Retailers like Starbucks operate on such a thin margin that -- were Starbucks to become widely unionized -- there would be some transfer of money into union dues, but any significant increase in pay or benefits would result in the need to cut overall staff, something a union would not be likely to tolerate.
This demonstrates the foolishness in taking the business press seriously when it comes to analyzing unions.

Canfield's flippant dismisal of the IWW efforts shows that he hasn't researched our organization carefully. The maximum amount the IWW charges per month in dues is $18. The wages Starbucks workers earn is within the range where members would pay $6 / month.

Starbucks can almost certainly afford to pay their employees more than $0.03 / hour (which is about what $6 / hour works out to assuming a 173-hour full-time month). They've already given raises around $0.50 / hour in some cities in response to the unionizing drive.

In any case, the issue isn't so much wages as it is the ability to work enough hours per week to be eligible to earn the vaunted health benefits Starbucks touts so highly.

The mass unionization effort of Starbucks by the IWW will be unlike any other union drive in the retail / hospitality sector, because the IWW demands not just for a few crumbs, but the whole damn pie. That would mean that Starbucks employees would assume ownership and control of the means of production. Under those circumstances, I don't think that the workers' job security will suffer any.

And, if any of you are foolish enough to trust Mr. Canfield with investment advice, check your wallets or get another advisor, because he doesn't know what he is talking about and his numbers simply do not add up!

starbucksunion.org