Organizing Baristas in Halifax Cafes: Precarious Work and Gender and Class Identities in the Millennial Generation

Abstract

In 2012–2015, baristas engaged in union drives at five cafes in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In a series of semi-structured interviews with participants in and supporters of these drives, it became clear that issues of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity were critical in understanding why and how these union drives evolved: women and queer baristas experienced gender-based discrimination and marginalization at work; they were noted leaders in some of the drives and drew on activist networks to rally community support for the unionization effort. Finally, issues of gender and sexuality informed some of the baristas’ broader economic analysis. We argue that the barista union drive in Halifax illustrates a framework for understanding how gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation inform unjust experiences in precarious workplaces and strategies for confronting them. A gendered analysis of the barista union drives underscores the importance of organized labor’s outreach to young workers and, further, that engaging with workers with attention to intersectionality is an important organizational strategy.

Keywords

class GBLT studies gender intersectionality labor organizing millennial workers unions

Introduction

In December 2012, a drive to unionize the baristas at the Just Us! cafe on Spring Garden Road in Halifax was the first in a wave of union drives in four other local cafes. The issues prompting baristas to take steps toward unionization were rooted in specific concerns about their individual workplaces—frustrations over the lack of clear processes to voice concerns or grievances, unfair tip distribution, favoritism, as well as a general feeling of a lack of respect from employers. These specific issues were embedded in broader concerns baristas had about the kind of jobs that are available to young workers in a stagnant economy, where a university degree no longer guarantees a ticket out of part-time work in the retail and service sector. Could unionization be a way to make precarious work better work, or even turn it into a career?

At the height of the barista union drives, Nova Scotia’s unemployment rate was 9% overall. For millennials,¹ the unemployment rate was varied—24.3% for ages 15–19; 15.1% for ages 20–24; but only 4.3% for those aged 25–29 with a university degree.² Despite their lower unemployment rate, university students graduate with an average student loan debt of CAD$27,000 (Bednar et al., 2016; Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education, 2014; Statistics Canada, 2017b). With six universities in the Halifax region, there is a large number of young people looking for work, but the job growth that has occurred in Halifax has not been beneficial to young workers. The Greater Halifax Partnership reported that ‘workers aged 45 and older made up 97 per cent of labour force growth between 2006 and 2012’ (Beaumont, 2013a). Young workers often resort to precarious, low-wage work in the service and retail sectors.³ These jobs, once viewed as temporary, increasingly have become long term for young workers. And though working as a barista is viewed by some as a “legitimate” job in Halifax because of the rise of coffee culture and its association with the cultural tastes and attitudes of the middle and creative classes, it remains precarious work for many young workers (Kelly, 9 April 2014, author interview; Max, 19 April 2014, author interview). The employment context for young workers in Halifax is not unique (Bednar et al., 2016; Kroeger et al., 2016).

Given their experiences with un- and underemployment, particularly given higher education levels than previous generations, it is not surprising that there is a renewed academic and activist attention to the class identities of young workers and their importance to the labor movement. This literature suggests that while young workers can be supportive of working-class issues (Guastella, 2016), they may not identify with their workplace or profession (Jayadev, 2002; Tannock, 2002). Moreover, while young workers are more likely than older generations to look favorably on unions (Dimock et al., 2013), the literature suggests that unions do not effectively engage with and organize young workers in innovative ways (Carter, 2013; Haut et al., 2009; Kuriga, 2006; Lee, 2014; Tannock, 2001).

Unions are rare in the cafe sector, but union drives at cafes have occurred in places like New York City and Ithaca, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; Oregon; southwest Washington state; and Regina, Saskatchewan (Gilbert, 2005; Kerensky, 2010; McIntosh, 2004; Sonka, 2014). Despite their rarity, these union drives offer an important window into exploring how young workers experience a precarious economic context, how this experience (re)shapes their view of class politics and motivates them to become engaged politically, and how that engagement takes shape.

As we explored these questions in interviews with 20 participants in and supporters of the barista union drives that took place in Halifax between 2012–2015, it became clear that issues of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity (hereafter, ‘gender’) informed important aspects of the drives: women and queer baristas experienced gender-based discrimination and marginalization from managers and customers; they were more likely to support the unionization drives; queer baristas were noted leaders in some of the drives and drew on activist networks to rally community support for the unionization effort. Finally, issues of gender and sexuality informed some of the baristas’ broader economic analysis. As one former barista noted, ‘this struggle is more than just about the working class, but about why some people are in the working class’ (Kelly, 9 April 2014, author interview). As such, we argue that the barista union drives in Halifax offer a framework for understanding how gender informs unjust experiences in precarious workplaces and strategies for confronting them. A gendered analysis of the barista union drives suggests that there can be a mutually beneficial relationship between labor and young workers and, further, that engaging with workers with attention to intersectionality is an important organizational strategy.

The rest of this article unfolds in five sections. In the next section, we discuss our research methods. In the third section, we explore the relevant literature on young workers, gendered power relations, and sexual politics in the labor movement and work force. The fourth section provides a basic timeline of events that occurred leading up to and during the 2012–2015 barista union drives, while the fifth section draws on our interview data to analyze the events through the lens of gender relations and sexual politics. In the final section, we offer a concluding analysis.

Methods

Our analysis is based on a series of 20 semi-structured interviews conducted between April 2014 and March 2015.⁴ Of these, nine interview respondents were current or former baristas at the cafes discussed in the analysis. Six interviews were conducted with organizers from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and leaders of other local labor organizations. Two interviews were conducted with members of the organization Solidarity Halifax, which provided support to the Baristas Rise Up (BRU) movement. Finally, one interview was conducted with a senior manager at one of the cafe chains. We identified our initial respondents through local media coverage of the unionizing drives and identified additional respondents through a snowball sampling method. Toward the end of the interview process, Dalton, a researcher for the project, was hired as a part-time barista at one of the cafes involved in the union drives. She took auto-ethnographic field notes of her experiences, which we draw on in this analysis.

We used a grounded theory approach in our data collection and analysis. All interviews followed a semi-structured questionnaire; however, as the interviews were initially conducted and transcribed, emergent themes in the data led us to follow up on those themes in subsequent interviews (Charmaz, 2004). Following this approach, as our initial questions about gender and identity revealed that gendered power dynamics and identities were central to the baristas’ union drives, this became a more prominent line of questioning in subsequent interviews, generated new coding categories, and allowed us to make a more nuanced argument here.

We guaranteed confidentiality to all of our respondents. Given the small size of the cafe and activist/labor communities in Halifax, and within those the small number of queer and gender non-conforming baristas/activists, we took several steps to eliminate identifying information. First, we use pseudonyms when referring to specific individuals. Second, rather than identify a respondent as lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, or gender-nonconforming, as some did in the interviews, we use “queer” or “LGBTQ” to broadly refer to these sexual orientations and gender identities. Finally, we use the pronouns “they” and “their” for all our respondents, regardless of gender identity.

Young Workers, Unions, and Class Identity

Young people have long been employed in low wage service work. As Stuart Tannock has argued, structural changes in the retail and service sectors in the post-war period—for example, the emergence of the fast-food industry, longer hours of service, and increasing levels of automation—combined with an increase in the number of young people pursuing university educations, led to dramatic increases in part-time youth employment (Tannock, 2002: 13–14). It was once the case, and remains a powerful political narrative, that such work was a temporary stop on the road to permanent employment and a place in the middle class, particularly for young workers with a university degree (Bednar et al., 2016; Guastella, 2016; Tannock, 2002). However, studies in both the USA and Canada show that workers of the millennial generation are spending longer in the precarious service sector, even when they are educated (Bednar et al., 2016; Canadian Labour Congress, n.d.; Kroeger et al., 2016). Where they were once home to some strong occupational unions, the service and retail industries have become reliant on a part-time and low wage work force, which only compounds this problem. The Government of Canada’s Expert Panel on Youth Employment notes that young workers “are ‘squeezed’ by stagnant incomes, high costs, less time and mounting debts. They are more likely to be stuck in temporary or ‘precarious’ jobs than in the past … and are at risk for reduced lifetime earnings and savings” (Bednar et al., 2017: 6). “The stuggle,” they emphasize, “is real” (Bednar et al., 2016: 3).

This new employment reality is reshaping young workers’ views of class. In the USA, Guastella argues, “more millennials [60%] self-identify as working class than any generation in recent history.” He further notes that they “are in shit shape economically and through no fault of their own … many millennials see their stagnant and declining wages, among other signs of economic precarity, and ultimately recognize their class position” (Guastella, 2016).

This is an employment climate in which we might expect to see organized labor reaching out to young workers in precarious jobs, but this has not necessarily been the case. To begin, there are concerns that organized labor is not devoting sufficient resources to organizing young workers or workers in the service and retail sectors. Labor organizers interviewed for this project noted that food and retail jobs are basically untouched by the labor movement (Jesse and Shawn, 7 May 2014, author interviews; Dana, 21 May 2014, author interview; Chris, 29 May 2014, author interview). A former SEIU organizer familiar with the barista union drives noted of the Canadian context,

most unions don’t organize at all. Ninety-five percent of unions spend 5% of their money, like dues, on organizing. If that, 5%. UNIFOR just committed to spending 10%. SEIU spends about 40% of its money, in Local 2, on organizing. It’s the highest in the country … And we can’t organize the service sector—not just in this union, but I mean, broadly as a union movement, if we don’t put the money into organizing. (Dana, 21 May 2014, author interview)

The SEIU’s Fight for $15 and Justice for Janitors campaigns are notable exceptions to a dearth of organizing in the service sector.

Compounding the insufficient organizing resources, there is a tenuous relationship between young workers and organized labor. Raj Jayadev (2002) has argued that young workers may identify with their passions and hobbies, rather than as workers. Indeed, one of the baristas we interviewed who was critical of the union drives distinguished between cafe workers who just want a part-time job and those who view cafe work as a highly skilled and have professional ambitions in coffee work. This barista thought that the equality of employees fostered by unions could hinder the opportunities for baristas with passion and skill to earn more and have more responsibility (Max, 19 April 2014, author interview). Others are skeptical because organized labor fails to effectively engage with young workers about the importance of unions and integrate them into its ranks (Carter, 2013; Haut et al., 2009; Kuriga, 2006; Lee, 2014) For example, Kristen Kuriga argues that “the labour movement has too often defined ‘youth’ as college students and future staffers, instead of a group of marginalized workers whose organization is essential to the growth and revitalization of the labour movement” (Kuriga, 2006: 36). She critiques organized labor, noting that the graduate students and teaching assistants who are leading union drives at American universities “are doing exactly what the labor movement has not empowered students and working-class youth to do, see themselves as workers and see the solution as grassroots organizing and collective power within their own workplaces and communities” (Kuriga, 2006: 39).

Despite these challenges, young people are politically engaged around the issues of economic inequality that shape their lives. Ruth Milkman’s (2014, 2017) work on the political activism of American millennials analyzes the ways that young activists synthesize the “old left’s” attention to economic inequality with new social movements’ focus on gender- and identity-based discrimination and inequity. She also highlights the importance millennial activists give to intersectional organizing and the leadership of women and LGBTQ-identifying activists.⁵ The case of baristas’ organizing in Halifax reflects much of Milkman’s analysis: they were led by women and LGBTQ-identified millennials who understood their experiences as workers in intersectional terms. Importantly, our interviews underscored, labor’s efforts to organize young workers ought to recognize and respond to the intersectional dimensions of their experiences as workers, how these experiences are shaped not only by their position in the precarious retail and service sectors, but also by other axes of identity, including race, level of education, citizenship and indigenous status, and, as our interviews demonstrate, gender and gender identity.

Gender Relations and Sexual Politics at Work

To explore how gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity intersected with working-class identity to inform the Halifax barista union drives, we borrow from Franzway and Fonow’s (2009) analysis of queer activism and feminism in the labor movement. They argue that gender is both relational and political. Not only does gender represent an ever present relationship of power, they argue, but to push back against that power requires “a sexual politics that engages and challenges power as domination [through] resistance, alliances, and pleasures” (Franzway and Fonow, 2009).

Gendered power dynamics, especially those that reinforce the centrality of “masculine, heteronormative sexualities and identities” and experiences are present at all levels of the global capitalism (Franzway and Fonow, 2009). At a global level, we see gendered power relations in the political economy of caregiving and sexual labor (Ehrenreich and Hochschild, 2004; Sassen, 2000), and in the gendered distribution of labor within global manufacturing networks (Salzinger, 2003). At the national level, we see gendered power relations in regulatory and legal frameworks that continue to organize economies according to a male breadwinner/female caregiver model (Vosko, 2011), and in the persistence of occupational segregation (Branch, 2011; Charles and Grusky, 2005). And we see gender dynamics at work at the individual level, from experiences of sexual harassment (Hughes and Tadic, 1998; MacKinnon, 1979); to the demands of emotional labor (Meier et al., 2006; Wingfield, 2016). The reliance on women, minorities, and other marginalized groups in the precarious service sector demonstrates just another example of the way that gendered power dynamics are built into the structure of employment relationships (Cranford et al., 2003). As if to illustrate this point, the manager of a Canadian corporate coffee chain franchise suggested that precarious work is “appropriate for women” (Woodhall and Muszynski, 2011).

Sexual politics, as understood by Franzway and Fonow, requires that we broaden our analysis of gendered power relationships to include queer workers as well as straight and cisgender women. Indeed, queer workers may confront a number of particular challenges in the workplace. An over-scrutiny of the appearance of visibly queer and transgender people can prove to be a barrier to being hired at all or invite doubts about the ability of a worker to perform their job well (Enxuga, 2013). Queer workers are subject to expressions and displays of homophobia and transphobia, including threats of violence, from customers, co-workers, and managers. Such displays and threats can lead to the fear of coming out for those who are not already (Balay, 2014; Enxuga, 2013; Franzway and Fonow, 2009; Grant et al., 2011; Sweeney, 1999). Managers are not always effective in helping queer workers remedy workplace harassment and discrimination (Enxuga, 2013). Finally, where legal protections against workplace harassment, discrimination, and dismissal on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are lacking, they increase precarious employment for queer employees (Beaumont, 2014).

The precarious employment context for queer, transgender, and gender nonconforming people is critical. According to a study by Grant et al., unemployment rates for transgender and gender nonconforming people in the USA are double the national average and up to four times the national average for visible minorities. Further, 44% of their study’s respondents reported being under-employed (Grant et al., 2011: 51). As a result of this employment context, writes Shay Enxuga (2013), “queer and trans workers … find ourselves clinging to whatever work we can find and are often more willing to put up with homophobia and transphobia on the job.”

As Franzway and Fonow argue, sexual politics is not only about identifying gendered power relations, but also about resisting them. Though not without significant tensions because of their historically conservative culture, labor unions have evolved into important allies in the struggle for equal rights—in public policy and in the workplace—for women and the LGBTQ community. In the 1980s unions began negotiating important benefits and protections for LGBTQ workers in collective agreements, including the promise of equal treatment, anti-discrimination protections, and domestic partner benefits (Frank, 2015; Sweeney, 1999). These advances were often the result of the courageous leadership of LGBTQ unionists themselves (Frank, 2015). While such benefits and protections can make unionization advantageous for LGBTQ workers, John Sweeney, former-president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), noted that for queer workers who are already at risk of discrimination, publicly supporting unionization takes courage (1999: 34).

Franzway and Fonow (2009) argue that the “labor movement is a valuable transnational resource for feminist and LGBT activists.” However, there is a long history of queer and feminist organizing and alliance-building to effect change in law, public policy, and public discourse (Pullen et al., 2013; Warner, 2002). Resisting the gendered power dynamics that marginalize queer workers requires us to be realistic about the historical and contemporary limitations of traditional labor organizing—rates of unionization are in decline, and organizing precarious workers has been a challenge for labor unions—and to draw on existing social movements as sources of solidarity that will be necessary “to revitalize and expand the boundaries of labor by considering new forms of organizing, different workplaces, new issues” (Franzway and Fonow, 2009; see also Chun, 2016). The service and retail sectors may provide a productive opportunity to develop new strategies in labor-LGBTQ collaboration. As Miriam Frank (2015: 173) notes, “the largest, most rapidly expanding, and nonunionized sectors or the workforce are food service workers and retail workers. New efforts at unionization would benefit from outreach to LGBT employees in those jobs.”

Brewing Dissent at Just Us!, Second Cup, and Coburg Coffee

From December 2012 to June 2015 barista union drives developed at several local cafes—two locations of Nova Scotia-based Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-op, two locations of Second Cup, a national chain, and the single location of family-run Coburg Coffee House. The barista union drives represented a unique phenomenon in local and national labor organizing where organizing in the food and retail service sectors is rare (Jesse and Shawn, 7 May 2014, author interview; Chris, 29 May 2014, author interview).

Baristas at these Halifax cafes were not the only ones who had considered unionizing. At the Just Us! cafe in Wolfville (Just Us-Wolfville), a rural town near the Co-op’s headquarters, baristas had considered unionizing multiple times. In 2011–2012, baristas were concerned by poor communication with management, an inadequate grievance policy, and frustrations with perceived unfairness in the co-op structure. On the latter point, they noted that baristas’ wages were too low to allow them to make the investment required to become members of the co-op. As such, some baristas felt they lacked a direct voice in decision-making even though they were the organization’s public face (Kelly, 9 April 2014, author interview; Sydney, 25 April 2014, author interview). Advocates of unionization among the baristas mistakenly thought that unionization required the support of all five Just Us! cafes in the province. This led them to abandon the unionization effort (Kelly, 9 April 2014, author interview).

Momentum for unionization picked up steam later in 2012 at a group of Halifax cafes. Frustrated by what were perceived as unfair tipping practices,⁶ lack of consistently scheduled breaks, and certain staffing decisions, two of the baristas at the Just Us! cafe on Spring Garden Road (Just Us-Spring Garden) contacted an SEIU organizer who they knew and began the process of learning about what unions are and could do.⁷ With the help of the SEIU, they began the process of talking to the other baristas to better understand their concerns and gauge support for unionization (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview; Frankie, 17 April 2014, author interview). After two of the baristas involved were fired, they and SEIU organizers reached out to contacts in local, progressive media and activist networks and held a rally of approximately 120 outside of the cafe. News of the dismissals resonated with the public because it represented a disconnect between the stated values and public perception of the co-op. As one barista commented, “no one likes a hypocrite, right? So they’re like, ‘There’s this social justice co-op. They’re union busting. Oh my God! It’s news!’” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). The SEIU also filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Labour Board regarding unfair labor practices. In June 2013, Just Us! voluntarily recognized the union at the Spring Garden cafe, which had received support of 90% of the employees.⁸ They ratified their first collective agreement in December 2013.

Following the steps of Just Us-Spring Garden, baristas at two Second Cup cafes and Coburg Coffee began organizing in the spring of 2013. At Coburg Coffee and Second Cup on Quinpool Road, the stated concerns of baristas were similarly focused on working conditions. Coburg Coffee baristas cited dissatisfaction with favoritism and a hierarchical management structure, stagnant wages and minimal benefits, and a lack of voice in the workplace (Blair, 5 June 2014, author interview; Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview). At Second Cup-Quinpool, baristas were concerned with scheduling, safety, and a lack of responsiveness from management. Baristas at the other Second Cup cafe had many fewer complaints. According to one barista, the working conditions were much better at their location; their objective was to support a union movement in the sector as a whole, as well as the baristas at Second Cup-Quinpool. They reflected, “I mean, [Second Cup-Quinpool baristas] definitely needed to be unionized … So that was kind of a push to help them out too. Like, we’ll both unionize and then we’re kind of leaning on each other” (Taylor, 25 May 2014, author interview).

None of these drives were as successful as that of Just Us-Spring Garden. The union vote at Second Cup-Spring Garden failed outright. The vote at Coburg Coffee resulted in a defeat for the union drive. At Second Cup-Quinpool, the vote was successful, but employee-management relations deteriorated. According to a complaint filed by the SEIU with the Labour Board, baristas informed their manager of the unionizing drive in order to prevent unlawful dismissal, but the manager fired three employees involved in the drive and cut hours for others. These actions resulted in another rally, this time of 40 people outside the cafe.⁹ SEIU launched the Baristas Rise Up (BRU) campaign in the weeks following this rally as a movement to “improve working conditions and industry standards in precarious and low-waged cafe jobs.”¹⁰ The union drives and BRU garnered significant community support and media attention in the spring and summer of 2013, when the drives were at their height. Ultimately, the Labour Board imposed a contract at Second Cup-Quinpool.

The final barista drive took place at Just Us! King’s Wharf. Because Just Us! had already voluntarily recognized a union at the other location, the King’s Wharf baristas only had to have a majority of employees sign cards. Although the process was less onerous, there was some ambivalence about unionizing. The motivation ultimately came from poor communication between management and employees that resulted in the perception of unfair treatment and staffing decisions, as well as the need for a policy that would allow employees to articulate concerns without fear of dismissal (Al, 4 March 2015, author interview; Dalton, 2015, field notes). When the King’s Wharf baristas finally felt that unionizing was an option worth pursuing to create a more positive work environment, they worked with SEIU organizers.

Although the baristas tended to highlight working conditions as the motivation to unionize, it became clear in our interviews that gendered power dynamics and sexual politics contributed to baristas experiences at work, their analysis of the political economy for young workers, the decision to pursue unionization, and the specific values and strategies of organizational leaders. It is to this analysis that we now turn.

Gendered Power Dynamics and Sexual Politics in the Barista Union Drives

Franzway and Fonow’s discussion of gender and sexual politics provides a framework of analysis that focuses, first, on recognizing gendered power relations that reinforce masculine and heteronormative identities and experiences and, subsequently, the politics of pushing back against them. Our respondents’ reflections on the gendered nature of the barista union reflect this framework.

Baristas’ Experiences of Gendered Power Dynamics in Halifax Cafes

Not all of the baristas interviewed felt that their experiences at work reflected gendered power dynamics, but the baristas who did spoke primarily of favoritism exhibited toward cisgender male employees and the experiences of marginalization faced by queer baristas. Baristas at three different cafes spoke in detail about favoritism. Sydney, a former barista at Just Us-Wolfville, noted that when their cafe manager left the position, senior managers promoted the only male employee at the cafe, even though he had the least experience (Sydney, 25 April 2014, author interview). At Just Us-Spring Garden, Frankie recounted that “the dudes were being cut more slack in terms of their performance, being forgiven more often than women.” As they described, a male coworker would fall asleep at the cafe, take longer than scheduled lunch breaks, and call in sick—all without penalty. On the other hand, another coworker was fired after not being able to work shifts that the manager rescheduled (Frankie, 17 April 2014, author interview). Unequal treatment was similarly an issue at Coburg Coffee. As Corey stated,

family members of the boss who are male would have the privilege of leaving early, getting more breaks, doing different kinds of work, but family members of the boss who were female typically were made to cook and clean more or stay longer, do more of the emotional care work of like mending relationships in the workplace if there were tensions or conflicts or anything. (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview)

In addition to favoritism towards male employees, baristas described exclusionary, homophobic, and transphobic treatment of queer workers. Alex told us about some basic employment barriers for LGBTQ workers: “it’s just hard to find a job … if you want to medically transition, or if you … [use] the pronoun ‘they’ … it’s hard to find a job where your employers will respect that” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). Frankie told us, “we end up being treated, women and trans folk end up getting the shit end of the stick in terms of our working conditions … I think it’s a lack of self-awareness on the managers’ part not to realize that they are doing that. So it’s just kind of inherent sexism” (Frankie, 17 April 2014, author interview). Corey highlighted the ways that managers can contribute to an exclusionary workplace by failing to effectively respond to homophobic and transphobic treatment: “Even during the union drive, someone would come to the counter and say, ‘Oh another faggot union drive.’ And then [an employee related to the owner was] openly laughing in agreement, with [an openly queer barista] standing right behind him” (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview).

In addition to discussing their personal experiences and observations about how gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity informed work in the cafes, interview respondents focused on how these inform the structure of the workplace more generally. For example, when asked if and how gender played a role in their desire to unionize the Just Us-Wolfville cafe, Kelly immediately focused on the gendered nature of the service industry:

I think [being a barista] is a job that a lot of queer people work in because of historical—and it’s the same reason that women work in the service industry, because it’s this idea that it’s not that good of a job and, you know, you’re going to get paid less and you work really hard … And I think that we’re kind of transitioning to the bottom of the working class not being women anymore, necessarily, or people of color, but like trans people or people who are gender-queer people. (Kelly, 9 April 2014, author interview)

Other interviews assessed why queer people in particular find themselves in the precarious service sector. As Corey told us, “the way people are perceived as being queer or gender-queer will affect whether they get a job there. I’ve seen the way trans people get treated when they come in and everyone falls quiet and the guy on cash won’t laugh” (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview). For Alex, such barriers to employment make changing jobs difficult: “people will be like, just get a better job, and it’s like that’s actually not possible. You know? There’s certain barriers to consider that maybe are less visible” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). The difficulty queer workers have finding and changing jobs leads to a practice called “following,” which came up repeatedly. As Alex explained, it is “easier to go to a place where you know that they’ve already [hired queer workers]. And you don’t have any idea of how much work has been done to break down stigma or whatnot, but you know that they’ve at least been through it once” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). This series of quotations emphasizes the gendered power relations that marginalize queer workers in service sector jobs, as well as at least one practice for navigating such marginalization.

Interviews also revealed that unionizing was seen by some as having the potential to make service sector jobs better for those who find themselves structurally more likely to hold them. Alex reflected about the motivated to organize, saying, “So there’s also a sense of like, ‘Yeah, this is what we have. There’s not really many options, but [does] this option also need to be as bad as it is?’” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). A similar view was reflected by Cameron, a supporter of the barista drives from the anti-capitalist organization Solidarity Halifax, who suggested that:

economically, they’re looking for better wages, and at the same time, they’re saying, “We deserve to have better pay,” and people in precarious work situations where folks from the transgender community, for example, might find themselves to be more likely than not, should have more stability, so fighting for better pay was intimately connected with social and political stances as well. (Cameron, 3 June 2014, author interview)

Pushing Back: How Gender Informed the Baristas’ Organizing Campaigns

Though gendered power relationships informed baristas’ individual work experiences and understanding of the service sector as a whole, that in itself is not a reason why they would have sought to unionize, particularly because, as one SEIU organizer said, “it’s part of the popular amnesia towards unions that they fight for [LGBTQ rights]” (Shawn, 7 May 2014, author interview). According to our interviews, the baristas first made contact with the SEIU for two reasons: as noted, they had personal connections with SEIU organizers. Additionally, they had a generally positive view of unions. As Alex recalled:

I had a vague sense of things. Like my dad was really involved in unions … , so I knew – I was like, “unions are probably good things,” right? But I didn’t really know much about them or how to form a union or what the benefits were of being in a union on a tangible level. (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview)

Despite a limited knowledge about unions, all the labor organizers we interviewed commented on the fact that queer baristas were leaders of the unionization drives and that they began the process with an understanding of the gendered dynamics at play. Former SEIU organizer Dana’s quotation is representative:

[The baristas] had a very political take on … unionizing and their rights at work, and their specific reasons. And it’s also, you know, [queer] workers in the service industry also face a particular type of challenge in discrimination with things like dress, with things like how a customer perceives [them]. Like from big to small, issues that … really matter. (Dana, 21 May 2014, author interview)

For Corey, it made sense that BRU and the union drives were “a queer-led movement and a women-led movement” because “people are marginalized on two fronts, being working class or having minimum wage jobs, but also it being like it’s coming from a place of gender disparity as well” (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview). Interestingly, the importance of the baristas’ unionization drive in pushing back against gendered power dynamics was reflected in who among the baristas supported the drive. One theme in the interviews was that cisgender men were not as supportive of the union drives. Frankie told us that “a lot of straight cis-dudes are just, like they almost think that they have to be macho enough to be able to handle shitty working conditions in terms of like breaks and stuff. Like, ‘I don’t need a break,’ or those sorts of behaviours” (Frankie, 17 April 2014, author interview; Dalton, 2015, field notes).

The baristas and labor organizers identified Halifax’s unique, overlapping network of queer, labor, anti-capitalist, and progressive media organizations as important in supporting the baristas. As Alex recalled, the baristas at Just Us-Spring Garden “took values of community and collective action and collective interest, some [activist] type of experience, like that informed our approach we took to the union drive. It was like we have a community interest in forming this union” (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). Drawing on activist networks allowed the baristas to quickly generate media attention, mobilize supporters for rallies, and develop stronger links between queer and labor activists. Alex further recollected that after reaching out to social networks, the Halifax Media Co-op was quick to publish a story about the dismissal of the two baristas who had started the union drive at Just Us-Spring Garden (Alex, 10 April 2014, author interview). SEIU organizer Shawn commented on activist connections that allowed the baristas to mobilize support for various rallies:

[I]n the case of the baristas, you know, we mentioned that they were connected to different activist networks, not only that, they were connected to the LGBTQ community here. Many of the lead activists were from the queer and trans community. [A local labor leader] here also is a member of the queer community. They’re involved with Solidarity Halifax, which encompasses a lot of activists here, so there’s a lot of overlapping social networks that occurred with the baristas so that when a Solidarity Rally was called for the baristas, it really spread across many social networks. (Shawn, 7 May 2014, author interview)

At Coburg Coffee, Corey recalled that Solidarity Halifax, BRU, and other community organizations had written letters of support for their unionization drive (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview). Finally, respondents commented on the stronger connections being developed between the SEIU and the queer community in Halifax. As Cameron of Solidarity Halifax noted, “when shit hits the fan, the SEIU stands behind people in a lot of creative ways. Like they marched in the Pride parades, the union did, with the BRU members” (Cameron, 3 June 2014, author interview).

Conclusion: Some Lessons for Intersectional Organizing

Our interviews demonstrate the importance of organized labor forging a stronger relationship with young workers in the precarious service and retail sectors, and, in particular, the importance of integrating into organizational strategies a focus on the ways that multiple forms of oppression shape their experiences as workers. Before discussing this argument in more depth, it is important to review the characteristics of the barista organizing drives in Halifax.

Three of the five cafes that sought to unionize were successful. The two union drives where baristas encountered the least resistance were at the Just Us! cafes, which are part of a co-op that is ideologically committed to progressive politics and whose senior management has been supportive of organized labor in the province. We do not mean to trivialize the very real concerns that led Just Us! baristas to pursue unionization, nor do we mean to gloss over the contradictions between the Co-op’s stated values and the experiences of baristas. However, there is little question that the Co-op’s values facilitated unionization: management was more open to unions, and public pressure from rallies and critical media coverage pushed them to put that openness into practice. Further, it is important to emphasize that the certification of the union at Just Us-Spring Garden paved the way for baristas at Just Us-King’s Wharf, who only needed a majority to sign cards once they decided that they would benefit from a union. The union drive was also successful at Second Cup-Quinpool, where workers did encounter significant resistance from the owner. Despite similar rallies and media attention—and the formation of BRU—the Second Cup-Quinpool collective contract had to be imposed by the provincial labor board after the two sides had engaged in arbitration.

On the other hand, baristas lost the union vote at Second Cup-Spring Garden and Coburg Coffee. In the Second Cup-Spring Garden case, neither interview respondents nor media reports commented on resistance from management. Rather, interviews suggest that there was simply not the same concern about working conditions that needed to be addressed through unionization. As the union vote approached at Coburg Coffee, management emailed the staff, asking them to consider whether their interests would be served by unionizing with the SEIU. Both management and the SEIU contested, through the Labor Board, the eligibility of some staff members who voted (Beaumont, 2014). Although both of these drives began at the same time as Second Cup-Quinpool’s, there were no public rallies in support of the baristas because there had been no management actions perceived as retributive.

What we learn in comparing these five cases is that the attitude and actions of management alone do not determine the success of a union drive, though they can affect the ease of securing a first collective agreement. Public support—in the form of media and public rallies—is important in raising awareness and pressuring employers; however, the case of Just Us-King’s Wharf demonstrates that it is not essential if other factors are present. What is essential is a staff that believes that unionization is an effective way to resolve their particular concerns and grievances. And yet, even baristas who came from union families or who were politically supportive of unions did not necessarily have a strong understanding of what unions do, let alone how to begin the process of organizing a union. In terms of rejuvenating the labor movement, a first lesson of the Halifax barista drives is that investing resources in educating and organizing young workers is important.

A second lesson is that because queer, transgender, and gender nonconforming workers are often precariously employed in the service sector, it is crucial to approach organizing efforts, with an openness to understanding their particular experiences; communicating how unionization can help address their concerns in the workplace; recognizing the capacity of queer workers to be effective leaders in union drives; and working collaboratively to develop strategies to effectively educate and mobilize queer workers and build alliances within civil society. The importance of this intersectional approach to organizing, or what one barista referred to as “gender-based” labor organizing, was reflected in interviews with both labour organizers and baristas. As Chris from the Canadian Labour Congress noted, “it’s very interesting that there was such a high percentage of queer … workers who are the forefront of that campaign. And that’s an interesting thing for us to figure out … as we look at diversity in our labor movement” (Chris, 29 May 2014, author interview). Corey reflected that workers themselves have a role to play alongside unions in pushing back against their marginalization in the workforce: “something that just has to happen among us young people, [is that] we have to sort of challenge that in ourselves or educate each other, which is something we can do through gender-based labor organizing” (Corey, 15 June 2014, author interview). Jordan, from the Halifax District Labour Council, noted that queer baristas reaching out to the labor movement was part of a growing trend: “More broadly, I think you’re seeing a larger number of young folks, women, young people of color, get involved in the labor movement across the country and actually around the world as folks continue to struggle against various intersecting levels of oppression” (Jordan, 29 May 2014, author interview).

Importantly, in organizing the service or retail sectors, organized labor’s attention to the intersecting levels of oppression faced by different workers must be broader than what we have discussed here. The baristas we interviewed are not representative of all young workers or other members of the working class, nor are all the cafes discussed here interchangeable with corporate coffee chains like Tim Horton’s and Starbucks. Bobbie, a member of Solidarity Halifax who supported the baristas, emphasized the importance of organizing the entire food service sector, whose workers—often older women and immigrants—may have entirely different experiences and demands:

So it is when the Starbucks, Tim Hortons, Pizza Huts, it’s when those places start to be organized that we will actually see a movement that has real meaning. And this is not a criticism of the [baristas] themselves, who are taking enormous risks to do what they’re doing on a very small level, but from a political standpoint, it is politically marginal until it speaks to the completely marginalized workforce without education, that will actually stay in that job forever. I know those women [who work at Tim Hortons], and they work there permanently. They’re not going anywhere. And they work shift work and they work very, very, very, painful and long and difficult conditions with no protections whatsoever. (Bobbie, 5 June 2014, author interview)

A third lesson of the barista union drives is the importance of building relationships with and drawing support from activist networks. Interview respondents mentioned the importance of activist networks in generating media attention, mobilizing support at rallies, making statements of support for the union drives, and helping develop a public dialogue about the importance of organized labor in progressive politics, especially for queer workers. In the vein of social movement unionism, it is important for labor organizations to build and maintain connections with other community and activist groups in order to articulate an understanding of why unionization is important for (young) workers in the service sector, and how this can benefit communities as a whole.

One factor common across all the organizing drives—successful or not—was the support of the SEIU. Given the diversity of workers and experiences of marginalization in the food service sector, future organizing efforts will require tremendous resources. Shawn reflected that “a lot of the burden lies on us a bit, as to, like, how much resources do we want to continue to put into this campaign in hopes that in might continue to spread, which really, there’s no guarantee” (7 May 2014, author interview). At the time of writing, the campaign has largely stalled: BRU is no longer active; no additional cafes in Halifax have sought to unionize; and both of the Second Cup locations discussed here have closed permanently.¹¹ This suggests the importance of developing other organizing models that can address the coffee sector as a whole.¹² Nevertheless, a final lesson from the barista union drives is that organized labor and young workers have an interest in learning from and working with each other, particularly with regard to the ways that gendered power dynamics shape the experiences of young workers and motivate their political engagement. Overall, the barista union drives suggest that this is an important political moment for engaging with young workers through an intersectional organizational strategy. Because, as Chris noted of the baristas, “people didn’t have a sense of impossibility. They had a sense of possibility” (Chris, 29 May 2014, author interview).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yanick Noiseux for his support of this project and helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by an Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [430-2013-0894].

Notes

References

Balay

(2014) Steel Closets: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Steelworkers. Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Beaumont

(2013a) Unionizing baristas symptom of job crisis in NS. Halifax Media Co-Op. Available (accessed 15 July 2016) at: http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/unionizing-baristas-symptom-job-crisis-ns/18277

Beaumont

(2013b) Supporters of “dismissed” workers rally at Just Us! Halifax Media Co-Op. Available (accessed 17 March 2014) at: http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/supporters-dismissed-workers-rally-just-us/17033

Beaumont

(2013c) Second Cup baristas allegedly fired after union vote. Halifax Media Co-Op. Available (accessed 18 March 2014) at: http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/second-cup-baristas-allegedly-fired-after-union-vo/18224

Beaumont

(2014) Coburg baristas await ruling on union vote. Halifax Magazine. Available (accessed 3 October 2014) at: http://halifaxmag.com/cityscape/coburg-baristas-await-ruling-on-union-vote

Bednar

MacKenzie

Cameron

et al . (2016) Understanding the realities: Interim report of the Expert Panel on Youth Employment. Report for the Government of Canada. Available (accessed 5 July 2017) at: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/youth-expert-panel/interim-report.html

Bednar

MacKenzie

Cameron

et al . (2017) 13 ways to modernize youth employment in Canada. Report for the Government of Canada. Available (accessed 5 July 2017) at: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/youth-expert-panel/report-modern-strategies-youth-employment.html

Branch

(2011) Opportunity Denied: Limiting Black Women to Devalued Work. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Canadian Labour Congress (n.d.) Tip sheet: Facts and figures: What is the situation for young workers today? Available (accessed 15 July 2015) at: http://canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/Hand-outs-EngagingYoungWorkers%20-FactsAndFigures-EN.pdf

10.

Carter

(2013) Do unions still matter to young people? CBC News. Available (accessed 15 July 2016) at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/do-unions-still-matter-to-young-people-1.1395676

11.

Charles

Grusky

(2005) Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

12.

Charmaz

(2004) Grounded theory. In: Hesse-Biber

Leavy

(eds) Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 496–521.

13.

Chun

(2016) The affective politics of the precariat: Reconsidering alternative histories of grassroots worker organising. Global Labour Journal 7(2). Available (accessed 29 September 2016) at: https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/globallabour/article/view/2483

14.

Cobble

(1991) Organizing the postindustrial work force: Lessons from the history of waitress unionism. Industrial Labor Relations Review 44(3): 419–436.

15.

Cranford

Vosko

Zukewich

(2003) Precarious employment in the Canadian labour market: A statistical portrait. Just Labour 3(Fall): 6–22.

16.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1): 139–167.

17.

Dimock

Doherty

Tyson

(2013) Favorable views of business, labor rebound. Pew Research Center. Available (accessed 5 July 2017) at: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/27/favorable-views-of-business-labor-rebound/

18.

Ehrenreich

Hochschild

(2004) Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

19.

Enxuga

(2013) Keep pride political: Queer rights are worker rights. Halifax Media Co-op, 27 July. Available (accessed 13 July 2016) at: http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/fr/blog/editor/18402

20.

Frank

(2015) Out in the Union: A Labor History of Queer America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

21.

Franzway

Fonow

(2009) Queer activism, feminism and the transnational labor movement. Scholar and Feminist Online 7(3). Available (accessed 8 April 2015) at: http://sfonline.barnard.edu/sexecon/ff_01.htm

22.

Gilbert

(2005) Vox pop coffee shop workers in NYC join the IWW. Available (accessed 8 November 2014) at: https://www.iww.org/history/campaigns/voxpopny

23.

Grant

Mottet

Tanis

et al . (2011) Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Report of the National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. Available (accessed 14 February 2016) at: http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

24.

Guastella

(2016) Class is in session. Jacobin, 9 July. Available (accessed 9 July 2016) at: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/07/millennials-bernie-sanders-working-class-college-education-precarity-wages-jobs

25.

Haut

Kelly

Mishler

(2009) Youth activism in the labour movement: 3 perspectives. New Labor Forum 18(1): 98–107.

26.

Hughes

Tadic

(1998) “Something to deal with”: Customer sexual harassment and women’s retail service work in Canada. Gender, Work & Organization 5(4): 207–219.

27.

Jayadev

(2002) Unions must tap young workers. Z Mag. Available (accessed 13 July 2016) at: https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/unions-must-tap-young-workers-by-raj-jayadev/

28.

Katz

Krueger

(2016) The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 22667.

29.

Kerensky

(2010) Brewing up a cup o’ fairness. Buzzsaw. Available (accessed 10 November 2014) at: http://www.buzzsawmag.org/2010/05/04/brewing-up-a-cup-o%E2%80%99-fairness/

30.

Kroeger

Cooke

Gould

(2016) The class of 2016: The labor market is still far from ideal for young graduates. Economic Policy Institute. Available (accessed 15 July 2016) at: http://www.epi.org/publication/class-of-2016/

31.

Kuriga

(2006) Young workers are the future of organized labor. New Labor Forum 15(2): 34–40.

32.

Lee

(2014) Why can’t youth and unions see eye to eye? Macleans. Available (accessed 15 July 2016) at: http://www.macleans.ca/work/trendswork/young-and-unorganized/

33.

MacKinnon

(1979) Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

34.

McIntosh

(2004) Union label rare at Starbucks. Northwest Labor Press. Available (accessed 10 November 2014) at: http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2004/6-4-04Starbucks.html

35.

Meier

Mastracci

Wilson

(2006) Gender and emotional labor in public organizations: An empirical examination of the link to performance. Public Administration Review 66(6): 899–909.

36.

Milkman

(2014) Millennial movements: Occupy Wall Street and the Dreamers. Dissent 61(3): 55–59.

37.

Milkman

(2017) A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review 82(1): 1–31.

38.

Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education (2014) 2013 Nova Scotia Labour Market Review. Report of the Government of Nova Scotia. Available (accessed 10 July 2017) at: http://0-nsleg-edeposit.gov.ns.ca.legcat.gov.ns.ca/deposit/b10643357_2013.pdf

39.

Pullen

Thanem

Tyler

et al . (2013) Sexual politics, organizational practices: Interrogating queer theory, work and organization. Gender, Work & Organization 23(1): 1–6.

40.

Salzinger

(2003) Genders in Production: Making Workers in Mexico’s Global Factories. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

41.

Sassen

(2000) Women’s burden: Counter-geographies of globalization and the feminization of survival. Journal of International Affairs 53(2): 503–524.

42.

Saunders

(2013) Just Us! Barrington is closing. Coast Halifax. Available (accessed 13 July 2017) at: https://www.thecoast.ca/RestaurantandBarNews/archives/2013/10/25/just-us-barrington-closes-next-week

43.

Smith

(2013) Students mourn loss of Second Cup. UNews.ca. Available (accessed 27 April 2015) at: http://unews.ca/students-mourn-loss-of-second-cup/

44.

Sonka

(2014) Union grounds: Smokey’s Bean to become Louisville’s first unionized coffee shop. Leo Weekly. Available (accessed 10 November 2014) at: http://leoweekly.com/news/union-grounds

45.

Statistics Canada (2017a) Education Indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Available (accessed 11 July 2017) at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-582-g/2017001/ch/che-eng.htm

46.

Statistics Canada (2017b) CANSIM - 477-0105 - Unemployment rates of 25- to 29-year-olds, by educational attainment, Canada and provinces. Available (accessed 11 July 2017) at: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=4770105

47.

Sweeney

(1999) The growing alliance between gay and union activists. Social Text 61: 31–38.

48.

Tannock

(2001) Youth at Work: The Unionized Fast-food and Grocery Workplace. Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.

49.

Tannock

(2002) Why do working youth work where they do? A report from the young worker project. Report, University of California Berkeley Labor Center, March.

50.

Vosko

(2011) Managing the Margins: Gender, Citizenship, and the International Regulation of Precarious Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

51.

Warner

(2002) Never Going Back: A History of Queer Activism in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

52.

Wingfield

(2016) How “service with a smile” takes a toll on women. The Atlantic. Available (accessed 15 July 2016) at: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/gender-emotional-labor/427083/

53.

Women’s March (2016) Mission and vision. Available (accessed 29 May 2017) at: https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/

54.

Woodhall

Muszynski

(2011) Fordism at work in Canadian coffee shops. Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 17–18: 56–69.

55.

Zaccagna

(2015) Halifax coffee shop closes. Chronicle Herald. Available (accessed 13 July 2017) at: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1305013-halifax-coffee-shop-closes