UK action aganst Starbucks - IWW organizing expands throughout UK, Europe
Aug 20 2007 09:41
UK action aganst Starbucks - IWW organizing expands throughout UK, Europe
view outline
Submitted by intexile on Mon, 08/20/2007 - 4:28am.
By Diane Krauthamer
Despite Starbucks’ international union-busting attempts, workers and their supporters are telling the company that they are not backing down. Increased organizing and support is growing like wildfire throughout Europe and the U.S., and this past weekend proved once again that the struggle is far from over.
On August 18, 2007, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and No Sweat held a successful National Day of Action against Starbucks, with demonstrations in ten cities across the UK, including Glasgow, Leeds, Edinburgh, Leicester and London.
Although the company has more than 500 stores with over 5,000 workers and continues to expand in the UK, management is growing nervous as negative publicity surrounding their unfair labor practices increases regionally.
In London, small groups spent the morning distributing informational leaflets to baristas at both Starbucks and Caffé Nero, another major UK coffee chain with working conditions that parallel those of Starbucks. Starbucks baristas are paid just above the minimum wage and are subject to excessive working hours and unpaid overtime. Additionally, baristas must work at a relentless pace, resulting in repetitive strain injuries.
By 2 PM, the groups convened in front of the New Oxford Street Starbucks, a busy shopping district in the central city. More than 30 people spent the windy Saturday afternoon protesting and distributing information to customers, workers and onlookers. In addition to the dozens of protesters, undercover police officers and regional management also made a presence at the event. Two police officers were spotted across the street from the demo, illegally taking photos of individuals from the IWW and No Sweat.
One of the managers, wearing a beige sweater as a feeble attempt to conceal his company t-shirt, sat inside the store “reading a newspaper” while keeping the protest under surveillance. When I asked him if he was there to protest, he said he just wanted to make sure that nothing would “get out of hand.” He admitted that the company had already known about the protest beforehand, despite the fact that the protest location was only communicated over email, and not made public.
The manager asked if we were planning any other demonstrations, and when everyone packed up to go home, he followed the group down the street.
As Starbucks' headquarters in Seattle is advising regional management in the UK to embark on campaigns of surveillance and intimidation—as they have done in the U.S., France and Germany—workers are not backing down. Many baristas showed interest in joining the union, and many potential customers turned away from the store when they received information about the company’s practices. Continued harassment is evidence that the company who sets the world's coffee industry standard feels threatened by the power of radical unionizing and solidarity that continues to expand across international borders
---
http://www.iww.org/en/node/3592
Aug 20 2007 20:35
#2
if you are on private property do you not have to get the permission of the owner?
Aug 23 2007 12:35
#3
This is some good picketing but does it really count as labour organising? There have been Starbucks pickets in the UK for years and they have never resulted in any shops even starting organising AFAIK. Is there a plan for this to happen?
Aug 24 2007 03:19
#4
i would wait a while before jumping down birocs throat....they seem to think things out alot better over there.
Aug 24 2007 04:25
#5
Good question, though. Can any UK comrades answer?
Aug 24 2007 12:44
#6
I'm not at all wanting jump down their throats. I'm not being passive aggressive, just asking honest questions. I visited Scotland this Spring and the growth I saw there from two years ago made me absolutely glow, I swear.
(And for the record, f I want to attack something I don't use questions, trust me; I'm ferocious. 
)
Aug 25 2007 14:05
#7
Well, it's a question of what the action's aim was; while organising is the key aim of the IWW, that doesn't mean it's the aim of every action.
In this case, the aim was to noise up Starbucks, let them know they face international opposition to union-busting attempts. That's a straightforward thing to do, the resources and time required are small, and it fulfils the obligations of international solidarity.
Attempting to organise Starbucks workers would be a different kettle of fish - it would require a long, organised, well-planned campaign. Question is, if we're going to launch such a resource-consuming campaign, should Starbucks be our target? In Glasgow, the big campaign has been Crichton Campus. In other parts of the country, there's other organising campaigns going on - around NHS workers, for example. There is an argument for trying to take the Starbucks Workers Union international, of course, but clearly that's not been seen as a priority worth the resources.
Personally, I think we should give it a shot, but it needs solid planning and possibly nationally-coordinated action.
Aug 26 2007 17:58
#8
We made some agreement that pending national negotiations with the AWL/No Sweat a local organising plan would be drafted. In the meantime part of the basis of this action was to develop a working relationship with others (No Sweat) interested in organising Starbucks workers with the IWW.
This is quite different from half assed pickets. We are in the process of building up to a major organising drive, pending negotiations.
As Moh points out this is just the very first thing that we have done, as part of this campaign, and should not be seen in the same light as it is far more co-ordinated and purposeful. BIROC is on our way to 1000 members by this time next year.
Aug 27 2007 03:35
#9
Just to second Gwen's comment, no disrespect intended to the comrades for their hard work. Moh Kohn, re: Sbux organizing I totally understand your take on this, I have the exact same feelings.
Aug 27 2007 07:32
#10
Dundee_United wrote:
We made some agreement that pending national negotiations with the AWL/No Sweat a local organising plan would be drafted. In the meantime part of the basis of this action was to develop a working relationship with others (No Sweat) interested in organising Starbucks workers with the IWW.
Does "we" mean the UK IWW? If so, why would you be working with the AWL, and is Gentle Revolutionary involved?
Dundee United wrote:
BIROC is on our way to 1000 members by this time next year.
Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, could you show your working out please since this seems very unlikely to me.
Aug 27 2007 15:19
#11
Who is the AWL? What do they do?
Aug 27 2007 15:53
#12
Quote:
Who is the AWL?
Alliance for Workers' Liberty.
Trots, "third-campists", name-check Luxemburg.
http://www.workersliberty.org/
Quote:
What do they do?
Tell people to vote for the Labour Party, try to get high-level union positions, run front groups, stuff like that.
Aug 27 2007 17:59
#13
Quote:
Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, could you show your working out please since this seems very unlikely to me.
We started this year with about 120 members in the BIROC. We now have over 330. It seems perfectly reasonable based on the current rate of growth, particularly after our victory in the Crichton campaign - the concomitant being a massive (for us) organising drive is in the offing - and the NBS campaign taking off.
Quote:
Does "we" mean the UK IWW? If so, why would you be working with the AWL, and is Gentle Revolutionary involved?
If they want to help encourage workers at Starbucks to unionise with the IWW, as part of an international syndicalist organising drive in that company, as they say they do, and seem to be putting their money where their mouth is as well, then why the fuck not? I'd work with almost anyone who wanted to help support those efforts. We're a mass organisation with political views, not a poltical organisation.
Aug 28 2007 08:03
#14
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, could you show your working out please since this seems very unlikely to me.We started this year with about 120 members in the BIROC. We now have over 330. It seems perfectly reasonable based on the current rate of growth
Well if you're banking on 300 new members by the end of this year, then another 400 or so in the six months after, then you're trying to call not too far off exponential group "perfectly reasonable". Again, I don't see it, even though 1,000 still wouldn't be all that many. Even if you managed to get that many people to sign up, how many new members renew after the first year (or however long the dues cycle works)?
Quote:
If they want to help encourage workers at Starbucks to unionise with the IWW, as part of an international syndicalist organising drive in that company, as they say they do, and seem to be putting their money where their mouth is as well, then why the fuck not? I'd work with almost anyone who wanted to help support those efforts. We're a mass organisation with political views, not a poltical organisation.
The AWL says a lot of things, most of which is complete crap. It doesn't really surprise me, but I didn't think you'd be jumping into bed with another trot group so soon after the Scottish parliament debacle. I'd imagine a fair few IWW members have similar reservations to me on that front as well.
Quote:
I'd work with almost anyone who wanted to help support those efforts.
Yeah I know you would. That's why I was interested whether this is a national IWW decision or something a few people in the IWW are cooking up with the presumably very willing grease of GR.
Aug 28 2007 08:43
#15
Quote:
The AWL says a lot of things, most of which is complete crap. It doesn't really surprise me, but I didn't think you'd be jumping into bed with another trot group so soon after the Scottish parliament debacle. I'd imagine a fair few IWW members have similar reservations to me on that front as well.
Why are you trying to protect the perceived ideological purity of a group you don't even support? You're shit stirring. If you want to get involved in shaping the policy of the IWW then join the IWW. At the moment all we seem to get off this site is people posting how much they think the IWW is a waste of time, followed by endless "political" criticism from people who've already made it clear they have no time for us. Comments like "jumping into bed with" only display that you clearly do not support the IWW. It would be good if you and others had the integrity to be honest about that and cease with the endless childish sniping.
Quote:
Well if you're banking on 300 new members by the end of this year, then another 400 or so in the six months after, then you're trying to call not too far off exponential group "perfectly reasonable". Again, I don't see it, even though 1,000 still wouldn't be all that many. Even if you managed to get that many people to sign up, how many new members renew after the first year (or however long the dues cycle works)?
We will easily have 500 before the end of the year. It is therefore not particularly difficult to imagine that by the end of August 2008 we might have reached 1000. As you point out however 1000 members is pathetic, and we ought to be aiming for much much much much more than that, but we are currently headed in the right direction.
At present we are gaining more members than we lose through lapses etc (hence the 'growth' bit, yeah?! Or perhaps you though that was creative accounting or some shit, as I appreciate you can't bring yourself to admit that this project you don't support appears on the up.). I had thought it would be a nice target to set the national membership at 400 before the end of the '07, and the Clydeside GMB membership at 100. We're at 330 and 50 respectively, now, although Clydeside has done no recruiting in months due to the Crichton campaign, and the need to train up organisers.
Aug 28 2007 11:17
#16
Firstly I just want to say I'm not trying to attack the IWW here. I support what most of you guys are trying to use it for - building working class power. But...
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, could you show your working out please since this seems very unlikely to me.We started this year with about 120 members in the BIROC. We now have over 330.
I "joined" briefly as a stupid kid about 6 years ago and was told then it had 3-400 members.
Quote:
It seems perfectly reasonable based on the current rate of growth, particularly after our victory in the Crichton campaign - the concomitant being a massive (for us) organising drive is in the offing - and the NBS campaign taking off.
Saying it's reasonable to expect the membership you claim it to have triple is not "reasonable" nor based on any historical precedent, or reality in any way. The global membership of the IWW has been static at around 1,000 or just below for at least 2 years, and I'd assume for a time before that as well.
That you expect it to grow in the UK to be bigger than the US group in about a year, in a country a fifth the size of the US is bizarre.
Quote:
We're a mass organisation
Dude, you and reality seem to be on divergent paths again.
I respect your obvious dedication, but you really do seem to have difficulty assessing the real world - this runs through almost all of your posts. And because of this you're going to be disappointed.
Your faith in the Labour party cheerleaders the AWL is also pretty shockingly naive. I hoped that you might have learned something from the SSP experience.
Aug 28 2007 11:52
#17
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
The AWL says a lot of things, most of which is complete crap. It doesn't really surprise me, but I didn't think you'd be jumping into bed with another trot group so soon after the Scottish parliament debacle. I'd imagine a fair few IWW members have similar reservations to me on that front as well.Why are you trying to protect the perceived ideological purity of a group you don't even support? You're shit stirring.
I think there's decent people in the IWW. I also think that as a strategy it's deeply flawed in a number of ways. You seem to think it'd be better if I just refrained from comment on any organisation I'm not a member of. I expect you to be posting up your SSP, SWP, AF and solfed membership cards shortly in that case.
Quote:
If you want to get involved in shaping the policy of the IWW then join the IWW.
I don't see what possible value that could have apart from getting you one closer to your membership target.
Quote:
At the moment all we seem to get off this site is people posting how much they think the IWW is a waste of time, followed by endless "political" criticism from people who've already made it clear they have no time for us. Comments like "jumping into bed with" only display that you clearly do not support the IWW. It would be good if you and others had the integrity to be honest about that and cease with the endless childish sniping.
I've made my disagreements with the IWW clear on a number of occasions, and have been perfectly honest in this, as you well know. In my view allowing SSP parliament members to join was "jumping into bed" with that organisation - albeit by a local IWW group acting "autonomously". That you're now talking about "national negotiations with AWL" suggest that not much was learned from the SSP experience - in fact it'd potentially be a far more significant relationship than the SSP MSPs - which as many wobs were at pains to say, was just one branch.
Quote:
We will easily have 500 before the end of the year. It is therefore not particularly difficult to imagine that by the end of August 2008 we might have reached 1000.
Well we'll see won't we. Contrary to your very defensive statements, I'd be quite happy for the IWW to gain a lot of members - since the only way I think that's likely to happen is with some wider social processes going on at the same time. What would be said would be BIROC going for sheer numbers, and ending up with a lot more people a lot more hostile to the actual aims of the IWW than I am to it's tactics and form of organisation swamping the decent people in it at the moment (like a load of AWL members). Again, we'll see how it goes and genuinely hope it's successful.
Quote:
At present we are gaining more members than we lose through lapses etc (hence the 'growth' bit, yeah?! Or perhaps you though that was creative accounting or some shit, as I appreciate you can't bring yourself to admit that this project you don't support appears on the up.).
Er, many, many wobblies have said on here that it's really hard to account for membership due to good and bad standing, inconsistent dues collection from branches etc. etc. - have all these problems been magically fixed in a couple of months?
Quote:
although Clydeside has done no recruiting in months due to the Crichton campaign, and the need to train up organisers.
Ok so when you've got what appears to be a big successful campaign going on you're not recruiting, but when you've got less happening you get more new members? I seem to remember the Clydeside group being at 50 several months ago, which'd mean it's currently static? Future membership drives notwithstanding of course.
Aug 28 2007 20:26
#18
Quote:
Quote:
We're a mass organisationDude, you and reality seem to be on divergent paths again.
John. I'm not defining 'mass organisation' as being an organisation with lots of members, although that could be one definition. The way I'm using it there is that its aims could be supported by a mass of people. The IWW has less scope for that in the current historical period than Unite or the GMB, but there are still hundreds of thousands in the UK who would be in support of much of its aims and many of its struggles, in a way that would not be true of a political organisation or tendency, hence 'mass'. I am by no means saying that the IWW has a lot of members - it doesn't.
Aug 28 2007 20:27
#19
Quote:
Ok so when you've got what appears to be a big successful campaign going on you're not recruiting, but when you've got less happening you get more new members? I seem to remember the Clydeside group being at 50 several months ago, which'd mean it's currently static? Future membership drives notwithstanding of course.
That's exactly what I'm saying. It has been quite problematical, but I will explain later.
Aug 28 2007 20:38
#20
Dundee_United wrote:
The way I'm using [mass organisation] it there is that its aims could be supported by a mass of people.
My emphasis
I quite like Dundee's invention of new definitions of political terms. The inclusion of possibility here makes it especially interesting.
Devrim
Aug 28 2007 20:44
#21
Quote:
That you're now talking about "national negotiations with AWL" suggest that not much was learned from the SSP experience - in fact it'd potentially be a far more significant relationship than the SSP MSPs - which as many wobs were at pains to say, was just one branch.
It would be an issue if the IWW was an anarchist organisation. Fortunately we're not. As far as I'm away the GST is a functionary of some kind in the US Socialist Party. We have members in all sorts of poltical organisations. We would by your definition be considered to have 'jumped into bed' with both the AF and SolFed, but the members we have in the SSP, in Workers Power and a number of other organisations don't seem to mind too much. Long may that continue. If some group wants to help recruit folks to the IWW, be it the AWL, or the local aetheist club, printers guild or church congregation I couldn't really give a fuck who it is if it builds the IWW.
Quote:
That you expect it to grow in the UK to be bigger than the US group in about a year, in a country a fifth the size of the US is bizarre.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you consider having a piddling 1000 members after a whole year of organising to be overambitious? Pull the other one. With a fair bit of effort we could have a 1000 members in Glasgow in a year, however I don't intend on working that hard and I doubt others do, so give us three.
Quote:
. What would be said would be BIROC going for sheer numbers, and ending up with a lot more people a lot more hostile to the actual aims of the IWW than I am to it's tactics and form of organisation swamping the decent people in it at the moment (like a load of AWL members).
People are creatures of habit. I wouldn't be overly concerned as they'd absord something of the way we do things currently. What's needed in the current period is an alternative clean and democratic union that's prepared to have go. The IWW is one potential vehicle for this.
Aug 28 2007 20:47
#22
Quote:
The inclusion of possibility here makes it especially interesting.
Scotticism. An English person would have said 'can' there I think.
Aug 28 2007 20:48
#23
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
The inclusion of possibility here makes it especially interesting.Scotticism. An English person would have said 'can' there I think.
No 'could' seems correct whereas 'can' would be wrong. It is the meaning that is bizarre.
Devrim
Aug 29 2007 06:19
#24
Yeah...Can folks not in the iww stop posting in these forums like its their personal stomping grounds? Its rather annoying to have these threads in a forum designed primarily for libcom wobs to discuss, strategize, and network. I know its public and all that but that doesn't give you the right to come in and act hostile and passive aggressive. I don't think we mind occasional posts from non members that are respectful, but this is ridiculous. Every 2 weeks there's a new thread where a non member makes some big fuss about the iww. I'm getting tired of it.
Aug 29 2007 11:33
#25
I like seeing non-members' comments/criticisms on what's happening, but I agree that more private forums/group announcments and discussion, especially for the UK IWW (which is having its website updated) would be a lot better. For one thing not that many Wobblies are using the internet, and if they do they're more often than not put off by what they see.
John wrote:
Your faith in the Labour party cheerleaders the AWL is also pretty shockingly naive. I hoped that you might have learned something from the SSP experience.
*grumble* John, you've not presented this correctly at all.
The IWW is negotiating with No Sweat not any political group. It's an activist organisation, which was in part founded by the AWL, but is openly independent from it whilst many of the latter have kept it going (amongst others). You certainly do no have to be a member of any party to join it and the alliance (not affiliation) is entirely non-Political, with activists working together for common aims.
How in any way is this comparable to the Parliament work-branch?
Scrutinising things is good, but why don't you look at what they're trying to do?
Aug 29 2007 11:58
#26
To be fair to John., it's a reasonable enough comment given that your *cough* spokesman said this earlier in the thread: -
Quote:
We made some agreement that pending national negotiations with the AWL/No Sweat a local organising plan would be drafted.
So just to clarify -- any agreement the IWW makes will be with No Sweat, rather than the "Alliance" for Workers "Liberty"?
Aug 29 2007 13:48
#27
Quote:
To be fair to John., it's a reasonable enough comment given that your *cough* spokesman said this earlier in the thread
Uhuh, well I certainly wasn't elected or told to put out an official statement on the matter so I dunno why you're all listening to me as it was clearly just a hoist up. Volin put it better anyway. ;p
Aug 29 2007 17:33
#28
Volin wrote:
John wrote:
Your faith in the Labour party cheerleaders the AWL is also pretty shockingly naive. I hoped that you might have learned something from the SSP experience.*grumble* John, you've not presented this correctly at all.
Like button said, this is how Dundee, and IWW member presented it.
Quote:
The IWW is negotiating with No Sweat not any political group. It's an activist organisation, which was in part founded by the AWL, but is openly independent from it whilst many of the latter have kept it going (amongst others). You certainly do no have to be a member of any party to join it and the alliance (not affiliation) is entirely non-Political, with activists working together for common aims.
It's an entirely AWL-run front group.
Catch 22 wrote:
Yeah...Can folks not in the iww stop posting in these forums like its their personal stomping grounds? Its rather annoying to have these threads in a forum designed primarily for libcom wobs to discuss, strategize, and network. I know its public and all that but that doesn't give you the right to come in and act hostile and passive aggressive. I don't think we mind occasional posts from non members that are respectful, but this is ridiculous. Every 2 weeks there's a new thread where a non member makes some big fuss about the iww. I'm getting tired of it.
catch 22 - I don't understand your attitude. Who's acting "hostile and passive aggressive"? In fact we have had lots of abuse and aggression on here from one person in particular who was an IWW member, directed at various people. I know he's no longer in the IWW and is banned from here but let's not start calling people hostile and aggressive.
You're in the US right? That's a long way from the UK. You might want to believe what Dundee is saying, but it is in no way accurate or reflective of real life on the ground here.
Aug 29 2007 18:06
#29
Both you and catch have been both hostile and passive aggressive. You told dundee that he lacked a basic grasp of reality. That's not very respectful or comradely. That's hostile. Catch has been shit stirring from the first post on this thread, asking leading questions and repeatedly conflating No Sweat to "getting in bed with" the trots.
I honestly "don't want to believe' what dundee says. As someone not involved in this campaign I've respectfully kept quiet and differed to the judgment of fellow workers who actually live in Britain. They all know that the AWL is a silly trot outfit. That doesn't mean we can't use No Sweat as a productive coalition partner. We can't always work with folks with perfect politics John. Its part and parcel of basic organizing.
But that aside I'm mostly pissed off becuase this is our bloody forum for inter organizational discussion. The Anti-IWW brigade has some sort of fetish for bandying about in this forum and derailing every 5th thread into "Wobblies defend themselves from accusations that they are utter fools." Feel free to do this in news or thought, but stop shitting all over our forum. You notice that the few times i have ever critically commented on the runnings of libcom.org I've always been respectful and understanding. Nor do I attack fellow class struggle anarchists as having a "difficulty assessing the real world." I expect that when comrades have issues with the organizations that I'm involved in they will show some courtesy and place their criticisms in the proper channels in a respectful manner. Otherwise I'm going to simply ignore them.
Aug 29 2007 18:19
#30
I dunno we're pretty open to various political groups in Canada being down with the IWW, but signing an agreement with one would probably be against the constitution and is not the best bet. Something that I think the UK IWW is right to do is not let the sectarianism that is pretty common in the UK scene get in the way of doing practical work with other radicals. On the other hand lets not be naive, the IWW is just a tool to a lot of these groups and if they are good trots they probably see you as fertile recruiting grounds and little more.
I would be quite open to letting leninists in, ultimately if we can't beat them in the realm of open honest debate about the direction of the organisation then we aren't likely to beat them anywhere else. If you are running your group properly, and it seems to me much of BIROC is, then the best argument for a non sectarian libertarian revolutionary union movement is an organisation that can act on its principles and win. If you play your cards right they will come into your group to pick up members and will ultimately find a lot of members adopting your program.
However the bigger danger to our radicalism is in new members; already politicised activists aren't the best place to recruit from. Many of the best IWWs I know are workplace militants recruited through struggle. I honestly don't think we can achieve any group going from 300 to 1000 in a year by recruiting this way either, but sometimes slow steady growth is better for a group than rapid explosive growth, especially when we are building a revolutionary union and not a standard union with some radical language in its policies.
great stuff. sad i wasn't around for it all.
however,
it's perfectly legal for coppers to take photos of us, unfortunately...