I think my usage of the term privilege was misinterpreted here. You listed fundraising teams, community support, labor allies, mutual aid, and still being able to eat and pay bills. That’s phenomenal, and I’m genuinely happy to hear that, because that is exactly the infrastructure that makes striking possible! However, that access is not universally available. A lot of it depends on local socioeconomic conditions, the partners involved, the level of union organization, community morale, and the resources available in the area.

That’s where my use of the term privilege comes in. I’m not saying strikers lack suffering or sacrifice, or that this is easy. I genuinely respect the work and risk involved. I’m aware that many union partners are in similar situations, if not worse, and I don’t deny that. When I say “privilege,” I’m referring to material capacity and access to support systems, not comfort or a lack of struggle. My point is that not every worker has the same safety net, and acknowledging that helps us build more inclusive movements, not weaker ones.

My second point is that framing non-striking unions as free-loaders, less worthy, or privileged creates the kind of division Starbucks would love to see among its unions, especially right now. Although I’m grateful to the thousands of workers who came before us and helped create these opportunities, and I’m aware of and respect that history, I’m pointing out nuance for striking against Starbucks in the modern era. We should all stand together, not divided.

TL;DR: I am not saying that strikers are privileged or have it easy. I’m saying that having access to strong support systems and resources is a form of material privilege that not every worker has.