[[link removed]]

GET ON THE JOB AND ORGANIZE: A Q&A WITH JAZ BRISACK  
[[link removed]]


 

Chris Mills Rodrigo
December 3, 2025
Inequality.org
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The labor organizer at the core of the Starbucks Workers United
campaign wants a braver labor movement. Their new book is titled "Get
on the Job and Organize: Standing Up for a Better Workplace and a
Better World." _

Jaz Brisack helped lead the unionization of a Starbucks store in
downtown Buffalo, New York, Malik Rainey / The New York Times

 

After years and years of declining union density in America, the
beginning of the 2020s felt like a sea change. Upstart labor campaigns
notched huge wins at Amazon, public support for unions reached new
heights, and new organizing election petitions with the National Labor
Relations Board soared.

Halfway through the decade though, the surge in labor organizing has
not managed to slow the decline in Americans represented by a union.
Why?

Pulling from experiences at the heart of union campaigns at Nissan,
Tesla, and Starbucks, labor organizer Jaz Brisack details how the deck
of American labor law is stacked in the favor of employers. But that
isn’t the only thing holding the labor movement back — Brisack’s
experiences also show how major labor unions can derail campaigns with
onerous bureaucracy that restricts worker leadership. 

The bulk of _Get on the Job and Organize: Standing Up for a Better
Workplace and a Better World_, available here
[[link removed]],
focuses on Brisack’s time as co-founder of Starbucks Workers United
and the campaign to organize cafes born in Buffalo, New York.

Brisack started at Starbucks as a “salt” — someone who gets a
job in a workplace with the intent of unionizing it — and continues
to train people eager to pursue that path at the Inside Organizer
School [[link removed]]. But the effort to
unionize Starbucks was a salt _and_ pepper campaign, as organic
leaders soon emerged among Brisack’s colleagues. 

_Inequality.org_ sat down with Brisack earlier this month to discuss
their book and the lessons the labor movement can draw from worker-led
campaigns.

_This interview has been edited for length and clarity._

CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO: ONE THEME ACROSS THE CAMPAIGNS YOU DISCUSS IN
THIS BOOK IS THE IMPORTANCE OF WINNING THE “RIGHT TO ORGANIZE”
BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT’S A PREREQUISITE TO
WORKPLACE ISSUES? HOW CAN BOSSES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MORE NARROW ISSUE
CAMPAIGNS?

Jaz Brisack: The right to organize almost sounds like a platitude
sometimes, but it’s also the very core of what we’re fighting for.
I think it sounds like a platitude because we often have unions and
politicians giving lip service to the right to organize without
actually committing to the fight of what it means to _win_ the right
to organize. Throughout labor history a huge piece of every fight for
greater labor rights was the right to have democracy in the workplace,
to have an independent organization where workers can advocate for
themselves. That’s still what’s at the heart of the right to
organize on every campaign, whether it’s Nissan, Starbucks or
Tesla. 

Companies have unilateral control if workers don’t have a union and
companies want to maintain that control, so unions basically have to
make it more difficult, more painful, more costly for a company to
continue to insist on crushing the union rather than deal with sharing
power. This also gets into a psychological question of how the
management is thinking about this. Some of them are thinking about it
as a business equation, but some of them — like Howard Schultz at
Starbucks — are thinking about it as a referendum on their own
leadership in a very personal way. 

Companies will do just about anything rather than give up unilateral
control. We’ve gotten the question of “what would you like to
improve with a union?” on every campaign and our answer was always
we want a voice on the job and we’ll get into this more at the
bargaining table. Sometimes you have to talk with co-workers about
things you want to change or tell the press about some of the
conditions in the workplace. But I think companies will try to find
out what workers would like to have changed, whether that’s a bad
manager, whether that’s pay issues, whatever it is, and, often, will
make any kinds of improvements that they can, short of actually giving
workers an independent democratic body — that is, a union.

CMR: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS BEHIND THAT FEAR OF GIVING UP UNILATERAL
CONTROL?

JB: It’s really about the desire to control workers. Without a
union, management has the final say on everything, and workers have
basically no rights to their jobs or to how they want to work. Bosses
can fire people for just about any reason, except for a protected
reason. But even then, that’s a very hard thing to prove, and
management can easily claim it’s for something else. This desire to
have full power over workers and over the company is extremely
motivating to corporations.

I think there’s secondary fears about whether the union will allow
for flexibility, will the company be as profitable, etc. But often
companies will spend more to crush the union than they would spend to
actually recognize and negotiate a first contract. And so I think this
question of control is the piece that’s really at the heart of the
matter.

CMR: DOES THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NLRB — WHICH WAS ALREADY RIFE
WITH DELAYS AND HEAVILY TILTED TO EMPLOYERS BEFORE THE SECOND TRUMP
TERM — CHANGE THE CALCULUS AROUND THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE OR HOW YOU
WOULD APPROACH A NEW UNION CAMPAIGN?

JB: I think barely, if at all. Maybe it’s made me a little bit more
open to card check
[[link removed]],
but I think that’s almost a semantics question. We’ve asked all of
these companies, from Nissan to Starbucks to Ben and Jerry’s, etc.,
to sign the Fair Election Principles. The reason for doing so is that
having an election is kind of psychologically considered even more of
a gold standard, including by workers. The NLRB has historically been
much better at administering elections than it has been at enforcing
any other part of labor law. So having an election with neutrality, or
with equal time for a union campaign, is much preferable to having a
card check scenario where the company is fighting. 

But I think the Starbucks campaign shows the limitations of even a
“favorable” NLRB. Starbucks broke the law hundreds of times in
each city, thousands of times across the country. I was fired in 2022;
workers across the country are still awaiting reinstatement, awaiting
back pay. Starbucks basically had no incentive not to break the law,
and in fact, had every incentive to break the law and deal with the
consequences later. Even at the best of times, the NLRB isn’t really
sufficient to protect the right to organize. The laws are very weak.
There’s no penalties, there’s only remedies. 

I think winning the right to organize is not something that we’re
going to get through the law. It’s something that we have to get
through the court of public opinion, through consumer pressure.
Exactly what the “hammer” is depends on the company and on their
business model, etc. At Starbucks, we were pretty convinced it was a
boycott and I think that’s just more true than ever, as the NLRB is
either undermined or actively hostile.

CMR: THAT’S A PERFECT SEGUE, BECAUSE I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT HAMMERS
NEXT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THEM TO COMPEL COMPANIES TO THE
BARGAINING TABLE. WHAT ABOUT AMERICAN LABOR UNIONS MAKES THEM SO
RETICENT TO EVEN THREATEN THE USE OF HAMMERS?

JB: Million dollar question, if we could fix this one we would have a
very different state of union density in the US. I think partly it’s
that it’s very hard to actually commit to . It’s easy to call for
a boycott on social media, and sometimes you get lucky with those like
the solidarity with Palestine boycott of Starbucks, which I think
exceeded our wildest expectations. But to really do a consumer boycott
of a company you actually need to have people outside of stores,
picket captains, resources. I think the Teamsters at Chipotle could
have easily brought Chipotle down with a real consumer campaign. The
UAW at Nissan — when Richard and his crew were testing the impact of
student and church group pickets outside of Nissan dealerships the
results were very encouraging, people were not buying cars once they
knew what was going on. That could have potentially won us the right
to organize at Nissan. 

It’s partly a resource question and then partly a strategy question
with Starbucks. Starbucks has 10,000 stores, you would have needed a
presence at a huge number of those stores to ensure and force a
financial impact.

Workers United is affiliated with SEIU, and there were different
schools of thought within Workers United and SEIU about how you should
even go about organizing: through NLRB elections and contracts versus
a much more kind of legislative reform, wage based Fight for 15 style
model. SEIU has tried to jump through hoops to reconcile the Starbucks
campaign with their approach at Waffle House or McDonalds where they
refuse to file for elections and are instead doing days of action and
pressure campaigns. I think there’s also a fear of the very
grassroots nature of these union campaigns where there’s been
struggles over how much control workers would actually have of the
campaigns versus decision makers within the union.

CMR: UNIONIZED STARBUCKS WORKERS WENT ON STRIKE STARTING NOVEMBER
13TH, RED CUP DAY, AND MORE HAVE JOINED SINCE. HOW DID WE GET TO THIS
POINT? 

JB: This is really an extension of one of the Starbucks campaign
strategy camp’s tactics of having national strikes on a consistent
basis. The union and the company probably haven’t been that far off
on a deal. We knew a while back that they really only had an impasse
on economic issues. Everything else was mostly done. I think the real
question is: could there be a deal on a contract that would actually
win the right to organize at all of the stores versus kind of limiting
the union to a minority? And I think that remains to be seen. 

The campaign is still remarkably resilient. A lot of the workers who
are on strike now are folks who came into the movement later and who
are amazing leaders. It’s really impressive how much people have
been able to withstand.

With this strike there’s been sort of a tentative call for a boycott
with figures like Zohran saying don’t go to Starbucks. We should
have had that energy in 2022 when Starbucks fired the Memphis Seven
[[link removed]].
Now there’s been sort of on-again, off-again momentum. Starbucks is
not in the public eye the way we were in 2022 and the union’s
hesitation around endorsing the Palestine boycott was definitely a
cause of some lost momentum. But I think, better late than never,
hopefully there is a contract, and then things can always improve from
there.

CMR: WHAT WAS THE INTERNAL DISCUSSION LIKE OVER CALLING FOR A BOYCOTT
BACK THEN?

JB: In retrospect we should have just done it. The core organizing
committee, which was still largely a Buffalo group but was expanding
to other parts of the country, were the ones writing all the press
releases, doing social media, and kind of controlling the public
narrative. I think the decision making at that point was a bit muddy,
SEIU wasn’t really in the picture yet, it was Workers United
leadership and they were very hesitant that it’d be hard to enforce
a boycott, that it might not work.

There was also a school of thought that striking was our only form of
worker power and that boycotting was sort of a cop-out or not as
militant of a strategy as striking over these issues. And then I think
there was also a fear that it would hurt the organizing effort at
other stores, which I would argue it did anyway, but we didn’t
actually have the leverage that a boycott would have given us.

CMR: I WAS VERY FASCINATED WITH THE INTERNAL CONFLICT YOU SEEM TO HAVE
HAD OVER ORGANIZING AT STARBUCKS. AS A CAMPAIGN FRAMING IT MAKES SENSE
TO SAY YOU WANT THE COMPANY TO BE BETTER, EVEN THOUGH IN THE BACK OF
YOUR MIND YOU WOULD PREFER THERE NOT TO BE A CORPORATE BEHEMOTH
DOMINATING LOCAL CAFES. HOW DO YOU WORK THROUGH THIS TENSION?

JB: I had to wrestle with this a lot. Basically the way I approach it
is: we’re unlikely to put Starbucks out of business. A couple of
times it actually did seem more likely that Starbucks might go out of
business rather than respect the right to organize. But I don’t
think there’s any world in which Starbucks actually goes under. Like
Walmart’s market share is now being threatened by Amazon, but it’s
not like Walmart is going away. Starbucks may lose some of its
ubiquity, but it is still too big of a player to fully get rid of.

My personal way of reconciling the positive rhetoric was just focusing
on things I really did like about the job. I was an opener, the
camaraderie with my coworkers was really great, the kind of people who
are attracted to working at Starbucks are really great. I think it’s
kind of true with baristas anywhere, but certainly among Starbucks
workers there was just an immediate understanding and an immediate
jargon that was universally shared and made for very easy, immediate
bonding.

And then a lot of customers aren’t great, but there were fun parts
of the job. I actually really enjoy coffee. Starbucks, unfortunately,
doesn’t really allow you to do that much of the craft part. But we
would find ways to learn about coffee and make good coffee by bringing
in beans ourselves. So I was able to find ways not to lie when I was
talking about loving my job. 

We can’t fight all of the battles all at once. We have to find
stepping stones to getting where we want. And the first step has to be
really changing union density. One worker asked me very early on, I
can’t remember if this is in the book, would Starbucks take us
seriously if we said we loved the company instead of, you know, we
want to overthrow capitalism. I was like, don’t worry, they will see
the word union and they will understand what that means, because
that’s what actually is threatening to them.

CMR: IN THE SAME VEIN, AS A KIND OF WRAP UP QUESTION, WHAT WOULD YOU
HOPE THAT OTHER UNIONS CAN LEARN FROM THE STARBUCKS CAMPAIGN, WHICH
REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST EXCITING IN RECENT MEMORY?

JB: I would say it underscores the importance of calling the question
on the right to organize very early. We were talking about doing this
before we even voted in the first elections, and we decided to wait
long enough to have a concrete election victory that we could then
point to and say the workers have spoken and they want to union. I
wouldn’t wait much longer than that. You don’t gain a lot of
momentum over a longer period of time, and we have to get better as a
labor movement about really acting as one big union. We had unions
that were offering to adopt stores and take on picketing at various
locations, and there was never really a willingness to even ask them
to put that into practice. 

The other main piece is that unions need to be less worried about
control and more worried about throwing things at the wall and seeing
what sticks. We are dying as a labor movement. We have existential
threats from the government, from corporations, from all of the
typical factors, but it all seems even more ramped up these days. So
we need to be less worried about whether Tesla workers are organizing
jurisdictionally with the right union, or whether Starbucks workers
might somehow say the wrong thing at the bargaining table if they’re
allowed to bargain at hundreds of stores simultaneously, or whether
Chipotle workers should be allowed to do a national pressure campaign.

Let workers take autonomy in their own campaigns and see what works.

===

* Union Organizing; Starbucks; Jaz Brisack
[[link removed]]
* NLRB;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]