Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffee company that touts its progressive values, has become infamous for its aggressive efforts to block “partners” from forming unions. Since the Starbucks Workers United union began organizing about two years ago, workers at nearly 400 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize–including 24 Starbucks stores here in Washington state. But not one of those stores has won a first contract. Starbucks currently faces multiple federal charges from the National Labor Relations Board for violating its employees’ legal rights.
Now, the Legislature is considering bills that might help Starbucks baristas and other low-wage workers level the playing field against their deep-pocketed employers. Senate Bill 5777 and House Bill 1893 would allow workers who go on strike to access unemployment insurance benefits after two weeks. These benefits, which only partially replace lost wages, would help us and our families keep a roof over our heads and food on the table while we fight for fairness.
Rather than negotiate a fair contract, low-wage employers like Starbucks can weaponize the economic instability of their employees. Recognizing that striking workers and our families should have some economic support, New York, New Jersey, and Maine allow strikers to access the unemployment social safety net. SB 5777/HB 1893 would grant workers in Washington the same protection.
Some frustrated Starbucks workers have engaged in one-day walkouts to protest the company’s intransigence. But most Starbucks employees live paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to go on a longer-term strike without facing evictions, vehicle repossessions, and other extreme hardships.
This is the situation that too many of us low-wage, low-benefit workers find ourselves in. Our employers know we can’t afford to strike, so our bosses have a power imbalance that stops us from fighting for what workers deserve.
That’s why 21 Washington state senators and 51 state representatives have cosponsored SB 5777 / HB 1893. These legislators want to address this power imbalance by allowing striking workers to access the unemployment safety net. But lobbyists representing Washington’s biggest corporations are aggressively opposing this legislation.
None of us want to go on strike. Washington workers would rather be building, teaching, providing health care, or making customers a latte than walking a picket line. But with income inequality reaching record levels, sometimes working people must make the difficult decision to walk out and demand reasonable wages. Our employers shouldn’t have an incentive to starve us out by forcing a strike rather than negotiating a fair contract.
Starbucks employees, and all workers in Washington, deserve the economic protection SB 5777 / HB 1893 would provide. State lawmakers should stand with the workers who make our state an economic success, not enable intransigent employers that refuse livable wages and working conditions.
Rachel Ybarra is a Starbucks barista in Seattle and member of Starbucks Workers United.
Editor’s note: This post originally stated that Starbucks faced federal charges from “the US Department of Labor,” but they only face charges from the NLRB.
“… low-wage [-paying] employers
like Starbucks can weaponize
the economic instability
of their employees.”
yep.
and That’s the
Business Model that
IS America, INC — squash
‘the Least’ of us & live like Kings
in well-gated, razor-wire-topped Mansions
waited on by
(hopefully!) Loyal
Employees at your beck
and call twenty-four/7/365.25*
so C’Mon, Legislators!
do the Right Thing
and get America
Back on Track
you’ll likely
Sleep better.
*happy
Leap Year!
and GO,
Taylor! you
too Kansas City!
What does the average citizen get in return for the impact of depleting the unemployment fund for labor disputes, and the prolonged disruption of strikers? It is easy enough to skip the Starbucks line, but I’m a working mom who ran ragged during Seattle teacher strikes. Imagine playing out this scenario for childcare workers, bus drivers, grocery clerks, more likely to hit working families harder. Why not give union members access to interest arbitration to settle contract disputes and spare the working class more disruption and grief?
@2 exactly. If we expand the use of unemployments benefits for those on strike it’s going to deplete the fund and then the rate will have to go up to replenish it so the rest of us will get to pay for those striking employees. This is what your union is for. Part of your dues should be set aside for a strike fund. If you want to strike then the union should be there to help you while you are walking the line not the rest of us.
I don’t think a few minimum wage employees are going to deplete the unemployment fund. Plus the employers have to fun it as well . I think this is great aside from public service unions.
@5 why would you think this is limited to a “few min wage employees”? Most of the unions in this state are highly paid (WEA, SEIU, Machinists). This would have a massive impact on the u/e fund. Yes employers fund it but so do employees so the need to raise the rate to fund this will impact both. All unions have strike funds, that is part of the dues process. Why should the taxpayers have to further fund this?
@Dist13 Are baristas joining a larger union or do they have to come up with those funds themselves?
If it is the latter that is quite the barrier to entry for them to form a union.
Like I said I would exclude public sector unions like WEA. But I could see limiting this to new unions as well.
I think it would be nice to provide workers a loophole that big businesses seem to get with their armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants.
It is better for the worker to fight for their rights from the ground up rather than the council do something stupid like the delivery tax from the top down and the workers have no agency.
Absolutely not.
Why should the taxpayer support striking workers?
BTW, I already support Starbucks union members strike a blow against the evil corporate overlords by not having purchased anything from SB in more than a decade.
Call your state legislator to support SB 5777/HB 1893; feel free to use this as template:
“I am a constituent of Senator/Representative_____ of the _ district. I want the Senator/Representative to support SB 5777/HB 1893 to protect striking workers. If not, I will not give any more money to the Legislator’s re-election campaign, and will not vote for her/him.”
@6 we’re not talking about Starbucks workers. We are discussing the legislation as currently written and the legislation applies to ALL unions. So based on your posts you do not support this legislation but would be willing to support a lessor measure with limitations. We can discuss that if/when it is ever proposed but for now the current bills are unacceptable.
This is a private sector issue, please do not drag the taxpayers into these labor disputes.
Also, try to abide by the law of supply and demand.
Lower wage workers make lower wages for a reason.
If you want higher pay, get a philosophy degree and take a governmental position
with the City of Seattle, firing off checks to various interest groups and kissing.
Mayor Harrell’s ass.
The City of Renton has one of these wage tariff initiatives on the ballot and it would appear Renton is trying to mimic Seattle’s desire to let the government run everything and ruin everything.
Notice all the restaurants that exist no more? Much of this mass die-off is due to excessive municipal regulations.
Let the business owners set wage and benefit rates, not dippy public sector, tax-happy socialist bureaucrats.
If you don’t think you’re getting a big enough piece of the pie, try organizing your workplace.
Sure, someone might leave dog poop on your doorstep or you could be canned, but at least you’re in control of your own destiny, and not expecting the taxpayers, who have their own budgetary concerns, to bail you out.
wow, I’m speechless once again, trolls of the stranger, never change!
@13, it’s a lot easier than making a merit based argument.
Yeah, I mean, obviously if these people with jobs with low wages set by the business owners that would be lower if minimum wage didn’t exist want better wages and benefits, they should just all be managers! Then the coffee could make itself, the trash could take itself out, the floors and tables would clean themselves, and the trucks of new supplies would drive and unload themselves. All of the profits of underpaid labor without the underpaid labor! Beat that merit based argument, atheists.