Hello, I have just started posting to these forums and I think they could be an important resource for the thousands of non-management "partners" at starbucks.
I have been working at starbucks for six months, while getting my degree in History. I came to the job because it was easy to get one there and they offer health insurance for part-time workers.
Visiting the forums on this site, I can't but not notice the remarks of people who are against a union, or don't see the need for one, or think that the union will "rob" them of their well-earned dollars.
I think this needs to be placed in context of 1.) the labor movement's decline as a whole, 2.) the benefits given to partners, and 3.) what material gains a union offers.
1.) The labor movement is in a state of atrophy. What people think of when they think of a union is not something that fights for their rights, or gives hell to the managers, or consolidates workers into a collective, demorcatic organizing bloc; they think of labor's concessions to the bosses, corrupt mafiosi, less of a paycheck every week and the fact that things wouldn't be much different with a union.
Why is this? Why, with a movement that was founded on the basis of class solidarity against explotation, would the ideas people have about unions be seen this way?
Why? Because that's the way it's been since the seventies. The Labor Movement has long given up the struggle against explotaion and moved torwards a strategy of "partnership" with the owners. "Partnership" comes out of the US recession in the 70's, where unions took at face value the bosses claims that if the union didn't enact concessions, the whole industry would go under. "Partnership" is pretty much the idea that if the company makes more, the workers can have more. While this may make sense to Adam Smith, it does not make sense to the realities the working people face all over the world. "Partnership" has lead to stagnant union organizing, declining union membership (only 13 percent of US workers are organized), and contract concessions in all industries. All this while the owners have been making more and more compared to the average worker, the CEO's and bosses have more money now than ever before.
2.) Starbucks gives partner's good benefits. Compared to any other gigantic corporation that you don't need a college degree to work at (Wal-Mart, Border's, Etc.) Starbucks actually does offer more to it's workers.
The question is why. Why do they offer us more than others? And, we don't seem to be exploited as much as a McDonald's worker, so why all the talk of a union?
Starbucks gives us "good" benefits precisely for that reason. So we won't want a union. This has been a tactic of the employers for some time. They would rather lose the small percentage out of their profits, to have a workforce that thinks it is less exploited, and shows less turnover from other fast-food chains. (by the way, Starbucks IS a fast-food chain.) Turnover at McDonald's is 80%. Turnover at Starbucks is around 30-35%. Partners think they have it better, and in a small way, they do, but they are not immune to the demands of competition placed on the owners of the corportation. An example: I don't know if anyone noticed this, but we are in the midst of a production line-speedup at starbucks. When you used to make a frappucinno, you would have 6 steps to complete. Base, syrup, ice, blend, whip cream. Now, with the introduction of the MMCF(! it's even long to write), that has been moved up to 8 steps (base, syrup, syrup, chips, ice, blend, whip, fudge) all supposed to be made in the same amount of time, while the price is higher than a "basic" frapp.
The point is this, we are working harder for the same amount of money and we are less likely to see it because of the benefits given. We are still exploited and subject to the same rules of capitalist competition, but are less likely to see it because we are told "you work at the best company in the world".
Side-note: the sixth principle is "recognize profitability is important to our success;" what happens when, if times are tough, health care stops being profitable?
3.) While the Labor movement is in the state mentioned above, this does not mean that UNIONS have nothing to offer. While the movement is in a state of retreat, still 50% of un-organized workers want to be in a union. With a union comes the chance to actually hold back impending speedups with a collective voice. They could fire us all tommorrow if they wanted to, (for say, not having enough STAR skills) but with a union, they couldn't. The bosses couldn't yell at us for not making ice coffee when we're at the cold station making 163 fraps in an hour (real numbers from this week) nor could they not give us our second ten minute break "because there's a rush", or change our schedule on sunday night when we closed to open on monday morning. These are the small things that actually make a difference in the way we see our jobs and our work.
I would gladly pay $12.00 a month to that instead of to a health care plan with an outrageous co-pay
"Starbucks gives us "good" be
"Starbucks gives us "good" benefits precisely for that reason. So we won't want a union. This has been a tactic of the employers for some
time."
Those damn employers. Get a good job with great pay to make a cup of coffee. They are up to something..
"They could fire us all tommorrow if they wanted to"
Yea, let's live in a country where you can't be fire. Fooking losers
[quote=Eric]"Starbucks gives
[quote=Eric]"Starbucks gives us "good" benefits precisely for that reason. So we won't want a union. This has been a tactic of the employers for some
time."
Those damn employers. Get a good job with great pay to make a cup of coffee. They are up to something..
"They could fire us all tommorrow if they wanted to"
Yea, let's live in a country where you can't be fire. Fooking losers
[/quote]
What do you have against liberty.
What do you have about facing
What do you have about facing the truth? You need to move to Canada or Europe. They take care of their lazy people very well over there.
[quote=Eric]What do you have
[quote=Eric]What do you have about facing the truth? You need to move to Canada or Europe. They take care of their lazy people very well over there.[/quote]
What truth?
That there is a direct correlation with the level of individual liberty, life expectancy, educational opportunity and standered of living in a Nation State and the degree to which it's citizens are organized and exercise power through Unions?
It’s no accident that the USA was at its economic peak at the very moment that Union membership was at it’s highest, and that the decline in Union membership has been accompanied with a decline in economic power and economic self-sufficiency.
Perhaps you would rather the USA be like countries in which Unions are outlawed, like North Korea, or China.
[quote=Organize] What truth?
[quote=Organize]
What truth?
That there is a direct correlation with the level of individual liberty, life expectancy, educational opportunity and standered of living in a Nation State and the degree to which it's citizens are organized and exercise power through Unions?
It’s no accident that the USA was at its economic peak at the very moment that Union membership was at it’s highest, and that the decline in Union membership has been accompanied with a decline in economic power and economic self-sufficiency.
Perhaps you would rather the USA be like countries in which Unions are outlawed, like North Korea, or China.[/quote]
The life expectancy for a child born today is 100 years. So, if unions were stronger they would live to 105? 110? I wouldn't want to live that long, who the hell would?
[quote=DontFormAUnion][quote=
[quote=DontFormAUnion][quote=Organize]
What truth?
That there is a direct correlation with the level of individual liberty, life expectancy, educational opportunity and standered of living in a Nation State and the degree to which it's citizens are organized and exercise power through Unions?
It’s no accident that the USA was at its economic peak at the very moment that Union membership was at it’s highest, and that the decline in Union membership has been accompanied with a decline in economic power and economic self-sufficiency.
Perhaps you would rather the USA be like countries in which Unions are outlawed, like North Korea, or China.[/quote]
The life expectancy for a child born today is 100 years. So, if unions were stronger they would live to 105? 110? I wouldn't want to live that long, who the hell would?[/quote]
So you acknowledge the fact that Unions play an important role in increasing all measures of people’s quality of life.
You acknowledge that Unions raise wages.
Yet you are against Unions. Is this an article of faith on your part or is it based on reason.
So far your main complaint has been that you don’t want to pay anyone to earn more. I wonder are you against investing in stocks as well because you oppose brokerage fees?
I have a huge problem with #2
I have a huge problem with #2 on the list;
The problem lies when you say that the company is offering benefits for some twisted precautionary investment. You might think the world is out to get you, but I assure you, you're not that important. You could splatter your brains out in a heart shaped mass on the state capitol building three times in a row [ yes, three times in a row ] and still get nothing more than a 8 sentence obituary and 38 seconds of airtime on FOX.
I think that it's been proven that happy employees tend to do better for any company than unhappy employees do. Is it not possible that Starbucks is trying to eliminate the middle man by offering medical benefits without being forced to by a union of workers? I suppose not, that would be too rational.
[quote=cheapwh0re]I have a hu
[quote=cheapwh0re]I have a huge problem with #2 on the list;
The problem lies when you say that the company is offering benefits for some twisted precautionary investment. You might think the world is out to get you, but I assure you, you're not that important. You could splatter your brains out in a heart shaped mass on the state capitol building three times in a row [ yes, three times in a row ] and still get nothing more than a 8 sentence obituary and 38 seconds of airtime on FOX.
I think that it's been proven that happy employees tend to do better for any company than unhappy employees do. Is it not possible that Starbucks is trying to eliminate the middle man by offering medical benefits without being forced to by a union of workers? I suppose not, that would be too rational.[/quote]
Who exactly is the middle man? The organized Starbucks workers? If Starbucks wants to eliminate the middleman, why don’t they fire their layers?
[quote=Organize] So you ackn
[quote=Organize]
So you acknowledge the fact that Unions play an important role in increasing all measures of people’s quality of life.
You acknowledge that Unions raise wages.
Yet you are against Unions. Is this an article of faith on your part or is it based on reason.
So far your main complaint has been that you don’t want to pay anyone to earn more. I wonder are you against investing in stocks as well because you oppose brokerage fees?
[/quote]
I don't acknowledge it. It was a question. The life expectancy is now at 100 years because of modern medicine and all that other wonderful bullshit. I wont believe for one second that a union in place at Starbucks will make me live a few extra years. Maybe unions in place that are in place for dangerous jobs, where you seriously put your life on the line, do, but not ones for retail jobs.
A lawyer as a middle man? I
A lawyer as a middle man? I hate to say it, but that is a naiive statement. A lawyer is hired because they understand the law, not because they are to mediate between employer and employee. The employer hires a lawyer to inform them their legal rights, and represent them in court to uphold said legal rights.
The middle man would be a union representative; we have benefits without the representatives, so why would we need them somewhere in the middle? An auxillary expense, for benefits we already have.
Pages