Starbucks Workers Strike Retrospect

CSAN On the Picket Lines, the IWW & the First Starbucks Union, Workers United & SEIU Regime Unionism

Last week SEIU affiliate Starbucks Workers United, held a five day “rolling strike” to protest the Starbucks corporation’s dismal wage offer during their contract bargaining. While 98% of workers voted to authorize strike action, Workers United leadership chose to sabotage the strike by announcing a 5 day limit to the action, and planning to have stores walk out on different days across the country. The end result was a weak action that ended with no concessions made by the employer. The same method of short holiday strikes have also been employed by the union for years with its “Red Cup Day” actions which have likewise yielded similar results. True strike actions are always indefinite and are designed to leverage workers’ economic power to force the employer to make concessions. Anything short of an indefinite strike is merely symbolic action.

For the worker militants within SBWU who have been organizing within the union, the recent tactics used by leadership come as no surprise. For years Workers United and SEIU linked leadership within the union have focused the union’s resources almost entirely on a legal strategy of winning NLRB elections and then establishing a contract with Starbucks by any means necessary, even if that means selling out workers freedom to strike. In the name of establishing an “organizing framework” they are in reality saddling workers down with an “organizing straightjacket”; however, Starbucks workers only need to look into the not too distant past to see examples of alternative forms of unionism that can deliver for workers. The first Starbucks unions were established by the IWW and through their method of “solidarity unionism” workers took frequent collective strike action winning serious wage increases, and quality of life improvements while working outside the established union regulatory framework. We will look briefly at this model, the links between Workers United and SEIU, alongside the work of CSAN, Starbucks workers in the recent strike, and what are possible next steps for class unionists within Starbucks.

CSAN Intervention

Earlier this week, members of the Class Struggle Action Network joined our fellow workers in Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) on picket-lines in six states throughout the U.S in support of the effort to pressure Starbucks into conceding wage increases, consistent hours, and other critical demands. We heard from baristas in all corners of the country who were familiar with the efforts of SBWU members in CSAN who have fought to oppose the “no-strike” clause and the “collaborative” bargaining approach promoted by SBWU leadership on a national level. The holiday walk out made it clear that across the country there is a growing movement of Starbucks baristas who want to see the union move away from the failed policies of collaborationist business unionism and towards a combative union program of working class militancy.

Portland, OR

In Portland, SBWU workers at the 28th and Powell location have organized their own local by holding regular union meetings at their store and organizing shop floor actions to get eachothers backs. Over the last year the local has established close ties to the Class Struggle Action Network. Leaders from the local have been active in opposing the no-strike clause against the current union misleadership’s adamant fight for it on a first contract, and have established a local retail and service workers council in Portland which recently succeeded in passing a solidarity resolution with SBWU strikers through the New Seasons Labor Union (NSLU). By organizing with the Class Struggle Action Network, workers at this location have been able to amplify the power of their union efforts through obtaining the wider solidarity of class militants in unions across the area and gaining support for their daily workplace organizing efforts, something that is presently sorely lacking under SBWU’s current leadership.

All of these efforts coalesced on December 24th, when SBWU workers at the 28th and Powell location hit the picket lines. Workers here were able to completely shut down the store from 4 AM until late in the evening, executing the longest lasting picket line in the city. The turnout here was large with a constant presence of people throughout the day. Picketers were supported by material supplies provided by the solidarity of NSLU and other workers in the CSAN network. Starbucks workers on the picket line wore CSAN pins, and held picket signs inscribed with the working-class internationalist war cry, “Workers of the World Unite!”. Throughout the day, workers noted the importance of the organizing efforts that the network have played in strengthening their resolve to oppose the no-strike clause in the contract & helping to strengthen the local, which in the past has had trouble turning anyone out for previous Red Cup Day actions, and has been impacted by high turnover rates nationwide which has led to leadership gaps on the shop floor.

Richmond, VA

In Richmond Virginia, CSAN militants joined SBWU workers on multiple picket lines throughout the city. Upon arrival it was discovered that in some locations the stores were still operating with customers and scabs getting through the lines. Throughout Richmond,  workers organized with SBWU were unprepared and surprised about the strike announcement, unaware of strike plans until the day of. Workers had inadequate signage, supplies, and knowledge about how to execute an effective strike action.. A handful of CSAN militants helped workers hold down picket lines and encouraged would-be customers and scabs to respect the picket-line. With the extra solidarity muscle, workers’ confidence at these locations was bolstered and they soon were able to effectively defend the picket line with many cars and scabs choosing to turn around. 

CSAN members in Richmond also participate in the Richmond Workers Assembly (RWA). Similar to the developing service workers council in Portland, RWA workers look to bring together a large segment of workers across the Richmond area in solidarity with each other. Through the support of RWA and CSAN, most pickets where the groups attended found their numbers and picket’s effectiveness significantly enhanced throughout the day. Despite not having previous direct contact with CSAN workers in the city, workers expressed pre-existing knowledge and support for the class unionist starbucks workers in CSAN’s efforts to oppose the no-strike clause. 

Sonoma County, CA

In Sonoma County, California, knowing through our network there would be various stores taking action on this particular day, a CSAN member established contact with SBWU workers ahead of the strike and offered to provide picket-line support. The CSAN worker showed up early to assist with setting up supplies for the strike, and supported workers by leading chants and demonstrating how to walk a picket line. The successful action led to the store being completely closed down for the day. Workers at the location also expressed prior knowledge and support for CSAN militants within SBWU who have opposed the no-strike clause, and expressed a desire to consolidate ties with CSAN with intentions to continue organizing into the future. Talk of a coffee industry worker wide coordination was also discussed. 

Chicago, IL and St. Louis, MO 

CSAN militants also supported workers in both Chicago and St. Louis. In St. Louis, CSAN members distributed flyers and helped hold down picket lines. In Chicago due to the lack of preparation, most stores, while shut down, did not hold active pickets and those that did ended by 1-2 PM. CSAN militants attended one picket line at 1 PM and distributed CSAN materials pointing to the necessity of class unionism. Despite only attending for a short time the workers who were spoken to, expressed knowledge and support of CSAN-SBWU workers struggle against the no-strike clause in the contract. In St. Louis 50 workers accepted CSAN flyers after conversation about the efforts of the network.

Spokane, WA

CSAN workers were also present on SBWU picket lines in Spokane Washington, where the store was shut down tight. The picket was up from 6am until almost noon and totally closed the store with nobody scabbing.

Analysis of the Holiday Strike

On Thursday, Starbucks Workers United, the union representing over 500 Starbucks cafes in the United States, called for a national strike with a 5 day window of strike activity in response to Starbucks’ unwillingness to move forward with acceptable economic proposals during contract negotiations. The wage that Starbucks had offered the union delegation was reportedly a $0.25 increase, a mockery of the last year’s efforts of bargaining, and of the union baristas desperate for a meaningful increase in living standards. However, the company’s weak offer comes as no surprise as the SBWU leadership has ignored militant rank and file workers who have been pointing out for years that the union was moving in a direction which was not building enough leverage to force the company to make real concessions. Regardless, Starbucks stores across the country in major cities fulfilled the plans of a “stand-up” strike, where instead of a general walkout, workers conducted a series of walkouts in coordinated groupings, alternating between which group would be performing their walkout each day for the 5 day period.

It was a positive result for the union to call for collective action so that workers will gain experience utilizing the strike as their strongest weapon against the bosses. Workers were presented with an opportunity to hold their own picket line, practice building solidarity through actions that increase impact on the company with delivery drivers, and have comradery on the picket with working people from other unions. However, unlike the UAWs 2023 “stand up” or “rolling strike,” this declared action was not an indefinite strike, but a short 5 day strike. This gave workers much less leverage over the company bosses who can rest assured they will be at no risk of real economic injury due to the weakness of the “rolling” nature of the strike, and the brevity of definite 5 day strikes. Additionally, unlike the UAW 2023 rolling strike, SBWU has also organized a far smaller percentage of the company’s workers into its ranks which gives it far less leverage. Instead of frankly addressing these pressing realities of the weak position of the union, leadership has opted for symbolic actions that have little hope of delivering real wage gains just as it has in previous years for its holiday “Red Cup Day” strikes which the holiday action seems to mostly be a repeat of.

In reality, these weak strike tactics share more similarities to the recent regime union UFCW’s short 5 day ULP (Unfair Labor Practice ) strike during its bargaining with Fred Meyers, a major Krogers grocery store in the Pacific Northwest. In the case of Fred Meyers, the strike action came as a result of months of the company offering pitiful wage increases after being well aware of the weak position of the union and its lack of preparation or intention to execute a serious strike action that could meaningfully impact their profits. The symbolic strike action was quickly followed up by the union bosses negotiating and passing a contract which saw workers who were hoping for a minimum of a $10 wage increase, receive wage cuts when considering inflation. Often boss-linked leadership in unions can do little to stop workers from striking when they vote down miserable contracts, so instead they do their sabotage work by organizing weak strike actions in a flurry as if suddenly taken off guard by the company’s uncooperative attitude. This often has the effect of demoralizing workers into accepting pitiful contracts that lock them into low wages for the duration of a contract, while tying their hands by negotiating away their ability to strike.

Starbucks Workers United had its first successful NLRB election in 2021, and has reached over 525 union elections of individual stores today. While the number of elections may sound impressive, it is only roughly 5% of all company-operated Starbucks cafes in the country that have been unionized. The union leadership has mostly abandoned organizing efforts to unionize new stores and the union remains divided between many small local shops where business-union leadership has stifled open communication between workers internally. Business union leadership has overly focused on the national level, on obtaining legal guarantees through the NLRB process by putting all its focus on winning elections in small shops and now going all in on winning a legal NLRB contract at the expense of real grassroots organizing to apply pressure on the bosses and build the unions capacity to leverage a credible strike threat against Starbucks. All this has required the union bosses to exert a strict discipline over the workers to carefully observe and not violate union legal procedures and to keep the “messaging” unified. This route of “legal unionism” or business trade unionism has so far proven unable to win serious gains for Starbucks workers and instead has acted like a straight jacket and wet blanket to slowly taper down on the union’s growth, militancy, and capacity for organizing effective class struggle.

Starbucks Workers Organizing: Then and Now

The IWW, Solidarity Unionism and the First Starbucks Union

To understand the current situation faced by Starbucks workers, it is important to turn a page back to the roots of the organizing efforts of workers in the company. The first to successfully unionize Starbucks stores in the United States were the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), who waged a decade-long campaign from 2004 to 2014, and unionized 200-300 workers in over six states. It won 25% raises and guaranteed hours for workers across New York City, one of the U.S.’s largest cities, almost completely by utilizing direct action methods & without National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) union certification or collectively bargained contracts. Through engaging in what the IWW at the time called “solidarity unionism”, workers took frequent collective workplace action and strikes against the bosses to leverage their economic power directly against the employer and deliver “the goods” on bread and butter demands, with no need to wait for future promises to be delivered from the established union experts. Over the long-term though, the realities of the high turnover rates in the service industry, company repression of union organizers, combined with the adhoc DIY style of IWW organizing, led the unionization effort to eventually fizzle out; however, the material gains won by the organizing remained for workers and often had crossover improvement in wages in stores across the U.S.

In this era the IWW found it extremely difficult to win NLRB elections. This was primarily due to the official policy of the NLRB to consider the bargaining units for chain fast food stores to be composed of all locations on a larger regional level. This meant that any certification vote had to be taken by all workers in the large bargaining unit, which made organizing and navigating all of the legal processes extremely difficult or impossible when combined with all of the other challenges of organizing in this sector. It is for these reasons that most established unions considered organizing workers in this sector impossible until recent years. So, despite some initial attempts at winning NLRB elections in local stores, the IWW was forced to rely solely on direct action, avoiding the NLRB elections and collective bargaining process; however, it led to a method of organizing that was able to win serious victories for workers relatively early on in it’s campaign, and serves as an example for what is possible when workers organize themselves for action, instead of waiting years for pie in the sky promises of improvements by union leaders to be delivered without a serious struggle with the company. While the IWW effort mostly worked outside the NLRB process, a highlighted part of strategy was the filing of Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) grievances through Section 7 of the NLRB as an attempt to win some staying power for the union by opposing firings of organizers.

The Starbucks Union (SBU) campaign became a flagship campaign for the newly revitalizing IWW, that was moving from being mostly the nostalgic political society it had regressed to, into stepping it’s toes into labor organizing for the first time in decades; however, even at this point the use of the NLRB for ULP grievances was questioned by many who viewed it as the beginning of a process of capitulation to the Wagner Act, which established the legal basis for the taming of the unions on a national scale, and ran the risk of moving the IWW away from it’s traditional embrace of combative class unionism and instead towards a slow integration into the regulatory regime within the capitalist state via a pragmatic utilization of its legal methods within the union.

Over time the tactic of engaging with Section 7 of the NLRB for filing ULP’s became increasingly accepted as a necessary subsidiary tool to temporarily stave off repression and “get serious” with organizing within the union. In reality it was a compromise on principles to attempt to win leverage by working partially within the state in an attempt to make up for what the union lacked in real organizing people power, something which no organizational recipe or personal heroics can close the gap on, but can only be altered by the increasing economic contradictions of capitalist economy that drive more workers to take up the banner of class struggle. In some locals the process of filing ULP’s became a central focus of their organizing efforts. The thinking was that if they could not perform in some areas as a real union, they could attempt to frustrate the companies with ULP filings. While in this era the IWW did not utilize Section 6 of the NLRB at Starbucks, which laid the legal groundwork for NLRB union certification, in part because of principle, and in part because they simply could not win elections. Upon a change in NLRB policy these murky waters for the union would soon become all the more unclear. 

No Strike Clauses, the NLRB and the Independent Union Movement

Fast forward to 2016, and the Burgerville Workers Union campaign emerged out of the IWW. The unionization effort has often been hailed by the larger labor movement as a flagship effort in organizing hard to organize fast food and service workers, but the success came at the cost of traditional wobbly principles and was a highly controversial topic in its early years. In the case of Burgerville, the NLRB allowed small local shops to file as bargaining units for certification elections, in stark contrast from its position in the past on Starbucks. To win the contracts and establish the unions with NLRB recognition, the IWW organizers who had been experienced in the “solidarity unionist” organizing methods in Portland Oregon, went a step further into the arms of the NLRB by not just obtaining NLRB certification, but by entering into collective bargaining agreements which accepted no-strike clauses and conceded a number of other important powers to the bosses in order to “win” the contracts, in direct conflict with the IWW constitution. While the contracts did undeniably win some quality of life improvements for workers, for the most part the contracts which emerged resembled those of the most typical negotiated by business unions, and relented on wage demands in favor of things more palatable to the bosses such as rights for workers to collect tips which puts the responsibility of wages onto customers rather than the company. The media fanfare and frenzy of support from the mainstream union movement that surrounded the initial success of the effort led to many wobblies looking the other way at the trampling of its traditional principles. Over time the Burgerville union and other similar efforts that surrounded it would slowly drift almost completely away from the IWW and association with its program and principles, into the orbit of the established business unionist movement, and with it strong links to the Democratic Party and the AFL-CIO.  

Over the years this particular method of unionism which involved running small shop NLRB elections and accepting no-strike clauses soon began to catch on. Other sections of traditionally hard to organize workers began filing for NLRB elections in small shops across the country and accepting contracts on terms favorable to the boss, leading to a bubbling up of smaller unions that operated independently of the established regime unions but grounded on narrow company lines, divided up by many small locals and restrained by typical NLRB mandated restrictions on union activity. The smaller independent unions that have emerged have in many cases found that despite NLRB certification, they continue to face the same organizational problems that impacted the IWW organizing in Starbucks years ago; high turnover rates leading to leadership gaps, a lack of general organization & solidarity of the working class, leading to diminished leverage over the boss and thus an inability to bargain meaningful wage increases. 

As the harsh realities of the position of workers in relation to the company seep in after the fanfare of winning the mostly illusory NLRB guarantees, it has led many formerly independent unions to be absorbed by larger more established unions as can be seen with the Amazon Labor Union’s merge into the Teamsters. While some of the independent unions continue on their own today, many are finding they are having a difficult time winning on worker demands. As such, in many ways the Burgerville campaign has served as a running model to show the larger established unions that organizing these sectors of “unskilled” workers is in fact possible.  Burgerville’s relative independence from the IWW  has  given the incorrect watchword to  the workers movement, to not to centralize under  “one big union” which is both the original slogan of the IWW and is absolutely critical in truly defending worker interests, but to instead exist as isolated “independent” entities upheld not through the generalized power of the working class struggle and united strike action, but through NLRB guarantees and investing more faith in state sanctioned collective bargaining rights. Thus the grounds are established for the entrance of Workers United onto the scene of Starbucks workers organizing.

Workers United: The SEIU and the Starbucks Workers United Campaign

In 2021, the NLRB began to alter its policy for union elections in regards to Starbucks and allowed local stores to run NLRB certification elections rather than elections only taking place based on region. As a result, the regime union Service Employees International Union (SEIU), latched onto the emerging effort through its subsidiary Workers United. Workers United, is an affiliate of the notorious SEIU that is well known for its hardcore links to the Democratic Party and its ruthless tactics of suppression of militant elements within its union. Workers United’s president Lynne Fox is a years long AFL-CIO union functionary & SEIU is well known for putting to membership weak contracts that members reject over and over, forcing the union leadership into strike action that they actively work to sabotage via organizing weak strikes with pre-announced expiration dates.

As SBWU emerged as a mostly hybrid effort between local grassroots initiatives supported by the national campaign to run elections, the internal organization emerged in a hodge podge manner; however, in typical regime union fashion, Workers United and SEIU have worked to maintain control of the effort by dismantling internal communications platforms, including the burning of at least one citywide Discord channel which at one time gave workers the ability to communicate with each other. The dismantling was done after hundreds of stores had already unionized and were active on a temporarily worker-led discord communication channel. This was done to organize the stores neatly for consolidation for union interns/staffers to then lead their designated stores/groups of worker contacts with business union narratives and counters to direct action. Conquer, divide, then dilute the opposition.

The elections that were held early on to establish leadership didn’t include broad membership. Representatives in citywide/regional positions were elected by workers in only a small handful of stores to my knowledge. The organization has never worked to build a structure of locals who can organize within the union and has no substantial rep structure, only recently with the bargaining process have regional delegates been appointed, and here in mostly an advisory role without real decision making power, outside of single individuals appointed on a state level mostly detached from shop floor realities. Nationally, a relatively small group of unelected leadership directs the union along predefined strategies as determined by SEIU and it’s Workers United affiliate, while rank and file workers have had no voice in shaping the proposals of the national contract being bargained and have no way of establishing long term organizing to prepare for strike action.

Instead of building up an organization, empowering local worker leaders to take up fights against the company and building towards a larger strike strategy, SBWU leadership has taken the strategy of negotiating away workers freedom to strike in exchange for a contract which will supposedly create a foundational “organizing framework” that will be a stepping stone to stronger future action; however, the only real way to build up the union’s strength is through preserving its ability to not only strike but have effective strike actions. As the IWW in the early 2000’s demonstrated, it is through collective action and labor stoppages that workers actually leverage their power against the company and win real concessions. Years of focus on legal strategies within the NLRB and conciliatory bargaining methods with the company have so far not delivered any real material wins for Starbucks workers which after-all is the entire point of the union. Instead, the present leadership threatens to negotiate away their most important tools to defend their interests while weighing them down with a regime union style organization that ruthlessly protects the status quo. So instead of having an organizing “framework” workers are left only with a straitjacket. 

Given these facts, it should be self-evident that SBWU is in no way an “independent” union, if by independence we consider a union to either be operating outside the direct control of the state or outside the control of the established regime unions. Likewise, it should come as no surprise that class militants within the union have been met with the same old repressive tactics as have been used by SEIU and its former partner UFCW, against rank and file dissenters for decades. 

Next Steps for the Struggle

For Starbucks workers to defend their material interests it is necessary that they move away from the failed policies and program of how unions should be run put forward by the SEIU and Workers United boss-linked leadership. Instead, Starbucks workers already have in their own history examples of a form of unionism that was able to win serious wage gains for workers from their past. The existence of a national organization of 11,000 unionized Starbucks workers is a force not to be trifled with if led correctly. Should Starbucks workers choose to buck off the weight of their regime union leadership and begin to organize themselves and their union for class struggle it is without a question that they could compel the company to concede on significant wage demands. Therefore we put forward the following suggested next steps for SBWU workers to advance their struggle in defense of their living standards.

  • Vote down any contract proposal that negotiates away workers’ right to strike or accepts wages that do not exceed inflation rates and thus accepts real wage cuts. Learn more about our efforts on this front here.
  • Self-organize territorial sections of the union featuring open meetings where all members are able to put forward issues, organize shop floor and territorial campaigns against the company, discuss and approve of demands of the union. An example of this can be seen in the organizing work of SBWU members in Portland here.
  • Establish open communication channels where members of the union can freely communicate and self-organize internally within the union.
  • Build towards a national indefinite strike against the company.
  • Participate in and develop territorial assemblies of workers where all baristas and workers regardless of company are welcome to organize and coordinate their efforts to stand in solidarity with each other. Already SBWU workers in Portland and Virginia have seen benefits of such formations, as we noted in this article and our previous article regarding the solidarity resolution of the New Seasons Labor Union.
  • Reprioritize organizing new Starbucks stores by advancing hard hitting organizing campaigns, that deliver material wins through taking escalatory strike actions for workers.
  • Grow the union by transforming it to being inclusive of all baristas regardless of company. 

If you find yourself in agreement with this direction, please reach out to the Class Struggle Action Network at our email class-struggle-action@proton.me.