![]() | 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. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Importance and notability has not been established Luke 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
There is no Starbucks Workers Union. BMetts 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
<reduce indent> It reads much more NPOV now, thanks Mr Christopher 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I can't find any more information on the Bean2Cup Campaign. Any ideas?
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Importance and notability has not been established Luke 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
There is no Starbucks Workers Union. BMetts 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
<reduce indent> It reads much more NPOV now, thanks Mr Christopher 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I can't find any more information on the Bean2Cup Campaign. Any ideas?
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)