News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://tinyurl.com/6zmqtl
Starbucks baristas union drive comes at key time
The effort to organize local latte-slingers could hurt the ailing chain
By Matt Snyders
Published on July 30, 2008

It was a typical, busy Thursday afternoon at the Mall of America's
first-floor Starbucks, and Erik Forman was four hours into his shift.
The slight, 23-year-old barista was soon approached by a vaguely
familiar face: Caroline Kaker, the chain's Bloomington-based district
manager.

She pulled him aside and led him to the adjacent Barnes & Noble. There,
she broke the grim news: You're fired.

Forman was stunned. Sure, two weeks earlier, he had shown up a half-hour
late and was issued a written warning. But that wasn't why Forman was
getting the ax today. Management decided to deep-six him after learning
that Forman had discussed the warning with co-workers.

"Erik violated terms of his June 2008 final written corrective action by
discussing it with a peer," reads the notice of separation.

But there was another topic Forman had discussed with peers, one not
explicitly mentioned in the write-up: unionizing.

A member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Forman had been
in the process of organizing his co-workers under the IWW banner for
nearly two years.

"It started with workers during their situations during cigarette
breaks, during car rides to and from work," Forman recalls. "We first
approached the IWW in September of '06. They helped us figure out how to
build a strategy."

In 2004, the IWW took on a Starbucks in Midtown Manhattan, with modest
success. In the following years, the list of IWW Starbucks Union
affiliates grew to include five other shops in New York City; two in
Chicago; one in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and one in Rockville, Maryland.

Shortly after the first union sprouted in New York, Starbucks higher-ups
exchanged concerned emails, leaked to The Wall Street Journal, about how
to handle the epidemic of unionizing. One, dated October 29, 2004,
begins with a blunt introduction: "Below is a summary of the recent
developments in New York City regarding our attempts to thwart a
potential union situation," it reads.

In March 2006, the IWW accused the coffee giant of union-busting and
filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. Starbucks
settled, agreeing to display workers' rights posters in three of its
stores and to allow two fired workers back on staff.

"The reasons they gave for firing me were identical to what they did in
New York," says Forman, who's also filed a complaint with the National
Labor Relations Board. "This is a pretty blatant example of
union-busting. We've been planning on making our movement public for a
while -- so even though it comes as a blow, it's kind of a galvanizing
blow."

On July 11, one day after Forman got clipped, five workers walked off
the floor and approached the floor manager, Jason Lyons, with a petition
demanding Forman's reinstatement. Lyons told them it was out of his hands.

Now Forman and the IWW stand poised to organize baristas throughout the
metro. On Monday, July 21, they went public. Their demands include a
living wage, "respectful" scheduling, and an end to the company's
alleged union-busting.

Asked about Forman's allegations, a Starbucks spokesperson had little to
say.

"We just received the charge [from Forman] and we're reviewing it," says
Stacey Krum, on the phone from Seattle. "There's nothing we can offer
right now."

The charges clash with Starbucks' image as a corporate paragon of social
responsibility. The Seattle-based chain has staked its reputation on
progressive values that play well with its well-to-do clientele.
Starbucks was listed as No. 7 in Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work
For" this year.

The most frequently extolled of Starbucks' labor practices is its
healthcare program. It's one of the few major retailers to provide
health insurance to part-time employees. But that comes with a couple of
caveats.

First, in order to qualify, workers must log 240 hours per quarter.
However, there are no guaranteed hours and many baristas complain of
sporadic, unpredictable scheduling. As a result, only 65 percent of
Starbucks workers, including management, meet the 240-hour minimum. Many
of the remaining workers (particularly part-timers) decide not to buy
into the plan; rent payments take priority over premiums.

Consequently, the company's health insurance plan covers less than half
(40.9 percent) of employees. As organizers like to point out, that's
less than the oft-demonized Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which covers 47
percent of its workers.

"It's just incredible hypocrisy on this core identity issue," says IWW
organizer Daniel Gross. "It's absolutely misleading. It's taken a
sub-par program and turned it into a marketing advantage through spin
and PR."

Last week, Starbucks released the full list of 600-odd stores expected
to close in the coming months, including 27 in Minnesota. Sixteen of the
doomed shops sit in the Twin Cities metro.The closings will affect some
12,000 workers nationwide. On Monday, Forman's former co-workers at the
Mall of America's Starbucks walked off the floor and issued a letter to
management demanding "just treatment of all employees affected by
Starbucks' closure of stores nationwide." With an economy seemingly in
free-fall and job security plummeting, unionization -- for good or ill
-- enjoys more appeal than it did 10 years ago.

"This will be the biggest fire they've had to put out in a while," says
Forman. "The economy is getting worse, people can't get by and are
having to work 14-hour days. Management's biggest tool has always been
the threat of firing. People are starting to think maybe that's a risk
worth taking."

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

<snip>
>
> Now Forman and the IWW stand poised to organize baristas throughout the
> metro. On Monday, July 21, they went public. Their demands include a
> living wage, "respectful" scheduling, and an end to the company's
> alleged union-busting.

<snip>

<http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#labor>

"Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He
will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will
ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work
to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also
increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises
every year.
Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the
freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or
intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong
advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure
that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to
fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.....)"


Heh, the key time is in 5 months, and it will be extremely
interesting times for the US.

Convert to Euros and Yen while you can.

A ridiculous time! with 600 locations closing.

never fly. Plus Starbucks treats its employees very well.

and Jack / Izzy? the problem with GM etc. ain't the unions -- it is
the idiotic management

"lockjaw" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> A ridiculous time! with 600 locations closing.
>
> never fly. Plus Starbucks treats its employees very well.
>
> and Jack / Izzy? the problem with GM etc. ain't the unions -- it is
> the idiotic management

You're absolutely correct. And although any serious economic analysis comes
to the same conclusion, don't expect Jack to allow himself to be confused by
the facts . . .

On Aug 2, 11:35 am, "alan" > wrote:
> "lockjaw" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > A ridiculous time! with 600 locations closing.
>
> > never fly. Plus Starbucks treats its employees very well.
>
> > and Jack / Izzy? the problem with GM etc. ain't the unions -- it is
> > the idiotic management
>
> You're absolutely correct. And although any serious economic analysis comes
> to the same conclusion, don't expect Jack to allow himself to be confused by
> the facts . . .


BMW reported on Friday their profits this Q down 33%. Nissan
reported Friday their quarterly profits down 48%. Along with Toyota
and Honda auto sector profits are glum.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...STORY/1799680/

I find it hard to believe that all these companies have "idiotic
management". Maybe the worst economy in about 50 years has something
to do with it. Even if they were all producing hybrids at 100% plant
capacity it wouldn't do any good if folks can't buy a new car.
Bernie

"bernie" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 2, 11:35 am, "alan" > wrote:
>> "lockjaw" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > A ridiculous time! with 600 locations closing.
>>
>> > never fly. Plus Starbucks treats its employees very well.
>>
>> > and Jack / Izzy? the problem with GM etc. ain't the unions -- it is
>> > the idiotic management
>>
>> You're absolutely correct. And although any serious economic analysis
>> comes
>> to the same conclusion, don't expect Jack to allow himself to be confused
>> by
>> the facts . . .
>
>
> BMW reported on Friday their profits this Q down 33%. Nissan
> reported Friday their quarterly profits down 48%. Along with Toyota
> and Honda auto sector profits are glum.
>
> http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...STORY/1799680/
>
> I find it hard to believe that all these companies have "idiotic
> management". Maybe the worst economy in about 50 years has something
> to do with it. Even if they were all producing hybrids at 100% plant
> capacity it wouldn't do any good if folks can't buy a new car.
> Bernie

Certainly the "worst economy in about 50 years" has something (perhaps
everything) to do with GM's current troubles. What I was referring to was
what I perceived (perhaps mistakenly) to be Jacks' contention that the UAW
was responsible for GM's big downturn in the 70's which turned Detroit into
a ghost town. GM's inability to hold the market and subsequent inability to
re-capture it had nothing to with unions. While GM was foundering, Japanese
and German automakers were doing quite well --- with highly organized and
very powerful labor unions. GM's troubles were management based. Now
they're mangement-based and economy-based.
alan

On Aug 2, 2:10*pm, bernie > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 11:35 am, "alan" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "lockjaw" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > > A ridiculous time! *with 600 locations closing.
>
> > > never fly. *Plus Starbucks treats its employees very well.
>
> > > and Jack / Izzy? *the problem with GM *etc. ain't the unions -- it is
> > > the idiotic management
>
> > You're absolutely correct. *And although any serious economic analysis comes
> > to the same conclusion, don't expect Jack to allow himself to be confused by
> > the facts . . .
>
> * * BMW reported on Friday their profits this Q down 33%. Nissan
> reported Friday their quarterly profits down 48%. Along with Toyota
> and Honda auto sector profits are glum.
>
> * *http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...STORY/1799680/
>
> * I find it hard to believe that all these companies have "idiotic
> management". Maybe the worst economy in about 50 years has something
> to do with it. Even if they were all producing hybrids at 100% plant
> capacity it wouldn't do any good if folks can't buy a new car.
> Bernie

Well "folks" can buy new cars, they just don't want 12 mpg SUVs and
trucks -- VERY high profit margin vehicles! small cars, uh not so
much.

They're struggling over who gets the cushiest deck chairs on the Titanic.