Union tries to chip away at Starbucks' image as a socially responsible company

Few big unions have tried to organize at Starbucks, for the same reason they avoid fast-food chains and most retailers: the high turnover and the small number of workers at each store makes it hard to maintain organizing gains. But the Industrial Workers of the World is trying and Starbucks is working hard to stay union-free. (Wall Street Journal)

Comments

[dc]

There isnt a high turnover rate at my store and i dont think any one wants to be unionized because it is already a great place to work!

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

I think creating a union would be a good diea. Remember it was Uncle Howie who originally squashed the attempt to form unions years ago and the only ones are in the roasting plants. To paraphrase Senator Clinton, Starbucks runs their stores like plantations. They give us everything to make us think we are happy but if we misbehave they start whipping you and making your life miserable. Yes Starbucks is just the 21st century Southern plantation.

[http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/]

I read the article this morning. Scary business indeed. A union like the IWW would be very bad. Their misunderstadning of economics is nothing short of appalling.

[Adam in Racine WI]

I think the best point to be taken from the WSJ article is that unions tend to fail to get into businesses like Starbucks because of high employee turnover and low number of employees per store. When the job is relatively low paying and is not a "career" job, why go to the trouble to unionize when you can just quit and go get a better job somewhere else with minimal effort?

Also, I love the picture in the article. The IWW protestors looked exactly like I thought they would: unwashed, unshaven, basically offensive to all five senses. To borrow a phrase from Peter Griffin, salty garbage. I hope the police officer in that picture went home and took a long hot shower, and used flea shampoo, after standing that close to the hippies.

[Chris]

Well said Adam. ;-)

Adam's point is backed up by the person quoted:

Suley Ayala, a barista at a Starbucks in New York City. She is 23 years old and "signed up with the union because she wanted steadier hours to help ensure that she earns enough at her current wage of $9.37 an hour to support her four children."

Somehow, it sounds as though Suley is not someone who makes decisions that others would want to emulate.

I'm a long time Starbucks barista and I fully support the IWW and its goals in regards to Starbucks. I'm not a Marxist or Maoist or anything like that I just believe baristas would be better off if use their collective power to attain better lives for themselves.

I also just want to point out to the poster directly above mine that it is highly messed up no matter what side of this issue you stand on to judge how people choose to live their lives. That may be okay on Jerry Springer but in the real world saying stuff like that will get you banged up pretty severely. So be careful out there.

Peace

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

Did it ever occur that Suley Ayala might come from a very different life from the rest of us. For example, she could have a mother who is a crack addict and her father could not even be around or possibly he raped her multiple times as a seven year old girl therefore causing sigificant psychologically trauma? I think it should commended that she at least kept her children instead of having abortions and treating her children like disposable trash, just like a used paper venti cup and instead considered them a gift of love. Starbucks also probably provides insurance for all her children too. And did it also occur that she might be a single mother therefore needing the hours to feed all the children? Then again of course she might have not been able to afford the abortion procedures because she already had 8 of them before.

Boston Starbucks Rebel needs to take a rhetorics class.

Ayala's person sob story or horror story is entirely irrelevant. I don't consider myself a Marxist and I am most certainly not a Maoist (...) but any workers for any company have the right to unionize if they decide collectively that they want to. It probably will not work in Starbucks' case, given the stated reasons, and so Ayala might be better served finding a more stable job, if that is what she wants, or getting an education, if she doesn't have one, etc.

...

[wsdave]

Peace,

I agree with you that we don't have the right to judge anyone else's lifestyle. Where we part is that her lifestyle shouldn't be forced on my company. Life is full of choices, and she made hers: Now she's upset because her employer of choice doesn't support her choices that way she'd like it to.

Cry me a river.

This isn't to say that I'm unsympathetic to her plight, but that's what taxpayer funded social services are for: To spread the aftermath of her choices around to all of society, not just to the company that was willing to hire her.

[Lauren]

It's a well known economic fact that unions help people who are a part of them.

It's also a well known fact that unions hurt those who aren't a part of them. I don't feel the need to take sides against my employer (and hell, they've treated me just fine). They've given me health benefits when I asked, given me great access to stocks, and have nurtured me growing within their store.

And I'm not even one of those people who embraces starbucks. Heck, sometimes I just plain disagree. I will not high pressure sell a Barista to a 70 year old lady who will never use one no matter how much my manager or district tells me to.

I think my point is that I don't think a union could survive at Starbucks. For urban environments? Sure. But for your average, college aged, from a middle class family barista isn't going to have the need to unionize.

I suppose if you want unions you could go about packing meat or working in steel or any of the other reputable industries known for their unions. But let's be honest here...Starbucks does not equal a parts manufacturing job.

Boston Starbucks Rebel, I believe you are wrong.

In the beginning Starbucks works did start a union because they weren't sure where they were standing in the company during the formative years.

Then after "Uncle Howie" started the health, stock etc plans, the workers approached him and said they didn't want it anymore.

I am personally against the union, I feel very secure in well treated in my position.

GM and Ford are doing great right now and they have unions

[lucky mcbucky]

oooooo,

And the Airlines, they have done wonders there...., Let's not leave out all the truly successful union "wins" since 1975.......gimme a minute....I know there has to be one....maybe, well.....HMMMMM. I ghot it, THANKS FOR THE LUNCH BREAKS!!!! Go union and retire rich and wealthy without risking any of your OWN resources, like your house or your savings. There are plenty of Union jobs all around this country, but NONE seem to be hiring, why is that?

Boston bux rebel,

The piece says Starbux does not provide insurance for Suley's four children or rather her four "gifts of love:"

While her hours have become more consistent thanks to the union, she says "their health care is way too expensive for me, so I took Medicaid."

So, wsdave, she is availing herself of taxpayer funded social services.

Sounds like this gal knows how to double dip.

[QC Latte]

Quoth Anonymous One:
"GM and Ford are doing great right now and they have unions"

...and they sell products that cost $20000+. Not $3 drinks.

I lived in Williamsburg, VA for years. For a few of them, I worked in one of the taverns in the colonial area. All the other restaurants and all the hotel properties were unionized. Except mine. We had better health benefits, better pay, and a better reputation for service than the other restaurants.

Why? Because we worked for it instead of feeling that it was "owed" to us by a union. There are many places that unions are good things. A restaurant of any kind is not it. If you don't think you are getting what you are worth, there are plenty of other options in the restaurant world. Not so in Manufacturing, meat packing, coal production, and the like.

[Barista to the Stars]

I just don't see the appeal of unions. Collective bargaining sounds great, but in practice, what's good for the majority isn't necessarily good for the individual.

Case in point: working at a union job through high school and early college years. Employer realized he couldn't get the union out, so he went on an end run around them. Hired a bunch of part timers, people who didn't need the benefits. Waved miniscule raise in front of us while erroding benefits for the full timers. Part timers out numbered the full timers, we didn't care about benefits so we took the raise.

By the time I was old enough to truly understand what was going on, ie I needed insurance, there was no way I could work the number of hours needed to be considered full time and wait the length of time required to establish full time. Even if I could, the managers were told to "watch hours".

I really don't think it is up to *$ to "make" a better life for anyone. Things are pretty good there, all in all, and you can always figure something else out. There are choices, just maybe not choices you'd WANT to make.

Barista to the Stars

[Adam in Racine WI]

"GM and Ford are doing great right now and they have unions"

That would be the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on this board.

Didn't Ford just lay off like 30,000 employees worldwide? Isn't GM working on finalizing a deal to spin off Delphi (a bankrupt company) so they can avoid paying out all those ridiculous UNION retirement packages?

Great things indeed. If these are the great things that unions bring, I'll take my chances on my own!

I think that people who read this have NO sense of sarcasm. The poster of the GM and Ford unions was ridiculing the fact that the unions have been a major part of their downfall.

[QC Latte]

Hey anonymus one...
...trust me, that's the first time I have ever been accused of not being sarcastic.

[anonymous one]

well i was being sarcastic with the unions of GM and Ford being useful. Unions are archaic and an opiate of the narrow-minded, underwhelmed, underqualified, over paid working mass.

Just a few of things. Those of you comparing the UAW to the IWW are really pulling an apples to oranges.

Secondly, the downfall of GM and Ford can also be attributed to poor business management which has nothing to do with UAW.

Third, don't underestimate the IWW, the people involved in organizing this are professionals who think outside of the box of traditional organizing methods.

Last, just to make you anti-union megaditto types out there a little nervous read the settlement between Starbucks and the IWW. Two IWW union organizers who were illegally fired by Starbucks got their jobs back. IWW members who fought Starbucks and won are the last people Starbucks want wearing the green apron. But thats the situation the company is faced with.

In my opinion this settlement was a decisive victory for the Starbucks Workers Union. They should be starting to get a little sweaty in seattle.

[deusx]

Thats not fair. Sure I didn't get higher than a C in high school and didn't bother trying to educate myself further. Sure I got married right out of high school and had four kids. It doesn't mean that I don't have the god given right to a big house and new car like people who actually worked to achieve things.
Standing at a console, using a hydralic arm to lift and hold a car door to a frame while someone else uses a hydralic wrench to put bolts on said door frame is hard work. It's repetious and I'm totally worth the 22 dollars an hour that we have collectively extorted out of my employer.

Organized labor isn't extortion, a five dollar cup of coffee on the other hand...

[Lucky McBucky]

I am not quite sure I understand the need for a union at Starbucks. What is it that the IWW hopes to gain that a conversation with an SM or DM would not get them anyway? Starbucks is seen as a model for others to follow in regards to partner satisfaction and overall benefits. What more are you trying to get? I hear alot of arguements for the "guaranteed hours" that a barista must hit to get their benefits. 20 hours CAN NOT be that tough to get when there are stores all over the place that one can pick up shifts at. The responsibility HAS to remain with the partner to drive their eligibility for the benefits. It is not, and should never be a "hand-out" but rather an earned benefit. I challenge everyone who wants a union to ask these questions before jumping mindlessly on the IWW bandwagon. Afterall we ALL have ALOT to lose.

[deusx]

"Organized labor isn't extortion, a five dollar cup of coffee on the other hand.."

Im sure you are trying to be funny, on the off hand chance you weren't I would like to point out that you aren't forced to buy from Starbucks. Where as GM and Ford are forced by law and unsavory Union practices to deal with the unionists. So one is definitely legalized extortion, on isn't.

[latteguy04]

Why would anyone who would want to unionize a job, continue to work there. If you don't like it get the f#@k out. They don't force you to stay. If you want to be pampered any more than the way your treated at starbucks, stay at home and let mommy change your diaper.

Because there is more to gain by looking out for other people rather than just looking out for number one.... it's a question of efficiency.

Cooperation is more efficient than competition…. It’s that simple.

[Theolaxor]

I cant believe some of you union lobbyists. do you not realize that most service oriented jobs do not offer benefeits and stock options to even their full-time employees let alone their part time ones? i think especially the Baristas that complain about the way our company treats us need to give their heads a shake and consider the alternative to Starbucks offering benefeits--them offering us nothing, then realize how lucky they are to be working for a socially responsible company

[anon]

Let's compare Starbucks to a unionized licensed Starbucks, say in the Los Angeles airport (LAX). Here's what they make:

Starting pay of $9.42, annual raises of $0.50, FREE HEALTHCARE for themselves and their families, pension, fair scheduling, and job security.

The Starbucks workers in the Los Angeles airport do the exact same job as other Starbucks workers. What's the difference? They fought for and won these better work conditions by organizing a union.

[Theolaxor]

Actually even though I work in a proper *$, not an airport or grocery one, which aren't actually part of the chain of *$, my starting wage was around $9.30/h and I get quarterly raises, as well as fair scheduling, benefeits, and job security, so I still don't see any reason for the unionists to be complaining.

[The Masses]

Starbucks workers don't need a union because they don't even realize they are getting screwed. Since when is 8.00 an hour a living wage? It's not like there are five guys standing around while one guy is digging a hole. For the most part the employees are working hard. 320.00 a week minus benefit costs and taxes is maybe at best 260.00. They can't even own a car and afford groceries at 1000.00 a month. People working at toll booths make better money and the have a chair to sit on. Starbucks is getting a tax break from Uncle Sam because the courts have ruled that they are partly manufactoring. Why shouldn't people get paid well? Perhaps the shareholders are more worried it would affect Wall Streets bottom line.

[Theolaxor]

maybe *$ baristas only get screwed in the states cause we seem to have it pretty good in where I live

[anon]

possibly. we have pretty lax labor laws here and no national health insurance.

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

The City of Cambridge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has officially condemned the anti-union tactics of the Starbucks Coffee Corporation.