Starbucks stores around the country are being targeted by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) for unionization in response to Starbucks’ low wages and poor treatment of workers. The IWW, a labor union whose roots go back to the early 1900s, believes that production and distribution need to be organized by working people to meet their own needs rather than that of a handful of wealthy exploiters—or to recount a famous slogan from their preamble—“the working class and the employing class have nothing in common.” This statement certainly seems true with Starbucks, where the company makes substantial profits (its CEO Howard Schultz is worth close to $1 billion) while its employs are paid low wages, with some workers qualifying for Medicaid and food stamps. Moreover, Starbucks employees—known as baristas—are mandatory part-time employees and are not given guaranteed hours, so many baristas frequently work forty hours one week and twenty the next, making it exceedingly difficult to budget for necessary expenses such as rent making it essentially impossible for many employees to access Starbucks’ healthcare or 401(k) plans. In response to low wages of a little more than $7 an hour, workers at Starbucks stores in New York City began organizing with the Industrial Workers of the World in May of 2004, forming the Starbucks Workers Union (IU 660) and developing a campaign to extend the gains won at the New York City stores to stores around the country. The campaign has called for three simple demands—a living wage and fair raises, guaranteed hours, and the right to organize.

The Starbucks Workers Union has won some substantial gains at stores in New York City. The union has seen the starting hourly wage increase to $8.75 from $7.75 when the campaign began in 2004, along with raises of 10 cents in 2005 and 25 cents in January 2006 for all Starbucks workers in New York City. Union members have also won an “unofficial” guaranteed minimum 30-hour week and have gotten the company to assist workers in finding extra hours at understaffed stores across the city. A grievance procedure has also been developed, with the Grievance Committee winning back pay, wage adjustments, scheduling changes, and respect for union members. In response to union pressure, Starbucks has also introduced ergonomic standards and training to its employee manual to prevent the occurrence of repetitive stress injuries. The IWW has won these gains through solidarity unionism, a term coined by labor activist and author Staughton Lynd to describe a strategy wherein rank-and-file workers organize to win demands without resorting to government certification or union bureaucracy. This approach has been helpful with Starbucks, where stores are spread across the country and consequently workers have been able to join the union and coordinate actions using the Internet. After a summer of organizing, the union won wage increases for workers around the country and has expanded into Chicago with a Starbucks store in Logan Square unionizing in August.

As would be expected, Starbucks has responded aggressively to the unionization effort. After the company fired workers who organized a union, the IWW field a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that ended in a settlement favorable to workers. Two union members, Sarah Bender and Anthony Polanco, both of whom were fired for their union organizing activities, were reinstated. Additionally, policies that restricted baristas’ rights to unionize were invalidated. Starbucks no longer has a national policy prohibiting the sharing of written union information or joining a union on company property, while Starbucks’ no-pin policy—under which workers were sent home for wearing IWW pins—was also invalidated. The company also had to pay some $2,000 in backpay, a smaller amount than would have been required under the law had the IWW not assisted terminated workers in finding new jobs. Despite these measures, Starbucks continues to wage an anti-union campaign. Starbucks has claimed that stores organized by the IWW are not actually unionized because the IWW has not negotiated with the company, has claimed that pay increases and other gains won by the union originated within the company either in response to employee surveys or as “random acts of kindness.” The company continues to actively campaign against the unionization campaign, holding meetings designed to portray the IWW as radical subversives and harassing workers. Despite the NLRB settlement, the company fired three workers involved in the unionization effort over the summer as a means of intimidating workers.

Locally, the Starbucks campaign is being worked on by the Grand Rapids branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The group has leafleted at area Starbucks locations and has talked to workers about the benefits of unionization. Aside from the Starbucks stores in West Michigan, of which Starbucks is seeking to double the number over the next year, Starbucks coffee is sold at D&W as well as local colleges including Grand Valley State University (GVSU) and Grand Rapids Community College. Students with GVSU’s Students Against Sweatshops group recently joined in support of the Starbucks campaign, with the group taking on the Bean2cup campaign designed to build solidarity with those attempting to organize Starbucks as well as those who grow the coffee used by Starbucks. The student campaign aims to remove Starbucks products and non-union Starbucks-licensed cafes from campuses as a means of pressuring Starbucks to respect the right of Starbucks baristas to join unions and making a serious commitment to fair trade. While Starbucks has attempted to create a socially-responsible atmosphere, it has not made a meaningful commitment to Fair Trade coffee and has not made their purchasing decisions transparent. Despite being pressured to serve fair trade coffee for years, only about 3.7% of Starbucks’ coffee is fair trade. Consequently, Starbucks continues to contribute a global system of exploitation where coffee farmers are frequently paid less than the costs of production and often have to sell to middlemen who pay half of the market price.