Talk:Starbucks Workers Union

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Starbucks Workers Union

Importance and notability has not been established Luke 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article is about a campaign, not a separate union. As I read this article, the workers are organizing with the IWW. I believe there may be a separate category for labor disputes or campaigns. Therefore, the first sentence stating that it is a trade union is misleading. Otherwise it is informative. Syndicalista 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Syndicalista, that "Starbucks Workers Union" is a slogan more than a union - as members are IWW. I put a rating on the page:

B-class because it is farther along than a "start" article, but the issue of union status needs to be resolved.
Mid becuase it deals with a national issue/union/company.--Bookandcoffee 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the IWW organizational system. The Starbucks Workers Union is a shop of the IWW. Just because the IWW is a single industrial union doesn't mean there aren't individual shops within the larger GMBs and IUs. This notion that it's not a "real" union if it doesn't have an official stamp from the State and recognition from the bosses flies in the face of the history of labour; the original unions were all illegal too. Unions occur where workers stand together for mutual aid and protection whether or not the State and the bosses recognize them as such. SmashTheState 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Starbucks Workers Union. BMetts 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the Starbucks Workers Union would disagree with you, Bmetts. If there's no Starbucks Worker Union, then I spent quite a few very cold days out on support pickets in my own city for no reason at all. I think you'll find the union is very real -- much to the distress of the Starbucks bosses. SmashTheState 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about whether the Starbucks Workers Union is part of the IWW is a distinction without a difference. In 1917 more than a hundred thousand farm workers joined the AWO, the Agricultural Worker's Organization. It was organized by IWW members, and became a part of the Industrial Workers of the World. Obviously, such naming of its constituent organizations has been a tradition within the IWW for a very long time.

There are two additional issues here that are similar and related. I will discuss them together. I refer to the discussion of the appropriateness of the "trade union" designation (see above,) and to an edit that someone has just made, changing all appearances of the word workers in this article to employees.

This change from workers to employees may seem innocent and proper. The editor gave as a reason "removing union jargon" and "making [the meaning] clear to readers." But,

(1) "jargon" to one person may be dialect to another, and i will indicate below why the editing change violates Wikipedia guidelines.

(2)The change is factually in error, perhaps because of the editor's expectations based upon familiarity with traditional unions, and unfamiliarity with the IWW. Unlike other unions, the IWW does not require a working person to be an employee in order to have membership in the union. Ex-Starbucks employees and Starbucks customers can join the IWW, just as employees at Starbucks can join. Therefore, the edit makes the meaning of the writer less clear.

(3)The change is, in fact, a subtle (but perhaps unintentional) way to diminish the distinct identity of the IWW-- the Industrial Workers of the World, as an organization presenting itself to all workers.

The designation as a trade union is enforced by Wikipedia. It is no different than forcing editors of Labor articles to sometimes select Labour as the correct identity/classification. Note the Wiki guidelines on style (including spelling):

"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

"If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." [emphasis added]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English

The use of the words "workers" in the article amounts to a dialect. Yes, groups within societies can have their own dialects, and for the IWW i would reference Wobbly lingo. But it goes beyond that, the term workers is more inclusive, and therefore describes the membership practices of the Starbucks Workers Union more precisely. Richard Myers 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are new to Wikipedia. We are not here to promote the subject's POV, mannerisms, or dialect. We're here to write an article about them. Employee is the term used by ordinary people, "worker" is a term used by unions. I am reverting yoyur change to reflect what ordinary readers here will understand. Mr Christopher 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Starbucks itself calls its employees "partners" yet we do not call them partners in the article for the same reasons I have described above, that would be adopting the subjects POV. Mr Christopher 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "workers" they are workers. Your most recent edit creates a situation that could be interpreted as a perjorative. Richard Myers 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "worker of Starbucks" is simply not idiomatic English. I'm going to make appropriate changes in the article. Now, if you want to add that the Union also contains workers/unemployed persons/other who are not employees of Starbucks, then feel free to cite a reliable source and add it. ObiterDicta 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate edits of this sort are not a problem. You are correct, there are some places in the article where employee may be a more accurate word. But changing all instances of worker to employee (i'm now persuaded) has been demonstrated as a little editing vendetta on the part of one individual. He even declares that by doing this he is trying to remove union jargon from an article that is written by, and is about, union members. I've discovered other pages where the same individual is carrying on the same sort of attacks against pro-union editors. Not to say that such articles can't be improved, but he's on an ideological crusade to remove all vestiges of union identity (a violation of Wikipedia style guidelines under the circumstances.)

The easiest way to edit the article may be to do a revert back to an earlier version. There is a perfectly good version back a few edits. I have reverted it twice for the same sort of unnecessary changes, and am reluctant to do so again at this time in light of the 3 revert rule. Richard Myers 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem with your preferred version is that it reads incredibly poorly in some places. "workers of Starbucks" and "Starbucks' workers working" to take several examples. I agree though that "worker" is not union jargon. Also, realize that another editor's POV-pushing does not justify pushing back with your own POV. ObiterDicta 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are correct-- in a couple of cases. The article was fine before the edit war started, and reversion doesn't always pick up all the little changes over multiple edits. But it should be better now, it is back where it started. Richard Myers 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> It reads much more NPOV now, thanks Mr Christopher 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, one final comment on this "jargon" business. On Nov 15th an editor noted in his edit summary "(→Origin - change "Starbucks partners" to "Starbucks workers" to remove management jargon and make meaning clear to readers)" [1] and changed the Starbucks POV language to the Union language. No one got their feelings hurt or complained about the removal of Starbucks jargon nor did anyone charge him with being anti-Starbucks. His attempt to remove Starbucks language was correct, the mistake was substituting Union language instead of using neutral terms. I saw this error and changed "workers" to a neutral term that ordinary readers will be familiar with, "employees". My own edit summary was almost identical to the previous one, "(change "workers" to "employees" to remove union jargon and make meaning clear to readers. no change in content)" [2] This is where Richard Myers initiated the edit war while accusing me of being anti-union and harboring an anti-union agenda. Initiating an edit war over something so trivial is beyond me but it happens. Petty and misguided indeed but I appreciate the fact that you seem to have decided the edit war you instigated may not be a good idea and have adopted a more reasonable approach. I appreciate that very much I am looking forward to working with you and the others here on improving this article which is in need of significant improvement and balance. Mr Christopher 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with edits to this article

The removal of the information about solidarity unionism was unnecessary. This is valid information, and accurately describes a significant difference between the IWW and other unions. The sourcing could be better (link to an IWW web page), but that is simply a reference that is less than ideal. It can be questioned, but removing the entire passage was injudicious and unnecessary.

I will be watching this page, and will protect it from such ill-advised changes. Richard Myers 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are changing the "union" link to say "trade union," please be aware-- the IWW is an industrial union, not a trade union (according to general prevailing definitions.) An industrial union is organized differently. While Wikipedia enforces links to the category "trade union," it is less accurate than calling the IWW an industrial union. However, since the word "Industrial" is already in the name of the organization, changing the link to read "industrial union" would be a bit redundant.

I don't know how much folks editing here know about such distinctions. I hope everyone is open to learning about these issues, rather than just seeing opportunities to tinker with an article that was already a pretty good reflection of the nature of the organization. Richard Myers 12:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bean2Cup

I can't find any more information on the Bean2Cup Campaign. Any ideas?

Slightly misleading...

Not all partners(Starbucks workers) are members of the union, as implied in the statement "In July 2008, baristas at the Mall of America I Starbucks announced their membership in the union, demanding seniority-based severance pay and the right to transfer for workers at closing stores."

I feel that there should be a change. The word "some" should be added in front of the word "baristas." Benefit for Mr. Kite (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Day of Action

Who determined that Starbuck's fired these people illegally? Was there a trial? Is this an allegation only? Youngpatriot2 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Starbucks Workers Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Starbucks Workers Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]