[Marxism] FWD: THE IWW'S CAMPAIGN AT STARBUCKS

["Louis R Godena" <louisgodena@xxxxxxx>]

>From Gangbox, Greg Butler's construction union news service:

March 09, 2006 12:28PM EST 

THE IWW DEFEAT AT STARBUCKS 

The defeat of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union - and the union`s curious 
reluctance to face reality 

By a union activist 

Industrial Workers of the World IU # 660's Starbucks Workers Union made a noble 
effort to unionize 3 Starbucks stores in Downtown Manhattan. Despite their best 
intentions, the union activists involved basically bit off more than they could 
chew. After all, it is hard for 4 people to face off a multibillion dollar 
global retail giant, with a high turnover workforce and an elaborate system of 
on the job surveillance. So, the IWW was faced with coming up with an exit 
strategy. They actually did a good job of that. Sadly, the union has declined 
to face reality, and admit that a defeat is a defeat. 

 Yesterday, the Industrial Workers of the World`s Starbucks Workers Union 
dropped their National Labor Relations Board Unfair Labor Practices case 
against Starbucks Coffee. 

As is typical in the modern labor movement, the deal was worked out by a bunch 
of lawyers in a back room 

Now, many of the worst evils in the world have been cooked up in closed rooms 
filled with attorneys. 

Be that as it may, the IWW did get a relatively good outcome out of this case, 
considering the fact that the underlying union campaign had collapsed. 

They got 2 of their ``salts`` (union activists planted on a job to organize it 
from within) restored to their jobs It's not clear if they will actually go 
back to work as baristas - apparently the union has already helped them get 
other jobs. 

The two thousand bucks that Starbucks paid out to make this case go away is 
related to the discharges of those two pro union workers. The back pay is so 
low because, as per the requirements of the Taft Hartley Act, they took other 
jobs while waiting for the case to get before the Board. 

Other than that, there's minor stuff, like the right to wear pro-union pins on 
the job 

Currently, the only pins that Starbucks ``partners`` are allowed to wear are 
the ones that are issued by store managers and/or shift supervisors as 
noneconomic rewards for good job performance. 

And, of course, their are those 11 x 17 NLRB legal notices that will be taped 
up in the backrooms of the 2 stores in question, in which the company will 
solumnly swear that it will never again violate the labor rights of their 
workers. 

Curiously, the IWW is pushing this as the biggest ``victory``. 

Apparently, the IWW organizers would have workers believe that those two pieces 
of paper tacked to company bulletin boards have some supernatural powers to 
stop labor abuses on the job! 

This reflects the broader unwillingness to face reality that has been evident 
in IWW public statements on this matter issued over the last 2 days. 

The IWW union press releases have, bizarrely trumpeted this legal settlement as 
a union ``victory`` 

Unfortunately, far too many unions do that - use press release bluster and 
public relations BS to magically transform defeats into paper ``victories``. 

Apparently, the people who run the ``wobblies``, despite their professed 
revolutionary anarchist status, share the common view among American union 
leaders of all political stripes today that workers are a bunch of idiots, who 
can't tell a victory from a defeat. 

Let's face it, this looks to be a defeat for the IWW. 

The court case thing is a good exit strategy. 

They took care of their members who got fired by the employer, got a minor 
legal slap on the wrist for Starbucks and the IWW can walk away with their 
heads held high. 

The cold hard reality is, Starbucks has, I believe, over 150 stores in New York 
City alone. Those three stores would have never made it as a viable barganing 
unit. 

Especially in light of the fact that Starbucks can, and does, transfer 
``partners`` between stores on a pretty regular basis. 

It's known as ``working extra shifts`` and a barista who needs extra hours can 
be permitted to work at another store. 

They can even permanently transfer between stores, as long as their new ``home 
store`` has the same district manager as their old one. 

So, it would have been extremely easy for Starbucks to flood those stores with 
pro management workers, wait a year, and then have some of those workers file a 
decertification petition with the NLRB 

There are quite a few baristas who want to be shift supervisors - and even the 
minor reward of a ``black apron`` (a company reward for those baristas who are 
extremely knowledgeble about coffee - you actually have to take a test to get 
one) is very tempting for at least some Starbucks ``partners`` 

Beyond flooding the stores with anti union workers, Starbucks has another 
weapon. 

Like many modern retailers, Starbucks has a well developed internal espionage 
network. 

Besides the elaborate video surveillance system in every store, they also have 
what are called ``secret shoppers``. 

These ``secret shoppers`` are management-hired spies, sent to the stores by 
Starbucks to monitor their workers. 

They send in reports to management on ``partners`` who are, supposedly, not 
performing their jobs correctly. 

Baristas can be, and are, disciplined by management, solely based on the 
reports of these ``secret shoppers``. 

So, even if the IWW had won union recognition in those 3 stores, it would have 
been extremely easy for Starbucks to simply send ``secret shoppers`` into those 
stores on a daily basis, or even several times a day. 

It would then be a simple matter of making sure that the ``secret shoppers`` 
found fault with the job performance of the pro union ``partners`` - even if 
they had to make up stuff. 

Then, it would be a simple matter for management to use that avalanche of bad 
reports to fire that person LEGALLY. 

I don't mean to be critical of the brothers and sisters in the IWW, but it 
appears that they really didn't think this one through. 

After all, how do you organize a workforce largely composed of what 
sociologists call ``transitional workers``, who are in school, see this job as 
a stepping stone to bigger and better things in their lives and who won't even 
be there in a year or two? 

And where the non transitional workers tend to be people who aspire to be, or 
already are, supervisors? 

And where the company has a formidable repressive apparatus, ready and waiting 
to be deployed (NLRB legal notices taped to the wall notwistanding) 

I don't pretend to know the answer to those questions. 

Apparently, the IWW doesn't either. 

It would be nice if the IWW was honest enough to admit they lost this drive. 

Everybody makes mistakes, but the true test of a person is if she learns from 
her errors, rather than trying to cover them up. 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism