Starbucks is currently negotiating nationwide contract language with the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union, and is poised to bargain a no-strike clause into the national framework of future union contracts. In the previous article I wrote last month covering this subject, I went into some detail as to why we cannot waste time considering a contract founded on disarming workers of their freedom to strike. In the article, I referenced the boss’s anticipation to bake in a harsh no-strike clause and why it must be opposed.
As a result of my public criticism of the potential no-strike clause being put into the SBWU contract the union leadership immediately revoked my elected position as a union delegate. This reaction is one of many contributions to the long-coming evolution of the union campaign’s character over the past 3 years. At it’s outset, it created an exciting spark of engagement from the rank and file; however, it is now solidifying unmistakably as anti-worker, with boss-linked leadership evidently suppressing those who would criticize contract planks that surrender our freedom to strike. The steep decline of rank and file interest in the SBWU contract campaign is a consequence of collaborationist policy at the highest levels of leadership which not only lays the ground rules in national bargaining, but more recently dominates the public campaign as well. The development of the Starbucks union campaign is similar to many modern union campaigns where the result is a relationship between union and company bosses which business can tolerate and even benefit from. It is a result that workers seek to avoid, but struggle to find the capacity to circumvent.
Like many unions today, SBWU has elected delegates read and sign a disciplinary “delegate pledge” form. SBWU’s delegate pledge is abstract enough to be ambiguous and contradictory enough to be useless. The pledge asks for unconditional support for any and all tentative agreements that may pass bargaining, even if it is wholly unpopular with workers. Tentative agreements can be weak, unpopular, and anti-worker. Because the delegate policy requires support for any and all tentative agreements, it seeks to place delegates in a position to encourage an agreement that workers do not want. Let’s never forget the historic crushing of the potential rail workers strike by the US government in 2022 which was prefaced by a majority of workers voting “NO” to a weak tentative agreement settled between union leadership and the railway bosses. The SBWU pledge asks that delegates commit themselves to raise the standards of workers represented: however, in practice they are asked only to rubber stamp pre-approved bargaining planks and to propagate support in their stores for what would be fundamentally anti-worker agreements written for the boss’s benefit. Delegates who actually represent workers have an obligation to protect strike freedoms and work to develop effective strike practices.
A no-strike clause is a common threat today which should be taken seriously, and just because it is common does not imply that we need to accept or tolerate it. On the contrary, we need unions that emphasize the necessity of strikes because it’s the best tool workers have to leverage their working conditions. An industry that is prepared to strike has infinitely more leverage over their working conditions than a modern union industry that’s afraid to even speak of the word “strike,” in fear of retaliation under a no-strike clause.
Starbucks and SBWU are engaged in closed bargaining which aims to limit contract discussion only to members disciplined to the agenda of the boss-linked leadership. Thus, the no-strike clause proposals are being protected from criticism and implemented through closed bargaining. The broader union membership, especially the rank and file directly, are not invited to bargaining. This enables leadership to pass agreements on workers behalf with little opposition. If the union leadership had made the correct call to only agree to negotiate in an open bargaining format, where rank and file union members and all working people are able to be involved at every step, then a proposal of a no-strike clause could have been contested by workers much sooner. Workers would have a stronger foundation to counter attacks in bargaining, and a true open bargaining format would serve to prevent the most humiliating proposals.
