Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blogging Stocks pundit gets it all wrong about the IWW and Starbucks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:37 PM
Original message
Blogging Stocks pundit gets it all wrong about the IWW and Starbucks
Edited on Sat Sep-09-06 07:06 PM by Omaha Steve



http://www.iww.org/en/node/2837

Editorial - Blogging Stocks pundit gets it all wrong about the IWW and Starbucks.
Submitted by intexile on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 4:03am.

In a recent entry on the website http://www.bloggingstocks.com, Michael Canfield argues that the IWW's organizing effrots at Starbucks will come to naught:

Retailers like Starbucks operate on such a thin margin that -- were Starbucks to become widely unionized -- there would be some transfer of money into union dues, but any significant increase in pay or benefits would result in the need to cut overall staff, something a union would not be likely to tolerate.

This demonstrates the foolishness in taking the business press seriously when it comes to analyzing unions.

Canfield's flippant dismisal of the IWW efforts shows that he hasn't researched our organization carefully. The maximum amount the IWW charges per month in dues is $18. The wages Starbucks workers earn is within the range where members would pay $6 / month.

Starbucks can almost certainly afford to pay their employees more than $0.03 / hour (which is about what $6 / hour works out to assuming a 173-hour full-time month). They've already given raises around $0.50 / hour in some cities in response to the unionizing drive.

In any case, the issue isn't so much wages as it is the ability to work enough hours per week to be eligible to earn the vaunted health benefits Starbucks touts so highly.

The mass unionization effort of Starbucks by the IWW will be unlike any other union drive in the retail / hospitality sector, because the IWW demands not just for a few crumbs, but the whole damn pie. That would mean that Starbucks employees would assume ownership and control of the means of production. Under those circumstances, I don't think that the workers' job security will suffer any.

And, if any of you are foolish enough to trust Mr. Canfield with investment advice, check your wallets or get another advisor, because he doesn't know what he is talking about and his numbers simply do not add up!

http://starbucksunion.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC