This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Starbucks unions article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
2023 Starbucks strike was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 5 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Starbucks unions. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Being that there is officially a Starbucks Union in one store, and likely multiple if the NLRB follows past precedent, which is tends to do. Starbucks workers have moved past organizing and I highly suggest changing it to either Starbucks Union or the Unions name “Starbucks Workers United” as the 6 other stores have all filed need the same union.
LittleRoisin (
talk)
01:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
LittleRoisin I do think that such suggestions should be redirects to this article, but if this article is about the broader/global starbucks unionization/worker organization efforts it cannot be too specific. That doesn't preclude
Starbucks Workers United from becoming its own article (currently redirects to Buffalo section), the same way
Alphabet Workers Union and
Google worker organization are closely related but separate articles. Given the limited editing in general, I'd pragmatically suggest to keep it united, until the recent news settles down and we can see what's best way to improve the article(s) ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
10:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Structure
This should have an intro on industrial composition of Starbucks including number of workers, locations and not treat this as a stand-alone US article without specifying so. Will do more research on other countries too and contribute ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Union law in the US is significantly different from the rest of the world. Especially with the issue of “right to work” states, having this article focus mostly on the US or just the NAFTA Region would most likely be best.
LittleRoisin (
talk)
13:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Shushugah, what sources do you have in mind for that? I can see adding a Background section for context but the scope of the coverage/article is worker efforts to organize, not the corporation's labor relations, which would also entail covering work conditions, etc. czar20:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Czar Agreed. If there was more comprehensive sourcing, the further info about labour relations including subjective/objective micro/macro conditions would be interesting, alas a briefer summary of employee count/worksites would be adequate.
Apple worker organization is an example of that, without diving into what that means. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
21:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Old Starbucks Workers Union article
This page only appeared recently and the old article for the Starbucks workers Union has seemingly disappeared. There was a lot of archived evidence of Starbuck’s taking union-busting stances and local papers taking strong anti-union stances. If anyone still have those resources they should be added as the current Starbucks Workers United has had overwhelmingly positive coverage in line with the recent increase in union support across the Us.
LittleRoisin (
talk)
01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Most of
the content was unsourced or unreliably sourced, so there was nothing to "merge" apart from using some of the sources to rewrite those sections from scratch. czar16:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Missing Airport Starbucks workers in the US are unionized in highest numbers, but there's not as much attention about them.
Racial pay disparity report conducted by UNITE HERE [4]
HMS Host (major provider/host of Starbucks franchises in North America airports. Orlando/Denver airport workers fired for unionizing, seems with
UNITE-HERE (which has overlapping jurisdiction with SEIU often).[5][6]
Nice to haves: State of unionization in Food service sector/across coffee chains in general, and relation of fair trade/unionization. Not essential tho for breadth requirement imho.
I wanted to wait to see where it was going before commenting but I don't agree with the article's reorganization by geographic region. Unless the small sections have
reliable, secondary sources with which we plan to expand, they're more likely to remain anemic in perpetuity. We are not expecting paragraphs on Starbucks unions in Oceania, for instance. It would be sufficient to summarize the international union drives in their own section and cover the U.S. in its own, given its abundance of coverage. This is how the article was organized previously. czar02:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The article was confusing previously for someone not in the US, as it was organized by "Early unionization" and "Buffalo". I came here to find out if there were other unions besides Buffalo, and that information was not easily parsed as it was organized previously, and felt US-centric.
SquareInARoundHole (
talk)
00:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Czar @
SquareInARoundHole I personally don't care for consistency always, for example see
Amazon union which has USA, Canada, Europe for geographic taxonomy. I am content with the layout of the
Starbucks unions article at the moment. When more countries are added/structured, we can deal with new layouts. For now, with Starbucks Workers United being a likely ongoing update, it makes sense to keep that in a separate live section, and eventually maybe even a separate fork/article, the same way
Amazon Labor Union and
Alphabet Workers Union became forks. But for now, I'd keep it unified and am happy with the direction it is going in. ~ 🦝
Shushugah (he/him •
talk)
17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Looks good! I would remove some of the sections in the Historical section and merge the Union busting into an existing section, either the overview of precedent and/or the SWU section. czar17:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Revisiting this: The last year has proven out that the small sections will remain small. The reorg'd structure is hard to follow and maintain and is missing many of the updates from recent months. I plan to revert to the prior format as discussed above, with level two headings for the U.S. and International. czar07:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Additional sources
Instead of adding to the Further reading section, I'll add sources here (in ascending date order) until someone adds them to the article. czar07:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
"US trade unions: Inside the revival brewing at Starbucks". Financial Times. September 4, 2022.
Just to avoid an edit war, could you explain why you think that source isn't usable. You're allowed to use user created content (I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I'm assuming you mean non news sources) given that its verifiable which it very much is, easily so.
"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." This clearly fits that definition.
I'm not here to promote any particular source, simply to use what's reliable.
Self publication is not grounds for an immediate dismissal of it. It simply means greater scrutiny. "Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for
third-party claims about living people)." (that last part per
WP:BLP)-
LoomCreek (
talk)
20:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
While your "established expert on the subject matter" is potentially pertinent, what we are looking at here (if the website's CLAIMS are true) is an agglomeration of raw data, by one individual, who is doing it as a hobby. Even if the website's CLAIMS as to who is behind it is true (which we have no way of proving), that site says: "Who made this website? My name is Kevin Reuning, I am an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Miami University. You can find out more about me on my website. Although I am interested in the labor movement, my training is more focused on political parties and social movements." By no means is he considered an expert in the field of labor, and again, this is raw data, which can be gained form a Reliable Source, the NLRB site itself. To my knowledge, it is standard policy on Wikipedia to not cite to un-Reliable reprints or republications of Reliable Sources, but to cite the RS directly. ---Avatar317(talk)20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a lot of all-caps associated with some weird, ranty, obviously wrong statements.
Here's Kevin Reuning's profile at Miami University's Department of Political Science; it shows that
this is his individual website, which confirms that
https://unionelections.org/ is his project. He studies labor unions as part of
his research. The claims on his website about how he's collected the data are entirely plausible and would be well within his expertise; moreover, you haven't given any reason to doubt the veracity of the data. I am going to restore the link (and if you revert you can be sure of a quick trip to the edit warring noticeboard). --
JBL (
talk)
23:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Another standard piece of evidence for reliability is being quoted by other reliable sources;
here's the Guardian,
here and
here are
the Capital Times,
here I think is one of the Business Journals (I actually can't read the article, I'm trusting that my search engine told me the truth that it's referenced there), and
here is Jonah Furman (writing at his blog, but unquestionably a subject-matter expert on the US labor movement). --
JBL (
talk)
00:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your first paragraph's arguments are garbage; if you understood Wikipedia's policies you'd know that we don't care what people claim to do, we care about what others recognize them for successfully doing. In the academic field it is also known as "peer-review." Being a professor of something doesn't grant someone automatic reliability.
I've attempted to make a minor edit - to add the OneStarbucks site to the "External Links" section, and had this reverted by one of the editors. Because this article is about Starbucks unions, the corporate response to unions is indeed relevant. To fail to include this goes against the
Neutral point of view required of all Wikipedia articles. It appears that several of the editors have a close connection to the topic and this is reflected in recent edits and sources cited. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SONORAMA (
talk •
contribs)
01:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between an organizational website and a PR campaign. If you'd like you can reference it in a response section if you have a reliable source that references it. A link however in this case clearly violates
WP:NOTPROMO. Wikipedia is not a place for public relation campaigns. -
LoomCreek (
talk)
04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello LoomCreek. If you review the Wikipedia guidelines on
external links, you will see that external links do not require inline citations. The rule against self promotion that you cite applies to Wikipedia pages themselves, not to outside pages Wikipedia links to. The official company response to a union is indeed very relevant to an article about a union. Based on these rules, I am going to restore the external link to the OneStarbucks site. To avoid any confusion I will make clear it is a Starbucks corporate site.
SONORAMA (
talk)
12:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
LoomCreek Point 4 refers to online petition or crowdfunding sites. Point 13 refers to sites only indirectly related to a Wikipedia article's subject. Neither of these cases apply to the
https://one.starbucks.com/ site. And again, the NOTPROMO rule refers to Wikipedia articles themselves, not to outside sites that articles link to. At this point it appears that your reversions are in bad faith, and you seem to have a close connection to the topic of the article itself. Perhaps it is time to step back and let more neutral editors improve the article.
SONORAMA (
talk)
14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
SONORAMA I'll open this to a general editors comment which is the next step. You're understanding of NOTPROMO is wrong, it applies to every aspect of wikipedia as it was clearly intended, and is clearly stated. Your attempts to bludgeon through this process, not to mention the way you've levied accusations in those attempts isn't something to look kindly on. After that, it may require arbcom.
LoomCreek (
talk)
14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That's fine @
LoomCreek, I'm glad to read that you will follow procedures rather than trying to "bludgeon through" and engage in back and forth reverts. Improving the article - and not promoting a cause - is the goal.
SONORAMA (
talk)
14:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with LoomCreek.
WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 4 refers to crowdfunding as an example, that doesn't mean something can't be promotional just because it's corporate propaganda instead of crowdfunding. The official company response to unionization is best characterized by what quality secondary sources say about it, not by providing a link to a propaganda page. Separately, per
WP:BRD, adding the link again without acquiring consensus first would constitute unambiguous edit-warring; please don't do that. --
JBL (
talk)
17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
A secondary source preferable to a primary source? That's ridiculous. Regarding "corporate propaganda," we could just as easily characterize the union website as "union propaganda." Articles about controversial subjects have quality sources on both sides and delve into the issues in dispute. Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:NPOV is non-negotiable on Wikipedia.
SONORAMA (
talk)
18:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
A secondary source preferable to a primary source? That's ridiculous. Possibly you should better acquaint yourself with
basic sourcing guidelines. we could just as easily characterize the union website as "union propaganda" Yes we could do that if we were rather stupid and didn't realize that this was an article about unions and consequently links to their official websites are explicitly sanctioned by
WP:ELOFFICIAL. --
JBL (
talk)
18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Well I don't really think an RfC is necessary at this stage, but if we're going to have one then the answer is "no, of course not, corporate propaganda pages do not add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject; the views and actions of the Starbucks corporation are better presented through the lens of secondary sources and their analysis." --
JBL (
talk)
18:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
*No - (We shouldn't need an RfC here, those are for when there are disputes with equal number of editors on both sides.) It is NOT standard policy to point to a website which represents the opposition arguments to whatever the article is about. The
Brady campaign's website is not listed on the
NRA's website, nor versa vice. ---Avatar317(talk)01:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)reply