Today Starbucks faced legal and political trouble from its own workers. On the third anniversary of the founding of the IWW Starbucks Union, baristas in Chicago marched into a shop and told the manager they were signing up. (Starbucks workers have chosen to organize without government-mediated elections, through an interesting model called "solidarity unionism.") Meanwhile, baristas in Grand Rapids, Michigan announced that they were filing a legal complaint against the company for violating their organizing rights through unlawful surveillance and other questionable tactics. All over the world -- Austria, England, Spain and Australia, as well as the United States -- Starbucks workers demonstrated in front of stores to protest the company's union-busting practices.

When you pay $4 for a cup of coffee-flavored foamy milk at Starbucks, part of what you're buying is an illusion of corporate social responsibility. The store exudes a warm glow of righteousness, from the recycled paper napkins to the empathetic messages about sustainable trade and ecological practices (Our farmers are happy! Buy a better lightbulb! Have some more foamy milk!). The workers behind the counter are hoping the public will look beyond all the greenwashing and support their campaign, which has succeeded in raising wages and improving conditions for some workers.

The baristas are asking for better wages (some make as little as $8.75 an hour even in costly Manhattan), guaranteed hours with the option to work full-time and more affordable health insurance. (Despite widely-believed corporate spin to the contrary, Starbucks insures a smaller percentage of its workforce than Wal-Mart.) In New York, the National Labor Relations Board (that bastion of radical left-wingers) has accusedStarbucks of violating workers' freedom of association in about thirty different ways, including illegally firing, threatening and disciplining workers for supporting the union. Managers forbade workers from talking about the union -- even when off-duty -- or wearing union buttons. The trial is in June. I'll be attending, and covering it on this blog, so stay tuned.

Comments (101)

1. Boy, when you think of oppressed workers, slave labor, and the crushing strangle that the capitalist exploiters have on the proletariat....

   you think of Wobblies, forced to listen to Michael Buble Muzak in an air-conditioned faux pine-covered wall enclave of Ikea furniture, while serving half-caf decaf lattes with a twist.

   Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 8:44pm

2. Posted by MASK 05/17/2007 @ 8:44pm

   That's why they're now referred to as "baristas". Fortunately this fits on a t-shirt. Otherwise, they would be referred to as the "Dude/Chick that pours burnt, overpriced coffee Union".

   The biscotti's aren't that bad though.

   Posted by Sliver at 05/17/2007 @ 9:07pm

3. Yawn....wake me when the Wallyworld bashing starts up again.

   Posted by Sliver at 05/17/2007 @ 9:08pm

4. 3 of 4 posts visible? RESE? Talking Jesuits and Mossad thermite charges on a thread about Starbuck's and the exploited masses???

   Oh my God, somebody...please....throw a quarter in the cup for our resident "The End is Near" street preacher other than me for a change, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 10:23pm

5. It was my impression that Starbucks paid fair wages and had good benefits, time to sell my stocks. It is interesting, Starbucks moved into our community with a blitz, they seem to have a Walmart attitude, trying to shut down the small locals. Hope they bring in Pete's better beans.

   Posted by Leefeller at 05/18/2007 @ 01:28am

6. I can't believe someone is getting paid $8.75 per hour to pour a f****** cup of coffee and has the audacity to complain about it.

   Posted by usc1 at 05/18/2007 @ 01:50am

7. "When you pay $4 for a cup of coffee-flavored foamy milk at Starbucks, part of what you're buying is an illusion of corporate social responsibility. "

   I not buying any illusion ..I am paying $4.00 a cup because I like the coffee for flavor and the convenience.... the $ 1.00 I throw in the tip jar is for the server. There is nothing more to the purchase..no spiritual moment,no political satisfaction, or meta phyisical moment,and I don't want to hear the union label chorus, nor do I want a lecture on how the servers are getting screwed..if they feel it is a bad deal, then QUIT... the purchase of a cup of coffee for me is an impulse buy and ..if they are too high priced, I got accross the street..same with hamburgers.

   If coffee goes to $7.00 a cup just for idiots like Liza for health care for the worker, then I will buy a machine and drink at home..this can be a business killer ..and jobs will be cut..and Lizas of the world cost more jobs than they help people.

   Besides, why the not drop the Walmart and Starbucks for health care crapp...the Dems are in power and we will soon have health care for every body from the govt...and leave my coffee alone... if there's one place we don't need lefty loons and kooks, it is in our coffee cups.

   And if you are working and trying to live in NY on $ 8.75 hr...its time to move...you are in the wrong place.

   Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 03:44am

8. If everyone moved/quit every time they faced some sort of problem then how would things ever improve? It's the same "love it or leave it" falacy people try to throw in the face of every person who dissents. I think trying to better your work environment while risking being fired for it is a lot more courageous than stand-up folks who sit around and snipe at workers.

   Posted by joseph.lapp at 05/18/2007 @ 09:22am

9. Coffee will not go up to some ridiculous price because it would not sell. Management, the stock holders will just have to take less profit off the top. I know that's heresy to many of the fools here, but if someone working--wheter it's in NY, San Fran, Dallas--cannot pay for their rent and other necessities then something's wrong; something's wrong with the business model that fails to pay their employees enough to support themselves.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 09:44am

10. The price is already ridiculously high! What's wrong with paying the employees enough to be active consumers in the system?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 09:54am

11. something's wrong with the business model that fails to pay their employees enough to support themselves.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 09:44am

    Okay...how much IS that ...exactly (for a barista, to keep it simple)?

    Posted by Mask at 05/18/2007 @ 10:02am

12. Thank you, Mr. Lapp. I've been listening to libertarians spewing that foolishness since college: "If you don't like it here, drop out (quit) and go someplace else. Once enough people do that, the college (employer) will change the policies you don't like." Except when you are a large institution, or in a relatively strong competitive position, losing the occasional unhappy customer or employee will not change your practices. And who says it's any (or much) better at State U. or at K-Mart?

    The only way real improvement can take place for a significant number of workers at a place like Starbucks or Wal-Mart, etc., is through solidarity and joint action, independent, by the way, of the bureaucrats and the so-called friends of labor, the Democrats. Doesn't mean they can't be used (The Wagner Act/NLRA isn't all bad), but slavish reliance has gotten the working class to its current sorry state.

    By the way, you don't see libertarians and laissez faire types running away from fights over property rights, do you? No "just quit and move" advice when it comes to the issues that juice them up, huh?

    Posted by cka2nd at 05/18/2007 @ 10:47am

13. Posted by CKA2ND

    Of course not. Their arguments are nothing more than self serving hypocrisy that fail to even take reality into account. These arguments rationalize their greed, help them to feel good about themselves, allow them to gloss over the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of their deeply flawed world view.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 10:56am

14. A business model to sell coffee is designed to sell coffee, be it a small one store or a large chain. The business model arrives at a price that is compairable to the competition and with a goal of growing the market share based on expenses and costs. No one designs a business model with the intention of having the servers,one of the most unskilled positions thought up, earn what some kook would describe a living wage. The hopes are that a profit can be generated for the owner who has all the risk and perhaps he can achieve a living wage for himself or a nice return for the investors.

    If the coffee is too high for the public to continue to buy, then the business will fail...and it doesn't matter if the high price is from the cost of coffee or the guy putting creme on top. Coffee shops are not a social program for fools with no skills who can't find meaningful work .

    There is nothing wrong with the business model unless it fails to produce what it predicts...in this case, good coffee the market will accept at a designed price, producing profit for the owners and growth for the company.

    My 16 year old is applying to a coffee shop, along with Dairy Queen and other similar purveyors, this summer...I assume his wage fits the model.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 10:58am

15. "but slavish reliance has gotten the working class to its current sorry state."

    No, the lack of demanded skills has gotten some people in the spot they are in. People like MT, for example..apparently there is no demand for whatever it is he is supposed to be efficient or talented at doing...instead of adapting or redirecting his abilitys he babbles about corporations and workers...while even the Chinses blow by him.. Demands and markets change as people tastes and desires change..so if you don't change or refocus you end up like MT sitting on the bench, propellar spinning wildly(a red one) and whining about the suystem..as the parade moves passed him..

    "Except when you are a large institution, or in a relatively strong competitive position, losing the occasional unhappy customer or employee will not change your practices. And who says it's any (or much) better at State U. or at K-Mart?"

    Companies change when their customers leave, they can no longer find people to work there for what ever reason, or the market has changed and moved to a different direction.

    Your K-Mart is a perfect example...they went bankrupt and were eaten by Sears,...what was left of them anyway, they could no longer compete and their customers abandoned them...and it had nothing to do with the guy who asks if you want a cart when you walk in..(if fact, that may be part of the problem, poor customer service )...although the truth was K-Mart couldn't come up with a better model to compete with Target,Walmart or the rest.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 11:11am

16. And so it all makes sense. Never mind employees cannot support themselves on what they're paid, even though the company reaps large profits. That's not an issue. What is important, unbearable is the taxes that must be paid on these profits, the regulations that must be followed.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 11:17am

17. Their arguments are nothing more than self serving hypocrisy that fail to even take reality into account. These arguments rationalize their greed, help them to feel good about themselves, allow them to gloss over the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of their deeply flawed world view.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 11:18am

18. Make mine a double mocha, extra creme.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 11:19am

19. Posted by USC1 05/18/2007 @ 01:50am

    Audacity? Who are you to say that they shouldn't? Please let us all know who is and who isn't justified in trying to bargin for changes.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 11:43am

20. bargain - sorry.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 11:44am

21. Given the fact that you tend to be VERY self-referential in your comments about your opponents....such as...

    "Of course not. Their arguments are nothing more than self serving hypocrisy that fail to even take reality into account. "---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 10:56am

    I wonder if that's the reason you didn't answer this question....if...

    "something's wrong with the business model that fails to pay their employees enough to support themselves."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 09:44am

    What EXACTLY is the amount of hourly wages a barista needs to support themselves? (And remember to "take reality into account"...hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 05/18/2007 @ 1:06pm

22. I don't know. Why don't you look up all the relevant info for New York and other cities, box of rocks.

    And while you're at it, why don't you refute what I have stated instead of playing the little vagina games you so often indulge in?

    According to the old lying bald coward, business has no responsibilities in regards to its employees. Can't afford to support yourself on what they pay, then move, is his answer. And that's all good and fine, except that it completely ignores reality. Who is going to do the work, provide the services that society demands? Are some little magical elves that do not require sustenance, housing or anything else required of a living wage going to appear and take care of all these menial, mundane tasks in the middle of the night?

    Furthermore, more pay for all these bottom of the rung employees serves to enrich our society. The more money there is in circulation the more there is for purchasing and the tax base, rather than concentrated in a relatively few hands that can afford the various tax write offs available to the affluent.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 2:58pm

23. For more on the union affiliation at the Grand Rapids, Michigan Starbucks location, see:

    Starbucks Union Celebrates Third Anniversary in Grand Rapids and Around the US [mediamouse.org] and Grand Rapids Starbucks Makes Michigan the Fourth State with Starbucks Workers Union Members [mediamouse.org]

    Posted by bemf at 05/18/2007 @ 3:23pm

24. All you really needed to say....

    "I don't know."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 2:58pm

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 05/18/2007 @ 3:45pm

25. I stated that right off the bat.

    And while you're at it, why don't you refute what I have stated instead of playing the little vagina games you so often indulge in?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 3:49pm

26. What EXACTLY is the amount of hourly wages a barista needs to support themselves? (And remember to "take reality into account"...hehe)

    Posted by MASK 05/18/2007 @ 1:06pm

    Isn't for the baristas to determine how much they feel they are due, and bargain with Starbuck's from there?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 4:02pm

27. And if you are working and trying to live in NY on $ 8.75 hr...its time to move...you are in the wrong place.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/18/2007 @ 03:44am

    Or they could bargain for more pay. If you like where you were living, wouldn't you try that first?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 4:02pm

28. Isn't for the baristas to determine how much they feel they are due, and bargain with Starbuck's from there?

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 4:02pm

    Sure....just curious since MTSPENCE seems to know that they're not getting it NOW, how much he'd advise them to ASK for? $10 an hour?....$15 an hour?....$20 an hour?....New York is kinda pricey...how about $30 an hour?

    And what level of "support" is that? Shared former warehouse apartment in Lower Manhatten with 3 room-mates...or two room-mates in the Upper 50s...brownstone beside Ms vanden Heuvel and Prof. Cohen in "Harlem" (upper Upper West Side)?

    Posted by Mask at 05/18/2007 @ 4:19pm

29. Sure....just curious since MTSPENCE seems to know that they're not getting it NOW Posted by MASK

    Always trying to put words where they are not. I never said any such a thing.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

30. And rather than insinuate the tired old line of workers wanting to live in Manhattan penhouses and other such nonsense, why not refute my argument?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

31. Counter all I've said and reveal how workers are supposed to survive if they cannot support themselves. Eat every other day? Live outside during the warm summer months and save money on rent? Don't visit a doctor until you must go to an emergency room?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 4:33pm

32. "Isn't for the baristas to determine how much they feel they are due, and bargain with Starbuck's from there?"---Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 4:02pm

    "Sure....just curious since MTSPENCE seems to know that they're not getting it NOW"---Posted by MASK

    "Always trying to put words where they are not. I never said any such a thing."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 4:24pm

    "something's wrong with the business model that fails to pay their employees enough to support themselves."---Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 09:44am

    So Starbucks ISN'T "failing to pay their employees enough to support themselves"??!?!?!!

    Posted by Mask at 05/18/2007 @ 4:54pm

33. Business models are also designed to be able to attract employees and retain a certain percentage of them, some more or less than others. Well, more and more employees of Starbucks and Wal-Mart would like to write themselves into the bosses' models and increase employee compensation, and too fricking bad if the investors and the parasites on Wall Street have to survive on a lower rate of return. And if we have to close some loopholes in the law, tighten up some treaties and end some tax giveways and subsidies, too, so be it!

    As for lacking "demanded skills," we're usually talking about Starbucks, Wal-Mart and manufacturing jobs here, jobs that many Americans can and have performed or are performing. There is no zero-sum law that says a job - "low-skill" or otherwise - must be paid a poverty-level wage; if there were, manufacturing workers, meatpackers and retail clerks would have never clawed themselves out of poverty by forming unions and fighting for good pay and benefits. Wages and benefits are part of the give and take of the class struggle - sorry, the market - and all we want to see happen is a little (alright, a lot) of market intervention on the side of the workers. Given how much there's been on behalf of the bosses over the last, oh, five or six millenia, I'd say that's fair.

    Posted by cka2nd at 05/18/2007 @ 4:58pm

34. How much they are due or enough to support themselves? Pedantic pud.

    Why don't you try something besides this pathetic little nit picking? You're not refuting anything, you're only attempting to mire the issue in endless, distracting details. And then you insinuate that the real motive is to demand enough pay to support the lifestyle of Paris Hilton. You do nothing but muddy the waters. Why is that? Because your libertarian day dreams are nothing more than that. You've got nothing, and so you have to try to make something out of nothing.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:04pm

35. "Or they could bargain for more pay. If you like where you were living, wouldn't you try that first?

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 4:02pm "

    Again, sure, but if you try to negoiate a wage level, and the company finds that they have an abundance people WILLING to work for the wage offered, then your demands will be shown the door..you walk into the Starbucks Kiosk at 6th and 39th and say I am willing to work here but I need $30,000 a year including health care ...they will look at you and thank you for stopping by...a cup of coffee is not designed to support thant kind of wage...selling a car, on the other hand, is...making wise demands/choices is part of the equation...and clowns like MT who want to show up after the guy has spent years on the model, fighting the city codes, taxes, loans, suppliers, investors, employess long hours..and says, I need a living wage from you with health care and if I don'r get it you are a fucking uncaring corporate greedy prick who hates America jackass...I think MT would leave umemployed with a ass whoppin' and coffee on his shirt...and deservidly so..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 5:18pm

36. retail clerks would have never clawed themselves out of poverty by forming unions and fighting for good pay and benefits.

    As a former retail clerk, I'd have to argue that retail clerks have not yet clawed themselves out of poverty by unionizing. I personally clawed my way out of poverty by landing an office job. But your comment makes me wonder if there is a fundamental difference between unskilled manufacturing jobs-- which often involve dangerous machinery and require a certain amount of physical strength-- and unskilled jobs in the service sector. There's obviously a gender difference, and because men continue to outearn women, I wonder if the slouching toward service jobs has much to do with this.

    Posted by habiba at 05/18/2007 @ 5:27pm

37. According to the old lying bald coward, business has no responsibilities in regards to its employees. Can't afford to support yourself on what they pay, then move, is his answer. And that's all good and fine, except that it completely ignores reality. Who is going to do the work, provide the services that society demands? Are some little magical elves that do not require sustenance, housing or anything else required of a living wage going to appear and take care of all these menial, mundane tasks in the middle of the night?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:31pm

38. MT,

    Baristas do not deserve the 8.50/hr they get now.

    Nobody cares that they can't live on their meager wages.

    This is not a CAREER, it is a part time college job.

    If you think pouring coffee is a career, then you deserve to get your pay cut.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:36pm

39. Can't afford to support yourself on what they pay

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Maybe not move, but find a job that pays a decent wage.

    Any retard can pour coffee, and if one of those Baristas quits, there are a hundred other college kids waiting to take the job, for 8.50

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:38pm

40. business has no responsibilities in regards to its employees <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    It must pay them above minimum wage or above. It may, if it feel like being extra generous, give meager benefits.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:39pm

41. Somebody has to do it--just like the garbage has to be picked up, the groceries have to be stocked, taxis must be driven. Why should they not make a living wage? Why should they not organize, bargain collectively?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:39pm

42. ignores reality <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You mean like thinking that a job that a 10 year old can do should be given some grand level of importance and be paid some level of compensation that outweighs the value of the services performed?

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:40pm

43. Somebody has to do it--just like the garbage has to be picked up, the groceries have to be stocked, taxis must be driven. Why should they not make a living wage? Why should they not organize, bargain collectively?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:39pm | ignore this person

    Somebody has to do it? Is that your best argument here?

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:41pm

44. "Can't afford to support yourself on what they pay, then move, is his answer."

    A ittle backwards ..if one can find a job that does't pay enough to support yourself, then go to a place where the jobs will or find a new carrer path, as the one you are on , ah, doesn't seem to be a working model...

    "Who is going to do the work, provide the services that society demands? Are some little magical elves that do not require sustenance, housing or anything else required of a living wage going to appear and take care of all these menial, mundane tasks in the middle of the night? "

    Doesn't seem to be a shortage of these people around, hence you ride the pine in our world..the elves seem to come up from Mexico ...and many of these elves pass you by daily on their way up and out..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 5:43pm

45. Also, with respect to benefits, Liza skews the numbers badly.

    She makes you think that these people do not have health insurance, when really most of them have it, but just not through Starbucks, they have it through school, or their parents (who, at my starbucks, are all still living with thier parents probably, as they are 19-22 yrs old)

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:43pm

46. If Starbucks has 100 applications for every person that quits to go somewhere else to make more money, and it only takes them a couple of days to train people, then they are probably paying about the right wage.

    Also, why would Starbucks hire people that think this is a CAREER? If that was the life goal of the people I was interviewing, I would probably pass them up for a kid with some ambition.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:46pm

47. If I was nothing more than a peddler of Third World products, some dime a dozen traveling salesman with all kinds of time to play on the computer, I wouldn't be critizing what others do.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:46pm

48. "Somebody has to do it--just like the garbage has to be picked up, the groceries have to be stocked, taxis must be driven. Why should they not make a living wage? Why should they not organize, bargain collectively?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:39pm "

    None of these jobs are union where I live and the price they charge is considered worth the service...and the trash guy is one of the richest guys around..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 5:46pm

49. Maasch -

    The post is about Starbuck's (potentially) illegal actions taken against the unions themselves or people even choosing to organize. I am not saying how the bargaining itself should or should not play out. Let the workers organize and strike if they desire. If Starbucks hires enough scabs to take the work at 8.75 or whatever, so be it. If they figure out a way to reach agreement with their workers, ok. I have no opinion on what fair wage is for baristas. But, for Starbuck's to take potentially illegal action and retaliate for even organizing or seeking to join a union, I have a problem with that.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:47pm

50. I agree, it's not much of a career path. But are not such jobs including in the stats the government uses to tout how many jobs the economy is creating?

    Not everybody gets to be the CEO. Somebody has to do the low level work; why should they not earn a wage that allows them to support themselves?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:49pm

51. "If I was nothing more than a peddler "

    and you are not..you are just useless and broke.

    I don't lknow aboput WALLSTREET, but if I found you in my organization, you would be out on your ass...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 5:49pm

52. Yeah, I have no problem believing he makes more than you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:50pm

53. Also, as for the BS "the workers shold get some of the corporate profits"

    Total BS. By all accounts here, the coffee sucks, it is the MCDs atmosphere feel good atmosphere that was generated by the corporate marketing department that brings all the people in.

    My guess is that the marketing people that created that lure and ambiance, and hence the above average profits, probably get paid pretty well, and probably do get a piece of the profits.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:50pm

54. and the trash guy is one of the richest guys around..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Yeah, I have no problem believing he makes more than you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:51pm

55. ted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 5:47pm

    I don't disagree with you...but I thinbk Starbucks is not a wise place to make a labor stand...what, they think a consumer will spend $ 8.00 a cup of coffe ?

    Never happen.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 5:51pm

56. Not everybody gets to be the CEO. Somebody has to do the low level work; why should they not earn a wage that allows them to support themselves?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person

    Because some jobs are "starter jobs" not careers.

    This is a job to put on a resume and get a recommendation for a real job at some later date when a skill has been attained.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:52pm

57. I don't lknow aboput WALLSTREET, but if I found you in my organization, you would be out on your ass...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And always trying to talk like a tough guy. Too bad you didn't want to be a tough guy when there was a war to fight for capitalism.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:52pm

58. Baristas do not deserve the 8.50/hr they get now.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 05/18/2007 @ 5:36pm

    Who are you to say that? Does Starbuck "deserve" $4.29 for a 12 oz. cup of hot water filtered through ground coffee beans, mixed with warm milk, sprinkled with cinnamon?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:52pm

59. This is a job to put on a resume and get a recommendation for a real job at some later date when a skill has been attained.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    Oh, I see now. And there are always better jobs to be had? Always?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:54pm

60. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/18/2007 @ 5:51pm

    I don't know all the ins and outs of what is being proposed in terms of wages, but I doubt the effect would be $8 coffee.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:54pm

61. If your life goal is pour coffee, then open your own coffee store and reap all of the profits you can, pay yourself $20/hr.

    If you want a crappy job to earn beer money, go work at starbucks.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:54pm

62. don't disagree with you...but I thinbk Starbucks is not a wise place to make a labor stand...what, they think a consumer will spend $ 8.00 a cup of coffe ?

    Never happen.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    No, so the stockholders, management will just have to take less off the top.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:55pm

63. Oh, I see now. And there are always better jobs to be had? Always?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    YES, where do you think all of the Starbucks "baristas" go when they graduate from high-school or college? Do you really think they get worse jobs?

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:55pm

64. but I thinbk Starbucks is not a wise place to make a labor stand

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/18/2007 @ 5:51pm

    So, is your disagreement with an article on this topic, or that fact that Starbucks' employees are trying to take a stand?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:55pm

65. What do you do for a living "Wallstreet?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:56pm

66. You know labor is hurting when they are trying to get a bunch of $8/hr college kids to join a union.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 5:56pm

67. If your life goal is pour coffee, then open your own coffee store and reap all of the profits you can, pay yourself $20/hr.

    If you want a crappy job to earn beer money, go work at starbucks.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    What about people that aren't all that bright, that are not gifted with the cognitive abilities it requires to own their own business, speculate in the market, be some exec? Are they just shit out of luck? If they're willing to work hard, come in everyday on time, ready to do their job they don't deserve a living wage? And what if there are no better jobs to be had? Just screw them?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 5:58pm

68. Oh, I see now. And there are always better jobs to be had? Always?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    Why? What sense does that make? What are the 'baristas' doing to make Starbucks earn above average profits that you want the baristas to have them rather than the people that keep the place running? (by the way, the workers don't pay for the stores, buy the equipment, or create the marketing campaigns that makes people want to be seen at Starbucks--- case in point, people drink at starbucks even if Joe 'bought these Urban Outfitters clothes with my mom's credit card' Blow quits.)

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:00pm

69. Are they just shit out of luck? If they're willing to work hard, come in everyday on time, ready to do their job they don't deserve a living wage? And what if there are no better jobs to be had? Just screw them?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person

    Correct. They do not deserve more than the legally mandated minimum wage if all they do is nothing more than they are told.

    Unless you have some useful skill, then nobody should be forced to "give" you anything.

    The cream always rises to the top.

    I love how you people think that by showing up on time, you have somehow gove above and beyond the call of duty.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:02pm

70. What do you do for a living "Wallstreet?"

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person

    Work. You?

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:03pm

71. Now we begin to see the failure of your argument.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:03pm

72. The cream always rises to the top.

    So does the oil.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:04pm

73. Now we begin to see the failure of your argument.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:03pm | ignore this person

    The failure of my argument? Look around. Coffee pourers earn squat, therefore, it appears my argument is winning.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:05pm

74. So does the oil.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:04pm | ignore this person

    Hence the reason it is so valuable.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:05pm

75. I love how you people think that by showing up on time, you have somehow gove above and beyond the call of duty.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    I'm talking about men and women that are good employees, that do the job, that do all the work that allows the company to reap its profits.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:07pm

76. Posted by WALLSTREET 05/18/2007 @ 6:03pm

    Just interested in seeing if you deserve what you earn.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:07pm

77. Well kids, it was fun, its getting late and i have to get some zzzs (i'm in the UK)

    MT, good luck with your "Lets tell our kids that pouring coffee is the best career they'll ever have" campaign.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:09pm

78. Oh, I'm sure he does. All those speculators, middle men deserve everything they can siphon off the system.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:09pm

79. I'm talking about men and women that are good employees, that do the job, that do all the work that allows the company to reap its profits.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person

    Already said, the company reaps profits because of supurb marketing, the baristas are a dime a dozen

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:10pm

80. MT, good luck with your "Lets tell our kids that pouring coffee is the best career they'll ever have" campaign.

    Posted by WALLSTREET

    Try rereading what I've posted.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:10pm

81. And that's why unions developed. And that's why unions will always be necessary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:11pm

82. Oh, I'm sure he does. All those speculators, middle men deserve everything they can siphon off the system.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person

    I'm an investment banker. My fee gets negotiated on every job I do. I only get what my customers think I deserve, if I think I deserve more, they hire somebody else.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:12pm

83. I'm an investment banker. My fee gets negotiated on every job I do. I only get what my customers think I deserve, if I think I deserve more, they hire somebody else.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 05/18/2007 @ 6:12pm

    So you have never negotiated for a higher fee than was initially offered?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:15pm

84. No different that what the baristas are trying to do with their employer.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:15pm

85. And I bet mommy and daddy paid your way through school.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:16pm

86. if I think I deserve more, they hire somebody else.

    Posted by WALLSTREET 05/18/2007 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person

    Even I am replacable, I'm not so proud as to think that I am not.

    By claiming that the baristas should get more money than their replacement workers demand, they are saying that there are no replacement workers that would do the job for less, and provide the same quality.

    If they decide to join a union, and starbucks instantly hires replacements for their old jobs, without a loss of customer base, then the baristas will merely be out of work, and their worth will be proven.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:18pm

87. No different that what the baristas are trying to do with their employer.

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person

    They already negotiated their fee. They are currently accepting paychecks, if someone thinks they are getting shafted, then walk away and go to another coffee house that is paying more.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:20pm

88. Thanks Wallstreet for making the argument that I didn't have the energy for at 2:00 am. In the (paraphrased) words of Carlos Mencia...

    If you're a teenager or college student and work at a fast food joint, good for you. You're learning valuable job skills.

    If you're an immigrant and work there, there's nothing wrong with that. It's called acculturation.

    But if you were born and raised in America, are over the age of 30 and still work in a fast food joint, you're RETARDED!

    Posted by usc1 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:21pm

89. And I bet mommy and daddy paid your way through school.

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 6:16pm | ignore this person

    Why would you assume that. My dad bought me a calculator my freshman year of college. He paid his way through college, me and my siblings all paid our own way.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:21pm

90. An investment banker. Yeah, you really work for a living don't you?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:21pm

91. you're RETARDED!

    Posted by USC1

    And retarded people have to work! Is it asking too much that they be able to support themselves if they're working?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 05/18/2007 @ 6:22pm

92. So you have never negotiated for a higher fee than was initially offered?

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person

    Nobody offers me a fee. They put out an RFP (request for proposal) to a bunch of firms/ bankers. We all submit proposals with fee quotes, we give a few presentations (for free if we don't get the job), and then we get a call back, negotiate the final fee and get to work.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:23pm

93. An investment banker. Yeah, you really work for a living don't you?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person

    usually about 70-80 hrs a week.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:24pm

94. An investment banker. Yeah, you really work for a living don't you?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person

    Here's the deal. You probably couldn't do my job. That is fine with me. I probably couldn't do yours.

    I've worked construction (summers in high school, some in college Masonry - I carried block) I guided climbing trips in college in the NY/ WV/ KY areas, made about $300 each saturday (after expenses), during the week I made cold calls for a brokerage house for 3 hours every night.

    I know the value of work.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:28pm

95. I'll be back on monday for more fun.

    Posted by WallStreet at 05/18/2007 @ 6:29pm

96. "What about people that aren't all that bright, that are not gifted with the cognitive abilities it requires to own their own business, speculate in the market, be some exec?'

    This is you for sure...and we do not owe you anything muchless a living...yes, unions will alwyas be neccessary in your world..pay people just for showing up on time...my poor sister in law...works as a middle manager for a phone company for years...the labor is union up the ass and when cut backs come as the company shrinks,or improves with techno upgrades,well, first in last out takes over...so they get rid of all the first hires, the younger ones,techno savey ones and are force to keep the older ones who can't keep up with the techno changes...and as the jobs becomes more sophisticated, she's stuck with people who are in over their heads and start work slow downs to protest management "work loads"..it is amazing to watch...so, more and more "machines are brought in the take over the jobs...hopefully they will work out a better arangement but no one counts on the union...she thinks eventually the company will "farm out" the techno spots and let the unions have the secretary pools...the unions shoot themselves in the face everytime..

    Union growth is in companys that have no competition..govt,and unskilled low demand low paying positions...I rememeber the workers strike in Las Vegas that went on for years ..no effect...the Frontier simply keep going, the customers kept coming in and the strikers slept at their site...finally the owners sold the building to someone else, who tore it down...

    MT..you are fighting a lost cause...and you are the biggest loser and don't even see it.

    I believe everyone has a right to form a union, but I also think a company has a right not to have to hire them ...if not union workers are willing to work, they should have the right to do so with out thugs outside the work place threatenoing ..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 7:12pm

97. Just interested in seeing if you deserve what you earn.

    Posted by HMAN23 05/18/2007 @ 6:07pm

    Do you?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 7:12pm

98. "and the trash guy is one of the richest guys around..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Yeah, I have no problem believing he makes more than you.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/18/2007 @ 5:51pm |

    You would never know...and you might be astounded..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/18/2007 @ 7:13pm

99. Do you?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/18/2007 @ 7:12pm

    I think so. But I would never shoot my mouth off about what someone else does or does not "deserve" in ushc an insulting fashion like Wallstreet. He is an elitist jackass. The fact that he claims to be an investment banker does not surprise me. I know the type. And I also say he is full of shit about putting himself through school. If his "salt of the earth" background story was true, he wouldn't be so pompous.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2007 @ 10:12pm

100. Those that don't know much about the Starbucks should watch this video by Rev. Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping:

     http://tinylink.com/?CJdr9ZhmGF

     According to Oxfam America,

     "Ethiopia ranks among the poorest countries in the world; more than 25 percent of its population lives on less than $1 per day. About 15 million people in Ethiopia depend on coffee to make a living, the majority of them growing their crop on small plots of about two and a half acres. Meanwhile, coffee lovers pay up to $26 per pound for fine Ethiopian coffees because they're willing to pay for high quality and great taste. Ethiopian farmers, however, often earn just 5-10 percent of the retail value."

     Posted by hooman at 05/19/2007 @ 01:52am

101. With a profit margin of 7.21% (after tax), Starbucks doesn't look like they can really afford to pay their employees much more than what they are doing now. Granted, much of their reported profit is being swallowed up with expansion plans, but expansion creates more jobs.

     The same rings true for Wal-Mart. Trying to squeeze more for workers out of service jobs just doesn't work. You are applying a labor model to a job sector without consideration of the job sector and ability to pay higher wages. If we were talking about employees of Exxon being paid $8.75/hour that would be a different story, but as far as I know, nobody is complaining about low wages at Exxon these days.

     Starbucks Corp. (SBUX) On May 18: 28.95 0.48 (1.69%) MORE ON SBUX Key Statistics Get Key Statistics for:

     Data provided by Capital IQ, except where noted.

     VALUATION MEASURES

     Market Cap (intraday): 21.45B Enterprise Value (19-May-07)3: 21.95B Trailing P/E (ttm, intraday): 36.74 Forward P/E (fye 01-Oct-08) 1: 26.81 PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): 1.38 Price/Sales (ttm): 2.46 Price/Book (mrq): 9.60 Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttm)3: 2.56 Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttm)3: 15.433

     FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

     Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Ends: 1-Oct Most Recent Quarter (mrq): 01-Apr-07

     Profitability Profit Margin (ttm): 7.21% Operating Margin (ttm): 10.19%

     Management Effectiveness Return on Assets (ttm): 14.38% Return on Equity (ttm): 27.46%

     Income Statement Revenue (ttm): 8.58B Revenue Per Share (ttm): 11.285 Qtrly Revenue Growth (yoy): 19.60% Gross Profit (ttm): 4.61B EBITDA (ttm): 1.42B Net Income Avl to Common (ttm): 635.79M Diluted EPS (ttm): 0.79 Qtrly Earnings Growth (yoy): 18.50%

     Balance Sheet Total Cash (mrq): 343.83M Total Cash Per Share (mrq): 0.464 Total Debt (mrq): 849.32M Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 0.384 Current Ratio (mrq): 0.653 Book Value Per Share (mrq): 2.965

     Cash Flow Statement Operating Cash Flow (ttm): 1.11B Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): 41.63M

     View Financials (provided by EDGAR Online): Income Statement - Balance Sheet Cash Flow

     Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2007 @ 1:06pm