San Francisco Bay Area IWW leaflets Starbucks in solidarity with Starbucks Workers Union

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/17/18435960.php

San Francisco Bay Area IWW leaflets Starbucks in solidarity with Starbucks Workers Union



For the third Saturday in a row, a small group of Bay Area IWW members distributed leaflets and information to Starbucks customers, passersby, and workers at one of the many Starbucks locations in the area in solidarity with the Starbucks Workers' Union organizing campaign.

Reactions were generally positive, and the Bay Area IWW pledges to continue the practice each Saturday at approximately noon at a different location each week. So far the Bay Area IWW has visited the following Starbucks coffee houses:

June 30, 2007 - San Francisco at Powell and O'Farrell Streets (near Union Square).
July 7, 2007 - Berkeley at Shattuck and Kittredge near the Shattuck Cinema where the IWW currently is negotiating their first contract.
July 14, 2007 - Berkeley at Shattuck and Cedar near Andronicos.
Please join us next Saturday at noon a location to be determined in Oakland. Call Bruce at 510-355-2261.

For more information about the Starbucks Workers Union, visit http://www.starbucksunion.org

http://www.iww.org/en/node/3523

[Tom Joad]

1. go union!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I wrote Starbucks

I thought you might find it interesting to read what they responded, and my response to their response:



> From: "Customer Relations" <[e-mail]>
> Date: 2007/07/20 Fri
> To:
> Subject: Response from Starbucks Coffee Company - Case #
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
>
> The people who work at Starbucks are the heart and soul of our company.
> We have always and continue to offer a total pay package of competitive
> compensation, flexible scheduling, health care coverage for all eligible
> employees, and company stock that connects to the success of our
> company, which is why we call our employees "partners." In 2006, for the
> eighth time, Starbucks was named a Fortune magazine "Top 100 Companies
> to Work For
>
> We regularly solicit feedback from partners through surveys, roundtable
> discussions, and daily conversation. In fact, in the most recent partner
> survey, an overwhelming majority (86%) rated workplace satisfaction with
> Starbucks as "very high."
>
> We're incredibly proud of this.
>
> Recently, partners made clear that compensation was an area they were
> concerned about, and Starbucks responded by assessing compensation in
> each of our markets, and providing wage increases to most store partners
> throughout the country. Credit for these quality improvements belongs to
> the partners, company leadership, and our ongoing collaboration.
>
> The IWW promotes an environment of mistrust, harassment and intimidation
> among our partners. Most of their information is inaccurate, out of
> date, or untrue. They make false claims of having won pay increases and
> other benefits for Starbucks partners. It is inaccurate, and misleading
> for the IWW to seize upon any credit for this or any other issue that
> might garner the slightest media attention.

> According to its website, they call for "the abolition of the wage
> system" and seek to "do away with capitalism."

> A handful of current and former disgruntled partners have been calling
> themselves the "Starbucks Workers Union," a part of IWW Local 660, yet
> of more than 5,000 Starbucks stores worldwide, the IWW represents none.
> They have not been recognized by the National Labor Relations Board as
> certified to represent partners at any Starbucks location.

> We respect the free choice of Starbucks partners and strictly comply
> with the laws and guidelines associated with labor-organizing
> activities. Despite IWW claims, no Starbucks partners have been
> disciplined or terminated as a result of any IWW-related activity.

> Thanks again for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
__________________

And here’s what I responded back to them:
__________________


Thank you for responding. You’ve been so kind as to address points that you
feel are valid, and I’d like to respond to some of those points if I may.

You allude to the fact that your employees are called partners. Why call
employees partners if they’re not partners-in-fact?

Obtaining feedback through surveys, roundtable discussions, and daily
conversation is not a valid way to obtain actual employee satisfaction. In
order to obtain actual employee views, these have to be anonymous, mail-in
opinion surveys which are neither bar coded nor numbered. To obtain employee
opinions in front of their management is unreasonable. No employee of sound
mind will state anything but the most high opinion of the company, unless they
have a deep-seated desire to be escorted out the door.

Concerning the IWW (which I just looked up on the Internet), I don’t know of a
single for-profit corporation that is a friend of unions. Unions represent
bargaining power for employees. This is anathema to what for-profit
corporations stand for and seek. For-profit corporations exist for one reason,
and one reason only: profit. The higher this can be, the better. In fact,
the ideal corporate situation is to be able to dismiss with wages entirely.
This is the only reason so many American corporations have moved their
operations to China, where they can pay $1/day to what is basically an
indentured servant, to manufacture products that unemployed or underemployed
individuals then purchase here.

A more extreme but true-history example of how for-profit corporations do not
automatically have the well being of employees in mind, is the many companies
which, during the Third Reich, used slave labor from concentrations camps, and,
in lieu of paying employees, paid a stipend to the government for the use of
the slaves. Some of these companies were and are perfectly "respectable"
ones: Ford Motor Company, Audi, BMW, Daimler-Benz, Siemens, Leica Camera and
Volkswagen, among others. Naturally, not having to pay employee wages made
these companies highly profitable for their owners.

Now, that’s not to say that Starbucks has no good intentions. It does. I
believe that Starbucks seeks to have an image of being a good company, and
indeed it’s certainly one of the better ones, however, it is still a
company.

Sorry this was so long-winded.

Take care

[Omaha Steve]

3. Great letter

Starbucks left out a few facts like they have been charged with labor violations more than once that I know of in three different cities.


http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/712

Unfair Labor Practices Settlement With Starbucks

Some highlights of the National Labor Relations Board settlement with Starbucks include:

* The reinstatement of IWW members, Sarah Bender and Anthony Polanco, who had been discharged for their union activity in order to discourage other workers from making a free and fair choice about whether to join the union.

* The invalidation of Starbucks' national policy that prohibited the sharing of written union information and joining the union on company property.

* The invalidation of Starbucks' national no-pin policy. Workers had been banned from wearing IWW pins and had been sent home from work without pay for refusing to take them off.

* An agreement by Starbucks to end threats, bribes, and surveillance of union members.

* What would have been a relatively hefty backpay award against Starbucks was reduced because the IWW assisted its discharged members in obtaining other employment which mitigates damages under the National Labor Relations Act. Still, the company will pay out almost $2,000.

* And much more: click here for printable .pdf of the settlement.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I doubt they'll respond to me, but if they do, I'm now armed with more information

I just can't get over the bs corporations get away with. Thanks, Repukes!