By Vanessa Bartlett

At the start of the holiday season, unionized Starbucks workers at hundreds of stores went on strike to demand that Starbucks sit down at the bargaining table with workers. Community members also mobilized to hand out fliers in front of non-union stores, encouraging customers to call Starbucks and share their support for workers. 

Red Cup Day is an annual event where Starbucks locations give out reusable red coffee cups to customers who order holiday-themed drinks. This promotion is highly anticipated by ‘Bucks aficionados, and is typically one of the most profitable days of the year for Starbucks. 

This year, Starbucks experienced a noticeable decrease in sales on Red Cup Day in comparison to last year. This dip in foot traffic may have been caused by the Red Cup Rebellion and other efforts to boycott Starbucks as a part of a BDS strategy for supporting Palestine.

Due to chronic understaffing, employees say this day is also one of the worst days to work at Starbucks. Cody Hale, who works at the Newton Corner Starbucks, said that the location experienced a high volume of orders–over 80 orders every 30 minutes on the morning of Red Cup Day. 

Pre-covid, Hale said that Red Cup Days might have been adequately staffed, but post-covid, “not so much”. 

Hale said “We didn’t have as many campaign supporters [on the picket line] this time, as opposed to our first strike back in January. But it was still pretty productive.”

“We did our best to inform and educate the customers about what’s going on with the strike… and we managed to get a lot of people to walk away, and go elsewhere, like Dunkin,” Hale said.

Long lines and wait times for drinks are issues that Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) hopes to address in a contract with Starbucks. But two years after the first Starbucks unionized in Buffalo, NY, the company has dragged its feet in bargaining.

“All these strikes wouldn’t be happening if [Starbucks] didn’t delay,” said Hale. “I just wish that they would get it done faster, and actually come to the bargaining table.” 

Matthew Schreiner, a member of Boston DSA who participated in a flyering event at a Starbucks location in Medford, said that customers responded positively to workers’ demands. “The Boston area seems to be pretty receptive,” Schreiner said. “They were quite enthusiastically accepting the cards. Various people ran out of cards. So I’m guessing they gave away a couple hundred [flyers].”

Despite feeling the pressure from community members, Starbucks has played the tough guy in the press, and shows no indication of being willing to come to the bargaining table any time soon. 
As their tally of unfair labor practices against union stores grows, Starbucks can certainly expect SBWU to continue catching the public eye (and hurting their bottom line) with tactical protests like this year’s Red Cup Rebellion.

Vanessa Bartlett is a staff organizer for UAW, and a member of Boston DSA. She has a background in print and radio journalism, but please don’t hold that against her.

North NJ DSA to Join CAIR-NJ and Ceasefire JC Coalition in Support of Jersey City Ceasefire Resolution

On Wednesday, December 6th, North NJ DSA (NNJ DSA) will join the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ), American Muslims for Palestine NJ (AMP-NJ), Jewish Voice for Peace NNJ (JVP-NNJ) at a press conference calling on the Jersey City Council to pass Res. 23-903 calling for a permanent ceasefire in Palestine.

WHERE: City Hall of Jersey City, 280 Grove St., Jersey City, NJ 07302  

WHEN: Wednesday, December 6, 11 a.m.   

LIVESTREAM: North NJ DSA Facebook, CAIR-NJ Facebook, AMP-NJ Facebook  

SEE: Jersey City council to vote on resolution calling for cease-fire in Gaza 

SEE: NY Mag: The Pro-Palestinian Left Is Booming

The Palestinian death toll in Gaza is nearing 16,000. The overwhelming majority of casualties are civilians. At the same time, Israel has doubled the number of Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank.  

SEE: Israel-Gaza war updates: 100s killed in last 24 hours in Israeli strikes  

SEE: Israel arrests almost as many Palestinians as it has released during truce  

North NJ DSA stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine. Our chapters across the United States are helping pass resolutions, push members of Congress to support a ceasefire, and are united in this struggle.

###

The post North NJ DSA to Join CAIR-NJ and Ceasefire JC Coalition in Support of Jersey City Ceasefire Resolution first appeared on North NJ DSA.

The DSA International Committee stands in solidarity with the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) UAW Local 2325, who have been wrongfully silenced by the New York State Supreme Court which barred Local 2325 from voting on a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The IC calls on Judge Felice Muraca of the Nassau County Supreme Court to immediately lift the Temporary Restraining Order and allow the ALAA to fairly and democratically vote on this resolution. Additionally, the IC affirms its support for the passing of the resolution, which uplifts Palestinian trade unions’ calls for divestment from the Israeli military, condemns the Israeli government’s genocidal actions and rhetoric since October 7, demands an immediate ceasefire, calls for the end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and rejects craven attempts to silence and repress support for Palestine among workers’ organizations.

Supporters of the Palestinian people have long faced unjust retaliation for voicing their support in the US. As a result of a ceasefire resolution even being considered, two of ALAA’s shops, The Bronx Defenders and the Legal Aid Society are now facing threats of defunding from management and private individuals that would put their ability to operate at risk. The IC calls on the management of these shops and their legal counsel to immediately retract these repressive threats which undermine their workers’ right to democracy and free expression.

Since October 2023, the Israeli Occupation Forces have relentlessly bombarded and invaded Gaza, killing over 15,000 Palestinians including at least 5,000 children. An additional 7,000 are missing. This invasion has come with the full backing of the United States government, despite strong majority support among the American public for a ceasefire.

The NYSSC’s decision to prevent ALAA UAW Local 2325 from voting on a resolution in support of a ceasefire and an end to the death and destruction being carried out in Gaza, and the threats to defund both The Bronx Defenders and the Legal Aid Society are but two of many instances we have seen across the past two months wherein supporters of the Palestinian people are being wrongfully repressed and retaliated against. We express our support and solidarity with ALAA UAW 2325 members attempting to pass the resolution, with the people of Palestine, and with the workers around the world calling for a ceasefire, the end of the occupation, and total divestment from the Israeli war machine.

The post DSA IC Stands in Solidarity with the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) UAW Local 2325 appeared first on DSA International Committee.

NPEC has been developing several political education resources and events on Palestine over the last few months. This page has all the latest for chapters and their educators to let them know what’s ahead and how to get engaged.

First, to assist chapters as they plan their political education events on Palestine, we have a Google Drive folder to centralize DSA-created political education materials. If your national DSA committee or chapter has any educational materials on Palestine to share, please submit them to NPEC using this form. Note: the inclusion of any resource in this collection is not an NPEC endorsement of its contents – we encourage you to look through the folder and use whatever materials are useful to you at your discretion. The folder with collected materials can be accessed here and will be continually updated. For a basic primer on Palestine from a socialist perspective, check out our Palestine and Socialism episode on NPEC’s Podcast, Class. In a more recent episode of Class, we also spoke with members of the Chicago Teacher’s Union about their and other unions’ call for a ceasefire.

Recordings of our educational events and trainings include Understanding the Israeli–Palestinian Colonial Conflict panel (audio version), Empower DSA Kids Event: Building Understanding and Support for Palestine (recording forthcoming), and Palestine Strategy 101: BDS. Whether you’re able to join us for our trainings or not, we encourage you to check out our sample lesson plan for organizing educational discussion spaces on Palestine in your chapter. For other events organized by other national DSA bodies, follow us on Twitter to keep up with the latest.

We are also expanding the events calendar on our website! Chapters can now add their upcoming virtual and hybrid events to a national calendar so DSA members and non-members around the country have no shortage of political education to learn from. This is an excellent way for us to show the fantastic events that our chapters are putting on while also opening those events up to a broader audience, especially right now with the urgent need for education on Palestine. If you want to add your chapter’s political education events to our national calendar, please write to us at npeccomms@dsacommittees.org or reply to this email for more info.

2023 has been a major year for workers so far, and the momentum shows no signs of slowing down as we head into 2024. While major strikes by UAW at the Big Three in the auto industry and by WGA and SAG-AFTRA in the entertainment world are making headlines, thousands of workers across the country are taking action in ways big and small that you may not always hear about. On this show, we're joined live by Jenny Brown, assistant editor at Labor Notes and author of Birth Strike: The Hidden Fight Over Women’s Work, to discuss the labor year so far and what organizers can learn going into 2024.

We also hear from Evan, vice chair of the Graduate Center Chapter of the Professional Staff Congress at CUNY,  on how union organizers are protecting the free speech of Palestinian solidarity activists on campus.

After the death of 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza and 1.7 million displaced, Israel has finally agreed to a 4 day pause in exchange for 50 hostages from Hamas. This pause will help but it is not nearly enough. To prevent further bloodshed, Israel must agree to a permanent ceasefire. Bombing Gaza is not the answer, negotiation is.

We urge all individuals to demand your Congressperson support Rep. Cori Bush’s resolution for a PERMANENT CEASEFIRE NOW in Gaza.

We at Grand Rapids DSA stand with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a member of Detroit DSA and the only Palestinian American in Congress, and her continued demand for a ceasefire in Gaza – a demand that is supported by a vast majority of Michigan Democrats. Her bravery to stand for what is right, despite the attacks against her from her fellow congress members, is commendable.

We demand Rep. Hillary Scholten, Sen. Gary Peters, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow to support Rep. Cori Bush’s resolution urging the Biden Administration to call for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine. 47 of their colleagues support a ceasefire, with that number growing every day. No money for massacres!

For further action, read the statement from DSA National and Join DSA!

The post Call for Ceasefire appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

Central NJ Democratic Socialists (“CNJ DSA”) is committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment for everyone, regardless of gender, race, or class, to organize without fear of harassment. We aim to design a space that amplifies and protects marginalized voices by developing a policy for reporting grievances based on the harassment policy Resolution 33 which was passed at the DSA National Convention in August 2017, while adding several extra protections not guaranteed by the Resolution and an eye towards restorative justice, healing, and victim support.

DSA’s national harassment policy can be found at: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/harassment-policy-resolution-33/

Section 1.0 Policy Overview

A. Scope Of This Policy

Prohibited behavior. Members shall not engage in harassment on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical appearance, disability, race, color, religion, national origin, class, age, or profession. Harassing or abusive behavior, such as unwelcome attention, inappropriate or offensive remarks, slurs, or jokes, physical or verbal intimidation, stalking, inappropriate physical contact or proximity, and other verbal and physical conduct constitute harassment when:

• Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a member’s continued affiliation with DSA;
• Submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for organizational decisions affecting such individual; or
• Such conduct has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment interfering with an individual’s capacity to organize within DSA.
• Other protected classes. Harassment based on categories not encompassed by those listed section (a) will be evaluated at the discretion of the Harassment and Grievance Officer (“HGO”) and Steering Committee (“SC”) representatives.
• Members may also file grievances not directed at a specific individual, such as hostile environments and other systemic issues. Investigation in these cases shall center and seek to support the grievant in determining the appropriate remedy.

B. Reporting Harassment

Complaints. Members may follow the standard complaint process as set out in the following sections if they believe they have been harassed by another member. Time Limitations. There will be no time limits requiring the grievant to file a report within any amount of time after the alleged harassment has occurred.

C. This document describes the complaint procedure adopted by CNJ DSA. If any grievant does not feel that their concerns can be adequately addressed by CNJ DSA, they may pursue a complaint with National Grievance Officers and the NPC without going through the Chapter procedure first.

D. The SC of CNJ DSA will publicize this policy and make HGO contact information available to membership as often as possible, including, but not limited to: Chapter- wide emails, meeting agendas, social media, and online chapter communication platforms.

Section 2.0 Harassment and Grievance Officers

A. Membership shall elect two members to serve as HGOs. Due to the gendered nature of many harassment complaints at the National level, no more than one HGO may be cismale. HGOs may not be SC members, but may run for Steering Committee when their HGO term has ended. Election of HGOs will follow standard procedures outlined in the Chapter bylaws. HGOs will serve staggered two-year terms.

B. HGO Responsibilities

• Receive, acknowledge receipt of, and archive grievant reports
• Contact the accused to notify them of the accusations, request their written response, and archive any written response
• Conduct any necessary investigation of the claim
• Present their findings to the Steering Committee with a written report.
• If necessary, take disciplinary action and report the discipline administered to the Steering Committee.
• Present an anonymized version of the report to deliver to membership after conclusion of an investigation. The HGOs may make exceptions to anonymity in service of the restorative justice process, in the case of any member who has been removed from the chapter permanently or temporarily as a result of the investigation.
• Compile a yearly report that details:
• How many reports were made
• How many were taken to the formal disciplinary process
• How many disciplinary actions were taken
• Any recommended changes for making the reporting system effective, preferably informed by survey of membership

C. Removal of an HGO.

An HGO may resign at any time. If an HGO fails to perform their duties fairly, diligently, and ethically, there may be cause for removal. The SC may remove an HGO by majority vote after the HGO is informed of the cause for removal and given the opportunity to self- advocate to the SC.

Section 3.0 Complaints

A. Making A Complaint The SC will establish a confidential email for submitting complaints, which is monitored only by the HGOs. Login information will be changed at each new term or sooner. The SC will make a complaint form available upon request that is linked to the HGO email.

On the form, the grievant may have the option to submit the complaint as an emergency, in which case an expedited investigation will take place. If a grievant objects to both HGOs viewing a complaint, they may contact one HGO directly and confidentially. The identities of all involved parties will remain confidential to everyone who is not an HGO, including the SC (and at the request of the grievant, disclosure may also be denied to the HGO not currently investigating the case), pending the outcome of the investigation, except as necessary for a complete investigation. Multiple complaints against one person may be consolidated into a single investigation. Any grievant may veto this consolidation. Grievants have the right to a proxy or representative of their choosing to speak on their behalf and act as the primary contact with HGOs throughout the investigation.

B. Recusal

An HGO is required to recuse themselves from any investigation involving either a complainant or accused who is a close friend or family member of the HGO, or with whom the HGO has an extensive working relationship or past or present romantic or sexual relationship. An HGO should also recuse themselves if other conflicts would present an appearance of impropriety. Such potential conflicts may be raised by any party or by any member of leadership at the outset of an investigation and may be determined by other

Section 4.0 Responding To A Complaint

A. Informal conversation/mediation

Some complaints may be resolved without the need for a formal grievance process. In this case, there may be an informal conversation between parties mediated by an HGO. In an informal mediation, all parties must attend voluntarily and express a desire for resolution; the HGO remains neutral; each person has the ability to state their perspectives uninterrupted; the mediator may follow the general structure of affective questioning; and the goal is to find a solution to the conflict that is primarily developed and mutually agreed upon by all parties. a final summary of the conversation is made available to the SC, but the SC does not participate in the results of the mediation.

B. Filing Official Grievance.

After a written report has been submitted, whether through the email hotline or otherwise:

1. The HGO(s) will contact the grievant within three days to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and set up a conversation.
2. The HGO(s) will contact the accused member within five days to notify them that a report has been filed against them and request a written response to the report either affirming or denying its substance.
3. The accused will submit their written response within seven days of being notified. If the accused fails to meet this deadline or request an extension, the HGO will consult the grievant first regarding appropriate disciplinary measures.
4. If the accused denies the substance of the report, the HGO will set up a conversation. The HGO overseeing the dispute will have the option to investigate the report by:
   1. interviewing other members with direct knowledge of the substance of the report;
   2. requesting documentation from either the grievant or accused or any other parties directly involved; or
   3. employing any and all other means deemed necessary, with the utmost respect for the confidentiality and emotional needs of the parties, within a time period not to exceed ten days.
5. When victims are closed out of the disciplinary process, they are re-victimized. In order to avoid replicating the oppressive structures of our current judicial system, before reaching a conclusion, the HGO(s) will schedule a final conversation with the grievant following the general guidelines of post-conflict affective questioning. The purpose is to amplify the voices of victims and consider their needs and perspectives when moving forward with disciplinary action or otherwise.

C. The HGO(s) responsible for investigating the dispute will determine whether the report is credible and take appropriate disciplinary action, if necessary, as soon as practicable, without exceeding thirty days. The HGO(s) may notify SC of the accuser’s report and its substance at any time after the report is filed, but must give written notice to both the accuser and the accused member before doing so.

Section 5.0 Remedies and penalties

A. Determinations

All reports will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the HGO(s) associated with the accuser’s reporting channel. The ultimate determination in each case will be made by the HGO(s).

B. Standard for Determining if a Report is Credible

The HGOs will find a factual allegation is “credible” if it more-likely-than-not occurred.

C. Remedies and Penalties

1. If the HGOs find a factual allegation to be credible, they are authorized to carry out disciplinary action, which may include:
   1. A formal discussion between the accused and the HGOs and/or Steering Committee to develop a plan for repairing the harm;
   2. Suspension from committee meetings and other chapter or organizational events;
   3. Removal from chapter committee(s);
   4. Removal from the chapter; and
   5. Any and all other relief deemed necessary and just by the HGO(s).
2. The SC will enforce any suspensions or expulsions in accordance with chapter procedures.

Section 6.0 Appeals Process

A. Either party may appeal the final result of the grievance by filling out an appeal form, available upon request from an HGO or the Steering Committee. Appeals must be filed within thirty days of receiving written notice of the decision. The limited grounds for appeal are:

1. Either party believes the behavior was not interpreted using the standards for harassment set out in Section 1a;
2. Procedural errors, misconduct, or conflicts of interest affected the fairness of the outcome; and
3. The remedy or penalty determined by the HGOs was disproportionate to the violation committed

B. Appeals will be heard by the Harassment and Grievance Officers of North or South Jersey DSA, provided they have adopted a policy agreeing to this arrangement. They will follow Central Jersey’s grievance policy in deciding the appeal.

C. Nothing in this policy can limit a member’s right to file an appeal directly with the national organization.

Section 7.0 Retaliation

This policy prohibits retaliation against any member for bringing a complaint of harassment pursuant to this policy. This policy also prohibits retaliation against a person who assists someone with a complaint of harassment, or participates in any manner in an investigation or resolution of a complaint of discrimination or harassment. Retaliatory behaviors includes threats, intimidation, reprisals, and/or adverse actions related to organizing. If any party to the complaint believes there has been retaliation, they may inform the HGO who will determine whether to factor the retaliation into the original complaint, or treat it as an individual incident.

Frank Emspak argues that Starbucks workers can win a union and a contract at Starbucks if the labor movement acts like a labor movement.

Update from State Street Starbucks

Our union sympathetic manager has quit because he “can no longer ethically work for this company”. Our new store manager has been selected and is a universally disliked leader who is known for firing union organizers. We have also learned that our district manager expects our store specifically, though not others, to follow a scheduling system made by an AI. Because of this, in the school year when we typically have about 50+ workers, we are now being told we will not be permitted more than 25 workers, including supervisors and the store manager. Our outgoing store manager told me that this is not only to cut labor even more but that it is a tactic to wear workers down, presumably to the point they are just so exhausted they either A. quit or B. fail to perform to new standards so they will be fired. After that, corporate will likely return to full staff with new hires brought in to decertify the union.

(from Frank’s communications with State Street Starbucks workers)

Workers at Starbucks have decided to unionize in at least 200 locations throughout the US.  However, as might be expected, Starbucks has refused to negotiate a contract with any location. The company has been fined for unfair labor practices and has even agreed to reinstate some workers. But the NLRB process itself is fatally flawed. It is clear that we must find other ways to alter the balance of forces, so that Starbucks understands that it is in their best interest to negotiate a fair contract with unionized locations.

The NLRB thicket  

In the 1930s, the NLRB was set up to regulate union recognition battles then erupting across America. It was not designed to facilitate union organization but to channel it. Over the years, especially with the passage of the Taft-Hartley act in 1947, and through various court decisions since then, many of the tactics that unions used to organize and encourage firms to bargain were ruled to be illegal or unfair labor practices. 

There is more bad news on the labor law front. Companies have developed the deadly art of delay. As Megan K Stack described the situation, Starbucks just did what companies do. In ways that are perfectly legal, they delay, delay, and delay until a union victory appears fruitless to those that organized the union in the first place. The process of delay effectively undermines the union’s power. Extreme turnover in industries like Starbucks and food service in general means that delay can mean the people who voted for a union are not there when the firm mounts a decertification challenge. 

Extreme delays also make it harder and harder to convince workers that it’s worth risking their jobs for a contract that can’t be realized in their time as workers there. As reported in the publication Dollars and Sense, the average length of time it takes to obtain a first contract after winning a union representation election has increased from 375 days in 2007 to 575 days in the years 2020-2022, an increase of 35 percent. After 3 years, 32 percent of those unions formed more than 3 years ago still do not have a contract. At the same time the number of union representation elections is increasing: 1522 in 2022 with a 76 percent union win rate.

It is true that in some cases unions can file unfair labor practices cases demanding that the company negotiate or order the reinstatement of a person fired for union activity. Even should the union win, the remedy is generally to make whole; that is, to hire the person back with back wages. Most workers are in no position to wait the year or two (plus appeals) that such cases can take. In addition, the NLRB cannot impose monetary penalties.

Just in case delay and appeal did not stack the deck enough, firms (or unions) can also appeal. Even if the National Labor Relations Board makes a decision and administrative law judges concur with that decision or make their own, it can be appealed in the federal Courts. But as Take Back the Court reports, more than 80 percent of Supreme Court rulings favor the corporations so that actual implementation of a pro-worker ruling can be delayed for years, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, there is a 4 out of 5 chance that the ruling will be pro-management.

In any case Congress has been unwilling to pass legislation to improve the process to even come close to balancing the playing field, never mind providing meaningful protections for workers who seek to organize a union.

Given that history, think of what it would take to make American labor law correspond with the rest of existing law. For example, in the rest of society, punishment (jail time, fines, etc.) are imposed after a trial and a finding of guilt. In labor law, the opposite is true. Punishment (suspension or  firing) is imposed by management immediately, and then at some future point a trial is held. 

Clearly, the NLRB route doesn’t work.

But the limits imposed by the NLRB process are only part of the problem. As the New York Times pointed out so clearly, Starbucks, in its efforts to defeat unionization, simply did what companies do. So far, there have been no egregious physical assaults on workers, mass closings of Starbucks shops in a city, or widespread discharges. These are not the iron and coal police of Pennsylvania in the 1930s. Delay, delay, and appeal are the methods of choice to defeat the union, and these are all legal. Every once in a while, Starbucks gets out of line and is charged with an unfair labor practice, but these instances are neither widespread enough nor costly enough to force any changes in the company’s behavior.

There are other barriers to organization in firms like Starbucks that go beyond labor law. Starbucks has thousands of workplaces, and although the presentation of products and the culture of the location are determined at the top, the multiplicity of locations means that there is a lack of employee concentration. This employment structure effectively makes it more difficult to use the strike weapon. 

An effective strike shuts a company down, inflicting enough pain to force management to the table for meaningful negotiations.  It provides enough leverage to alter the balance of forces between management and labor.  But a strike at Starbucks, which operates 9,000 stores in the U.S., would have to involve a much larger number of locations than the union has currently organized to really impact the company’s financial performance. To an extent, the effective use of social media and communication systems like Zoom can overcome only some of the challenges.

Is it possible to conceive of a solution within the current legal and organizational framework to achieve contracts? Is it possible to conceive that a firm could agree to implement a neutrality agreement that in effect allows the union to campaign for recognition without opposition from management? Such an agreement, negotiated at the top between union leadership and Starbucks, could in theory level the playing field. But a neutrality agreement with teeth in it usually results from an effective nationwide corporate campaign of a scope and popularity of the United Farm Workers campaign against Gallo wines a generation ago. Looking at a company like Starbucks, a corporate campaign would also have to include a serious financial offensive as well as a political offensive beyond the scope of a consumer boycott.  

A variant of neutrality would require the company to agree to neutrality during an election as well as an agreement to accept a contract, national or regional, covering all the employees who vote for a union. The agreement between the United Auto Workers and General Motor after the Flint sit-down strike ended in 1937, General Electric agreements with United Electrical Workers,  and the agreement between the United Steel workers and U.S. Steel in 1937 were of this type. 

But while neutrality or outright union recognition pending a vote has been successful in many public sector campaigns, the private sector is another question. Absent political pressure available in the public sector, we have seen that these agreements do not necessarily result in union victories–as has been the case with the United Automobile Workers at Mercedes Benz in Alabama. Indeed, a meaningful neutrality agreement is possible only when it mirrors the situation on the ground, thus becoming an agreement that enables the already-existing organization and impulse of the workforce. It is a ratification of democracy, not a system to replace it. Specifically the union would have to be acting like a union,organizing departments or groups of workers to be demanding fair treatment, better schedules or acting on health and safety complaints. Public actions supported by a majority of workers, enough to get noticed and show that collective action is worthwhile. If these small actions are supported by a majority it is very hard for management to impose discipline, illustrating strength in numbers.

A short look at U.S. labor history  

In the 1920s, working people faced a grim reality. All of the hi-tech industries of the day–auto, electrical, steel, paper, and chemical–were almost completely nonunion. To say that these industries were nonunion understates the situation, as many of these firms had their own police and thugs, as well as the courts, to attack workers who wanted to organize. It was also obvious that the dominant labor organization of the day, the American Federation of Labor, and its craft-based orientation were simply incapable of organizing the new industries. 

As the 1920s rolled on, more and more workers realized that they needed a new form of organization; they developed the industrial form of organization–essentially a wall-to-wall approach. Everyone in a location would be in the same union. This realization was stimulated by groups of class-conscious workers, many of whom were in socialist or communist organizations. The new form of organization resulted in the unionization of General Motors, General Electric, U.S. Steel, and others.

Today, major industries–from technology to food service–are unorganized. If the union movement is unable to organize those firms, it will become increasingly marginalized. The GEs and GMs of yesterday are the Apple, Amazon, Epics, and Starbucks of today. Meanwhile, as in the past, workers in those firms are crying out for organization and, in many cases, taking steps to do it themselves.

PULL: The Starbucks workers will determine the best union or organization to represent their interests. … We need a focused effort, city by city, area by area, to lend support to those workers who are now in motion. 

Moving forward: Doing the same thing more vigorously will do nothing 

It is clear that if the company continues to do what it does naturally and organized labor does the same, then the results will be the same–derailing or stifling the movement.

The implications of this assessment are obvious. Progressive workers fought within the AFL to organize the unorganized along industrial lines.

This form of organization, necessary to win contracts with firms like Starbucks, will require innovation in the way we precede. The source of that innovation will be a focus and mobilization of progressives within the labor movement to force changes in the way we operate. The change envisioned is a change of attitude from defensiveness or passivity to  one where the  local labor  movement is on the offensive.  This means that our local labor and progressive organizations should not wait until workers come to it , but to be out there in the community and the workplace with the message  that we are here for you. Starbucks workers -and all workers attempting to organize  must know that aside from the  union organizer that the labor community has their backs.

Those changes will make it possible for the labor movement to enable Starbucks workers to win. The Starbucks workers, just as workers in other generations and other circumstances, seem to be able to organize themselves and appeal for outside help to secure a contract. It is that next step– winning the contract–that will require political and organizational mobilization.

What existing structures are at our disposal that could be a basis for change?

Our assumption is that if it is too costly for Starbucks to maintain their massive resistance to unionization in any particular market they will either abandon that market or agree to a contract. Obviously there is a limit to the abandonment strategy.

Denying the company their market is the best remaining option for the workers involved. The labor movement has a structure in place that can serve as a basis for a campaign of support for Starbucks workers. There are several hundred labor councils in the United States. Many of them are in markets essential to Starbucks growth. In addition, there are hundreds of progressive community centered groups, many focused on dealing with specific working class issues which could join any labor council initiative to support Starbucks workers.

If those labor councils, as a matter of policy, mobilized their memberships to boycott Starbucks locations–no matter which union was organizing them–until the company recognized the union and signed a contract, perhaps we might make some progress.

Clearly there are barriers to this strategy. Not all unions are in labor councils, especially some of those organizing Starbucks workers. The disorganization of organized labor puts the issue of what progressives in those labor councils and in those unions organizing Starbucks need to do to place the interests of the Starbucks workers ahead of the parochial interests of their local union or labor council.

This strategy depends on the collective of unions in any area accepting the notion that union consciousness means challenging these barriers. This is no easy task, but it has the advantage of being clear. A program focusing its support for Starbucks workers will enable workers to take action. It also means that Starbucks workers, who wish to engage in organizing their workplace, will know that someone has their back. 

The Starbucks workers will determine the best union or organization to represent their interests. That is their right. Maybe workers will develop new forms of organization as workers did in the 1930s; maybe not. But we in the labor movement have a responsibility to do all we can to find ways to move past the present impasse. We need a focused effort, city by city, area by area, to lend support to those workers who are now in motion. 

The author would like to thank Mike Locker for his suggestions and assistance in developing this article.

ADDENDUM: I wrote this article during the summer of 2023 as workers in Starbucks continued their efforts to organize. Since then workers conducted a successful strike at about 300 locations during Red Cup day- but the company remained unmoved. While the company faces numerous unfair labor practice charges there is apparently no effort on the part of the NLRB or the Biden administration to call out Starbucks for the labor violator that it is. If anything the November strikes demonstrate the need for massive support for Starbucks workers from the labor movement as a whole.  The purpose of direct action is to cause enough pain to a company so as to encourage it to meet the union as an equal. We are not quite there yet.