Starbucks Union

IWW Starbucks Workers Union

Places that do not need unions

Submitted by haydeegomez on Tue, 06/28/2005 - 10:13pm.

I must mention that although I support Starbucks workers in being unionized, there are at least 2 companies that I know of that do not have union representation and do not need union representation.

1) Trader Joe's. Even part-time employees can enroll in a health plan. And even though there is a minimum number of hours required to be enrolled in the plan, there is never a problem getting this minimum number of hours. The scheduling is flexible, especially in college towns where students have classes. The pay is great, with scheduled merit reviews and pay raises, and the wages are above union wages.

2) Costco. Part-timers are guaranteed 25 hours per week, and after working a year, they can sign up for health insurance. The company maintains a set full-time/part-time employee ratio. The pay is great, starting at least $10/hour to work as a front-end assistant/cart collector.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
cheapwh0re Says:
Fri, 07/01/2005 - 2:49am

Right on; but what does this have to do with this site at all?

condemno Says:
Fri, 07/01/2005 - 10:42am

A company may have the best pollicies on earth. Hell, Starbucks pollicies are fairly decent if you take the time to read them and infact, there is probably a fair number of people seeking to organize a costco that would say the same about starbucks. The problem is poor management of these pollicies. Until you find a company that has no bad managers and gives their employees "just cause for discipline" that can be appealed to a neutral third party, there is no such thing as a place that does not need a union. I work for a union and I need a union to represent me.

southbux Says:
Fri, 07/01/2005 - 8:17pm

To expand on condemnos statement I would like to add that a companies policies whether good or bad cannot be enforced properly unless they are in a contract.

Starbucks could offer me twenty bucks an hour tomorrow and I would still fight for the cause of organizing because it is a fight for an agreement, which is sacred. Starbucks can make fantastic policies until they are blue in the face and we can take advantage of these policies but they are unreliable until a binding agreement has been reached between the workers and the employer.

Poor management is a huge problem at Starbucks and any large chain because there are too many managers and not enough people overseeing them. Contrary to popular belief managers have a lot of room to move around within Starbucks guidelines, so much room in fact that many managers are able to violate the guidelines as long as the customer count and sales are high.

We need set rules, set guidelines, set benefits and wage packages so that we know what our futures will hold. The guesswork needs to be removed from all terms and rules of employment.

What will my schedule be next week? How many hours will I get next week? How much money will my raise be? How will my managers mood effect my day tomorrow? These worries, while common in retail must be eliminated from the retail worker's mind. We have enough to worry about as is, doing the job itself.

We all deserve better. If you don't think so, if you think your job is easy and you get the treatment you deserve thats great, I have an uncle in the mental health business, I'll send you his card.

If you think retail workers deserve real respect and real dignity then I'm happy you've joined me in reality. I know its kind of ugly right now my friends but the thing I love about reality is that it can be changed.

Peace.

Starbucksslave22 Says:
Wed, 07/06/2005 - 10:16pm

I tolditly agree with you dude reality can be change and guess what every needs respect to order to get it in return these corp business think they rule your life so they can have there own life well guess what i aint mad at them cosideraly there workers too but RESPECT is the key and any manager disrepect any worker they can contact the UNION by going to there website www.IWW.org

Organize Says:
Mon, 08/01/2005 - 10:32pm

haydeegomez wrote:
I must mention that although I support Starbucks workers in being unionized, there are at least 2 companies that I know of that do not have union representation and do not need union representation.

1) Trader Joe's. Even part-time employees can enroll in a health plan. And even though there is a minimum number of hours required to be enrolled in the plan, there is never a problem getting this minimum number of hours. The scheduling is flexible, especially in college towns where students have classes. The pay is great, with scheduled merit reviews and pay raises, and the wages are above union wages.

2) Costco. Part-timers are guaranteed 25 hours per week, and after working a year, they can sign up for health insurance. The company maintains a set full-time/part-time employee ratio. The pay is great, starting at least $10/hour to work as a front-end assistant/cart collector.

The debate regarding Unions always seems to get stuck around issues of benefits.

However in reality Unions and Union strength have nothing to do with benefits. Hire pay, better healthcare, safer working conditions are really ancillary to the objective and need which Unions provide.

Counterbalance to the asymmetric distribution of decision-making power in the workplace. This includes decisions like compensation, but it also extends to questions of business ethics, management structure, and probably most important of all prioritization of corporate goals.

And I know here I go against the Iowa’s statement that “the managing class and working class have nothing in common.” But I think this is a too simplistic analysis. Rather I think that we have a lot in common but the managing class has the luxury to put other peoples lives behind profit.

That is because their lives are secure. They would never put their lives behind profit, yet they see themselves as reluctant executioners of an inevitable program. That of systematic pauperization.

Unions are important if for no other reason than to remind managers that there are indeed two ways to make a profit. One is the current way of mining resources, ultimately human lives. But the other way is to cooperate in the manufacturing of wealth through the manufacturing of goods.

i.e. it’s the difference between “hunting gathering” and “farming.”

When workers negotiate collectively, then management must listen seriously to what workers have to say. Management can no longer afford to make the mistake or exercise the privilege of taking workers perspective for granted.

This is actually in the best interest of business. But it is not in the best interest of the managing class.

After all who knows best what customers need? Who knows best what the weaknesses of a business are?

It is always those on the front line doing the work. But as long as power is asymmetrical the workers on the bottom will always feel intimidated about sending bad news up to managers who can make corrections.

The ultimate goal of a Union must be workplace democracy and that in turn must lead to greater operational transparency, better communication, conflict resolution, pay parity, healthcare parity and all the rest of the things which we traditionally thank unions for.

However if a union is organized for benefits alone, it will fail once the benefit targets are reached.

Powers Hapgood Says:
Sun, 02/26/2006 - 8:33pm

Costco's workforce is 1/5th unionized. That's one of the reasons why the benefits are so great.

fairlogic Says:
Wed, 03/01/2006 - 2:42am

Organize After all who knows best what customers need? Who knows best what the weaknesses of a business are?

It is always those on the front line doing the work. But as long as power is asymmetrical the workers on the bottom will always feel intimidated about sending bad news up to managers who can make corrections.

[/quote wrote:

I must point out that you cannot generalize by saying "...workers on the bottom will always feel intimidatd about sending bad news up to managers who can make corrections." I and most everyone else that I know that has worked for the company has never felt "intimidated" to make complaints or suggestions that would better improve operations. As is the case with most companies, there are systems in place to make these complaints and be heard.

Organize Says:
Thu, 03/02/2006 - 11:56pm

fairlogic wrote:
Organize After all who knows best what customers need? Who knows best what the weaknesses of a business are?

It is always those on the front line doing the work. But as long as power is asymmetrical the workers on the bottom will always feel intimidated about sending bad news up to managers who can make corrections.

[/quote wrote:

I must point out that you cannot generalize by saying "...workers on the bottom will always feel intimidatd about sending bad news up to managers who can make corrections." I and most everyone else that I know that has worked for the company has never felt "intimidated" to make complaints or suggestions that would better improve operations. As is the case with most companies, there are systems in place to make these complaints and be heard.

Enron would be a good example of this right?

Laia Odo Says:
Sun, 05/07/2006 - 2:58pm

One might say that the subjects of a fairly just and generous king do not need democratic and participatory institutions. I would certainly disagree though. One's basic rights ought not to depend on the whims of a benevolent tyrant, but on their own grassroots democratic institutions.

Spootie Says:
Mon, 05/08/2006 - 3:48am

Condemno, I agree FULLY with you!!