Friday mid-afternoon at their store location, a group Starbucks [SBUX] espresso-pullers made known their membership in the IWW Workers Union according to a New York Press report. The public declaration was accompanied by a list of demands. The article quotes Daniel Gross, barista and union organizer, saying the group's main three concers are "a living wage, secure hours of 30 or more per week and an end to the anti-union campaign." Customers were not served while the demands were being presented.Starbucks has a one page paper stating its position toward (and opposition to) unionizing in its U.S. locations. I found it on the Corporate Social Responsibility section of the co.'s website as a pdf, dated 05 Dec 2005. (The Starbucks website has gone all pdf happy, btw -- even finding the calorie count of a white chocolate mocha requires downloading a pdf file). The doc claims the company does not "retaliate against workers interested in unionizing" and declares the company's belief that "that the direct employment relationship which we currently have with our partners is the best way to help ensure a great work environment" and that no "third party" such as a union is needed.
A note on terminology: Starbucks calls all its workers "partners" whether management or hourly. Probably needless to say, the IWW website terms baristas and other hourly workers as "employees" distinct from management. As Paul Williams demonstrates, current and former Starbucks workers can become quite passionate about their relationship with the company.
The Week in Preview: Beige Book, Smithfield Foods, Talbots, Men's Wearhouse
Krispy Kreme: Time to Take a Chance?
Comfort Zone Investing: M&A: Good News ... or Bad?
