Starbucks is a favorite meetup location for progressive activists. The internet based Presidential campaign of Howard Dean virtually came to life in the Starbucks franchises of America. I have to admit to even liking Starbucks myself. It ain't Dunkin Donuts, but the Starbucks shops have a good tasting coffee with pleasant atmosphere and decor - sometimes even jazz music. The Starbucks company has touted itself as a customer and employee friendly environment. Like many other deceptive big business P.R. images, reality tells us a different story.
The New York Times (11/26/05) reports that a National Labor Relations Board complaint has been filed against Starbucks indicating that a regional director of operations threatening employees with "loss of wages and benefits if they voted for a union." There have been numerous other incidents of union busting which have been addressed by workers against the company in NLRB complaints. According to UPI, union organizers picketing Starbucks outlets in the New York City area are demanding a 30 hour work week for employees so that workers can qualify for health insurance. Newsday quotes a customer waiting outside of a Starbucks shop with a picket line in Long Island as saying, "If you charge what they do for a cup of coffee, they can afford to give somebody insurance."
Will progressive groups like local chapters of Democracy for America look for another location to hold their meetups until Starbucks management stops denying workers the right to bargain collectively ? I hope so, but so many of the new progressive types are totally indifferent to the labor movement. Unions play a critical role in protecting worker rights and bargaining for a living wage. That's a lot more important than babbling politically correct cliches while sipping on a four dollar latte at Starbucks.
http://www.starbucksunion.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Starbucks workers (at company-owned stores) have it great. They get full benefits if they only work 20 hours per week (at least here in Ohio). Most companies will require you to work 40 hours to get any benefits.
But of course, it's not enough for these people. So they want to form a union to squeeze as much as possible out of the company.
A union would be the worse thing that could happen to Starbucks.
But now that I know they are opposing unions, I will be a more frequent customer! Especially if it means crossing a picket line.
Irony is funny.
I stopped by to check out your site after you visited mine. I've enjoyed what I've read so far, although I guess I have a different definition of a conservative Democrat -- i.e., a Jacksonian.
I always thought of Scoop as populist on the economic side (i.e., what many people would consider liberal to moderate) and hard-line on foreign policy. I don't know that he would appeal today to the Christian right.
I believe he may be like me (if he were alive and active in politics): a man without a home. I'd be interested in further thoughts.
Also, I'm not sure where you're based (maybe the South?), but I've been mulling launching a political site in 2006 ... nothing major, just a few people with political backgrounds or interest, to discuss politics. Maybe it would focus on just the South, but if bloggers from other regions would like to join in, I'd be happy with that.
One catch: No Kos kids and no hard-righties. We all know how they are going to vote. This is for people who are trapped in the middle.
Stop by BaT again, if you're interested.
I meant to add that you're now on my blogroll. Don't worry, I kept you away from the homos. You're down in the "History & Politics" section with The Churchill Centre and Dr. Sabato.
Jeff, what you don't mention is that Starbucks employees have a lower rate of benefit coverage than Walmart employees. Source: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2007/db20070921_624050.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
The other important point here is that it is illegal for Starbucks to oppose unionization. Unionization is a right according to US and international law. You may not think it should be a right (you have the right to think that), but for you to applaud a company violating the law - rather than campaigning to change the law - strikes me as showing that you don't have much regard for democracy or rule of law.
You may not like that some Starbucks workers are choosing to exercise their right to unionize. You have a right to disagree with someone's legal choices. It's a different matter for you to applaud when someone else violates people's rights. I don't like what you said in your comment - I don't like the way you are choosing to use your right to free speech - but I don't campaign for people to violate your right to free speech. You're doing the equivalent to that, and I think it's messed up.
Post a Comment