Starbucks Union

Please prove that Starbucks would have to raise prices to accomodate the hypothetical unionized workforce. A workforce that would be, hypothetically, better trained, have higher morale, and be fairly compensated for its labor.

I agree with Southbux. But besides that, there is a very important point that Starbucks Coffee Co. can most CERTAINLY afford to pay workers more without ANY adjustment in product pricing. Starbucks has a profit margin of between 10 and 11 cents on the dollar. This may not sound like much, but it's nearly 3 times the industry average. To put this into better perspective, big bad Wal-Mart (certainly in need of union representation) has of profit margin of around 3%. Starbucks dwarfs this number. In addition, a recent policy study done by a third party corporate researcher paid for by Starbucks found that the company has over 1 billion dollars in horded cash. Infact, it declared that under-investment is one of the company's biggest problems. Well, I've got an idea of what they can do with the cash. Why don't they invest it in their own workforce? The very people who've made the company what it is today!

Hey Renegade Barista I'd like to see that corporate researchers report. If its online send me a link.

Dear "Don't":

Your argument suggests that Starbucks shareholders, CEOs, or owners are just scraping by and barely making ends meet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Starbucks is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, and their rapid expansion is proof of that.

Starbucks knows perfectly well that raising prices would hurt their business, union or no union, and therefore your logic is really quite faulty. There is a certain point where raising the price of coffee becomes penny wise and pound foolish.

The real issue is that Starbucks owners don't want to lose one red cent of their enormous profit margin, and they consider unions to be a threat to do just that. If Starbucks wants to stay in business (and anyone making a profit off of Starbucks would be a fool not to do so) they will pay their workers a living wage if they organize and not raise prices that much (In fact this seems to have already happened to some extent due to the IWW drives in New York).

Finally, your "unions might have been a good idea" is tired old hackneyed anti-union crap. The laissez-faire dogmatists have been singing THAT song now for half a century. Even though unions in the US have been in decline for some time, over 60% of the Wmerican people SUPPORT unions. So on that note you're just wrong.

Don't tell me that something that 60% of Americans support is good. Americans are stupid and lazy. Why in the hell would you want something that raises your salary, but in turn you have to pay them a monthly due? Also, what about states that are right to work? Unions can't really do much in those. Sure, they can do stuff like raise wages and possibly get better benefits (which how could you possibly ask for better benefits?), but other than that it's useless.

So what is a union and what are dues?

A union is a family. It’s a family of people related by a common need. The United States is a Union the EU is a Union. Unions, like families, exist because there are efficiencies and power in scale.

One person’s action can never have the impact that a hundred or a thousand or a million or tens of millions of people can. One person doesn’t have the buying power, they can’t stop production, and they can’t work together with others in ways that conserve time and energy.

The reason to organizing a Union is for all these reason. Together individuals can open opportunities denied them as individuals. In fact Starbucks is successful not because of individual commitment, but because of united commitment. So in fact Starbucks is already unionized. Further more Starbucks already collects dues.

The dues starbucks collects is the profit of it’s workers. The difference between the value of the workers work and the wage starbucks pays for that work. However the Starbucks workers never gain any advantage from these dues because starbuck is a dictatorship.

So what is unionism? Unionism in essence is a struggle for workplace democracy. It’s the struggle of workers to gain some level of control over the means of production so that they can reproduce their own labor and gain control of the fruits their labor creates

Union dues are family savings. They are the workers money that they put aside for rainy days, as there will be when going up against a highly organized dictatorship.

Further more there is a distinct difference between dues and profit. Profit is an extorted tax on the work of Starbucks partners that workers will never see again. Dues are the democratically determined savings that workers put aside by their own free will for their own future use.

no gods no masters

A union appears to be a fantasy of something good. So far you guys don't really say how the union is going to get what it wants, you just say what you want and how glorious its going to be when we do. So whatever, continue to preach your stories of "happier days soon to be" amoungst the appearent five or six of you really serious about this, I'll be here waiting for a course of action. I'd also like to know what you guys are going to do about right to work states, such as Arizona, where unions are pretty much useless.

Collective bargaining and nonviolent direct action.

You forgot to mention "all day phone calling". That is also a very effective means. Nothing shows Starbucks the union is serious like annoying someone.

You are absolutely right.
Calling is effective.