PaPaP@@, please give specific examples of how bad work conditions are at Starbucks. They get paid more than min wage plus tips, health benefits are available to all. (By the way, if you don't get enough hours at your store you can pick up hours at any company owned store, ,the partners at my store trade away hours every week.) Partners are granted stocks, have tuition reimbursement and have a flexible schedule. Again, please tell me specifically what's so bad about working for Starbucks? And by the way, since so many people want to compare Starbucks to McDonalds, DQ, Sonic ... do these companies have unions? I thought so.

[P9@))p]

If you need examples you can go to http://stopstarbucks.com

Watch the video, read the articles, do some research and find out what has been going on to your fellow partners across our country and others, find out about the workers being mistreated in Chile and how they formed... about the history of how Starbucks Workers Union formed and so on...

The examples have led to major actions. You should be aware of what is going at your own work place...

[tallguy]

Managers do not have the time to keep track of partner QTD hours and schedule them less hours in order to prevent them from earning benefits. That is ridiculous on a number of levels!

Second, unions drive the cost of labor up to a point where companies can't afford to compete with non-union competition. Look at the auto industry for example. The "big 3" American auto-makers have been paying their union workers about $70/hour in total wages and benefits and lose billions of dollars a year while their foreign competition do not have union workers - at their American factories in the southern USA - and pay their employees about $35/hour in total wages and benefits, thus allowing them to sell their vehicles for less money and making a large profit although they sell hundreds of thousands of fewer vehicles a year.

Another example, Boeing has historically been challenged by their many different unions and many times after agreeing to new contracts layoff workers because they can't afford such as large workforce at the higher wages/benefits.

Unions unjustly drive up the cost of doing business.

Unions are only good for improving worker safety and should be temporary until any health & safety issues are rectified.

Starbucks does not have a need for unions.

[really?]

I watched the videos on the website and they don't add up.

Main video: I have never witnessed any anti-union activity or even heard of anti-union activity at any store or corporate level. Based on the video it is apparent that these situations occurred but in limited quantity and Starbucks was informed about violations. Hopefully they will not occur again. The video makes it seem that these are everyday occurrences and clearly they are not because they only have 4, maybe 5 partners out of 140,00 that have experienced this situation.

Healthcare video: Nobody at a store level is guaranteed 40 hours/week except for management. Baristas and shifts are scheduled based on store need (amount of labor earned through sales) and partner availability. If a partner cannot get 20 hours/week at their store, the store is probably over staffed, they need to seek another store that needs help, open their availability so they can work more of the store's operating hours or find another job that can help them obtain healthcare. Most store partners are young, want flexible schedules and are only seeking part-time work. It is up to the individual partner to read their paycheck to see how many QTD hours they have in order to make sure they are going to hit 240 in the quarter. A helpful poster is posted in every backroom that details when the quarter cutoff dates are so partners know when they need to have 240 hours by. It couldn't be any simpler.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

I will probably never be in a union. I was an exempt employee when I worked for Starbucks, and my job function falls well outside of the scope of activities that usually qualify for union membership. I do know more than I care to know, however, about the labor practices at Starbucks. Those practices fall far short of the standard that the company claims to follow in its guiding principles.

I was fired by my manager at Starbucks for problems that she herself created, and I stongly believe that I was the "fall guy" to cover up for her mistakes. I recognize that this happens at other places too, and I also recognize that I only know my side of the story for why I was fired (the company never gave me any explanation for my termination, and it has steadfastly refused to discuss it with me, so I don't really know "their side" of the story). The following factors differentiate Starbucks from other companies that are supposedly less enlightened than Starbucks:

1) I was fired even though no one other than my immediate supervisor ever discussed any performance-related issues with me. (In those discussions, my supervisor was never able to provide me with valid examples of any task where my performance was deficient). I've never worked for a company before where one individual could fire someone without any oversight by someone else in the organization.
2) I was told upon my termination that the reasons for my dismissal would not be discussed.
3) I was told upon my termination that Starbucks had no appeal policy or grievance policy, and that my termination would not be reviewed by anyone in the organization. This policy (i.e., the lack of an appeal or grievance process) was confirmed with me in all of my subsequent attempts to contact someone within Starbucks about my dismissal.
4) I did not receive any severance pay, and I did not receive any of the vacation pay that I had earned. HR explained to me that their "vacation grant" system precluded any payout for vacation earned, even though I had previously cancelled my vacation at the request of my supervisor in order to help out at a busy time. STARBUCKS IS THE ONLY COMPANY THAT I'VE EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DOESN'T PAY OUT EARNED VACATION TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES!
5) Although I was a salaried employee, I had worked approximately five straight 60-hour weeks up through the date of my termination. I received no recognition or compensation for that extra work which I had done at the request of my supervisor. I was instead dumped into the worst job market that I've ever seen with no severance pay & no COBRA support (except for the subsequent government-mandated subsidy that was funded by the Federal Government as part of the Stimulus Package passed on February 17, 2009).
6) All of this was done to me by a company that boasts about its "guiding priciples" of "respect & dignity" for all of its "partners."

I was a hard working, well-qualified (MBA with Honors, University of Washington) employee that had taken my responsibilities as a Starbucks "partner" very seriously. Unfortunately, I discovered that Starbucks doesn't return the "respect & dignity" that it demands of its "partners." The company lacks many of the basic checks and balances that almost all other companies have to make sure that their employees are treated fairly and that the personnel decisions of their managers are sound. I have paid a huge personal price for my failure to recognize the hypocrisy of Starbucks before it was too late. I hope no one else makes the same mistake that I made!

[HoratioBucks]

If your dues don't come from your paycheck, where are your dues coming from? Who is paying your dues?

dues are not the issue here, it's Workers Rights so lets discuss that...

This is a legitimate question, p@ppPP and you are the one who brought it up. I'd just like an answer. I'm curious.

[Pat Nerr]

@ Alum Bill... yours is an all too common story...

as for anti-union... I can recall a few Starbucks HR "Leaders" making anti-union comments in the presence of others... reckless and poor judgement...

but then they are where they are today for a reason...

[adoubleshotofclarity]

Everyone wants a piece. If workers who were unionizing put 1/10 of the effort they spend trying to brainwash the world into believing their lot is so tough into managing their own careers, this would be a moot point. It sounds to me like you can't figure out the system as it currently exists (when 99% of your fellow partners can), so rather than try to learn it, you're trying to change it.

As for the EFCA, what a crock. Union organizers have a history much more sordid than what Starbucks is being accused of (mafia involvement, anyone?), and yet they're saying that taking the secret ballot out of a vote to unionize is in the employees' best interests - that being the key difference between the EFCA and the Starbucks/Costco/Whole Foods alternative that the Stop Starbucks campaign calls anti-union. If secret ballots are so bad, why don't we vote publicly in elections?

[JFK]

Let's put this silliness to a rest:

- to the P@ person, what "mistreatment" in Chile? Do you really think anyone here cares about the plight of Chilean workers? Do you think that's a persuasive reason to organize?
- criticizing Starbucks on health care? Name another retailer where you can get coverage for working half time. For under $7/week.
- to those promoting the "starbucks workers union." What is the IWW's health care plan? Pension plan? Anything plan? Answer: they don't have one. What a great return I get on my dues! I can either pay these dues (and get...well, nothing), or instead pay under $7/week premium for Starbucks coverage. Hmmmm.
- "Alum Bill" - time to get a therapist my friend and move on. You haven't worked for any employer that doesn't pay out vacation? Really? I can assure you that most in WA do not pay out vacation. Name a RETAIL company where you get 5 weeks vacation after 5 years of tenure.
- Pat Nerr. Want to hear comments about unions? Walk into the Boardroom of your current employer (REI) sometime. Ask about union organizing in your facilities and their what their response has been when there has been a whisper of activity in your warehouses. Wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe you and Alum Bill can share a therapist.

[adoubleshotofclarity]

@JFK Vacation (for full time anyway) is 2 weeks at start, 3 weeks at 3 years, 4 at 5 years, 5 at 10.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ JFK

All of the employers that I've worked for accrue vacation time as you work & pay you the unused balance when you leave. I've worked for six employers prior to SBUX over a period of 30 years, and all six paid the unused balance of my vacation when I left, even though I left voluntarily each time. Furthermore, I've reviewed the policies of many other employers in litigatiopn support work that I've performed in the past, and I've never encountered any employer prior to Starbucks that doesn't pay out unused vacation. I would guess that I reviewed the policies of more than 50 different Washington-based employers in that capacity. SBUX is the first employer that I've encountered that doesn't do that. To the best of my knowledge, SBUX is also the first employer I've worked with that doesn't have any appeal or grievance process when an employee feels that an employment action was not justified.

As for your suggestion that I get a therapist, I can't even afford one thanks to Starbucks. How can you defend Starbucks' policy to fire people without explanation & without any right of review or appeal? Is that your idea of "respect & dignity?" As for your suggestion that I "move on," I'd love to, but the situation that Starbucks put me still hangs over me and my family every single day.

[@Paa!]

What are you not sure about?? Do you incourage the mistreatment of partners/workers? Is getting paid below the poverty line satisfactory for you?? No guaranteed hours or job security is always a plus! Unsafe working conditions and unfair labor practices...It's not hard to form an opionon, it's just hard to admit to YOURSELF that this is who and where WE ALL work for/at...

[Coffee Soldier]

"To the best of my knowledge, SBUX is also the first employer I've worked with that doesn't have any appeal or grievance process when an employee feels that an employment action was not justified."

Seems odd to me that anyone would have this knowledge....so has the same situation occured that you have been fired from more then just the Starbucks job??? Seems to me that if you have a pattern of failure it may be time to let go and realize it's you...not the company.

Why will this P@pp@ character not answer the question regarding dues? If you'd like us all to consider your union then shouldn't we be able to get all the information? Just this dishonesty of not answering a question makes my decision that I will never belong to this crazy union.

[deusx]

"First of all, we organized the union, us workers, not the union"

Bullshit, you are wobblies and your crackpot union has been around for decades.

When you say "stop starbucks" you really mean it, your group is anti-corporation, anti-capitalism and anti-business.

Your union wants to have management "elected democratically by the workers", your union states you wish to abolish capitalism. You cleverly don't mention most of these things, one has to dig through your website and your parent organization Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) to find them.

[Massed]

From the bitterness and vitriol towards anyone who says something pro-union or anti-Sbux in this thread, there are obviously some nerves being struck here. And, in the (right wing, pro-corporate doublespeak) spirit of what passes for debate today, instead of responding with facts or informed opinion, these contributors are just attacking the motives of the opposite side. Denying what is said on StopStarbucks is meaningless; show some proof, as they have.

[@P@P##]

Listen there's a difference and reasons to why The SWU Starbucks Wokers Union joined with the IWW for further inquires you may contact www.Starbucksunion.org

[OP))@p]

I've seen the court papers/rulings and met enough people across the country doing the same thing we are, who have been attacked by Corporate due to many different issues, and when they stand up for their rights they have gotten fired...I've met them ALL and shared their stories of the mistreatment. I have all the proof I need.

You should have seen the 12 Corporate lawyers Starbucks brought in for the trials in New York getting paid $1000.00 hour, just to not admit that they were wrong. Instead of talking with their Partners/workers they wanted a fight, and you know what WE WON.

[buxy]

@ Sbux Alum Bill

I didn't realize that people who've accepted a job offer for a salaried position expected to be compensated when their work required them to work until the work was done?... I'm salaried. Some weeks I jack around and spend a lot of time socializing or reading the news at work and some weeks I'm here from dawn until dusk working my ass off... I work until the job is done and I love my job so that helps. My manager has never asked me to work more or less, i got an "above expectations" on my mid year review and I'm sure that if I wasn't above expectation I'd be ask to handle things that would consistently take me beyond what is considered a 'normal' work week.

Retail hourly partners ACCRUE vacation, so this accrued amount of pay that's kept for them for vacations up to however many hours a year, ends up on their last pay check since they are on an accrual system. Everyone else has a "use it or lose it" grant. Didn't use it? It was 'granted' to you and is now gone.

IMO if you're complaining about having to pull extra hours to get the work done that you accepted a job for, that speaks poorly to your work ethic.

---

@Unionizing SBUX workers

I think it speaks volumes about these people who are targeting sbux with these union efforts. Their experience with other retailers or coffee houses has to be nil if they truly believe what they believe. If they really cared about the plight of these workers they'd care about the plight of other retail employees who work in similar or worse conditions (not enough hours, no health care, being under paid ... etc) ... but they have targeted the sbux because they got butt hurt over a cup of coffee at some point and don't really care to empathize with the plight of the rest of retail workers but rather get some headlines and revenge over spilled coffee.

If you can do it better with a union start your own coffee company. Guarantee everyone 40 hours a week, pay them enough to support their family of 2 adults and 2.5 kids with their entry level retail position in manhattan, give them all health care and be profitable. Don't just be profitable though, be green, participate in fair trade, help farmers and their communities out. It all sounds good, it all sounds ideal. But the truth of the matter is if this reality isn't currently viable for SCHOOL TEACHERS why should it be true for a barista?

I'd like to see an entry year teacher affording to support their 2.5 kids and spouse while paying student loans before a barista could tbh, I think the teacher should make more then a barista, but it seems like these baristas don't think so which just baffles me.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ buxy

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not complaining about working hard. I've done it on virtually all of my past jobs, and I will happily continue to do so in the future. My point is that I upheld my end of the "partnership" with Starbucks at the same time that my supervisor was engineering the surprise termination of that "partnership," and Starbucks provided me with no avenue for redress. Doesn't "respect & dignity" for "partners" imply that processes are in place to make sure that "partners" are treated fairly? Again, it's the hypocrisy of Starbucks that is so galling - Howard loves to boast about how enlightened his organization is, but it's all talk & no walk.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ coffee soldier

Let me restate, and please pay attention this time. I have never been fired, warned or counseled regarding my job performance at any previous time in my 30-year career. I have worked in the past in litigation support involving employment cases (btw, I usually was working for the attorney that represented the employer in these cases), and in all cases there was an extensive personnel file docuimenting the employment termination process. I never encountered a case where the employee had no right of redress within the organization. Starbucks is the first such employer that I've encountered in my career.

BTW, I'll refrain from gratuitous remarks against you - I would appreciate it if you do the same. Let's try to keep this exchange civil.

[QoP@@p]

SBUX Alum Bill

It also baffles me here when Managers come out and start talking against partners coming together to form a Union in their stores...that's called Union-Bashing I believe?? Starbucks lost a decision by a Judge and was ordered not to participate in this kind of behavior, but the SM and DM's just don't get it...you can't stop people from coming together, past, present employees, customers and politicians it's our right, and if we decided to start up a Union we should have that right...

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ QoP@@p

If it takes a union to implement the most basic right of redress of grievances, then Starbucks needs a union (for its own good, as well as the good of its "partners").

[buxy]

@ Sbux Alum Bill

were you laid off? or fired?

The answer to why if it's the first reason is "it's not fiscally responsible of us to have this position existing anymore so it doesn't exist," which is the common sense truth. If someone had to explain that truth to me I'd feel like I was being talked down to, but I'm an adult and understand that companies can't employee anyone if they aren't working to make fiscally responsible decisions.

if you were "fired" I have no idea what avenue you'd take to find information out about it or why that information wasn't made available to you. Every partner I've had to terminate has known that it was coming and what behaviors they had that were driving their separation.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ buxy

I was fired, although I was provided with no explanation & was explicitly told that no one in the organization would discuss it with me. I strongly believe that I was the "fall guy" for a mistake that my supervisor made, but I have never been given the opportunity to speak to anyone but my supervisor about it. I was explicitly told that Starbucks has no appeal or grievance process. HR has confirmed that policy. I sent a detailed letter to several people in the organization, but the only answer I've ever gotten is that Starbucks has no review process for such decisions & that the matter was closed.

[HoratioBucks]

If your dues don't come from your paycheck, where are your dues coming from? Who is paying your dues?

dues are not the issue here, it's Workers Rights so lets discuss that...

This is a legitimate question, p@ppPP and you are the one who brought it up. I'd just like an answer. I'm curious.

Still waiting for the answer, p@ppPP.

[$P**@p]

I pay my dues like I said $9

I have an engagement to get to but I will talk to you soon

Grab a BOLD cup if you can today :) for MAMI-MEL!!

Cheers!!

[HoratioBucks]

First of all We organized the Union, us workers, no Union organized us, get it straight, second my dues cost $9 dollars a month and they do not come out of my pay check. I do not have to be employed to be part of the Union, so back up a little cause you have no idea what your talking about...

I pay my dues like I said $9

In your post above, you say you pay $9 in dues a month, but the dues do not come out of your pay check. So, who is paying your dues? It can't be you if it isn't coming out of your paycheck.

[jabanga]

when i was a starbucks manager i went to what i considered an anti-union training class. nothing they trained us on that day would be considered illegal, but there was no question that the training was 100% anti-union and the expectation was that all of us managers were expected to be so, too.

[NespressoBarista]

Ha ha ha, 2 weeks holiday at start? Here in Europe, depending on your country, you get 5 weeks plus bank holidays. And either NHS (free healthcare for all) or whatever your countries government is offering. Why? Because our grandfathers were unionised and fought for their rights.
Things at Starbucks can be bad but that's because they are incompetant, not evil.

[No.VaSM]

Yeah, I had anti-union training too.. It involved teaching managers how to be considerate to partners so they wouldn't feel the need to organize. So far, I haven't had an issue and I have very, very low turnover and spoiled partners. We're all happy

[Tony Soprano]

If the union would guarantee each shop unionized aminimum net profit margin, then they can implement all of the airheaded work rules and ridiculous fast food pay scales they want to dream up.

Of wait, they don't care if the company goes out of business after they bled the employee paychecks dry for a while?

Whodathunkit?

Most common Mafia "legit" job= Union Delegate.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ HoratioBucks

In your post above, you say you pay $9 in dues a month, but the dues do not come out of your pay check. So, who is paying your dues? It can't be you if it isn't coming out of your paycheck.

I think $P**@p is just saying that the $9 isn't deducted by Starbucks & remitted to the union, since Starbucks doesn't recognize the union. Thus, he cuts the check out of his own funds & pays it directly.

[Ben Genuine]

SBUX Alum Bill,

Salaried partner's vacation time is granted, not earned like hourly partners. Therefore when you leave the company, voluntarily or not, you don't get paid for your remaining vacation time.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ Ben Genuine

Exactly. That's my point. The "grant system" that Starbucks has set up is very unique, and it prevents those who are dismissed from receiving vacation pay that would be deemed as earned under the more common vacation accrual structure. Starbucks is the only company that I'm aware of that uses the "vacation grant" system, and they aren't even allowed to do it in several states where it is deemed to be too Draconian. (That's why Starbucks is forced to use the more common approach in specific states, such as California). It really does penalize those that need the money the most - those who, for one reason or another, unexpectedly lose ther jobs & find themselves suddenly in dire need of funds. I'd be happy to explain the Starbucks system (and how it particularly affects those who are laid off or fired) more thoroughly if you wish.

[JFK]

@Bill,
If I give you whatever little vacation you accrued when you got canned for poor performance, will you shut it and move on? I assume you're in your 50s since you have 30 years experience. A 50-something with an MBA moping about his employer 6 months later is at the very least pathetic, and at worst diagnostic.

Since this is a union string, I guess I should ask: since when were unions even relevant anymore? So few employers even have them.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ JFK

Thank you for your insightful analysis. You and Starbucks are a perfect match.

[Mark]

NespressoBarista, the 5 weeks vacations, 35 hour work weeks, etc, etc, have created an anit-business environment. That is why France has double digit unemployment for the last 15 years!

The days of the Union are over, they are the new dinosaur. Their reason to exist is to perpetuate new members and spread inefficiency and wasteful labor wherever they exist.

I work in a at-will employment state. That means that even if I get glowing review, excellent customer feedback, etc, I can get fired without warning. I would rather work in that business than a union.

[%&P@p]

Listen JFK, Mark

If your so negative don't join but don't be negative towards another partner's free choice and don't Union bash...Everyone has different reasons for joining or not joining, and store by store it is different. Some DM's and SM's still do take care of their partners, somewhat at least to the best of their ability, and other's are rotten to the core pulling illegal activities and procedures that have cost investors lots of money...This isht goes on NO DOUBT it all depends on where you are and who you're with...and when you try to play with FIRE you will get burned!!

[(former) FLA SM]

"They get paid more than min wage plus tips,"

MORE than min wage? Not necessarily. In this area of Florida, some stores were forced to give "raises" to some employees in order to comply with the new minimum wage.

"health benefits are available to all."

Only if you average 20 hours/week or more. Not a guarantee.

"(By the way, if you don't get enough hours at your store you can pick up hours at any company owned store,"

Only if it's allowed in your area. Some DMs and SMs prohibit this practice.

"Partners are granted stocks,"

Which are worthless.

"have tuition reimbursement"

Is that still around? Or did it go away like the 401k matching?

"and have a flexible schedule."

Actually, it's YOU who must have a flexible schedule, thanks to optimal scheduling.

"Again, please tell me specifically what's so bad about working for Starbucks?"

Where do I start? Complete lack of respect & dignity, despite that being a selling point of the company. No mileage reimbursement when forced to drive for company business. The constant threatening of job security over arbitrary measures like CV. Ridiculous publicity stunts like Espresso Excellence. Lack of focus (smoothies, CDs, books, puzzles, etc.) Refusal to give customers what they want like decaf or bold. Cheapening of the brand with desperation measures like value meals. Complete lack of integrity of upper management. Etc., etc., etc.

All that being said, a union is not the answer, especially the IWW. The answer is finding some leaders who actually honor the commitment they made in their guiding priciples and mission statement.

[Mark]

To the Socialist %&P@p

I have worked for a union. Besides having to pay a LARGE chunk of my pay to the union, I got squat in return.

I rather earn my benefits on merit and experience, not seniority.

P.S. JFK was union friendly, gangster/criminal not friendly. Remember the mob ties to the Teamsters? It's been there since the union was formed.

[p@Poooo!]

Mark

Howard Schultz is from the projects in Brooklyn, it doesn't get more Gangster/Mafia then that buddy!

It is unfortunate that you had a negative experience with another Union. It sounds like the position/job you were working for at the time made it mandatory for you to join the Union. That's unfortunate, but let me assure you that this is not the objective of The SWU/IWW. We are trying to reach out to partners who are being mistreated and want to stand up for their rights. Mr. Schultz (Starbucks CEO),
You have repeatedly intimidated and terminated your employees for seeking to unionize, taking a page from Wal-Mart's unethical playbook. That does not foster trust among workers. We insist you allow your workers to organize and stop opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of allowing your workers to unionize and negotiate fairer wages, health benefits, and hours, Starbucks spends millions in legal fees settling labor complaints that would expose your atrocious labor practices. That does not foster trust among workers. Rather than heed workers' pleas, Starbucks has proposed a stripped down version of the Employee Free Choice Act that would make unionization more difficult. That does not foster trust among workers.
Quit following Wal-Mart's anti-union example and give your workers what they want, Mr. Schultz. They will not trust you until you do.

[Mikeeeee]

Why don't bank employees (such as Bank of American, Citigroup, etc.) unionize?

Because it doesn't work.

Take a look at the car manufacturers.

Unions only work for health care workers, and government employees because the government has the money to pay their demands. As for the private sector, when economies go bust, unions can't do a thing, and they give in to concessions.