How about IWW worker owned espresso coops?

Fri, 08/05/2005 - 7:44am -- Organize
Starbucks Forum: 
Working at Starbucks

The Union can do more than just place demands on Starbucks.

My thought is that IWW Starbucks workers may want to contact Global Exchange http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/ , an Alternative Community Credit Union (example Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union http://www.lespfcu.org/ or BUSHWICK COOPERATON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION http://www.bushwick.coop/) and open a Cooperative worker owned worker operated IWW espresso bar to compete with Starbucks head to head. Adbusters http://www.adbusters.org/home/ may be a usefull resource as well.

What I am sensing from the discussions here is that the structural problems with in Starbucks management model run deep and that Starbucks is weakening its competitive footing in the market place by putting quantity before quality, coffee before service. Why shouldn’t the best and the brightest Starbucks employees both Organize Starbucks workers and use that organization to pool their moneys and start IWW worker owned cooperatives espresso bars across the country to kick Starbucks ass.

If starbucks workers are good enough to make profits to support a bloated, inadaptable and impersonal burocracy and over paid executives, then Starbucks workers are good enough to run independent worker run and owned cooperatives which have the advantage of not supporting fat cat incomes.

As these IWW worker owned Espresso bars grow IWW organizers could help organize coffee growers into IWW farming collectives. Organize Coffee rosters into IWW roster collectives.

Submitted by Organize on

What makes a worker-owned co-op better?

The work force owns the company

Decisions regarding significant matters, such as choosing a manager, are made democratically on a one-person one-vote basis

Our clients like worker-owned co-ops because they want the goods they buy to be made by people working under democratic and sustainable conditions - not in sweat-shops. We ourselves want to work in an environment where we have control. By eliminating "the boss" we are all part of the process. No one can forbid us to use the restroom, to get up from our machines, or to talk to our co-workers. Because the company is owned collectively by the workers and no one else, no absentee owner is making money off our labor.

What does it mean that we own our business collectively? It means that we workers have only one vote, and it means that no one member can sell her shares to some rich guy down the block who then hires someone else to work in his place! ALL the owners work in the co-op and ONLY the owners work in the co-op. This way our co-op cannot be bought piece by piece by some giant corporation which installs a boss, cuts the workforce, pollutes the environment, or moves production out of town.
(Thanks for this information to GEO Newsletter ©2001 GEO, 177 Kiles Rd, Stillwater PA 17878 www.geonewsletter.org)

http://www.fairtradezone.jhc-cdca.org/workerowned.htm

no gods no masters

Submitted by DontFormAUnion on

Until you work for Starbucks, you cannot call it a sweatshop.

Submitted by Organize on

[quote=DontFormAUnion]Until you work for Starbucks, you cannot call it a sweatshop.[/quote]

First and foremost, I posted an article on the advantages of Organized Labor. In this example the unionization takes the form of a Worker Owned Cooperative. I did not call Starbucks a sweatshop. You made this connection all by yourself.

But regardless, by your logic one cannot call anyplace a sweatshop at which one has not worked.

This is absurd on its face.

Submitted by DontFormAUnion on

No, I cannot say that. I know that the poor Asian children making Nike shoes for eight cents a day work in a sweatshop. I can however say that you are completely wrong by stating that Starbucks is one. I don't think I've ever seen a group of employees treated as well as Starbucks partners are. So, by you calling Starbucks a sweatshop, you're just going into the stereotype of corporations treating their employees like sweatshop workers. So in conclusion, you should go ahead and work at Starbucks before calling it that.

Submitted by Organize on

Of course I did not say Starbucks was a sweatshop. You made this connection all by yourself. I hold no opinion on the matter.

But you seem to have had fun arguing a case that was never made.

no gods no masters

Submitted by DontFormAUnion on

"Our clients like worker-owned co-ops because they want the goods they buy to be made by people working under democratic and sustainable conditions - not in sweat-shops."

Now, I might be wrong on this, but your whole case is to make Starbucks that fantasy bullshit about employees voting for everything. This sentence said something about how the clients like the worker-owned co-cops because they are working under democratic, not sweat-shop conditions. If you're trying to convince Starbucks to do this, that is implying that, as of now, Starbucks is viewed as having sweat-shop like conditions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of hard to argue against what you put down.

Submitted by Organize on

[quote=DontFormAUnion]"Our clients like worker-owned co-ops because they want the goods they buy to be made by people working under democratic and sustainable conditions - not in sweat-shops."

Now, I might be wrong on this, but your whole case is to make Starbucks that fantasy bullshit about employees voting for everything. This sentence said something about how the clients like the worker-owned co-cops because they are working under democratic, not sweat-shop conditions. If you're trying to convince Starbucks to do this, that is implying that, as of now, Starbucks is viewed as having sweat-shop like conditions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of hard to argue against what you put down.[/quote]

You are wrong.

Just because Starbucks is not a sweatshop does not mean that they could not benefit by reorganizing their employee structure from a tyranny and into a democracy.

Submitted by litexxcarameloh... on

I don't see that capitalism equates to tyranny. In a capitalist economy, there aren't many democratic companies. The exception might be Northwest and United who have employee ownership. Are you recommending employee ownership and equal voting rights?

Just how well do the the coops pay? How are the benefits? I need to know because Credit Unions are a dime a dozen, anyone can become a member of some credit union but higher pay and bene's. I could go for that.

BTW, if you think I don't care about the quality of the coffee, you may be right. I am a coffee and espresso drinker. If another of my kind comes in, I make sure that they get a good shot. The other drinks have so much milk and sugar that you hardly notice the espresso. Customers like it that way. I hand out cups of milk and sugar all day, that is where the money is.

fraplitexxcaramelwithwithwhipohplease

Submitted by Organize on

“I don't see that capitalism equates to tyranny.”

Me neither.

“In a capitalist economy, there aren't many democratic companies.”

Exactly and humanity is poorer for it.

“The exception might be Northwest and United who have employee ownership.”

Employee ownership is not the same as democratic institutions.

“Are you recommending employee ownership and equal voting rights?”

Yes.

“Just how well do the the coops pay?”

That depends on how successful the coop is and whether the coop has a democratic structure in their workplace. But regardless how well they pay if they have a democratic work structure the workers themselves determined wages, benefits, as well as facility upgrades and health and safety standards.

I don’t have any statistics on this; buy those worker cooperatives that I know of pay above the prevailing wages for comparable work.

“How are the benefits?”

And they provide comparable benefits. But again in Workplace Democracies, the workers themselves or their elected representatives set wages and benefits.

“I need to know because Credit Unions are a dime a dozen, anyone can become a member of some credit union but higher pay and bene's. I could go for that.”

Credit Unions are not Worker Owned Cooperatives, they are Consumer owned Cooperatives. The workers are employees of the consumers. It is not uncommon that a consumer cooperative be run undemocratically; in fact even in worker owned businesses undemocratic workplaces persist.

The simple fact is most people have become so used to working in undemocratic conditions that they have great trouble imagining anything else.

In fact I don’t think most people are even aware that they have a choice or where to find examples of business run democratically.

Just before I end… because Workplace Democracy is a management issues not an ownership issue, there are a few workplaces; I cited one in another discussion, which are run by corporations yet have implemented a Democratic management system.

Submitted by DontFormAUnion on

[quote=Organize][quote=DontFormAUnion]"Our clients like worker-owned co-ops because they want the goods they buy to be made by people working under democratic and sustainable conditions - not in sweat-shops."

Now, I might be wrong on this, but your whole case is to make Starbucks that fantasy bullshit about employees voting for everything. This sentence said something about how the clients like the worker-owned co-cops because they are working under democratic, not sweat-shop conditions. If you're trying to convince Starbucks to do this, that is implying that, as of now, Starbucks is viewed as having sweat-shop like conditions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of hard to argue against what you put down.[/quote]

You are wrong.

Just because Starbucks is not a sweatshop does not mean that they could not benefit by reorganizing their employee structure from a tyranny and into a democracy.
[/quote]

That....would....never....work....in....Starbucks. How many times do I have to say it to get it through your thick retarded skull? Do you think that high school students, working at Starbucks to get some money so they can go out on Friday nights, really have the rational thought to have a fair vote in who becomes what in upper management? Do you think they really care? No, and why should they? What about the other part timers. I seriously doubt a house wife who is working part time just to have something to do really cares about upper management. College kids doing it to have some spending money while their parents pay for their dorms and insurance? Nope, I doubt they care either. Your whole fantasy system would only work in a company that is small, and is employeed by people persuing a career, not part time. So no, you are wrong.

Pages