Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
The Manhattan office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) served Starbucks a steaming hot cup of charges of anti-labor practices Friday. The move by the NLRB followed complaints by International Industrial Workers of the World organizers that the company was suppresing their union-forming efforts.
According to its official website the website of its service industry branch, the IWW is "The anarchosyndicalist trade union, workers' confederation and section of the Anarchist International." driven by solidarity unionism, an innovative and powerful 21st century approach to improve our life at work. The NLRB specified that eleven supervisors engaged in anti-labor practices at four Manhattan locations: 10 Union Square East, 116 East 57th Street, 200 Madison Avenue and 145 Second Avenue. From the NY Times:
Daniel Gross, one of the union’s main organizers and one of the Starbucks workers the labor board said was fired improperly, said the International Workers of the World was pushing for a living wage, asserting that the $8.75 an hour that some Manhattan coffee clerks, or baristas, earn was too little to live on.Gross worked for Starbucks as a barista for three years before he was fired for what he claims was selective enforcement of the company's dress-code policy. And, according to the Times, if the charges against Starbucks are validated by an administrative law judge, the company may have to reinstate the two fired employees and post signs for employees in its locations stating that anti-union practices are illegal and that the company did not prohibit them.Mr. Gross said the union wanted Starbucks to change its scheduling policy in order to guarantee a minimum of 25 or 30 hours of work a week for many of its employees.
That may prove more of a moral than substantive victory to the coffee-oriented labor movement. In an excerpt from "Grande Expectations: A Year in the Life of Starbucks' Stock," by Karen Blumenthal that was published in today's Wall Street Journal (available online only to subscribers), the Seattle chain has approximately 13,000 stores world-wide and plans on opening another 10,000 over just the next four years. In other words, expect a Starbucks store to be opening inside your apartment sometime between now and 2011.
And in February, Reverend Billy was arrested outside the Astor Place Starbucks. He was protesting the corporation's refusal to let Ethiopia trademark their coffee.
(Red Hook's Starbucks Future)
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
But, but, Starbucks is from Seattle! My liberal talking points memo said I only had to hate companies from Red States e.g. Wal-mart bad, Target good.
I somehow doubt that the "anarchosyndicalist" (whatever that might mean) union will have luck aquiring $30/hour for people mixing coffee. Most people don't make 60K out of college...
is there a link for the res hook starbucks inf?
Sorry Andrew, I took that picture back in April, '05 near Coffey and Van Brunt in Red Hook. I'm not sure what's happened at that property since.
An anarchist group wants to organize? Huh?
Starbucks good. Wal-mart bad!
(sigh)
Dave, perhaps The NY Times meant the "Industrial Workers of the World" which has a history of trying to Unionize Starbucks, especially since Daniel Gross works with The Industrial Workers of the World.
Dave posted:
I swear I LMFAO at that...As for "http://www.powertech.no/anarchy/iwwai.html" Who knew Norway was so into Anarchy???
Could you fix the post??
Starbucks is McDonald's for yuppies.
Norway? Anarchy? Goddamn vikings!!!
S.D., That certainly would make a difference wouldn't it? I was going with the information printed in The New York Times article that stated:
Let me look into it and I will certainly make the appropriate correction. If there was a mistake made by relying on the Times, I apologize to the IWW. Both of them.
Applaud Rev. Billy for the extreme lengths that he is willing to go (as in jail) to help support the policies of his friends in Washington--Dick Cheney and George Bush. He is doing everything he can to funnel more money to Cheney-ally Ethiopia so they can buy more and better tanks.
this is garbage. no one's trying to make a full-time living on a starbucks wage. unionizing that place will just make it harder for students and other casual part-timers to actually work there, reducing overall employment opportunities. Those groups should protest. it's already hard enough to get a job there.
No Worries, Dave. According to the IWW.org, that happens all the time so I'm not surprised the NY Times fubbed it.
Hey Andrew/Dave--
The sign is still there. I saw it Sunday for the first time after having lived in Red Hook for 5 years. It's near the Good Fork/Fairway. It's a joke.
It DOES happen all the time. William Safire made the mistake in his Sunday NYT magazine column, and then he had to apologize. It seems the NYT corrected their website.
Unions are an obnoxious anti-American anachronism. They had their place sometime in the early 20th century when it was possible for employers to screw their employees. Now any employee screwing is against the law and unions seem to only exist to bully employers into granting employees unearned entitlements.
Interesting, no correction appended to the NYT article--maybe it was correct after all.
When I'm At Starbucks I read my third favorite blog after Gothamist and Ron Jeremy's (quickielunch.blogspot.com) and there's always people looking over my shoulder. I think I need to get a laptop with blinders on it or some kind of virtual reality glasses. What ever happened to virtual reality know all people talk about is america this and america that, by now we were supposed to be living bladerunner.
Truly a victory for 400lb HR women that will flock (shamble) to Starbucks corporate offices and people who can't follow a dress code, no matter how lax. Lets see how quickly a union will drive Starbucks into the red. They bankrupted nearly every American auto manufacturer, let's give them a crack at bankrupting the service sector.
that's right, solidago, no employer would ever think of screwing their workers nowadays.
solidago said:
I have to disagree. With Business buying more Gov't everyday (Lobbyists write laws like the Medicare "Reform"), Unions are necessary as an attempt to keep business honest or at least, balance the scales.Look at Circuit City. Over 3,400 people told "Fuck You" and "Reapply" at a lower Wage, after a 10-week delay. We're they Unionized? I really doubt it.
Are Unions corrupt? Not all of them. Do I trust Unions? A lot more than Any Company in the U.S.
Off topic a bit: Boy's and Girl's, Can anyone explain to me how "Out Sourcing" and "Off Shoring" is good for our Economy?
You can't unionize a company that treats its workers decently. Unions were created because of companies that treats it's workers like shit.
By and large, you don't hear many complaints from Starbucks employees. Same goes for Time Warner and, despite a lot of union-sponsored propaganda to the contrary, so does Wal-Mart if you want to aspire to something other than part-time cashier.
Do I trust Unions? A lot more than Any Company in the U.S.
Then you're foolish. Unions exist for the same reasons companies do: to make someone rich. Dues don't come out of your check for fun.
Foolish? For trusting a Union more than a Company?
You're apparently ignoring the Circuit City example.
And you think I'm foolish.
Foolish? For trusting a Union more than a Company?
Yes. Just because a union takes on the smiley role of "fighting for the little guy" doesn't always mean they're the good guys. Or maybe we should trot out countless examples of Union violence and bullying tactics over the years? You know, like the mysterious fire on the Times Square shuttle that knocked out the automated train.
You're apparently ignoring the Circuit City example.
I'm not ignoring it, it's just a worthless example. It's a company's right to lay-off employees. Either some people lose their jobs, or all of them do. It sucks, but it happens to people every day. They were given a severance package and the ability to come back to their job at a lower rate. That's a hell of a lot more than most laid off workers get. Had that Circuit City been unionized, I guarantee you the workers would have gotten nothing.
If you want to see what Unions, long-term, do to an industry, check up on the railroads, airlines, and the US auto-industry. They create unsustainable systems that eventually bankrupt a company. Actually, name me one single industry that's had unions long-term that hasn't buckled. Government agencies don't count.
"I'm not ignoring it, it's just a worthless example. It's a company's right to lay-off employees."
Hardly a worthless example (IMO, you seem to really enjoy subjective phrases), They didn't just lay off workers, they fired low paid workers in order to hire them back as lower paid workers. I bet the 10 week period is only to avoid the appearance of "Renegotiation". At the least, a Union would sue to protect it's members.
I hope you're never on the short end of the Stick when dealing with any company. As someone who is college educated, over 13 years experience as both a consultant and as an employee in IT as an application/system programmer, network security specialist in the financial industry, I can tell you this: Companies only care about money. Why else do the Financial firms "Off Shore" to lower paid people? BTW: that works very poorly when the server is in NYC and the IT Staff is in Mumbai. Also, the day shift in NYC gets the Night Shift in Mumbai which creates it own set of problems for the users.
IMO, A union is by far the lesser of the two evils.
All your examples are subjective:
- Railroads are a dying business that has poor performance not at all due to Unions
- Airlines are a cut throat business that undercut the cost of operations (often at the expense of safety) in order to draw passengers away from another airline. Again, company performance has little to do with a union.
- IMO, The US Auto Industry ia yet another poor example. Even now, people are buying foreign company cars as a preference. Do you really think Ford's performance had anything to do with a Union or more to do with people NOT buying Ford cars?
Did you know that at least some Oil companies are Union? Would you say that industry has "buckled"?Bottom line: If you want to trust business over a Union, Fine. I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I'm pretty sure you won't lose any sleep over that...
;)
Mike D's right, it's a joke. It's been there for years... Starbucks Coffey.
"Companies only care about money."
True. If they don't, some other company kicks their ass and takes their customers. Then everyone who works for the losing company is out of a job, not just the dead weight. The auto industry is a perfect example. Instead of making a product that their customers wanted, American Mfgs tried to keep their entire workforce employed. That is a funny way to run a company. But hey, M.Moore tells me that the evil robber barons at GM and other car companies lack compassion. If they had a little less compassion and made the hard choices they needed to ten years ago we wouldn't have a government subsidized auto industry still losing market share to KIA...to f-ing KIA.
Will, I think a balance must be struck between profit and good workers. Company performance, especially in the service industry (i.e. consulting) often depends on how the employee's perform.
Also, The US Auto industry has design shops. I hardly think the "Evil" unions caused their design shops to make unpopular cars. If the US auto industry is losing market shares to KIA, it's because the US consumers are buying KIA's not due to anything the Unions has done.
Reading between the lines, I think that S.D.'s panties are in a bunch because he's afraid his job is going to be off-shored and he's looking to the unions for salvation.
The primary objective of unions is to maximize the total compensation package of its members on a collective basis and create job security when market conditions would dictate otherwise.
I guess you could say that unions only care about money too.
A-ha mistakenly said:
Not at all. As I've repeatedly said: I just trust Unions more than any Business."Not at all. As I've repeatedly said: I just trust Unions more than any Business."
Then why don't you go work for one - problem solved!
a-ha foolishly said:
Because I trust Unions more than any Business, I must join one, Right?My favorite color (at the moment) is blue, should I paint myself Blue just for that?
Yeahhhh, that'll work.