It was bound to happen eventually -- and it happened today in New Zealand. Low-paid Starbucks workers walked off the job and formed a
picket line. They were joined by workers from other low paid, fast-food restaurants such as KFC and Pizza Hut.

Starbucks, which tries to project an image as a caring, progressive, company, has some 80,000 employees worldwide. It pays those workers
minimum wage or only slightly above, and generally does not welcome unions.

As you'd expect, LabourStart is covering the New Zealand Starbucks strike (see here: http://www.labourstart.org/starbucks) -- and we're also showing a video of the picket line on LabourStart.tv as well
(http://www.labourstart.tv).

If you've never seen a picket line at a Starbucks (and chances are, you haven't), have a look!

For more information about union efforts to organize Starbucks
worldwide, check out http://www.supersizemypay.com/ and
http://www.starbucksunion.org/

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
That is good news.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Any blow against oppression is good news. But some people here have wandered onto the wrong discussion board.

---

quote:

---

Oppression = working at agreed rate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, the strike is the good news. The bad news is that once the coffee-pourers union gets that wage hike to $24.75, with the dental and optical, and the RSP, your regular latte will set you back $11.25, and the grande, with sprinkles, $16.50.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, the strike is the good news. The bad news is that once the coffee-pourers union gets that wage hike to $24.75, with the dental and optical, and the RSP, your regular latte will set you back $11.25, and the grande, with sprinkles, $16.50.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
once the coffee-pourers union gets that wage hike to $24.75, with the dental and optical, and the RSP, your regular latte will set you back $11.25, and the grande, with sprinkles, $16.50.

---

They are the only coffee place with onsite financing available, eh?

quote:

---

Dag, Mr. M. that's just plain snotty.

---

Perhaps. But after finding out that being paid minimum wage is "oppression", I don't think it's out of line for the pendulum to swing the other way too.

Starbucks Strike in New Zealand

Anyone know whether the Starbucks workers in Vancouver are still organized with the CAW?

[ 29 November 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Well, the strike is the good news. The bad news is that once the coffee-pourers union gets that wage hike to $24.75, with the dental and optical, and the RSP, your regular latte will set you back $11.25, and the grande, with sprinkles, $16.50.

---

Ha! Dude, that's not the bad news. The bad news is that once the third-world coffee pickers throw off the brutal oppression they're living under, it will be cheaper to do cocaine than drink coffee.

The issue isn't only the hourly wage it is also having enough hours each week to have a real wage and not merely a few dollars a week.

I know it is common for people to say such things as "what does it take to pour a cup of coffee?" as if that is all that any restaurant worker does and completely justifies our expectation that an adult can live below the poverty line indefinitely. It is sad for all of us that some promote such shallow thinking.

[ 29 November 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
I know it is common for people to say such things as "what does it take to pour a cup of coffee?" as if that is all that any restaurant worker does and completely justifies our expectation that an adult can live below the poverty line indefinitely. It is sad for all of us that some promote such shallow thinking.

---

quote:

---

Well if Starbucks can increase wages AND lower their prices, I take my hat off to them!

---

quote:

---

I've worked minimum wage, and frankly for what I was doing - pumping gas - it was about what I was worth

---

Well, your poor self-esteem aside, the fact remains that a significantly large amount of work in our society is both poorly paid and absolutely necessary. The number one job for women in Canada is cashier, for instance.

Now if all these jobs need to be done obviously someone has to do them, so why do we blithely accept that those who do them should live like dogs on a meager pittance? Sure, any particular person could improve their position theoretically, but toilets still need to be cleaned so, by necessity, everyone can't escape minimum wage no matter how hard they're all trying. Is this really the best world we can manage, where millions of Canadians can't even afford to eat a healthy diet, let alone own a home and raise a family? If we insist that others serve us constantly like we were some sort of modern royalty then we should be willing to pay them a decent wage to do it. I don't think that's such a radical notion, unless you believe you're just inherently better than those stuck in the service industry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
And by the way, I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever worked in the service industry can't remember what's so hard about it. No, pumping gas and pouring coffee isn't difficult, but serving the public and dealing with their monstrous sense of entitlement is a friggin' nightmare.

---

quote:

---

Let's be honest about something here: pouring coffee into a cup isn't really difficult, nor terribly dangerous, nor does it involve long hours, years of schoolin' or a strong back.

---

How much is your boss paying you to blab on babble?

quote:

---

No I certainly didn't say that it was fun or fulfilling work, just that it's work virtually anyone can do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by statica:
FIRST STARBUCKS STRIKE IN THE WORLD

It was bound to happen eventually -- and it happened today in New Zealand. Low-paid Starbucks workers walked off the job and formed a
picket line. They were joined by workers from other low paid, fast-food restaurants such as KFC and Pizza Hut.

Starbucks, which tries to project an image as a caring, progressive, company, has some 80,000 employees worldwide. It pays those workers
minimum wage or only slightly above, and generally does not welcome unions.

As you'd expect, LabourStart is covering the New Zealand Starbucks strike (see here: http://www.labourstart.org/starbucks) -- and we're also showing a video of the picket line on LabourStart.tv as well
(http://www.labourstart.tv).

If you've never seen a picket line at a Starbucks (and chances are, you haven't), have a look!

For more information about union efforts to organize Starbucks
worldwide, check out http://www.supersizemypay.com/ and
http://www.starbucksunion.org/

***

---

Excellent !!!!

Shame that americans and canadians arent more active.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Let's be honest about something here: pouring coffee into a cup isn't really difficult, nor terribly dangerous, nor does it involve long hours, years of schoolin' or a strong back. If they want to organize, I think they should be allowed to, but what exactly do they figure they can demand once they do? What's the realistic monetary value of pouring coffee?

---

And I would like to remind people that the labour and consumption forum is, in keeping with the mandate of rabble.ca, a forum where people are to post from a pro-worker point of view. That doesn't mean you have to support Magoo's strawman above, but it does mean that you don't get to bash minimum wage workers as being worthless or as deserving to live in poverty.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
That is good news.

---

Strikes aren't good news.

Management giving workers reasonable collective agreements without forcing them out on strike are good news.

(Edited for typ-o.)

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: the grey ]

quote:

---

I would say a Starbuck barista is in the same ballpark as a pastry chef.

---

Uh, ya. That must be why they also need years of intense training, like a pastry chef.

I have to agree with Andrew_Jay. I've also worked for minimum wage, and while I certainly would have loved more money at the time, looking back I really can't see on what grounds I could have defended that wish. Maybe a buck over minimum, or two. But if a job hires high-school students, if your "resume" is actually a form you fill out, if the "interview" lasts all of about 5 minutes... chances are you're in a "job", not on the career track.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
But seriously... we don't understand that some jobs are simple, high-turnover jobs that require minimal (if any) education or specific training, and are well suited to students, seniors, or people between better jobs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kurichina:
Well, yeah, if those were the only demographics doing those jobs....

---

Actually, not even then. Students and seniors and other economically marginalized groups deserve a living wage for an honest day of labour, as much as anyone else.

Working at minimum wage jobs is damned hard work. The reason there is so much turnover is not because they're jobs that require no skills, but because they're thankless jobs that pay shit, and people want to leave them. But they are NECESSARY jobs in our economy, and someone ALWAYS has to do them. Our economy would collapse without retail and service industry jobs. The people who do them deserve a living wage for their work, for as long as they choose to do it.

I worked for minimum wage at the same job for four years, with other co-workers who had been at the same place for much longer than I was there. I have never worked so hard in my life as when I worked there. And yes, it WAS skilled labour. It's true that it's a skill that anyone who works that kind of job can learn, but once you learn it, you get good at it, quicker at it, and the place runs much more smoothly than it does when you're constantly turning over staff and having to train new people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Students and seniors and other economically marginalized groups deserve a living wage for an honest day of labour, as much as anyone else.

---

quote:

---

...well suited to students, seniors, or people between better jobs?

---

When people organize in the service sector, they're generally not asking for FORD level wages. Ask any UFCW worker. They're asking for some control over their lives, some fairness in scheduling, and some modest pay increases.

quote:

---

Airport Workers Win Best Contract Ever

Carrying signs reading "O'Hare Airport Starbucks Unfair to Workers," hundreds of UNITE HERE Local 1 restaurant workers at O'Hare picketed in front of the airport terminals for three weeks in October to wrap up their seven-month contract fight.

The 900 HMS Host workers joined Local 1 in February to build a stronger Union. Since then, the workers have been building their committee and engaging in actions to win their best contract yet. Highlights include a $2.40 wage increase over four years for the non-tipped workers and a decrease in the workers' monthly copays for health insurance from $90 to $19 for individual coverage and from $250 to $85 for family coverage.

"We fought hard for the best contract since we've been working at the airport. Now we need to make the contract work for us and keep moving forward toward the contract fight in 2009," said Boddrick Barnes, a cook at Fox Sky Box at O'Hare and a member of the negotiating committee. Way to go Host workers!

---

UNITE-HERE is a hospitality and textile workers union that represents food and beverage concession workers at a number of airports in the United States, including as is apparent from the article, workers at Chicago O'Hare. I do not believe there is any organizational affiliation between UNITE-HERE and the New Zealand-based Unite union, which is organizing Starbucks workers there, and spearheaded the strike reported at the beginning of this thread.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
Should there be a difference in pay if the adult worker is the sole "breadwinner" in a family versus a teenager who lives at home with parents and is saving for university?

---

How is it of any legitimate concern of an employer to even know which you are?

Do your job; get your pay.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

How is it of any legitimate concern of an employer to even know which you are? Do your job; get your pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
It may be reasonable for a student to receive a lower wage because a student isn't paying for all his/her living expenses. An adult whose primary income is a min. wage job is expected to pay for all expenses on that wage.

---

If I remember correctly anyone working under circa. 18 hours per week received 1 or 2 dollars more an hour than their fulltime counterparts. This was to help offset the fact that the part time postions didn't come with the same benefit or employer contributions.

I think this would be a very interesting proposal, and would probably force some to hire a few more fulltime workers, while maintaining some flexibility for those who want part time.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]

quote:

---

That's precisely the same argument that was once used to justify paying married women a lower wage than their married male colleagues (who presumably had to support a family) for the same work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
Ok, let's go about this another way. If you are a government and you want to address poverty, how do you deal with the fact that a raise in the minimum wage goes primarily to students (the majority of whom aren't living in poverty).

---

If what you're after, as a government, is to specifically address poverty, a blanket raising of the minimum wage seems an inefficient way to doing it, regardless of the demographic breakdown of who exactly holds minumum-wage jobs. (That is, I'm not willing to concede the veracity of the idea that most minumum wage earners are, in fact, middle-class students.)

That aside, targetted social programs that provide job training & placement, hiring incentives and day care would be much more efficient in specifically addressing poverty.

The raising of the minumum wage is a separate issue: all wages should constitute living wages, IMO.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:

The raising of the minumum wage is a separate issue: all wages should constitute living wages, IMO.

[ 30 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

---

I should add to my above statement, that the minimum wage at the time in NSW, was over 10 dollars Australian an hour fulltime, which meant part timers earnt even more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:

The issue isn't only the hourly wage it is also having enough hours each week to have a real wage and not merely a few dollars a week.

---

Bingo. My partner works at Starbucks. She has no issues with her compensation, and her benefits aren't bad for a service industry job.

The big issue, at least at Starbucks in Greater Vancouver, is scheduling.

She does work usually 33 - 37 hours per week, and is one of only two employees (out of ~30) that work that much at her location. But her guaranteed number of hours per week is 15. That stresses her out a bit, since at any time, they could drop her to 15 and - whammo - it's suddenly very difficult to pay the rent and bills. Eventually, within the next couple of years, she'll be climbing up to around $12 an hour - and it scares her that the company might just force her out in favour of cheaper labour. She already constantly has to fight when suddenly dropped down to 20-25 hours per week. It kind of makes it hard to budget.

Also, when a new employee is training at the location, they work multiple shifts in a week, more hours than they'll get after being trained. Since the management has a set, solid salary budget each month, all other workers are penalized when trainees are working. And there are a lot of trainees.

In New Zealand, there are issues with wages, but that doesn't seem to be a huge concern here amongst the employees.

I think workers at Starbucks organizing is a good thing - the service industry isn't just kids and bored retirees - there are real working people in the industry. Starbucks is immensely popular, and helps set the pace for the rest of the industry.

I don't think a recognized Starbucks union would ask for anything extreme - maybe just sacraficing a little flexibility for sane guaranteed hours, and more standardized managing procedures)

(BTW, my partner is studying for a career in law enforcement, but she'd prefer a little more stability in the meantime. That's why she's thinking of contacting a union organizer.)

[ 01 December 2005: Message edited by: Anarchonostic ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

It's true that it's a skill that anyone who works that kind of job can learn, but once you learn it, you get good at it, quicker at it, and the place runs much more smoothly than it does when you're constantly turning over staff and having to train new people.

---

The same is true of most white-collar jobs I've had. I worked minimum-wage service jobs for a long time, and then when I got my first "office" job I realized that white collar employees are just as "unskilled" as service employees. I mean really, someone fresh out of college needs as much hand-holding in organizing files as anyone needs when they work a register for the first time.

quote:

---

Bingo. My partner works at Starbucks. She has no issues with her compensation, and her benefits aren't bad for a service industry job.

The big issue, at least at Starbucks in Greater Vancouver, is scheduling.
***
(BTW, my partner is studying for a career in law enforcement, but she'd prefer a little more stability in the meantime. That's why she's thinking of contacting a union organizer.)

---

Anarch, do you know if the CAW still represents Starbucks workers in the Vancouver area? They might be a good union to refer your partner to. I understood they did a big organizing drive in the late 1990s. Last I heard from them, though, was when their contract was up for renewal in 2002.

CAW Starbucks UnStrike for Justice and Dignity

CAW Starbucks Locations (as of May, 2002)

[ 01 December 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
Question for Michelle:

Should there be a difference in pay if the adult worker is the sole "breadwinner" in a family versus a teenager who lives at home with parents and is saving for university?

---

No. Same work, same pay.

That's exactly the kind of logic people used to use when they discriminated against women openly in pay - oh, she's just got a second income to her hubby anyhow.

"She does work usually 33 - 37 hours per week, and is one of only two employees (out of ~30) that work that much at her location. But her guaranteed number of hours per week is 15. That stresses her out a bit, since at any time, they could drop her to 15 and - whammo - it's suddenly very difficult to pay the rent and bills. Eventually, within the next couple of years, she'll be climbing up to around $12 an hour - and it scares her that the company might just force her out in favour of cheaper labour. She already constantly has to fight when suddenly dropped down to 20-25 hours per week. It kind of makes it hard to budget."

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:

Sure, I can agree with that but in order for that to happen sometimes when people are not being treated fairly a strike is a good thing. But then you know that, don't you?

---

quote:

---

That's exactly the kind of logic people used to use when they discriminated against women openly in pay - oh, she's just got a second income to her hubby anyhow.

---

That isn't the argument I am making at all. If I use the logic you employed in reaching that conclusion, there should not be any extra support for low-wage families (who tend to be female lone parents by the way). Is that what you are saying?

quote:

---

It's nobody's business whether I'm a sole wage earner, single parent, student, or whatever. If I do the same hour of work, I get the same hour of pay. Period.

---

It ends up becoming someone else's business when that single parent ends up at a food bank, or making an application to the rent bank when they can't make ends meet on the wage they are earning.

Look, my point is essentially this: that wages are not sensitive to family size, and that has particularly negative consequences at the low end of the wage spectrum. Further, that within low-wage work, the impacts are very differential. The impact on a family is much more severe than the impact on a student - a single parent for example is much more at risk than a student. It is therefore prudent for governments and social policy makers to treat the at risk groups differntly in terms of income benefits.

In fact, the National Child Benefit Supplement is meant, in part, to address this issue that wages don't take into account family size by giving families with children extra income based on the number of children they have.

By the way, just for the record here are the statistics on minimum wage workers:

Family Status
Head of household: 4.1%
Second earner in married couple: 25%
Son or daughter living at home: 60.2%

Age
15-19: 47.1%
20-24: 16.4%
>25: 36.5%

quote:

---

Let's be honest about something here: pouring coffee into a cup isn't really difficult, nor terribly dangerous, nor does it involve long hours, years of schoolin' or a strong back.

---

Let's be honest - you're an asshole.

This coffee server just so happens to have years of schooling and years on the deans list. My back is strong from all the goddamn crates of milk I haul, and the loads of garbage and compost I dump out back. I work on my feet for eight or nine hours at $8.50/hour with a cheery smile to appease all the asswipes who have attitudes like yours. I do all the things faith listed, I prep vegetables and I make sandwiches. I have no benefits.

For three years I worked at a pizza/take-out place making $6.85/hour. I lived in the middle of nowhere so I was just lucky to have a job at all. I made homemade pizza sauce, I rolled dough, I prepped chicken wings, I cooked up bacon and ground it up, I grated bus pans full of cheese, I chopped vegetables, I cut and blanched fries, I hauled pop out onto the shelves, I took orders, I worked the cash, I opened and closed on my own, I did dishes, I cleaned nasty deep fryers...yeah, you're right, that took no skill at all and I definitely didn't deserve more than $6.85.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sir_gallahad:
If you want a better job, go find one... get training move if you need to, don't expect "starter" jobs to pay more, sure starbucks makes millions - which i don't get - $5 for a cup of coffee... but you have a choice - use it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

And my point, once again, is that while anyone can do the simple mechanics of the job, the considerable skill it takes to deal with the public is rare and undervalued. I suspect that you'd be the first to complain if, after serving their 164th cup of coffee for the day, a barista was rude to you or communicated poorly or was simply confused by your order. That's the point at which I remind you that you're getting exactly the value of service that matches their compensation. If you want good service, you have to pay for it. The people who say that these workers don't even deserve minimum wage are generally the same idiots who expect to be treated like royalty as soon as they walk in the door.

---

I think this is really true, and I think that's why Starbucks does have to pay higher than min wage in most cases, if they want to preserve that level of service. [edited to add:] And should pay higher.

Which may also explain why they don't typically hire teenagers who don't yet have those kind of service skills or commitment to their job.

I do have a problem with the raise the min. wage campaign however. Maybe I'm simply not understanding. But I don't think a teenager in his or her first job does deserve the same wage as an older worker who is bringing many more skills to the job. That said, I think min. wage is for jobs like McDonalds and other places that hire high school students, and that those jobs do need to recognize experience and commitment in their older and/or longer term workers by offering differential starting wages, as well as significant wage increments every three or so months.

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shaolin:
This coffee server just so happens to have years of schooling and years on the deans list. My back is strong from all the goddamn crates of milk I haul, and the loads of garbage and compost I dump out back. I work on my feet for eight or nine hours at $8.50/hour with a cheery smile to appease all the asswipes who have attitudes like yours. I do all the things faith listed, I prep vegetables and I make sandwiches. I have no benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
So have I (and for only $6 an hour, if I may add). If you've done so well in school, you certainly deserve a better job for better pay; but can't expect better pay for the job you already have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatsaklart:
Oppression = working at agreed rate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
Hope you're having fun there in your Utopian Meritocracy of One.

Why the rest of us who live in the brutally unfair real world -- where some work their asses off for a lifetime and get nowhere, and others coast effortlessly to the top -- should pay any attention to your comforting fantasies is entirely unclear.

---

If I understand you post correctly, you seem to view the world with this dichotomy: (1) those who bust their butts and get nowhere and (2) those cruise effortlessly to the top.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
If I worked hard and didn't get the pay I wanted, I'd do something else. It's the ultimate in autonomy to choose what you want to do and get paid more than the next guy if you work harder than him/her and do a better job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I don't quite see things in that dichotomy to which you just referred, but if you think that hard work guarantees success, you don't live in the real world at all.

---

Nothing guarantees success.

If, for example, a person works 18 hour days for years working on novels or music compositions that no one wants to read or play, then they are not going to be financially successful, no matter how hard they work.

If you drop out of school and get a job on a factory line and take no initiative to go to school or get other training to do something other than turn a wrench, you will never be financially successful no matter how hard you work.

But I'd rather live in a system where hard work can create the opportunity to be financially successful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And these people, never having had to struggle for anything, have the nerve to look down on my family.

---

And you know what? Just ignore those morons. My sweetie was the daughter of a courthouse janitor with an eighth grade education. She had zero finanical advantanges. She worked through college, became a legal secretary (did that for several years), then, while working as a secretary, took night classes to become a paralegal at the community college (did that for several years) and then, while still working full time as a paralegal, went to law school at night for four years.

Did that guarantee she'd be financially successful? No. But, the chances of becoming financially successful after doing those years of work were astronomically greater than if she had simply stayed a secretary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Let's be honest about something here: pouring coffee into a cup isn't really difficult, nor terribly dangerous, nor does it involve long hours, years of schoolin' or a strong back. If they want to organize, I think they should be allowed to, but what exactly do they figure they can demand once they do? What's the realistic monetary value of pouring coffee?

---

Honesty, eh?

Like I said before, you flatter yourself a great deal, don't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
If I understand you post correctly, you seem to view the world with this dichotomy: (1) those who bust their butts and get nowhere and (2) those cruise effortlessly to the top.

---

quote:

---

so why should servers of alcohol be paid substantially more than servers of coffee?

---

If I'm not mistaken, minimum wage for bartenders is exactly the same as minimum wage for coffee servers. If a bartender gets paid more, it's either at his/her employer's discretion, or it's because of tips. Tips aren't a legislated wage, nor did "the Bartender's Union" fight for them — they're a voluntary bonus from customers. Some coffee shops have a tip cup by the cash, but I doubt that early morning coffeeheads are as generous with their bucks as people out on Saturday night, drinking.

quote:

---

Do you have a problem with working people attempting to realize for themselves some portion of the profitability that obtains in the workplace they are employed in?

---

I didn't say "let's break up this union". I simply asked exactly how much a coffee server expected to be able to negotiate, based on the job itself.

quote:

---

Like I said before, you flatter yourself a great deal, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I didn't say "let's break up this union". I simply asked exactly how much a coffee server expected to be able to negotiate, based on the job itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If I'm not mistaken, minimum wage for bartenders is exactly the same as minimum wage for coffee servers.

---

You're mistaken, but for a reason that makes this discussion rather silly, at least in Ontario (not sure about other provinces).

I live in an area where there are a plethora of coffee shops to choose from - one on every block. I know a lot of people who have worked in independent shops and a lot of people who have worked at Starbucks.

Full-time employees get a bit over minimum wage at starbucks, and wage increases at regular intervals. They get health benefits and safety education. They usually get some form of due process in the case of a dispute.

As a consumer I have to appreciate their consistancy in products and services too.

On the other hand, friends that have worked at the independent shops get paid base minimums. I've had friends get fired without cause, I've had friends have enormous amounts of trouble simply getting paid for the hours they put in. I have friends who don't get paid overtime according to the labour code, but if they mention it they're told "Ok, fine, no overtime then. No hours at all, in that case."

As a consumer I've had really, really bad service and product from some of these independent shops. Very annoying to pay $6 for a tepid tea and a sawdust scone...

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-union at Starbucks or anywhere else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
I posited no "dichotomy", merely observed that the relationship between "how hard one works" and "how one is rewarded" is entirely arbitrary. The Horatio Alger mythology, which holds that one's economic position is reflective of one's effort and merit, is a dangerous delusion which serves to entrench existing systemic injustices.

---

The relationship is "entirely arbitrary"? I would agree with you that that is probably the case in a union shop. But, if you're not chained to a system of unionized uniformity, it's not true.

Does hard work guarantee financial success? No. Does it increase the probability of financial success? Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
The relationship is "entirely arbitrary"? I would agree with you that that is probably the case in a union shop. But, if you're not chained to a system of unionized uniformity, it's not true.

---

You have it backwards here. In the case of unionised workplaces, the company can offer something to your union, and your union gives you the choice to accept or reject the offer. If you're not unionised and you ask your boss about raising your salary, your boss may be accomodating, or your boss may tell you to work somewhere else. You have no control over what your boss will say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
Do you have a problem with working people attempting to realize for themselves some portion of the profitability that obtains in the workplace they are employed in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I think employees having an ownership interest in company is great. If the company does well, they enjoy the profits. If the company doesn't do well, then there are no profits to "enjoy". The problem is when unions expect to enjoy the "profits" of their company's success when there are little or none to enjoy (e.g., airline industry).

---

Here's a refutation of the idea that airline unions are forcing them out of business:

quote:

---

New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse wrote in an article published April 27, 2003, "The pilots, the machinists and other airline unions have obtained some of the highest wages in organized labor in decades past, helping push their airlines' operating costs so high that the airlines became vulnerable to downturns and more recently to the emergence of low-cost upstarts like Jet Blue." In fact, unionized workers at United Airlines accepted massive concessions in 1994—and the company ended up bankrupt anyway. Few reporters have examined the human costs of an estimated $35 billion in airline labor concessions—lost jobs, cut wages, broken families and worse. The same is true of the series of steel industry bankruptcies, which have wiped out health insurance and cut pensions for tens of thousands of retirees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
If you're not unionised and you ask your boss about raising your salary, your boss may be accomodating, or your boss may tell you to work somewhere else. You have no control over what your boss will say.

Which system sounds more arbitrary to you, Sven?

---

I'm not in a union and I don't have a problem getting raises cuz I demonstrate value to the company. If my company doesn't adequately compensate me, there are a zillion other places to work. In today's market, an employer cannot (with even semi-skilled labor) arbitrarily not pay competitive wages and expect to keep its good employees. At our company, we regularly conduct market surveys regarding all of our positions to make sure that our wages and benefits are competitive.

You might want to consider opening a business after you get out of college that needs to hire employees and then see how easy it is to simply give no or meager wage increases to your employees and then see how long it will take before you're left with just the losers.

quote:

---

Which system sounds more arbitrary to you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
In the case of unionised workplaces, the company can offer something to your union, and your union gives you the choice to accept or reject the offer.

---

Yeah, that's great, if you're a slacker, cuz then you'll get the same pay as Joe Blow on your right and Jane Doe on your left. But, if you want to work hard (e.g., come up with creative ideas to save the company money by doing something more efficiently or take the initiative to come up with a product improvement that makes your company's products more attractive or beneficial to its customers), you get no reward but the very same pay and the guy who goes through the minimum motions. Most people don't want to live in a work world like that. That's why (non-governmental) union membership in the USA is at an all time low for the last 75 years. People want to get rewarded and recognized for extra effort.

As far as the unions giving their members the right to vote, tell that to the airline mechanics at Northwest Airlines. The union has refused to let the members vote on any company offers for the last several months (that the members have been on strike). Almost all of them (except for the many who crossed the picket lines) are going to lose their jobs...permanently. Had they accepted the airline's earlier offers, they would have kept about 1,200 union jobs. Stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Union negotiators aren't going to try to negotiate the company into bankruptcy just to stick it to them. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
I'd argue the union shop. At least in the non-union shop it's my choice to ask my boss for a raise, and it's my choice whether to accept it or not. If it's not offered, it's my choice to walk or not.

---

And it's your bosse's choice to say, "you don't like working here, so you don't have to anymore." If your boss tries that and you're unionised, you have someone to turn to to defend you. If you have no union, how do you defend yourself against this? What will you use for references?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You might want to consider opening a business after you get out of college that needs to hire employees and then see how easy it is to simply give no or meager wage increases to your employees and then see how long it will take before you're left with just the losers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Yeah, that's great, if you're a slacker, cuz then you'll get the same pay as Joe Blow on your right and Jane Doe on your left. But, if you want to work hard (e.g., come up with creative ideas to save the company money by doing something more efficiently or take the initiative to come up with a product improvement that makes your company's products more attractive or beneficial to its customers), you get no reward but the very same pay and the guy who goes through the minimum motions. Most people don't want to live in a work world like that. That's why (non-governmental) union membership in the USA is at an all time low for the last 75 years. People want to get rewarded and recognized for extra effort.

---

There are several non-unionised workforces that also fall into that category. I've seen employers play favourites while mercilessly spitting on their good employees, in some cases the employees who keep the company togehter. There's a reason that Dilbert and the movie Office Space are popular.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Before you say that, why don't you try reading what I wrote?? I didn't say that the unions forced the companies into bankruptcy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
These forces have combined to force wages down. There's no way around this: without a union, you are merely at the mercy of your employer, and God help you if you're working for one who only cares about his/her own pocketbook and has total disregard for the human costs of decision (s)he makes.

---

Uh-huh. How about preaching that to the 25,000 employees at my company. No union. Great company. At countless people with 15, 20, 25 and even 30 or more years of tenure. We offer matching 401(k) benefits and a pension, not to mention competitive wages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Uh-huh. How about preaching that to the 25,000 employees at my company. No union. Great company. At countless people with 15, 20, 25 and even 30 or more years of tenure. We offer matching 401(k) benefits and a pension, not to mention competitive wages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I've seen employers play favourites while mercilessly spitting on their good employees, in some cases the employees who keep the company togehter.

---

Fine. Let those moron employers do that and they go out of business and lose their investment.

I really don't think you have a clear idea of how competitive it is for employers to find good, talented and hardworking employees. No successful business is "mercilessly spitting on their good employees" and staying in business for long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
You're correct, you didn't say that. You implied it, and I set the record straight for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

I'm happy for you and your co-workers that your company works out for you. But it doesn't always work out for others.

---

Also, stock awards, grants or options are very rare in Canada (which is another way to get employee ownership in companies).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I think part of the problem in Canada is that the system does not permit 401(k)-like retirement accounts for their employees.

...

Here, people have the opportunity to create substantial financial savings and have a home.

---

Yeah, people with substantial capital to start out with have that opportunity. People living paycheck to paycheck? Not so much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vmichel:
Yeah, people with substantial capital to start out with have that opportunity. People living paycheck to paycheck? Not so much.

401(k)'s are great for people who have a substantial amount of income left after expenses. They can make a good amount of money investing that. For people for whom the paycheck just barely covers expenses, like most people working at Starbucks, a 401(k) is useless. It's a retirement plan that enriches those who already have something to start with, at the expense of those who have little.

---

Hell, I had no "capital" to start with (let alone "substantial capital") and I've always, even if it was a little bit, put money away into savings. After 20 years of doing that, I'd say I've got a "substantial" amount of capital. But, I sure as heck didn't start with any. I mean, where did the millions of millionaires in the USA come from? It's not all (or even most) inherited wealth.

EDITED TO ADD: Starbucks probably doesn't have a 401(k) (but I wouldn't be surprised if they did). But, who is going to work at Starbucks for a "career"?? Most are young people (or new immigrants) just getting their start.

[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

If your boss tries that and you're unionised, you have someone to turn to to defend you. If you have no union, how do you defend yourself against this?

---

If the place is unionized how can I go to my boss and tell them I want a raise in the first place? The union contract generally controls how much I can make.

posted by Sven:

quote:

---

I think part of the problem in Canada is that the system does not permit 401(k)-like retirement accounts for their employees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Hell, I had no "capital" to start with (let alone "substantial capital") and I've always, even if it was a little bit, put money away into savings.
[ 03 December 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

Having something to put into savings is having some capital. Having those savings invested in a 401(k), and having that grow over the years (which requires substantial financial stability on your part to not need to dip into that money) is having some capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vmichel:

Having something to put into savings is having some capital. Having those savings invested in a 401(k), and having that grow over the years (which requires substantial financial stability on your part to not need to dip into that money) is having some capital.

I think what you are missing is that a great many people don't even have that little bit extra to invest that you had.

---