SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Peet's Coffee & Tea employee fills takeout orders for customers in Oakland, California on May 18, 2020.
(Photo: Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty Images)
Baristas Form First Unionized Peet's Coffee in US With Help From Starbucks Workers
"We will not be the last," said Peet's Workers United.
Jan 22, 2023
In a win for workplace democracy, employees at a Peet's Coffee & Tea located in Davis, California formed the chain's first unionized shop in the United States on Friday.
Workers at the café voted 14-1 to join Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021.
"We will not be the last," tweeted Peet's Workers United (PWU), which organized the winning unionization campaign. PWU is the counterpart to Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), the outfit behind dozens of successful union drives nationwide.
"Solidarity, from coffee shop to coffee shop," SBWU wrote on social media ahead of Friday's vote at Peet's. After PWU won, their Starbucks allies gave them a warm "welcome to the labor movement."
SBWU organizer Tyler Keeling from Lakewood, California played an instrumental role in PWU's efforts, as detailed last week in Jacobin.
PWU expressed gratitude to Keeling before and after the union vote.
\u201cWe've been lucky to have Tyler by our side from the beginning! I don't know if we would have gotten this far without him!\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674078218
\u201cThank you for all the help you've given us from day 1. Beyond appreciative of you. Together we are strong.\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674342867
In November, Peet's workers at two locations in Davis filed for union elections with the National Labor Relations Board.
In a petition asking for community support, PWU wrote: "We are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. Barista's raises are less than a tenth of inflation, there are pay discrepancies that do not align with seniority, skill, or any kind of logic, and we have been forced to shut down multiple times in the past month due to understaffing. We've had no viable recourse for removing toxic managers other than waiting for the problem to resolve itself."
"Meanwhile, our managers have been using union-busting tactics like Starbucks to divide and confuse us," organizers continued. "They've called in corporate higher-ups to have conversations about unionizing with employees, they've reinstated punitive scheduling and dress code measures, and posted misleading informational fliers in break rooms."
"We are fighting for fair wages, decent schedules, and corporate transparency, but two stores against a multimillion-dollar corporation is a lonely battle," they added. "Peet's has always taken pride in its loyal customers and loving community, and we need that now more than ever."
In a statement issued after workers voted overwhelmingly in favor of union representation, the company said that "while we had hoped for another outcome, we respect the right of our Davis employees to choose."
"As we follow the legally required next steps with the union at North Davis, we will continue to work for and with our employees companywide. That is the Peet's way," the company added.
According to PWU, Peet's executives went out of their way in the lead-up to the representation vote to dissuade workers from joining SEIU, including by holding anti-union captive audience meetings.
The corporation "paid a store manager from Chicago to fly to Davis to give his 'unbiased' opinion on unions," organizers said. "The president of the company came in and essentially begged people to give him another chance and to put all our faith in him."
The second Davis location that had also filed to hold a unionization vote withdrew its request last week. According to PWU, that happened because "corporate gave the entire staff... a $500 bonus for pulling their petition and for 'giving Peet's a chance.'"
Since December 2021, workers at more than 270 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize. Organizers have won more than 80% of their campaigns despite the corporation's unlawful intimidation and retaliation tactics.
Keeling of SBWU said Saturday that he is "so happy to have more coffee shops unionizing."
"The future looks bright," Keeling declared. "The new wave of unionization will save the world."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
In a win for workplace democracy, employees at a Peet's Coffee & Tea located in Davis, California formed the chain's first unionized shop in the United States on Friday.
Workers at the café voted 14-1 to join Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021.
"We will not be the last," tweeted Peet's Workers United (PWU), which organized the winning unionization campaign. PWU is the counterpart to Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), the outfit behind dozens of successful union drives nationwide.
"Solidarity, from coffee shop to coffee shop," SBWU wrote on social media ahead of Friday's vote at Peet's. After PWU won, their Starbucks allies gave them a warm "welcome to the labor movement."
SBWU organizer Tyler Keeling from Lakewood, California played an instrumental role in PWU's efforts, as detailed last week in Jacobin.
PWU expressed gratitude to Keeling before and after the union vote.
\u201cWe've been lucky to have Tyler by our side from the beginning! I don't know if we would have gotten this far without him!\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674078218
\u201cThank you for all the help you've given us from day 1. Beyond appreciative of you. Together we are strong.\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674342867
In November, Peet's workers at two locations in Davis filed for union elections with the National Labor Relations Board.
In a petition asking for community support, PWU wrote: "We are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. Barista's raises are less than a tenth of inflation, there are pay discrepancies that do not align with seniority, skill, or any kind of logic, and we have been forced to shut down multiple times in the past month due to understaffing. We've had no viable recourse for removing toxic managers other than waiting for the problem to resolve itself."
"Meanwhile, our managers have been using union-busting tactics like Starbucks to divide and confuse us," organizers continued. "They've called in corporate higher-ups to have conversations about unionizing with employees, they've reinstated punitive scheduling and dress code measures, and posted misleading informational fliers in break rooms."
"We are fighting for fair wages, decent schedules, and corporate transparency, but two stores against a multimillion-dollar corporation is a lonely battle," they added. "Peet's has always taken pride in its loyal customers and loving community, and we need that now more than ever."
In a statement issued after workers voted overwhelmingly in favor of union representation, the company said that "while we had hoped for another outcome, we respect the right of our Davis employees to choose."
"As we follow the legally required next steps with the union at North Davis, we will continue to work for and with our employees companywide. That is the Peet's way," the company added.
According to PWU, Peet's executives went out of their way in the lead-up to the representation vote to dissuade workers from joining SEIU, including by holding anti-union captive audience meetings.
The corporation "paid a store manager from Chicago to fly to Davis to give his 'unbiased' opinion on unions," organizers said. "The president of the company came in and essentially begged people to give him another chance and to put all our faith in him."
The second Davis location that had also filed to hold a unionization vote withdrew its request last week. According to PWU, that happened because "corporate gave the entire staff... a $500 bonus for pulling their petition and for 'giving Peet's a chance.'"
Since December 2021, workers at more than 270 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize. Organizers have won more than 80% of their campaigns despite the corporation's unlawful intimidation and retaliation tactics.
Keeling of SBWU said Saturday that he is "so happy to have more coffee shops unionizing."
"The future looks bright," Keeling declared. "The new wave of unionization will save the world."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
In a win for workplace democracy, employees at a Peet's Coffee & Tea located in Davis, California formed the chain's first unionized shop in the United States on Friday.
Workers at the café voted 14-1 to join Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021.
"We will not be the last," tweeted Peet's Workers United (PWU), which organized the winning unionization campaign. PWU is the counterpart to Starbucks Workers United (SBWU), the outfit behind dozens of successful union drives nationwide.
"Solidarity, from coffee shop to coffee shop," SBWU wrote on social media ahead of Friday's vote at Peet's. After PWU won, their Starbucks allies gave them a warm "welcome to the labor movement."
SBWU organizer Tyler Keeling from Lakewood, California played an instrumental role in PWU's efforts, as detailed last week in Jacobin.
PWU expressed gratitude to Keeling before and after the union vote.
\u201cWe've been lucky to have Tyler by our side from the beginning! I don't know if we would have gotten this far without him!\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674078218
\u201cThank you for all the help you've given us from day 1. Beyond appreciative of you. Together we are strong.\u201d— Peets United (@Peets United) 1674342867
In November, Peet's workers at two locations in Davis filed for union elections with the National Labor Relations Board.
In a petition asking for community support, PWU wrote: "We are overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. Barista's raises are less than a tenth of inflation, there are pay discrepancies that do not align with seniority, skill, or any kind of logic, and we have been forced to shut down multiple times in the past month due to understaffing. We've had no viable recourse for removing toxic managers other than waiting for the problem to resolve itself."
"Meanwhile, our managers have been using union-busting tactics like Starbucks to divide and confuse us," organizers continued. "They've called in corporate higher-ups to have conversations about unionizing with employees, they've reinstated punitive scheduling and dress code measures, and posted misleading informational fliers in break rooms."
"We are fighting for fair wages, decent schedules, and corporate transparency, but two stores against a multimillion-dollar corporation is a lonely battle," they added. "Peet's has always taken pride in its loyal customers and loving community, and we need that now more than ever."
In a statement issued after workers voted overwhelmingly in favor of union representation, the company said that "while we had hoped for another outcome, we respect the right of our Davis employees to choose."
"As we follow the legally required next steps with the union at North Davis, we will continue to work for and with our employees companywide. That is the Peet's way," the company added.
According to PWU, Peet's executives went out of their way in the lead-up to the representation vote to dissuade workers from joining SEIU, including by holding anti-union captive audience meetings.
The corporation "paid a store manager from Chicago to fly to Davis to give his 'unbiased' opinion on unions," organizers said. "The president of the company came in and essentially begged people to give him another chance and to put all our faith in him."
The second Davis location that had also filed to hold a unionization vote withdrew its request last week. According to PWU, that happened because "corporate gave the entire staff... a $500 bonus for pulling their petition and for 'giving Peet's a chance.'"
Since December 2021, workers at more than 270 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize. Organizers have won more than 80% of their campaigns despite the corporation's unlawful intimidation and retaliation tactics.
Keeling of SBWU said Saturday that he is "so happy to have more coffee shops unionizing."
"The future looks bright," Keeling declared. "The new wave of unionization will save the world."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules White House Can't Retaliate Against AP Over Gulf of Mexico Dispute
A spokesperson for the news agency said the ruling "affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation."
Apr 08, 2025
A federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot cut off The Associated Press' access to the Republican leader because of the news agency's refusal to use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico.
"About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president," wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, according to the news outlet, "the AP has been blocked since February 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room."
The AP responded to the restrictions by suing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint," McFadden noted in his 41-page order. "Today, the court grants that relief."
The judge explained that "this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."
"The court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he stressed. "The Constitution requires no less."
McFadden blocked his own order from taking effect before next week, giving the Trump administration time to respond or appeal. Still, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said Tuesday that "we are gratified by the court's decision."
"Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation," Easton added. "This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."
NPR reported that "an AP reporter and photographer were turned back from joining a reporting pool on a presidential motorcade early Tuesday evening, almost two hours after the decision came down."
ACLU Sues to Block Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the lawsuit asserts.
Apr 08, 2025
The ACLU and allied groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a bid to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from "abusing the Alien Enemies Act"—an 18th-century law only ever invoked during wartime—to deport foreign nationals to a prison in El Salvador with allegedly rampant human rights abuses.
According to a statement, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union, "in partnership with the Legal Aid Society whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation, filed an emergency lawsuit this morning in federal court in New York to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court's judicial district."
The lawsuit—which names Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials as plaintiffs—follows Monday's 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that largely reversed a lower court's decision blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador.
BREAKING: Today the NYCLU and @aclu.org filed an emergency lawsuit to ensure the Trump administration does not deport people under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country.
— NYCLU (@nyclu.org) April 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
While the high court said the Trump administration can resume deportations under the 1798 AEA, the justices included the caveat that people subject to such removals must be afforded due process under the law.
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the ACLU argued in the new lawsuit. "It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States."
Not only has Trump sent foreign nationals—including at least one wrongfully deported man—to CECOT, he has also floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens there at the invitation of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who is scheduled to visit the White House next week.
This, despite widespread reports of serious human rights violations at the facility and throughout El Salvador in general.
ICE-IRS Deal Blasted as 'Bad Policy. Bad Economics. And Cruel.'
"The administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk," said one critic.
Apr 08, 2025
Migrant and privacy rights advocates this week are sounding the alarm over a deal signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to hand sensitive taxpayer data over to immigration authorities as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal immigration," a Treasury Department spokesperson told Fox News, which reported on the development after a late Monday court filing.
"The bases for this MOU are founded in long-standing authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals," the spokesperson said. "After four years of [former President] Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump's highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people."
After weeks of warnings about a potential data transfer deal, it was revealed as part of a legal case brought by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Inclusive Action for the City, and Somos Un Pueblo Unido, which are represented by Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and Raise the Floor Alliance.
"Taxpayer privacy is a cornerstone of the U.S. tax system," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement. "This move by the IRS is an unprecedented breach of taxpayer privacy laws and confidentiality, which has been respected by both political parties for decades."
"The Trump administration's terror tactic of using immigrants' tax data against them will drive some of our most vulnerable communities further underground," she warned. "If this taxpayer information isn't safe from the prying eyes of the Trump administration's goons, then no one's taxpayer information is safe."
Juliette Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official now lecturing at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote on social media: "Bad policy. Bad economics. And cruel. They are so desperate to get their deportation numbers up that they are doing this."
Multiple members of Congress also blasted the move. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said that "the IRS should NEVER be weaponized to target immigrant families. This backdoor deal with ICE shatters decades of trust—and may be illegal."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," vowed Gomez, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. "No one should fear that filing taxes puts their family at risk."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was among the critics who emphasized that the MOU doesn't just affect migrants.
"First things first: The impact of folks not filing their taxes because they are afraid of deportation would be detrimental to our economy," he explained. "Two: Immigrants pay taxes but do not benefit from the social programs that most taxpayers do. Three: Everyone should be concerned about the privacy implications here. This sets the precedent that the federal government can arbitrarily share your personal information with law enforcement. And it's just wrong."
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) similarly said: "For decades, undocumented immigrants have trusted the IRS when it encouraged them to file. They've paid taxes in good faith, contributing nearly $100 BILLION per year and supporting social services they can't even access. Not only is this a total betrayal, but it's also illegal. We'll fight this."
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy also highlighted that "turning the IRS away from its job (collecting taxes) to instead focus on mass deportation efforts will mean less tax revenue collected on top of the harm done to families and communities affected by deportations."
In response to The New York Times' reporting on the deal, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick pointed out on social media that the MOU "is, on its face, limited to criminal investigations (not deportation investigations)."
"There are many questions raised about this new [agreement], which seems to violate previous understandings of the laws requiring IRS not to share taxpayer information," he continued. "But at its heart it does not seem that the MOU permits ICE to ask for taxpayer data for deportation reasons."
"It seems primarily to be aimed at criminal investigations for willful failure to depart after the issuance of a removal order, a crime on the books which (until now) is virtually never prosecuted," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Despite the fact that this MOU is limited only to criminal law enforcement, it will likely have a chilling effect on undocumented taxpayers."
How the Trump administration actually proceeds remains to be seen. The court filing says no information has been shared between the agenices yet—but the deal comes as part of a wave of anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric from the president and his officials.
"With the Supreme Court greenlighting Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act and the administration now gaining access to sensitive IRS data, we continue to slip into a new era of authoritarianism in America," Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, said a Tuesday statement "The digital and physical dragnets that Trump is building mean millions of immigrants—many of whom have followed the law and paid their taxes for decades—are now vulnerable to indiscriminate brutality and quiet erasure with little opportunity for redress."
Lopez stressed that "undocumented immigrants already contribute billions to our economy—often paying a higher effective tax rate than 55 major corporations and some of the wealthiest individuals in America. By weaponizing private taxpayer data, the administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk."
"Coupled with Trump's xenophobic tariff threats and a $350 billion demand to fund mass disappearances and deportations, this is more than an attack on immigrants—it's a calculated effort to destabilize the country and remake its image," she concluded. "Congress must reject this funding and the authoritarian playbook behind it. This is not policy. It's punishment."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.