It's a start...
November 22, 2005 10:38 PM   Subscribe

The world's first strike at a Starbucks reportedly occurred today in Auckland, New Zealand. Sure, it was only an hour-long wildcat strike; but like the multinationals keep telling us, it's a start.
posted by newscouch (51 comments total)
 
They already get more than minimum wage, to pour coffee in a pleasant environment? It's not rocket science, people. Some jobs just plain don't warrant more than minimum wage, but that never stops greedy buggers from demanding more.
posted by nightchrome at 10:54 PM on November 22, 2005


Starbucks pays my health insurance because my girlfriend works there. Every time I go to the doctor I feel like I've won the lottery.
posted by ryanissuper at 10:58 PM on November 22, 2005


Wha...? WHAT?

Where's my goddamn coffee you insufferable wage slaves!?

Oh, it's in my mug. I guess I brought my own. Sorry. Carry on.
posted by loquacious at 11:01 PM on November 22, 2005


What some might wish to consider is that New Zealand has some of the toughest industrial relations laws in the western world, in part because of New Zealand's wholesale embrace of neo-liberalism. These laws are very similar to the sorts of laws that John Howard now wants to introduce into Australia, which in turn have seen massive protests in Australia by workers against the laws, especially after the Australian unions compared them to the New Zealand example.

The reason I make this comparison is because of the minimum wage. The new laws proposed by Howard aim to lower the minimum wage in many states (roughly by $3 to $4) and that is part of the reason why the protests here have been so huge. Given that the minimum wage in New Zealand is currently even lower than Howards proposed minimum wage for Australia, it is understandable that the drones at this particular Starbucks in Middle Earth have decided to take the action they have.

In short, I say good on `em. United we stand, divided we fall, and what not.
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:10 PM on November 22, 2005


Update: strike spreads to 10 stores. Though the impression I got is that the other stores are motivated more by the fact that managers are having to cover their shifts than any sense of social justice.
posted by zanni at 11:14 PM on November 22, 2005


The new laws proposed by Howard aim to lower the minimum wage in many states (roughly by $3 to $4)

You sure of that? Because I'm pretty sure that they specifically do NOT touch the minimum wage standards, except by slow attrition through the 'fair pay' commission. Ew, I feel weird, even slightly being seen to defend the new IR laws, which are shit, but don't need lies told about them.

Anyway, there is power in the shitty multinational coffee shop, power in the land...
posted by wilful at 11:21 PM on November 22, 2005


They should just quit if they feel they are not being paid enough. Of course, they are probably getting paid plenty for their simple tasks. Let them quit and there will be plenty of people greatful to do a job that takes little training and even less sweat. (And this is coming from the husband of a Starbucks 'Barista')
posted by acetonic at 11:23 PM on November 22, 2005


Oh, after a clsoer read of the article: $9.50 minimum wage! In kiwi pesos??! Ya can't live on that, not in Auckland, not in Australia.

Working poor, what a terrible concept.
posted by wilful at 11:23 PM on November 22, 2005


Hey wilful, that peso is worth 69 hundreths of the U.S. peso thank you very much. But you're right, that's still not enough to live on in AKL. Especially if your hours disappear all of a sudden.
posted by newscouch at 11:28 PM on November 22, 2005


In the USA (though the IWW is international so theoretically it could spread around the world) there is the starbucks section of the retail workers industrial union.
posted by aussicht at 11:37 PM on November 22, 2005


I never understand why it is so fashionable to rank on Starbucks. I kinda think their coffee sucks, but can anyone point out a single better large low-skill hourly employer.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 11:56 PM on November 22, 2005


How many Starbucks are there in NZ now?
posted by dydecker at 12:01 AM on November 23, 2005


Too many.

Three or four within a trebuchet throw of where I work in Auckland central city. Add to that 4 or so 'Esquires' (seemingly a direct clone), and 2 or 3 'Gloria Jeans'. Do those exists elsewhere? Or are they Kiwi attempts to clone the 'Bucks?

Then there's the suburbs: at least 1 in every suburban mall.
posted by pivotal at 12:34 AM on November 23, 2005


To show my support, I will now start my life-long boycott of Starbucks. Never again will I pay their outrageous prices. No more business from me. That'll show those greedy capitalist bastards. ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:51 AM on November 23, 2005


Effigy2000 - If NZ has some the toughest industrial legislation in laws in the Western world has you allege then you clearly haven't had as much experience before the NZ Employment Relatons Authority and related processes as I have. We have had over 6 years of a Labour government who has consistently promoted employee friendly leglislation and policies.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing but your comment doesn't reflect the reality of the employment environment here. Indeed, the Employment Relations Act (2000) has led to a growth in union membership. In addition, the mediation processes available help ensure an employment relations system that is on the whole just and fair to employees.

Try working through a redundancy process or a dismissal of an employee for poor performance and then tell me we have one of the toughest industrial relations environment. Simply not so. Besides NZ has the lowest unemployment in the OECD and a shortage of skilled labour. Doesn't sound like the picture you paint.
posted by vac2003 at 1:03 AM on November 23, 2005


Some jobs just plain don't warrant more than minimum wage, but that never stops greedy buggers from demanding more.
Shush self proclaimed "software dude" and go write some code worth million dollah or get paid the surviving wage, at least
they're pouring coffee that is being paid, is your code being sold right now ?

More trivia question:

1) What is the water percentage in any starbawk coffee ?
2) How much is the coffee grower being paid ?
3) How much does the transport cost ?
4) How much are the coffee pourers being paid ?

And most importantly, if you're into coffee for caffeine (and you know you are) why can't you just brew your own coffee and save lots ?
posted by elpapacito at 1:36 AM on November 23, 2005


You sure of that? Because I'm pretty sure that they specifically do NOT touch the minimum wage standards, except by slow attrition through the 'fair pay' commission.

The Howard Government has consistently argued that the minimum wage should be around $20. Under many state awards, such as here in Queensland, the minimum wage is around $23 to $24. If the purpose of John Howard's new laws is to abolish all state awards to bring them under one national IR system, I can't help but think that it's inevitable that the fair pay commission will lower the mimimum wage to Howard spreffered $20. In that sense, the mimimum wage, at least in some states, will be lowered.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:55 AM on November 23, 2005


The thing to remember about New Zealand, and Australia is that we don't have a tipping culture. We don't tip. Simple as that. Luckily, workers in the service industry have enjoyed high award wages; they still do (for a little while longer) in Australia, but if they really had to earn what people in this industry in the US earnt, they would starve, because people don't tip.

(Tipping sucks, but the way. How fucking downputting, throwing crumbs to the peasants instead of paying them for the work they do)

The thing about the new Australian IR laws is that they will lead to reductions in wages in the service industries. The industry itself has said it feels wages are too high and wants to lower them - and the new laws will allow just this. With collective bargaining it would be impossible, because you would have to cut everyone's wages as a group and there would be mass strikes. But without collecting bargaining, the manager simply goes to employee #1 and says "we're going to pay you $3 an hour less or you're on your way", then they go to employee #2 and say "we're going to pay you $3 an hour less or you're on your way". . .

Then they hire a new employee, who's coming off unemployment benefits, and say "we're going to pay you $4 and hour less than everyone else - if you refuse, you lose your dole".

Huzzah for Adam Smith.
posted by Jimbob at 2:56 AM on November 23, 2005


Effigy2000 - what's the $20 you're on about? Do you mean $20k per year? Because $23 per hour is not the minimum wage. Isn't it about $8?
posted by Jimbob at 2:58 AM on November 23, 2005


Effigy2000 - what's the $20 you're on about? Do you mean $20k per year? Because $23 per hour is not the minimum wage. Isn't it about $8?

Bah! Damn my lack of a 'K'! Yes, this is what I meant. I dunno what happened there.

Further reading.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:13 AM on November 23, 2005


They should just quit if they feel they are not being paid enough... Let them quit and there will be plenty of people greatful to do a job that takes little training and even less sweat.

Great, so now you have someone poor with no job and someone else poor not being paid enough. This is why we invented unions.

I kinda think their coffee sucks, but can anyone point out a single better large low-skill hourly employer.

Yeah, every time some Starbucks scandal breaks I'm always amazed at some of the benefits they give their workers. They're certainly no McDonald's. (The coffee is rank swill, though, at least here in the UK.)
posted by jack_mo at 3:23 AM on November 23, 2005


elpapacito, there's a pretty good new book called "The Undercover Economist" which goes pretty in depth into how Starbucks prices its coffee and how consumers make the decision to buy rather than brew.

If you're looking for a great general interest introduction to economics, it's one of the best ones I've read.
posted by ph00dz at 5:10 AM on November 23, 2005


Of course, they are probably getting paid plenty for their simple tasks. Let them quit and there will be plenty of people greatful to do a job that takes little training and even less sweat. (And this is coming from the husband of a Starbucks 'Barista')

Whoa just let your wife know about your ideas, she'll reward you handsomely, a full hand I guess.

But I digress let's see, it's true that it's a simple job, but we may be oversimplyfing its being fatiguing, there's more to serving coffee then -just- pouring coffee.

I'm NOT talking from experience, but I'm guessing the following

1* take order
2* load coffee machine (probably pre-made with easy steps to decrease waiting time)
3* serve coffee
4* collect change etc
5* clean machines, tables, floors etc
6* smile or at least try not to look like somebody farted on you

It's easy ? Hell YEAH it's bread and butter ; now do it for 8 hours a day, it becomes fatiguing...even with some position variation it's the same old same old and you get to learn NOTHING except that it's hard to deal with very different people in very short time.

Now some people are born for that and actually are very good at that, dependable, clean, fast but the majority of these who are GOOD at it try to find a better job..why ? Because they can, because the job sucks long-term and because it's underpaid !

on preview: ph00dz : thank you for your reference, actually I'm a Phd in Economy which means I can draw you graphics explaining why I've got a Phd yet I dress like a flood victim. I'm going to seek for that book, it may be interesting.
posted by elpapacito at 5:19 AM on November 23, 2005


They already get more than minimum wage, to pour coffee in a pleasant environment? It's not rocket science, people. Some jobs just plain don't warrant more than minimum wage, but that never stops greedy buggers from demanding more.

The job I do now is much better paid and a hell of a lot easier than ANY of the jobs I did before (Working in a record shop, factory work, waiter, Barman).

Some people may be suited to menial jobs more than me but it doesn't make what they do easy - I doubt they could hack (or want to) sit in front of a computer screen 12 hours a day.

Greedy Buggers.... I doubt it. Greedy Buggers are the shareholders and fat cats who refuse to part with a bit of their profits to make the staff a bit happier and more comfortable in their lives.
posted by twistedonion at 5:52 AM on November 23, 2005


And most importantly, if you're into coffee for caffeine (and you know you are) why can't you just brew your own coffee and save lots ?

If you're so into eating food for the nutritional value, why don't you just cook your own and save lots? People pay a premium for convenience, elpapacito. Happens every day in almost every commodity. If I had the time to brew my coffee everyday, I'd still face the possibility of a fine for drinking it on the subway in NYC. I also can't read my newspaper on the subway if I have to hold a cup of coffee. There are myriad legitimate reasons why people buy brewed coffee rather than make their own.
posted by spicynuts at 7:06 AM on November 23, 2005


Is it the slightest bit possible that many of us have never seen, let alone been into, a Starbucks? Half of the people I know will happily Buck-bash with you for a few minutes, but obtain most of their info from low-brow comedy and small-time news channels.

Incidentally, we need a Starbucks employee on the thread. Now. I know it's much harder than it seems. Cliches are only cliches because they're so true.

*diverts life support power to the flaming shield*
posted by malusmoriendumest at 7:31 AM on November 23, 2005



When I first read this I thought we had a cruise missle attack taking place against a Starbucks, all in order to save the American way from the coffee terrorists or something.

It's the other strike.

Oh well.
posted by fluffycreature at 8:38 AM on November 23, 2005


spicynuts: definitely some people is willing to trade money against spending less time doing something, including brewing coffee. That's expecially true if in these 3 minutes you're going to save (but let's include 0.5 minutes per coffee in maintenance times etc etc) you are going to earn more money then you spent.

That makes economic sense, but let's figure you get one cup of coffee a day at $2 (just giving numbers, there's no starbuck here) which saved you spending 3-4 minutes preparing the coffee ; to offset the cost you should be earning $2.1 in 4 minutes which is the equivalent of $2.1*15=$31 hourly wage.

I wonder how many get such an high hourly wage ?

But even if you earned half that money per hours, let's say $15..to offset the cost you'd need to save 8 minutes by getting that coffee.

Certainly people can make choice like that of throwing money out of the window, if they show wish. It's not literally the same thing, but it shows that those who are willing to pay $2 for a coffee they could make in 3-4 minutes don't value money as much as others.
posted by elpapacito at 8:42 AM on November 23, 2005


Some jobs just plain don't warrant more than minimum wage, but that never stops greedy buggers from demanding more.

Raw-ther. So disgustingly uppity of this rabble to expect to be able to subsist on the wages of a full-time job.

Anyway, as to your request, malusmoriendumest, will a former Starbucks employee do? I graduated from university in 1996 into the tail-end of Canada's brutal early-90s recession, and Starbucks (which had just arrived in Toronto) was the only job I could land after handing out literally hundreds of resumes and even undergoing a week of training as a door-to-door, commission-only, home-alarm salesman.

From ca. June of '96, I worked a little less than a year as a barista, making $0.15 above Ontario's minimum wage until the minimum wage went up by $0.15, at which point I was making minimum wage. (Do note that Starbucks' wages did not scale up according to this cost-of-living increase.) It was hardly a life sentence, I realize, but the first four months of that were "full-time" as my sole means of support in a very expensive city, where the wages were barely subsistence. I shared a subletted room in a frat house with a friend and made meals of more buck-fifty plates of Future Bakery's mashed potatoes with mushroom gravy than I care to remember, and I was still obliged to throw unpurchased eight-dollar Starbucks sandwiches into the trash at the end of my shifts (a rule I violated every chance I got, though often as not to give our local homeless guy a decent meal).

Anyway, my tenure as a barista began with Starbucks' obligatory 24-hour "Coffee College" training - which is a tacit admission on the company's part that the job is at the very least semi-skilled. There was much talk of stock options and health benefits, but because my managers knew I was headed back to school in the fall, my "full-time" employment was subject to their scheduling whims, and I usually wound up with a little less than the 35 hours a week I needed to qualify for all the perks (though I did get my free pound of beans each week, which after an eight-hour shift of free coffee was beyond redundant).

In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I was being intentionally kept below full-time hours so the company could keep me away from its dental plan etc. As for the much-vaunted stock options, these would've been great if I'd qualified and had any extra cash to exercise them; as it was, the program gave a small boost to the more senior employees but generally meant nothing to the ones who were barely getting by as baristas.

Breaks and lunch were unpaid. The management style was happy-faced dictatorial - "We value your input, but do as we say or we'll shit down your throat." The working conditions were horrendous, owing to the fact that my branch had moved into a small cubbyhole in swanky Yorkville that had inadequate A/C for a store with a huge espresso machine running all day. Daytime temps hovered in the mid-80s most of that summer. It was tied with Pizza Hut (my first ever job at 15) for the most degrading work I ever did, and I'd worked as a cab driver, produce-warehouse labourer, and Greenpeace canvasser in the interim.

In short: Fuck Starbucks and its Orwellian bullshit about its employees being "partners" and its profit maximization being a pleasant side effect of "building community." Fuck its below-subsistence wages. Fuck its code of ethics that doesn't extend to the people who pick its beans.

I applaud the baristas of Auckland. If unions are to have any kind of renewed purpose in the global economy, this is exactly where they'll find it.
posted by gompa at 9:06 AM on November 23, 2005


After reading some of the comments above, it made me realise how far new-right principles have penetrated every day thinking. This tiny strike represents a very small step for bargaining power being taken from employers and moved to employees - Starbucks pay crap money while making a giant profit, they keep as many people part-time as possible [i.e. not eligible for benefits and unsure what hours they will be working from week to week] and Starbucks do all they can to stop people belonging to a union. Good luck Starbucks employees....

Oh, and workers are called partners? I bet they're all looking foward to their share of the 21% increase in profits [$124 million] Starbucks made in the last financial quarter.
posted by meech at 11:38 AM on November 23, 2005


Though the impression I got is that the other stores are motivated more by the fact that managers are having to cover their shifts than any sense of social justice.

any sense of social justice? having the manager work your shifts is an act toward some social justice, but perhaps not as great a leap in consciousness as we would like. You have to start somewhere.
posted by eustatic at 11:50 AM on November 23, 2005


Three or four within a trebuchet throw of where I work

[fantasizes]
posted by five fresh fish at 12:24 PM on November 23, 2005


BTW, I researched opening a coffee shop about six years ago. At that time the rule of thumb was about $0.30 to make a cup of coffee, inclusive of coffee, water, machine, and barista.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:26 PM on November 23, 2005


BTW, I researched opening a coffee shop about six years ago. At that time the rule of thumb was about $0.30 to make a cup of coffee, inclusive of coffee, water, machine and barista.

I don't know much about Starbucks*, being a very large company, but I do know that generally the profit on food services is quite low. I worked for sometime at a family owned donut shop. Most coffee shops barely stay afloat - labour is very expensive, even at the low wages, and there is rent, electricity, insurance and a host of other costs.

That doesn't justify low wages, and comments about "greed" are just from idiots who have no idea how much they rely on semi-skilled labour every minute of every day (or how skilled suposedly "unskilled" labour often is). Our society has a very serious problem, in that we don't seem to have set things up in a way that functions. The tertiary sector is growing and growing, especially in low-paid service jobs like these. Small businesses do struggle to make a profit, but it won't help them any if no one makes enough to patronise them.

I'm glad to hear about unions forming - this is where they are most needed. Unfortunately, just that which makes the employees vulnerable (irregular work, semi-skilled, part-time, rapid turnover) also makes it very difficult for them to form unions.

*Other than that much of the complaining about their coffee is sour grapes - it's excellent coffee, better than most similar large chains. And I've compared them in Canada, the eastern U.S. and Britain now.
posted by jb at 1:17 PM on November 23, 2005


I just quit a part-time job at Starbucks on Monday (after 3 weeks). What a coincidence. It is NOT hard work, but it was the most boring thing I have ever done. Some of the drinks actually do require a little preparation and mixing, but for the most part it is incredibly dull. I was making $2.25 over minimum wage but I certainly didn't deserve it.
posted by Elagabalus at 2:42 PM on November 23, 2005


Again, it seems wrong to be seen to be arguing for Howard's IR 'reforms', but:
The Howard Government has consistently argued that the minimum wage should be around $20. Under many state awards, such as here in Queensland, the minimum wage is around $23 to $24. If the purpose of John Howard's new laws is to abolish all state awards to bring them under one national IR system, I can't help but think that it's inevitable that the fair pay commission will lower the mimimum wage to Howards preferred $20. In that sense, the mimimum wage, at least in some states, will be lowered.

Firstly I've never heard of minimum wage being denominated as a salary (annual) rate rather than hourly, but... current QLD minimum wage for a full-time adult worker is $484.40 ($12.11 per hour). Current federal (and Victorian, thanks to Kennett) minimum wage is also $484 a week (must be calculated differently because it's stated as $12.75 per hour). There is at worst NO DIFFERENCE in those standards. So you're talking rot. And Jimbob, the spectre of putting everyone on whatever their EB contract says and ignoring the minimum wage is not within the scope of the reforms.

Now, when it comes to the power to be represented by a union, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Pivotal, Gloria Jeans is far worse than Starbucks. They're owned by Hillsong evangelist Liberal tax avoiding scamster Nabi Saleh. Avoid!
posted by wilful at 2:46 PM on November 23, 2005


The problem, at least as claimed by the union representing the Starbucks workers, is that local non-chain cafes pay more like $12 - $14 per hour, they want the same pay for much the same job. $10 per hour is ridiculous.

Restaurant Brands, the company that owns the license to operate Starbucks in New Zealand also has licenses for KFC and Pizza Hut, they actively target teenage workers so they can pay 'youth rates' getting around the normal minimum wage.

Everyone wants a better deal, and I support these workers in their efforts to get a better deal. Sounded pretty unlikely that they'll succeed though, at least judging by an interview with the CEO I listened to. All that newspeak talk of partners and such makes my skin crawl. She started talking about "people that work with us" and stumbled a few times, then ended up with the more honest "for us."
posted by The Monkey at 3:33 PM on November 23, 2005


And Jimbob, the spectre of putting everyone on whatever their EB contract says and ignoring the minimum wage is not within the scope of the reforms.

Well, my comment didn't say anything about ignoring the minimum wage - it was based on the fact that a lot of people in the service industry already earn more than the minimum wage (as they should), but employers would like to reduce it to the minimum wage if at all possible. If you like, I was assuming they're earning $3 over the minimum wage and the employers would love to end that dreadful rort.
posted by Jimbob at 3:50 PM on November 23, 2005


Pivotal, Gloria Jeans is far worse than Starbucks. They're owned by Hillsong evangelist Liberal tax avoiding scamster Nabi Saleh. Avoid!

Wow, really? I had no idea about that - not that I ever bought from them anyway, but it's good to know these things.
posted by Jimbob at 3:54 PM on November 23, 2005


Well, my comment didn't say anything about ignoring the minimum wage - it was based on the fact that a lot of people in the service industry already earn more than the minimum wage (as they should), but employers would like to reduce it to the minimum wage if at all possible. If you like, I was assuming they're earning $3 over the minimum wage and the employers would love to end that dreadful rort.

But why would they do that? They have the ability to only offer minimum wage right now, and employ crappy no hopers. They are voluntarily offering more than minimum wage, because the labour market is tight. While this situation is maintained there's no logical reason they will slash wages. Mind you, that's teh whole damn thing about the reforms. Easy enough now while the business cycle is up, what happens next recession? The rodent will be long gone I'm afraid.
posted by wilful at 4:31 PM on November 23, 2005


Well, I have heard several reports that the hospitality industry went before the senate enquiry, claiming that the restaurant industry was suffering, and wages were too high. It seems to me they want to decrease wages in this industry - it's not just my commie hypothesis, they've said they want to do it.

Not that I can understand why - isn't that industry booming? Restaurants popping up everywhere, a whole wealthy restaurant culture developing, expensive franchise-cafes opening all over our cities, pubs building garish new extensions thanks to poker machine revenue...I don't understand how they can be "suffering" so much by having to pay employees the wages they do.
posted by Jimbob at 5:09 PM on November 23, 2005


Can't imagine how they expect to not suffer if they don't pay their customer base. Minimum-wage earners aren't going to be chowing down at the finer establishments every week.

Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of minimum-wage earners. Perhaps they are so stupid as to work for nearly a full hour to earn enough money to purchase that cuppa Starbucks and a goodie.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:46 PM on November 23, 2005


7.4% net margins. They're not exactly printing money.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:22 PM on November 23, 2005


To all wage earners - whether you work at Subway or a top tier law firm - you are being ripped off. By people who are way smarter than you are. Now get off your weasly little asses and stick it up those "evil pricks" by going out and setting up your own business.

Frankly I think there should be NO minimum wage. You're a wage earner - you're a sucker. End of story.
posted by DirtyCreature at 8:32 PM on November 23, 2005


Thing must have changed quite a bit since gompa worked at Starbucks. My girlfriend currently makes $10 per hour US plus an extra $1.50-$2 an hour in tips. She usually gets 36-38 hours a week but they still give her all her benefits. In fact, you only need to work 20 hours a week to qualify for benefits. And since I live with her, I qualify as her "domestic partner", so I get health and dental as well.

Certainly beats working for one of the local coffee shops.
posted by ryanissuper at 9:20 PM on November 23, 2005


Frankly I think there should be NO minimum wage. You're a wage earner - you're a sucker. End of story.

As an anarchosyndicalist I appreciate the sentiment, but if everyone has their own business, who do they employ to serve the coffee?
posted by Jimbob at 12:07 AM on November 24, 2005


Zing.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 1:16 AM on November 24, 2005


As an anarchosyndicalist I appreciate the sentiment, but if everyone has their own business, who do they employ to serve the coffee?

Clearly not everyone ever will. But people who wan't to complain about worker maltreatment need to understand that enforced slavery and the feudal system were abolished centuries ago.
posted by DirtyCreature at 2:07 AM on November 24, 2005


You know, I'm sure the feudal lords thought that they were justified in their abuse of their tenants. I mean, if those peasants wanted better conditions, why didn't they just become landowners? Stupid peasants, deserved what they got.
posted by jb at 5:15 AM on November 24, 2005


Also, 1381 is long overdue.
posted by jb at 5:16 AM on November 24, 2005


In other news, it's official: New Zealanders are coffee fucking snobs.
posted by Sonny Jim at 10:40 PM on December 4, 2005


« Older Own an iPod/Nano? These uber-kool mittens rock!!!   |   Dreamlines Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments