I think to solve that dilemma, you need to think a bit out of the box. The boycott campaign you mention focuses on a relatively small establishment because of its vulnerability - liberal patrons who want to do something for the "cause" and can be easily put on a guilt trip - and not because there is any bona fide labor dispute involved.
Most retail operations are not unionized and some of them are staunchly ant-union. They also account for a big chunk of retail labor force and unionizing them would really make a difference. Yet, they are unlikely to be targeted by a boycott because they lack the aforementioned vulnerability. Instead, an easy target is selected. Besides, the action you describes has some red flags - it looks like owners of the other establishments getting in cahoots with the union to undercut competition.
So to solve you dilemma one needs to get out of the box of individual knee-jerk response and liberal guilt trips and think of a bigger picture. The cause of unionization is not threatened by "yuppies shopping in gourmet stores" as some blue collar populist allege (I hate that expression of left-wing populism) but by legislation that makes it difficult to unionize. So the effort will be better spent on knocking out legal barriers to unionization, at least in the long term. In the short run - concentrate it where it makes the biggest impact i.e. large retailers who refuse unionization despite workers' efforts, instead of forcing unions on a few unsuspecting victims.
Wojtek
>
> A new store has opened up in my neighborhood, a small gourmet supermarket
> called the Garden of Eden. Afaict, they've been in business 14 years, and
> this is their 5th store, all in New York City. So they are neither a Mom
> and Pop operation nor a megacorp.
>
> 3 days after they opened, the United Food and Commercial Workers turned up
> outside picketing. But -- and this is the part where I'm confused -- the
> workers in this store are not on strike. There hasn't even been any
serious
> effort to organize them. (There couldn't have been in 3 days, especially
> the initial 3 days, and interviews with workers confirm this. They say
they
> were hastily handed cards w/o any explanation.)
>
> So something about this doesn't seem right. It seems to clearly violate
the
> principle of never boycotting workers unless they ask for it. The workers
> involved aren't in any way scabs, because like I said, no effort was made
to
> unionize them and there is no strike. And this boycott, by hurting them
> directly the day after they got their jobs, seems to be infuriating them
and
> making them never want to join the union on principle. (The gist of the
> union literature is that people should shun this store and shop at
> D'Agastino's (another gourmet supermarket) up the street instead.
> D'Agastino's management included coupons for $5 off the first few days.)
>
> At least at first sight, this rubs me the wrong way. It seems to be
asking
> me to hurt workers who haven't done anything wrong. It just doesn't seem
> right.
>
> Is there something crucial that I'm missing? Is this a common tactic?
Has
> it worked in the past in the sense that the boycotted store ends up
getting
> a union? Is this how D'Agastino's and Fairway and Gristede's got unions?
>
> Anything thoughts or URLs that would help me sort this out would be
> appreciated.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk